Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hey guys-
I've noticed that some of the newer members of this forum are giving out exact locations as to where they are going herping and what they find there. I would like to encourage people to PLEASE be more careful, as we are not the only people who look at this forum. It would certainly be a shame if some collectors were to scan this forum and rape a great area just because someone slipped up about revealing a location. In my opinion, even giving out the name of a park is too specific. When I make posts, I never get more detailed than the general region (for example, SW Ohio, SE Ohio, central Ohio). Be careful about your sites, and please don't post exactly where you are making your finds-it would be pretty upsetting to return a formerly nice area only to have all the logs flipped and find no animals whatsoever.
~Mike

Your alive... What ever happened with the car? I have been busy as crap as well and have not gotten out at all since Toledo. Spent some time in NC but the emphasis wasn't on herping.

I don't think naming counties are even all that bad. I am not sure how I feel about parks. It is interesting to see what other people are finding where, and some of these state parks/forests can be pretty big. If I said I was in Wayne National Forest, chances are you would still really have no idea where I am. It all depends on what you are posting too. For box turtles, racers and ringnecks I really see no problem saying what park you were in. Now if you were looking for or found something a little more big game (rattlers, spotted turtles, etc.) I probably wouldn't even dream of saying the county

That being said, I also think it is important to mention that most people are not going to just go and give out their favorite spots to people they don't know who are asking for them on the internet, even in privacy (email). Show interest in learning about how to find the animals. Ask for habitat shots, preferences, temps, condition but don't just shoot for the easy way out.

Jason-
I personally don't even like to name counties, but that is just me. I tend to be overprotective of my sites, and wouldn't want anyone to somehow track them down. You'd be amazed at how resourceful some people are...
As for common species, I don't think that they should be treated too much differently than the more uncommon species...afterall, most of our less common species were common at one time, and for various reasons, they are uncommon now (some/many due to overcollection or exploitation, or habitat destruction by careless herpers). I'd rather not give the common species a chance to become uncommon, myself. Again, I tend to be protective. People asking for tin sites without knowing the person closely isn't good herper-etiquette.
My car is fine, with that said I think we can let that subject drop, as its been posted about 10 times now by 4 different people...
~Mike

To each his own

I am very sure some people are extremely resourceful and they might be able to turn up something, but I really think counties are no big deal. There is a lot of territory to cover in a county.

And I agree that common species shouldn't be treated differently by anyway. But honestly, I guess I just enjoy hearing that someone found some racers here and some garters there. I do not think some of the more common species will ever have to worry about overcollection or exploitation. Habitat destruction "by herpers" I also feel is not really an issue. What "habitat" are they destroying? If another herper comes through and messes up my tin/boards, rock pile, and maybe doesn't flip some logs back, I will be furious, but is the habitat really destroyed? The animals are still there, is just isn't as easy for us to find them. Mountain kings out west are a great example. If someone goes through with crowbars and messes with all the cap rocks, they can absolutely trash a site. I doubt this really affects the numbers of snakes there, just the number of snakes seen. Now there are species that are much more sensitive and even little disturbances add up, so I am not saying it is impossible for a herper to cause habitat destruction. Obviously, the bigger threat to our native wildlife is habitat destruction from urban sprawl (and dare I say, wildlife land management practices).

I find it real hard to believe that some of Ohio's native species are in the state they are because of herpers. Yeah, maybe we hurt the cause more than helped it back in the day, but I can bet more rattlesnakes were killed every year from habitat loss, road mortality and at the hands of the ignorant than were ever collected. I am real hesitant to ever put the sole blaim on overcollection and I definately feel many other factors are far more important. The only things that can compete with the rattlers in collecting pressure are some of the turtle species. Unfortunately, I do think overcollection here does play a much larger role... Many other issues are at play here, such as the booming asian turtle trade. Now, this doesn't make overcollection acceptable, that's not my beef. I just am skeptical whenever I hear a species decline is blaimed solely on overcollection.

Good conversation though. There is nothing wrong with being a little protective. Maybe someday soon I will get burned and eat my words, but until then I will still be naming counties. Parks, like I said, I am still on the fence about that one. I would say I tend to not do it myself, but see no problem with it if discretion is used.

Jason

Here's some more things think about:

For me the issue is not just "collectors" or "careless herpers." If too many people visit a site it brings negative consequences. Even if they are the most conscientious herpers. The animals get tired of being disturbed and will go elsewhere. Also in some cases the cover has a moisture seal which is broken when it is lifted -- in these cases it make take a good rainstorm before cover is desirable to the animals again. These comments apply more-or-less equally to tin sites, snaky rock sites, and 1st-order salamander creeks. Another issue is that some herpers may have a different philosphy regarding "improving" sites than I do. So I tend to be pretty discrete with specific locations.

I also think the level of discretion depends on how close the place is to a major city. Due to time constraints and/or laziness people don't like to drive very far. Also there tends to be relatively little good herp habitat near cities. I am fortunate to live in SE Ohio where there is quite a bit of habitat and few herpers -- I'm sure I'd worry about this issue more if I lived elsewhere in the state.

In my opinion herpers who mess up natural rock formations or rock outcroppings are a very low form of scum. Regarding the L.zonata, I'm sure that destroying the cap rocks DOES lower their abundance in the compromised habitat, as cap rocks are the best thermoregulatory sites and are also habitat for their lizard prey.

Finally one needs to keep in mind that herpers are a very diverse lot. Just concentrating on the ethical variety there are those who want to see as many species or animals with the least effort, those who like seeing new places and beautiful scenery (herps are a bonus), those who concentrate on particular species, those who concentrate on specific areas, some like going out with groups of people, some like to go it alone...

"In my opinion herpers who mess up natural rock formations or rock outcroppings are a very low form of scum."

I agree completely here and should have made that more clear. There is absolutely no excuse for taking a crowbar to a rock formation. Having never been out west to herp, I can only imagine the anger and frustration that would consume me if I came across such a site. I think the only thing comparable here would be somehow destroying a timber den.

"Regarding the L.zonata, I'm sure that destroying the cap rocks DOES lower their abundance in the compromised habitat, as cap rocks are the best thermoregulatory sites and are also habitat for their lizard prey."

You'd probably know z's better than I, and while I agree with your statement to a point, I remember a similar argument a while back. One of the stands was that the cap rocks might be good thermoregulatory sites, but that many snakes, far more than the numbers actually seen, are still using other means of thermoregulation. You take away the cap rocks and I think some snakes will just retreat farther into the cracks, or move on. Just because we can't see them, we don't know they are there. At the same time, I have no way of proving this for the same reason What does the good man Hubbs say about such matters? I never got past chapter 2. Venom is far more interesting at the moment...

Yeah so I probably didn't pick the best example, but my point is still there. If you trash a bunch of old concrete slabs, yeah, snakes won't be there next year. That specific location might not be so good, but they are still in the close proximity of the surrounding area, just a bit harder to find.

Oh I forgot to mention that it drives me nuts when someone doesn't appreciate the same method of placing cover as well. Like when a certain someone tore through our tin with a potato rake... Some people hate stacked tin, I love it. My first kingsnake(solo) was deep in a stack, covered in ants...

You back yet? How was the trip?

Let's talk about your concrete slab example. I think that if you removed the slabs, or made them unusable, you would in time have less snakes in the area. Shelter and thermoregulation are critical for snakes, especially in a place like OH where the climate is getting marginal for a lot of reptiles. Thermoregulation is key for digesting food, shedding, and gestation. Being able to take care of life's business more efficently lets the snakes eat more often, grow faster, have more babies, and avoid predation -- all of which lead to more snakes in the area.

I'm still in TN. The experiment is having some problems (not our fault) so I may be here for a while longer...

Yeah but I guess I am not thinking of it that way.

Lets say you come across an old foundation. Copperheads are
confirmed in the close vicinity and assumed common, but none
are seen on the actual foundations. Regular checks are made,
maybe once a month, and during this time, great care is taken
to keep the slabs in place and w/ moisture seals for the
smaller snakes, but a few are propped up a bit with a gap to
crawl under hoping for a copperhead. 6-8 months go by and
near the end of spring, the next season, a couple copperheads
are found under the propped up slabs.

Now, yes after a few years, the numbers of copperheads may
increase in the area due to better thermoregulation
capabilites the concrete base and slabs provide as well as an
abundace of food, but if you suddenly took those away, you
are not decimating the copperhead population. They might
move back into the surrounding area, numbers might decrease a
bit again and return to the norm. I just think they are
still common in the area and still able to be found, you just
don't have nice concrete slabs to look for them for under.

This may have been a specific example and I see your point but I don't know, I guess I am not convinced the habitat alteration makes that much of a difference in the numbers of snakes. They may rise and fall a bit, but it is all extremely localized and within sustainable limits.

Quoting Mr. Hubbs (pg 233)...

"There are at least two views on the matter of habitat alteration. Some people assume that removing rocks or other habitat from its original position actually destroys the thermoregulation areas for the snakes and their prey, thus focing both to find new homes. In this process many animals die, being unable to find new suitable habitat within a reasonable amount of time. Others believe that these snakes continue to remain in the same habitat and move their thermoregulation to areas underground or within the rocks that are undetectable to the collector. The same population densities still occur at that site, they are just unobserved by, and unavailable to, herpers. Having heard both views many times, I believe that each is partially correct."

He goes on to say later. "When someone disturbs the surface rocks, although it may have short-term effects on the immediate snake density, it does not affect the species as a whole or many of the residents of that particular habitat niche."

Granted Hubbs doesn't know everything, although he will tell you he does I can't wait for the common kingsnake book.

Jason

Well I think I understand your point, I'm not sure there is a disagreement. I still maintain that habitat alteration does effect the numbers of snakes. Of course if it is done a little bit a a localized area it will effect the overall numbers of snakes much.

Even in the more remote parts of SE Ohio man has changed the habitat considerably from how it once was. I'm sure snake abundances are quite different now, some being more common, others less so.

Well...I didn't read every reply to this, but I think that Carl has a similar position to mine. I'll make this pretty short and sweet, so here goes...

You mentioned that herpers don't present a threat to habitat. I have to entirely disagree with this statement. As Carl already pointed out, by rolling logs and flipping rocks, you are breaking a seal that holds in the moisture that the very animals you are selecting for. It often takes a while for this seal to be reformed, and with more and more research showing just how territorial even the little redback salamanders are, this can present a problem if you even flip a log and render that spot useless to that particular animal, which (I am going on a limb here) might make them more vulnerable to predators as they seek out another suitable microhabitat.

Another good example is people who might be searching for aquatic animals (and thank God I'm not included in this mass). Many people while dipnetting frequently throw piles of leaves they scoop up onto the shore and sort through it to find the object of their search. While this may seem harmless, you are destroying the habitat of the particular animal you are looking for, as that leaf litter not only provides a source of protection from predators and an important microhabitat, but it also provides the base for microorganisms which ultimately end up feeding even the animals highest up on a food chance. I have MANY times visited vernal pools, small creeks, etc that have literally piles of leaves on the banks from people searching for fish, salamanders, inverts, etc. Basically, its just a smaller form of dredging, and we should know how detrimental that can be to an area.

Another example that I have to bring up is in reference to a couple of papers I have read, and unfortunately their citations elude me at the moment, but if I find them I will definitely put them here for everyone to read. One of the papers provides evidence that human interference in even remote areas can actually indirectly harm the animals you search for. Apparently predators and foragers (raccoons, opossums, mink, and I believe even snakes were included as predators), can detect where people have disturbed a log or rock (it may be due to human pheromones), and will routinely search beneath these items for prey. It's early and I'm lacking in sleep, so I'll put this in terms I can understand: basically, you go searching for a salamander or snake, you flip a rock..Surprise! salamander/snake. Few hours later, another snake, raccoon, etc detects the disturbance, looks under your log, and eats the critter you were admiring a few hours ago.

One last example I am going to bring up, while this may/may not directly affect the herps, but based on quite a bit of experience with other people, most herpers don't seem to be too conscientious of the local flora in an area. I always cringe when I am out with someone and they are just smashing ferns or worse, trilliums, Arisaema, bloodroot, or other spring ephemerals that are incredibly dependent on their temporary foliage to aid in building up carbohydrates that will be used the next year. There is another study that I have read (again, the citation eludes me) that showed that when trilliums (which generally only have one stalk per tuber) are broken (say, by a herper trodding through some woods) or eaten, they fail to bloom in successive years due to the lack of ability to store energy from their lost foliage. It just seems a shame to me that an area that is beautiful for more than just the herps isn't recognized for one, and further the plants suffer the consequences from the mere walking of (pardon my wording) thoughtless herpers.

Okay, I'm going to stop there because I think my brained my damage from all this writing after a calc midterm and inbetween studying for a chemistry exam...

So much for short and sweet, eh?
~Mike

Good points.

I was never trying to say herpers don't present a threat to the habitat, just that I think what little damage is done is small on the grand scheme of things. But I admit, if someone really wanted to, they could have a huge affect on a good sized area, and really help finish off some of the more unstable species.

I understand the moisture concept, and I certainly feel it is important to replace cover back exactly how it was found. This also brings up a real interesting topic as well which you may have been trying to hit on. We all understand that moisture seals need to be kept intact, and that no matter what we do we are disturbing the environment and the creatures that we seek. So why do we still do it if we know we are causing some harm? Where is the line drawn? We of all people preach about protecting our herps, and do what we do partly in the name of conservation, yet we cause problems ourselves...

That seems like an interesting paper, but I find it is hard to really prove. I guess I have to read it! How do they know that the predator wasn't going to spot anyway, if the human disturbance hadn't happened? Just because the disturbance happened before the predation doesn't mean the predation was a result of the disturbance.

The plant point was also really good. I think we are all guilty of this to varying degrees. I admire many plants, even if I don't know what they are, but especially the mushrooms and orchids in the spring. Yet, I am sure I step on little ferns and such that for all I know are endangered. We hate fisherman for killing water snakes, yet how well do we treat the insect life around us? That was something that my entomology class really helped me become more aware of. Not to call you out, but you can't stand spiders and react much the same way as some people do about snakes. We all have aspects of the natural world that we seem to almost neglet...

I can't stand spiders. They freak me out totally. However, I like watching that "Ruud" character on animal planet and he has taught me some things. So now when I am out and about trying to find some snakes, I dont go nuts quite as easily about the thousands of those damn granddaddy longleggs. Oh well, perhaps one of these days I will be able to understand them to the same extent that I understand snakes and such.

Funny world huh?

chris

>>Good points.
>>
>>I was never trying to say herpers don't present a threat to the habitat, just that I think what little damage is done is small on the grand scheme of things. But I admit, if someone really wanted to, they could have a huge affect on a good sized area, and really help finish off some of the more unstable species.
>>
>>I understand the moisture concept, and I certainly feel it is important to replace cover back exactly how it was found. This also brings up a real interesting topic as well which you may have been trying to hit on. We all understand that moisture seals need to be kept intact, and that no matter what we do we are disturbing the environment and the creatures that we seek. So why do we still do it if we know we are causing some harm? Where is the line drawn? We of all people preach about protecting our herps, and do what we do partly in the name of conservation, yet we cause problems ourselves...
>>
>>That seems like an interesting paper, but I find it is hard to really prove. I guess I have to read it! How do they know that the predator wasn't going to spot anyway, if the human disturbance hadn't happened? Just because the disturbance happened before the predation doesn't mean the predation was a result of the disturbance.
>>
>>The plant point was also really good. I think we are all guilty of this to varying degrees. I admire many plants, even if I don't know what they are, but especially the mushrooms and orchids in the spring. Yet, I am sure I step on little ferns and such that for all I know are endangered. We hate fisherman for killing water snakes, yet how well do we treat the insect life around us? That was something that my entomology class really helped me become more aware of. Not to call you out, but you can't stand spiders and react much the same way as some people do about snakes. We all have aspects of the natural world that we seem to almost neglet...

It seems we all agree that herpers do impact habitats. One of the key ways to minimize this is not to visit the smake place too often. That's one reason I like to continually explore new places. I particularly worry about this around streams, springs, bogs, etc... as they are more fragile. On the other hand I don't worry too much about tin/trash sites... among other things they always in danger of being "cleaned up."

I just returned from Yellowstone where I did a little fishing. This is a very popular activity in the park. So you see trampled vegetation along the stream. Some fish have wounds on their jaw (it's mostly catch-and-release flyfishing). Clearly there are way more people here than are ideal and I really wished there was a way for people to spread out more. Definitely took something away from the experience. Hope it never comes to that herping around here.

Jason-
I'm really pressed for time (otherwise I would have responded to this long ago), so I'll just have to keep things relatively short...hopefully. About the one paper, I paraphrased a lot, as I don't remember the specifics of it and may have passed on the wrong impression, but basically it stated that we decrease the survivability of the animals that we physically uncover by making them more vulnerable to predators. As for "proving it," to quote you

"That seems like an interesting paper, but I find it is hard to really prove. I guess I have to read it! How do they know that the predator wasn't going to spot anyway, if the human disturbance hadn't happened? Just because the disturbance happened before the predation doesn't mean the predation was a result of the disturbance."

The paper did not prove anything, since in science, you cannot "prove" anything, only fail to disprove. In this paper, they failed to disprove that uncovering hidden animals had no effect on their survivability.

To answer the other point you brought up...(quoting your last post):

"The plant point was also really good. I think we are all guilty of this to varying degrees. I admire many plants, even if I don't know what they are, but especially the mushrooms and orchids in the spring. Yet, I am sure I step on little ferns and such that for all I know are endangered. We hate fisherman for killing water snakes, yet how well do we treat the insect life around us? That was something that my entomology class really helped me become more aware of. Not to call you out, but you can't stand spiders and react much the same way as some people do about snakes. We all have aspects of the natural world that we seem to almost neglet..."

I do think it was rather unnecessary to call out my disliking of arachnids. However, you failed to note the major difference between myself and those whom I was criticizing for stepping on plants, and those who you criticized for their dislike of snakes: I do not like spiders, this is correct. I do however, have a great deal of respect for them and do not kill them or go out of my way to kill them. You don't have to like something to have respect or be aware of it.

Now, on your side of the fence and after having been out with you several times, I have many a time winced at the sight of you stepping on various ferns, trilliums, jack-in-the-pulpits, and other small plants(unknowingly, of course). I think you'd admit that you're not the most careful of plants when you have snakes on your mind...Again, as you said, not trying to call you out, just pointing out a fact. As for myself (not to sound arrogant, just covering my bases) I think you and those who have gone out with me could vouch for both my awareness and knowledge of the natural world (plants, animals (not just herps, either), fungi, even bacteria).
~Mike

I admit I can write a little "relaxed" at times, but I just do not seeing the point in flaunting big words and speaking as if I were defending a thesis. My point was that I would like to read the full paper and see the results, that is all. The word prove was used loosely. I don't even know why we are discussing this as I have never looked at the paper, but from the way you explained the study, I just found it easy to draw many different conclusions.

"Basically it stated that we decrease the survivability of the animals that we physically uncover by making them more vulnerable to predators."

"In this paper, they failed to disprove that uncovering hidden animals had no effect on their survivability."

These two statements contradict one another.

1. The paper found evidence that we decrease the survivability.

2. The paper was not able to disprove there was no effect on survivability. So, there was no effect from the disturbance??

Now, if the paper found what you said it did, then the statement should read - "They failed to disprove that uncovering hidden animals had an effect on their survivability." or "They disproved that uncovering hidden animals had no effect on their survivability."

I never said you killed spiders, or that you did not respect them and my intention wasn't to discredit you or attack you in any manner. People can react with fear about snakes, and spiders. That statement does not imply that anyone kills anything. I also respect plants and I do not go out of my way to kill them, so where is this imaginary line drawn?

Every time you or I walk through a spider’s web, we disturb its habitat probably more than flipping a piece of tin ever would disturb a snake. I guess I should never go outside out of my awareness for the natural world because anything I do is disturbing something.

Respectully,

Jason

Jason-
Thankyou for the correction. I don't think I worded their findings correctly.

Jason wrote:
"Now, if the paper found what you said it did, then the statement should read - "They failed to disprove that uncovering hidden animals had an effect on their survivability." or "They disproved that uncovering hidden animals had no effect on their survivability."

Jason wrote:
"I never said you killed spiders, or that you did not respect them and my intention wasn't to discredit you or attack you in any manner. People can react with fear about snakes, and spiders. That statement does not imply that anyone kills anything. I also respect plants and I do not go out of my way to kill them, so where is this imaginary line drawn?"

I wasn't trying to draw an imaginary line, I was merely pointing out that your example of my disliking spiders had little to do with the discussion at hand.

Jason wrote:
"Every time you or I walk through a spider’s web, we disturb its habitat probably more than flipping a piece of tin ever would disturb a snake. I guess I should never go outside out of my awareness for the natural world because anything I do is disturbing something."

Actually, this is very incorrect. Spider webs have a longevity that is usually only a matter of hours to a day or so, depending on wind, rain, passing animals, and insects that they capture. They are constantly rebuilding and mending their webs, as they are fragile and easily disturbed. However, cover objects such as logs, tin, and rock are not commonly disturbed under natural conditions, and such the added disturbance would likely present a negative effect on the animals that utilize them.

I'm certainly not saying to not go out herping, however you were correct in saying that almost everything you do has some effect on the natural world. Where we differ is in how much it effects the animals we are looking for. I for one would rather play it safe than be sorry...I don't think there's much more to say about it than that.
~Mike

Good point about the webs, but I still think it is not that cut and dry. If they capture an insect, the web is serving its purpose, so I wouldn't consider that as a true distrubance. And I would tend to think wind and rain can probably have many effects depending on the conditions obviously, but that more often than not their damage is something repairable, as opposed to us or an animal, which would require rebuilding. This is what they do though, so I do see where you are coming from.

How did your trip turn out? We would love to see pictures!

"Of course if it is done a little bit a a localized area it will effect the overall numbers of snakes much."

Um, did you mean "of course if it is done a little bit at a localized area it won't effect the overall numbers of snakes much."??

"Even in the more remote parts of SE Ohio man has changed the habitat considerably from how it once was. I'm sure snake abundances are quite different now, some being more common, others less so."

No argument here at all. I was never trying to say that habitat destruction or alteration on a large scale wouldn't affect numbers, just that on a small scale, from say a herper, it wasn't a big deal. Now, I am also not saying I am a proponent of any habitat destruction, but I think you guys know that. If a herper makes a point to destroy everything in site, everywhere he goes, then he desearves some horrible form of punishment.

Speaking of habitat destruction, alteration and well people sucking at life. Also pertaining to the discussion on piss poor park land management by DNR...

http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ip960746.html

Yep, that's what I meant. That's what happens when you post in the middle of the night...