Reptile & Amphibian Forums

ALOHA,
I AM A NEW MEMBER. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW YOUR OPINIONS ON VEILEDS AND PANTHERS IN HAWAII! MAUI HAS MOST OF THE VEILED POPULATION, (REPORTED SIGHTING ON THE BIG ISLAND TOO!). A COUPLE OF VEILEDS WERE CAPTURED ON OAHU. A LOT OF PANTHERS ARE TURNED IN THROUGH THE HAWAII AMINESTY PROGRAM!I RAISE JACKSONS WILD CAUGHT AND CAPTIVE BRED ON THE BIG ISLAND!
ALOHA AND MAHALO
AARON GANON
(I WOULD LOVE TO RAISE SOME PANTHERS AND VEILEDS)
REALLY BIG FINE TO HAVE EITHER ...$5,000 ???

Check out the attached link.
SPUNK BOB

-----
In Christ: Raymond

PRETTY COOL SITE, I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE. REALLY NICE PICS AND ART! THEY LIVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ISLAND IN KONA! WE HAVE JACKSONS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISLAND (VERY SMALL IN COMPARISON TO KONA JACKSONS.) WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE THEM IN OUR BACK YARDS.
ALOHA AND MAHALO
AARON GANON

IMHO introducing any organism (especially a predator) to a habitat where it did not evolve and does not belong is arrogant, stupid, shortsighted, and just plain wrong. I don't care if the organism can physically survive, is "harmless" in the eyes of humans, or is attractive or commercially valuable. It is this blatant disregard for ecological diversity and biological integrity that has put Hawaii and other endemic systems in such danger. We have rampant plant invasions, loss of key insects, plants, and other organisms all over the planet these days. We usually find the introduction was a bad idea regardless of the motive. There...you wanted my opinion and there it is in a nutshell.

I DO AGREE ,INTRODUCING CHAMS INTO HAWAII IS A NOT A GOOD THING. NOT VERY RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE, LIKE THE PET SHOP OWNER THAT RELEASED THE JACKSONS INTO HAWAII IN 1972?! THE OFFICIALS ON MAUI ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF THE VEILEDS, THEY HAVE CAUGHT NEARLY 100 IN THE COUNTRY SIDE. IT'LL BE VERY HARD TO ERADICATE ALL OF THEM. ALTHOUGH THEY DO NOT BELONG IN HAWAII, I WILL BE INTO LEARNING AND BREEDING THEM FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE! I LOVE CHAMS NO MATTER WHAT!!
ALOHA AND MAHALO
AARON GANON

I couldn't of put it better myself, nicely put Carlton.

>>IMHO introducing any organism (especially a predator) to a habitat where it did not evolve and does not belong is arrogant, stupid, shortsighted, and just plain wrong. I don't care if the organism can physically survive, is "harmless" in the eyes of humans, or is attractive or commercially valuable. It is this blatant disregard for ecological diversity and biological integrity that has put Hawaii and other endemic systems in such danger. We have rampant plant invasions, loss of key insects, plants, and other organisms all over the planet these days. We usually find the introduction was a bad idea regardless of the motive. There...you wanted my opinion and there it is in a nutshell.
-----
-Jamie Whitehouse
-corn_snake_123@msn.com
-formally known as corn_snake_123

>>I couldn't of put it better myself, nicely put Carlton.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>IMHO introducing any organism (especially a predator) to a habitat where it did not evolve and does not belong is arrogant, stupid, shortsighted, and just plain wrong. I don't care if the organism can physically survive, is "harmless" in the eyes of humans, or is attractive or commercially valuable. It is this blatant disregard for ecological diversity and biological integrity that has put Hawaii and other endemic systems in such danger. We have rampant plant invasions, loss of key insects, plants, and other organisms all over the planet these days. We usually find the introduction was a bad idea regardless of the motive. There...you wanted my opinion and there it is in a nutshell.
>>-----
>>-Jamie Whitehouse
>>-corn_snake_123@msn.com
>>-formally known as corn_snake_123
-----
0.1 veiled - Luna
0.2 house geckos - Gaia & Tia (MIA
0.2 felines - Kyndra and Líta

Introduced species can be a concern, but usually they don't do too much damage. We often hear only about the ones that DO do damage.

I work in the environmental field--there's a BIG difference between environmental science and environmentalisim--and I have to deal with introduced species ALL THE TIME.

As far as animals, the only ones you see with regularity are:
Norway rats, European starlings, Dogs and cats, and a bunch of other birds the Europeans brought here so they could"feel at home".

Overall, while the populations of these have spread, they have had comparitivly minimal impacts on the environment.

Compared to introduced plants.

Now THERE'S a problem. Privet, Kudzu, I could go on.

Odds are, even if we introduce hundreds of chameleons into hawaii and Florida, the ecosystem will change little.

When a non-native plant comes in, the results can be devastating, since the plants change things literally from the ground up.

Note I'm not condoning or even defending introduction of animal species--no way. However, if we leave the animals alone in Hawaii, I will admit that I am facinated by what may become of them in the next 50 or so years. What kind of phenotypic changes have taken place, are they still able to mate with African jacksonii?

Sorry to disagree with you, Eric but how can you state that only introduced plants, and not animals, have impact? Islands are the most troubling b/c they are entire eco-sysetms in themselves. There are MANY species worldwide that are having tremendous impact on ecosystems, wildlife and their habitat. For instance: brown tree snake in Guam; feral pigs in Hawaii; Asian longhorn beetle - NY, IL, PA etc.; There are MANY more. I am not looking for a fight here just surprised to hear you say you work in an environmental field yet make this blanket statement about introduced species. What is it you do? just curious.

lele
-----
0.1 veiled - Luna
0.2 house geckos - Gaia & Tia (MIA
0.2 felines - Kyndra and Líta

ugh...those beetles are wiping out every tree on the south shore of long island...one other animal that's becoming a problem, the snakehead...i know one pond was poisoned and now they have been found in a second pond in Maryland...that's a pretty big impact when a whole pond has to be destroyed of native species to kill a non-native

Eric,

According to Brown and Lomolino, 1998, 17% of bird endangerment, 12% of mammal endangerment and 36% of mollusk endangerment is due to introduced species. How many of those do you think are the result of plants, especially with regard to the birds and mammals? My bet is that a large part of those is due to animal species introductions. I think the rule of tens in evolution is that approximately 10% of invaders become established and that approximately 10% of established invaders become pests. The impact of exotics depends on a number of factors. Generally, those that have strong impacts are ecologically distinctive, good competitors, effective predators, habitat modifiers (ecosystem engineers), reservoirs or vectors of disease and have a high potential for hybridization. I don't think its safe to say that the majority of animal introductions are without negative consiquence.

Chris
-----
Chris Anderson
parsonii_hoehnelii@hotmail.com
Editor - Chameleons! Online E-zine: http://www.chameleonnews.com/
Admin - Captive Chameleon Bloodline Tracking Database (CCBTD): http://www.chameleondatabase.com/
Author - Chameleon Care and Information Center (CCIC) - http://www.geocities.com/ccicenter/(Currently Down)

i believe Eric is saying that indeed introduced animals may cause a problem but the majority of them do not. he is also stating that you really only hear about the ones that are devastating to the ecosystem i.e the beetles and feral pigs. I dont think he said that all introduced animals are doing damage like you all seem to think he did

no, he stated:

"As far as animals, the only ones you see with regularity are:
Norway rats, European starlings, Dogs and cats, and a bunch of other birds the Europeans brought here so they could"feel at home".

"Overall, while the populations of these have spread, they have had comparitivly minimal impacts on the environment."

Starlings have most definitely caused problems with other species/habitat/ecosystem, as have rats, dogs and for sure cats. So whether he was just referring to these specific animals or introduced animals in general he is incorrect.

As Chris pointed out the percentage of introduced species - plant, animal, insect, aquatic, etc. - that are introduced is high but the ones that become a problem are low - typically about 10%. Unfortunately, that 10% has been devastating.

As for only hearing about the ones that create problems - well, the problems are serious enough to warrant attention and not be minimized by saying the impact is minimal.

Also, please realize that neither Chris nor I were attacking Eric, just making some points about his comment. All three of us are long time posters and have mutual respect for each other on this forum (at least I do) If he meant something else then he can reply and clarify.

lele

>>i believe Eric is saying that indeed introduced animals may cause a problem but the majority of them do not. he is also stating that you really only hear about the ones that are devastating to the ecosystem i.e the beetles and feral pigs. I dont think he said that all introduced animals are doing damage like you all seem to think he did
-----
0.1 veiled - Luna
0.2 house geckos - Gaia & Tia (MIA
0.2 felines - Kyndra and Líta

While introduced species can be very harmful to the environment, the vast majority of the time they don't establish a viable population. I think it was the starlings that were introduced 3 or 4 times before they finally took hold (it may have been some other bird, i don't know for sure). Just because someone released a few animals into the wild doesn't mean they will multiply and destroy everything...Senior in college and this is the first time I've been able to use anything I've learned.
-----
Scott Dunlap

Well, congrats on your education! Glad it has paid off! LOL

Of course the ones that do not get established are not then considered invasive - just introduced/exotic/alien. In the plant world we have been struggling with terminology so that folks don't think that every introduced plant is a problem (yikes - we wouldnt have half the gardens that we do!). However, once again, as both Chris and I said the percentage of introduced species that cause damage is low (about 10%) the damage that those 10% cause is high. Not sure where you live but the plant, purple loosestrife, is a key example of the impact it is having in natural wetland ecosystems in almost every state. It is one of few that have taken hold, but it has devastated natural communities and is banned for sale, transportation, growing, etc. in many states. If you would like an adjunct to your education on this topic check out this site - it may be a real eye-opener.

lele

Invasive Species

-----
0.1 veiled - Luna
0.2 house geckos - Gaia & Tia (MIA
0.2 felines - Kyndra and Líta

I think it's an issue of terminology here. Invasive implies that they are causing some sort of damage, while introduced simply means non-native. certainly all invasive species are causing problems, but not all introduced species are invasive. I'm in FL, two of the plants we have problems with are the water hyacinth and air potato. these are choking out native plants, and the hyacinth is clogging rivers. But we've also got quite a few types of plants that have been introduced and don't really cause any problems at all. Introduced species always have to capability to wreak havoc, but i think a lot of people really blow it out of proportion.
-----
Scott Dunlap

I'm going to have to sorta go with Eric on this one, not that it's not destructive to an ecosystem to introduce animals(because it is), but that it's not near as bad as alot of plants. I live in an area that is completely non native looking(almost). the homestead act of 1848(??) told people to plant all these crazy trees in an area that was pretty much strictly prairie. this brought squirrels, opposums, racoons, etc. from the east and south, and drove out the bison, prairie dogs, etc.
After that, they discovered mass quantities of coal underground. so they dug up the whole place and now we have a bunch of "strip pits"as we affectionately refer to them) which are full of water. this made people introduce carp, catfish, bass, perch, etc.
then they decided to make the pits look pretty so they planted even more trees. i live in SE Kansas and it looks barely recognizable now compared to a hundred years ago because of trees, the trees also drove out the natural wildlife and grasses of the prarie.

another reason i agree with him is that the animals that do the most damage to an ecosystem(besides people)are domestic ones(IMHO), we just tend to overlook that because they are in a fence or a pen. almost everyone has either a cat or a dog in this country, and are they native? are horses native? cows, rats, sheep?

they are a part of our every day lives so we dont think about them being so destructive. I lived in Australia for a month a couple summers ago and the feral cats there are ridiculous. they are wiping out some species of marsupial(according to my host) like bandicoots.

and how much prairie/woodlands/swamp/whatever has been levelled for horse/cow use? is it even comparable to the damage that an introduced predator could handle?
-----
1.1.1 Bearded Dragons
0.1.0 Ball Python
1.0.0 Honduran Milksnake
2.0.0 Cockatiels "Afro" and "Sunshine"
1.0.0 Bourkes Parakeet "Kerpal"
1.0.0 Mississippi Map Turtle "Atlas"
0.1.1 Painted Turtles "Artist"=the female
0.1.0 Leopard Gecko "Claire"
1.1.0 Veiled Chameleons
Misc. Amphibians
Misc. Fish
Several Russian Dwarf Hamsters

Email

no one is really disagreeing here - it began as clarification and has now taken on a life of its own

keep in mind that when one organism is affected so is another, and another and so on. As for domestic animals outdoor cats are about the worst - they kill untold amounts of wildlife. our native birds, etc. did not co-evolve with them.

As for land clearing that is human impact - the animals didn't do it) and as you know we have the most impact BUT we can also be the ones to turn things around - not introduce species that are or could become aggressive, quarantine time and research are key, but even then we cannot be sure. So in the meantime we need to undo as much as we can and do our best to prevent it in the future.
-----
0.1 veiled - Luna
0.2 house geckos - Gaia & Tia (MIA
0.2 felines - Kyndra and Líta