California ban on Non Native Frogs and Turtles/Tortoises

John

John

Founder
Staff member
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
8,171
Reaction score
441
Points
83
Age
47
Location
USA
Country
Ireland
Display Name
John Clare
This is a carbon copy of a post made on Dendroboard: California ban on Non Native Frogs and turtles/tortoises - Dendroboard

It is in regard to this proposed change by California Fish and Game: California Fish and Game Commission - Proposed Regulations

Begin quoted post from Dendroboard:

howdy folks,

I'm posting from my email because this will affect a large portion of us. I am on the UASRK email listing against S373 (a ban on large boids and possibly large monitors), our fearless leader Cliff has brought this to our attention in the last few days. I have copied and pasted the email as I have received it with links to CA Fish/Game page where the information is listed.

Please read it. This affects all of us. If one state passes it, then more can and will follow.

-jason.p
Protean Terrarium Design



In an action that hits much closer to home, we have learned that the California Fish and Game Commission is considering major changes to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. For the record, that title governs New Restricted Species Permits and Requirements.

Affected sections include:
A.671, which contains the list of restricted species that are unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, maintain, dispose or use except as authorized in a permit.
B. 671.1, which establishes the categories of permits that allow a person to use animals restricted by 671.
C. 671.7, which states the Department may issue permits for animals listed in Section 671.
They are also creating a new Section, 703, which will contain the restricted species permit fees and form numbers.

While the proposal talks mostly about barramundi and four options to allow/limit their sale, it also:
A. Affects herps, expanding current regulations to ban all Gila monsters, and -- as of the last public hearing -- proposing that all non-native turtles and frogs be banned
B. Drastically raises fees, doublingapplication fees and adding newinspection fees
C. Allows the department to adjust fees and rules more loosely going forward, and
D. Gives the department broad new powers for enforcement. For this last, following are a few of the items they are trying to sneak into law:

Subsection 671.1(a)(2) will be modified to allow that the department may enter all holding facilities, vehicles, vessels or other places where restricted species are kept or may be keptand these inspections may be made at any time with or without prior notification.

Subsection 671.1(a)(10) will be added to allow the Department to confer withother state and federal agencies or any other person or entityin order to verify information on the application or to determine if the importation, transportation, or possession of any animal requested will be in the best interest of the state and animal.

Subsection 671.1(b) will be modified to state the fees will be adjusted annuallyand moved to the new Section 703 and that the department may make amendments to existing permits under certain conditions.

Subsection 671.1(c)(2)(J)(4) will be added to require the permit holder to immediately report the escape or release of the wild animalto the Department and the nearest law enforcement
agency.

Finally, the state has pre-determined that these changes will have “no” financial impact “because this regulation does not affect any local entity or program.”

The HSUS is a major player behind the scenes in pushing these new rules.

The full story can be found here: <http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/new/2010/proposedregs10.asp#671>. Note that the proposed changes are on the lower left link, and the redlined ruleson the lower right.

As noted in the fine print, the next public hearing on this topic will be on March 3, 2009. We are currently formulating an action plan, but in the meantime please review the proposed rules and be ready to comment. This will be another major battle alongside S-373.

Thank you as always for reading,

--Cliff
crearle_l@verizon.net
Click to expand...
 
What a shame. HSUS is a dangerous bunch of zealots with a lot of money. As much as I miss California, I am glad I got out when I did.
 
Craziness.... For those Californians that are interested in doing something, here are the relevant hearing dates, times, and locations from the document.

NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing, relevant to this
action at a hearing to be held in the Resource Building Auditorium, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento,
California, on Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing, relevant
to this action at a hearing to be held at the Double Tree Hotel – Ontario Airport, Ontario, California, on
Wednesday, March 3, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing,
relevant to this action at a hearing to be held in The La Grande Room, Beach Resort Monterey, 2600
Sand Dunes Dr., Monterey, California, on Thursday, April 8, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard. It is requested, but not required, that written comments be submitted on or
before March 24, 2010 at the address given below, or by fax at (916) 653-5040, or by e-mail to
FGC@fgc.ca.gov. Written comments mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the Commission office, must be
9
received before 5:00 p.m. on April 6, 2010. All comments must be received no later than April 8, 2010, at
the meeting in Monterey. If you would like copies of any modifications to this proposal, please include your
name and mailing address.

The regulations as proposed in strikeout-underline format and modifications indicated in double
strikeout/underline, as well as an initial statement of reasons, including environmental considerations and
all information upon which the proposal is based (rulemaking file), are on file and available for public
review from the agency representative, John Carlson, Jr., Executive Director, Fish and Game
Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244-2090, phone (916) 653-4899.
Please direct requests for the above mentioned documents and inquiries concerning the regulatory
process to John Carlson, Jr., or Jon Snellstrom at the preceding address or phone number. Mr. Scott
Barrow, Fisheries Program Branch, Department of Fish and Game, (916) 445-7600 has been
designated to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed regulations. Copies of the
Initial Statement of Reasons, including the regulatory language, may be obtained from the address above.
Notice of the proposed action shall be posted on the Fish and Game Commission website at
California Fish and Game Commission.​
 
No problem at all. Spread the information to as many places as you can. I've been following the thread on Dendroboard, but haven't been worked up enough yet to register and comment there. This proposal is a step in a dangerous and unwise direction for any exotic pet hobbyist not just frog and turtle hobbyists. The proposal is far too heavy-handed and far too late to have any useful merit. Additionally, California is often a bellwether for legislation coming to the rest of the country.
 
I've actually stopped posting in the dendroboard thread - the moron factor is just too high over there some times.
 
Agreed, that is part of the motivation factor that I haven't overcome to register at that site.
 
I saw this story on SFgate.com, and sadly, I guess the law was passed. The article suggests that it targets the Asian markets but not the pet trade, but I don't know the details of the legislation.


Ban on live turtle, frog sales assailed

(05-06) 04:00 PDT Sacramento - --Asian American politicians and merchants are seething over a new state ban on the importation of live turtles and frogs for sale as food, saying the policy unfairly targets Chinese businesses while ignoring the pet shop industry.

The California Fish and Game Commission adopted the ban last month to prevent people from releasing nonnative species into the state's sensitive habitats. But opponents point out that merchants - who hawk fish and other seafood as well as turtles and frogs for people to eat - are already barred from selling the animals alive.

On Tuesday, six Asian American state legislators, including Assemblywoman Fiona Ma and Sen. Leland Yee, both Democrats from San Francisco, sent a letter to the commission asking it to reconsider the policy.

A "disturbing" part of the policy, they wrote, is that it "appears to disproportionately target Asian American owned businesses," - businesses, they note, that are largely owned and managed by first-generation immigrants.

Ma said frog legs, turtle soup and other dishes are popular at both Chinese restaurants and homes. But the immigrant community is not as politically savvy as other groups, she said....

Read more: Ban on live turtle, frog sales assailed
 
From what I have read, this California frog and turtle ban is only for animals intended for human consumption. It does not affect the pet trade however I think you guys need to look into bill HR 669. Anyone who deals with USARK is probably already familiar with it.
HR 669 is a bill to ban the importation, sales and trade of ALL non native species into the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    There are no messages in the chat. Be the first one to say Hi!
    Back
    Top