These are some a quotes of this thread on caudata.org.
the California Fish and Game Commission is considering major changes to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. For the record, that title governs New Restricted Species Permits and Requirements.
Affected sections include:
A.671, which contains the list of restricted species that are unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, maintain, dispose or use except as authorized in a permit.
B. 671.1, which establishes the categories of permits that allow a person to use animals restricted by 671.
C. 671.7, which states the Department may issue permits for animals listed in Section 671.
They are also creating a new Section, 703, which will contain the restricted species permit fees and form numbers.
While the proposal talks mostly about barramundi and four options to allow/limit their sale, it also:
A. Affects herps, expanding current regulations to ban all Gila monsters, and -- as of the last public hearing -- proposing that all non-native turtles and frogs be banned
B. Drastically raises fees, doublingapplication fees and adding newinspection fees
C. Allows the department to adjust fees and rules more loosely going forward, and
D. Gives the department broad new powers for enforcement. For this last, following are a few of the items they are trying to sneak into law:
Subsection 671.1(a)(2) will be modified to allow that the department may enter all holding facilities, vehicles, vessels or other places where restricted species are kept or may be keptand these inspections may be made at any time with or without prior notification.
Subsection 671.1(a)(10) will be added to allow the Department to confer withother state and federal agencies or any other person or entityin order to verify information on the application or to determine if the importation, transportation, or possession of any animal requested will be in the best interest of the state and animal.
Subsection 671.1(b) will be modified to state the fees will be adjusted annuallyand moved to the new Section 703 and that the department may make amendments to existing permits under certain conditions.
Subsection 671.1(c)(2)(J)(4) will be added to require the permit holder to immediately report the escape or release of the wild animalto the Department and the nearest law enforcement
agency.
Finally, the state has pre-determined that these changes will have “no” financial impact “because this regulation does not affect any local entity or program.”
The HSUS is a major player behind the scenes in pushing these new rules.
The full story can be found here: <California Fish and Game Commission - Proposed Regulations. Note that the proposed changes are on the lower left link, and the redlined ruleson the lower right.
As noted in the fine print, the next public hearing on this topic will be on March 3, 2009. We are currently formulating an action plan, but in the meantime please review the proposed rules and be ready to comment. This will be another major battle alongside S-373.
Founder of Frogforum.net (2008) and Caudata.org (2001)
Founder of Frogforum.net (2008) and Caudata.org (2001)
This sucks. So all you Californians fight for your rights. Get your butts to these hearing!
I knew these bans would spread... It's a shame too.
I just hope it doesn't pass.
Received this from USARK:
Oppose CA Regs to Ban Frogs, Turtles and Beaded Lizards
On Wednesday March 3rd there will be a California Fish & Game Commission meeting to discuss proposals to BAN all non native turtles and frogs, as well as severely restrict the ownership of beaded lizards. The meeting will be held in Ontario, CA. USARK has hired professional representation and will attend this meeting to defend the interests of California Herpers. The USARK delegation will include President Andrew Wyatt, Director Gary Bagnall and Senior Advisor George Osborn.
USARK and the Reptile Nation’s position on the proposed rule changes is as follows:
1. We appreciate CA Fish & Game and their desire to protect CA, but all of the facts have not been considered.
2. To date no industry experts have testified, and no hard evidence has been submitted to justify severe regulatory changes.
3. If enacted regulatory changes banning non native turtles and frogs, as well as, beaded lizards could have a serious impact on the economy of CA and result in loss of jobs.
4. We request that serious consideration be given to alternative proposals prior to any rule making.
5. We urge caution be used in assessing potential legal ramifications of any actions taken that would negatively impact legal commerce in captive bred turtles, frogs and beaded lizards.
What happens in California can set precedent across the country. Don’t let ill conceived regulation destroy the Reptile Nation.
Take Action to Stop the Ban on Frogs, Turtles & Beaded Lizards TODAY!
1. Click here if you are a CA Business owner:USARK
2. Click here for all other stakeholders:USARK
We have hired professional consultants to help us fight this proposed Ban on Turtles, Frogs & Beaded Lizards. The financial costs are high.
***Please click the DONATE button at the top of the page to send $10-20 to keep our rights to own and trade in the herps of our choice!!! Please put "CA BAN" in the PayPal notes so we can make sure your donation is used in this campaign.***
For questions or help contact:
Andrew Wyatt
president@usark.org
Founder of Frogforum.net (2008) and Caudata.org (2001)
Some laws are meant to be broken. Why should people lose their rights and freedoms because of other peoples ignorance,stupidity, or prejudices. And governments get away with it because people don't have the money to fight these social injustices in the court system. California is so broke they are just trying to raise money. They can't afford to enforce these laws. Don't worry, it won't take too many more dumb ideas before the state collapses. And besides going undergound means no paying for permits. To all those in California who can live with in a budget and are tired of a government who can't there is life east of the Rocky Mountains(Unless you're my in-laws, you guys just stay put).
The State of California is having public hearings, so people who disagree can speak up and hopefully nip this business in the bud. The reasoning behind a ban is to protect native herpefauna which are already under assault from invasive species and disease. The African clawed frog and the voracious North American bullfrog are already wreaking havoc, and the ACF is a known carrier of chytrid. California is also a hot spot for this disease, maybe in part because of people releasing unwanted pet ACF's. Chytrid is wiping out Rana muscosa, the mountain yellow-legged frog. This frog is a native of mountain lakes in the Golden State, but is dying off in large numbers in these pristine lakes.
Also California has quite a few native species that are found no where else but California. The black toad, Anaxyrus exsul and the red-bellied newt, Taricha rivularis come to mind.
I wouldn't suggest anyone live outside the law and keep illegal animals. People that do so, make it harder on the rest of us. What I would suggest is letting your opinion known at public hearings on the subject and writing your state representatives. Keep an eye out for any legislation that may come down the road.
There is legislation pending in Washington that is very similar to the one in California. A representative or senator from Florida wants to ban python ownership across the entire country because there is an established populations of Burmese pythons in Southern Florida. Its a Florida problem and not a national problem. The NEHS opposes this proposal.
There also a piece of pending legislation on the banning of importing, breeding, and selling of non-native species into the country. http://www.nohr669.com/
Founder of Frogforum.net (2008) and Caudata.org (2001)
If the issue was to protect native species the would have banned domestic dogs and cats too.
The dog/cat people far out number turtle/frog people and they vote. The truth of the matter is most dog/cat owners generally don't release their pets when they grow tired of them. Sadly, many people who have owned exotic animals (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians) release their animals into the wild, thinking they are doing the animal a favor. They are the reason we have those trying to ban our animals.
What we need to do is educate pet owners, in this case frogs, that releasing their unwanted pets is a bad idea and in many places illegal. By releasing their animals, they are making things difficult for the rest of us and introducing invasive species that can wreak havoc. Many herpetological societies have adoption programs to place unwanted animals in new (and usually much better) homes. So if any one has an unwanted frog (or other herp) they should contact their local herp society for help. Also many pet stores will take them in.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)