Radiant Reptiles
New member
Wow man thats so cool
-
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
Saffleur
Squamata Serpentes
Kevin, I get what you're saying. Though the Cane Toad is a horrible representation of what you're trying to say.
Really it's not going to harm anyone. Those snakes have the same survival instinct as their wild brethern.
Humans have mutations. We have brown, blue, green, black, hazel and all kinds of eye colors. We raise those babies into adults and set them free on the world. Our natural habitat is the Earth itself. We wreak havoc on the same places we may have grown up as kids. So should we just cage children and never let them roam the planet?
Same principle, larger scale, more prolific species.
Really it's not going to harm anyone. Those snakes have the same survival instinct as their wild brethern.
Humans have mutations. We have brown, blue, green, black, hazel and all kinds of eye colors. We raise those babies into adults and set them free on the world. Our natural habitat is the Earth itself. We wreak havoc on the same places we may have grown up as kids. So should we just cage children and never let them roam the planet?
Same principle, larger scale, more prolific species.
Kevin, man, sorry, but you are so intent at looking at the trees and analyzing the leaves that you aren't seeing the forest.
The purpose of mutation is to provide genetic diversity within a species. Why? To have enough different players on the playing table so that a species may develop a trait that provides it an edge in keeping the species from going extinct if the environment turns hostile. Why is it that when an antibiotic is applied to a pathogen, it rarely kills them all, and therefore drug resistance can develop for that strain that escaped eradication? Why because of the genetic diversity within that species of pathogen that fortuitously had a few individuals that had mutated in significant ways to make them immune to the new hostile environment they lived in. This is pretty much standard fare all across the board in all levels of living organisms. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean the survival of those creatures who pump iron and work out at the gym. It means the survival of those animals best fitted with a genetic arsenal that allows them to weather assaults on their species.
I can actually turn your argument around and use it from a different angle. Do you believe we may actually be causing HARM to a species by capturing wild caught animals that turn out harboring a possibly unique gene, thereby removing it from the natural native population and therefore short circuiting the possibly beneficial effect it could have on the species? There is some evidence in this in that I have never heard of a Caramel corn snake being found in the wild, although the original ancestor was a presumed wild caught animal. And I seriously doubt anyone can dispute that the caramel coloration would be a positive survival trait for corn snakes in their native habitat. So suppose that one animal I got was the SOLE carrier of that gene, and that gene never got into the wild population, as it would have been destined to otherwise. Is releasing specimens NOW that carry that gene better, worse, or the same then had that original animal never been captured and removed from the local gene pool, therefore distributing that gene back then?
As for your comment about people killing snakes regardless of the coloration, sorry, but I beg to differ. I have seen countless numbers of people who professed to hate (or more accurately, FEARED) snakes give pause when seeing something like a Butter Corn or a Fluorescent Orange amelanistic corn, which had it been an encounter in the wild, just may very well have saved the life of that animal when the human being who found it hesitated enough to allow it to escape. Why are fossorial animals often so brightly colored in nature? For that matter why are ANY snakes so brightly colored at all? The fact that they exist and continue to thrive pretty much indicates that the particular chain of genetic events that led to that coloration was in fact a positive survival trait for that species.
As for the releasing of corns of any genetic variety within their natural range being an ecological disaster, sorry, but I sincerely doubt it. It has been my experience that native populations of many animals are declining alarmingly. Just from the problems I have had around my place lately with wild rodents infesting and damaging the wiring on my vehicles and other electrical equipment, I would say that the evidence is pretty strong that the predator class of animals to which corn snakes belong, is in rapid decline. In the past I have been to areas where there were so many rats in abundance, that it was clear that the population of natural predators for them had pretty much ceased to exist. So it is entirely possible that the release of corn snakes could very well be filling niches in the food chain that has previously had damaged or broken links caused by the hand of mankind. Surely you have to accept that some sort of replenishment of native populations of many species that have been decimated has to be beneficial on some level. Otherwise the protection of sea turtle nests, and head start programs for injured wildlife in a like vein has to be damaging as well.
Sorry, but no, in my opinion, based on all the other ills I have seen inflicted on nature by humanity, if anything, releasing corn snakes within their native range, regardless of the genetic traits they carry, is actually a beneficial move for a member of the normally destructive human race to engage in.
Oh yeah, before I forget. CANE TOAD? All that proves is how lame brained some scientists types can be with their hypothesis and observations. Yes, it is entirely possible for someone to hold major advanced degrees, yet be unable to cross the street without getting run over...
The purpose of mutation is to provide genetic diversity within a species. Why? To have enough different players on the playing table so that a species may develop a trait that provides it an edge in keeping the species from going extinct if the environment turns hostile. Why is it that when an antibiotic is applied to a pathogen, it rarely kills them all, and therefore drug resistance can develop for that strain that escaped eradication? Why because of the genetic diversity within that species of pathogen that fortuitously had a few individuals that had mutated in significant ways to make them immune to the new hostile environment they lived in. This is pretty much standard fare all across the board in all levels of living organisms. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean the survival of those creatures who pump iron and work out at the gym. It means the survival of those animals best fitted with a genetic arsenal that allows them to weather assaults on their species.
I can actually turn your argument around and use it from a different angle. Do you believe we may actually be causing HARM to a species by capturing wild caught animals that turn out harboring a possibly unique gene, thereby removing it from the natural native population and therefore short circuiting the possibly beneficial effect it could have on the species? There is some evidence in this in that I have never heard of a Caramel corn snake being found in the wild, although the original ancestor was a presumed wild caught animal. And I seriously doubt anyone can dispute that the caramel coloration would be a positive survival trait for corn snakes in their native habitat. So suppose that one animal I got was the SOLE carrier of that gene, and that gene never got into the wild population, as it would have been destined to otherwise. Is releasing specimens NOW that carry that gene better, worse, or the same then had that original animal never been captured and removed from the local gene pool, therefore distributing that gene back then?
As for your comment about people killing snakes regardless of the coloration, sorry, but I beg to differ. I have seen countless numbers of people who professed to hate (or more accurately, FEARED) snakes give pause when seeing something like a Butter Corn or a Fluorescent Orange amelanistic corn, which had it been an encounter in the wild, just may very well have saved the life of that animal when the human being who found it hesitated enough to allow it to escape. Why are fossorial animals often so brightly colored in nature? For that matter why are ANY snakes so brightly colored at all? The fact that they exist and continue to thrive pretty much indicates that the particular chain of genetic events that led to that coloration was in fact a positive survival trait for that species.
As for the releasing of corns of any genetic variety within their natural range being an ecological disaster, sorry, but I sincerely doubt it. It has been my experience that native populations of many animals are declining alarmingly. Just from the problems I have had around my place lately with wild rodents infesting and damaging the wiring on my vehicles and other electrical equipment, I would say that the evidence is pretty strong that the predator class of animals to which corn snakes belong, is in rapid decline. In the past I have been to areas where there were so many rats in abundance, that it was clear that the population of natural predators for them had pretty much ceased to exist. So it is entirely possible that the release of corn snakes could very well be filling niches in the food chain that has previously had damaged or broken links caused by the hand of mankind. Surely you have to accept that some sort of replenishment of native populations of many species that have been decimated has to be beneficial on some level. Otherwise the protection of sea turtle nests, and head start programs for injured wildlife in a like vein has to be damaging as well.
Sorry, but no, in my opinion, based on all the other ills I have seen inflicted on nature by humanity, if anything, releasing corn snakes within their native range, regardless of the genetic traits they carry, is actually a beneficial move for a member of the normally destructive human race to engage in.
Oh yeah, before I forget. CANE TOAD? All that proves is how lame brained some scientists types can be with their hypothesis and observations. Yes, it is entirely possible for someone to hold major advanced degrees, yet be unable to cross the street without getting run over...
Buzzard
two corny
I could not agree more. :grin01:
Not to mention that morphs are already in "the wild".
I think we forget that sometimes here are 3 wild caughts and one that was hit by a car and didnt make it. Tell me they all look the same.
Here is a pic of one from Alabama
another Alabama found less than 12 miles from the other one (RIP rehab)this one was hit by a car.
How about some Florida types here 2 of these 3 are wild caughts
See if you can tell which is which. Actually the 3rd one is the daughter of one of them.....
If you guessed the top 2 are related your right the bottom one is a Pinellas county native, Top one came from Pasco (Dade city area). Came from a deconstruction site(they were tearing down an old house).
So morphs in the wild are out there already and they happen naturally already. Releasing a non feeder and it just happens to make it is not a huge deal. IF this snake happens to mate with a native snake all the offspring will look normal. The chances of the morph coming back out would be extremely rare.
Last edited:
Calift
0.1 addict
I think its a bit of a stretch to say its beneficial....and you can't disregard the genetics, they are what make the entire organism.
Rich, I see your point. From a realistic standpoint, releasing your corn is probably not going to cause a cane-toad size invasion. But if you also consider Kevin's (and just about every other biologist/ecologist/herpetologist), you'd see that releasing corns is just silly. Why give the government actual proof that snake breeders are letting captive animals go? Isn't that why Georgia has a ban in place for corns, and why anti-reptile legislation is gaining momentum....?
bfreewally1
New member
I have yet to see bfreewally1 ever post anything of use or intelligence. Apparently the trend continues.
And on the topic.... ceduke and I have decided that we need to visit you sometime in the near future and go herping on your property, Rich.I promise to only take home any charcoals I find. *giggles*
Too bad Shiari. There are a couple people who agree with me and they seem to know more than you about snakes
RobbiesCornField
Bring it on.
Really? Because it seems that there are even more people that agree with Rich. :shrugs:
I believe that all things considered, it is much more likely to be beneficial then it is to be injurious. And I am not disregarding the genetics. That is what this discussion is all about. Any animal that has a genetic mutation that affects it in any way has no more or less chance of survival depending whether that mutation showed up in the wild, or it showed up in a captive population and released into the wild.
Matter of fact, I would have to say that the only real disadvantage I can think of that a snake raised in captivity would have compared to one hatched in the wild is that it would likely have a lesser aversion to contact with human beings. Which in many cases would prove to be fatal to it. But heck, I have caught plenty of absolutely wild snakes and noted that many of them really don't have a fear of humans if you don't go out of your way to frighten them, so perhaps even this is a non-issue. For instance, I have yet to ever have any gray rat snake we have found in the rodent building act the least bit upset at being picked up and escorted out the door.
Actually, I have considered the points made by those OPINIONS, and don't think releasing corns into their native range is silly at all. Matter of fact, I have never heard a compelling argument against it, much less any solid PROOF that it is a problem.
And no the government isn't concerned with NATIVE species releases at all. It is NON-NATIVE species that might supplant native similar species (like the corn snake) that they are concerned about. So actually such legislation is an effort to PROTECT and support native species, not restrict them.
Actually I don't know the real reason Georgia would restrict residents from having corn snakes (and other non-venomous snakes), yet are quite cavalier about the populace and VENOMOUS snakes. Never really made any sense to me, but fortunately I don't live there, so I've never been concerned enough to try to find that answer.
And no, it is NOT the release of native reptiles within their natural range at all that is "why anti-reptile legislation is gaining momentum". See the above similar paragraph, please.
Shiari
Blutterer
People agreeing with the idea that releasing captive snakes into the wild is not a good one does not indicate usefulness nor intelligence upon your part.
Kevin S, while adamantly against the release of such snakes, has been backing up his opinions in a useful, intelligent, and mostly respectful manner.
Your posts are inflammatory, poorly thought out, poorly worded and again, show a lack of intelligence. You have continued this trend further in the post to which I am currently replying.
Now, to make this post be utterly unlike yours...
I have to admit that I'm not too fond of the idea of releasing snakes into the wild. I don't think, however, that it is going to do anything such as cause a massive outbreak of disease, nor cause the captive snakes to wildly outbreed their wild counterparts. While they do have instincts, these tend to get dulled after a while in captivity, meaning those snakes are far more likely to fall to predation than their wild brethren.
Hi Dave, I'm new here. With all due respect to you, Rich Z and the rest of his forum's participants- it simply IS irresponsible for Rich to release his captive monstrosities into the wild. In fact, this behavior is illegal in many states. Unfortunately it seems as if many people involved in this thread are just so stubborn and biased in favor of Rich that they will not listen to reason. That's how it appears to me, an impartial observer who knows none of you.
I believe that Rich has a responsibility to rid himself of his burden (his excessive snake collection and progeny) through legitimate, responsible means that do not unnecessarily put the native wild population of herps at risk of contracting something from his collection that they aren't prepared for.
This IS a matter of interest for all herp enthusiasts because our image is being heavily scrutanized at the moment. The python debacle has been sensationalized by the media and now herpers are being mischaracterized and demonized for the exact same behavior that Rich is guilty of.
Say what you will about my complaint being idiosynchratic or unsavory in a place where Rich is so popular, the reasoning behind it is obvious whether it's a matter of consensus or not.
desertanimal
2003 UB313
I agree. I've just argued that position before and I generally don't like to argue the same thing twice. I get tired.
I also agree with some here that it's certainly not the worst ecological disaster to hit the U.S. that people are releasing captive bred and kept animals into wild populations. But it not being the worst thing possible doesn't make it the best and most responsible choice, either.
The trouble with releasing things into mother nature is that mother nature often ends up having to deal with consequences we didn't foresee. I don't have any particular trouble with any of the potential consequences people have thought of. But we've seen over and over again that we get into trouble because it's often the case that there are consequences to these things that people didn't anticipate.
I also agree with some here that it's certainly not the worst ecological disaster to hit the U.S. that people are releasing captive bred and kept animals into wild populations. But it not being the worst thing possible doesn't make it the best and most responsible choice, either.
The trouble with releasing things into mother nature is that mother nature often ends up having to deal with consequences we didn't foresee. I don't have any particular trouble with any of the potential consequences people have thought of. But we've seen over and over again that we get into trouble because it's often the case that there are consequences to these things that people didn't anticipate.
dndvictory
Standard poodle lover
A good read much related to this.
http://www.anapsid.org/conserv.html
http://www.anapsid.org/conserv.html
scottsquatch
New member
Wow. I didn't even consider the possibility of pathogens being introduced into the native population. I was a biology major with an ecology background and should have known to consider that right off the bat. I was leaning toward the idea that most would sucumb to predation and would have no real impact on the wild population anyway. I may have to re-think my stand on this issue. However, I still believe that the genes responsible for the different morphs have been present in the genepool for a long time anyway, and that they were not created by man. That said, I don't believe Rich is "tampering with nature" in that respect.
Scott
Scott
Shiari
Blutterer
scott, I would think that typically if there was a pathogen, it would be showing in the captive population as well. Different breeders keep fairly isolated colonies, so you should see obvious signs of pathogen transmission whenever they brought in an outside snake, even with quarantine. The main big thing to worry about is to make sure that crypto does not get released with a snake.
wstphal
working in the Gulag
This was my logic. Rich was very successful. He had a big enough "name" that if he was selling sick snakes, I would have run across that info on the Internet. I am a big user of multiple search engines & a big reader of lots of the things that come up in the search engine results. I really think I would have run across "Rich Z sold me a sick snake!" if it was out there to find. That's why I dismissed the contagious disease issue in a previous post. I don't know Rich personally & don't own any snakes he bred, so I doubt much group think on my part.
Shiari
Blutterer
Most likely not as hatchlings. I got two from Susan where the entire clutch was problem feeders. Both of them ended up dying. Sometimes things just go wrong genetically or congenitally. A snake that I got at the 2008 San Jose expo was also a non-feeder from the get go that I force fed for many many many months. Turns out he had something congenitally wrong with his stomach and when I finally tube fed the correct size meal of egg yolk into him.... his stomach ruptured. :/ Ended up euthanising him. There was no gastric swelling, his feces were always completely normal, he was otherwise bright, alert, and responsive. Never regurged the various tails and legs I shoved down his gullet.
Sorry Dave, but I have no clue if you're being serious or not. On one hand you posted something entirely reasonable- that you didn't know that Rich's snakes were [potential] carriers of pathogens which would adversely effect native populations...then on the other hand you posted a buncha these thingies: :roflmao: and so now it looks like you're being disingenuous.
Fair enough, but if you're point is sarcastic and actually that Rich's snakes are absolutely not carriers of potentially harmful "pathogens", please explain to me exactly how you've come to this conclusion. Also, did you find anything in my post to be incorrect?
I missed a few responses so I'll comment really quick here...
I don't know much about the possibility of pathogens being released into native populations through contact with captively released animals...other than to say that there is a possibility. In fact, there's enough of a possibility that some states have initiated law changes to reflect this risk. Of course we must all determined how precautious we want to be, but when it comes down to releasing animals that have no business being released in the first place- I saw that on behalf of the herps we truly love, err on the side of caution.
After all- this isn't just a pursuit of self interest,pleasure and proffit to many herpers, rather it's a genuine passion that stems from an honest and authentic love for reptiles and amphibians.
I don't know much about the possibility of pathogens being released into native populations through contact with captively released animals...other than to say that there is a possibility. In fact, there's enough of a possibility that some states have initiated law changes to reflect this risk. Of course we must all determined how precautious we want to be, but when it comes down to releasing animals that have no business being released in the first place- I saw that on behalf of the herps we truly love, err on the side of caution.
After all- this isn't just a pursuit of self interest,pleasure and proffit to many herpers, rather it's a genuine passion that stems from an honest and authentic love for reptiles and amphibians.
ratsncorns
Bird Nerd
Dave, if you email Rich, I do believe he has the capability of changing your display name. That way you can use your 'davesfiles' account.
- Status