-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
CornSnake in the wild.... :)
- Thread starter Rich Z
- Start date
- Status
ComoxCorn
Pssst...Got Corn??
I saw this thread when it first appeared, but haven't really followed it a lot. On first thought when I saw the thread, my own personal opinion was that I disagree with releasing captive bred corns and their various morphs into the wild. I have since tried to read up on this thread, and quite honestly, I haven't read it all. But I'll still offer up my concerns with releasing snakes into the wild.
First off, I honestly don't see how releasing captive bred corns is actually beneficial to the wild population. From a breeders standpoint, Rich had some pretty dynamic morphs on the go. But if nature had meant for those genetics to perpetuate, wouldn't we be finding naturally occuring morphs with much more frequency? Perhaps there is a reason that genetic morphs are not prolific in the wild. Only God can answer that one. How does introducing captive bred snakes with a multitude of genetic variations improve the wild stock?
As far as an over abundance of rodents on your property Rich, this has always been a naturally occuring cycle within the food chain. I'd be more in favour of you catching WC's and relocating them to your property if you think that more snakes is the solution. But adding man perpetuated genetics into the wild will only pollute the naturally occuring genetics within your range.
Secondly...is it actually legal to do what you are doing? If it isn't, why would you boldly post these actions rather than keep it as your own little secret? This forum has always promoted and encouraged reptile keepers to follow their local laws regarding reptiles. Can you please provide an answer as to whether releasing captive bred corn snakes and their genetic morphs into the wild is actually legal and condoned by the Florida Wildlife Comission.
When I first joined this forum, I did so to gain more knowledge about corn snakes from those who are much more experienced than myself, and I have gained so much well shared knowledge from CornSnakes.com. But then some very real questions come to mind with your decision to release remaining stock into the wild. But here is what can be read into your decision.
1) It's OK to release your animals into the wild once they have served their purpose, because they are a naturally occurring species. In other words, under certain circumstance, it's OK for corn snakes to be a disposable pet. On that thought, I wonder what people here would feel if a snake keeper decided to release his stock around the perimeter of the Okeetee Hunt Club, because the Hunt Club provides santuary that is off limits to field herping and has an abundance of suitable habitat. Might that change the naturally occuring genetics within that range?
2) Too much emphasis has been put on protecting our collection from disease and parasites. Your released snakes will probably become pasasite infested with their first meal. Possibly with fatal results, as they may not have a resistance that wild stock may have. Not to mention disease, again, something wild stock may have more resistance to. But apparently, this doesn't seem to be of much concern for the released animals.
3) Obeying local laws. Redundant, but this sends a clear message that sometimes we can place ourselves above the law if we see it being beneficial to us. Rich, this is an illegal act. I took the time to email FWC and got the following response:
As you can see, they (the FWC) are already aware of this thread, and it drops negativity on who we are as hobbiests. It comes at a time when hobbiests are fighting to protect their right to keep and breed reptiles.
My post is only meant to offer my opinion on this subject. I don't wish to get into long winded debates with anyone, as I feel we are each entitled to our opinion on this subject.
First off, I honestly don't see how releasing captive bred corns is actually beneficial to the wild population. From a breeders standpoint, Rich had some pretty dynamic morphs on the go. But if nature had meant for those genetics to perpetuate, wouldn't we be finding naturally occuring morphs with much more frequency? Perhaps there is a reason that genetic morphs are not prolific in the wild. Only God can answer that one. How does introducing captive bred snakes with a multitude of genetic variations improve the wild stock?
As far as an over abundance of rodents on your property Rich, this has always been a naturally occuring cycle within the food chain. I'd be more in favour of you catching WC's and relocating them to your property if you think that more snakes is the solution. But adding man perpetuated genetics into the wild will only pollute the naturally occuring genetics within your range.
Secondly...is it actually legal to do what you are doing? If it isn't, why would you boldly post these actions rather than keep it as your own little secret? This forum has always promoted and encouraged reptile keepers to follow their local laws regarding reptiles. Can you please provide an answer as to whether releasing captive bred corn snakes and their genetic morphs into the wild is actually legal and condoned by the Florida Wildlife Comission.
When I first joined this forum, I did so to gain more knowledge about corn snakes from those who are much more experienced than myself, and I have gained so much well shared knowledge from CornSnakes.com. But then some very real questions come to mind with your decision to release remaining stock into the wild. But here is what can be read into your decision.
1) It's OK to release your animals into the wild once they have served their purpose, because they are a naturally occurring species. In other words, under certain circumstance, it's OK for corn snakes to be a disposable pet. On that thought, I wonder what people here would feel if a snake keeper decided to release his stock around the perimeter of the Okeetee Hunt Club, because the Hunt Club provides santuary that is off limits to field herping and has an abundance of suitable habitat. Might that change the naturally occuring genetics within that range?
2) Too much emphasis has been put on protecting our collection from disease and parasites. Your released snakes will probably become pasasite infested with their first meal. Possibly with fatal results, as they may not have a resistance that wild stock may have. Not to mention disease, again, something wild stock may have more resistance to. But apparently, this doesn't seem to be of much concern for the released animals.
3) Obeying local laws. Redundant, but this sends a clear message that sometimes we can place ourselves above the law if we see it being beneficial to us. Rich, this is an illegal act. I took the time to email FWC and got the following response:
As you can see, they (the FWC) are already aware of this thread, and it drops negativity on who we are as hobbiests. It comes at a time when hobbiests are fighting to protect their right to keep and breed reptiles.
My post is only meant to offer my opinion on this subject. I don't wish to get into long winded debates with anyone, as I feel we are each entitled to our opinion on this subject.
Buzzard
two corny
Well somehow your pouncing got you banned for a few days.
I lived in Florida for 14 years up until last year.....The storms are not the only reason there is a burm and retic problem but I strongly believe it is the largest contributor.
Edit... Robbie I just read your post... Thank you and yes I agree with you on this one.
Everything you are asking here has already been addressed within this thread. I suggest you take the time to read it if you truly desire those answers.
Roy Munson
New member
I'm begging you, David: please leave this thread alone. Do it as a personal favor to me.
Roy Munson
New member
Roy, with all due respect to you, I would like to follow this thread. I will cut you a deal I will not post my personal opinion but I will still ask questions I am curious as to how this will come out.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't need to cut a deal with you to silence you. That's not a boast. This discussion has taken a serious turn, and your adolescent opinions and/or queries will not be constructive. You need to develop a sense of boundaries. I'd like you to realize those boundaries on your own. If I have to help you, it could be unpleasant (for you, that is).
Reply at your peril.
Guilty of what? Nothing I did is against the law.
Here's the LAW, so tell me if you can find anything at all concerning the release of native reptiles -> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0379/ch0379.htm
Dinah
New member
I have been following this thread because I don't know a lot about this subject and I find the issue kind of fascinating. But I do like researching and I have on more than one occasion found myself reading through our FL statutes on various subjects, I had looked through the statutes before they were posted here and I did so again after the post about the FWC because it seemed weird to me that an agency would tell you that something was illegal without quoting the statute that says it is illegal, of course some office staffer may not have the desire or motivation to be as through as I would personally like for them to be so I figured if it is illegal I must have missed the statute the first time and that is why I looked through them a second time. These are all I can find and they are only talking about non native species and sea snakes.
"379.231
(1) It is unlawful to import for sale or use, or to release within this state, any species of the animal kingdom not indigenous to Florida without having obtained a permit to do so from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission."
"379.305
2) A person who knowingly releases a nonnative venomous reptile or reptile of concern to the wild or who through gross negligence allows a nonnative venomous reptile or reptile of concern to escape commits a Level Three violation"
379.26
"(d) Sea snakes shall not be released into the waters of the state"
I would not call myself an expert researcher but I did look using the search function for the following search terms "release", "native", and "snake". In addition to me reading through the statues as best as I could. I did however learn in my search that it is illegal to "release" more than 10 balloons.
I'm not saying that someone with better researching skills than me won't be able to find it. I'm just saying I can't find anything that says it would be illegal and I have looked VERY hard.
"379.231
(1) It is unlawful to import for sale or use, or to release within this state, any species of the animal kingdom not indigenous to Florida without having obtained a permit to do so from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission."
"379.305
2) A person who knowingly releases a nonnative venomous reptile or reptile of concern to the wild or who through gross negligence allows a nonnative venomous reptile or reptile of concern to escape commits a Level Three violation"
379.26
"(d) Sea snakes shall not be released into the waters of the state"
I would not call myself an expert researcher but I did look using the search function for the following search terms "release", "native", and "snake". In addition to me reading through the statues as best as I could. I did however learn in my search that it is illegal to "release" more than 10 balloons.
I'm not saying that someone with better researching skills than me won't be able to find it. I'm just saying I can't find anything that says it would be illegal and I have looked VERY hard.
Trust me, so have I.......
ComoxCorn
Pssst...Got Corn??
When all else fails, I guess if I was considering releasing captive bred animals into the wild, I would call the local wildlife management authorities to see if it was legal before I did it. One question I did ask in my earlier post was whether the FWC condoned your release efforts Rich. My understanding from their reply to my question I emailed them was that a permit was required to do so.
LBoz
Original Curmudgeon
How many of us "older" folks were raised hearing "Eat your dinner. Do you know how many starving Ethiopian children would love to have that liver?" (or whatever it is that we turned our noses up at the time.) So by shoving your non-feeders into the freezer, you're denying a starving Floridopian predator a nice meal. It's the circle of life...corn snakes are part of the food chain. *shrug*
ComoxCorn
Pssst...Got Corn??
Perhaps I can shed some light on exactly one such program taking place with 20 miles of my front door. I live on Vancouver Island, and there is a species of marmot (Vancouver Island Marmot) that is very endangered that they are trying to repopulate. The Calgary Zoo is heading up the breeding program, and the parent stock are wild caught marmots, not second and third generation animals. Also, the breeding project is very secluded with minimal human contact. There are no antibiotics or other medications used on the breeding stock or the pups born. Once the marmots are weaned, they are released back into their native area, the Beaufort Range. Please note, there is no line breeding involved here.
The same I don't believe holds true for the corn snakes in question that are being released. Bred specifically for homogenous morphs and heterozygous morphs, these snakes carry a wider ranging possibility in genetic diversity and are being released outside of a controlled environment. These snakes are free to migrate as far as need be to establish their own territory and should they survive, have the ability to introduce new genes where those genes may not be present, therefore upsetting the natural genetic make up of the local population.
What I have not seen here is one single arguement that demonstrates a beneficial impact on the wild stock. Instead, there has been a lot of "what harm can it do?" The answer is simple. Who knows??? We may not see an impact in our generation or our childrens generation, but as these genetics spread, at some point in time they may begin to surface. I don't think it is worth the risk. I think we have a responsibilty to excercise ethical stewardship towards our natural resourses, especially when it comes to wildlife. Whatever others have done in the past...highways, bulldozing..whatever...doesn't really make this right simply based on "well..it's not the worse thing that could happen".
Again, this is just my opinion, I hold fast to it, just as Rich is holding fast to his. We are all entitled our opinions.
Well, would you say that genetic diversity in local populations is good or bad for the species? If you consider it as "good", then does it matter where this diversity comes from? Does it really matter whether that gene came from one or more animals that it spontaneously developed within in the wild, or from one or more animals released from captivity carrying that gene?
How many times have you heard people say that they wanted to get "new blood" for their breeding projects? Now why do you suppose they would want to do that? Is getting "new blood" beneficial in some way to local populations, whether in captivity or in the wild?
As far as I know, no one has developed a method to FORCE mutations within their captive populations. This is a natural event that takes place regardless of our efforts to influence that sort of outcome.
So when a mutation takes place, it is a NATURAL event, which is neither good nor bad until circumstances prove whether it helps or hinders the survival of the individual that exhibits that mutated state. Obviously if it helps, then it was a positive step for the species, and those surviving individuals will be able to pass this mutation on to subsequent generations. If it hinders, then nature tends to weed those failed experiments out pretty quickly, as those failures will generally NOT be passing on what by every right could be considered as a "lethal gene". In other words, if by having this gene expressed gets an individual killed off more quickly then those animals NOT having that gene, it is a self limiting mechanism to get that mutation expunged from the population rapidly.
So, a mutation that shows up in a captive population that is then dispersed into the wild is really no different from the mechanism that produces it in the animals on just the other side of the door. In captivity, it is possible to keep alive mutations that would not be beneficial in the wild, but regardless, once that gene pool has been exposed to the wild, what really would make a difference in outcome at this point? Maybe more individuals in a local population would be carrying that gene, but if in numbers the mutation got a foothold in the population and proved then to be beneficial to the survival of the species, then wouldn't that be an overall benefit to the species, regardless of how it came about?
If, instead, every one of those phenotypes got picked off rapidly by predators or otherwise proved to be a detriment to the species, wouldn't this self regulating mechanism that would eventually eliminate that gene from being carried forward into future generations limit and eventually eliminate any such negative consequences? For instance, a gene that makes a corn snake more visible to owls and therefore quickly picked up by that predator, would make this gene self limiting by that fact.
My belief is that all genetic mutations are simply experiments in opportunity for the organism that has them. For instance, anerythrism proved to be a beneficial color mutation for the corn snake in that it made the animal blend in better when laying on the roads that were generally asphalt with pieces of limestone mixed in. Had this mutation taken place at a time before such roads were used, or in an area of different road construction, would the same results have been reached? For instance, had the mutation taken place on a barrier island with only white sandy soils with NO paved roads, how well would a mostly black and gray snake have fared there? Since mutations are basically blind of the environment when they originate spontaneously, but only propagated over generations in increasing populations if successful, certainly nature may have TRIED that particular experiment, but failed.
As for the genes coming from captive hatched pools, rather than from being a spontaneous development in the wild, what really is the difference as far as that species is concerned? And in fact, introducing new genes into areas where they did not originate spontaneously in the native population, yet provide more opportunities for the species to try the mutation experiment in more environments would have to be considered as being beneficial to the species in general. It is providing more OPPORTUNITIES for the species to try out a mutation to see if it will be successful in other environments. Isn't that what spontaneous mutations are doing anyway?
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
Rich, I can understand you view but with all due respect, I think you're overlooking something crucial here with regards to what is beneficial not only to wild corn snakes, but more importantly the microcosm and the ecosystem they inhabit as a whole.
Disregarding the possibility that these CBB snakes might have unknown pathogens; Introducing a snake that has been un-naturally genetically enhanced ( via CB breeding ) may cause all kinds of problems.
From our point of view and the cornsnakes point of view it might be beneficial, but to the surrounding ecosystem it might not be. In the long run it's may also be detrimental to the wild cornsnakes as well.
I remember a class I had in college, Anthropological Epidemiology, where this was demonstrated by using this example. I'm doing this from memory so forgive me if it doesn't come across correctly.
Suppose a male Bison is born into a herd and grows into adulthood. This Bison has been born with a genetic mutation, thinner lips, that allows it to eat grasses down to within say 1/4" of the ground. All the other Bison can only eat the grass within 1" of the ground. No big deal right. Well, for a few years in a row there is drought and a great deal of the other Bison die as a result of the loss of grasses to eat and there's only a few bulls left, but the only really healthy Bull ( able to fight off the other bulls and breed) is Our Special Bull that can take advantage of the extra grass that all the other bulls can't eat. So this Bull breeds with most of the other cows in the herd and most of it's offspring retain this genetic "advantage". Being able to eat more grass, with less time spent grazing and more time securing the herd and they also have the ability to withstand drought better than their counterparts that don't have this advantage. After many generations it isn't long before almost the entire herd has this new genetic "advantage" and then after many successive generations the entire herd completely dies out from starvation, as a direct result of this "advantageous" gene.
Why is this? The threshold has been tipped. See while being able to eat grass to within 1/4" of the ground is beneficial to the herd of Bison, it hasn't been beneficial to the grasses. The grass can bounce back quick and regrow if 1/2" of it's stalk or more is left, but when almost the entire plant is topped
( which is what our 'new' Bison can do), that grass usually dies and must now be renewed by seed or a new desert like-plant replaces the grass that these Bison can't digest or eat, all the while drying out the soil and creating more dust.
So while the generations of Bison have been slowly taking advantage of the ability to eat grass closer to the ground, thereby supplanting it. The grassland plains have been slowly dying and drying out to be replaced by a semi-arid desert that the Bison can not survive in. So not only is this population of Bison wiped out, the specific grasses they fed on are, the birds that lived off the bison ( picking their flies etc... off) and all the flora and fauna that came to depend on that particular ecosystem is wiped out as well ( well that was a lot of Bull...lol)
Now suppose we've actually been unknowingly breeding a dominant gene into the CBB cornsnake populations that would never have been prolific in nature ( it could even be a recessive binary gene linked to say, motley). Say the phenotype for this gene is increased speed of say 20 percent. Now unless you conduct a very specific study of the speed at which cornsnakes move, it would be almost impossible to truly notice this speed increase, especially since most of us rarely allow them free-reign in our homes and it can't be observed in their vivs, so we can't see that this has happened.
Now these snakes are released into a wild population and do very well, too well. That little bit of extra speed is just enough for them to evade owls and other predators (for the most part better than if they didn't have it), but it also means they can catch their prey, mice, rats and lizards much easier. So of course this dominant gene is in abundance and is passed on to successive generations. Eventually of course the precarious balance/threshold is tipped too much in the favor of this 'new' snake. The predators that prey on cornsnakes, just can't seem to catch enough of them. The prey populations diminish and are barely sustained due to the explosive population of 'genetically advanced' cornsnakes that have come onto the scene.The other animals that feed on the same prey that cornsnakes do can't find enough to eat. The vegetation and seed that the prey consumed are now in abundance and crowd out other species vying for the same ecological niche, (thereby affecting countless other specie). All of this eventually, over time and successive generations, actually leads to the demise of this same 'new' cornsnake that's been introduced.
Now I know these both are extreme examples, but the main point is we really can't predict what effect 'new' genetic mutations will cause to an ecosystem and observing these extremely complex interactions can be difficult if not impossible to see holistically, especially over successive generations and time.
Just my opinion from what little information I've managed to gather over these years, take it for what you will.
Kyle H.
Disregarding the possibility that these CBB snakes might have unknown pathogens; Introducing a snake that has been un-naturally genetically enhanced ( via CB breeding ) may cause all kinds of problems.
From our point of view and the cornsnakes point of view it might be beneficial, but to the surrounding ecosystem it might not be. In the long run it's may also be detrimental to the wild cornsnakes as well.
I remember a class I had in college, Anthropological Epidemiology, where this was demonstrated by using this example. I'm doing this from memory so forgive me if it doesn't come across correctly.
Suppose a male Bison is born into a herd and grows into adulthood. This Bison has been born with a genetic mutation, thinner lips, that allows it to eat grasses down to within say 1/4" of the ground. All the other Bison can only eat the grass within 1" of the ground. No big deal right. Well, for a few years in a row there is drought and a great deal of the other Bison die as a result of the loss of grasses to eat and there's only a few bulls left, but the only really healthy Bull ( able to fight off the other bulls and breed) is Our Special Bull that can take advantage of the extra grass that all the other bulls can't eat. So this Bull breeds with most of the other cows in the herd and most of it's offspring retain this genetic "advantage". Being able to eat more grass, with less time spent grazing and more time securing the herd and they also have the ability to withstand drought better than their counterparts that don't have this advantage. After many generations it isn't long before almost the entire herd has this new genetic "advantage" and then after many successive generations the entire herd completely dies out from starvation, as a direct result of this "advantageous" gene.
Why is this? The threshold has been tipped. See while being able to eat grass to within 1/4" of the ground is beneficial to the herd of Bison, it hasn't been beneficial to the grasses. The grass can bounce back quick and regrow if 1/2" of it's stalk or more is left, but when almost the entire plant is topped
( which is what our 'new' Bison can do), that grass usually dies and must now be renewed by seed or a new desert like-plant replaces the grass that these Bison can't digest or eat, all the while drying out the soil and creating more dust.
So while the generations of Bison have been slowly taking advantage of the ability to eat grass closer to the ground, thereby supplanting it. The grassland plains have been slowly dying and drying out to be replaced by a semi-arid desert that the Bison can not survive in. So not only is this population of Bison wiped out, the specific grasses they fed on are, the birds that lived off the bison ( picking their flies etc... off) and all the flora and fauna that came to depend on that particular ecosystem is wiped out as well ( well that was a lot of Bull...lol)
Now suppose we've actually been unknowingly breeding a dominant gene into the CBB cornsnake populations that would never have been prolific in nature ( it could even be a recessive binary gene linked to say, motley). Say the phenotype for this gene is increased speed of say 20 percent. Now unless you conduct a very specific study of the speed at which cornsnakes move, it would be almost impossible to truly notice this speed increase, especially since most of us rarely allow them free-reign in our homes and it can't be observed in their vivs, so we can't see that this has happened.
Now these snakes are released into a wild population and do very well, too well. That little bit of extra speed is just enough for them to evade owls and other predators (for the most part better than if they didn't have it), but it also means they can catch their prey, mice, rats and lizards much easier. So of course this dominant gene is in abundance and is passed on to successive generations. Eventually of course the precarious balance/threshold is tipped too much in the favor of this 'new' snake. The predators that prey on cornsnakes, just can't seem to catch enough of them. The prey populations diminish and are barely sustained due to the explosive population of 'genetically advanced' cornsnakes that have come onto the scene.The other animals that feed on the same prey that cornsnakes do can't find enough to eat. The vegetation and seed that the prey consumed are now in abundance and crowd out other species vying for the same ecological niche, (thereby affecting countless other specie). All of this eventually, over time and successive generations, actually leads to the demise of this same 'new' cornsnake that's been introduced.
Now I know these both are extreme examples, but the main point is we really can't predict what effect 'new' genetic mutations will cause to an ecosystem and observing these extremely complex interactions can be difficult if not impossible to see holistically, especially over successive generations and time.
Just my opinion from what little information I've managed to gather over these years, take it for what you will.
Kyle H.
Last edited:
ComoxCorn
Pssst...Got Corn??
If the genetic diversity comes from natural selection, then I would consider it a good thing perhaps if it proved beneficial to the local population. But genetic diversity introduced artificially could come with disasterous results. Introducing a wagon load of new genetics into a local population through release of genetically engineered snakes I don't believe to be a good thing. It upsets the natural genetic dynamics of an alreay established and thriving population.
People with a captive collection have a limited gene pool to work with, therefore, it is necessary from time to time to introduce "new blood" into their collection. New blood in the wild takes a different course, usually amongst males that develope a much larger range than females. Introducing what in some cases can be genetically inferior genes into a wild population could be devasting. In this case, I would cite one example being that some of the genetics can drastically alter the natural color of the animal, reducing its ability to camoflage itself from predation. Another example can be the genetics behind star gazing or kinking, even a reduced feeding response.
Perhaps not, but what we have developed is a proven method of speeding up the natural process. This is what every breeder is doing. Controlled introduction of genetics within a controlled population to achieve a desire genetic result. And none of us need a degree in genetic engineering to do this. It can take eons for this to occur in the wild. Evolution is the process by which nature works.
From what I have seen Rich, you have not done a controlled scientific study of your local population and have no results to show releasing CB animals will or will not be affecting the local wild population. To release and just hope for the best is irresponsible and tampering with nature. I would consider genetic morphs to be humanly genetically altered sub species of the wild specimen. And it is also my belief that even though they are still considered patherophis guttata, they are not even close resemblances to their wild counterparts. Sorry folks, even though corn snakes are a naturally occuring species in the state of Florida, butter corn, sunkissed, lavenders, etc. are not native to one single state. They are genetically engineered sub species we have created that are for the most part, not naturally occuring specimens of corn snakes. Even the Dade County or miami phase that we create in our projects bear little resemblance to their wild counterpart. Same can be said about okeetees. There has been a long time running debate on what should actually be called and okeetee, as originally it referred to a locality specific snake.
Again Rich, this is just a hypothesis without research to back it up. Nature makes its own changes, we don't need to interfere with the natural process. We can toy around with genetics within our own private collections, but keep the captive population seperate from the wild population, that's the responsible thing to do.
What if the star gazing gene got out there Rich as a result of you releasing corns? Is that a good thing? Could it affect wild populations? But without research on a controlled wild population, this is a moot point.
This is an example of a naturally occuring genetic. I have no issue with it. It is natural evolution.
Isn't that considered interfering with nature Rich? Sadly, over decades to come, this could have disasterous effects on your wild population, and for what? So you can see some pretty colored snakes on a nature walk? Because up until now Rich, this is just an idea in your head. There is no scientific study to prove or disprove anything you have said, and truthfully, you have no idea what the long term effect could be, but are willing to put the entire naturally locally occuring genetic population at risk.
- Status