Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I was forwarded this part of an email by an official of the State of Florida:

The California Fish and Game Commission approved a policy in early April essentially banning the importation of nonnative turtles and frogs. There was public opposition to this decision and the Commission reconsidered the ban on May 20th. They reaffirmed their prior decision. The policy language is:

NON-NATIVE FROGS AND TURTLES

The Fish and Game Commission declares that:

1. The Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Game have been charged by the Legislature to protect and wisely manage the State’s living natural resources and the habitats upon which they depend.

2. The importation of non-native turtles and frogs poses threats not only to the State’s native turtles and frogs, but also to the native source populations of the imported turtles and frogs.

3. These threats include, but are not limited to: disease, hybridization, competition, and predation.

Therefore, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission that the Department of Fish and Game shall cease issuing importation permits for any live non-native turtles or frogs pursuant to Section 236, Title 14, CCR.

While not an attorney, my understanding is that a ban like this one will not impact products in commerce, meaning products being shipped via commercial carrier through California for further shipment to foreign countries or other states.

I am also planning to contact the California Aquaculture Coordinator to find out how the agency is planning to implement this policy. When she replies I will share that response with you.

I love how CA is banning frogs and turtles because they are woried about them killing natives when the goveronment of CA hase established so many non native fish and still today stocks lakes and ponds with preditor fish because people want to catch them for sport. Here is a list of the fish of CA almost none of the natives are large preditors and almost all of the non natives were stocked by the goveronment and they want to blame all the problems on other people.

http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/datastore/datastoreview/showpage.cfm?reportnumber=746

Rob

I understand that in the past, California Fish and Game has intentionally established Bullfrog populations in CA.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

>>I understand that in the past, California Fish and Game has intentionally established Bullfrog populations in CA.
>>
>>jsc

Job security, John. Kind of like firemen who secretly start fires and then try to become heroes for putting them out. Then they blame others for lighting/causing the fires.

I've quoted you elsewhere. thanks!

Except in the case of your quote below regarding alligators, the people hunting them to extinction were not neccessarily the same people who ended up farming them. You just lumped them all together as commercialists. By that reasoning we should ban all firefighters since some of them also start fires.

Even if it was the same people hunting alligators to extinction who ended up farming them, the alligators were legal to hunt when they started out and the public was benefitting from the goods provided. When it bacame apparent that the harvest was unsustainable, hunting was prohibited while farming was allowed. The result was both sides, conservation and commercialization, not to mention the general public who could still purchase alligator products, ended up benefiting. When a fireman starts a fire in order to put it out, first of all, that is illegal. Second of all the only person who benefits is the fireman who gets paid to put out the fire he started. The contractor who rebuilds the house benefits too but that's beside the point.

Actually there are legal Alligator hunts here in Florida every September based on a quota system. Additionally the harvest of wild babies and eggs are allowed as well. The mortality on baby Alligators is about 90%. Some lakes FWC allowed as an experiment EVERY SINGLE NEST TO BE ROBBED AND THE EGGS SOLD TO THE FARMERS. Guess what? The population of Alligators continued to increase as Alligators moved in from other areas. In areas where commercial harvest is allowed such as Lake Trafford in Collier County, Fl the Alligator population still remains stable or slightly increases annually. It just shows it matters NOT whether we harvest them or animals eat them it's still sustainable...thanks
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

quote "Actually there are legal Alligator hunts here in Florida every September based on a quota system. Additionally the harvest of wild babies and eggs are allowed as well. The mortality on baby Alligators is about 90%. Some lakes FWC allowed as an experiment EVERY SINGLE NEST TO BE ROBBED AND THE EGGS SOLD TO THE FARMERS. Guess what? The population of Alligators continued to increase as Alligators moved in from other areas. In areas where commercial harvest is allowed such as Lake Trafford in Collier County, Fl the Alligator population still remains stable or slightly increases annually. It just shows it matters NOT whether we harvest them or animals eat them it's still sustainable...thanks "endquote.

Lets keep it in perspective, it is sustainable because there are quotas preventing overharvesting of the gators. It will be interesting to see if the way gators are managed runs into problems like some of the other game species (like deer populations) where the management practices actually ends up with a population that is at the threshhold of the carrying capacity of the enviroment..

Ed

Actually the Alligators here are increasing almost in geometric progression even with the harvest and hunts. These programs have been in place for over 20 years now..A nuisance Alligator Program kills an additional 5,000-10,000 adult Alligators annually and has done so since the 1970's...thanks
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

Hi Tom,

One of the potential problems with some game management programs is that they keep the population as high as possible resulting in a population that is on the edge, which then ends up impacting the enviroment in a negative manner. For example, game management practices for white-tailed deer in many regions have moved the populations to levels where they are wiping out the understory through overbrowsing which is causing significant harm to the forest structure and everything that depending on the understory.

As I stated, it will be interesting to see if we end up with a similar problem with the gators.

Ed

They already are a problem. That's why they have nuisance gator removal businesses. That's why they allow hunting.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that probably 2/3 of the stomach/gut contents of Burmese pythons examined by biologists will be determined to be gator. We shall see.

And deer are a horrible problem in Central Texas. Property damage, injury and death through automobile/vehicle encounters. Ask the insurance industry. Lyme Disease vector in the East. Not to mention all the damage they do to people's yards/landscaping.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Hi John,

Tom indicated that the population appears to still be expanding at a high rate so there appears to be a lot of carrying capacity available to the gators which means we really haven't begun to see whether or not there will be impacts like the deer are causing. I've had lymes. Missed a tick from herping in the Pine Barrens.

Ed

I'll put my money on rats and feral cats more than gators. If it was anacondas in the everglades it might be a different story.

Actually I do not believe that will happen just like turtles Alligators are designed to be preyed upon in their juvenile stage at a high rate once they reach adulthood alligators are a top predator and have few if any natural predators other than other alligators.
Deer on the other hand traditionally had large mammalian predators throughout all stages of their life in the form of Wolves and large cats. Both species of wolves were almost completely extirpated from the lower 48 states (Canis rufus is basically extinct in the wild with the exception of limited reintroduction.) and The two species of large cats were extirpated from most or all of their range (the Jaguar used to range into Pennsylvania and now only seldomly ventures north of the Mexico/ U.S. border) in the U.S.. Although coyotes have filled into to some of the range left empty by wolves and to a limited extent occasionally prey on deer they primarily subsist on much smaller prey than wolves did. this leaves man as the only predator on large herbevorous mammals (at least in the eastern U.S.). In that respect comparing deer and alligators is like comparing apples to oranges.

quote "Actually I do not believe that will happen just like turtles Alligators are designed to be preyed upon in their juvenile stage at a high rate once they reach adulthood alligators are a top predator and have few if any natural predators other than other alligators. "endquote

This does not indicate that the alligator cannot reach high densities approaching the maximal carrying capacity of the enviroment and actually supports the argument that they may reach those levels particularly if they are as Tom noted still showing population growth in large numbers.

quote "Deer on the other hand traditionally had large mammalian predators throughout all stages of their life in the form of Wolves and large cats."endquote

Cars have largely replaced the traditional predators on deer but this does not explain how the populations were managed to maxize deer populations. For one example, the various state and federal agencies not only limited the take on deer but encouraged the take on male deer (as one male could fertilize many females) as well as instituted forest managment practices which increased deer numbers to unprecedented levels resulting in changes to the ecosystem.

quote "Both species of wolves were almost completely extirpated from the lower 48 states (Canis rufus is basically extinct in the wild with the exception of limited reintroduction.)"endquote

There are some stong arguments that there are no pure red wolves left although the phenotype should be preserved as it will function the same in the ecosystem. Pretty much all are hybrids with coyotes to some extent, unlike the wolves.

quote "and The two species of large cats were extirpated from most or all of their range (the Jaguar used to range into Pennsylvania and now only seldomly ventures north of the Mexico/ U.S. border)"endquote

Are you sure about that range? I can only find reference up into Grand Canyon, however in the historic days, it would not be unusual for a puma to occasionally be called a jaguar..

So when did a top predator get exempted from boom and bust population cycles like virtually every other animal?

Ed

I would think the carring capacity of the southeast for alligators might go up with the addition to the food supply. more introduced large fish, more food from humans available to possums, racoons, birds, rats, dogs, cats, etc. means more mamals to prey apon. More canals and lakes means more year around water and year around food supply.
Rob

And I would expect that, however there is going to be a point where the population is maximized and we cannot predict what the result of that is going to do to the ecosystem. For a hypothetical example, there could be changes in population structures of sliders, fish, and smaller mammals... but we don't know what they will be at this time.

Ed

"This does not indicate that the alligator cannot reach high densities approaching the maximal carrying capacity of the enviroment and actually supports the argument that they may reach those levels particularly if they are as Tom noted still showing population growth in large numbers."

Historically all predators have their numbers kept in check according to the availability of prey and the availability of suitable habitat (territory.)
Alligators have been here for millions of years before humans and managed to maintain this stasis quite fine without the help of humans and did so more successfully than the dinosaurs. The difference between them and the deer is that as you mentioned they have had their population numbers artificially manipulated not only by humans taking out their natural predators and manipulating which animals are predated upon (females are protected males are predated....wolves and big cats do not discriminate their only criteria is to be able to catch the prey item.) but also by manipulating their food supply as well.

"Cars have largely replaced the traditional predators on deer" With the exception of some very unique vehicles I have seen on ranches in South Texas (lol) cars do not actively prey upon deer such accidents are incidental. Roads only entail a limited percentage of a deers habitat (certainly a larger percentage in semi-urbanized areas such as eastern pennsylvania. than say perhaps the Adirondack state park.) large predators tend to be migratory and follow their prey or set up territories along their prey's migrational path. Thus maximizing contact with their prey.

"There are some stong arguments that there are no pure red wolves left although the phenotype should be preserved as it will function the same in the ecosystem. Pretty much all are hybrids with coyotes to some extent, unlike the wolves."
I know there is a lot of debate hear and I also know that the researchers who came up with the initial dna evidence hinting toward the hybridization between C rufus/latrans mentioned that their findings were in stages too early to make an accurate determination of that. Given the close genetic lineage between C rufus, C latrans and the extinct Dire wolf (C dirus.) I would tend to wait and see where that research goes before making the hybrid claim. I suspect that the strongest arguments for current existing animals being rufus/latrans hybrids come from cattleman's associations.

Are you sure about that range? I can only find reference up into Grand Canyon, however in the historic days, it would not be unusual for a puma to occasionally be called a jaguar..

I picked that tidbit up from somewhere and I am unsure exactly where but do remember hearing it and being surprised by that as well. Given that pumas were historcally present in the northeast (arguably still present in the adirondacks by some accounts.) it may have been a case of mistaken identity that went further than it should have.

So when did a top predator get exempted from boom and bust population cycles like virtually every other animal?

I did not say top predators are exempted from "boom and bust population cycles" my point was that their populations are affected by signifigantly different factors than that of deer and thus it is not accurate to compare expansions of populations both species.

There is some much more recent mtDNA analysis out on the red wolves that is really supporting a hybrid population, however as I noted the groups that did that mtDNA analysis also strongly argued for a continuation of the protection and further release of the wolves.

At this time, if the alligator population is expanding at the rate indicated by Tom (and I have no reason to doubt him on it) that means the carrying capacity of the ecosystem is not even close to be maximized with respect to the alligator population. That means the population of alligators is going to continue to grow. Depending on how the population is managed, this is going to have an impact on the ecosystem. As the population increases and the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for alligators in reached, changes in prey frequency are going to occur. These changes in prey frequency are going to make other ripples along the ecosystem line. These are the impacts we have yet to see as the population of gators is not optimized. For example, we know that gators do predate on turtles (which is why some of the turtles in habitat that contains alligators develop thick high domed shells in an attempt to reduce predation levels).

If the gator population is managed in a manner that prevent the adults from achieving lengths that are as close to the maximum as allowed by enviromental conditions, then we are also further changing the dynamics of the ecosystem and keeping it from reaching a balance with the alligator populations. Different size classes have different abilities to take different prey species and by concentrating the adult sizes within a basic size class you are making the population at risk if there is a crash in the prey species..

However that is all just discussion points,
historically in populations of animals that are recovering (or expanding into optimal habitat), a common trend is seen, and that is the population typically booms past the carrying capacity of the enviroment which then leads to a bust cycle. This occurs several times until the population gets close to a normal status.
It will be interesting to see if gators hit that point in my lifetime.

This is an interesting paper put out by the USGS http://www.sjrwmd.com/technicalreports/pdfs/SP/SJ2003-SP2.pdf

Ed

I'm pretty sure I've seen Red Wolves and Coyotes for sure. What I thought were Red Wolves were almost indistinguishable from Coyotes other than size and a slightly larger different scull/snout on the wolf. They occupied the same range/same niches in far Southeast Texas. Both were persecuted to the point of being rare, so I'd suspect hybrid breedings would be common. Coyotes not nearly so rare as the wolves, of course.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Isn't it interesting the way Florida Red-bellied Cooters have developed such a high domed carapace to discourage Alligator predation. And the fact that they nest in Gator nests. Is that symbiotic, commensalism, mutalism, or what? Do the P. nelsoni require a higher incubation temperature as compared to the other Cooters?

The Peninsular Cooters have the same high domed shell, too. They both grow rapidly to develop that protective dome.

So, how are the P. nelsoni doing in regard to the Gators, anyway? Aren't they pretty much restricted to the Central Florida springs area?

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Don't know.. but it is one of the thoughts I was pondering as I wrote that last post. I also suspect that in gator habitat, there will be a change in the raccoon population. I suspect that there are a lot of mammals in the size group that is easy food for a six foot plus gator that may get a surprise.

Ed

Hey Ed, Just now reading from below. I don't think Rodda's paper was ever intended to be a scientific paper. It was labeled as such and tactfully promoted through our worthless media as such, by the AR community.

It reads like a story from Readers Digest. I'm pretty sure he was manipulated to some extent and I'm pretty sure he's real sorry he ever did it. Kinda like when Animal Planet wants one of us to contribute and edits one of ours' input to 180 degrees original intent.

I'm not apologizing for Rodda, or making excuses. I'm just considering how it was so deftly incorporated into the discussion and those that made such hay from it.

I'm in the camp that believes Rodda has made a career out of the Brown Tree Snake, with not much to show for it, other than papers.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Hi John

That sounds like a pretty plausible scenario.

Thanks

Ed

Nelsoni exist all over Penisular Fl and the Fl. Keys even. Many turtles nest in Alligator nest. On my Croc Farm I had even the Alligator Snappers do this. I believe it's because in areas of extensive marshes such as the ENP there are very few suitable nesting areas as well I think the turtles know that the mother Allligator protects their eggs inadvertly...
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

Yes bullfrogs were deliberately introduced into California sometime before 1920 to use as a food source and/or an attempt to farm them (see Storer, Tracy I. A Synopsis of the Amphibia of California. University of Califonia Publications in Zoology Volume 27, The University of California Press, 1925). The introductions appear to have been based on a collaboration between the private sector looking for markets and the Fish and Game department of the time. This was long before there would have been any real concern about the impacts on the native species as at that time, the emphasis was on species that had a commercial value whether it was as a regulated game species or one that was a commercially viable prospect. However given the time line, I highly doubt it was to provide job security for themselves as at that time, there was a lot of cronyism going in the political arena...

Ed

Thanks for the info. My fireman analogy was more as a general criticism, not specifically for the bullfrog situation. The bottom line is that publicly funded scientists, regardless of intentions, have as bad a record as anyone else when it comes to protecting wildlife and/or eradicating "bad" species. Yet blame seems to always be placed on pet owners or the commercial/recreational breeders/dealers.

If most poor working slobs outside of academia did that (ie, produced poor results and/or blamed others without supporting evidence), we would get fired. I know I would.

Like others have said, the public and private sectors should be WORKING TOGETHER. While formal science has its place, so does years of experience actually working with the animals in question.

quote "The bottom line is that publicly funded scientists, regardless of intentions, have as bad a record as anyone else when it comes to protecting wildlife and/or eradicating "bad" species. Yet blame seems to always be placed on pet owners or the commercial/recreational breeders/dealers." endquote

I think there is a problem with perception here, let us take for example the original report commissioned by USGS in which overly broad parameters were taken to provide a theoretical range expansion of burmese pythons. The expansion was based on some assumptions to give a potential worse case scenario as a conservative estimate. Now, several of the assumptions in it were incorrect and overly broad and following appropriate research protocols, the asumptions are being refuted in the literature. The problem comes not really from the researchers but with how that data was utilized by some groups with outside agendas.

quote "If most poor working slobs outside of academia did that (ie, produced poor results and/or blamed others without supporting evidence), we would get fired. I know I would."endquote

And researchers like the ones in USGS do get fired/demoted or otherwise dealt with if they are poor researchers.

quote "Like others have said, the public and private sectors should be WORKING TOGETHER. While formal science has its place, so does years of experience actually working with the animals in question."endquote

The years of experience unless consistently documented (records, pictures etc) falls under the listing as anecdotal evidence which has its place in formal research as much as hard data. Many a theory or study has been based on anecdotal evidence which allows it to be documented through the formal process. If there are sufficient records and supporting evidence, then the data is not anecdotal but appropriate in and of its own right.
There is no reason that data from records etc cannot be submitted for publication into the appropriate journals (you would have to follow the journal's format). For example, to only name a couple, Herpetological Review (one of the SSAR publications) takes and publishes husbandry articles, then there is also the The Herpetological Bulletin, The Natterjack.. and so forth.

Other journals accept range extensions, unsual predation or prey reports, and so forth in thier short notes.

It isn't a one way street....

I have worked in the pet industry, I do keep herps at home and I have also worked in the R&D field as well as being a ZooKeeper where I've been concentrating on amphibians so I tend to drag a lot of the newer research out to one of the frog forums.

Ed

That's all good. Thanks.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

First of all, thanks for keeping the discussion civil.

To address your points:

The USGS report was garbage. Any 16 year old snake hobbyist knows P. molurus bivitattus wouldn't survive in Washington, DC or Ohio. One doesn't need to be published in a journal to know that. But aside from that, I'm not just talking about one or two anecdotes. I'm talking about the overall track record. Cane toads. Asian carp. Bull frogs. Protected bald eagles being killed from eating poisoned rats. Eradicating the brown tree snake. Tom C. mentioned below that the FWC intentionally released gopher tortoises that were sick. I'd be happy to change my "perception" if I see more success stories, rather than peoples' hard earned tax money being wasted on failures.

And as far as my "perception", maybe it would be different if almost every article related to "invasive species" didn't contain quotes from "scientists" or "researchers" blaming pet owners and the pet industry.

You said:
"And researchers like the ones in USGS do get fired/demoted or otherwise dealt with if they are poor researchers."

I sure hope so. So how has Rodda survived for so long?

You said:
"It isn't a one way street...."

We are in agreement here. I didn't say it's a one way street. In fact, my whole point is that it shouldn't be a one
way street. It seems to me the "scientific community" wants to make it a one way street. Again, just look at the Everglades
python issue. For some reason, it's widely believed that the Burmese pythons are an ecological disaster. But where is the
evidence for that? One or two anecdotes of a python eating a Key Largo rat? There was a DNA study done on the feral Everglades python populations showing they were genetically very similar. Why wasn't the next logical step taken (ie, comparing those results with DNA samples from captive snakes?) Who's being unscientific here???

Again, my perception would change if I didn't see such hypocrisy.

you wrote:
"I have worked in the pet industry, I do keep herps at home and I have also worked in the R&D field as well as being a ZooKeeper where I've been concentrating on amphibians so I tend to drag a lot of the newer research out to one of the frog forums."

I think that's great. I own three snakes, two of which are protected/endangered, and two of which are considered "exotic." I've used them in informal and formal educational presentations at schools and museums, on my own dime. To be honest, I think I've done more to protect native snakes (ie, educating people and alleviating irrational fear, which often results in native snakes getting their heads chopped off) than some scientists supposedly working to protect native fauna. Just think how many people are now even more irrationally afraid of snakes due to the Burmese python hysteria that is going on now.

I agree with this too. It seems the scientific community wants a monopoly on the whole shooting match, at our expense. Their allies are the AR community and Government.

It's an inbred mentality. Let me run through this one more time -- Professional Biologists and Wildlife Officials studied under Academia, with Academia's views, perceptions, philosophy, and prejudices being the ingrained backbone of their teachings. Then, these graduates in Wildlife Biology became the keepers/overseers of the Academics' stock and trade/livelihood by holding the purse strings/justification for University wildlife studies. The academics are then beholden/dependent on grant money from those very ones that they originally trained. It is simply pandering and patronage on the scale of professional nepotism.

I'm all for cooperation and compromise, but I haven't seen any from the opposing viewpoint.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Hi John,

quote "I agree with this too. It seems the scientific community wants a monopoly on the whole shooting match, at our expense. Their allies are the AR community and Government."endquote

Then why do the scientific journals (like the one's I referenced above) have sections that are geared specifically towards articles that could be written by the non-academics? If it is a monopoly, then it is one due to lack of participation on the part of the private sector. If the ability to join the discussion is there and the private sector does not choose to join the discussion, then it is hard for them to complain about not being heard.

quote "It's an inbred mentality. Let me run through this one more time -- Professional Biologists and Wildlife Officials studied under Academia, with Academia's views, perceptions, philosophy, and prejudices being the ingrained backbone of their teachings. Then, these graduates in Wildlife Biology became the keepers/overseers of the Academics' stock and trade/livelihood by holding the purse strings/justification for University wildlife studies. The academics are then beholden/dependent on grant money from those very ones that they originally trained. It is simply pandering and patronage on the scale of professional nepotism. endquote.

If this really was the case then there wouldn't be any papers coming out to refute the USGS paper as it would be easier to go with the flow and support the paper to get the funding as refuting it is going against the will of various interested parties... Science is often a slow process..

I've spoken to several people working in areas like Montana and Wyoming who have actually been repeatedly accused by groups of local residents that the US goverment and the researchers are overflying thier property at night to seed it with endangered species (ranging from Wyoming toads to kangaroo rats) with stealth black painted helicopters so they can broadcast those animals onto thier property and take thier land away from them. The last I spoke to the taxon advisory for the Wyoming toad, the state of Wyoming wants to declare the toads extinct for a number of reasons including the above claims. If in any year they do not find any toads, the state is going to declare them extinct and prohibit any further releases...

Ed

quote "The USGS report was garbage. Any 16 year old snake hobbyist knows P. molurus bivitattus wouldn't survive in Washington, DC or Ohio. One doesn't need to be published in a journal to know that."endquote

This is one of the problems, knowledge based on anecdotal experience is not the same as quantified data. The other thing that should be kept in mind is that the USGS report was not released in a relevent peer reviewed journal where the problems associated with the problematic assumptions (subspecies differences, maximal climate change) would have been flagged. There was a recent study that should be coming out this year with some quantified data on burms and thier actual cold tolerance. Its pretty obvious the intent of the USGS paper was to provide a theoretical worst case scenario but not only was this poorly communicated in the article but it used bad assumptions in attempting to reach the result.

quote "I'm talking about the overall track record. Cane toads. Asian carp. Bull frogs. Protected bald eagles being killed from eating poisoned rats. Eradicating the brown tree snake. Tom C. mentioned below that the FWC intentionally released gopher tortoises that were sick."endquote

I'm not sure of the point, but I'm going to take a guess and let us look at some of these in thier context, bullfrogs were being moved around as a potential cash crop (both by private individuals and researchers) before 1925 on the west coast and much earlier in other states. Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) were introduced to the US in 1831 and distributed across the country by the late 1800s (thanks to rail travel). The same has occured with both large and small mouth bass, brown and other trout species.. Cane toads introductions started by the 1840s but the main introductions didn't occur until after it was successfully introduced in Puerto Rico to control a beetle. After that success it was collected and made its world wide debut in the 1930s.
On what basis are you sure the Asian carp problem was due to a govermental agency? Several of those species were in aquaculture for use as a food fish(some ethnic groups prize them) and grass carp were known to be reproducing in the Mississippi since around 1970...

The brown treesnake made it into Guam before 1952..

The release of the gopher tortoises was back before there was any real understanding that there could be a problem in reptiles (or amphibians) of novel diseases that can be aquired from animals from different regions.

In most of the cited cases here, the animals (or the case of the gopher tortoises Mycoplasma agassizii) involved have had a very large period of time to become established and spread into the relevent ecosystems. This changes the scale of what is required to deal with the problem.

With the exception of the eagle (and I'm feeling too lazy at the moment to dig into that case at the moment), in most of the above cases, at the time the introductions occured, there wasn't any reason to suspect that there would be a down side on the introduction. One of the exceptions is the Asian carp as it was also be aquacultured so we can't determine if the release was accidental or deliberate much less whether it was the fault of a private concern, a govermental agency or both.

If I understand your point, you don't see the goverment as being effective in controlling these invasive species or is it the fact that they allowed them to be established in the first place?

The second point is much easier to answer as at that time, there wasn't any evidence of a a downside that made a difference at that time. The first point is a little different... there are ways it could be done but the consequences are so drastic that it may not be worth it..like Rotenoneing the entire Mississippi and all of its tributaries to wipe out the Asian Carp problem. In other cases, like the marine toads, the impact appears to be relatively small.

It is true that these introductions are much more of a ecological headline grabber than say Veiled Chameleons, Cuban treefrogs, brown anoles, tilapia, oscars, midas cichlids, red eared sliders, basilisks, and so forth...

quote "I'd be happy to change my "perception" if I see more success stories, rather than peoples' hard earned tax money being wasted on failures. "endquote.

While some of it does waste tax dollars there are sucess stores.. for example tax dollars were used to discover a weevil that feeds on the seeds of purple loosestrife which has resulted in the species no longer being an invasive problem and instead is not a interesting plant to see while fishing. Or the insect control of alligator weed (see http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/guide/biocons.html).. or the promise of the tachnid fly in controlling fire ants.. There is progress but it is slow as the potential controls have to be screened to make sure the cure isn't worse than the problem. Australia screened what they thought was a virus that was specific to marine toads only to discover that it would wipe out native species. Luckily they found this out before releasing the virus into the enviroment.

quote "And as far as my "perception", maybe it would be different if almost every article related to "invasive species" didn't contain quotes from "scientists" or "researchers" blaming pet owners and the pet industry. "endquote

There are a lot out there that do not blame the pet trade. Look at the wikipedia pages for your examples above. But the pet sector has either intentionally or unintentionally released enough species to support some of the complaints,
oscars and other cichlids, assorted livebearers (there was a pond not far outside of Las Vegas where I used to go as a kid and you could catch guppies, swordtails, mollies, and auratus cichlids because some idiot dumped his fish tanks into the spring. The spring kept the water warm enough that the fish survived.), lionfish, veiled chameleons, assorted day gecko species, Cuban Knight Anoles, red eared sliders (probably the most invasive herp) to name a few.

The problem is keeping the rest from being tarred with the same brush as the idiots that dump alligators or caimen into ponds near day care centers in New Jersey...

quote "I sure hope so. So how has Rodda survived for so long?" endquote

Have you bothered to look at any of his other publications? A number of the ones I scanned were not flawed in the way the current one was.. try google scholar.

quote "We are in agreement here. I didn't say it's a one way street. In fact, my whole point is that it shouldn't be a one
way street. It seems to me the "scientific community" wants to make it a one way street."endquote

Actually many researchers don't want it to be a one way street either but if you were a researcher and came on here and read the comments about the scientific community would you respond to anything on here? I understand the frustration with the legislation being handled on a single badly done paper but you cannot assume the entire research community is responsible.

quote" Again, just look at the Everglades
python issue. For some reason, it's widely believed that the Burmese pythons are an ecological disaster. But where is the
evidence for that? One or two anecdotes of a python eating a Key Largo rat? There was a DNA study done on the feral Everglades python populations showing they were genetically very similar. Why wasn't the next logical step taken (ie, comparing those results with DNA samples from captive snakes?) Who's being unscientific here??? "endquote

Most of that is being driven by the regular media and a few people who are willing to make the claim however the silence on the rest of the scientific community is because there is actually too little data to give a real opinion. And if you give an opinion and it is wrong then you will end up being discredited going forward which can really kill your career.

As for the study of the genetics of the burmese..
1) funding.. do you think the average person in today's climate is willing to allow tax dollars to go to the study...? Grants are also going to be very hard to come through to pay for this as well.
2) do you think you would be able to get a wide enough consensus to participate?

quote "I think that's great. I own three snakes, two of which are protected/endangered, and two of which are considered "exotic." I've used them in informal and formal educational presentations at schools and museums, on my own dime. To be honest, I think I've done more to protect native snakes (ie, educating people and alleviating irrational fear, which often results in native snakes getting their heads chopped off) than some scientists supposedly working to protect native fauna. Just think how many people are now even more irrationally afraid of snakes due to the Burmese python hysteria that is going on now."endquote

I think most of America has shelved the burmese issue into the category of somebody else's problem and isn't even thinking about it.

I've done a number of talks ranging from native herps to Amphibian Nutrition, what we don't know...

Ed

That's some great info on invasive introductions, Ed! BYW, I believe I read somewhere that this emerging House Cricket disease affects fire ants as well.

For those who don't know, the House Cricket, Acheta domesticus, has been wiped out of commercial production in Europe by some sort of disease that kills them just before adult metamorphosis. This disease has now spread to the U.S., and a cricket shortage in the U.S. is immanent.

"So how has Rodda survived for so long?" Government unions.

I'm guessing you didn't bother to review any of the other papers...

Ed, you're not going to find much sympathy for Mr. Rodda here.

"Wilmington, NC October 13 2009- The US Geologic Survey (USGS) plans to release a new study on nine large constricting snakes… including Boa Constrictor, one of the most popular pet snakes in the world. The primary author of the study is Gordon Rodda, best known as manager of the failed 20-year government-funded project to eradicate the Brown Treesnakes in Guam costing taxpayers more than 100 million dollars."

And now we have the fiasco that is the USGS Python Range Expansion Map, which has provided the fuel to add 9 constrictor snake species to the Lacy Act. Without that single document, there would be no case for federal action on the issue of Burmese Pythons in the Everglades National Park.

This document will give you some background info:

On Burmese Pythons in the Everglades

Dave and Tracy Barker have a number of papers on their website, in addition to the one above.

I'm not looking for a lot of sympathy for him (or any really). The paper was an embarassment.

However people are asking how he is still employed and the answer to a large extent is that a lot of peer reviewed published articles aren't a piece of crud... I'm just trying to keep it in perspective.

Ed

If you have any info on how such a person of science could author such a document as the USGS Python Range Expansion Map, please share it with us.

It simply doesn't make much sense to me, outside of the context that he was duped or did it for the potential research money, that a scientist could put his name to this paper, especially since it didn't go through external peer review. Did he not know this would be the case?

Somewhere along the line a decision to predict the worst case (most conservative) scenario for burmese pythons was made. Due to bad choice in making the assumptions on the data including use of wrong habitat needs, species tolerances etc, a terrible paper was produced. In most cases this wouldn't have amounted to much as in due time it would have been refuted for its errors or the peer review process would have kicked it out before publication due to its flaws. As it was an internally produced paper it didn't have to go through a process that would have probably caught those errors.
The problem is that not only did the media grab onto it, but the various elected politicians grabbed onto it as a justification of the need for the ban and the various special interest groups grabbed on to it as well. The entire thing rapdily snowballed into the giant foobar we know so well and love.

I personally cannot justify bad decision making for basing a publication but I can't justify tossing out everything ever written on this basis as all research should be evaluated on the basis of the data and not the lead author on the paper.

Ed

Hey Eddy. hope your feeling better and that things are alright. Heres my take, I see what your saying and agree with some of it.

The peer review process is flawed in many ways. It in NO way guarantees the accuracy of the findings presented in a document or that part of the content have not been skewed to suit the authors views. It could only mean the document in question meets the basic guidelines of the journal it has been submitted to. Form over content. With more and more scientific journals popping up and the blatant bias displayed by some journals, the peer review process has become less and less stringent, certainly not the mark of academic excellence that it is often professed to be. Many "real scientists" fully understand this but few are publicly outspoken about it. Peer reviewed papers are nice little gold star additions to their resume. Few want to down play the importance of being peer reviewed published regardless of their actual feelings about the system for this very reason.

The USGS Report in all of its "craptastic splendor" would have no doubt been published by a very well known and....cough, respected journal such as Biological Invasions. The only reason it wasn't submitted was due to the time frame involved, Rodda couldn't wait, they needed their propaganda piece out fast.

As for his other work. Rodda made a very nice career for himself exploiting the brown tree snake situation on Guam. He was hoping to score again with the burms. I suspect that much of his "work" involving the tree snakes and Guam was equally flawed, but who ever questioned any of it? Everything involved with that situation was in someway tied to the USGS and Rodda, they could away with murder. This was not the case with the burms. People were watching. That being said these types of biological issues provide a lot of safe ground for guys wanting to play games. Unlike Physics, chemistry etc. Mathematically based sciences. Papers of importance (importance being relative) are seldom challenged in the reptilian world. Even if they are often there is enough biological gray area to make it virtually impossible to unequivocally discount someone's else's findings. Even if yours are to the complete contrary.

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

Hey Ernie,

Long time no see.. Good to see your still around.

The work I've seen on the Boiga isn't flawed the same way as the burm one was (Philly has been involved with Guam birds and the snake problem for at least 25 years now..). We had brown treesnakes in the Reptile collection many years ago...

I think there was a rush to get the paper to publication and it wasn't reviewed as stringently as it should have been by the authors (any reason why people are concentrating on the primary author as the others as well as the reviewer listed in the end of the article are also culpable).. I knew that they had intended to submit it to the Invasive Journal but didn't make the cut.

I'm not sure I agree that the peer reviewed process has gotten easier based on the number of journals. When the paper is sent out for review, you aren't told who is reviewing it. The review process is anonymous so this makes it harder for the good ol'boy system to function. It comes back with a bunch of comments which may be serious comments or nit picky or even just sabatoge as the reviewer or someone in thier lab just happened to be working on something similar and they want to try and beat that person to the punch. This is true for most "serious" journals (I had an article that would have been the first description of courtship behavior in narrow striped dwarf sirens refused by several journals on the basis it was in a captive situation and they only wanted articles on the animal in the wild..) and is often considered such a hinderance to getting published that it is considered to be holding back many papers.

Good to hear your still around.

I saw Kyle not that long ago.

Ed

Ed, I've posted this before here, but it's worth reposting:

PIJAC Submission to the USFWS Rule Change

This is a point-by-point analysis of the

Oops! Clicked the wrong button. I meant to conclude that this was a point-by-point analysis of the USF&WS proposed rule change and of the USGS Python Expansion Map Report.

I did see that and that came out after the paper was released to the public. I'm not disagreeing with it.

Ed

Hi Ed!

Good to see you here!

I'm out of work sick, and was trying to see if there was any update on big snake legislation so I figured I'd try to add some info to the mix.

Ed

Thanks. Hope you get to feeling better.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

It'll be awhile as I've been out of work for about 8 weeks now. Its been awhile since I've been on the forums and things were looking a little polarized and heated. I just found it funny that as I sit here typing I'm wearing my I keep snakes and I vote shirt...

Ed

Sorry to hear you're not well at the moment, Ed. Please look after yourself, and I hope you have a quick recovery!

Thanks
I'll try. I've got to run in a little bit as I've got to go and drop a package off for shipment at the local UPS facility.

Ed

I was just sent this email from the State of Florida, after they questioned their counterparts in California:

Following questions and comments by the pet industry, the California ban on importation of nonnative turtles and frogs has been clarified. The ban only applies to nonnative turtles and frogs imported as live food to be sold in California. The ban does not apply to nonnative turtles and frogs in the pet trade.

Paul

* * * *

Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner of Agriculture

Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Division of Aquaculture

1203 Governor's Square Blvd, Ste 501

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-2961

Telephone: 850-488-4033

Fax: 850-410-0893

Website: http://www.FloridaAquaculture.com

Florida agriculture and forestry products: Over $100 billion for Florida's economy