No, your statement should be "it is POSSIBLY illegal"....
Interesting.... But since my animals have been a closed population for a number of years, with no signs of observable illness caused by disease organisms, I did not REASONABLY expect them to transmit any diseases to the local populations. Since there is no indication in this code about who "might" reasonably determine this, I guess I'm just as qualified as anyone else, under the circumstances.
But do you have an actual online link to that "code"? I would like to see it in it's full context. Of course, there is also the other minor detail of whether or not a code violation is a violation of actual LAW.
Anyone else interested in trying to get me arrested? :roflmao: Some are apparently trying pretty hard to do that. What a wonderful bunch of guys.....
You're absolutely right-it is
possibly illegal, but not
assuredly based on what I've cited. That was poor wording on my part. However, just because YOU don't reasonably expect them to transmit disease, doesn't mean this doesn't apply in this case. Apparently you release non-feeders. Where I come from, persistent refusal to eat might be interpreted as a sign of illness. It doesn't necessarily mean it is, but it sure could be. My interpretation is that you DO need to rule out disease transmission prior to release, as in have the animals evaluated by a vet. As far as linking to the actual code, I never even looked at it myself. I found this reference on another message board and just pasted what was there. To be perfectly honest, it could be completely made up for all I know, though I have no reason to believe it is. Since it seemed relevant to the questions of legality concerning released animals in FL I went ahead and posted it.
As far as it being a code and not a law, I know I work in environmental enforcement and I regularly cite people for violations of our state code which can lead to fines and/or imprisonment. This may not be the same across the board and I have no legal training, so take it for what you will. Considering my degree of unfamiliarity with legal issues, I don't really have any interest in searching through another state's records to try and confirm or deny the status or relevance of this reference. If someone else would like to make that effort and provide a definite answer either way...well it probably wouldn't make a difference the way this thread has been going, but you're welcome to try.
Personally, I don't have some mean-spirited vendetta or want to see you arrested Rich, though I do find your actions (especially the public broadcasting of them on here) reprehensible and think you should hold yourself to a higher standard. As has been stated before, it sets a bad example and promotes the idea of disposability without responsibility...responsibility to the animals or the environment. I'd be much more interested in getting you to expand your understanding and/or interpretation of the issue and realize the potential for harm and how much it outweighs what you apparently consider "benefits" of the practice. Unfortunately, to be blunt, I think you already have some understanding of the potential consequences and simply don't care, whether you'll admit it or not. I'll try to keep throwing out justification for my perspective if you'll keep listening though.
I have really looked into this in terms of laws, and it is really something that is of interest to me, so perhaps you could help me out a little bit.
Sorry, but as I mentioned above, I'm just not familiar with the document or motivated enough to search for it. I just found the reference online, but I have no idea how or where to access the original source. I write people up almost daily for WV Code violations but if I didn't have the book sitting on my desk, I'd have no idea where to find any of the information it contains. For all I know the reference in question may not even exist online. If you are motivated enough to keep looking and find some definite confirmation of its existence or absence, I'd personally be interested in the results either way. After all, you can't trust everything you read online and in this case, I was really just taking someone else's word for it that this reference existed (though I don't know why anyone would make something like this up).
Oh, while I am at it, Kevin, in reference to your treatise on the black rat snakes, please take a look at this definition of "species" and provide us with your opinion about what this actually means...
...but are not able to breed with members of another species...
Sorry, but I'm just not impressed by that argument you have presented........
Oh jeez, this is quite the can of worms, but it's really inevitable if we're going to thoroughly discuss the issue. It's also directly related to the situation at hand (releasing snakes), so kudos for the relevant point. As far as the emphasized portion of the definition you referenced, here is my response. It says a species is not able to breed with members of another species. By this I assume you're implying that
P. slowinski and
P. guttatus are the same species since they can interbreed and you suggest that the splitting of these two is premature. I can't definitively refute this claim since I
A. don't have a thorough knowledge of genetics from a systematic/taxonomic standpoint, and
B. haven't even read the whole paper in detail.
The split may have been valid and well-supported by the author's data or it may have been premature depending on interpretation. I won't say I agree or disagree with this specific example unless I take the time to better educate myself on it.
However, the definition of a species you posted is flawed. Different species can interbreed, obviously. We have hundreds if not thousands of examples of corns crossed with cal kings, honduran milks, florida kings, gopher snakes, etc. I've even seen an asian beauty snake/corn hybrid and some hybrid between a corn and a species of European
Elaphe (can't recall which species though). These are all examples of intergeneric hybrids-not just different species, but different genera. Surely you don't suggest that each of these snakes are actually all the same species because they can interbreed. Your definition failed to mention this, but most cases I've seen claim separate species can interbreed,
but will not produce viable offspring (they will be sterile). This is not even the case with many of these examples. It has been proven many times over that these hybrids are fertile and able to breed with one another or back to one of the parent species.
To be clear, there is no absolute definition of a species. It is a concept created by humans to categorize organisms and no definition works in every case. That was the point I was trying to make-it's pointless to suggest that releasing corns in FL is fine because they're "the same species" as the natives because scientists can't even agree on a consistent definition of the word species. Just as you could consider releasing cal kings in FL wrong due to their "non-native" status, you could consider releasing line bred CB corns wrong since they are also non-native (genetically and/or morphologically different from those that naturally occur there).
Here is a list of some different definitions of the word species, all currently accepted by different groups within the scientific community:
1. Nominalistic species concept: Only the individuals themselves exist, while species are abstractions created by people. (
probably the most "correct" definition, though not the most useful for classification)
2. Essentialist (typological) species concept: A species is a group of individuals essentially indistinguishable from some specimen selected as a standard of reference such as a holotype, lectotype, etc. (
pretty good in my opinion, though subjective )
3. Morphological species concept: Defined on observable, morphological differences. Morphological gaps define species differences. This method also uses type specimens as references. (
my old line of thinking before I became more educated on the subject)
4. Biological species concept: A species is a group of interbreeding natural populations that is reproductively isolated from other such groups. (
similar to the example you used, but difficult to define reproductive isolation i.e. disjunct populations may or may not be considered separate species)
5. Evolutionary species concept: A single lineage of ancestor-descendent populations which maintain their identity from other such lineages and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and fate (lineage=one or a series of local populations which share a common history of descent not shared with other local populations). (
could be viable, but very subjective due to differing interpretations of genetic differentiation and where to draw the lines)
6. Phylogenetic species concept 1: The smallest diagnosable samples of self-perpetuating organisms using diagnosable characters. (
I'm not too familiar with this one personally, but I think it goes too far and would/could consider very small groups such as different populations to be different species)
7. Phylogenetic species concept 2: Species must have an autapomorphy (a character unique to a particular taxon). Otherwise much like #6. (
according to my understanding, this would be very difficult to apply to all organisms in a way that makes sense)
8. Genetic species concept: The system used by bacteria people, where the 16S gene has to differ by 1%. (
Would basically require genetic testing of everything to really know what it is)
Obviously, these very different, yet potentially valid definitions really complicate things. When discussing a species, two people could have wildly different definitions of what they're referring to. Rather than starting a debate about taxonomy on the side, I hope this will be sufficient to prove that the "corns are a native species, so there's nothing wrong with it" logic is inherently flawed due to a highly debatable definition of the word species.
This brings me back to my often repeated, yet still not answered questions:
There is nothing to gain from releasing these snakes, though it has the potential to cause many complications. You can focus on the word potential all you want and say there's no definite proof, and that may be true, but how is it worth the risk? How can you justify the potential harm when the only benefit is your personal convenience?
This practice unquestionably alters the natural population dynamics as well as the genetic integrity of the surrounding populations. Whether or not these changes will have any lasting, damaging consequences is uncertain. Is it worth the risk though? Why?
