FL Game Fish and Wildlife Conservation Holding Contest for Burmese

I didnt know where else to put this, but has anyone seen this lately?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...nd-prizes?lite

Theyre having a contest to see how many pythons someone can kill.

Thats... rude.
Why cant they just live trap them or something?
I understand that the invasive species is doing some real damage down there n whatnot, but I dont know.

It just seems... rude.

Why would you live trap them? Where in the world would they be housed?

I love snakes as much as the next person, but they do not belong there. It's no different than the bounties on Lionfish, Nutria, Asian Carp ... etc. etc.

They need to be removed from the Glades.

I do not believe them to be the plague they are portrayed to be, but it does not change that there should basically be open season on them year round.

The only thing stupid is holding the hunt in January. They attempted on in November and December a few years ago with poor results due to not being able to find any Burms in the winter.

Gee, go figure.

Originally Posted by ShadowAceD

I love snakes as much as the next person, but they do not belong there. It's no different than the bounties on Lionfish, Nutria, Asian Carp ... etc. etc.

They need to be removed from the Glades.

So tell me, where exactly IS that line between what is native to Florida and what is not? At what date is it that separates those species that do belong here and those that do not?

And then explain to me, please, why it is not a completely and totally arbitrary designation.

Playing Devil's advocate here, obviously.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

So tell me, where exactly IS that line between what is native to Florida and what is not? At what date is it that separates those species that do belong here and those that do not?

And then explain to me, please, why it is not a completely and totally arbitrary designation.

Playing Devil's advocate here, obviously.

Neither of those question can be answered simply "as is".

Burmese Pythons can never be considered "Native". They can only, at best, be considered "Naturalized". Which, at this point, they probably could be considered naturalized as they fit the definition.

However, just because something does establish itself in a given area, does not mean it belongs there or should remain.

The decision for any invasive species to be removed (or non-invasive) is arbitrary designation. However, just what manner of "arbitrary" it is could easily be up for debate as well. As the term itself could mean an impulsive decision as well as simple majority rule or preference.

There are numerous invasive species in the U.S. There are numerous invasive species everywhere and either they cause a problem or they do not. Horses of today, for instance, are not native to the U.S.(the American Horse, Equus scotti, was hunted to extinction long ago) however, they serve a designated purpose in most instances. Even feral (I'm being technical here because the U.S. does not have "true" wild horses) horse populations are routinely culled to control their numbers. As far as I know, these horses are not considered "Native to the U.S." despite being here for hundreds of years.

Nutria were brought over for the fur trade and have established themselves as a nuisance in Louisiana where they are controlled by year round by bounty programs opened in 2005 due to the fact that while their meat is edible and their pelts usable, there is not high enough demand for people to just go out and remove them without incentive and the populations were getting out of control. They have been there since the 1930s and are still not considered "Native Louisiana Wildlife".

One of the primary concerns of invasive species pertains to their survivability against native species. Obviously, horses and nutria have predators, however, animals such as the Lionfish really have no "natural" enemies in U.S. waters and are booming further because of it. While I cannot fully speculate on the amount of animals that are capable of taking down and feasting upon healthy Burmese, it is not significant enough to knock it down from "Apex Predator" status. Along with the American Alligator, they essentially rule the food chain in that area. Which is automatically going to cause people to have a stronger bias against them to want to remove them.

Basically, what it all comes down to is the potential an animal has to ruin a given habitat or cause problems.

It's already incredibly apparent that the affect Burmese Pythons are having in the Glades has been grossly exaggerated, but that is not a reason to say "just leave them there" and it is not a reason to assume they are not causing some issues in one manner or another.

However, because we are talking about Florida here ... What is most idiotic about Florida is that Burms cannot be hunted within the Glades, only in the surrounding areas. Within the Glades, they are protected because they happen to exist in a "delicate ecosystem". Therefore, by Florida's own moronic manner of managing itself, it has been allowing the Burmese population to thrive all on their own. That's part of the reason why these hunts have been and will continue to be practical but not.

At the same time, Florida is doing nothing about the Deering Estate Boas that have been thriving themselves in excess of twenty years, but honestly, those animals need to be removed as well.

There is no obvious "usefulness" to either that boa population or the python populations that have established themselves there. In fact, all they have really done is give people fuel to throw on a fire built on fear mongering, hatred, prejudice, fantastical assumptions and all manner of lovely things that hurt those who keep these types of animals. Sure, we could say the American Alligator probably appreciates the munchable snakes it makes out of these on what I am sure is a frequent basis, but is that enough to justify not removing them? Not really.

There are always concerns in removing an apex type predator such as we have seen in recent years with the Coyote. Due to less Mountain Lions, Wolves, Bears and other larger predators to compete with Coyotes, they have begun to spread out of control in many of the South West regions to the point many have "shoot on sight" recommendations for them. I do not believe such an issue would exist by removing the pythons from the Glades, and the history of the Glades prior to the establishment of the Burmese Pythons would likely substantiate this belief.

It is a double standard though, which cannot be disputed. It is widely known that feral cat populations do more damage in the Glades than the pythons, but my opinion on that is they need to be removed by lethal means as well. Spaying or neutering a feral cat will not keep it from killing off wildlife.

So, in short, it is an arbitrary decision in some manner, yes, it always will be, but that does not necessarily negate that it should be done. There is no logical reason not to remove the Burms from the Glades. This is not really one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenarios.

Removing the Burms, if possible, would further prove they were not the destructive masses they were believed to be. Florida itself has been destroying the Glades for years while pulling the wool over less than observant individuals' eyes and pointing fingers at its scapegoat numero uno. Leaving them there is just going to perpetuate the same asinine rhetoric that has been going on for years.

Originally Posted by ShadowAceD

Neither of those question can be answered simply "as is".

Burmese Pythons can never be considered "Native". They can only, at best, be considered "Naturalized". Which, at this point, they probably could be considered naturalized as they fit the definition.

However, just because something does establish itself in a given area, does not mean it belongs there or should remain.

The decision for any invasive species to be removed (or non-invasive) is arbitrary designation. However, just what manner of "arbitrary" it is could easily be up for debate as well. As the term itself could mean an impulsive decision as well as simple majority rule or preference.

There are numerous invasive species in the U.S. There are numerous invasive species everywhere and either they cause a problem or they do not. Horses of today, for instance, are not native to the U.S.(the American Horse, Equus scotti, was hunted to extinction long ago) however, they serve a designated purpose in most instances. Even feral (I'm being technical here because the U.S. does not have "true" wild horses) horse populations are routinely culled to control their numbers. As far as I know, these horses are not considered "Native to the U.S." despite being here for hundreds of years.

Nutria were brought over for the fur trade and have established themselves as a nuisance in Louisiana where they are controlled by year round by bounty programs opened in 2005 due to the fact that while their meat is edible and their pelts usable, there is not high enough demand for people to just go out and remove them without incentive and the populations were getting out of control. They have been there since the 1930s and are still not considered "Native Louisiana Wildlife".

One of the primary concerns of invasive species pertains to their survivability against native species. Obviously, horses and nutria have predators, however, animals such as the Lionfish really have no "natural" enemies in U.S. waters and are booming further because of it. While I cannot fully speculate on the amount of animals that are capable of taking down and feasting upon healthy Burmese, it is not significant enough to knock it down from "Apex Predator" status. Along with the American Alligator, they essentially rule the food chain in that area. Which is automatically going to cause people to have a stronger bias against them to want to remove them.

Basically, what it all comes down to is the potential an animal has to ruin a given habitat or cause problems.

It's already incredibly apparent that the affect Burmese Pythons are having in the Glades has been grossly exaggerated, but that is not a reason to say "just leave them there" and it is not a reason to assume they are not causing some issues in one manner or another.

However, because we are talking about Florida here ... What is most idiotic about Florida is that Burms cannot be hunted within the Glades, only in the surrounding areas. Within the Glades, they are protected because they happen to exist in a "delicate ecosystem". Therefore, by Florida's own moronic manner of managing itself, it has been allowing the Burmese population to thrive all on their own. That's part of the reason why these hunts have been and will continue to be practical but not.

At the same time, Florida is doing nothing about the Deering Estate Boas that have been thriving themselves in excess of twenty years, but honestly, those animals need to be removed as well.

There is no obvious "usefulness" to either that boa population or the python populations that have established themselves there. In fact, all they have really done is give people fuel to throw on a fire built on fear mongering, hatred, prejudice, fantastical assumptions and all manner of lovely things that hurt those who keep these types of animals. Sure, we could say the American Alligator probably appreciates the munchable snakes it makes out of these on what I am sure is a frequent basis, but is that enough to justify not removing them? Not really.

There are always concerns in removing an apex type predator such as we have seen in recent years with the Coyote. Due to less Mountain Lions, Wolves, Bears and other larger predators to compete with Coyotes, they have begun to spread out of control in many of the South West regions to the point many have "shoot on sight" recommendations for them. I do not believe such an issue would exist by removing the pythons from the Glades, and the history of the Glades prior to the establishment of the Burmese Pythons would likely substantiate this belief.

It is a double standard though, which cannot be disputed. It is widely known that feral cat populations do more damage in the Glades than the pythons, but my opinion on that is they need to be removed by lethal means as well. Spaying or neutering a feral cat will not keep it from killing off wildlife.

So, in short, it is an arbitrary decision in some manner, yes, it always will be, but that does not necessarily negate that it should be done. There is no logical reason not to remove the Burms from the Glades. This is not really one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenarios.

Removing the Burms, if possible, would further prove they were not the destructive masses they were believed to be. Florida itself has been destroying the Glades for years while pulling the wool over less than observant individuals' eyes and pointing fingers at its scapegoat numero uno. Leaving them there is just going to perpetuate the same asinine rhetoric that has been going on for years.

OK, very well put.

But don't you think it is self serving of one highly invasive and destructive species to consider that another less destructive species should be eliminated from encroaching upon it's own turf? That human beings, which are apparently hell bent on paving Florida over from the Atlantic coast to the Gulf coast have the gall to point to some other interloper within their conquered domain and call them "invasive" and "destructive"?

Here's a quote from a book in my library:

A large part of Florida is now so devastated that many of her friends are disinclined to believe that she ever could have been the Paradise which I know once existed.

That passage was written by Thomas Barbour in his book That Vanishing Eden, A Naturalist's Florida published in 1944.

If only he could see the Florida of today.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

OK, very well put.

But don't you think it is self serving of one highly invasive and destructive species to consider that another less destructive species should be eliminated from encroaching upon it's own turf? That human beings, which are apparently hell bent on paving Florida over from the Atlantic coast to the Gulf coast have the gall to point to some other interloper within their conquered domain and call them "invasive" and "destructive"?

Here's a quote from a book in my library:



That passage was written by Thomas Barbour in his book That Vanishing Eden, A Naturalist's Florida published in 1944.

If only he could see the Florida of today.

Oh, I completely agree, Rich. I honestly do.

Like I said before, there is no simple answer; no black and white path by which we can follow to solve this problem.

At this point, we either do nothing or do something.

Someone later stated on this thread that the Burmese Pythons will never be completely eradicated. By hunts? Probably not, however, if they are continuously culled to lower their numbers and perhaps Mother Nature can lend a hand with another atrocious winter or two, it could be possible. It is on the lower end of probability, I will admit, as the current statistics seem to point to. However, again, I do not feel that justifies doing absolutely nothing.

My argument is more for the fact that their presence there will continue to be a massive problem to the industry and, yes, for that self-serving purpose, the must be removed. While Hurricane Andrew contributed to this problem, it is still man-made. The hurricane did not bring the Burmese Pythons over here.

I'm all for culling people, by the way. Lol

Heck, if Florida really wanted to eradicate a noxious species, start with the fire ants. PLEASE!

And if they really wanted to save a species, please start with the gopher tortoise. But of course, the gopher tortoise directly competes with land that developers so prize for their money making projects. And I'm sure we all know how such a conflict will end.

Sorry, but no, I'm not at all impressed by what concerns any government agency professes they have towards the environment and nature.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

And if they really wanted to save a species, please start with the gopher tortoise. But of course, the gopher tortoise directly competes with land that developers so prize for their money making projects. And I'm sure we all know how such a conflict will end.

Yeah, and they don't even relocate them. They just plow right over them. It's really a shame.

Hah! I remember reading a long while back where a person who used to work for FWCC got fired when she raised a stink about their plan to relocate tortoises from the high dry areas the developers wanted into the low-lying and swampy areas the developers were taking them to. Money talks, and unfortunately gopher tortoises just don't have any money.

Live trapping, rehoming, relocation, trap-neuter return (for mammals).... none of these are effective at controlling wild or feral animal populations. The only tried and true way of decreasing animal populations is lethal control, not only because it absolutely, 100% removes animals from the population, but also because it's logistically and financially capable of being performed at a rate that can be effective (TNR for example doesn't work because you simply can't catch enough animals to account for the animals you don't trap that are still capable of reproducing).