|
1-4 of 4 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
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 this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
