Wild Scaleless

[dawsona1]

I caught this on Wednesday last week. It was 90 degrees out in a hard wood forest in East Tennessee. Can anyone tell help with identification?

[dawsona1]

I caught this on Wednesday last week. It was 90 degrees out in a hard wood forest in East Tennessee. Can anyone tell help with identification?Here are more images of the scaleless snake i caught.

[Bandit]

The head looks like a garter. I'll look into TN snakes more in a little bit. And it had no scales?

It certainly is beautiful and an incredible find.

[macandchz]

i thought scaleless snakes had to be bred. very interesting!

[dawsona1]

It only had scales on it's belly, head, and on the tip of the tail. I released it after I took the pictures. If you zoom in on the head pictures you can see the skin stretching where there should be scales. It felt like soft skin when rubbed in both directions.

[Bandit]

That's insane. Amazing find. You should contact your state herpetologist and let them know, I'm sure that's something they'd be interested in. And again, looks like a garter to me, but I'm not overly familiar with the snakes in your area. It's certainly a crazy mutation.

[Albert Clark]

I think it may be a t.s.sirtalis intergrade with the bizarre and aberrant patterning. Eastern garter snake intergrade.

[dawsona1]

The state herpetologist society is the first group that got the pictures and no reply yet. I think they are freaking out, lol. :hmm:

[Bandit]

I'm sure they were. I'm usually not tempted to take animals from the wild, but I'd certainly be thinking about it if I would've come across that one lol.

[FWK]

Scaleless Eastern Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis). Incredible find. If you find it again please hang onto it, it will not last long in the wild. Any Garter enthusiast would love to have it.

[RAD House]

I saw this on Facebook and the snake was found in a state where it is illegal to keep wild caught animals. Much respect to the op for respecting conservation above their own wants.

[FWK]

Mmm, Tennessee requires permits to possess native Class II animals. "Nonpoisonous" snakes are included under Class II. Interesting that it is stated in the law "poisonous reptiles" are considered Class I animals. There is no mention of venomous reptiles. Tennessee is not a friendly state to wildlife enthusiasts.

https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/twra/attachments/TennCode_70_4_403.pdf

http://share.tn.gov/sos/rules/1660/1660-01/1660-01-18.20151022.pdf

I saw this on Facebook and the snake was found in a state where it is illegal to keep wild caught animals. Much respect to the op for respecting conservation above their own wants.

Keeping or releasing this animal has nothing to do with conservation. This animal will not live long in the wild, there are reasons snakes have scales and this snake is at an extreme disadvantage without them. Nature will not be kind to this animal. Unfortunately, having been found in a state that applies the precautionary principle to its wildlife laws, the only legal option is to leave it be.

[infernalis]

Saw this on Facebook. Thanks for sharing it here..

[dawsona1]

Yeah. I am working for a naturalist and I had three interns with me when caught it so it would be a bad precedent to set.

[Bandit]

Good on you for releasing it, especially considering the circumstances with those interns. And again, great find.

[eminart]

Cool find. First time I've ever seen that in a garter snake. I've often wondered if the scaleless mutation is a newer mutation that developed after reptiles evolved. Or, if it is somehow related to primitive amphibian genes.

[RAD House]

Mmm, Tennessee requires permits to possess native Class II animals. "Nonpoisonous" snakes are included under Class II. Interesting that it is stated in the law "poisonous reptiles" are considered Class I animals. There is no mention of venomous reptiles. Tennessee is not a friendly state to wildlife enthusiasts.

https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/twra/attachments/TennCode_70_4_403.pdf

http://share.tn.gov/sos/rules/1660/1660-01/1660-01-18.20151022.pdf



Keeping or releasing this animal has nothing to do with conservation. This animal will not live long in the wild, there are reasons snakes have scales and this snake is at an extreme disadvantage without them. Nature will not be kind to this animal. Unfortunately, having been found in a state that applies the precautionary principle to its wildlife laws, the only legal option is to leave it be.

Do we really need to have a discussion on the pressure collecting wild specimens can have on a population? If so feel free to pm me as it is off topic. Also it is your opinion that the snake will not survive.

[Akuma223]

You should have kept it, a scaleless snake is screwed in the wild.

[FWK]

Do we really need to have a discussion on the pressure collecting wild specimens can have on a population? If so feel free to pm me as it is off topic. Also it is your opinion that the snake will not survive.

Collecting individual specimens, particularly juveniles, has zero impact on local populations. Nature has built in measures to deal with such losses. It's no different than had the animal been preyed on. Collecting in large numbers in an isolated area, say, for example, collecting everything in a Rattlesnake hibernaculum, is a little different, certainly not what we are talking about here. Every snake you own comes from field collected stock. A few generations removed perhaps, but field collected nonetheless. The building you live in and the roads that you drive on have done more damage to wildlife populations of all kinds than you could in a lifetime of collecting. You will do far more good cultivating and protecting habitat than attempting to tear down the reptile hobby from within.

If scaleless snakes could survive in the wild there would be pockets of them occurring in many species, in many places. It's like albinism, or any other genetic mutation that is disadvantageous. These things are rare in the wild because they put the animal at higher risk of predation, injury, disease, or impairs their ability to preform basic necessary functions such as feeding or shedding. For example, albino Rat Snakes are extremely rare in the wild, even though the gene in known to be carried by a number of populations across the US. These animals spend a lot time in trees or other conspicuous locations, and rely heavily on their camouflage to avoid predation. Albinism makes them easy to spot, and they are quickly picked off by birds or other predators. Rough Earth Snakes, conversely, spend their entire lives underground, where camouflage means nothing. As a result there are at least a couple places in Texas alone where albino Rough Earths are found with some regularity. Similarly, there is a known population of hypo Ringnecks in Georgia.

[eminart]

Collecting individual specimens, particularly juveniles, has zero impact on local populations. Nature has built in measures to deal with such losses. It's no different than had the animal been preyed on. Collecting in large numbers in an isolated area, say, for example, collecting everything in a Rattlesnake hibernaculum, is a little different, certainly not what we are talking about here. Every snake you own comes from field collected stock. A few generations removed perhaps, but field collected nonetheless. The building you live in and the roads that you drive on have done more damage to wildlife populations of all kinds than you could in a lifetime of collecting. You will do far more good cultivating and protecting habitat than attempting to tear down the reptile hobby from within.

If scaleless snakes could survive in the wild there would be pockets of them occurring in many species, in many places. It's like albinism, or any other genetic mutation that is disadvantageous. These things are rare in the wild because they put the animal at higher risk of predation, injury, disease, or impairs their ability to preform basic necessary functions such as feeding or shedding. For example, albino Rat Snakes are extremely rare in the wild, even though the gene in known to be carried by a number of populations across the US. These animals spend a lot time in trees or other conspicuous locations, and rely heavily on their camouflage to avoid predation. Albinism makes them easy to spot, and they are quickly picked off by birds or other predators. Rough Earth Snakes, conversely, spend their entire lives underground, where camouflage means nothing. As a result there are at least a couple places in Texas alone where albino Rough Earths are found with some regularity. Similarly, there is a known population of hypo Ringnecks in Georgia.


I love it when someone understands science and conservation.

[RAD House]

The stock that created my collection was more than likely bought in more than ten years ago when the industry was much smaller and there were not nearly as many people grabbing up snakes from the wild. For the record my house was built in the forties, I ride my bicycle more than often than not, my vehicles consist of a 70s motorcycle and a diesel I am working on converting to biodiesel. Just because we have an effect on the environment doesn't mean we should not try to have as little as possible.
Let's just say they did take this one, chances are they would collect another four of the opposite sex. This person's friends hear about the opportunity to get into a new "morph" likely collecting another five a piece. This happens another ten times, that is fifty wild caught animals taken out of a single population. I am sure there were many who think similarly to you, in fact look at what happened to Boelens pythons and indigo snakes. Wild collecting has historically done more harm than good. The fact that you believe nature has built in protection against human intervention shows you do not have a good understanding of conservation.

There are many reasons genes do not propagate in a population and death is only one of them. Some major ones dealing with being a successful breeder come to mind. As far as not being able to survive, several scaleless specimens across several species have been found in the wild from hatching to mature adults. Besides hear say do you have any proof a scaleless animal will not survive in the wild?

[eminart]

in fact look at what happened to indigo snakes. Wild collecting has historically done more harm than good. The fact that you believe nature has built in protection against human intervention shows you do not have a good understanding of conservation.



You're actually wrong here. By far the largest problem for indigo snakes is that we've lost over 90% of longleaf pine forests in the southeast. And, what we have left is segmented by roads and development.

And he's right that snakes, and all prey animals have built in population control. All animals produce far, far more babies than the environment can support. A few of the adults die each year, and the strongest/luckiest babies live to fill that spot. If this wasn't so, snake populations would explode off the charts in about 4 years. Multiply clutch size X clutch size X clutch size for a few years and tell me how that many snakes can fit into a population? In reality, in a balanced ecosystem, there's only room for two babies from each pair of snakes to make it to adulthood in their parents' lifetime.

Thems the facts.

[FWK]

The stock that created my collection was more than likely bought in more than ten years ago when the industry was much smaller and there were not nearly as many people grabbing up snakes from the wild. For the record my house was built in the forties, I ride my bicycle more than often than not, my vehicles consist of a 70s motorcycle and a diesel I am working on converting to biodiesel. Just because we have an effect on the environment doesn't mean we should not try to have as little as possible.
Let's just say they did take this one, chances are they would collect another four of the opposite sex. This person's friends hear about the opportunity to get into a new "morph" likely collecting another five a piece. This happens another ten times, that is fifty wild caught animals taken out of a single population. I am sure there were many who think similarly to you, in fact look at what happened to Boelens pythons and indigo snakes. Wild collecting has historically done more harm than good. The fact that you believe nature has built in protection against human intervention shows you do not have a good understanding of conservation.

There are many reasons genes do not propagate in a population and death is only one of them. Some major ones dealing with being a successful breeder come to mind. As far as not being able to survive, several scaleless specimens across several species have been found in the wild from hatching to mature adults. Besides hear say do you have any proof a scaleless animal will not survive in the wild?

The fact that your house is that old means not only was habitat destroyed in order to built it, but said habitat has been prevented from healing for 70+ years. It is not possible to stop human progress, I certainly do not want to live in a little mud hut, but in order to protect the world we live in as best we can, we must understand the remarkable damage even the house we live in does. Indigos require a large home range that contains a number of different habitats. These habitats have been fragmented by roads and destroyed by neighborhoods. In addition, Indigos mature slowly and reproduce in small numbers. They are not well equipped to handle human encroachment, they need our help to restore and protect habitat if they are going to survive. Common Garters, on the other hand, mature quickly, are very prolific, do not need a very large home range, and can thrive in a number of habitats. The scenario you propose would have little impact on the population in that area. I already offered reasoning for why scaleless snakes do not do well in the wild. Suggesting it has anything to do with collection is extremely short sighted. These animals have existed for millenia, the reptile bobby but decades.

[RAD House]

Your telling me wild collection had nothing to do with the decrease of indigos? More to my point can you give one example where collecting for an industry has benefited a wild species? Predator prey model does not apply to human collecting. Fact. We do not collect the weakest and slowest, we do not stop collecting when our bellies are full, and most importantly our population numbers are not dependent on our "prey" items.

[FWK]

Indigos from captive breeding populations have been reintroduced to the wild in the south east in an effort to repopulate areas where habitat has been recently restored. Collections, both private and public, represent a virtual Arc for many threatened species. I'm not suggesting collection has had no effect on Eastern Indigo populations, but that those effects are negligible in relation to habitat loss. Collection, on any scale, has no effect on Eastern Garter populations, however. Or on scaleless populations of any species, for that matter.

[RAD House]

The fact that your house is that old means not only was habitat destroyed in order to built it, but said habitat has been prevented from healing for 70+ years. It is not possible to stop human progress, I certainly do not want to live in a little mud hut, but in order to protect the world we live in as best we can, we must understand the remarkable damage even the house we live in does. Indigos require a large home range that contains a number of different habitats. These habitats have been fragmented by roads and destroyed by neighborhoods. In addition, Indigos mature slowly and reproduce in small numbers. They are not well equipped to handle human encroachment, they need our help to restore and protect habitat if they are going to survive. Common Garters, on the other hand, mature quickly, are very prolific, do not need a very large home range, and can thrive in a number of habitats. The scenario you propose would have little impact on the population in that area. I already offered reasoning for why scaleless snakes do not do well in the wild. Suggesting it has anything to do with collection is extremely short sighted. These animals have existed for millenia, the reptile bobby but decades.

Umm did I hear an echo. So what you are proposing is that neither humans or wild collecting has ever had an effect on a wild population?

[RAD House]

Indigos from captive breeding populations have been reintroduced to the wild in the south east in an effort to repopulate areas where habitat has been recently restored. Collections, both private and public, represent a virtual Arc for many threatened species. I'm not suggesting collection has had no effect on Eastern Indigo populations, but that those effects are negligible in relation to habitat loss. Collection, on any scale, has no effect on Eastern Garter populations, however. Or on scaleless populations of any species, for that matter.

We're these captive breeding programs purpose driven entities or reptile hobby types looking to sell for profit? That is a rhetorical question. I am sure I don't have to tell you about the risks of introduction from private parties, and that no responsible wildlife service would consider this. Either way that is not the case here no one would collect this specimen for reintroduction purposes. See how far off topic you got us? I still think the op acted in an incredibly responsible way, sorry if you do not agree. Well not really that sorry.:-)

[eminart]

Your telling me wild collection had nothing to do with the decrease of indigos?

I'm telling you it had very little to do with it, yes. The fact is, if the habitat still existed, wild collecting indigos, in sustainable numbers, wouldn't be a big deal. Wild collecting other common species, in small numbers, has zero impact. There's hardly a horde of people out there combing the woods searching for snakes that you can buy by the dozen for $20.

More to my point can you give one example where collecting for an industry has benefited a wild species?

I could, but that isn't the point. The point is whether it HARMS the species.

Predator prey model does not apply to human collecting. Fact. We do not collect the weakest and slowest, we do not stop collecting when our bellies are full, and most importantly our population numbers are not dependent on our "prey" items.

Yes, it does. Fact. And, the surplus babies (which is essentially all babies) aren't just there for prey. They fall victim to any number of deaths.

Again, who is collecting large numbers of garter snakes? Nobody.

Again, how many babies are supposed to make it to adulthood in the wild? To sustain populations, one pair of animals should produce one pair of animals to take their place in the ecosystem. Every single other one dies, in a balanced ecosystem. That's not per year, or per clutch. That's in that pair's lifetime. Otherwise, populations continue to grow. And that's not how nature works.

[RAD House]

eminart, yes that is how the predator prey model works. Now I gave you reasons why it doesn't not apply to wild collecting. What happens to a population when you continually remove the strongest and brightest, which generally is the most fit? As you collect when a species is on the downward fall of it's curve do you not put more pressure on the population? You forget many desirable species have only been dealing with collection pressure for the last 50 years with the boom in the exotic market. There are plenty of examples of wild collection harming and none examples of an industry based collection program helping a population. In my opinion there are smart pet practices and less than so.

[dawsona1]

Based on the research I have done there is no hydration issues because of a lack of scales. This little snake had a full belly and in my opinion had already carved out it's own niche in that particular forest. He had no scars and was quite lively. I'll never tell anyone where it was caught, and the interns have no idea about it's value. They are too interested in their smart phones to care about critters anyway. Maybe there will be a pocket of these cool little snakes someday.

[eminart]

eminart, yes that is how the predator prey model works. Now I gave you reasons why it doesn't not apply to wild collecting. What happens to a population when you continually remove the strongest and brightest, which generally is the most fit? As you collect when a species is on the downward fall of it's curve do you not put more pressure on the population? You forget many desirable species have only been dealing with collection pressure for the last 50 years with the boom in the exotic market. There are plenty of examples of wild collection harming and none examples of an industry based collection program helping a population. In my opinion there are smart pet practices and less than so.


You know what, I'm not going to do this. I just typed out a long paragraph of explanations that I know would be a waste. I think we've had this conversation before. I know you think you're right, and there's zero chance of me changing your mind. I appreciate that you have the best interest of wildlife in mind.

Just remember this, wildlife conservation is about populations, not individuals.

[Captain837]

Conservation is about maintaining healthy productive populations that are sustainable in their given area. Often times this requires harvesting a certain number of animals. It has been my experience (at least where I live) the most responsible and knowledgeable groups concerning this are the hunters rather than the animal rights groups.

As for taking 1 garter snake from the wild. To my knowledge that species is neither endangerd nor close to being endangered. I would say there is a far greater chance of placing a scale less mutated snake in the wild being a death sentence for that snake than keeping it leading to a decline of the wild population.

[Bandit]

I'm going to agree with the crowd on this one. Collecting a single garter snake (which mind you, is what this discussion originated as...not mass collecting) would not do any damage to the garter snake population. The fact is, if I go out and collect a garter snake, or a racer, or a water snake...the population will not be impacted in any significant way whatsoever. They are snakes that have adjusted quite well to human expansion and that's evident by the fact that you can not only still find them in their natural habitats, but you can find healthy populations in the middle of cities. It's just unreasonable to think that by collecting an individual garter snake the population will suffer.

I'll also agree with the fact that the effects of collecting wild specimens are negligible compared to other human actions, i.e. habitat destruction (which is certainly the main cause for population decline of indigos and many, many other species). Go drive down any road that cuts through prime habitat of a species, and you'll see DORs every day and night. I live on a road that I see fresh DOR garters, ribbons, waters, etc. every morning. More snakes die on that road in a year than I'd be able to collect in a lifetime, and that's just one road.

[RAD House]

Unfortunately we have upset the balance so badly, you are right captain. I just do not think this decision should be made by someone as badly informed as a hobbyist, including myself. It is against the law to collect wild animals in Tennessee, so I am not sure why we are trying to encourage poaching. These laws were more than likely put into place for a reason having nothing to do with animal rights groups. Unless you are collecting the worst specimens, you you are hurting the population by removing the best genes. Some would argue that this snake would be considered such a case, but according the person most close to this case this is not true. Further proving my point. Here is the thing Em, you have not told me anything about population science that I didn't learn from my college Ecology class. What you have failed to do is answer any of my questions or offer any proof of your assertions, so why would I change my mind? In your world one must prove you are harming a population to change your actions, but in my world you need to prove you are not doing harm. I just hope we as a hobby aren't trying to justify ourselves at the sake of the animals.

[Aaron_S]

Based on the research I have done there is no hydration issues because of a lack of scales. This little snake had a full belly and in my opinion had already carved out it's own niche in that particular forest. He had no scars and was quite lively. I'll never tell anyone where it was caught, and the interns have no idea about it's value. They are too interested in their smart phones to care about critters anyway. Maybe there will be a pocket of these cool little snakes someday.

This is actually the most common thing with scaleless snakes.

They do not automatically die or "can't survive in the wild" simply due to lack of scales. If this were true it would already be dead.

This baby looks healthy from the pictures, no signs of distress or shedding issues.

Scaleless animals only have ONE real defect. They don't have the same protection from scratches or bite marks from predators as a scaled animal would. Considering that garters tend to eat slugs,worms, frogs, fish, newts so I don't see them in a scuffle with a rat anytime soon. It's possible this snake will die in the wild but I don't think it will be due to a lack of scales. It clearly gets along just fine.

To plainly state "it would die" because it's different shows a lack of actual education on scaleless snakes and how they live and thrive.

[FWK]

This is actually the most common thing with scaleless snakes.

They do not automatically die or "can't survive in the wild" simply due to lack of scales. If this were true it would already be dead.

This baby looks healthy from the pictures, no signs of distress or shedding issues.

Scaleless animals only have ONE real defect. They don't have the same protection from scratches or bite marks from predators as a scaled animal would. Considering that garters tend to eat slugs,worms, frogs, fish, newts so I don't see them in a scuffle with a rat anytime soon. It's possible this snake will die in the wild but I don't think it will be due to a lack of scales. It clearly gets along just fine.

To plainly state "it would die" because it's different shows a lack of actual education on scaleless snakes and how they live and thrive.

I apologize for my naivety. Please, educate us. Share with us studies, papers, documentation demonstrating how scaleless snakes live and thrive in the wild. Perhaps there are well established populations that I am not aware of? If so I'm sure someone has documented them in detail. I am always eager to learn something new. To claim simply that we are uneducated on such matters means that you must be well educated yourself, so help us understand.

[Aaron_S]

I apologize for my naivety. Please, educate us. Share with us studies, papers, documentation demonstrating how scaleless snakes live and thrive in the wild. Perhaps there are well established populations that I am not aware of? If so I'm sure someone has documented them in detail. I am always eager to learn something new. To claim simply that we are uneducated on such matters means that you must be well uneducated youself, so help us understand.

No, no no. You came with claims and facts. Back them up. Show me how they all die from disease,poor health, shedding issues, injury and predation as YOU'VE claimed because they lack scales.

Scaleless snakes are appearing more and more in the wild and thus captivity. They do absolutely fine in every regard to any other snake in captivity. Even breed if they make it to adulthood.

The better version of a snake is to have scales, and that's why they are the way they are. However, without scales doesn't automatically make them inherently weak and not able to survive. Case in point the snake in discussion. This is simply a genetic defect in the snakes DNA. It's essentially broken.

It remains to be seen if it will reach adulthood. I do think though that if it doesn't it's unlikely due to not having any scales.

You're welcome to enlighten everyone with your "facts". My facts are that these animals thrive in any given situation like another snake. They aren't going to just suddenly die without an underlying issue that any other snake can get.

[FWK]

No, no no. You came with claims and facts. Back them up. Show me how they all die from disease,poor health, shedding issues, injury and predation as YOU'VE claimed because they lack scales.

Scaleless snakes are appearing more and more in the wild and thus captivity. They do absolutely fine in every regard to any other snake in captivity. Even breed if they make it to adulthood.

The better version of a snake is to have scales, and that's why they are the way they are. However, without scales doesn't automatically make them inherently weak and not able to survive. Case in point the snake in discussion. This is simply a genetic defect in the snakes DNA. It's essentially broken.

It remains to be seen if it will reach adulthood. I do think though that if it doesn't it's unlikely due to not having any scales.

You're welcome to enlighten everyone with your "facts". My facts are that these animals thrive in any given situation like another snake. They aren't going to just suddenly die without an underlying issue that any other snake can get.

Lack of evidence, is evidence, in this case. If the lack of scales proved to be evolutionarily viable, then populations of scaleless snakes would be present. If they were present we would likely know about them. I, personally, might not, as you so eloquently pointed out. But the greater we, the scientific community, would know of them and would have documentation of this knowledge. Documentation, I must assume, you are aware of, as you accuse us in this thread of being unaware. The better version of snakes is indeed to have scales. The mutation this animal demonstrates, or, as you put it, being "essentially broken," is a notable disadvantage, one that nature, to my knowledge, does not tolerate. Any evidence to the contrary is welcome.

[eminart]

FWK with the mic drop.

[eminart]

OK, I guess I can't resist.

Unfortunately we have upset the balance so badly, you are right captain. I just do not think this decision should be made by someone as badly informed as a hobbyist, including myself. It is against the law to collect wild animals in Tennessee, so I am not sure why we are trying to encourage poaching.


Nobody is encouraging poaching. We're disputing your claims about collecting animals being necessarily harmful.

Unless you are collecting the worst specimens, you you are hurting the population by removing the best genes.

That whole "survival of the fittest" thing is over an enormous scale. Almost ALL the babies always die. Sometimes it isn't the most fit that make it. Sometimes it is. The fit ones die at almost the same rate as the rest. And, what makes you think that people are selecting the most fit? Aren't they just catching whichever ones they find? And, nobody is suggesting that it's ok to OVER collect anything. Herpers, being a relatively small group, most of which would rather buy a corn snake than collect one, really aren't collecting huge numbers of snakes. Obviously there are species that should be protected.

Here is the thing Em, you have not told me anything about population science that I didn't learn from my college Ecology class.

Considering I've disputed your claims, then you must not agree with what you learned then.


What you have failed to do is answer any of my questions or offer any proof of your assertions, so why would I change my mind? In your world one must prove you are harming a population to change your actions, but in my world you need to prove you are not doing harm. I just hope we as a hobby aren't trying to justify ourselves at the sake of the animals.

Frankly, I haven't seen a question I felt warranted a specific reply. I thought my replies more than answered the ones that were on track. And, no, in MY WORLD, the common snakes are doing ok, and there's no evidence that people are collecting them in numbers large enough to make any impact. That's based on evidence, rather than emotions.

If you have some specific question you'd like me to answer, ask it. Honestly, I feel like I'm arguing with someone who is very sure they have the right answer. Yet the questions you've asked are superficial.

[RAD House]

As I stated before there are many reasons genes do not pass on besides death. For example females of the species may find him undesirable, or even the ability to latch on to a female may be effected. Even then the fact that adult scaleless snakes have been found in the wild proves your theory that they can not survive in the wild is flat out wrong. Then even more so you want to remove an individual based on the fact that you do not think it will survive because there is no data it will. This sounds like something much softer than a Mic dropping to me. Fortunately for nature it does not need you to decide which genes are worth passing on. So maybe you should leave it be.

[Andy_G]

Perhaps these will be found in the field more frequently in the years to come and they do in fact have no major flaws in regards to rate of survival? Is it fair (or accurate) for either side to do anything beyond speculate at this point (which is biased in itself) until something has been studied to support either side with a non-biased quantitative method? I'm not on either side here, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

[BobBarley]

Well, just wanna throw in my opinion here, a quick Google search reveals that snakes have been around 90-100 million years (may not be accurate, but I'd bet it's somewhere around that timeframe). If being scaleless were an advantage or if it worked just as well as being "scaled", there would already be lots of species localities that are all scaleless snakes. Definitely does not prove they 100% cannot survive in the wild, but most if not all probably have some sort of disadvantage when compared to scaled snakes. Agree with Andy though, there's no real research to back either side up.

[RAD House]

Ok lets talk about your input thus far. You recited simple recaps of the predator prey model several times directly out of a freshman level ecology book. What you don't seem to understand is that these models only cover a natural predator and prey relationship. Once you introduce non natural factors like introduced species and wild collecting, once healthy populations can crash. Some great examples of species nearly wiped out by collecting are the north American bison, American beaver and Boelen's pythons. Historically there are many examples of species going extinct or nearly because of human collection, so what has changed. Also I again ask you of a single example of collecting for profit being a benefit to a species being collected? You said you could but then you didn't, seems a little wishy washy to me. Yes habitat loss is currently the biggest problem many species face, but this decline is only made worse by ignorant collectors in many cases. Especially when these collectors feel justified by pseudo science and a basic understanding of biological processes.

Your argument that these species have built in protections to human collection, and hence part of the natural system, is asinine. Snakes have been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years creating a natural balance and you think 50 years of collecting by humans the snakes somehow naturally deal with this introduced pressure? You have got to be kidding me? I had more faith in your reasoning perhaps. I already gave you reasons why it is unnatural so why don't you give a shot at explaining your point of view? Cuz you said so is not an answer.

You don't think people collect the brightest and prettiest specimen they can find? With your vast experience in the biological field I don't have to explain to you, again, that this is in most cases also the most fit in the natural world. I can say, with out a doubt, collectors looking to keep snakes or start a breeding program certainly do not collect the least healthy drab specimen they can find.

With many of these species there is no information what so ever about population numbers, let alone the effect wild collecting is having on the population. We seemingly have an even less complete understanding of snake taxonomy, which makes conservation even more important. The chances that we have caused species to go extinct with out even reconizing it is pretty high. Your solution is to carry on blindly, correct?

"no, in MY WORLD, the common snakes are doing ok, and there's no any impact.". "In your world one must prove you are harming a population to change your actions". These statements are analogous, I am glad you agree with me. I am saddened your world view is so self serving.

[Minkness]

Regardless of my opinion on this subject, lets keep this civil and refrain from making any personal attacks. This thread has officially gone off topic of the original post. Not taking sides, but without scientific study, documentation, and evidence, both sides of this argument are theoretical and purely speculative or even personal opinion.

OP did what was LEGALLY right and doing what he feels is right by not disclosing the location. That said, I am thankful he shared such a rare, unique find.

[eminart]

Ok lets talk about your input thus far. You recited simple recaps of the predator prey model several times directly out of a freshman level ecology book. What you don't seem to understand is that these models only cover a natural predator and prey relationship. Once you introduce non natural factors like introduced species and wild collecting, once healthy populations can crash. Some great examples of species nearly wiped out by collecting are the north American bison, American beaver and Boelen's pythons. Historically there are many examples of species going extinct or nearly because of human collection, so what has changed. Also I again ask you of a single example of collecting for profit being a benefit to a species being collected? You said you could but then you didn't, seems a little wishy washy to me. Yes habitat loss is currently the biggest problem many species face, but this decline is only made worse by ignorant collectors in many cases. Especially when these collectors feel justified by pseudo science and a basic understanding of biological processes.

Your argument that these species have built in protections to human collection, and hence part of the natural system, is asinine. Snakes have been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years creating a natural balance and you think 50 years of collecting by humans the snakes somehow naturally deal with this introduced pressure? You have got to be kidding me? I had more faith in your reasoning perhaps. I already gave you reasons why it is unnatural so why don't you give a shot at explaining your point of view? Cuz you said so is not an answer.

You don't think people collect the brightest and prettiest specimen they can find? With your vast experience in the biological field I don't have to explain to you, again, that this is in most cases also the most fit in the natural world. I can say, with out a doubt, collectors looking to keep snakes or start a breeding program certainly do not collect the least healthy drab specimen they can find.

With many of these species there is no information what so ever about population numbers, let alone the effect wild collecting is having on the population. We seemingly have an even less complete understanding of snake taxonomy, which makes conservation even more important. The chances that we have caused species to go extinct with out even reconizing it is pretty high. Your solution is to carry on blindly, correct?

"no, in MY WORLD, the common snakes are doing ok, and there's no any impact.". "In your world one must prove you are harming a population to change your actions". These statements are analogous, I am glad you agree with me. I am saddened your world view is so self serving.

You keep building straw men and knocking them down. We were talking about a guy keeping one scaleless snake (assuming it were legal to do so) being harmful to the population. Or, if hobbyist pet collecting affects the snake populations. Yet, you keep jumping to these wild scenarios of industrial, mass collecting and equating it to the slaughter of the american bison? And, you say I don't understand the argument? I think everyone agrees there's a limit. There are laws in place to protect most of the species that need protecting.

And, no, I'm not suggesting snakes have evolved in 50 years (your suggested time frame) to deal with human collecting. I'm suggesting they evolved over millions of years to deal with human collecting, or the collecting from the predators that humans have displaced. And they've evolved to deal with mass deaths from food shortages, diseases, weather extremes, etc. etc. HOW the snakes are taken from the ecosystem makes no difference.

You keep saying I'm giving you Ecology 101 stuff. I don't think you understand Ecology 101. I certainly haven't seen any 102 course material from you.

And, I'm sorry that you're saddened by my world view, of which you know nothing.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree. If I'm beginning to remember correctly, aren't you the guy that argued at length about snakes being intelligent and bonding with owners?

[RAD House]

My argument since the beginning has been that the op acted in a responsible way by leaving the creature be. Firstly because he was following a law that was likely championed by people in a far better position to judge the situation. Secondly I think wild collecting is irresponsible for most household collectors for numerous reasons and I don't think we should be encouraging them. First and foremost we have a long history of doing damage to wild populations without having any real scientific knowledge of the real problem we are causing. This is especially sad when there are commercial available sources for most of the species available. Frankly it does not reflect well on the hobby.
Any talk of ecology was brought up by you and your like minded cohort, I simply pointed out where you were wrong with with specific examples and facts. You on the other hand have avoided questions, repeated yourself constantly without adding any real value, made snide comments insinuating we should respect your authority, and refused or are unable to back up your claims. Oh I have read enough by you to fully understand were you are coming from.

Man, just stop please. That makes two arguments I have been involved in where you flat out don't comprehend, or you refuse to listen. Although entirely unrelated to this, my argument then was we do not have a real understanding of the mental capacity of these animals and likely underestimate them. I am pretty sure I say in that I do not believe my snakes love me, but nice try.

[eminart]

I simply pointed out where you were wrong with with specific examples and facts. You on the other hand have avoided questions, repeated yourself constantly without adding any real value, made snide comments insinuating we should respect your authority, and refused or are unable to back up your claims. Oh I have read enough by you to fully understand were you are coming from.

Man, just stop please. That makes two arguments I have been involved in where you flat out don't comprehend, or you refuse to listen. Although entirely unrelated to this, my argument then was we do not have a real understanding of the mental capacity of these animals and likely underestimate them. I am pretty sure I say in that I do not believe my snakes love me, but nice try.


Well, I'll say it again, if you feel I've avoided some questions, feel free to ask them directly. I get the feeling you think there's some depth to some of the things you've said that I haven't recognized. If I've intentionally ignored any of your questions it's because I felt they went off on an unrelated tangent.

Honestly, none of your "facts and examples" have proven anything about the limited taking of common snake species. But, I'm as tired of discussing it as you are. If you weren't the person who argued about snakes bonding, then great. Great even if you were. I just seem to remember some kind of similar drawn out argument with you before. Again, I do appreciate that you care about wildlife conservation.




And so we're clear to the people reading this.

1. It's not ok to break any wildlife laws.
2. Snakes that are rare or endangered in any way should not be collected by hobbyists.
3. Even common snakes should not be collected in large numbers.
4. It's always better to get CBB snakes, if they're available.

[Aaron_S]

Lack of evidence, is evidence, in this case. If the lack of scales proved to be evolutionarily viable, then populations of scaleless snakes would be present. If they were present we would likely know about them. I, personally, might not, as you so eloquently pointed out. But the greater we, the scientific community, would know of them and would have documentation of this knowledge. Documentation, I must assume, you are aware of, as you accuse us in this thread of being unaware. The better version of snakes is indeed to have scales. The mutation this animal demonstrates, or, as you put it, being "essentially broken," is a notable disadvantage, one that nature, to my knowledge, does not tolerate. Any evidence to the contrary is welcome.

Wait wait wait... let me get this straight. You come at me for not having any evidence but circumstantial evidence only. Then use your own circumstantial evidence to plead your case?

Which all you've said is "The science community should know by now about these animals thriving in the wild. Since we don't have that information then that means they suck and die every 5 seconds."

Yet this is the same scientific community that is still discovering new species of frogs and other animals. Yeah...it clearly has all the answers already.

You can word it any which way you want but you and I both have no upper hand in this argument since neither of us have real, hard facts.

I can argue that since it's becoming increasingly common to see this in various species that it's not as big a detriment as you say. Especially since only within the last two decades has collecting snakes been so popular.

For the record we have: Scaleless ball pythons, burmese pythons, cornsnakes, texas ratsnakes, death adders, garter snake and I believe I've seen a rattlesnake too.

That's a LOT of species all around the globe to have this defect and be found. These animals being found in the wild demostrates they can survive for lengthy periods of time. There is NO WAY unless we monitor them on a 24/7 schedule, to find out if it is indeed a full detriment to their lives. As far as I can tell they seem to manage pretty well.

FWK with the mic drop.

Not really. He said what I said but for his side of the discussion.

Circumstantial evidence on both sides at best. I'm just the one willing to admit it.

[infernalis]

One could also argue that albinism and melanistic mutations or even the bright red "flame" mutation would be an extreme detriment in the wild, yet mutated specimens are found in the wild constantly. ;)