New proposed Tops list en regulations out for Comments

[froot]

Its all very well and good to vent but natcon(the organisation not the forum member) could always spite us right back and ignore our 'issues', we must remember they are in control of the outcome at the end of the day whether they are right or wrong.

They are constitutionally required to invite public comment and it's our constitution we should be grateful for. If we are not invited to comment we can by right ask the courts to start the process over from scratch, take the E-toll saga for example. This is an opportunity don't get me wrong but I'd be much more comfortable engaging with people that have more than a clue about the realms they need to govern which certainly isn't reflected in this draft. I haven't even read the draft yet but the comments paint a clear enough picture for me, I mean Pachydactylus sp. on TOPS? Even if the rest of it made sense that is just plain stupid. The amount of Pachydactylus sp. I've seen killed by house cats and yet no permits are required to keep house cats.
People that know about the characteristics and habits of the species they want to protect would not be proud of such a draft, and even after engagement with the people that wrote this I would not be confident they could pull off a band-aid never mind an effective permit system. I do want our local species effectively protected where need be after this legislation process and hope focus noes not get lost on the ultimate objective.

[michael]

I have had a good look through the proposed regulations and have a few comments and questions. If this is intended to be some sort of public participation process, I would expect some answers from the author of this topic or the Department. Firstly I’m glad you are recognising habitat destruction as a significant threat to biodiversity and related threatened species. In the Eastern Cape we have been complaining for years about the habitat destruction of the Albany Adder B. albanica and the disastrous effect this is having on the species. How does the department intend to halt habitat destruction, refer to Bitis albanica, column 2, Restricted activities prohibited in terms of section 57(2)?

Habitat destruction would in all likelihood be the major problem for most of the species, reptile and otherwise that you want to see protected, so I’m sure we would appreciate to see exactly how the Department plans on halting this problem. Bitis inornata should also have habitat destruction listed under Column 2 as this is a major threat to the species.

I honestly do not see how Dendroaspis angusticeps is a vulnerable species; I would like the opportunity to review your research on this. In the event that you in fact have no research I would suggest removing this species completely.

Personally I would like to know how the department proposes to identify these species when necessary. Have you got qualified staff who are experts in each of these fields? I highly doubt most conservation officers could tell the difference between B. mentalis and capensis let alone the myriad of other species on this list, which brings the effectiveness of the legislation into question.

[Hoss]

...Please just make sure your comments are based on facts and if possible add the scientific references seeing there are a few problems, because by just making unfounded statements it will not be taken serious during the review process.

Can we offer you the same courtesy, when reviewing these documents?

[NewtTZ]

New legislation does not solve old problems it simply creates new ones.

[F1refly]

I'm having trouble viewing the PDF's. I'm using Foxit Reader

[it_bit_me]

Nope I use it too and it's working.

[Unforgiven]

While I am surprised by some of the sp. making the list and the ones not making it, am I correct in saying that if we wish to propose ammendmants to this list we need to supply scientific evidence along with our submissions?

Could I ask in the same token that the public could be provided with the scientific research as to how these sp were chosen? Some are obvious like habitat destruction, some however are a common and widespread sp.

I don't want to sound like I am complaining, I understand the deal behind flora and fauna conservation, but our country seems to be lacking a little sensibility. I guess I should be happy we aren't totally cut off like Namibia

[it_bit_me]

I guess I should be happy we aren't totally cut off like Namibia

I like the way Australia does it. They have free reign and the nice stuff isn't exported. Wouldn't that be snake paradise for us ?????


Make all exotic on permit and give the rest to us

[Unforgiven]

I have heard some stuff about the permit system in Australia and in some parts you have to pay an annual fee for your permits. By the sounds of things, something as common as a bci requires quite a costly annual permit. I for one like boas and there's very little in Australia that wouldn't think twice of killing you which also has the capability of doing so

[it_bit_me]

Mini hijack

[Bushviper]

Obviously you are clueless as to how Australia works. It is possibly the worst system in the world. Nobody will ever want to emulate their "conservation efforts".