CornSnake in the wild.... :)

[Buzzard]

I am now no longer subscribing to this thread. This is getting so redundant, over and over... Its starting to sound like a senate meeting. Enough is enough...someone kill this thread....Please....

 

[Rich Z]

I am now no longer subscribing to this thread. This is getting so redundant, over and over... Its starting to sound like a senate meeting. Enough is enough...someone kill this thread....Please....

No. Actually I believe the redundant arguments are actually supporting my point. I'm surprised so many people have driver's licenses. Hasn't it been shown that each mile you drive comes with a statistical probability of one in a million chances that you may DIE in an accident? And there is actually hard data available to support that estimate.

 

[Rich Z]

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.

That is actually an excellent description of how mutations may work in nature.

So answer me this. Which scenario, then, would it be considered "meddling with nature" if that bison with the thin lips came from wild stock that was in captivity. (1) The animal with that gene was removed from the natural population and the gene therefore not mixed into that population, or (2) That animal with that gene was later released into the native population.

Quite frankly, whether that gene developed into a captive animal and then released or came from an animal in the wild directly, the results would likely be exactly the same. The method of injecting that gene into the population is not nearly as relevant as the overall capability of the mutation itself to be an influence in the welfare of the species itself. As the above shows, all genetic mutations will not ultimately prove to be a benefit for the species, and quite possibly not be for other species interacting with the target species neither.

Mutations are going to take place, regardless of our involvement with the species.

Oh, and speaking of "meddling with nature", this brings to mind the Lavender corns. I caught a female near Murdock, Florida that was the specimen from which this gene originated from. I find it interesting to note that the area where I caught this animal soon afterwards became a strip mall along route 41. Do you think my happening to find this gene in that wild stock, propagating it and then releasing some examples was more or less "meddlesome to nature" by apparently wiping out the natural population with a strip mall?

I have also never heard of a wild caught Caramel, even though it would appear that this gene would be a positive survival trait for the corn snake. Why is that, do you suppose? I would imagine a Caramel corn laying on a bed of dried pine needles would be almost invisible to predators and prey alike. Therefore I would think this mutation would be very common in the wild now. Did I happen to just luck into the ONLY wild caught animal carrying that gene? If that is the case, would it be more or less "meddlesome to nature" by keeping that gene from being expressed in wild populations, when releasing some so nature could give that new gene a whirl out in the wild where it was intended in the first place?

Yeah, I know there are no absolute answers in this issue. But I think I have sufficiently stated my opinions on this matter now. And I do believe this is an interesting and stimulating conversation as long as everyone keeps their wits about them and not get too emotional.

 

[bfreewally1]

After 22 posts. Rich is not giving an inch. So we have two sides and were at a stalemate. Most of the opposition had better arguments against releaseing morps. Rich apparently will not listen and has his mind set. So lets start a new thread. Thanks for all the people who supported me...

 

[RobbiesCornField]

After 22 posts. Rich is not giving an inch. So we have two sides and were at a stalemate. Most of the opposition had better arguments against releaseing morps. Rich apparently will not listen and has his mind set. So lets start a new thread. Thanks for all the people who supported me...

That depends on what your stance is. Since you are obviously not an unbiased observer, you can't really say who had a better argument. Only who you think, in your biased opinion had a better argument. I think Rich's arguments were valid and made very good points. I think the opposition had very little to go on, and were making mountains out of molehills. But then again, I'm biased towards Rich's side. See how that works?

 

[bfreewally1]

Yeah Robbie, I see how it works. Thats why we should end this thread..

 

[ForkedTung]

Yeah Robbie, I see how it works. Thats why we should end this thread..

Why don't you just join Buzzard and not come back to this thread? Why should the wishes of you or Buzzard supercede the civil participation of/in this thread by paying members and the owner?

I do believe this is an interesting and stimulating conversation as long as everyone keeps their wits about them and not get too emotional.

I'll answer, it shouldn't. don't like it don't read it.

 

[Dinah]

That depends on what your stance is. Since you are obviously not an unbiased observer, you can't really say who had a better argument. Only who you think, in your biased opinion had a better argument. I think Rich's arguments were valid and made very good points. I think the opposition had very little to go on, and were making mountains out of molehills. But then again, I'm biased towards Rich's side. See how that works?

I was going to say almost the same thing.

As I see the debate Rich was saying there is no proof that his actions are causing harm, and this is a true statement as of now there is no proof that his specific situation is causing harm. There may be examples like bison, and some people may feel that the argument can apply to other situations but I would urge extreme caution in terms of trying to compare apples to oranges. It seems to me all Rich is saying is show him a study that captive corn snakes in good health being released into their own natural territory causes harm, and so far nobody has produced as evidence a study like that. The likely reason is because I doubt anyone has done a study like that because the environmental people here in FL at least have enough on their plate in terms of development, habitat destruction, and non native species, they don't have the time to sweat the petty stuff. Once that study didn't exist the conversation turned to, well its not legal but I can vouch that I cannot find a law stating that it is illegal and I am in the same state and have never heard that it would be illegal in terms of a native/non venomous species.

If you want to accuse me of just taking Rich's side that is ok, I imagine it could be worse, but I really am on the fence about this issue that is why I am here following it. I am not saying that releasing captive snakes is a good idea. But Rich's main points which as best as I can tell are

1. There isn't any proof that his actions are causing harm.
and
2. There isn't a findable law to say it is illegal

I cannot understand how you can continue trying to debate it and continually seem shocked that he hasn't changed his points when no evidence has been provided to refute his specific points.

Anyways those are just my 2 cents.

 

[bfreewally1]

Why don't you just join Buzzard and not come back to this thread? Why should the wishes of you or Buzzard supercede the civil participation of/in this thread by paying members and the owner?
I'll answer, it shouldn't. don't like it don't read it.

because it`s redundant as Buzzard said

 

[bfreewally1]

I was going to say almost the same thing.

As I see the debate Rich was saying there is no proof that his actions are causing harm, and this is a true statement as of now there is no proof that his specific situation is causing harm. There may be examples like bison, and some people may feel that the argument can apply to other situations but I would urge extreme caution in terms of trying to compare apples to oranges. It seems to me all Rich is saying is show him a study that captive corn snakes in good health being released into their own natural territory causes harm, and so far nobody has produced as evidence a study like that. The likely reason is because I doubt anyone has done a study like that because the environmental people here in FL at least have enough on their plate in terms of development, habitat destruction, and non native species, they don't have the time to sweat the petty stuff. Once that study didn't exist the conversation turned to, well its not legal but I can vouch that I cannot find a law stating that it is illegal and I am in the same state and have never heard that it would be illegal in terms of a native/non venomous species.

If you want to accuse me of just taking Rich's side that is ok, I imagine it could be worse, but I really am on the fence about this issue that is why I am here following it. I am not saying that releasing captive snakes is a good idea. But Rich's main points which as best as I can tell are

1. There isn't any proof that his actions are causing harm.
and
2. There isn't a findable law to say it is illegal

I cannot understand how you can continue trying to debate it and continually seem shocked that he hasn't changed his points when no evidence has been provided to refute his specific points.

Anyways those are just my 2 cents.

O.K. So its not against the law. Does that make it right? And because we have only been breeding snakes for a few generations, their is not enough research done in that respect.

 

[Buzzard]

Why don't you just join Buzzard and not come back to this thread? Why should the wishes of you or Buzzard supercede the civil participation of/in this thread by paying members and the owner?
I'll answer, it shouldn't. don't like it don't read it.

Whoa buddy dont tie me into a person who hasnt put in his time on the forum and PAYED his dues.

Civil participation wouldnt have a redundant theme.

As far as my stance, I think Rich is right. I am just tired of people coming back again and again without listening to what is being said. There are valid points on both sides of this argument but until someone puts more than their opinion and failed attempt of reasoning up on the board this is a mute subject to me.

Dont think that just because I unsubscribed that I totally wont look at the thread.

 

[ForkedTung]

because it`s redundant as Buzzard said

and Buzzard had the sense to leave when he didn't like what was being said, I'm not sure the same could be said for you. Again, What is so hard about this:

"don't like it don't read it."

Well, after reading his reply above, I guess I was wrong there too.

just because I unsubscribed that I totally wont look at the thread.

Wasn't that the whole idea in publicly posting that you unsubscribed from the thread?
When I unsubscribe from a thread, it's because I'm no longer interested in where it's going or what it's about, Why do you?
I also don't feel the need to post on the thread my reasons for unsubscribing, see I realize that others probably don't give a HOOT as to why I'm unsubscribing and I certainly would never request a thread to be closed, just because I personally don't like the direction the thread is going.
In case either of you missed this, I'm going to quote the owner again:

I do believe this is an interesting and stimulating conversation as long as everyone keeps their wits about them and not get too emotional.

I think he made his intentions about this thread pretty clear. So if you feel the need to continue your whining maybe you should take it up with him.

 

[Rich Z]

After 22 posts. Rich is not giving an inch. So we have two sides and were at a stalemate. Most of the opposition had better arguments against releaseing morps. Rich apparently will not listen and has his mind set. So lets start a new thread. Thanks for all the people who supported me...

Actually I disagree with your opinion, but I assume that you were expecting that.....

So how many inches are the opposing parties giving faced with the fact that they HAVE no facts to base their arguments on? Or are their minds set as well regardless of this little wrinkle?

 

[ComoxCorn]

It seems to me all Rich is saying is show him a study that captive corn snakes in good health being released into their own natural territory causes harm, and so far nobody has produced as evidence a study like that.

Mainly that's because a study has not been done to determine that, not by FWC, nor by Rich. Simply stated is there is the possiblitiy for long term negative effect.

There isn't a findable law to say it is illegal

Again, this is the reply I got from the FWC when I emailed them to ask whether it is legal or not to release captive bred corn snakes and their morphs into the wild. Please note their answer.

Discussion Thread
Response (LE-JW) 12/10/2009 12:25 PM
It is unlawful to release any wildlife into the state without a permit from the Commission. If this is in reference to recent postings on an Internet reptile forum, we are aware of this and are investigating. If you have information that is different or may assist in the investigation please relay the information to the nearest FWC Regional Office, Division of Law Enforcement, http://myfwc.com/About/About_OrgStructure.htm.
Customer (Pete Kirkwood) 12/10/2009 02:01 AM

Is it legal in the State of Florida to release captive bred corn snakes, including genetic morphs into the wild?

I am very interested to know this.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Pete Kirkwood

If you or Rich wish to verify the legality of releasing captive bred corn snakes and their morphs into the wild, why not just contact your local Florida Wildlife Commision office? Just because you weren't successful in a Google search doesn't provide exemption from the law. I Googled to find the info and found the resource contact on the first page of the search. Better yet, here is their link, you can email them the your question as to the legality and post thier reply here just as I did.

http://myfwc.com

 

[Rich Z]

Mainly that's because a study has not been done to determine that, not by FWC, nor by Rich. Simply stated is there is the possiblitiy for long term negative effect.



Again, this is the reply I got from the FWC when I emailed them to ask whether it is legal or not to release captive bred corn snakes and their morphs into the wild. Please note their answer.



If you or Rich wish to verify the legality of releasing captive bred corn snakes and their morphs into the wild, why not just contact your local Florida Wildlife Commision office? Just because you weren't successful in a Google search doesn't provide exemption from the law. I Googled to find the info and found the resource contact on the first page of the search. Better yet, here is their link, you can email them the your question as to the legality and post thier reply here just as I did.

http://myfwc.com

Why don't you just ask them for a cite for the law they are referencing? Just because someone says something is illegal doesn't mean that it actually is. Or are you claiming that everyone should just assume everything is illegal unless or until they can find proof otherwise?

 

[ForkedTung]

That is actually an excellent description of how mutations may work in nature.

So answer me this. Which scenario, then, would it be considered "meddling with nature" if that bison with the thin lips came from wild stock that was in captivity. (1) The animal with that gene was removed from the natural population and the gene therefore not mixed into that population, or (2) That animal with that gene was later released into the native population.
I would consider both to be "meddling" ( although that's not my first choice of words). So just by the fact that we keep cornsnakes and have removed some from the wild we have in fact possibly altered their future potential in a positive or negative way, dependent upon perspective.

Quite frankly, whether that gene developed into a captive animal and then released or came from an animal in the wild directly, the results would likely be exactly the same. The method of injecting that gene into the population is not nearly as relevant as the overall capability of the mutation itself to be an influence in the welfare of the species itself. As the above shows, all genetic mutations will not ultimately prove to be a benefit for the species, and quite possibly not be for other species interacting with the target species neither.

Mutations are going to take place, regardless of our involvement with the species.
Here's my point though with respect to mutations; It is my understanding that they typically only occur in one individual ( they don't generate spontaneously in multiple individuals at the same time), so in the wild that individual cornsnake is either going to make it ( by that I mean breed and pass on the trait) and prove the survivability of the 'new' gene, or it's going to die and that mutation will be a literal dead end. While keeping and breeding this same trait in captivity we are artificially mass-producing genetic mutations that may have died out in the wild. We're interfering with the process of natural selection.

Oh, and speaking of "meddling with nature", this brings to mind the Lavender corns. I caught a female near Murdock, Florida that was the specimen from which this gene originated from. I find it interesting to note that the area where I caught this animal soon afterwards became a strip mall along route 41. Do you think my happening to find this gene in that wild stock, propagating it and then releasing some examples was more or less "meddlesome to nature" by apparently wiping out the natural population with a strip mall?
There's no way to know.

I have also never heard of a wild caught Caramel, even though it would appear that this gene would be a positive survival trait for the corn snake. Why is that, do you suppose? I would imagine a Caramel corn laying on a bed of dried pine needles would be almost invisible to predators and prey alike. Therefore I would think this mutation would be very common in the wild now. Did I happen to just luck into the ONLY wild caught animal carrying that gene? If that is the case, would it be more or less "meddlesome to nature" by keeping that gene from being expressed in wild populations, when releasing some so nature could give that new gene a whirl out in the wild where it was intended in the first place?
Now I find the Caramel gene very interesting in that I've given that some thought as well, they do have a perfect camouflage, in our opinion. Then I was thinking about why 'normals' ( I like to call classics, because they are one of my favorites ) are mostly a reddish color and then I thought about their behavior. I think they're red because they're primarily nocturnal. See I looked it up awhile ago and the color/pigment red absorbs bluegreen light, so in essence a red snake at night with minimal available light ( star/moon) would most likely look much darker than almost any other color, while during the day the red still affords some camouflage without standing out too much, like an all-black snake would.

Yeah, I know there are no absolute answers in this issue. But I think I have sufficiently stated my opinions on this matter now. And I do believe this is an interesting and stimulating conversation as long as everyone keeps their wits about them and not get too emotional.

"Yeah, I know there are no absolute answers in this issue." I am in complete agreement with you there Rich

 

[Dinah]

O.K. So its not against the law. Does that make it right? And because we have only been breeding snakes for a few generations, their is not enough research done in that respect.

Since you are asking me I will to tell you honestly I think trying to determine what is right or what is wrong is a lot like trying to nail jell-o to a wall. It depends on soooo many factors, right according to who? Right for who? Right in what way or in what situation? How does one define right to being with? I really enjoy debates but I have already said that I do not personally know a lot about this subject, I even said "I am not saying that releasing captive snakes is a good idea." I do feel like I really am a somewhat impartial observer, just pointing out issues and topics that I have found to be of interest during this thread. I love debates and debating and I have enjoyed reading both sides of this argument. But I am perhaps somewhat old school about debates, because I think the way to *win* a debate is by addressing the other parties specific arguments with facts that address those arguemnts.

So in terms of debate, I do not think that Rich's point were addressed, and in terms of what is right, well I try to stick with putting out info so that others can decide for themselves what is 'right' I don't think that right is the sort of thing that can be nailed down in any sort of definitive way.

 

[ComoxCorn]

Why don't you just ask them for a cite for the law they are referencing? Just because someone says something is illegal doesn't mean that it actually is. Or are you claiming that everyone should just assume everything is illegal unless or until they can find proof otherwise?

Basically Rich, because that is YOUR responsibility. It is you that is releasing, not me, and it is your responsibility to check with your local authorities before releasing any organism into the wild. In my very first post in this thread, I asked a simple question, and you have yet to answer. That's why I I will ask the question again. Does the FWC condone the release of your captive bred animals?

 

[Buzzard]

and Buzzard had the sense to leave when he didn't like what was being said, I'm not sure the same could be said for you. Again, What is so hard about this:

"don't like it don't read it."

Well, after reading his reply above, I guess I was wrong there too.

Wasn't that the whole idea in posting that you unsubscribed from the thread?
When I unsubscribe from a thread, it's because I'm no longer interested in where it's going or what it's about, Why do you?
I also don't feel the need to post on the thread my reasons for unsubscribing, see I realize that others probably don't give a HOOT as to why I'm unsubscribing and I certainly would never request a thread to be closed, just because I personally don't like the direction the thread is going.
In case either of you missed this, I'm going to quote the owner again:
I think he made his intentions about this thread pretty clear. So if you feel the need to continue your whining maybe you should take it up with him.

I exitted the thread,YOU then tied me in to someone else that you were discussing them to do the same. How would you react?

Also if it wasnt for someone else I never would of known about it. They took it as an attack on me. Therefore I looked and took it the same way.

 

[ForkedTung]

I exitted the thread,YOU then tied me in to someone else that you were discussing them to do the same. How would you react?

I'll give you that, but my post could hardly be considered an "attack". OK, I'll give you my word I won't mention you again and then you can again "unsubscribe" from this "redundant" thread.
This thread is getting off-topic.