Wild Scaleless

[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]

Originally Posted by 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/t...e_70_4_403.pdf

http://share.tn.gov/sos/rules/1660/1...8.20151022.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]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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]

Originally Posted by FWK

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]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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]

Originally Posted by FWK

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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.

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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.

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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.