Washington State laws prohibited sals

nate · Dec 6, 2008

Hi All,

I came across this tonight for the unfortunate WA residents on this site. The state of Washington considers the following species to be potentially invasive and subsequently prohibited:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ans/identify/search.php?searchby=SpeciesSubCategory&search=Salamanders/Newts

Along with the fact that all native WA salamanders are completely protected, this pretty much kills the hobby in WA.

freves · Dec 6, 2008

I came across that link some time back. There is another thread somewhere (I looked but couldn't find it right away) with some humorous comments directed toward this law. In any case I am glad that I do not live in Washington!
Chip

michael · Dec 7, 2008

That's pretty much the shotgun approach to laws. I don't advocate it but many hobbyists in Washington simply ignore the rules.

Ralf · Dec 7, 2008

AW: Washington State laws prohibited sals

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Members of Onychodactylus and Ranodon as aquatic nuisance species?

Some of the mentioned species are extremely rare in their natural distribution areas, have a very restricted range or are even threatened by population decline/extinction. Seems like somebody took some old or outdated field guides/books and just copied names without a [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]perceivable [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]system. Choice of species seems to depend on chance and not on invasive potential. A hysterical overreaction to ecological "accidents" which have happened already in other fields of species meddling in a globalized world, I assume. Why would anybody want to prohibit the keeping of Paramesotriton deloustali and not that of P. guanxiensis? This is bureaucratic madness as well as a waste of money/legislative effort and last but not least the criminalization of a wonderful and educative hobby. :crazy:
[/FONT]

nate · Dec 7, 2008

Seems like somebody took some old or outdated field guides/books and just copied names without a [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]perceivable [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]system. Choice of species seems to depend on chance and not on invasive potential.[/FONT]

Exactly. Seems like they left it all up to an intern to compile the species and they just didn't know about certain species within genera. I suppose though that if one were to challenge the law, such as by keeping P. guangxienis, it'd be amended to cover entire genera.

Oregon has a very similar law about exotic salamanders, but at least their native salamander laws aren't so extreme.

taherman · Dec 7, 2008

The worst by far is Proteus anguinus.

I can see the video now... "OLMS GONE WILD!!!"
Right up there with the Australian cane toad movie.

josh · Dec 7, 2008

its a list of aquatic nuisance species..... i find it funny that they list T. granulosa as a nuisance species... it is native to washington.

craig · Dec 7, 2008

Uh-oh. Does this mean I shouldn't have put the olms in the stream behind my house?

zonbonzovi · May 2, 2009

josh said:
its a list of aquatic nuisance species..... i find it funny that they list T. granulosa as a nuisance species... it is native to washington.

Incredibly widespread, too. My relatives for 4 generations here recall "hunting" these. I see them en masse in almost every lake I fish in during the spring/early summer.

i_love_necturus · May 5, 2009

Wow, pretty ridiculous. I find it funny that Necturus beyeri is prohibited and not N. maculosus. N. beyeri could never survive in Washington, I'd think N. maculosus could be an actual hazard. As a side note that picture of N. beyeri isn't even a Necturus at all.

Obviously done by someone without any background in nature at all. You don't need to be a salamander fanatic to realize the joke here...

I guess if you want to keep salamanders in Wash. you better find some extremely exotic species or one of those plethodontids with limited ranges that are barely recognized by science.

Just wanted to give my 2 cents

NewtZoo · May 7, 2009

Yeah I think it's pretty funny how unlikely most those species are to actually make it to Wa, although being a Washington native I have seen several invasive species run wild. Eastern Red Eared Sliders have taken over Lake Washington and the Columbia river bason, and I heard Lithobates catesbeianus is making its way up the Cascade range (good by P. regilla). If anyone has ever been to the Pacific North West its a Caudates heaven! And this post just made me realize how much I miss that place and all those crazy T. granulosa littering the streets.

SludgeMunkey · May 8, 2009

While it is kind of a silly law, at least they took the time to list EXACTLY what species are a no-no most states would rather make you paranoid about what is legal and what is not. As I peruse through the list I see many, many animals that are protected/endangered in their home states or also have CITES/ UCN protections. Looks to me like someone was busy keeping up with California.

Good news is, there will be quite a bit of Cynops breeding going on up there I guess....

Irvin Loblolly · May 9, 2009

Washington state happens to have a lot of animal rights activists. Our fishing and hunting is always under attack. Entry into our national forests is under attack in one form or another. THey just want to keep humans from having control over animals so they ban things like this. I seriously doubt that there is any scientific or even speculative data or anything close to why they listed these salamanders. Likely they got a list of salamanders, put it in under something else to go through, and killed two birds with one stone. Theres lots of other things that go through without any studies. They recently tried to stop winter feeding of elk and deer also. I moved to Washington two years ago and hadnt seen any salamanders anywhere. This post explains it. I just got finished with my paludarium too. Maybe Ill find something else to put in it.

Irvin Loblolly · May 15, 2009

Actually, WAC 232-12-064 prohibits the take of live wildlife from the wild without a permit provided for by rule of the Commission and issued by the Director. Such exceptions are made, but those variances are issued based upon legitimate scientific experiments with a specific research task(s) identified. Permits are not granted for personal possession or for any other purpose whatsoever.

Here is an email directly from the WDFW via the DNR.

gloriousspandex · Apr 19, 2010

I find it odd that I've seen places like Petco selling tiger salamanders in Washington without any repercussions [at least, not from what I can tell]. I didn't know that they were illegal because I've seen them so much up here-- thanks for posting this, now I know what is prohibited. C:

Salmonella · Feb 1, 2011

Yep! I have felt the pinch, or should I say "kick". This hobby is now "extinct" in this state (WA). Sadly, I feel that the only sals/newts that will be alive in the not so distant future will be those that are "held captive" by the "underground hobbyist". Americans are allowing inane theft of our rights. Duh, doh, duh.... There may come a time when eventually we will have to have a license to breathe.....

Terroricha · Feb 1, 2011

The problem is, as has already been said, WA is a salamander heaven. Cool temperatures, wet climate. It is perfect for all manner of plethodontids, salamandrids etc. You dont run into that problem in say, Arizona. While I am dismayed by the bans, I can definitely understand why many of them were put in place.

Many species distributions are limited more by phylogenic history than climate tolerances. They evolved in refugia during the last glacial maximum, or had their ranges restricted by the same.

Take the entire genus Triturus (and those that have recently been split off from them). Those guys would do great in WA. So would Eruycea, Desmognathus etc.

The state already has problems with animals released from the pet trade. It is not awesome, and personally I think regulations (such as needing permits and inspections of your security precautions, fees to weed out impulse buyers etc) would be more appropriate than outright bans. However, looking over the vast majority of those species... Yeah. They could survive in WA.

josh · Jan 22, 2012

Terroricha said:
The state already has problems with animals released from the pet trade. It is not awesome, and personally I think regulations (such as needing permits and inspections of your security precautions, fees to weed out impulse buyers etc) would be more appropriate than outright bans. However, looking over the vast majority of those species... Yeah. They could survive in WA.

Oh really?? Like what?? I have spent a majority of my life living in washington and the most invasive species ive come across were sport fish and mollusks and plants... and the ever so popular bull frog. I highly doubt those came from the pet trade. They infact came from fish and game planting them here for sport or otherwise. the pet trade in washington has relaeased very little into the wild and even less has even come close to establishing itself here.

if they want to point fingers at pet trade invasive species, point the finger at florida! they are invasive species mecca!

FrogEyes · Jan 22, 2012

As I have pointed out in another thread, the link provided above is misleading. It is NOT a list of prohibited species. It is a list of examples of prohibited species. If you read the actual legislation, ALL members of the genera mentioned [such as Paramesotriton and Necturus] are banned, and some of the names used are clearly used in an older sense which includes multiple current genera.

Washington State laws prohibited sals

Member

Active member

2010 Research Grant Donor

New member

Member

Caudata.org Donor

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member