Posted by:
HappyHillbilly
at Sat Jun 27 20:08:02 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by HappyHillbilly ]
Sounds like you might think that Whit Gibbons does not have much hands on experience dealing with herps.
Ha! Ha! Yeah, I threw a few jabs at Gibbons based solely on his comments in the article that I included in my first reply. To me, those comments do not paint a pretty picture of his hands-on experience level with Burmese pythons. I actually find those comments to be very misleading, at best - if not downright inaccurate. However, don't forget that I ended my reply with an attempt to be fair to him by mentioning that the media could be at fault.
May I suggest that you google his name and see if you still have the same impression. I think Whit Gibbons is one of the better known and respected herpetologists in the US.
Maybe one of these days I'll have the time to look into his accomplishments and hopefully even learn a thing or two from him. I would like that very much. I have the greatest respect for most that earnestly devote their life to further the knowledge of reptiles/animals.
Here's what I feel is the bottom line concerning Gibbons' comments, achievements, etc...:
One-time comments like the ones I pointed out can undo many years of positive contributions. Such comments are being used to attempt to keep these animals away from the general public.
As a long-term keeper of these magnificent creatures, nearly all scientific information (and even common-keeper information pertaining to Burmese pythons will be useless to me once these snakes are banned.
One article containing comments like those mentioned are being used by the media, animal rights activists and misaligned legislative representatives (?), to practically render useless 30, 40..., years of research. If continued, the common person may never be ale to personally apply it because of banishment of these very animals.
If you're interested in keeping any of the big snakes or other so-called "reptiles of concern" or non-native species, I strongly suggest that you "Do it today, for tomorrow it may be illegal," because of comments like mentioned.
"As a non-pet owner (well not now) but someone interested in herps, I'm curious, is it fair to say that you all as a group (pet owners) think that all of the scientists involved in studying Burmese pythons are lying?"
I'm not sure where you got "lying" from. Maybe from my comment "Anyone wanna bet that regardless of the outcome, the research will be considered 'inconclusive'?" Let me clarify my comment as looking back I can see how it could be misleading.
Based on what lil' I know about Dorcas & the UG herpetology department, I don't think this research project is starting out slanted. I believe, thus far, that it will be a legitimate study.
What I meant by the results being considered inconclusive is that Rodda, his cronies, and the other misaligned people, will find fault with it & in the eyes of the government, activists, and media, and, of course, the general public, the results will be considered inconclusive and will not solve a thing as far as Rodda's claims, media hype & banishment are concerned.
Don't get me wrong; I do believe the research is a step in the right direction, and hopefully beginning with the right people at the helm.
"all of the scientists involved Are in it only for the money?"
I can only speak for myself, not every pet owner. As far as this particular study, hopefully I've already clarified that I don't believe that to be the case. However, there are some scientists that conjure up studies for job security. As far as I'm concerned, as apparently evidenced by his actions, I think Rodda fits nicely in here.
I'm sure you've heard the term "junk science." Just a year or two ago there was a study done on polar bears in which scientists were measuring the size of the bears' private parts and trying to determine if size matters to them.
I want to know just how many people go through life dreaming of being a scientist that measures polar bear private parts. Dang!!! I can see those scientists' children telling their 2nd grade classmates that they want to be just like their dad when they grow up.
"...or to keep you from owning pets?"
Not all, but there are some scientists that desire so. Some in the zoo field feel as though the general public should not own many species. Some have fought long & hard to keep various animal species strictly under the care of zoo type institutions, thinking that they are the only ones that can properly care & propagate them. I believe that history has proven them wrong many times. Many species today are thriving largely due to the advancements in husbandry contributed by the common keeper.
”And that none of them know anything about herps?”
Ha! Ha! Now, that was a large leap. I don’t know of anyone that feels that way.
There is a difference between scientific keeping & pet keeping. There will always be the old war differences between what some view as “common sense” and “scientific-minded” people. Some are blessed with both. Me? I ain’t got either one.
Have a good one!
HH
-----
Due to political correctness run amuck,
this ol' hillbilly is now referred to as an:
Appalachian American
www.natures-signature.com
[ Hide Replies ]
|
Well, this is the way I see it...... - HappyHillbilly, Sat Jun 27 20:08:02 2009