|
11-14 of 14 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: CA wild bill
|
Reply
|
|
by Jahon on March 25, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And another thing I noticed is that under every restricted group of animals it lists all species under it, like the vipers group. But for the Heloderma it does not say all species under it, it says just the reticulated gila monster.
|
| |
|
RE: CA wild bill
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 25, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Go ask your game and fish folk why they just said the reticulated gila monster and not other types. If you read the bill, it says all Heloderma.
Hope This Helps.
JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: CA wild bill
|
Reply
|
|
by Jahon on March 26, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Today at the local pet store a licensed worker at a wildlife sanctuary, who had gila monsters and beaded lizards, said that they were in fact legal. That makes me happy, I thought they were illegal =). Too bad I don't have $1800.
|
| |
|
RE: CA wild bill
|
Reply
|
|
by Tuttoo on March 26, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greetings Jahon! From my reading of the bill, Heloderma suspectum suspectum is the only subspecies to be regulated. No where under the generic heading does it say "All species." Because of this ommission, any other Heloderma would be legal in CA. The only native gila in CA should be the banded (H.s.cinctum), which may be why they are not listed, but they make no mention of the Mexican beaded at all. Very interesting...BTW -No, you can't have a boomslang or a vine snake in CA, but any other colubrid would be just fine. Oh, and boas and pythons are cool too, even though they will take over the world some day soon!
Tuttoo
|
| |
|
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.
|
