my crotalus helleri

[evanthedudeSD]

WC at my house in san diego

 

[neubauer geckos]

How big is it?I absolutely love ratlers!I've only found CA kings around here.I really want to find a red diamond rattler.hve you ever seen one around?

 

[Gregg M]

Nice!!! It looks really light colored for a Southern pacific

 

[M_surinamensis]

WC at my house in san diego

Doesn't California state law prohibit the wild collection of indigenous species? Or ownership of indigenous species without a state issued ID number certifying captive birth? And the possession of C. helleri across the boards anyway, since they aren't one of the exempt species of crotalids (and never were, since they were formerly considered a subspecies of C. oreganus, which are also not exempt from the prohibition)?

Definitely sketchy.

 

[robin]

god how i have missed you seamus!

 

[M_surinamensis]

I'm not sure I'm likely to be around all that much. I'm trying to work up the nerve to approach Kelli and see if I can get a favor done for a friend of mine that she's in a unique position to make happen... and remembered that I had registered here, so could use it to contact her.

Took me a good twenty minutes to figure out which login handle and password I had used and then the "New Posts" link had everything since mid 2006 listed. This one was in the first couple pages and caught my eye though.

And I could be wrong, it's been probably a decade since I looked at California's herp laws all that closely but I am semi-sure that this animal, if there are no extenuating circumstances (like a permit I don't know about), was collected and is being kept illegally.

 

[evanthedudeSD]

surinamensis
The collection or killing of rattlesnakes is not illegal in california. There is no limit to the amount either. Technically you have to have a fishing license to collect, which I do. I checked on the Department of Fish and Game website before I decided to keep the specimen. As long as your not collecting in a wildlife protected area, I guess.

neubauer:
I also have a red diamond rattler

 

[goReptiles]

According to CA state laws: All pit viper species in the Crotalidae family are restricted animals except:

except Crotalus viridis (Western rattlesnake), Crotalus atrox (Western diamondback rattlesnake), Crotalus ruber (red diamondback rattlesnake), Crotalus scutulatus (Mojave rattlesnake), Crotalus mitchelli (speckled rattlesnake) and Crotalus cerastes (Sidewinder)

Is yours of this family? I don't know much about pit vipers, which the crotalus oreganus helleri is considered a venomous pit viper subspecies


Also looks like you have to have more than a fishing license to keep animals on the restricted animals, as you have to have the species and log into in their systems, and it has to be updated every 3 years. They also have to inspect your facility before you're approved for the license. There's an actual permit for restricted species.

Yes, it's given by the Fish and Wildlife Department, but it's not a fishing permit. I've never known anyone who had their house and facility checked for a fishing permit.

 

[evanthedudeSD]

Actually none of the species found in california are endangered or protected. And I was wrong earlier. There is NO fishing license or any other permit that I need in order to collect this rattlesnake. I dont need a special permit and no one needs to come to my house. This southern pacific rattlesnake is not being illegally kept.

I see what your talking about here:
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/new/2009/671regs2.pdf
In fact, it does seem that they have failed to include the Crotalus Helleri under the native crotalidae species list and it would lead one to belive that I have collected this species illegally. But if you look at the actual document, its purpose is intended to state all of the NON-native species in California that are restricted to import, transportation, or possession for the best interest of our ecosystem.

But in fact the actual Department of Fish and Game document discussing the laws and regulations of captive native reptiles states clearly that ANY rattlesnake may be taken by any way without any license or permit.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/fg1502.pdf
This law is likely intented for the priority of human safety. For example, if a rattlesnake comes into my backyard, I am lawfully entitled to kill or capture and collect this snake (which in fact this very rattlesnake did). I would hope that you guys would be glad that I did not kill this snake like most people in California would have done. If you actually lived in California, you would know that this is the most commonly found snake and its population is not in any danger. Therefore there isnt any protection against its species. How do you know that I have not collected this snake with intention to release it away from human interaction? You dont.

So lighten up. I am not intending to disrupt or harm the ecosystem here in California, nor am I trying to break any laws or keep this animal illegally.

goReptiles, if you dont know much about pit vipers and their regulations, why are you trying to sound so smart?

I thought this forum was for people to share their interest for venomous snakes. Apparently its for people to come and try to see who knows the most about everything. Thanks for killing it for everyone else.

here are a couple more citings stating the legality of my collection.
http://www.californiaherps.com/info/herpinglaws.html
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74119.html

 

[ketz]

^ Actually everyone was being pretty civil. You seem to have overreacted to what everyone has said. You are right, this forum is for people to share their interest for venomous snakes, but it's also their right to question the legality of other member's keeping habits.

 

[T-ReXx]

^ Actually everyone was being pretty civil. You seem to have overreacted to what everyone has said. You are right, this forum is for people to share their interest for venomous snakes, but it's also their right to question the legality of other member's keeping habits.

I agree.

 

[leolover23]

I'm sorry, but I side with the owner of the snake. In some cases, I think things like this should be investigated, but at least in private. This is a snake the owner is obviously caring for and keeping under control. And if you had any questions about whether or not this is legal, they should be addressed in private, not publicly when this was not the intention of the thread. The caretaker of this animal wanted to share it with you, not be harassed with legalities.

Another thing, sometimes, some cases of animal care, necessary animal care, though they may not be technically legal, aren't always wrong. If an "illegal" animal is injured, would you rather let it die or would you go "by the law" and not help it?

 

[blackadder]

Very nice! ! !
Do you have pictures of your other one?

 

[goReptiles]

So lighten up. I am not intending to disrupt or harm the ecosystem here in California, nor am I trying to break any laws or keep this animal illegally.

goReptiles, if you dont know much about pit vipers and their regulations, why are you trying to sound so smart?

I thought this forum was for people to share their interest for venomous snakes. Apparently its for people to come and try to see who knows the most about everything. Thanks for killing it for everyone else.

I was just curious, so I looked it up. I wasn't trying to be rude or prove you wrong. I was just curious. My knowledge of pit vipers doesn't affect my ability to research.

How can you say that they forgot to add a species? Maybe they didn't add it because it's not to be on the list. I don't know. It's hard to say. I'd definitely call the proper department to make sure though. Also, how is it that you don't need any type of permit, when there's a whole list of restricted animals; you're saying that none are restricted, which is a completely different story. I'm just a little confused. Are you saying just for this species?

It's great you like venomous, but we were just questioning the legality of keeping this wild caught snake. No harm in that.


Timo, the concern (in my opinion), is that if he or someone gets hurt by this snake, if it's a restricted species, there are more damages to be incurred.

 

[leolover23]

Whitney, I completely understand that, of course you don't want anyone to be hurt, especially if the species was illegally kept, but I think that these matters should be discussed privately, that's just the point I was trying to make

 

[M_surinamensis]

The idea that a fishing permit is a substitute for the permits required to keep a regulated species is absurd, reinforcing the impression that the OP is keeping this animal illegally and, further, doesn't even know what the legality of his action is. He found it and stuck it in a tank and clearly does not care if it is legal or not.

It was raised publicly because the post was made publicly and because the backlash incurred when an individual is caught keeping a species they are not supposed to is not private. It affects every other reptile keeper, creating ripples that change the legality or ease with which the rest of us can keep our own animals. It often makes the local news, changing the way the public perceives reptiles and reptile keepers. It is not and should not be a private matter.

 

[goReptiles]

Normally, I'd agree that if the wild caught animal is being housed properly and taken care of, leave it be. But, to me, capturing restricted species, is iffy. Like Surinamensis said, it can cause future problems for all pet owners.

If it is legal, which I'm still on the fence about, then ok... Sorry for the issue.

Oh, and I did check out your links. The fishing license is for handling, not keeping wildlife.

Are crotalus helleri considered a rattlesnake? What I saw classified them as a pit viper, which would classify them differently in regards to restriction.

 

[leolover23]

Okay, I understand both of your points. But, maybe instead of saying "publicly", since you both believe it affects other pet owners, I just don't think he should have been attacked on this particular thread. This thread was to showcase his snake, not to ask the legality of it. The more considerate thing to do would be to address the issue on a different thread, or in private, then make your results final in a different thread. I guess it would be different if someone knew, undoubtedly, that keeping this species was illegal, but it probably makes the owner feel pretty bad, and feel like he can't trust the forums because he will get ridiculed for things he doesn't even know about.

 

[M_surinamensis]

Okay, I understand both of your points. But, maybe instead of saying "publicly", since you both believe it affects other pet owners, I just don't think he should have been attacked on this particular thread.

He wasn't attacked, his practices were questioned.

This thread was to showcase his snake, not to ask the legality of it.

I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make or the distinction you see. The animal being kept illegally is pictured in this thread. It's collection was described in this thread. This thread is about that animal. Why wouldn't this be an appropriate place to levy criticism of illegal practices?

The more considerate thing to do would be to address the issue on a different thread, or in private, then make your results final in a different thread.

That seems like it would just lead to confusion as the context is removed.

I guess it would be different if someone knew, undoubtedly, that keeping this species was illegal,

Perhaps my use of soft language misled you a little bit. I wanted to leave some measure of leeway to be corrected in case California law had changed in the last few years, rendering my printed copy of the law (and the state webpage) obsolete.

Unless that has happened, unless the law has been changed, then the collection and possession of that species is illegal.

It is not one of the native crotalids listed as an exemption to the restricted list (under any of the nomenclature which has been applied to it, as it is widely considered to have full species status rather than being a subspecies as it was previously thought- neither species is listed as an exemption).

it probably makes the owner feel pretty bad

Good, he's breaking the law and should feel bad. And guilty. If he wants to stop feeling bad and guilty then he should stop breaking the law.

and feel like he can't trust the forums because he will get ridiculed for things he doesn't even know about.

Ignorance of the legalities of keeping a species is no excuse. No excuse at all. In fact, anyone choosing to buy or collect an animal has a responsibility to comprehend their legal ability to do so before they engage in that action.

 

[leolover23]

No matter if it is legal or not, and no matter if the owner knew it was legal or not, this was not the time, or place, to say repeatedly (which, is my point for saying "attacking", since the owner did feel attacked) that the species may be illegal. I know many intentions were to be kind, or curious, or inquisitive, but they all sounded rude, and they all brought down the level or respect for the forums. If a person feels attacked, that's when you need to think not only of the pets needs, but of theirs too. I'm saying this, not only for the benefit of the owner, whom you all are making to seem like a criminal, but for the benefit of the pet. If they feel attacked, they are NOT GOING TO LISTEN, and whether or not the species is illegal, they won't pay attention to your posts anymore because they are TICKED OFF. So, that is why I posted what I did. Not only does it help everyone's politeness, it helps the owner and the pet in question.