Just Gotta Ask...

[Cazador]

Billie,

Are you sure about the permit needed to photograph them, or were you speaking figuratively? I've never heard of such a restriction for federally protected species... consider the bald eagle, for example.

Rick

[suzoo]

That is not only a real bummer, but stupid! They should be allowed to be kept and bred in captivity, and have individuals released back into the wild, then they wouldn't be rare or endangered, or even an issue!!! Argh!

[Boots]

They are allowed to be kept and bred in captivity, just not in the United States and releasing them back into captivity would not be a good idea since captive raised garters would not survive long in the wild. There is also the problem of their shrinking habitat and main food source. If more were released into the wild, I think it would hasten their demise. Of course the way way things are going for them, I am not sure if they will be around in 50 years.

Jason

[OregonHerpaholic]

Billie,

Are you sure about the permit needed to photograph them- Rick

From what I have been told, the small area in San Francisco hills where they are found, it now a federally protected site. I believe you have to get permission from F&G to go on habitat.. but not positive.. I would like to research this a bit.. and dream of going "photoherping"

They should be allowed to be kept and bred in captivity, and have individuals released back into the wild, then they wouldn't be rare or endangered, or even an issue!!! Argh!

WHERE, where would you release them?? The tiny area where they are surviving is one of the MOST populated area in California. There is no real future for them. Even if CA set a controlled area for them, they will eventually run out of room.

Billie

[Stefan-A]

And they hope that by making it illegal to keep them, it will at least not encourage people to catch any of the few remaining wild ones.

But the problem is clear, it's the loss of habitat. Not really surprising that the problem was something that couldn't be solved simply by releasing more individuals of the species. Populations shrinking is usually just a symptom of a bigger problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Especially about this next part: I'm pretty sure that some Rhacodactylus species (ciliatus?) was in pretty much the same situation, now it's quite common as a pet. Basically doomed in its habitat, but the species will survive for a while longer as a pet. "For what, exactly?" would be a valid question, naturally.

[GarterGuy]

From the article that I read in the last Reptiles mag., it sounds like T.s.tetrataenia will always be endangered, but is actually holding it's own in the areas that are protected. Much of the left over habitat has been protected and although their prey animals (Pacific Treefrog and Redlegged Frog) are in decline, it's been discovered that they are preying on introduced Bullfrogs that are coming into the habitat. So all's not total gloom and doom for them it seems.
Roy

[sschind]

Originally Posted by Cazador

Billie,

Are you sure about the permit needed to photograph them, or were you speaking figuratively? I've never heard of such a restriction for federally protected species... consider the bald eagle, for example.

Rick

Assuming you can legally be on the property, I don't think it is illegal to photograph them as long as you do not disturb them in any way. If you happen to be, legally, walking down a path and see one you can take a picture of it but if it were half covered with a leaf you could not move the leaf to get a better picture. I have heard stories, I do not know if they are true or not, of people being ticketed for simply moving an endangered species off the road so it wouldn't be run over. I think the words disturb, interact, molest etc. come into play when reading the laws regarding endangered species. The problem is "disturb" is a very vague term. Could casting a shadow on a snake basking on a rock be considered disturbing it. It would probably depend on the attitude of the law enforcement officer who sees you do it.

Steve