Hello David,
Yes, we do pay for several licenses and permits for each state we collect in or
engage in commercial activity. In our home state of Texas we are a registered
business and have our sales tax permit (and pay sales tax for sales within the
state). We have a Dealer Nongame Permit, a TX Hunting License (both my partner
and myself) and a Controlled Commercial Exotic Snake Permit. No, the permits
are not as tightly regulated as needed. We submit annual collection and sales
data for White List-ed species and keep a log for the Controlled Commercial
Exotic Snake permit. I could go into detail about what permitting, data
collection, enforcement and fund allocations should be but I am not writing a
book for this email. Not to mention the laws both state to state and nationally
that are making doing business, keeping and breeding wildlife a nightmare and
need to be changed. We need clear legal pathways established.
I think you are referring to the Gray-banded Kingsnake (Lampropeltis alterna)
not the Gray Kingsnake? That species is not rare nor of great conservation
concern so your assumption is false. It's habits are very cryptic and you just
have to know when and how to find it. It should not be listed in New Mexico and
will be discovered to occur in the Franklin Mountains of Texas (I know of one
specimen don't tell anyone) further north into the north Franklins of New
Mexico and probably the Organ Mountains and maybe even the San Andres Mts. It
occurs through the Guadalupe Mts. on into the Sacramento foothills, the north
Huecos into the Sacramento's and probably the Cornudas. The Gray-banded
Kingsnake is not protected in Texas nor should it be.
The herp industry does not have to pay for everything to harvest herps. All the
citizens of each state should be paying to conserve wildlife species.
Developers should be paying an impact fee and people driving on roads should as
well. Did you pay to "take" the species where your home is? The roads you drive
on and the place you work? Did they dock your check? I keep gene pools alive
and produce more of a species = conservation. I also contribute to the
herpetological record through my work. Nor do we have to have all the answers.
Why? Because we will never have all the answers. Nor will you. And you can't go
around banning people (but you do which is the problem) because of not having
the answers or asking for answers that are unrealistic. They don't monitor
every deer population and they have funding David. You are trying to bait me
into impossible and unrealistic scenarios. For each species and separate
population we need studies, huh David? No, we can extrapolate. Let's not abuse
the pre-cautionary principle here (you just validated one of my points, thank
you!).
Herpers have been paying their way just like other harvesters. It is not our
fault that regulatory agencies steal our money for other projects and as a
whole are poorly designed with lop-sided funding. We would be happy to support
an excise tax on non-game products. We would be happy to contribute to research
through reptile show fees and other funding ideas. Many herp collectors
stimulate rural local economies that need the money by spending time in the
field, something academics should do more of. Going into the field once a year
and making judgments about populations based on the one time you were in the
field is inadequate. I have suggested many of my ideas to regulators only to
have them ignored for the banning agenda.
Most herp species don't need protection why do you assume they do? If a species
can not sustain any harvest them I am sure there is enough data to get them
listed endangered or threatened. So get them listed. Don't take away people's
rights and loves because you FEEL and THINK something. So YOU prove we can't
harvest them. Animals over produce their kind. All non-listed animals can be
harvested at some level according to population biology and wildlife management
principles. I bet some listed animals could be harvested as well. After all
captive propagation produces more. No animal in the captive herp trade has gone
extinct in captivity that I know of.
I am interested in the rights of people to hunt, keep, catch and enjoy wildlife
on their own terms while conserving wild populations against human population
growth, habitat destruction and the impact of roads. I am also interested in
educating academics with animal rights banning agendas who want the animals
only for themselves or have the extreme view of "conservation at all costs"
mentality. I am interested in fair and proper regulations not elitist mindsets
and protection into extinction and the preservationist mentality. I am
interested in conserving herps. I am interested in future people being able to
capture, keep and sell herps if they want. I am interested in my happiness and
joy in life.
Am I only a commercial collector David? My education, zoo work, and papers mean
nothing? My conservation work through captive propagation means nothing? My
commercially acquisitioning specimens for research is bad? My collecting snakes
for the venom industry that saves lives means nothing? My work in the zoo
educating the public means nothing? My field research means nothing? I am more
then just a commercial collector please don't pigeon hole me.
I can't figure out why people with advanced degrees can not see the flaws in
their thinking about herp conservation. They have the whole private sector to
work with yet they choose to make them enemies with their blind "conservation
at all costs" agenda. We have a lot to contribute to herp conservation through
species range info, abundance, habits, captive care and reproduction. I also
can't figure out why academics think that just because they work in science
that they are not a for profit entity? You make a profit off of your work and
research to pay your bills. Everyone has to make a living and everything humans
use come from natural resources.
Mike Welker
El Paso, TX
----- Original Message -----
From: mcnee...@cox.net
To: Michael E. Welker ; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Michael, I too have an extensive background in zoology, with numerous
publications. I earned a Ph.D. in Zoology from Oklahoma State University, and
taught ecology, ichthyology, and other courses, and researched for many years.
I too have seen firsthand the role of animal collection for commercial
purposes. I would agree that some populations can be harvested from
sustainably, and some are. I would agree that most of those that are are game
or food species that are managed much more intensively than are non-game,
non-food species.
A question. Do commercial operators like yourself pay the same kinds of
license fees as do sport and commercial fishers? Are your permits as tightly
regulated? Yes, I know that the most common response of management agencies to
commercial harvest of something like Gray Kingsnake, or Collared Lizard (I
purposely chose one very rare species of great conservation concern and one
common species that is seemingly not threatened) is to ban collection.
What, given the realities of funding and funding sources would you have the
management agency do? Do they have the personnel and funding to handle each
species population separately, the way they do for game and commercial food
fishes? Perhaps your industry would be able and willing to provide the money
(that is how game and commercial food species management is funded). Why don't
you propose that to the state of Texas, and to USFWS? Perhaps with such
funding, management plans that would be science based could be developed for
each separate population of potentially commercially harvested wild mammal,
bird, reptile, amphibian, and invertebrate. Then those plans could be
implemented with appropriate permitting and enforcement.
Or is it simply not worth the cost? If so, then the system of protection by
forbidding harvest seems the only practical mechanism of protection.
It is difficult to separate whether a commercial collector is advocating for
conservation, or for profit. You seem to be interested in sustainability.
That of course would be in the long-term self interest of a commercial
collector, but a good many seem (like some commercial fishers) to be interested
only in short term gain.
Sincerely, mcneely
---- "Michael E. Welker" <sustainableharve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> I have an AS degree in Zoo Animal Technology from Santa Fe Community
College and am the former head of the Reptile Department at the Central Florida
Zoo. I have a BS in Wildlife Science from North Carolina State University and
have worked on field research projects for the University of Florida, The
Florida Museum of Natural History, The USDA Forest Service, the University of
Central Florida and the University of Alabama. I have authored around a dozen
small communications in Herp Review and co-authored the article: Gizzard Shad
Thiamaninase Activity and Its Effect on the Thiamine Status of Captive American
Alligators in the Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. I have a GIS Graduate
Certificate in Environmental Information Systems. And just completed my Masters
in Environmental Policy and Management from the University of Denver to which a
manuscript is in prep for the Journal of Wildlife Management from my Masters
Capstone titled: Regulation of the Amphibian and Reptile trade in Texas: A
review of the "White and Black Lists" with recommendations for improvement. I
have kept, worked with and tried to conserve herps all of my life. So, yes, I
have a very educated and experienced agenda. I am quite qualified to make the
comments I do. I also need to earn a living just like you, however, I am very
poor (so I am not in it for the money) and just love what I do. Further, I had
the "conservation at all costs" mentality during the 90's before my wildlife
science degree and personally know many academics that feel the same way. Yes I
do acquire live specimens for researchers, hobbyists and myself, and breed
herps and rodents through my business Ocotillo Herpetofauna & Invertebrates. So
I know how and why this agenda negatively affects the reptile industry, small
businesses and hobbyists while not conserving herps and basically protecting
them into extinction. We won't get into Constitutional rights and the many
other issues associated with this subject topic. And since I am educated in
wildlife management and conservation biology I am quite familiar with the
scientifically backed methods that could be used to correctly, and fairly
regulate the reptile industry to conserve herps creating a win/win situation
with the private sector and small businesses rather then the current banning
agenda which alienates the private sector.
>
> As you can probably guess I have to get back to my animals. I take
excellent care of them. But I could go on and on about the facts I have thrown
out on this forum. I just don't have the time. Maybe we can start to explore
some of the statements I have made. However, many of you would have to do some
soul searching to admit the agendas within you and how these agendas affect
others, your research, your teaching and what you advocate for?
>
> I apologize for being so harsh. I am very passionate about this topic.
>
> Mike Welker
> El Paso, TX
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mcnee...@cox.net
> To: Michael E. Welker ; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
>
>
> Michael, do you operate an animal collection and sales business, this one:
>
> Michael E. Welker, dba Ocotillo Herpetofauna & Invertebrates, 3697
Yanagisako, 79938 ?
>
> If so, is it possible that your pecuniary interests give you an agenda
which you are pushing in these comments?
>
> Sincerely, David McNeely
>
> ---- "Michael E. Welker" <sustainableharve...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Malcolm,
> >
> > I would also say that a group of like minded scientists could knowingly
or unknowingly push an agenda. Mis-use or abuse of the pre-cautionary principle
is common through much of wildlife and environmental science. A group of
scientists who believe that turtle collection or commercial collection (for
instance) is bad, could affect data interpretation and the expression of like
minded opinion in peer-reviewed and other literature. Further, many scientists
make statements that MAYBE true but at the extreme end of the spectrum because
it fits this agenda. They can also heavily influence regulators because
regulators usually come from the same vine and usually are of like mind. As
both a scientist and a private business owner it is really plain to see. In one
way I don't blame scientists in that you have to present a worse picture then
actually is occurring or COULD OCCUR to get some of what you want. The "could
occur" part is the part where abuse of the pre-cautionary principle comes into
play. From my own experiences it appears that deep inside many scientists are
animal or environmental lovers and they take this love to far. And it shows in
their literature, statements and activism. This causes them to lose some
credibility and to look like agenda pushers in disguise. Especially since there
are scientifically sound management approaches to many of the problems that
create a win win.
> >
> > If a scientist is against hunting, collecting, commercializing or
captive propagation of flora and fauna you don't think that influences them or
their work? Is he or she of such great mind because they have letters after
their name that their opinion is the only course of action? Or that they are
the only ones who have the "right" to work with these animals? In the name of
science? If supporting the "conservation at all costs agenda" earns them
accolades from like minded colleagues you don't think they will perpetuate the
agenda? Is the pushing of this agenda at the expense of the rights, loves,
hobbies and businesses of the private citizen okay?
> >
> > I know some academics have the banning agenda. Why? Because wildlife
management techniques can be used to conserve species and they are rarely used
for anything other then game animals. Many don't stand up and say let's manage.
Let's regulate. Why? Because of the mis-use of the pre-cautionary principle and
the mind set of no hunting, no collecting, no commercialization - the banning
agenda.
> >
> > Mike Welker
> > El Paso, TX
> >
> > PS: Scientists are bottom line thinkers too. They have to pay bills
just like everyone else. I understand your point I am just saying.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: malcolm McCallum
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 9:55 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the
general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
> >
> >
> > Technically, academic scientists have a specific responsibility to
> > work for the greater good.
> > Therefore, their 'agenda' should be for the greater good.
> >
> > However, in my experience you are correct that many DO NOT work for
> > the greater good of society and the planet,
> > but rather for their own advancement. No, the scientist as an
> > individual should be trusted no more than the CEO as
> > an individual, but trends among scientists are present then you
> > certainly can have confidence that there is some truth
> > to it. Likewise, I think that this is generally true of CEOs,
> > although sometimes you must read between the lines with
> > the business folks because there profit is the bottom line motive,
> > whereas in science truth is SUPPOSED to be the
> > bottom line motive.
> >
> > Why does big business and science often bump heads? Because facts
> > backed up with data can affect profits, see tobacco.
> >
> > Motives must always be considered with everyone, but you also need to
> > evaluate motivation. We can list off the many scientists
> > in history who have been killed for revealing what they knew to be
> > controversial facts. I can't recall too many CEOs being so
> > motivated.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM, David M. Lawrence <d...@fuzzo.com>
wrote:
> > > Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or
business
> > > spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but
scientists
> > > have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by
> > > journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential
scientists.
> > >
> > > You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really
need to
> > > think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual
basis,
> > > you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far
too long to
> > > expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may
have
> > > blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major
ones --
> > > or when a scientist has something other than good science on the
agenda -- a
> > > lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding.
> > >
> > > The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside
their
> > > independence in the name of, uh, accuracy.
> > >
> > > You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe
a bit
> > > from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press.
Why don't
> > > you try more of that than requesting something most ethical
journalists will
> > > never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a
source,
> > > but that is anathema to most of my colleagues.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson<landr...@cox.net>
wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their
> > >>> stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is
the issue,
> > >>> reducing
> > >>> error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of
suffering in
> > >>> silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried
in an
> > >>> obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the
issue is
> > >>> where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that
the
> > >>> reporter
> > >>> explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like
a pilot
> > >>> repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is
NOT the
> > >>> point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't
disagree
> > >>> with Dave's point, but it's not my point.
> > >>
> > >> Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad
> > >> idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is
that
> > >> it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the
> > >> reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a
> > >> story before you publish it is that it would interfere with
conveying
> > >> the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different
> > >> actions in different circumstances.
> > >>
> > >> Jane Shevtsov
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M.
Lawrence"<d...@fuzzo.com>
> > >>> To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM
> > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the
general
> > >>> public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear
pieces
> > >>>> with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys
persons
> > >>>> accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists
do the
> > >>>> same
> > >>>> with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose
word I
> > >>>> would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get
their
> > >>>> approval
> > >>>> of a story I wrote involving them first.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work
very
> > >>>> hard
> > >>>> at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct
by
> > >>>> running
> > >>>> quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an
advance copy
> > >>>> of a
> > >>>> story with a source (for the implications above). I understand
why --
> > >>>> it
> > >>>> creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we
fulfill our
> > >>>> CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an
> > >>>> independent
> > >>>> source of information when we submit our stories to our sources
for
> > >>>> approval? We cannot.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where
such
> > >>>> clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to
support my
> > >>>> statement.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which
specialist
> > >>>> reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are
removed
> > >>>> from
> > >>>> their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not
want to
> > >>>> support
> > >>>> such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs
altogether. The
> > >>>> coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more
generalist or
> > >>>> less
> > >>>> experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the
> > >>>> material
> > >>>> or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are
allowed to
> > >>>> specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity"
targets
> > >>>> that
> > >>>> may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things
that
> > >>>> need to
> > >>>> be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people
take our
> > >>>> stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available,
or to
> > >>>> suit
> > >>>> their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a
science
> > >>>> journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories
they've
> > >>>> asked
> > >>>> to have their name taken off of the byline).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those
"documentaries"
> > >>>> where
> > >>>> I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in.
They'll ask
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find
himself
> > >>>> seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs
are
> > >>>> not
> > >>>> "journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I
could
> > >>>> offer
> > >>>> better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for
such
> > >>>> programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to
know
> > >>>> what
> > >>>> to say.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dave
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience,
reporters can
> > >>>>> get
> > >>>>> it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because
they were
> > >>>>> CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred
in
> > >>>>> presuming
> > >>>>> that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be
> > >>>>> averted
> > >>>>> much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear
the
> > >>>>> piece
> > >>>>> with the originator of the information/testimony. ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
> > >>>> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
> > >>>> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
> > >>>> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "No trespassing
> > >>>> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----
> > >>>> No virus found in this message.
> > >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > >>>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date:
03/16/11
> > >>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
> > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
> > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
> > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo
> > >
> > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
> > >
> > > "No trespassing
> > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Malcolm L. McCallum
> > Managing Editor,
> > Herpetological Conservation and Biology
> > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
> > Allan Nation
> >
> > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
> > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
> > and pollution.
> > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
> > MAY help restore populations.
> > 2022: Soylent Green is People!
> >
> > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
> > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
> > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
> > destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> --
> David McNeely
--
David McNeely
