1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Forming groups per state para pokies

Discussion in 'Tarantula Questions & Discussions' started by EDED, Aug 2, 2018.

  1. Chris LXXIX

    Chris LXXIX ArachnoGod Active Member

    Advertisement
    That's what the law says, but how they can really spot Mister X - living in Indiana - that sells to Mister Y - living in Ohio - one of those 'pokies', via a private courier, as a result of deal made in a private chat?

    Parcels aren't opened and inspected (in general) as far as I know.
     
  2. MetalMan2004

    MetalMan2004 Arachnobaron Active Member

    524
    431
    103
    Texas
    An important clarification needs to be made on the definition of breeding loan. I have a feeling that the FAQ was written by someone that is not knowledgable about how the term is used in the hobby. While most of us automatically see a breeding loan as “I send you my male and get half the sac,” I’m thinking that the government sees a loan as simply loaning a specimen out with no compensation (ie slings) for the male’s owner. I have no idea if this is the case or not.

    While your point is plenty valid, government entities say they intend or don’t intend to do things all the time while simultaneously doing the opposite. It is wrong and amazingly stupid, but the letter of the law still stands as written.

    I’m guessing that they are past the comment phase on the Indian species, correct? Per the 19 page paper, they refuted all peer submitted information and all public comments with the Sri Lankan poecs, but if there is still a chance to add a comment then we all should.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. purplephilia

    purplephilia Arachnopeon

    They're not hampering breeding--you can breed all you want, you just can't sell to other states. That's how they see it. And they say many times in their ruling that hobbyist breeding is not considered to be helping conservation, which makes it seem to me that it's unlikely they will be issuing permits to hobby breeders. They also seem to suspect that the number of wild caught specimens in the trade is actually higher than reported, so that's another ding against hobby-as-conservation.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. cold blood

    cold blood Moderator Staff Member

    but it absolutely will hamper breeding and eventually reduce captive populations....not many are going to go through all the time and effort for zero compensation when they could make more breeding freaking LPs.

    To me its like saying, cars are legal to own, but cant be sold across state lines from where they were built, and not expect that to have a profoundly negative effect on car sales and ownership.

    How many people will start building their own cars? Probably more than would breed the ts they cant sell.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. purplephilia

    purplephilia Arachnopeon

    I agree with you 100%. We're all aware of it, but the government just isn't looking at it from the hobbyist's stand point. It's kind of like saying, they didn't make the ruling in order to specifically hamper breeding--it's just an unfortunate side effect that breeding will indeed be hampered.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. cold blood

    cold blood Moderator Staff Member

    Then why would they go out of their way to emphasize that they dont want this to have a detrimental effect on these ts in the hobby...I get that gov't legislation doesnt always make sense, but they went out of their way to specify that this side effect isnt what they want or intend....why not just keep quiet about it and not draw the attention to the side effect.

    Because they went out of their way to specify this is why i think theres something we are over looking or not fully grasping. Maybe not....just the way i look at it.

    I would love to see them further clarify on this part.
     
  7. purplephilia

    purplephilia Arachnopeon

    They were just replying to public comments that said the ruling was a disincentive to captive breeding. The reply goes on to say that permits could potentially be issued "to enhance the propagation or survival of the species", which sounds hopeful because we see breeding as a way to keep species from dying off...except that they say multiple times that breeding in the hobby is not considered to help conservation, so to me it seems like it's highly unlikely they would give permits to hobbyists but of course I could be wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. MetalMan2004

    MetalMan2004 Arachnobaron Active Member

    524
    431
    103
    Texas
    Because apparently almost all if not all of the 100+ comments they got durig the comment period had more to do with keeping and breeding in the hobby than they did saving the species in the wild.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. cold blood

    cold blood Moderator Staff Member

    But it will help conservation....With healthy populations of captive bred ts, theres little reason to take them from the wild....effectively reducing or nearly eliminating smuggling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  10. purplephilia

    purplephilia Arachnopeon

    This is their response to that:

    (Editing to add source: https://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2018/2018-16359.pdf)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  11. cold blood

    cold blood Moderator Staff Member


    Baffling that they think reduction of captive animals wont have a greater adverse effect on wild populations...their logic is just not logical.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. viper69

    viper69 ArachnoGod Old Timer

    7,502
    6,832
    1,278
    Can you put up that text for me. I didn't see it, but I believe you.

    Oh that's right, I forgot about the Commerce Clause. That DOES regulate interstate trade.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2018
  13. cold blood

    cold blood Moderator Staff Member

    @viper69

    post #47 on the stickied thread
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. viper69

    viper69 ArachnoGod Old Timer

    7,502
    6,832
    1,278
    Yes I remember that now. Yeah, they must think Ts are bred and given away like Xmas gifts.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. Ungoliant

    Ungoliant Malleus Aranearum Staff Member

    When they say they don't want to hamper captive breeding, what they mean are captive breeding programs for conservation, not hobbyists breeding (what they see as) Pokies of dubious lineage as part of the pet trade.

    They don't see the pet trade (whether it's a formal business or hobbyists doing it on the side) as a valid form of conservation, because:
    1. We don't keep records of tarantula lineages to provide a sufficient safeguard against hybridization or inbreeding.
    2. We are not breeding and keeping these spiders for conservation but for our own pleasure.

    In fact, they see what we do as a threat to conservation, because:
    1. They likely underestimate the extent to which the domestic trade is met by captive breeding.
    2. They assume (probably correctly) that even if all of our current pets are captive-bred, they are the descendants of Pokies smuggled out of their native habitat.


    I agree that banning (most of) the domestic trade in captive-bred spiders is a misguided and counterproductive effort. However, as I said in the pinned thread, it is not uncommon for well-meaning but ignorant officials to create laws that end up undermining their stated purpose.


    Breeding loans (where the lender gets some of the resulting offspring in exchange) are allowed as long as there is no money or consideration changing hands.

    Check your state's laws to make sure it's not prohibited where you live.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Love Love x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Hardus nameous

    Hardus nameous Arachno FNG Arachnosupporter

    27
    62
    18
    Kansas
    If biologists consider the hobby spider DNA to be too impure for conservation, would it be feasible to classify a hobby subspecies? Although the ESA Section 3 definition (16) says it includes all subspecies, pet dogs didn't seem to be affected when the gray wolf was listed.
     
  17. lostbrane

    lostbrane Arachnoknight Arachnosupporter

    Well, that would require genetic testing. Of which there is either very little or none, at least from what USFWS was saying.
     
  18. Hardus nameous

    Hardus nameous Arachno FNG Arachnosupporter

    27
    62
    18
    Kansas
    Genetic testing may be possible. I found a paper where DNA was apparently successfully extracted from faeces of Lycosidae. So far I've only had time to go through the summary but it may be promising.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
  19. Ungoliant

    Ungoliant Malleus Aranearum Staff Member

    There is one loophole, although it's not one that hobbyists are likely to find satisfying: the hybrid offspring of animals bred in captivity are not protected by the ESA. (It is recommended that breeding records be maintained to show parentage and hybrid status.)

    Note: This does not necessarily mean there are no other laws that prohibit trade in hybrid tarantulas.
     
  20. Hardus nameous

    Hardus nameous Arachno FNG Arachnosupporter

    27
    62
    18
    Kansas
    So could the "Hobby" spiders be considered hybrid? I don't see the term defined in the ESA. If they are, then wouldn't it be sufficient to document the posession of the spider prior to the law's enaction and document further lineages? I wonder how muddled the genes have to be?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1