Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Maybe I should have begun more directly to ward off over-specified meanders that have arisen from me and from others. The things I meant to center on were two in number.

The first is the future public spin on foreign “problem” reptile species becoming established (if fewer than 100 Florida trappings in the past three years is “established” for Nile monitors) because of irresponsible general trade and the potential legal ramifications that may come of that spin. Although this corner of the equation didn’t get any hang time, there are people on this board who live in Florida, or who sell monitors into Florida, and thus have pursuits at stake.

The other delimma, which became severed from the thread, is the discussion of invasive foreign species as they relate to our future wildlife communities. Many native species will respond well to disturbed habitat. Some native species will respond well to intensively disturbed habitat. Our humanized landscape is a grade of fine lines when it comes to the extent of habitat disruption. Some of those gradations might benefit native species over foreign species, whereas other gradations will benefit foreign species over natives. When an introduced foreign species can DISplace a native one, that is often the genesis of species REplacement. In their race to meet the demands of ever-changing human environments, native and foreign species will come to compete across more and more gradations of habitat disruption.

My intended focus was, can we conserve a better chance for native species to adapt to the greatest number of human environments by keeping foreign competitors out, or do we continue to bring in foreign species that might be preadapted to do a better job more quickly than the natives? Can we validly assume which process will lead to greatest biodiversity? Should greatest biodiversity be the ultimate goal of conservation, or should greatest number of native species?

Some may claim that disturbed habitat tends to favor foreign species and undisturbed habitat tends to favor native species, thus, the goals of conservation should be different depending on whether we’re speaking of disturbed habitat or native habitat. That makes for the question, how can we validly differentiate the two in our present world? If we cannot differentiate the two, do preadapted foreign competitors win by default? That answer seems oversimplified. Ben

Well I may as well skip all the non-sense. There is no final goal as to what habitat will be left. You set no time limit.

Therefore best guess is, Southern Fla, will have what is in downtown Miami. SoCal will have whats now in downtown Los Angeles. Whats in New York City is what the rest of New York will be like, etc etc.

Also, there are many many kinds of animal life, Anoles and niles are one two. They all are and will be effected.

And yes, native species can become invasive, i.e. Red eared slider, one of the widest spread reptiles in the world. Its invasive in all areas except the southeast. Also Blindsnakes are invasive in downtown Tucson, they have invaded watered lawns(un-natural around here) Cheers

You cant compare Los Angeles to what the future holds for Southern California. This city grew and overpopulated when there was less knoledge on conservation or even growth problems. I notice this when living in Los Angeles County, the homes and businesses are right on the freeway. They have no room to expand so the trafic sucks. This being high on importance I think conservation is last for them. The less developed areas in Southern California have established protected land. Some areas will get like LA but not all areas. I would say you are half right, 50%...so this makes you half wrong. Ha ha, kidding with you, remember your post about me being 1/32 right or something like that.

I hate to tell you, but I grew in that area. I also caught legless lizards, blue racers, kingsnakes, gophers, etc, Where disneyland is. It use to be country. Now its city.

So many places were wild, like temecula, that are not cities. And they were wild when I had enough of SoCal and moved out, never to return.

So I suggest, look around, what is natural today, will not be tomorrow. That is the way of man. Or the bird flu will get us(man)

You are missing the point Frank. There is protected land, not to be built on or disturbed in any way. These areas are small and very vulnerable. The most likely thing that can destroy them if not natural desaster, would be introduced species. Even if the higher form can not survive and take over, the life forms it harbors can do so i.e. its parasites.
Of course Southern California is loosing land rapidly, but there still is a reason to have concern and by no means are these native species already extinct. So to say, give up and who cares about introduced species is the naive perspective.

A lot of the shopping malls and auto malls were previously protected land. Only they forgot to tell us what it was protected for.

That is exactly the reason your being naive. You believe and have faith in what your being led to believe. I believed them when I was young. As you grew older, you saw land protection means little. If man needs it, it will be used. Ask Fish and wildlife.

Even the Nature Conservency, that recieves land and purchases land for very low prices in the name of conserving it. Acts more like a realtor. They do not get around to actually protecting the land, they seem to be always busy trading it for better land. Only the better never comes. In the meantime, those working for that company, are recieving wages and a living.

I do understand why you believe those that tell you Melinus are really captive hatched, you like to believe without questioning or investigating. You should try it sometime. Cheers and good luck in that.

My first disagreement was with your idea that introduced species are ok because we already are going to destroy the land anyways.

I don't agree with this for the fact that there is some land still here (I see it and live in Southern California right now), so why base your opinion on what will happen with only an educated guess, just like I have many reasons to believe it is possible to breed yellow monitors. See we both make assumptions based on facts. You assume based on destruction of the land has already happened and there is no possible way there will be any left so why should I stop myself from contributing to this problem. Some times I really don't care, but you have to care. Especially if you are asking others to not destroy the land.

I am really not worried about Nile Monitors in Florida for many reasons, but why act like it is ok, the odds of them becoming a problem are slim, but don't go promoting it as a good thing.
I do see your point in wanting the freedom of trade, I want this too. I want to be conscious of my environment while doing so. This has nothing to do with those that are already destroying it. I can only control my actions and only influence others. You can do the same, you have a good background filled with knowledge so use it in an open channel communication to do this. You make these insulting remarks and at times go at it (sometimes) with exaggerated stories to win the debate. Why do this unless you feel inadequate about something.

I did not change anything, this is what I have been saying all along. I have no idea what your saying, you were not part of the original thread, you jump in and add your disjunct views, which is fine, but please try to start your own thread. That way, I would know what YOUR saying and not have to combine it with what others that started this thread are saying. You do understand, when your talking about theory and guessing this or that, we all will have different ideas.

Its this stradgy that gets the animals in trouble in the first place. someone wants protect land for a purpose, only someone else wants it for another purpose, then so on and so forth, then houses get build, as they end up circling the protected land, once the land is engulfed in humanity, then its no longer able to serve its purpose, so that land is givin up and they protect something on the fringes again, then it happens all over. Where will it stop? there has been so sign of it stopping. Get it? Cheers

Why would I want to jump in at the beginning of the thread, when I can sit buck and understand the situation before speaking out. If you want a one on one conversation with out others, use e-mail or better yet, create your own forum that has a block to all but the first two speakers.

Back to the subject. Why is the land useless just because it is locked between buildings and/or freeways? Once it is essentially an island does not make it useless, this actually opens the door for increased evolution. Look at Hawaii, Mascarenes or the Galapagos Islands. Look at the lakes of the Great Rift Valley. These areas have an abundance of species due to these walls of separation. If it is water, land, buildings or freeways it makes no difference. The biggest thing that impacted parts these areas biodiversity where not man alone, but the introduced species man brought with him. Some archipelagoes and lakes have lost over 90% of their species due to a single introduced species. Since land that man has developed on is turning into similar closed habitats, all the more reason to compare with the reactions of archipelagoes and lakes.

I am simply saying to you that there is room for nature to take its course as naturally as it can even with man filling in most of the habitat. Why would you consider it ok to introduce a foreign species without concern?

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

I live in the mess now, and have for the past 26 years. SD County is much like LA county was back then. Riverside county is much like SD County used to be. The pace is faster now, the developments are much larger.

Development projects are almost as large as whole communities where before.

I could go into specifics, but it's pretty off topic. The truth is spending money on invasive reptiles (especially with little to no evidence they actually exist in any quantity) is downright lunacy. There are far larger environmental concerns that deserve more attention.

--Robert

Of course there is massive growth, but these areas even with all of the growth still have areas deticated to preserve unlike Los Angeles. I am not saying there will not be impact but the large species are already extinct from here. The smaller species do not need as much space and have land deticated to them. I dont like the situation, but Frank claims all species will be extinct and this is simply not true.
But it does make their limited natural habitat more vulnerable and therefore all the more concern for protecting from introduced species, fires (unless needed) or any other potential danger. Frank had the idea they are already gone (extinct) based on what he expects of Southern California and not to worry about introduced species. If you side with that opinion you are the funny guy.
-Shane

You are so right, how could I forget the vast preserves of space, where animals flourish. Hundreds of millions of dollars in land, set aside for our less fortunate animal friends. Oh wait, that's because they only exist in your head.

The only preserve I know of has been seriously jeopardized, and is already bounded on all sides by freeways and housing developments. It is DEAD compared to how it used to be. It was cut into several years ago, and will be cut into again. You have no idea what you are talking about.

--Robert

You are referring to one location? Was this location actually protected or was it a place of consideration, never established as a protected land? What is the name of this place so I can check it out?

There are 10 specific areas in Southern California fully protected, and over 100 being considered with many organizations working diligently to protect these areas. This does not include Northern California. The coastal Southern California has already lost this battle for the most part, except so far Camp Pendleton is doing this in a catch 22. Hard to protect land already owned by thousands of different people, but maybe Pendleton will one day be this preserved land. Small areas in the coast are protected but small so not a significant land.

I hope you don't believe it is ok to let reptiles go in this land, do you? Do you believe it is already dead still? Take your time, go do some research then get back to me. A lot of this land was protected in 2002, so look for new information. Also don’t forget the state parks not referred to in my count.

No doubt what you say is true. I grew up in Northern KY and despite it being a "suburb" of Cincinnati, there used to be a lot of wooded areas and open fields only 15 miles south of downtown. And I'm not even 30 years old. Now not so much. Back in the day they got rid of wilderness for farming and people a decade later would wonder "Where are all of the trees?". Now they look around and even the farms are now replaced with mini malls and extended stay hotels. I guess this makes farms the new wilderness???. I live in east central KY now and anyone I've talked to that's into real estate tells me that buying the land between here and Cincy or Louisville will be profitable. Why? Because in 20-30 years the ninety mile stretches of highway between cities will simply become run-together de-facto metropolitain areas. In freaking Kentucky, not SoCal. If it applies in an area that is sometimes considered the pinnacle of the boondocks, bet that it'll sprawl out anywhere within a hundred miles or so of any major city. People are just scared to death of the niles, I guess. I read somewhere amid all of this hysteria that a Florida meth dealer had niles guarding his lab. What a bunch of absolute nonsense. I guess that means my ackie and tegus will viciously protect my home while I'm away at work. Sorry for the rant, y'all. Just touched a bit of a nerve.

>SoCal will have whats now in downtown Los Angeles.

San Angeles has almost arrived, hope you like Taco Bell.

Florida will be no different.

--Robert

When you talk about creating a better chance for native species to adapt to the greatest number of human environments .You must consider that unless the animals are evolving in an eco system that is fully complete as nature intended the native animal or plant is no longer in it`s natural role. And that changes many things.

A native animal that is forced into an artificially created environment that is missing many or most of the pieces of what it was originally evolving in conjunction with from predator to prey plants , animals and everything in between. Really the only major component left is the weather.This puts them in very similar to the circumstances that many introduced species are placed in.

The native animal must now have to figure out how to make do with what it has to work with. Under these conditions the native creatures will not evolve to fill their true evolutionarily roles. Taxonomist ,biologist and any gist you can think of will still refer to these animals as natives but if they survive they will really be only mutated versions of what they should have been.You can`t remove any parts of the equation and expect to get the same result.

The real question is what is better the killing off all the Introduced species to aid the natives so that we can pats ourselves on the back for saving them and call what ever parts are left natural or is it better or is it better to leave them compete along side the natives in the newly created environments applying one of natures favorite principles Survival of the fittest to determine what is natural for this New environment. Ernie Eison

"The real question is what is better the killing off all the Introduced species to aid the natives so that we can pats ourselves on the back for saving them and call what ever parts are left natural or is it better or is it better to leave them compete along side the natives in the newly created environments applying one of natures favorite principles Survival of the fittest to determine what is natural for this New environment. Ernie Eison"

You answer my questions with the same questions. The interesting (exciting?) part about the situation with burgeoning human environments and native/foreign competition is where it will lead. As I have mentioned, I don't think we should (in most cases) spend resources to remove established invasive species.

What I'm attempting to raise is whether individuals think it is more important to preserve greatest biodiversity (maximum number of species) or greatest number of native species (possibly assisted by avoiding future introduction of foreign species). I don't think you can have a valid answer for such a question, since there will be no way to prove your answer. You can have an opinion, as can everyone. That's what I'm interested in. Ben

Not exactly , My main point of disagreement is that much of your opinion imply's that you can preserve the purity of a native species by placing it into a new and artificial habitat.

Urbanization instantly creates an environment that skips the evolutionary process and really has no native species. Anything that enters it is an introduced species . I think the question is better phrased by asking,

Is it preferable to establish this new environment with creatures that were native to the previous eco system allowing them to follow a path of forced evolution as unchallenged as possible? Or
is it preferable to have it populated with a group comprised from varied sources?

A complicated question for sure but preferable or not I don`t think the first part is any longer an option. Ernie Eison

>What I'm attempting to raise is whether individuals think it is
>more important to preserve greatest biodiversity (maximum number
>of species) or greatest number of native species (possibly
>assisted by avoiding future introduction of foreign species). I
>don't think you can have a valid answer for such a question, since
>there will be no way to prove your answer. You can have an
>opinion, as can everyone. That's what I'm interested in.

I think it is best to avoid introduction of foreign species, but once the cat is out of the bag it becomes more complicated. IF (and its a huge if) niles are established, they are already part of the ecosystem, we don't and can't know the implications of wiping them out, even if it was possible. What about the animals that consume the monitor eggs, the monitor babies, the monitor adults? If there is a large enough population of monitors to cause problems, doesn't that imply they are also contributing to the chain. Removing them will also throw things off balance. I'm not so much saying they should stay, just that it is not straight forward. And there are wrongs we do, that may be correctible, with limited resources we should concentrate on those first.

But, in this case, it is purely a witchhunt to generate money that is largely supported by people's fear of large reptiles. If this was about ferile cats and dogs, it would not have near the media exposure or support. I haven't seen anyone calling out a ban of cats and dogs because they are cheap, mistreated (the numbers make monitor imports look piddly) and set loose by irresponsible owners. While I have no evidence to support it, I'd bet dogs and cats are far more destructive to native populations, and pose a much larger risk to humans (at least dogs).

--Robert

Dogs and cats do pose a greater numerical problem, thus likely greater impact. What I have to wonder is, what will happen if another man-eating monitor species becomes "established"? Heck, it doesn't matter if a scary species becomes established or not - the news says they are, so they are, insofar as the general public will be concerned.

How many introductions will it take to topple the tolerance of legislators? I think most monitor species would generate far less public commotion than Niles should additional species ever become established, but what if another man-eating species takes on? Will salvator in the Everglades be the nail in the coffin for Florida monitor keepers? Let's hope not, since it's bound to happen sooner or later. Dogs and cats in the Everglades, it's just cute to watch them chase storks, right?

We aren't talking salties, there are very few (any confirmed?) cases of people being killed by monitors. The only truly frightening species would be KD's.

I wasn't talking numerically. A dog or cat eats alot more often than a monitor, Right?? There is a price to pay for the ability to keep active longer and during colder weather.

I thought the whole discussion was on environmental impact. It is a witchhunt plain and simple. Alot of the reasons brought up are the same reason people here deal with rattlesnakes(which are native) with a shovel, or want every mountain lion shot. Ignorance and fear are hardly good environmental policies.

--Robert

by his father's brother's mother's daughter's wife's Nile monitor.

Half of my intended discussion is on environmental consequences. The other half, which has taken little address, is that of the legal ramifications that may come of such "establishments" as Nile monitors.

Florida is a hub of reptile import, expos, and cheap reptile sales. This makes "problem" (i.e., what I was referring to as man-eating in a tongue-in-cheek manner) species darned easy to get in the state. Hence, more releases will occur.

We have seen how successful the public hype over Nile monitors became. We hear man-eating and grin inside. Chihuahua owners hear such nomenclature and snuggle their life purpose close to their chests. They outnumber us. I don't have a figure on how much funding has been directed towards the trapping program, but fewer than a hundred lizards caught in three years? That sounds like a lot of wasted resources. Are they trying to CONTROL Nile monitor numbers or ERADICATE them? Will they ever be truly eradicatable with any person still able to keep the species (and thus release the species)? The answer here is obvious. If control is the justification, it is truly a waste. If eradication is the purpose, it will never be possible so long as Niles are kept in Florida (and even if they weren't legal to keep...).

The one scenario in which I can agree with trying to tackle any invasive with such effort is in trying to "salvage" a native species endemic to the affected area, for which no protected-breeding campaign is known. You know, as with all those island birds down in New Zealand. Most cases as these will prove 100% futile, but I hold that a good fight to save any vanishing species (not just glamorous ones with pretty patterns or brilliant feathers) is justifiable, even if completely impractical.

Unfortunately, the public of Florida will not care that Niles are not proved to threaten any native species (let alone any endemic species). They will want protective legislation passed to guard against such introductions in the future. So we're back to how many more releases can occur before some species triggers a legal backlash for Floridian monitor owners.

On a warm day in south Florida, which are many (and increasing each year?), I don't know that there's such an enormous margin between the amount of prey consumption between varanids and cats/dogs. Ben

Just how successful has the public hype over the Nile monitors become ?The people that talk about it most don`t live here. Far and away most people that do don`t give a crap about any lizards .Cape Coral is supposedly the heart of this invasion. I lived and owned a business there and have never met anyone who was afraid of giant lizard s . Young or old. In fact it`s a topic that `s not even talked about. Nobody cares.

If protective legislation is ever passed it won`t be triggered by some legal backlash due to the publics fear and outrage as they storm city hall demanding protection it will simply be another case of the political pen devils letting the few speak for the many supported by the press to serve their own motives.The majority won`t care one way or the other .To 99% of the people that live here it`s a complete non issue.They won`t even know about some anti lizard law until the next day in the papers when the page 9 headline reads something like ......We`ve Been Saved ! and shows a picture of a dead Nile pulled out of some freezer . Ernie Eison

Ps the next monitor species to invade Florida ............Ackie`s

Ok, sorry it's hard to pick up whether you were serious or not, and it being on this forum, makes it even more unclear.

Sure, it may get to the point that local laws will be created, then I'll be sure not to live there. I can't be accountable for others mistakes, what could I do? Call for the ban of animals I keep?

You may be right about dogs & cats vs. monitors (I don't think it's very close even with warm temps). It is debatable and that is the point, once you factor in the numbers, it clearly goes to a large degree to cats & dogs.

There is very little environmental sense in the whole thing. While you may be willing to jump through hoops just for the chance of success (win the lottery), I'd prefer my money (good old government) not going into things that are doomed from the beginning.

--Robert

We have permits to keep as well as to sell or exhibit exotics. The fees have been climbing higher as of late, my guess is that was the main reason to bring so much attention. They will find it hard to ban them here and I really do not see that happening. For the reasons that have been stated Fl. is a hub for exotics, there are many dealers, breeders, exporter, importers, etc.. There are far more iguanas etc. running around here and have been for along time. The people down here in large over look it or do not care. The rest of the world is more worried about it then we are.

Don't you keep big cats? I'm not sure why I think you do, I just seem to recall something about it. Are those permits/regulations more expensive and restrictive? Completely off topic, but I'm curious.

--Robert

Worked with them in IL. though. I know a few who work with them down here. With mammals (most of them anyways) you have U.S.D.A along with other permits and restricitions.

I think it would be a good idea to see them put a fee on the current pet permit in place down here. Right now it is free and is not really mandatory. There is a fee for the license to sell or exhibit wildlife. They have different classes I, II, and III depending what you keep. The requirments differ from each of them as well.

I keep in my collection 2 albigs (a male BT and Sobek my "little" girl), a male flavi-argus, some red ackies, and a beardie male. Between the 3 larger monitors they eat from once a week to every day (the flavi eats daily or almost, and sometimes the BT). Sometimes Sobek will eat small meals daily yet.
If I add up the entire food intake of those 3 in one week with 24/7 basking lights, and consistant temps, its less expensive than feeding my cat. As far as prey size/food amounts go, my cat eats 2 meals a day basically and he eats spread throughout 24 hours as cats are designed to do in small amounts. He eats more in one week than all 3 rodent/bird eaters.
Theres no comparison with a similar sized dog in weight or size to any monitor as far as food intake in even the hottest climates.

Perhaps there's not valid comparison. After all, even super-active large monitors have far lower metabolisms than do cats and dogs.

Do be careful, however, when extrapolating information from captive animals to wild ones. Your monitors eat food as it's provided, and your cat can secure a meal by attacking a bowl. It might not be so simple for wild animals. Just because it seems likely, does not mean it is actually that way. Then again, who knows for certain.

Conditions created to allow for constant growth, and constant temps, no reptile will ever eat as much as a mammal close to its size ot weight.
I have a book somewhere that compares a theoretical 100lb dog to a theoretical 100lb lizard, the dog eats 10 times the food to survive and be healthy in one year as the lizard does no matter what conditions are present, that is why there is no comparison. The example of why large reptiles survive so well in areas that have conditions not suitable for large predatory mammals, this has to do partly with lack of or availability of food consistently.