Caudata.org: Newts and Salamanders Portal

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Did you know that registered users see fewer ads? Register today!

What salamanders are not classified as tiger salamanders in the genus ambystoma

TheAmphibianGuy

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
Santa Barbara, California
After sending an email to California Fish and Wildlife about them having a regulation saying genus ambystoma (tiger salamanders) were banned, yet having a regulation saying you can collect northwestern salamanders. This is the response:

Hello:

I made inquiry to the Department regarding clarification of CA Code of Regulations/Title 14 section 671 (restriction of the genus:Ambystoma)

I was given the following response:

It doesn’t restrict all members of Ambystoma, which are called “mole salamanders” as a group. The regulation specifically says “Genus Ambystoma (tiger salamanders).” Only a fraction of Ambystoma spp. are considered tiger salamanders.

In summation, the restriction is only for those classified as “Tiger Salamanders”.

Sorry for the confusion.



Liz Orme
CA Department of Fish & Wildlife
Law Enforcement Division
(916) 717-9064


My question is, which Salamanders in the genus ambystoma are not classified as Tiger salamanders?
 

schmiggle

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
2
Location
Massachusetts
Most are not. I believe it's just A. californiense, A. tigrinum, A. mavortium, and A. velasci that are. However, that regulation seems sort of badly-defined...
 

AdvythAF

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
123
Reaction score
12
Location
San Jose, California
What? That means it is legal to keep other Ambystoma? That are not considered tiger salamanders??? I'm more confused than ever now.
 

schmiggle

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2015
Messages
88
Reaction score
2
Location
Massachusetts
Yes, I think that's exactly what the law is saying. In California, the only native tiger salamander species is A. californiense, which is vulnerable according to the IUCN, which is presumably why that's the only illegal one to collect.
 

FrogEyes

Active member
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
908
Reaction score
41
Location
Southern Minnesota
North of Mexico, there are three species of tiger. These are the eastern tiger, Ambystoma tigrinum, the western tiger, Ambystoma mavortium, and the California tiger, Ambystoma californiense. One undescribed species is currently included in A.mavortium, and two in A.californiense. In Mexico, basically all Ambystoma could be considered tigers, since they're all related to A.mavortium, and more distantly to A.californiense and A.tigrinum. However, there is no rule dictating how common names are assigned, and most Mexican species are not called "tiger", in English or Spanish. Since common names are not dictated by science, you probably don't have to worry about the few Mexican species which are available.
 

michael

2010 Research Grant Donor
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
156
Location
Ephrata,Pa
The way the regulation is written is ambiguous. The interpretation of the regulation is up to the one enforcing it. In Penna. reptile keepers got into trouble when a new person took over enforcement for fish and boat and interpreted our old regulations in a new way.

That is the way many state enforcement agencies work. Common names should just be used as references. I'd find it hard to say what a tiger salamander is. My interpretation changed when classification changed. If it isn't Ambystoma tigrinum or a subspecies of A. tigrinum I'm not sure if it is a tiger or not.
 

Sith the turtle

New member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
675
Reaction score
17
Location
Georgia, USA
I feel like I should also point out that A.mexicanum is an illegal species in California as well, even though I think you all know that
 

otolith

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
484
Reaction score
22
Ambystoma gracile are listed in the CFW 2016 fishing regulations as one of the amphibian species legal for collection. The complete list can be found here:

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=117095&inline

The response you got is consistent with the current fishing regs. These are regarded as separate from the general ban on non-native Ambystoma which have all been illegal to possess for almost 10 years.

Any species not on this list is illegal to collect. Every year they remove a few new ones. In 2014 T. rivularis & T. torosa were removed and I would expect A. flavipunctatus to be removed in the next few years. Having A. californiense be illegal to collect feels pretty obvious since all populations are either classified as threatened or endangered. I've never found A. gracile but from what I understand they are fairly common along the North Coast of CA.
 

AdvythAF

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
123
Reaction score
12
Location
San Jose, California
I totally agree with you Perry, species are getting removed fast. It is a shame to see Taricha torosa illegal to collect; there are many healthy populations where collecting would be fine; but many unhealthy ones as well.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    There are no messages in the chat. Be the first one to say Hi!
    Top