Posted by:
FR
at Tue Sep 6 10:40:35 2005 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by FR ]
There are many errors in your logic. First, in my experience, you cannot base populations and occurances in snakes from road hunting. Road hunting only tells you a particular snake(of your interest) occurs in an area. Those of us who understand snake populations(in only the slighest way) understand just how rarely snakes cross roads.
You really should withhold your judgement about what others can find, until you find what the snakes are really doing.
Think about this, many people and many zoos held reptiles in captivity, they wrote papers about this and that. These reptiles often did not achieve life events, that is, they did not grow up, become reproductive and reproduce, live a certain period in this condition, then grow old and die. A normal life sequence. They did not achieve generations in captivity. If you compare their papers or information/understanding to those who allowed their captives to achieve life events, you would have two entirely different understandings of the same snake.
Now compare the information you achieved from road hunting to what I look for and find. I do not consider finding a snake as success, I use that snake to find life events. That is, I hold off judgement of what a snake is or does, until I find colonies, pairs, nesting, neonates, sheds, scent markers, etc. You know, all the things a normal snake population has to do to exsist.
Then to take it farther, I still hold off judgement until I see several colonies of this, and from several different ranges or habitats. Even then, I hold off judgement because after doing the above, I have learned they do not have to do one thing, or live in one particular clean cut way.
Why I say all this is, you are making judgements of lack of information, not from real information. You must understand the limitations of your information.
With this in mind, why do you think someone cannot find what you cannot find, particularly if they look or approach it in a different way. Or heck, just get lucky, which surely happens. Truth be told, many of the things I see, were started from investigating a lucky piece of evidence.
Do you understand that. Yes, I called it evidence not facts. Every thing you see, needs further investigation, not taken as, end all facts. With that in mind, I am sure if you investigated further, you would see just how limiting your information is. I know that happened and still happens to me/us, as we investigate farther. Good luck FR
[ Hide Replies ]
- BillMcgElaphe, in response to your post from way down below - Sean, Tue Sep 6 09:41:00 2005
- RE: BillMcgElaphe, in response to your post from way down below - Nokturnel Tom, Tue Sep 6 09:50:25 2005
 RE: I am sorry Sean, but you really need to think - FR, Tue Sep 6 10:40:35 2005
- RE: I am sorry Sean, but you really need to think - Nokturnel Tom, Tue Sep 6 11:25:38 2005
- RE: I am sorry Sean, but you really need to think - Keith Hillson, Tue Sep 6 13:08:34 2005
- I think everyone else missed that too Keith. - Sean, Tue Sep 6 16:47:27 2005
- RE: But Keith I thought - FR, Wed Sep 7 10:59:42 2005
- ROFLMAO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,n/p - thomas davis, Wed Sep 7 13:10:03 2005
- RE: But Keith I thought - Keith Hillson, Wed Sep 7 20:02:49 2005
- False innocence aside….. - Tony D, Tue Sep 6 12:50:43 2005
- RE: BillMcgElaphe, in response to your post from way down below - BillMcgElaphe, Tue Sep 6 15:49:23 2005
- RE: BillMcgElaphe, in response to your post from way down below - BillMcgElaphe, Tue Sep 6 15:57:47 2005
|
