New Cali Introduction
Moderator: Scott Waters
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: November 18th, 2013, 10:27 pm
- Location: Arcata, CA
New Cali Introduction
Hello everybody! I'm new here (sort of) and I would like to make a proper introduction. My name is Tyler Urban and I joined this forum because, as you all could probably guess, I love field herping and the subjects of said activity! In all honestly I've been a lurker for about two years now. I finally decided to try and join the discussion and participate so here I am. I was a military brat and thus moved around a lot so when people ask where I'm from I can't really give a definitive answer. The places I've spent the most time in have been Idaho, Texas, and California in order of increasing time spans. Therefore, I default my hometown as Edwards Air Force Base in Socal.
My father has been a great influence on both myself snd my sister in the aspect of appreciating the natural world and its wonders. He always took us "outside to the wild" where from a very early age he'd show us animals and teach us about the natural phenomena which they were involved in. That is how I got hooked on both fishing and herptiles, lizards in particular.
Since then I've had a great time over the years field herping and keeping captive herps as well, both native and exotic. The mojave desert at Edwards was my main stomping ground but I've been to various places and environments throughout the state.
As of now I've graduated high school and will be entering my third year as a wildlife major at Humboldt State University near Arcata, CA. I hope to become a wildlife biologist in the future and maybe get lucky working with herps. I still have a lot to learn in the the way of both school and field herping but I'm ready to meet the challenge. Thank you all for reading and for letting me be a part of this wonderful group of people.
-Tyler
My father has been a great influence on both myself snd my sister in the aspect of appreciating the natural world and its wonders. He always took us "outside to the wild" where from a very early age he'd show us animals and teach us about the natural phenomena which they were involved in. That is how I got hooked on both fishing and herptiles, lizards in particular.
Since then I've had a great time over the years field herping and keeping captive herps as well, both native and exotic. The mojave desert at Edwards was my main stomping ground but I've been to various places and environments throughout the state.
As of now I've graduated high school and will be entering my third year as a wildlife major at Humboldt State University near Arcata, CA. I hope to become a wildlife biologist in the future and maybe get lucky working with herps. I still have a lot to learn in the the way of both school and field herping but I'm ready to meet the challenge. Thank you all for reading and for letting me be a part of this wonderful group of people.
-Tyler
Re: New Cali Introduction
Great Introduction Tyler. Welcome to NAFHA and the forum..
Please let me or any of our board members know if you want to get started entering data into HERP or if you
have any questions.
Brian Hinds
California Chapter President
Please let me or any of our board members know if you want to get started entering data into HERP or if you
have any questions.
Brian Hinds
California Chapter President
Re: New Cali Introduction
Welcome, Tyler
As far as I know, one other well-known forum member, Natalie McNear, is also at Humboldt State pursuing a degree in wildlife management or such. You may want to look her up. She's one of the youngest, but best herpers from the Bay Area and is also known as the "Gartersnake Queen."
Once you are ready, let me know if you need any help with getting started entering your finds into the HERP database. You'll also find a sticky post with information about the database at the top of this forum.
Robert
As far as I know, one other well-known forum member, Natalie McNear, is also at Humboldt State pursuing a degree in wildlife management or such. You may want to look her up. She's one of the youngest, but best herpers from the Bay Area and is also known as the "Gartersnake Queen."
Once you are ready, let me know if you need any help with getting started entering your finds into the HERP database. You'll also find a sticky post with information about the database at the top of this forum.
Robert
-
- Posts: 8025
- Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
- Location: Hesperia, California.
- Contact:
Re: New Cali Introduction
I believe Lucas Basalto attends Humbolt, as well, with the same major. he's home for the summer, (in Barstow) and we talk bout everyday (online)... I'll tell him to check in here. welcome to the forum(s) jim
- Lucas Basulto
- Posts: 66
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 6:43 pm
- Location: Monte Rio, California
Re: New Cali Introduction
Tyler!!! Whats up dude! Knew you would find this place eventually! Did you pass 244?! hahahah If you are still up at HSU you should definitely hit up Natalie. I think you may have met her at one of the herp meetings..
Hope your summer is going good man! Shoot me a text when you are out this way!
Luke
Hope your summer is going good man! Shoot me a text when you are out this way!
Luke
- Lucas Basulto
- Posts: 66
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 6:43 pm
- Location: Monte Rio, California
Re: New Cali Introduction
PSH. Debatable. I have long held the title of Gartersnake Queen. hahaRobertH wrote: You may want to look her up. She's one of the youngest, but best herpers from the Bay Area and is also known as the "Gartersnake Queen."
- Brian Hubbs
- Posts: 4735
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
- Location: "Buy My Books"-land
Re: New Cali Introduction
Hellihooks is a Queen too...
-
- Posts: 8025
- Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
- Location: Hesperia, California.
- Contact:
Re: New Cali Introduction
i don't even know what that means... go fish somewhere else you Hubbcap...
- Brian Hubbs
- Posts: 4735
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
- Location: "Buy My Books"-land
Re: New Cali Introduction
Guess you were too busy tappin' on the cans and singin' rock & roll in the shower...
Didja miss me Jim for the last 3 weeks? I know you did...
Didja miss me Jim for the last 3 weeks? I know you did...
Re: New Cali Introduction
welcome to the group
-
- Posts: 639
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm
Re: New Cali Introduction
Tyler, Lucas, and Natalie if she sees this thread:
I graduated in wildlife science back in 1955 from Oregon State University. During my undergraduate training, at some point I picked-up on what was the most important basic principle that governs the populations of all species wildlife. I cannot recall if any of my professors really emphasized or stressed the importance of that principle or I gradually came to realize its vital importance.
So I am wondering if any of you can tell me that during you classes at Humboldt State, has any professor pointed out the single most important
principle that allows species to continue as sustainable populations?
The reason I am asking is for the better part of the past two decades, I have found many state agency, non-game biologists seem to be oblivious to that fundamental principle. Either these biologist never grasped that principle, have forgotten it, or its importance may never have been emphasized during their university education.
I can be reached at [email protected] should one prefer to answer in that fashion.
Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
I graduated in wildlife science back in 1955 from Oregon State University. During my undergraduate training, at some point I picked-up on what was the most important basic principle that governs the populations of all species wildlife. I cannot recall if any of my professors really emphasized or stressed the importance of that principle or I gradually came to realize its vital importance.
So I am wondering if any of you can tell me that during you classes at Humboldt State, has any professor pointed out the single most important
principle that allows species to continue as sustainable populations?
The reason I am asking is for the better part of the past two decades, I have found many state agency, non-game biologists seem to be oblivious to that fundamental principle. Either these biologist never grasped that principle, have forgotten it, or its importance may never have been emphasized during their university education.
I can be reached at [email protected] should one prefer to answer in that fashion.
Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)
Re: New Cali Introduction
Great intro. Happy herping.
reako45
reako45
- Calfirecap
- Posts: 638
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 8:09 am
- Location: Santa Cruz Co. California
- Contact:
Re: New Cali Introduction
Welcome Tyler,
It's nice to see new commers provide an introduction, it really helps. HSU is a great school and it really doesn't get much better than Arcata. I attended HSU then stayed there after graduating and always enjoy returning from time to time.
Lawrence
It's nice to see new commers provide an introduction, it really helps. HSU is a great school and it really doesn't get much better than Arcata. I attended HSU then stayed there after graduating and always enjoy returning from time to time.
Lawrence
Re: New Cali Introduction
Welcome to The Forum, Tyler.
My one advice- beware of Hubbs....
My one advice- beware of Hubbs....
- Brian Hubbs
- Posts: 4735
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
- Location: "Buy My Books"-land
Re: New Cali Introduction
Who? Me? What did I do?
OK, maybe I try to hawk some good books once in awhile...
and maybe I call stupid people "morons"...
and I pick on Jim once in awhile...
So-what?
OK, maybe I try to hawk some good books once in awhile...
and maybe I call stupid people "morons"...
and I pick on Jim once in awhile...
So-what?
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: November 18th, 2013, 10:27 pm
- Location: Arcata, CA
Re: New Cali Introduction
Brian Hinds
Robert H.
Laurence
Jim
Mattg.
and
Zach_Lim ---> Thank you all for the kind welcomes
Lucas, How ya doing bud, I hope well. And you know I did haha.
reako45, thanks for the good luck wish, guess I'll be needing it as I attempt to find invisible lizards with my dad while spending the summer here in Idaho.
To all referrring to Lucas and Natalie, I know them both as friends. I also agree that Natalie is at the scary smart level haha!
Brian Hubbs, I'll be looking out jk
Richard F. Hoyer: I've only taken a couple wildlife classes so far but I guess I can give my take on this elusive principle. I've always thought that you cannot single out a species for protection because the whole ecosystem and habitat are an interconnected unit. That unit cannot be compartmentalized without damaging your ability to see the big picture which affects the said species of interest at all levels. This is why I prefer habitat protection rather than species protection alone.
Robert H.
Laurence
Jim
Mattg.
and
Zach_Lim ---> Thank you all for the kind welcomes
Lucas, How ya doing bud, I hope well. And you know I did haha.
reako45, thanks for the good luck wish, guess I'll be needing it as I attempt to find invisible lizards with my dad while spending the summer here in Idaho.
To all referrring to Lucas and Natalie, I know them both as friends. I also agree that Natalie is at the scary smart level haha!
Brian Hubbs, I'll be looking out jk
Richard F. Hoyer: I've only taken a couple wildlife classes so far but I guess I can give my take on this elusive principle. I've always thought that you cannot single out a species for protection because the whole ecosystem and habitat are an interconnected unit. That unit cannot be compartmentalized without damaging your ability to see the big picture which affects the said species of interest at all levels. This is why I prefer habitat protection rather than species protection alone.
- Brian Hubbs
- Posts: 4735
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
- Location: "Buy My Books"-land
Re: New Cali Introduction
Oh...this sounds like a pretty smart person...
- Lucas Basulto
- Posts: 66
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 6:43 pm
- Location: Monte Rio, California
Re: New Cali Introduction
Very well put my friend!Sandwalker wrote: Richard F. Hoyer: I've only taken a couple wildlife classes so far but I guess I can give my take on this elusive principle. I've always thought that you cannot single out a species for protection because the whole ecosystem and habitat are an interconnected unit. That unit cannot be compartmentalized without damaging your ability to see the big picture which affects the said species of interest at all levels. This is why I prefer habitat protection rather than species protection alone.
Mr. Hoyer: I would say the same but also add that our professors thus far have presented a TON of principles that I'm sure we all pick up on differently. So in my opinion, it feels as though they want us to develop our own value system regarding what principles we hold most important individually. What was the principle you were taught or picked up on Mr. Hoyer? It would be helpful if we could compare what you have learn to what we have been taught so far! Might be the same thing or we may have touched on it.
If I were to say what is most important to me, I would say that habitat degradation plays a large part in why species decline, much like what Tyler said but I also believe that ties into a habitats carrying capacity and how much resources are actually available to the species in question, how much of the resources are being degraded or encroached upon by human activity (and how quickly), and how much competition that species has for said resources. I really believe that factor causes a limitation in the size or growth of that species population and I believe addressing those issues as best we can is the way to go when attempting to preserve an individual species' population size.
Funding for population dynamic research can also be considered "Principle" right? Lord knows THAT is vitally important and a lack of it can hold up a lot and ultimately hurt a species...(Buh-duh-dum-crashhhh)
(Boos and hisses ensue for bad pun)
Professors Black and Brown and the good folks up at HSU taught us real good-like.Brian Hubbs wrote:Oh...this sounds like a pretty smart person...
- shredsteban
- Posts: 199
- Joined: April 7th, 2012, 8:53 pm
- Location: Riverside, Ca
Re: New Cali Introduction
Great intro! If you're ever in or near Riverside County, shoot me a PM.
Re: New Cali Introduction
If I read Richard correctly, he's not talking about a policy principle, but a biological principle. The former may be a matter of value judgment, but the latter is not. So, try again
Re: New Cali Introduction
Welcome to the California chapter. ...
- Lucas Basulto
- Posts: 66
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 6:43 pm
- Location: Monte Rio, California
Re: New Cali Introduction
Could you explain what you mean? Carrying capacity isn't a biological principle in regards to sustainability? I'm still pretty unclear as to whats being asked here... Natalie is farther along in the program maybe she could answer the question more correctly.RobertH wrote:If I read Richard correctly, he's not talking about a policy principle, but a biological principle. The former may be a matter of value judgment, but the latter is not. So, try again
- Natalie McNear
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:54 pm
- Location: Northern coast of California
Re: New Cali Introduction
Hi Tyler.
-
- Posts: 639
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm
Re: New Cali Introduction
Tyler, Lucas:
As you both allude, there is the major principle that species and habitat are inseparable. As a consequence, the primary cause for the decline in numerical abundance and distribution of species has been due to the degradation and / or outright loss of habitat. It is hard for me to conceive that wildlife agency, non-game biologists are not aware of the above. So it seems they simply ignore the primary cause for the decline of species when they propose regulation placing a ban on collecting.
I know of no rational explanation as to why state wildlife agencies adopt regulations banning collecting of certain 'species of concern' then claim that such regulations will prevent species from reaching the point of being listed as threatened or endangered when in fact, such species became of concern (at risk) not because of collecting, but due to the degradation or loss of habitat.
But besides the inseparable link between species and habitat, I believe there is another fundamental principle that has been overlooked, not understood, forgotten, or its significance not fully appreciated. This particularly seems to the case where agency biologists propose, then state wildlife agency commissioners adopt regulations placing a ban on collecting. In that respect, I am not aware of any scientific literature that has identified recreational or general collecting as producing negative impacts on the overall populations of amphibians or reptiles.
Perhaps the importance of this principle, and its overall ramifications, is not really emphasized within the universities. This fundamental principle states that provided nothing is interfering with the normal reproductive processes, during reproduction, species over-produce their kind.
As worded above and without further explanation, this principle may not have much meaning to many. But another way of stating this principle is that during the normal reproductive process, species produce a surplus of their members in excess of what is needed to replace the normal level of annual attrition (death) from all sources (disease, old age, predation, severe weather, starvation, etc.).
A more comprehensive explanation would take volumes. So I will end this post with two statements and a question.
Statements: This basic principle of reproduction explains why after catastrophic events that greatly reduce numerical abundance (such as wild fires), as the habitat recovers, species of wildlife also recover and eventually reach their former levels of densities and numerical abundance. It also explains why for eons, humans have been able to remove (harvest, collect) countless numbers of commercial, game, and non-game species with such species continuing as sustainable populations.
Question: 1) Taking into account that demand for non-game species is a fraction of the demand for most commercial and game species, and 2) through reproduction, species produce surpluses, I find it inexplicable that agency non-game biologists (and others) harbor the unsupported notion that the random, incidental take (collecting) of certain non-game species can produce negative consequences?
Richard F. Hoyer
As you both allude, there is the major principle that species and habitat are inseparable. As a consequence, the primary cause for the decline in numerical abundance and distribution of species has been due to the degradation and / or outright loss of habitat. It is hard for me to conceive that wildlife agency, non-game biologists are not aware of the above. So it seems they simply ignore the primary cause for the decline of species when they propose regulation placing a ban on collecting.
I know of no rational explanation as to why state wildlife agencies adopt regulations banning collecting of certain 'species of concern' then claim that such regulations will prevent species from reaching the point of being listed as threatened or endangered when in fact, such species became of concern (at risk) not because of collecting, but due to the degradation or loss of habitat.
But besides the inseparable link between species and habitat, I believe there is another fundamental principle that has been overlooked, not understood, forgotten, or its significance not fully appreciated. This particularly seems to the case where agency biologists propose, then state wildlife agency commissioners adopt regulations placing a ban on collecting. In that respect, I am not aware of any scientific literature that has identified recreational or general collecting as producing negative impacts on the overall populations of amphibians or reptiles.
Perhaps the importance of this principle, and its overall ramifications, is not really emphasized within the universities. This fundamental principle states that provided nothing is interfering with the normal reproductive processes, during reproduction, species over-produce their kind.
As worded above and without further explanation, this principle may not have much meaning to many. But another way of stating this principle is that during the normal reproductive process, species produce a surplus of their members in excess of what is needed to replace the normal level of annual attrition (death) from all sources (disease, old age, predation, severe weather, starvation, etc.).
A more comprehensive explanation would take volumes. So I will end this post with two statements and a question.
Statements: This basic principle of reproduction explains why after catastrophic events that greatly reduce numerical abundance (such as wild fires), as the habitat recovers, species of wildlife also recover and eventually reach their former levels of densities and numerical abundance. It also explains why for eons, humans have been able to remove (harvest, collect) countless numbers of commercial, game, and non-game species with such species continuing as sustainable populations.
Question: 1) Taking into account that demand for non-game species is a fraction of the demand for most commercial and game species, and 2) through reproduction, species produce surpluses, I find it inexplicable that agency non-game biologists (and others) harbor the unsupported notion that the random, incidental take (collecting) of certain non-game species can produce negative consequences?
Richard F. Hoyer
-
- Posts: 639
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm
Re: New Cali Introduction
I just noted that what was intended to be a question, I converted into another statement at the end of my recent post.
Richard F. Hoyer
Richard F. Hoyer
- Natalie McNear
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:54 pm
- Location: Northern coast of California
Re: New Cali Introduction
It totally depends on the species and the particular situation that species is facing. I'm not arguing that Rubber Boa populations can't handle a certain level of harvest, but other species cannot. I'm working with Rana cascadae this summer, a species that is almost literally disappearing before our very eyes in the California Cascades. Preliminary genetic analysis is pointing toward these populations being distinct from R. cascadae populations in the Klamaths, Oregon, and Washington in terms of genetics, morphology, and habitat characteristics. They'd probably be considered a different species if anyone cared to look at them closely enough.
They are restricted to high-elevation wet meadows in this region, a fragile and extremely limited habitat type that has suffered from grazing, fire suppression, water diversion, off-road vehicle use, introduced predators, pot grows, and pretty much every other human-mediated habitat change over the past 100 or so years. Add on top of that Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and the recent drought, and you get a recipe for extinction. Over the past few weeks I've surveyed known R. cascadae localities in the vicinity of Mount Lassen. Several locations that had frogs last year now had none. One large meadow that was previously a stronghold for the species in the region now has about 10 frogs in it.
The populations in these areas tend to dwindle until there's just a few of them left, then stabilize for a while until those last frogs get predated or otherwise killed. This species cannot handle any sort of harvest by humans - the last surviving individuals are more tolerant of the habitat changes than those that died off, and every egg mass, tadpole, and metamorph produced by them is vital to the population. If City Slicker Fred takes his kids camping and decides that each of them gets to take home a pet Cascades Frog, that can be a huge and fatal blow to a population in a particular meadow.
There are habitat changes that can be reversed fairly quickly (fire regimes), others that will require several decades to reverse and recover from (grazing), and some that can simply cannot be reversed at all (like chytrid fungus, which is perfectly capable of surviving and reproducing without amphibian hosts). For this reason, we need to set strict bag limits for some species and even prohibit collection altogether for others (like the Cascades Frog, which is currently a Species of Special Concern but would probably be more correctly classified as Endangered). In species that are barely holding on in habitats that have been permanently altered and every individual is vital to the population or subpopulation, habitat protection alone is not likely to be enough if the animals themselves are not protected (assuming it is a species that is desirable to collectors, and I'm not saying R. cascadae is).
If you're asking why bag limits are imposed on common or resilient species like Rubber Boas, it's because Americans take too much if they're allowed to and we've seen what havoc that can wreak on our wildlife populations. Passenger Pigeons. American Alligators. Northern Elephant Seals. Non-game species have limits because we often don't have enough of an idea of individual species' populations to say things like "Oh, you can collect 25 Ringneck Snakes, but those Long-nosed Snakes, you can only have five of those". Regarding your question, it is incorrect to assume that all non-game species will produce a population surplus each year; some, like the Cascades Frog in the California Cascades, simply do not. Please do not make blanket judgements on biologists who are doing their jobs to attempt to protect non-game species for which we do not yet have adequate long-term data (or funding, for that matter) to make species-specific collection regulations.
They are restricted to high-elevation wet meadows in this region, a fragile and extremely limited habitat type that has suffered from grazing, fire suppression, water diversion, off-road vehicle use, introduced predators, pot grows, and pretty much every other human-mediated habitat change over the past 100 or so years. Add on top of that Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and the recent drought, and you get a recipe for extinction. Over the past few weeks I've surveyed known R. cascadae localities in the vicinity of Mount Lassen. Several locations that had frogs last year now had none. One large meadow that was previously a stronghold for the species in the region now has about 10 frogs in it.
The populations in these areas tend to dwindle until there's just a few of them left, then stabilize for a while until those last frogs get predated or otherwise killed. This species cannot handle any sort of harvest by humans - the last surviving individuals are more tolerant of the habitat changes than those that died off, and every egg mass, tadpole, and metamorph produced by them is vital to the population. If City Slicker Fred takes his kids camping and decides that each of them gets to take home a pet Cascades Frog, that can be a huge and fatal blow to a population in a particular meadow.
There are habitat changes that can be reversed fairly quickly (fire regimes), others that will require several decades to reverse and recover from (grazing), and some that can simply cannot be reversed at all (like chytrid fungus, which is perfectly capable of surviving and reproducing without amphibian hosts). For this reason, we need to set strict bag limits for some species and even prohibit collection altogether for others (like the Cascades Frog, which is currently a Species of Special Concern but would probably be more correctly classified as Endangered). In species that are barely holding on in habitats that have been permanently altered and every individual is vital to the population or subpopulation, habitat protection alone is not likely to be enough if the animals themselves are not protected (assuming it is a species that is desirable to collectors, and I'm not saying R. cascadae is).
If you're asking why bag limits are imposed on common or resilient species like Rubber Boas, it's because Americans take too much if they're allowed to and we've seen what havoc that can wreak on our wildlife populations. Passenger Pigeons. American Alligators. Northern Elephant Seals. Non-game species have limits because we often don't have enough of an idea of individual species' populations to say things like "Oh, you can collect 25 Ringneck Snakes, but those Long-nosed Snakes, you can only have five of those". Regarding your question, it is incorrect to assume that all non-game species will produce a population surplus each year; some, like the Cascades Frog in the California Cascades, simply do not. Please do not make blanket judgements on biologists who are doing their jobs to attempt to protect non-game species for which we do not yet have adequate long-term data (or funding, for that matter) to make species-specific collection regulations.
- Calfirecap
- Posts: 638
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 8:09 am
- Location: Santa Cruz Co. California
- Contact:
Re: New Cali Introduction
Nicely put Natalie.
-
- Posts: 639
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm
Re: New Cali Introduction
Tyler and Natalie:
First off, I need to apologize to Tyler for hijacking his post.
Natalie, you mentioned, "It totally depends on the species and the particular situation that species is facing." I fully agree with that statement.
As a matter of fact, I have read some prior reports on Rana cascadae. It is quite clear that the species has experienced a sharp decline in its distribution and numerical abundance in N. Calif. Some or possibly all of the factors you mention have resulted in a serious decline in the adult
breeding population. So it is reasonable to conclude that those factors have interfered with the normal reproductive process in the species.
In my June 8th post, I mentioned the following: "This fundamental principle states that provided nothing is interfering with the normal reproductive processes, during reproduction, species over-produce their kind."
So clearly, the particular situation with Rana cascadae does not apply as the species' normal reproductive process has been compromised.
Last, has the prospect of captive propagation and subsequent release been considered? Hope your field research proves to be rewarding.
Richard F. Hoyer
P.S. So I again ask the question, during undergraduate education in wildlife science, has anyone recall being exposed to the basic biological principle that in effect, states that species over-produce their kind during reproduction thus producing surpluses?
First off, I need to apologize to Tyler for hijacking his post.
Natalie, you mentioned, "It totally depends on the species and the particular situation that species is facing." I fully agree with that statement.
As a matter of fact, I have read some prior reports on Rana cascadae. It is quite clear that the species has experienced a sharp decline in its distribution and numerical abundance in N. Calif. Some or possibly all of the factors you mention have resulted in a serious decline in the adult
breeding population. So it is reasonable to conclude that those factors have interfered with the normal reproductive process in the species.
In my June 8th post, I mentioned the following: "This fundamental principle states that provided nothing is interfering with the normal reproductive processes, during reproduction, species over-produce their kind."
So clearly, the particular situation with Rana cascadae does not apply as the species' normal reproductive process has been compromised.
Last, has the prospect of captive propagation and subsequent release been considered? Hope your field research proves to be rewarding.
Richard F. Hoyer
P.S. So I again ask the question, during undergraduate education in wildlife science, has anyone recall being exposed to the basic biological principle that in effect, states that species over-produce their kind during reproduction thus producing surpluses?
-
- Posts: 8025
- Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
- Location: Hesperia, California.
- Contact:
Re: New Cali Introduction
See... and I was gonna chime in to say more herps need to survive, than die, for what ever reasons... but, you know me...I'm kinda shy... jim
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: November 18th, 2013, 10:27 pm
- Location: Arcata, CA
Re: New Cali Introduction
First, thanks again for the continued welcomes!
It's alright that the post was hijacked I guess, though it may be more helpful to others not in the know to post this discussion with a title something like biological principles and/or subsequent management? That's where it seems to be leading anyway.
I agree with the majority of Richard, Natalie, and Lucas' posts on the subject ,but, of course, like anyone I have my own specific interpretation and opinion on the subject. I do strongly agree that it certainly depends on the specific situation for the species or even population that is being focused on. It can be seen in many different species or even across the ranges of including separate populations of the same species that the survival and sustaining/non-sustaining predicaments will vary widely and must be looked at carefully including both local and regional assessments. Lack of funding seems a big problem in this non-game niche however.
On the topic concerning the "under normal breeding conditions" and etc. which produce a surplus of offspring, as i said earlier, I've only taken a few wildlife classes so far. It does seem that later the topic may be implied at the least, what with concepts that follow it such as predation and recruitment that explain what happens to these "extra" offspring eventually leading to stable continuation of the population (if the ecosystem around it is in a relatively balanced state at least).
It's alright that the post was hijacked I guess, though it may be more helpful to others not in the know to post this discussion with a title something like biological principles and/or subsequent management? That's where it seems to be leading anyway.
I agree with the majority of Richard, Natalie, and Lucas' posts on the subject ,but, of course, like anyone I have my own specific interpretation and opinion on the subject. I do strongly agree that it certainly depends on the specific situation for the species or even population that is being focused on. It can be seen in many different species or even across the ranges of including separate populations of the same species that the survival and sustaining/non-sustaining predicaments will vary widely and must be looked at carefully including both local and regional assessments. Lack of funding seems a big problem in this non-game niche however.
On the topic concerning the "under normal breeding conditions" and etc. which produce a surplus of offspring, as i said earlier, I've only taken a few wildlife classes so far. It does seem that later the topic may be implied at the least, what with concepts that follow it such as predation and recruitment that explain what happens to these "extra" offspring eventually leading to stable continuation of the population (if the ecosystem around it is in a relatively balanced state at least).
- Lucas Basulto
- Posts: 66
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 6:43 pm
- Location: Monte Rio, California
Re: New Cali Introduction
Can't recall. Or maybe I was sick that day.Richard F. Hoyer wrote: P.S. So I again ask the question, during undergraduate education in wildlife science, has anyone recall being exposed to the basic biological principle that in effect, states that species over-produce their kind during reproduction thus producing surpluses?
-
- Posts: 639
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm
Re: New Cali Introduction
Tyler, Lucas, Natalie:
I was away for awhile and then busy and thus my lack of response. I do not wish to continue taking over Tyler's thread so will leave you with just mentioning the following.
On 10/15/13, I initiated a thread on the Main Forum entitled, "Protection --- A Flawed Policy. In that thread, I touch on a few major tenants of wildlife science / population biology. If you wish to inform yourselves, I urge you take a gander. I believe a review of that thread has the potential of adding to your understanding.
The last response in that thread I believe was on 12/9/13 which is the date you can locate the thread in the Main Forum archives. Right now the tread can be found on page 11 of those archives.
Finally, there were at least three professional herpetologists (all with PhDs), that contributed to the thread so it may be worth your while viewing their responses as well. Those individuals were Sam, Jeff, and Gerry. You may also note a contribution by Jimi who I believe is a wildlife biologist with the Utah wildlife agency.
If you do take the time to read through that thread and have questions, I can be reached at [email protected].
Richard F. Hoyer
I was away for awhile and then busy and thus my lack of response. I do not wish to continue taking over Tyler's thread so will leave you with just mentioning the following.
On 10/15/13, I initiated a thread on the Main Forum entitled, "Protection --- A Flawed Policy. In that thread, I touch on a few major tenants of wildlife science / population biology. If you wish to inform yourselves, I urge you take a gander. I believe a review of that thread has the potential of adding to your understanding.
The last response in that thread I believe was on 12/9/13 which is the date you can locate the thread in the Main Forum archives. Right now the tread can be found on page 11 of those archives.
Finally, there were at least three professional herpetologists (all with PhDs), that contributed to the thread so it may be worth your while viewing their responses as well. Those individuals were Sam, Jeff, and Gerry. You may also note a contribution by Jimi who I believe is a wildlife biologist with the Utah wildlife agency.
If you do take the time to read through that thread and have questions, I can be reached at [email protected].
Richard F. Hoyer