North Carolina Draft Policy
from
Chris Harper
on
December 31, 2000
View comments about this article!
On October 27th, 2000 the following memorandum was sent out to various individuals and organizations within the state of North Carolina. It was faxed to me by one of the individuals on the list.
Chris Harper
President, Southeastern Hot Herp Society
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Interested Parties
From: Randall C. Wilson, Section Manager, Division of Wildlife Management
Subj: Draft Policy Regarding Possession of Certain Species of Snakes
Date: October 27, 2000
On May 19, 2000, the Wildlife Resources Commission approved changes to the State endangered species regulations, which included the listing of several species of snakes. These regulation changes will take effect during spring 2001. Species added to the list include the eastern diamondback rattlesnake, eastern coral snake, Carolina pigmy rattlesnake, timber rattlesnake, and the southern hognose snake. The eastern diamondback rattlesnake, eastern coral snake, and Carolina pigmy rattlesnake are currently restricted from possession except under special permit, but the timber rattlesnake, and the southern hognose snake could be possessed without permits.
You have been identified as a person potentially in possession, or interested in possessing one of these snake species designated to receive protection. An ad hoc subcommittee of the Nongame Wildlife Advisory Committee is currently drafting a policy to deal with possession of these snakes, as well as the issuance of collection and possession permits for these species.
Attached is a draft copy of the policy under development including all the options under consideration. If you wish to offer comments, please send them to my attention at the address listed below by November 15, 2000.
Division of Wildlife Management
1724 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1724
Version 3—September 29, 2000 (as edited by the subcommittee August 18, 2000)
Draft Policy Regarding Possession of Southern Hognose and Timber Rattlesnakes and Issuance of Permits for Venomous and Nonvenomous Snakes on the State’s Protected Animal List
On May 19, 2000, the North Carolina Wildlife Commission adopted a regulatory amendment to update the state’s protected animal lists. North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 10I was amended to include the eastern diamondback rattlesnake, Carolina pigmy rattlesnake, eastern coral snake, and the timber rattlesnake, as well as the nonvenomous southern hognose snake. The first three species had been previously restricted from collection and possession, except for research purposes, by a prior amendment to NCAC 10B.0119, Wildlife Collectors. Timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes were not previously restricted until the amendment to NCAC 10I and are currently in private as well as some zoo and nature center collections.
Timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes previously could be collected and possessed without any licensing or permit requirements, as long as no more than four (4) native reptile specimens in the aggregate were in possession. If an individual collected or possessed five (5) or more native reptile specimens in the aggregate, a Wildlife Collection License ($5.00 annual) is required along with an annual report of collection/ possession activity. Additionally, prior to the amendment to NCAC 10I, it was lawful to buy, sell, trade, barter, or otherwise transfer ownership of timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes.
The addition of the timber rattlesnake and southern hognose snake to the state’s protected animal lists in NCAC 10I makes it "unlawful to take or possess any of such species at any time." Permits may be issued "to take an endangered, threatened, or special concern species for the purpose of scientific investigation relevant to perpetuation or restoration of said species or as a part of a commission approved study or restoration effort". It is now therefore appropriate to develop a policy to: 1) Address the current possession of timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes; and, 2) Develop a policy for the issuance of permits for collection, possession, import/export and transfer of venomous and nonvenomous snakes on the state’s protected animal lists.
Current Possession of Timber Rattlesnakes and Southern Hognose Snakes
Entities known to possess timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes include, but are not expected to be limited to, the state’s various publicly-operated nature-based centers engaged in education and scientific efforts, some private collections maintained for public entertainment (private zoos), and private collectors who may on occasion use the animals for educational presentations. Additionally, these and other species are popularly displayed by traveling entertainers/educators at the state’s nature centers, schools and at local "outdoor trade shows".
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission’s Nongame Wildlife Advisory Committee is considering recommendation of the following options to the NC Wildlife Resource Commission for implementation:
Category 1. Private Individuals
Option 1) Possession of timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes by private individuals should be eliminated. While the NCWRC has the authority to impose caging standards to secure the animals safely and humanely, there is no way to easily enforce such requirements, since most will be kept inside private homes. Past experience with the restrictions previously placed on the other three newly-listed venomous species shows that some individuals may not comply with the NCWRC’s requirements regarding these species. Although specifically disallowed under their permits, individuals openly bought, sold, and transferred these species.
Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases advising of the requirement for individuals to release the animals at the original site of capture, donate the snakes to public entities, or to legal out-of-state entities, within a 90 day period. After that time, all possession by individuals would be considered unlawful.
Option 2) Possession of timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes by private individuals should be permitted, with proper documentation.
Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases advising of the requirement for individuals to notify Commission staff, within a 90-day period, that they are in possession of newly protected species. Written documentation should be provided to the Commission staff which records the number and sex of specimens currently held, provides dated photographs, signed by the owner, of each animal, and provides passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag numbers if the animals have been so tagged. All snakes must be kept in single animal enclosures. Breeding and sale of animals is prohibited. Transfer to another individual holding a permit for that species is allowable. After the notification and response period, all possession by unpermitted individuals would be considered unlawful.
Category 2. Publicly-Owned/Operated Nature Centers.
Option 1) Possession of timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes by publicly-owned/operated nature centers should be eliminated.
Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases and/or letters to nature centers advising of the requirement for the centers to release the animals at the original site of capture, donate the snakes to other public entities, or to legal out-of-state entities, within a 90-day period. After that time, all possession by nature centers would be considered unlawful.
Option 2) Possession of timber rattlesnakes, southern hognose snakes, and the other protected snake species by publicly-owned/operated nature centers, NC Zoo, and NC Aquariums should be allowed, by special permit. Publicly-owned/operated nature centers are hereby defined of this purpose to include those facilities that are owned/operated by municipal, county, state, or federal governmental agencies, and funded at least in part by tax-based revenue. These protected snakes will be allowed for display and may be transported for educational purposes. Additionally, these centers will be authorized to import/export/transport these species to the facility for special educational events. This would include transportation and public viewing on-site by permitted individuals. Educators must provide to the Commission a minimum of three letters from client agencies documenting the safety and content of their presentations. At such a publicly-operated facility, it is felt that security would be maintained along with the atmosphere of an educational experience.
Implementation: NCWRC will contact all North Carolina publicly-owned/operated nature centers, the NC Zoo, and NC Aquariums and notify them of the new requirements. Facilities will have 90 days to comply with the new requirements.
Category 3. Properly Licensed Private Fee-Based Zoos.
Option 1) Possession of timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes by properly licensed fee-based zoos should be eliminated.
Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases and/or letters to fee-based zoos advising of the requirement for the zoos to release the animals at the original site of capture, donate the snakes to other public entities, or to legal out-of-state entities, within a 90 day period. After that time, all possession by private fee-based zoos would be considered unlawful.
Option 2) Private fee-based zoos should be allowed to possess these species for on-site public education. Additionally, these zoos will be authorized to import/export/transport these species to the facility for special educational events. This would include transportation and public viewing on-site by permitted individuals. Educators must provide to the Commission a minimum of three letters from client agencies documenting the safety and content of their presentations. It is expected that appropriate security and compliance could be expected due to civil liabilities and the potential economic impact if the permits were revoked for unlawful actions.
Implementation: NCWRC will contact all known North Carolina private fee-based zoos and notify them of the new requirements. Facilities will have 90 days to comply with the new requirements.
Category 4. Traveling or Resident Entertainers/Educators.
Option 1) Traveling or resident educators are prohibited from using North Carolina protected species in their presentation.
Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases and/or letters to traveling and resident educators advising of the requirement that they are prohibited from using North Carolina protected species in their presentation. After that time, all use of North Carolina protected snake species for educational presentations by individuals would be considered unlawful.
Option 2) Educators may only receive permits to display at publicly owned/operated nature centers.
Implementation: The NCWRC will notify known educators, either from prior knowledge or on a case-by-case basis as they contact the Commission, of the new requirements. Educators must provide documentation to the Commission of any specimens of protected snake species in their possession, as required for all other categories.
Option 3) Educators may receive permits to display protected snake species at publicly owned/operated nature centers, public/private schools, county fairs and trade shows, pursuant to the discretion and approval of the sponsoring organization. Reasonable proof of expertise, reliability, animal transportation facilities and use of appropriate safety precautions is required as well as a written request (letterhead stationery from the sponsoring organization.
Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases and/or letters to traveling and resident educators advising of the requirements that they must provide required documentation and have a written request for a presentation, from the sponsoring organization on a case-by-case basis, for using North Carolina protected species in their presentation. After notification has been provided, all use of North Carolina protected snake species for educational presentations by individuals without prior approval would be considered unlawful.
Category 5. Scientific Researchers
Option 1) Possession of timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes by scientific researchers should be eliminated.
Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases and/or letters to scientific researchers advising of the requirement for release of the animals at the original site of capture, donation of the snakes to other public entities, or to legal out-of-state entities, within a 90 day period. After that time, all possession by scientific researchers would be considered unlawful.
Option 2) Possession of timber rattlesnakes and southern hognose snakes by individuals conducting research on protected species should be permitted, with proper documentation.
Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases advising of the requirement for individuals to notify Commission staff, within a 90 day period, that they are in possession of newly protected species. Written documentation should be provided to the Commission Nongame staff which records the number and sex of specimens currently held, and provides passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag numbers if the animals have been so tagged. Breeding of animals for legitimate research would be allowed, and transfer of animals would be permitted to another individual holding a permit for that species. Documentation of any current or proposed research employing state-protected species must be provided to Commission staff. Such documentation may be in the form of copies of funded research proposals. After the notification and response period, all possession by unpermitted individuals would be considered unlawful. Any requests for new permits should be accompanied by a project proposal and resume of the Principal Investigator.
1 This policy applies to the following species of snakes: Carolina Pigmy rattlesnake, Carolina Water snake, eastern coral snake, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, Outer Banks king snake, pine snake, smooth green snake, southern hognose snake, and timber rattlesnake.
North Carolina Draft Policy
|
Reply
|
by enviroherp on December 31, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Implementation: NCWRC issues media releases and/or letters to fee-based zoos advising of the requirement for the zoos to release the animals at the original site of capture, donate the snakes to other public entities, or to legal out-of-state entities, within a 90 day period. After that time, all possession by private fee-based zoos would be considered unlawful."
The above bothers me a lot. Granted, the powers behind this want to stop people from holding vens and in the future, probably any herps. However, releasing long term captives back to the wild is looking for nothing but trouble. As an example, study what happened to the innocuous population of Desert Tortoises in the West Mojave when people foolishly released infected animals back to the wild, resulting in the deaths of thousands of wild torts. Do these people have no biologists on staff? How can they arbitrarily make recommendations like this to the legislature?
|
|
RE: North Carolina Draft Policy
|
Reply
|
by Buzztail1 on January 1, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like they have covered all the bases. The private individual appears to be the primary target but you just have to love a State that is willing to tell their public owned nature centers (such as the State Zoo and State Aquarium) "to release the animals at the original site of capture, donate the snakes to other public entities, or to legal out-of-state entities, within a 90-day period." Now, I just want to know, if they choose to go with that particular option, and the public domain nature centers are not allowed to keep them, what "other public entities" WILL be exempt from this legislation?
The same wording is leveled at all groups but they are not locked together, thereby allowing the legislation to eventually say that no private collector/keepers can have them but researchers, zoos and public nature centers can or any other combination of cans and cannots.
Pretty soon, the US will be a country where only the land developers are allowed any access to our wildlife and then their only "conservation tool" will be the bulldozer fueled by the money for that new strip mall. Clearly, this is NOT an attempt at conservation since release of captive animals into the wild populations has the potential to do more harm than good. This is just an attempt to gain more control over resources that they (the legislative body) neither understands or cares about, ie: power for power's sake. Kind of like taxing tea!
This is just my own opinion and does not reflect the views or opinions of the current administration...
Karl H. Betz
|
|
North Carolina Draft Policy
|
Reply
|
by venom on January 1, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Among other things, this assumes there are no captive bred animals?
if you've bred them in your own facility and you return them to the site of capture, are you just supposed to go to where the cage was at the time of birth and put them in the floor?
Leave the cage where they were born and place the animal back where you "caught" it, close the cage and accidently drop rodents in that spot every week? Loophole possibly?
What about nuisance animals? I'm sure Mrs Nicelady WANTS you to go return that pesky Timber you pulled out from under her car in her garage.
Road Caught animals, do you put them back in the path of the opposing traffic you saved it from?
What about animals purchased out of state which are native to NC? Bought a Fla caught/born EDB? then what do you do?
Hopefully this is just a VERY rough draft and there are a LOT of changes because this thing is assinine in about every way possible.
What's the purpose here aside from targeting hot keepers? To protect the animals from those who would save them? Protect the people who know or at least want to know how to deal with them from the dangerous animals?
It does nothing to protect any of the above from the almighty greed powered bulldozer.
This reeks of what we talked about at the banquet at the columbia show, except keepers didn't suggest a workable law fast enough, but it still may not be too late to try!
-LL
|
|
North Carolina Draft Policy
|
Reply
|
by dsargent on January 15, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a licensed individual in the state of Florida I feel very privileged. The officials in North Carolina need to take the following into consideration:
1. An absolute prohibition will undoubtably create a black-market with its resulting law enforcement nightmare. A system of permitting will provide more open information to the state and keep most people above the law.
2. Release of any captive specimens into the wild is not in the best interests of the wild population. it is impossible to determine whether the captive animals are totally virus and parasite free. Particularly in the case of the rattlesnakes. A paramyxo virus could be introduced that could decimate the native population.
3. If at all possible, some encouragement of captive breeding, including the private sector, could provide an adequate supply of healthy animals, within a permitting process that could meet the demand without the need for taking from the wild. Regarding this option, it is important for the private sector to realize that this process would need to be economically self-supporting and five dollar permit fees will very likely not be adequate.
I wish both the State of North carolina nad its herp community success in reaching a common sense conclusion to this matter.
Dennis Sargent, Vice President
Florida Antivenin Bank
|
|
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
The Spring Egress: Moments with Georgia’s Denning Horridus
Jameson's Mamba Captive Care
Captive Care and Breeding of the Monocle
Keeping Kraits
I Should Be Dead
|