Info Ashley Caspillo-SakaraGT4/Sakara *Possible Buyer Beware!*

[LD50_Junkie]

We can not prove her collection is infected with IBD, so all we can reasonably do is make decisions about how we as individuals will conduct our business. This is not an issue for a group to deal with, as there is not enough evidence for that sort of thing.

Really? We cannot prove that her collection is infected with IBD?

I find that supposition odd, since from her own lips she admitted that it was found in her collection!

Hmm, so the FACT that a negative test for inclusions could mean that the animal in question has no IBD is not enough to trigger reasonable doubt? Since when does a negative test mean it is also a positive test?

Apparently you have not read any of the literature on the subject. That much is obvious. However, what is not so obvious is the reason for your placative overtones in this thread...

Hmm, so the FACT that a negative test for inclusions could mean that the animal in question has no IBD is not enough to trigger reasonable doubt? Since when does a negative test mean it is also a positive test?

Again, demonstration that you have either not read or do not understand the literature on IBD.

Long story short, until a blood antigen test is developed, there is no possible way to quantitatively rule-out IBD presence. Present histological assays rely on the observation of a 68kD protein inclusion ("IBDP") in various regions of the body (which vary between boas and python) which are only manifested in advanced stages of the condition. Ergo, negative histological tests can only definitively determine that the condition has not progressed to more advanced stages--and NOT the lack of IBD etiological agents!

Further, since boas now appear to be subclinical carriers of the pathogen there is no current methodology to test for the presence of IBD, since every current test relies on finding plagues at the clinical-level. Therefore, it stands to reason that ANY boa theoretically exposed to IBD *must* be considered "hot" since there is literally no possible way to determined otherwise.

Let me ask you this, after all of your specious prose would you still feel safe handling her animals? If the answer to that question is a definitive "no" then why waste your breath arguing that she should be treated more "fairly" then that which you perceive she has been thus far?

Is it for the sake of jurisprudence alone? If so, I laugh at that notion--as quarantining of actively diseased animals and disease reservoirs takes precedence over all rational considerations of "fairness".

It is your burden to prove otherwise. It is your burden to establish what minimal level of "proof" is needed to warrant the inception of QT protocols and actions.

Then again, all of that is moot, as she has already admitted that the the tests were positive for IBD and that the snakes WERE housed together for a matter of weeks.

 

[LD50_Junkie]

Sorry, should read:

"Further, since boas now appear to be subclinical carriers of the pathogen there is no current methodology to test for the presence of IBD in subclinical boa, since every current test relies on finding plagues at the clinical-level."

 

[deborahbroadus]

....and this is the effect of the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS" strategy. It usually ends with no one doing anything because the will to act has been sapped by someone that usually knows less than they claim trying to rationalize away certainities. Rationalization is a Will-sapper.

Guys, I suggest that anyone that is not actively breeding and/or has more than 2 snakes should back out as they obviously have less to lose. I actually have NOTHING to lose, as I know my course of action is to avoid any show that she may appear in (luckily since it's so far from me, I'm reasonably safe). And I will be watching the thread for possibilities of her appearing in any show that I do opt to attend.

I wish you all good luck finding a resolution to miminize her risk.

Her refusal to act, several contradicting statements that she made herself regarding the health of her animals, and the photographic evidence are proof enough to me, and obviously many others. Are they proof enough for court? Who really knows?

In addition, she has publicly admitted to actually putting a sick animal up for sale after dates of the ads she posted of it were compared with dates of supposed treatment on RTB.net. She has admitted this herself. That's pretty incriminating.

Ashley has had plenty of time to come forward to at least explain what she's doing or what she's trying to do, but she has not. That's the only reason why we are here where we are right now.

Instead of continuing the speculation and the witch-hunting and the public lynching and the "hearsay" and "with-out-a-doubts", I'll just ask why any reasonable person with nothing to hide would allow things to get this far?Why? We can sit here and debate the legitimacy of each others' viewpoints all day, but the one person who can remove all the doubt and speculation has not and has only perpetuated it by not responding here at all!

Well, I'm not going to play-ring-around the rosy here any more debating whether or not it is right or wrong, hopeless or not, or enough "with-out-a-doubt" to pursue SOME kind of action against her. If I find anything else, or know of something concrete we can all do, I'll let you know.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

Really? We cannot prove that her collection is infected with IBD?

I find that supposition odd, since from her own lips she admitted that it was found in her collection!

Maybe I missed it, but I recall one animal being mentioned as positive for inclusion. A collection is all of her animal as a whole. So there is NOT enough proof to state that her collection IS infected, so Drew is correct.

Apparently you have not read any of the literature on the subject. That much is obvious. However, what is not so obvious is the reason for your placative overtones in this thread...

Again, demonstration that you have either not read or do not understand the literature on IBD.

So by your reasoning, I have about 18-20 pathology results stating "no inclusions were found". One for every snake I've purchased, and some of them twice. Since this is not a 100% reliable test, should I assume my collection is infected, fork out another 3 grand to have all that testing done again? What would be the point if the testing is unreliable? An effort to keep myself broke? If you can't rely on the testing, why even do it?

Seems sorta contradictory to me.

I agree with Drew. He's using rational thought. You're using the same "unknowns" that make the testing a questionable action, to condemn a persons entire collection, when PROOF has only been seen for one animal.

Was enough evidence provided to raise questions? Certainly. Was enough evidence provided to make it clear she's probably not the best person to do business with? Certainly. But we do not yet have any PROOF that her ENTIRE collection is infected. That is a stone cold fact.

Yet it is being stated consistently as if it is a proven fact. Was this to go to court, we would lose our asses the way things are right now.


And NO, I'm not on Ashley's side. I'm trying to be open minded and unbiased.

 

[deborahbroadus]

and..yet...that is what was done in other situations and animals were put down and the community called (as a WHOLE) for those animals to be put down.

Why is HER case going to be so special that there has to be "exceptions?"

Maybe I missed it, but I recall one animal being mentioned as positive for inclusion. A collection is all of her animal as a whole. So there is NOT enough proof to state that her collection IS infected, so Drew is correct.




So by your reasoning, I have about 18-20 pathology results stating "no inclusions were found". One for every snake I've purchased, and some of them twice. Since this is not a 100% reliable test, should I assume my collection is infected, fork out another 3 grand to have all that testing done again? What would be the point if the testing is unreliable? An effort to keep myself broke? If you can't rely on the testing, why even do it?

Seems sorta contradictory to me.

I agree with Drew. He's using rational thought. You're using the same "unknowns" that make the testing a questionable action, to condemn a persons entire collection, when PROOF has only been seen for one animal.

Was enough evidence provided to raise questions? Certainly. Was enough evidence provided to make it clear she's probably not the best person to do business with? Certainly. But we do not yet have any PROOF that her ENTIRE collection is infected. That is a stone cold fact.

Yet it is being stated consistently as if it is a proven fact. Was this to go to court, we would lose our asses the way things are right now.


And NO, I'm not on Ashley's side. I'm trying to be open minded and unbiased.

 

[LD50_Junkie]

Maybe I missed it, but I recall one animal being mentioned as positive for inclusion. A collection is all of her animal as a whole. So there is NOT enough proof to state that her collection IS infected, so Drew is correct.

According to the experts in the field, there has yet to be observed a situation where only ONE animal in a collection is infected. In fact, it is sometimes recommended that entire collections be depopulated to avoid the maintenance of disease reservoirs.

Further, in light of subsequent deaths after that first report, which symptoms which fit IBD, and her incessant dodging of inquires as to missing path reports, etc, it can also--within all reasonable doubt--be assumed that other snakes in her collection experienced IBD-related deaths.

So by your reasoning, I have about 18-20 pathology results stating "no inclusions were found". One for every snake I've purchased, and some of them twice. Since this is not a 100% reliable test, should I assume my collection is infected, fork out another 3 grand to have all that testing done again? What would be the point if the testing is unreliable? An effort to keep myself broke? If you can't rely on the testing, why even do it?

If you were to read the literature on the condition, it states that BECAUSE these tests are very much inadequate, that you must also rely on quarantines for up to 9 months...(and to simply never keep boas with pythons)

I agree with Drew. He's using rational thought. You're using the same "unknowns" that make the testing a questionable action, to condemn a persons entire collection, when PROOF has only been seen for one animal.

Rational thought? Only through the blinders of naivety!

She has two options:

1) Long-term QT of her collection (that is, 6-9 months for her pythons, indefinitely for her boas), or

2) Depopulation

There's not much else which can be done until an antigen-specific blood test can be developed.

Was enough evidence provided to raise questions? Certainly. Was enough evidence provided to make it clear she's probably not the best person to do business with? Certainly. But we do not yet have any PROOF that her ENTIRE collection is infected. That is a stone cold fact.

But there's NO way to clear her whole collection. That is a stone cold fact. In light of that revelation, would you rather risk her further contaminating other collections and maintaining a disease reservoir of a deadly pathogen? Or hedge your bets and just *assume* everything is "hot"?

The analogy begged is which is more "logical", assuming a gun is loaded, or holding it to your head and pulling the trigger to find out? Likewise, which is the safer course of action: assuming that all her snakes are contaminated precisely BECAUSE there's no way to prove otherwise? Or to go about business as usual and risk further contamination?

Yet it is being stated consistently as if it is a proven fact. Was this to go to court, we would lose our asses the way things are right now.

You would be surprised.

And NO, I'm not on Ashley's side. I'm trying to be open minded and unbiased.

And I appreciate your open mindedness.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

Not suggesting her case is an exception. Neither do I remember the 3 people I know who destroyed their collection, being pressured into doing so. The fact that they id it as a responsible action for the community is exactly why I would deal with them in the future, and not with Ashley.

Point being, the story is here for people to make their own rational thought. Trying to pressure Ashley into doing the right thing will not help the community, because it would be a forced action, not an elected one that would hold more weight then being forced through community outrage.

And playing doctor, making statements as facts, when the trained professionals even avoid the word, is purely supposition. This is why this would fail in court without solid proof.

 

[LD50_Junkie]

Not suggesting her case is an exception. Neither do I remember the 3 people I know who destroyed their collection, being pressured into doing so. The fact that they id it as a responsible action for the community is exactly why I would deal with them in the future, and not with Ashley.

Great point

Point being, the story is here for people to make their own rational thought. Trying to pressure Ashley into doing the right thing will not help the community, because it would be a forced action, not an elected one that would hold more weight then being forced through community outrage.

But the community cannot force her into any action, correct?

And playing doctor, making statements as facts, when the trained professionals even avoid the word, is purely supposition. This is why this would fail in court without solid proof.

Where has anyone stated anything as "fact"? Because the only statements I've seen paraded around as "fact" are the ones stating what we do and do not currently know. That's a far cry from proclaiming that IBD IS caused by c-type retrovirus strain XYZ123 and is transmitted solely horizontally via the mite (Genus species)!

 

[Drew Zaun]

Apparently you have not read any of the literature on the subject. That much is obvious. However, what is not so obvious is the reason for your placative overtones in this thread...



Again, demonstration that you have either not read or do not understand the literature on IBD.

The comment was in relation to reasonable doubt. As in could there be reasonable doubt that her collection is infected if the test is negative. That is the very definition of reasonable doubt. You might wish to consider whether you have comprehended the conversation before hurling insults.

But the community cannot force her into any action, correct?

CORRECT. The community does not have that authority. And thank God for that or we would all be strung up for one thing or another. There is a minimum level of proof required before one can be forced into anything, and despite the assumptions what we have here fails to reach that mark.

Where has anyone stated anything as "fact"? !

Seriously?

 

[The BoidSmith]

Her case is not different than others, it's just that there seems to be a willingness to change the approach in how this situation (and maybe even future ones) is handled. Not everyone that does not agree with ones position is wrong, they simply have a different viewpoint. Among other things one of Drew's statement was really interesting:

Some of the posts in this thread are written in a scarey similar manner to things other people have said in other instances that began our decent into a police state that we are currently riding

And another:

That mentality starts with people like us in places like this abandoning the spirit of Innocent Until Proven Guilty because we feel impotent otherwise. Because we think, at this point in time, in this case, that the ends justifies the means.

Incredibly important concepts that go beyond the current issue and that defines us as members of a community, and not just reptile keepers...

 

[amercnwmn]

As of now, it's HIGHLY LIKELY Ashley's collection has IBD, but not FACT.
As previously mentioned, and illustrated by Dr. Jacobson's research, it's very difficult to pinpoint IBD at times. All it takes is ONE positive to assume the entire collection is exposed.
Ashley had the ONE positive, so all we can do is ASSUME her collection is contaminated.
Ashley KNEW her snake tested positive for IBD judging by her posts on the "Dean's Reptiles Bad Guy" http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=817943&postcount=116 thread in which she said:

The male BCL tested positive for both IBD and Pneumonia......*SNIP*.... It is possible that this disease may spread to my other snakes

She KNEW that and sold anyways. Anything else we want to argue about in regards destroying the collection, quarantine, testing, policing, etc..is MOOT because ASHLEY DIDN'T DO WHAT SHE KNEW WAS RIGHT, and now other people are affected.
At what point do you say "Enough is Enough?"

 

[LD50_Junkie]

The comment was in relation to reasonable doubt. As in could there be reasonable doubt that her collection is infected if the test is negative. That is the very definition of reasonable doubt. You might wish to consider whether you have comprehended the conversation before hurling insults.

Seriously? You have no operational or functional understanding of "reasonable doubt". Reasonable doubt, in this situation, necessitates the existence of a test which could theoretically (and definitively) define the IBD status of her collection. No such test exists.

Nevertheless, between at least ONE animal testing positive, and a number of other animals dying in the interim of identical symptoms, the logical extension is that her collection STILL harbors IBD. And the sum total of all the literature and case studies bulwarks that assumption.

Open and shut.

Quit arguing semantics for argument's sake. And stop spamming this thread with specious prose.

 

[LD50_Junkie]

She KNEW that [the snakes were exposed] and sold anyways. Anything else we want to argue about in regards destroying the collection, quarantine, testing, policing, etc..is MOOT because ASHLEY DIDN'T DO WHAT SHE KNEW WAS RIGHT, and now other people are affected.

That alone will win any small claims court case.

 

[chongorojo]

As of now, it's HIGHLY LIKELY Ashley's collection has IBD, but not FACT.
As previously mentioned, and illustrated by Dr. Jacobson's research, it's very difficult to pinpoint IBD at times. All it takes is ONE positive to assume the entire collection is exposed.
Ashley had the ONE positive, so all we can do is ASSUME her collection is contaminated.
Ashley KNEW her snake tested positive for IBD judging by her posts on the "Dean's Reptiles Bad Guy" http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=817943&postcount=116 thread in which she said:



She KNEW that and sold anyways. Anything else we want to argue about in regards destroying the collection, quarantine, testing, policing, etc..is MOOT because ASHLEY DIDN'T DO WHAT SHE KNEW WAS RIGHT, and now other people are affected.
At what point do you say "Enough is Enough?"

I already did........... LONG AGO!

 

[Skiploder]

We've discussed in this thread that previous studies have shown that the possible asymptomatic carrier rate in boas may be as high as 33%.

We've also discussed where researchers have enlightened us to the fact that many supposedly "clean" boas submitted for research ended up testing positive, and that they really have no idea just how high the asymptomatic carrier rate may be.

Those two revelations would indicate that anyone with, for example, 10 boas in their collection has a good chance of having at least one, possible even three carriers....and any death in such a large collection should be followed up by the appropriate testing. Right?

Now, let's step back a bit and get this out of the way - I'm not defending Ashley. There is a moral issue to what she did - an immoral issue to be exact. The sheer amount of lies and BS speaks for itself.............

However...................what we've been told about possible infection rates and asymptomatic carrier rates would indicate that anyone with a boid collection, who refuses to acknowledge the risks should, by the logic of some, be the real target of this "blacklisting".

It's no secret that researchers, in private conversations and in print, have pointed the finger at the boa community as being in denial about the severity and potential scope of IBD and in some cases, accused them of ignoring the threat.

So while the Caspillos did something that should definitely be discussed, and while their collection should be considered contaminated, at what point does the "community" while keeping the heat on the Caspillos, also focus on the real issue - the complete and utter lack of response from the big boid boys?

What has been outlined here is very grim - a disease that can lie dormant in one animal for a lifetime. A disease that while carried by one asymptomatic snake, can infect an entire collection. A disease that cannot apparently be excluded positively by any test known to science and a disease that some feel may infect at least one third of all boas.

Again, by all means, keep the Caspillos on page one. By all means do whatever you feel you need to do to keep irresponsible people out of the community..........

..but......

I ask you - what is the difference between Ashley and the big box breeder who, according to researchers, probably has at least one asymptomatic carrier in their group and refuses to acknowledge there could even be an issue? A person who refuses to admit that a boa could be a carrier, infect other snakes and yet never display a symptom?

Well aside from some of the annoying "look at me" antics that have ticked so many people off - the potential affect on your collection could be the same.

So congrats on shining the light on the Caspillos and congrats on contributing to a thread where a lot of information on IBD has been shared. I guess as a person who is has neither pythons or boas, I wonder when the information discussed in this thread will be used to question the disinformation that has been purposefully tossed to us for so many years.

More importantly, at what point do you start looking at every boa breeder who enters a reptile show as a potential threat to the health of every other boid there? Is the community going to give them a pass just because of the institutionalized disinformation out there? Or is the community going to lump everyone in the same boat?

Here's the irony. Think about it, there are some people reading this thread who have large boa collections, people who may agree with keeping Ashley out of Reptile Expos and who are going to "stand up and make a difference" - however these are people who statistically already could have an asymptomatic carrier in their collection.

 

[Drew Zaun]

As of now, it's HIGHLY LIKELY Ashley's collection has IBD, but not FACT.

I agree, and my whole point is to simply make sure every one knows this, as the tone of the thread has gone from getting the word out to talk of forcing people into taking action against her. There is also a tremendous "guilt by association" thing going on here, that has stretched to the rediculous level of attacking an entire state.

For the most part your posts have been reasonable, fact based and level headed. Unfortunately this is becoming the minority here. I am attempting to bring this thread back around to that style while keeping it topical.

At what point do you say "Enough is Enough?"

This is a two parter. Enough to not want to do business with Ashely, probably about page 10 or so. I have also had enough of the inflamatory rhetoric that has taken hold here as well. I was and remain sympathetic to some people who are allowing emotion to take control of their keyboards, they are much closer to this situation than I am. Others unfortunately are operating above their paygrade, and are simply fanning the flames for their own amusment, and in that vein:

Quit arguing semantics for argument's sake. And stop spamming this thread with specious prose.

This is not the first time you have accused someone of doing something that is rampant in your own posting. I am not going to address the rest as I have already made arguments contradicting you, either you get my points or you don't. Regardless I am not posting for your benefit, at least a few people understand what I am trying to say.

 

[LD50_Junkie]

This is not the first time you have accused someone of doing something that is rampant in your own posting. I am not going to address the rest as I have already made arguments contradicting you, either you get my points or you don't. Regardless I am not posting for your benefit, at least a few people understand what I am trying to say.

Holier than thou much? Seriously, fall off the high horse. You have yet to offer anything constructive to this thread aside from appealing to the masses of fence- sitters with illustrious tirades of empty arbitration.

Please, Drew, find a single logical fallacy I have presented. Please, Drew, find a single issue with the science I have presented.

Drew, have you even read a paper on IBD? I very much doubt that you have, and as such find myself wondering why you feel justified in continuing to post as literally every single supposition you have articulated thus far has been answered in depth in the that literature.

If you want, I can even email you the papers so that you may contribute more meaningfully. Let me know.

 

[reticguy76]

i see it this way, if one animal is diagnosed with ibd (or any other transmittable or possible transmittable disease), all animals within that establishment (within a reasonable size), should be considered infected. even though ibd is still undergoing much more research and testing, i think of it much like parvoviral enteritis in dogs, or panleukapenia in cats, if one animal has that in a household, all others are exposed and at risk, does it mean they will contract it ?? no, as there are many variables (as there are with boidae ibd disease), but they must be treated as such until a reasonable amount of time has been given to exhibit (or not exhibit symptoms)

a quick example, if i obtain a puppy from work, even though my adult dogs are properly vaccinated and are older with naturally stronger immune systems, and that puppy is symptomatic and tested positive for parvovirus, i still treat my other dogs as they have it (meaning not medically unless they show symptoms), such as no dog parks, etc.
once any infected (with transmittable or potentially transmittable disease) animal that enters a household and/or collection, the whole collection/household/facility, should be considered contaminated, until the "recommended" amount of time has sufficiently passed without symptoms. nothing in/nothing out indefinately

 

[reticguy76]

oh and to carify, im not linking ibd to parvo, as they are different. however, my point was to treat ibd as one would parvo, socially, not medically speaking

 

[LD50_Junkie]

Reticguy76 NAILED it.