Jim Flaherty of the Chameleon Company

Post number 6 mentions that he has produced over 10,000 panther chameleons. That is a staggering amount of chameleons and a lot of escapees in his 13 years of doing business. He also mentions no negative BOI posts about him. Maybe it's time for him to check again...

Point number 8 concerns his home address and I agree that is something that shouldn't be broadcast on a public forum.

Post number 9 concerns Rob Nichols or robmd1, which took no part in the original thread.

Looks like I forgot about his 7th point.

Take a look at his product, and then take a look at his description of the chameleons he has found in Florida...

Originally Posted by jishillencik

1) Jim Flaherty is the only person (that contributed to the thread) to have found and caught roughly 50 wild specimens over the course of a few years.
More than a few years, like 13-14. Wow, 50 animals. Arboral, insect eating, slow moving chams. And he caught them. He did not leave them in the wild.

2) The locales he describes to find are the ones he lists to be working with on his website
Duh, his property, his animals. Where else would those locales originate? He's not denying same.

3) He admits to catching gravid females, hatching out the eggs, and selling them wholesale
He catches the wild gravid females, hatches out eggs, then sells the offspring. And that is a bad thing?

And finally

4) He admits that a large number of juvenile panthers (25% of clutches he missed digging up) are released in the wild in Florida every year.
Yeah, and many, many of those will end up food for invasive Florida predators; the various mice species, various rat species, Red Fox, Mastiff & Jamaican bats. I hear feral dogs and cats as well as hawks love 'em too.

Originally Posted by Herpguy11

However, I think it is worse than that. Anybody who thinks it is remotely okay to nonchalantly let animals loose in the wild should have no business running that kind of operation at all. Especially when it's chameleons, as veileds have already been shown to drastically reduce native lizard numbers in an area that they are feral.

He admitted they were escapees. Please show me where he "nonchalantly let animals loose". Also, please provide credible proof that Veileds have been proven to "drastically" reduce native lizard numbers where they are considered "feral". FFWCC would disagree.

You all want to go after someone whose colony could really do some damage, go after the guy raising illegal roaches in FL (see another recent Fauna thread); go after the breeder in Monroe County, FL who released Gambian Pouch Rats in 2002, or the irresponsible monitor owners/breeders (also the subject of previous Fauna threads).

Check out FFWCC, linked below, and take a look at their ALL non-native reptile list (and other species). Yes, Veilds are on the list, but even the FFWCC sites the threats to natives as "unknown but could compete for insect prey with native lizards and potentially prey on smaller lizards."

http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/reptiles/

Sheesh ...

Laura how are any of those you site worse then what Jims been doing? Its the same thing ! I think a lot of people in florida would beg to differ with you if you don't think its a problem..

Laura, the point of the post was to show Jim's negligence and how is is responsible for the population he describes. I have provided proof for everything I have said.

You're right, it would take a long time to catch 50 or so animals, but it just so happens that Jim has been in business for 13 years, more than enough time to establish a population that big. The "few years" you quote me as saying are in fact Jim's own words and that is what I went by if you examine the proof I provided.

His property his animals??? So what happens when they leave his property?? If you look at the screenshot I Provided in post #2, he says they are spreading out in a .5 mile radius from his facility.

Collecting females, hatching out eggs, and selling the babies is not a big deal in itself. However, it shows a reason as to why after 13 years, he is content with his cage design and allows animals to escape in the first place.

And Jim is finding adults Laura which means the babies are surviving and not dieing off due to predation like you claim.

I cannot and will not argue with you regarding whether or not veileds are an invasive species, as I do not think that either of us have enough information or are qualified to make that call. I will however point out that your line of thinking is faulty. Veileds may not be considered an invasive species today, but it certainly does not mean they won't be tomorrow.

Irresponsible pet owners, breeders, and importers are the reason for the restrictions the reptile industry has placed upon them today. Jim's negligence shows a direct link between non native species in Florida and the pet trade. You may not think it is a big deal, but that won't stop legislators and groups like PETA from using this as ammunition to place more restrictions on the industry.

Originally Posted by LauraB

He admitted they were escapees. Please show me where he "nonchalantly let animals loose". Also, please provide credible proof that Veileds have been proven to "drastically" reduce native lizard numbers where they are considered "feral". FFWCC would disagree.

You all want to go after someone whose colony could really do some damage, go after the guy raising illegal roaches in FL (see another recent Fauna thread); go after the breeder in Monroe County, FL who released Gambian Pouch Rats in 2002, or the irresponsible monitor owners/breeders (also the subject of previous Fauna threads).

Check out FFWCC, linked below, and take a look at their ALL non-native reptile list (and other species). Yes, Veilds are on the list, but even the FFWCC sites the threats to natives as "unknown but could compete for insect prey with native lizards and potentially prey on smaller lizards."

http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/reptiles/

Sheesh ...

I am not "going after" anyone. I simply claimed that his actions appeared irresponsible.

All of your examples are equally irresponsible as well

LauraB, how could you even start to defend somebody like this? Yes, a quick search cannot confirm what I said prior about Veileds found to reduce lizard populations, I thought it was something I read a while ago, I guess not. Anyways, you cannot argue in any way, shape, or form that ANY species allowed to establish is not extremely harmful to the environment.
Also, the way he sets up his chameleons and allows so many to escape is nonchalantly letting them loose in my eyes. 25% of all babies is a huge number. The fact that he just chalks it up as a loss to him, rather than the surrounding environment, is completely terrible.

Originally Posted by Herpguy11

LauraB, how could you even start to defend somebody like this? Yes, a quick search cannot confirm what I said prior about Veileds found to reduce lizard populations, I thought it was something I read a while ago, I guess not. Anyways, you cannot argue in any way, shape, or form that ANY species allowed to establish is not extremely harmful to the environment.
Also, the way he sets up his chameleons and allows so many to escape is nonchalantly letting them loose in my eyes. 25% of all babies is a huge number. The fact that he just chalks it up as a loss to him, rather than the surrounding environment, is completely terrible.

What do you think the earth did before we showed up? All the animals got together and formed a committee to drawn up habitat districts and NO ONE EVER WENT WHERE THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO? Yikes.

You are blustering in completely unsubstantiated extremes. There is absolutely no way for you to justify those claims. There are very few things that are, in fact, "extremely harmful" to the environment... it was here long before us, and will be long after we're gone lol. It's actually very easy to argue that ANY species introduction is not EXTREMELY HARMFUL to the environment. Scutigera coleoptera... the "house centipede". Introduced in the 1800's from the Mediterranean, and has since become endemic across the entire continent. Seems to have made a home and lives alongside its native counterparts rather nicely, as it's adapted to living indoors primarily.

Wow, that is quite a ridiculous thing to say. You think we should just let nature duke it out while we turn the world into Pangea again? I think the cacti in Florida that are about to be wiped out by introduced moths would beg to differ, as would Luna moths and other large moths of Saturniidae are being wiped out by an invasive fly in the NE.

There are many examples of species that have been introduced a long time ago. However, there is no evidence at all that they did not displace/cause the extinction of other species. Every introduced nonnative species displaces another. Please provide evidence to ANY example on the contrary (and no, Scutigera coleoptera is nowhere close to an example, as it is highly likely they displaced other species that existed before we kept accurate records). Every introduced nonnative species is wholly bad for the environment and for biodiversity.