Reptile & Amphibian Forums

It started here because it's directly related to indigo snake habitat.

It belongs here in my opinion right up to the point where we start debating politics and religion and start heating things up.

(which those topics will ALWAYS do!)

The free for all's are not doing this forum any good.
At that point I guess we can move it to the open fourm.

Bbut...I'd like to think this forum can be used to discuss conservation issues, not just breeding and maintence. (not that those things are not important). I don't apologize for bringing up conservation issues on a forum dedicated in part to a federally listed threatened species.

Concur Deano....to a point. I readily recognize the connection with Gopher tortoises. But the more general habitat issues should be taken up with the herp community in general vice those here who you can readily count upon to do something.

Let's not make the Dry community the mouthpiece for the herp community but rather place the issue in the wider collective lap of the herp community.

My 2 cents,

Regards,
J.
-----
Your belief of the facts has no impact on their validity.-- Me some time ago
There is neither love nor loyalty hidden behind an eye that does not blink.-- Me more recently

I posted the original article but should have probably resisted the temptation to respond to the irrational responses.

I've always had at least a passing interest in politics, but watching GW Bush (and his brother Jeb) pander to developers and corporations and doing severe, irreperable damage to our natural heritage has made a bit of an activist out of me.

When we loose an acre of land to the highways and walmarts and subdivisions we loose it forever, it may become a slum, as much of teh 30 year old housing developments in and around Phoenix have become, but they will never be wild again - ever. Yet we stand by and watch this destruction with a chilling nonchalance.

The huge sugar industry in southern Florida does very little to benefit the economy. The labor intensive operations employ not American, but Caribbean workers who are little more than indentured servants. They never benefit from their earnings, but rather pay what they earn back to the company store or for company owned housing. But the folks that own the plantations have a great deal of political power.

Without the sugar welfare program we would produce the amount the free market would bare, which means none. Sugar produced in the US sells for 2-3 times what it does in the rest of the world, and we produce 5 times as much as we can consume. It can only be produced because it is heavily subsidized by tax payer dollars and the huge surplus is held in storage or dumped on foreign markets, destroying their own fledgling efforts at agricultural production.

In short, the sugar industry does *nothing* but keep a bunch of wealthy white men wealthy. It provides us nothing we couldn't get cheaper elsewhere, it employs very few Americans. At the same time it has destroyed much of the central/southern Florida environment and damages the Everglades year after year.

I posted what I did to highlight yet another threat to Florida wildlife, the seemingly unstoppable destruction of wildlands for crappy subdivisions. My point, though not stated, was that we need to get involved, and there are lots of ways to do so - some are very easy. I can post some links to efforts worth fighting for - Dean mentioned the Nature Conservancy, a great cause to get behind.

I've lived in Florida and in Arizona. I'm not sure I could ever do so again. Watching the urban sprawl consume acre after acre of pristine wilderness is too much. No one wants to live any where but on the very edge of town, next to the wilderness. And so they build them, one expanding layer of suburb after the other. At the same time a lack of tax base in the urban core allows the city center to rot.

Anyway, my point in posting this is to encourage people to care enough to get active. You don't have to believe me about Bush's record on the environment, do your own research - buut try to get at the truth. Don't let what you want to be true color what actually is. You may really like Bush's policies, but if you disagree with his environmental policies let him know it - you don't have to be a blind follower, you can be part of a group of Bush supporters that work to make Bush more respectful of our natural heritage. you would have a huge challange ahead of you, but your efforts would be more productive than ridiculing those who disagree with you here. Or pretending that Bush's policies aren't really all that bad. As I said, they are unprecidented.

I will fell free to post here anything I find relative to Indigo habitat and conservation. But I will ignore the irrational responses such posts generally illicit.

Reference for Sugar Industry facts:
http://www.weblog.nohair.net/archives/000372.html

Joe

Joe is pretty much spot on with his assessment of the sugar industry here in Florida. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to bear some responsibility for cleaning up the Everglades. They are now hard at work trying to weasel out of their original commitment. I believe this whole thread started with an article about some southwest Florida politicians using their version of science to further their agenda. Unfortunately, that's the way these environmental legislative battles are engaged these days........one guys experts with his interpretation of the data versus the other guys opinion. Development in Florida will not stop any time soon. I think the best workable compromise is the way many enlightened communities are doing it. As land is given up to the developers, an equal amount is set aside to greenbelts and natural conservancy areas. The wildlife at least gets a few pockets of respite. Environmentalists will be better off expending their energy identifying and lobbying for the preservation of the best of these microhabitats.

Since this forum is about Indigos, I must admit that the largest Indigo that I ever found was on US Sugar Corp. property just east of Pahokee, FL many years ago. Now isn't that ironic?

it's getting a bit off topic even though it is related.

Everyone believes in environmentalism, it's just that some think money is better spent on other things (you can clean this problem up a lot cheaper than that one) and some have better methods to protect the environment than others--and there is a lot of disaggrement on both those points.

Rodney

Dean and I may come from completely different "beliefs" but he and I are 100% in favor of supporting conservation efforts to save eastern indigos. And, unlike most of the other forums which are only focused on developing the hot new morph to make the next big buck, or something along that line, this forum IS FAR DIFFEERNT THAN ANY OTHER. When we challenge folks on this forum to support eastern indigo conservation efforts at the U. of Georgia, we raised nearly $1000 for this important cause. If we didn't promote conservation on this forum, this important study would have $1000 less to work with (and anyone who is involved in field research, including myself, knows how far a penny can stretch). I would bet anything that you couldn't raise a single dollar to support conservation efforts to save any of the other animals highlighted on kingsnake (with the exception of Cyclura; another conservation minded group). So, while husbandry issues are certainly the bread and butter of what this forum is about, I also believe that conservation issues are just as important and NEED to be addressed here. Just my .02. Rob Carmichael

Mr. C.

You could not be more correct, you accurately and eloquently place in prose my thoughts exactly. Wish I could use the language as well as you.

Regards,
Jeff
-----
Your belief of the facts has no impact on their validity.-- Me some time ago
There is neither love nor loyalty hidden behind an eye that does not blink.-- Me more recently

There are millions in this country alone who don't care whatsoever.

Who believe that the "environmentalists" are simply wackos who
care about nature more that humans.

Who think that global warming is a silly concept and who think that species that go extinct were simply meant to go extinct.

Yes most species that have gone extinct did so before humans were even on this planet. But now...we are in a very unique time.

A time when many of the species that are in trouble are so directly beacuse of man-made factors.

What is so hard to understand that if we destroy the habitat, the species that live there vanish and that is directly man-made?

No, everyone does NOT beleive in environmentalism.
Because many people ONLY care about what directly effects their pocketbook and what is convenient for them TODAY.

I'd have to disagree with that.

Ask someone on the street, "Do you support the harming of the environment?"

How many people do you think will reply yes to that question? You might be able to find a couple, but they would be very few and far between.

I certainly believe in environmentalism, just not "environmentalist" groups--most of which are total frauds in my opinion.

Every business isn't irresponsible just because they want to make money. If you owned and ran a business, would you personally eliminate the indigos habitat just to turn a buck? I don't think you would, considering your last post.

Rodney

"do you support the harming of the environment?"

Of course most are going to say no. They don't want to think they do that. That's like saying I drive a car...so...ask me "do I support putting carbon monoxide into the air"?

But do most people support habitat conservation?
No, they don't. Many do, most don't.

Ask them if they support habitat preservation and see what they say. A blank stare is usually what you will get.

I think you are being very closed minded to say that you support environmentalism but not environmentalist groups.

They are not all wackos, and it wouldn't take much research at all to figure that out. Go to www.tnc.org

Do you think bringing lawsuits to prevent the forestry department from managing the forests isn't wacko? Here in California our forests are in major trouble because every time there is a fire, the entire forest is destroyed. Our forests are primarily in two states out here. Either damaged for many decades due to unnaturally intense fires due to unnaturally dense forests, or unnaturally dense forests that are in major danger of an intense fire that will destroy them for decades. "Environmental" groups have even brought suits preventing the reseeding of the damaged forests "because it isn't natural"!

Don't believe me, check this out

http://pushback.com/Wattenburg/articles/NowTheyHaveBurnedLosAlamos.html

Do you not find it odd that virtually every environmental group out there is making millions off of lawsuits and donations and that virtually every environmental group is run by lawyers?

Don't you find it odd that some lawyers are fighting these suits and winning (pacific legal foundation primarily), but they can't keep up with all the suits since they are basically working for nothing while the environmental organizations have huge amounts of money at their disposal?

Don't you find it odd that many founders of environmental groups have quit the organizations that they started because the lawyers have taken over? (like Greenpeace)

Don't you think it is odd that in many cases all a developer has to do is "pay a fine" to an "environmentalist" group to settle a case and then the case is magically dropped so he can build with their blessing?

Don't you find it odd that environmental groups try to prevent people entering any wildland area and from hiking because of the erosion their hiking causes, but they ignore the fact that there was a lot of erosion from native animals that were there before like the Buffalo?

Don't you find it odd that democrat Senator Dashell passed a bill to prevent these "environmental" lawsuits regarding our national forests in his home state but all the democrats seem to support these same "environmental" lawsuits everywhere else.

Don't you find it odd that people who are lucky enough to live up in the mountains pay huge sums of money to have their land thinned both for safety reasons (fires) and the health and beauty of the forest around them?--but environmental groups try to stop this.

Don't you find it odd that current logging techniques are KNOWN to not hurt the forrest, but help it, and "environmental" groups can't see the difference between the horrible clear cutting in the old days, and current techniques?-They know the difference, there just isn't any money in it for them if they don't bring on the law suits.

I don't think it is close minded at all to look at the facts and not give money to environmental groups without checking them out thoroughly first. Most people don't do that or groups like the Sierra Club wouldn't have so many supporters. All a group has to say is that they protect the environment and they are rolling in money--regardless of what they are actually doing.

Really want to get your blood boiling, check out these quotes by "environmentalists" and tell me they aren't wacko--please notice who, what organization they represent, said them.

http://pushback.com/environment/EcoFreakQuotes.html

Yeah, there are a few good environmental groups out there, but the vast vast majority are frauds.--get rich quick schemes for their upper management and lawyers who could care less about the environment.

Rodney

but quickly disintegrated into a political and religious flame war. I think the way it ended up was a 180 degree shift from what was intended in the beginning. That shows that people are passionate about their opinions of political matters both in regard to environmental issues and with regard to other issues. That's a good thing, but not really appropriate for this forum.

There are times when there are environmental or legislative issues at hand directly related to the welfare of the Indigo Snakes. Those are perfectly appropriate topics for this forum. Once the focus of the conversation shifts from those issues as related to the animals and zeros in on purely political or religious debate then it becomes more disruptive that productive, because of that very passion that people hold for those topics. The thing is, you are NEVER going to change another person's political or religious views with a debate in a website forum. Just ain't gonna happen. So, why disrupt the forum and cause hard feelings with each other with all of the verbal pugilism?

There is one subject for which we all share the same level of passion and enthusiasm. The Indigo Snakes and their future in the wild, captive breeding, health and husbandry. Why don't we just try to keep the conversations as closely aligned with those subjects as possible and that way we can have a united front in spite of the differences of opinion? It is possible to discuss political matters as related to the animals and keep it at that level.

Disagreements are good. As long as they remain civil and points made are salient to the subject and not attacks made against another person. If two people always agree on everything, then one of those people is unnecessary. Disagreement is the only thing that ever gets anything changed. The "whacko" labels don't accomplish a thing. The key is that is has to remain civil. Some of the environmental groups and the anti-environmental-group-groups have brought these labels on themselves because of their radical views one way or the other, but the extremes to either side are usually discounted as just that anyway. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and a more moderate approach is likely to be the successful one.

There are three schools of thought that boil down like this:

(simplified to the nth degree, of course)

1. "The environment is in grave danger and will likely be completely gone by this afternoon if we don't have extraterrestrial intervention and destroy every human on the planet."

2. "The environment is in danger and we will lose many species if we don't get smart as a species and stop destrying the animals and their habitats. We have a few years left to fix it, so let's get busy now and do something productive."

3."We couldn't destroy the environment if we tried and it's not possible for humans to make a species disappear."

I think the more reasoned and calm approach is the better one. All of the infighting isn't going to help the animals. As long as we all agree that there are issues related to environment and habitat and legislative issues that concern us and our favorite critters and need our attention, then our political and religious opinions and beliefs should not even be at issue.

You are right that we need to work together on what we agree on
not what we disagree on.

When you are very passionate about something though...it's tough to turn a deaf ear.

I walk away from a lot of topics so as not to arugue.
I don't walk away from this one.

That being said, we can certainly take it to the open discussion
forum.

And, if people can resist the personal attacks and flames, it might even be possible to have a productive conversation about these very important issues. Who knows? A whole new organization that is beneficial to these issues could arise from it. Many have started just that way.

I'll never understand the tendency to attack the person as opposed to the idea. In issues like this, just because two people have opinions that differ does not mean that one of them is evil. It only means that one or both are misinformed. With the "information" that flies in the media today, from both sides of the issue, it is very difficult at best to know what is factual, what is fabricated, what is unsubstantiated theory and what is motivated by money. However, I think that common sense can prevail if we can eliminate enough of the emotion from the analysis to see what is obviously or even probably factual.

Common sense is never out of place when dealing with conservation issues. For instance, we know that Gopher Tortoises and Indigo Snakes are in trouble in the wild. I don't think that anyone who is in the leasst credible will argue that point. So it naturally follows then that we should do what is necessary to preserve the habitat which remains, set aside additional suitable habitat and research what else we can do to save those species. Jeb Bush and George Bush and Bill Clinton's political views and policies have no bearing on whether those things are fact. You win battles with facts and supportable data, not political arguments. If you have a politician that is dead set against doing the things the data says is necessary to preserve a species that is in trouble, then you join the effort to vote someone else in next term, but you keep the two efforts separate. You don't allow the political infighting to detract from the concentration on the conservation effort. You can take the supporting data and the conservation issue to the fight to vote that person out of office, but you don't bring that fight into the conservation efforts. It is counter-productive. When you have a group of people working toward a common goal(conservation) and you have strife in the group over something unrelated (politics), then they don't work together as effectively.

In this forum, we all ahve a common interest. Indigo Snakes. I think we all want to see them still alive and well in the wild 25 or 50 or 100 years from now. There are things that go along with that. In order to save the Indigo Snakes from extinction, you have to also look at the habitat, and sympatric species. You can't save the Indigo snakes withouty also saving the Gopher Tortoises and the other species (there are a bunch of them) that share the microhabitats created by the Gopher Tortoises along with the Indigo Snakes. It would be pointless to preserve one of these interdependent species without making efforts to save them all. So far as I know there is no one organization that is concentrating on the Coastal Sandhill community as a whole, but several loosely interlinked organizations that each concentrate on one part or one species. So, our choices are to either join and work with all of them, or form one ourselves that is all encompassing and concentrates on the whole community.

The one opinion that I will express here is that we all have a resposibility and an obligation to do our part in one way or another. To me it is criminal to keep these animals and profess to love them without doing our part to ensure their future in the wild. Then it becomes nothing more than a selfish commercial endeavor that does nothing but take with giving anything back. Some people may disagree with me, but this is my opinion. I do not think that Indigo Snakes should be kept strictly as pets, unless the person keeping them is actively supporting conservation efforts too. Ideally, everyone keeping these animals should be breeding them, recording breeding data, making every effort to keep them disease-free and genetically as pure as possible. I do think that at some point in the future, it is going to become important to have healthy, pure captive specimens for repatriation efforts. However, if we don't have suitable habitat to repatriate, then all of those efforts will be pointless. It all goes hand-in-hand and if we are fighting amongst ourselves over other issues, we'll never get there.

Well said.... But the is one point you are off on. As explained below, Bush's politics (the gov) have resulted in the delay in the everglades clean up for 25 years and that has a major enviromental impact. he has a pro-business anti enviroment stance when it comes to these issues...so his politics Do matter.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I'm not saying anyone's politics don't matter. Of course they do if the person is in a position of influence. What I said was that his position or opinion or anyone else's for that maytter don't make the facts any less true and that we should not let our differences in opinions on these matters interfere with our united efforts to do what we know is right.

n/p
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

It has taken on alife all its own and turned into something that may be more appropriate in the OPEN forum of kingsnake.com. the initial coments by Dean, about the threat to habitat that ednandgers the future of eastern indigos as well as a myriad of other creatures was most wanted. Really, we discussed trying t find solutions to this dilemma, but it turned into a huge religous and political debate, which is understandable but kind of gets away from Drymarchon, which is why we are here.

Fred Albury

-

The issue described in the news story directly affects Indigos. We keep talking about giving back and making ourselves more responsible. Part of that responsibility has to do with being aware of such things. That it boiled down to a religious/political fight is sad. This was because of comments made by someone (from California)who has no familiarity with Florida's enviromental issues. But enough, arguement solves nothing here except to spotlight the reason why you all have problems getting Eastern indigos.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

All I said is that most "environmental" groups are frauds and that trees don't produce O2 and consume CO2 if you look at their entire life cycle. I never said that indigo habitat shouldn't be protected. I believe that it should be, and I always have!

Rodney

I actually like these discussions, minus the personal sories...There are a lot of interesting people involved in this forum with a vast diversity of opinions and life experiences...It makes for great reading the vast majority of the time...Lots of thought provocations on many different issues...None likely to change the next guys mind though, sometimes just makes 'em more angry...I doubt many here are out to hurt anyone's feelings, but please be aware of the consequences of your words and their impact, once stated in writing, on others...

So, just to prove I can be as inappropriate as anyone else...Politics/Govt is about choices, prioritizing, and being willing to make decisions that will not be popular with 50% of the nation...Environment vs. medical care vs. economy vs. national safety vs. every other issue out there that people care about...It's why we have elections...Enuff Gov 101 by me..
-----
Carl W Gossett
Garage Door Herps
Monument,Colorado...northern territory of the Great Republic of Texas

n/p
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Thread moved form the indigo forum
-----
_____

PHWyvern