Jason_Hood
New member
Yeah all this science going against you and your feeling it is ok is redundant :roflmao:
Jason
Jason
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
CornSnake in the wild.... :)
- Thread starter Rich Z
- Start date
- Status
diamondlil
Mice! They taste so nice!
Given that there's no proof that releasing captive cornsnakes will cause harm to any existing corn and ratsnake population, there's also no proof that it will not do so.
If it were me, I'd have erred on the side of caution, not wanting to risk causing damage. Just my personal opinion.
If it were me, I'd have erred on the side of caution, not wanting to risk causing damage. Just my personal opinion.
snakewispera snr
The Devils Advocate
I'm wondering what the anti's will make of it when they decide that reptile keepers in Florida are not responsible enough to own reptiles and decide to start making laws to ban reptile keeping because of invasive species....
The reason that I keep reiterating the same points is because you have yet to provide even a glimpse of a decent counter argument. You may (incorrectly and ignorantly) poke your "holes" in my supporting evidence until it suits you, but this will never answer to my ethical criticism of you, which is the subject of my replies. It will only answer to my evidence. All that I've seen from you, Rich, is a string of replies in which you question the factual nature of the study I've cited, dismiss the NSW legal ruling as over reaching government, you've told me that my arguments suck etc; you've just been repeating conclusions without providing any premises, evidence or support.
You need to establish why these corns are more than just your problem, you need to establish some sort of evidence that suggests that there is no risk, because a truly altruistic herper would cease this behavior at the mere presence of risk. Of course this is a high moral standard that I never imposed on you, I've just maintained that the degree of risk is high enough for even a moderately ethical herper to stop releasing snakes into the wild.
bfreewally1
New member
I guess I opened a can of worms by saying it was cruel and not nice to mess with mother nature in my originals post. After reading more reply`s from supporters that are more knowledgeable than me. I feel vindicated. I got lambasted in my early posts by Shaina and Rich. I`m not a breeder. I personally love the natural colors of wild corns better than any morphs. We are all entitled to our opinion. I would hate to see people invading my property to look for morph corns that don`t belong there.
Sorry, I just flatly disagree with you. You are asking me to prove a negative result in that you want me to PROVE that releasing corns will NOT have any negative effect on captive populations. I am asking you to prove a positive result whereby there is any documented cases of released captive corn snakes (or for that matter any snake released within it's natural range) causing harm to the native population. And in my opinion, the burden is on YOU to prove that the risk exists. Which, thus far, you have not, and in my opinion, cannot. You are stating that if any possibility of any risk exists, then a person should do nothing at all in face of that risk taking place. I am stating that without substantial proof that there has already been any harm, then the burden of proof pretty much sides with my argument that there has not been any actual harm, IS not harm being done, and quite probably will BE no harm in the future. And in fact there are provable benefits to the animals being released that face certain death if that miniscule threat (kind of on the order of being hit by a meteor) were taken as being much more substantial then it is and killing them.
As for the ethical consideration, there is none in the negative sense. My actions are based on my believe as stated above, where ethics is based on engaging in an action whereby the action itself or the results of those actions, result in something illegal or actually damaging. In a positive sense, I believe it is much more ethical to give an animal a chance at survival rather than simply throwing it in the freezer.
So again, unless you have some solid proof of what you are claiming about that "risk" then you are just wasting my time repeating my same posts over and over again. If you have trouble understanding what I am telling you, then please hire someone to help you out. Apparently I can't find the words in the English language that you can understand. I AM really sorry that you cannot comprehend my viewpoint, but that lacking on your part doesn't make your case any stronger.
I understand completely what you are saying, but just do not agree with your assessment based on the currently available facts. Without additional facts, and your simply reiterating your own personal opinion, then you too are simply being redundant.
Kenneth Noisewater
New member
I've heard of snake breeders losing entire collections to the wild due to natural disasters.
Buzzard
two corny
Honestly, with no sceintific data, Yes.....
After Hurricane Andrew, when Homestead and parts of Miami where blown off the map, I was assigned a crew to gather animals. Mostly livestock due to my background. But we had a common collection point. There were a few reptiles brought in but no where near the number that should of been.
So can you imagine all the other hurricanes that have battered south Florida.
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
That's all just fuel to the fire.
Kenneth Noisewater
New member
Thanks Buzzard. That's "Burm", lboz.
"Sorry, I just flatly disagree with you. You are asking me to prove a negative result in that you want me to PROVE that releasing corns will NOT have any negative effect on captive populations. I am asking you to prove a positive result whereby there is any documented cases of released captive corn snakes (or for that matter any snake released within it's natural range) causing harm to the native population. And in my opinion, the burden is on YOU to prove that the risk exists."
No, this is not a situation in which I'm asking you to "prove a negative", rather this is a situation in which:
a) you posted that you partake in controversial behavior
b) people, including me, have criticized you for this controversial behavior by citing a peer reviewed study, a federal government legal ruling, a vet, an alleged former Florida state employee and other forms of evidence such as the rationality involved in itself
c) you reject this evidence and in fact you've flatly rejected the tortoise study without having read anything more than the abstract
-therefore-
d) the burden is on you to prove that your behavior is permissable in spite of letter b above.
"Which, thus far, you have not, and in my opinion, cannot."
So your claim now is that even in spite of letter b above I/we have yet to even establish beyond any doubt the presence of any risk at all? That's radically counterintuitive.
"You are stating that if any possibility of any risk exists, then a person should do nothing at all in face of that risk taking place."
No, I'm saying that the ethical herpetoculturist would reduce risk at all reasonable costs, which you don't seem to be willing to do. The above quote is faulty black & white thinking.
"I am stating that without substantial proof that there has already been any harm, then the burden of proof pretty much sides with my argument that there has not been any actual harm, IS not harm being done, and quite probably will BE no harm in the future."
Think about this a little. You're saying that no one should take precautions unless an already existing problem exists which can be cited as an example. This type of logic, applied to medicine for just one instance, would lead to drastic problems. The descending levels of strength in your last sentence really describe the presence of risk well: so far in your situation there has been NO obvious problem, presently in your situation there is NO obvious harm being done, but in the future there QUITE PROBABLY won't be any harm done. This at least acknowledges a future risk. Now you just need to accept that the risk is greater than you've just acknowledged and thus the past, present and future risk is more than just present, it's an actual threat to native populations.
"And in fact there are provable benefits to the animals being released that face certain death if that miniscule threat (kind of on the order of being hit by a meteor) were taken as being much more substantial then it is and killing them."
Could you clarify?
"As for the ethical consideration, there is none in the negative sense. My actions are based on my believe as stated above, where ethics is based on engaging in an action whereby the action itself or the results of those actions, result in something illegal or actually damaging. In a positive sense, I believe it is much more ethical to give an animal a chance at survival rather than simply throwing it in the freezer."
I understand your last sentence and can relate to feeling remorse about the death of any sentient organism, but the problem isn't created by life itself nor is the problem symptomatic of it, rather the problem is created by you pursuing your pleasure. This is the case with all herpers, so the ethical bounderies are greater than just what brings about actual harm. In my opinion an admirably ethical herper can see beyond their instant gratification to the intrinsic good and pleasure that ethical behavior brings them. I don't expect this, though, because it's too high of an ethical standard for most people to live by. I think asking you to stop releasing captive animals is in accordance with a lower standard of ethics than this, a more populist standard that should be at least foundational to all herpers.
"So again, unless you have some solid proof of what you are claiming about that "risk" then you are just wasting my time repeating my same posts over and over again. If you have trouble understanding what I am telling you, then please hire someone to help you out. Apparently I can't find the words in the English language that you can understand. I AM really sorry that you cannot comprehend my viewpoint, but that lacking on your part doesn't make your case any stronger."
I get that you're at a stand still because you can no longer argue against what I'm saying and therefore you're frustrated. This isn't a defficiency on your part, it's just that my claim is the correct one and yours is not. So you're struggling to fight an up hill battle by grasping at straws. Why not just use this opportunity to transform your ethics to something more admirable and less dominated by your personal satisfaction? I've stated all of the necessary evidence to convince a reasonable person (who isn't motivated purely by self interest and pride) of my argument.
No, this is not a situation in which I'm asking you to "prove a negative", rather this is a situation in which:
a) you posted that you partake in controversial behavior
b) people, including me, have criticized you for this controversial behavior by citing a peer reviewed study, a federal government legal ruling, a vet, an alleged former Florida state employee and other forms of evidence such as the rationality involved in itself
c) you reject this evidence and in fact you've flatly rejected the tortoise study without having read anything more than the abstract
-therefore-
d) the burden is on you to prove that your behavior is permissable in spite of letter b above.
"Which, thus far, you have not, and in my opinion, cannot."
So your claim now is that even in spite of letter b above I/we have yet to even establish beyond any doubt the presence of any risk at all? That's radically counterintuitive.
"You are stating that if any possibility of any risk exists, then a person should do nothing at all in face of that risk taking place."
No, I'm saying that the ethical herpetoculturist would reduce risk at all reasonable costs, which you don't seem to be willing to do. The above quote is faulty black & white thinking.
"I am stating that without substantial proof that there has already been any harm, then the burden of proof pretty much sides with my argument that there has not been any actual harm, IS not harm being done, and quite probably will BE no harm in the future."
Think about this a little. You're saying that no one should take precautions unless an already existing problem exists which can be cited as an example. This type of logic, applied to medicine for just one instance, would lead to drastic problems. The descending levels of strength in your last sentence really describe the presence of risk well: so far in your situation there has been NO obvious problem, presently in your situation there is NO obvious harm being done, but in the future there QUITE PROBABLY won't be any harm done. This at least acknowledges a future risk. Now you just need to accept that the risk is greater than you've just acknowledged and thus the past, present and future risk is more than just present, it's an actual threat to native populations.
"And in fact there are provable benefits to the animals being released that face certain death if that miniscule threat (kind of on the order of being hit by a meteor) were taken as being much more substantial then it is and killing them."
Could you clarify?
"As for the ethical consideration, there is none in the negative sense. My actions are based on my believe as stated above, where ethics is based on engaging in an action whereby the action itself or the results of those actions, result in something illegal or actually damaging. In a positive sense, I believe it is much more ethical to give an animal a chance at survival rather than simply throwing it in the freezer."
I understand your last sentence and can relate to feeling remorse about the death of any sentient organism, but the problem isn't created by life itself nor is the problem symptomatic of it, rather the problem is created by you pursuing your pleasure. This is the case with all herpers, so the ethical bounderies are greater than just what brings about actual harm. In my opinion an admirably ethical herper can see beyond their instant gratification to the intrinsic good and pleasure that ethical behavior brings them. I don't expect this, though, because it's too high of an ethical standard for most people to live by. I think asking you to stop releasing captive animals is in accordance with a lower standard of ethics than this, a more populist standard that should be at least foundational to all herpers.
"So again, unless you have some solid proof of what you are claiming about that "risk" then you are just wasting my time repeating my same posts over and over again. If you have trouble understanding what I am telling you, then please hire someone to help you out. Apparently I can't find the words in the English language that you can understand. I AM really sorry that you cannot comprehend my viewpoint, but that lacking on your part doesn't make your case any stronger."
I get that you're at a stand still because you can no longer argue against what I'm saying and therefore you're frustrated. This isn't a defficiency on your part, it's just that my claim is the correct one and yours is not. So you're struggling to fight an up hill battle by grasping at straws. Why not just use this opportunity to transform your ethics to something more admirable and less dominated by your personal satisfaction? I've stated all of the necessary evidence to convince a reasonable person (who isn't motivated purely by self interest and pride) of my argument.
Dinah
New member
I live in FL and while I am sure it is very difficult if not completely impossible to evacuate a large scale collection of animals. I just have to say it is very important to make a hurricane plan for your pets. We are lucky to be able to evacuate ours with us when we do need to leave which thankfully is not very often, and I understand that not everyone can be so fortunate, but hurricanes are one of the few disasters where there is actually time to plan for it in advance. If you are in a situation where you can make a plan, then I think you should. Especially in the case of non native animals. This is just my opinion and really it is just my a humble request to my fellow neighbors, I am even willing to say pretty please.
As a note, I evacuated to homestead from the Keys for Andrew and it was just crazy there. Not only was there escaped animals from private people, but a large portion of the zoo fell apart and many animals from there got away as well. Dave Barry even wrote an article about hurricane season where he referenced all the escapee monkeys from the zoo.
Kudos for what exactly?
With all due respect and not entirely seriously, I just need to verify what you're saying before I pounce... :nyah:
Are you saying that hurricanes and natural disasters that result in property damages that result in captive animals escaping...are the sole purpose of the burmese python problem (sans the irresponsible release of captives into the everglades)?
RobbiesCornField
Bring it on.
Considering a very good portion of the animals are genetically related, proven through mitochondrial DNA, yes. I do believe that a large portion of the python problem in the Everglades can be linked to escapes from zoos and pet stores during natural disasters. I know the question wasn't directed at me, and forgive me for jumping back in again.
http://www.usark.org/uploads/FloridaBurmGenetics.pdf
I have not finished reading the entire study, as that's going to take quite a while, but from what I've gathered so far, there is very little genetic differentiation in the snakes loose in the Everglades as opposed to their "cousins", if you'll pardon my use of the word here, in their natural range.
Kenneth Noisewater
New member
I know tahat anerys can occur in the wild. But considering hurricane 'mishaps", who can be sure of anything they catch in the wild ?
Crotalus,
"So again, unless you have some solid proof of what you are claiming about that "risk" then you are just wasting my time repeating my same posts over and over again. If you have trouble understanding what I am telling you, then please hire someone to help you out. Apparently I can't find the words in the English language that you can understand. I AM really sorry that you cannot comprehend my viewpoint, but that lacking on your part doesn't make your case any stronger.
I understand completely what you are saying, but just do not agree with your assessment based on the currently available facts. Without additional facts, and your simply reiterating your own personal opinion, then you too are simply being redundant."
"So again, unless you have some solid proof of what you are claiming about that "risk" then you are just wasting my time repeating my same posts over and over again. If you have trouble understanding what I am telling you, then please hire someone to help you out. Apparently I can't find the words in the English language that you can understand. I AM really sorry that you cannot comprehend my viewpoint, but that lacking on your part doesn't make your case any stronger.
I understand completely what you are saying, but just do not agree with your assessment based on the currently available facts. Without additional facts, and your simply reiterating your own personal opinion, then you too are simply being redundant."
Jason_Hood
New member
While this is just a side note on the direct topic at hand it is indeed pertinent to it in one way. Any colonization of an invading organism must have sufficent individuals to succeed. In this case it could have been a single female that was gravid while escaping and being successful in hatching her eggs or it could have been a single everwhelmed individual who hatched out a few hundred burms in a season and could not deal with all of them so he released the normals en mass. I have heard that this may have been the case. There is also the chameleons that are on the west coast because someone set them up on purpose. I do not believe that individual adult releases caused this issue unless it was a gravid female, but I can totally see an idiot burm breeder doing this on purpose.
Either way the current legislation coming our way (and it will hit the corn folks too) will be 100% our faults.
Jason
- Status