Wild Scaleless

[eminart]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

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]

Originally Posted by FWK

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]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

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.

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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.

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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.

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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.

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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.