Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Bill Cobb
Posts: 6
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 3:19 pm

Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Bill Cobb »

I thought some of you would find this research paper on Chucks interesting. It is my understanding that this project was motivated by commercial collecting of Chucks and efforts to stop it. I look forward to your comments.

http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/ ... 030703.pdf

Bill Cobb
erik loza
Posts: 244
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:01 am

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by erik loza »

The paper is more than 7 years old. Where has it been or what has been done with it in the meantime? Just curious, not a criticism. Thanks for sharing.
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

Seven years old seems pretty recent to me....

The study was funded largely to understand the impacts of commercial collecting on Saromalus. The main result for management was that its very difficult to cause the local extinction of the species. Local populations could be reduced in abundance and slow to recover to pre-removal levels but were not eliminated. The authors recommended stopping commercial collecting in the state but since they were unable to demonstrate even local extinctions the state has not implemented their recommendations and commercial collecting continues.

Its really an issue of interpretation. The commercial collectors are having a clear effect on abundance and probably on genetic diversity, but they are not driving populations to extinction. Keep in mind there is a very small but very vocal group of commercial collectors in Nevada who are much more effective as lobbyists than the folks opposed to commercial collecting.
User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 1:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Daryl Eby »

Bryan Hamilton wrote:Keep in mind there is a very small but very vocal group of commercial collectors in Nevada who are much more effective as lobbyists than the folks opposed to commercial collecting.
It probably doesn't help that the state profits from the sale of commercial collecting permits. I wonder how they spend that money.
User avatar
monklet
Posts: 2648
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:44 pm
Location: Ventura, CA
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by monklet »

Would never have thought there was a Chuckwalla collectors lobby in NV? Like, where do they sell all these and who's buying them? Why don't these collectors just breed them?

Also, I wonder if persistent collection of a species such that numbers in a given location are severely reduced might have some effect in terms of selective pressure on the gene pool and resultant fitness?
User avatar
AndyO'Connor
Posts: 1019
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:14 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by AndyO'Connor »

It's cheaper to collect than it is to breed for normal types. I would pay the state of Nevada for permission to herp, that perhaps is one way the could supplement the loss of commercial permits. I would hope it didn't cost me $250 to herp, but I'd bet a lot more people would pay to herp than people that purchase commercial permits...
User avatar
TravisK
Posts: 774
Joined: July 8th, 2010, 11:14 am
Location: Eastern Washington

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by TravisK »

Large scale collection should be illegal IMO. I am fine with very small bag limits that could thus be used for captive bred specimens for trade in the Pet/food/(fill in the blank) industries or private collections, but large scale collection is very bad and ecologically retarded. Even people that collect for personal private collections on the one or two specimen level can have very bad repercussions collectively depending on the species.
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by WSTREPS »

Keep in mind there is a very small but very vocal group of commercial collectors in Nevada who are much more effective as lobbyists than the folks opposed to commercial collecting.


It probably doesn't help that the state profits from the sale of commercial collecting permits. I wonder how they spend that money.

Compare those two statements, I guess they would spend that money on a trip to Burger King. Last year Nevada Department of Wildlife issued 20 commercial collecting permits . Of these 14 included reptiles.The reason commercial collectors in Nevada are much more effective as lobbyists than the folks opposed to commercial collecting. Is not the money its the facts. Herpetologist Dean Rippa wrote a very interesting piece that coverd collection and population study and other issues entitled Degeberated Science. In it he raised some very interesting points.

Unfortunately, commercial collecting is still legal in Nevada. The license is a couple hundred bucks and is easier to get than a scientific collecting permit. Almost all the reptiles collected are Sauromalus. These are are not destined for the pet trade but for the Asian medicine market.

Bryan Hamilton
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

WSTREPS wrote: Compare those two statements, I guess they would spend that money on a trip to Burger King. Last year Nevada Department of Wildlife issued 20 commercial collecting permits . Of these 14 included reptiles.The reason commercial collectors in Nevada are much more effective as lobbyists than the folks opposed to commercial collecting. Is not the money its the facts. Herpetologist Dean Rippa wrote a very interesting piece that coverd collection and population study and other issues entitled Degeberated Science. In it he raised some very interesting points.
Unfortunately, commercial collecting is still legal in Nevada. The license is a couple hundred bucks and is easier to get than a scientific collecting permit. Almost all the reptiles collected are Sauromalus. These are are not destined for the pet trade but for the Asian medicine market. Bryan Hamilton
I acknowledge that commercial collecting is not going to cause even local extirpations of any reptiles in Nevada but still remain opposed to it. There's no question however that the local abundances of collected species are reduced and sometimes require years to recover.

Besides population level concerns there are also ethical issues. Almost all the legal, wild collected Phrynosoma out there are from Nevada and almost all of them die of starvation, which is irresponsible, cruel and inhumane. Most of the Sauromalus that go to Asia suffer the same fate.

I would rather have more lizards and no commercial collectors in Nevada than less lizards and any commercial collectors. But again the collectors are better lobbyists and were well organized. There was really no public outcry because people didin't know and probably didn’t care about reptiles. Maybe NAFHA, the Las Vegas herp society and some of the environmental groups will do a better job on this issue in the future....
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

DFRetes wrote:A couple of things, one, why not study areas that have been commerically collected. That would give some in context answers, instead of prejudiced study methods, that may or may not be accurate.
What do you mean by prejudiced study methods? The authors tried to remove as many Sauromalus as possible to see what the effects were on the populations. This allowed more controlled manipulation than studying unmanipulated populations. This study probably represents an extreme on a continuum that commercial collectors don't often reach. The goal of this study was to make inferences on the effects of commercial collecting at the population level and this is nice work in that regard. Studying areas that had been commercially collected would have had its own set of biases and problems.
DFRetes wrote:For instance, assuming Chucks are restricted to rock outcrops is naive. Yes, they do use them, but they also inhabitat flat areas without rock outcrops. This is very common in mexico. And also occurs in S. Az as well.
Nevada is not Mexico or southern Arizona. Sauromalus is not absolutely restricted to outcrops and I'm sure some movement occurs between sites but there are not established populations living in the areas between outcrops.
DFRetes wrote:You must know all wild animals die from something, including stravation and dehydration.
Thanks for clearing that up.
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by WSTREPS »

I acknowledge that commercial collecting is not going to cause even local extirpations of any reptiles in Nevada but still remain opposed to it.There's no question however that the local abundances of collected species are reduced and sometimes require years to recover.

The authors tried to remove as many Sauromalus as possible to see what the effects were on the populations. This allowed more controlled manipulation than studying unmanipulated populations. This study probably represents an extreme on a continuum that commercial collectors don't often reach.


You acknowledge that commercial collecting is not going to cause even local extirpations of any reptiles. This means the animals are being harvested in a sustainable fashion. What do they have to recover from? These populations have clearly remained healthy and viable, the fact that they produce numbers that can be harvested is the proof. You also point out that they are being harvested in numbers that are well below the sustainable threshold.
There was really no public outcry because people didn't know and probably didn't care about reptiles. Maybe NAFHA, the Las Vegas herp society and some of the environmental groups will do a better job on this issue in the future....


By a better job, you mean lobby in the same way you do? By hedging your bets, playing the anthropomorphism sympathy card? By wanting to manipulate public outcry. Should popular public opinion that's based largely on who can manipulate that opinion the most and not the facts be the basis for all our laws? Your trying to make a case against something that you are opposed to on a personal level without making much of a case that any actual harm is being done.


Are you opposed to sport fishing, hunting as well? Would you care to take look at the amount of animal suffering caused by those practices? How about the public out cry against those activity's.



ERNIE EISON
erik loza
Posts: 244
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:01 am

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by erik loza »

Frank,

I believe Bryan actually lives in Nevada. Do you feel like you have seen more Chucks in Nevada than he has?

Also, the areas where I have seen the highest concentrations of Desert Tortoise in the Mohave, there is not a rock bigger than your fist for miles.

I think it is important to keep things in perspective.
User avatar
AndyO'Connor
Posts: 1019
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:14 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by AndyO'Connor »

I think when Bryan mentions Nevada, he doesn't mean, the bordered location seperate from AZ or MX as much as he means the habitat and area north of AZ and MX, and therefore, possibly different than the populations you see in the south. It's similar to if someone tries to apply their knowledge and experience to zonata in California to the zonata in Washington. Sure you have a better chance of seeing them than someone who has no clue about the animals, but you will most likely be humbled by searching many more hours for them. They are most likely moving below the surface under our vast talus, and therefore seem less common, when really it's just that they are less commonly seen. I don't think it's the same for Chucks in Nevada, they probably are less commonly seen in areas with no rock outcroppings, becuase they less commonly inhabit these areas than they can in more southern climates and habitats.
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

WSTREPS wrote:
You acknowledge that commercial collecting is not going to cause even local extirpations of any reptiles. This means the animals are being harvested in a sustainable fashion. What do they have to recover from? These populations have clearly remained healthy and viable, the fact that they produce numbers that can be harvested is the proof. You also point out that they are being harvested in numbers that are well below the sustainable threshold.
We’re not likely to agree on this. Just because there is sustainable harvest doesn’t make it right and the populations are not “healthy” just because they are viable.
WSTREPS wrote:
By a better job, you mean lobby in the same way you do? By hedging your bets, playing the anthropomorphism sympathy card? By wanting to manipulate public outcry. Should popular public opinion that's based largely on who can manipulate that opinion the most and not the facts be the basis for all our laws? Your trying to make a case against something that you are opposed to on a personal level without making much of a case that any actual harm is being done.
Are you opposed to sport fishing, hunting as well? Would you care to take look at the amount of animal suffering caused by those practices? How about the public out cry against those activity's.
ERNIE EISON
With good reason there are very few species of wildlife commercialized in this country. I don’t oppose sport hunting or fishing, or even regulated collecting of herps.

I would never manipulate public opinion. Don't you think this a balanced view of the issue:

Image
User avatar
Kent VanSooy
Posts: 1100
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:51 am
Location: Oceanside

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Kent VanSooy »

as there is humor in this post
There is now!
NickD
Posts: 23
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 8:04 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by NickD »

I am a private breeder of chuckwallas, and I support sustainable collection. I am opposed to the large scale commercial collection that goes on in Nevada. I think a small bag limit is ok, like C A or AZ. In the case of commercial collection, they need to have some kind of bag limit.

I thought the study gave a good demonstration of the negative effects of commercial collection. You may not agree with the conclusions about collection, but you really can't dispute a lot of the facts about chucks' natural history, which would make them vulnerable to overcollection.

I would have to disagree with Frank, on the use of rocky habitat. I am prety sure that I know exactly where in Southern Arizona, he is talking about. I have been there. It is a fairly unique locality. I would not call it a rock outcropping, and it certainly is not mountainous. It is more of a lava flow. Chucks and collared lizards are found there, because they can take shelter among/under the rocks. There are similar places elsewhere in the Southwest, where chucks could survive far from their typical mountainous habitat. They are dependant on rocks. They have adapted to wedge themselves into rock cracks. I have never seen them established in creosote flats, burrowing at the base of shrubs, like desert iguanas.

We truly don't know what this will do to the populations in the long run. How will this effect the chuckwallas 100 years from now? We are subjecting these populations to an unnatural form of selection.

Just my thoughts.
Nick
User avatar
klawnskale
Posts: 1211
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:09 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by klawnskale »

I participated in a chuckwalla survey this past Spring in Nevada as a volunteer. The study involved the territorial and movement habits of chuckwallas. Individual chucks have specific rock formations that they claim as their home base. This is where they return to sleep, breed and take refuge. It is not unusual for chuckwallas to wander off their home bases to seek mates and specific plant species they like to eat. We found individuals foraging some distance away from their home rockpiles. But to be sure, they generally returned to the same rock formation at some point that they consider to be 'home". That's why it's possible to find them out on the desert floor at times. Heck, I have found two young females seeking temporary refuge under a mattress on the desert floor; well away from rockpiles. That doesn't mean they would chose to stay on the flats permanently because they would probably be too vulnerable to predation and sun exposure.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by gbin »

DFRetes wrote:To me, this is where academia goes wrong...
What always amazes me is that anyone takes Pecos Frank, a certifiable narcissist who lives in a fantasyland of his own making and constantly carries a huge chip on his shoulder about "academia" :crazyeyes: , seriously. Any actual (as opposed to imagined) knowledge he might have is buried under so much self-glorifying, anti-intellectual garbage that it would take a truly dedicated person a very long time to ferret it out. I suppose a lot of people feel sorry for him for his obvious psychological disorder, but at this point I just feel sorry for the rest of us for having to put up with him. Anyway...

It seems obvious to me that the answer is to limit and otherwise regulate commercial collection of chuckwallas such that populations and their habitats are maintained, and make commercial collectors pay the costs of regulating their activities.

Gerry
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

gbin wrote:
DFRetes wrote:To me, this is where academia goes wrong...
What always amazes me is that anyone takes Pecos Frank, a certifiable narcissist who lives in a fantasyland of his own making and constantly carries a huge chip on his shoulder about "academia" :crazyeyes: , seriously. Any actual (as opposed to imagined) knowledge he might have is buried under so much self-glorifying, anti-intellectual garbage that it would take a truly dedicated person a very long time to ferret it out. I suppose a lot of people feel sorry for him for his obvious psychological disorder, but at this point I just feel sorry for the rest of us for having to put up with him. Anyway...

It seems obvious to me that the answer is to limit and otherwise regulate commercial collection of chuckwallas such that populations and their habitats are maintained, and make commercial collectors pay the costs of regulating their activities.

Gerry
You must have missed this then, Gerry.
They are that first and as a pyro, they use the habitat to maintain a population(that is what the habitat does, it supports the working population). All pyro populations require a certain number to exsist. They all require pyros to do what pyros do. that is, to grow up, to mate, to nest, for the neonates to survive, and pair and mate again and continue to recruit that habitat. All meaningful populations do that, PERIOD. They have to include that, do you find that? no, then you do not know pyros.
This is very insightful. If this is a fantasyland, then it is one that has an excellent working knowledge of ecological systems (this is a good summation of some of the core ideals in metapopulation theory. Know what metapopulations are, Gerry?). And all it took me to "ferret it out" was to read Frank's post. As a matter of fact, almost every post of Frank's I read contains gems like this. Gerry, you're too ingrained in the paradigm that non-academics have no real value to science, and this is constantly displayed in your posts. There is much constructive criticism in Frank's post, and everyone reading this who is undertaking any sort of biological study should heed what he says.
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

erik loza wrote:Also, the areas where I have seen the highest concentrations of Desert Tortoise in the Mohave, there is not a rock bigger than your fist for miles.
Ever heard of soil? Rocks can exist beneath the surface too. Again, Frank is dead-on with his outline of rocks (soil) and their ability to retain water. You have to think on a scale that is important to your study organism. What you observe may not have any importance to a Tortoise. They have burrows, do they not? Water movement through/over soil is dependent on soil composition, grain size, and compaction. Tortoise burrows most likely have access to areas that have a higher level of moisture, and since desert soils are typically very thin, they could exist even into the bedrock, where there may be crevices and cracks that you are not aware of. An outcrop is just exposed bedrock, after all.
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

Bryan Hamilton wrote:I would rather have more lizards and no commercial collectors in Nevada than less lizards and any commercial collectors.
Last year Nevada Department of Wildlife issued 20 commercial collecting permits . Of these 14 included reptiles.
20 commercial collecting permits issued per year, and not all of them for reptiles either. Do you really think this has an impact on lizard populations statewide? If collecting stopped, do you really think lizards would become more abundant? There are other limiting factors on population size other than predation/collection. I wouldn't be surprised if it was found that the collected populations are still near their carrying capacity for a given year, especially if numbers are influenced by immigration. Also, even if a particular lizard is abundant at one spot, that does not mean that that spot is good habitat. If the births < deaths, then it would actually be considered poor habitat (a sink). What if the areas that are collected happen to be an attractive sink, where recruitment from births isn't enough to sustain the population, and immigration from good habitat where births > deaths (a source), is what is sustaining that population? What influence would collecting have there? Almost none, since the population is supported by immigrants from other areas (the source habitat can actually be less densely occupied than sink habitat).
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by gbin »

Lizardman1988 wrote:This is very insightful... an excellent working knowledge of ecological systems... a good summation of some of the core ideals in metapopulation theory...
Hardly. It shows at most a very rudimentary understanding of the relationship between life history characteristics and population biology. (I guess you missed it, Liz1988, but Pecos Frank merely referred to more than one individual population - "All pyro populations require..." - in your quote; he said absolutely nothing about those populations functioning as a group. So maybe I should ask you, instead: "Know what metapopulations are?") It is quite general knowledge, showing no actual knowledge (working or otherwise) of pyros, their habitat or their place in their overall ecosystem. And it's followed by a bogus conclusion so common to Pecos Frank's drivel, that unless you know virtually everything about an animal - like Pecos Frank and no other does, of course - you effectively know nothing. And just as of course, "academics" know even less than that, by (Pecos Frank's absurd) definition.
Lizardman1988 wrote:you're too ingrained in the paradigm that non-academics have no real value to science, and this is constantly displayed in your posts...
To people with a serious inferiority complex, perhaps. (Know what an inferiority complex is?) People who are better adjusted don't see any such paradigm as existing (and let me add that I'm not surprised that someone defending Pecos Frank would have a similarly dim view to his of scientists in general, whether said person actually knows any scientists or not), and plenty of folks here know that I don't care in the slightest whether a person is an academic or not. There are lots of people here who know lots more about various herps than I do, and I delight in that whatever their profession. I've even said in this forum more than once that I'm quite willing to believe Pecos Frank himself has genuine experience worth sharing; it's just too bad that he renders it useless by burying it under so much self-aggrandizing fiction and so many anti-intellectual attacks.

Nice try on going on the offensive to defend your bud, though.

Gerry
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

gbin wrote:
Lizardman1988 wrote:This is very insightful... an excellent working knowledge of ecological systems... a good summation of some of the core ideals in metapopulation theory...
Hardly. It shows at most a very rudimentary understanding of the relationship between life history characteristics and population biology. (I guess you missed it, Liz1988, but Pecos Frank merely referred to more than one individual population - "All pyro populations require..." - in your quote; he said absolutely nothing about those populations functioning as a group. So maybe I should ask you, instead: "Know what metapopulations are?") It is quite general knowledge, showing no actual knowledge (working or otherwise) of pyros, their habitat or their place in their overall ecosystem. And it's followed by a bogus conclusion so common to Pecos Frank's drivel, that unless you know virtually everything about an animal - like Pecos Frank and no other does, of course - you effectively know nothing. And just as of course, "academics" know even less than that, by (Pecos Frank's absurd) definition.
I believe I said:
is a good summation of some of the core ideals in metapopulation theory
(emphasis added). Of course all populations require a certain amount of individuals. The part I was getting at is (paraphrasing) "only a meaningful population recruits from offspring." THIS is an important part of metapopulation theory, but of course, is not the whole theory. In context to what Frank is arguing, Bryan could indeed be studying a non-meaningful population of pyros, which may exist solely due to immigration. This population would, of course, be linked to others, which would be linked to others, etc., and only by understanding the metapopulation dynamics between these can you fully understand the organism (or rather, the organism's populations, and possibly life histories). Of course, accomplishing this in its entirety is not feasible currently, but you can get an approximation through models.

And isn't it true, that if you don't know anything, if you don't have the full picture, you essentially have nothing at all? As an "academic," you surely understand that we don't, and can't know everything. Scientific process is there to answer questions and fill in gaps of knowledge, but it can't answer everything. Frank may indeed know more than academics about some organisms, as academic study is often narrow (i.e. breeding habits only) whereas Frank seems to understand the whole autecology of some organisms, which is no doubt substantiated by direct observations over many years in the field. By this measure, he may be right about academics knowing less.
gbin wrote:
Lizardman1988 wrote:you're too ingrained in the paradigm that non-academics have no real value to science, and this is constantly displayed in your posts...
To people with a serious inferiority complex, perhaps. (Know what an inferiority complex is?) People who are better adjusted don't see any such paradigm as existing (and let me add that I'm not surprised that someone defending Pecos Frank would have a similarly dim view to his of scientists in general, whether said person actually knows any scientists or not), and plenty of folks here know that I don't care in the slightest whether a person is an academic or not. There are lots of people here who know lots more about various herps than I do, and I delight in that whatever their profession. I've even said in this forum more than once that I'm quite willing to believe Pecos Frank himself has genuine experience worth sharing; it's just too bad that he renders it useless by burying it under so much self-aggrandizing fiction and so many anti-intellectual attacks.

Nice try on going on the offensive to defend your bud, though.

Gerry
Since we're in the mood for rhetorical questions, know what a superiority complex is? I guarantee that a LOT of scientists have a bit of a superiority complex. You seem to wear it on your shoulder when someone questions academics and science. Its inevitable, really, with all of the time and effort that goes into a good education, that highly educated people feel superior to others around them. I know I do, at least passively.

I actually don't have a dim view of scientists, seeing as biology is my chosen profession. Why the quick judgement on my affiliations? I see experiences and accounts such as Frank's a learning experience, and I was voicing that opinion. Why attack, as you always seem to do to those with differing opinions, when you can invest the same amount of effort it would take to compose a well-written snarky reply to getting a deeper picture from the written account. Its not that hard. This is why I'm defending him (I don't even know who he is, really).

Let the people speak. Shall we continue to attack Frank, like Gerry here, and dismiss his experiences because they're thinly veiled behind superfluous words, or shall we invest a little effort and possibly learn something groundbreaking about the animals that we all share a passion for?
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

Lizardman1988 wrote:
Bryan Hamilton wrote:I would rather have more lizards and no commercial collectors in Nevada than less lizards and any commercial collectors.
Last year Nevada Department of Wildlife issued 20 commercial collecting permits . Of these 14 included reptiles.
20 commercial collecting permits issued per year, and not all of them for reptiles either. Do you really think this has an impact on lizard populations statewide? If collecting stopped, do you really think lizards would become more abundant? There are other limiting factors on population size other than predation/collection. I wouldn't be surprised if it was found that the collected populations are still near their carrying capacity for a given year, especially if numbers are influenced by immigration. Also, even if a particular lizard is abundant at one spot, that does not mean that that spot is good habitat. If the births < deaths, then it would actually be considered poor habitat (a sink). What if the areas that are collected happen to be an attractive sink, where recruitment from births isn't enough to sustain the population, and immigration from good habitat where births > deaths (a source), is what is sustaining that population? What influence would collecting have there? Almost none, since the population is supported by immigrants from other areas (the source habitat can actually be less densely occupied than sink habitat).
What if the lizards parachuted into the outcrops from invisible cruise missiles and reproduced asexually? There are a lot of what ifs. The paper that started this post showed that there are Sauromalus populations that were negatively affected by removing lizards and that recovery of those populations took a long time. I appreciate metapopulations as much as the next guy but this doesn’t support your metapopulation hypothesis.
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

It can take a long time to immigrate. "Isolation" and distance from the source population influence this, as well as an individual's chances of finding a particular population. My theory is still possible, although I'm really just playing devil's advocate.
User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 1:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Daryl Eby »

Bryan Hamilton wrote:What if the lizards parachuted into the outcrops from invisible cruise missiles and reproduced asexually?
Good God, let's hope the Florida pythons don't get their hands that technology. :shock:
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

Daryl Eby wrote:
Bryan Hamilton wrote:What if the lizards parachuted into the outcrops from invisible cruise missiles and reproduced asexually?
Good God, let's hope the Florida pythons don't get their hands that technology. :shock:
Didn't some of the habitat and niche modeling papers assume they already had it?
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

Daryl Eby wrote:
Bryan Hamilton wrote:What if the lizards parachuted into the outcrops from invisible cruise missiles and reproduced asexually?
Good God, let's hope the Florida pythons don't get their hands that technology. :shock:
Let's hope they don't interbreed with Brahminy blind snakes and become able to breed parthenogenetically! The would wind up in flowerpots everywhere!
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by gbin »

Lizardman1988 wrote:I believe I said:
is a good summation of some of the core ideals in metapopulation theory
(emphasis added).
Nice attempt at parsing your way out of it! What, are you Bill Clinton? :lol: It's clear you thought that Pecos Frank had said something pertaining to metapopulations - not just individual populations - when in fact he hadn't (and by the way, it's equally clear that he was talking about recruitment within a given population, so you're not going to be able to paraphrase your way out of it, either).
Lizardman1988 wrote:... you surely understand that we don't, and can't know everything...
And that goes way beyond paraphrasing anything Pecos Frank said. :lol: You surely understand that saying something reasonable and pretending that you're repeating something that he said doesn't make it so...
Lizardman1988 wrote:... Scientific process is there to answer questions and fill in gaps of knowledge, but it can't answer everything....
No one said it could. So your point, other than to raise a straw man argument, is?...
Lizardman1988 wrote:... Frank may indeed know more than academics about some organisms...
And again, no one said otherwise. In fact (and again), I'd be willing to bet he does. As I said, too bad whatever he does actually know is buried underneath all his garbage.
Lizardman1988 wrote:... academic study is often narrow (i.e. breeding habits only)...
... And often broad, and often somewhere in between. Are you truly that ignorant of the incredible diversity of studies that "academics" have done/are doing? You've already established your credentials as sharing Pecos Frank's jaundiced view toward people in that profession (while demonstrating no direct knowledge of any of them, nor any actual evidence that your BS accusations against them have any validity whatsoever), but if it makes you feel better in some way then keep at it, I suppose.
Lizardman1988 wrote:... Frank seems to understand the whole autecology of some organisms, which is no doubt substantiated by direct observations over many years in the field...
Yeah, surely there are no "academics" doing autecological work. :roll:

I hate to tell you this, but I - and I'm sure many more than a few other people here - have huge doubts about pretty much any personal experience that Pecos Frank claims to have. Does he have any such experience? Sure, everybody does. Is any of his particularly interesting/insightful? It certainly could be. But his frequent Tall Tales and other obvious trips into La-La Land destroy any credibility he might have; that's been part of my point all along.
Lizardman1988 wrote:... I guarantee that a LOT of scientists have a bit of a superiority complex...
Oh, well if you guarantee it!... :roll: It's funny how certain people run into all these big, bad scientists, whereas a lifelong scientist married to a lifelong scientist and with a great many past and present scientist friends and colleagues has encountered only a few such over many years. I wonder, how many scientists have you actually known? Or even interacted with in any direct way outside of some classroom or other?
Lizardman1988 wrote:I actually don't have a dim view of scientists...
The evidence says otherwise, so far.
Lizardman1988 wrote:... biology is my chosen profession...
Best be careful. If you get too far along in it, you'll likely become one of those dreaded "academics" Pecos Frank spends so much time warning everyone about.
Lizardman1988 wrote:... Why attack... when you can invest the same amount of effort it would take to compose a well-written snarky reply to getting a deeper picture from the written account.
By "snarky," do you mean like this?...
Lizardman1988 wrote:... know what a superiority complex is?...
Lizardman1988 wrote:... Know what metapopulations are, Gerry?...
Oh, but wait, that's just because I deserve it for being so mean to Pecos Frank, right? (Never mind his endless spew about how incompetent/evil "academics" are.) But then, what about this?...
Lizardman1988 wrote:Ever heard of soil?...
Yeah, you've really got a claim to the high road here, all right. :roll:
Lizardman1988 wrote:Let the people speak...
So long as none of them use their power of speech to point out what utter nonsense Pecos Frank loads all of these threads down with, eh? "Free speech for some!" Great rally cry there, Liz1988. :lol:

Gerry
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

gbin wrote:
Lizardman1988 wrote:Let the people speak...
So long as none of them use their power of speech to point out what utter nonsense Pecos Frank loads all of these threads down with, eh? "Free speech for some!" Great rally cry there, Liz1988. :lol:
Putting words in my mouth Gerry? Where did I say that they couldn't speak out against him. I provided my rational argument, and your presented your side. What's wrong with people reading everything and deciding for themselves? Apparently its wrong if they decide to speak out against academics, since you condone them so freely. That's your opinion, I've heard it, I (somewhat) disagree, I've spoken mine. Let's see what others have to say.

I'll address your other points and criticisms tomorrow. I have a test that really needs to be studied for at the moment.
User avatar
ACK!
Posts: 61
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 7:38 am
Location: The Red Planet

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by ACK! »

I'm not alone in wishing all of the antagonism would stop- you are both guilty of it- and I doubt anyone really cares who started what.
User avatar
klawnskale
Posts: 1211
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:09 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by klawnskale »

Frank: there are areas containing lava flows in the California Mojave Desert where Sauromalus ater are found. I can think right off the top of my head two very well known volcanic crater lava flows. But the lava flows provide the refugia that the chucks are physiologically designed to use. Not just burrows, but cracks and crevices where they are capable of wedging themselves in for safety.
And I believe the referral comments you were citing were made by NickD and not Lizardman1988
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by gbin »

Lizardman1988 wrote:... Apparently its wrong if they decide to speak out against academics...
I frankly find it shocking that you need someone else to tell you that bigotry is wrong, Liz1988, regardless of the targeted group. "Academics" are a common target for a select few people here, most especially and abundantly for Pecos Frank, but it's hardly the only group on whose behalf I (and others, as they deem it worthwhile) have found occasion to speak out here. Indeed, if you look around at the current message board you'll coincidentally find in another active thread my arguing (and not alone) against a form of prejudice that is much more common here than is the anti-intellectualism that Pecos Frank habitually displays. I'll leave it to you to find for yourself, if you're interested. (And I don't really care whether you are.)

The fact of the matter is, and Pecos Frank knows this full well because I've pointed it out to him numerous times, I would generally prefer to just kick back and quietly enjoy the fantastic yarns his narcissism-riddled brain comes up with, as do so many others here. (And we're not laughing with you, PF.) Sometimes his BS contains so much or such egregious misinformation that it really needs to be exposed, but mostly the only time I respond to his garbage is when he - without any provocation or foundation whatsoever, and in a forum that is clearly not oriented to such a purpose - again starts slamming "academics." As he does time, after time, after time. He starts spewing his venom, I call him on it, and then he acts like he's the injured party. You can join him in his little fantasy, just as you seem to share his prejudice, but your concerns about what I do in response won't mean any more to me than do his (which is exactly nothing at all). I used to pity him (as so many others do), now I occasionally laugh at him (again as so many others do) and instead pity us, for having to put up with his severe personality disorder. This forum isn't a mental health clinic anymore than it is a place to bash "academics" or any other group of people you don't actually know or apparently even know much of anything about, and he should accordingly find another outlet for his rants. That's my (and I'm rather sure quite a number of other people's) opinion and the opinion I'm going to act on, anyway; you're of course free to hold whatever opinion you like.
Pecos Frank wrote:My field partner pointed out that to become an academic, you are taught to compete with your peers. that is, how you raise to the top is not about the subject the animals, but more about peer competition. The rest are tools you use to gain advantages.
Does your partner happen to be an invisible, human-sized rabbit named "Harvey," by any chance? :crazyeyes:

For people with a little (or a lot) more rationality to their credit than Pecos Frank, of course there's a competitive spirit in academic pursuits, just as there's a collaborative spirit, and also neither one. Just as in pretty much any other profession. In my experience, though, collaboration is much more sought after as so much more can be accomplished thereby. It's pretty hard to get anything meaningful done all by oneself, after all - unless of course you're the larger-than-life Pecos Frank.
Pecos Frank wrote:... hahahahahahahahahahahaha...
:crazyeyes:

Gerry
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

Gerry,
I sent you a PM so we can move this debate off the forum so we don't impose on others. I believe all your arguments are moot, and your personal accusations baseless, as I've outlined in the pm.


Others,
Today in landscape ecology we spoke about metapopulations, and I came away with a better understanding of the concept. Of particular note, especially with the original post in mind, is migration and recolonization from one population to another. In metapopulation theory (in a basic sense), population size is driven by extinction and immigration rates. Assume that a grouping of habitat patches are equal in value to one another. If one of these populations goes extinct, say through collecting pressure, the rate of recolonization by other populations into that patch is influenced by the severity of the matrix (everything that is not habitat). If the matrix is harsh for the species, it may take a long time for individuals to immigrate and re-establish the extinct population. This has nothing to do with the health of surrounding populations, only the rate of immigration. Since the desert is a very harsh and extreme climate, it is not unreasonable that a locally extinct population will take a long amount of time to be recolonized. This may explain, to a degree, the paper's findings. The only way to be sure how the population is operating is by long-term monitoring. Only then can we determine if the population is truly imperiled.
User avatar
StephenZozaya
Posts: 145
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:31 am
Location: Townsville, Queensland

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by StephenZozaya »

Hi Lizardman1988, I've sent you a PM. As you'll see it's a complete and compelling evisceration of your views and a proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. I go on further to explain that all of your arguments are based on a quaint bromantic desire to defend Frank's honour. Reply via PM rather than here, so that we don't clutter the forum with senseless arguing.

Cheers
Stephen
User avatar
crocdoc
Posts: 473
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:43 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by crocdoc »

Hi Lizardman1988, I've sent you a PM. As you'll see it's a complete and compelling evisceration of your views and a proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. I go on further to explain that all of your arguments are based on a quaint bromantic desire to defend Frank's honour. Reply via PM rather than here, so that we don't clutter the forum with senseless arguing
User avatar
Sam Sweet
Posts: 233
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:49 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Sam Sweet »

Hi Lizardman1988,
I've sent you a PM. As you'll see it's a complete and compelling evisceration of your views and a proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. I go on further to explain that all of your arguments are based on a quaint bromantic desire to defend Frank's honor. Reply via PM rather than here, so that we don't clutter the forum with senseless arguing.
User avatar
klawnskale
Posts: 1211
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:09 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by klawnskale »

Last three posts together, too funny. I guess he knows how to be B.S. without even having acquired a B.S. yet. LOL!
NickD
Posts: 23
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 8:04 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by NickD »

Since the desert is a very harsh and extreme climate, it is not unreasonable that a locally extinct population will take a long amount of time to be recolonized. This may explain, to a degree, the paper's findings. The only way to be sure how the population is operating is by long-term monitoring. Only then can we determine if the population is truly imperiled.[/quote]

With all due respect,
Lizardman, I realize you said that you are partially playing Devil's advocate. I find this statement to be dead on, and actually says a lot. It does not support your and Frank's argument, though, quite the opposite.
Of course, the desert is a very harsh climate. This DOES explain the paper's findings. If you cause a local extinction, yeah, in the long term, they will likely be able to come back, assuming there are adjacent populations to re-colonize. We won't know just how this type of collection will effect the populations long term, until we conduct long term monitoring. Can we really use that fact to dissregard the paper's findings, and justify the continued, unlimmited collection of chuckwallas? Absolutely not. By the time we realize the effects, it could be too late for certain populations, even if the species as a whole, is stable. This is the EXACT reason South Mountain is closed to collection. We keep adressing the species as a whole, while ignoring diversity among seperate populations.
Yes, chuckwallas can utilize unconventional habitat, and colonize new areas. Are they masters of re-colonization? No.
Furthermore, we don't fully understand what it does take for successful re-population of an area where a local extinction has previously taken place. What conditions will be required? There are some isolated mountain ranges, that are highly unlikely to be re-populated by over-land dispersal from a nearby population. Such mountain ranges are thought to have been populated by rock dwelling lizards via over-water dispersal, when sea levels were higher, and the mountains were actually islands.
Again, I think it is worth paying attention to individual populations, instead of merely seeing them as a species. It makes no sense to me that people seem to think it is ok to continue forward, irresponsibly, simply because we don't know what the long term consequenses will be. To me, that is all the more reason to continue cautiously.

Nick
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by hellihooks »

Every several months I go to this place on Co. property (yes... i tresspass to do it) and rescue chucks, whips, and collards from a series of plastic pit-traps (Plastic water drainage pits)... yesterday i rescued 2 chucks, 1 whiptail and a baby collard. Been doing this for years, whenever I go to check out a pair of torts I've been monitoring for 3 yrs. My only point is I don't think I've ever seen the same chuck twice... but there are ALWAYS new chucks in the pits. Makes me think chucks are much more mobile than I would have imagined.
Klawn... I too see chucks in those Lava flows... those places are SO weird to herp... like herping another planet... and most of the lizards exhibit varing degrees of hyper-melanism... :shock: jim
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

NickD wrote:
lizardman1988 wrote:Since the desert is a very harsh and extreme climate, it is not unreasonable that a locally extinct population will take a long amount of time to be recolonized. This may explain, to a degree, the paper's findings. The only way to be sure how the population is operating is by long-term monitoring. Only then can we determine if the population is truly imperiled.
With all due respect,
Lizardman, I realize you said that you are partially playing Devil's advocate. I find this statement to be dead on, and actually says a lot. It does not support your and Frank's argument, though, quite the opposite.
Of course, the desert is a very harsh climate. This DOES explain the paper's findings. If you cause a local extinction, yeah, in the long term, they will likely be able to come back, assuming there are adjacent populations to re-colonize. We won't know just how this type of collection will effect the populations long term, until we conduct long term monitoring. Can we really use that fact to dissregard the paper's findings, and justify the continued, unlimmited collection of chuckwallas? Absolutely not. By the time we realize the effects, it could be too late for certain populations, even if the species as a whole, is stable. This is the EXACT reason South Mountain is closed to collection. We keep adressing the species as a whole, while ignoring diversity among seperate populations.
Yes, chuckwallas can utilize unconventional habitat, and colonize new areas. Are they masters of re-colonization? No.
Furthermore, we don't fully understand what it does take for successful re-population of an area where a local extinction has previously taken place. What conditions will be required? There are some isolated mountain ranges, that are highly unlikely to be re-populated by over-land dispersal from a nearby population. Such mountain ranges are thought to have been populated by rock dwelling lizards via over-water dispersal, when sea levels were higher, and the mountains were actually islands.
Again, I think it is worth paying attention to individual populations, instead of merely seeing them as a species. It makes no sense to me that people seem to think it is ok to continue forward, irresponsibly, simply because we don't know what the long term consequenses will be. To me, that is all the more reason to continue cautiously.

Nick

I wasn't really trying to tie in what I last said with my prior posts, it was more an observation and musings with some new information I acquired friday. I don't disagree with you at all. My personal opinion is that collection should be restricted, but I'm trying to look at it objectively based on what I've seen in this thread.
User avatar
Lizardman1988
Posts: 235
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Hays, KS
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by Lizardman1988 »

crocdoc wrote:Hi Lizardman1988, I've sent you a PM. As you'll see it's a complete and compelling evisceration of your views and a proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. I go on further to explain that all of your arguments are based on a quaint bromantic desire to defend Frank's honour. Reply via PM rather than here, so that we don't clutter the forum with senseless arguing
Well, I did ask for this.
Let the people speak. Shall we continue to attack Frank, like Gerry here, and dismiss his experiences because they're thinly veiled behind superfluous words, or shall we invest a little effort and possibly learn something groundbreaking about the animals that we all share a passion for?
Although I never actually received any PMs...

Looks like my idea of trying to remain open-minded to various sources of information is not popular. Anyone else have anything to contribute to this?

My attacking Gerry has to do with his observed close-mindedness, and his subjectivity, which make for a bad scientist. I've based my arguments solely on information from this thread and some prior knowledge of population systems. This is where I'm coming from in all of this (again I guess you could say I'm playing devil's advocate to try and promote critical thinking).
User avatar
StephenZozaya
Posts: 145
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:31 am
Location: Townsville, Queensland

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by StephenZozaya »

Lizardman1988 wrote: Although I never actually received any PMs...
Of course you didn't. Anyone could see that what we did was a joke. The joke revolves around the fact that you, by moving the argument off of the forum and into the realm of PMs, immediately get to have the "last word" in front of all the people who have been following this thread. I see it as nothing but a dodgey attempt to avoid being grilled by gbin in front of everyone, while not "actually" backing out of the debate. Claim what you like, but I doubt that your actions reflected a desire to keep this debate off of the forum for the sake of other members.

I won't be replying to your PM, by the way. Nor will I argue any points regarding the current debate. We simply made a joke, deal with it. I can't believe I even bothered to take the time to reply here.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by gbin »

StephenZozaya, crocdoc & Sam Sweet wrote:Hi Lizardman1988, I've sent you a PM. As you'll see it's a complete and compelling evisceration of your views and a proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. I go on further to explain that all of your arguments are based on a quaint bromantic desire to defend Frank's honour. Reply via PM rather than here, so that we don't clutter the forum with senseless arguing.
Guys, that was absolutely hilarious! :lol: :thumb: :lol: :thumb: :lol:

Liz1988, I was really sorry to hear that you'd wasted "some time" and "a good amount of thought" on your PM to me; that effort would have been much better put into your continuing studies. Your rehashed arguments certainly weren't worth it (and didn't show it), in any event.

Amazingly, even in your bogus attempt to move this "debate" off the message board, you continue to miss a central point of my argument: This is the FieldHerpForum, not the AcademicsBashingForum. If Pecos Frank wants to use this message board to pretend to be a god among men with respect to his field herping then that's one thing, but if he wants to also use it as a way to vent his unprovoked and unfounded anti-intellectual bigotry then that's quite another.
NickD wrote:... We won't know just how this type of collection will effect the populations long term, until we conduct long term monitoring...
I'd go further than that, Nick, and say that I believe ongoing monitoring should be done of all harvested wildlife, and commercial collection (and to a lesser extent hobby collection) licenses should at the very least be priced sufficiently high to cover the expenses of such monitoring. That way conservation can be accomplished without outright prohibition (except in those rare cases where a species/site truly can't support any harvest at all), and the bill for it can be paid by the folks who actually incur the cost. (Obviously everyone in our society incurs at least some of the cost, so at least some of our taxes should go to the effort, too.) If it ultimately costs someone more - even a lot more - to obtain a wild chuckwalla, well, then that seems only right, too. I really hate how so many businesses/patrons of businesses based on natural resource utilization simply ignore their true costs or, when forced to address such at all, just look for ways to pass those costs off onto future generations (in various forms of resource degradation). They're in it for profit rather than conservation, I get that, but that's why regulation should exist.
hellihooks wrote:... Makes me think chucks are much more mobile than I would have imagined.
That wouldn't surprise me, Jim. It seems to be generally true that animals are capable of moving much greater distances than we at first believe, even in harsh environments. Unfortunately, dispersal is a really tough subject to study, and there aren't many focusing on it despite how important it is.

Gerry
chad ks
Posts: 634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:31 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by chad ks »

LMAO @ strength in numbers. :roll:

Ryan, don't worry about these people, think what you want and what makes sense to you. I know that you don't even know Frank and that you're just trying to be fair amidst what can at times form into electronic mob rule...

Gerry wrote:
Amazingly, even in your bogus attempt to move this "debate" off the message board, you continue to miss a central point of my argument: This is the FieldHerpForum, not the AcademicsBashingForum
Actually, the subject matter is free to be whatever we would like it to be and all non-herping related material will be moved off of the main forum and placed on the boardline. As herpers, we are free to talk about whatever we would like here, Gerry, unless of course you can provide me with something from the TOS that prohibits off topic discussion? What I'm curious about, Gerry, is when you're ever going to post up some pics of those scarlet kings or TX lyres that you've worked with.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by gbin »

chad ks wrote:Actually, the subject matter is free to be whatever we would like it to be and all non-herping related material will be moved off of the main forum and placed on the boardline. As herpers, we are free to talk about whatever we would like here, Gerry, unless of course you can provide me with something from the TOS that prohibits off topic discussion?...
Scott keeps things pretty free and easy here, it's true, and that's one of the reasons many people like it so much. But it's also true - as you know as a longtime forum participant (so you're really just engaging in a bit more game-playing), Chad - that he has repeatedly emphasized that this isn't the place for academic/science/etc.-bashing and he would prefer that people refrain from it here. Likewise a few other disruptive off-topics. Even if you're inclined to ignore the wishes of our host, a much more practical reason for folks to keep their bigotry to themselves is to avoid having so many threads bog down with these fights. And so far as that goes, I'm sure you also know that various other folks suggesting, asking or demanding that I stop condemning anti-intellectual (or other forms of) bigotry when I see them here, or even cursing me liberally for not stopping, aren't going to change what I do one whit. Scott hasn't ever asked folks to refrain from condemning such bigotry when they see it here, and I can't imagine that he's ever going to, either.
chad ks wrote:What I'm curious about, Gerry, is when you're ever going to post up some pics of those scarlet kings or TX lyres that you've worked with.
That's Chihuahuan lyres (Trimorphodon vilkinsonii), as their range covers a lot more ground (and my animals came from) other than a little slice of West TX. I did put some up soon after the Great FHF Crash of 2010, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find most of my pictures for some time, now, and many of those I've been able to find aren't in electronic form. A casualty of too many moves, I'm afraid.

Gerry
chad ks
Posts: 634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:31 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by chad ks »

gbin wrote: Scott keeps things pretty free and easy here, it's true, and that's one of the reasons many people like it so much. But it's also true - as you know as a longtime forum participant (so you're really just engaging in a bit more game-playing), Chad - that he has repeatedly emphasized that this isn't the place for academic/science/etc.-bashing and he would prefer that people refrain from it here. Likewise a few other disruptive off-topics. Even if you're inclined to ignore the wishes of our host, a much more practical reason for folks to keep their bigotry to themselves is to avoid having so many threads bog down with these fights. And so far as that goes, I'm sure you also know that various other folks suggesting, asking or demanding that I stop condemning anti-intellectual (or other forms of) bigotry when I see them here, or even cursing me liberally for not stopping, aren't going to change what I do one whit. Scott hasn't ever asked folks to refrain from condemning such bigotry when they see it here, and I can't imagine that he's ever going to, either.
I think that you exacerbate Frank's academic bashing and emphasize it by involving yourself, but of course you already know this Gerry, so you MUST be playing games! I don't consider what Frank says about academics, that I've seen, to be bigotry and as a matter of fact you seem to confirm his points by matching his behavior in your childish quid pro quo. To me there's no difference between Frank's behavior and yours, other than the delusion that you seem to be under about your duty to protect us all from anti-intellectualism. Although, amusingly enough, the anti-intellectualism that you speak of isn't anti-intellectualism, it's anti-"certain behavior of academics and intellectuals" that you substantiate very well. No one can ever be anti-intellectual without simultaneously being intellectual. That word is a misnomer and you only contribute to it with your nonsense Gerry. I encourage you to continue your campaign because eventually when you and Frank are the only ones left in the sandbox and he leaves to go watch coachwhips do poetry, you'll be the only one left to defend those poor intellectuals against a threat that doesn't exist, lol...

That's Chihuahuan lyres (Trimorphodon vilkinsonii), as their range covers a lot more ground (and my animals came from) other than a little slice of West TX. I did put some up soon after the Great FHF Crash of 2010, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find most of my pictures for some time, now, and many of those I've been able to find aren't in electronic form. A casualty of too many moves, I'm afraid.
Touche. Bummer about your pics!
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by gbin »

I'm sure you'll understand if I ignore rather than respond to your various bogus accusations and other game-playing (even if you act as if you don't), Chad. But you did touch upon something that I suppose might have the occasional person confused about my behavior here, so I suppose I should address it. (I have before, of course, and just as of course you know it, Chad. But I don't believe I have since the crash.)

I believe it is the responsibility of all rational people of good will to decry bigotry wherever they encounter it. Whether the particular form of bigotry is popular (as is anti-intellectualism in America today) or the time/place it arises is inconvenient ("Geez, I really just wanted to read and talk about chuckwallas in FHF today!") makes no difference. And I intend to live up to my responsibility regardless of what anyone else does or doesn't do.

Gerry
chad ks
Posts: 634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:31 pm

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by chad ks »

I believe it is the responsibility of all rational people of good will to decry bigotry wherever they encounter it.
This is good stuff...because it's philosophical to say that someone has a duty. We can talk about this stuff. First of all, where does this duty come from? Do people accept the duty or is it forced upon them? What is an intellectual? Who isn't an intellectual according to you?

You see, Gerry, when you use words like "rational" you need to have an argument for what you think is rational and why in order for me to understand it. So what's your argument about this duty? How is bigotry ethically wrong if no one is harmed by it? Sounds an awful lot like thought crimes and thought control to me Gerry.
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Chuckwalla research in Nevada

Post by hellihooks »

gbin wrote:
I believe it is the responsibility of all rational people of good will to decry bigotry wherever they encounter it. Whether the particular form of bigotry is popular (as is anti-intellectualism in America today) or the time/place it arises is inconvenient ("Geez, I really just wanted to read and talk about chuckwallas in FHF today!") makes no difference. And I intend to live up to my responsibility regardless of what anyone else does or doesn't do.

Gerry
I agree with this stance, and commend you for putting it out there... :thumb: That said, if you better understood the cause of what you percieve as anti-intellectualism (legacy-building) perhaps you would be a little more tolerant, in this instance. Finitude is a bitch, and one we all have to face eventually... :roll: :D jim

Edit... now you've done it... opened the floodgates of philosophical debate... and both of the forum's philosophers onboard... :shock: :lol: :lol: I actually have more pressing matters to attend to, today (those mouse tanks ain't gonna clean themselves... :lol: ) so I'll leave this in Chad's capable scat-casters... :lol: :lol: :lol: jim
Post Reply