Why Axolotls Outlawed??

Anybody have any information on why they've outlawed Axolotls in California?
I used to own some a little over a decade ago; now that I just felt like getting back into the hobby, I find that I can't. Is there a legit reason why they are so particularly dangerous to the state of California? Is there some regionally legitimate reason I am unaware of, or is this just another case of Soup Nazi Bureaucratic Over-regulation?

I haven't heard they were outlawed. I heard that they outlawed sale of tiger salamanders from other states, but anything bred in CA can be sold. I think the reason is because, non-native species are interbreeding the CA tigers, which is leading to their decline. If you want some axolotls, I saw they had one female wt and some albinos at East bay Vivarium in Berkeley about a week and a half ago.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>Pete Hoban wrote on Wednesday, 26 October, 2005 - 05:48 :</font>

"Soup Nazi Bureaucratic Over-regulation?"<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Wow, that's a great term! Mind if I use it sometime?

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

What the? There seems to be a problem in the matrix. I highlighted text from David's post, yet the Green writing says that it was from Pete's post. What's going on here?

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>Jeff Fenn wrote on Wednesday, 26 October, 2005 - 06:50 :</font>

"What the? There seems to be a problem in the matrix. I highlighted text from David's post, yet the Green writing says that it was from Pete's post. What's going on here?"<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

works when i do it with you

Like Pete mentions, California has outlawed all non-native Ambystoma due to the California tiger salamander. They don't want any more chance of introduced parasites, diseases, or potential hybridization events (I don't think it's actually happened yet).

Thanks for the info, guys.
Although it's interesting somebody had one in Berkeley. Heck, I'd drive down there...

It seems that there has been a lot of hybridization with California Tigers. (See Fitzpatrick B.M. and Shaffer H.B., Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2004 Jun;58(6):1282-93.) Actually, a friend of mine adopted some CA tiger larvae collected from a single site by the Shaffer lab a few years back. (I don't know if they were used this study, though.) At least one of them developed into an adult that looks much more "barred" than "califorinia". (See the photo) His other salamanders have more intermediate patterning.



Also, David if you're interested in the pet store they're website is http://www.eastbayvivarium.com/. I suppose you may want to call an double check that they still have the axolotls, before taking the drive.

Wow, that's pretty sobering. It would seem to me that once mavortium starts using a pond with californiense, there's really nothing further that can be done to save the genetic integrity of the population. I don't see any way to eradicate the non-natives.

Thanks for the reference and the photo, pete.

Not a good scene if its true. This could also remove that location from being protected habitat.

Ed

Yeah, I've been looking for a place to catch a glimpse of a real CA tiger. From what I read, it sounds as though you have to find a vernal pool. The harsh conditions of the long dry summers after the vernal pools dry out seem to provide a strong selection for the native species. You only have three months from egg to salamander before the water's all gone. Unfortunately, it sounds as though, the CA vernal pools are also disappearing.

It seems that there is some rational behind the CA ban on tigers, but I think that the regulation is too little, too late.

It's unfortunate that the term "species" is so blurred. I think the scientific community is long overdue in 'fessing up to that. It seems to me that, if two creatures can reproduce and produce offspring which likewise can reproduce, and so on, then that original pair ought not to be called two distinct "species," but instead ought to be more correctly identified as two "sub-species" of each other. It all sounds to me like a Mexican Axolotl and a California Tiger are about as different as a St. Bernard and a Doberman Pinscher. What we are looking at, in my opinion, are two different BREEDS of the same basic animal, not two different species. The basic genetic material is present in both, or they wouldn't be able to reproduce and have fertile offspring together.
Now, I might be in favor of protecting a "breed" of animal. I just wish the scientific community would clear up their murky terminology and be more linguistically forthright.

It's an interesting question. However, from what I've gathered it seems that axolotls and tiger salamanders don't cross breed easily. For instance, I believe that the original cross for the albino axolotl was challenging and the offspring had very low viability (I'm not sure of this though, so don't quote me on this).

I'm no expert on Taxonomy, but reproductive barriers must be a somewhat archaic as a rule for distinction of species. For instance a Lion and Tiger can cross and make a fertile female, but few would argue that a Lion and Tiger are not different species, or how about a wolf and a domestic dog? I'm sure there are more examples. I think the scientific community is well aware of the problems of placing a human classification system to a gradient of evolved lifeforms. In order to account for this, it seems the naming system is constantly in flux.

The question remains, why was the California tiger elevated from a subspecies of A. tigrinum to its own species? Does it have to do with behavioral aspects? It seems CA tigers spend the summers dormant and breed in the early winter, while other tigers can be dormant in winter, and breed in spring. I suppose it could be genetic patterns as well. What are more modern criteria are used to demark different species?

In the end does the name "species" or "breed" matter. Clearly, the CA tiger is a highly specialized tiger salamander unique the to the CA climate, and it would be nice to protect at least some populations from genetic dilution.

That is an interesting observation with the CA tigers. I was not aware that axolotls have been banned in California, as I see them periodically available in many pet shops.

A. californiense has been classified as a distinct species by phylogenetic analysis. The more biologically orientated people may be able to provide more information.

Shaffer did treat the California Tiger Salamander as a distinct species in his study of North American ambystomatid salamanders.

The reference is:
Shaffer, H. B., J. M. Clark, and F. Kraus. 1991. Systematic Zoology 40:284-303.

Pete said: "...from what I've gathered it seems that axolotls and tiger salamanders don't cross breed easily."

Neither does a Great Dane and a Chihuahua cross easily, yet nobody's claiming they aren't the same species.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think my original position about about the term "species" being too unclear still stands.
I would moreover argue that the wild wolf and the domestic dog are, yes, basically the same animal. That is where the domestic dog came from: from the wolf. Thus, were I only a scientist, I'd be writing thesises arguing for a more clear definition of a species, or maybe a downgrading of the importance of the term "species" in favor of the more relevant term "kind" or "type" of animal, something along those lines. Thus, in such a schema, yes, the lion and tiger are the same basic type of animal, with only contained differences of pattern--within that type--of the same exact genetic material. That is, if Napoleon D's vaunted "liger" is indeed a fertile animal--I don't know, I haven't checked--are they?
As you may or may not perhaps percieve, I subscribe to the "intelligent design" explanation of the origin of life, as opposed to naturalist Darwinism. Love to get into that, but I'm sure this is not the place. But I had to briefly state my position to show that not everyone on this board accepts the current institutional orthodoxy on the subject at face value.

So, is it still worth it to outlaw my beloved Axolotls in order to protect native California Tiger Salamanders here in California? Well, I am a "dog person," and I like studying and interacting with the plethora of dog breeds some Creator and, later, using that created genetic material, mankind has created. I wouldn't like to see the world lose a breed of dog. But if it happened, though it would be a big bummer, I know it wouldn't be a total loss: the same genetic material is present in the other breeds of dogs, if mankind could ever unlock the combination.
I am of the opinion that the same is true of these particular salamanders: if the California tiger is lost, we could extrapolate genetic material by cross-pairing Axolotl with Axolotl until we came up with a creature remarkably similar to or even identical to today's California tiger. But it would be a lot of work, so for the sake of avoiding a lot of work, and to put this old horse of a thread out to the glue factory finally, yes, I could see outlawing the Axolotl here in California. Maybe. But not to save the CA tiger from extinction: I maintain that as long as there are axolotls, talk of the extinction of CA tigers is technically hyperbole.

This is all just a big bummer, because I miss maintaining them. Got to check out that Berkeley aquarium joint I was told about in another thread--see if they're some kind of mavericks down there, flouting the law. If so, I'm getting me some axolotls and I'm turning a blind eye...
a wink'}s as good as a nudge, the blind man said...

(Message edited by todas_abiyoyo on November 03, 2005)

(Message edited by todas_abiyoyo on November 03, 2005)

(Message edited by todas_abiyoyo on November 03, 2005)

You're welcome to your position, but whether you call it "breed X, Y, and Z" or "species", it doesn't matter, you still have the same problem. You're "neo-naming orthodoxy" doesn't sound like it resolves anything, but is instead just a silly semantic argument for the sake of arguing.

On a different note, I was the one that told you about the pet shop in Berkeley, on this thread. I also stated, that I don't think it is illegal to own an axolotl in CA. As I understand it, you are not allowed to sell tigers (axies) from other states in CA, however if they were bred in the state it is fine to sell them. For instance, I've bought both a barred tiger and axolotl in CA which were both bred in CA. So you can own one legally get them in CA, so you don't have to worry about the law. (I agree this law is a little silly.) It would just be nice if you don't release it into the wild if you decide that you no longer want the animal.

snip "the same genetic material is present in the other breeds of dogs"

This is an assumption that is not valid as that breed may contain unique mutations and/or gene combinations that led to those traits being isolated and thus that breed of dog being "created" that are not available within the population.
Axolotls and tigers do not readily hybridize and some of the first albino axolotls were the result of an artificial hybridization event ina lab that required transgenetic work.
I believe that if you search the archives, I posted a comment on this event a year or two ago.

Typically hybridization events occur when the barriers that typically prevent reproduction break down. For example, it has been shown in reptiles that intergenera fertile hybrids can be obtained by tricking the snakes (thus the formation of the jungle corn for example) in these cases, the hybrids are fertile because the chromosomal numbers allow for proper segregation during meiosis. The definiton of species is more fluid than a lot of people are comfortable with as it has to take into account a lot of variations between everything from microbes to megavertebrates to plants.

Some comments