More details about the Education/Outreach TWG projects here.

3) Policy/Regulation/Trade TWG
The Policy, Regulation, and Trade (PRT) TWG provided an update on its review and action on 2003 Arizona Game and Fish Commission Orders. In summary, letters were provided to the AZ PARC membership during 2003 for use as templates in expressing individual concerns regarding the closure of milksnakes in Cochise County and any proposed amendments to Commission Orders 41 & 43.

The main topic of discussion in the PRT TWG break-out session concerned a review of PARC’s Model Herp Regulations with respect to Arizona’s current herp regulations, including identifying species for which adjustments to regulation may be desired. Time constraints prohibited the PRT TWG from completing this exercise, but the group intends to reconvene during the interim to complete this endeavor and produce stated deliverables. Specific issues included 1) ways the recreational/hobbyist herp community could aid federal and state wildlife law enforcement personnel, posting pertinent collecting regulations in layman’s terms, and the use of signage as a deterrent to illegal taking of closed season species in the field in areas infamously known for such species; 2) the failure of penalties for wildlife violators to act as a deterrent in preventing wildlife crimes, recognizing that amendments to wildlife enforcement/penalties are issues that need to be addressed in the State legislative process and that more investigation of opportunities for change is required, including using any legal resources the AGFD may have at their disposal to further the process along; 3) drafting a form letter for use by the general AZ PARC membership, at their individual discretion, to support AGFD adding bullfrogs and tiger salamanders to its Restricted Live Wildlife list; 4) ideas for a resident or nonresident “Reptile and Amphibian Collection” license in place of separate hunting and fishing licenses (or the combination license) for herp collecting purposes, with an associated reporting requirement, as well as establishment of a “Closed Season Reptile and Amphibian Photography” permit or stamp, which could either be purchased in addition to the resident or nonresident Reptile and Amphibian Collection license or intrinsically included in the purchase of that license; 5) the need for herp-targeted conservation funds for AGFD; 6) a form letter to AGFD addressing Commission Orders #41 (amphibians) and #43 (reptiles), for use by the AZ PARC membership, which suggests season closures of species whose distribution has undergone significant documented decline, is otherwise severely restricted in Arizona, or for which collecting pressure may cause such a decline; and 7) bag and possession limits set for western diamond-backed and Mohave rattlesnakes, whether these limits should be reduced from their current level of four per person per day or in possession live or dead, and ways to seek consensus on a more appropriate possible limit. There are additional items for comparison in the model herp regulations that were not addressed during the meeting due to time constraints. It is the intent of PRT to address these items in the future, prior to the next general meeting, and make recommendations to AGFD, if appropriate. More information on the topics listed above are available on the AZ PARC web page.

The PRT TWG also reviewed AZ PARC’s role in affecting change in policy and regulation. This issue pertains to the PRT TWG’s ability to formulate positions regarding herp management in AZ on behalf of AZ PARC as a group or via independent comment of its members using tools provided by the PRT. No direction was received to date, and the item was tabled. Finally, the TWG briefly reviewed how the PRT TWG can be more efficient and effective in meeting the needs of the general membership. No strong comments were made that required revisiting the protocols of the PRT with respect to AZ PARC.

More details about the Policy/Regulation/Trade TWG projects here.

4) Management TWG
Jeff Sorensen gave a presentation to the Management TWG on the Arizona Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy being developed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. This is an opportunity for AZ PARC to be involved in setting priorities for herp management at the state level and provide a unified voice in that effort. Jeff Sorenson will keep the group informed.

The TWG discussed ways to make the Habitat Management Guidelines (HMGs) currently in development for the Arid Southwest more user friendly. Ideas included producing a CD-ROM w/ a PDF, developing a web-based management library to compliment the HMGs (in conjunction with research and website committees), and training land managers in use of the HMGs.

A statewide bullfrog eradication and management planning process wasproposed. The first steps in developing a bullfrog management plan will be coordinating a working group and then mapping distribution. Comments are requested on the outline plan available from Trevor Hare (trevor@SkyIslandAlliance.org). The TWG will also contact the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Aquatic Invasive Species folks to coordinate efforts.

Chytrid management was discussed, particularly the need to increase knowledge both by researchers and others. Ideas included sample collection kits and outreach to biologists/land managers about field hygiene.

Finally, the Management TWG discussed Department of Transportation issues as they relate to outreach to State and County DOTs on design and maintenance issues regarding herps.

5) Inventory/Monitoring TWG
I&M conservation issues and goals identified at the inaugural AZ PARC meeting were reviewed. A draft concept proposal for an Atlas of Arizona's Amphibians and Reptiles (AAAR) was presented as one possible solution that could address all of the inventory goals raised at the inaugural meeting. Many monitoring initiatives would likely benefit as well. During the break-out session, the I&M TWG discussed the scope, structure and approach of a concept proposal for AAAR.

1) A two-phase approach to building the AAAR was broadly endorsed by meeting participants. Under this model, specimen-based information would be incorporated beginning immediately, and "observation-based" information would be incorporated in later stages. However, meeting participants agreed that some observation-based elements required planning at project inception. Specifically, it was agreed that HDMS representatives should be involved in AAAR planning/design/development as soon as possible.

2) Alternatives to basing the AAAR at the herpetological collections of the state's Universities were discussed. However, there was broad support for a collections-based project ... particularly during the database-building phase and into the foreseeable future, so long as the Universities demonstrate a commitment/ability to support the project. The collections offer ready access to the bulk of Arizona's specimens, taxonomic expertise necessary for ID verifications, infrastructural support, and are already integrated in HerpNET as geo-referencing partners for Arizona specimens.

3) We briefly discussed marketing and potential funding sources. A variety of potential funding sources were identified, from the agency, private, and NGO sectors. It was agreed that AZ PARC should solicit and incorporate comments from the I&M committee, AZ PARC membership at large, and AGFD on the draft concept proposal. After the concept proposal is finalized, it will be sent to a broad spectrum of potential funding sources, with an invitation to attend an informational meeting in September.

Finally the I&M TWG agreed that a forum on the AZ PARC web site would be helpful to continue discussions as the AAAR proposal is developed. The group agreed to limit access via a password to the forum to I&M TWG members, only to limit random traffic; any AZ PARC member may join and participate on the I&M TWG and receive the forum password from the chair (Andy Holycross).

6) Research TWG
Last year noone volunteered to chair the Research TWG, so at this meeting Eric Stitt (University of Arizona) volunteered to assume this role. The second order of business was to review a list of “research priorities” generated at last year’s meeting. These included:
Sponsorship and funding
Support (reactive approaches)
Advisory/advocacy (proactive approach)
Synthesis
Database of research

We then opened discussion to all other ideas and worked through lunch, during which we brainstormed additional potential roles for the working group. Ideas generated during that session included:
Volunteer coordination
Science advisory (recommendations to funding groups)
Link between other working groups and funding
Database of funding sources
Research priorities of funding agencies
New Current Research on Herpetofauna of the Sonoran Desert symposium

After much debate on all these issues, we agreed that our role would be to facilitate information sharing between researchers, and that this would be largely a web-based effort. We identified 2 general categories of priority. The first, Web-based Information Dissemination, would include databases of researchers and their work, current and historic literature, volunteer postings, available funding sources, and a bibliography of gray literature (with links to pdf files of AZFD documents). The second, Research Advocacy and Identifying Research Needs, would have our group identify areas of research where there was a critical need for information that was not being met. We might then make recommendations or requests to suitable funding sources and influence where research dollars were spent. It was generally felt that, although we may aspire to this role in the future, this was not a charge that we should take on immediately.

We decided that the first task to undertake as a working group would be to establish a web-based database of herpetological workers in Arizona. We envision this as a comprehensive effort, inclusive of all state, federal, academic, and non-affiliated people who work with amphibians and reptiles. We would post a web-page for each person summarizing their work, collaborators, taxa on which they perform research, and other information. Links from that page might direct a reader to the researcher’s own web page or CV, to other researchers, to the researcher’s affiliation, or to other places of interest. We envision the database as being searchable by name, taxon, or location. We assigned tasks to working group members and will talk to Tom Brennan (Web Chair) about the feasibility of this project and about other related issues.

7) TWG Rosters
TWG rosters are noted below and include names from the 2003 meeting. If anyone wishes to be removed from a particular distribution list, please contact the appropriate Chair (e-mail addresses are included at the end of the meeting summary). Likewise, individuals not present at the meeting but who are interested in participating are encouraged to contact the committee chair.

What went especially well? Why? (2004 comments only)
• Break-out sessions (6 comments)
• Stayed focused (2 comments)
• Well organized and stayed on schedule (2 comments)
• Good space (2 comments), refreshements, background materials
• Overview discussions
• Good to have face-to-face time
• Quick group organization, discussion of important issues, and delegated quickly and appropriately
• Lots accomplished! Effective
• Good diversity of interested participants
• Prior planning & organization allowed us to cover the broad range of issues, needs, & projects with some depth, but without bogging down with too much detail in some areas & skipping over others
• This meeting went much more smoothly than last year. We clearly have learned a lot about where we want PARC to go in this past year.
• Flow of meeting went well.
• TWG breakout was slightly chaotic due to interests in various issues, but enthusiasm was noted and welcomed.

What needed the most improvement? Why? (2004 comments only)
• Not enough time to deal with diverse topics/more time for TWGs (5 comments)
• 2 meetings/year (3 comments)
• Trying to bring together divergent philosophies to the support of conservation is a difficult, but noble, task.
• More focus on immediate goals
• More involvement from all participants
• E-mailing the proposed organizational structure before-hand would help (note: notice of its availability on the web site was included in the meeting announcement)
• 2-day meetings
• Hard to pick only 1 break-out session
• We did more brainstorming in workgroups about potential new priorities, but we may want to have some sort of ranking system as a group
• Lack of specifying particular tasks for specific people to do by deadlines. This almost guarantees slow & limited progress.
• More volunteers!
• Making sure that expertise is on hand to clarify AGFD internal policies & procedures that are pertinent to PARC workings – possibly the same for USFWS & some other agencies
• There was some “chatting” going on while presentations were in progress; the “chatters” could have been asked to go outside
• The web site is a great start, but we need to take advantage of the web to optimize PARC’s potential to influence the public and other possible partners.

9) Meeting Participants

Affiliation Summary:
14 State government
7 Federal government
1 County government
1 Native American government
14 NGOs/herp societies
15 Academia
6 Private
6 Recreational (inferred)
64 Total