WTH Rich!

Originally Posted by Rich Z

No, I will ban you if you continue to be an antagonistic asshole on my site. I really don't care about baseless, factless and emotionally grounded opinions. Heck, I will still entertain them as long as people can discuss them like rational adults. But for those people who will use such disagreements as an excuse to "get even" because of some apparent slight in the past, or just simple blatant jealousy because of my success in this field and recent retirement, well screw them. They aren't using my sites as a platform for their verbal sludge.

Thanks Rich. I appreciate YOU being so professional here and calling me an asshole and expecting me to be civil. I never called you names or antagonized you.
I am not sure where all this conspiracy theory crap you are throwing at me is coming from because I have never said a cross word about you until I saw that post. In fact, I had many of your animals in my collection for years and bragged about having them.
Jealous of your retirement? Not in the least. I hope I am able to retire as comfortably as you are doing. My problem with your retirement is it seems since you are out of the business now, you could care less about the ones still in it. But hey, its America. You are free to do what you want. Am out of this now. Have fun.

Originally Posted by norsmis

Which is my problem with what you did. Gives them more fuel for the fire.

Hell, feeding rodents to snakes will be fuel for their fires. Keeping wild animals in "cages" will fuel their fires. Breeding animals to sell the offspring will feed their fires. Setting up flea markets (which is what they will call reptile shows) to sell animals to children will feed their fires. What are you going to do about all them? Start attacking everyone just to capitulate to their demands and show them how "responsible" YOU are by not doing anything at all that might possibly get their attention? Seems to me you have already lost the battle, fella. They have you on the run and I'm sure they know it. No one ever won a battle by throwing their compatriots at the enemy to try to satisfy them and save themselves.

Originally Posted by norsmis

How am I dividing anyone? Because I said you were wrong for doing it and POSTING it????? If you were some Joe Schmo who let go a few corn snakes it wouldnt be a big deal at all.

Because you are pretending that your opinion is gospel and anyone who dares to disagree with it must be Satan. Just look at the slant of your rhetoric here and deny that. Everything you state is based on assumptions and fear, not facts. Even studies of isolated incidents of rare events with releases is couched in "possibly", "maybe", and "we assume". But no, YOU know positively and without a shadow of a doubt that your conclusions MUST be the word of God and you are the bringer of truth to the unwashed masses. YOUR attitude is that anyone who disagrees with you MUST be the enemy and MUST be hung by the neck until dead. Go ahead, try to tell me that sort of attitude doesn't cause division and conflict.

Originally Posted by norsmis

I am not going to beat my head against the wall over this. Whats done is done and you obviously see nothing wrong with it. Enjoy your retirement.

Why stop now? See what I mean? Your head beating is because you believe you MUST be right and I am just as dense as a rock for not embracing your word as the gospel and true word. Well who the hell are you and who made you the lord and master of this "truth" your hold sacred? You know you don't have a leg to stand on with logic and facts, so instead you would rather berate me because I don't agree with your hypothesis and I feel that and danger is so remote as to be negligible. Do you hide under your bed during thunderstorms? There are actually facts that exist that will plainly show you that people DO get hit by lightning, you know.

Yes, I see nothing wrong with it. I have released corn snakes for YEARS within their native range, and I dare anyone to come to this area and show me ANY evidence at all of this catastrophe they are wringing their hands over. Quite frankly, I believe the animals I released were much better off being released rather then just thrown in the freezer. And I also believe that any negligible impact those releases may make on the local population will be beneficial in the long run. Just PROVE me wrong. That's all I ask. PROOF, not smoke and mirrors accompanied by hand waving and screaming.

Matter of fact, I believe that anyone engaging in any REAL research on this issue will find quite a bit about captive releases done as Head Start programs that are considered to be beneficial to the target species. Hell, for that matter sports fishing is constantly supported by the release of fish suitable for such endeavors in areas where those populations have been depleted. But I guess those people aren't scared sheetless about PETA and that ilk and lashing out at everyone in that fear.

Sport fish species introductions is a different entity altogether. They are performed not because of ecological need, but because of sport fisherman perceptions of what is 'missing' in a system. The disastrous introduction of nonnative lake trout, brown trout, and other invasive species that severely impact native (brook, cutthroat, bull, rainbow, etc.) trout populations (see Yellowstone Park's stance on invasive lake trout in Yellowstone Lake).

Head start programs are completely different from adhoc, spontaneous releases. They are carefully thought out, permits are required, genetics are considered and tested, and only individuals extensively tested for health are released. I can see the "real" research you have supposedly done on this topic is hardly "real" at all. I provided real, published, peer reviewed abstracts. You did not. You did not even acknowledge them, despite the fact that you said you were interested. Lip service, anyone? Yet you continue to deny the fact that you could be introducing disease and bad genetics to local populations? Instead, you choose to fan the fire with Norsmis, who I was ignoring because of the angry, emotional accusations (s)he was making. Apparently it's enjoyable to be hot headed though.

I tried to remain objective in this thread, but it has now become impossible for me to do so in the face of such false "proofs" and "research" that is being used continually to justify something that is morally, ethically, and ecologically wrong. This is my last post in this thread, and I encourage anyone who has their heads on straight to discontinue reading and participating in this flame war.

You want Ron to prove you wrong, that can go both ways. Show us your research and prove us wrong........

Do you see anything wrong with that lavender in the video you posted?

Originally Posted by snowgyre

I don't have access to full scientific journal articles without being at the UGA campus, but here are several peer-reviewed, published abstracts that are of note.

Professional worries about genetic integrity of captive breeding/release of endangered species (note particularly the concern over preventing the expression of potentially deleterious, non-adaptive phenotypes [such as albinism, leucism, and other common 'morphs' that can increase depredation rates on local populations]). While corn snakes are not endangered, the concerns over genetics are the same.

Actually mutation is a mechanism that nature implements in order to HELP a species survive. Every mutation is basically a hoped for edge for the animal carrying that mutation to make it more survivable in the future. Mutations happen in animals whether they are in captivity or in the wild. Being produced in captivity does help those genes that would find it tough going in the wild because of one reason or another, but releasing animals with such genes or having such genes produced directly in the wild will not affect the eventual results of the success or failure of that gene in the wild.

Originally Posted by snowgyre

Rapid loss of genetic variation in large captive populations of Drosophila flies: implications for the genetic management of captive populations. This shows that captive populations of organisms often do not have as diverse genotypes as their phenotypic variability may lead us to believe. In terms of corn snake releases, we could be hurting local corn snake genetics by releasing captive animals.

Eh? This argument seems to dispute an earlier argument that releasing *new* genes into the environment is a *BAD* thing. Actually this claims the opposite, from what I can see. Of course any captive population will tend to have a "captive" set of genes as opposed to a large fluid population of wild individuals. But I submit that a local population of corn snakes will not be anywhere NEAR as fluid as that of flying insects. Matter of fact, I believe a significant case could be made to dispute this article in relation to corn snakes simply because a large enough population of corns in captivity would quite likely have MORE genetic mixture then the native population nearby. This article seems to indicate that this would be, by inferrence, a GOOD thing.

Originally Posted by snowgyre

Giant Galápagos tortoises; molecular genetic analyses identify a trans-island hybrid in a repatriation program of an endangered taxon. Several individuals of a highly endangered species had to be removed because of a single genetic contamination event. Although corn snakes as a species are not endangered, this shows that subspecies can be severely compromised by a single release event.

This is rather interesting, but not in the light you want it to be. From the point of view of the species itself, and not a bunch of self serving "scientists" looking for ways to get published, would you say that continued forced inbreeding in an island population, thereby reducing the genetic diversity of that entire population (please read the reference directly above) is better or worse then mixing in other gene pools (genetic "contamination", in this particular instance)? One would have to ponder why so many breeders consider it to be essential to add new blood lines to their stock when a suitable opportunity presents itself....

Originally Posted by snowgyre

Summary of amphibians and reptiles introduced into Colorado. I wish I had access to the full article here because it seems like a fascinating read, but you can see there are a number of citations about genetic contamination in the introduction, so this has been a topic of considerable thought in the scientific community for a while.

Sorry, but what I can get from the summary, this is irrelevant. We aren't talking about non-native releases nor are we talking about translocating a species to a location where they were not already present.

Originally Posted by snowgyre

These are merely a few examples that I found with a 5 minute search on Google Scholar. The information is there for anyone to peruse and makes for very interesting reads. However, the consensus among the scientific community is that introductions of captive animals, even when necessary as with endangered species, can have profound negativity implications on genetic integrity.

Perhaps, but these are apparently all just opinions without presenting any real conclusions based on proof instead of conjecture. Matter of fact, the impression I get is that the desired conclusion was already preconceived, and the paper merely tries to support the author's opinion with anectodal "evidence".

Sorry, but any truly impartial "jury" would see that the evidence is weak and mostly just hearsay. I see no burden of proof to make me change my mind about this issue.

Originally Posted by Bill & Amy

You want Ron to prove you wrong, that can go both ways. Show us your research and prove us wrong........

Do you see anything wrong with that lavender in the video you posted?

Nope. I'm glad he was still alive.

Sorry, but it is YOU saying what I did was wrong and unethical in my actions. In effect YOU are accusing me of wrong doing. That burden falls on YOUR shoulders to prove your case.

Originally Posted by norsmis

Then you have blinders on.....

Seems that way with a few of them....

Originally Posted by snowgyre

Sport fish species introductions is a different entity altogether. They are performed not because of ecological need, but because of sport fisherman perceptions of what is 'missing' in a system. The disastrous introduction of nonnative lake trout, brown trout, and other invasive species that severely impact native (brook, cutthroat, bull, rainbow, etc.) trout populations (see Yellowstone Park's stance on invasive lake trout in Yellowstone Lake).

Head start programs are completely different from adhoc, spontaneous releases. They are carefully thought out, permits are required, genetics are considered and tested, and only individuals extensively tested for health are released.

Exactly glad I wasn't the only one who thought that was a real bad example

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Actually mutation is a mechanism that nature implements in order to HELP a species survive. Every mutation is basically a hoped for edge for the animal carrying that mutation to make it more survivable in the future.

Cancer is a mutation of normal cells.

Mutations can be good or bad. Evolution does not include only beneficial mutations. Some mutations can kill offspring before they're born; others--such as a leucistic ball python in the wild--will cause offspring to die or be killed off early in their lives.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Matter of fact, I believe a significant case could be made to dispute this article in relation to corn snakes simply because a large enough population of corns in captivity would quite likely have MORE genetic mixture then the native population nearby. This article seems to indicate that this would be, by inferrence, a GOOD thing.

It depends. Some breeders do a lot of line-breeding and don't outcross much at all. In that case, there would be significantly less genetic mixture. Also, how far do corn snakes travel in their lives? If they tend to stick around where they hatched, then I can see where your argument could work. However, if they travel any significant distance (a few miles, for a corn snake, is rather significant), then I would guess that the captive population is more limited, genetically.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

From the point of view of the species itself, and not a bunch of self serving "scientists" looking for ways to get published[...]

Thank you. Good to know we scientists are looked on with such high regard.

I ask you to think about who is actually "self-serving" here.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

[...]would you say that continued forced inbreeding in an island population, thereby reducing the genetic diversity of that entire population (please read the reference directly above) is better or worse then mixing in other gene pools (genetic "contamination", in this particular instance)? One would have to ponder why so many breeders consider it to be essential to add new blood lines to their stock when a suitable opportunity presents itself....

Some species consist of mostly "island" populations (especially those limited to islands, hee hee), but some do not. Has it been shown that corn snakes mostly consist of these closed populations?

Even if corn snakes consist of mostly island populations, it appears that--in the time corn snakes have existed--these populations can thrive just fine without humans introducing additional genetic material. So adding a wider variety of genetic material to the native corn snake population does not help or hinder their survival.

One more thing: It's not "forced" inbreeding for native populations. It's just what they naturally do. No one is forcing them to do it.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Perhaps, but these are apparently all just opinions without presenting any real conclusions based on proof instead of conjecture. Matter of fact, the impression I get is that the desired conclusion was already preconceived, and the paper merely tries to support the author's opinion with anectodal "evidence".

Have other authors come to the same conclusion using different techniques/studies? If so, it would be difficult to refute the conclusion just by ignoring one paper.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Because you are pretending that your opinion is gospel and anyone who dares to disagree with it must be Satan. Just look at the slant of your rhetoric here and deny that. Everything you state is based on assumptions and fear, not facts. Even studies of isolated incidents of rare events with releases is couched in "possibly", "maybe", and "we assume". But no, YOU know positively and without a shadow of a doubt that your conclusions MUST be the word of God and you are the bringer of truth to the unwashed masses. YOUR attitude is that anyone who disagrees with you MUST be the enemy and MUST be hung by the neck until dead. Go ahead, try to tell me that sort of attitude doesn't cause division and conflict.

Why stop now? See what I mean? Your head beating is because you believe you MUST be right and I am just as dense as a rock for not embracing your word as the gospel and true word. Well who the hell are you and who made you the lord and master of this "truth" your hold sacred? You know you don't have a leg to stand on with logic and facts, so instead you would rather berate me because I don't agree with your hypothesis and I feel that and danger is so remote as to be negligible. Do you hide under your bed during thunderstorms? There are actually facts that exist that will plainly show you that people DO get hit by lightning, you know.

Pot, you are just as black as me. You seem to have the same attitude but its alright that you have it and I dont?

Originally Posted by R. Eventide

Thank you. Good to know we scientists are looked on with such high regard.

I ask you to think about who is actually "self-serving" here.

Not all of them, of course, but definitely some of them...

There is only one surviving tortoise from the island of Pinta. Nicknamed 'Lonesome George', he lives at the Charles Darwin Research Station on Santa Cruz Island, although hopes of finding a mate for him are fading and the Pinta Island race will therefore become extinct when he dies. Three races of tortoise are already extinct - those of Fernandina, Santa Fe and Floreana Islands, largely due to hunting by humans. The Santa Fe tortoise is known only from bones found on the island, and only one Fernandina tortoise has ever been found. Ironically, it was immediately collected and skinned by a member of the California Academy of Sciences expedition in 1905. The Floreana tortoise was still common in the early 1800s but became extinct by the beginning of this century.

http://www.gct.org/tortoise.html

You have to wonder how many last remaining samples of rare species went extinct in order to fill museums with specimens....