PA Herp Laws

Found this in my inbox, just wanted to spread the word:

-------------------------------------------------------

Herp Law Action Alert

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has proposed regulations that
would:

Ban the importation and breeding of all native species including all
subspecies of milk snakes, rat snakes of the Elaphe obsoleta ssp., all North
American box turtles, and other reptiles and amphibians commonly bred in
captivity.

Reduce the possession limit of native reptiles and amphibians from two to
one for common species and zero for 23 species including box turtles, wood
turtles, and other species common in captivity without provision for those
already held.

And impose numerous other unjustified restrictions, to numerous to elaborate
here, on those of us who enjoy interacting with these animals in captivity.

These proposed regulations may be viewed online here:

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fis...gs/175nprp.htm

Protect your Rights

When originally proposed, letters and emails from reptile hobbyists and
professionals resulted in the formation of a public work group. This group
is in the process of attempting to revise the proposal to make it more
acceptable.

In the meantime the Commission voted to publish the initial proposal for
public comment. It is possible that this will be your only opportunity to
express your opposition (or support) for these overly restrictive
regulations.

The commission is not bound to accept any recommendations from the work
group.

It is very important that we let the Commission know that there are many of
us who would be negatively impacted by these regulations. In many cases we
will instant become criminals if these regulations take effect as currently
proposed.

Please send comments by mail to:

Executive Director
Fish and Boat Commission
P. O. Box 67000
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

Or go here and fill out the PAFBC online comment form.

www.state.pa.us/Fish/regcomments


Please take the time to do this. Your ability to interact with native
reptiles and many non-native subspecies depends on the action you take
today. The public comment period ends 1-15-06.

Sample letter available at www.westol.com/~bruckman after 12-5-05. Also
below.

SAMPLE LETTER

November 21, 2005

Douglas Austin
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
PO Box 67000
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

Dear Sir:

I am writing to express my opposition to Proposed Rulemaking 175 regarding
native reptiles and amphibians. I understand that there is a public
workgroup in the process of developing regulations that will better address
the needs of those of us interested in working with these animals in
captivity and maintaining them as pets.

I believe the following should be included in the final regulations:

1) The ability to import and export captive produced native reptiles and
amphibians.

2) The ability to breed captive produced native reptiles and amphibians.

3)I agree with the total prohibition on the sale of reptiles and amphibians
taken from the wild, but believe there should be allowances made for the
sale of their progeny if the wild adults are legally held, and proper
documentation is available.

4) The legal possession limit for reptiles and amphibians not considered
separately in the limits and possession section should remain at two.
Reducing it to one is an arbitrary action. The only rationale that I can see
for it is to prevent captive breeding. Captive breeding is a valuable
conservation tool. There are many indigenous North American species that are
no longer collected in significant numbers from the wild because the demand
for them is filled by captive produced specimens. Most surrounding states
set this limit at four for animals with healthy wild populations.

5) The species being added to the zero take list should not be added
arbitrarily. I would like to see some scientific justification for this
action in writing before it proceeds.

6) The imposition of a permit requirement for the Northern Copperhead should
be eliminated unless there is a scientific basis for it implementation. In
my opinion the copperhead remains common throughout its range in
Pennsylvania and in the absence of scientific data to the contrary this is
an unnecessary and arbitrary action.

7) Sacking contests should continue to be banned in any form at the state
permitted rattlesnake hunts. This is a very dangerous activity that does
nothing to add to the educational value of these events. On the contrary it
sends a terrible message to participants in the hunts about the proper
treatment of reptiles as a fellow species. Allowing sacking contests at an
event permitted by the Commission amounts to sanctioning this activity.

8) The timber rattlesnake possession limit should be set at one snake per
permit with provisions made for reporting and identification on an annual
basis for all snakes held.

9) Obvious color morphs should be exempt from regulation, with provisions
made to allow the possession of heterozygous and normal individuals produced
in captive breeding programs.

10) The regulation of native species should be limited to subspecies found
in Pennsylvania, not species.

I believe that these provisions should be part of any rewriting of the
Pennsylvania reptile and amphibian regulations. Maryland has had a system in
place for several years that serves to protect wild populations and at the
same time allows for captive reproduction and sale of native species. It
would serve as an excellent model for Pennsylvania.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my ideas on this matter.

Sincerely,


Fred Bruckman
132 Labrador Dr.
Ligonier, PA 15658
724-593-7341
bruckman@westol.com