Why You Dont Collect

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

MCHerper
Posts: 443
Joined: September 22nd, 2012, 5:13 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by MCHerper » December 21st, 2016, 10:19 am

Kelly Mc wrote:MCHerper : I didnt "take offense" I am extremely hard to offend. I was asking a question of a pious person.

Plus The Porters was actually quite well executed with the photo shop of the herps and the funny misidentifications and it is a herp forum, while the other one that Craig posted was just dumb and kind of creepy. Sad even, in a way.
I think that they are both sad in some way. The Trump one is funny for the reasons that you posted, with the speech patterns and etc., and sad for the obvious reasons. The other one is sad in that our children not only inherit the Earth from us, but they also inherit our financial woes. We are not without them.

I did not see anything from Craig about Christianity hence my question, I thought that you were the one who brought it up.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Kelly Mc » December 21st, 2016, 10:46 am

Another good reason to address our relentless breeding proclivities perhaps.

Hey who knows, maybe its all part of the plan. Trump the ginger quickener, the earth cleansed with fire to begin again without us...

:thumb:

User avatar
Porter
Posts: 1993
Joined: March 19th, 2011, 6:43 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Porter » December 21st, 2016, 11:30 am

.

User avatar
Tim Borski
Posts: 1855
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:28 am
Location: FL Keys
Contact:

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Tim Borski » December 21st, 2016, 3:43 pm

i apologies if this is off topic but I don't collect/breed because I choose not to. It can't be more simple.

Tim

User avatar
Ribbit
Posts: 601
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Contact:

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Ribbit » December 21st, 2016, 4:28 pm

I love your apology for trying to return the thread to its actual topic. How dare you, sir!

But your answer leaves me unsatisfied. Is there no reasoning behind your choice?

John

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by WSTREPS » December 21st, 2016, 6:30 pm

I'm going to believe the published literature over someone who depends on collection for making money. Simple as that. You're arguing with science and science doesn't care what you think. It just is what is. Likewise, there are plenty of actual experts (i.e., not you) that have been observing increased instances of rattlesnakes not rattling and relationships to collection or killing. Again, the science doesn't care what you think. You apparently don't understand evolution.
So now I depend on collection for making money. Do I ? Catching Rattlesnakes ? That's important to my income? Hum , And the people who write this published literature. They have no monetary or career interest, they are completely pure of heart? There has been " plenty " of validation that the motives behind the work of some biologist might not always be so honorable. Undeniably these people have a vested interest that supersedes the sanctimonious halo of science. Anyone still trying use the money argument against me at this point..... Has their head up their ass.

Next ,

So now we have, Plenty of actual experts that are observing increased instances of rattlesnakes not rattling and relationships to collection or killing. Really ? At best you could throw something like that in as one of many speculative variable's. Any party that would emphasize human collection as a primary cause of rattlesnakes evolving a new non rattling evolutionary defense strategy would be doing so with extreme prejudice and bias, not a sound scientific foundation.

The truth about rattler , rattling, rattlesnakes, Rattleless rattlesnakes,

In South Dakota it is been noted that prairie rattlesnakes are being seen with tail muscles that have apparently atrophied. This could be the result of anything from a genetic defect to an evolutionary response caused for a variety of reasons. No one knows. The case for this being tied to a genetic defect is strong given the time frame, high reproductive rate and the fact that the defect apparently does not hinder the animals survival rate and might even enhance it. Stemming from this story. Coast to coast other stories are popping up about rattlesnakes not rattling. This is the simple cause and effect of rumors. People get an idea in their head and......yep, another story is born. MonarchzMan provided a good example of this.


There are no set patterns in any rattlesnake species for when, if or how often a rattlesnake will rattle. Some species are in general considered more excitable then others. But there are no rules. There are many variable's. Why rattlesnakes have rattles to begin with is a mystery that will never be solved. The commonly accepted hypothesis for the evolution of the rattle is that its some type of warning. The most famous rattlesnakes without rattles are found on Santa Catalina Island. The experts that supposedly understand evolution, not like me according to MonarchzMan. Fully believed and it was widely accepted . That the reason these snakes lost their rattles was because it was an evolutionary adaption allowing the snakes to be silent in order to hunt birds. Sounds good until you learn that the snakes very rarely if ever eat birds. Dietary studies show the majority of this snake’s diet is comprised of the deer mice and lizards.[/u]. Other types of rattlesnakes have rattles that are so tiny and inaudible that they are virtually rattleless, the Armstrong's rattlesnake is an example.

To expand. The appendix 2 listing would not have stopped trade. So why then would the saintly Timber rattlesnake researcher's go thru so much trouble to try and get the species listed. I explained the reasoning in a past post. This is the readers digest version, The listing would have done NOTHING to relieve all the dangers real or imagined found listed in the proposal. The CITES listing would have had some major benefits for the interested party's, not so much for rattlesnake conservation. Ernie Eison


Because it would have regulated trade. Geez, are you really that dense? What benefit at all would be gained for the researchers? Do you not understand how academic research works? Seriously? With $5 and a CITES listing on my CV, I could buy a McDonald's breakfast. MonarchzMan.


Obviously you don't understand,

There was nothing to regulate. The researcher's knew this but thought they could slide it thru anyway. The appendix 2 listing would not have lessoned the trade at all as far as limiting the number of animals sold. The researcher's tried to get the timber rattlesnake listed by claiming the international trade was a large enough threat that it could jeopardize the animals future. The demonstartable facts showed that there was virtually no international trade. In fact there's virtually no domestic trade. An appendix 2 listing would have resulted in more permits then animals sold. It would have been arbitrary as far as the trade goes but like I said there was some major benefits for the interested party's.

Dude, you don't really know what you're talking about. By your logic, anyone assessing, whether for listing in the ESA, CITES, or anything else, has to be to be an expert on rattlesnakes in order to assess threats to them, when that is not the case in the real world by any means. MonarchzMan

No not like MonarchzMan. Unlike MonarchzMan the people making decisions at CITES or the IUCN read and critique, they carefully evaluate all the specific available data. They converse with a range of experts representing different fields. Then they make a determination after the proper due diligence has been preformed.
Compare MonarchzMans statement to my actual word. The missteps in MonarchzMans interpretation of my "logic" are clearly evident.

Ernie Eison

MonarchzMan
Posts: 341
Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Location: Oxford, MS

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by MonarchzMan » December 21st, 2016, 8:06 pm

WSTREPS wrote: So now I depend on collection for making money. Do I ? Catching Rattlesnakes ? That's important to my income? Hum , And the people who write this published literature. They have no monetary or career interest, they are completely pure of heart? There has been " plenty " of validation that the motives behind the work of some biologist might not always be so honorable. Undeniably these people have a vested interest that supersedes the sanctimonious halo of science. Anyone still trying use the money argument against me at this point..... Has their head up their ass.
Feel free to give your expertise and background. You can equivocate and attack, but the evidence thus far suggests that you are or were involved in trade, which means that your income does or did likely depend on collection. I didn't say you collected rattlesnakes, but that you had vested interest in having as little regulation on collection, in general, as possible.

Simply put, you do not understand science or motivations in science. I do not know of any scientist that goes into professional research for money. Probably because there isn't money in it unless you're working in biotech or pharmaceuticals. And I also have never heard of bonuses or raises happening because of published papers. So, no, there's no monetary interest. Career interest? Their career is to do research and publish it. Are you actually trying to paint scientists as being corrupt because they do their job?!

You've provided no evidence. Don't kid yourself. There is no validation. Only your apparent grudge against some scientist. And of course, then your broad painting with zero evidence of all scientists being so corrupt. Talk about having your head up your ass.
So now we have, Plenty of actual experts that are observing increased instances of rattlesnakes not rattling and relationships to collection or killing. Really ? At best you could throw something like that in as one of many speculative variable's. Any party that would emphasize human collection as a primary cause of rattlesnakes evolving a new non rattling evolutionary defense strategy would be doing so with extreme prejudice and bias, not a sound scientific foundation.

The truth about rattler , rattling, rattlesnakes, Rattleless rattlesnakes,

In South Dakota it is been noted that prairie rattlesnakes are being seen with tail muscles that have apparently atrophied. This could be the result of anything from a genetic defect to an evolutionary response caused for a variety of reasons. No one knows. The case for this being tied to a genetic defect is strong given the time frame, high reproductive rate and the fact that the defect apparently does not hinder the animals survival rate and might even enhance it. Stemming from this story. Coast to coast other stories are popping up about rattlesnakes not rattling. This is the simple cause and effect of rumors. People get an idea in their head and......yep, another story is born. MonarchzMan provided a good example of this.
Alright, you don't understand evolution or natural selection. Glad we could clear that up. A genetic change potentially resulted in these atrophied tail muscles. So the snakes don't rattle. Normally, such a genetic change would quickly be weeded out of a population because in normal circumstances, it would be a maladaptation. But as snakes that can rattle are more likely to be detected and killed, this gives the rattleless snakes a distinct advantage, thus allowing them to reproduce in greater numbers. This is called evolution. Potentially mediated by killing of rattlesnakes because, if you didn't know, people like to kill rattlesnakes. If you think humans are impacting rattlesnake behavior, you really are insufferably dense.
There are no set patterns in any rattlesnake species for when, if or how often a rattlesnake will rattle. Some species are in general considered more excitable then others. But there are no rules. There are many variable's. Why rattlesnakes have rattles to begin with is a mystery that will never be solved. The commonly accepted hypothesis for the evolution of the rattle is that its some type of warning. The most famous rattlesnakes without rattles are found on Santa Catalina Island. The experts that supposedly understand evolution, not like me according to MonarchzMan. Fully believed and it was widely accepted . That the reason these snakes lost their rattles was because it was an evolutionary adaption allowing the snakes to be silent in order to hunt birds. Sounds good until you learn that the snakes very rarely if ever eat birds. Dietary studies show the majority of this snake’s diet is comprised of the deer mice and lizards.[/u]. Other types of rattlesnakes have rattles that are so tiny and inaudible that they are virtually rattleless, the Armstrong's rattlesnake is an example.
Congratulations on yet another completely irrelevant digression.
Obviously you don't understand,

There was nothing to regulate. The researcher's knew this but thought they could slide it thru anyway. The appendix 2 listing would not have lessoned the trade at all as far as limiting the number of animals sold. The researcher's tried to get the timber rattlesnake listed by claiming the international trade was a large enough threat that it could jeopardize the animals future. The demonstartable facts showed that there was virtually no international trade. In fact there's virtually no domestic trade. An appendix 2 listing would have resulted in more permits then animals sold. It would have been arbitrary as far as the trade goes but like I said there was some major benefits for the interested party's.
What benefit was there? You have not said. You've implied that the guy would have been hired to provost of the whole university if he got a single species listed as CITES II, but you've not actually provided a single piece of evidence to support your assertion.
Compare MonarchzMans statement to my actual word. The missteps in MonarchzMans interpretation of my "logic" are clearly evident.

Ernie Eison
Oh, so these guys at IUCN and CITES can use a variety of experts to make assessments of proposals, but somehow my experience working with frogs is not transferable. How does that work? Or is it that you just don't like my arguments, so despite my extensive qualifications over you, you are quick to dismiss them because frogs aren't rattlesnakes? Hypocrite, thy name is Ernie Eison.

And don't worry, I did notice that you conveniently ignored research that does suggest that collection could have negative impacts to Timbers. Don't worry, I did notice that you didn't address that.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Kelly Mc » December 21st, 2016, 9:24 pm

It would be more surprising if rattlesnakes did not show signature of losing a rattle. The dynamics of contact between rattlesnakes and human create the an opposite response to its mechanism. Not avoidance like with other animals - but exacerbated to the kill, probably initially for food as soon as we could pick up a stick.

The term atrophied could be a misnomer. In stage of evolving towards vestigial might be more accurate.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Kelly Mc » December 21st, 2016, 11:21 pm

Atrophy has a more familiar ring to me when used in a pathological context. But I was curious and learned its also used when describing selective degeneration. Which makes so much sense imo

Ernie you can rip me up if you want to, i dont care but i dont understand why you waste so much time channeling your focus in such narrow non productive ways when you have things to share that would be excellent.

I think you actually like pythons and other snakes, you like them and i think it goes deeper than product. You understand pythons especially well.

I twice tried to message you and ask your opinion on grates and other materials and strategies for outdor enclosures but i realized you would never answer so i deleted them.

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Brian Hubbs » December 22nd, 2016, 12:10 am

Damn, back on topic...and it was getting so interesting... :( :mrgreen:

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Kelly Mc » December 22nd, 2016, 7:04 pm

When we have these discussions population biology and the contention of how collection may or does not affect it feature dominantly in the posts.

But what about other reasons? Is there a hesitancy to identify reasons that are born of other values in our belief systems and love of nature?

Many of the most scientifically minded people have this love, an awe that makes one stand still. It makes us want to know more and it makes us need to explore.

It can also make one feel an incredible sanctity for life. We dont know yet how the more inscrutable organisms process their living experiences, but the reality that they are experiencing them cannot be denied.

Does any one feel that to disturb and take an animal from its natural living experience, however fraught with danger and transiency, is somehow wrong, a kind of discourtesy for the living?

As humans our abstract abilities also include a beautiful intelligence in thinking of others, it is one of our better moments as a species. Does anyone have that as an operative to why they dont collect? We pretty much have all the power when we come across a smaller thing.

craigb
Posts: 625
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by craigb » December 22nd, 2016, 9:01 pm

No

User avatar
Ribbit
Posts: 601
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Contact:

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Ribbit » December 22nd, 2016, 9:58 pm

Kelly, I have some feelings like the ones you described so poetically, and I doubt if I am the only here who does. I don't understand how someone could have empathy for other humans and have no empathy for other living things. Of course it is a sliding scale: I have no guilt about squashing a mosquito that is sucking my blood, but I do feel a little sick to my stomach if I'm trying to detain a lizard for photographs and its tail breaks, and I feel downright awful if I run over a snake when I'm out road-cruising for snakes. This is empathy with the individual animal; I obviously wouldn't feel this way if I only cared about the long-term survival of the population. And I'll bet many of the field herpers here feel the same way.

When I was a kid I caught local herps and kept them as pets. At that time the pleasure of being able to see them and interact with them regularly outweighed the guilt of knowing that I had prevented them from living out their lives naturally. Over time the balance shifted and eventually I lost all interest in keeping any herps, while my enjoyment from seeing them in the wild has only increased. I still enjoy seeing healthy herps in lovingly maintained vivariums, for example at the Chiricahua Desert Museum in Rodeo NM (check it out, it's amazing). But at the same time I still feel a little sorry for each one of them.

John

craigb
Posts: 625
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by craigb » December 23rd, 2016, 6:03 am

John I agree with your conclusion about feeling a little sorry for all of them but, I don't think the animal in Rodeo is any happier because it is kept in a really pretty box.

I don't believe that reptiles crave human contact. That critter in the pretty box is no happier than the one kept at my local reptile store or Petco. We as humans justify our need for control by transferring our feelings to the animal, when in reality they just need to be left alone.

User avatar
Ribbit
Posts: 601
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Contact:

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Ribbit » December 23rd, 2016, 6:15 am

I know that the pretty box doesn't help anything. But at least in the case of the museum I mentioned, it is one of several indications that the animals seem to be cared for carefully and with respect to the way they would otherwise live. The fact that the animals there were all healthy-looking and none of them exhibited any get-me-out-of-here behaviors were other indicators. I've seen a lot of sickly animals at Petco. In any case, I was just offering an example to show my own slightly conflicted views. Intellectually I would rather that none were kept in captivity, but if the conditions are right I can still enjoy seeing them in captivity.

John

craigb
Posts: 625
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:02 am
Location: Southern Cal.

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by craigb » December 23rd, 2016, 7:17 am

Yep....
But those are our perceptions. The animal might actually feel better if it was underground in a burrow, without the light cycle enforced upon it.

You are right about Petco. But I don't hold the employees at the store solely responsible. Management in offices purchase the cheapest reptiles possible to get a highest profit. They purchase these animals at the lowest prices from breeders who sell them the lowest quality animals they have.

Then Petco trains their employees "on the job" and don't have any consistent standard. I know this as fact because one of my sons worked for Petco the summer before he went off to college. His third week on the job he was manager of the reptile and fish department because he knew more than people that had worked there for years.

The only ways to stop this cycle would be for cities to ban the sale of live animals; Few people/politicians would support that ban. Or for everyone to simply stop buying their animals. This would seem cruel to leave these animals to die there, but at least they would be the last ones to suffer that fate.
craigb

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by WSTREPS » December 24th, 2016, 6:53 pm

In South Dakota it is been noted that prairie rattlesnakes are being seen with tail muscles that have apparently atrophied. This could be the result of anything from a genetic defect to an evolutionary response caused for a variety of reasons. No one knows. Ernie Eison

Alright, you don't understand evolution or natural selection. Glad we could clear that up. A genetic change potentially resulted in these atrophied tail muscles. MonarchzMan
A genetic defect does not have to be tied to evolutionary adaption or weeded out by natural selection. Spontaneous mutation. Inheritable genetic aberrancy in reptiles is not uncommon and are often harmless or have lesser negative impacts to a degree that they do not preclude the trait from being passed on. Albinism for example. A population of soft-shelled turtles not far from my home. Has a well established group of reproductive albinistic member's. Most would think that albinism would be quickly weeded out. Particularly in a population of soft shell turtles subjected to extreme predation. In the case of the prairie rattlesnake's, if you know the life history and have seen enough snakes. Its extremely plausible that an animal or several animals were born with a congenital anomaly / birth defect ( screwed up tail ). Then passed the "bad" genes on. Creating a segment of the population that displays this abnormality. It would be an extreme outside guess to attribute this aberrancy to an evolutionally defense in response to human persecution.

Its clear, MonarchzMan has no room to be calling anyone else dense. He has clearly illustrated that by comparison he makes a neutron star appear porous.

And I also have never heard of bonuses or raises happening because of published papers. So, no, there's no monetary interest. Career interest? Their career is to do research and publish it.

And don't worry, I did notice that you conveniently ignored research that does suggest that collection could have negative impacts to Timbers. Don't worry, I did notice that you didn't address that.

What benefit was there? You have not said. You've implied that the guy would have been hired to provost of the whole university if he got a single species listed as CITES II, but you've not actually provided a single piece of evidence to support your assertion. MonarchzMan


Three birds with one stone. I did address all the above points in other post. Its all still there. I'm not going to repeat my myself when I can let MonarchzMan dazzle us with his expertise and rapier wit.

Seriously , At this point MonarchzMan has represented himself as well as a punch drunk fighter. The kind of guy who gets knocked out and when revived starts flailing away. Aimlessly punching into thin air thinking he is still in a fight, completely unaware that's he's been knocked out cold.

Some snake stuff,

The threat of Den raiders, Bill Brown the granddaddy of Timber rattlesnake researcher's and the rent a mob clique of parroting bandwagon jumpers never miss a chance to tell everyone how poachers are decimating rattlesnake populations . Brown has made a career out of shouting the spectacular and eye-catching aspects of den exploitation, and his friends have followed right along.

But how is this den exploitation being done ? Anyone? I explained the true nature of a Timber rattlesnake den, the process of emergence etc. Den is really a poor choice of terminology when taking about Timber rattlesnakes , Wintering area is more appropriate.

Brown and friends spout out all kinds of numbers 60%, 90% decline decline decline ......... They say this with complete certainty. In published works Brown and friends have made some outrageous claims. Brown will never admit that the decline he thinks he sees may be nothing more than an artifact of his poor sampling abilities . In his own published work Brown and one of the head parrots, his comrade Martin have this to say.......

Martin admits that he cant actually count more than 15 percent of the snakes that are in the dens he studies , All his estimations are arrived at, in his won words "intuitively". That's is not very scientific. Brown claims to be a little better saying 25 percent can be counted. This again "intuitively". That's only for any single wintering area and there are certainly hundreds (most undiscovered) in the mountains of NY alone. The guessing game played by Brown and friends becomes even more convoluted when you consider the fact that they couldn't count all the snakes at any den the first time. They don't even have a baseline number for their wild guestimates.

There is little doubt that a researcher that has made a career out of rattlesnake funding along with conservation scientists who ignor all logic and think of themselves as natures elected priests . Will always conclude their intuitive findings as proof positive of decline.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Kelly Mc » December 24th, 2016, 8:05 pm

Hey Ernie, I see youve still got alot to say about Rattlesnakes and Researchers, and to be clear, I dont ascribe to the usual what - "internet etiquettes" that divergence from original topic is "high-jacking" Ive diverged plenty and welcomed tangents and outgrowths on others - and my own threads.

But something just occurred to me, so I used the search feature and indeed found that You Yourself, have never started your own thread on a topic here on FHF.

Why is that? It is clear you have alot to say yet you have never started your own thread about any of it.

MonarchzMan
Posts: 341
Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Location: Oxford, MS

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by MonarchzMan » December 24th, 2016, 8:28 pm

WSTREPS wrote: A genetic defect does not have to be tied to evolutionary adaption or weeded out by natural selection. Spontaneous mutation. Inheritable genetic aberrancy in reptiles is not uncommon and are often harmless or have lesser negative impacts to a degree that they do not preclude the trait from being passed on. Albinism for example. A population of soft-shelled turtles not far from my home. Has a well established group of reproductive albinistic member's. Most would think that albinism would be quickly weeded out. Particularly in a population of soft shell turtles subjected to extreme predation.
Alright, so you really don't understand evolution. Case in point, this:
In the case of the prairie rattlesnake's, if you know the life history and have seen enough snakes. Its extremely plausible that an animal or several animals were born with a congenital anomaly / birth defect ( screwed up tail ). Then passed the "bad" genes on. Creating a segment of the population that displays this abnormality. It would be an extreme outside guess to attribute this aberrancy to an evolutionally defense in response to human persecution.

Its clear, MonarchzMan has no room to be calling anyone else dense. He has clearly illustrated that by comparison he makes a neutron star appear porous.
A mutation will spontaneously pop up in an individual or, depending on where in the cellular replication process, multiple, related individuals. This in and of itself is not adaptive or maladaptive. It just is. If the gene is passed on, creating a segment in the population, this really happens two ways. 1) Genetic drift. We're dealing with a very small population and maladaptive genes can gain prominence very quickly because of the small population or 2) natural selection. But in both cases, the population is evolving. Now, I've not seen any evidence that this mutation is the result of drift in a small population, which means that it's likely the cause of natural selection. And given that rattlesnakes are actually targeted when they rattle, it is not an unreasonable suggestion that killing actually is affecting the evolution of these snakes.

And to your albino turtles, there obviously is some adaptive advantage to having some portion of the population being albino. It's just like Sickle-Cell Anemia. Even though Sickle-Cell Anemia is detrimental to those that have it, it persists because the heterozygotes are more resistant to malaria parasites, making it adaptive, and explaining why it persists.

So yea, you're categorically wrong in this. So yes, you are that dense. Please just don't try to argue evolution with an evolutionary biologist. You're embarrassing yourself.
Three birds with one stone. I did address all the above points in other post. Its all still there. I'm not going to repeat my myself when I can let MonarchzMan dazzle us with his expertise and rapier wit.

Seriously , At this point MonarchzMan has represented himself as well as a punch drunk fighter. The kind of guy who gets knocked out and when revived starts flailing away. Aimlessly punching into thin air thinking he is still in a fight, completely unaware that's he's been knocked out cold.
Says the guy who can't stick to one topic and has to go to completely unrelated tangent to completely unrelated tangent to try to prove a point he doesn't understand.

And no, you didn't address the brand new paper that came out. I'm betting that because you think you did, you didn't actually read even the abstract of said paper.
Some snake stuff,

The threat of Den raiders, Bill Brown the granddaddy of Timber rattlesnake researcher's and the rent a mob clique of parroting bandwagon jumpers never miss a chance to tell everyone how poachers are decimating rattlesnake populations . Brown has made a career out of shouting the spectacular and eye-catching aspects of den exploitation, and his friends have followed right along.

But how is this den exploitation being done ? Anyone? I explained the true nature of a Timber rattlesnake den, the process of emergence etc. Den is really a poor choice of terminology when taking about Timber rattlesnakes , Wintering area is more appropriate.

Brown and friends spout out all kinds of numbers 60%, 90% decline decline decline ......... They say this with complete certainty. In published works Brown and friends have made some outrageous claims. Brown will never admit that the decline he thinks he sees may be nothing more than an artifact of his poor sampling abilities . In his own published work Brown and one of the head parrots, his comrade Martin have this to say.......

Martin admits that he cant actually count more than 15 percent of the snakes that are in the dens he studies , All his estimations are arrived at, in his won words "intuitively". That's is not very scientific. Brown claims to be a little better saying 25 percent can be counted. This again "intuitively". That's only for any single wintering area and there are certainly hundreds (most undiscovered) in the mountains of NY alone. The guessing game played by Brown and friends becomes even more convoluted when you consider the fact that they couldn't count all the snakes at any den the first time. They don't even have a baseline number for their wild guestimates.

There is little doubt that a researcher that has made a career out of rattlesnake funding along with conservation scientists who ignor all logic and think of themselves as natures elected priests . Will always conclude their intuitive findings as proof positive of decline.

Ernie Eison
Translation: I don't like it when people do their job because it may negatively affect my job. Consequently, I criticize scientists even though I have no experience whatsoever in science, and continue to attempt to disprove well documented scientific literature with nothing more than bad spelling and bad grammar.

There, that helps. You don't have to go one completely biased rants against someone who has spent decades working on these snakes. You absolutely have no credibility here.

And I must ask, do you get upset at a barber for cutting hair because it's his job and will advance his career?

Oh, and I looked the guy up. He's an emeritus professor. Do you understand what that means? If you did, you'd realize that your arguments are complete BS.

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Brian Hubbs » December 24th, 2016, 11:33 pm

I used to collect, but not so much anymore. I collected out of curiosity about the different species I was interested in, and like a stamp collector I wanted all the different variations. Especially of Cal Kings. I did feel a little guilty removing the animals from the wild at first, until I saw other forces completely destroying their habitats. Sometimes the snakes I removed were the only one's left from an entire 100 acre area that had been bulldozed after I did my collecting. That removed any guilt I had felt.

Soon, I learned that snakes do not seem to desire to be free. They desire food, a place to hide, and water. In captivity they have no predators. They are safe, as long as they are well-maintained with food, water and a place to hide. An animal that really hates it's cage will not grab food out of your hand and dash back into the cage. This is what my snakes do. If you take them out, they try to go back in. The cage represents safety. The same as a rodent burrow represents safety in the wild.

The only reason I don't collect much today is because I no longer desire to take care of a lot of snakes. Period. I only keep the one's I have because I am attached to them as long-term pets, and they are safer with me than in the wild. Occasionally I will break that rule and bring home an interesting king or milk of some kind. But, today it has to be really meaningful to me to remove it from the wild.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Kelly Mc » December 25th, 2016, 2:39 am

Mine like their places too. Its nice.

I have a term for what you describe that I think I mentioned on the thread. And a snake who"s parents originated from a place that no longer exists because of development. I really like this snake and the other animals I have, I dont touch them or remove them without purpose but they have come to see me as a benign presence in their environment when I service it.

I do not want to have any more nor do I want to sell or make any more. But when they are out of their hiding places, moving around or poised on a piece of wood I cant take my eyes off of them. Still.

User avatar
Ribbit
Posts: 601
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Contact:

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Ribbit » December 25th, 2016, 6:46 am

Brian Hubbs wrote:Soon, I learned that snakes do not seem to desire to be free. They desire food, a place to hide, and water. In captivity they have no predators. They are safe, as long as they are well-maintained with food, water and a place to hide. An animal that really hates it's cage will not grab food out of your hand and dash back into the cage. This is what my snakes do. If you take them out, they try to go back in. The cage represents safety. The same as a rodent burrow represents safety in the wild.
I'm not so sure that this train of thought makes sense. My wife and I foster a lot of rescue dogs. We can train a well-adjusted dog to be happy in a crate, and the dog will sometimes choose to go into an open crate to rest. But we recently had the most frightened dog we had ever dealt with, and all it wanted to do was dash back into its crate to hide. It would at first be in the crate all day except for a few minutes when we would take it out to do its business. Afterwards, it would dash back into its crate. It would prefer to eat in the crate, but we eventually got it to eat further and further outside the crate. After it ate, it would dash back into its crate. We measured improvement in this dog's mental health by how much time it would be willing to spend outside its crate.

I realize that dogs and snakes are extremely different creatures, but equating "unwillingness to explore the world outside its cage" with "lack of desire to be free" seems more than a little bit anthropomorphic.

John

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Brian Hubbs » December 25th, 2016, 10:08 am

I don't think snakes are on a level with dogs...or cats...or birds...or any higher mentality animal. They operate on instinct. Some tame down and will come out of the box toward me when I open it. This is not a friendly response, like a dog, but merely a response to hunger and the seeking of the food that usually shows up when the box is opened. Others just want to be left alone, so the food is placed in the container and it is closed again. My point was that it makes no difference to them whether they are in a rodent burrow or a sweater box, as long as they eat, drink, crap, and sleep. They aren't very active except when they're hungry. So, from observing my captives I think we could ask the question: "Do snakes in the wild even know they are wild?" I don't think they dwell on such things...they are just eating and breeding machines.

I think it's funny when people give names and human traits to their pet snakes. I even do it myself...LOL, but the truth is...these are low intelligence, deaf creatures that do not respond to anything except food and warmth. But, they are fascinating...if you like that kind of thing. I doubt many here like reptiles...they are an acquired taste. :lol:

Oh, and one other thing...The only time my snakes ever try to escape is when they are hungry. I've left the boxes open sometimes for quite awhile after feeding to see if they would try to escape. They don't. They crawl into their hide box and sit there. Now, that might be a fear reaction or it might be a "go away and leave me alone" reaction. Whatever it is, it demonstrates that they are comfortable in their smallest enclosure, and that's how they are in the wild.

Merry Christmas!

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by WSTREPS » December 25th, 2016, 4:30 pm

I went for a nice walk on this warm Christmas morning and guess what ? A rattlesnake. OMG. Thank god it rattled loudly before I stepped on it.

Image

Joan Diemer Berish published in the Journal of Herpetology. 

Information regarding the harvest of eastern diamondback (Crotalus adamanteus) and timber (C. horridus) rattlesnakes [for the live animal and skin trade] was gathered from commercial dealer reports, phone interviews with dealers and collectors, and examinations of 714 harvested rattlesnakes. Many individuals killed and sold rattlesnakes in north Florida, but relatively few sold snakes repeatedly, and most brought in one snake per visit to a dealer. Collection occurred primarily during the spring, summer and fall.  Most of the 98 interviewed collectors opportunistically killed rattlesnakes on roads, in yards, and less commonly, in woods; only five indicated that they actively hunted for rattlesnakes.  Many interviewees indicated that they would kill rattlesnakes that they encountered, especially near human habitations, regardless of potential monetary gain.

A good read for those with an interest

Herpetoculture in the 21st Century
http://vpi.com/sites/default/files/IHS- ... anum_4.pdf
no, you didn't address the brand new paper that came out. I'm betting that because you think you did, you didn't actually read even the abstract of said paper. MonarchzMan
Yeah, I did. There's nothing new, there is nothing to add to what I previously posted about Browns work and the natural history of Timber rattlesnakes. If you want to study the psychology of delusional conservationists,The Brown consortium has it all. The real issue is that many (including good scientist) fail to read the papers closely and lack the essential knowledge to determine when the writings are misleading or if the tenuous and questionable data is unrealistically assessed.The Brown consortium motto is, If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. No asks and no one questions.

Its clear the punch drunk MonarchzMan will continue to aimlessly hurl misguided shots into the thin air that passes between his ears. Without detailing the double talk , backtracking and intentional misquotes this pillar of scientific integrity has provided. Lets review some of MonarchzMans most memorable zingers. A greatest hits list of sorts.
You've provided no evidence. Don't kid yourself. There is no validation. Only your apparent grudge against some scientist. And of course, then your broad painting with zero evidence of all scientists being so corrupt. Talk about having your head up your ass.

Congratulations on yet another completely irrelevant digression.

No, Ernie, you don't know what you're talking about. I do. I absolutely do. I'm fairly certain I have more qualifications to back my statements than you do. You simple lack of grasp of common vernacular is astounding. I work on frogs in northeastern French Guiana. I'm not working on every population in northeastern French Guiana.

I don't know what you're deal is, but you seem like some wannabe scientist who failed to make it professionally, so now you're jealous of all of the people who actually are successful in a field that you couldn't break into. As a result, you have to tear down anyone and everyone who successful in a field that you couldn't get into. It just seems spiteful and petty, and honestly, a bit of a troll. You notice how the other scientists on their board don't agree with you? There's reason for that.

I am not doing your work for you. Stop telling me to do searches.

And nice name dropping. Of course, I'm sure none of them would come here and vouch for you. You do understand that the successes of others do not equate to your own success or authority on any topic. I could name any number of bigwig herpetologists, biologists, and evolutionary biologists that I've rubbed shoulders with, but I don't because the merits of my argument are not dictated by who I know. I'd actually bet you've never talked to any of them about the anti-scientist BS you constantly spout here.

If you Google "Ernie Eison," you come up with Westwood Acres Reptile Farm, which if not him, is a hell of a coincidence. But as you say, if it is him, it does explain his stances quite a bit. And the names he's dropped.

Ernie's views are pretty consistent with herpetoculturalists that see scientists as corrupt individuals trying to limit the success of their business. Which all together is ironic, as he accuses scientists as being corrupt and faking data to get grant money and publications, when the objection is based out of the monetary loss that would occur if protections were put into place.

While I'd generally agree, I feel it's important to call out people like Ernie out for not representing the values of this hobby. Silence is tacit acceptance, IMO.

You're completely biased because collection restrictions would negatively impact the bottom dollar of the pet trade. You're really not qualified to talk about science. Stick to keeping snakes in tupperware.


No, they don't harp on it. They mention that dens are particularly vulnerable to collection (with records of dens being wiped out by collectors), and coupled with the other threats facing the species, trade could be detrimental to the species. They make a valid argument. I would expect someone who depends on collecting animals from the wild to disagree with these statements.

But then again, that explains my success and your lack of it.

I'm sure that's a lie. We'll just say you don't know a damn about Timber Rattlesnakes or rattlesnakes in general, since you cannot prove anything otherwise. And we'll just say you don't actually know what constitutes good or bad science because you have no experience in it.

You do understand that, right? Or are you really that dense?

Given that your only credentials appear to be being able to sell animals, I don't think you could tell a good scientific proposal from a bad one. How many grant proposals have you read and decided on? How many manuscripts have you reviewed? I'm betting it's a big ol' goose egg on that one.

And unlike what the hack seems to imply, CITES listing does not stop trade

Because it would have regulated trade. Geez, are you really that dense?

You're arguing with science and science doesn't care what you think.

Like I said, these guys know what they're doing. You don't. Clearly. But please, keep on trying to discredit me. It's humorous.

Says the guy who can't stick to one topic and has to go to completely unrelated tangent to completely unrelated tangent to try to prove a point he doesn't understand.

MonarchzMan
There is a rumor that Henry Rollins is going to preform this list as a spoken word show. Rollins has to do spoken word because his bands always suck.


Thank you and MERRY XMAS to one and all, Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Kelly Mc » December 25th, 2016, 6:04 pm

Id have to agree and disagree with some of your conclusions Brian, I dont think comparing snakes and their senses to our own yields much. Better to take comparisons out of the equation. Perhaps our own morphology and value on intelligence is more limiting than we even realize.

Perhaps if we spent some time with a fully innervated ventris in exquisite contact with every detail we touch and a jacobson's organ we might have a more accurate perspective.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4319
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Kelly Mc » December 25th, 2016, 6:49 pm

Are subterranean spaces as two dimensional as a sweater box? A snake laying like a pile of spaghetti in a box and only seen in foggy silhouette swimming up the sides when its hungry has no other impetus. How organisms read the resources they need, where they choose to shift to access temperature and security for physiological and survival purposes isnt "conceptual" its to fuel fitness and avoid predation - from an Uncountable myriad of sources and conditions.

A visual blue print of the unseeable biome snakes inhabit and an understanding of their particular neural schematics - that have nothing to do with "knowing" a "concept" of "wild" isnt available to us. Why assume they are flat and contain the most available human notions? And the time frames of their activity are completely apart from our own I suspect.

Tamara D. McConnell
Posts: 2249
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:42 am

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Tamara D. McConnell » December 25th, 2016, 8:17 pm

I'm not a scientist. I'm not even very smart.
I have two snakes, both captive bred.
Most of the year they live in spacious habitats in my classroom. During school breaks, I bring them home. Omigosh, they love exploring the yard. So much. And sunning. And rubbing against different surfaces. And climbing trees. And drinking from puddles I make for them. Of course I cannot understand their language, and I try to not read too much stuff into it...but it is SO clear that they LOVE being outdoors.
I used to keep wild critters. I don't judge anybody that does. Not my business. But I can't do it myself. It would feel like imprisonment.
What other folks do is their own business.
Kelly, I love your wisdom. Keep on. You make people think.

*edited for spelling

User avatar
Ribbit
Posts: 601
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 9:28 am
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Contact:

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by Ribbit » December 25th, 2016, 9:10 pm

Tamara D. McConnell wrote:Kelly, I love your wisdom. Keep on. You make people think.
Heartily seconded!

John

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 485
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by WSTREPS » December 26th, 2016, 9:33 am

This study demonstrates that's its virtually impossible to detect snakes. The extremely low detection rate encountered when searching for these reptiles. Even when in a contained area. Naturally talking out of the other side of their mouth's. These are the same people that will tell you that over collection is a serious threat to something like a southern hognose for example. This paper is plagued by the same garbage and sensationalism found in all the python related work produced by a core group of USGS scientist and friends. But it does serve a purpose in demonstrating how minimally the impacts of collection is in most if not all snake related instances.


Hidden Giants: Problems Associated with Studying Secretive Invasive Pythons
http://comp.uark.edu/~jwillson/publicat ... search.pdf[/url]
In this chapter, we review much of the research conducted on pythons, highlight the main findings of that research, and describe a study we conducted to evaluate python behavior and detectability. We show that detectability of pythons is extremely low (1% or lower)
Ernie Eison

MonarchzMan
Posts: 341
Joined: September 8th, 2011, 5:12 pm
Location: Oxford, MS

Re: Why You Dont Collect

Post by MonarchzMan » December 26th, 2016, 12:15 pm

WSTREPS wrote:This study demonstrates that's its virtually impossible to detect snakes. The extremely low detection rate encountered when searching for these reptiles. Even when in a contained area.
Correction: This study demonstrates that detection is very low in Burmese pythons. But you suggest that all snakes are equal. Detection is low in snakes, but depending on the species, you can pretty easily increase your chances of detection with a little knowledge of behavior and biology. I could go to Snake Road and pretty easily devastate the Cottonmouth population there because of their particular biology and behavior. But don't mind me, I'm just a professionally trained frog biologist who can't know anything about snakes.
Naturally talking out of the other side of their mouth's. These are the same people that will tell you that over collection is a serious threat to something like a southern hognose for example. This paper is plagued by the same garbage and sensationalism found in all the python related work produced by a core group of USGS scientist and friends. But it does serve a purpose in demonstrating how minimally the impacts of collection is in most if not all snake related instances.

Hidden Giants: Problems Associated with Studying Secretive Invasive Pythons
http://comp.uark.edu/~jwillson/publicat ... search.pdf[/url]
In this chapter, we review much of the research conducted on pythons, highlight the main findings of that research, and describe a study we conducted to evaluate python behavior and detectability. We show that detectability of pythons is extremely low (1% or lower)
Ernie Eison
Alright Ernie, you'r'e so smart, why don't you pen some studies that these people are so full of it as you say they are. Otherwise, take your avatar's advice and STFU. You don't know what you're talking about. Put your money where your mouth is.

Post Reply