It is currently June 22nd, 2018, 12:43 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: January 26th, 2015, 7:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Pasadena, CA or Mission, TX
Thoughts? Based on reviews, Snake in the Grass seemed to attract more praise and less debate, while Invasive Pythons in the United States seemed a lot more controversial with reviewers on different ends of a broad spectrum. Would anyone with both books like to weigh in?

-Gene


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: January 27th, 2015, 3:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Pasadena, CA or Mission, TX
What I've gathered on my own:

Snake in the Grass: The author is apparently an excellent writer, the book is over 200 pages long and the citations are extensive, but I find no mention of photos in the book (fine for this kind of book). The author also apparently tries to write about the problem from all perspectives, which is important. Biggest problem: the snake on the front appears to be a hatchling Python sebae, not a Python molurus bivittatus.

Invasive Pythons: This book is considerably shorter (by about 50 pages) and is loaded with photos, making me wonder how much good content could have been crammed in. Also, the reviews seem to be more all over the place. Some people loved it, some people say it was too dramatic without any proof, etc.

Overall, I just feel like that's not enough to go on. I know they're both pretty cheap books, but my budget is tight and I'd rather buy the one that the people here think was most worthwhile. I'd appreciate your input.

-Gene


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: January 28th, 2015, 1:40 pm 

Joined: December 9th, 2010, 9:21 am
Posts: 77
deleted


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: January 28th, 2015, 3:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Pasadena, CA or Mission, TX
Sounds good, thanks! I figured he probably knew what he was doing with the cover, it just seemed like too blatant a mistake not to be caught in editing.

-Gene


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: January 29th, 2015, 3:30 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:42 am
Posts: 2232
Gene,
I just ordered Snakes in the Grass. I'll let you know what I think as soon as I read it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: January 29th, 2015, 5:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Pasadena, CA or Mission, TX
Thanks! Interested to hear what you'll think. Odds are I won't be buying the book until 2016 regardless, but I'm trying to get things sorted out. There are so many books that I want but don't have, and new ones are coming out all the time, and being a college student with no income except my birthday, Christmas, chore money (when I'm home), and the stipend my Grandmother sends me every month, I just can't afford much. I've calculated that I will likely catch up on all the books I want for sure by the end of 2016, barring a huge explosion in herp literature. And why are the good books all SO EXPENSIVE? The average price of the books I'll buy this year is close to $100. :shock:

-Gene


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: February 11th, 2015, 1:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:26 am
Posts: 3425
Location: Illinois
Gene,

Would you mind sharing any books on the list you're interested in? I have a large herp library, and I buy and read herp literature constantly. I'm sure there's something I'm missing.

Justin


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: February 11th, 2015, 2:19 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Pasadena, CA or Mission, TX
* Edit: realized this list made a super long comment, so I just PM'd it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: February 11th, 2015, 4:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Pasadena, CA or Mission, TX
All items on that list considered, do you have any recommendations for me? I'm pretty sure I've found all the past literature that I want, but there is a slim chance that I might have missed something in my extensive searching.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: February 12th, 2015, 3:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 446
Quote:
Thoughts? Based on reviews, Snake in the Grass seemed to attract more praise and less debate, while Invasive Pythons in the United States seemed a lot more controversial with reviewers on different ends of a broad spectrum. Would anyone with both books like to weigh in?

-Gene


It depends on what kind of book you're looking for. If you like fiction, either book will make for some nice light reading, if its fact based information about pythons and their assimilation into the Florida landscape, nether book will provide much, if any truth or accuracy of fact.


Snake in the Grass Author Larry Perez , who is he?

Quote:
" Larry Perez is a lifelong resident of Miami who has spent over 15 years working in south Florida's natural areas. During his career, he has worked as a naturalist for Miami-Dade Parks and Recreation, a hydrologic technician for Biscayne National Park, and an interpreter for Everglades National Park. Larry is a graduate of Florida International University with an undergraduate degree in Parks and Recreation Management and a Masters of Science in Environmental Studies." SFNRC


Snake in the grass author Larry Perez has no real knowledge about the reptiles he writes about or how they fit into one of the worlds most polluted and disturbed environment's .

I went over the book when it first came out. It became quickly evident that his book was little more then his own (Perez) rehashing of the pletara of misgivings found in common media and the haphazard " findings " of pseudo scientific reserch projects. Its not surprising that Larry Perez tells a nice story, that is what he does. From a fact standpoint, there is little if anything authentic to be found in his writings, I'm not going to say that Larry Perez was intentionally dishonest in his work but simply and accurately put, he doesn't know any better. His qualifications to write this type of book are almost non existent. This not the case with the second set of authors.

INVASIVE PYTHONS in United States was a deliberate attempt on part of John D. Willson and Mike Dorcas to mislead, create anxiety and first and formost generate funding for their own careers and the careers of thier like minded colleagues .

Its not surprising this book was filled with pictures and alarming sometimes wacky side bar story's. This book was meant to scare people, not educate them. Knowing that few if any will actually read the whole book they wanted to make sure their fear mongering message reached those who simple glance thru, only looking at the pictures and maybe reading a few captions.

As mentioned the book does contain data-focused graphs and figures. It must be kept in the forefront that this information was obtained by research using incomplete and erratic approaches yielding results that are about as scientific as shampoo commercial. As Gordon Rodda once put it in a paper he wrote, bending data. There is so much in this literary flagellant to be dissected, I'll just touch on a few things as sort of an overview of the non sense found in its pages.

In the section Whos Who of Python Reserch, Dorcus boast of fellow researcher Skip Snows media notoriety . Bragging about the quantity of press attention the pythons have received. He made a point to include what he felt was the most illustrious of the press received, one he is very proud of. This as follows word for word as it appears in his book. Keep in mind the researcher's often blame the press for misquotes making them sound like crazy alarmist. In the book Mike Dorcus makes it clear that in fact they love and promote the presses fanning if the flames.

Quote:
In 2010 Skip Snow was selected by Maxim magazine as one of six people with the "Greatest American Balls " for "Catching the 13 foot alligator swallowing - basterds armed with a pair of tongs, a laundry sack and two of the biggest balls this country has ever seen."



Quote:
Given the placement of the python's eyes it could see in both directions down the highway. The snake had stopped to look both ways before crossing! I do not think that even a major road would, over time, present a barrier to such cautious and patient animals." Mike Dorcus / John D Wilson Invasive Pythons Ecology of an introduced predator


In Mike Dorcas book he says large Burmese pythons CERTAINLY do exceed 20 feet and can approach 25 feet in length. Where did he get this? There are no documented 20 foot Burmese pythons let alone 25 footers. Dorcus didn't stop at 25 feet , they get even bigger according to the python researchers. They list the maximum record size for the Burmese python as 27 feet, citing a captive bred animal as having reached this length. Ok, lets take a look at the facts surrounding that ridiculous statement found in the book.

The snake the python researchers are referring to is an animal named baby who was for years reported to be 27 feet. The snake in question, Baby after 27 years was euthanized in a veterinary office and measured. She was at the time of her death 18' 10" not 27 feet as said and accepted by the researchers. She still remains the largest verifiable measured Burmese python.

As in the previous example. Thru out the book the authors bend and twist verifiable biological data , mix and match species, habitats etc. distorting just about everything and anything they can as needed to paint the picture they would like people to see. Intentionally failing to accurately present even the most fundamental aspects known about the animals ecology in a truthful and informative manor. There is absolutely nothing to recommend this book as reliable and truthful source of information on the subject. The authors should be ashamed but their not. Actions such as theirs have become common place and in fact are promoted to those wanting to join in the inclusive club of invasive species research.


Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: February 12th, 2015, 7:20 pm 

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:42 am
Posts: 2232
I'm not qualified to judge the scientific merits of it, but the Perez book was certainly enjoyable reading.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: February 14th, 2015, 12:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 12th, 2010, 3:08 pm
Posts: 405
Location: Pasadena, CA or Mission, TX
Ernie: the quote about the python seeing both ways, checking the road and all, really raised my eyebrows. Of course, a herper just knows this is a big exaggeration, as snakes will often just sit by a road with their foreparts stuck out, but it could mislead a less-experienced reader. I have since obtained the book, obviously, and overall I feel like it takes a pretty fair approach to the "invasion". I don't think we should underestimate the impact that these pythons could have until we have really analyzed just how many there are and what they're eating.

As far as Snake in the Grass goes, I'll probably still get it. I've heard enough people say it was enjoyable, and really when discussing an issue about which so little is known, I would think more opinions are better than none. Furthermore Ernie, if I recall, you are skeptical about whether or not the pythons are a big deal. I'm not saying that their impact will be as dramatic as Boiga on Guam, and maybe they don't grow to 20+ feet (I always ignore those claims anyway), but I don't think it's fair to just assume that they'll just assimilate into the Everglades fauna like it's no big deal. Rhinella in Australia certainly didn't. But of course, don't allow me to mis-quote you; it's quite possible I'm remembering someone else or skewing your words, and I'm not trying to start up a debate, but I'd be interested to hear what your personal opinions are on the matter.

Tamara: Thanks for the recommendation.

-Gene


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: February 28th, 2015, 11:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1168
Incredible books both of them. Just look at the reviews by some of the world's most well respected scientists and herpetologists in the world. Or take the word of Ernie.

"Snake in the Grass is a gripping and factual account of the most dramatic invasion yet in the continental US; it’s hard to put down. But it’s more than that. Perez depicts the surprising number of invaders in south Florida, the ecosystem-level impacts, and the array of economic forces, politics, and weak regulations that indicate the worst is yet to come."-Daniel Simberloff, Nancy Gore Hunger Professor, University of Tennessee, Editor-in-Chief, Biological Invasions, Senior Editor, Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions

"Invasive species come in all shapes and sizes—but few biological invaders are as dramatic as giant pythons. In this magnificently illustrated book, two accomplished snake biologists separate fact from fiction, and provide a user-friendly but scientifically rigorous account of how the pythons got to the USA, what we know about these troublesome aliens, and what impacts they are likely to have on the complex ecosystems of the Everglades and beyond."—Rick Shine, University of Sydney

“Michael E. Dorcas and John D. Willson provide a much-needed examination of the growing impact of Burmese pythons as an invasive species in the United States. By highlighting the many dangers and detrimental effects the introduction of non-native pythons has caused in the Everglades, this book documents the mounting threat which invasives pose to ecosystems everywhere. The first book to focus solely on this issue, Invasive Pythons is well-researched, well-illustrated, and well-timed.”—Edward O. Wilson, University Research Professor, Harvard University


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: March 3rd, 2015, 8:19 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 446
Quote:
But of course, don't allow me to misquote you; it's quite possible I'm remembering someone else or skewing your words, and I'm not trying to start up a debate, but I'd be interested to hear what your personal opinions are on the matter. Gene


My thoughts on the matter can found in detail in the various python threads found on this forum (just look for the ones with the highest number of views and post). What you will find is that I go into full detail on the subject involving every biologically known parameter involving these animals. I use the python researchers' own data to point out the gross misconceptions and inaccuracies being put forth in their published works, both academic and commerical. I exaime the ways academic misbehaviour is used to bend data. I also delve into the real world reasoning as to why such educated people would engage in this type of manipulative behavior.

What you won't find is a single rebuttal that disproves or even attempts to disprove anything I say on the subject in a factual manner. There are post after post made by those with a vested interest or their personal friends attempting to discredit me in any manner possible. Everything from simple name calling to remarks about my family , whatever, no matter how far down the evolutionary latter they have to fall. But not a single response that proves me wrong in any way, shape or form on a single tangible biological point. I openly solicited for someone to come forth and present evidence to the contraire of what I said about the animals behavior or biology, how's it adapting into this new portion of the species range . The same holds true in reference to my detailed portrait of Everglades environment as it actually is, including the critical points you wont find in any published python research paper , information that puts the Burmese pythons introduction into true perspective.

The reason my post has garnered such derogatory responses is a simple one. I punch hole after hole in the hot air balloon surrounding the pythons in the Everglades. I have exposed everything from gross inconcistances in the collection of data to flat out lies. I have called them out.

What I have posted on this forum paints a very acurate and truthful portrait of the burmese python in the everglades based on facts devoid of the circus hype the reserchers have time and time again encouraged by their direct action. The hype they are counting on to whip funding support for their career goals and their students. And no, nothing justifies this deceit filled approach to what is being called science.

A highly detailed review of the Dorcus /Willson book can be found at,

http://vpi.com/publications,

A Review of: Invasive Pythons in the United States by Dorcas and Willson (2011) (383.1 KB PDF) November 30, 2011, David G. Barker and Tracy M. Barker.

The Barkers are two of the worlds most renowned python scientist. Unlike Dorcus and Wilson, who have very little experience working and studying pythons , basically python band wagon jumpers , Dave and Tracy are scientist who have dedicated their lives to the study and conservation these animals. They are well known world wide as authorities on the subject. What they say in many ways mirrors my views as it would anyone who has truly informed opinion on the matter. This has to make one wonder after the reading the short , cut and pasted reviews posted by Bryan Hamilton.

Given the glaring flaws that can be found by simply and quickly leafing through the Dorcas and Willson book. Did reviewers such as Rick Shine and Edward O. Wilson actually read the book or were they just giving a colleague a pat on the back in support of the cause. The answer is obvious . Its not a question of who to believe but knowing what to believe, the only way to that is to be come an expert yourself. Sad but true.


Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: March 3rd, 2015, 6:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
WSTREPS wrote:
... There are post after post made by those with a vested interest or their personal friends attempting to discredit me in any manner possible...

From Wikipedia:

    "Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."

From Oxford Dictionaries:

    "vested interest - A personal stake or involvement in an undertaking or state of affairs, especially one with an expectation of financial gain"

Ernie Eison and the "scientists" who he often champions and whose "research" he often touts, David and Tracy Barker, are in fact living embodiments of the term "vested interest" when it comes to the subject of the invasive exotic Burmese pythons established in FL's Everglades and whatever regulations might arise from concerns about them. These three people have long been involved in importing, breeding and selling pythons for profit. They have a clear and considerable monetary motive (e.g. the Barkers are currently advertising one of their snakes for sale for $10,000) for trying to dismiss the FL python situation as a mere triviality rather than a serious problem, given that a serious problem might in fact justify restrictions on keeping or transporting such animals.

I'm not personally involved in any of the python research that has been/is being conducted in FL. I'm not personally acquainted with any of the scientists who have been/are, either. Heck, I don't really even know all that much about the situation, having myself read only a bit more about it than what has appeared in the popular press and, to be frank, not giving it all that much thought, either. When I do think about the situation it certainly bothers me, of course, as there seems ample reason to believe - and there is a growing body of scientific evidence to support the belief - that the pythons are quite capable of and likely already are wreaking havoc in the ecology of the Everglades. (Which should surprise no one, as serious invasive exotic species often wreak ecological havoc in areas where they become established, be they giant snakes or no.)

But over the years since the python issue began getting much attention I've certainly gotten to know Ernie from his posts here at FHF. Do a quick search and you'll find that any time the subject of FL's pythons comes up (and he's not infrequently the one who brings it up) he habitually distorts the methods and results of FL's python researchers, misrepresents their communications with the press and on pretty much every opportunity also personally and profoundly denigrates the scientists themselves. (Note that these threads don't start with anyone saying anything at all about "poor, picked-on" Ernie, but rather he starts by attacking various scientists and their research.) I don't actually know any of them, as I said, and I don't even know all that much of their work. Few here do, as with perhaps one or two occasional exceptions these scientists don't participate here (and so can't defend themselves from Ernie's unceasing campaign here to discredit them and their work). But, yes, I have gotten to know Ernie all too well.

His and the Barkers' many years spent trafficking in pythons has enabled them to learn a fair bit about these snakes, without a doubt, but his and the Barkers' profound vested interest - not to mention his profound dishonesty in defending that vested interest from perceived threats (I won't speak to the Barkers' methods, as I'm not nearly so familiar with them as I am his) - unfortunately means that no one should trust anything Ernie Eison has to say on the subject of FL's pythons or the scientists/research focusing on them. I'm afraid it really is that straightforward.

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: March 4th, 2015, 8:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 446
The post directly preceding this one. Right on cue is a prime example of the type of response I've often encountered. on this forum. It is filled with misinformation, lies and attempts at character assassination and distinctly lacking in fact .

This post made by a person who admittedly has no idea what he's talking about, but stills move forth busily throwing everything and anything at the wall to see if he can get something to stick.

He begins by saying that I'm motivated by the profits I earn from the trafficking of pythons. This idea was long ago addressed and dismissed as a falsehood.

To refresh, I have not imported or sold large constrictors at this point, I'm guessing it's been over a decade. I have a ZERO monetary vested interest in this issue. The Barkers have NEVER been commercial importers.

The Barkers have been openly discouraging people from keeping and breeding large constrictors, encouraging keepers to work with smaller more manageable species for even longer than I have. As with most things involving these creatures they have been at the forefront of a sensible best practice protocol from both a conservation and captive husbandry perspective.

The poster then moves on to phase two, Claiming that I often start threads on the topic attacking the scientist involved without supporting evidence and that they have no chance to defend themselves. This again is not a very truthful statement.

The number of threads I have started on the introduced python topic is exactly two. And these threads were years apart.

Out of these two post one was nothing more than a question I asked pertaining to erroneous information about an established Burmese python population in Puerto Rico. The other thread I started about a field Herping adventure I had in the Everglades involving pythons. There have been many python threads that I did not participate in.

To say that the python researchers have not with only perhaps one or two occasional exceptions been involved in the threads is again an untrue statement .

People who have been directly involved with various Everglades python projects, that have posted (some many times) in the discussions I've participated in, include people such as, Bob Reed, Mike Roachford, Josh Holbrook, Chris Gillet, their friends and colleagues , keep in mind that some of these people at the time these discussions were taking place, were working directly with other high profile python researchers such as Skip Snow and Gordon Rodda. Most of these names are mentioned in the Dorcas / Wilson book that is the actual topic of this discussion. , in fact the book is dedicated to Skip Snow.

For someone to say that these scientists have not often participated here is absurd. Bob Reed posted in this very thread!

Finally the poster finishes with a bang. Belittling two people (the Barkers) who are regarded by many professional herpetologist and biologist as two of the worlds leading scentific authorities on pythons. Certainly the Barkers extensive body of scientific work supports this. This work includes the most comprehensive, scientifically detailed books and publications ever written on the subject of pythons and their ecology. Their extensive professional backgrounds in working with many other types reptiles and amphibians, everything from field work with the now extinct Golden toad and tutataras to common rattlesnakes and many other types of animals. Their research , dedication and scientific knowledge is beyond reproach.

Only an idiot would categorize these scientists (LIKE THE PERSON who made the post directly preceding this one DID). as people who know a fair bit about these snakes because they spent years trafficking in pythons.

Lastly, I'm not the one talking about pythons looking both ways before crossing the street, growing to 27 feet, eating babies in China, surviveing freezing winters, creating climate matching maps based on events that have not taken place and other unsound methods, withholding points of scientific interest to curve the results of data and on and on. I am someone who has not only question these things but has also provided supporting evidence in the form of statistical and written word to validate my views. If the information provided was not factual it could have been easily proven erroneous, in the way I set the record straight involving the misinformation found in the books , press releases and published papers put out by the scientist involved with everglades introduced python population.

And it really is that straightforward.

Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: March 5th, 2015, 7:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
WSTREPS wrote:
The post directly preceding this one. Right on cue is a prime example of the type of response I've often encountered. on this forum. It is filled with misinformation, lies and attempts at character assassination and distinctly lacking in fact .

gbin wrote:
From Wikipedia:

    "Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude."

Sadly, whatever expertise Ernie has accumulated while trafficking in pythons is largely lost to us because his profound vested interest and equally profound disregard for the truth ensure that nothing he says is straightforward.

Going over all of his charges, for me as for the scientists and their research that he routinely denigrates because they dare to focus their efforts on FL's pythons and by so doing learn and publicize things that threaten his vested interest, is pointless. It is far quicker and easier for him to churn out misinformation than it is for the targets of that misinformation to correct it.

For just one, all-too-relevant example offered simply to illustrate what I'm talking about, per Ernie's last post I am...

WSTREPS wrote:
... busily throwing everything and anything at the wall to see if he can get something to stick.

Look again at my earlier post. It has one and only one point: to make it clear to everyone that Ernie Eison and David and Tracy Barker...

gbin wrote:
... have a clear and considerable monetary motive... for trying to dismiss the FL python situation as a mere triviality rather than a serious problem, given that a serious problem might in fact justify restrictions on keeping or transporting such animals.

and that this in combination with...

gbin wrote:
... his profound dishonesty in defending that vested interest from perceived threats... unfortunately means that no one should trust anything Ernie Eison has to say on the subject of FL's pythons or the scientists/research focusing on them.

That's only one single charge, it was made only after he had already in this thread made essentially the same charge against others (be that an unconscious psychological projection or a conscious attempt at a preemptive strike on his part), quite unlike his frequently made charge it was accompanied by supporting evidence, and it most definitely sticks. I'll leave the rest of Ernie's prevarications for interested parties to discern for themselves.

Warning: Don't make a drinking game of spotting them, or you'll run a real risk of suffering alcohol poisoning! :beer:

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: March 5th, 2015, 10:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm
Posts: 446
Quote:
WSTREPS wrote:
... busily throwing everything and anything at the wall to see if he can get something to stick.

Look again at my earlier post.


ok,

It was said,

Quote:
These three people have long been involved in importing, breeding and selling pythons for profit.


These three people is referring to the Barkers and myself. This skewed information was then corrected, To refresh, I have not imported or sold large constrictors at this point, I'm guessing it's been over a decade. I have a ZERO monetary vested interest in this issue. The Barkers have NEVER been commercial importers.

The Barkers have been openly discouraging people from keeping and breeding large constrictors, encouraging keepers to work with smaller more manageable species for even longer than I have. As with most things involving these creatures they have been at the forefront of a sensible best practice protocol from both a conservation and captive husbandry perspective.


It was said ,

Quote:
Do a quick search and you'll find that any time the subject of FL's pythons comes up (and he's not infrequently the one who brings it up)


This untruth was then corrected, The number of threads I have started on the introduced python topic is exactly two. And these threads were years apart. One I didn't even comment on. I will add that there have been many threads on the subject that I did not particapte in.

It was siad ,

Quote:
as with perhaps one or two occasional exceptions these scientists don't participate here (and so can't defend themselves from Ernie's unceasing campaign here to discredit them and their work). But, yes, I have gotten to know Ernie all too well.


This untruth was then corrected,

People who have been directly involved with various Everglades python projects, that have posted (some many times) in the discussions I've participated in, include people such as, Bob Reed, Mike Roachford, Josh Holbrook, Chris Gillet, their friends and colleagues , keep in mind that some of these people at the time these discussions were taking place, were working directly with other high profile python researchers such as Skip Snow and Gordon Rodda. Most of these names are mentioned in the Dorcas / Wilson book that is the actual topic of this discussion. , in fact the book is dedicated to Skip Snow.

For someone to say that these scientists have not often participated here is absurd. Bob Reed posted in this very thread!

It was said ,

Quote:
His and the Barkers' many years spent trafficking in pythons has enabled them to learn a fair bit about these snakes,


This misinformation was corrceted by placing the Barker massive accmlation of knowledge on the subject into its proper perspective. As pointed out the Barkers spent years of intense scientific study in reaching their level of expertise, it is not simply the result of picking things up while being just a couple of snake traffickers as the poster try's to lead the reader into believing . My previously posted response,

Finally the poster finishes with a bang. Belittling two people (the Barkers) who are regarded by many professional herpetologist and biologist as two of the worlds leading scentific authorities on pythons. Certainly the Barkers extensive body of scientific work supports this. This work includes the most comprehensive, scientifically detailed books and publications ever written on the subject of pythons and their ecology. Their extensive professional backgrounds in working with many other types reptiles and amphibians, everything from field work with the now extinct Golden toad and tutataras to common rattlesnakes and many other types of animals. Their research , dedication and scientific knowledge is beyond reproach.

Only an idiot would categorize these scientists (LIKE THE PERSON who made the post directly preceding this one DID).as people who know a fair bit about these snakes because they spent years trafficking in pythons.

Quote:
That's only one single charge, it was made only after he had already in this thread made essentially the same charge against others


Clearly a lot of crap was thrown at the wall in making that one charge, everything and anything he could dredge up from the bowels of his imagination.

As for me making essentially the same charge against others. There is a very profound difference, my words are based on years of personal experience, reading the books, peer reviewed articles, examining the study's, comparing statistical data, going over the work published by Reed, Rodda, Dave and Tracy Barker, Mike Dorcus, Richard Shine etc. I have a deep and personal knowledge of these animals , their environment and the work that's been done. Based on this I'm able to (and do) bring to light and often correct the glaring (and not so glaring) faults in methodology and the misinformation in often blunt but educated manor. I have the level of expertise on the subject to do so.

On the other hand , gbin / Gerry brings this to the table ,

Quote:
I'm not personally acquainted with any of the scientists who have been/are, either. Heck, I don't really even know all that much about the situation, having myself read only a bit more about it than what has appeared in the popular press and, to be frank, not giving it all that much thought, either.


Nuff said, Ernie Eison


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: March 5th, 2015, 1:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
WSTREPS wrote:
Quote:
These three people have long been involved in importing, breeding and selling pythons for profit.

These three people is referring to the Barkers and myself. This skewed information was then corrected, To refresh, I have not imported or sold large constrictors at this point, I'm guessing it's been over a decade. I have a ZERO monetary vested interest in this issue. The Barkers have NEVER been commercial importers.

Sorry, Ernie, but you can't parse your way out of the fact that you three have a clear and considerable vested interest in "trying to dismiss the FL python situation as a mere triviality rather than a serious problem, given that a serious problem might in fact justify restrictions on keeping or transporting such animals," just as I said.

All three of you have ultimately made money - I'd bet quite a lot of money - from the importation, breeding and selling of large constrictors. It matters not in the slightest to the subject at hand nor does it really in any way negate what I said that this one of you might never have personally "commercially" imported (however finely you're trying to define that) or that one of you might never have personally bred the animals; you were all in the business of trafficking them. (Even picking at nits, as you're trying to do in your bogus argument, can't help you, as I never actually said that each of you was personally involved in every facet of the business.)

It doesn't really matter, either, that while the Barkers are still very visibly active in the pursuit, you're apparently currently taking a break from it (if you really are taking a break from it, that is), and it wouldn't even matter if your supposed break ultimately became permanent. You have made (likely a lot of) money from trafficking these snakes, not really very long ago from the available evidence (more on this in a moment), various people you're close to (doubtless more than just the Barkers) still are doing so, and of course you yourself could resume at any time (if in fact you ever stopped, as I said). I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you have financial stakes in various animals that the Barkers or other people are breeding and selling, too - though of course we'd never learn such a thing from you, and you'd pretend that didn't count as your still being in the business of trafficking these snakes even if this became known, anyway. Your substantial monetary motives don't just vanish at the wave of your hand.

By the way, I know that it hasn't been "over a decade" since you sold a large constrictor, Ernie, and I've no doubt you know it, too. Do you really want to persist in that particular prevarication when anyone who is interested can very quickly determine that's what it is? Yeah, I suppose you do. Lie, and then lie some more. When these lies are exposed then switch to telling those lies, then when those are exposed as well go back to telling the earlier ones as if they were fresh and new. As I said, you make heavy use of the fact that it's far quicker and easier for you to churn out misinformation than it is for others to correct it.

WSTREPS wrote:
The Barkers have been openly discouraging people from keeping and breeding large constrictors, encouraging keepers to work with smaller more manageable species...

Another attempt at parsing away the truth, I see. The Barkers currently have several tens of thousands of dollars' worth of pythons of a few different species for sale on their website. Are you going to pretend that because these species "only" get 5-7 feet in length they shouldn't be included in a discussion about "large constrictors," and much more to the point, that they wouldn't be affected by restrictions on the sale, transport and keeping of large constrictors resulting from concerns over the FL python situation? Yeah, of course you are. That's a pretty small prevarication for you to cling to, after all, compared to many of the others you often post here as part of your campaign to discredit scientists/research focusing on FL pythons.

The rest of your latest post is, of course, just more of the same dishonest garbage. I'm not sure why I wasted my time on any of it. Can you really think people here are so stupid that it hasn't become abundantly clear to them what you're doing? That they can't see you've done way more to prove my point about you and your smear campaign than I ever could? Yeah, I reckon you can. You obviously think it's worth your incredibly persistent effort at it, anyway.

The point nonetheless remains just as I laid it out to begin with:

gbin wrote:
[Ernie Eison] and [David and Tracy] Barkers' many years spent trafficking in pythons has enabled them to learn a fair bit about these snakes, without a doubt, but his and the Barkers' profound vested interest - not to mention his profound dishonesty in defending that vested interest from perceived threats (I won't speak to the Barkers' methods, as I'm not nearly so familiar with them as I am his) - unfortunately means that no one should trust anything Ernie Eison has to say on the subject of FL's pythons or the scientists/research focusing on them.

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: March 5th, 2015, 3:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Posts: 2415
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Gerry,

In modern usage, the term "trafficking" implies dealing illegally in something (drugs, people, etc.). Is that what you are implying by your continued use of that word to describe what Ernie and the Barkers do/have done regarding breeding and selling snakes? If not, why not just use the more benign term "trade?"

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=trafficking


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Snake in the Grass vs. Invasive Pythons
PostPosted: March 5th, 2015, 4:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Posts: 2293
Chris, you should know me well enough by now to realize:

1) I try to speak plainly, not to imply things.

2) As part of speaking plainly, I take pains to use language correctly.

I'm familiar with the definition you offered, but it's not by any means the only definition, today, yesterday or whenever.

From The American Heritage Dictionary:

    traffic - The commercial exchange of goods; trade

    trafficking - To carry on trade or other dealings

However you (or Google) might choose to read things, I've neither said nor implied that Ernie or the Barkers engage in illegal activity. I've also neither said nor implied that the business they engage in is bad in other ways. Indeed, you should also know me well enough by now to realize that I don't necessarily consider profiting from commercial trade in reptiles to be a bad thing.

In the present situation, though, it does make for quite a vested interest for them to have, and combined with Ernie's willingness to be dishonest in his defense of that vested interest, it "unfortunately means that no one should trust anything Ernie Eison has to say on the subject of FL's pythons or the scientists/research focusing on them."

Gerry


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: