Bad Guy Jim Flaherty of the Chameleon Company

[robmd1]

She is intelligent, analytical, thoughtful and direct. And yes, she sticks to her guns. Strong women seem to make some men insecure.

Seriously, some here have a bad case of 'mights'. Escaped critters might (insert whatever sky-is-falling scenario). Someone who has not posted on FB for a year might have hidden posts.
Really, that's your best shot?

you left out the MAIN part though where she said she DOESNT facebook , id say by her having a facebook just made her a lier. it isn't a strong woman some men don't like its ones who lie

 

[EdwardK]

I've already touched upon this in post #327

I do not have physical proof, all I have are Jim's words. His statemen's contradict themselves far too often in my opinion.

Contradictions in his statements does not equate to proof that there are repeated escapes. You are correct to be entitled to suspicion about whether he is truthful about the escapes but at the same time, the burden of contradictions has to be applied to all of his statements including that there will always be some escapes. You cannot pick and choose which statements you are going to believe as "truthful" versus those that are the result of contradictions.

Post #2 includes screenshots of him admitting to escapees. Post #18 has a screenshot in which Jim acknowledges that there will always be animals escaping from his facility. Cage design that allows for wild bugs to get in will allow babies to escape and he says he is content with his system. Perhaps it is not as deliberate as opening the cage and letting them out himself, but he clearly recognizes the design flaw, knows animals are escaping, and says he is OK with it. That seems pretty deliberate in my opinion.

Okay lets parse this out here. We have an admission that he had escapes and that he then tightened up the enclosures. He also admitted that he wants the enclosures porous enough that insects can enter the enclosures for the chameleons to feed on. He then admits that there is a risk of some level of continued escapes due to the design that allows insects into the enclosures.
He indicates that this probably occurred for several years before the problem was caught. See post number 17.

In Jim's third point he states that he changed the cage design to prevent any babies from escaping.

Refer to post #2 for his original cage design.

The first screenshot is his response and the other two (from the original thread) say the figure he provided (25% escapees) was incorrect and babies will always escape.

While Jim's whole comment is not provided, he mentions that there will always be escapees and that he is content with that...

See post number 18, there is a statement that only one escaped animal has been located since the caging has changed. He does admit that there is a probability that there maybe some escapes since the change, but there is a large difference between the 25 animals he cites in the screen shot as opposed the accusation that he lets 25% of the hatchlings go each year since the caging was changed. (see post number 18) however the problem is that his full comments are not provided which you did indicate.

I'm not a fan of the continued escapes since if it is accurate its an indication that more care should be taken but its not the same as the claims of 25% continued escapes including the ones that these escapes are so he can harvest animals for sale at later dates.

As a further issue, you made the claim that the chameleons were flourishing because adults were collected and the females dropped fertile eggs. This is an incorrect assessment as it implies that they are established. A population can only be considered established if there are multiple age classes in the population as it demonstrates proof that the animal is living and reproducing and recruiting more animals. Adults and gravid females with fertile eggs aren't proof that they are established.

There are some pretty exaggerated statements on which people are choosing to hang their hats on both sides here. Some of those statements make it pretty hard to accept the claims as being presented as fact as opposed simply opinion disguised as fact.

Ed

 

[robmd1]

Contradictions in his statements does not equate to proof that there are repeated escapes. You are correct to be entitled to suspicion about whether he is truthful about the escapes but at the same time, the burden of contradictions has to be applied to all of his statements including that there will always be some escapes. You cannot pick and choose which statements you are going to believe as "truthful" versus those that are the result of contradictions.



Okay lets parse this out here. We have an admission that he had escapes and that he then tightened up the enclosures. He also admitted that he wants the enclosures porous enough that insects can enter the enclosures for the chameleons to feed on. He then admits that there is a risk of some level of continued escapes due to the design that allows insects into the enclosures.
He indicates that this probably occurred for several years before the problem was caught. See post number 17.



See post number 18, there is a statement that only one escaped animal has been located since the caging has changed. He does admit that there is a probability that there maybe some escapes since the change, but there is a large difference between the 25 animals he cites in the screen shot as opposed the accusation that he lets 25% of the hatchlings go each year since the caging was changed. (see post number 18) however the problem is that his full comments are not provided which you did indicate.

I'm not a fan of the continued escapes since if it is accurate its an indication that more care should be taken but its not the same as the claims of 25% continued escapes including the ones that these escapes are so he can harvest animals for sale at later dates.

As a further issue, you made the claim that the chameleons were flourishing because adults were collected and the females dropped fertile eggs. This is an incorrect assessment as it implies that they are established. A population can only be considered established if there are multiple age classes in the population as it demonstrates proof that the animal is living and reproducing and recruiting more animals. Adults and gravid females with fertile eggs aren't proof that they are established.

There are some pretty exaggerated statements on which people are choosing to hang their hats on both sides here. Some of those statements make it pretty hard to accept the claims as being presented as fact as opposed simply opinion disguised as fact.

Ed

WOW only one escaped from jims puppy/chameleon mill? you forsure haven't a clue what your talking about

 

[WebSlave]

you left out the MAIN part though where she said she DOESNT facebook , id say by her having a facebook just made her a lier. it isn't a strong woman some men don't like its ones who lie

Sorry, but I disagree. Just because someone has a FaceBook account doesn't mean that they use it nor participate in anything related to FaceBook. I've created an account (maybe more, I don't remember as it was a long time ago) and a few pages off of it recently by the urging of some people here, but do not participate in anything Facebook at all. I've actually checked out various pages on FaceBook, and to be perfectly honest the format and structure (or lack thereof) there just is not for me. I understood completely what Laura was saying. Sorry her point was not clear to you. But your lack of understanding does not make someone saying something you do not understand a "liar".

 

[WebSlave]

OK, I am admittedly not a chameleon person, so please excuse my ignorance.

First off, how much would the animals that escaped from Jim's enclosures be worth if he could have sold them instead?

Secondly, is that figure considerable enough to presume that it would be ridiculous for anyone to assume that such escapes were actively permitted or encouraged? Would someone, anyone, actually just throw away that potential income purposely?

 

[robmd1]

Sorry, but I disagree. Just because someone has a FaceBook account doesn't mean that they use it nor participate in anything related to FaceBook. I've created an account (maybe more, I don't remember as it was a long time ago) and a few pages off of it recently by the urging of some people here, but do not participate in anything Facebook at all. I've actually checked out various pages on FaceBook, and to be perfectly honest the format and structure (or lack thereof) there just is not for me. I understood completely what Laura was saying. Sorry her point was not clear to you. But your lack of understanding does not make someone saying something you do not understand a "liar".

Imagine that you disagree again. if someone claims they don't face book and then someone pulls up their face book page sorry dude that makes her a lier

 

[robmd1]

OK, I am admittedly not a chameleon person, so please excuse my ignorance.

First off, how much would the animals that escaped from Jim's enclosures be worth if he could have sold them instead?

Secondly, is that figure considerable enough to presume that it would be ridiculous for anyone to assume that such escapes were actively permitted or encouraged? Would someone, anyone, actually just throw away that potential income purposely?

if he could make a new locale like hes trying to "wc florida locale" he would be able to sell them for more then he can now because all he has are crosses and any good breeder has already given up jims lines so he cant even sell all the ones hes already got. all his are worth now is 50 bucks

 

[jishillencik]

Contradictions in his statements does not equate to proof that there are repeated escapes. You are correct to be entitled to suspicion about whether he is truthful about the escapes but at the same time, the burden of contradictions has to be applied to all of his statements including that there will always be some escapes. You cannot pick and choose which statements you are going to believe as "truthful" versus those that are the result of contradictions.



Okay lets parse this out here. We have an admission that he had escapes and that he then tightened up the enclosures. He also admitted that he wants the enclosures porous enough that insects can enter the enclosures for the chameleons to feed on. He then admits that there is a risk of some level of continued escapes due to the design that allows insects into the enclosures.
He indicates that this probably occurred for several years before the problem was caught. See post number 17.



See post number 18, there is a statement that only one escaped animal has been located since the caging has changed. He does admit that there is a probability that there maybe some escapes since the change, but there is a large difference between the 25 animals he cites in the screen shot as opposed the accusation that he lets 25% of the hatchlings go each year since the caging was changed. (see post number 18) however the problem is that his full comments are not provided which you did indicate.

I'm not a fan of the continued escapes since if it is accurate its an indication that more care should be taken but its not the same as the claims of 25% continued escapes including the ones that these escapes are so he can harvest animals for sale at later dates.

As a further issue, you made the claim that the chameleons were flourishing because adults were collected and the females dropped fertile eggs. This is an incorrect assessment as it implies that they are established. A population can only be considered established if there are multiple age classes in the population as it demonstrates proof that the animal is living and reproducing and recruiting more animals. Adults and gravid females with fertile eggs aren't proof that they are established.

There are some pretty exaggerated statements on which people are choosing to hang their hats on both sides here. Some of those statements make it pretty hard to accept the claims as being presented as fact as opposed simply opinion disguised as fact.

Ed

Everything I have said can be implied from Jim's statements. You yourself have directly cited several instances when Jim contradicted himself. Jim made his post and was then questioned in the thread by a "flash mob" in a "good" forum. Jim had to delete the thread himself after a member pointed out that he had not updated his business licenses in a number of years. The administration of the forum in Chameleon Central, U.S.A. did not delete the thread because most of the conversation was a civil one by the "flash mob". Now, I know many people do not care for Facebook at all, but I am merely pointing this out because Jim has only amended his statements after he was directly questioned on them and I suspect, wanted to lessen the blow.

So which of Jim's statements are the truth? I cannot say but I am certainly in no way shape or form a "miscreant" for inquiring or for asking him to back up what he is now saying with evidence. To add to my suspicion, Jim and I entered a truce that which he broke by calling me a liar on this thread. That also makes me less inclined to take him at his word.

As for my assumption that they are flourishing...is it not safe to assume the animals are safe from attrition if they are surviving in the wild and are reproducing? Jim makes mention that some of the chameleons he found are hybrids (mixed locale). As Jim will be the first one to deny that he is breeding cross locales, the only conclusion I can make is that they are surviving from neonates until an age that they can at least reproduce (6 months to a year) in the local Florida ecosystem, they are breeding successfully, and that it ocured for at least one generation as Jim found a hybrid trying to court a female in one of his enclosures.


Is it a really a stretch of the imagination to assume that for the 50 adults Jim found there were many others that lived, reproduced, and perished outside of a captive environment??

Jim has stated knowledge of other panther populations in Florida himself so you are contesting his word as well. I have no direct observation of the populations mentioned and am only going off of Jim's words.

A lot of people, including myself, have argued the potential ramifications of invasive species. I think the main flaw in both sides of the argument is the degree of certainty people are using in their statements.

Whether or not a non native species is invasive is largely unpredictable. There indeed is a lack of findings to support furcifer pardalis being detrimental to the environment. That does not imply that they fit in perfectly. To assume it is safe is a disposition that completely disregards the potential negative impact it can have on an ecosystem. In that, I am saying that Jim is irresponsible for the oversight of his cage design and his attitude is reprehensible.

Jim posted something that he thought would bring him praise, but it backfired and he changed his original statements to save face. That is my opinion but it is also based on fact.

 

[Guy Castro]

Damn those Zebra mussels,Snakeheads, African clawed frogs,and Starlings! Destructive SOB's. Even the Water hyacinth Eichhornia Crassipes is kicking Florida's arse!

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Lol I proved she has an active account. Privacy settings can prevent me and others from seeing recent posts. In addition, that is just her personal page, it does not imply that she is not active on friend's pages or group.

You didn't prove anything. All anyone has to do is read her posts here where she has outed scammers on facebook and linked to there with screenshotswith her facbook account to view it. She has never denied not having a username on facebook. You can simply locate her past statements about facebook on this site and you would know she had an account.

When I hear the words "I don't do facebook" I don't automatically assume someone doesn't have a facebook account. I assume they don't post their daily routine and socialize like the majority of people on facebook do. Here tho I also can read the context of what she stated about not doing facebook when it came to seeking knowledge and learning, that she would go elsewhere not that she had never been.

Really, she has a "active" account on facebook and that's a gotcha moment?
That's the most ridculous 3 year old gotcha moment I have seen posted in a long time. Well, maybe since last month. I don't want t be called a liar or someone who lies on the floor by Rob.

Heck, there are a few disappointed people here on this site that posts elsewhere they "don't do" Fauna. Because they still have an account that isn't banned does that make them a liar?

I never did MySpace but I'm pretty sure I registered an account at one time.

 

[Billybobob]

if someone claims they don't face book and then someone pulls up their face book page sorry dude that makes her a lier

You claimed to be pursuing legal action against Fauna Classifieds and The Chameleon Company. If you have not that makes you a liar. I thought you were all about the truth.

if he could make a new locale like hes trying to "wc florida locale" he would be able to sell them for more then he can now because all he has are crosses and any good breeder has already given up jims lines so he cant even sell all the ones hes already got. all his are worth now is 50 bucks

Another statement that all he has are crosses and that he deliberately released animals. Both of witch are libel if they can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and grounds for a defamation of character law suit. If you really had a lawyer and had him look that this he would tell you that you need to stop making all these libelous statements before you get sued.

 

[robmd1]

You claimed to be pursuing legal action against Fauna Classifieds and The Chameleon Company. If you have not that makes you a liar. I thought you were all about the truth.



Another statement that all he has are crosses and that he deliberately released animals. Both of witch are libel if they can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and grounds for a defamation of character law suit. If you really had a lawyer and had him look that this he would tell you that you need to stop making all these libelous statements before you get sued.

Ill be waiting .......

 

[jishillencik]

You didn't prove anything. All anyone has to do is read her posts here where she has outed scammers on facebook and linked to there with screenshotswith her facbook account to view it. She has never denied not having a username on facebook. You can simply locate her past statements about facebook on this site and you would know she had an account.

When I hear the words "I don't do facebook" I don't automatically assume someone doesn't have a facebook account. I assume they don't post their daily routine and socialize like the majority of people on facebook do. Here tho I also can read the context of what she stated about not doing facebook when it came to seeking knowledge and learning, that she would go elsewhere not that she had never been.

Really, she has a "active" account on facebook and that's a gotcha moment?
That's the most ridculous 3 year old gotcha moment I have seen posted in a long time. Well, maybe since last month. I don't want t be called a liar or someone who lies on the floor by Rob.

Heck, there are a few disappointed people here on this site that posts elsewhere they "don't do" Fauna. Because they still have an account that isn't banned does that make them a liar?

I never did MySpace but I'm pretty sure I registered an account at one time.

I didn't call her a liar. And the fact that I was able to look up her account means it is active and not deactivated. I can see where you might think that though.

Anyways, I'm sure Laura will have some choice words for me as well.

 

[robmd1]

Sorry Rich you thinkin Jim is so upstanding yet jim doesn't know what he's breeding anymore his stuff is so messed up. That's what happens when your suck a dink your own exporter switches your females , like what's happened to jim Ya keep breeding Crosses because he never proved out them WC females that were purposely switched on him.

 

[robmd1]

Sorry Rich you thinkin Jim is so upstanding yet jim doesn't know what he's breeding anymore his stuff is so messed up. That's what happens when your suck a dink your own exporter switches your females , like what's happened to jim Ya keep breeding Crosses because he never proved out them WC females that were purposely switched on him.

lol that was poseta be such a dink

 

[WebSlave]

Sorry Rich you thinkin Jim is so upstanding yet jim doesn't know what he's breeding anymore his stuff is so messed up. That's what happens when your suck a dink your own exporter switches your females , like what's happened to jim Ya keep breeding Crosses because he never proved out them WC females that were purposely switched on him.

I SERIOUSLY doubt you have even the faintest of clues about what I think. The fact that you make such a statement is glaringly telling.

I'm still waiting for your evidence about me and/or this site showing favoritism towards Jim Flaherty, btw. How's that search coming along?

And before the light bulb goes off in your head to use as your "evidence", just because I don't see someone that is an enemy of yours as an enemy of mine does not make then automatically a friend of mine.

 

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

Wait. Do you have some sort of knowledge that a nonnative species can be not harmful to the environment? That's something new.

Honey bees?

Peacock Bass: Not on the Florida CISMA list last time I checked.


But I've already been over this at the beginning of the thread, the people who claim Chams are invasive, have the burden of showing it...

 

[Guy Castro]

the people who claim Chams are invasive, have the burden of showing it...

They'd rather be social media hacks.

 

[juliasara]

Sorry, but I disagree. Just because someone has a FaceBook account doesn't mean that they use it nor participate in anything related to FaceBook. I've created an account (maybe more, I don't remember as it was a long time ago) and a few pages off of it recently by the urging of some people here, but do not participate in anything Facebook at all. I've actually checked out various pages on FaceBook, and to be perfectly honest the format and structure (or lack thereof) there just is not for me. I understood completely what Laura was saying. Sorry her point was not clear to you. But your lack of understanding does not make someone saying something you do not understand a "liar".

I agree. My 70 year old mother has a Facebook page. My 12 year old made it for her. She doesn't know how to use it, doesn't remember the password and has not signed on since it was made. So just because it exists doesn't mean it's used!