Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I myself tend to prefer lighter high contrast animals with odd patterns and brighter colors. Don't get me wrong... I like Davis snakes... they stretch the pattern/variability possibilities and make the whole species more intriguing, it's just that most of them are rather similar in appearance and the vein of similarity runs smack down the middle of average road (which in the Davis = medium to dark gray or brown background with minor speckling and a little muted orange). A couple of Buzz's Davis, a few of Sheldon's Gap critters, the Whitfield and Galvan Alpine animals, The Boyden Christmas (just to name a very few), all make hunting those localities more appealing. You absolutely never know what you're going to catch. The downside is that along with those incredible specimens come specimens that are less exciting. For all of the time you and Marla spent in the Gap there was only one snake that was interesting and it only marginally. That's a hard place to hunt just to come home with a snake (after the culmination of a double-digit nights’ worth of hunts) that looks like it could have come from someplace where snakes are much easier to find. Heck, one of them looked like a twin to a Sanderson animal I caught... one that I'm sure you'd give a low rating LOL. It doesn't matter where you hunt, you can't catch the great ones all the time. The fact that so many alterna have been collected and the sample size of known variety has grown so large, it becomes more and more difficult to find something that's truly novel. Years ago Buzz’s (read: Cathy’s LOL) Davis alterna got a lot of attention because of their novelty. Like you mentioned... the Davis Mountains are the only spot where alterna look like Davis Mountain alterna. Over the years, more alterna have been collected there… some killer ones, lots of average ones. The novelty (at least for me) has worn off. My honest opinion is that Davis specimens aren’t worse or better than any other animal. They’re just different. The rating idea seems a little absurd considering the subjectivity we’ve all agreed exists. I have my preferences and you have yours. I’m not in the habit of bringing alterna home anymore, but if I were to, it would have to be a spectacular specimen... something with an air of novelty. I’ve not seen a snake in quite a while from the Davis that I would have done anything with but photograph. The fact that I might find one on a cut with a cuculata, a few Baird’s, and a lepidus, might make the night more fun, but it would still result in nothing more than an empty container and a full compact flash card. I still LOVE finding them and cherish the experience of crossing paths with ANY of them, but it’s going to take something more unique than an average Davis to give me trouble fighting my inner voices of collection-building... the ones that were so powerful years ago. A very light gray, bright orange & “busy” limestone critter... hmmm... that I might have to buy a hunting license for LOL.

np

True, only 1 of my Gap snakes was really nice (wait to you see the new scans! a 10) while the rest were nice/average to below average (6/7, 5, 5, 2/3) but they were GAP snakes - a locale where on average there are 1 or 2 alterna found per year, with a total # collected there (at least quasi-documented) at fewer than 50 animals, ever. Sanderson has approached that number of snakes in a single year of collecting effort. If locality doesn't "add points" to a snake, then why would anyone worry about breeding for locales? We should all go east, catch the silver snakes that look like everyone else's nice silver snakes and forget about the rest of the variation. LOL

My favorite locales, figuring in unique-ness of the animals in color and pattern are (in no particular order): Gap, Davis, River . . . and Xmas (although I hate hunting there). Throw in Huecos (although I still haven't seen enough animals from there to really judge the locale). Sanderson rates for me behind Sheffield, Iraan, and 277, but above Juno and Langtry in terms of overall interesting-ness of the snakes . . . and I have tons of photos from which I judge a locale, not just photos of the snakes I found there myself.

Troy

>>True, only 1 of my Gap snakes was really nice (wait to you see the new scans! a 10) while the rest were nice/average to below average (6/7, 5, 5, 2/3) but they were GAP snakes - a locale where on average there are 1 or 2 alterna found per year, with a total # collected there (at least quasi-documented) at fewer than 50 animals, ever. Sanderson has approached that number of snakes in a single year of collecting effort. If locality doesn't "add points" to a snake, then why would anyone worry about breeding for locales? We should all go east, catch the silver snakes that look like everyone else's nice silver snakes and forget about the rest of the variation. LOL
>>
>>My favorite locales, figuring in unique-ness of the animals in color and pattern are (in no particular order): Gap, Davis, River . . . and Xmas (although I hate hunting there). Throw in Huecos (although I still haven't seen enough animals from there to really judge the locale). Sanderson rates for me behind Sheffield, Iraan, and 277, but above Juno and Langtry in terms of overall interesting-ness of the snakes . . . and I have tons of photos from which I judge a locale, not just photos of the snakes I found there myself.
>>
>>Troy

the additions, deletions, and photo credits to go over...

Forky

If you go back and reread my posts you'll find that I in no way suggested that locality doesn't matter. It's obvious that it does. Small changes in geography can make an enormous difference in the parameters for variation in any given spot. The breadth of the variation in a place like Black Gap is enormous. There are WONDERFUL snakes there. There are not so wonderful snakes there. Just as a side note, I saw the Stillwell "10" you're referring to with my own eyes... in person the day after you caught it. If you rate it a "10" then I think I understand the nature of our friendly disagreement. It's better for coming from the Gap even though were it to have been collected elsewhere it would be a "7". I'll scan in photos I took of it the day after you caught it and we can compare. If locality adds points to a snakes' aesthetic appeal I totally get your point. If it does not... as is my contention, then my impression of it relates to its overall novelty, color, and pattern. A place like the Davis produces a somewhat narrow overall parameter for variation. As a matter of fact I don't know that you realize how narrow.

Take for example the following two snakes:
This one is somewhat interesting... medium gray background, moderate to little speckling and dingy orange.

This one is brownish gray with moderate to little speckling and dingy orange:

Wait a second! Is that the same snake? Couldn't be! No wait! It is! The snakes from the Davis are so variable that you posted the same snake twice thinking it was a different snake. You made my point for me LOL.

remember above I said I have not done the "deletions" yet which include many repeats of the same snake

Forky

N/P
-----
Steve W.

np

Ok, so I didn't pay much attention to that average Davis snakes that I posted twice . . . but so what? Its still better than any average dark blairs (from my 60 photos of Sanderson snakes = 60% of the snakes found there) . . .

As for the Black Gap you rate a 7 . . . I'm not the only one that considers it a 10.

That snake was cleaner, brighter, and had a much more delicate pattern than any Sanderson I've seen save my 9 miler, and comparing the two head to head, the Gap snake had wider orange and a much neater head pattern. Since I've always considered my 9 miler a 9, the Gap gets a 10 (incidentally, the 9 miler you and MT caught I rate as your best 9 miler - and give it an 8).

Troy
Dan Johnson's Black Gap WC table

June 1995

You guys calling the snake Troy's holding a 10??????? Wow, you guys are really liberal with your ratings! I would give that about a 7.5 but maybe it looks a lot better in person. Of course its all 'eye of the beholder" opinion on any rating system but you really have to impress me to get a 10. Just my 2 cents worth.

that snake was a fire-band . . . it looked much better in person! That photo really washed out its orange. See this photo:

Troy

I held that snake with my own hands and saw it with my own eyes. If it was indeed "fire banded" it became that way after I saw it... which would indeed render it a "10" just due to the presence of excitable chromatophores. LOL.

my photo is exactly what that snake looked like. I can't speak for the quality of your memory, but I worked hard to finally get a photo of that snake that showed its colors correctly. And that's the photo that did.

Troy

John and I rolled into the motel parking lot to find you sitting on a picnic table in between the two front buildings at what is now Roy's motel. You had a smile on your face. You asked how we did in the Christmas and then I inquired as to the reason for your smile. You said you'd scored in the Gap and told us the story. You took out the snake and my first reaction was "Wow... that's cool"... not "HOLY CRAP THAT'S AWESOME!" It was a nice snake... one of the better blairs from the Gap, but I'll reserve "10"s for snakes like Sheldons' triple alternate male, his patternless girl, or Dennie's girl from way back. If we're rating the snakes and factoring locality as a point bumper, then I still contend that snake was no "10". As far as blairs go, Dan's Stillwell snake and Dennie's girl trump yours. I think you'd agree. Are those rated with "11"s and "12"s? If you justify a 1 point difference between your female 9 miler and that male Gap snake then you surely would have to admit to a differential between yours and the other top notch Gap blairs. I still say that save the orange on the head that snake could have crawled off a cut east of Sanderson... of course a lot of Gap snakes look like they could have come from Sanderson (it's the exceptional animals that make that locality well known and set it apart.) Your male was young when you caught it, and may have grown into its colors as it got larger (animals from that general area of Texas seem to do that) but when I saw it I would have easily taken a number of animals that had by that time already been caught in the Gap over that male.

The only difference between Dan's Stillwells blairs and mine was that Dans was light and mine was dark. Personally, I'm convinced that the snakes were siblings and had the same father (the details of the head pattern were almost identical). Mine may have actually had nicer orange.

As for my "ratings" . . . they are all subjective, obviously. I hold that there is a threshold where a snake is a "10", and that it doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't any snakes better - if you held to a "10" is the absolute best, and nothing can be better, then there would only be one "10" alterna, and I'm sure you'll conceed (given your last post) that there have been several "10"s caught at the Gap (you mentioned Sheldon's triple alternate snake, the patternless snake, and Denny's snake). Yes, those snakes were nicer (although its amusing to me that you like the plain old patternless beast). But a rating system is arbitrary and snakes form a continuum. I guess if you really wanted, we could add decimal points to make it a continuous system. Maybe then I'd conceed my snake as a 9.6 . . . since I'm not using decimals, just assume I'm rounding . . . or that the Denny snake gets a 10.4 and mine gets a 10.0. Maybe we should throw the question to a panel of expert judges, drop the highest and lowest scores, and the score from the French judge because of bias. Of course, I feel that would be ludicrous . . .

"Let rate this snake?" hmm, super bright orange = 10, plain old regular pattern = 7 exceptionally light silver = 10, black head = 10 . . . 37 pts/4 = 9.25

So what you think my snake wasn't a "10" - sounds to me like your just miffed that I don't think your east of Sanderson blairs (the one that looks like it could have come from anywhere between Sanderson and Bracketville) is the best alterna ever LOL

Troy

Troy

Miffed that you don't think my east Sanderson critter's the best one ever? LOL. Now THAT'S FUNNY. I think it's hilarious that you think your opinion of that snake carries that much weight with me LOL. I don't tie my self worth to the snakes I find anyway LOL. It's all luck. Honestly, my opinion of that Gap snake is based in a difference of opinion in how and what criteria are judged to give a snake a high rating. Your Gap snake just served as a snake we could mutually evaluate. I held that snake with my hands and it was not a "10" to me. It was nice though. I can't even believe we can have a difference of opinion about it. The photo of you holding the Gap snake shows accurate color overall (your skin tone and the color of the wall)... why all of a sudden does the critter look less than a "10"? Because it was!

If there's not such a difference in your Stillwell and Dan's it's just because I never saw Dan's in life... just photos. The photos of his look better. If yours had better orange I'd change my evaluation of Dan's animal too. I don't add points for the difficulty in finding snakes in harder localities. That's the reason I can't in my mind push that Gap to the top of the scale.

I do like the one on the right in this photo (despite your opinion LOL). It would be a "10" for me no matter where it was collected. LOL.

Your beginning to sound like you're accusing me of "juicing" my photos . . . I just showed Marla your picture and mine, and that you were contending that yours was a more accurate depiction of the snake and her response was "BS, he didn't have the snake for 5 years!"

I bring this up not to bash your photography but rather to illustrate that photos (and memories) are subject to the vagaries of processing, exposure, etc . . . and that your photos of my snake (and perhaps your recollection of him?) do not accurately depict his colors - e.g. this photo:

shows him to have rather dull orange, and is innaccurate . . . mostly because of the white background (much like my first shots of the same snake) while this photo:

is an accurate portrayal of what the snake looked like. Judge the beast however you will(10, 9, 8, 7, or whatever) but do it based off of the photo that is an accurate portrayal of the snake, dagnabit! LOL

As for my skin tone . . . snake scales are far more reflective than walls and human skin . . . and I doubt seriously that I was that tan at the time - my shots of me holding that snake show me as much whiter LOL

Note also that I have absolutely no vested interest in "promoting" that animal - he's been dead for several years (he was a "failure to thrive" snake) and died with no progeny - my arguments as to his "quality" are purely academic. The only place I begin to get annoyed at is your continued insistence that your photos of the snake (that you saw for a few hours) are a more accurate depiction of the animal than my photos of a snake that lived in my house for about 5 years . . .

I wasn't originally planning on doing this, but since you posted the picture of the snakes in a tub, it does raise a question for me regarding those E of Sandersons . . .

I'll start with the caveat that I've never seen either of these snakes in person - however, I have noticed a marked difference in the quality of orange depicted from one picture (the one with the snakes in the tub) and the next pair (snakes on rocks). Is one more accurate?

The photo of the snakes in the tub shows two extremely nice blairs, with very nice, very clean orange:

While these two photos show two very bright alterna, with the best and brightest orange I've ever seen!

Do both photos depict the snakes accurately? I don't think you can have it both ways . . . either the first one is more accurate, or the second series are . . . LOL

Finally, it is certainly true that it is all "luck" in terms of how nice a beast that you succeed in catching . . . however, persistence and a bit of skill and knowledge of playing the weather and conditions does play some role in actually catching one (or 16 or 42) in the first place.

Troy

I'm not saying that two photographs of the same snake don't have the potential to show disparities in a single snakes' coloration. As indicated by John in a previous post, flash photography often times accentuates the quality of coloration... especially the orange. I think everyone realizes that… especially those that do a lot of photography. The difference is that no matter how hard you try, even if you were to photograph it (with me holding it) in the direct sun, that Sanderson blairs would never look as average as does the Gap. I'm not accusing you of juicing your photos... just that the flash shot renders him in a somewhat inaccurate light... making him look better than he was. The two shots (flash shots if you couldn't tell) you posted of my snakes were prints that were scanned in with an old HP scanner... one with which it's difficult to control the contrast (and consequently the saturation). Some of the detail in the original film shots is reduced because of the high contrast, but the color is pretty accurate for even the print. Feel free to ask anyone who saw them in person LOL. I'll be happy to rescan them if it would make you feel better. LOL.

Oh... and my luck comment didn't have anything to do with numbers... I feel that a seasoned alterna hunter, if a student of nature, can do a number of things to significantly increase the potential for an encounter. My luck comment had to do with the quality of the snakes encountered. No matter how good you are at finding them you can do nothing to guarantee yourself good ones. That’s all up to chance.

I'm finished haranguing the Gap snake LOL. I did like that snake despite how things may have been perceived through my argument. It was a tangent anyway... from our original discussion about local variability and personal preferences for certain localities over others.

The easiest thing to love about Gray-Banded Kingsnakes is the phenotypic variability. I'm sure that's why nearly everyone who takes the time falls in love with them. From Val Verde down through Brewster and up to Hudspeth, each area is unique with its own suite of identifying characters. Each area has its own mystique and it's fun to hunt all of them. It's human nature to categorize and classify. Truth be told I have no real preference of one locality over another. Certain animals do tend to be more appealing, usually due to the perceived novelty or rarity of the phenotype. An exceptional specimen from any locality is nearly impossible to resist. From a perspective from profundity, the greatness of a specimen from any given locality is tied (to a lesser extent) to the knowledge that it differs so markedly from the other specimens likely to be encountered locally and (to a greater extent) to the specimens likely to be encountered a county away. A great light blairs wouldn't have the breathtaking power it does were it not so comparatively different from a Davis, a River or an Alpine. By the same token, a great Davis would suffer the same fall into a realm of the mundane were it not for the other phenotypes with which it shares so little in common. Simply stated, I think all alterna are great by comparison. The fact that the variation in alterna is almost incomprehensibly broad makes any specimen a treasure. We'll all continue to have our favorites and I'm sure those favorites will change over time... especially as new populations are discovered and known populations produce more for us to see.

Troy, I like locking horns with you for several reasons... the mere challenge of it (you're an intellectual pugilist), and for the fact that it helps me put perspective on our ideas. I almost hate to take the chance at putting this thread to bed for fear that the forum will fall back into the horse latitude quiet that seems to overwhelm it this time of year. In any case, I've been enjoying the discussion.
Good on ya Troy!

Well if it gets too slow for you, you can always post photos and stories of your recently alluded to finds haha

Forky

>>>> I almost hate to take the chance at putting this thread to bed for fear that the forum will fall back into the horse latitude quiet that seems to overwhelm it this time of year. In any case, I've been enjoying the discussion.
>>Good on ya Troy!
>>

I had that snake at my house for 5 years, and I'm telling you that the photo of it that I posted was BY FAR the most accurate depiction of the snake.

You saw the snake a couple of times over 2 days. I lived with the animal for 5 years in my house. Who do you think is in a better place to judge the animal? Or rather, why do you think that you are in a better place to judge a snake that you saw a couple of times over 2 days than I am (who saw the snake daily for about 5 years)?

Similarly, I don't know (and haven't said) whether or not the photos you posted are accurate or not . . . or which one is accurate. Were I to guess, I'd say the ones from the tub, especially given that I have an original print from that roll of film sitting right here in my photo album . . . whereas the other photos, well the orange is markedly brighter in those photos . . .

I'll post a series of photos of that snake . . . none look as drab as yours . . . you can see a dramatic difference in the way the photos look with the snake on a white background vs a gray background.

Troy

You and I just have different perspectives on what makes a "10". I realize that not all photos portray animals in a light that is in tune with their actual coloration. Some photos make them look better than they are... some photos make them look worse. The thing is, I rarely see a good snake look really bad in a bad photo. I realize you had the snake for 5 years. I realize I saw it for two days. In the two days I saw it I never once was overwhelmed with an "Oh my God" response. That's OK. The enjoyment of alterna is VERY subjective. Just as you'd prefer a Buzz Ross Davis over a nice Sanderson... I prefer other phenotypes over that Gap snake. It's OK. I like that not everyone likes what I like. You're enamored with the intricacies and subtleties of pattern that are apparently lost on me as far as that snake goes. It's a nice snake, just not one of my favorites.

a good snake look a lot worse than it really was . . . see the photo series I brought to the top.

I said earlier that I don't care whether or not you think the snake was a 10 or not, but rather that you seem to be insisting that your photo is more "true to life" than mine, and I'm telling you that (a) you're wrong and that (b) I had the snake for 5 years, and that I am therefore in a much better place to judge which photo was the more accurate of the two.

Troy

I'm not insisting mine was more true to life, just that it was a picture of the same snake and regardless of how poor the scan is it's still a representation of that animal. Even if it made that snake look much less impressive than it actually was, I don't see how a "10" could ever look like that... even if the photo was beyond horrible. It seems that in bad photos of great snakes, the grandeur finds a way to eek through. In those cases you can see that the problem's with the photo and not the snake. I see problems in both areas in my ol' crappy photo. If that photo weren't reinforced by my recollection of that animal you might have an easier time convincing me. If my opinion of the snake offends you I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that you were "juicing" your photos. I don't think you intentionally misrepresented the snake. Based on what I remember of the snake, it just didn't look like the flash photo. If it got better in the 5 years after I saw it then I believe you. I've seen Terrell and eastern Brewster snakes peak in color later than other localities and it may have gotten better. Regardless of how it looks in my old crappy photos and I were to go strictly on the one you indicate as being the most accurate I still can't bring myself to slapping a big ol' 1-0 on it. It's just my opinion. It's a very nice dark blairs but for me it's still not a "holy-moly" snake.

Just to make you feel better, I took the 4" x 6" print of my first east Sanderson light blairs to one of the guys in our mapping department and had him scan it in. This is what he came up with:

Here's the one I did on the ol' HP a while back:

The second shot shows too much contrast (at least in the orange)... detail in scalation is lost (partly due to a less sharp image also), but all in all the photos are not all that disimilar. The gray on the second scan looks more accurate to me (less blue). The background coloration (ie. rock) in the first shot looks a little wacky in color and the photo seems to have an overall greenish hue (at least on this monitor), but at least it captures the snakes scalation and orange a bit better. The funny thing is even though that snake was photographed on light colored rock with a flash it still didn't wash out his orange. huh. LOL.

I guess not, otherwise you'd have re-shot already it with the light setup you have now.....

Forks

I actually do still have him... he's deep in the middle of a shed cycle right now. I will shoot some shots when he sheds. His orange bled into his gray as he grew older so he doesn't look as silver as he used to, but he's still pretty durn nice. Some of my original WC animals are starting to show their age, but I'm surprised at how good some of them look after living in captivity for 12 years... especially since some of them were young adults at the time of capture.

Wow, I thought you could only compare them in the lights from the beams of headlights, flashlights, and hotel room lights! LOL! To me, and just my opinion, all the g.b.'s posted are 11's, coming from the newbie who hasn't bagged one yet. When I get mine, it will be a 17.3 and blow them all away! Really, they are all great snakes, made better by finding them right where you knew they'd be or where you had a hunch they should be. If any of you are unhappy with the quality of your snakes, please send them to me, as they are ugly and will bring the value of your collection down! POST MORE PICS!
Todd Hughes

Okay, I am not taking sides here Troy, that BG is a damn nice snake, as I recall, I also had the priviledge of seeing that snake right after you caught it, its a solid 8-9 by my grading, but heck, everyone grades different, right? Now personally, I would have picked the 9 mile snake over the gap snake, but thats just me. The Gap did have wider orange bands, but otherwise, not better than that 9 mile snake, which I really liked.

Now another question, MOST of the photos I am veiwing appear to have been taken with a flash, which absolutely can enhance any snake to make it look better than it really is, I'm not big into photograghy, I dabble in it, but I intentionally take most of my photos under cloud cover or shade, so the snakes are not over-represented with vivid neon colors that many many photos seem to show??? I know with proper flash settings that colors can be brought out very close to true, but it is apparent that alot of snakes are over-enhanced with flash photos & the photo of your gap snake that Damon & you are discussing looks to have brighter orange than it actually has or over-exposed on Dans website, would you agree? JF

With a good 35 mm I've found the opposite . . . most of the time, a flash tends to wash out alternas colors, especially bright oranges. I took several series of photos of that snake until I was satisfied with the colors - my first shots (on an almost white rock background from stillwells) looked a lot like Damon's photos - which, when held up next to the snake, did not do it justice. I finally got velvia film (which I prefer) and shot them on my porch and got those photos that were much more true to life in color.

Remember, I'm still shooting slides, not digital . . . there are more things you can do with digital than with slides. Shooting 50 (formerly) or 100 speed slides requires the use of a flash to get decent depth of field.

If I really wanted to emphasize their colors, I'd shoot them all on a royal blue background (like Steve Osborne's blue-gravel shots), which really compliments the orange and makes it stand out - instead, I try to shoot them on a natural background - but if you go too light with your background, you get washing out . . . I've found the best is to use a darker gray limestone than light ones . . .

I shoot my photos with the intent of making the photos show the snakes in the best, most realistic light. I don't try to make them glow or overexpose the orange, just make it look like it looks when I hold the snake in hand.

Troy

That is absolutely the worst photo I've ever seen of that snake! Wow - no wonder you think it was "7" if that's what you're going from!

It took me a couple of shoots to get the colors looking right, too. I was never satisfied with comparing the faded out pictures to the snake itself until I got this shot.

Troy

Here's a few more pics. I've learned a lot about photography since then LOL, but they are a few more perspectives on the snake. It is a neat snake (especially the orange that runs up onto the head), but I'm with Brad on this one. It's nothing that couldn't crawl off of a cut in Sanderson.

Even if we take the following picture as a realistic portrayal of the snake,

Do you think that it's more impressive than this?:

Unfortunately, I was never able to hold those two animals side by side . . .

I do have better photos of the 9 miler Sanderson, as well:

The BG and the 9 miler were both very nice snakes - amongst the nicest I've found. However, in a head to head:

Black Gap

VS

Sanderson 9 miler

brightness of orange - slight nod to 9 miler
purity of orange - slight nod to 9 miler
width of orange - BG
intricacy of the "little details" - BG
ground color quality - tie
(locality bonus - BG)

even without the "locality bonus" owing that Black Gap is a much neater place to hunt than Sanderson, and a much harder one to hunt, I give the nod to the BG snake over the Sanderson one because it has much wider orange and the little details of head pattern and alternates push the BG snake solidly ahead in those two categories whereas in the brightness and purity categories, the Sanderson only gets slight nods.

However, I will gladly conceed that this snake, found 2.4 mi W of Sanderson, is still the nicest one I've ever found:

however this snake, found 7.2 mi E is the ugliest I've ever found:

and that these snakes, also from Sanderson, are among the ugliest I've ever seen:

Unfortunately, a casual perusal of the my more than 60 photos of Sandersons will show that that average snake there is a lot more like the last 3 than the nicer ones we've been debating.

In fact, I'd say that this snake is about average for Sanderson:

and really looks litte different from this snake from Langtry:

or this animal from Lozier:

Troy

is this snake from the Glass . . . too bad you lost the "fire" for alterna hunting shortly after you found this one LOL

I'd take this snake over any old Sanderson any day - nice orange, intricate pattern, unique locality - what more can an alterna fan ask for?

Troy

"too bad you lost the "fire" for alterna hunting shortly after you found this one LOL"

Oh Lord! If only you knew LOL.

>>"too bad you lost the "fire" for alterna hunting shortly after you found this one LOL"
>>
>>Oh Lord! If only you knew LOL.

Didn't you say that one came from down in the flats, or a good ways away from the rocky hills?

Forky

The Glass snake? It came from 600-700 yards south of the big cut... not all that odd for a young displaced male. Since it was the first night we'd hunted there and nightfall had already set in, we thought it odd because when we found it we had no idea we were near any rock. Turns out it was nearby. It still wasn't all that close, just not that far away either.

I agree, not that odd for any sized male IMO.

Forky

Hey Damon, was the Glass one on 385 or 90? Anyone ever purposely hunt the area you found it (other than you I'm sure!)? Spectacular snake! --Henry W.

Ric Blair has three animals collected in the hills away from the roads. I believe he is breeding them.

And we're not sure how many Damon has

Forky

Let me guess - you were already burned out when you found that one? Or searching for its mate burned you out?

I don't focus on alterna as much as I used to, but they are still among the most enjoyable snakes to hunt for . . . unless you're hunting those boring old limestone cuts in Val Verde and Terrell Counties . . . Brewster/Presidio/Jeff Davis counties, the cure for burn-out! LOL

Troy

No burnout LOL. Not by a longshot. I certainly slowed my efforts since the mid 90's (so go the tasks of a responsible husband and father), but just because I haven't posted pictures doesn't mean I'm not finding things.*grins* I'm sure you'll agree, that once you've had a taste of how fun alterna hunting can be, you can't take the potential for new experiences and shelve it. It gets into your blood at some point. I'm sure the stories will find a way to break some day, but not now... not for a long while.

Not having seen you in the Trans-Pecos in years, I can make a few assumptions regarding states or countries that aren't in the Trans-Pecos . . .

Keep your secrets all you want (it doesn't much matter to me) but all I'd ask is that if you're finding range extensions, they ought to be pubbed in some sort of scientific journal or at the very least deposited in the appropriate museum (UNM, UANL, etc).

Troy

spill the beans already!!

haha

Forky

My mom taught me to not waste food... you know... the whole "there are starving people in Ethiopia" thing. LOL

warmer? LOL

Troy

"Land of Enchantmant" Nuff said.

>>"Land of Enchantmant" Nuff said.

Yea he got him some of those fabeled Elephant Butte snakes,
or maybe some from the foothills of the Sacramento Mtns.

I told you guys they were there!

Forky

Guess all you want, I'm not playing Marco Polo.

Troy, that west of Sanderson 1995 alterna is gorgeous! Did Marla catch that one too??????? Looks like it came straight out of the Huecos.

the only AOR we ever found at Sanderson . . . Marla got the better photo, and that's the one I used.

Troy

the almighty question, who saw the snake first? And, that alterna is a 10, really nice snake and again I was lucky enough to get to see that snake the next day. I know you were both in the vehicle that night, so can I assume Marla saw it first & YOU got it?? J/T JF

I was spotlighting . . . we only had the one spotlight then, and didn't spotlight much, because we had never had much luck. I had just spotted my first alterna off a cut 5 minutes before (typical Sanderson dark blairs) and was spotting the next cut east of the long one west of town when Marla says "hey, there's a snake in the road" . . . I could see that it was stocky and had black rings near the tail and thought at first it was a lepidus, told Marla so, and went back to spotting the cut, not figuring it was going anywhere. As we got closer, Marla says "that's no lepidus!" and I looked up and realized she was right! "Alterna" . . . she jumps out (the passenger generally catches in our car)of the car to grab it and we both did the happy dance in the car.

Troy