Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Suppose an ISOLATED and DISTINCT habitat had been completely ravaged by a series of natural disasters. A hurricane fells all the trees, following drought prohibits re-growth and encourages wild fires that decimate remaining vegetation and drastically alter soil compositions. Many plant and earthbound animal populations are completely wiped out including the eastern kingsnake!

Following these disasters, a recovery plan is implemented to help return the area to some facsimile of its original diversity. At some point the plan turns to restoring reptile populations. As far as the eastern kingsnake goes there are three possible options:

1 - allow them to remain extripated

2 - introduce only animals from a small captive population that traces back to the disaster location or

3 - include animals from diverse locations in the repopulation effort.

All options have their proponents. Those who support option 3 feel that since an entirely new matrix is being created increased genetic diversity among seed stock is critical for the repopulation to be successful. Those who support option 2 wish not to interfere with the evolutionary trajectory of the local. Those who support option 1 point out the evolutionary trajectory is a dead end as it was a series of natural disasters that wiped out the kingsnakes.

So here’s the question, what option would you support and why?

Since you clarified that it was due to natural disasters, I would go with option one. It was the natural course of things. The land will now become something completely different than it was before and new life will take place there. Had it been because of man-made destruction directly, the question would be quite more difficult for me to answer.
This is my off-the-cuff answer. As I read other responses sure to follow, my decision might be swayed in another direction. My mind is surely pliable.
-----
Tom

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

This answer surprises me but opens a hole in the picture I painted. Would your answer change if the nature of the isolation was further explained. What if it was due to human developement? If we were talking an island, I'd completely agree but what about a penninsula that was cut off from the mainland by a city at its base or a large park in the middle of an urban area?

Ok, I'll entertain that scenario as well....

Lets say it's a peninsula with a large man-made something at it's connecting point to the mainland, be it a city, or a brick wall or whatever. The idea is that man cut off the ecology. I guess my next thought would be how large of a geographic region are we talking? Lets assume it's maybe 50 square miles of homogenous terrain, a single kind of ecology. It used to be wooded and rocky, home to a host of different kinds of animals.
Now, the terrain is barren due to a natural disaster, and due to the man-made block, it can not be repopulated by the creatures that still thrive on the mainland. I would have to say....

Pave it and make it a mall. Earth sucks.

Seriously though, I think once man has messed it up to the point that natural recovery systems can no longer take place, mankind can only botch it up more by trying to play Mommy Earth. Now that the terrain is drastically changed, the same animals that lived there before would not likely survive as well due to being so exposed to predators more readily and such, like in a snake scenario. The land would quickly grow grasses, then the deciduous and evergreen trees would struggle for sunlight for a decade or two. I think it would be decades before the same animals could be reintroduced. I can only speculate. Where would the animals come from? It would probably be best to use similar species that were nearest that location, just outside the cutoff. If it were the OBX for sake of a quick example, WILD snakes from Hyde and Washington county or whatever would be used.
I guess I just have a pessimistic view towards how we've treated the earth and wouldnt have much confidence in any sort of repopulation efforts, as if we could presume we knew what the future WOULD have held for those inhabitents if we had not intervened to begin with.
From day one, in my eyes, the repopulation effort would become a "re-established man-made area" and could not be viewed as something that was "the way it always had been before". It'll be a whole new creature.

I'm kind of forcing an answer out of myself, so if something is incongruent about my answer, it's becaiuse I might be trying to think about it too hard and overlooked some details. It's also possible I completely didnt even answer the question. I can be quite A.D.D. at times LOL
-----
Tom

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

I think it’s a great answer even if a bit pessimistic. Still, I think that what brings out the best in us is the struggle to do the right thing and or try and decide how to right our wrongs. For instance, the Smokey Mountains in the last century were almost completely denuded of forest. The situation isn't quite the same as I painted but the area was eventually set aside and allowed to recover. The park is now a crown jewel of north American diversity that the current generation enjoys. I for one am glad TR had the foresight to set this area aside and not allow it to be paved even if it had been destroyed beyond all recognition for his generation and we aren't even aware of that portion of the original matrix that was lost. It may not seem reasonable to repair natural systems or set destroyed areas aside at the time but future generation still benefit.

I work on some really huge boats down here in Ft. Lauderdale and just today a guy was showing me some plans the owner has of developing an eighty acre island he bought in the Bahamas. It has a pond and is basically uninhabited right now. So I occasionally have fantasized about the idea of owning an island like that, and “stocking” it with chameleons, emerald tree boas and that kind of fantasy, of really building your own little island habitat. (Plus adding to the bug eaters) It would probably be a little oasis of ecological travesty, but not much harm on an island. I have heard of the hippos on the old drug lords property down in Columbia that is turning into a problem- that might have been a bit of animal overload into the native population, but they are thriving in South America!

that volcano blew the lid off the island, kind of like what we are talking about here. wind and storms and ocean currents blew in new seeds, new animals.

chernobyl is 20 years out, the town has been taken over by trees. i have read the biological diversity within the restricted range is off the chart.

i propose option 4 -leave it alone. it would take more than 20 years for humans to rebuild anything other than an emerging/transitional environment. no matter how many kingsnakes you drop in there, none will thrive until ALL the resources are in place- hide boxes, hot rocks, incubators, UV bulbs, frozen rodents. Once the resources are in place there will be individuals that will migrate and take advantage of it. maybe not in our generation, but hey, mother nature doesn't work at our pace.

if that is not allowed, i would take a 3f colony of goini x sticticeps x SOWEGA getula and cut em loose, sort of like a super predator.

daveb

terms like isolated and distinct really constricts the choices....like the outer banks population of kings....i would think if that population were lost..it would remain lost due to the uniqness of the overall ecosystem...we don't have the technology to redo what the environment molded to fit a particular niche in a particular environment.....but i'd still try....probably a mix of door #2 & 3....

Inclinde to agree with you here. Others support option 1 and I would agree but in writing this I envisioned "isolation" as being a function of fracturing due to human development. I think that changes the view significantly. Still I'd want the original gene set or as close to it represented in the seed stock but I'd also want some insuance in the form of more diversity too.

a phase stuck,ITS NOT NICE TO FOOL WITH MOTHeR NATURE,Worse than beach restoration LOL,figuring something would survive!your reintroduction animals may find and eat/contaminate that surviving Evolutionary species.it boils down to even Bacteria,micro-organisms,giant python ,Ardvarks and those Butterflies.Chris

Tony,

I think that if this actually happened it would not be feasible to introduce anything. Mother Nature is built on layer upon layer and how could we possibly know where to start?

Which locale of Eastern Kingsnakes would be so inconsequential (in my opinion) to the problem you outline.

If they could not survive the wrath of a natural disaster than evolution and nature would be, essentially, selecting these animals for extinction from that area.

Just my opinion.

would the local used be any more consequential under another situation? Say that that for some odd reason, maybe man made maybe not, easterns just disapeared from the site, would option 1 still hold?

Tony,

I would think that since one local evolved in such a specific environment with such specific external factors that putting all new flora and fauna into an area would therefore make it a useless gesture to also make sure that specific locality variants of Kings are added to an area.

Just my opinion.

didn't you say that already?

Probably. Are you trying to get me to step on myself again?

You troll!

By inference, I think I already have but that wasn't my intent.

I would choose option 3.

Nature is incredibly resilient. 15 yrs after being completely wiped clean, the area around Mount St Helens as once again restoring itself.

If the species reintroduction program had reached the point of reptiles, I think it would be most prudent to re-introduce as genetically diverse a founding gene pool as possible. As succession continues, this would offer the species the best chance at adaptation and successfully sustaining a new population.
-----
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

Hey Tony did you write a article on coastal plain milks some yrs back for R & A magazine ? ...If so the article is similar to your Question ....

I would go with #3 simple b/c USF&W reintroduce non locale all the time w/ no ill effect . Wolves from MN was reintroduce to NC ...Bald Eagles from WA was reintroduce to MD ...I can't see the differents between easterns from NC than MD's ...So if the area in Q occur here in MD. Bring on the NC stock .

Yes I did. It mostly been proven wrong though. Still my intent was to restart a discussion and that did happen. I don't really see a connection to the article and the question but I would say that wolves and eagles are much more wide ranging than a snake so the analogy might not be a real good fit.

Option one- although I’m not sure that’s the right description of a natural loss of an entire region. Of course to reintroduce kingsnakes means you have to reintroduce their prey, mice, other snakes, etc. It is all so interwoven that you have to reintroduce the entire habitat. I would think the land would very slowly recover. The recovery would happen along the fringes with mice running in and thriving without predators which in turn brings the snakes in, etc. It would basically just start over. Some things would start out with an advantage. The new shoots of vegetation would not have the rabbits, but eventually the rabbits would flourish, etc. It would probably end up pretty much the way it was, eventually. I wonder how the fauna around Mount St. Helens is bouncing back? Anybody from out that way?

As big as the Mount St. Helens event was the impact area wasn't isolated. That said newly formed islands are VERY isolated but they eventually populate. The question here should be do we want the recovery to occur in a time frame that has meaning to our grand kids. Suppose that your answer effected weather or not your grand kids would see kingsnakes in the wild.

We can almost assume right now that my grandkids will not see any wild kingsnake. In Ft. Lauderdale I saw wild bob cats, caiman, deer, fox, skunk, armadillo, indigos, roseate spoonbill, gopher tortoise, coral snakes, coachwhip, Everglades rats and more that my kids will not see in our area ever again. Now it is very common place to see parrots, giant Knight anoles, curly tail, basilisk, iguanas, etc. I guess they might be able to see a wild Burmese python, which I never got to see. The habitat is completely changed and the animal population has changed too. Something will come along and fill the void if conditions allow it. New animals are thriving in this habitat for whatever reason. It is no longer suitable for what use to be here, but life does go on. It would not be possible now to reintroduce any of those original animals, conditions no longer support them. That time is over, and that’s natures way. That’s what museums, zoos and private breeders are for.

I believe your grandchildren will see the kingsnakes, man cannot survive in a total concrete jungle, and someday sooner than you think we will realize this. Part of our way is war, part of nature's way is disaster. It will equal out. Natural disasters send animals to unknown destinations on "mini arks", flotsam and jetsam, so it will become inhabited again. Interesting topic but I do not think man can do it, unless that's God's will!
Todd Hughes

boy that's always a touchy subject.....if and why it matters at all-valid questions- will vary with everyone you ask.sorry i don't have a simple response to it but it's a complex issue tony,and my feelings continue to change on it.for me the answer's like this....from what i can gather-i am opposed to reintroductions unless there is strong evidence of the population being 100% isolated and extirpated.
that beig said,i have a hard time accepting why the newbies should come from anywhere else....what guttersnacks said got me thinking-is our 'development'(e.g. need of a wal-mart less than 2 miles away from the next) any less of a 'natural' disaster than say,an earthquake/category 5 'cane/etc.???how much so,and says who?...this is where i'm torn becuase seeing that habitat destruction i see every day irks me more than anything else yet.but apparently that's what we 'need' at this time,as we have made it a priority enough to do just that.kind of like actions speaking louder than words.one other thought it took a while for me to wrap my head around but i now believe,that people(as individuals,collectively,whatever) ultimately do what they want-not what they SAY they want,pretend to want,not even what they 'need' to do......okay i may be getting sidetracked sorry.
once the population of snakes,etc. are gone and you want to reintroduce the species,try and get as large and diverse a gene pool/colony as you can from the original area in question or as close to it-the natural/original source-as possible and see how it turns out....even this is sticky,as it may not be as simple as it appears on a range map.what i've heard/read about timber rattlesnake lineage via dna testing,sort of goes against conventional wisdom,i.e. where one's ancestors come from is a matter of time as much as place;the population nearest geographically is not neccessarily the closest relative......also as i 've said before i think in most cases-relax drymarchon breeders,i said most-what we see as a need for new bloodlines is a popular misconception,and often trumpeted by dealers with alterior motives or at least it's fairly overrated so that's why i'd say using outside genetic influences should be a last resort at best,or depending on what the ultimate goal is,it could render the project downright bogus again depending on who you ask.
lastly,note how poorly our well-thought-out reintroductions usually fare,versus any of the infamous release/escapees that happen as more or less random chance;i say it's gotta be proof of how little we understand the relationship between these animals and ourselves.

-----
"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

Yea, my answer was based SOLELY on the question posed of "Natural Disasters". Had it been a man-made disaster with the man-made blockade, then morally it would seem to be more important that we try to make it right again. I do see a difference between a man-made disaster and a natural one. But, this wasn't the question so I avoided as such. I simply tried to humor the question as it was posed and not get sidetracked and go around the question. I'm not saying you were doing that either, just to be clear.

I suggested the repopulation animals come from nearby environments since it would seem logical, or at least the potential would be high for those animals to eventually make it into that region sometime. This was simply a "this is our best shot" answer. Again, we can only presume to try and know what WOULD have happened naturally. We would never know if it was the correct thing to do, we just know that's what we did, and that's how it's gonna have to be.

I think thats all I wanted to say in response to your post. I'm so scatterbrained I wont know for sure until later LOL.
-----
Tom

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

justin,

what happened to those eggs?

well jolles the clutch in question is hanging in there.i just have my doubts they are viable/fertile.the texture on them didn't feel right since day one,almost like rubber eggs.they firmed up a bit but we'll see.i never throw them out until i'm sure they're no good.
-----
"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

hmmmmm interesting i have to go w/option one if a natural disaster did it then nature will decide to repopulate or not man shouldnt meddle with it at all as far as introducing species of any kind anyway imho,,,,,,,,,thomas davis

You know, when you put it that way I change my answer and I agree with Thomas!

Cheers!

- Peter

-----
Servant of The Beast

I would start with number 2. Number 3 as a backup plan, using F1 captive-born animals from as close as possible to the original site.

The question I would ask is what casued then to become so isolated in the first place? If they are no longer existing in the surrounding areas then perhaps nature had already began "phasing" them out and what you are describing is the end result of a long process that began long before we where even aware of it. I say don't meddle with that. If the conditions are right for them to return then one day they may even if not in our lifetime. If not, then conditions are being prepared for something new to establish itself and our interference could ruin that as well. I say sit back and observe the wonders of nature at work and learn all that we can from it.

Just my opinion.

Good answer, I like it and go with that!
Todd Hughes

There were some pretty significant holes in the scenario so I didn’t really get the level of consistency in answers I was hoping for. The question was kind of devised to covertly gauge people’s belief in the strength of locality breeding as a conservation / preservation method. Aaron and Bob, like me to some degree went right for option 2 but expressed willingness to admit its possible limitation. Dre gave the only call for option 3 which given time, money and effectiveness I could argue was the most logical call from a broad public admin perspective. A surprising number of calls for option one! Pete your answer in particular surprised me. Even after some prodding you stuck with option one. Guttersnack did too but unlike you I don’t think he saw where the conversation was leading. Don’t really know if that means anything but it I have noticed in the past that some of the locality breeding’s most vocal advocates are also the ones that seem to lack a willingness to discuss the subject in any real detail.

yeah the scenario left a lot of room for speculation/discussion,i guess you could say......but hey isn't that what these forums are here for?btw hope you were not offended by what i said about the bloodlines thing,i know you're a big believer in that with your coastals.tony i know you've been breeding them for a while-what were you seeing crop up that led you to mixing disjunct locales of temporalis?or any other species you've bred for that matter?

-----
"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

Offend no. I sell all I produce. There are some who moralize about locality breeding but I'm not one of them. In fact I would think if one wanted to moralize it would be over selling animals for big buck when you know there is a good chance they wont breed successfully. My hypo coastals went from maybe 20% fertility to almost 100%. I'd say a fair trade for loss of locality status.

I did specifically avoid the option of tapping into captive breeding stock to restore the natural population. I figured you were fishing for a response encompassing that topic, or at least trying to feel some folks out on it, but I didnt see that as a viable option I guess. So, I stayed with my "dont tamper with what happened naturally".
-----
Tom

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

If kingsnakes got there once they would eventually find their way back once the habitat could support them.

I wouldn't introduce anything. Let nature take its course and maybe they will return. If not than maybe a new species will colonise the area and adapt differently.

I don't think that there is an inch of our country that hasn't been burnt, cut down, blown over, etc at some point in time. Yet the wildlife finds a way.

I agree. Every disaster has edges. Species at the edge survive and repopulate the middle. It often just takes a lot longer than impatient humans are willing to wait.
-----
Rick Staub