mikeh
Full Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by mikeh on Sept 12, 2015 9:32:20 GMT -8
I see from Chris Grinter's Blog that there is a $400+ fee to obtain a "scientific collecting permit" to collect anywhere in California. Has anyone actually gotten one of these? And do most collectors in California have one of these? Seems incredibly expensive for someone coming in for a weekend or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by eurytides on Sept 12, 2015 13:23:37 GMT -8
That seems insane, and I'm going to guess "no." Plus, what exactly does it mean to collect in a "scientific" manner versus amateur collecting. I don't have PhD in entomology nor is my day job related. My specimens have scientific value though. Am I honestly to believe that if a 10 year old kid does some "scientific" collecting for a school project in his/her backyard, they need to shell out $400 for a permit? Bovine fecal matter I say.....
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Sept 12, 2015 16:24:49 GMT -8
I would call that typical, not insane. California is a very big state, and the bigger the government, the more stupid the laws. I'm sure CA was looking at all its activities and trying to find some money. Issuing permits is an easy place to collect fees. Never mind that a lot of that scientific collecting is funded by the state, so this is money from one pocket into the other. At least some of the grants are federal, so CA gets some fed money.
I lived in CA for nine years and have lots of beetles from there. In the last few years I began publishing beetle papers, but mostly on NM beetles. Right now I would feel free to collect in CA (legally, not in Nat Parks etc.) and if I found something that was worth publishing I would do so. If I wanted to do "scientific collecting" in a place that needed a permit, then I would get a grant and hope to get the extra $400. Yes it is a load of BS but very typical.
Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by joee30 on Sept 13, 2015 5:33:03 GMT -8
I wouldn't shell out that much money for a damned permit! California could suck it! Lol Being that I grew up in L.A., I never had to use one, unless you went collecting to a state park. National parks, good luck in getting one. Thank god for National Forests. You should be able to collect bugs with no issues as long as either A. You don't run into crazy people and B. Rape and pillage the place, tear up food plants, or throw garbage and leave it. By rape and pillage, I mean collect a ton of stuff like some of the unscrupulous insect vendors do. Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 17, 2015 8:48:43 GMT -8
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Sept 18, 2015 18:28:26 GMT -8
Thanks for providing that link. It is good to read the actual rule.
The part for collecting for scientific and education purposes does not specify where this is needed (private land?).
Collecting endangered species is explicitly restricted on both public and private land of course.
I wish the regulation would state the major purpose for which it is being written:
A) to discourage scientific research and education?
B) to grab as much money as possible for the state?
C) to cover the expense related to issuing permits which have no purpose?
If they could, they would require car drivers to buy a permit before smashing insects on the front grill.
If only they could get birds to pay before eating insects, especially eating the endangered butterflies.
|
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 9:13:37 GMT -8
Such an expensive permit is absolute lunacy. For perspective, an OUT OF STATE ELK TAG is around $300 at the moment-a trophy animal which draws hunters from around the world. This is highway robbery, and all of the restrictions for collecting, rearing, importing, etc. is enough to make a devout monk slap somebody. Exoticimports mentioned a swap box a little while ago, perhaps we should send one around to members and include specimens from our radiators, roadsides, sprayed fields, etc., and when one of our fellow collectors gets in trouble we can send it to the responsible agency. I say this tongue in cheek, of course, and have found ways around "the system"  |
|
|
|
Post by joee30 on Sept 20, 2015 16:52:36 GMT -8
Funny thing is that Tom Payne(Bettlehorn) has collected some nice Junonia coenia specimens that were hit by cars, by in decent shape. Lol I found a Colias meadi that way many years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2015 17:53:06 GMT -8
It really is amazing how many specimens pile up when certain species are out in force. The specimen from the video was hit and stunned, and within seconds a big semi truck drove past and the wings caught the resulting gust which launched it into the grass at the edge of the turnout-something to keep in mind if you decide to seek out specimens in this manner. This particular specimen shook off the jay-flying mishap and recovered with a little TLC  The Fish and Game dept. has approved roadkill to be picked up by passing motorists for personal use, in Idaho at least, and I wonder if this same loophole could be applied to leps? "I swear officer, the alexandrae flew right out in front of me and there wasn't anything I could do, so we couldn't let it go to waste!" |
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 20, 2015 22:07:31 GMT -8
Would you need this permit if you weren't collecting for "scientific, educational, and non-commercial propagation purposes"? I mean, if you're not tied to a university or other educational institution, wouldn't you be able to continue collecting for "recreational" purposes?
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Sept 21, 2015 5:04:31 GMT -8
It seems clear that the regulation does not cover "hobby" collecting. If you or your son or daughter chases butterflies, no problem, but if challenged by some authority it would be good to assure them that you are not doing science or education.
If a biologist were doing a study, gathering elk deer and moose to check for mad-deer disease- and after the study, free venison steaks for everybody then I would hope fish and game looks close while issuing that permit. The biologist collecting deer ticks and looking for Lyme disease would have a grant from some health department. It is stupid that they should need a permit but since they do, the state/feds would give them the $$ for the permit. For us hobbyists it is no big deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by papiliotheona on Sept 26, 2015 20:17:59 GMT -8
Most states have a "scientific collecting permit" law on the books; most of the time, it's not really enforced for amateur insect collecting. California's SCP law dates back to 1957. In my opinion, Chris Grinter is doing more harm than good, because with all the attention he is drawing to Cal Fish and Wildlife, he is setting us up for a time when it really will be enforced for all.
Basically you need a SCP for ANY kind of biological field work with any living thing if it pertains to you making a living. If you are a recreational birdwatcher it isn't enforced (I would hope!), but if you are conducting a survey for ESA birds, it is. I have spoken to several professional survey workers on this matter and they mostly agree that this doesn't apply to us--yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Sept 28, 2015 6:41:10 GMT -8
Most states don't have a collecting permit as over-reaching as California's. There is a law on the books and it seemingly isn't heavily enforced (if ever - this seems to only be something they use to tack onto poachers/flagrant violators, but I haven't looked up case law). However, this is the law and if you want to legally conduct research in CA you have to at least clear your efforts with a wildlife officer or pay the exorbitant fees. There is a provision to have the fees waived if you're working with an institution. Ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help anyone.
Eric Metzler fought against a law like this in Ohio many years ago and won. He, along with colleagues, re-wrote the law and had it passed. Now it's very easy to collect in that state and we're all the better for it. Change happens in the right direction sometimes. If you choose to flaunt the law and pretend like it doesn't exist then you will only perpetuate bureaucratic webs like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Grinter on Sept 28, 2015 6:57:07 GMT -8
It seems clear that the regulation does not cover "hobby" collecting. If you or your son or daughter chases butterflies, no problem, but if challenged by some authority it would be good to assure them that you are not doing science or education. If a biologist were doing a study, gathering elk deer and moose to check for mad-deer disease- and after the study, free venison steaks for everybody then I would hope fish and game looks close while issuing that permit. The biologist collecting deer ticks and looking for Lyme disease would have a grant from some health department. It is stupid that they should need a permit but since they do, the state/feds would give them the $$ for the permit. For us hobbyists it is no big deal. And yes - it needs to be clear that this regulation is for scientific work or "propagation". It seems a bit vague, but if you're collecting specimens to rear then this law would apply to you anywhere for any purpose. But if you're just swinging a net or putting traps out for fun/your personal collection then I see nothing in here that would apply to you. |
|
|
|
Post by papiliotheona on Sept 29, 2015 10:13:50 GMT -8
Chris, you really should check the laws for other states. Arizona has a SCP law too just for one example. Many, many states do. In Florida you technically need a permit to collect anything, anywhere. I'm not making this stuff up. How those are enforced, I don't know, but it is highly doubtful they regularly apply to amateurs.
Keep in mind, this is no new law--it goes back to 1957 in basically its present form. It has not been enforced for recreational collecting for all or most of that time. As of not long ago, Cal Fish and Game's official position was that you technically needed a fishing license to collect, but that it was not enforced. This I know for a fact. As of this summer, I also know for a fact that one could legally catch insects for use as bait. If this has changed, I want to see something in actual writing or a ruling from the state, not hysteria.
From what we know, the CA SCP law is (a) used as a business license by the State of California as a revenue-maker (in other words, a tax) and (b) a requirement for genuine biological research. It is enforced for State Parks for instance (but all collecting in State Parks is "scientific" by default according to state procedures). By making a ruckus about this we are more likely to get the law used against us than "amended" in our favor (if it even needs to be).
|
|
