Pete Thomas Outdoors

Can a pet store rescue and re-home a garter snake?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: We own a pet store in Northern California and also help to rescue animals and then place them in suitable homes. A client recently asked us to help rescue a 12-year-old garter snake and then adopt it out back to a good home. My questions are, is it even legal for us to possess a garter snake within our shop? Next, if we are able to possess it in our shop, can we charge our standard adoption fees to a new owner for our services in order to help place this snake in a new home? (Anonymous)

Answer: If the garter snake is native to California, then it is not legal to sell or even possess within the pet store. According to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Wildlife Officer Kyle Chang, it would also not be legal to charge a fee to rehome the garter snake since they are not on the list of snakes that are legal to “sell” in California, and “sell” includes possession for sale, barter, exchange or trade. Pet shops can only sell snakes under certain conditions. It’s also not legal for anyone to release the snake back into the wild. (California Code of Regulations Title 14, sections 40(c), 40(e), 43(c), 43(c)(1), 43(f)(2) and Fish and Game Code section 75 all apply to this answer.)

If, however, the garter snake is non-native to California, then CDFW regulations do not apply (except for the illegal release of the garter snake into the wild), but all other state, county and city laws relating to the pet trade may still apply.


Q: Can you discuss ocean fish possession limits? I often see people coming to our area to fish for several days in a row and they take a limit every day without eating or gifting any of the fish to someone else. On day three, when they depart from the ocean, they have three limits of rockfish in a cooler. It’s not right. Most folks do not know or understand that the daily bag limit is also the possession limit for most fish. Just a thought to help educate. Thanks! (Ryan H., San Luis Obispo)

Can time-release fish feeders attract bears to a pond?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: I have a question regarding a fish pond at the house we recently purchased in Tahoe. We aren’t up there all the time so I was thinking about tossing in a time-release fish feeder but do not want to attract bears. It would basically be the flake stuff in a compressed block form. The four goldfish occupying the pond seem to do fine for long periods without food and even survived for several months before we bought the house. They must have been eating bugs, algae or whatever. I’d hate for them to have struggled to survive all that time, and then I come along and think I’m doing a good thing by feeding them, and end up attracting bears.

The house is definitely in bear territory and only a block away from forest area. The fish are located in a pond in the front yard. My question is whether or not a bear is able to smell a time-release Tetramin fish feeder. Is this something to worry about? Any information you can provide would be much appreciated! Thanks. (Liz C., Lake Tahoe)

Answer: Regarding bears’ ability to smell and potentially be attracted to your automatic feeder, according to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Black Bear Program Coordinator Marc Kenyon, the answer is yes. Bears can smell fish food and are attracted to it. What’s worse is if they are attracted to the pond by the smell of the feed, then they may decide to snack on your fish in addition to the fish food.

Kenyon recommends feeding your fish with time-release pellets (feeding blocks). He has done this with his aquarium fish while away on vacation or out in the field, and he claims it worked well for him. These pellets are little disks that you toss into the pond, and over time water dissolves the material that holds it together. This process works slowly, and depending on the size of the pellet, it could last for about a month or two. The benefit to this approach is that because they are submerged, they do not put off any odor into the air, and thus bears won’t be attracted to your pond.


Q: An interesting question came up at the fish cleaning station concerning an actual trip. This was sport fishing, not commercial or commercial passenger. There is one boat that holds three people, including the captain. The scenario is the captain goes out ocean fishing with fisherpersons A and B, and returns with full limits of salmon (six). The captain drops off both people and picks up fisherperson C. Can the boat still fish with two rods under the boat limits rule, or are they limited to one rod as the captain has already caught his fish earlier in the day? The consensus at the table was he would be at risk of a violation. (David G.)

World's oldest-known wild bear dies of old age at 39

The world's oldest-known wild bear has died, reportedly of old age, at 39-1/2.

The female black bear, known to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources researchers as Bear No. 56, was found in a secluded wooded location by DNR bear researcher Karen Noyce, who tracked her by using the signal from the bear's radio collar.

From all indications, Bear No. 56 died a quiet death, with no evidence of injury or struggle.

"We knew she was getting feeble," Noyce said. "It would have been sad to find her on the side of the road somewhere, hit by a car. After following her all these years, I’m glad to know she died peacefully. It was a fitting death for a fine old bear." Noyce had been involved in the first capture of Bear No. 56 in 1981.

Bear No. 56 outlived any radio-collared bear of any species in the world -- the second-oldest was a brown bear that lived to age 34. She also outlived by 19 years all of the 360 other radio-collared black bears that Minnesota DNR researchers have followed since the bear research program began in 1981.

"This is the first bear in our study to die of old age, and there is something satisfying in that," said Noyce.

Researchers attribute Bear No. 56's survival to a few factors, including that her home range was located in an area with few people or major roads, as well as just plain luck.

"Getting this information about this bear has taken a lot of effort," said Dave Garshelis, DNR bear project leader. "It was not just documenting that she lived to be so old, but understanding how she was able to live to be so much older than other bears that made this incredibly interesting and useful."

-- Kelly Burgess

Image of Bear No. 56 roaming the woods in June 2013 courtesy of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Legal to collect live marine organisms for a home aquarium?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: What are the explicit regulations concerning the collection of live marine organisms for use in a personal marine aquarium? I am interested in collecting octopus. From what I understand, live fish are not to be taken under any circumstances. But it seems that some other organisms are allowed as long as they do not come from a protected area. I am a marine biology student who wants to have a simple native "tide pool type" of aquarium for my own personal delight. I do have a California sport fishing license. (Cristiana A.)

Answer: Octopus may be collected for a home aquarium and transported live under the authority of a sport fishing license as long as they are exclusively for that person’s personal aquarium display. Maintaining live sport-taken octopus in a home aquarium is not considered public "display" and thus does not fall under the provisions of the marine aquaria pet trade (Fish and Game Code, sections 8596-8597). Transporting live "finfish" (as opposed to mollusks and crustaceans) is prohibited (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 1.62).

Invertebrates collected under the authority of a sport fishing license may not be used to establish breeding colonies for sale or trade with other people. Any trading, selling or possession for sale or trade of these animals constitutes commercial marine aquaria pet trade activity and requires all parties to hold "marine aquaria collectors permits" authorizing this practice. A marine collector’s permit is also required for any animals on display for the public.

People collecting live marine invertebrates for a home aquarium may do so only under the authority of a sport fishing license, and only those species allowed under a sport fishing license may be taken. In addition, any species with sport fishing restrictions (e.g. bag, size, possession, season limits, methods of take, etc.) are still covered under those regulations, and so collectors must also abide by these laws.


Q: When legally fishing with two rods and you are one fish shy of your limit, can you still fish with two rods or do you need to cut back to just one for the final fish to fill your limit? (Neil M.)

Legal to release pet ducks to the wild?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: I have some ducks that I would like to find a good home for but I’m not sure where to start. They have been pets and I don’t want to eat them or risk giving them to someone else who will eat them. I’d like to release them into the wild and am hoping you can advise where I can do this. I’m willing to donate them someplace as long as I know they won’t get eaten. (Mike)

Answer: I understand you are seeking a good home for your pets, but releasing domestic animals into the wild is a bad plan and often has disastrous results. Typically, domestic animals depend on humans for food and are ill-equipped to take care of themselves in the wild. When released to the wild, many end up starving to death or falling prey to any number of predators.

If the animals do survive, they often become a nuisance in their new home and may cause damage because they tend to seek out people for food. Domestic animals also compete for resources with wildlife, and in some cases may breed with their wild counterparts which reduces the genetic fitness of wildlife populations. There is also a real possibility of introducing domestic diseases to wildlife that have no immunity. This may cause die-offs, sometimes quite massive ones. In addition to all of this, it is also against the law. Any person who willfully abandons an animal is guilty of a misdemeanor under California Penal Code, section 597s.

You might try posting a notice at a local farm or agricultural store because many of these stores regularly sell domestic ducklings. You could also search for petting zoos or small city zoos to see if they may be interested in giving them a good home. If that doesn’t work out, try advertising on the Internet. You might also check with local schools and ask friends.

Bottom line … you have a number of options to explore in your quest to find a new home for your feathered friends, but releasing them into the wild should not be one of the them.


Q: I’ve recently been to a few beaches where I’ve found red abalone shells that have washed up on the shore. I’ve collected a few shell fragments and have made jewelry from them. Friends of mine have shown the items to others and now they want me to make them items as well. My questions is … Is it illegal for me to collect red abalone shells and then make jewelry, then sell them to friends, and so forth? I’ve gotten mixed answers from the Web and have tried to navigate your Website. I have seen no definitive answer. If anyone could respond to this it would be great. (Matt R.)

What can be done to control nuisance crows?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: I live in Redondo Beach and was told by the city to ask you what could be done about an infestation of the nuisance birds that are an absolute plague in our neighborhood. I have small children that are woken up by these vile creatures starting at 3 a.m. to around 8 a.m.! Please get back to me and let me know what I can and cannot do. (Armando R.)

Answer: There is a provision in the Fish and Game regulations that allows for landowners to destroy (shoot) crows that are damaging farm fields or other crops. However, it seems this is not what you are dealing with, not to mention the fact that firearms cannot be discharged within city limits. If I interpret your question correctly, your principle complaint is the noise level.

There are actually a number of cities that have similar problems with crows and the cities have coordinated with either the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture or the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife to implement abatement measures. Here is a good article written by the Washington Department of Wildlife regarding nuisance crows http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/crows.html. As you will see as you read it, it’s a tough issue because most of the abatement measures work only for short periods of time. If you believe the crows are in such a concentration that they create a public health hazard (droppings), then your city or county health department should be notified.

Bottom line, if the roosting crow population continues to grow, the city may need to get involved by contacting the USDA, Wildlife Services Division.


Q: Yesterday I caught and released a Pacific angel shark. At first I did not know what it was. It looked like a guitar fish but was different. After looking through the regulations, I didn’t see anything about the Pacific angel shark. Is there a bag limit and/or size limit on them? Or are they a protected species? I also caught and released a broadnose sevengill shark. The regulations list a limit of one but no size limit. Does this mean any size can be taken? (Alan V.)

Any health dangers associated with eating ground squirrels?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: I heard there are some concerns with eating ground squirrels in general. Is there some truth to this? If so, why do I see recipes to cook and eat them? Are they like chicken and pork where if you ensure the meat is cooked thoroughly, you should be okay? I like to go squirrel hunting with my son, but tree squirrels may not be hunted. Ground squirrels are our only option. Any guidance would be helpful! (Highhorse L.)

Answer: California ground squirrels are not a game animal, and so from a legal standpoint, they have no bag or possession limits. If taken in the condor zone, they must be hunted with non-lead ammunition.

However, before attempting to eat them, according to California Department of Fish and Wildlife veterinarians, there’s a lot we don’t know about diseases in ground squirrels. We do know they carry fleas and are highly susceptible to plague and probably die within a short period of time after exposure to the disease agent.

Also, anyone even thinking of eating ground squirrels should first make sure there is no chemical ground squirrel control going on in the area because ground squirrels are commonly controlled by anticoagulant rodenticides. If the ground squirrel consumes a non-lethal dose, the rodenticide would still persist in their tissues for a few weeks or months.

Be aware that both the Center for Disease Control and Prevention website www.cdc.gov/plague/ and the California Department of Public Health site www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/discond/Pages/Plague.aspx indicate the greatest risk of acquiring plague is being around infected rodents like ground squirrels due to their fleas. Humans usually get the disease after being bitten by a rodent flea that is carrying the plague bacterium or by handling an animal infected with plague. During the Middle Ages, plague is infamous for killing millions of people in Europe. Today, modern antibiotics are effective in treating plague. Without prompt treatment, the disease can cause serious illness or death.

Plague is endemic everywhere in California, except the southeastern desert and the Central Valley. It is not active everywhere in that range though, so before your hunt I suggest you contact the county public health department in the areas you will be hunting to find out the status and history of plague in those areas.

If after reading all this you’re still determined to eat them, like with all wildlife, make sure they are cooked thoroughly. Proper preparation and cooking is key to avoiding and minimizing exposure to disease.

Q: I have a question concerning spear fishing for carp. When I was a kid, we used to go into the creeks and spear big carp. On the Russian River during the fall, I would see tens of thousands of huge carp congregating. Can I let my kids go into the water with a mask and fins and spear these 10-20+ pound carps? I would think that would be helpful for the river and we can pass the meat out to our multi-cultural friends. (Anonymous)

'Mysterious Mel' the killer whale returns to San Diego area

A killer whale spotted Thursday at the Coronado Islands, just inside Mexican waters, is a peculiar mammal affectionately nicknamed Mel... or Mysterious Mel.

It's the same orca spotted last June and July in the same area--and during those sightings and Thursday's sighting Mel was seen swimming with a large pod of common dolphins.

That's what makes Mel so peculiar, since killer whales and common dolphins aren't usually friendly toward one another, and since some types of killer whales prey on dolphins.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, the killer whale was photographed by Judy Lawrence, a volunteer for the San Diego Natural History Museum's whaler program.

She was aboard an H&M Landing vessel and the Mel spotting was near North Coronado Island.

Lawrence said in a phone interview that the group had first spotted a "megapod" of common dolphins swimming at high speed, and that two kids from Oklahoma were the first to announce that there was a killer whale with the dolphins.

"Then I looked over and saw the dorsal fin," Lawrence said.

Lawrence also said the captain claimed to have spotted two killer whales, but a double sighting during the 30-minute encounter was not confirmed.

Killer whale researcher Alisa Schulman-Janiger, after comparing photographs taken last summer and Thursday, positively identified Mel on Friday.

Mel was named in honor of Melissa Panfili Galieti, a naturalist who spotted the juvenile male orca--her first wild orca sighting--off San Diego last June 23. Schulman-Janiger dubbed him "Mysterious Mel" because so little is known about the mammal.

"We don't know where he came from or who his family is," Schulman-Janiger said.

It's not known whether Mel is an orphan--though that seems likely--or how much time he spends with dolphins.

He has been spotted and photographed with other killer whales before, off Baja California and in U.S. waters. But during most sightings Mel was with his unlikely dolphin companions.

--Pete Thomas

--Photo of 'Mysterious Mel,' captured Thursday at North Coronado Island, is courtesy of Judy Lawrence

--Note: San Diego whale watchers will be on the lookout for Mel over the next few weeks. If anyone captures sharp images of any orcas in the region, please email them, with sighting information, to Alisa Schulman-Janiger at [email protected]

Legal to bring fish and game back from Mexico?

In support of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and its effort to keep hunters and anglers informed, Pete Thomas Outdoors, on Thursday or Friday, posts marine biologist Carrie Wilson's weekly California Outdoors Q&A column:

Question: I fish in Mexico and have a question regarding bringing them back to the U.S. I saw a statement on Facebook where the poster said we cannot bring cowcod or fillets into U.S. waters even if we have a signed declaration to present with the fish. Despite the fact cowcod are not legal to possess in California, they are legal to catch in Mexico.

I would like to know if this is true as many things posted on the Internet are not always correct. If it is correct, is this also true for the other three protected rockfishes -- canary, yelloweye and bronzespotted rockfish? If I take a legal Mexican limit of five bocaccio, would I be limited to bringing only three back into California? Also, I hunt in Mexico where it is legal to take 60 doves. At the border, could I declare the 60 doves when I cross the border or would I only be able to have the California limit of 10 doves? What are the laws? Since I am hunting and fishing in another country and abiding by their laws, do I have to also abide by California laws when I import game from another country? (Randy H.)

Answer: It is unlawful to import or possess birds, mammals, fish, reptile or amphibian taken from outside of this state unless the following requirements are met (as per Fish and Game Code, section 2353):

    •    The animals were legally taken and legally possessed outside of this state.
    •    California and federal codes and regulations do not expressly prohibit their possession in this state.
    •    A declaration is submitted to the department or a designated state or federal agency at or immediately before the time of entry, in the form and manner prescribed by the department.
Therefore, even if the fish were legally taken in Mexico but are prohibited here in California, then they cannot be brought back here. This means while cowcod, canary, yelloweye and bronzespotted rockfishes may be legally caught and possessed in Mexico, they cannot be brought back to California. Filleting is also not allowed in Mexico, so no fish taken in Mexico can be brought back to California in a filleted condition.

Deer with plastic jar stuck on its head gets helping hand

A white-tailed deer with its head stuck in a large plastic jar received a helping hand from a caring Minnesota woman, and likely survived because of it.

Janet Murphy, of Hermantown, Minn., noticed the doe which normally frequented her yard had a large, plastic container stuck on its head, preventing it from eating and drinking.

"I’m just thankful it could get some air in there," Murphy told the Duluth News Tribune.

Murphy contacted the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and was told that she should just let nature take its course.

"I would let nature take its course, but this was manmade. This was a plastic container on its head," she said.   

A frustrated Murphy posted her plight on Facebook, and someone suggested she contact Wildwoods, a wildlife rehabilitation organization in Duluth, for advice and assistance.

A Wildwoods volunteer came to Murphy's home and left her with a a 10-foot catchpole -- a long, metal rod with a cable noose at the end that can be put over an animal’s head and cinched -- reasoning that because the doe seemed comfortable around Murphy she would be able to use the pole and get the jar off.

About four days after first spotting the deer, Murphy had her opportunity.

“I came home, and it was lying on the edge of the woods," said Murphy. "I thought, 'Well, I’ll try it.' I got the catchpole and started approaching her. She stood up and kind of backed up into some trees. I extended the catchpole as far as I could. The cable on the catchpole went around the bucket.

"When I started securing it, she started jumping just like in a rodeo," Murphy said. "Up in the air and down. Side to side. She got on the ground and started to roll."

Murphy persevered, and finally got the jar off the stricken animal. "I pulled straight down on the ground, and it popped right off."

The doe walked off into the woods, returning to Murphy's yard later to eat from a deer feeder. That was the last this good Samaritan saw of the doe.

"I haven't seen her since. I hope she made it," remarked Murphy.

--  Kelly Burgess

Image courtesy of Janet Murphy and Wildwoods via Facebook