Brown anoles actually have been shown to have a negative impact on the native green anoles. I suspect the climate is keeping the others from spreading too much, but where the green anoles do not co-occur with brown anoles, the green anole population is much better. You're examples, also, are based on your biases. Florida has no nocturnal geckos, sure. When the Hemidactylus were introduced, how did that impact the nocturnal insect populations? I doubt anyone has made that assessment, but the geckos cannot be introduced without an impact.

From a conservation management perspective, "invasive" is solely relegated to species that cause economic harm. "Exotic" and "non-native" are left to species that do not cause economic harm. So the term invasive is an anthropocentric term. That is why, IMO, my "Leave No Trace" approach is the best. There is no threshold to set. There is only correcting a mistake. A 1 gallon oil spill should be cleaned up just as a 1 million gallon oil spill should be cleaned up.

I wasn't suggesting that introduced species didn't have any impact. They certainly compete against something. All I was saying is that "harm" depends on your metric. Biodiversity may have actually gone up. Green anole numbers may have gone down, etc.

The best way to leave no trace is to have never gone in the first place. But like that is going to happen!

Really ? Where has this been "shown". The only actual study I've read was done by Todd Cample, this study concluded that when introduced into undisturbed habitat brown anoles did not reduce green anole population's. People assume when they see brown anoles and no greens that its because the greens cant compete when there are many other environmentally altering factors involved that play a role in a species dominance.




Its a huge stretch to think the introduction of geckos had any measurable effect on nocturnal insect populations. FACT: Very few introduced species have any measurable effect or negative impact on the environment's they are introduced in to. That is why "invasive" biologist have to lean so heavily on hypothetical, misleading and skewed information to prove that native species and the environment as a whole will be threated, possibly doomed with out their research and intervention. No threat, no funding, no job.




This is nothing more then a feel good measure, the random killing of these turtles, bull frogs , pythons will in no way curve the population in a meaningful way. The numbers removed by random killing do not even constitute a fraction of the total number that could be culled for sustainable harvest, let alone "make a difference". Its like taking a bucket of water out of lake superior every month in the hopes that you can drain it. The attitude that one less is one better is a very small picture mentality.



This statement along with "they don't belong there" is a common argument but is very seldom true. The Everglades for example is home to more introduced specie's then possibly any other place in the world, less then 3% of the natural Everglades still exist (according to the World Wildlife Fund), today the Everglades biodiversity is at an all time high. Populations of once endangered species such as wood storks, panthers , and others have grown. Referring to the Everglade's as a delicate ecosystem is a whimsical catch phrase that was born in some university's creative writing class. The truth is the Everglades has proven to be an incredibly resilient, adaptable environment that if left alone will remain a haven of immense biodiversity until the planet no longer has a need for it. The earth takes care of itself no one can restore it. Oil spills , nuclear plant meltdowns or the introduction of species into new environment's are just minor events in the earths history that are quickly cleaned up and adjusted to by the planets natural forces.


Ernie Eison

I agree with much of what you have said, except this:



I think the role of the "invasive" biologist is to study each introduced species and try to determine if they would have any negative impact, and to what degree, and how to prepare for that should the population move from being just non-native to invasive (using general definitions here). For example, clearly things like kudzu have an impact. I don't think any serious scientists uses "misleading and skewed information" to "prove" anything. As long as there are species being introduced into new places, there will be plenty of work for "invasive" biologists and so they don't have to worry about job security to the point of making stuff up.

I guess since you've only read the one study, then that must be it, huh? A quick Google Scholar search shows several articles showing impacts to Anolis carolinensis when competing with A. sagrei. These things don't happen in a vacuum. Todd Campbell has been publishing a bit on this. Maybe look up more of his work?



Ah, a stretch, so obviously there is no impact. Can you demonstrate this? Again, nothing happens in a vacuum.

As for your "fact," why don't you demonstrate that this "fact" actually is a fact. There are numerous examples of invasives having a negative impact on local ecosystems. Look at bullfrogs, invasive trout, invasive bass, Xenopus, Spotted Knapweed, Garlic Mustard, Kudzu, Purple Loosestrife, Lionfish, Crown-of-Thorns Starfish, Asian Carp, Zebra Mussels, etc. I would say if you can demonstrate that none of these species has an effect on their local environments that results in biodiversity loss, then you might have a case, but until then, I don't really think that you know what you're talking about.



What a lovely sentiment. So why do anything, really? Why care about destruction of the Amazon or poaching of Southeast Asian turtles? It's all small scale for the Earth. Why bother?

Have you ever heard of "think global, act local?" If someone goes to a pond in California and removes all of the bullfrogs from that pond, sure it's a drop in a bucket in the grand scheme of things, but for that pond, native species can come back and flourish. That makes a difference.



Please demonstrate that the Everglades' biodiversity is at an all-time high. And you do realize the irony of you saying "less [than] 3% of the natural Everglades still exist" and "the Everglades has proven to be an incredibly resilient, adaptable environment" in the same paragraph, right? I suppose all of those conservationists working to protect what remains of the Everglades are just trying to "create a disaster to keep their jobs." It's not like the hydrology of the entire southern portion of Florida has changed in the last decade or that the Everglades' ecosystem function depends on that hydrology. Don't worry, it's resilient. It'll find a way.

I'm actually curious now. Does anybody know what percent of introduced species actually establish themselves and rapidly expand their range? Have we not be using ornamental plants in landscaping for a while now and only a select few (off the top of my head I'm thinking Japanese Honeysuckle) caused some problems? I'm thinking that the reason there is such a long list of non native species that have caused problems is as long as it is because of the high volume of species getting moved around and introduced. We also cannot ignore species that have become naturalized too. They were introduced, had an impact, but can we say they caused harm? I think the vast majority of introduced species probably don't establish themselves. Somebody on the main forum was asking about translocation and the pythons. The vast majority of exotics don't make it in their new land. But the few that do can really cause some problems.

At least for Florida, its a tough call for me on some species. Curly-tails, Cuban tree frogs, and several others all naturally occur on islands not far from Florida. Species arrived on those islands after they separated geologically from certain mainlands. It stands to reason then species could move from those islands back to the mainland w/o the help of man (though we certainly sped up the process). Are they "really" invasive because we brought them?

The Everglades are not what they were 100 years ago. Humans have significantly modified the freshwater systems of south Florida. Much of the former glades have been reduced, though exact numbers escape me. And certainly the total number of animals and mix of species has changed. But I really caution against calling any ecosystem a delicate balance. I think many landscapes are much more resilient than we typically think. But, there are plenty of examples where humans have pushed things past a tipping point. Since we don't have accurate species accounts from the last century, it is hard to argue that biodiversity has changed. But, at least in terms of herps, there appears to be a higher diversity now than probably even 50 years ago. I'm not saying that is a good thing for the ecosystem. I was just saying that we need to be critical of our metrics to make sure we're measuring what we ought to be measuring.

Actually no need, I've read quite a bit and made many personal observations. The first study Todd Campbell did was in my view the best apples to apples comparison on the subject. I think its the only good piece of work Todd Campbell has ever done. His desperate attempts to terrify the people of Cape Coral into giving him money to save those poor helpless burrowing owls from being wiped put by the KOMODO DRAGON / Nile monitor lizard, were a complete farce.




An easy point to demonstrate. Itemize a complete list of all non native species and their introduced habitat's, before you get a tenth of the way thru that list you will see that your "numerous examples " comprises only a tiny fraction of the total number. The vast majority are not known to have any negative impact. You can argue from a point of speculation and hypothetical scenarios all day, but the facts as they stand are on my side of this point.



Again comprise list of all known established species currently found in the Everglades , compare that list to one from any other point in recorded history, more biodiversity exist in the Everglades today then at any other point in known history.

Adaptable means to change and the Glades has, but it has remained an environment full of life. Resilient , its native species have thrived and some have increased their numbers in spite of all the change. How many species found only in the Everglades have become extinct in recorded history ? Any? While only 3% of the natural Everglades according to the WWF remains, the region known as the Everglades is a place thriving with ecological diversity.

Yes absolutely the Everglades has proven to be a resilient, adaptable environment. It might not be the same but it has certainly found a way .




Really, serious scientists such as, Robert Reed , Mike Dorcus, Lori Oberhofer , Gordon Rodda. I could go on. Every one these people have used misleading and skewed information try to "prove" their point. I've covered this pretty well in previous post making direct comparisons of known fact to their intentional printed and published fiction.

Still some...oh well, I do understand.
The only way you can get someone to agree with you if they already agree they you. The down fall of truth has always been the gullible nature of the "believer's".

Gordon Rodda published paper on data bending in science mostly to cover his own ass , If someone chooses to believe in the sanctimonious halo of science, by all means but deceit in the scientific community is everywhere.

Highly regarded shark researcher Aidan Martin to his credit spoke candidly about what goes on in the field of biological research. I placed the word python in parentheses next the word shark. You can substitute the word python for shark or any one of a number of subjects as the issues he discuses are universal.

Quote:
Shark (python)research is expensive and few things are harder to do than to get someone else to pay to satisfy your curiosity. In many cases, officials in charge or granting funding for scientific research do not understand the science a fraction as well as the applicant, so the onus is on him or her to explain convincingly why a proposed line of research is significant, what results can be expected, why this knowledge is important, how much it will cost, and — above all else — why it is worthy of their financial support. It is therefore not enough to know your field and be able to explain it clearly but also to be able to pitch a proposed line of research with all the skill of a top-ranking salesperson.

Aidan Martin shark researcher


Quote:
Then there's the human side of things. As in every other job, there is dirty politics, cut-throat competition, roaring egos, rampant jealousy, nasty or unfounded rumors, petty grudges, character assassinations, betrayals of trust, theft of work or credit, and other perils of dealing with people. Don't get me wrong, there are also unexpected kindnesses, incredible generosities, mutually beneficial alliances and collaborations, and sometimes deep friendships to distil out of working with other people. But often you never know who's going to do what until after they've done it and it seems that unpleasant surprises are far more common than pleasant ones. Such are the problems inherent to working with others' ambitions and insecurities. The problems seem to intensify in high-profile matters, such as those concerning White Sharks (pythons)or shark attacks.

Aidan Martin shark researcher



Quote:
There are plenty of ethical, meticulous, hard working, thoroughly wonderful people working in shark research who do what they because they love it. But, far too often, the work of these dedicated scientists seems to be overwhelmed in the public eye by relatively few self-styled shark (python)researchers who are unethical, methodologically sloppy, thoroughly untrustworthy ratbags and posers who care nothing for the ideals and practices of Science but do what they do because they want attention and adulation. Ratbags are often skilled politicians and can be tough to identify until after they've shown their true motives.

Aidan Martin shark researcher [/b]

Ernie Eison

That's great news. Do you mind if I bring some spent fuel rods, crude oil, and a few acres worth of Japanese Barberry down to your backyard to test your theory? If it works, expect several million truckloads of the same, because those "natural forces" you speak of are in pretty short supply up by me.

Are these the "natural forces" you are talking about?

I think they must have gotten gentrified out of my neighborhood, because I haven't seen them anywhere.

The critical difference here is that the Earth doesn't care, but (some) people do.

Another poor effort to take a cheap shot at me that has fallen flat. Your thoughts are short sighted, poorly thought out and lack perspective. Not to mention your avatar looks like one of the inbreds from deliverance.

Test my theory? I have a better test, Lets see if we can find your little natural force fairies.

The Chernobyl disaster was the worst nuclear power plant accident in history. A level 7 event (the maximum classification). This happened in 1986. Today the fall out zone is a wildlife haven. Population's of Apex predator's such as wolves have surpassed pre meltdown numbers. The radioactive levels are far to high to be considered safe for humans but the wildlife is thriving. Scientist have been studying test colonies of rodents and the animal's are doing great. In what amount's to less then the blink of an eye nature has begun to recapture that part of the planet. Prior to this "experts " and lesser minds predicted the area would be a wasteland forever and the dead zone would spread, things there are not prefect but considering the amount recovery in the incredibly short time frame, its proof that if left alone the planet will take care of itself.

The Permian mass extinction has been called the Great Dying. Its claimed 96% of the earths species died out. Out of the remaining 4% the earth recovered and completely reinvented itself into a place of incredible diversity. Id say there's no short supply of those natural forces .

All things are temporary. There are those that believe or want others to believe that they can some how restore a previous period or maintain things in their current state.

Our lives and the next ten generations are a miniscule time frame that amounts to nothing in the overall scope of the planets history. The earth has under gone catastrophic change. Mass extinction after mass extinction and it will see another. Like it or not, if not sooner then later, it will happen and the planet will once again reinvent itself.

Ernie Eison

Ad hominem attacks are a sign of losing an argument, FYI.



You do know that there are a number of issues with the plants and animals that live around the Chernobyl area, correct? Like increased mutation, abnormalities, and reduced fertility. Research suggests that the populations living in and around Chernobyl are sink populations, meaning that they are migrants from outside areas and basically go there to die. Just because something is living there doesn't mean that everything is hunky-dory. From a biological perspective, Chernobyl is still a wasteland. Yes, the wild has taken over, but it is not self-sufficient.



I am sure that in 250 million years, the Earth will be completely different than the one we know today. After all, the typical span for a species on the Earth is only a couple million years. It is absolutely silly to compare today to the Permian extinction and the resulting diversity from it. The time scales are so astronomically different that you're comparing apples to rocks. No one here is going to argue that the Earth won't reset itself after an extinction event.

The difference between the Permian extinction and the Anthropocene extinction? Us. Look at human habits. In the oceans, we started off going after the top predators, until we wiped or nearly wiped those out. Then we started working down the food chain. Now the species of aquatic animals we harvest is way down the food chain. The same can and will be expected for terrestrial systems. I have no doubt that humans will be able to wipe out everything larger than a mouse if given the chance. Maintaining ecosystems is about self-survival. Once we destroy the Everglades, there isn't going back. Same with the rainforests. Or oceans. Every time we make a massive impact to an ecosystem, it's one more shovelful of dirt out of our grave and, we're burying other species with us. I'd like to stay out of the grave as long as possible.



I'm sorry, but this sort of mentality is toxic. It justifies destroying ecosystems and not having personal responsibility for it. It justifies continuing destructive practices like Rattlesnake Round-ups because in the "grand scheme of things" nothing we do matters. It justifies no accountability for environmental disasters like Deepwater Horizon or Chernobyl. It's a shameful mentality to have, especially on a forum dedicated to appreciating the natural world.

That is situational and not always true. Ad hominem attacks that are supported by facts making up the core of the argument, are simply descriptive commentary and in this case quite true to the point. A better indicator of losing an argument is when someone resorts to grasping at straws, removing the other views comments from the perspective they were originally stated in, the ignoring of indisputable facts, the usual classroom games. All of these elements can be found in the responses to my post.



To try minimize my point by arguing that the populations living in and around Chernobyl are sink populations, migrants from outside areas that basically go there to die. Is silly. What the scientist have found is that Chernobyl is full of life, thriving reproductively successful population's of species such as deer, bats , boar , lynx, wolves, horses etc.

And where did I say the recovery was complete , in the giving time frame what has taken place is proof positive that the recovery process is self sufficient. From a biological standpoint Chernobyl is not fully recovered buts its hardly a wasteland, its a place of dramatic and unpredicted biological growth and survival. A testament of life's resilience. As you said. Yes, the wild has taken over. Exactly the point I was making.



Once again my point made. I clearly was not making a direct comparison, I was using a fantastic example of the earths ability to as you put it, reset itself. The earth has done this many times. Changing circumstance's change the reset process but do not prevent it from functioning.



Then we started working down the food chain? Tuna , swordfish , sharks , Marlin and sailfish, king mackerel , whale hunting is still big business . We harvest the food chain top to bottom and have for a very long time. If you need a "demonstration" of this , go to the local fish market.

By the way does anyone know who won the frog gigging contest ? What was the final score ?

Ernie Eison

While you are at the fish market, take a look at the prices, and think really hard about why those apex predators are so expensive.

By the way, my avatar is supposed to be more of a redneck Abraham Lincoln, so you were halfway there.

I stopped supporting Save The Frogs a few years ago.

They had a petition they wanted me to sign to remove cattle ranching from BLM land because the cattle was hurting Oregon Spotted Frog populations, but there were no academic studies to support it.

When I looked up the issue, cattle grazing was never mentioned as a cause for Rana pretiosa decline, and it seems that cattle grazing may actually be beneficial due to cattle ponds being used for reproduction.

When I asked where the science was behind the petition, I was accused by several people of being part of the pro-cattle lobby. Not by Kerry himself, but by many associated with Save The Frogs.

That was enough for me, I appreciate some of the work they do but I don't appreciated being accused of being part of a group I disdain (I am very pro-wolf and the cattle lobby wants them all dead) just because I asked for scientific clarification before signing a petition. So Save The Frogs is not an organization for me.

That being said, this frog gigging contest thing looks despicable to me, as much so as the rattlesnake round-ups.

There is no honor in killing for sport, that's cowardice.

I have wondered if there is some unconscious jealousy aspect to hunting for sport. As the human animal cannot physically match or attain the gifts of many other animals with the body alone.

Only a projectile can give a person the power to drop a bird from the sky. Or stop a predator from winning a battle of physical grace and power.

Even a frog can be superior to some people in many ways.

I agree with this:

That was simply uncalled for. Glad to know that challenging your opinion is grounds for a personal insult. What is it that you bring to the forums again, besides constantly angry posts?

absolutely correct nothing wrong at all with participating in legal fishing and hunting activities frog gigging is regulated and has a bag limit in every state they are native that i'm aware of so, the kill all you can thing is not quite accurate IMO, really it's take your legal ethical bag limit which hunters are encouraged to do and no more if they are invasive in your state absolutely kill all you can, I am required by law in my state to kill every Asian carp I land in my boat, I agree with that law 100%. Many people who enjoy reptiles and native wildlife also enjoy hunting and fishing. A large percentage of the money that goes into conservation at the state level is paid for by hunting and fishing fees. I like native wildlife, some of it I like fried up in batter and having my licensing fees go to support conservation efforts across my state. I have absolutely no issues with people legally taking frogs, snapping turtles ect. as long as it is done sustainably and ethically. As far as making a contest out of it not really my thing I find it somewhat distasteful, but I guess it's little different than coon dog hunts, bass fishing events, or even the squirrel hunting event one firehouse in upstate NY does as a fundraiser every year that makes the ARA nutjobs head explode. Another point made that I find somewhat absurd is the "think of the children" How is gigging a frog any different than any other hunting activity children can be involved in, What is the ethical difference between taking out my 8 year old kid and catching a stringer of bluegill for dinner as opposed to catching some frogs for dinner? lots of kids start hunting as early as age 10 or younger deer hunting, teaching children ethical hunting and an enjoyment of the outdoors is a wonderful thing, sure beats sitting in front of the xbox. My kids have gigged since they could hold a gig, I wish I could use a net for the welfare of the animal but my state does not allow nets so don't be mad at the hunter be mad at the law maker for setting up the laws that way. I can use a bow/.22/club/pellet gun I've tried the .22 and turned out all I did was put holes in frogs to what I assume would be a later, painful death, at least with the gig I can euthanize them immediately upon retrieval. What the children are learning if it is done properly is how to sustainably harvest resources/eliminate invasive species depending on where this took place and how to be self reliant, and that reconnecting with a real food source instead of associating those little round rectangle packages (because commercial meat production is so humane and ethical) as a real source of food. The important thing to remember here is nothing makes a better marinade for any wild game harvest than the tears of vegan animal rights whackos

sorry i'm a bit confused here also isn't Australia involved in a campaign to kill feral cats now that is generating world wide scorn from the ARA community (and emotionally driven pet cat owners)? and has become a huge emotional issue receiving international attention (i am for it by the way and hope U.S. does something similar) not to mention koala bear culls and sharks culls?....talk about things to generate negative PR from people worldwide.......gigging a few frogs doesn't even cross the radar compared to those things. I don't remember any of that blowback over cane toad cull in OZ, but maybe I missed it. As far as scenting and feeding rodents to an animal evolved to eat nothing but amphibians is not necessarily a great practice for the health of some animals imo, but i'll defer to some eastern hognose keepers on that.

Edited 4 times? wow that's whacky!

I'm editing my post now too! Just to say I'm just kidding around.

Its kind of stupid to categorize people as whackos, or underendowed power mongers, etc etc.
It does nothing to chisel ones points, and the only peeps you reach are the ones who agree with you already.

Teaching kids to hunt to "enjoy the outdoors" is such a square bag.

My partner's daughter, my stepdaughter I guess I could call her, has seriously fallen for a guy who's FB page is nothing but pics of him and dead ducks. Its possible she will marry this guy, and have his babies. She said so, so I'm just going by that. We think of the future as grandparents with a little less joy having to see how they will be raised, with birthdays celebrated by shooting stuff , just like he was.

A utilitarian view of nature is a shallow, dulled piece of dated glass.

Sure your kids can stab a frog, but they are less likely to ever want to study them, write about them, paint them or protect them.

Or write, study, paint or protect anything, probably.

Perhaps not knowing the whole picture, once they come of age and interact with other people with minds of their own - which is inevitable, they may regard the memory as one of the backward things about you, and may not remember it as anything but squinnish, and kind of embarrassing.

The thing that doesn't make sense is the disconnect of seeming so "self reliant" and proud uvit!.. to the need to dress it up in rhetorical terms and motives.

You do it cause its fun for you. There isn't any need in reality - you do it because its fun to you. Its all pretend, even the current trend to use red appley words for it like "harvest" ..

Its a game, that's why its called Game. You wouldn't do it if it didn't press your button. So why not just tell it like it is?

The chances of you and your family needing to rely on frogs to survive is as likely as you falling out of a plane in an impenetrably remote area with your bow and .22 and all your gear, and living the rest of your life growing out your nails and eating squirrels.

You do it because you enjoy it. You are smarter than the frogs, and you prove it!

Hey Kelly, I just found this thread...but here's a little list of the Pseudo Conservation rip-off groups people should shun and ignore:

Save The Frogs
Center for Biological Diversity
Humane Society of the United States
PETA

There, now you can attack me too, and then I'll write a dissertation on why these assholes don't help anything but themselves (except for your good friends, of course).

Oh, and for the record...here's how I feel about frog gigging...It sucks...I think they should be shot in the head (bullfrogs out west only).

and out west, the only good bullfrog is a dead bullfrog, the only good bass is a dead bass, and the only good invasive crayfish is a dead invasive crayfish, the only good Raccoon outside the mountain forests is a dead Raccoon. The only good African Clawed frog is a dead African Clawed frog, the only good Star Thistle is a dead and gone Star Thistle, and the only good Russian Thistle is a dead and gone Russian Thistle.
The red-eared sliders need to all be moved to golf course ponds in Palm Springs where they will have no impact whatsoever...

I won't even comment on Ernie's idiotic remarks about Brown anoles or other invasives. Get out in the field more Ernie, you might learn something. Why don't you serve yourself a nice big cup of Shut the F*ck Up...

Hi Brian, i knew a couple nice people that like frogs and were in the Save A Frog thing. I don't belong to any groups and actually am of the opinion of the late George Carlin about Flag Wavers.

There's alot of faux conservation - the word has become dilute .

What I said was in response to some blanket insults of the poster. If he didn't want a bite, don't shake the bait.


To break it down, simple solids.. frog gigging is Emotionally Driven.

Emotionally Driven, ie; done for its own enjoyment. Its the same as shooting pool or darts, but with a weird mental wiggle mixed in.

Edited to add.

I agree with you...

...whew!

I'm fine with legitimate frog gigging... that is someone taking frogs with a gig and making sure they die as quickly and painlessly as possible and using the legs for food. Frog legs are good eating and I enjoy them myself. There is no reason why a healthy population of bullfrogs cannot be utilized by local people as a food source. I am more concerned that Save the Frogs is wasting hard earned donations on such a non-issue as this which makes me question if they are even really a conservation group at all. If one or more participants is torturing or otherwise engaging in non-sportsman-like conduct, they should be forbidden from participating in the event and/or hunting in general until they have demonstrated an understanding of the consensus what hunting is all about.

I think the thread was about a contest where kids are given a reward for gigging frogs, not about consenting adults giving their money to some thing about frogs.

that notion of impaling the frog and then "killing it as quickly and humanely as possible" is a nice little cover letter but the execution of such is as variable as the person and gigging moment and it cant be assured.

If people like to do it, well of course they will. Why not be honest about what your doing though. Why do shit you have to tell yourself little lies to enjoy?

Really, and what is I might learn ? Out in the field ?, and where is this field? How would I know when I'm out in it? Driving from a housing devolvement , stopping for gas and coffee, rolling down a paved highway thru miles of developed land, going to a man made water system and killing a bullfrog is doing what?

My perspectives and views are the product of truthful observation and fact based study. I try to look at things for what they really are, get the complete picture. I don't pick and choose based on my own wants.

Its not good to let personal bias and whimsical idealisms filtered thru mind numbing and self-serving propaganda cloud the truth. The world is not a still shot, its a constantly changing picture. To pretend that your making a difference by randomly killing certain animals and promoting the random killing of these animals, is completely narcissistic.

Since I cant seem to get a final on who won the frog gigging contest, is anyone here trying to save the everglades this month by being part of the PYTHON CHALLANGE ! The last I heard there was a about 750 participants who have caught 39 snakes. I wonder how all the merchandise is selling. You can get official Python challenge hats , t shirts , drink holders , draw string bags. The maybe 35 k or so raised by this event will go to python management, that cash will be a big help. Especially when added to the 8 to 10 million or more of fruitless research funding spent so far. Uh–huh. This conservation effort like many others was best described as a cheap stunt.



Selling a war is exactly what these python researcher's and other invasive species biologist are doing. Meaningless wars that do no good for the environment but certainly make for a nice career. When reviewing "scientific data" these days, the first rule is consider the source, what's in it for them. The combination of constantly dumbing down the education system, highly biased radicalized views and teachings, the competition for funding, has made the scientific community a place of poor quality sensationalized work and gross misconduct. All the phony self serving, self righteousness. The sense of self entitlement and importance, driven by personal agenda.



How many creams and sugars would you like in your next cup ? Black maybe?

Ernie Eison

Here frog giggers try this : "I realize scientifically in what is known of anuran anatomy and innervation, that gigging a frog is inhumane dispatch, however I am targeting invasives in my gigging, and enjoy the mini safari experience of hunting the frogs and like to eat frogs legs, so I am making the choice to act on those aspects in my own personal value system."

There. Is that so hard?

"How many creams and sugars would you like in your next cup ? Black maybe?"

Ernie Eison

You crack me up Ernie. Glad you took the bait and posted again, BUT...the reality is that some invasives do a lot of harm to native species. I've seen it with the Western Pond Turtle, and the last time I was in Florida I did notice there were no Green Anoles anywhere I saw Cuban Browns (or whatever they are today)...and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how bullfrogs have affected the SF Garter. Of course, I doubt you've spent much time looking for those garters or pond turtles in CA to form an educated opinion. I have, and continue to do so. So put a little cream in your cup and slurp away...