Heavy parasite load found in ball python from Ed Clark

[Pink Lady Exotics]

no 2 insects or 2 rats involved Jen...only 1 snake was shown to have tapeworms and strongyles. Coccidia (for which the 2 tested were positive) is easily passed through cross contamination.

How common is coccidia and/or the other 2? The main thing I've gotten out of this thread is a slight curiosity of whether I should treat my collection out of precaution, even though none show any signs of parasites whatsoever -- would it be harmful to do so even if they seem clean?

 

[ravensgait]

Jen, yes no maybe You could treat them but it would be best to have at least a few checked first. If something shows up in any then you could just treat them all for whatever it is. Completely eradicating all the parasites in an animal isn't all that easy. As it depends on what stage of growth the critter is at, where it is in the body when treatment is given ETC ETC as to wheather it is killed. Having these very small numbers of parasites in their bodies isn't usually a problem, they become a problem when the animal is stressed, sick ETC when they are then able to multiply and become a problem. Hope this helps some..


Wes while I can't say as I totally agree with your assessment, considering we are talking about Ed I can't say I disagree either. Not much room to give him any benefit of doubt anymore.. Randy

 

[Dr Owens]

The main thing I've gotten out of this thread is a slight curiosity of whether I should treat my collection out of precaution, even though none show any signs of parasites whatsoever -- would it be harmful to do so even if they seem clean?

In a word...yes. If you're having doubts about whether or not you might have parasites in your collection, then have some fecals done. If the fecals are positive, then treat the appropriate animals.

It's one thing to propylactically treat freshly imported animals (because it's fairly safe to assume that they're going to have parasites), but there is no reason to treat CB animals without an indication. It is important to remember that antiparasitic medications are toxic substances, and they are not "good" for the animals being treated. If the animals are infected, then they need to be treated, but if they're not, then there's no point in giving them a drug that could be potentially harmful.

 

[hhmoore]

How common is coccidia and/or the other 2? The main thing I've gotten out of this thread is a slight curiosity of whether I should treat my collection out of precaution, even though none show any signs of parasites whatsoever -- would it be harmful to do so even if they seem clean?

None of the three are what I would consider uncommon, though the lifecycles/means of transmission are not the same. Coccidia is definitely the easiest spread of the bunch.
As for empiric treatment, I'm not a huge fan of the practice, honestly (unless there is reason to suspect the need). Look at it this way, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no cure-all "antiparasitic" drug. Say you choose to randomly treat your collection with fenbendazole, but your animals have a low level of coccidia...what have you accomplished? Nothing. Say you pick metronidazole, but your animals have hookworms...once again, nothing. You are far better off running a few samples, and basing treatment on the findings.

 

[Griz]

Just for arguments sake, I have a question. For the few people left who still feel that proof positive has not been given yet, here's the question....

If everything else we know/believe about Ed was thrown out the window....ie liar, thief, poor business man, lack of ethics etc....and the ONLY thing we knew about Ed was in Emily's posts....would you purchase from Ed? Why or why not?

I look at Ed almost like I do OJ. Any juror that he gets for his recent crime is probably going to be inclined to make him pay, regardless of facts, since he got off scott free back in the 90's. However, those jurors won't be entirely wrong in taking into consideration OJ's prior behaviors (If I Did It etc) as to whether it was likely he did the most recent robbery. Past behavior is HUGE when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt. Ed's used up what little grace a person normally receives long ago. Now, we have only his credibility, combined with a modicum of evidence, and a little bit of gut, to determine where the parasites came from. But, then again, for the vast majority of us, this is not a parasitic issue. This is an Ed Clark issue.

I believe that most of us, even with what little knowledge we have here, would not jeopardize our collections by purchasing from Ed. When you throw in all of the other damning facts that we have on Ed, I think it makes it perfectly clear who and what we are dealing with here.

I agree with you Seamus in that there is not enough to go off of just based on Emily's posts. However, when you combine her posts with Ed's behavior, you end up with one very bad situation. Emily's posts alone would make any person here, even after the first day of postings, shy away from purchasing from Ed. Ed's lack of posts ensures that people will shy away from him. Parasitic facts or not, Ed's not a person who people will do business with simply due to his many other issues.

Griz

 

[Seamus Haley]

If everything else we know/believe about Ed was thrown out the window....ie liar, thief, poor business man, lack of ethics etc....and the ONLY thing we knew about Ed was in Emily's posts....would you purchase from Ed? Why or why not?

If everything else I know and believe about Ed were thrown out the window and the only things known about him were the details of Emily's posts... Yeah, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

When you ad in Ed's past, then no. But I wouldn't have purchased from him before this incident either.

If one looks strictly at this incident and Emily's posts and removes the Ed part of the equation, it's not the kind of situation which many dealers would want to find themselves in. Knowing what I know about parasite transmission, were someone to approach me almost a year after a purchase with a problem, the most they would be likely to get are some vet reccomendations. I really don't sell anything anymore and haven't in years but I still have friends who will resell CH animals and a few who own or run retail businesses that sell live animals and deal heavily with wholesalers and fairly short quaranteen procedures.

I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with selling an animal that gives every outward appearance of being healthy and remains so for extended periods of time after the point of sale. After a reasonable time frame there are far too many variables and the more time passes, the more the variables increase. Drawing the conclusions many people have drawn here and labeled as "The Truth" just isn't possible.

Frankly, again removing Ed for the moment, Emily also came right out of the gate with an approach that made me skeptical of her side of things. Her first post she's throwing out uncompromising, unquestioning blame because one animal had one highly suspicious bowel movement. Ten months... it bears repeating because it's the biggest factor to this... after she bought it and she had no concerns until that point. The treatment course her vet reccomended seemed a bit off, that firm quote telling her how long they had been there was highly questionable and if anyone had tried the "I just want everyone else to test their animals" kind of line on a reputable, credible dealer, they would have been nailed to the wall upsidedown so everyone could take their shots at a stable target. She has continued to deny or fail to understand many of the factual arguments about parasites that have been presented to her and her arguments against Ed started to take on the tone of "Yeah but..." as she raised new points. Made it seem more vindictive than anything else. She's also been presented to people who didn't know her in conflicting manners. We have people arguing that this admin of a website is experienced and knowledgeable and her husbandry is beyond reproach because she's not a person who makes mistakes... and then being simultaneously labeled as a newcomer to the hobby, someone who didn't know any better and wasn't experienced enough to notice the symptoms which had to have been present long term if the parasite loads were as signifigant as they have been presented as. Those two seem mutually exclusive to me; it's one or the other or someplace inbetween but not both at once.

I just know that if someone presented Emily's argument against friends of mine, people I know to be good people or anyone with a better reputation than Ed, nothing she said would have stood up to the scrutiny it would have been placed under. And had a dealer with a positive reputation and good standing chosen not to respond or to be dismissive, I doubt they would have been dragged over the coals for it.

Putting Ed back in, I do understand, truly, how his character and history of doublespeak and bait and switch and misnomers has so many people believing that he mislabeled animals and sent them to her thinking she wouldn't know the difference. I believe the same thing, I just don't know it. I like stupid bad guys more than the ones who are even a little bit slick. The stupid ones do things where you can say yes, proof positive, there you stole, there you lied, there you were neglectful or abusive of animals. When the proof is there and clear cut, it puts them down hard and it keeps them there. Give scumbags any room for deniability or doubt and they manage to ooze through the cracks. This situation is full of doubt and cracks and Ed got to oozing (or who knows, maybe he isn't to blame at all... I sure as hell can't say for certain either way) and while he compounded the negative view some of this board's regulars have of him... the majority of those had it to begin with.

I won't buy from Ed now... wouldn't have bought from Ed before. I don't think you would have either.

 

[JudyC]

She's also been presented to people who didn't know her in conflicting manners. We have people arguing that this admin of a website is experienced and knowledgeable and her husbandry is beyond reproach because she's not a person who makes mistakes... and then being simultaneously labeled as a newcomer to the hobby, someone who didn't know any better and wasn't experienced enough to notice the symptoms which had to have been present long term if the parasite loads were as signifigant as they have been presented as. Those two seem mutually exclusive to me; it's one or the other or someplace inbetween but not both at once.

First off, let me say, Seamus, that I respect your desire to maintain a fair and objective view of this entire thread and its content, regardless of your personal feelings about clark.

I do want to point out this particular quote above though, and take exception to it. I've participated in this thread and followed it closely from day one. I know for sure I have not, and I don't recall anyone else saying that Emily "never makes mistakes" nor used the fact that she is an admin of a herping website to prove she is "beyond reproach." The fact is, mistakes on Emily's part were owned up front. Maybe we have different opinions about which actions were mistakes and which were not...but I don't believe we have held Emily up on any sort of pedestal of perfection.

I also don't recall anyone who knows Emily claiming she is a total newb and didn't know any better about getting new animals tested as soon as they arrive. What we DO say is that at the time of her trade, we didn't know ED CLARK to be someone who lies about the origins of his animals. She trusted him and believed him when he said he had many breeders and was producing SO MANY babies that he had to get rid of year-old holdbacks. At that point, none of us had any reason to believe otherwise. Because, as you so eloquently point out, he is slick and quite good at presenting an entirely different picture than the truth. Scammers like that are not easily or quickly discovered.

 

[Griz]

If everything else I know and believe about Ed were thrown out the window and the only things known about him were the details of Emily's posts... Yeah, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

You're more trusting then me and probably most then. While there is a significant amount of retaliatory posts made by people who have felt slighted, I do find that it's best to view said posts with a skeptical eye being kept on both buyer and seller. By watching Emily's posts, I saw a gal who was not attempting retaliation or blackmail. I saw an individual who firmly believed that her animal’s illness was the direct result of Ed Clark. While the evidence that was presented cannot, with any accuracy, showcase that the parasites came from Ed, Ed cannot prove that they did not. A simple posting showing the last 4-5 negative fecal exams by Ed would have been good enough for me had his history not played a part. Ed offered up the fecal exams yet never provided them. Why?

I understand the whole "can't prove a negative" argument, but at least prove your word is what you said it is.......trustworthy.

If one looks strictly at this incident and Emily's posts and removes the Ed part of the equation, it's not the kind of situation which many dealers would want to find themselves in. Knowing what I know about parasite transmission, were someone to approach me almost a year after a purchase with a problem, the most they would be likely to get are some vet reccomendations. I really don't sell anything anymore and haven't in years but I still have friends who will resell CH animals and a few who own or run retail businesses that sell live animals and deal heavily with wholesalers and fairly short quaranteen procedures.

Could not agree more. But, then again, that's why the honest folks do everything they can to not allow their integrity to be questioned. Once you give a glimpse of the slime you are then it's nothing short of foolishness to expect said slime to not cover everyone's view.

I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with selling an animal that gives every outward appearance of being healthy and remains so for extended periods of time after the point of sale. After a reasonable time frame there are far too many variables and the more time passes, the more the variables increase. Drawing the conclusions many people have drawn here and labeled as "The Truth" just isn't possible.

We won't know the truth, ever, on this one. We have only our guts to lead us to the guilty party. Sometimes, beyond a reasonable doubt, is all we have to go by. There is enough "reasonable doubt" here to suspect which side is being as forthright as they can. There is enough "reasonable doubt" to label Ed Clark as a person whom I would never do business with.

Frankly, again removing Ed for the moment, Emily also came right out of the gate with an approach that made me skeptical of her side of things. Her first post she's throwing out uncompromising, unquestioning blame because one animal had one highly suspicious bowel movement. Ten months... it bears repeating because it's the biggest factor to this... after she bought it and she had no concerns until that point. The treatment course her vet reccomended seemed a bit off, that firm quote telling her how long they had been there was highly questionable and if anyone had tried the "I just want everyone else to test their animals" kind of line on a reputable, credible dealer, they would have been nailed to the wall upsidedown so everyone could take their shots at a stable target. She has continued to deny or fail to understand many of the factual arguments about parasites that have been presented to her and her arguments against Ed started to take on the tone of "Yeah but..." as she raised new points. Made it seem more vindictive than anything else. She's also been presented to people who didn't know her in conflicting manners. We have people arguing that this admin of a website is experienced and knowledgeable and her husbandry is beyond reproach because she's not a person who makes mistakes... and then being simultaneously labeled as a newcomer to the hobby, someone who didn't know any better and wasn't experienced enough to notice the symptoms which had to have been present long term if the parasite loads were as signifigant as they have been presented as. Those two seem mutually exclusive to me; it's one or the other or someplace inbetween but not both at once.

It became painfully clear, early on for me, that she did not have a full grasp on parasitic transmissions. Then again, most don't so I can't hold that against her. Ultimately, boil this down to motive Seamus. What was her motive? Was it to slight Ed? Was it to blackmail him? Was it to gain knowledge? Or, was it simply to err'r on the side of caution, given Ed's lack of response, and warn others about a potential issue?

I accept the latter as the most plausible of scenarios and therefore did not view her posts, or her supporters, with much of a negative eye. Her motives seemed simple enough and her expectations of Ed were most certainly reasonable. Ed's behavior certainly was not. I, too, would have viewed Ed's lack of response as an indication of guilt and/or cover up. Ed is not one of the smart scammers in this industry. His very reason for not posting on this thread is because he knows the more he talks the more trouble he will get himself in. While some may say that's smart, I say that's guilt given his background. Not coming onto a negative thread is certainly not an indication of guilt for most people as far as I am concerned. But, when you utilize other threads to make snide comments then we have a different story altogether.

I just know that if someone presented Emily's argument against friends of mine, people I know to be good people or anyone with a better reputation than Ed, nothing she said would have stood up to the scrutiny it would have been placed under. And had a dealer with a positive reputation and good standing chosen not to respond or to be dismissive, I doubt they would have been dragged over the coals for it.

Integrity has its privileges doesn't it?

Putting Ed back in, I do understand, truly, how his character and history of doublespeak and bait and switch and misnomers has so many people believing that he mislabeled animals and sent them to her thinking she wouldn't know the difference. I believe the same thing, I just don't know it. I like stupid bad guys more than the ones who are even a little bit slick. The stupid ones do things where you can say yes, proof positive, there you stole, there you lied, there you were neglectful or abusive of animals. When the proof is there and clear cut, it puts them down hard and it keeps them there. Give scumbags any room for deniability or doubt and they manage to ooze through the cracks. This situation is full of doubt and cracks and Ed got to oozing (or who knows, maybe he isn't to blame at all... I sure as hell can't say for certain either way) and while he compounded the negative view some of this board's regulars have of him... the majority of those had it to begin with.

The ONLY thing in this thread that can be said conclusively is that Ed is not someone you want to do business with. Period. Nothing more and nothing less.

I won't buy from Ed now... wouldn't have bought from Ed before. I don't think you would have either.

Guaranteed.

Griz

 

[rabernet]

I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with selling an animal that gives every outward appearance of being healthy and remains so for extended periods of time after the point of sale.

I may be mis-interpreting this part of your post, Seamus. But I do have a question.

Is it morally and ethically wrong to assure the buyer "my animals are the cleanest there are" (to paraphrase), and then just judge their health on their outward appearance of being healthy before shipping them out?

Ed has only claimed to have tested his adult breeders, not his juvies. He has admitted to poor quarantine practices on the bp.net mites thread. That coupled with his ads for CH animals each year - leads me, similarly to Griz, to believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the animals that Ed sent to Emily were either a) CH animals mis-represented as CBB animals - in fact, he had to go "check", but still hasn't answered that question, or b) they were CBB, but his poor quarantine practices has left other animals in his collection susceptible to cross contamination.

Ed is a master at dodging tough questions, or twisting the focus away from himself. Emily SHOULD have had her animals tested when they came in - but perhaps her only "crime" is that she TRUSTED Ed, when he made assurances that his animals were the cleanest that there were.

 

[frankykeno]

My confusion with this thread stems from a couple of issues that haven't been addressed fully:

1) Why would anyone immediately fecal sample snakes coming in from a breeder one trusted (at that time)? I asked about this previously but didn't get much feedback on this issue. How many of you have a fecal test done on every single CBB snake coming into your collection, regardless of your other quarantine practices? Since Emily is being censured for not having a fecal done as soon as these three snakes arrived, I'd like to know what the industry standard is on this matter.

2) If you feel this should not have come to the BOI in the first place, what should Emily have done when Ed ignored her questions? It's pretty easy to say "you shouldn't have done this", it's quite another to offer no other direction as to alternate actions to take. Emily's no newb nor is she blowing herself up as a know-it-all because she admins at a bp site (those are descriptions placed on her by other's posts...not her own). However, since she like most of us is still learning, please share what you feel would have been a better way of managing this situation.

I figure since a resolution to this issue between Emily and Ed is pretty much a "not gonna happen" thing, it would be at least productive to learn something from her experience. I do think the information shared here about parasites and transmission has been invaluable to those of us that are new to keeping collections/breeding on a smaller scale.

 

[lanceheads]

I believe it should be mandatory to run fecals once a year whether or not the animals are CB,WC,or CBB.
I do in my personal collection and at the zoo I work for. A pound of prevention,etc...

Randal Berry

 

[frankykeno]

That's well and good Randal but doesn't address what I asked. A yearly fecal would quite possibly miss a number of snakes bought and sold within that year. I would very likely miss hatchlings/juveniles hatched and sold during any given 12 month period. Even in Emily's case if she did that, it wouldn't have picked up on these three snakes as she hasn't had them in her collection for a full calendar year yet (that of course being dependent on the dates she would have booked her yearly fecals for). Yearly fecals are quite likely a good idea for a core breeding group but otherwise, well I just don't see how it's going to address this particular situation.

 

[cookreptiles]

She has continued to deny or fail to understand many of the factual arguments about parasites that have been presented to her...

I have not denied any of the facts presented about parasites, in fact, I have asked many, many questions about the information given here in order to better understand it. No, I do not have a veterinary level of understanding when it comes to parasites, but it is my intention to learn as much as possible and I have learned quite a bit from this thread. My feelings on where the parasites in these snakes came from does not in any way mean that I am denying the facts about parasites and how they are spread.

I just know that if someone presented Emily's argument against friends of mine, people I know to be good people or anyone with a better reputation than Ed, nothing she said would have stood up to the scrutiny it would have been placed under. And had a dealer with a positive reputation and good standing chosen not to respond or to be dismissive, I doubt they would have been dragged over the coals for it.

This situation would never have presented itself had I been dealing with "good people".

 

[lanceheads]

Joanna,
I should have clarified; ALL of my snakes are tested, offspring included. New animals brought into my collection are quarantined and tested BEFORE moving into the main collection.

Hope I cleared this up.
Randal Berry

 

[NorthernRegius.com]

My confusion with this thread stems from a couple of issues that haven't been addressed fully:

1) Why would anyone immediately fecal sample snakes coming in from a breeder one trusted (at that time)? I asked about this previously but didn't get much feedback on this issue. How many of you have a fecal test done on every single CBB snake coming into your collection, regardless of your other quarantine practices? Since Emily is being censured for not having a fecal done as soon as these three snakes arrived, I'd like to know what the industry standard is on this matter.

2) If you feel this should not have come to the BOI in the first place, what should Emily have done when Ed ignored her questions? It's pretty easy to say "you shouldn't have done this", it's quite another to offer no other direction as to alternate actions to take. Emily's no newb nor is she blowing herself up as a know-it-all because she admins at a bp site (those are descriptions placed on her by other's posts...not her own). However, since she like most of us is still learning, please share what you feel would have been a better way of managing this situation.

I figure since a resolution to this issue between Emily and Ed is pretty much a "not gonna happen" thing, it would be at least productive to learn something from her experience. I do think the information shared here about parasites and transmission has been invaluable to those of us that are new to keeping collections/breeding on a smaller scale.

1) Emily admits she should have checked & that's 100% correct. Ed should NOT have discouraged the test- I know I wouldn't ESPECIALLY if I knew my animals to be clean. I love my collection too much not to test each animal that comes in while they are in quarentine. But looking at this thread, even that isn't enough.

2) I don't think it was wrong to start this thread because parasites or lack shouldn't be put as a TRUST issue. This is a proceedural issue & could happen to anyone- even someone like me thinks they are careful. I test all new arrivals but I didn't think I had to worry about random testing BUT I DO NOW. Now I know & it's very valuable information. So the head's up on parasites IMHO was warrented.

3) Now for the tricky part- were the animals CB or CH? Of course if they were CH that's a whole new level! Deception is not something anyone should have to deal with when doing business. This is where the trust issue lies NOT about the parasites... some are still thinking that the fact these snakes had parasites proves they are not CB. Thing is that can't be proven. Ed's the only one who knows for sure & he's not talking/typing.

Looking at the facts it's safe to say if you have animals from this person, do yourself & them a favor- test them.

Is Ed dishonest? I don't know... I'll never know for sure even if he comes up with documents now. His lack of involvement bothers me... it leaves me uneasy. So where the parasite issue (IMHO) is a push, as both sides could have done things better. The lack of involvement on Ed's part makes it seem like he doesn't care. To me, that's what is damaging... that's what would make me hesitate to deal with him. I have high reguard for animals & low opionions of those who don't. It's an opionion, a feeling but there I am with it.

 

[frankykeno]

Yes thanks Randal it does. It'll be interesting to see how many follow that sort of strict and multiple fecal testing procedure. Especially those that have imports, captive hatched and captive bred snakes.

 

[NorthernRegius.com]

Yes thanks Randal it does. It'll be interesting to see how many follow that sort of strict and multiple fecal testing procedure. Especially those that have imports, captive hatched and captive bred snakes.

Even so, the best chance to control parasites starts with the individual person & not worrying what someone else does or doesn't do...

 

[monkeywrench133]

1) Why would anyone immediately fecal sample snakes coming in from a breeder one trusted (at that time)? I asked about this previously but didn't get much feedback on this issue. How many of you have a fecal test done on every single CBB snake coming into your collection, regardless of your other quarantine practices? Since Emily is being censured for not having a fecal done as soon as these three snakes arrived, I'd like to know what the industry standard is on this matter.

To put it bluntly Joanna, there are no breeders I trust enough to put my collection at risk. I don't say that in any malicious way, but even good people make mistakes. So, yes, every snake that comes in gets a vet exam and fecal test within a week of arrival. I just consider it part of the cost of doing business. And since learning about the life cycles of parasites in this thread, I will also start doing random tests on the collection since I do have a few stubborn critters that will only eat live.

 

[frankykeno]

Even so, the best chance to control parasites starts with the individual person & not worrying what someone else does or doesn't do...

Since most of us buy from "someone else" it does concern me to understand more fully what standards are the norm, what standards to expect from others when considering a purchase and what standards one should be meeting at some future date if you intend to sell or trade snakes to others. I never consider learning as "worrying".

 

[Wilomn]

Well mr. clark, it seems the jury is in and you're out.

The thing is, you, EVEN you, could recoup enough of a reputation to continue with a modicum of respect if you would just come clean and be honest about this situation.

No, not everyone would cut you slack for being such a turd, but there are those who would and given time, should you be forthcoming, this would not be a festering wound but one that had scabbed and healed.

Once again, mr. clark, you are faced with a decision that will have serious ramifiactions on your future sales.

Whatcha gonna do?