CornSnake in the wild.... :)

[Rich Z]

Hello Chip- I'm nothing close to an expert on disease or pathogen transfer, but I think that the same criticism of Rich would apply to you. It seems as if the degree of risk is still high enough that taking it simply because you had extra corns is unnecessary and irresponsible. I do understand, though, that herpers aren't generally aware that this could pose a problem and if they knew perhaps many of them wouldn't do it at all.

I would say that a responsible herper would always try their best to avoid releasing animals in areas where they weren't collected or would try to avoid collecting a surplus of animals to begin with. It's also irresponsible to release a w/c animal at the place of capture if the animal in question was collected (according to what I've read). I'm not trying to sound like the ethics police here, yet in a way I am. At the very least we can set up a dialogue of herping ethics and the duties of responsible herpers.

I don't really blame anyone who does this sort of thing ignorantly, but once a herper has been made aware of this risk and if they continue to do take it, well, they are negligent.

I'm sorry, but the whole point of this conversation is the issue of this "risk" you allude to. At this point, I don't believe there is any evidence of "risk" at all beyond conjecture that has no foundation of fact at all. To state that people who don't give credence to the fears drummed up by mere speculation, and therefore somehow "negligent", is in itself not only quite irresponsible, but also condescending while lacking in merit.

So tell me, what sort of pathogens that are known to be in the captive populations of corn snakes that would pose this mortal risk to the native wild populations? And while thinking upon this, please tell me where those pathogens of such concern originated from in the first place.

 

[Rich Z]

So... what about the endangered animal repopulation programs? Some endangered animal species are captive bred in zoos, raised up a bit, and then released in the wild to help raise their numbers. I know that's not an issue with the corn snake, but really, what's the difference? Either way, you're taking an animal that was bred in captivity and releasing it into the wild in it's own natural range.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer this question. :shrugs:

I doubt that it can be answered, Robbie. At least not by anyone who will think it through and come to the conclusion that the authorities behind the above mentioned policy and procedures must be given SOME credibility about their consideration of the overall beneficial aspects, relative to "risk", of what they are doing. This will conflict directly with the OP's argument about captive releases being an irresponsible "risk" to populations of native animals, since those authorities obviously believe it to be a responsible project to undertake. Actually, in the case of endangered species, I would think they would be MUCH more sensitive to any "risk" involved, because such a "risk" of acquired pathogens in captivity could wipe out the last remaining remnants of the very species they are trying to save.

 

[Crotalus]

You're entitled to your opinion Rick. It appears to me that no amount of evidence would convince you at this point, so hopefully if anything was gained by my time spent involved in this thread it was to establish that many herpers would rather comdemn this type of behavior in discussion rather than tip toe around it. It's just discussion after all; I'm sure that all of the people who have responded to me have valid points and reasons for believing them. I just think it's obvious that there is a degree of risk involved that warrants criticism.

We're all herpers here, we just disagree on ethical behavior. Things of this nature are always open for discussion and debate.

I believe that releasing captives into the wild is irresponsible and that defending this behavior is also responsible. The same behavior is what led to the python problem; so in addition to the potential spread of disease (which has been documented in two species of tortoise) it creates a controversial issue that can easily become ammunition for the media to demonize herpers with.

 

[Shaky]

If there is any valid evidence, it would likely be found in populations that actually congregate.
Birds are a good example. Wild dogs, maybe. Herding animals, monkeys, squirrels. Just thinking off the top of my head here.
Maybe escaped pigeons are a case study.

 

[Rich Z]

You're entitled to your opinion Rick. It appears to me that no amount of evidence would convince you at this point, so hopefully if anything was gained by my time spent involved in this thread it was to establish that many herpers would rather comdemn this type of behavior in discussion rather than tip toe around it. It's just discussion after all; I'm sure that all of the people who have responded to me have valid points and reasons for believing them. I just think it's obvious that there is a degree of risk involved that warrants criticism.

We're all herpers here, we just disagree on ethical behavior. Things of this nature are always open for discussion and debate.

I believe that releasing captives into the wild is irresponsible and that defending this behavior is also responsible. The same behavior is what led to the python problem; so in addition to the potential spread of disease (which has been documented in two species of tortoise) it creates a controversial issue that can easily become ammunition for the media to demonize herpers with.

From what I can see, your entire argument is based on nothing but conjecture and speculation. No hard facts whatsoever. Your entire point is a lot like chicken little crying that the sky is falling, and telling everyone else that they are being irresponsible for running around outside without wearing helmets. Is it possible that the sky may in fact fall? Why certainly. But to claim people are irresponsible because they don't believe the evidence shows it as being likely just makes you appear to be holding a "smarter than thou" and condescending demeanor towards everyone else, because you believe we can't, or won't, make that conceptual leap of faith that you are making..

To paraphrase: "You're entitled to your opinion Crotalus. It appears to me that no lack of evidence would convince you at this point..."

 

[Calift]

So what is the pro of releasing wild snakes?

 

[Nanci]

So... what about the endangered animal repopulation programs? Some endangered animal species are captive bred in zoos, raised up a bit, and then released in the wild to help raise their numbers. I know that's not an issue with the corn snake, but really, what's the difference? Either way, you're taking an animal that was bred in captivity and releasing it into the wild in it's own natural range.

Take condors, for instance. They were all removed from the wild, and then put back. If people could stop shooting them, they'd have a chance...

 

[haydnrobinson]

Going back to the idea that a well respected herp breeder may stimulate less knowledgeable breeders to release their animals, I think this may happen- if they one day decide to get rid of them then on seeing a good breeder has released theirs into the wild, they may follow suit. Perhaps a less knowledgeable breeder will do this in an area where corn snakes are not naturally found, which really could damage the local food chain. As in any situation, someone considered to know a lot about a subject must remember that they're setting an example for others, and I think that maybe it should just be pointed out that releasing snakes shouldn't be just done by anyone.

I also completely understand people saying that it will affect the snakes in the area, I agree that releasing these snakes will change the balance of the local wildlife. Hopefully not too many snakes are released. However, as snakes aren't like dogs/hamsters etc (can't think of a great example!) in the way that they expect you to look after them (ie they don't need you to love them etc) they should be able to look after themselves. Survival is a different matter due to external sources, like predators. I think the main issue is that the chances of the surrounding snakes' survival will decrease due to competition for food etc, which isn't very fair when the captive snakes could be sold on.

It's a difficult subject, but really I personally would have only released the snakes as a last resort, if they couldn't be sold. I don't think you should ever have to keep them if you can't or don't want to anymore, but having owned the snakes (as with any pet) there's an obligation to do what's best by them and if I didn't want them anymore, I would always try and rehome them. This forum is the perfect place to move snakes on to different homes, everyone here loves them! I don't think the pro of seeing the snake around on walks outweighs the con of what it could do to the snakes in the surrounding areas. HAVING SAID THAT I'm not a snake expert, and I don't mean to be rude in my observations, I just wanted to join in what I think is a lively and valid discussion.

I also see the other side of the story- the recessive morphs will become invisible quickly and hopefully snakes will appear as classics, giving them a good camouflage once again. Hopefully the snakes in the area will be given time to be able to rebalance their population before someone else releases some of their snakes.

(Not entirely related, but I really think that this thread is very interesting- good debate people! And also, it's nice to see people arguing their points without getting angry and also using real facts to do so, rather than making wild accusations.)

 

[wstphal]

(Not entirely related, but I really think that this thread is very interesting- good debate people! And also, it's nice to see people arguing their points without getting angry and also using real facts to do so, rather than making wild accusations.)

Agreed! It's nice to see civilized debate.

 

[Crotalus]

Hayden- I agree, this is a civil debate. I'd like to add my thanks to the moderators for not censoring me, it seems like this might even be Rich's website. It's rare in the herp web for people to allow unhindered debate and it's admirable.

Rich- Imagine that this is a court and that you and I are lawyers presenting a case. In this situation, because the answer is unclear, the only way in which to build a good case is to provide for expert testimony, which I have in the form of a peer reviewed study that claimed two species of tortoise to have been adversely affected by the behavior in question. Of course the study was inductive and not deductive, so it only made predictions of probability. The probability of the conclusion that the tortoises were adversely affected is great enough to no longer be presumptuous or speculative, rather this is an inference of a conclusion- meaning that to conclude any other way would require more faith and would therefore be invalid.

Yet another expert witness on my behalf is the NSW government of Australia. Even though this government, in my opinion, has been guilty of over stating risks involved in their herp management and has therefore restricted the liberties of oz herpers, I find that the ban and statement of the ban is credible and noteworthy nontheless because it coheres to the independant findings of the tortoise study.

Another poster in this thread posed a brilliantly obvious question that I have over looked- what is the benefit to releasing these snakes and does this benefit outweigh the potential for a negative impact? It seems to me, Rich, that you literally need a perfectly analogous example of this problem already in existence, meaning that you require a case that's perfectly alligned with yours- one that involves the release of captive corn snakes and a subsequent problem with the native population, but as we both know this doesn't exist. In my opinion, this requirement is faulty.

It isn't wise to assume that what you're doing is okay in the midst of my expert testimonies to the opposite. Given the vast and expansive number of accounts of people in history who have slothfully or willfully or arrogantly denied the obvious counter evidence and stuck with their behavior and then suffered as a result, well, the wisest thing in this case would be to reconsider imho.

But all of this is moot given this question: what benefit stems from releasing the snakes?

*I haven't been condescending at all in this thread. This is just how I talk. :nyah: (seriously)

 

[Rich Z]

But all of this is moot given this question: what benefit stems from releasing the snakes?

I guess that depends on from what perspective this is being viewed. From the snakes' perspective, I believe the alternative you offered to them being released was to be euthanized. I think all things considered, the snakes would most certainly look at being released as being a DEFINITE benefit over that alternative. From the perspective of the person doing the releasing, the benefit would be the hope that perhaps some would actually survive whereas their death would have been a certainty. From the perspective of the environment, I believe most people will agree that snakes are declining in populations everywhere we have seen them in the past, and as a result, the vermin they would be predators of are increasing. I see ample evidence of this locally in the increasing populations of wild mice and rats.

But speaking of other alternatives to releasing animals, let me tell you about an attempt years ago to do just that. Of course, producing large numbers of corn snakes every year is going to produce the inevitable small percentage of babies that refuse to feed readily. Even a small percentage adds up when the total numbers start getting to be substantial. The more you produce, the less time you have to putting all the extra time and effort into getting them onto pinky mice. So for a couple of years, I decided to take batches of baby corns that had thus far refused meals to the shows we did in early Fall, and sell them at drastically reduced prices. They were all PLAINLY noted as being non-feeders, and many times I had to specifically point out that notice to people I thought might have missed that fact, and biting off more then they can chew when it was obvious they had tunnel visioned on the cheap prices. Well I thought this was the best course of action to rid myself of those headaches, yet give the snakes a good chance of surviving along with people getting a real good bargain on animals at the same time. Apparently a win-win situation for everyone. Until I came to realize that some other dealers at the shows were buying up those problem feeders early on in the show, then turning around and reselling them to the public at a profit and labelling them as freshly hatched animals. I know this to be a fact, because I saw it with my own eyes. As a matter of fact, towards the end of one show, some guy came to my tables and tried to sell me back one of my own Lavenders telling me it had just hatched out the day before they packed up to come to this show. Of course I recognized my own deli cups and labels! He didn't remember buying it from me.

So I stopped that practice cold. How many people bought those animals because of the cheap prices and didn't have anywhere near the experience to get them feeding? Most of them likely died and those people highly disappointed at the apparent fragility of baby corn snakes based on this experience. So this practice was not the benefit I thought it was to most everyone involved.

Fortunately a buyer started buying up all my babies the last several years, and he was even willing to take the problem feeders as he had the manpower to work on them to try to get them feeding. Had this outlet not developed, then realistically, what were the options? Release those animals that could possibly find whatever the hell it was they wanted to eat while in the wild, or just throw them into the freezer? From the perspective of those animals, which would be the BEST option for them?

Seriously, the PRIME perspective in any issue of this nature has to be what is best for the animals. In this discussion, should the absolutely NEGATIVE benefit to the animals to be released being euthanized outweigh an opinion based on conjecture and speculation that such releases could possibly be detrimental? In my opinion, that question can only be answered with a NO.

 

[Crotalus]

I understand all of your points Rick. I'll even add yet another potential benefit of releasing your corns: any corn you release could serve as a prey item for a natural predator and could thus contribute to the survival of a native corn snake by serving as prey in its place. In fact, if the corns you release are amelanistic or otherwise obvious to predators, this potential increases.

I understand that there are also personal perks. You've personally seen and accounted for the problems that you encounter when you sell these animals for a reduced price and even if you were to simply give them away some dishonest breeders would pass them off as feeding snakes for full price.

These are all problems that you must face. In my opinion these are your problems and not problems at large or problems that we all share. I've made my arguments and I believe that they stand as obviously correct. What you consider to be conjectural and speculative, I consider to be valid and obvious based on a peer reviewed paper and on the NSW legal ruling that this behavior is unsafe for native animals. Cheers.

 

[Shiari]

The problem with that paper is the conjecture in it. There is no proof that it was a captive tortoise that was released that caused that URI in those populations. It very well could have been stress from relocation, or someone ignorant who had one as a pet that was shedding virus and then went out and handled a tortoise or two. Or even naturally developed and spread, or even jumped from a different species of reptile over to those populations. Your excerpt also didn't mention anything about mortality, just respiratory signs.

It's rather like being faced with a rep who is trying to tell you what a miracle drug their product is.... How much is being left out? We had the rep for Revolution use statistics based off of roadkill coyotes to indicate how prevalent heartworm was in our area. I asked a question that they have been unable/unwilling to answer:

"How many of those coyotes were able to be hit by cars because they had severe heartworm loads?" Heartworm affects the ability to be physically active... makes for slower coyotes, one would think. And a slow coyote is much more likely to be hit by a car.

That's how your paper comes off. "Oh, it was probably by pets being released!".... ignoring other factors.

 

[Chip]

Ahem. ^^^

 

[Crotalus]

The problem with that paper is the conjecture in it. There is no proof that it was a captive tortoise that was released that caused that URI in those populations. It very well could have been stress from relocation, or someone ignorant who had one as a pet that was shedding virus and then went out and handled a tortoise or two. Or even naturally developed and spread, or even jumped from a different species of reptile over to those populations. Your excerpt also didn't mention anything about mortality, just respiratory signs.

It's rather like being faced with a rep who is trying to tell you what a miracle drug their product is.... How much is being left out? We had the rep for Revolution use statistics based off of roadkill coyotes to indicate how prevalent heartworm was in our area. I asked a question that they have been unable/unwilling to answer:

"How many of those coyotes were able to be hit by cars because they had severe heartworm loads?" Heartworm affects the ability to be physically active... makes for slower coyotes, one would think. And a slow coyote is much more likely to be hit by a car.

That's how your paper comes off. "Oh, it was probably by pets being released!".... ignoring other factors.

I disagree. Your comparison is faulty and the analogy you've drawn to a corporate representitive is the reason. In the case of the rep there is an underlying agenda motivated by promoting their product whereas no such conflict of interest exists to motivate the tortoise researcher. Have you clicked on the link and read the study? I believe if you actually had, you would not be making the argument that the resulting inference is incorrect. Like I said, the study produces an inference to conclude from, the conclusion that the tortoises were negatively effected by the release of captives was the most parcimonious explanation to the researchers; do you have the credentials and qualifications to refute their study? If so, I invite you to do so because it would be irresponsible to allow such a poorly conducted study to go unopposed. :santa:

 

[Shiari]

Your snark is frankly unappreciated, especially after your post about civility. The comparison stands in it's own way because the Rep was using an independent study that was using roadkill to determine heartworm prevalence. My query to that study stands, and was not particularly dealt with.
You yourself have an agenda just like the rep: Find a study that supports your view in some nebulous way.

And my query to that one stands. How do they determine which ones were captive?

 

[Dinah]

Just to point out. That while I did not read the study, I have lived on the world long enough to know that everyone, everywhere, has an underlying agenda.

 

[Crotalus]

Your snark is frankly unappreciated, especially after your post about civility. The comparison stands in it's own way because the Rep was using an independent study that was using roadkill to determine heartworm prevalence. My query to that study stands, and was not particularly dealt with.
You yourself have an agenda just like the rep: Find a study that supports your view in some nebulous way.

And my query to that one stands. How do they determine which ones were captive?

Okay, leave the snark out of this, it never did anything to you. What's a snark?

I don't see anything uncivil about my post. Unfortunately you took it personally, but I still wonder if you've clicked on the link yet...

 

[Rich Z]

Just for chuckles, I decided to look up what the Florida Statutes says about the release of animals into the wild. Interestingly enough, this appears to be a policy their own officers of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission....

379.304 Exhibition or sale of wildlife.--

(1) Permits issued pursuant to s. 379.3761 and places where wildlife is kept or held in captivity shall be subject to inspection by officers of the commission at all times. The commission shall have the power to release or confiscate any specimens of any wildlife, specifically birds, mammals, amphibians, or reptiles, whether indigenous to the state or not, when it is found that conditions under which they are being confined are unsanitary, or unsafe to the public in any manner, or that the species of wildlife are being maltreated, mistreated, or neglected or kept in any manner contrary to the provisions of chapter 828, any such permit to the contrary notwithstanding. Before any such wildlife is confiscated or released under the authority of this section, the owner thereof shall have been advised in writing of the existence of such unsatisfactory conditions; the owner shall have been given 30 days in which to correct such conditions; the owner shall have failed to correct such conditions; the owner shall have had an opportunity for a proceeding pursuant to chapter 120; and the commission shall have ordered such confiscation or release after careful consideration of all evidence in the particular case in question. The final order of the commission shall constitute final agency action.

(2) In instances where wildlife is seized or taken into custody by the commission, said owner or possessor of such wildlife shall be responsible for payment of all expenses relative to the capture, transport, boarding, veterinary care, or other costs associated with or incurred due to seizure or custody of wildlife. Such expenses shall be paid by said owner or possessor upon any conviction or finding of guilt of a criminal or noncriminal violation, regardless of adjudication or plea entered, of any provision of chapter 828 or this chapter, or rule of the commission or if such violation is disposed of under s. 921.187. Failure to pay such expense may be grounds for revocation or denial of permits to such individual to possess wildlife.

(3) Any animal on exhibit of a type capable of contracting or transmitting rabies shall be immunized against rabies.

(4) The commission is authorized to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this section.

(5) A violation of this section is punishable as provided by s. 379.4015.

History.--s. 1, ch. 67-290; s. 16, ch. 78-95; s. 32, ch. 83-218; s. 8, ch. 91-134; s. 5, ch. 98-333; s. 173, ch. 99-245; s. 33, ch. 2002-46; s. 9, ch. 2003-151; s. 107, ch. 2008-247; s. 33, ch. 2009-86.

Note.--Former s. 372.921(4)-(6), (9), (10).

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0379/Sec304.HTM

Interesting, eh?

 

[Rich Z]

Okay, leave the snark out of this, it never did anything to you. What's a snark?

I don't see anything uncivil about my post. Unfortunately you took it personally, but I still wonder if you've clicked on the link yet...

Actually, I'm wondering if you have clicked on your own link yourself. When I do, i just get a brief abstract and short quote of the intro with this notice:

Want the full article?
Login to access JSTOR, or check our access options. You may have access for free through an institution.

Publisher Sales Service
Purchase this article from the publisher
for $19.00 USD.

The ONLY statement made on that page about this issue is this:

One of these, upper respiratory tract disease in the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is thought (emphasis added) to have been introduced into populations of tortoises in the Mojave Desert in the southwestern USA by release of ill captive desert tortoises. A similar situation appears (emphasis added) to exist for certain populations of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) in Florida, USA.

Heck, the very title of that article begins with the word "IMPLICATIONS".

Crotalus, I really think you need to brush up on those definitions of conjecture and speculation. I believe that the words "thought", "appears" and "implications" used in that abstract and title could very well be included in those definitions. They don't really bring any hint of solid "smoking gun" sorts of evidence to my mind....

BTW, that article was written in 1993. You mean to tell me that in the 16 years since it was written, no gains have been made in replacing that word "IMPLICATIONS" with the word "PROOF"?