Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
klawnskale
Posts: 1211
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:09 pm

Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Post by klawnskale »


luv_the_smellof_musk
Posts: 55
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 6:19 pm

Re: Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Post by luv_the_smellof_musk »

What if the decline is unrelated to the roundup?

Eimon
Posts: 69
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:44 am
Location: So Cal
Contact:

Re: Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Post by Eimon »

luv_the_smellof_musk wrote:What if the decline is unrelated to the roundup?
Well then, we should just let 'em bag what's left and get on with it. :? :shock: :roll:

User avatar
Trey
Posts: 158
Joined: October 1st, 2010, 8:40 pm
Location: NE OHIO

Re: Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Post by Trey »

luv_the_smellof_musk wrote:What if the decline is unrelated to the roundup?
Seriously bro?

Who cares if its unrelated. I just want it to end.

User avatar
azatrox
Posts: 793
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 5:51 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Post by azatrox »

What if the decline is unrelated to the roundup?

Despite the scoffs and eye rolls of some in this community when this question is posed, it is a valid scientific question...It's another way of asking: "How confident are we that roundups are causing (or contributing to) the decline in C. adamanteus populations?" Absolutely no harm in asking this question...Often, we assume that event A is caused by variable B....Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong and sometimes we're a bit of both.

One way to get us closer to the answer to this question is to survey populations of C. adamateus from areas that were formerly hunted, but are no longer. Assuming that climactic and habitat variables remain relatively constant over time, the numbers of snakes (year to year) would give us a good idea as to whether the roundups were a cause of snake decline. Evidence would indicate that areas that are no longer hunted (again, assuming other conditions remain relatively unchanged), would see an increase in the numbers of snakes observed, implying that the population is increasing in number and strength due to the removal of an environmental pressure. I'm not aware of any specific studies that are addressing this area of inquiry, but the findings sure would be interesting.

Based upon what we know about C. adamanteus biology and life history, I would personally consider it one of the bigger scientific shocks of the last 50 years if it were found that population declines were unrelated to roundup activity in areas where they occurred. Ecological theory states that you simply can't remove mass numbers of apex predators from an ecosystem over a protracted period of time and NOT negatively affect the abundance/overall health of the population (and rest of the ecosystem for that matter).

- Kris

User avatar
Trey
Posts: 158
Joined: October 1st, 2010, 8:40 pm
Location: NE OHIO

Re: Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Post by Trey »

azatrox wrote:What if the decline is unrelated to the roundup?

Despite the scoffs and eye rolls of some in this community when this question is posed, it is a valid scientific question...It's another way of asking: "How confident are we that roundups are causing (or contributing to) the decline in C. adamanteus populations?" Absolutely no harm in asking this question...Often, we assume that event A is caused by variable B....Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong and sometimes we're a bit of both.

One way to get us closer to the answer to this question is to survey populations of C. adamateus from areas that were formerly hunted, but are no longer. Assuming that climactic and habitat variables remain relatively constant over time, the numbers of snakes (year to year) would give us a good idea as to whether the roundups were a cause of snake decline. Evidence would indicate that areas that are no longer hunted (again, assuming other conditions remain relatively unchanged), would see an increase in the numbers of snakes observed, implying that the population is increasing in number and strength due to the removal of an environmental pressure. I'm not aware of any specific studies that are addressing this area of inquiry, but the findings sure would be interesting.

Based upon what we know about C. adamanteus biology and life history, I would personally consider it one of the bigger scientific shocks of the last 50 years if it were found that population declines were unrelated to roundup activity in areas where they occurred. Ecological theory states that you simply can't remove mass numbers of apex predators from an ecosystem over a protracted period of time and NOT negatively affect the abundance/overall health of the population (and rest of the ecosystem for that matter).

- Kris

Your missing my point. Who cares if the roundups are contributing to population decline? My opinion is they are, and obviously I care, but they should be dicontinued either way. Thats great, I am glad we have identified that it is a valid scientific question! But if it wasn't, and the roundups didn't contribute to population decline, does that mean they should continue?

Here's an idea, I dont really care for dogs and cats, can we have a dog and cat roundup where I just go around and senselessly murder every one I can come across? Im sure I could profit from selling the skins and furs.

Eimon
Posts: 69
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:44 am
Location: So Cal
Contact:

Re: Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Post by Eimon »

Kris- a valid point for sure. I was just keeping it very simple so I could over-use those little faces.....hehe. Personally, I consider loss of habitat (all forms) the largest contributor to EDB numerical declines. As for adult size declines over the years, much more attributable to roundups IMO.

User avatar
azatrox
Posts: 793
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 5:51 am
Location: Arizona

Re: Thank You, Dr. Bruce Means!

Post by azatrox »

Your missing my point. Who cares if the roundups are contributing to population decline? My opinion is they are, and obviously I care, but they should be dicontinued either way. Thats great, I am glad we have identified that it is a valid scientific question! But if it wasn't, and the roundups didn't contribute to population decline, does that mean they should continue?

Here's an idea, I dont really care for dogs and cats, can we have a dog and cat roundup where I just go around and senselessly murder every one I can come across? Im sure I could profit from selling the skins and furs.


Trey, I got your point...However, your point (as valid as it may be) does not address the scientific issue at hand (that is do rattlesnake roundups adversely affect relative abundance of rattlesnake populations). Your approach here is from an ethical stance, and (again) it's a valid stance...But it's a wholly separate question than the original scientific inquiry.

Do I personally agree that rattlesnake roundups should be discontinued on a permanent basis? Absolutely. That said, my (or yours or anyone else's) personal feelings on the matter have no bearing on whether or not roundups affect rattlesnake populations.

We too often assume a sense of ethics with science...As is often the case, the two subjects are wholly and distinctly separate of each other and any valid scientific study must take this into account.

Milgrim's psychology experiments in the 1960s were scientifically valid....These days such experiements could NEVER pass muster, but these experiements exposed issues and raised valid scientific questions. The only reason such experiments couldn't be performed today is because we have attached an ethical sense to them, and deemed them unethical...but that doesn't mean they are not worthy of analysis and deeper understanding. To the contrary, these experiements showed us things that we are not likely to capture today, by virtue of how we limit ourselves due to ethics.

-Kris

Post Reply