Reptile & Amphibian Forums

As some of you know, I have had my problems with biologists and academics. Its very odd to be, that they are suppose to be educated, but then act very uneducated. Or is it a simple ruse. Are they just using this to pass more laws(control)

For instance. Its not all that complicated that Floridas natural habitat has been nearly all destroyed by mans impact. Impacting a natural system, causes changes in the wildlife it will support. A natural system contains many ages of habitat. As the habitat ages, it supports different species. When man impacts it, he turns the habitat into a single age, new. New habitat supports very general species, as opposed to very specialized species. A varity of species has to have a varity of habitat to support the species.

So man plows down the old growth oaks and pines. He makes new wetlands and water courses. He changes the habitat, then has some expectation that the new habitat will support the old(native) species. How funny is that? Plain and simple, thats stupid to think that, period. New generalized habitat will support generalized species, you know, species that are considered FERAL. These feral species better fit the new habitat, then the native species do. It does not take a genius to understand this.

Mans impact has changed the "chain of command" There is now a different food base, different plants, different predators, introduced game animals and game fish, and those educated biologists expect the "old" native species to occur in places they were not designed to live in.

I somehow get the feeling those biologist are either pulling our "chain" or they are not as smart as you think. Its plain and simple, in order for the habitat to support native species, it must be the same as when it did support native species. Which means, put your bulldozers away and stop changing the habitat. Come on now, how simple is that? Sorry for the rant, but this forum's TOS supports conversation on conservation.

Lastly, I worked in the animal business in Florida way back in the late sixties. Guess what, there was feral everything then. For monitors to pythons to monkeys, to torts to frogs and bugs. The animal industry has been releasing animals into fla. for decades. But they did not stay long. But then there was more natural habitat. Now, theres very little natural habitat to fight back. Man is winning but he doesn't want what he won.

About niles, they are just a generalize species. I have traveled to see monitors in many parts of the world. What is odd is, monitors do very well in impacted disturbed habitat. They are common in parks, water storage areas, farmlands, even in city parks and watercourses in their native lands. They seem to have far higher populations in disturbed habitat then in natural habitat. So what do you expect to invade semi-tropical disturbed habitats in Fla.????? Cheers

When I moved down here I would often see a ton of wildlife. From deer, to snakes, lizards, tortoise, etc.. Now I no longer see those animals instead I see raccoons or armadillo. Oh and the ever so famous cats that run all over the place free to roam about. You can often find them stalking up upon some unsuspecting native florida critters.

My nieghborhood used to be considered in the boonies, now there is a very large community next door. This same scenario is playing out all over florida. Pushing the local wildlife further into the corner. If this keeps up the pace it won't matter if you remove all of the niles, pythons, or other feral animals.

If you want to find an iguana, nile, or other feral animal you don't have to leave the nieghborhood. If you want to find native wildlife you'll have to travel into their nieghborhood or to a preserve set aside for them. hmmmmmmmmm

It is easy to blame the biologists for the passing of laws. Legislators are, of course, the ones who pass the laws and only do so in their own self interest. The common good has no meaning to them, only what will keep them in office and keep them in power matters. If you talk to biologists in most areas of the world near where there is any kind of human population, they will most likely tell you that feral and free roaming cats destroy more native wildlife than any introduced species.

Example: The Guam Rail was introduced back into Guam after being eradicated by the notorious Boiga irregularis (Brown Tree Snake), only to be wiped out a second time after introduction by feral cats, not Boiga irregularis. Did they do anything about the feral cat population? Of course not! By the way, Boiga irregularis did a great deal of wildlife and in the case of Guam, more overall than feral cats.

Lawmakers in the US would never pass laws against having cats or even to keep them confined in houses. Why? It is against their self-interest of staying in office because it would be unpopular, even though it would be for the common good and the good of native wildlife.

Bulldozing and clearing of forests? Again, thank your legislators for that. Environmental impact studies, or any other studies for that matter, are disregarded then re-written or “re-studied” until one that is favorable to the legislators or particular political master is written.

Biologists are often made to be the bad guys through having to enact programs that their political masters force upon them, at least, those who work for any US government organization. I have personally seen where biologists have been disregarded in favor of having something more popular done. The other biologists have no say whatsoever, definitely no more say than you or I have.

It is far more the fault of people (especially people in power) promoting their self-interests than it is of biologists.

You are right about some monitor species taking advantage and adapting to their ever changing environment. This picture was taken in the middle of Bangkok, on a small bridge over a canal, within a couple hundred meters of the Thai Parliament House. Looks like she is doing quite well, maybe a bit obese:

Cheers,

Michael

They may not be the ones passing the laws, but they certainly are promoting it. If you have read or followed along with any of the reports by the ones working down here you would see this.

They are the ones that have been called upon to help out. They are also the ones at the front of the line so to speak. I have found their comments quite silly for people supposedly so well educated. Everything Frank suggested has completely gone unnoticed by them or atleast unmentioned.

I guess having lived out of the US for most of the past 6 years has put me out of touch with the ever growing ignorance and lack of common sense over there, or maybe it should be called uncommon sense, since so few people appear to have it any more. The more I hear, the more I think I will stay over on this side of the world.

Cheers,

Michael

Do you, agree or disagree with my post?

Do you think that most of the introduced feral species are taking advantage of natural undesturbed habitat? Or are they invading newly created habitats and disturbed habitats?

Do you feel its realistic or unrealistic to expect normal native species to inhabit these disturbed areas? Or would you think in order to maintain a varity of native species, you must preserve a varity of native habitats?

Sir that is my post. Thanks for your answers.

Your first post has a lot of merit and I do agree with much of it. I believe that your second post concerning the biologists is much closer to the mark. Many that are put in positions of authority must be receiving some kind of lobotomy, since they appear to become a political functionary rather than a biologist.

I think that most of the introduced species are taking advantage of newly created or disturbed habitats, especially when you consider there is so little natural undisturbed habitat remaining, although they are moving into that also.

It becomes unrealistic to expect native species to inhabit disturbed areas once they no longer have what it takes to support them in any particular area. Of course, different species require different conditions to survive, which is why some species disappear from areas more quickly than others. It is common sense that a variety of natural habitats must be preserved to maintain the variety of native species; this is where Florida is failing horribly.

Just one writing tip for you: Your initial paragraph sets the tone for whatever you write; everything else should be in support of the original paragraph/idea. My post was about the biologists (who you made, maybe unwittingly, as your main topic/idea), who I have often seen disregarded in favor of going along with whatever is more politically expedient, in another words, gain the greatest political gain. In the case of Florida, it appears for some reason that they are going along with the “party line” instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing- giving a proper and logical appraisal of the situation from a biological prospective.

Cheers,

Michael

Invasive species enter disturbed areas. First primary or pioneer species enter a disturbance. over time there is a bild up of nutrients and a replacement of species. This happens over and over until the habitat reaches a climactic seral stage of succession. (such as an old growth forest). The "native" species are part of the climax seral stage of succession. They like their established habitats that we are destroying. In general do not like disturbed habitats... only the invasives do. When you combine a disturbance event and invasives from another part of the world with no natural predator... you get sunny Florida.

On a national level, Fish$wildlife, create, review, and recomend national laws. On a state level, the game comission does the same. The game commission, is mainly appointed professors, biologists or some politician with an animal interest. They recieve proposals from the fish and game biologists. They also recieve prejudiced coaching and lots of it.

But what I was refering to was, the massive amount of newpaper articules with all that misinfomation. In most cases, it was an interview with some state biologist or a biologist from some reserve or another.

I do understand the news agencies seek out and find those biologist that will give them a story. I also understand and know, many great realistic biologist. Who are more or less helpless to accomplish anything of real value. Cheers

Around 1.5 years, 5 females, 2 males.

The cat in the cage, not the one watching him through the glass doors, hes 150% indoor cat only.
There arent that many around now. I set this trap when I first moved in, had a new cat every 1-3 days. I just dragged it out of the shed last night, this one has been getting very brave lately.
Im not sure if you can see the grass field in the back, the cats stay out of it, and live around the houses and sheds. I guess too many people feed them, makes the problem worse. I believe this is the worst feral species we are responsible for, they kill everything from insects to even groundhogs (strange but true, some learn how to kill groundhogs larger than themselves, very effective predators, kind of funny I saw a TV show once, it said that even barn cats wont gang up on a groundhog, tell that to a feral cat, it only takes one), even very young deer.
I wish the laws were enforced about cats being indoors or restrained when outdoors properly, theres no reason in the world to let them run loose.
In fact I bet one of these..

.. does 10 times the damage as one of these in the right environment..

...but I do not expect an honest answer.

Is that cat going to be a meal for the big monitors? haha
-----
Ed

Ive removed several from my yard alone in 1.5yrs. Sobek wouldnt eat a cat anyways, most monitors Ive witnessed are leary of cats for whatever reason, they go out of their way to avoid them no matter how big or small.
I just dont want fleas getting in my house through the sliding glass doors, in warm weather its a common occurance with those who have cats and dogs indoors from feral cats and dogs hanging out around patio doors, I guess they jump on people walking in and out then into your carpets.
I like HOUSE cats, not indoor/outdoor (part time ferals), or outdoor cats (full timers). Behind pigs, goats, and a few other of our former captives, cats are one of the worst feral pests in most of the world.

I agree. Except for the use of the term "feral." A feral animal is a domesticate introduced into the wild (such as domesticated cats and pigs becoming feral). Niles have not been domesticated. They are invasives. After a disturbance you have invasive "weed" species move in. Monitors were already in Fl, they just found a niche.

Movement of man is creating a monocultural environment. This type of thing will only get worse. As we spend millions trying to stop one invasive, a dozen more are introduced. While I do believe in trying to protect species from going extinct... remeber extinction is a part of life. If it wasn't for the K/T event 65 mya that killed off (most of: see birds) the dinosaurs, the rise of mammals would have never occured. We are in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction... but this time we are the meteor. The results are inevitable. I'm not for extinction... I just understand that I can't stop it without the help of the other almost 6.5 billion people out there... and most of them are more worried about their own survival than that of some owl or lizard.

Personally I'd believe in saving the world from the humans, rather than to save it for them. (where is the top top predator that eats humans when you need them? ...oh wait humans killed them all off... Pleistocene Overkill (as humans spread out of Africa they killed off every large species they could... such as the moa of New Zealand or the giant sloth of N. America). I guess what my point is save the species we can, but eventually man will erase them anyway. The End.

Sorry, not feral, invasive, cool

So, how about a real conservation effort, not propagation of species, but birth control for real invasive or feral, or are we both.

I guess once we have a push button army, then all we need is push button religion, and push button politics, then we would not have to make so many babies. After all, those are the things humans recruit for. Cheers

We as humans are an invasive "weed" species. In general we are not feral (see domestication) but there is some debate there that can stat a huge race war. My opinion on that is simple, racism = ignorance. So lets just call ourselves "weeds." That is the most honest title we could give ourself... well maybe "virus" fits better?

I'm looking at Arizona for my Ph.D. so maybe someday I'll get to see the ranch. I'd love to spend a day picking your brain. You have to be one of the nations top most athorities on monitors... I'd put you in the same class as Dr. Pianka of he University of Texas. Just because you don't have a degree in biology doesn't mean that you are not a biologist too.

I do lots of field work, Cecil Shawbe(dang spelling) was our advisor many years ago. Nice fella.

I do not consider myself a biologist in the current application. Your mention of Pianka is a good comparison. I believe he is more of a mechanical biologist(as most are at this time) I think I am more of an ethologist orientated biologist.

They study how the parts are suppose to work based on current understanding of the parts(a mechanic) I study how the sum of the parts are actually performing, which may or may not relate to the actual parts or their design.

I get the feeling from some of the posts you have written, you understand, its a changing enviornment and almost all the time, a species biology is somewhat obsolete. That is, they are never something, but always on the path to be something. Its the behavior that interests me, not the biology. Of course I understand their relationship. Which sometimes I think the mechanics forget.

For instance, the use of radios voids ethology. Removing an individual from its enviornment effects behavior, performing surgery effects behavior, installing a radio, with extruding antenna, effects behavior. Then even more importantly, running around with a direct TV dish on your head, chasing the victum, surely effects behavior. Particularly with an animal like varanids, that have such a keen sense of sight and awareness of distance. So I guess only a mechanic could think anything meaningful could be gained from doing that.

Good luck with your PHD, and keep an open mind. The animals are always right, people are always wrong(about animals) That is history. Cheers

Quote:
"The animals are always right, people are always wrong(about animals) That is history. "

I couldn't have said it better myself. Believe me I want to save the world... but when I see our "human-centered" culture I turn into a pessimist. Thank you Frank for sharing your knowledge, after all that is the only thing that separates us from the other animals... the passing on of knowledge.