Could BPs survive in FL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nixer

as for your supposed expert i highly doubt he has any first hand knowledge with any python species nor does he have the experience with each species to even give any input that would be remotely close to correct other than spewing something he read from some other book.

---

The only reason I quoted him was that he had first hand experience with the BARKERS, and all he did was explain how the paper was biased and what Dave Barker has contributed to other research papers.

Quote:

---

oh yes then you have extereme temps which can be over 100 and less than 50 for prolonged periods. ive had bps that got ri from jsut a little bit too much humidity and i also got it from my heattape going out for a day

but what do i know im no biologist im just a guy with real world observations of actual facts!

---

I actually LOL'ed at your "real world observations"!

Yeah, snakes in completely sterile tubs are completely comparable to snakes in the wild, where bacteria and other nasties you wouldn't want in your tubs thrive around the snakes.

Later, Matt

Matt. Your young, easily impressionable, naive and easily acting your age.

This is why I shall never have children, I am not young enough to know everything. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

Matt. Your young, easily impressionable, naive and easily acting your age.

This is why I shall never have children, I am not young enough to know everything. :rolleyes:

---

Where does this come from?

Funny how you call me easily impressionable when lots of folks on this forum form their opinions from the Barker paper.

But please, do answer my question.

EDIT: On a side note, I'd hate to have me as a kid as well, but not for this reason. :rofl:

Later, Matt

Just because the Burmese did, does not mean the balls would.
They come from two different climates and are two different species. I don't really understand why people keep saying 'well, the burms did, so the balls can too!'. There's absolutely zero logic behind that statement.

Florida is a different terrain and environment all-together from the African Plains. Burmese, IMO, have thrived so well in Florida due to the environment being very similar to their own back in Burma. I also wouldn't doubt that Anacondas would also thrive in Florida environments. Other Boas, not quite as much. I also have heard that people say on this site that they're sure there's one or two Retics down there at least, but I don't really know if that's true or if they had any evidence supporting it... So if there's only a few, it's clear they are not thriving and becoming as well known as the Burms for obvious reasons, even though they are both large species of Python.

I also doubt Ball Pythons would become a dangerous threat to people's lives and their cats and dogs or the environment itself as the Burms have in the Everglades.

Also, are we talking about the Everglades here or all of Florida? People keep saying 'marsh' or 'wetlands' which isn't all of Florida, though it is in fact, a large chunk of it where it would be warm enough for them to survive.

I think these animals are capable of surviving, but I do not think they are capable of thriving and breeding for long periods of time.

Matt, if you need to ask, then you do not understand. ;)

First, let me say that I did not read through each paper in its entirety. I am also not bashing the Barkers. I merely skimmed through each and read a few things here and there, but I feel it was enough to say what I think about the papers. Again, I'm not trying to downplay the work that the Barkers have done, but that is not science. The only paper that even slightly resembles a scientific paper is the one where Reed did the work. None of those would have a chance at being published in a journal after going through the peer reviewing process.

I don't see what Matt's age has to do with any of this, especially since he is the only one on the right track. I personally would never use those papers as a source.

Clearly, my quote is being haphazardly misunderstood.

"I am not young enough to know everything." -Oscar Wilde.

Go ahead everyone, absorb. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SerpentesCiconii

First, let me say that I did not read through each paper in its entirety. I am also not bashing the Barkers. I merely skimmed through each and read a few things here and there, but I feel it was enough to say what I think about the papers. Again, I'm not trying to downplay the work that the Barkers have done, but that is not science. The only paper that even slightly resembles a scientific paper is the one where Reed did the work. None of those would have a chance at being published in a journal after going through the peer reviewing process.

I don't see what Matt's age has to do with any of this, especially since he is the only one on the right track. I personally would never use those papers as a source.

---

I just finished reading all three hyperlinks, and I must say that I agree with you. DutchHerp is not entirely incorrect, and he has some valid arguments. I respect the Barkers, but this couldn't have been their best work.

The sources Kaorte referenced are: a review of the published Burm study, an open letter of correspondance, and a list questions and answers to the public about the burmese problem. Should reviews and open letters be complete complicated scientifice articles up for publishing in scientific journals? I think not.

I would not consider what was referenced a complete scientific article. It is a review, (or a response to), other paper(s) (e.g. By Reed) already published.

Yes, they did have a few references in their notes to support their rebuttals. No, they did not, in turn, do an entire study. I don't feel that the expectation that they do their own study for a rebuttal is expected or required for a peer review.

They should be expected to write a critique and review using common sense, references from known studies and their own experience from working with the animals, like was used in their paper.

Also considering (but should be pointed out again) this was a critique of a published paper up for review, since I fear few will actually read it and understand that fine point; it is correct, this response from them would not be published in most scientific journal, nor do I get the feeling from reading it that it was an attempt to BE published as a concrete scientific paper.

"To summarize our criticisms of this paper, it is a rambling and disjointed attempt to validate general suspicions that imported boas and pythons may become established in feral populations in the United States. As stated by Reed, “A major problem with this type of risk analysis is that it is essentially an untestable hypothesis.” We point out that scientific analysis must be testable, or there is no science. In our opinion this entire paper is essentially a narrative assertion, a subjectively chosen collection of confirming anecdotes. All statements regarding any invasive risk from the 23 taxa used in the analyses should be regarded as invalid. Such recommendations as are made in this paper are the outcome of the narrative and not the result of any statistical analysis or scientific investigation.

Where do you think these "peer reviews" come from? Everyone, just like Dutch Herp, is allowed their own criticisms and opinions. ;)

This seems more of a topic about others' opinions (in general, not necessarily about the opinion that is important) and the Barkers information then it does about the actual original intended post.
In other words, this thread is off topic. Kind of upsetting. If people weren't busy arguing opinions rather than discussing them, this would be a very informative and interesting topic.