I obviously wasn't clear in the first post and that last. So, let me say it again more clearly: I read that original comment and thought, "Hey, I've seen some literature out there showing that collectors have contributed significantly to nearly extirpating some rare vipers. So, I'll post those." Again, I should have been more clear and not just vaguely said, "I know of some" (some what?). I think providing the papers in the same exact post was proof enough, though, that I wasn't making extraordinary claims, since I was actually encouraging you to go read it. What you took for a bold claim wasn't one (but I can see how you did now). I neither misinterpreted nor misrepresented those papers, Aaron, just miscommunicated. I would argue that any honest biologists miscommunicate before they misinterpret or MUCH worse -- misrepresent data. Please don't even insinuate that the latter was a possibility with me.



>> >>I do think reductions in populations can be significant, it's just that as far as the pet trade ever being the sole, or even primary cause, I think it is a rare occurance.

I agree.


>>Please don't try to portray me as sympathetic to collection that causes serious risks to a species existence because I am not.

Nothing I said regarding the aforementioned was aimed at you. It was a general comment about the mindset of many collectors. Of course, there are a lot of collectors out there who don't think that way. It's often hard to interpret the "tone" from an on-line post and offense is too-often taken where it shouldn't be. And I'm just as guilty of that, if not more.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]