OK, this will be my last post on the thread-guaranteed. You responded to my claims (which I attempted to support with facts and references as often as possible) with pure opinion. Since this has been the trend for quite a while, it doesn't seem like this is going anywhere. I'll address
all of your claims in an attempt to show that you still aren't providing adequate counterpoints, in spite of the fact that you have failed several times to return the favor. So as not to have a petty "I got the last word" mentality, I'll even come back and read your response while refraining from further comment regardless of what you have to say or how you criticize me.
Therefore, you will get the last word. I think that's fair. Feel free to try and dispute everything I'm about say and claim you won since I won't be coming back to defend myself anymore, but I hope your arguments will be thorough and objective enough to be convincing. Honestly, I'm not proud of the snarky tone I sometimes used in this post, but since you've been so generous in applying it to me I assume you can take it yourself. Here we go...
However, just because YOU don't reasonably expect them to transmit disease, doesn't mean this doesn't apply in this case.
Actually it does. Seems to me that I would have observed the animals long enough and intensely enough to be able to make that call.
OK, you really think it's up to the person doing the releasing (aka the potentially guilty party) whether or not this applies to them? If you just released some emaciated snakes and a law enforcement agent comes up and says it's illegal to release snakes that could be reasonably expected to transmit disease, you think he'll let you off the hook if you say "I didn't reasonably expect them to be sick?" It's up to his interpretation in that case, not yours, obviously. Also, you've observed these animals "long enough and intensely enough" to know? You did maintain hundreds if not thousands of these snakes at a time for the last several years did you not? Forgive me if I don't believe you separated your potential releases and made time to carefully scrutinize them for hours prior to release and then kept any that seemed suspicious. I'm not saying you DID release sick snakes, just making the point that this interpretation is very subjective and I doubt you went to great pains to completely rule out the possibility.
I guess I am not located the same place you come from. We are talking about BABIES, that have refused mice and likely want lizards, which I decided I no longer wanted to provide for them. Unless, of course, where you come from you define "feed preference" as being an illness.....
Where I come from we know that BABIES aren't immune to transmissible illnesses just because they are BABIES. If anything refused to eat, regardless of age, I'd consider the
possibility (some might say reasonable expectation?) that it's ill. Apparently you've gone through all the necessary channels to completely eliminate any explanation other than "feed preference" though. Again, forgive my arrogant disbelief.
I didn't read anything that mentioned your interpretation in that code snippet. Do you think maybe you are reading a bit too much between the lines there?
Sorry, I missed the part where my interpretation wasn't important but yours was. After all, you said what "YOU (Rich) reasonably expect" is the deciding factor in this case.
Yes, your comment about it possibly being completely made up did cross my mind as well. Doesn't seem to be verifiable at this point
68a-4.005 has been quoted here, I was finally able to find it here
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?ID=68A-4.005
"68A-4.005 Introduction of Carriers of Disease; Inspection.
(1) No person shall release or introduce in the state any wildlife, freshwater fish or any other organism that might reasonably be expected to transmit any disease to wildlife or freshwater fish.....
^Independently confirmed^
Fair enough to me. I really have no real interest in this anyway. The snakes are gone. So unless someone comes up with an earth moving revelation for me to change my opinion, that is just that. Of course, even after such a revelation, the only solution I could see would be for me to patrol the area armed with a .22 and kill every corn snake I see to try to rectify this "problem" some people are postulating. Do you think THAT would solve the "problem'?
If you would go to the trouble of reading all of my posts on this topic, you would see that I never even mentioned solving this problem. All of my comments have been intended to support preventative actions (not releasing in the first place).
Simple fact of the matter is that I just disagree with your theories and assumptions. You are mistaking "don't care" with "disagreeing" with your stance. But I guess that CAN be extrapolated to infer that I don't care about someone claiming that their opinion should be more weighty to me then my own.
OK, disagree with my "theories and assumptions" all you want. It would be nice if you'd address the facts and evidence I've presented to support them though. Better yet, present some
facts of your own. I've cited peer-reviewed herpetological publications for example. Have you used even one such source of evidence to back up your claims yet? Sure seems to me like you've got the monopoly on "theories and assumptions" here.
As for your continued redundancy, don't bother. You are just wasting space here that appears to be simply some ego issue you are displaying. Theories explained multiple ways are still just theories. Repetition, as far as I know, hasn't had much luck converting theories to facts.
Holy cow, man. It's about time you acknowledged my redundancy, but I was hoping you'd finally address the same issues and questions I've raised multiple times instead of just complaining that I've repeated myself. You think I have an ego problem? Not that it has any bearing at all in this discussion, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who actually knows me and would agree with you. Do personal attacks usually work for converting your theories to facts? For the record, I've made every attempt to be respectful and avoid anything that might be construed as belittling before now. I just wish I could say the same for you.
Did I say "redundant" earlier? In the same post yet? :headbang:
What's really redundant is your practice of ignoring questions I specifically addressed to you, hence the need to repeat myself. I'd compile a list of examples here, but don't want to waste space with further redundancy.
No, that was actually in reference to the three different species of black rat snakes you used in your previous post. Do you think they will breed and produce fertile offspring? Again, my position on this stuff has turned to believing that much of the taxonomic mud wrestling is nothing more then people trying to make a name for themselves by slicing hairs ever more thinly. Probably a better example of "inconsequential differences" would be rather hard to dig up.
I know they could interbreed and produce fertile offspring to answer your question. As I pointed out,
and you didn't bother acknowledging, cal kings and corns have bred and produced fertile offspring too. Does that make them the same species? Sorry for the redundant question, but it still hasn't been answered and appears to conflict with the definition to which you adhere. You gave your "opinion on this stuff." I gave currently accepted definitions of a species from various scientific fields
as well as my own personal opinion of each. The key there is besides my opinion, I gave relevant, researchable information for anyone to interpret as they see fit.
Eh? So we shouldn't be concerned with the definition of "species" yet we should instead be REALLY concerned with the so called "damages" that releases could cause to that definition? Do you think perhaps these boogey man "damages" being bantered about might just be human creations as well?
That's not at all what I said. I said "there is no absolute definition of a species. It is a concept created by humans to categorize organisms and no definition works in every case." Did I say that means we shouldn't work toward or agree upon an acceptable definition? Nope. Allow further redundancy since you still don't seem to get it in spite of the fact that I've said it multiple times now: You can't say releasing CB corns to FL is fine
just because they are the same species, even if you clearly explain which definition of the word "species" you are using (which no one did). Therein lies my entire point-this argument of them being the same species is not valid because it amounts to subjective, personal definitions much like a subjective, personal claim that "I don't think it's wrong because they seem the same to me." Like I said, it's a complicated issue but you're the one who started us down the road of species definitions.
Furthermore, the damages caused by these releases won't be damages to the definition of a species as you said. The most devastating of the potential damages would be disease transmission. You don't seem to like discussing this issue though. I believe I recall you asking for an example earlier where a disease was introduced to the wild by releasing captives since you don't take this risk seriously. I recently mentioned the repatriation projects that caused Upper Respiratory Disease to spread throughout gopher tortoise populations. There was your example. Where was the response? I'd like to see one, and before you say it wasn't a snake-specific example, considering tortoises are reptiles and snakes are also susceptible to respiratory infections, I think it's relevant.
Of course there is something to gain. Ask any corn snake that escaped being thrown into the freezer and instead got a chance to survive by being released. I'm sure it will heartily disagree with you.
REDUNDANCY ALERT: I'll just paste a previous statement on this issue since it completely addresses your claim (and yet again, you never bothered to respond to it when it was first posted).
3. "Releasing them is better than euthanizing them."
I don't know why no one else posed this question yet since it seems like such common sense to me, but why are those listed as the only options? If a snake has kinks and you don't want it, put it on your table at a show free to a good home. There are plenty of kind-hearted people who will take in animals with minor defects like these. You're not gonna make any money freezing it or releasing it, so why not donate it to a good home? Also, if there's any genetic cause to these kinks, letting them spread their genes in the wild is definitely not going to do the native corn population any favors.
See the crux of the disagreement is that I do not believe the risk is great enough to overcome the necessity of euthanizing animals that could otherwise potentially survive.
Ah, the
necessity of euthanizing the animals? What is it that makes this such a necessity as opposed to the easily-attainable alternative I presented above? Your convenience? As I see it, your personal convenience is the motivation behind all of this when we get right down to it.
So please, can the redundancy, please. I know you believe that you are failing to state your case sufficiently, otherwise there is no possibility on this earth that someone could disagree with you. But I do understand you, and i DO disagree. It is really just that simple if you will sit back and understand what I am telling YOU here. I JUST DISAGREE WITH YOU.
I can and do believe you disagree with me. It would be a lot easier to arrive at this conclusion if you would have just addressed/responded to all of my statements and not just those that were convenient for you to pick apart though. The fact that you tend to respond to only portions of what I've said might lead one to assume you didn't read or understand the other portions. Hence the redundancy-trying to make sure you did read/understand those statements since no response was ever given. I don't expect you to quote every word I've said when responding, but you have overlooked or neglected to comment on many of the main points in my posts.
This practice unquestionably alters the natural population dynamics as well as the genetic integrity of the surrounding populations. Whether or not these changes will have any lasting, damaging consequences is uncertain. Is it worth the risk though? Why?
Again with the redundancy! No, it IS questioned. I question it. Others question it. Maybe you don't, but did you ever get that nagging thought in your mind that you actually COULD be wrong? I don't believe the evidence from any factual data EVER presented supports that assumption. As for the why, please stop trying to make me as redundant as you are being. Just read what I have already posted over the past umpteen pages.
OK, you question my statement that releasing your snakes absolutely alters populations of naturally occurring snakes. Why? You seem to think answering this question will make you "redundant" yet I've read every word you wrote in this thread and I don't recall you explaining how releasing snakes for decades absolutely has no effect at all on that ecosystem. That's your claim though, and apparently it's a claim you think you've already supported somewhere on here. Please provide the documentation to prove you already addressed this in detail. I don't even mind if you give me a new explanation from scratch, but can you give me any sort of semi-credible reference to support your claim or am I the only one who needs to support his opinions here? I'll help you get started-I
think you're trying to claim that it doesn't
significantly alter your natural populations though you didn't clearly say so. If you read my statement, I never said it would absolutely have a BIG impact, only that it could.
This is all about managing risks to me, and the issue we appear to disagree on is how justified and/or realistic these risks are. Again, I'm just extrapolating here and trying to make your case for you since I could view an argument like this as being somewhat reasonable (in contrast to the argument that there's no real chance of it having any effects at all, and if it somehow did, that they couldn't be harmful). If this debate continues without me, I hope you will clear up your position in this respect and focus on the heart of the issue since I don't think either side can get anywhere until this is addressed.
I never said I couldn't be wrong and even admitted that I could be wrong about some issues in this very thread (you don't even have to go back more than one page for an example)! I find it absolutely laughable that you're trying to paint me as the egotistical type who refuses to admit he's wrong. Have you read your posts in this thread? What a fantastic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Have you conceded that you were or even could be wrong about anything in this thread? My only intention in this thread from the get-go was to try to provide some educational input and contrast the possible consequences with the unnecessary motivation of releasing snakes. That said, I see no reason to admit I'm wrong on this issue when no evidence was presented to suggest that I am.
Finally, I asked you if the risk was justified and why. You answered in the exact way I expected you would. You wouldn't say "no" because if you didn't think it was worth the risk, you wouldn't do it. You wouldn't say "yes" because even though I think that's what you believe, it implies that you've done something potentially irresponsible, which you aren't about to admit to. Instead you implied that there was never any risk to begin with and that I'm just some fanatic who likes to invent unrealistic claims and try to fool others into thinking they're viable. Here I thought I was just a nice guy who was concerned about the future of a population of snakes I'll never even see, due to my natural enthusiasm for reptiles.
The last point I'll make in favor of my position is that you can ask a broad range of people how they feel about this. Those with actual experience working with wild populations of reptiles pretty much unanimously agree that it's a bad idea. Those less familiar with the intricacies of this issue are more prone to condoning it, though there are more than a few who disagree within this group. Which group do you think is most likely to be "right" when asked about any issue concerning the ecology of reptiles-those who study them for a living or those who just like them enough to own a few snakes and discuss them online (no disrespect intended)? This isn't a fact-based argument, but those don't seem to be well accepted here anyway.
Like I said Rich, I didn't want to add attitude to the mix, but if you can dish it out so well I think you ought to be able to take a little too. I've said all I can say without repeating myself further, so I officially resign from any further participation in this thread apart from reading your response and probably biting my tongue.
