Quick question.
Moderator: Scott Waters
Quick question.
One of my friends wanted me to ask this.
What do y'all do with the burms you find down in the glades?
Do you kill em, catch and keep or let em go?
What do y'all do with the burms you find down in the glades?
Do you kill em, catch and keep or let em go?
Re: Quick question.
When in ENP only permitted people are allowed to even touch the snakes. However, this snake found outside the park was unlucky enough to find himself under my car tire after I took his picture.
- DaneConley
- Posts: 481
- Joined: September 21st, 2010, 10:03 am
- Location: SE Virginia/SW Illinois
Re: Quick question.
Its "plain out" right! What do you do when your ranch is invaded by feral hogs? You %#^*ing kill 'em! As many as you can. As quick as you can.How could you kill a burmese like that! That's plain out wrong.
Wrong again. If its invasive it absolutely does mean kill it. You do the same with chinese tallow, chinese privet, snakehead fish, etc..etc...An animal is an animal just because it's invasive does not mean kill it...
Just because it HAPPENS to be a group of animals your "bleeding heart" cares for doesn't make it right to throw all ecological sense out the window to spare its "precious" life.
I swear some people man...
TH
Re: Quick question.
I gotta agree, I have no compassion for invasive species. Whether its a red-eared slider or a feral cat, they are nothing but trouble.
- herpseeker1978
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:05 am
- Location: Albuquerque
Re: Quick question.
So should we drop all of them off at your house?DaneConley wrote:How could you kill a burmese like that! That's plain out wrong. An animal is an animal just because it's invasive does not mean kill it...
Josh
- DaneConley
- Posts: 481
- Joined: September 21st, 2010, 10:03 am
- Location: SE Virginia/SW Illinois
- DaneConley
- Posts: 481
- Joined: September 21st, 2010, 10:03 am
- Location: SE Virginia/SW Illinois
Re: Quick question.
Yes, and I'm not joking.herpseeker1978 wrote:So should we drop all of them off at your house?DaneConley wrote:How could you kill a burmese like that! That's plain out wrong. An animal is an animal just because it's invasive does not mean kill it...
Josh
- Josh Holbrook
- Posts: 2196
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:11 am
- Location: Western North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: Quick question.
You've been watching too much Care Bears...DaneConley wrote:When I find an invasive species I give it to a place that will take it. If it's a friend, muesam, zoo, or anyone who wants it. I don't care what animal I still don't kill it. Killing something is jsut being lazy. If it's there you shouldn't try disturbing the wildlife. If it's a breeding popultion it's become part of wildlife and like any other herp you should respect it and act as if you were never there.
And killing burms is not jsut being lazy; have you ever tried to kill a python? And as much as I'm sure there are tons of muesams looking for pythons, you'll never "find a home" for all of them in the popultion.
- DaneConley
- Posts: 481
- Joined: September 21st, 2010, 10:03 am
- Location: SE Virginia/SW Illinois
Re: Quick question.
Dane, I'm going to assume you're younger than some others on this forum so I'll be respectful. But you have to realize that invasive species have absolutely no place with "natural wildlife". They are invasive for a reason, they outcompete native wildlife and drastically alter the pre-existing ecosystem. You just can't sit back idly and let a nonnative plant or animal completely decimate an area. Unfortunately it is unrealistic to catch the millions of pythons, bullfrogs, red-eared sliders, etc. and take them to friends, zoos, or museums - some have to be euthanized.
What about bullfrogs in areas where they don't naturally occur; eating native amphibians and eliminating natural populations? Would you rather have a pond full of bullfrogs or naturally-occurring amphibians? Removing invasive species is not "being lazy", sitting back and doing nothing to remove them is "being lazy".
Hoping this conversation stays civil.
What about bullfrogs in areas where they don't naturally occur; eating native amphibians and eliminating natural populations? Would you rather have a pond full of bullfrogs or naturally-occurring amphibians? Removing invasive species is not "being lazy", sitting back and doing nothing to remove them is "being lazy".
Hoping this conversation stays civil.
- DaneConley
- Posts: 481
- Joined: September 21st, 2010, 10:03 am
- Location: SE Virginia/SW Illinois
Re: Quick question.
Five young burm's we permittedly found in ENP were measured, killed "humanely", and gutted to check stomach contents. There were some other data collections as well, temps, gps coords, weather, etc. One larger individual was used for a few training classes, then given to a university to be measured, killed "humanely", and have the stomach contents checked....Saunders wrote:One of my friends wanted me to ask this.
What do y'all do with the burms you find down in the glades?
Do you kill em, catch and keep or let em go?
Re: Quick question.
If I knew someone that wanted, or would even take a burmese python these days, I would have tried to give it to them. However, I am not from that area, and as stated above, hardly anyone will take burms, so my options were limited. It is not something that I enjoyed, but think of it this way, I killed that burm before it could kill countless other animals that are actually supposed to be there. And I would do it again.
-
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:52 pm
- Location: Amarillo, Texas
Re: Quick question.
you say give them to museums...which will euthanize them and pickle them.
Kill them. And the hogs, cats, etc. Speaking of "fair" when you're talking about something like this makes no sense. It's like talking about Greek philosophy when designing a car engine...just totally irrelevant.
Everything is born to die. Even us. What about the critters the burms eat? Was it "fair" for them? Does "fair" actually mean anything in ecology? (quick answer: no).It's just unfair for the snakes that were born into this world just to be killed
Kill them. And the hogs, cats, etc. Speaking of "fair" when you're talking about something like this makes no sense. It's like talking about Greek philosophy when designing a car engine...just totally irrelevant.
- DaneConley
- Posts: 481
- Joined: September 21st, 2010, 10:03 am
- Location: SE Virginia/SW Illinois
Re: Quick question.
I'm with everyone else, which is why back home in California, I have no problem killing bullfrogs and eating their legs or killing the sliders that are taking over my Actinemys spots...
Sure, it's not their fault that they're there, BUT it's also not every other specie's fault that happens to be suffering because of it. Most people don't want "WC" burms, for one, and I really doubt there are any rescues, museums, etc. in Florida that would be willing to take care of more "rescued" burms. As harsh as it sounds, killing them off is the only way to secure the future of rest of the native species.
Sure, it's not their fault that they're there, BUT it's also not every other specie's fault that happens to be suffering because of it. Most people don't want "WC" burms, for one, and I really doubt there are any rescues, museums, etc. in Florida that would be willing to take care of more "rescued" burms. As harsh as it sounds, killing them off is the only way to secure the future of rest of the native species.
Re: Quick question.
I may be young (15), but I'm not one to preach about whether or not killing them is right or not. My opinion is that if I know someone who would take the animal and treat it humanely, then I'll hand it over to them. However, if I don't know anyone to give it too, I will kill it to help protect the native wildlife. I understand not wanting to kill it, but some things just need to be done.
- Josh Holbrook
- Posts: 2196
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:11 am
- Location: Western North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: Quick question.
Not possible in Florida. It's illegal to possess Burmese pythons.Ted wrote:My opinion is that if I know someone who would take the animal and treat it humanely, then I'll hand it over to them.
And with my data collection, all the pythons are humanely euthanized and their stomach contents analyzed by NPS biologists.
Re: Quick question.
Wow, we got quite a discussion going here.
I agree with what is being said.
Invasives are bad, no matter the species.
I agree with what is being said.
Invasives are bad, no matter the species.
Re: Quick question.
Dane,
I respect and share your abhorrence to the idea of killing animals. However, some ideals just don't work well in the real world. Sometimes we must do things we hate in order to protect the things we love.
I respect and share your abhorrence to the idea of killing animals. However, some ideals just don't work well in the real world. Sometimes we must do things we hate in order to protect the things we love.
Re: Quick question.
When I've found pythons on my own I've let them go. Florida State Law basically protects them now, and they are protected by default in the National Park. Though the chances of getting caught are slim, the risk of getting a fine is not worth it. There are enough pythons out there that killing an individual is as much a feel-good measure as finding it a home.
However, when I've been out with a permitted individual we bag the pythons and turn them into the park's research station where they are usually killed to have their stomach contents examined.
However, when I've been out with a permitted individual we bag the pythons and turn them into the park's research station where they are usually killed to have their stomach contents examined.
Re: Quick question.
I gotta say its funny how you all are so quick to kill invasive species. Evolutionarily speaking every organism in the US is invasive...nearly none of them evolved here...they all walked, flew, and floated over...making every one of them invasive. Humans for instance are one of the invasive species...we travel everywhere.
The biodiversity of the US was different millions, thousands, and hundreds of years ago....it will be different in another hundred years. Every place on Earth is like that because the Earth changes and with it the biodiversity.
Not trying to incite anything, just making a point.
The biodiversity of the US was different millions, thousands, and hundreds of years ago....it will be different in another hundred years. Every place on Earth is like that because the Earth changes and with it the biodiversity.
Not trying to incite anything, just making a point.
Re: Quick question.
I prefer such processes to proceed at a reasonable rate. Unfortunately, humans are speeding up the process so that it proceeds at an unreasonable rate.CCarille wrote:I gotta say its funny how you all are so quick to kill invasive species. Evolutionarily speaking every organism in the US is invasive...nearly none of them evolved here...they all walked, flew, and floated over...making every one of them invasive.
There are huge barriers that prevent aquatic species from the southeast to spread to the waterways of southern California. As a result, the two areas have developed very different aquatic herp fauna, with not a single shared native species between them. But introduce humans.....and now SoCal's waterways are filled with bullfrogs, rio grande leopard frogs, southern leopard frogs, southern water snakes, red-eared sliders, painted turtles, spiny softshells, and snapping turtles. Green frogs and map turtles are probably next. Not to mention all the bass, sunfish, nonnative trout, crayfish, etc. On the other hand, lowland leopard frogs are gone, sonoran mud turtles are gone, foothill yellow-legged frogs are gone, colorado river toads are gone, california red-legged frogs are almost gone, southern mountain yellow-legged frogs are almost gone, and western pond turtles are in retreat.
I don't want the whole country to be limited to the same herps as the southeast. I like having both ecosystems out there. Our herps are cool where they are, but now we have significantly fewer native ones - you are much more likely to see a nonnative ranid in SoCal than a native one, a nonnative turtle than a native one. I don't think that's a good thing. And it's not a natural thing - due to human activity, the distances being traveled, the pace at which introduction is occurring, and the uniformity of species being introduced is unprecedented.
Re: Quick question.
CCarille, you are mistaking "nonnative" species with "invasive" species. Invasive species are those that are likely to cause significant harm, be it monetary or ecological. On the other hand, nonnative species are still exotic, but not necessarily harmful. If an organism colonizes a new area and fills a new niche, it is not invasive. However, if an organism is introduced to a new area and out-competes native organisms, it is invasive. We have drastically changed our landscape, and it is only responsible to remedy this before more species are lost. I, for one, don't want to go to a wetland to see a monoculture of Phragmites and only see bullfrogs eating everything in sight.CCarille wrote:I gotta say its funny how you all are so quick to kill invasive species. Evolutionarily speaking every organism in the US is invasive...nearly none of them evolved here...they all walked, flew, and floated over...making every one of them invasive. Humans for instance are one of the invasive species...we travel everywhere.
And of course humans are invasive, but this is a field herpetology forum so we won't go down that path
Re: Quick question.
Not to point out the obvious, but... We are all members of THE invasive species. The one, I might add, that introduced, intentionally in most cases, all of the other ones.
You're not going to solve the problem of Burmese pythons in South Florida by killing one snake with your tire. You argue that you are stopping that animal from killing hundreds of others, but you may also be depriving a gator, bird of prey or kingsnake of a tasty meal.
Whether you let it go, keep it as a pet, or kill it, you will not, personally, change anything significantly, so in that situation I, personally, would choose to leave it be. Not because I am a bleeding heart, but because I love snakes, and I don't like to kill them for no reason.
OR
If you feel it necessary to destroy the animal, why not freeze it and turn it over to someone who is studying them. They can take data on gut contents, locality, size, genetics, etc. That way its death will have some meaning.
While I agree that controlling non-natives, when possible, is a good practice, I don't think you are accomplishing anything more than a kid with a BB gun shooting a dozen starlings for fun.
Dan
PS I would hate to herp in Florida with some of you people! We would leave a trail of carnage behind us everywhere we went. Between brown anoles, cuban tree frogs, and iguanas, one could rack up a few hundred kills on a pleasant nature hike!
PPS I have personally collected four burmese pythons inside the park that were euthanized and studied, just to be clear.
You're not going to solve the problem of Burmese pythons in South Florida by killing one snake with your tire. You argue that you are stopping that animal from killing hundreds of others, but you may also be depriving a gator, bird of prey or kingsnake of a tasty meal.
Whether you let it go, keep it as a pet, or kill it, you will not, personally, change anything significantly, so in that situation I, personally, would choose to leave it be. Not because I am a bleeding heart, but because I love snakes, and I don't like to kill them for no reason.
OR
If you feel it necessary to destroy the animal, why not freeze it and turn it over to someone who is studying them. They can take data on gut contents, locality, size, genetics, etc. That way its death will have some meaning.
While I agree that controlling non-natives, when possible, is a good practice, I don't think you are accomplishing anything more than a kid with a BB gun shooting a dozen starlings for fun.
Dan
PS I would hate to herp in Florida with some of you people! We would leave a trail of carnage behind us everywhere we went. Between brown anoles, cuban tree frogs, and iguanas, one could rack up a few hundred kills on a pleasant nature hike!
PPS I have personally collected four burmese pythons inside the park that were euthanized and studied, just to be clear.
-
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:52 pm
- Location: Amarillo, Texas
Re: Quick question.
I doubt the burm he posted was getting eaten by anything except an alligator; big burm!
Dan: I don't mind killing. It's not my favorite thing but maybe I'm used to it, having gone through tens of thousands of rodents over the years (and catching my own fish a few times and helping clean a deer or two). Hell, next year I'm going to try to go on a hog hunt in our state park here and get a good eating hog.
I do worry about the Cuban tree frogs and the like in florida I suspect Florida may already be a lost cause though.
I buy cage free eggs and chicken meat; not because I think it'll make the large farms stop just for me, but because if I feel like they're inhumane (or in the case of the invasive species, destructive to native wildlife) I have no business supporting them.
Dan: I don't mind killing. It's not my favorite thing but maybe I'm used to it, having gone through tens of thousands of rodents over the years (and catching my own fish a few times and helping clean a deer or two). Hell, next year I'm going to try to go on a hog hunt in our state park here and get a good eating hog.
I do worry about the Cuban tree frogs and the like in florida I suspect Florida may already be a lost cause though.
My problem with that school of thought is that it basically says that because you can't solve the problem you shouldn't try to alleviate it. People use that same argument in lots of situations (politicians live on it). And of course no one person or institution can solve any significant problem on their own...so if it's taken to heart nothing really changes.Whether you let it go, keep it as a pet, or kill it, you will not, personally, change anything significantly
I buy cage free eggs and chicken meat; not because I think it'll make the large farms stop just for me, but because if I feel like they're inhumane (or in the case of the invasive species, destructive to native wildlife) I have no business supporting them.
Re: Quick question.
I agree with your basic principal Paul, but let me clarify.
I also buy free range products and boycott many others.
I have killed thousands of fish in my life. (Indeed, if GOD is a crappie, I will certainly go to hell.)
I know exactly what you're saying about politicians, and people in general not doing anything because they can't do everything....
BUT
In all of the above cases a positive or purposeful thing is being accomplished through a positive or purposful act.
When I buy cage free eggs, I do a small part to accomplish a positive by doing something POSITIVE.
When I kill a crappie, trout, or catfish, I consume its meat and use its spare parts to feed my turtles and garter snakes.
When I stop to help a toad cross the road while road cruising, I know I won't significantly reduce toad road mortality, but I know I made a difference to that individual toad. Which, despite me being labeled a bleeding heart, is a living breathing thing with goals, and aspirations, toady though they may be.
In contrast, killing a snake in not so humane a manner and leaving it for dead on the road seems to me to be less than positive or constructive. What I'm saying is: You aren't going to stem the tide of burms by doing it AND it is a negative, cruel act.
Feel free to remove burmese from the wild if you must, but why not eat them, turn them over to a researcher, or, if you can manage to find one, give them to a facility that will maintain them alive? At least that individual snake will die for something more than hate, cruelty, or fun.
I think I'm up to four cents now. Time to bow out.
Dan
I also buy free range products and boycott many others.
I have killed thousands of fish in my life. (Indeed, if GOD is a crappie, I will certainly go to hell.)
I know exactly what you're saying about politicians, and people in general not doing anything because they can't do everything....
BUT
In all of the above cases a positive or purposeful thing is being accomplished through a positive or purposful act.
When I buy cage free eggs, I do a small part to accomplish a positive by doing something POSITIVE.
When I kill a crappie, trout, or catfish, I consume its meat and use its spare parts to feed my turtles and garter snakes.
When I stop to help a toad cross the road while road cruising, I know I won't significantly reduce toad road mortality, but I know I made a difference to that individual toad. Which, despite me being labeled a bleeding heart, is a living breathing thing with goals, and aspirations, toady though they may be.
In contrast, killing a snake in not so humane a manner and leaving it for dead on the road seems to me to be less than positive or constructive. What I'm saying is: You aren't going to stem the tide of burms by doing it AND it is a negative, cruel act.
Feel free to remove burmese from the wild if you must, but why not eat them, turn them over to a researcher, or, if you can manage to find one, give them to a facility that will maintain them alive? At least that individual snake will die for something more than hate, cruelty, or fun.
I think I'm up to four cents now. Time to bow out.
Dan
-
- Posts: 160
- Joined: August 30th, 2010, 11:39 am
- Location: East Coast
Re: Quick question.
Eat them!!!!
That way we can be invasives and conservationists at the same time- humans love that. Now that I've solved this problem I need to get back to more important human things like jersey shore and survivor.
That way we can be invasives and conservationists at the same time- humans love that. Now that I've solved this problem I need to get back to more important human things like jersey shore and survivor.
Re: Quick question.
Matt J - Thank you for pointing that out. Invasive species are those that cause harm to "native populations," with that being said though, any herbivore that came to the US would have caused detriment to the plant life, thus being invasive, carnivores following the same path. Almost every species we have now has outcompeted a previous one which is why 99.9% of all organisms to have existed are extinct.
Re: Quick question.
Have 99 percent gone extinct, or have some or most evolved into other things?
Dan
Dan
Re: Quick question.
Species don't evolve, populations do. We did not evolve from chimps, but we do have a common ancestor.Herp Ninja wrote:Have 99 percent gone extinct, or have some or most evolved into other things?
Dan
- Cole Grover
- Posts: 746
- Joined: June 8th, 2010, 10:06 am
- Location: Montana
Re: Quick question.
Not quite true. Much of our fauna (and even some in the Old World) is derived from species that arose on the American continents (Antilocapra, Equus, Cemelids, Hylidae, Plethodontidae, Centarchidae, Iguanidae, Phrynosomatidae, Polychrotidae, etc.). Lots and lots more, too.CCarille wrote:Evolutionarily speaking every organism in the US is invasive...nearly none of them evolved here...they all walked, flew, and floated over...making every one of them invasive.
While I'd agree to a point, I believe we've yet to find any "non-native" species doesn't impact native species through competition, predation, etc. In that sense, "non-native" must, necessarily, equal "invasive". Even Chamaeleo calyptratus must be feeding on insects that could otherwise be preyed upon by a native species and ingesting the leaves of at least some native plants. Same thing for Phelsuma.Matt J wrote:Invasive species are those that are likely to cause significant harm, be it monetary or ecological. On the other hand, nonnative species are still exotic, but not necessarily harmful.
Herp Ninja wrote:Whether you let it go, keep it as a pet, or kill it, you will not, personally, change anything significantly, so in that situation I, personally, would choose to leave it be.
Dan, you and I are usually on the same page, but making a difference has to start somewhere. That said...
Herp Ninja wrote:why not freeze it and turn it over to someone who is studying them. They can take data on gut contents, locality, size, genetics, etc. That way its death will have some meaning.
AND
In contrast, killing a snake in not so humane a manner and leaving it for dead on the road seems to me to be less than positive or constructive.
Exactly. I feel strongly (as should anyone else with an interest in natural history) that euthanasia should be done as humanely as possible. There's no excuse for causing unnecessary suffering.
Yep. I'm with ya. Eradicate, but do it humanely. If collected animals can be used to further our knowledge, perhaps some good may come of them.jonathan wrote:I don't want the whole country to be limited to the same herps as the southeast. I like having both ecosystems out there. Our herps are cool where they are, but now we have significantly fewer native ones - you are much more likely to see a nonnative ranid in SoCal than a native one, a nonnative turtle than a native one. I don't think that's a good thing. And it's not a natural thing - due to human activity, the distances being traveled, the pace at which introduction is occurring, and the uniformity of species being introduced is unprecedented.
120% Agreement. See above.Matt J wrote:But you have to realize that invasive species have absolutely no place with "natural wildlife".
-Cole
Re: Quick question.
Does anybody know if it's illegal to possess burm skins?
I know you can't touch things in ENP, and somebody said it's illegal to possess them [which I took to mean live] but what about skins?
I've never found one, or tried, but if at some point I found one of those great beautiful ones and could do it all legal-like, I'd fersure be gettin the skinning knife out.
USF&W terminates all kinds of invasives with extreme predjudice all over the country. They don't like to publicize it because the PETA freaks give 'em a head ache, but they're not shy to break out some lethal control methods.
I know you can't touch things in ENP, and somebody said it's illegal to possess them [which I took to mean live] but what about skins?
I've never found one, or tried, but if at some point I found one of those great beautiful ones and could do it all legal-like, I'd fersure be gettin the skinning knife out.
USF&W terminates all kinds of invasives with extreme predjudice all over the country. They don't like to publicize it because the PETA freaks give 'em a head ache, but they're not shy to break out some lethal control methods.
Re: Quick question.
Dan, I guess you don't vote either, because 1 individual certainly cant make a difference.Dan wrote:You're not going to solve the problem of Burmese pythons in South Florida by killing one snake with your tire. You argue that you are stopping that animal from killing hundreds of others, but you may also be depriving a gator, bird of prey or kingsnake of a tasty meal.
Whether you let it go, keep it as a pet, or kill it, you will not, personally, change anything significantly, so in that situation I, personally, would choose to leave it be. Not because I am a bleeding heart, but because I love snakes, and I don't like to kill them for no reason.
Re: Quick question.
Herp Ninja Wrote:
Fundad
I would fly to Florida tonight, to see THAT kingsnake..You argue that you are stopping that animal from killing hundreds of others, but you may also be depriving a gator, bird of prey or kingsnake of a tasty meal.
Fundad
-
- Posts: 89
- Joined: November 14th, 2010, 3:36 pm
- Location: Colorado
Re: Quick question.
Unless the conditions for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium exist, which we know is practically impossible!Matt J wrote:Species don't evolve, populations do. We did not evolve from chimps, but we do have a common ancestor.Herp Ninja wrote:Have 99 percent gone extinct, or have some or most evolved into other things?
Dan
Re: Quick question.
Coldbloodedherps...funny response
Cole - I was speaking in the sense to all species arose from one and adaptive radiation occurred causing niches to be filled. The species that you speak of to evolving on this continent all arose from one common ancestor that more than likely didn't evolve on this continent. Now I'm not positive...it could be that all these species could be traced back to the US and they're non-native everywhere else. If a new species arose from Burmese pythons in the US would you consider the new species that came about here native? Thats where I'm having trouble agreeing...granted its all semantics...and completely depends on ones definition of species and native...it could be a very long drawn out discussion/argument and looks to be heading that way
Cole - I was speaking in the sense to all species arose from one and adaptive radiation occurred causing niches to be filled. The species that you speak of to evolving on this continent all arose from one common ancestor that more than likely didn't evolve on this continent. Now I'm not positive...it could be that all these species could be traced back to the US and they're non-native everywhere else. If a new species arose from Burmese pythons in the US would you consider the new species that came about here native? Thats where I'm having trouble agreeing...granted its all semantics...and completely depends on ones definition of species and native...it could be a very long drawn out discussion/argument and looks to be heading that way
Re: Quick question.
Haha, I suppose so, but I can't imagine a world without natural selection and genetic driftColdBloodedHerps wrote:Unless the conditions for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium exist, which we know is practically impossible!
- M.J.FRANETOVICH
- Posts: 538
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:54 pm
- Location: Deadhorse/California
Re: Quick question.
Ok!! I don't have a problem with killing the burms humanly, (a car tire is hardly that). euthanasia for the professionals, for the hobbyist that wants to help use, your owne judgment but try and be compassionate. None the less they are destroying the ecosystem and causing population decline in native wildlife even a couple mammals that where all ready endangered. killing is ok if there is good cause, I tag a moose every year in Alaska and catch my share of salmon, this help with population control and there tasty Any way I'm getting off topic!!
TAKE OUT THE BURM's before the damage is irreversible
><)))%>
Mel
TAKE OUT THE BURM's before the damage is irreversible
><)))%>
Mel
- SnakeStick
- Posts: 355
- Joined: August 18th, 2010, 5:35 pm
- Location: Hilton Head Island, South Cackalacky
Re: Quick question.
Why did we evolve much more efficiently?Species don't evolve, populations do. We did not evolve from chimps, but we do have a common ancestor.
Re: Quick question.
Not sure what you're asking right here.SnakeStick wrote:Why did we evolve much more efficiently?
- Peter84Jenkins
- Posts: 57
- Joined: July 21st, 2010, 2:09 am
- Location: Georgia
- Contact:
Re: Quick question.
One advantage our most ancient of ancestors developed over their predecessors was the orbital septum, or that portion of the skull behind the eyes which serves as an anchor to keep the eyes from wobbling, thus allowing the eye to focus on objects at a greater dist.....ance...uhggg this has nothing to do with the original post. does it?SnakeStick wrote:Why did we evolve much more efficiently?Species don't evolve, populations do. We did not evolve from chimps, but we do have a common ancestor.
Re: Quick question.
Spiny softshell:
If you read the rest of my post/posts you'll see that my blabbering was more nuanced than that one statement.
Fundude- meee toooo
Also,
On the subjects of humans evolving more efficiently:
We didn't. Chimps evolved perfectly to be chimps, moose to be moose, and pandas to be pandas.
Whether one is better than another is relative to your point of view.
dan
If you read the rest of my post/posts you'll see that my blabbering was more nuanced than that one statement.
Fundude- meee toooo
Also,
On the subjects of humans evolving more efficiently:
We didn't. Chimps evolved perfectly to be chimps, moose to be moose, and pandas to be pandas.
Whether one is better than another is relative to your point of view.
dan
- Peter84Jenkins
- Posts: 57
- Joined: July 21st, 2010, 2:09 am
- Location: Georgia
- Contact:
Re: Quick question.
[quote="
Also,
On the subjects of humans evolving more efficiently:
We didn't. Chimps evolved perfectly to be chimps, moose to be moose, and pandas to be pandas.
Whether one is better than another is relative to your point of view.
dan[/quote]
I agree here. we humans are such pathetic and weak creatures that couldn't survive without our technology(it was the development of tools that spawned our quick ascent to the top). Our only advantage is our intellect. I mean take crocs for example. They have 4 chambered hearts, and yet they are reptiles, so they have the ability to maintain a favorable body temperature despite a drop in the ambient temp. Not to mention they have some of the most caustic gastric juices of most the worlds creatures and blood that acts as a powerful antibiotic. We, in our current state of evolution have been around for roughly 30,000 years, a mere blip in geologic time. Crocs however, have been around for millions. 80 million I think.
Sorry for the tangent, I just can't see how anyone can view humanity as anything other than a fragile, over sexed, parasite.
Also,
On the subjects of humans evolving more efficiently:
We didn't. Chimps evolved perfectly to be chimps, moose to be moose, and pandas to be pandas.
Whether one is better than another is relative to your point of view.
dan[/quote]
I agree here. we humans are such pathetic and weak creatures that couldn't survive without our technology(it was the development of tools that spawned our quick ascent to the top). Our only advantage is our intellect. I mean take crocs for example. They have 4 chambered hearts, and yet they are reptiles, so they have the ability to maintain a favorable body temperature despite a drop in the ambient temp. Not to mention they have some of the most caustic gastric juices of most the worlds creatures and blood that acts as a powerful antibiotic. We, in our current state of evolution have been around for roughly 30,000 years, a mere blip in geologic time. Crocs however, have been around for millions. 80 million I think.
Sorry for the tangent, I just can't see how anyone can view humanity as anything other than a fragile, over sexed, parasite.
Re: Quick question.
I guess I'm only 2/3 human.Peter84Jenkins wrote:a fragile, over sexed, parasite.
Re: Quick question.
What, just a fragile parasite?
- M.J.FRANETOVICH
- Posts: 538
- Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:54 pm
- Location: Deadhorse/California
Re: Quick question.
fragile, over sexed, parasite
Are you kidding me? Wow!!!!! What a Sociopath!!!! I don't normally bash on people but dude you deserve it
Are you kidding me? Wow!!!!! What a Sociopath!!!! I don't normally bash on people but dude you deserve it
Re: Quick question.
I need a hug.VanAR wrote:What, just a fragile parasite?
- Peter84Jenkins
- Posts: 57
- Joined: July 21st, 2010, 2:09 am
- Location: Georgia
- Contact:
Re: Quick question.
M.J.FRANETOVICH wrote: fragile, over sexed, parasite
Are you kidding me? Wow!!!!! What a Sociopath!!!! I don't normally bash on people but dude you deserve it
LOL. I am going to pretend you are joking here because it is really hard to tell sometimes in a forum.
I am glad you and I are well enough acquainted for you to analyze my mental state.
Ohhhhhh, I seeeee, you believe in a "God" That explains everything.