Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I had a serious question as the ever popular debate rages on regarding locale-specific stock vs. our "crosses" that we bear (sorry).

Because a person goes out and finds a king and a couple weeks later goes out and finds a mate not-too-far-from-where-the-first-one-was-captured, why is the assumption that those two kings were going to meet and breed in the wild?

Granted, the easiest guess would be that they were in each other's range, but what about the one king that the collector DIDN'T uncover nearby that coulda/shoulda/woulda been the mate had the mate not been snatched away?

In other words, doesn't such collecting alter what nature might've intended?

Thanks!

Good points and one that I hope opens up a good topic for debate if people like FR would jump in.

You can't duplicate nature. People will always select the best offspring to breed to one another as well. The closest way to duplicate nature would be to throw all bunch of these snakes into a bag. Shake it up and pull two out to breed.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

There is the assumption of local specific gene pools. Which has to be true for the most part. But unless you find a pair together, you will never know who bred whom. How close do you need to be.

Sadly, a south fla. king(only one example of many) has many south Fla locality populations. No one has decided what locality specific means. Within miles of eachother, hundreds of miles, hundreds of yard, or what. Are rivers, canyons, lakes, etc creating different gene pools etc. That is another question that has not been answered.

So with so many unanswered questions, it appears its more about what ever blows your shorts/skirt up. Maybe for better sales or something of the like.

All in all, its all good. Anything that promotes better care in captivity is great. Cheers

Sadly, a south fla. king(only one example of many) has many south Fla locality populations. No one has decided what locality specific means. Within miles of eachother, hundreds of miles, hundreds of yard, or what. Are rivers, canyons, lakes, etc creating different gene pools etc. That is another question that has not been answered...

come'om fr share with us whats your experience with distances/obstacles traversed by kings. im speaking of individual lifelong areas one square mile?2?3?or more? i know i have found kings in the same general area for years in a row same individuals with yearlings sometimes i know i know poor data on my part but still does/did give a very general idea. and i know you have posted before about young adults being driven out of an area IE. natural expanse ...no?... i beleive i beleive established individual populations traverse maybe a 2-3sq.mile area in life unless well bulldozers come but even then sadly i remeber nice hunting grounds that are now subdivisions and still have kings showin up years later,they do adapt amazingly well right here in dowtown houston we have thriving pops that imho have been here for hundreds if not thousands of years. anyway just interested in knowing your take on individual life ranges. as this kinda of data would kinda put the locale issue to bed,or at least maybe anyway help some feel its a county line but dont consider a population might be ON that line hahahahahahaanyway always good stuff,,,,,,,,,thomas davis

>>>Are rivers, canyons, lakes, etc creating different gene pools etc. That is another question that has not been answered.

Frank brings up an excellent point.

Distance is not the only thing that separates localities.

Modern genetic analysis is showing wherever we look that species that look the same but are separated by a natural barrier may actually be very distantly related. (even if they look phenotypically similar)

People tend to label things based on whats convenient for them. Like determining localities by state, or by county. These are just lines on maps and may or may not have anything to do with the population movement and gene flow.

For example where I grew up the hudson river separated northern new jersey from southern new york. (yes in this case a state line coincided with a natural barrier) The differences in populations of animals on opposite banks was astounding, forget subspecific locality, entirely different species were present.

So distance alone can't make a locality. Animals on one side of the hudson are only a mile apart, but they might be more different from each other then from animals found hundreds of miles away in southern jersey. Without genetic analysis no one would ever know.

I think that locality animals are important and valuable but only as a guideline, not as a rock solid definition. It is a sliding scale. In nature there are few absolute boundaries. I'm sure more than a few animals have swum the hudson.

Eventually it all has to come back to the unit we choose to call a species. An eastern king is an eastern king. that means that enough genetic integration takes place in a huge population from new jersey all the way to florida with such little interuption that the two ends don't diverge away enough to be separate species. However just go a little farther south and something changes... the kings are no longer eastern kings... genetic drift has halted and florida kings have adapted differently. (and yes there is an intergrade zone but it is relatively small...work with me)

Locality to me is a guideline. The closer the better. I can't do genetic analysis so I try using my head instead. There are plenty of people on here with enough field herping experience to know a given population when they see it.

Thomas I have come to consider "locale specific" to be as specific as you can get.

By that I mean "by county" if you can get the data but more important are physical barriers in my opinion. For instance - Calvert and Charles Counties (in Maryland) are divided by the Patuxent River BUT Charles and St Marys Counties are only divided by a political barrier.

I can only (ignorantly) assume that county barriers are more laughable in Texas because it is flatter with less water? Up here (in the mid atlantic) it is quite common for political boundaries to go hand-in-hand with a natural barrier - but not always.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

have you considered including GPS data to improve the locale specificity? I don't imagine you want to give away precise data but a general marker that may better delineate a locality? The counties you're dealing with are how many square miles? Hopefully thought provoking q?'s, not firestarters.

daveb

"Anything that promotes better care in captivity is great."

Frank we've had our disagreements on the boards but you earned a beer from me the next time I see you on that one!

Hey Fliptop,

Good question in my opinion. I try to put snakes together from the same region because they are more LIKELY to breed and share the same phenotype from millions of years of evolution. By region I mean either county - specific if I can get that detailed or by region (such as the Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina or the Tidewater area of Virginia; North or South of the James River).

You are right - they may not breed in the wild but I can guarantee you that a California Kingsnake and a Honduran Milksnake will not breed in the wild unless one or the other is an escaped pet.

Likewise I decided to not breed Florida Kingsnakes with Eastern Kings from North Carolina, etc. My reasons for not doing this are many. The main one being that people can then take the resulting offspring and breed them back to either an Eastern King or a Florida King and those babies may not look too different from either / or.

Breed them again with something else and you have something I DON'T WANT to see for sale - because who knows what it is.

That is the main reason I am interested in collecting my own stock and from getting stuff from guys I trust - and there are only a handful of them. Most people that are trying to make money at this do not fall into that category, sadly.

I posted a similar comment last week or so and was trashed by some people in here as taking this stuff too seriously - I am not going to change my ways. Thanks to the many very dedicated herpers I have met as a result of posting in this forum I have been able to get all of the locale-specific Kings I want without having to compromise anything.

The "goldfishization" of this hobby is not good in my opinion but then I don't view them as "pet snakes".
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Peter,

Why don't you keep you own personal agenda to yourself and quit bringing it up over and over. Its dead. Its over. Now YOU get over over it so this forum can get on with whats important.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

I guess that only YOUR opinion is valid on this forum Rainer?

Did he just post the question to you and people that think like you?
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Peter you are so incredibly FOS with your cheap shots i don't know where to begin. You are really reminding me of KH (LOL!) and your hatred posts. Most people who are new on here will not understand the complexities but most of the regulars can see who is starting trouble.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Your right I do see you starting trouble... again. Way to go Rainer. I haven't even looked in on this forum in 2 weeks and the first post I look at I get you up to your usual antics. Such a joke.

Hey Peter don't you know better than to talk about eastern kings or locality breeding?? What's the matter with you?? Rainer doesn't allow such talk on his forum.

Jason

I thought you sold most of your colubrids and were going to start working with Pythons and Boas?
You don't need me or anyone to tell you you're entitled to your opinion Peter, but it seems the majority of your posts all include the same sort of comments that you know will get under some peoples skin, and it is like instigating.
To just look at one thing from a bit of a different perspective, it is not only a thing like an escaped Honduran Milk meeting Cal King in the wild that is worrysome for some people, the same could be said for even snakes that are only a county away from each other, like Splendida and Holbrooki. Sure that happens in nature and they're inegrades which most don't have problems with, but this never ending whining about Hybrids and crosses is just played out. Escaped pets are a problem whether it is a morph hybrid or pure snake. I aint going to waste my time arguing over this eternally. You used to not come off anything like you do these days, why must you try to be a crusader? Can't we move on and agree to disagree?
Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

Agree with you Tom. This place has been great to post in lately and there is no need to bring up past differences. We all have way to much in common to let the petty things seperate us. I even mentioned in a post below to Peter below that if i see him at the expo I (we) would probably get along and i would take him out for a beer. I think he is a decent person (in real life) and we would all get along just great and have a few laughs.

Peter don't take this stuff to seriously. Lots of the meaning get lost on the internet without seeing a persons face and demeanor. You will find we have way more in common than not.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Rainer - Agreed.

We are not enemies. We are hobbyists with differing opinions about one (albeit very important) aspect.

However, I will be on the look-out for a rogue sucker-punch if I come to Daytona this year...

-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

However, I will be on the look-out for a rogue sucker-punch if I come to Daytona this year...

Dude I hope you are joking.

Se what i mean by things getting lost on the internet. Its hard to read people or how serious they are.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Rainer --- Yeah man I am kidding.

You know as well as me that if we see each other at Daytona that we will laugh and shake hands...
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Tom,

I did sell off and give away most of my colubrids. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I totally disagree with cross-breeding snakes from different subspecies and locales that naturally occur hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other in the interest of creating something colorful to sell. I think it is unethical and wrong. Sorry if that gets under your skin - but this is America and not Venezuala, Cube, or Afghanistan under the Taliban the last time I checked: heated discussion should be encouraged and not attacked with personal insults, etc.

I think that people breed morphs and hybrids for the worst possible motives: just to make money by "making" something that is temporarily eye-catching.

Look, I am not trying to become enemies with you Tom and I think you are a decent human being. No need to attack me personally for stating what I believe. Sorry I am not ooing and awing over hybrids and pink king snakes that are double-het for whatever.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

I didn't realize I insulted you, and don't really want to be enemies with you or anyone other then the few I have which in my opinion is absolutely justified.
I said you're entitled to your opinion.........
In closing [because I am done with this topic] I don't see the difference in marketing strategy...........guys like you claim they're worth something because of the exact location they come from, guys like me claim the snakes I work with are worth something because of traits we put effort into reproducing. That's all Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

Tom,

OK. I hear you and respect your position.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Maybe that expression “millions of years” is just that, and not to be taken literally. The last ice age was actually “only” 12,000 years BC. It is a historical fact that most of North America was covered in ice when people first crossed the land bridge from East Asia. There were no locality Kingsnakes or any other snakes in much of their present range. All common Eastern Kings would have migrated from the south with the melting of the glaciers and gradual warming (that continues on to this day- global warming is nothing new). The idea that these locality animals have been around for millions of years is fairly ignorant. They have fairly recently evolved through natural selection into what we have today. To be a proponent of these locals is actually the realm of “preservationist”, in that you would prefer things to stay as they are in this moment in time in defiance of the natural order of change. Like Mother natures young child stomping his feet in objection to his mothers’ rule.

Since we are sharing opinions I beleive the earth is only 10,000 years. But I am sharing that not because I want to start a debate or get some folks riled.

-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Come on dude, seriously- this "argument" is older than that! LOL I guess you don’t believe that those spurs on pythons and boas are evolutionary remnants of hind legs? Or you just figure they had legs, what, about six thousand years ago or so?...

come'on spurs arent remnants of legs? gimme a break man i say in 5or6 thousand years NA colubrids will have caught up and developed these appendages as well thats my contribution on evolution anyway,,,,,,,,thomas

I am a creationist and not a evolutionist,
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

ok thats cool i wasnt implying you were a evolutionist,sorry if it came across that way. i now feel i must explain my veiw about evolution and that is it happens things evolve but i dont beleive lizards came from snakes or humans from apes but thats just my opinion. i beleive the appendages in boids were/are developed/evolved for aid in breeding and i beleive na colubrids will eventually follow suit but i certainly could be wrong surely wouldnt be the first or last time
creationist i like that term...cool...
got 10eggs from this girl wooooohooooo oh yeah thats right seen one seen them all ,,,,,,,,thomas

Evolution= it means to get better or to adapt to get better. Look at the earth is it getting better?? Global warming?? I doubt its getting beter in fact its getting worse. Universe greek word means "Single Spoken" "And !God said!, "Let there be light," and there was light." there are many verses that go onto say that he said/spoke. One God spoke everything into exsistance. I guess it all comes down to what you belive.

Don't know if he is related to Robert C. but I wouldn't be surprised.

I like the way he defines evolution -

A series of adaptations that are statistically impossible to undo if the conditions were to revert.

IE fish came from the sea to land - when those land animals go back to the sea, they do not undo the changes but rather have to develop new adaptations.

Now when something happens like slightly longer legs of an anole species on an island because it gives them an advantage with the introduction of a new bird predator, that's not evolution - remove the bird and they would revert back to the shorter legs.
-----
3.6 L. getula californiae - 16 eggs (Cal. King)
1.1 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
3.3 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

There’s nothing wrong with being a bit of both. You could believe this whole world was created in six days or whatever and has evolved ever since. You would have to believe in erosion, and that terrain can change, habitat and natural conditions can change and that animals will adapt for survival sake. The overwhelming diversity of life gives some indication of the years behind this process, if you believe it. My own belief is that these evolutionary changes happen much faster than is generally believed, as expressed by the “millions of years” cliché. Just look at how diverse domesticated dogs are after just a few thousand years (not millions) of man meddling with the breeding habits of wolves.

...remnants of hind legs.

Prove they are.

While you're at it, defend the junk science about the Ice Bridge and the supporting date you provided, as well.

Chris

This image can be found at this site- which I beg you to read.

http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/govdocs/text/greatplains/text.html

It is a simple and fascinating little lesson that explains how the natural forces, evolution, history, and natural selection are constantly at work. This is the history of North America as told by the evidence, much of which you will be familiar with, as you probably live here or have some personal exposure to the geography that surrounds you.
Also find in the article how carbon dating works, maybe you don’t believe in that either? In that case you need an intervention or something...

Or as the guy in the commercial said, “We didn’t know you guys were still out there!”.

Sea level rise- Easy Wikipedia article for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Let me correct it a little for you.

From the page you pasted I quote:

"Geologic time chart and the progression of life forms. Note Cretaceous Triceratops, Oligocene Titanotheres, and Miocene Moropus. "The Earth is very old--4.5 billion years or more according to recent estimates. Most of the evidence for an ancient earth is contained in the rocks that form the Earth's crust. The rock layers themselves--like pages in a long and complicated history--record the surface-shaping events of the past, and buried within them are traces of life--the plants and animals that evolved from organic structures that existed perhaps 3 billion years ago. Also contained in rocks once molten are radioactive elements whose isotopes provide Earth scientists with an atomic clock. Within these rocks, "parent" isotopes decay at a predictable rate to form "daughter" isotopes. By determining the relative amounts of parent and daughter isotopes, the age of these rocks can be calculated. Thus, the results of studies of rock layers (stratigraphy), and of fossils (paleontology), coupled with the ages of certain rocks as measured by atomic clocks (geochronology), attest to a very old Earth!" [117KB]"

This is radiometric dating. It is incorrect because it assumes that radioactive decay has always been a constant and this is not true. In fact, secular scientists will tell you that (although they won't back off of their persuppositions, it would require them to come to a belief in a creator). Consider the fact that the same rocks date vastly differently under identical conditions and almost never agree with the C-14 dates.

You're slightly confused....Radiometric dating is the one you want. Carbon 14 dating makes for a date that fits the 10,000 years or less model better than 90% of the time. Surely you knew this?

You remember Voyager passed between Uranus and Neptune with specific data in mind concerning the magnetic fields of these two stars and everyone was aghast when Dr. Russ Humphreys guessed it correctly.

Of course, his were the only figures that were BASED on an age of 6,000 years. hmmmmmm. I seem to have a book somewhere that tells me that, as well.....

Did you know the moon is moving away from the earth? I'm sure you did. The distance it is moving away is miniscule and is due to the tides causing it to spiral away from us. IF we chart this progression using science, the moon would be touching us as little a 1 million years ago. It just doesn't fit.

BTW, nice self-portrait. BUt don't be so hard on yourself. You're just miming the same lies you've been fed since gradeschool. J/K no hard feelings.

God is there whenever you are ready although it DOES say "Seek him while He may be found"

God bless,

Chris

P.S. What about the spurs again? They were FEET??? C'mon, man....

"This is radiometric dating. It is incorrect because it assumes that radioactive decay has always been a constant and this is not true. In fact, secular scientists will tell you that (although they won't back off of their persuppositions, it would require them to come to a belief in a creator)."

Chris, first of all evolution does not predispose that there was no creator...in fact evolution does not speak to the origin of the Earth or life at all. Evolution simply says that once life was created, this is how it has proceeded.

"You remember Voyager passed between Uranus and Neptune with specific data in mind concerning the magnetic fields of these two stars"

Stars, huh? Doesnt bolster your position of supposedly speaking from a position of knowledge when you get elementary facts incorrect.

"Did you know the moon is moving away from the earth? I'm sure you did. The distance it is moving away is miniscule and is due to the tides causing it to spiral away from us. IF we chart this progression using science, the moon would be touching us as little a 1 million years ago. It just doesn't fit."

The moon IS spiralling outward, but it has nothing to do with our tides. The moon's gravity CAUSES our tides, the tides dont effect the moon. The reason the moon is spiralling outward is due to Newtonian physics and orbital motion. And again, your supposition that the moon ever had to be touching the Eatrh is incorrect and misleading. Its starting point was already with the Earth's orbit...not touching the Earth.

"You're just miming the same lies you've been fed since gradeschool."

In an intelligent debate, you do not belittle the other's position. You provide information to counter. If you want to play that game, one could say your just spouting the same lies youve been fed since you were a child in Sunday school.

"P.S. What about the spurs again? They were FEET??? C'mon, man...."

Once again the tactic of belittling the other while providing no credible evidence to the contrary. Spurs as vestigal legs is no more far-fetched than the vestigal tail you have now (your coccyx)...or the vestigal appendix....or the wisdom teeth that no longer fit in our jaws.
-----
5.4 Variable Kings
1.4 Kunasir Island Rats
1.1 Albino Japanese Rats
1.1 Everglades Rats
0.1 White Oak Gray Rat
0.1 Speckled King
0.1 Tarahumara Mtn King
0.1 Amelanistic Corn

“Chris, first of all evolution does not predispose that there was no creator...”

Yes, it does. The term has been changed. I am speaking specifically of the original definition of molecules-to-man evolution and with it the origins theory of big bang or I guess now it is a lot of tiny little bangs. Whether you are aware or not, it very well does negate a creator and directly opposes the Bible.

“in fact evolution does not speak to the origin of the Earth or life at all. Evolution simply says that once life was created, this is how it has proceeded. “

This heresy is the result of bad science pressuring the Church into sticking a “gap” in-between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The truth is that science proves out the biblical account very nicely and there is no need to invent some doctrine to support it.

"You remember Voyager passed between Uranus and Neptune with specific data in mind concerning the magnetic fields of these two stars"

“Stars, huh? Doesnt bolster your position of supposedly speaking from a position of knowledge when you get elementary facts incorrect. “

Knowledge, huh? Doesn’t bolster YOUR position of supposedly speaking from a position of knowledge when you use petty grammatical or semantic errors to ignore evidence.

"Did you know the moon is moving away from the earth? I'm sure you did. The distance it is moving away is miniscule and is due to the tides causing it to spiral away from us. IF we chart this progression using science, the moon would be touching us as little a 1 million years ago. It just doesn't fit."

“The moon IS spiralling outward, but it has nothing to do with our tides. The moon's gravity CAUSES our tides, the tides dont effect the moon.”

That is correct.

“The reason the moon is spiralling outward is due to Newtonian physics and orbital motion.”

Also, correct.

“And again, your supposition that the moon ever had to be touching the Eatrh is incorrect and misleading. Its starting point was already with the Earth's orbit...not touching the Earth.”

That is incorrect. Look into it. While you’re at it, look up “Eatrh” in your dictionary (couldn’t resist).

"You're just miming the same lies you've been fed since gradeschool."

“In an intelligent debate, you do not belittle the other's position. You provide information to counter. If you want to play that game, one could say your just spouting the same lies youve been fed since you were a child in Sunday school.”

You’re right on the snide comments. Point taken. I should always take the moral high road; however, like others I am fallable man. The history book I read from is infallible, I am not.

"P.S. What about the spurs again? They were FEET??? C'mon, man...."

“Once again the tactic of belittling the other while providing no credible evidence to the contrary.”

Again, guilty. I apologize.

“Spurs as vestigal legs is no more far-fetched than the vestigal tail you have now (your coccyx)...or the vestigal appendix....or the wisdom teeth that no longer fit in our jaws.”

THAT”S RIGHT!!! It’s all observational and pressed in to fit with presupposed ideas about where things came from!! Thank you!

Did you switch sides? What was it in my arguments that showed you the truth?

Read Romans chapter one and all may become clear.

Love,

Chris

Chris,

I will vehemently disagree with your contention that evolution speaks to the origin of life. Darwin's theory of evolution speaks only of "descent through modification". Darwin proposed it to explain how life has proceeded since its inception...nothing more. That is where the creationist crowd seems to get their panties in a bunch...evolution does not exclude a creator. (Nor does it have anything at all to do with the big bang theory).

Those who take the bible literally get upset because it disagrees that all life was placed here in its current form. I am assuming youre a breeder of snakes being on this forum. As one, you could then not disagree that all forms of life may be changed and modified through selection...natural or man-made.
-----
5.4 Variable Kings
1.4 Kunasir Island Rats
1.1 Albino Japanese Rats
1.1 Everglades Rats
0.1 White Oak Gray Rat
0.1 Speckled King
0.1 Tarahumara Mtn King
0.1 Amelanistic Corn

This discussion is too much for me but can you post a pic or two of your
1.4 Kunasir Island Rats
1.1 Albino Japanese Rats '
I know it's the wrong forum but we're barely discussing Kings anymore anyway
Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

we're barely discussing Kings anymore anyway

All I said was the earth was 10,000 years old and this place went nuts. Sorry about that Tom.

I award myself the coveted troll award

-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

You can forget trying to get through to Chris about any of this stuff. He and his kind believe the world is only 6,000 years old. He and his kind also used to burn people alive for saying that the world is not flat.

Showing them any kind of scientific theory is ridiculous if it goes against anything written in the bible. Ridiculous and silly --- which is why we try to prove a point to him but that is a total waste of time.

Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall. Save your breath.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Aww, C'mon. Be nice, Petey.

Science DOES confirm that the Bible is true.

And get your history straight.

Catholics burned us bible-believing protestants because we refused to say that Jesus our Lord was a "cracker" (the eucharist).

I'll pray for you, man.

Sorry about the crack above as well concerning your lack of collecting experience.

A few more years, a few hundred more baby easterns and you'll see the red. It won't be as meaningful then.

Chris

Chris,

Please - don't pray for me. It makes my skin burn and my master doesn't like it.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Thats nice sounds like a dick of a reply. Shouldnt have even clicked the reply button. So you have a religion too seeing how evolution is a religion. Ask yourself were you there when the world was created? No so you have faith that evolution made it. Sounds like a religion to me so dont pen point it on us "religious people".

Secondly darwin said if his THEORY wasnt proven right in 100 years then it is false.

No - I am not calling evolution a religion.

No - I am not trolling - just pointing out that some beliefs are totally ridiculous in my opinion - and saying that rear claws on snakes are not vestigal hind limbs is certainly one of them.

Also, spouting that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that T-Rex's were vegetarians before Adam and Eve is another totally laughable, totally ludicrous example of dogma that has been disproven.

Open your eyes - snakes were not doomed by God to "crawl on their bellies and eat dust."

Pa-lease!
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

"T-Rex's were vegetarians before Adam and Eve is another totally laughable, totally ludicrous example of dogma that has been disproven."
They could not have come before Adam and Eve for God created everything in 7 days. We do have ancient cave drawings with man and dinosour together.
Lizards and snakes never really stop growing. Things also grow at a faster rate when the Oxygen level is higher. 6-7 thousand years ago the Oxygen was much higher considering there were no cars few people and no pollution. So putting that into perspective it is possible that a common lizard could have grown at a much faster rate and reached the size of a dinosour.

Yes it is true that somethings have evolved like a common kingsnake into a aberrent kingsnake. But NOT slime to monkeys and monkeys to humans. or rats to bats. There is no evidence of that. There are no fossles of rats with wings or anything.

.

hahahah that was funny.

Actually it was a serpent, and it had legs.
Todd Hughes

Snakes DO eat dust.

You might not know this, but snakes do not have nostrils. They have a Jacobsen's organ where they sample dust and dirt particles from the air and rub it on this organ for olifactory sense.

Just like God said.

Chris

Chris - breathing in dust in dust to smell it is not the same as eating it.

I think your comment is not accurate.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

It's our sinful nature. I understand it.

God is waiting for you.

Let Him in.

Chris

Chris,

I prefer not to let Him in. I prefer The Beast.

Blaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Have you been listening to my records? LOL You sound kind of metal. The most popular track on my last independent recording is Forcefed Fear. I think you can get an idea of what it is about.... Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

Posted by: ECC at Wed May 30 14:55:46 2007 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

I prefer not to let Him in. I prefer The Beast.

How ironic.

Chris you should stop praying for him because its burning his skin. ..Ahhh....hmmm. ..on second thought. Go ahead. Its not really his skin but his spirit that is crying out.

WoooHooo bubba Peter. You in trouble now.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Rainer and Chris -

I beg you to join my religion. Forsake Jesus and come to the dark side.

It is so nice over here....
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

i dont what is...poor peter piper he picked a peck of, well you get it... ill pray for you peter,,,,,,thomas

Thanks Thomas.

Me, I'll pray for you. The Beast commanded me to pray for you and to make a smoldering sacrifice on a pentagram for you.

Blaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

"Ask yourself were you there when the world was created? No so you have faith that evolution made it."

Once again, the point that creationist continue to get stuck on. Evolution does not address the creation of life...or the Earth. It explains how life proceeds.

"Secondly Darwin said if his THEORY wasnt proven right in 100 years then it is false."

Scientific use of the word theory means to tie many previously unrelated facts together...it does not mean a guess like we use it in everyday jargon. And as science becomes more and more advanced, evolution is bolstered more and more. On a side note, Darwin never said that in those words. Nothing in science is ever completely proven. Everything may be modified as new facts come to light. Things can be disproven...but never permanently proven.
-----
5.4 Variable Kings
1.4 Kunasir Island Rats
1.1 Albino Japanese Rats
1.1 Everglades Rats
0.1 White Oak Gray Rat
0.1 Speckled King
0.1 Tarahumara Mtn King
0.1 Amelanistic Corn

Chris,

Please - don't pray for me. It makes my skin burn and my master doesn't like it.

Dear Father in Heaven I lift up Peter to you and ask that you open his eyes and reveal yourself to him.

-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

In Jesus' name, Amen!
Todd Hughes

Double amen to that, Todd! Man, I been away for 4 days and I come back and read this post. This is a great discussion. To whomever it may concern lumping all us that try and live our lives by Jesus example in one pot, NOT all of us followers of Christ are "young earthers".

reako45

Double amen to that, Todd! Man, I been away for 4 days and I come back and read this post. This is a great discussion. To whomever it may concern lumping all us that try and live our lives by Jesus example in one pot, NOT all of us followers of Christ are "young earthers".

reako45

I got a question for you reako. Did Adam have a belly button?
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

still waiting for your reply.

DID ADAM HAVE A BELLY BUTTON? YES or NO?
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

he's just startin trouble.........
thomas davis

He and HIS KIND????? WTF, I am about to get banned, Peter, you cannot lump people together because they share a common belief, not everyone that believes one thing burns people at the stake, man take a chill pill, that is not a right way to express oneself, IMO. That's it, I am outta here, this place is sucking bad.I guess if I stated my belief, you won't burn me but ridicule me? Man, this is a sad way for us to go here.
Todd Hughes

"Stars, huh? Doesnt bolster your position of supposedly speaking from a position of knowledge when you get elementary facts incorrect."

you know what he means dont be a smart alack. So how in any way did you "prove him wrong" that just looks like a put down to me.

"The moon IS spiralling outward, but it has nothing to do with our tides. The moon's gravity CAUSES our tides, the tides dont effect the moon. The reason the moon is spiralling outward is due to Newtonian physics and orbital motion. And again, your supposition that the moon ever had to be touching the Eatrh is incorrect and misleading. Its starting point was already with the Earth's orbit...not touching the Earth."

HAHA so your saying if the moon was touching the earth the gravity would be the same?? So if i went into space the gavity would be the same from the moon if i was 10,000 miles from the moon to 1 mile to the moon?

"you know what he means dont be a smart alack. So how in any way did you "prove him wrong" that just looks like a put down to me."

The comment I made was to point out to chris that he was talking down to the other poster. If he was going to do that, then he should at least make sure his facts were correct.

"HAHA so your saying if the moon was touching the earth the gravity would be the same?? So if i went into space the gavity would be the same from the moon if i was 10,000 miles from the moon to 1 mile to the moon?"

Nope. I said the moon was never touching the Earth to begin with. I have no idea how you made this leap. Gravity is inversely proportional to distance and directly proportional to mass.
-----
5.4 Variable Kings
1.4 Kunasir Island Rats
1.1 Albino Japanese Rats
1.1 Everglades Rats
0.1 White Oak Gray Rat
0.1 Speckled King
0.1 Tarahumara Mtn King
0.1 Amelanistic Corn

Wow, I thought this was the king snake forum, you need to get back on subject or shaddap! Doesn't matter what any of us believe in this forum, you are not helping to answer the posters questions. This IS a forum to exchance and discuss ideas......about KINGSNAKES! There are probably other forums where you all can hash out your differences on creation vs. evolution, BUT NOT HERE! PLEASE, this is half a page about not answering a guys questions! Respect each others right to believe what they want, and agree to disagree, but this debate has been going on for "millions of years"! LOL, when ALL the bones are found, and they never will be, the best anyone will be able to do is pose another theory, and that is what it is, a theory, we weren't there, we don't know, haha! Fighterpilot is smart, it IS all in what YOU believe in. I am a locality freak that is in love with some of the morphs I see on here, heck, I even own a pink snake that's het for nuthin', cuz I believe what I've been told. If you are in the field long enough you find odd things, man won't do anything that hasn't been done before. I bet the first snake,(if they all evolved from one) was pink and het for everything! OK, that's enough but seriously, did everyone at least give the guy an answer to his question? MOOOOVING ON!!!
Todd Hughes

Carbon dating is used by the general public for these ancient dating methods, which as you note, there are several radiometric methods. I purposefully used that because it is the most recognizable, and the one most often criticized and discounted by Bible thumpers (like my step father/preacher!) I have LIVED with these arguments, so this is familiar turf for me. I did very much appreciate your response, very well presented and I believe you actually read the site I referred to. No matter what, that’s a great read to me, describing the textures of the land and how it has come to be. If you see these formations and landscapes, as we do studying the habitats of our favorite herps, this gives you more insight as to why these locals exist and the specialization of these animals to adapt to the ever changing available habitat. Evolution or creation aside, changes have occurred, the land today was not always like this and the local animal population was not always what it is today, or five hundred years ago, certainly not a thousand years ago, and vastly different ten thousand years ago. Change IS natural, preserving any given moment in time is what is unnatural.

I've a confession.
I'm one of those young earth people.
I do not bring it up normally because arguing it only serves to polarize people, and I can not provide peer reviewed scientific data to prove the young earth. So when discussing other science related things, it serves no purpose (and is unscientific) to bring it up.

One thing to consider - when you play god and set up a fish tank, if you put everything in at once it will die. Instead a common trick - before any fish are introduced, you use drops of pure ammonia to get the nitrogen cycle going so that the nitrogen cycle is working as it should the day you dump a bunch of fish in. The little fish scientist who discounts outside interference will date the fish tank a lot older than it is because from his fishy perspective, it would have taken quite a bit of time for the biological systems needed to support the fish life aquarium to be established, outside interference in that process being intentionally set up rapidly is never considered because the data is not available to the fishy scientist to support it. From his fishy perspective, it would have had to take a long time - he doesn't know that an intelligence outside the tank expediated things. No - that doesn't begin to explain everything, but I don't need to, it just needs to demonstrate that unless you deny the possibility of an intelligent designer, it is possible that things were created in such a way as to have an aged appearance - not to fool us, but because it was necessary for life to work. Put a bunch of fish in a tank that hasn't been cycled and you get a bunch of dead fish.

However - I do believe snakes at one point had legs, and I believe evolution happens and is part of the intelligent design, though I do not believe that all species evolved from a common spontaneous generation ancestor.

That being said, it is quite possible in my viewpoint that all snakes, and perhaps even lizards, came from a common ancestor.

A few years back there was a rat snake found in Asia that had claws. If I recall, it was verified.

Apparently there is a gene responsible for the growth of legs that still exists in snakes but is switched off. It's not a functionless gene in snakes, it serves other functions, but the growth of legs has been switched off. It was partially switched back on for whatever reason in this asian rat snake.

I can't pretend to be as wise as God - but I know if I was going to create a planet with life in such a way that conditions were not static, you bet I'd design the life I put there to adapt as the conditions changed.
-----
3.6 L. getula californiae - 16 eggs (Cal. King)
1.1 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
3.3 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

"However - I do believe snakes at one point had legs, and I believe evolution happens and is part of the intelligent design"

Funky, that was exactly my point earlier. Evolution and a creator are not mutually exclusive. Who is to say that "God" could not have set evolution in motion and life has proceeded from there.

"Apparently there is a gene responsible for the growth of legs that still exists in snakes but is switched off. It's not a functionless gene in snakes, it serves other functions, but the growth of legs has been switched off. It was partially switched back on for whatever reason in this asian rat snake."

Yes. They are called Hox genes. They are the "master switches" for all other genes and protien synthesis.

"I can't pretend to be as wise as God - but I know if I was going to create a planet with life in such a way that conditions were not static, you bet I'd design the life I put there to adapt as the conditions changed."

Exactly. Thats why its so hard for me to understand why the literalists cant see this.
-----
5.4 Variable Kings
1.4 Kunasir Island Rats
1.1 Albino Japanese Rats
1.1 Everglades Rats
0.1 White Oak Gray Rat
0.1 Speckled King
0.1 Tarahumara Mtn King
0.1 Amelanistic Corn

The Bible clearly states that God made the world and everything in it in 7 days. It says what it says its not that complicated

So you will believe the rhymes in a book that was written 2,000 years ago but will not listen to hard science from today?

There may be a cave for you to defend in Afghanistan my friend.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

who will we have to defend it from? and why? Is it gonna get all violent on believers who don't subscribe to the rhymes of todays science? I believe there are no rhymes in the bible. Lord help me, I have been drawn in!
Todd Hughes

Right.

It also said that animals were to bring forth after their own kind. What does that mean?

kind was not a species level designation in Hebrew. Look at the food laws - kind was used to designate entire groups of animals.

Thus - snakes and lizards could have a common ancestral species and evolve into the many forms we have today and still be bringing forth after their own kind.
-----
3.6 L. getula californiae - 16 eggs (Cal. King)
1.1 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
3.3 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

HAHAHA that made me laugh. Listen guys, you are dealing with beliefs here and no amount of proof can change a belief one way or another. If these were ideas it would be different but they are not. We each really truly believe what we do and no amount of blind faith or hard proof is going to change anybodies belief. Denial and looks of disgust at the ignorance will just be passed back and forth. There will be nothing but a lot of head shaking.

Deal with it and move on.

Jason

I think it meant to breed with your own kind like dogs do not breed with cats and human do not breed with cows or something. And ECC i do belevie 2000 year old words because they have been coppied word for word for thousands of years. Of couse the words have been changed from Greek and Hebrew to english ect. but the people who coppied it if they messed up on one word they would throw away the whole page and start over. They have also found some of the original scrolls of the Bible and translated them and they are the same words. So i dont know snakes could have had leggs but their has been no recording of it or anything.

I hope i have not lost anyones respect because they have not lost mine just a friendly debate.

We are all descendants of the Anunnaki people (the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis) from the planet Nibiru, which passes between Mars and Jupiter every 3,600 years. The story is recorded in the Epic of Creation on which the first chapters of Genisis are based. The Earth is billions of years old. The “Creator” made man in his image from the human-like forms that evolved here. The Sumarians recorded the story way before the Bible was written, and there’s really nothing “religious” about it. It’s physical science.

umm oook never heard that one before no offence

fighterpilot, defend your faith, Peter defended it for you, so you can have it. Peter, you did defend my right to have my faith, didn't you?
Todd Hughes

right on antelope and fighterpilot! the trolls outta line for sure now lets talk about some kings of the getula variety!!!thomas

The funniest part is all my easterns are from Peter! C'mon Peter, don't put me on the bad list, I want to be on the good list for the quality animals you produce!
Todd Hughes

Todd,

Don't worry about it - you are on "the list" for some Maryland Eastern Kings --- just be a little patient as I only have 2 juvenile males, 1 juvie female, and 1 adult female. It may be as soon as next year - maybe later; we'll see.

We can argue - it doesn't mean we hate each other.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

I hear ya! I like to talk kings, and only like to talk beliefs when both parties are in an open minded mood. I believe... I will go to work and get off, have a beer and plan the west Texas outing with Zee.....you should come and see for yourself whether it is to your liking or not, how do you know you don't like it unless you try it, lol!
Todd Hughes

Thomas,

I think YOU are trolling.

I can say what I want about antiquated superstitious beliefs and just because it disagrees with other's religious beliefs it does not mean that I am trolling.

Me saying that those beliefs are silly is no different than another poster saying that evolution and science is silly - which Chris Jones did do.

I am not sorry if it offends people and I have nothing against the religious in this country or elsewhere - just don't try to poison me or other people with (in my opinion) some silly notions like the world is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and men lived together like "Land of the Lost".

Pa-lease - get a grip. Maybe if you thought that this nonsense was true you would not get so offended when people challenge it.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Thomas,

I think YOU are trolling.

>>>peter i have been a regular poster here since 2000 i dont troll i participate and contibute.

I can say what I want about antiquated superstitious beliefs and just because it disagrees with other's religious beliefs it does not mean that I am trolling.

>>>yes you can BUT, disagreeing and belittling someone are 2 different things peter you SHOULD know that!

Me saying that those beliefs are silly is no different than another poster saying that evolution and science is silly - which Chris Jones did do.

>>>whatever,you obviously have some beef with chris(like you do with MANY in the herp community) that should not be brought up on this forum.but trolls will be trolls.

I am not sorry if it offends people and I have nothing against the religious in this country or elsewhere - just don't try to poison me or other people with (in my opinion) some silly notions like the world is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and men lived together like "Land of the Lost".

>>>of course your NOT sorry typical troll...and ftr nobody is poisoning you or anyone else with silly notions peter your the one that needs to get a grip!

Pa-lease - get a grip. Maybe if you thought that this nonsense was true you would not get so offended when people challenge it.

>>>your arrogance says it all. what im offended at is the blatant disregard for ones belief. its called mutual respect peter something you obviously did not learn in kindergarden like the rest of us did. having a differance of opinion is one thing but you really go to far imho please go back to your chondros and etb's or have you ruined your welcome with that community as well????? ,,,,,,,,thomas davis

Thomas,

Please - the personal attacks on me are getting old and are not appropriate on this forum.

I will kindly ask you to stop singling me out for slanderous attacks.

Thanks in advance!
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

I think you are low on postassium peter

http://www.youtube.com/v/9zwbhAXe5yk
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

I think you are low on something else Rainer...
-----
Servant of The Beast

I Know Jesus.

Peter I was intentionally giving you fuel with that video link.

Did you see it? Discussion can be quite powerful.

They are of the "do whatever works to get people to God" school of apologetics. I've seen Comfort interviewed and debated enough times that this has become clear.
The very fact they would have entered a national public debate bragging they were going to "prove God's existence 100%" should have raised red flags for any honest, careful thinker, Christians included.

Here is another funny video for you to laugh at:

http://www.youtube.com/v/DWyMBnfjQKI

Discussion can be quite powerful.

-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Rainer -

This is not the time or place. I am not the least bit interested in wasting my time with that nonsense.

I find Christianity about as appealing and worthwhile as dancing around a campfire and praying for rain.

Both are useless wastes of time and energy.

Go find someone weaker and more pliable for your dumb videos and rants.

Please, I am not trying to be offensive - but your efforts to convert me and open my eyes to Jesus are.

- Peter
-----
Servant of The Beast

dude did you look at the vids especially the second one? LOL! My discussion was about creation vs evolution. I wrote the Jesus thing just to burn your skin. You read the word JESUS and you just go nuts. I wonder why the word JESUS makes you so angry and why JESUS makes your skin burn and the only time you use the word JESUS its to curse someone or something.

Guess that name has more power and control over you than you realize.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Rainer,

Actually - I think that Jesus would, if he was alive, shake his head at you. I think I am more christ like than you and I don't even believe he was the son of God.

- Peter

You can't be more Christ like because He does not reside in you. First you have to accept His forgiveness and to do that you must bow to Him confessing you are a sinner. I have already done that. Nothing not you or anyone can erase that. It is a free gift and a get out of jail free card for all past and future sins for anyone who accepts this.

Much of what people don;t understand is what God accomplished on the cross is a legal act. He is the only one that can forgive sin yet he he the judge at the same time. God is just but He is also our father. Thats why He had to die for our sins. Thats why He just could not simply forgive us. He wants a relationship with His creation. Since us humans were created in His image that means us...you and me.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Rainer - I am Jesus and your words are sacrilege!

Bow down before ME you mortal.

Save your sermon for a mental weakling Rainer!

Cheers!

- Peter

-----
Servant of The Beast

Pter ,
You sound like someone who has had some close contact with a christian. Maybe a family member?
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Rainer - Isn't there a pristine tribe, undisturbed for the past thousand years, full of savages in South America you could be saving from themselves right now?

And, if they won't accept His word: you could always just kill them for their own good.

Cheers!

- Peter

I would not say there is no God, but I really don’t think any organized modern religions get it exactly right. It seems odd to rely on the Bible when it is a historical fact that there are civilizations that pre-date it. Some of those same rehashed Bible stories were written by earlier civilizations, and basically plagerized or simple retold. And not always accurately in their very earliest interpretations. One can begin to imagine the inaccuracies of today. I would suggest reading as much as you can from the earlier versions of those stories you literally take as gospel. We are taught in school that Uranus was discovered by science in 1781, Neptune in 1846 and Pluto in 1930. The Sumerians understood and described ten planets in our solar system as early as 4500 BC. They were not cavemen. They have an explanation for our moon, the asteroid belt, the continental drift on our planet, life and the creation of man. No offense, but it’s all just as believable as anything anybody else is believing these days. Their advanced knowledge of the Earth and our solar system makes for a lot of the alien visitation theories. Also, because that’s exactly what they say happened.

One can begin to imagine the inaccuracies of today.

That is a huge misconception and something people naturally assume. The earliest maunuscripts are indentical to the later ones. The Jewsih scribes had to copy each letter (not word) and if they made one error they had to destroy the entire paper and start over. This was a very very serious matter and one that is hard to understand unless you do some historical research.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Funny stuff. I love the subject, actually. You do probably know the first authorized version English “Great Bible” issued by the Church of England during the time of King Henry VIII was based on the translation by a guy named William Tyndale. They did a little bit of editing and retranslating first, as Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake for heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities! Hey Bluerosy, just so you know I’m not a total heathun! My Mom runs a ministry for helping the homeless, my step father is a preacher, I was baptized twice- as a cathloic and dunked as a baptist too. I’ve had fun debating this stuff with my family members my whole life. Sometimes this stuff makes you go break out the good book and read some. Never meant to offend!

Upscale,
No offense but your backround does not make you a scholar or an expert in the genuiness, credbility of canonicity of the bible. Tindales "great bible" was not an authorized translation.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Never was a "pert", but I have read tons and tons and tons and tons and tons to get to where my head is at today. I'm a believer, but you and I believe differently.

Wasnt that version of the bible re-written/re-translated for the Church Of England simply so it would read that it was okay for King Henry VIII to divorce his wife at that time?

I'm not trying to get all up into this debate as you cant ever win one, but I thought I'd bring it up for mere discussion. I could be completely wrong... I'm just inquiring from an outside point of view.
-----
Tom

"The more people I meet, the more I like my snakes"

n/p
-----
3.6 L. getula californiae - 16 eggs (Cal. King)
1.1 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
3.3 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

Actually being concerned with locals is about conservation not preservation. I don't care if kingsnakes slowly adapt some time before the next ice age into something else. I DO care if their habitat is bulldozed for condos. Or if other human related activities are the cause of the change in the population.

Different localities are just that DIFFERENT. When an entire population is lost the species has lost some of its genetic diversity, which will take many generations to rediversify and never in the same way as it was before.

Its all going to be burnt up in the end anyway.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Not in my lifetime if I have anything to say about it.

Rainer, That was funny.

Nothing like a little overall perspective on this, huh?
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Pete I would have to agree that being involved in market herpetoculture can’t help but bias ones view on this subject. I would also agree that bartering and other aspects of selling snakes grows tiresome. Check that VERY tiresome. Fact of the matter is however not everyone has the opportunity to go and collect their own and I’m not sure it would be a good thing if everyone who likes snakes did. As it is I’ve been asked to leave a few sites that I’ve had permission to visit for years because the owner has had a run in with either too many herpers or one that was rude. Worse, for every site I’ve been asked to leave there has been many more that were trashed by thoughtless herpers.

There are two points here, the first is that wild populations will only sustain a certain level of take and as we don’t know what that level is, we should limit our take. Secondly given that demand for captive held reptiles likely exceeds what any of us would like to see collected from the wild, there is a place for captive-bred snakes and as such there is going to be a certain amount of domestication.

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t see the value of the latest pituophis X getula X panthrophis X triangulum X zonota X mexicana hybrid but neither do I see value in discounting existing stocks just to collect more animals and develop hundreds of depressed line-bred to the nth degree locality stocks. Truthfully, there is a huge gulf of possibilities between these two extremes and as FR said its all good if it leads to better captive care of the animals. The reason you got “trashed” earlier (your words not mine) was not because you collected your own snakes, or locality breed but because you came across as condescending and arrogant.

""" Worse, for every site I’ve been asked to leave there has been many more that were trashed by thoughtless herpers"""

This has always been my main beef with field herping. It is the same as showing someone a good fishing spot. You return only to find others in your favorite area. Even as a kid finding Eastern Milks, Garters and Brown snakes.....I brought whoever I could get to go with me and then found those people bringin others there til it is was about impossible to find more than a few in a day when I used to find 20-50.

Some of the posts about collecting on here can easily give someone the impression their non morph snakes are less interesting or worth less than others of the same kind because they don't have the locale info. Someone posted a reply mentioning field herping for fun and taking a camera, which to me is also like fishing with a catch and release attitude. I think people like that are less likely to give away their spots and though I am sure some areas that seem over collected will rebound or don't even have a need too as there could be plenty of snakes left, just not so easily found.

It was never that I felt one was better than the other in morph vs normal. I just think the hobby in general should be made up of captive born animals. For the most part anyway. I had a war of words with a local promoter here in Texas whose shows advertise no wild caughts, when I have seen in person and even have pics of things that would piss most of us off. I am sure many on another forum I visit occasionally are the types too meticulously put back every piece of anything they touch back in the same spot. However I can newer less patient herpers getting out ther and flipping like madmen looking for their first prize and that bugs me. Call me crazy but I live a few hours away form some awesome herping areas in Texas............I have never gone once LOL. Gas costs are too high and as my wife would say "you have a room full of them in the garage!"

Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

I want you guys to know, here and now, that I wholeheartedly condone catching your own snakes if it is legal to do so, and you can provide the care they require. My favorite "morph" really isn't a morph at all, just a variant. I like the looks of the wild snakes, the ones we all grew up on in all the old books. Tom, if I took you out and we flipped an ww you would be stoked, but it wouldn't happen again, probably, if we did it the rest of our lives. When I first came here I was locality only, but the histories behind the morphs led me to two truths, some people lie and some don't. It is up to you to do your homework, and it lies with you in whom you trust. I see hundreds of snakes in the field every year, and collect few. They are the cream of the crop, or butt ugly from a place that is fixin to become condos, or there is a VERY large population in that area. The black and white splendida, tons of splendies, only one white one....yet. It will be line bred with a locale female, and county ain't good enough.I found him! The reverse striped meahlmorum, hundreds seen, only one striper, it will be studded to all my meahlies within a 5 mile radius, but mainly to the female that was with him under the same board. The Pit with the bullseyes, probly common but not from what I've seen. If you get out there enough you see things now and then. Oh yeah, the pink longnose....not fire engine red, hmmm, gonna try that as well. I am loving the ww speck, and am loving the checkerboard speck as well. Not man made, just tweaked after the fact. Caqn't wait to see it in purple!
Todd Hughes

Todd I never said it was wrong to collect your own animals. I personally collected about 25% of my animals.

i said no post

The idea is not to replicate the exact pairings that would have occurred. This is not what "Locality" animals are about.

Its really all about the genetics. Within each species their is genetic variability. The variability increases as the snakes get farther apart because the snakes at one end of a population don't mix their genes as freely with a population at the complete opposite range of the species. Each evolves differently to exist more perfetly in their own unique microhabitats.

Locality animals all come from the same general gene pool. That is what people are trying to preserve. If you take a New Jersey eastern (which has evolved traits that enable it to live successfully in the pine barons and hibernate through frigid winters), and breed it to an eastern from southern georgia (where the animal has evolved to withstand an entirely different environment) you are left with a snake that does not REALLY resemble ANY wild snake.

Sure it might look like it superficially, an eastern king is an eastern king, but animals are complex, and band counts and skin color just scratch the surface of what makes one animal different from the next.

What I find is funny is that people assume that all wild caught animals are unrelated. I think that collecting too closely from the same area (especially young snakes) just promotes inbreeding within locality animals.

I also find it funny that people get locality animals and then through their own selection TRY to change them into something else. To me, if you are interested in locality animals then when you get offspring you should say, "hmmm, which ones look most like the ones from that area" and keep and breed these holdbacks, instead of saying "hmmm which one is the prettiest". Also important is to select for traits like strong feeding responses and good growth, as these are the animals most likely to survive.

But again, the traits that we select for barely scratch the surface of what makes one local different from another, so even after a few generations in captivity, locality animals are still hundreds of generations removed from other far off localities.

Zach, I thought that was a very good post to this thread. Gave me some things to think about.

Thanks.
-----
Peter Jolles
East Coast Colubrids
www.eastcoastcolubrids.com

Thanks Peter.

I walk both sides of this line.

As a conservationist I see real value (not to mention an entirely different hippie-mother-nature kind of beauty) in preserving locality animals.

But I also can't deny my fascination with genetics, mutants and oddballs.

Overall I think that there is room for both in this hobby.

While the locality crowd certainly gets the short end of the stick in terms of convenience, as you know, it can be done with a little bit of work.

On a different note. I just checked out the website and those are some amazing field photos. Keep it up, and post some more of em on here.

Here is the best of both worlds... a locality morph!

That's what I'm talkin' about!!! Beauty!
Todd Hughes

Cool post, and thanks for some clarification. Not that I suggest this, but I do theoretically wonder what would happen to a, say, GA eastern king released in NJ--is their anything underlying that would kick in to allow it to survive? Or if it was indeed crossed to a more northern specimen, would the babies be "locality het"?!

Hope I'm making sense.

Excellent response. I breed mainly locality and I try to learn something about the natural appearances and variation within a specific area and select for those appearances.
Some people also breed locality but select for the best babies. That is cool too because often different localities tend to take diffent "paths" even if they are not representative of the original normal variations.

People are probably correct when they say hobbyists captive lines will never be used for reintroduction but I think they do have alot of educational value. I also think some locality animals may end up being the only remaining decendents left for certain areas as development increases and at that point may make good "ambassadors" to insprie preservation of other localities that remain.

Thanks for helping me believe in this forum a little more. I see lots of ignorant post and very few with any thought behind them. So thank you.

Great Post

Jason

Can't disagree with anything you said though I would say that the un-natural selection experienced in captivity is likely a bit more significant than you might be suggesting. What isn’t often discussed is that nature likely selects for many traits that are not even discernable by us. In this regard, it isn’t so much WHAT we select FOR as much as it is what we don’t select for that causes captive stocks to drift from the founding local. Add in collection bias, genetic bottle necking, ….. Well, you get the picture! Still there is nothing wrong with locality breeding, I dabble in it myself, but in principle it’s generally just another method we use to differentiate our collections.

The damage we do as hobbyist collectors is no worse than any other natural predator. Even in many places where mass commercial collection has taken place for decades the species continue to be healthy.

Population declines are the result of habitat destruction, not hobbyist collection.

As far as what nature intends, nature is not some deity that has a conscious to decide who mates with who that we interfere with.

When copulation occurs in captivity, it is no longer natural selection at work - it is un-natural selective breeding.
-----
3.6 L. getula californiae - 16 eggs (Cal. King)
1.1 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
3.3 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

.....and we have no way of knowing to what extent it alters the population.thus i'm a very strong/vocal proponent of 'leaving no more than footprints,taking just pictures'....sure,man's one of countless variables-a legit/valid one,no doubt-thing is what we do is more or less a choice left up to us,an option if you will,unlike say,that red-tailed hawk that is out for his next meal,etc.

-----
"with head raised regally,and gazing at me with lidless eyes,he seemed to question with flicks of his long forked tongue my right to trespass on his territory" Carl Kauffeld

rattler that is

I genrally agree with this but with a qualifier. if you find the animals in a safe local leave them, if however they are on a lot, field, section of woods that is next to be a subdivision by all means collect away. I generally get at least two pairs of easterns every year off of construction sites. Relocating them to a wild site has its own issues so I generally give them to interested parties.

Hey Justin! Very nice pics! What is the snake in the 2nd pic? Thanks, Derek