Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I recently picked up Lee Grismer's book, and there was a free excerpt from the introduction of the book already on the publisher's web site that's open to the public (so I don't feel bad including it here, since I just copied and pasted; doesn't seem to violate any TOS).

I thought that he makes some really good points below. My question is: Are any of the Baja herps in collections legally obtained (or rather, from legal founding stock)? Thanks. DR

Conservation and Commercialization

Conservation issues are a rapidly growing concern for government agencies in Mexico. Several biosphere reserves have been created in key peninsular areas, and all the islands within the Gulf of California and along Baja California's Pacific coast are now protected. Because of the high degree of both peninsular and insular endemism and the monetary value that unfortunately accompanies such phenomena, the commercial market for this region's herpetofauna has grown at a staggering rate over the last few years. Even though this commercialization was started by just a few notorious reptile collectors and dealers trafficking in illegal wildlife, it has now become a serious threat to many species in the region of study.

Mellink (1995) notes some of the negative environmental effects that illegal reptile collecting has had in Baja California. For example, certain areas of the Sierra Juárez and Sierra San Pedro Mártir have been heavily degraded by collectors breaking apart rock piles in search of California Mountain Kingsnakes (Lampropeltis zonata). Similar devastation can be seen along Mexican Highway 1 as it passes through rocky areas in northern Baja California (such as Cataviña and Jaraguay), where collectors are looking primarily for Rosy Boas (Lichanura trivirgata) and banded rock lizards (Petrosaurus). The sheer numbers of specimens that have been removed from some areas are also alarming. I was told by two Mexican nationals from La Paz that they helped one American reptile dealer collect over one thousand San Lucan Banded Rock Lizards (Petrosaurus thalassinus) in the Cape Region for over two years. Many of these were sold, and others provided the parental stock for illegal captive propagation.

Commercialization of this herpetofauna threatens insular endemics most of all. For example, the Isla Todos Santos Mountain Kingsnake (Lampropeltis herrerae) is confined to a single, tiny island off the coast of Ensenada. Mellink (1995) reported finding snake traps on the island baited with live mice, and Anglos with pillowcases turning over rocks. I know of one collector who took a gravid female off the island. The long-term potential problems of removing gravid individuals from populations of species with extremely limited gene pools is obvious. The same problems affect islands in the Gulf of California. For example, when I saw several species of endemic rattlesnakes appearing on reptile price lists from Florida, I became very concerned. I talked to a Mexican national who participated in the collection efforts of the American who shipped those reptiles to Florida, and he told me that nearly one hundred snakes were collected. I have found abandoned pitfall traps on several islands filled with dead animals because the person who set them never came back to close them up. Mellink provides many more examples.

Despite the sanctimonious claims of many dealers, breeders, and collectors, unregulated captive propagation of illegally obtained animals has done nothing, and will do nothing, to protect against the potential loss or local extirpation of Baja California or Gulf of California amphibians and reptiles. Additionally, as Mellink notes, many individuals from different populations are crossed to produce more commercially valuable color phases, thus creating individuals with genetic constitutions and color patterns that do not even occur in the wild. Furthermore, the commercialization of this herpetofauna not only has created its own market but also has resulted in the environmental degradation of many areas (Mellink 1995). When people see the outrageous prices for which some species sell and realize that they are only a few hours or days away from areas where these species can be collected, some develop an urge to be adventurous and go catch their own.

Besides the fact that overcollecting, destroying microhabitats, and smuggling reptiles across the border into the United States is considered an illegal act in both countries, it is environmentally and ethically unconscionable, and it constitutes an act of aggression against our ecosystems. So the next time you see a price list with protected species on it or attend a reptile expo where Baja California and Gulf of California herps are being paraded for sale in hundreds of little plastic boxes, remember that the original populations from which these specimens came were most likely illegally taken (Mellink 1995). Then ask yourself if you want to be a part of, or cater to, that level of our society that abuses wildlife for profit.

I love that book, so much information.

I have had the pleasure of visiting two of the islands in the Sea of Cortez. Amazing. They call that area the Mexican Galapagos or something to that effect. I hiked down one small cliff that is made up of a "staircase" of boulders. At the base of the cliff is an area known for speckled rattlesnakes and Baja California rattlesnakes, though neither were endemic to that island and occur on the mainland too. Unfortunately the snakes were not showing themselves that day, and night hiking in that terrain was not a smart idea.

Then, back at the mainland in Baja CA Sur, I visited the reptile collection at the Univ of La Paz. Nearly all of the specimens were found in a garbage dump nearby. The curator showed me the nondescript trash pile. Yep, it was a trash pile at the base of a hillside, and the hillside was not unique or interesting in its form, plant life or rocks - nothing like the islands. From the pile came Lichanura trivirgata, Crotalus enyo, Crotalus ruber, Lampropeltis getula and Bipes bipes among other things.
-----
Mark

Let's consider another angle...

The next time you attend a reptile expo where Baja California and Gulf of California herps are being paraded for sale in hundreds of little plastic boxes, why don't you get some and breed them... flood the market with so many Captive Breds that it isn't worth the price of gas to go looking for one in the wild.

I could go to CA and collect a kingsnake... but why, when I can just buy a legal CB for $20?

Just my unsolicited .02

It is the principle of the matter. Why support something that you now know is wrong??

-Chris
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

Because:
1. I don't agree that all baja herps came about illegally.
2. I don't agree that collection devastates the population.
3. I don't agree that breaking rocks (although ugly) devastates the population.

If someone knows that a herp was obtained illegally, they should take that to law enforcement and it should be dealt with correctly. If you don't have proof of wrongdoing, you probably shouldn't make accusations. Suggesting that every baja rosy boa at a herp show is illegal is an unfounded accusation.

Many CA areas that were hit hard back when commercial collection was allowed still are some of the easiest places to find snakes. People have collected and run over rosy boas at WW constantly for generations and you can still find them all over that place.

I've seen broken rocks. It's ugly, and I hate it. But I've also seen my share of herps under garbage. The fact is that damage to the rocks may simply make the snakes harder to locate... which I suppose should be seen as a good thing?

Lastly, I believe that the real enemies are the bulldozer and cement truck, and I honestly think that pointing the blame any other direction does a disservice to the herps.
Just my opinion. I don't expect to convince anyone. I have lots of friends that disagree with me; I do appreciate their opinions (and that of the author as well). Everyone's entitled to one right?

Not all species / habitats are created equal.....

Sure, it might appear anecdotally that populations of species such are rosy boas are not harmed by commercial collecting but that is based on very little data. The data that does exist isn't detailed and doesn't include information about population age structure, sex ratios, size classes, etc.....

While I do not disagree that human induced habitat loss via development is a more serious threat, all threats synergistically impact species/populations/distributions/ etc...

I can think of two examples where herp collection (both legal and illegal) has negatively impacted species in the state I currently reside in.

First, There are a few spots that used to be heavily collected for bullsnakes and western hognose snakes. It wasn't uncommon (~30 years ago) to collect ~15-20 w. hongose snakes in a day ("Poacher", pers. comm.). Last year, I was told by one of the collectors that "he/she" didn't find any at "the spots". Hmm..... I wonder why??? Recently, I have been fortunate enough to be involved in some w. hognose research in those areas and we avg. ~1-2 hognose per week (15 since ~April). This decline is based primarily on anecdotal evidence, but hey.... so is your argument.

Secondly, here in MN, timber rattlesnakes were legally collected and killed (bounty) until the late 80's. If it were not for the passage of legislation to list them as state threatened they would of been extirpated from the state. There is population data to back this up.....

Bottom line, not all species, habitats, meta-populations are created equally. There are areas that could most likely sustain unregulated 'harvest' of herp species, but there are certainly even more areas that cannot. Endemic species or meta-populations of non-endemic species can easily be lost through over-harvest. Meta-population theory is very interesting, and if you (or anyone) is even remotely interested in it I highly recommend looking into it. Also look into Maximum sustainable yield in a biological context (WARNING: a little math heavy).

We are all allowed our opinions.

Cheers,
-Chris

P.s. The amount of "open space" in the western United States is VERY different from what is left in the eastern US. Habitats that have been fragmented by roads and housing developments can be tough on herps..... toss in a bit of collecting and it can be devastating.
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

I agree. Where I grew up along the Hudson river it is tidal and brackish. In several of the swamps when I was a kid you used to find diamond back terrapin and in the higher swamp spotted turtles.

That was 20 years ago though and I haven't seen either species in 15 years or so. Why? Once they became worth something collectors would pick off the females as the were nest seeking, collect and incubate the eggs then sell the hatchlings and the females. You cant remove prime breeding adults from small pops for too long before the population crashes.

Now, they are still found in other places in the NE so are not extinct. But these special populations in kind of unusual places are. In times past these populations could have provided new depth to the gene pool. Now its gone. So are the collectors by the way. Who wants to collect all the RES left in the creek???

Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

> Not all species / habitats are created equal.....

I completely agree, and I would assume that any area where they hibernate in large groups the animals would be more vulnerable.

I should've mentioned this before, but I was really only talking about rosy boas... since this was where it was posted.

Of all the places that rosy boas are found, none have been collected to extinction as far as I know. There are places where they have been erratically, but by being paved over.
Lucky thing that the vast majority of rosy boa habitat is very difficult/expensive to develop.

> primarily on anecdotal evidence, but hey.... so is your argument.
Agreed. Totally just blabbing my opinion. I appreciate what you're saying too.

If someone knows that a herp was obtained illegally, they should take that to law enforcement and it should be dealt with correctly. If you don't have proof of wrongdoing, you probably shouldn't make accusations. Suggesting that every baja rosy boa at a herp show is illegal is an unfounded accusation.

Actually, I think the burden of proof here lies with the breeders. I would love to see someone with a lot of Rosy lines try to trace their lineage back to legally collected specimens. Sure, some could do it, but most couldn't. I suspect there are widely bred localities that have never had snakes legally taken.

Can anyone honestly deny that the lineages of rosyboas on the market today contain large amounts of blood of poached snakes? Only naively, I think.

I think it sad that we as a hobby allow this illegal activity to be blended into the legal activity but then defensively resent the insinuations that it is going on.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

>>I think it sad that we as a hobby allow this illegal activity to be blended into the legal activity but then defensively resent the insinuations that it is going on.
>>-----
>>Chris Harrison

Hear, hear!!

> Actually, I think the burden of proof here lies with the breeders.

I think it's pretty obvious that this is not the case. Is this only for rosy boas or baja species? Do all herps require such a pedigree? How many generations are needed?
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is the way things are... at least not currently.

> I think it sad that we as a hobby allow this illegal activity to be blended into the legal activity but then defensively resent the insinuations that it is going on.

I don't resent the insinuations that it is going on. Or course it happens. I just think that we might not want to discredit the keepers of an entire species because we know someone who did something illegal. Turn the wrongdoer in to the police.
Blaming "rosy boa people" for the actions of a few dimwits, is like blaming all crime on one race.

I hear you. On the other hand, when a species that probably was collected illegally decades ago is now well established in captive collections such that the demand for wild-caught is nil, then why not keep them and breed them?

I think the best thing for any herp is to be well-known but not worth too much money. Then maybe, the proper method of protecting it - saving its habitat - will be more likely. When a herp loses its importance to humans, it is very likely that nothing will be done to save it in the wild.

It is that difficult balance. Too much interest (worth alot of money), and poachers abound. Fortunately for many Baja herps, that scenario is in the past. Too little interest, and the habitat gets plowed up.
-----
Mark

So the next time you see a price list with protected species on it or attend a reptile expo where Baja California and Gulf of California herps are being paraded for sale in hundreds of little plastic boxes, remember that the original populations from which these specimens came were most likely illegally taken (Mellink 1995). Then ask yourself if you want to be a part of, or cater to, that level of our society that abuses wildlife for profit.

Grismer is editorializing big time here (but I suppose he's entitled; it's his book...). Replace "Baja California and Gulf of California herps" with "bearded dragons" and see if anyone agreeing with Grismer will categorically maintain their stance.

I've been told on a trip to Australia, by Australians, that all bearded dragons in the pet trade are descended from stock illegally captured...after all, all wildlife in Oz is technically the Queen's property.

Whatever was done multi-captive-bred-generations ago is water under the bridge. End result: who here hears of anyone buying WC bearded dragons, or going to Australia to collect their own? It's a lot cheaper and easier to buy one for ten bucks, or get one given to you for free.

Incidentally, the same can be said for what was formerly "forbidden fruit" here in the US, like alterna.

-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

>>Whatever was done multi-captive-bred-generations ago is water under the bridge. End result: who here hears of anyone buying WC bearded dragons, or going to Australia to collect their own? It's a lot cheaper and easier to buy one for ten bucks, or get one given to you for free.
>>
>>Incidentally, the same can be said for what was formerly "forbidden fruit" here in the US, like alterna.

All appreciated comments from everyone!

Chris, those are good points too. But what about the Petrosaurus that you can still get by driving a few hours south of the border? Or some of the Mexican Crotaphytus that I know for certain have been collected recently? It really is abominable, IMO, to take so many of the wild-caught Petrosaurus, for example, as Grismer mentioned (1000 taken by one dealer!!).

I'm obviously not against take from the wild (since I breed snakes that descended from wild-caught stock), but I am against several different kinds of take. To list a few: commercial collection, taking subadults and adults (especially gravid females), species or "varieties" (in the Darwinian sense) with a small population or range, species that are endemic to a relatively small region, etc.

Since I did my Suboc book, the road-collecting laws in TX have been in place, and yet, EVERY single person who has told me that they have found a Blonde Suboc since that law went into effect, also told me that they kept the animal. Notwithstanding low prices for captive-bred Blondes ($75-$100) that are relatively common in captivity, I have yet to talk to a person who has allowed to let a wild Blonde go free, even when it is illegal, and even when they can buy their own for much less than what it costs to drive to and hunt West Texas. And every single animal has been an adult -- an adult of an already uncommon-in-the-wild recessive mutation that is found over a very limited range. I have to be honest. That really bothers me. There are lots of Blondes in captivity making plenty of babies whose founding stock were captured 20-35 years ago. And it's not like collectors don't know this stuff. This is the kind of take from the wild that I do not support and really abominate. Its unsustainable and reflects a scarcity mindset with a poor sense of stewardship. Harsh words? Well, maybe but I don't see a justification for keeping rare "varieties" or species at the expense of assuredly hurting populations in the wild.

Thanks again all, for responding to the post.

DR

I'm obviously not against take from the wild (since I breed snakes that descended from wild-caught stock), but I am against several different kinds of take. To list a few: commercial collection, taking subadults and adults (especially gravid females), species or "varieties" (in the Darwinian sense) with a small population or range, species that are endemic to a relatively small region, etc.

I am in agreement with you. I guess the tone of my response was that some people are against taking from the wild, in ANY quantity or of ANY species, but tend to forget where their captive-bred pets originated (and in some cases, they came from poached stock).

I'm wrestling with the whole notion of WC vs. CB, bag limits, white-list/black-list species, etc. There are a lot of restrictions out there which flat-out don't make sense (CA possession limits of ONE for some species?), and there are a lot of animals for which restrictions HAVEN'T been imposed, but should.

I'm getting away from the immediate topic here, but obviously one of the biggest concerns is money. It drives commercial collectors and/or poachers (they are NOT necessarily the same) to do what they want to do, but on the other side of the coin, it limits research in that there just isn't a perceived value for most states' wildlife departments to fund studies of nongame species (they don't exactly generate a lot of revenue for the departments by way of license sales, like game animals do).

I'm (slowly!) working on efforts to partner amateur herpers with state wildlife agencies to build the body of knowledge for herp species. What will come of it? Some ideas include increased land access and other herping opportunities, some species on restricted lists being opened to take (based on analysis, of course), some unprotected species being protected (based on analysis), and in general, better understanding of herp population dynamics, sustainable (or not) take, etc.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

If you just picked up Grismer's book, you're further behind on your reading list than I am!
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

>>If you just picked up Grismer's book, you're further behind on your reading list than I am!
>>-----

That's probably true! There's only so much a perpetual college student can do to convince his wife that he needs yet another $100 book. (Although, I did have the book checked out from BYU's library for about six straight months when I was writing the Suboc book.)

>>That's probably true! There's only so much a perpetual college student can do to convince his wife that he needs yet another $100 book.

That's why you watch for UC Press sales. I bought the book last year for under $40 I believe. It may have been under $25?
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

>>That's why you watch for UC Press sales. I bought the book last year for under $40 I believe. It may have been under $25?

I remember that sale! For one reason or another, other financial stuff was going on, and I didn't end up getting any books at the time. But yeah, it was like a 50% off sale. Notwithstanding, I've still picked up about 10 of their books in the past year.

I LOVE UCPress! I get e-mailed their newsletters and sales updates LOL, and that's saying something because I'm not big on e-mail subscriptions. It's my goal to one day write a book for them. Such incredible books. And not just herps! I'm starting to amass a collection from their Evolutionary Biology department. Got several on my wishlist from their paleontology library too. ('The Dinosauria' hardback was $50 during that sale.)

Dusty what is your basis for saying the take in blonde subocs is unsustainable? The range of the blondes is vast compared to the tiny narrow 100 foot wide by 3 or 4 miles long strip of road they are taken off of. Very few people even hunt that stretch of road, the vast majority of blone subocs have been found by people merely passing though the area while going to or from from Study Butte and the main hunting area which is a good 20 miles away from the area where the blondes are found. Since few, if any, hunters stay for more than one or two passes at a time in the area where the blondes are found, I would bet that well over 90% of the blondes crossing that road are never even seen.

On top of all that the road is not even where they live, it is a kill zone. Most blondes in the immeadiate area adjacent to the road probably never even come out onto the road. Additionally there are likey thousands more blondes that are nowhere near "adjacent" to the road, living so far out in the desert that they will never even see a set of headlights go by in the distance, let alone venture onto the road themselves. I am just very surpised at what you have said because you have been to the trans-pecos have you not? You should now that the roads that snakes like subocs and alterna get collected from comprise less than 1/10th of a percent of their range. What's sad is that some wildlife agents seem to share your unfounded beliefs. Laws are being based on such hogwash and there is no data whatsoever to back them up.

>What's sad is that some wildlife agents seem to share your unfounded beliefs. Laws are being based on such hogwash and there is no data whatsoever to back them up.

AMEN!

>>Dusty what is your basis for saying the take in blonde subocs is unsustainable?

Dude, if you need help understanding how taking adult homozygous animals of a recessive mutation (and generally leaving more of the much more numerous normals and the normal-looking heterozygotes alone) from a very limited range can and usually does diminish the frequencies of that recessive gene, then I'd say you need to go out and read a couple of textbooks on evolution and conservation biology.

Look up that Richard King Nerodia sipedon study I posted on the other forum, and read about how the constant immigration from the more frequent dominant allele works against the effects of natural selection on the recessive allele.

Then after that, I would suggest reading about the effects of genetic drift on infrequent alleles in a population. While reading, pay attention to words like fixation and allele frequency.

And then look at data that show the chances of survival for babies vs. the chances of survival for established adults of a variety of herps for which there is data (yes, there is some).

Now, consider the limited range of the Blonde Suboc, more than probably 95% of them are found along basically a 20-mile stretch of road, and only at certain transects. Comparatively VERY few are found in the Christmases and West of the Big Hill.

Now consider how many of the Subocs you and others have seen along that stretch of road where they're most common, especially those who hunt that road looking for Subocs. Ask Michael Price how many Subocs he has seen on that stretch of road, and how many of them have been Blonde. I would guess he's seen well over 150, and only 3 have been Blondes, unless he's found more since I last talked to him.

Combine all of the aforementioned, and you come to the conclusion that the range of the morph is small (i.e. you don't find Blondes anywhere else), that the allele is infrequent, and that taking a single breeding-age adult from a population puts a considerable ding into the effects of genetic drift of an already infrequent allele. Though rare, natural selection is favoring the Blonde allele, and every single take of an adult kicks the effects of selection in the throat.

>>The range of the blondes is vast compared to the tiny narrow 100 foot wide by 3 or 4 miles long strip of road they are taken off of.

Vast? Ha, that's a stretch, Aaron. How do you know that? How many Blondes have been found off of the road?

>>Very few people even hunt that stretch of road, the vast majority of blone subocs have been found by people merely passing though the area while going to or from from Study Butte and the main hunting area which is a good 20 miles away from the area where the blondes are found. Since few, if any, hunters stay for more than one or two passes at a time in the area where the blondes are found, I would bet that well over 90% of the blondes crossing that road are never even seen.

Even if that were the case, consider again the number of Normals found in the Blonde's range vs. the number of Blondes found. You're ignoring the evidence that Blonde is a rare allele even in their range.

Most blondes in the immeadiate area adjacent to the road probably never even come out onto the road.

Why wouldn't they? Others are moving around and come out onto the road all the time. What would make blondes more road shy than all of the normals you see crossing?

Additionally there are likey thousands more blondes that are nowhere near "adjacent" to the road, living so far out in the desert that they will never even see a set of headlights go by in the distance, let alone venture onto the road themselves.

That's possible, but until someone finds a huge population of Blondes out there, there is zero evidence of that. Better to err on the side of the evidence we have available, which would caution us that a recessive allele such as Blonde is like most other recessive mutations in the wild -- rare. Even when favored.

Even if there was a huge pop. of Blondes elsewhere, that doesn't have anything to do with protecting the populations that live adjacent to the road. We certainly aren't finding Blondes across any other transects of road, however close or far.

>> What's sad is that some wildlife agents seem to share your unfounded beliefs.

What "unfounded beliefs" are those, Aaron? Science is not a belief system nor is it an ideology. It doesn't take faith to accept evidence from available data and similar repeatable concepts that involve other species which have been researched more.

Laws are being based on such hogwash and there is no data whatsoever to back them up.

Oh, so there was a law that was/is being passed that is based on the available evidence that Blonde is a rare allele, and that collecting Blonde adults is far less sustainable than collecting young? Well, if that's the case, then bravo. The government got something right for a change, and they should be applauded for listening to and basing their laws on that evidence.

Otherwise, I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Once again, Aaron, you are welcome to write a paper on why collecting homozygous recessive adults from a small population and representing an infrequent allele is TOTALLY sustainable for preserving that allele, and you are welcome to try to present that paper at a scientific symposium comprising conservation biologists and evolutionary biologists. If your paper gets accepted (which it might not), then good luck with the crushing questions you are going to get after your presentation.

DR
Suboc.com

Do you think blondes only occur next to the road, lol? They are not associated with pavement, they are associated with light colored limestone, which does in fact occur well away from the road.

I would encourage you and anybody who might seriously be considering your assertions to simply take out a map of TX and compare the square footage of public road surface within a ten mile radius of Terlingua with the square footage of light colored limestone in that same area.

Once again, you're manipulating the dialogue here, Aaron. You know I wouldn't argue something so absurd.

Stick to what I wrote. Put quotes around it if you have to...it's a lot safer for people ridden with ADD. You obviously can't stick to what I've said, so I would suggest you try that.

DR

Quoting you, regarding take of blonde subocs: "This is the kind of take from the wild that I do not support and really abominate. Its unsustainable and reflects a scarcity mindset with a poor sense of stewardship."

>>Quoting you, regarding take of blonde subocs: "This is the kind of take from the wild that I do not support and really abominate. Its unsustainable and reflects a scarcity mindset with a poor sense of stewardship."

And to that I hold. In this context, I'm talking about taking established adults.

I did some measurements on a map and it looks like the light colored limestones extend in a backwards "L" shape varying in width from about 1 to 4 miles. The verticle arm extends over 20 miles to the north and the horizontal arm about 15 miles to the west. So this would be somewhere between 35 to 140 square miles. All evidence suggests that the light colored limestone is the merely the epicenter from which the blondes radiate because as you said, blondes have even been found outside the area of light colored limestone.

One thing you didn't mention was that virtually all blonde subocs that have been collected, have come from just one road. The part of the road that actually passes through the light colored limestone is only about 50 feet wide and goes for about 5 miles. So the actual area that people are collecting from represents only one half of one square mile. That would leave somewhere between 34 and a half, to 139 and a half square miles of typical blonde suboc habitat that virtually never gets collected. If my math is correct, collecters are only accessing somewhere between .33 to 3.0 percent of prime blonde habitat. Thinking about it the other way, somewhere areound 97 to 99.66 percent of blonde suboc's habitat is never even hunted.

From those estimates I think it's pretty obvious that collecting blondes from such a small portion could not possibly have any effect on the genetics within that area as a whole regardless of whether one was taking adults, young or even both. Especially considering that blondes have even been found on parts of the road far outside the area of light colored limestone. Although I do admit the vast majority have been from the part of the road that passes through it. As I said that still leaves well over 90% of prime blonde habitat untouched with who knows how much sub-prime blonde habitat untouched as well.

It has not been proven yet that Blondes are found throughout or adapted to that entire range of caliche-encrusted limestone (although it's fairly obvious to collectors that they are and have), or 'light-colored limestone', as you put it. But for argument's sake, let's say that it has, hypothetically.

So, as a conservation biologist whose job it would be to protect a recessive variation that has been seen since at least 1966, and made the measurements you've made of their probable range, you would take the most conservative estimate of the snake's range. In other words, you would ACT and make decisions based on the smallest of your measurements.

34.5 miles of habitat is TINY. That's less than 7 x 5 miles. You could walk that easily. That's basically a habitat island with, as we've seen and discussed, very little dispersal outside of it. If that's all there is in the world for that species to survive on, that is eensy teensy. Even the larger estimate which is only 10 x 14 miles is very small. Of course, it's a long and skinny L-shaped habitat island, so there is a lot more edge habitat than if it were a simple 7x5 or 10x14. Edge habitat makes the situation all the more precarious.

The point is not that you're driving through a tiny section of their habitat, it's a transect of their habitat. Do you think that Blondes are staying in one spot on the caliche? They're moving around, and that's how we find them when we drive. It's like riding in a car in the same straight line in a baseball field with players that are moving around alot. You do it enough and eventually you're going to run into a good number of the players.

Now, let's do what most herpers do and try to avoid hitting the normals in that "baseball field" and and hit all the Blondes. Based on estimates, homozygous Blondes make up less than probably 5% of Subocs seen through that transect of prime caliche. What happens when there are 100 subocs, five of which are Blonde, and you take just one Blonde. That's 20% of the homozygous Blonde population take, which is very significant in regards to its effect on drift. You've now changed the whole dynamic of genetic drift. I don't think you understand or know what genetic drift is. Or especially its effects on an infrequent allele.

Blonde habitat is a tiny island where selection apparently favors Blondes, but where you have normals invading the gene pool and therefore working against selection from ALL sides of the habitat island. The selection will probably keep the Blondes around (until the caliche erodes), but the immense number of normals that are omnipresent and invading Blonde habitat from every point will keep Blonde numbers low.

Again, do you grasp the Nerodia sipedon study I provided, or did you even read it? That's what is going on here, in a nutshell, with the Blondes.

*p.s. It's been published that there are high-yellow Normals in Blonde habitat. So, I don't think it's safe to say that Blondes have the most favorable selective power. Some normals have evolved to blend in just as well as the Blondes have. That's even more selective pressure against the blondes from normal competition for resources and mates.

> Even the larger estimate which is only 10 x 14 miles is very small.

The 109,000 people living in the U.S. Virgin Islands (134 sq/miles) disagree with you.

Seriously though, thanks for your comments. I've appreciated what you've had to say... as well as Jeff, Aaron and Paul, and everyone else whose contributed to the discussion.

>>> Even the larger estimate which is only 10 x 14 miles is very small.
>>
>>The 109,000 people living in the U.S. Virgin Islands (134 sq/miles) disagree with you.

Put a category 5 hurricane in their path with 5 hours to evacuate, and then ask them if they'd agree.

All bets are off when you're talking about Homo sapiens.

You keep ingnoring several very significant things 1) Hunters do not have access to any of that habitat except for the tiny percentage(.03 to 1.66%) that consists of roadwyay. In 12 years I have hunted alterna in that area, not once have I seen or even heard of anybody leaving the main paved road to walk or drive that area. 2) The road is not home for the subocs. They are only on the road for short periods of time. 3) Most hunters do not specifically hunt that stretch of road, they only pass through it on their way to habitat that is better for their main quarry, alterna and/or lepidus.

There are also some huge flaws with your baseball analogy. First of all the number of subocs is not fixed. They are contiuously breeding and replenishing the supply. Second, and actually the biggest factor, the area that is not hunted is plenty large enough to support many, many colonies of subocs that will never ever in their entire lives venture onto the road. Even if every blonde that crossed that road got taken there are many times more reproducing away the road that never cross it and their offspring form the basis for new ones to cross the road.

No I did not read any of those studies because I highly doubt they take into account the fact that well over 90% of the habitat we are talking about never gets hunted. If you think there is anything in those studies that would override that factor you are free to paraphrase it here.

Also, 34 square miles was the minimum. The maximum was 140 square miles. When talking about hunting, 34 square miles is absolutly not a small area. One would have to do it on foot first of all. Second have you considered how many miles one would have to walk on foot to actually cover that amount of terrain? It would not be a matter of simply walking in a straight line for 34 miles. A mile is about 5,000 feet long. A hunter can only see for about 10 feet on either side. To actually cover the area one would would have to walk a grid of paths, approxiamately 20 feet apart. 5,000 feet divided by 20 =250. That means to thoroughly cover one square mile in 20 foot increments by foot a hunter would actually have to walk over 250 liniar miles. That's just to cover one square mile. Now multiply that by 34 = 8,500 linear miles. That's the minimum. 140 square miles would be, 35,000 miles. And because the subocs would actually be hiding most of the time one would have to walk the grid repeatedly. Not only that they'd have to repeat the walk faster than the whole population could reproduce itself. Not only that, the less dense the population gets, the faster you'd have to repeat the grid. Has it not become ludicrous at this point?

But as I said hunters are not hunting the whole area, they are only hunting the road. Which means the subocs would be the ones that would have to travel those linear miles. In other words the road becomes the epicenter of opposition. The pressure from taking blondes off that that one stretch of road would have to be greater than the reproductive output of the entire number of blondes thoughout the whole area. Normals would have to flow outwards from the road and permeate the entire area. And they would have to do it faster than the blonde gene could be reproduced. It's just not possible.

Lastly you said hunters have been collecting blondes from that stretch of road for about 60 years. I know of one blonde found this year, on the road. That means in 60 years of hunting that road, the blonde gene has not even suffered enough pressure to have even been erased from the area immeadiatly adjacent to the road, let alone cause a ripple effect throughout the rest of the area. The pressure from normals is already immense, yet the blondes continue to reproduce. Hunters taking a few blondes per year off that road is not going to be the force that tips the scale for the entire area.

And we have not even discussed how many hets are out there, which as you said people are not taking hets near as much as they take the blondes. The remaining hets immeadiately adjacent to the road are going to be passing on the blonde gene to those away from the road.

>>But as I said hunters are not hunting the whole area, they are only hunting the road.

There is one thing that will clear up how rare or not Blondes (and Hets) are throughout that range, and that is research. I'm going into this field, starting my graduate degree doing herps next month -- this is certainly a question I'd like to ask by doing field work and population genetics research. Whether I do it now in grad school or later, I think it is something I will eventually get to.

I hope that I'll be involved in whoever gets to eventually ask those questions.

But again, no amount of going back and forth on these forums will get any questions answered. Only research will do that.

Though rare, natural selection is favoring the Blonde allele, and every single take of an adult kicks the effects of selection in the throat.

This is just the way I see it, but ol' Nature doesn't care whether the removal from the population is by herper (live collection) or vehicle (run over).

Returning to herpers the opportunity to collect an animal ALIVE and make more LIVE animals of the same genetic stock SEEMS to make more sense to me, than to say "hands off" and hear from non-herping folks about the strange yellow snake they ran over last night on their way home from the bar.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

>>This is just the way I see it, but ol' Nature doesn't care whether the removal from the population is by herper (live collection) or vehicle (run over).

This paradigm assumes two things, which may not be true: (1) that the animal you found is guaranteed a certain death by vehicle if you allow it to go free (it's not -- I mean, it made this far into adulthood and hasn't gotten squashed yet.), and (2) that taking an established adult has the same consequence as taking a juvenile (it doesn't).

No, you can't guarantee that a baby won't get squashed either, but you can be certain that an established adult statistically has a better chance of surviving to keep the allele in question in the population than a baby does.

>>Returning to herpers the opportunity to collect an animal ALIVE and make more LIVE animals of the same genetic stock SEEMS to make more sense to me, than to say "hands off" and hear from non-herping folks about the strange yellow snake they ran over last night on their way home from the bar.

If people are doing it anyway (as per the several e-mails and pictures I've received since the law went into effect), and therefore ignoring the law and being open about it, then exactly what opportunity needs to be returned to the herpers?

I'm not suggesting a "hands-off" policy in regards to Blondes -- just SOME policy in regards to adult Blondes. There is some merit to this approach: you are eliminating ONE of the two previously mentioned human-caused removals of adults from the wild.

But why the need to collect them anyway? The captive population of Blondes isn't going extinct anytime soon...there are literally hundreds of them out there, including locality animals. To me, the need to do so reflects this attitude that says, "Hey, wait til my buddies at the Outback Oasis and the hometown herp club see what I found THIS weekend." Why can't the privilege of seeing and photographing the animal be enough, especially when you can buy an acclimated captive-bred adult for $200 as opposed to a $1000 week-long trip to W TX? I do think bag limits should be allowed AND followed AND based on the best pop. data available. Get me straight...I'm FOR collecting and keeping, but not for unregulated collecting and keeping. I take more pleasure in just knowing they're there than keeping them...and I'd one day like to cross paths with one. And if/when I do, I will let it be. (At least, that's how I HOPE I would act. LOL) But that's just me.

Before this wasn't an issue...I mean, how many people knew where to find Blondes 20 years ago compared to the numbers of people who know not only the road names, but exact hills and canyons.

But now that everybody can find out exactly where to find them, I do fear for their future as remaining extant in the wild. Believe me, I'm repenting and do sometimes cringe for putting locality information in my book...

Dang, maybe I wouldn't be so touchy about this if I had received just ONE report from SOMEone who not only ignored the 25 normal Subocs he saw on the last trip... but also the Blonde!

DR

*And BTW, how many non-herper buddy's do you have who hang out in Brewster county bars on the weekends?

This paradigm assumes two things, which may not be true: (1) that the animal you found is guaranteed a certain death by vehicle if you allow it to go free (it's not -- I mean, it made this far into adulthood and hasn't gotten squashed yet.), and (2) that taking an established adult has the same consequence as taking a juvenile (it doesn't).

That's true--those are assumptions. However, I don't know if I'd phrase the first assumption the way you have. Basically, I am describing a human/snake encounter via automobile. There are several possible outcomes--here are the ones that readily come to mind:

1. Driver does not even notice there's a snake in the road. Outcome: dead snake. (This happens often, even among herpers, unfortunately!)
2. Driver sees the snake and swerves on purpose to hit it. Outcome: dead snake. (This also unfortunately happens often, due to longtime stigmas against snakes)
3. Driver sees the snake and swerves to avoid it. Outcome: snake is alive (for now--see caveat below)
4. Driver sees the snake and stops to take pictures. Outcome: snake is alive (for now--see caveat below)
5. Driver sees the snake and collects it. Outcome: snake is alive (but dead as far as the natural population is concerned)

Of course, On options 3 and 4 above, the snake has the potential of placing itself at the mercy of ALL options repeatedly, either the same night or on subsequent nights, if it continues to visit the road. Other topics of debate include whether the snakes are merely transiting the road, or actually seek it out for thermoregulation purposes, and relative probabilities of encountering Options 1 through 5 above (how many herpers are on a given road as a percentage of total traffic, for example).

No, you can't guarantee that a baby won't get squashed either, but you can be certain that an established adult statistically has a better chance of surviving to keep the allele in question in the population than a baby does.

As you have defined it here, yes. Assuming behaviors regarding road use experience no ontogenetic changes, each snake that uses the road, regardless of age, has the same probability of getting smooshed on a given night. The difference, as you have noted here, is that the adult may also potentially be "getting jiggy" each night it DOESN'T get smooshed.

If people are doing it anyway (as per the several e-mails and pictures I've received since the law went into effect), and therefore ignoring the law and being open about it, then exactly what opportunity needs to be returned to the herpers?

The opportunity to contribute to our knowledge of not only this species, but ALL our herps. There is a lengthy history of enmity between hobbyist herpers and Wildlife Departments. We as hobbyists clamor for "science-based" bag limits, but the Departments don't have the money or manpower to do the requisite research.

Hobbyists can be a force multiplier for academia by reporting observations, but what hobbyist wants to highlight themselves to potential law enforcement inquiries as the laws stand now? i.e. "You're reporting species X was encountered on this road; maybe we better raid your house to make sure you didn't collect it."

I'm not suggesting a "hands-off" policy in regards to Blondes -- just SOME policy in regards to adult Blondes. There is some merit to this approach: you are eliminating ONE of the two previously mentioned human-caused removals of adults from the wild.

The problem is that you're NOT eliminating it...just reducing one aspect of it (legal take). I think we'd both agree that there is still illegal take; the difference now is that nobody wants to share information which could be useful in determining species/morph populations. Does that make the population better off? If nothing else, I think it damages our UNDERSTANDING of the population.

iBut why the need to collect them anyway?

Indeed--why collect ANY suboc? Blech. Just kidding! They're alright, and I collect on (digital) film only--just don't really have the inclination to keep one, even a blonde.

To me, the need to do so reflects this attitude that says, "Hey, wait til my buddies at the Outback Oasis and the hometown herp club see what I found THIS weekend."

I think the attitude, at least as I see it, is more a special memory of the Trans-Pecos. It's about more than just a snake.

I do think bag limits should be allowed AND followed AND based on the best pop. data available. Get me straight...I'm FOR collecting and keeping, but not for unregulated collecting and keeping.

...and I think the best population data available will out of necessity include information from hobbyist field herpers. Snakes are being collected, even when and where it's illegal. I don't condone that. I would rather see--and help me think through the downside to this, because I don't see much of one--a total amnesty for a set period on the take of snakes, so long as all data is reported (in this case, to TPWD). The Department would guarantee, in writing, that Herper X will be free and clear of any legal ramifications for the number of snakes/herps they report. The hobbyist gets new localities and/or bloodlines, and the Department gets swamped with a mountain of new data for a variety of species, to make better population estimates and therefore develop the coveted science-based bag limits.

But now that everybody can find out exactly where to find them, I do fear for their future as remaining extant in the wild.

Even knowing EXACTLY where to find an animal doesn't guarantee someone looking for one will find one. I may be particularly cursed, but it's taken me YEARS to find some of my target species, despite being told exactly where, and under what conditions, to look! And I STILL haven't found an alterna!

Believe me, I'm repenting and do sometimes cringe for putting locality information in my book...

*And BTW, how many non-herper buddy's do you have who hang out in Brewster county bars on the weekends?

Hypothetical...I concede the point.

P.S.
Forgot to tell you the bad news. The restaurant in the pic has gone out of business...did you send them some sort of "cease and desist" for trademark infringement?

-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

>>...and I think the best population data available will out of necessity include information from hobbyist field herpers. Snakes are being collected, even when and where it's illegal. I don't condone that. I would rather see--and help me think through the downside to this, because I don't see much of one--a total amnesty for a set period on the take of snakes, so long as all data is reported (in this case, to TPWD). The Department would guarantee, in writing, that Herper X will be free and clear of any legal ramifications for the number of snakes/herps they report. The hobbyist gets new localities and/or bloodlines, and the Department gets swamped with a mountain of new data for a variety of species, to make better population estimates and therefore develop the coveted science-based bag limits.

Great points, Chris. And that is a GREAT idea above...I'd love to help implement or present that case if you're working on it (or HCU). We'd have to be meticulous, polished, and aggressive when presenting it. AND we'd have to have some academics on board and on our side.

Also, it would probably be good if herpers had to donate shed skins from each animal collected to museums and researchers for population genetics studies. And maybe a clipped scale or two for stable isotope analysis, which would reveal EXACTLY what those snakes are eating in the wild without having to sacrifice the snake. Can you imagine the THOUSANDS of man hours and precious dollars that would save for poor grad students and professors?

The result would be a mathematical EXPLOSION of ecological and evolutionary data and papers. Herpers would be participating in science and therefore empathetic to scientists, and vice versa, and the entire herping community would be translated to a paradisiacal glory. Like Moses on Mt. Sinai. And we'd all have white hair.

I trust that herpers are willing to comply with laws that they helped make, even if it means NOT collecting something for awhile, if the science-based collection data warns of unsustainable consequences for present/future take.

>>P.S.
>>Forgot to tell you the bad news. The restaurant in the pic has gone out of business...did you send them some sort of "cease and desist" for trademark infringement?

Nah, I knew that people would know they were not the "real thing" when they saw the H missing in the last name. They had it coming.

Great points, Chris. And that is a GREAT idea above...I'd love to help implement or present that case if you're working on it (or HCU). We'd have to be meticulous, polished, and aggressive when presenting it. AND we'd have to have some academics on board and on our side.

I'm trying to wrap my head around how best to propose this to folks in a position to make it happen. Right now my plan is a slideshow (maybe coupled with a certain movie about alterna, if it ever gets finished!), providing copies to all the state legislators (TX) prior to next year's session. The show will be footnoted as required/practical and I'm soliciting inputs. I copied part of our conversation here into my notes so I can reference it when putting the thing together.

If you're in HCU and look at their forums, I hope to eventually post a draft there. However, I'm still VERY behind both at work and at home--you take 2 weeks off and everything falls apart!

This is a great thread; too bad it's gone completely away from this forum's topic.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

"Whatever was done multi-captive-bred-generations ago is water under the bridge. End result: who here hears of anyone buying WC bearded dragons, or going to Australia to collect their own? It's a lot cheaper and easier to buy one for ten bucks, or get one given to you for free. "

I know of someone in the early '90s that went to Australia to collect bearded dragons (among other things). They got busted in FL. U.S. Fish and Wildlife busts people all the time, whether it is "take" for the pet trade/food/medicine. There is demand for "new" blood-lines or the "next big morph" in the pet trade.

Cheers,
-Chris
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

There is demand for "new" blood-lines or the "next big morph" in the pet trade.

Thanks for the info...I would think this is a case of "the exception proves the rule," in the sense that of the millions(?) of bearded dragon owners in the US, let alone around the world, a very, very, very small percentage take that kind of risk involved in traveling across the globe in the attempt to smuggle out protected species, ESPECIALLY given that the market value of WC, physically-indistinguishable specimens is comparatively low.

Personally, I don't think that if Oz were to turn around tomorrow and permit the export of bearded dragons, that numbers of such exports would skyrocket.

However, if we're talking NZ geckos...

-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

I have long wondered about how many if any of the current Mexican-line Rosyboas in captivity come from legally collected adults.

I made this insinuation on the internet sometime around 10 years ago and got lambasted by Rosyboa people saying that there were large legal collections in the US dating back to the 70s and those were the source of Mexican lines. Sorry, I'm sure that is true in part, but those legal snakes are a front to hide all the illegal lineages that have been smuggled into the country and continue to be smuggled in.

I personally have been to the home of someone who breeds rosyboas that they personally collected illegally in Mexico and sell on the open market. This person went to Mexico with another well respected Rosy Boa person. They both came back with snakes. The person I visited seemed to feel that it was no big deal. What was strange was this person didn't know me at all except by a few emails. He invited me into his house and freely showed me all the poached snakes describing how they brought them back illegally! I could have worked for USFWS for all they knew.

On a similar disturbing note, I know a person who is a respected researcher who collects (under scientific permit) species of coveted mexican herps and sells the offspring for big $$$$ (triple digits) to the public. If the Mexican government knew this person was doing this, I think they would look very poorly on it indeed.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

I think the main person Grismer is refering to when he speaks about the bucket traps was actually a researcher too. I can't say his name but his initials are J.O. and he has since been busted.

I am totally in agreement with protecting rare herps. I am also against potentially harmful methods of take such as bucket traps, gassing, rock and tree damage. The fact remains that herps are undermanaged with little thought and even less data going into the making of the regulations. In many cases the regulations themselves are the primary reason many common herps have such a high dollar value. There is no law that can reduce the dollar value of a herp. Only captive breeding can and does reduce market values.

I have read all the responses so far and everyone has their valid points. I have to say in my opinion EVERYONE here has a opinion, Grismer wrote this but HIS OPNION is based on "Mellink (1995)" and again without proof, positive proof it is just anectodal. Hearing from you that SOMEONE "SAID" that 1000 snakes were illegally caught is NOT the burden of proof that would be needed in a court of law. I am NOT saying this may or may not be true.
From my experiences I too would say (at least in California, Baja, and Mainland Mexico) that Rosys are found within thousands of miles and collecting would not harm their existance as seen like was suggested in WW where thousands if not more Rosys have been taken and can still be found. But look at Rosy Boa localities like Yorba Linda, when was the last one seen there? I think I have heard about 1993 or something. I am NOT saying they are not there, just not in the abundance as the past. WHY would you ask? It has almost ALL been paved over and made into house. It is NOT your typical Rosy habitat either, there are not BOULDER Fields, just VERY SMALL rock piles. Over the hill is Chino Hills state park where collecting is NOT permitted but I have read they do not see them very often at all. So Building Homes and roads pretty much did them in for the mnost part.
Now to say ALL of the Mexican Rosys came from illegal stock is really a stretch since there is very little proof. I am NOT saying that a very small percentage of people have taken them and or been caught taking them. Just saying that IT IS a small percentage. We in America SHOULD know what happens when something is PROHIBITED... Just look at Prohibition of Alcohol and where that led. Look at Marijuana and where that has led. I would THINK that Governements would learn from history and allow SOME KIND of LEGAL TAKE for a few reasons.(And I am MOSTLY talking about Rosys Here)
1.They could allow PERMITS for a amount of take per AUTHORIZED person PER YEAR and make some money with the permit process.
2. This would cut down on the illegal take once they are in the breeding community which would make it cheaper for someone to BUY a CB than to drive down to Mexico and risk MULTIPLE issues like getting busted with illegal reptiles, caught in drug war areas, spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of gas, Etc.
3.With PERMITTED People who PAY to LEGALLY catch them, theyt would be more inticed to SAVE the Micro habitat, habit for future years of allowable take. Which would save the enviroment from any un-neccessary destruction.
4.They Would/COULD keep an ACCURATE account of WHAT was taken, WHERE it was taken, Etc. as is done with Game Animal Hunting (Time/date of take, location of take,How it was taken, plain ole data). This way they could manage it better, maybe ONLY allow take in diferent zones every year,or every few years.
Ok just SOME of MY HUMBLE OPINIONS here.
Declaring ALL animals in the pet trade illegal cannot be proven since there are thousands and thousands throughout the United States and tracing where/when/how would be virtualy impossible. As stated before it can ONLY be water under the bridge at this point. Ok, I am off my rant.. Just food for thought.
-----
http://s124.photobucket.com/albums/p23/morganjeeper/Rosy Boa Localities/

Well said Rockratt.

Hearing from you that SOMEONE "SAID" that 1000 snakes were illegally caught is NOT the burden of proof that would be needed in a court of law. I am NOT saying this may or may not be true.

The issue isn't whether we as hobbyists can prove it is or isn't true but that we stand against the practice.
Show me the records indicating that all the mexican rosyboa localities were derived from legal stocks. Go through the list of localities of the Rosyboa websites. Find records that show those locality snake were brought into the US legally. We all know they weren't. Just because I can't prove it doesn't make it false.

I am NOT saying that a very small percentage of people have taken them and or been caught taking them. Just saying that IT IS a small percentage.

And if a small number of people are caught, how many are successful in smuggling. We all know that the border is unenforceable when it comes to smuggling (both directions).

I have crossed the Mexico/US border in vehicles dozens of times over the last 25 years. I probably have only been search 10-15% of the time and every one of those times I was searched I could have hidden bags and bags of herps because that wasn't what they were looking for.

We in America SHOULD know what happens when something is PROHIBITED

Murder, Rape, Incest, etc.....What happens?

2. This would cut down on the illegal take once they are in the breeding community which would make it cheaper for someone to BUY a CB than to drive down to Mexico and risk MULTIPLE issues like getting busted with illegal reptiles, caught in drug war areas, spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of gas, Etc.

But there are already thousands of animals in this country and many of those have ancestries that are "questionable". With all the huge number of rosies produced in this country every year, why would we need to have people go down and collect more?

And would you be OK if I got a permit instead of you? Would you be happy just buying CB babies from me and being denied the opportunity to go down and collect your own? (BTW - finding your own Rosies in Baja is legal, you just can't molest them or bring them back).

I live near alterna country. It costs 10x as much to find an alterna as buy a CB one and finding them by traditional means is currently illegal. There are enough captive alterna around that I know people who feed picky babies to coralsnakes, etc., rather that make the effort to get them on pinkies. There are too many produced, IMHO. Yet this last May and June there were dozens of aspiring herpers down here in Texas trying to beat the odds.

If it didn't work for alterna (or Cornsnakes or Calkings) why would it work for Rosies?
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

> And would you be OK if I got a permit instead of you?
Yes

>Would you be happy just buying CB babies from me and being denied the opportunity to go down and collect your own?
Uh, yes. That is the case. I'm perfectly content getting CB babies from the currently available LEGAL lines. If you know of some that are illegal, and have a reason to feel that way other than a tingling spidy sense, you should speak up about that particular case to the proper authority.

I'm just not convinced that there are hordes of people risking so much to harvest boas from mexico just to sell the offspring for $40. In this day and age, it's just not financially feasible to be a rosy boa poacher. In the past I've had mexican rosy boas, all were legal, and ALL WHERE GIVEN TO ME FOR FREE. It's obviously a big dollar market we have here.

CB mexican rosy boas are not illegal. You can argue that they should be, and where the burden of proof ought to be all day long... the fact is that they aren't illegal.
They're in pet stores all across america and no one cares, because it's simply not a real risk to the wild population.

You guys act like there's a royalty on the current CB population. Like for every baby boa sold for $40, a dollar goes to the poachers of america fund.

I live near alterna country. It costs 10x as much to find an alterna as buy a CB one and finding them by traditional means is currently illegal. There are enough captive alterna around that I know people who feed picky babies to coralsnakes, etc., rather that make the effort to get them on pinkies. There are too many produced, IMHO. Yet this last May and June there were dozens of aspiring herpers down here in Texas trying to beat the odds.

If it didn't work for alterna (or Cornsnakes or Calkings) why would it work for Rosies?

What chrish said above is SOO true!. I have always wanted alterna...but didn't wanna buy one-(I like knowing exactly what my snakea are when it comes to locale animals), I wanted to catch my own, so I did. And it cost a bit,LOL. A hell of a lot more than buying a cb-(But is was the best!). And this is how it is for most poeple that are into what ever species they are into. Rosy boas for sure. I do think a higher bag limit in ca.-(2 now) would be good. Just how it is I guess.
Jeff Teel

>I like knowing exactly what my snakea are when it comes to locale animals

Yeah, but you're abnormally picky Jeff.
No, you do make a good point. Rethinking it I must admit, I too would rather know exactly where my animals are from. That's why I only get snakes from the few reputable people I really trust... like yourself.

"Show me the records indicating that all the mexican rosyboa localities were derived from legal stocks."
>>>There are no exact records of localities because such details were not required at the time they were being legally collected.

"And if a small number of people are caught, how many are successful in smuggling."
>>>Not many. There is not a flood of fresh blood coming across the border. Where are all the locality thayeri, greeri, mex mex and Mexican alterna? They don't exist because few, if any, are crossing the border these days.

"Murder, Rape, Incest, etc.....What happens?"
>>>These are crimes with real victims and basicly every sane person agrees they should be crimes. As sane humans we have a moral obligation to hold illegal such acts no matter how hard or effective/ineffective enforcment is. Your comparision equates the rights of herps with the rights of humans. I don't think it was your intention but this part of your arguement is equivalent to an animal rights agenda. If you are saying it is morally wrong to collect herps I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

"But there are already thousands of animals in this country and many of those have ancestries that are "questionable". With all the huge number of rosies produced in this country every year, why would we need to have people go down and collect more?"
>>>Most people who still want to collect Mexican rosies nowadays want to do it for sport. The majority of people who want to go collect rosies in MX do not have commercial intrests as their primary goal. They may want to sell their captive born babies too but their primary purpose is simply to go down there and have the fun of collecting a pair or two and breeding them. This is not really any different than the person who wants to catch and eat their own fish. Captive breeding has been highly successful at detering commercial collecting but it cannot and never will replace sport collecting.

"And would you be OK if I got a permit instead of you? Would you be happy just buying CB babies from me and being denied the opportunity to go down and collect your own?"
>>>As long as there was an equal opportunity for you and I to obtain a permit I would have no problems. This is already done for game species with lotteries and quotas and seems to work well. I think everybody would agree that a reasonable and data supported lottery would be much better than all out bans.

"I live near alterna country. It costs 10x as much to find an alterna as buy a CB one and finding them by traditional means is currently illegal. There are enough captive alterna around that I know people who feed picky babies to coralsnakes, etc., rather that make the effort to get them on pinkies. There are too many produced, IMHO. Yet this last May and June there were dozens of aspiring herpers down here in Texas trying to beat the odds.
If it didn't work for alterna (or Cornsnakes or Calkings) why would it work for Rosies?"
>>>Again you are not distinguishing between sport take and commercial harvest. All of those species, alterna, corns, calkings and rosies are offered for sale in far greater numbers as captive borns, than they are as wild caughts. Captive breeding has been VERY successful at reducing the numbers of wild caught alterna, corns, cal kings and rosies offered for sale. No offense intended but I have been hunting alterna every year since 1996 and I have never seen you or heard of you being in "alterna country" while I was there. I also breed them and am very familiar with both the wild caught and captive bred sides of the market. Please don't get the wrong impression, I am not putting you down. Your posts I have seen are very well thought out, probing and genuine. I am not saying you are being antaogonistic or trolling or anything like that,I just think I have alot more firsthand experience in "alterna country" and with the alterna market(and west TX herp market as a whole) in general than you do. I also live in or near cal king and rosy areas and have alot of firsthand knowledge of both species markets and collection rates.

>>>Just because a species is still collected doesn't mean the laws aren't working. The goal should not be to end all collection, rather the goal should be to ensure that whatever collection does take place, be it sport or commercial, takes place at sustainable levels.

There is no doubt that herps have been legally collected from Mexico. Why would those collecters have felt the need to retain documentation when there was no way to know what future restrictions would occur?

Case in point. I have collected legally collected L. alterna from the roads and right of ways since 1996 and I have no documents that would prove it. Why would I have them when all that was required was for me to purchase a non-game non-resident license. Those licenses could be purchased by anyone at any Texas Wal-Mart, Ace Hardware and many other places. As long as you weren't commercial collecting(ie. less than 25 total specimens) you didn't have to report your catches. Heck I think up until the early 2000's one didn't even have to report commercial take, although I could be wrong about that because I have never commercially collected.

It became illegal to collect from Texas' roads and right of ways in 2007 and who has documantation now that would prove one's alterna were legally collected? The answer is virtually nobody. Yet this year alone there will be literally thousands of hatchling graybands produced that descend from stock legally collected prior to 2007. If the road collecting ban holds, I could see similar claims of illegal origins being leveled against alterna breeders 20 or 30 years from now.

It's true herps have been taken out of Mexico post regulation. This is proven by several documented convictions but there is no basis for blanket statements to the effect that all, or even most, captive born Mexican herps in the hobby today descend from illegal stock.

Hi Dusty,

Actually, there are LOTS of legal Baja herps in the U.S. I have several copies of permits for such animals all the way from the 70's up to recent. Mexico has no problem issuing permits to just about anyone if you have the money. The problem isn't Mexico. It's the USFWS that does not allow import permits unless scientific. Every year there are legal baja herps coming in from Mexico. You just have to go to Europe to get them. Most of them being crotes. Very few rosy boas, kingsnakes, and ratsnakes are taken. Though a small handfull do. Every year.

Smuggling out of Mexico is practically non existant anymore. There's really no money for the commom stuff to be worth it and the harder to find animals are, well not found by most herpers pursueing them. Only rarely does anyone illegally bring anything back anymore and it's not for commercial puposes. And I repeat it's rarely done.

Some of the big academic guys should really shut up about this. As I personally know that some of them that cry wolf are the worst offenders period! I really hate hearing about this first hand from them and of coarse reading it in aritcles. Hope this clears some things up.

PL

Great response, Paul! That DOES clear some things up.

Well written too.

Dusty

John Ottley had scientific collecting permit number 37/832/79. His 1983 rosaliae says that he used a San Ignacio juvenile male rosaliae he collected in 1979 (and probably another San Ignacio female taken alive in a wash) for breeding purposes.

It's certainly possible that offspring from that male (if any were produced at BYU) led to captive colonies among collectors.

This may sound crass but I don't care one whit if something's 10x great grandparents were smuggled. Look at any Australian species; I'm reasonably certain most of those that are available derive from questionable to outright illegal founder animals (since captive breeding was in its infancy when Oz banned exports). Yet I feel 0 guilt about buying a Children's python or a yellow ackie or any other Australian species that's been captive bred for generation upon generation. At this point, it's not helping poachers. They're multiple removes and it isn't like they collect royalties on captive produced stock. So, I wont' buy from poachers. If I know someone deals with poachers, I won't deal with them. But just because someone once bought some stock from a person who bought them from a person who got founders from a poacher? At that point I don't care, no.

I'm unaware of any snakes being extirpiated by the pet trade. I know rattlesnake roundups have damaged (in some cases severely) rattlesnake populations in some states, but that's a much larger number of animals taken, over a very long period of time--some of these have been going on for 60 years, taking thousands to tens of thousands every year over that time. I don't know of any American snakes being collected in those sorts of numbers for the pet trade. I know (for some reason) WC corns still find their way on to price list but it isn't exactly in major quantities. Same with king snakes. I guess yellow rat snakes are still collected substantially for some reason? I seem to see those more often...

FWIW, I have a hate/hate relationship with Fish and Game type departments. When I was growing up in Colorado it was illegal to collect or keep native herps--garters, corns, etc.--unless they were albino. Yet I saw prime habitat get bulldozed time and time again. It wouldn't have mattered one damn bit if someone had gone in and cleared that 500 acre patch of forest out of fence lizards and wandering garters because it became a suburb. It got bulldozed, the trees and rock piles were destroyed and a crapton of cookie cutter McMansions went up. I saw this dozens of times and it left me with a (probably permanent) distaste for CDOW's "conservation" ethos.

Here in Texas, it's illegal to road cruise or to collect on public land--but you can certainly run over any random snake, you can kill them wantonly on public lands. But I can't take one home? Hell, I'm afraid to tong a rattler to move it to the other side of the road in places. As a hobbyist and a snake lover that makes me very bitter. I can't keep the animals I love because we have to conserve them but it's OK to destroy their habitat or kill them out of hand?
-----
We wouldn't have 6 and a half billion people if you had to be beautiful to get laid.
6.6 African House snakes
3.2 reticulated pythons
.1 corn snake
4.2 Florida Kings
1.2 speckled kings
1.2 ball pythons
0.0.1 Argentine boa

>>I'm unaware of any snakes being extirpiated by the pet trade.

I don't think it's common in the U.S., but it does happen in some other areas, and perhaps here as well, in certain localities.

This is a quote from pg. 111 of Halliday's and Adler's Encyclopedia of Reptiles:

"Among specialist reptile-keepers, there is often a particular demand for species that are rare in the wild or have a restricted distribution, or those that are either attractively patterned or venomous.

Some species, including vipers in Turkey and Southwest Asia, combine all these properties, and many have been severely overcollected."

Dusty, I've got a couple questions.

What snakes are you aware of that have been extirpated by the pet trade?

Or when you say "snakes" do you just mean localities, not actual "snakes", as in a whole species or subspecies?

Lastly what does "overcollected" mean, as defined by the authors(Halliday's and Adler's Encyclopedia of Reptiles) you cited?

>>What snakes are you aware of that have been extirpated by the pet trade?

I don't mean extirpated at the entire-species level, more at the locality level (which should answer your second question). Notwithstanding, I know of at least a couple of snake species that have been overcollected for the pet trade, meaning that they have become critically endangered for those reasons. Certainly, some localities of those snakes have been extirpated or nearly so.

These snakes would be the Broad-headed Snake (Hoplocephalus bungaroides) and the Hungarian Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis).

For references, see the following (I'm certain you know who "R. Shine" is):

*Webb J.K, Brook B.W, Shine R. 2002. Reptile collectors endanger Australia's most threatened snake, the broad-headed snake Hoplocephalus bungaroides. Oryx. 36 2002b 170–181.

*Ujvari, B. , Korss, Z. and Pechy, T. (2000) Life history, population characteristics and conservation of the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Amphibia-Reptilia 21 , pp. 267-278.

*Ujvari, B. , Madsen, T. , Kotenko, T. , Olsson, M. , Shine, R. and Wittzell, H. (2002) Low genetic diversity threatens imminent extinction for the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Biol. Conserv. 105 , pp. 127-130.

Also see page 164 of...Weatherhead, P.J. and T. Madsen. 2009. Linking behavioral ecology to conservation objectives. Pages 149-171. In: Snakes: Ecology and Conservation (S.J. Mullin and R.A. Seigel, eds.), Cornell University Press.

>>
>>Lastly what does "overcollected" mean, as defined by the authors(Halliday's and Adler's Encyclopedia of Reptiles) you cited?

They don't say, but you could e-mail them to find out.

Dusty

The fact they're venomous species surprises me; I'd figured those are part of a much more restricted market.
-----
We wouldn't have 6 and a half billion people if you had to be beautiful to get laid.
6.6 African House snakes
3.2 reticulated pythons
.1 corn snake
4.2 Florida Kings
1.2 speckled kings
1.2 ball pythons
0.0.1 Argentine boa

Dusty, regarding the Broad Headed snake I was able to find a number of threats besides simply collection for the pet trade. The pet trade was actually listed as a significant factor for decline in only one area, a single study site. That's still disturbing but I'm not sure if one should call it a threat to the species. Personally I would like to know if the study site represented the entire population, or if it might possibly have been just a small and easily accessable portion of a greater population. The author also says the Broad Headed snake was collected extensively throughout the 1950's to 1970's and no mention was made of any declines or extirpations during that time. Here is the text I am refering to, the link is below:

The entire range of the Broad-headed Snake occurs in an area with the highest density of human population in Australia, and accordingly has wide-scale habitat degradation (Shine & Fitzgerald 1989; Cogger et al. 1993).

Clearance of habitat has resulted in fragmentation and isolation of populations. High levels of human visitation and associated habitat disturbance threaten remaining populations (Cogger et al. 1993).

The disturbance and removal of rocks used as retreat sites has the greatest effect on snake abundance. The rocks preferred by both snakes and their gecko prey are similar in diameter, thickness and underlying substrate to the rocks preferred by 'bushrock' collectors. The amount of rock disturbance through overturning, piling up, removal or smashing has an impact on the abundance of snakes as well as on geckos preyed on by the snakes (Shine et al. 1998; Webb et al 2008 ) and spiders preyed on by the geckos (NSW NPWS 2001). Also, rock collectors may deliberately kill snakes (Cogger et al. 1993). Illegal rock removal and disturbance remains a common practice in national parks (Goldingay & Newell 2000; Shine & Fitzgerald 1989). Disturbance is most common near roads and walking tracks, and snakes are more common away from access routes (Goldingay 1998; Goldingay & Newell 2000).

Broad-headed Snakes were collected in large numbers from the 1950s to the 1970s for pets (H. Cogger in Shine et al. 1998). A mark-recapture study carried out in Morton National Park, NSW from 1992 to 2002 found that the population of snakes was stable over 1992–96 but declined dramatically in 1997, coincident with evidence of illegal collecting, possibly stimulated by a government amnesty that allowed pet owners to obtain permits for illegally held reptiles. In 1997, 85% of adult females disappeared from the population, and the data indicate that reptile collectors were causing the local extinction of Broad-headed Snakes from the study site (Webb et al. 2002c).

Bushfires may pose a threat to snake populations through altering the availability of hollows and prey, or endangering snakes when occupying hollows (NSW NPWS 2001).

The importance of tree hollows as summer habitat for snakes means that forestry activities may also threaten some populations (NSW NPWS 2001; Webb & Shine 1997a) and post-logging burning may impact upon prey populations. 'Habitat' trees left by foresters are smaller and contain fewer hollows than trees preferred by snakes (Webb & Shine 1997a).

The species requires shelter rocks that receive high levels of solar radiation. Local increases in vegetation density could result in increased shading of retreat sites, potentially rendering them thermally unsuitable. It is likely that fire deterrence since European arrival has led to an increase in vegetation density and this may have contributed to the decline of the species, however this is yet to be objectively demonstrated (Pringle et al. 2003).

The presence of beak marks on the occasional snake indicates that predatory birds may prey on the species (J.K. Webb, personal observation in Pringle et al. 2003).

Foxes and cats are potential predators of the Broad-headed Snake (NSW NPWS 2001).

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1182#australian_distrib

Broad-headed Snakes were collected in large numbers from the 1950s to the 1970s for pets (H. Cogger in Shine et al. 1998). A mark-recapture study carried out in Morton National Park, NSW from 1992 to 2002 found that the population of snakes was stable over 1992–96 but declined dramatically in 1997, coincident with evidence of illegal collecting, possibly stimulated by a government amnesty that allowed pet owners to obtain permits for illegally held reptiles. In 1997, 85% of adult females disappeared from the population, and the data indicate that reptile collectors were causing the local extinction of Broad-headed Snakes from the study site (Webb et al. 2002c).

Despite all of the other threats, that seems to be the most telling part of the article you cited.

85% of females gone in ONE YEAR, attributed to and coincidental with illegal collecting activity for the pet trade. That's horrible.

The '85% of females gone', were gone from the study site only, not the entire species and possibly not even from the entire locality from which the study site may have been just a small part.

If you follow the link and read the whole thing you can see a number of references to counts of individual specimens that were part of the study. Such as:

"Snakes often spend long periods of inactivity in a retreat site, such as under rocks or in crevices (Webb & Shine 1998b). The mean number of rocks used by individual snakes in a single year was 2.03 (n = 33) (Webb & Shine 1998b)."

The part were it says (n=33) means 33 specimens. This was the greatest number of individuals I could find reference to, regarding the Webb and Shine study from which the 85% of females were lost. I admit they do not come right out and say there was only 33 specimens involved in the study, that is only the greatest number I could find reference to. Other refences point to lower numbers:

"Snakes moved more in woodland habitat, moving an average of 159 m (n = 20) between retreat sites and moving on 35% (n = 20) of days."

In the above case (n=20) means 20 individuals were observed.

"The mean home range size of snakes in woodland was 3.43 (±2.86 SD) ha (n = 18) during a three-year study."

Above (n=18) means 18 specimens.

So as I said the greatest number of specimens that appear to have been observed at any one time appears to be 33. I admit this doesn't mean that's all the specimens they studied but it's probably pretty close because all other references were to lower numbers. Those lower numbers(n=20) and (n=18) were possibly redundant to the (n=33) but this article doesn't say. Given that the article does not metion any greater observation that 33 I will have to go with that for the following examination.

It does not say how many were females but assuming about half(17) of the 33 specimens were female then what we have cited here is one study site from which it appears about 14(85% of 17 = 14) individual females were removed. I did admit that this was disturbing but I do not find the potential removal of approxiamately 14 females from one study site to be the most significant thing in that article.

I also posed the question(paraphased), 'Does the sutdy site represent the entire population, or just a small and perhaps easily accessable portion of a greater population?' The answer cannot be obtained from the article I cited but since snakes are much more mobile than humans and the species in question typically inhabits rugged mountain ridgelines, I highly doubt the authors were able to access the entire population. Likely the study site only included a small portion of that particular population, as is typical for most reptile studies in rugged terrain. If that is the case(and I believe it is) then the 85% of females removed from the study site could be considerably less significant to that locality's population as a whole than it is to the study site alone.

Regarding the Hungarian Meadow Viper I found the following:

I could not access the entire article for this source you listed, "Low genetic diversity threatens imminent extinction for the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis)". I was however able to access an excerpt from it which states:

"Meadow vipers (Vipera ursinii) are small venomous snakes whose range in Hungary has been greatly fragmented by anthropogenic habitat disturbance (especially, agriculture)."

Here is the URL for the above citation:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-44YVGTD-D&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1402064090&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b11e8e124be2356f02168487192a815c

Here is another excerpt I found on my own, using a search for Hungarian Meadow Viper, which also points to habitat destruction and fragmentation due to agriculture as the primary threat to Hungarian Meadow Vipers:

"The precise threats facing the meadow viper across its range are unknown, but habitat destruction is likely to have played an important role in the decline of the species (5). Recent studies have been made of the Hungarian meadow viper (V. u. rakosiensis) subspecies, which is estimated to have only a very small remaining population and is in imminent danger of extinction (10). The decline of the Hungarian meadow viper has been largely attributed to the growth in agricultural land, which has caused a great reduction and fragmentation in the habitat of the meadow viper. Even small barriers of farmland are thought to reduce movement and outbreeding with other populations. Small, isolated populations are not only more vulnerable to extinction through events such as disease epidemics, or storms, but they are also more likely to suffer from loss of genetic diversity through inbreeding, massively increasing the risk of extinction. Loss of genetic variation can result in a high percentage of stillbirths or deformities, which have been recorded for this subspecies, and low genetic diversity is currently considered the prime threat to the Hungarian meadow viper (5). The Hungarian meadow viper is also thought to have suffered from over-collection from the wild, both for the pet trade and scientific purposes."

Here is the link:

http://www.arkive.org/meadow-viper/vipera-ursinii/info.html

So it seems that in this species as well fragmentation has played a most significant role, although I wouldn't deny that post-fragmentation collecting could negatively impact a species once it has been brought to the brink of extinction by habitat loss.

Yeah, there are usually more threats involved. It appears, in these cases, that illegal collecting is vying for the final nail in the coffin, though.

Here are two more I found while browsing through a new book I received, and I wasn't even looking for more examples:

In "Old World Vipers"by Tony Phelps:

pg. 102 he mentions that the Southern Adder, Bitis armata, has nearly been depleted because of development, and then he mentions that a few "populations of this rare viper exist" in a Nature Reserve and National Park, but even those aren't safe, and that their numbers there "suffer because of illegal collection".

And then on page 103 under Fig. 112, it says, "The dwarf adders of the genus Bitis are popular as pets; here at Port Nolloth, Namaqualand, the population of the Namaqua Dwarf Adder, Bitis schneideri, has been much reduced by illegal collecting."

I hope you don't take offense, it's just that sometimes I have a hard time understanding what you mean.

Chris had said, "I'm unaware of any snakes being extirpiated by the pet trade."

To which you replied, "I don't think it's common in the U.S., but it does happen in some other areas, and perhaps here as well, in certain localities."

So when you said "it", meaning extirpations by the pet trade, "does happen in some areas" I took that to mean you were aware of actual species or entire populations of species that had been extirpated by the pet trade. So I take it you don't know of any extirpations that were caused by the pet trade? If there were other significant factors we can't really say it was caused by the pet trade can we? I don't actually even know of any cases where the pet trade came along and took the last of anything, but I think my point is clear.

I just thought that was something that needed to be questioned because such claims, if valid, could have serious implications for the ability of hobbyists to continue to maintain herps in captivity.

As far as the new examples you've just provided, they are very interesting and should be looked into in further detail. I must add though that I didn't ask about numbers being reduced. I already believe that numbers can be reduced by collection and that is not nearly as significant to me as actual extirpations, IMHO. Populations can get reduced both naturally and unaturally for a variety of reasons and still be viable and have the ability to bounce back.

I'm talking about confirmed reports of the pet trade participating in the act of extirpating, whether the extirpation is completed or not. When there are papers about collectors significantly reducing an already critically endangered snake, YES, I think that is serious enough to bring up in a discussion about extirpations.

It seems so many collectors out there have their blinders on and don't want to acknowledge that collectors sometimes overdo it.

Confirmed accounts of collectors participating or flirting with the REAL possibility of causing local extinctions -- which isn't unlikely in the cases I've provided -- is bad enough, is it not?

And it shouldn't be completely ignored when topics such as this are brought up.

No, I don't know of any confirmed all-out extinctions caused SOLELY by the pet trade. Do I know of a few instances where herpers are dangerously walking close to that edge by contributing to an already precarious situation? Yes. That was my initial response by providing the examples. I never said that these snakes were SOLELY being reduced by the pet trade, so I don't think your copied-and-pasted responses from outside sources were even necessary, because the original papers I provided did not ignore those other causes.

The copy and paste was taken from searches on the titles you provided. You had either misinterpreted(giving you the benefit of the doubt) or misrepresented(not likely IMO) them. It's not my fault you made such a bold claim. Should I have just let it go? I guess I could have but I wanted to see if you actually knew of any that I wasn't aware of.

Please don't read something into my posts that isn't there. All I have done is ask a few questions and challenge the answers with pertinant information. I do think reductions in populations can be significant, it's just that as far as the pet trade ever being the sole, or even primary cause, I think it is a rare occurance. Please don't try to portray me as sympathetic to collection that causes serious risks to a species existence because I am not. I just happen to think it's much more rare in real life than it is insinuated to be, so I asked for proof.

I obviously wasn't clear in the first post and that last. So, let me say it again more clearly: I read that original comment and thought, "Hey, I've seen some literature out there showing that collectors have contributed significantly to nearly extirpating some rare vipers. So, I'll post those." Again, I should have been more clear and not just vaguely said, "I know of some" (some what?). I think providing the papers in the same exact post was proof enough, though, that I wasn't making extraordinary claims, since I was actually encouraging you to go read it. What you took for a bold claim wasn't one (but I can see how you did now). I neither misinterpreted nor misrepresented those papers, Aaron, just miscommunicated. I would argue that any honest biologists miscommunicate before they misinterpret or MUCH worse -- misrepresent data. Please don't even insinuate that the latter was a possibility with me.

>> >>I do think reductions in populations can be significant, it's just that as far as the pet trade ever being the sole, or even primary cause, I think it is a rare occurance.

I agree.

>>Please don't try to portray me as sympathetic to collection that causes serious risks to a species existence because I am not.

Nothing I said regarding the aforementioned was aimed at you. It was a general comment about the mindset of many collectors. Of course, there are a lot of collectors out there who don't think that way. It's often hard to interpret the "tone" from an on-line post and offense is too-often taken where it shouldn't be. And I'm just as guilty of that, if not more.

Dustyrhoads,
You're obviously well educated on the subjects of this thread, and it has been a pleasure reading your points.
I am curious though, about your position on what I felt was the main point from your original post.

(please forgive my paraphrasing)
-The original post stated basically that the illethical collect of reptiles in Baja should deter us when considering the purchase of deli cup herps at a reptile show (because of their possibility of being the eventual offspring of said collection).

-You clarified that you were specifically against collection of "species or varieties with a small population or range", and you used Blonde subocs as a good example.

Now, inline with the original post, are we to conclude that you are against the selling of captive bred blond subocs.... since at some point their parents were collected, and you don't agree with that collection?

I guess it just seems really odd that someone would slam the selling of a captive bred herp because they find the collection of its ancestors illethical, and as their example of illethical collection they use a herp that they themselves actually sell?

Thanks, Rosy. I appreciate your words.

>>Now, inline with the original post, are we to conclude that you are against the selling of captive bred blond subocs.... since at some point their parents were collected, and you don't agree with that collection?

Not at all. The only thing that I kind of frown on is taking ADULT Blondes that have duked it out to procure breeding rights and potential to pass on more offspring. I'm all for taking young Blondes. For several reasons: young snakes usually have a much higher % chance of not surviving to reproduce, older snakes of many species will often live for decades, and older snakes usually do not acclimate to captivity as well as young ones anyway. There are similar laws and regulations for sport hunting rare trophy animals like male Grizzly Bears...in other words, keeping in mind the potential for highest probability of replenishing the population and hunting sustainably to reflect that. There are, however, no such laws that I know of that exist for collecting rare snakes, in regards to size limits.

I think it would be great if knowledge about population dynamics was disseminated to the general herping public so that we could self-regulate as opposed to establishing laws. Isn't democracy such a great idea?

I think what's done in the past has been done, but again, I think that I wouldn't be so adamant about researching this more to find out how sustainable it is/or isn't to collect adult Blondes if just ONE person had reported to me that they not only ignored the 20 Normal Subocs they saw on their last trip, but they also ignored the single Blonde they saw.

Most of the Blondes that I have/had in my collection were offspring or descendants from a young male Blonde found 18 years ago by Michael Price. Others came from Axanthic Blondes that were descendants of snakes that Mark Bell had back in the 1980s, and even he bought his stock from captive-bred animals from Jim Kane.

The one Blonde that Aaron had mentioned that had been found this year was found by a guy who had been herping the River Road for 30 years. And that was his first Blonde.

Aaron and I disagree, but to me, all data suggests that the Blonde allele is persistent but rare. The River Road passes right through the middle of what most people believe is the Blonde habitat -- the Caliche Limestone. A quick glance at Google Earth will show you that. And yet, the overwhelming majority of Subocs found on that same stretch of road are Normal.

Well that makes more sense, thanks.
I've never been into subocs, but checking them out because of this thread. Very cool. I'll have to pick up a copy of your book.
Good luck in grad school.

>>Well that makes more sense, thanks.
>>I've never been into subocs, but checking them out because of this thread. Very cool. I'll have to pick up a copy of your book.
>>Good luck in grad school.

Thanks!

Despite the sanctimonious claims of many dealers, breeders, and collectors, unregulated captive propagation of illegally obtained animals has done nothing, and will do nothing, to protect against the potential loss or local extirpation of Baja California or Gulf of California amphibians and reptiles. /quote

See, there's a couple of possibilities I can come up with here:

The breeders can't save the animals because the pet trade isn't the real threat.

The breeders cannot supply enough animals to the trade to make collecting economically unprofitable (unlikely--look at leopard geckos, anything Australian, etc).

Personally I'm inclined to agree with the first one. captive breeding doesn't stop habitat development. It doesn't stop the spread of introduced species. It doesn't stop people from killing reptiles (Rattlesnake roundups, use in traditional foods and medicine, etc).

I'm not going to claim that collecting for the pet trade *never* harmed a population. But by god I am sick and freaking tired of the pet trade seeming to catch all the blame for the problems of wild herps. I'm also sick of zoos pretending that no exotic animals make decent pets but that's a different topic (and one I have more experience with).
I'm particularly irritated that he's citing something that may or may not have been true 15 years ago (I would have been 11) as justification for blasting the pet trade now. And as far as blanket statements go that everything from Mexico was established illegally, that's based on no positive evidence. Rosies have been CBB since the 70s in at least some numbers, and at that time Mexico was still open to export I think. Even post then, there were permits issued for people to collect for "scientific" reasons and some of those might have wound up founder stock.

So as far as this statement " remember that the original populations from which these specimens came were most likely illegally taken" goes...A: the author is making major assumptions with that and B: at some point I think it ceases to matter where the distant founding stock came from.
-----
We wouldn't have 6 and a half billion people if you had to be beautiful to get laid.
6.6 African House snakes
3.2 reticulated pythons
.1 corn snake
4.2 Florida Kings
1.2 speckled kings
1.2 ball pythons
0.0.1 Argentine boa