Wild Scaleless

[eminart]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

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]

Originally Posted by FWK

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.

Originally Posted by eminart

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.