Jim Flaherty of the Chameleon Company

I'm done.

But you were making such a compelling case!

Originally Posted by Lloyd Heilbrunn

You are confusing "invasive" with "injurious". And my "they" was referring to the Chams, not the nonexistent studies.

But my overriding point, is that people are overstating, without any objective scientific basis, the negative environmental impact of Chameleons in Florida, to bootstrap their accidental/purposeful release into making the thread subject a Bad Guy.

People should make their argument without this misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by regardingmarley

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. Regardless of the impact it is irresponsible to allow the escape of any animal being captively bred, not for reintroduction purposes, into any environment, especially non-native. It comes down to responsibility.

As I said, post a basis, other than your personal opinion, for showing I'm wrong about the lack of any scientific proof of adverse impact.


And your latter point is an argument that can be made without the exaggeration.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Heilbrunn

As I said, post a basis, other than your personal opinion, for showing I'm wrong about the lack of any scientific proof of adverse impact.


And your latter point is an argument that can be made without the exaggeration.

There's no exaggeration. It's pretty concise and accurate.

I can't believe there are people arguing that this is not a big deal because nonnative/feral/introduced Chams aren't that bad. Seriously? Any animal that is not native to an area that consumes resources in that environment is a net negative to native species. End of story.

Originally Posted by Herpguy11

I can't believe there are people arguing that this is not a big deal because nonnative/feral/introduced Chams aren't that bad. Seriously? Any animal that is not native to an area that consumes resources in that environment is a net negative to native species. End of story.

Supposing it is negative, the extent of that detriment is not as clearly absolute as you seem to be implying (or outright stating). Do you have data on a quantified impact regarding this specific instance that you can share?

So we should wait until a paper comes out describing how species x is in sharp decline before realizing a nonnative species is bad? I really don't see how you can argue that a nonnative species in a different environment has anything but bad consequences for an environment.

Do you think Australia so tightly bans imported animals because they have research showing that every single banned animal is harmful to the environment? Do you think Blaptica dubia is banned in Florida because they have been found to wipe out native species? No, it's because it's a precaution erring on the side of caution, instead of being reckless.

Originally Posted by Herpguy11

So we should wait until a paper comes out describing how species x is in sharp decline before realizing a nonnative species is bad? I really don't see how you can argue that a nonnative species in a different environment has anything but bad consequences for an environment.

Does that mean you do not have data you can share?

An environment is defined by everything composing it. You may not know this, but an ecological network is not a static set of relationships. By the strictness of your last sentence, the use of Aldabra tortoises for reforestation only resulted in bad consequences. Likewise, the arrival of Galapagos tortoises on the archipelago bearing their name would be perceived by you to have bad consequences for that previous environment. I suppose if manatees extended their range a little, that would be a tragedy as well by your absolute standard.

You not seeing that there is more than one way to perceive things only means that you may have a lower threshold for understanding relative to others. Not everyone has to agree with you. It does not make an opposing viewpoint incorrect. Your own viewpoint is not de facto righteousness or accuracy just because it is yours or because it makes sense to you.

Originally Posted by Herpguy11

Do you think Australia so tightly bans imported animals because they have research showing that every single banned animal is harmful to the environment? Do you think Blaptica dubia is banned in Florida because they have been found to wipe out native species? No, it's because it's a precaution erring on the side of caution, instead of being reckless.

Australia allows cats to be imported, so what is your point?