Reptile & Amphibian Forums

...causes a reef effect in alterna and other fossorial species? I recently read part of a thread on this forum and the topic of discussion was private land versus the ROW for alterna viewing.

It got me thinking...there have been a number of discussions on other boards regarding whether or not tin piles and a/c cause a reef effect with a higher population density of the animals in question being the result. As I've traversed the countryside east of Terrell County (Sanderson to Langtry for instance) I've often wondered what has prevented people from finding honey holes throughout all of the habitat there and then subsequently scoring year after year. Why hasn't this been done?

Why is it that high numbers of alterna haven't been found on property like Hazel's? Could it be that (in spite of decades of collecting) roadcuts rebound quicker for some reason?

If I were to spend 30 nights of roadcruising/shining cuts and I found X number of alterna, would I have exceeded X by lantern walking natural/unaltered hillsides? Of course I've taken into account the variable of covering ground in a car versus walking, but if there were a spot with a high population combined with the right conditions...it seems feasable for one to find multiple snakes in a single night. Does this happen?

Can anyone confirm or deny any of this? Thanks in advance folks...

Why aren't all road cuts prime? It is what it is. Tin produces more because you check it more. Road cuts produce more because equal time is not spent by equal # of hunters/observers in private places. That's my thought for tonight, I burned up my brain on the last one!
-----
Todd Hughes

I think it's possible, but you have to ask yourself-why does a reef produce a :reef effect"? The answer of course is not simple, but what it boils down to is basic resources-food and shelter.

So, are lizards and rodents more prevalent on road cuts than on natural outcroppings? How about deep, secure crevices (both for escape from predators as well as thermoregulation and protection from dehydration)? I suspect that if you answer those two questions you'll have the overall answer.

Another possibility is a "drift fence effect". Maybe long, vertical cuts bordered by sometimes even longer roadside embankments or ditches could serve to guide snakes in to the sheltering crevices of a cut, thus leading to an artificially high population.....
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

I believe it does. I know it's not very scientific, but if you look in the forums or classifieds, you simply don't see ads or references to "(insert ranch name) alterna." I'm sure there are more, I just can't afford to spend a lot of time here, but the only snakes I have seen referenced that were not ROW snakes were the Sanderson garage snake, one that Roy collected on the railroad tracks in Sanderson, and someone else finding a Xmas on their doorstep when returning to their room after an unsuccessful night in Study Butte. Everything else is, 9 mile, 277, miles east or west of Sanderson, River Road, on and on, and all are ROW.

It's logical to think that there are favored habitats above water like reefs, but I have no science to back it up.

... the fact that our current breeding stock has been collected for about 40 years off the same right of ways. Anybody now and for the next few years that has a "new" locality they are founding will likely not place an add for it for about 5 or so years. They will need enough to not only collect founding stock, but a couple of breeding seasons before they let them go into the market. Also, King Mountain comes to mind, it is off the ROW...

To assume that the reef effect of a rock cut is better habitat is a huge leap beyond what anybody can really know for sure. It may or may not be...
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

If there was ever a time when anecdotal evidence has to be heavily discounted it is with this thread. Brad is probably closer to the truth with his drift fence supposition, but even then it is probably only a transient effect. It is virtually impossible to gain access to private property that is adjacent or in proximity to known populations. Most ranches DO NOT allow public access, and some "hunting" ranches that do allow access do not allow reptiles to be hunted. The accumulation of historial data is so vastly skewed with results from public access that it renders discussions about “reef effect” and ROW populations meaningless. There may be a handful of individuals that have gained access to ranches (that are not otherwise open to hunting) because of the cultivation of a relationship over years who simply will never go public. Then, there may be others who have found their “pot of gold” on private property (that may be open to reptile hunting for a fee), but who wish to remain silent about their finds largely because of competition concerns. I recall a conversation that a friend of mine had with a well known TPWD representative in June 2007. He told him that these alterna folks will just have to find them on private property now, and that they could be found IN NUMBERS if only they knew where to look. In fact, I think he represented that he regularly sees eight or nine a night when he goes out, or something like that. This microhabitat was shared, but I won’t be divulging it anytime soon, LOL!

Robert

Its gettin deep now boys!!! Is Bob S. working for TPW now?????????LOL.

I'll be testing out TPWD's recommended observation "corridor" in the next ten nights. You know, I didn't think I had another EIGHT MAKES GREAT in me...LOL!!!

That was a career week no doubt about it. Congrats again. But when you start talkin 8 or 9 a night, well that sounds like BS to me. The BS can stand for a persons initials as well as bovine waste. Their interchangable. LOL. By the way have you got any of the Dryden alterna to reproduce yet? Those might be the first F1's from that locality if you have. Good luck. BA

Well, the adult female from HWY349 was gravid in 2005. She gave me five eggs; I held back one, a female which was marginally reproductive this year-one egg, lol. The 2005 adult has produced consecutive cluches of 8-11 eggs in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. I happened to use the black Meyers Canyon male this year. Shoot me an email and I'll send you pics of some representative HWY 349 offspring sired by the black.

Robert

if i ain't mistaken....the majority of alterna over the years have been seen if not on road cuts ....in close proximity to these formations....based on my experience...these man made canyons have a definite attraction for most wildlife......i always thought a comparative study of natural canyons vs road cuts would be a great PhD investigation...this seems to change down inthe study butt/lajitias area.....

I agree with you 100% Bob. Plus I'd like to thank you for taking Darth Vader out of the gene pool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL.

I've often wondered what has prevented people from finding honey holes throughout all of the habitat there and then subsequently scoring year after year. Why hasn't this been done?

Because trespassers get shot?

Why is it that high numbers of alterna haven't been found on property like Hazel's? Could it be that (in spite of decades of collecting) roadcuts rebound quicker for some reason?

In my opinion, that could be the case. It's just a very hard hypothesis to test, with so many variables, not all of which are understood themselves.

Road cuts may increase certain aspects of a habitat some species find favorable. They may somehow combine several desireable attributes (cover, suitable heat-retentive surfaces, favorable conditions for prey items, I don't know) to make them more productive than surrounding habitat.

But then again, I am someone who STILL hasn't found an alterna despite years of looking.

I'm a fan of collared lizards myself and I am intrigued by the analogy of the artificial reef...collareds seem to do very well in certain altered-habitat situations--primarily the "rip rap" of dams on manmade impoundments. In fact, in my general vicinity I just learned the Army Corps of Engineers is introducing collareds into manmade environs (and not releasing the location!) replicating glade habitat in the northeastern reaches of their natural range to see how they fare.

-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

NO...what did all the snakes do prior to our arrival? Where they all waiting around for us to arrive to build them some cuts? They are just tougher to find in their NATIVE habitat.
-----
HCU
Snakes of Hudspeth County, Texas

NO...what did all the snakes do prior to our arrival? Where they all waiting around for us to arrive to build them some cuts? They are just tougher to find in their NATIVE habitat.

I'm still undecided...I think folks can make underwater structure more favorable for target fish species and thus improve their survival/reproductive success--why couldn't the same be true for various herps?

That being said, the increase (either in real population terms or perceived by making them more accessible/visible) of certain Trans-Pecos herps due to construction of road cuts should probably be viewed as merely serendipitous.

And with that, I've reached my daily quota for ten-dollar words.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

From an evolutionary biology perspective, rock cuts have not been around long enough for alterna to adapt to them. The fact that everybody hunts them means that they are, to some degree or another, population sinks.

Here is my take on why more alterna are found there:

1) A rock cut is a literal cross-sectional slice through their natural subterranean habitat...akin to taking a slice through an anthill or looking at an ant farm...the way they weave in and out of all those rocky labyrinths and fissures seems to attest to that. You don't see them in other areas as often, because their habitat (underground) in still in tact in those other places -- and this means that they are still inaccessible to herpers.

2) They're MUCH more accessible to humans.

Of course, #1 is just a hypothesis that has not been tested until someone invents a way to probe the earth in other probable habitats and discover their true biogeography.

DR

p.s. That Blonde has a nasty scar on it's upper body. Was it hit?
Suboc.com

Thanks for your response. The suboc was not hit and was intact and the scar was not fresh (it was a scar).

"From an evolutionary biology perspective, rock cuts have not been around long enough for alterna to adapt to them. The fact that everybody hunts them means that they are, to some degree or another, population sinks."

If there are more resources on a roadcut than the alternative unaltered habitat then natural selection would work as fast as the population could produce progeny (=the progeny would instantly gain an advantage by having more food resources available), right? What about an actual artifical reef and the amount of time that marine/reef organisms have to evolve and do?

I'm not saying anything conclusive because I have no idea if roadcuts actually do produce more alterna than a good unaltered microhabitat...

But as far as a roadcut being a window into the fossorial habitat of alterna, I definately agree. Shannon Brown once explained this idea to me and it makes sense. BUT...why then do I not find fossorial snakes crawling on roadcuts in KS (and I've looked!) Central Plains Milks Snakes are surely as fossorial as alterna are...yet I don't see them crawling on cuts and I rarely see them on the road.

Thanks for humoring me!

I believe the combination of Brads drift fence theory and Dustys theory of cutting into there natural habitat are probably the most likely and the explanations I would subscribe to. How many people in the past have taken the time to watch an alterna cross a road from one cut to the other. Not to many I'm sure . I bet alot come out of one cut cross the road and find a hole in the next cut and dissapear again. Other less fossoril snakes i would believe more in the drift fence theory.

Chris

I think that was what I was ramblin' about below, the cuts being a slice through their habitat and maybe some getting jammed up there before moving on. I think they cross the roads all the time and keep going to the next crack, hole, whatever. We just cannot know for sure without X-ray vision. I seriously doubt the cuts hold more prey than intact habitat.
-----
Todd Hughes

I think the vast majority of the reason we see more animals on or near road cuts is because in the past that has been the easiest place to look. It is just that simple to me.... I find it hard to believe that road crews came along a built a biological paradise or anything.
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

Exactly my thoughts too.
-----
Steve W.

LOL, well put Lance!
-----
Todd Hughes

No need for black and white thinking Lance.

.

Yeah, most parsimonious answer...most simple habitat to hunt = cuts; more people hunt at cuts = more alterna found there.

Lance, we get it homie.. Fat guys like the road cuts... We all
understand now...

Basically it means I like the road cuts.. i get that...

road cuts = easy
road cuts = access
road cuts = alterna

We get it dude...

Thanks for your simplicity...

S

I'm not ready to go with the "Okkam's Razor" answer quite yet. I think it's simple...but observable and testable to make the claim that in certain situations Lampropeltis species can be found in a greater abundance in altered habitat such as roadcuts, blowouts, washes, ditches, postrock etc. than in adjacent unaltered habitat. Perhaps these situations cause a narrowing of animals within the area into this microhabitat. This might result in a higher local (microhabitat) density than the alternative unaltered habitat.

I understand that certain forms of what I consider to be habitat alteration are natural and others are artificial, but the point is that for some unknown reason myself and others have noticed that different species of Lampro in different states are sometimes found in a higher abundance in habitat that involves some degree of alteration.

Even though I don't wish to share them; I can think of many examples of kings/milks that seem to be found in a higher abundance around rock/ground disturbances and I am curious if this could also apply to alterna.

I think it's called exploring habitat, and the rock cut is simply part of that habitat. It's NOT just a Lampropeltis thing...I've been going to West Texas since the first year they took everything off the protected list, but walking cuts the majority of the time since the late nineties, and I have found many more diamondbacks and rat snakes on road cuts than alterna. Again, we can't assess this issue properly in Texas like it can be assessed in California or Arizona because of the lack of public land. But, here's an interesting flip. Is anyone making claims about the abundance of ROW populations in California and Arizona? LOL.

Robert

>>I think it's called exploring habitat, and the rock cut is simply part of that habitat. It's NOT just a Lampropeltis thing...I've been going to West Texas since the first year they took everything off the protected list, but walking cuts the majority of the time since the late nineties, and I have found many more diamondbacks and rat snakes on road cuts than alterna.

Actually this has not been my experience. If you want to talk about total number of snakes, then yes I have seen more of other snakes than alterna on road cuts. However, when broken down by species, my experience has been that alterna are the most seen species in road cuts. In actuality, aside from really rarely seen snakes besides corals or milks, the snake I have seen the least would be diamondbacks. Again, not your experience, but no less valid.

>> Again, we can't assess this issue properly in Texas like it can be assessed in California or Arizona because of the lack of public land. But, here's an interesting flip. Is anyone making claims about the abundance of ROW populations in California and Arizona? LOL.

It was actually one of my contentions that (for all the reasons previously mentioned) there is a skewed population near ROW and my initial intent in making that assumption was not necessarily species specific. In other words, ideas that because of predation, continual replenishment, death from roadkill would still exist across all species that would cross the road. When we got into specifics about road cuts then my ideas were that roadcuts exposed more habitat and possibly led to an increase in population because of that. However, to stay true to my belief, I would contend that ROW populations would be effected the same way regardless of location. When we start to discuss whether the road passes through preferred habitat, or whether more habitat was exposed, then we can start talking about the prefered niches on the species level and a population abundance because you have exposed more desireable habitat by making the ROW.

"Actually this has not been my experience. If you want to talk about total number of snakes, then yes I have seen more of other snakes than alterna on road cuts. However, when broken down by species, my experience has been that alterna are the most seen species in road cuts. In actuality, aside from really rarely seen snakes besides corals or milks, the snake I have seen the least would be diamondbacks. "

If you have seen more alterna than any other species on road cuts then I can finally understand the source of your bias. I just thought you were a trouble maker-lol. You will see many more rat snakes on cuts than alterna in the Davis Mountains. I have seen twice as many diamondbacks on cuts than alterna in the Davis Mountains and four times the number of Lepidus and Blacktail, but I was trying to prove a point with the atrox. I have collected two alterna from the Davis Mountains. My guess is this will also be true at the Alpine cuts.

In Sanderson (West, North and East) and HWY 349, I saw two and one half times the number of Trans-Pecos rat snakes on cuts than alterna and I have collected 11 alterna from Sanderson and HWY 349 (only 7 were on cuts or near cuts). During this same time period, I saw about 15 diamondbacks on cuts or near cuts.

Where have you hunted where alterna was the most commonly encountered species on cuts???

"It was actually one of my contentions that (for all the reasons previously mentioned) there is a skewed population near ROW and my initial intent in making that assumption was not necessarily species specific. In other words, ideas that because of predation, continual replenishment, death from roadkill would still exist across all species that would cross the road. When we got into specifics about road cuts then my ideas were that roadcuts exposed more habitat and possibly led to an increase in population because of that. However, to stay true to my belief, I would contend that ROW populations would be effected the same way regardless of location. When we start to discuss whether the road passes through preferred habitat, or whether more habitat was exposed, then we can start talking about the prefered niches on the species level and a population abundance because you have exposed more desireable habitat by making the ROW."

Are you making this contention about reptile populations in your home state, CA?

Robert

>>If you have seen more alterna than any other species on road cuts then I can finally understand the source of your bias. I just thought you were a trouble maker-lol.

I am a trouble maker.

>>You will see many more rat snakes on cuts than alterna in the Davis Mountains. I have seen twice as many diamondbacks on cuts than alterna in the Davis Mountains and four times the number of Lepidus and Blacktail, but I was trying to prove a point with the atrox. I have collected two alterna from the Davis Mountains. My guess is this will also be true at the Alpine cuts.

This is a good point and what I was getting at when I talked about being in the proper microhabitat and seeing the most common species in that microhabitat. I believe that the roadcuts go through optimal good microhabitat for alterna depending upon type/abundance/and lack of other preferred microhabitats and that leads to why we might see more there. I mirror your experience with the addition of seeing more copperheads in davis. Of course I've never caught an alterna in the davis's despite having lived for a time in Alpine.

>>In Sanderson (West, North and East) and HWY 349, I saw two and one half times the number of Trans-Pecos rat snakes on cuts than alterna and I have collected 11 alterna from Sanderson and HWY 349 (only 7 were on cuts or near cuts). During this same time period, I saw about 15 diamondbacks on cuts or near cuts.

I've not collected a road alterna in Sanderson. All alterna have been either on private property or in a cut. Also, of all the snakes I've seen in Sanderson it is probably equal with diamondbacks or alterna.

>>Where have you hunted where alterna was the most commonly encountered species on cuts???

Langtry/Sanderson/277

>>Are you making this contention about reptile populations in your home state, CA?

Essentially yes, that was the point of my rambling, but more than that I was making a larger extrapolation to ROW in general. If, as I believe, is a sink as well as a concommitant increase in available niches, then ROW populations of snakes would be greater everywhere, not just TX and CA.

When we got into specifics about road cuts then my ideas were that roadcuts exposed more habitat and possibly led to an increase in population because of that.

I'm curious... how would removing habitat from habitat to create road cuts create more habitat exactly?

Also... to trend from the analogy of an artificial reef...

Artificial reefs and breakwaters are usually constructed where none exist. Old decommisioned ships, rubble, and debris are often deposited where only a sandy bottom existed before. The debris is then populated by species suited to use of the new "habitat". Since the limestone and cracks that constitute road cuts were present and utilized long before road cuts were created, how exactly could they create a reef effect? It's akin to sinking a vessel or, as might be more appropriate for this example, dredging on an already existing reef and escaping with the impression that you've improved things.

Also... as has been mentioned by others... a higher population could only exist where there's a larger prey base. Have you any suggestion as to how an area with removed habitat somehow sustains larger populations of prey than the surrounding habitat?

One other thing that I find intriguing about your hypotheses... if the ROW is a sink and animals experience higher rates of predation and mortality, that would mean that the populations off the ROW are providing virtually all of the individuals for recruitment. Because so many alterna are encountered roadside it must, considering the obvious extrapolation of the assumption, mean that the population off the right of way is sufficiently productive as to produce enough animals for both local recruitment and to potentially surpass normal population densities on the ROW. If there's a higher population on the right of way as you suggest might be the case, it must sustain more prey and/or there's a sink that constantly draws from numbers recruited to the ROW from off ROW. If there's both a sink and higher population densities then the off ROW populations must be incredibly productive. It's difficult to have such tremendous reproductive success in anything but optimal habitat..... so....

now were back to the Ockham's razoresque postulate that road cuts are great places to find alterna because they're in optimal habitat not because they are more optimal habitat.

"now were back to the Ockham's razoresque postulate that road cuts are great places to find alterna because they're in optimal habitat not because they are more optimal habitat."

Hello Damon...

Did you happen to read my post up above this? I am speaking very narrowly about a favorable microhabitat within a larger scheme of habitat. I think you're right to point out that we're discussing optimal habitat, but I would rather reduce "optimal habitat" to something less than the surrounding area of a good roadcut. For me it's more specific.

An example would be pyros: pyros can be found between 2000 and 9100 feet elevation and in diverse habitats, yet they are commonly found in specific rocky microhabitats. These microhabitats can be focused on with good results during the right time of year. The identification of the specific microhabitat is what has helped many herpers find success with pyros. What is the equivalent for alterna?

"I'm curious... how would removing habitat from habitat to create road cuts create more habitat exactly?"

Loaded question much? I understand your point though...however you should realize that when I speak of roadcuts as a potentially prime microhabitat, I'm not talking about "removing habitat from habitat to create...more habitat"...rather I'm talking about rearranging existing habitat in a way that makes it more optimal for certain species.

I used the reef affect principle to illustrate a point, of course there are differences and the reef affect my be completely irrelevant to the discussion, it was just an interesting notion that I thought might apply to snakes. It also seems to be a matter of degree when it comes to artificial reefs and their placement in previously desolate habitat. In a case like that we can consider the habitat changing from one extreme to another and resulting in a reef affect; in the case of comparatively minor alterna habitat alteration such as a roadcut it could still be the same process but to a lesser degree (=improvement of existing habitat).

I understand what you're saying, and in certain scenarios I can see how the creation of a road cut could increase the amount of habitable area at a certain location. Roadways shed water and that water usually results in increased vegetation density at the road's edge. The increase in vegetation usually corresponds to increases in insect numbers...insects mean lizards and mice... lizards and mice mean snakes and so on. Of course the higher insect and rodent/lizard numbers would be privy to the same increased mortality rates that the population sink snakes are subjected to and there's no way to compute the net effect.

Many of the old-timers that looked for alterna near Langtry swore that road cuts were impediments to snakes trying to cross roads. Many herpers used to speed up when the road was bookended with cuts for that very reason. Rumor has it that it wasn't until a certain herper serendipitously illuminated a snake on a cut one night while making a U-turn that anyone thought of spotlighting for them. Spotlighting worked and the paradigm shifted. Now everone finds them on cuts but I think the assumption that the cut is providing anything extraordinary is a bit shortsighted and severely biased. Years ago the old-timers would have said that road cruising was the only way to go... yet now we know a bit more about kingsnake natural history. Still, some of us are under the impression that we find the majority of alterna on cuts because the cuts are somehow special. That impression falls short for me as the cuts are herped with massive bias and considering that the cuts are surrounded by thousands of square miles of prime alterna habitat I can't see how anything but that massive bias is at the root of the impression. I have observed alterna off the ROW and have seen pockets of pretty significant density. Based on what I've seen, those that propose the ideas of increased population densities or elevated carrying capacities generated by manmade rock cuts simply haven't spent enough time away from roads or in the right places away from roads.

>>I understand what you're saying, and in certain scenarios I can see how the creation of a road cut could increase the amount of habitable area at a certain location. Roadways shed water and that water usually results in increased vegetation density at the road's edge. The increase in vegetation usually corresponds to increases in insect numbers...insects mean lizards and mice... lizards and mice mean snakes and so on. Of course the higher insect and rodent/lizard numbers would be privy to the same increased mortality rates that the population sink snakes are subjected to and there's no way to compute the net effect.

Wow, it's like your channeling me now. That is what I've been saying for quite a while now several times. Until now you've dismissed it out of hand. At least it is good to know that you can allow that someone might make this kind of conclusion. I totally agree that ALL species would be subjected to the same population sink/increase and that it is difficult to compute this as a reality. But I can still have this as a theory, right?

>>Still, some of us are under the impression that we find the majority of alterna on cuts because the cuts are somehow special. That impression falls short for me as the cuts are herped with massive bias and considering that the cuts are surrounded by thousands of square miles of prime alterna habitat I can't see how anything but that massive bias is at the root of the impression.

Of course I can allow that the bias is the root of this impression. However, I do believe that at least some roadcuts are special with regard to alterna. Perhaps ALL road cuts are special with regard to all organisms, however.

>>I have observed alterna off the ROW and have seen pockets of pretty significant density. Based on what I've seen, those that propose the ideas of increased population densities or elevated carrying capacities generated by manmade rock cuts simply haven't spent enough time away from roads or in the right places away from roads.

I have not. But maybe I don't know alterna as well as I think I do and have been focusing in the wrong place, or have simply not been at the right place at the right time. However, I do believe that I have spent and still do spend quite a lot of time away from ROW and simply haven't found them as often. Yet, I can assure you that even though I hate to talk to people and try to remain as private as possible, were I to discover the opposite and find a huge population in an area/region, I would have no problem posting on this forum something to the effect that 'This year I collected 64 alterna at one location on private property in the region of Sanderson in 5 nights of collecting.' This doesn't give away a 'private spot' that you'd like to keep coming back to AND there is nothing illegal about it. Also, it serves to undermine the bias that you hate so much, which seems like something you would like to do. Further, if this is the case, then herpers should have no problem accepting the ROW ban as it would be more of a waste of time to seek alterna on ROW.

This doesn't give away a 'private spot' that you'd like to keep coming back to AND there is nothing illegal about it. Also, it serves to undermine the bias that you hate so much, which seems like something you would like to do.

I don't have a need to undermine the bias... I'm just taking the opportunity to point out that it's impossible to reach a conclusion rooted in fact when biased observations are all you base your conclusions on.

I appreciate your response Damon. Let me first say that I respect your experience and it of course dwarfs mine, which is essentially null in comparison. I don't want to come across in the wrong way (which seems to happen) so I wanted to include that.

Anyway, I still disagree and I think that either you're confusing the minute level of microhabitat that I'm speaking of or I am failing to properly explain it, probably the latter. I don't think there's much point to carrying on because if I haven't explained what I mean so far then I might as well stop trying. I will say this: it is impossible for me to have a bias because I've never seen a single alterna on a roadctu and the only one I've found was crossing the road. I've never hiked any areas for alterna other than habitat within the federal park and I was only hiking, not looking for graybands. As someone stated, it would be trespassing and that's no good.

I am not thinking inside the box here...actually the opposite. I'm open to all possibilities including one that shows alterna to prefer a microhabitat that has been disturbed and thus why so many are found on cuts. Of course its obvious that cuts have been focused on and therefore a bias has arrisen, but I'm not speaking from this bias and in fact I'm trying NOT to have any conventional bias at all. I would LOVE to never hunt a roadcut again and spend all of my alterna hunting hours walking with a lantern or spotlight. Just like boas, it's my favorite thing to do, period. Way better than watching baseball or drinking beer.

It's not a matter of fatness, laziness, experience, desire or politics...it's a matter of applying a trend in rock-dwelling Lampropeltis to a rock dwelling Lampropeltis with the hopes of increasing success. I don't see why people are so quick to say NO!...reminiscent of those old timers who never thought to check a roadcut, huh?

Cheers!

>>I am not thinking inside the box here...actually the opposite. I'm open to all possibilities including one that shows alterna to prefer a microhabitat that has been disturbed and thus why so many are found on cuts. Of course its obvious that cuts have been focused on and therefore a bias has arrisen, but I'm not speaking from this bias and in fact I'm trying NOT to have any conventional bias at all. I would LOVE to never hunt a roadcut again and spend all of my alterna hunting hours walking with a lantern or spotlight. Just like boas, it's my favorite thing to do, period. Way better than watching baseball or drinking beer.

I've tried to make this point to no avail. More than likely you will be told something like: "You may not be speaking from a bias, but your opinion is based on a bias, so your opinion is biased even though your collecting method is not biased, so therefore you are biased and your opinion is biased and not based upon fact so it is incorrect." LOL

I appreciate your perspective.

The way I look at it is this... what alterna do in artificial settings can provide a glimpse of what they do in natural settings. Road cuts, because they're accessible and convenient and because they don't differ all that much in composition or geological structure from natural formations are a good place to observe. Taking note of moon phase, temperature, barometric pressure, wind direction, wind speed, location etc can reveal trends. Those trends help you develop a physical impression of good conditions. Putting yourself in ideal habitat in ideal conditions increases your chances for success. My quarrel with some of what has been posted in this thread doesn't at all stem from an objection to conjecturing about possibilities but from the resolution that some of the suggested possibilties are actualities. Some of what has been stated in such infallible terms is totally at odds with observations I have made and on a logical platform rife with oversimplifications and justifications designed to stave off simpler alternatives. I take issue not with the differing experiences or observations of others, simply the statement of legitimacy that those observations are warped to support. Generate a supporting body of evidence, generate a hypothesis, develop a bias-free test, and prove or disprove the hypothesis but none of this works if we scan the data and immediately jump to the conclusion.

The simplest scenario is most often the correct one... but I feel as though some of this arguement has been on a quest for a complicated explanation when the obvious is staring us (well... some of us LOL) in the face.

I don't see why people are so quick to say NO!...reminiscent of those old timers who never thought to check a roadcut, huh?

Just like the current hunters who consider only biased information when developing their "factual" assumption that there's no better way to find them than on road cuts?

"My quarrel with some of what has been posted in this thread doesn't at all stem from an objection to conjecturing about possibilities but from the resolution that some of the suggested possibilties are actualities. Some of what has been stated in such infallible terms is totally at odds with observations I have made and on a logical platform rife with oversimplifications and justifications designed to stave off simpler alternatives. I take issue not with the differing experiences or observations of others, simply the statement of legitimacy that those observations are warped to support. Generate a supporting body of evidence, generate a hypothesis, develop a bias-free test, and prove or disprove the hypothesis but none of this works if we scan the data and immediately jump to the conclusion."

Wow, that was an impressive use of language. So in simpler terms you think that I'm begging the question and/or taking my evidence to be granted. That's nice, but wrong. I am simply conjecturing about identifying a microhabitat that alterna prefer. Perhaps you and other folks have already figured this out, but for me...well, I need to discuss things like this before setting out in Monday so that I can have more confidence when I am walking around all night and questioning my judgement of exactly what their microhabitat is. My entire point is that roadcut habitat is successful habitat and from this we can abductively apply this observation to field collecting the snake. I then postulated that perhaps alterna, like many other closely related rock-dwelling Lampros, prefer the disturbed habitat of a roadcut, or wash, or talus slide...to just the typical undisturbed rocky outcroppings that one sees around Sanderson or Terlingua for example.

And btw- the proper application of Occam's razor does not involve arbitrarily removing variables because YOU deem them as excessive. Rather it involves removing rationally or obviously unnecessary variables or multiplications. It works well to remove god from epistemological arguments, but it really has nothing to do with this discussion and/or something that we know so little about that we can't determine the value of one variable over another. The idea hinges on falsifiability according to Popper and my claim of alterna preference is just as falsifiable as any other alterna theory and therefore contains no extraneous multiplications of variables.

...that of course hillsides and/or mtnsides around Sanderson and Terlingua are LOADED with disturbed habitat because of gravity/rocks constantly falling and creating disturbed habitat. THIS IS the microhabitat that I'm talking about...and it's very similar to a roadcut. So if I were going to try to flip an alterna in April after a lucky rain and some good conditions, I would look for rocks that were in the midst of this disturbed habitat. If I were going to lantern walk after a few days of rain in June, I would focus on these same areas. My belief is that this would provide for more success than just wandering around a hillside hoping to see an alterna.

I also want to add that my goal is NOT to hunt roadcuts! Just as I expressed to you (Damon) this year in Sanderson, I'm sick of seeing other herpers and having to compete for a sliver of good microhabitat. I want to be able to only hunt my property and the properties of others without having to compete like this. Some of these folks have obviously taken this thread to mean that I wish to stick around roadcuts, air conditions and a padded seat, but that's just about as off base as it gets.

>>I'm curious... how would removing habitat from habitat to create road cuts create more habitat exactly?

You keep trying to go back to this as my arguement, but it is NOT my argument. You aren't reading correctly. I've addressed this point several times. Let me say it again. That is not my argument. I've said repeatedly that the ROW through road cuts EXPOSES more habitat, allowing us to encounter them more readily. NEXT, by exposing more habitat to the elements, it is possible for several reasons that more vegetation/prey animals can get more food, attracting them to the area and thus attracting snakes/alterna. Discounting the fact that you are removing a little bit of habitat where the actual road exists, you have served to expose habitat that was not otherwise exposed, creating additional exposed habitat that 'might' support an increased population for the theories I've put forth. That is how you have 'created' more habitat, by creating more habitat for organisms at different locations in the food web which might also serve to increase the desire for alterna to want to be near these disturbed ROW.

>>Artificial reefs and breakwaters are usually constructed where none exist. Old decommisioned ships, rubble, and debris are often deposited where only a sandy bottom existed before. The debris is then populated by species suited to use of the new "habitat". Since the limestone and cracks that constitute road cuts were present and utilized long before road cuts were created, how exactly could they create a reef effect? It's akin to sinking a vessel or, as might be more appropriate for this example, dredging on an already existing reef and escaping with the impression that you've improved things.

Of course you are right about this entirely. I grabbed onto the artificial reef analogy because I thought it was the closest point to what I was trying to make and should more properly have been along the lines of the road cuts (which are artificially exposed habitat) might serve to artificially enhance populations which wouldn't have been enhanced before.

>>Also... as has been mentioned by others... a higher population could only exist where there's a larger prey base. Have you any suggestion as to how an area with removed habitat somehow sustains larger populations of prey than the surrounding habitat?

Yes, and I've mentioned it SEVERAL times. You won't, because I wouldn't want to either, but go back and read some of my posts. I explained this exactly as to why I thought it would be the case. PERHAPS, by exposing cracks, etc. where they were only underground before, one might allow vegetation/insect/mammal/diurnal lizards which might not have gone underground, more opportunities to move into this altered site which MIGHT lead to more prey opportunities for predators of these organisms.

>>One other thing that I find intriguing about your hypotheses... if the ROW is a sink and animals experience higher rates of predation and mortality, that would mean that the populations off the ROW are providing virtually all of the individuals for recruitment. Because so many alterna are encountered roadside it must, considering the obvious extrapolation of the assumption, mean that the population off the right of way is sufficiently productive as to produce enough animals for both local recruitment and to potentially surpass normal population densities on the ROW.

Yes, that is exactly right. I've said this before as well. Wouldn't it make sense that the surrounding population of many animals in the world could be sufficiently productive for this? Moa Moa can lay 300 million eggs at a time. Do they all live to maturity? Of course not. Could they if there were additional 'slots' vacated by competing species/individuals within their habitat? They certainly would have a better chance. Most animals take mortality into account and produce many more individuals than they expect to survive. Alterna would be no different. Populations surrounding ROW population sinks would simply have young that would have a lower mortality rate because of the 'increased' biomass AND because of the increased predation/take from the ROW.

>>If there's a higher population on the right of way as you suggest might be the case, it must sustain more prey and/or there's a sink that constantly draws from numbers recruited to the ROW from off ROW. If there's both a sink and higher population densities then the off ROW populations must be incredibly productive. It's difficult to have such tremendous reproductive success in anything but optimal habitat..... so....

Exactly, the same population sink/higher density would exist across species. And I don't know that it is that the surrounding populations are any more productive, just that the mortality rate is lower. Your last sentance is what I'm saying and why I feel that there 'might' be higher populations near road cuts - because you have 'created' a situation which didn't exist before, is disturbed, is 'different' than what might exist away from ROW and therefore might be more desireable to the animal as easy fast food is more desireable for us even though it is not optimal.

"That is not my argument. I've said repeatedly that the ROW through road cuts EXPOSES more habitat, allowing us to encounter them more readily."

I read it perfectly well... If I have a big limestone hill and I take a bulldozer and scrape off the top 6 feet of it, how in the hell am I exposing more habitat? How does removing habitat (the rock and cracks and crevices that existed before they were bulldozed away) expose more habitat? You're removing habitat... not exposing habitat. You might be exposing previously unexposed habitat, but you're not exposing more habitat. If you're under the impression that road cuts somehow open portals to a previously sealed netherworld you don't look around when you walk off ROW. There are holes EVERYWHERE... holes that snakes emerge from and live in.

Regardless, you're whole contentiaon is massive conjecture with no basis in fact. The contemplative process is futile unless stemming from real data and not just a handful of biased observations from someone who visits west Texas a time or two a year. I think you spend too much time alone with your brain. LOL. You concoct these convoluted and complicated scenarios to explain something that is blatantly simple. There are a myriad of logical flaws in the arguement and the conclusions overreach. You've made a hypothesis and seem to be looking for plausible mechanisms that support your observations instead of testing your hypothesis to find out if it's actually valid.

>>>>"That is not my argument. I've said repeatedly that the ROW through road cuts EXPOSES more habitat, allowing us to encounter them more readily."

>>I read it perfectly well... If I have a big limestone hill and I take a bulldozer and scrape off the top 6 feet of it, how in the hell am I exposing more habitat? How does removing habitat (the rock and cracks and crevices that existed before they were bulldozed away) expose more habitat? You're removing habitat... not exposing habitat. You might be exposing previously unexposed habitat, but you're not exposing more habitat.

Damon, you still aren't reading. You really want this to be a statement in the direction that you think I'm going whether I say so or not. REREAD THE DIRECT QUOTE FROM ME ABOVE! "...EXPOSES more habitat, allowing us to encounter them more readily." i.e. more readily exposed to us than they would have been if the rock (where they live) had not been cut into and exposed TO US! You've made the bulldozer analogy before, I understand what you are saying, but it isn't the point I'm making. Yes, I know the habitat is there regardless of if it is cut into. BUT - that habitat is not accessable to us because it is underground. By making it exposed through a road cut, it allows more area for us to have the opportunity to come into contact with them. The belief I have that populations are higher around ROW is a different issue than this issue you want to argue regarding semantics which apparently in your mind defines the word 'expose' as being synonymous with 'create.'

>>If you're under the impression that road cuts somehow open portals to a previously sealed netherworld you don't look around when you walk off ROW. There are holes EVERYWHERE... holes that snakes emerge from and live in.

So?

>>Regardless, you're whole contentiaon is massive conjecture with no basis in fact. The contemplative process is futile unless stemming from real data and not just a handful of biased observations from someone who visits west Texas a time or two a year. There are a myriad of logical flaws in the arguement and the conclusions overreach. You've made a hypothesis and seem to be looking for plausible mechanisms that support your observations instead of testing your hypothesis to find out if it's actually valid.

If you chose not to make the same conclusion from my observations/testing then that is up to you. As much as you might want to say it is wrong, because it is not what you believe or your experience tells you, it doesn't make my contention wrong. If you disagree with me, what makes your contention correct? Have you tested? If you haven't why are your observations/conclusions more valid than mine? You have said several times that there are huge populations of alterna away from ROW. How do you know that? And, by your strict definition of testing, how is your testing method not biased by your opinion? Wouldn't it also be simply your opinion that populations are higher away from ROW? How do you know that is a fact?

Yes, I know the habitat is there regardless of if it is cut into. BUT - that habitat is not accessable to us because it is underground.

Is the front of a cut underground? Is the top of a cut underground? Is the soil in front of a cut underground? Is the road in front of a cut underground? Would the ground that existed before the cut was made have been underground?

NO!

If you cut into the ground the only thing you do is expose unexposed ground... you're not exposing habitat that was not previously exposed! The holes and cracks that exposed it were just torn away exposing the deeper portions of those same holes and cracks!

By making it exposed through a road cut, it allows more area for us to have the opportunity to come into contact with them.

Right... it makes an easily viewed and human accessible natural habitat mimic... it doesn't open a door to the "alternaland".

>>If you're under the impression that road cuts somehow open portals to a previously sealed netherworld you don't look around when you walk off ROW. There are holes EVERYWHERE... holes that snakes emerge from and live in.

So?

Those holes and cracks on the surface connect to the cracks below ground... the ones you feel when made into road cuts magically generate incredible opportunities to access alterna. You don't feel as though alterna emerged from the cracks that used to exist on the surface before the bulldozers came?

I don't know about you but every single one of the fifty some-odd alterna I've seen in the wild were encountered above ground. That includes the 30 or 40% that came from areas with no nearby roads and road cuts.

If you chose not to make the same conclusion from my observations/testing then that is up to you.

AGAIN... you're not "testing", you're guessing... and yes my decision to not use biased observation to generate conclusions is very much up to me.

>>Is the front of a cut underground? Is the top of a cut underground? Is the soil in front of a cut underground? Is the road in front of a cut underground? Would the ground that existed before the cut was made have been underground?

Again, again, again. You want to keep hammering this point (should I put a 'beating a dead horse' icon here like you?). I am not making any of these claims. Yes, it is miraculous that you can make the point that 'a roadcut has all six sides regardless of whether it is exposed or not' but I'm not contending anything different. Underground is underground. Exposed is exposed. I'm not arguing that underground never existed until it was exposed. I'm saying that by exposing underground it is exposed and by definition is not underground anymore. I don't know about you, but I don't have the ability to phase shift into the rock so that I can look for alterna underground. Are you honestly trying to say that a roadcut doesn't expose habitat to US!??? We CAN'T access it underground, so it HAS to be newly exposed TO US!

>>If you cut into the ground the only thing you do is expose unexposed ground... you're not exposing habitat that was not previously exposed!

Yes you are! I honestly don't know how you can say that. How are you not exposing it?

>>The holes and cracks that exposed it were just torn away exposing the deeper portions of those same holes and cracks!

YES! "Winner winner chicken dinner!" And by doing that aren't you allowing increased opportunities to encounter the animals that inhabit those holes and cracks to be 'exposed' to us?

>>Right... it makes an easily viewed and human accessible natural habitat mimic... it doesn't open a door to the "alternaland".

And neither does walking on private property in their perfect habitat open the door either. You run across them when your paths cross, you just try to put yourself in a situation where they might cross more often.

>>Those holes and cracks on the surface connect to the cracks below ground... the ones you feel when made into road cuts magically generate incredible opportunities to access alterna. You don't feel as though alterna emerged from the cracks that used to exist on the surface before the bulldozers came?

Yes they would have emerged. What you don't want to admit is that it increases the possibility that they WILL emerge. Let me try to make another point that I've tried to make before but you didn't want to hear. Let's say one night an alterna is traveling along a crack underground. It finds a meal and then goes off to find a place to rest. On the way to the resting spot the crack opens up into a road cut (WHICH WASN'T THERE BEFORE!) This alterna is forced to be exposed when, had the road not been there, it might never have come out from underground that entire night. To make another point, there is a burrow/crack that is 200 feet long with one opening on either end (not likely, but go with it). You make a roadcut through the middle of this, removing 50 feet of the crack. BUT, you have exposed an additional two openings to the crack, doubling the opportunity for an alterna (or any animals traveling in that crack) to be encountered by a human (or other predator).

>>I don't know about you but every single one of the fifty some-odd alterna I've seen in the wild were encountered above ground. That includes the 30 or 40% that came from areas with no nearby roads and road cuts.

So, using your line of logic that you're trying to nail me on...because you haven't caught an alterna underground, does that mean that alterna don't exist underground? Let's say I reach into a crack in a road cut and pull out an alterna. A) would that alterna have been in that crack if the road cut weren't there? and B) Is that catching an alterna underground?

>>AGAIN... you're not "testing", you're guessing... and yes my decision to not use biased observation to generate conclusions is very much up to me.

Are you guessing too?

You act like you can't take it and this disscussion is frustrating you, it is frustrating me as well, but because
1) You don't listen to my points
2) You make my statements into what you want them to be instead of what they actually are
3) You feel your opinion is more valid than mine
4) You never address all of my points - you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

I'm saying that by exposing underground it is exposed and by definition is not underground anymore.

...and just how exactly does exposing the underground increase the likelihood of seeing snakes that emerge from it regardless?

Are you honestly trying to say that a roadcut doesn't expose habitat to US!???

I'm saying that it exposes nothing that wasn't already just as productive before the cut was made.

We CAN'T access it underground, so it HAS to be newly exposed TO US!

Right but regardless of whether you hunt a cut or virgin ground... you still have to wait for the snake to come out.

Yes you are! I honestly don't know how you can say that. How are you not exposing it?

You're exposing in a literal sense, but not from my experience increasing the chances that a snake will come out of what you've exposed.

YES! "Winner winner chicken dinner!" And by doing that aren't you allowing increased opportunities to encounter the animals that inhabit those holes and cracks to be 'exposed' to us?

Were they coming out of the cracks that existed before you made the cut? Say it with me....."YES". If that's the case how is removing rock helping to increase your chances that snakes come out?

And neither does walking on private property in their perfect habitat open the door either.

Now who's putting words in someone elses mouth?

You run across them when your paths cross, you just try to put yourself in a situation where they might cross more often.

And somehow you feel that roadcuts are more apt to expose alterna to us (I love that now you're anthropomorphizing the cuts as well as the snakes) that wouldn't expose themselves in a natural scenario on a natural cut?

Yes they would have emerged. What you don't want to admit is that it increases the possibility that they WILL emerge.

How in the bloody hell does it do that? Dynamite will increase the chances they will emerge... gasoline will increase the chances they will emerge... making artificial rock bluffs does not increase the chances that they will emerge... only the chances that they'll be seen when they do.

Let's say one night an alterna is traveling along a crack underground. It finds a meal and then goes off to find a place to rest. On the way to the resting spot the crack opens up into a road cut (WHICH WASN'T THERE BEFORE!) This alterna is forced to be exposed when, had the road not been there, it might never have come out from underground that entire night.

Are snakes all over west Texas "forced" to be exposed when they crawl through a hillside that opens into a *gasp* natural bluff? Does any snake regardless of whether they're in a bluff or a cut have the choice to turn around? YES. The cuts in no way "force" them to do anything.

To make another point, there is a burrow/crack that is 200 feet long with one opening on either end (not likely, but go with it). You make a roadcut through the middle of this, removing 50 feet of the crack. BUT, you have exposed an additional two openings to the crack, doubling the opportunity for an alterna (or any animals traveling in that crack) to be encountered by a human (or other predator).

You have also decreased the length of the crack and possibly made it less than favorable for habitation decreasing the chances that a snake would even be in it let alone be "forced" to come out and expose itself.

So, using your line of logic that you're trying to nail me on...because you haven't caught an alterna underground, does that mean that alterna don't exist underground?

*wooooosh* - that's the sound of my point flying over your head.

Let's say I reach into a crack in a road cut and pull out an alterna. A) would that alterna have been in that crack if the road cut weren't there?

maybe... it also may have been in one of the cracks that was there before the cut was made and it could have just as hypothetically been pulled from that crack.

and B) Is that catching an alterna underground?

Holy Mary.... *sigh*

Are you guessing too?

On many aspects I am... however I wasn't the one making claims of fact.

You act like you can't take it and this disscussion is frustrating you, it is frustrating me as well, but because
1) You don't listen to my points
I'm comprehending what you're writing... you should give it a try. LOL

2) You make my statements into what you want them to be instead of what they actually are
You seem to be doing a fine job of that yourself.

3) You feel your opinion is more valid than mine
Not at all... just that there are some leaps of logic required for some of yours.

4) You never address all of my points - you pick and choose what you want to respond to.
I don't have time to hit them all but just for you I did in this post.

>>...and just how exactly does exposing the underground increase the likelihood of seeing snakes that emerge from it regardless?

Because there is an increased chance of them blundering into a spot where you can more easily encounter them. I understand exactly what you are saying, but it is not the point I'm making. To say that my argument is analogous to making the snakes want to come out more because you've removed the top layer of rock/ground is silly. That isn't what I'm saying at all if you would simply listen. Please try to understand this point and not morph it into another....road cuts/cuts/exposed buttes, etc. all represent places which are easier for man to come into contact with alterna. IF the snakes like these areas, IF more prey items are present, IF they spend more time utilizing these areas because they are exposed, it increases the likelyhood that we will run across them, see them more easily, etc.

>>I'm saying that it exposes nothing that wasn't already just as productive before the cut was made.

And this is where I disagree. I believe that it is easier for man to exploit these areas and that is why we find more there. Further, I believe that the small microhabitat which was altered and exposed might increase the carrying capacity of that microhabitat, resulting in a higher than normal population. You yourself have acknowledged that this could be a possibility, haven't you?

>>Right but regardless of whether you hunt a cut or virgin ground... you still have to wait for the snake to come out.

And?

>>You're exposing in a literal sense, but not from my experience increasing the chances that a snake will come out of what you've exposed.

How do you know that it isn't increasing the chance?

>>Were they coming out of the cracks that existed before you made the cut? Say it with me....."YES". If that's the case how is removing rock helping to increase your chances that snakes come out?

Again, I've tried to explain this to you. My theory would be that because you are exposing it, it makes it more likely that they will blunder into the open at a time when that wasn't necessarily their intent. Granted, they might not continue in the open and may turn around and go back into the crack, but for a brief moment they have been exposed, increasing the chance of being encountered.

>>>>And neither does walking on private property in their perfect habitat open the door either.

>>Now who's putting words in someone elses mouth?

That was your implication. If you can draw inferences from my statements, cannot I do the same?

>>And somehow you feel that roadcuts are more apt to expose alterna to us (I love that now you're anthropomorphizing the cuts as well as the snakes) that wouldn't expose themselves in a natural scenario on a natural cut?

Yes, I feel that they are more apt to expose them to us because I also believe they might have a higher population. Higher population = more likelyhood of an individual being exposed. Again, you try to reduce the argument to the absurd. In no way am I anthropomorphising the cut - possibly the animal, but not the cut. Again, they would expose themselves perhaps just as often on a natural cut, but when taken into account with the idea that the road might represent a population sink with a resulting higher population that is why it might be a better location to encounter them.

>>How in the bloody hell does it do that? Dynamite will increase the chances they will emerge... gasoline will increase the chances they will emerge... making artificial rock bluffs does not increase the chances that they will emerge... only the chances that they'll be seen when they do.

Listen please. If a crack/burrow has openings which were increased in number as a result of the road cut, this cannot help but increase the chances that they will emerge, not necessarily of their own volition. And now, in the end, rather grudgingly you have acknowledged at least a little of my point. Did it hurt?

>>Are snakes all over west Texas "forced" to be exposed when they crawl through a hillside that opens into a *gasp* natural bluff? Does any snake regardless of whether they're in a bluff or a cut have the choice to turn around? YES. The cuts in no way "force" them to do anything.

Yes, exactly. They have the choice to turn around. But while they are making that choice, they have been exposed, right?

>>*wooooosh* - that's the sound of my point flying over your head.

No, that is the sound of me making an analogy similar to what you are making, but when someone tries to apply that to your line of thinking it just means that I don't understand.

>>maybe... it also may have been in one of the cracks that was there before the cut was made and it could have just as hypothetically been pulled from that crack.

Yes, if that crack was near the surface. Are you Plastic Man? How could you pull a snake from a crack that was 3 feet or more underground? And even if you could, how would you know it was there?

>>>>and B) Is that catching an alterna underground?

>>Holy Mary.... *sigh*

I feel the same exasperation, yet at least I continue to try to make my point. Is a sigh an answer? Granted, it is a ridiculous question to most, but you pose the same types of 'common sense' questions to me. Is this question any different than you insulting my intelligence by referencing whether the 'sides' of an underground habitat exist before it is exposed in a road cut?

>>On many aspects I am... however I wasn't the one making claims of fact.

Damon, this proves that you cannot move on through a discussion. Again, check my first reply to your post titled 'facts.' In that reply I conceeded that you were right that I shouldn't have called them facts and that it was my opinion. Why do you need to keep going back to a point that I've accepted you were correct on?

>>I'm comprehending what you're writing... you should give it a try. LOL

Maybe you comprehend while you are reading them, but when you try to move on, you revert. Plus, it is very difficult for you to give any ground whatsoever. Out of pure stubbornness or dislike for me, even when we agree on a principle, you find a way to act like we don't agree. It's really quite curious.

>>I don't have time to hit them all but just for you I did in this post.

Then I guess that is the difference. I have all the time in the world and I don't have anything else to do except peruse this forum. However, I do appreciate that, even if for the briefest of moments you lowered yourself to my level and addressed my points. The lower primates can only learn if they are taught by higer forms.

In the great scheme of things does it really matter , just enjoy the moment wether its a road cut, road, garage,front porch or from the mouth of a coyote , they will be there after your long gone.

"I think it's called exploring habitat, and the rock cut is simply part of that habitat. It's NOT just a Lampropeltis thing...I've been going to West Texas since the first year they took everything off the protected list, but walking cuts the majority of the time since the late nineties, and I have found many more diamondbacks and rat snakes on road cuts than alterna. Again, we can't assess this issue properly in Texas like it can be assessed in California or Arizona because of the lack of public land. But, here's an interesting flip. Is anyone making claims about the abundance of ROW populations in California and Arizona? LOL."

The focus of my questions has nothing to do with the ROW being a place of abundance for alterna and it also has nothing to do with proving any subtle point(s). I think you help to illustrate why it is that I'm hesitant to join in the popular sentiment in this thread and conclude that roadcuts have no value to them outside of being accessable habitat. Like you said, people don't have the same opportunities to field collect alterna as AZ and CA folks have to collect their Lampros...this leaves a few gaps that enable discussions like this.

It's probably causing a distraction that roadcuts happen to be on the ROW, but it shouldn't. Part of my thinking is that perhaps someone could use the roadcut as a model of what characteristics alterna prefer in their undisturbed natural microhabitat. I would personally rather not just wander around looking in and around rocks when lantern walking for alterna. There is surely some kind of clue to be found in using what we know works and applying it to possibilities. I know this is a public forum and everyone is really paranoid and protective, but that isn't me and I'd like to have a discussion rather than an argument.

“I'm not ready to go with the "Okkam's Razor" answer quite yet. I think it's simple...but observable and testable to make the claim that in certain situations Lampropeltis species can be found in a greater abundance in altered habitat such as roadcuts, blowouts, washes, ditches, postrock etc. than in adjacent unaltered habitat. Perhaps these situations cause a narrowing of animals within the area into this microhabitat. This might result in a higher local (microhabitat) density than the alternative unaltered habitat. I understand that certain forms of what I consider to be habitat alteration are natural and others are artificial, but the point is that for some unknown reason myself and others have noticed that different species of Lampro in different states are sometimes found in a higher abundance in habitat that involves some degree of alteration. Even though I don't wish to share them; I can think of many examples of kings/milks that seem to be found in a higher abundance around rock/ground disturbances and I am curious if this could also apply to alterna.”

“The focus of my questions has nothing to do with the ROW being a place of abundance for alterna and it also has nothing to do with proving any subtle point(s). “

Wasn’t your focus on the connection between Lampropeltis alterna and altered habitat, ie the roadcut, which IS IN THE ROW, and whether that altered habitat might result in higher local density than the alternative unaltered habit. Did I jump to to the wrong conclusion? LOL.

Anyway, I have to run now to my beloved Texas. FYI - lantern walking for alterna will build character

Robert

>>If there are more resources on a roadcut than the alternative unaltered habitat then natural selection would work as fast as the population could produce progeny (=the progeny would instantly gain an advantage by having more food resources available), right? What about an actual artifical reef and the amount of time that marine/reef organisms have to evolve and do?
>>
>>I'm not saying anything conclusive because I have no idea if roadcuts actually do produce more alterna than a good unaltered microhabitat...

At this point, your hypothesis is also certainly plausible. The thing is that both mine and your hypotheses remain to be tested...until they get worked up properly in a decent field study and subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal, then they're just good stories i.e. untested hypotheses. We have no way of presently knowing whether prey or other resources are more plentiful at road cuts than at unaltered habitats. But we DO know one thing -- that there is a consistent selection working AGAINST these snakes' future survival at these locales due to humans collecting them there more than anywhere else. While I don't know anything about the evolution/ecology of marine organisms at artificial reefs, I know that Grey-Bands are rather long-lived (Gerold Merker has one that is 24 years 2 months, unless it died in the last 12 months), and no one knows how old your average wild alterna is before they are reproductively successful -- I would imagine that, since natural selection acts on the individual and since evolution happens only at the population level, evolution of alterna is probably a slower process than for some of those reef organisms.

What is your reasoning for thinking that alterna resources could be more plentiful at rock cuts than at other sites? I'm guessing, simply because humans find more alterna there? That is indeed plausible (yet untested), but there are alternative hypotheses too -- raptors and owls, for example, gain a roadside selective advantage because of the edge habitat, lack of cover for prey, and made-to-order perches lining every inch of road way in the country. Certain raptors, of course, would prey on alterna's prey items during the day, and owls have been known to feed on other crevice-dwelling snakes such as Bogertophis -- it's not too far-fetched to assume that owls would feed on roadside alterna when they get the chance. That, combined with human collecting, and DORs to me would nearly prove roadways as sink populations (i.e. a breeding group that does not produce enough offspring to maintain itself in coming years without immigrants from other populations). And alternatively, if resources do gain a selective advantage at cuts, then maybe alterna are doing well enough there to keep up with the arms race being waged by humans, the occasional DOR, and raptors/other predators.

Again the point is, we could speculate all day long, but these are all just good stories until each one has been tested.

>>But as far as a roadcut being a window into the fossorial habitat of alterna, I definately agree. Shannon Brown once explained this idea to me and it makes sense. BUT...why then do I not find fossorial snakes crawling on roadcuts in KS (and I've looked!) Central Plains Milks Snakes are surely as fossorial as alterna are...yet I don't see them crawling on cuts and I rarely see them on the road.

Then, I'm willing to bet that (a) either the natural history, habitat preference, and life history of L. t. gentilis is different enough from L. alterna to cause this difference in detecting them at cuts or (b) that the rock cuts in KS are different enough from West TX ones to cause their absence or rarity from those microhabitats. As Werler and Dixon have described Central Plains Milks' habitat as "stone-covered grassland prairie", then I'd guess (a).

Something a little closer to gentilis on the evolutionary tree would be celaenops...they also don't prefer arid desert rock cuts, but rather open woodlands or rocky grasslands.

DR
Suboc.com

>>We have no way of presently knowing whether prey or other resources are more plentiful at road cuts than at unaltered habitats. But we DO know one thing -- that there is a consistent selection working AGAINST these snakes' future survival at these locales due to humans collecting them there more than anywhere else.

I believe that you are right that selection is working against them. My other theory was that despite these pressures against them it still seems that near ROW and cuts alterna exist in relatively large numbers so that we can continue to encounter them, which leads me to believe that for whatever reason perhaps there is a larger than normal population near these 'artificial reefs.'

>>What is your reasoning for thinking that alterna resources could be more plentiful at rock cuts than at other sites? I'm guessing, simply because humans find more alterna there?

Again, it is only conjecture, but I posited that it could be from several factors, among them that a road cut exposes rock/habitat which wasn't exposed before, allowing perhaps more vegetation to take hold which might in turn serve as cover or food for certain prey species.

>>Then, I'm willing to bet that (a) either the natural history, habitat preference, and life history of L. t. gentilis is different enough from L. alterna to cause this difference in detecting them at cuts or (b) that the rock cuts in KS are different enough from West TX ones to cause their absence or rarity from those microhabitats. As Werler and Dixon have described Central Plains Milks' habitat as "stone-covered grassland prairie", then I'd guess (a).

I would agree with Dusty here. It just so happens that many road cuts exist in the ecological niche which is preferred by alterna which is why we see them there. I've hunted cuts where I live and there are reptiles I find on cuts (Lyre's, rosys) and ones which I don't (sidewinders, red racers). It is all a matter of a road cut being the animal's niche. I still would contend that cutting into a mountainside exposes more habitat to humans and possibly leads to changing the habitat in such a way to make it able to sustain a higher than normal population of alterna and thus 'creates' additional favored habitat.

n/p
-----
Steve W.

Thanks Dusty, that was very informative.

Let me first say that I agree with your explanations and I'm merely posing the questions for my own good. I do not need any peer reviewed or tested opinion on the subject because I am just looking for anecdotal opinions from people who have found a lot of alterna and I was primarily hoping to hear from folks who have field collected them.

Of course evolution happens on the population level and not the individual (= Lamarkian), but if in fact there are more prey items on a roadcut then there would probably be more predators to consume them. I've never made the assumption that there ARE more prety items, I only posed the question. Thanks again for your well thought out response!

Don't forget those damned ringtails, and I've seen ravens do a dawn patrol of the cuts. I like the fat guy analogy best, science at its' best!
-----
Todd Hughes

if you did you'd know that cuts on roads mirror cuts in washes. Same thing EXACTLY.

-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

The footing is less sure by far, the access is harder to get, and if help is needed your are more SOL.

But the habitat is at least as good....
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

it's no place for fat boys. I did get a 4 wheeler back there, but that just adds to the danger - the asphalt is still the most suitable habitat for pussies.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

n/p
-----
___________________________
Herp Conservation Unlimited

If people really learn from their mistakes, I should be like the smartest guy in the world

we did leave out pansies but they got the idea.....

Personal safety

Most species of Reptiles and Amphibians in the Trans Pecos region are nocturnal. This factor alone significantly differentiates non-game hunters from game hunters and points to the reasons why it is inherently safer to hunt non-game species on public roads and right of ways. Hunting vast tracts of private land at night in the Trans Pecos will put non-game hunters at risk to flash flood, Bear, Mountain Lion, venomous snake bite by restricted access to hospitals, and smugglers of humans and drugs. Most Herpetologists do not carry weapons. Such areas are only suitable for experienced and armed expert Field Herpetologists hunting in pairs or groups. Remote regions are unsuitable for handicapped, very young or very old Herpetologists. Section 44 of HB 12 discriminates against handicapped Herpetologists. A Broken leg in one of these regions could mean death, far away from potential rescue. Road cruising in Texas is a time honored family tradition enjoyed by handicapped, very young and very old, which instills a deeper appreciation not only for reptiles and amphibians, but all nocturnal wildlife.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife 2006 Texas Hunting Accidents Analysis provides data on 2.649 hunting accidents over a 30 year period including 536 fatal accidents. According to the data 7 accidents involved Misc. species (snake, raccoon, ram) over a 3-year period (2004 – 2006) and all resulted from discharge of a firearm or bow while hunting.

Use of a firearm or bow during these accidents suggests that this data is attributed to Game hunters, not Herpetologists. There is no other data detailing accidents caused by or involving Herpetologists.
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

There's no asphalt in front of that cut that would act as a magnet for active alterna. It also doesn't seem to be as exposed as a cut that's exposed by exposing unexposed "habitat".
You're also neglecting my personal observation that I've personally never found an alterna on that cut. That indicates that numbers must not be as good there (please disregard the fact that I've never hunted that cut).

I really did hate to spoil your fun, but at some point a few of the posters in this thread were going to realize you were messing with their heads (or maybe not!) hahahaha
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

shhhhhhhhh!

>>There's no asphalt in front of that cut that would act as a magnet for active alterna. It also doesn't seem to be as exposed as a cut that's exposed by exposing unexposed "habitat".

You guys have such a rapier wit I'm not sure any of us can tell when you're joking or not. As you continually misconstrue, my contention isn't that the road attracts them like a magnet from afar (as you are implying) but rather acts as a magnet to make them want to stay on it when they are crossing and might desire warmth or anything else for that matter. Also, couldn't it be argued that creating a road cut through ROW is analogous to the EXACT habitat (which is the point you are trying to make) created by a wash/ravine? Would you deny that the wash by eroding the rock has exposed more habitat to us to be able to run into alterna? Isn't that the same thing as an unnatural wash created by putting the ROW in?

>>You're also neglecting my personal observation that I've personally never found an alterna on that cut. That indicates that numbers must not be as good there (please disregard the fact that I've never hunted that cut).

So, utilizing your own line of reasoning here, where you have both made the claim that alterna are extremely common throughout all of the property in their range inaccessible via ROW, how exactly do you know that they are common in these areas? Is it based upon observation/testing? Isn't it only based upon your conjecture/belief? And how is your conjecture/belief less valid than mine?

Isn't that the same thing as an unnatural wash

No, an unnatural wash is when two dudes give each other sponge baths.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

That's just wrong. LOL EEEEWWWW
-----
Steve W.

..

ridiculous. I find it more than just a little silly that you folks can't grasp what I'm saying. The fact that Joe's wash is similar to a roadcut is my entire point, but by all means, respond with assinine sarcasm that reveals just how far off the mark you truly are Damon.

The fact is that I believe that alterna prefer DISTURBED habitat...LIKE THAT WASH. A wash is constantly disturbed during heavy water movements and I believe that this disturbance could result in higher local numbers. It's like this...people live in a city, but they can be found in high numbers in neighborhoods, apt buildings etc. Alterna are all over that hillside, but within that hillside they will be found in higher densities at the approriate microhabitat (such as the wash).

Anyway, I'll find plenty of alterna because it's easy to do. All that I'm trying to do in this conversation is discuss possibilities but as usual new and potential ideas are often met with contention because of people's egos and social bull[bleep].

The fact that Joe's wash is similar to a roadcut is my entire point, but by all means, respond with assinine sarcasm that reveals just how far off the mark you truly are Damon.

Please consider that the posts with which you seem to have so much of an issue were not directed at you. You're trying to step in front of Glen's bullet LOL.