Narrow minded or am I asking too much?

So I called a herp hobby shop a bit ago and explained my snake saliva project and asked if he would be willing to let me come swab the mouth of some of his BP's to determine what bacteria are present in the saliva. I explained I've already done this to one of mine and the swab is harmless to the snake, and that mine had E. coli in its saliva. He kinda freaked out saying I need to contact the CDC because of that and thought it was contagious. He first said no to it cause he didn't want to hurt his snakes by breaking a tooth or infecting their mouths, or get them sick because mine "has E. coli". I tried to explain they won't get an infection because it's a sterile swab, it won't pull any teeth, and not all E. coli is pathogenic. He told me he wasn't comfortable with me doing it and to contact a vet or go to Busch Gardens (Tampa), so I apologized that he wasn't willing to help increase the knowledge of BP's. He did invite me to come talk in person and try to explain more, so I may be able to after all.
What do you all think, am I asking too much?

-Rich

Go see him and take some swabs with you and you may get lucky. I dont think you are asking too much...

Go talk to him. Tell him that E. coli is actually very common in the lower digestive track of mammals. You really need to use layman's terms with him. It would benefit you to explain bacteria's role in animals and that it isn't always harmful.

I seems quite reasonable. I might in future just state that you are doing a study of bacterium in Royal's mouths and leave what bacteria out.

While what you're asking seems perfectly reasonable, there's nothing wrong with him saying "No, you can't swab my snakes' mouths."

Think about from his view... where a total stranger calls you up and wants to test your snakes to show that they have E. coli bacteria in their mouths. I sure wouldn't want my business to be known to have snakes that carry E. coli.... bad press. And if you have E. coli, maybe you pass it to MY snakes... then my snakes, me, or family gets sick, because of course E. coli is bad stuff.

The fact that he said you can come talk to him shows he's not "narrow minded" at all. He's thinking of his BUSINESS and his animals first, AS HE SHOULD BE. He doesn't know that you're not some Animal Planet whack job looking to shut down all pet stores or looking to get proof that no one should own snakes, etc.

Go talk to him, show him the swabs, explain how it may be helpful. Because just showing that some/all snakes have E. coli in their mouths is NOT going to be helpful in any way to the common herper... and could be harmful to the hobby. Show him why you want to do this, how it's beneficial. If it's just "Gee, I wanna know", don't expect a ton of help.

Above all else, remember that he doesn't have any obligation to allow you access to his snakes. If he does allow you to take swabs, he's doing YOU a favor.

Everyone realizes, don't they, that humans also have e-coli in their mouths?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Everyone realizes, don't they, that humans also have e-coli in their mouths?

---

Where's my Listerine? :bolt:

I agree with the post above. Don't tell them what you are looking for specifically, only that you are trying to get samples from various sources to make comparisons. After you finish with your BP bacteria study, maybe you could collect sample from other species of snakes and reptiles, and compare them to the Ball Pythons to see if there are any common bacteria or if it is just BP specific...

I agree with what you're hearing from everyone else. Go talk to him in person. Unfortunately, its probably the mention of E Coli that set him off. With all the talk of super bugs these days its easy for people to go into panic mode.

He was already apprehensive about me doing it before I even mentioned the E. coli, and it took me some convincing for him to even invite me to talk in person. I'll admit that this first started off as just curious but after I found nothing about it online I decided to make it an actual project to propose to the academic chair at my school for an undergrad research project. I'm also planning to present what I've found up to that point in a research conference in Oct. After I've completed all of this, I may even try to publish a paper on it.

Teresa, not all E. coli is pathogenic and bad. the strain in their mouth is probably there to start breaking down the food or it could be from the rat, that's what I'm trying to find out. I'm not in any way trying to do anything that would hurt this amazing hobby, and I don't think doing this research would. There is minimal data out there that stops at determining its a gram negative bacteria, but the saliva in cats and dogs have been characterized completely. In fact, I believe this research could actually HELP our hobby! If you compared it to other common domestic house pets and the BP safer compared to other animals then maybe more people would get them.

-Rich

Good luck with your project and publishing your paper. I hope you're able to get his cooperation! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Everyone realizes, don't they, that humans also have e-coli in their mouths?

---

E-coli?

Pffft!


I had a blast scaring people while I was waiting 2 weeks to get my rabies vax.

If they annoyed me, I'd look all crazy and threaten to bite them.

[yeah...weird sense of humor...sue me]

;)

*I* understand about E coli... but he most likely does not.

Again.. if you publish a paper that says that all BPs have E coli in their mouths, how exactly does that help the hobby? DO you think any media will go further to say "And most snake owners don't get sick so it's okay" or will they publish giant glaring headlines "ALL PYTHONS CARRY THE DEADLY E COLI VIRUS!"?

I mean, I don't see the benefit to the hobby to do a scientific paper to prove that E coli is present in BP saliva. I could see it will make a neat paper for you, but saying it'll be good for the hobby is a huge stretch to me.

And again, I understand most E coli is not harmful and it's present all over the place, including in our bodies, blah blah blah. It's the PUBLIC perception of the information that concerns me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

*I* understand about E coli... but he most likely does not.

Again.. if you publish a paper that says that all BPs have E coli in their mouths, how exactly does that help the hobby? DO you think any media will go further to say "And most snake owners don't get sick so it's okay" or will they publish giant glaring headlines "ALL PYTHONS CARRY THE DEADLY E COLI VIRUS!"?

I mean, I don't see the benefit to the hobby to do a scientific paper to prove that E coli is present in BP saliva. I could see it will make a neat paper for you, but saying it'll be good for the hobby is a huge stretch to me.

And again, I understand most E coli is not harmful and it's present all over the place, including in our bodies, blah blah blah. It's the PUBLIC perception of the information that concerns me.

---

This study has already been done a couple of different ways, specifically in ball pythons. I don't remember the results, but I recall they were mainly gram negative bacterium.

What, besides satisfying your curiosity, would be the benefit of this? How would knowing if ecoli is in the mouths of a certain percentage of ball pythons further the hobby?

What school are you going to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

This study has already been done a couple of different ways, specifically in ball pythons. I don't remember the results, but I recall they were mainly gram negative bacterium.

---

Yeah that's what I've found as well, but there are many gram neg bacterium. I don't the information should stop there though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

What, besides satisfying your curiosity, would be the benefit of this? How would knowing if ecoli is in the mouths of a certain percentage of ball pythons further the hobby?

What school are you going to?

---

Do you know how much bacterium are in a cats mouth? It's easy research to figure it out and they have a LOT more bacterium to worry about yet are still highly popular. pasturella bacteria is the one that usually causes infections if a person is bitten, other infections caused by Cat bites:
Pasteurella
Actinomyces
Propionibacterium
Bacteroides
Fusobacterium
Clostridium
Wolinella
Peptostreptococcus
Staphylococcus
Streptococcus
Bartonella is on cat paws and fur, therefore it enters the skin with scratches. Hence the name cat scratch fever, not cat bite fever.

It's about knowledge and understanding. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to know as much as they can about something the love to do! If you knew all the risks inherent of BP ownership, do you not agree that it would be an extra tool to educate others to know what they would get into and how much safer they are compared to other pets? I've only characterized the saliva of one BP, that doesn't mean every BP will have E. coli. It's also good to find out if it could be pathogenic to humans or if it's only to help break down their prey. Also it may be able to help determine if there are things that can be done to help decrease the health risks of our beloved pets.

I go to St. Petersburg College, in their biology baccalaureate program. I'm not trying to become a herpetologist though, my goal is to be a physicians assistant in an infectious disease dept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by covah-pariah

Do you know how much bacterium are in a cats mouth? It's easy research to figure it out and they have a LOT more bacterium to worry about yet are still highly popular. pasturella bacteria is the one that usually causes infections if a person is bitten, other infections caused by Cat bites:
Pasteurella
Actinomyces
Propionibacterium
Bacteroides
Fusobacterium
Clostridium
Wolinella
Peptostreptococcus
Staphylococcus
Streptococcus
Bartonella is on cat paws and fur, therefore it enters the skin with scratches. Hence the name cat scratch fever, not cat bite fever.

It's about knowledge and understanding. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to know as much as they can about something the love to do! If you knew all the risks inherent of BP ownership, do you not agree that it would be an extra tool to educate others to know what they would get into and how much safer they are compared to other pets? I've only characterized the saliva of one BP, that doesn't mean every BP will have E. coli. It's also good to find out if it could be pathogenic to humans or if it's only to help break down their prey. Also it may be able to help determine if there are things that can be done to help decrease the health risks of our beloved pets.

I go to St. Petersburg College, in their biology baccalaureate program. I'm not trying to become a herpetologist though, my goal is to be a physicians assistant in an infectious disease dept.

---

No, I do not agree with this statement. I think that anyone who wants a ball python is going to get one regardless of how the bacteria in their mouth is classified. The general public either does not have the knowledge base or simply doesn't care about if the bacteria in an animal's mouth is good or bad (as pointed out by the multitude of bacteria in cats' mouths.) HSUS and others would care very much about a study and you can bet such a study would be included in their talking points to ban exotic animals, of course with the designation of harmless conveniently left out. So, such a study would be helpful but to those trying to ban exotics.

There's also nothing wrong with someone refusing to let you swab their animals. It doesn't make them narrow minded or exhibit ignorance of what you are trying to do. I have a degree in Biology, as well as several published papers, and would never let anyone experiment with my personal collection, even just collecting saliva samples.

If you really think that it's mainly harmless bacterias... why would you jump up to start saying E coli? The fact is that you're curious and want to satisfy that curiosity... but it's not going to further the hobby in any way, and could prove harmful to the hobby if the study is used by AR groups, without using the parts that say why it's probably harmless.

To say that someone is narrow minded and doesn't want to further the hobby just because they don't think that proving BPs have E coli in their mouths is really arrogant. The studies that state that cats carry all the bad stuff in their mouths, the illnesses that can occur from cats will be used soon enough. The AR/HSUS/PETA are focusing first on less mainstream pets. They'll get to cats and dogs soon enough, after all, they're already working on eliminating dogs. They've been working on cats as well, with the huge push that every cat should be sterilized because of that ridiculous "one cat can become 2 billion" claim(I know it's not 2 billion, but it's similarly ridiculous in numbers).

Again, I'm sure the paper would be cool scholastically... and you'd probably enjoy working on it... but to say it's going to help the hobby is erroneous in my opinion. I feel it would hurt the hobby.

I can see a lot of not so good in this and a small amount of good but for what.

What I don't see is anything positive.

People have been keeping and being bitten by Ball Pythons for more than 40 years. I don't know of anyone ever anywhere that has had anything other than an embarrassing story and a few moments of surprise and a bit of a sting come of it.

You seem a rather single minded individual whose focus is on bacteria. That's cool. The rationals and reasoning behind this snake related curiosity that you are using are faulty. For the general hobbyist your work has no relevance that is not already well documented. If you're looking to reproduce what has been done, then I suppose you're on the right track. If you're looking to pioneer, you might want to see what your destination is before you board your train.

He was worried about E.coli? :rofl:

Better tell him to live in a bubble, 'cause that little bugger (yes, even the "harmful" strains) is EVERYWHERE. Literally. Everywhere. You swab it, you'll find it. I'd be more surprised at a result that _doesn't_ yield E.coli. Hah!

Oh the things that will frighten people...ooo! Ooo! Here's what you should do: convince him of the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide!!!

Hrmph, your sweet little poochy friend can carry flesh-eating bacteria in it's mouth with no problem....yes, Ms. "I want to take my sweet little purse-dog into the grocery store with me and let it lick things", I'm talking to YOU!

I'd be interested purely from a curiosity standpoint what pythons have growing in their mouths/guts in general. Considering the type of things they eat (whole animals) it might provide some insight into either their immune systems or perhaps participatory microflora that aids in digestion (although for that you'll need to sample from the other end). A better understanding of the general digestion/immune system of ball pythons couldn't hurt.

And there's no stopping the mindless knee-jerk media rampage. I had a friend who published a study on a certain protein that was involved in SARS transmission, and the media got a hold of it and published front-page articles to the effect of "ZOMG! SCIENTIST FINDS CURE FOR SARS!!!!!", and got her name and the name of the protein confused. :rolleyes:

You're asking too much....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

I can see a lot of not so good in this and a small amount of good but for what.

What I don't see is anything positive.

People have been keeping and being bitten by Ball Pythons for more than 40 years. I don't know of anyone ever anywhere that has had anything other than an embarrassing story and a few moments of surprise and a bit of a sting come of it.

You seem a rather single minded individual whose focus is on bacteria. That's cool. The rationals and reasoning behind this snake related curiosity that you are using are faulty. For the general hobbyist your work has no relevance that is not already well documented. If you're looking to reproduce what has been done, then I suppose you're on the right track. If you're looking to pioneer, you might want to see what your destination is before you board your train.

---

I do agree with this, and that the angle you're taking might not be the most novel/beneficial. You need to ask, what is the significance/impact of your research? What knowledge will be gained from it? Simply culturing and identifying the bacteria that grows in a ball python's mouth in order to educate the general public is perhaps noble, but ultimately fruitless. As you've pointed out with cats, and has been done with dogs, they harbor all kinds of pathogens in their mouths but the public either 1) ignores it or 2) takes it the wrong way. You'd be far better taking an approach to educate the public about microbiology and pathogens in general.

I don't think the research itself is uninteresting (see my previous post), but you need to frame it in a different context. Such as, what do we know about ball python digestion and immune systems? Given that they metabolize whole animals, this is a potentially interesting subject, and approaching an owner with that angle "I would like to investigate aspects of ball python digestion, here's what's known in the field ___blank___, here's what's not ___blank___, and here's what I would like to find out ___blank___." might get you a better reception than "I want to find out what's growing in their mouths." and sparking undue panic.

But, you need 1) a hypothesis 2) rationale 3) protocols 4) a way of analyzing and presenting the data in such a way that benefits the field without unduly scaring the general public (always a fun line to walk). As you've seen from the reactions here, most people are not going to be very accommodating of your approach. And while the owner's reaction to E.coli was perhaps....not grounded in science, he does have every right to refuse your request. It is your duty to convince/reassure people that your work is important, if they refuse, then you've most likely failed to do that.

AND if the public refuses your request, you need to thank them anyway for their time and consideration. Don't burn any bridge you don't have to. Who knows, at a later date he could be one to help you out in some major way in a different study. Keep every reptile relationship you can possible cultivate, even if the person isn't "useful" to you right then.

I think your request is fairly harmless, however, I would not let you swab any of the snakes in my collection. I understand the swab is sterile, but I see no need to stress my animals for a study that doesn't seem very necessary.

In addition, while I may trust you as a fellow snake keeper, and as a fellow member of BP.net, and as a human being in general, that does not mean I would trust you with my snakes. Nothing personal, just business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by covah-pariah

So I called a herp hobby shop a bit ago and explained my snake saliva project and asked if he would be willing to let me come swab the mouth of some of his BP's to determine what bacteria are present in the saliva. I explained I've already done this to one of mine and the swab is harmless to the snake, and that mine had E. coli in its saliva. He kinda freaked out saying I need to contact the CDC because of that and thought it was contagious. He first said no to it cause he didn't want to hurt his snakes by breaking a tooth or infecting their mouths, or get them sick because mine "has E. coli". I tried to explain they won't get an infection because it's a sterile swab, it won't pull any teeth, and not all E. coli is pathogenic. He told me he wasn't comfortable with me doing it and to contact a vet or go to Busch Gardens (Tampa), so I apologized that he wasn't willing to help increase the knowledge of BP's. He did invite me to come talk in person and try to explain more, so I may be able to after all.
What do you all think, am I asking too much?

-Rich

---

Hey man, as a researcher myself, people are so often paranoid about the most trivial things to us. Its important to explain to people in layman's terms and try to relay the important implications your study has on him and or society. I do HIV research, and it can be DIFFICULT to get people to understand it's importance due to the fears associated with simply being inexperienced and unknowledgable about the research process. It is what it is...

Oh my, I don't even know where to start here. As a Wildlife Reseach and Managment major I completely see the merits of this. Many of you are not seeming to understand why he is doing this. Not all research is aimed at creating something new or figuring out a new way to do something. A large portion of research done with wildlife (captive or not) is done for knowledge sake. We might not need to know it now, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be helpful in the future.

ex. Someone has a BP with digestive symptoms that haven't been seen before. When a culture is done it would be helpful to know what gut flora belong and what could be causing the problem.


I can't see something like this causing harm to the hobby at all. Do you reallly think the kind of people who don't know enough about E. coli to know that it is inside their own bodies are the kind of people who will be reading the science journals something like this would be published in?

OP, I think that as long as you explain it to him and respect his wishes you are in the clear. Make sure to take down what type of prey the eat (f/t, live) because that too may make a difference.

And please don't let people who don't understand or see value in research deter you.

I think as someone you wish to do research you need to be able to take NO for an answer and this does not mean the person in question is narrow minded.

I can tell you if you contact me I would say no too for various reasons.

This industry is under a lot of scrutiny, your intention might be noble however who is to say that your research could not be used to portray reptiles in an even more negative way. Such a research could support yet another point on why people should not own reptiles and why people are at risks. (thought not like if they don't have scientific datas they won't make some up either :rolleyes:)

Will this industry or snake owner benefit from this research? NO people have been keeping reptiles in captives for decades and I am pretty sure this is not a concern of their to know what bacteria are present in their snake's saliva. (I know it's not on my mind)

Could it pour more oil on the fire? Yes

So yeah you are asking too much but to understand that you need to understand this hobby/industry.

Now no one will stop you from swabbing your own snakes if that's what you want to do however not sure anyone will volunteer theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

Oh my, I don't even know where to start here. As a Wildlife Reseach and Managment major I completely see the merits of this. Many of you are not seeming to understand why he is doing this. Not all research is aimed at creating something new or figuring out a new way to do something. A large portion of research done with wildlife (captive or not) is done for knowledge sake. We might not need to know it now, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be helpful in the future.

ex. Someone has a BP with digestive symptoms that haven't been seen before. When a culture is done it would be helpful to know what gut flora belong and what could be causing the problem.


I can't see something like this causing harm to the hobby at all. Do you reallly think the kind of people who don't know enough about E. coli to know that it is inside their own bodies are the kind of people who will be reading the science journals something like this would be published in?

OP, I think that as long as you explain it to him and respect his wishes you are in the clear. Make sure to take down what type of prey the eat (f/t, live) because that too may make a difference.

And please don't let people who don't understand or see value in research deter you.

---

Many people here understand the value of research and disagree with your conclusion. It doesn't mean we do not understand the experiment.

I have worked in 3 separate animal laboratories. I have witnessed animals tortured in ways that would make your stomache turn just for the abstract goal of knowledge "done for knowledge sake"... and of course the grant money. Obviously, the OP isn't planning any such experiment (say involving covering rats in thousands of ticks and watching them slowly die or intubating rats without pain meds for weeks at time until they die or ....) but, like others have said, it's a little far fetched to that this experiment is going to push the bounds of what we know. There's nothing wrong with asking someone for help (using their BPs) but there's equally nothing wrong with that person saying NO.

Quote:

---

Many of you are not seeming to understand why he is doing this.

---

You seem to not understand that we get it but don't see why a private individual should feel in any way, shape, or form obligated to expose his private property for an experiment that has the possibility to provide the ammunition to have said colony later forcibly removed by the state. We just had HSUS lobbying hard in our state capital to ban exotics. Due to certain awesome individuals, the vote has been tabled for another year. HSUS is still working hard on key congressmen and would love to have a published study like this.

Absolutely. Just because I do not AGREE with you does not in any way mean I don't UNDERSTAND. It means I disagree. It always peeves me when someone decides to act as if they are so much above others.

I understand why he likes the idea. I understand how the research would be done. I understand that the bacteria is obviously not harmful. I disagree that the study will be beneficial to the hobby, and highly feel that it could be harmful in the PR media area.

If you think that HSUS doesn't use scientific studies as ammunition, perhaps you have not been paying attention to what they are using to ban the "giant" pythons importation.

Not trying to be insulting, but your tone comes across as "Oh, it's just that they aren't intelligent enough to understand us scientific smart people" and that is unlikely to garner support.

edit: in response to the post by mackynz Others posted in between.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

Oh my, I don't even know where to start here. As a Wildlife Reseach and Managment major I completely see the merits of this. Many of you are not seeming to understand why he is doing this. Not all research is aimed at creating something new or figuring out a new way to do something. A large portion of research done with wildlife (captive or not) is done for knowledge sake. We might not need to know it now, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be helpful in the future.

ex. Someone has a BP with digestive symptoms that haven't been seen before. When a culture is done it would be helpful to know what gut flora belong and what could be causing the problem.


I can't see something like this causing harm to the hobby at all. Do you reallly think the kind of people who don't know enough about E. coli to know that it is inside their own bodies are the kind of people who will be reading the science journals something like this would be published in?

OP, I think that as long as you explain it to him and respect his wishes you are in the clear. Make sure to take down what type of prey the eat (f/t, live) because that too may make a difference.

And please don't let people who don't understand or see value in research deter you.

---

Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsychD_Student

It is what it is...

---

Until you decide it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

And please don't let people who don't understand or see value in research deter you.

---

Yes, by all means, do not let those who have been keeping and breeding and studying, monitoring, experimenting with, collaborating about, researching for years both in person and by whatever means technology has made available, sway you from this mission of bacterial information made solely for the benefit of those not possessing of the wherewithall to understand its importance. Of a certainty, pay attention to those who have yet to dry their chins of momma's milk, those with such worldly experience, with knowledge not allowed to we who are merely mortal, yes, please, do as they say. After all, if you've been on this planet fifteen or twenty or maybe twenty-five years, surely by then you must know better than those who have managed to survive two or three times that; could it be otherwise? I for one, say nay.

Be pushy and demanding and be sure to BCC hsus and peta, they'll be overjoyed at the work you're doing for them, assuming, of course, that you are not even now in their employ. The world needs to know what bacterias are swimming in the oral cavities of snakes kept by, at best, a few thousand weirdos. There is no point at all in your attempting to research in an area, such as cats or dogs, where such knowledge would not only, if comprehension were possible by the typical keeper, stun, but scare the bejeesus out of the poor unsuspecting poop collectors. Of course that, like this oddly enough, has already been done. But hey, mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery and if you've got a hankerin' to do some flatterin', well, I'm not the one to tell you no. I'm sure your friend with all the worldly experience and the intelligence that makes a poor mongrel like me just look like he couldn't velcro his shoes without pictograms, would agree. Ya know?

So Gosh Bloody Darn It, you just go right on and repeat what's been done and don't give a thought to the possible negative consequences, they won't affect you anyhow and besides, aren't you really, truly, just trying to do your neighbor a favor. And, maybe, get your name out there a bit? It's a shame there aren't more good people like you out there looking out for those of us who just don't understand the importance of your research, or re-research since it's already been done I suppose, but hey, maybe you'll find something new....

I smell fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsychD_Student

I do HIV research, and it can be DIFFICULT to get people to understand it's importance due to the fears associated with simply being inexperienced and unknowledgable about the research process. It is what it is...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

And please don't let people who don't understand or see value in research deter you.

---

So in a grant application, if you fail to explain the significance and impact of your work it is the failure of the (highly experienced) review committee to "understand" the work?

Scientists have a responsibility to ensure that their work is communicated effectively, clearly, and efficiently to the media and to the general public.

Failure of the public to understand is our failure. Failure to communicate to the media is our failure. Simply hiding behind the excuse of "they just don't understand" is NO excuse. We may not be very good at social communication and interaction, but the public are the ones funding our research. It is our duty to explain it to them so that they DO understand. Blame the media and the school systems all you want, but the failure to demonstrate and explain the importance and impact of your work rests with you and you alone.

Here is your peer review: Just look at the reactions here if you want to see what the "general public" thinks of scientists who perch atop their ivory tower, eyeing their bread-and-butter with contempt. If you cannot convince people why your work should be done and what benefit could be gained from it, either there is no benefit to be gained or you're doing it wrong. But never take the approach of "they won't understand, so I just won't explain it to them". That takes the road of going nowhere fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

Until you decide it isn't.



Yes, by all means, do not let those who have been keeping and breeding and studying, monitoring, experimenting with, collaborating about, researching for years both in person and by whatever means technology has made available, sway you from this mission of bacterial information made solely for the benefit of those not possessing of the wherewithall to understand its importance. Of a certainty, pay attention to those who have yet to dry their chins of momma's milk, those with such worldly experience, with knowledge not allowed to we who are merely mortal, yes, please, do as they say. After all, if you've been on this planet fifteen or twenty or maybe twenty-five years, surely by then you must know better than those who have managed to survive two or three times that; could it be otherwise? I for one, say nay.

Be pushy and demanding and be sure to BCC hsus and peta, they'll be overjoyed at the work you're doing for them, assuming, of course, that you are not even now in their employ. The world needs to know what bacterias are swimming in the oral cavities of snakes kept by, at best, a few thousand weirdos. There is no point at all in your attempting to research in an area, such as cats or dogs, where such knowledge would not only, if comprehension were possible by the typical keeper, stun, but scare the bejeesus out of the poor unsuspecting poop collectors. Of course that, like this oddly enough, has already been done. But hey, mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery and if you've got a hankerin' to do some flatterin', well, I'm not the one to tell you no. I'm sure your friend with all the worldly experience and the intelligence that makes a poor mongrel like me just look like he couldn't velcro his shoes without pictograms, would agree. Ya know?

So Gosh Bloody Darn It, you just go right on and repeat what's been done and don't give a thought to the possible negative consequences, they won't affect you anyhow and besides, aren't you really, truly, just trying to do your neighbor a favor. And, maybe, get your name out there a bit? It's a shame there aren't more good people like you out there looking out for those of us who just don't understand the importance of your research, or re-research since it's already been done I suppose, but hey, maybe you'll find something new....

I smell fish.

---

You haven't heard of replication have you? In the scientific world things are not accepted after a handful of studies. Results should be able to be duplicated, that is how things are proven.

You seem to be confused, the relationship between intelligence and age is not fixed. You do not automatically gain wisdom as you age. Could a 30 year old be smarter than a 70 year old? Absolutely. Just as without a doubt I know things that you do not. And undoubtedly you know things that I don't. Surviving in this world, being 2 or 3 times older than me doesn't mean you are intelligent to have survived that long. You can be functionally retarded and survive that long.

One of my professors did her PHD work on the eating habits of flying squirrels during hibernation. There was no point to it. It didn't benefit us. But if we don't try to learn new things then nothing will ever advance.

You sound like the Church in 500 A.D.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmNomNom

Scientists have a responsibility to ensure that their work is communicated effectively, clearly, and efficiently to the media and to the general public.

Failure of the public to understand is our failure. Failure to communicate to the media is our failure. Simply hiding behind the excuse of "they just don't understand" is NO excuse. We may not be very good at social communication and interaction, but the public are the ones funding our research. It is our duty to explain it to them so that they DO understand. Blame the media and the school systems all you want, but the failure to demonstrate and explain the importance and impact of your work rests with you and you alone.

---

Right, it's the job of the theoretical physicist to dumb down his new paper on String Theory so we can understand it. We should expect the scientists to spoon feed us their results rather than educating ourselves. Makes perfect sense.

If I want to know more about something I will learn more about it. I don't expect someone to teach me. They are researchers, not teachers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

I smell fish.

---

This is the problem. This is a political issue, one of which is highly emotional. Individuals can have an emotional reaction that prevents them from seeing the perspective of someone else. Emotionally evocative subjects can also prevent people from even learning more about the opposite side's point of view. Discussions about these sensitive topics may even reinforce their views by simply hearing points from the other side.

However, I believe that information is never the problem. It's how people use the information. The same material can be used for different purposes, such as his research could be used by some people to suggest that it because BPs have bacteria in their mouths, then they must be dangerous. However, the counterargument can explain so do cats and ferrets, yet we keep those as pets-- among a million other counter arguments that could be made against this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmNomNom

So in a grant application, if you fail to explain the significance and impact of your work it is the failure of the (highly experienced) review committee to "understand" the work?

Scientists have a responsibility to ensure that their work is communicated effectively, clearly, and efficiently to the media and to the general public.

---

Well, when I'm writing my proposal for the university's Internal Review Board or a grant proposal to the NIH, I am writing to colleagues, not laypersons. Therefore, if they weren't seeing the positive implications of the research clearly laid out, then they may have a personal problem with the topic. Which is when politics comes into play. The inherently political nature of information and how it can be used, in addition to individual's political agendas, can highly affect the approval of research. So researchers aren't different than non-researchers when it comes to political agendas.

What I am saying is chill out. If you're not a researcher, then you probably dont understand the research process, which includes the implications of research. Just like I don't know how to perform surgery, which stocks are the best to purchase in 2012, or how to run a school district. Those aren't in my area of expertise.

You instantly focus on the negative aspect, and ignore any possible beneficial information that can be gained from research. Please do not talk down to me because you had an emotional reaction to a topic on a forum. His research, regardless of how much you believe may cause harm, can be VERY beneficial in many applied fields. You never know until you conduct it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

You sound like the Church in 500 A.D.

If I want to know more about something I will learn more about it. I don't expect someone to teach me. They are researchers, not teachers.

---

Right! If you have a problem with the research, regardless of the reason (political, naiveté, or indifference) then don't participate. But I think it's more that you're not willing to listen and open your mind to learn about why this research is important and how it can help you as an individual. I find thats often the reason for not participating in research on hot topics.

I don't know about you guys, but I want to know as much as I can about my babies in my rack system!

AHAHAhahahahaaHAHAHAHAhahahaahAHAHAHAhahahahahaAHHAHAHAHAhahahaha

HOOOOOWHEEE, thanks for the laughs kids.

You youngfolks ASSume so very much.

I'll take the same road you're on there, birght one. You can't understand what I'm trying to convey to you. I understand that and if I were so moved, politics and religion, of which I practice neither, aside, I could dumb it down enough for you to understand.

But, I've been around long enough, seen enough bigass heads in my time, to know that even when you DID understand, were I to be successful in my edumacational undertakings in your enlightenment, you would, I think, feign continued ignorance the source of which could be none other than myself.

So, the two of you have fun redoing what's been done and patting each other on the humps, er backs, because as has become pretty obvious to me, I'm outclassed in every way here.

TTFN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsychD_Student

Well, when I'm writing my proposal for the university's Internal Review Board or a grant proposal to the NIH, I am writing to colleagues, not laypersons. Therefore, if they weren't seeing the positive implications of the research clearly laid out, then they may have a personal problem with the topic. Which is when politics comes into play. The inherently political nature of information and how it can be used, in addition to individual's political agendas, can highly affect the approval of research. So researchers aren't different than non-researchers when it comes to political agendas.

---

In some cases, you are right, there are highly political agendas to your grant not getting reviewed favorably. However, in the majority of cases, it's likely something you didn't explain very well.

And both as a disclaimer and an example, I am totally guilty of doing the exact same thing I'm arguing the OP should not do. Don't get me wrong, it's easy to do. Getting so carried away in the research for research's sake that I completely forget to explain the significance of it to people. It should be so obvious? Right? Wrong.

I was writing a large grant on a new technique that I was extremely excited about, found deeply fascinating and wrote a detailed proposal about utilizing it to study a particular protein of interest, and submitted it to my colleagues to get feedback. And, keep in mind, these are people who like me, who want me to succeed, and have no political agenda towards me or my proposal. They hated it. The technique being novel and new and that no one had done it before and it should be done meant absolute bupkiss to them. I had gotten so carried away in doing this one thing because *I* thought it would be incredibly interesting that I forgot to make it relevant to anyone else. A review panel would have eaten me alive.

So on the one hand, it's good the OP is getting feedback to his approach. And it's one thing to convince a bunch of scientists to do "research for research's sake", because hey, it's your career. Sink or swim. But it's an entirely different thing to go up to non-scientists and say "I want to do SCIENCE, let me use your precious animals and never-you-mind the reason." In that case, you better believe it's your responsibility to explain the "research process", significance, or whatever the hell else they may ask.

If nothing else, talking with the "general public" is good experience, and I wholeheartedly disagree that it's not your job to do so. Carl Sagan was generally regarded with disdain (edit: by scientists) for his attempts and outreach to the public, but look how much inspiration and knowledge he ultimately DID bring to the "lay person". That's how it should be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmNomNom

In some cases, you are right, there are highly political agendas to your grant not getting reviewed favorably. However, in the majority of cases, it's likely something you didn't explain very well.

And both as a disclaimer and an example, I am totally guilty of doing the exact same thing I'm arguing the OP should not do. Don't get me wrong, it's easy to do. Getting so carried away in the research for research's sake that I completely forget to explain the significance of it to people. It should be so obvious? Right? Wrong.

I was writing a large grant on a new technique that I was extremely excited about, found deeply fascinating and wrote a detailed proposal about utilizing it to study a particular protein of interest, and submitted it to my colleagues to get feedback. And, keep in mind, these are people who like me, who want me to succeed, and have no political agenda towards me or my proposal. They hated it. The technique being novel and new and that no one had done it before and it should be done meant absolute bupkiss to them. I had gotten so carried away in doing this one thing because *I* thought it would be incredibly interesting that I forgot to make it relevant to anyone else. A review panel would have eaten me alive.

So on the one hand, it's good the OP is getting feedback to his approach. And it's one thing to convince a bunch of scientists to do "research for research's sake", because hey, it's your career. Sink or swim. But it's an entirely different thing to go up to non-scientists and say "I want to do SCIENCE, let me use your precious animals and never-you-mind the reason." In that case, you better believe it's your responsibility to explain the "research process", significance, or whatever the hell else they may ask.

If nothing else, talking with the "general public" is good experience, and I wholeheartedly disagree that it's not your job to do so. Carl Sagan was generally regarded with disdain (edit: by scientists) for his attempts and outreach to the public, but look how much inspiration and knowledge he ultimately DID bring to the "lay person". That's how it should be done.

---

You seem to be forgetting, or missing on purpose, the fact that there is NOTHING new in the research this guy wants to do. Sort of like apples and cumquats, neh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

You seem to be forgetting, or missing on purpose, the fact that there is NOTHING new in the research this guy wants to do. Sort of like apples and cumquats, neh?

---

You still seem to be failing to grasp that repetition cements findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

AHAHAhahahahaaHAHAHAHAhahahaahAHAHAHAhahahahahaAHHAHAHAHAhahahaha

HOOOOOWHEEE, thanks for the laughs kids.

You youngfolks ASSume so very much.

I'll take the same road you're on there, birght one. You can't understand what I'm trying to convey to you. I understand that and if I were so moved, politics and religion, of which I practice neither, aside, I could dumb it down enough for you to understand.

But, I've been around long enough, seen enough bigass heads in my time, to know that even when you DID understand, were I to be successful in my edumacational undertakings in your enlightenment, you would, I think, feign continued ignorance the source of which could be none other than myself.

So, the two of you have fun redoing what's been done and patting each other on the humps, er backs, because as has become pretty obvious to me, I'm outclassed in every way here.

TTFN

---

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you were too busy looking through a thesaurus for every word in your post. :rofl:

The Church reference was to the Dark Ages since that apparently went over your head. You see in the Dark Ages Man made very little forward progress. The reason we are where we are today, have the technologies, medicines and knowledge that we do is because we did research because we could.

I love how older generations get defensive about "youngsters" thinking they know more than they do. None of us were saying that as I pointed out in my post. But yog-sothoth forbid you feel your intelligence is called into it then we all have to listen to how wise you have become with age.

Like I said I am certain you know things I don't and I am also certain I know things you don't. Does the number of times the Earth has revolved around the Sun factor into that? No, no it doesn't.

But by all means, continue on O sage one. Unless it is your bed time, you know, being so much older than me and "surviving" this long. I would imagine you are tired.

The fact of the matter is... you guys decide that you want to do research and use OUR(the public) animals to further your research, have it pointed out how it could negatively affect the hobby, AFTER you speak condescendingly of the person who (rightfully) refused you access to HIS animals.

To stretch the insulting to anyone who would refuse you the access to their animals, other "researchers" decide to chime in to call people ignorant and unintelligent because we(the general public) just "don't understand" how research works. You ignore the FACT that the AR groups have already used research projects against us to get laws passed. You further ignored people who said the process would stress their animals out for no benefit to them. You also ignore the fact that the original argument of "Well we should know what's in the animals because what if..." is invalidated by the FACT that the studies have already been done. You continue to insinuate that anyone who doesn't allow you to do whatever you like or dares to say it's a bad idea is simply too stupid to understand that research is ALWAYS a great thing.

This is surely to path to getting a ton of assistance in your work.

Again, people have pointed out WHY it wouldn't be helpful, WHY it would be harmful to the hobby, but your arguments are that it's research for research's sake so it's noble and great and we peons just wouldn't ever understand you bigheaded smart sciency type folks. I'll remind you, you have no idea what sort of people are here, posting as lovers of herps, not as whatever life has shaped them into. Some of the folks on here would probably surprise you with what they do in life, what they've learned and what they know. You don't automatically gain knowledge or wisdom with age, but you surely gain a lot of experience when you're out in life.

Folks on here have been surpassingly polite about "No thanks, I wouldn't be interested either" and beyond patient in attempting to explain "This could be a very bad idea for the hobby". Myself... after listening to the 'scientists' on this thread, I have no desire to accommodate ANY study or research regarding my animals ever. If this is how scientists think of 'us, the general public', then I have no desire to assist them in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

You seem to be forgetting, or missing on purpose, the fact that there is NOTHING new in the research this guy wants to do. Sort of like apples and cumquats, neh?

---

Well, not exactly, I'm just not sure _what_ he wants to do. Which is why I've been emphasizing to the OP at least, that he needs to have a specific plan and rationale, and demonstrate that what he's doing actually will bring something new to the field. I agree if all he's proposing is to characterize bacteria in their mouths then it's not very novel. I was trying to encourage him to come up with a more descriptive proposal that _would_ have some benefit.

The aside arguments about the responsibility of scientists to be, well, responsible are just asides.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Myself... after listening to the 'scientists' on this thread, I have no desire to accommodate ANY study or research regarding my animals ever. If this is how scientists think of 'us, the general public', then I have no desire to assist them in any way.

---

:tears:

*raises hand*

I don't think that way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.

---

Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.
Several studies have already been done on the normal mouth/esophagus bacterial flora of ball pythons.

So.......you are not breaking new ground here, you're not even repeating ONE study (I've seen at least three), so what are you even asking?

Let me ask you this: when a vet does a trans tracheal wash to look for a bacterial RI, how do they know what normal flora is if this information isn't already widely available?

I don't think anyone was claiming to be a scientist. No one is trying to make anyone hand over their animals for study. They only asked. And the fear that this would give cause to damage the hobby because E. coli is scary then I strongly encourage you to read up on what is lurking on your keyboard right now, your cellphone, door handles, any living thing in your house, the air you are breathing. All of it full of dangerous microbes with the potential to kill. All of it documented. We don't outlaw cats for carrying germs. If we outlawed everything that had the potential to harm us we would all be dead. If you think they would try to outlaw BPs for having E. coli in their mouths then I think they have some bigger problems to tackle first. Like cows, they're just chock full of E. coli, yet I have easy access to their meat. So they would first be working on outlawing these deadly organisms in our grocery stores before focusing down on a select group.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

So.......you are not breaking new ground here, you're not even repeating ONE study (I've seen at least three), so what are you even asking?

Let me ask you this: when a vet does a trans tracheal wash to look for a bacterial RI, how do they know what normal flora is if this information isn't already widely available?

---

If it is so widely available and at least 3 studies have been done could you link me to them? It shouldn't be too much of a bother to find them since they are so widely available. It's just that I can only seem to find one.

Did you actually read any responses?

Do you really think anyone here DOESN'T know that all the bacteria exists already? We're not talking about us, we're talking about what the AR groups are going to rush to the media to twist up to throw at the public.

Salmonella exists EVERYWHERE. Yet when a report that salmonella is "insert product, place, critter, whatever" there's a huge amount of fuss that it's dangerous, 'think of the CHILDREN!' and the public thinks that the product/place/whatever is MORE dangerous than before. You're talking about E coli, which is a form of bacteria that has put numerous people in hospital and killed folks. It doesn't matter that 99% of E coli is perfectly harmless. It's the title in the news. It's the public perception that a SCIENTIFIC paper proved that nasty slimy snakes carry E coli and will make everyone sick and remember all those turtles that made everyone sick and won't anyone think of the CHILDREN?

Somehow you think that because studies exist that say cats have nasty mouths that it means that you can do another study proving how filthy snake mouths are and it won't affect snakes because.... what? Because the 30 million fuzzy kitty lovers/owners will also love snakes so much that they'll equate a snake's dirty mouth with their fuzzy lovey cutey kitty?

Since other studies already exist, why add to them? Since vets(good herp vets) culture mouth swabs to check for infection/issues.. I'd think that they know approximately what's okay to be in there, what's not okay and how amounts of each should be found. Otherwise, they're staring into a microscope at confusion and throwing a dart at a board as to what they should treat, right?

Next up, you'll be convinced us about how we should totally pair up with HSUS/PETA because they could tons of good because they save pets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

I don't think anyone was claiming to be a scientist. No one is trying to make anyone hand over their animals for study. They only asked. And the fear that this would give cause to damage the hobby because E. coli is scary then I strongly encourage you to read up on what is lurking on your keyboard right now, your cellphone, door handles, any living thing in your house, the air you are breathing. All of it full of dangerous microbes with the potential to kill. All of it documented. We don't outlaw cats for carrying germs. If we outlawed everything that had the potential to harm us we would all be dead. If you think they would try to outlaw BPs for having E. coli in their mouths then I think they have some bigger problems to tackle first. Like cows, they're just chock full of E. coli, yet I have easy access to their meat. So they would first be working on outlawing these deadly organisms in our grocery stores before focusing down on a select group.

---

Seems to me that you are not grasping what has been going on those past couple of years, cat owners do not have a target on their back (well not yet) snake owners do because right now they are HSUS easiest target. Right now in case you are not aware there are people who want to take away your right to own reptiles, no one want to take away your phone or your keyboard :rolleyes:

You are comparing apple and oranges here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

If it is so widely available and at least 3 studies have been done could you link me to them? It shouldn't be too much of a bother to find them since they are so widely available. It's just that I can only seem to find one.

---

Right?


This is the deal. If I was doing something similar to the original poster, would I use BPs from people's personal collections? No. That wouldn't hold much internal validity due to the high variability in environmental conditions between specimens. I would be getting a decent sized sample of ball pythons in order to have as much control as possible in the study. All these cantankerous folks should relax. No one is attacking your intelligence, nor are they trying to take away your reptiles--- except the USFWS. The fact that you're so defensive and aggressive is kind of baffling.

Now the individual asking about these is most likely not someone with funding, and may even be an undergraduate student. If that is the situation, I can empathize on the limited resources available for a study as an undergrad and can see the reasoning behind searching for sample specimens from community volunteers. OF COURSE these proposed volunteers have every right to say no. That's a personal right you have as an individual. But to attack the research itself is preposterous and lacks sound reasoning. Research is good. Bottom line.

If a study has been published one or two times, then replication of a study wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if it was simply for the experience of a new research who may conduct further studies that hold more important implications. Now if that is this individual's dissertation and it has been conducted before, thats on him/her. But if people's political agendas are getting in the way of conducting research (consciously or unconsciously for people with poor insight), then thats unfortunate. :colbert: :tears:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deborah

Seems to me that you are not grasping what has been going on those past couple of years, cat owners do not have a target on their back (well not yet) snake owners do because right now they are HSUS easiest target. Right now in case you are not aware there are people who want to take away your right to own reptiles, no one want to take away your phone or your keyboard :rolleyes:

You are comparing apple and oranges here.

---

Right, and why do their attempts keep getting shot down? Because they don't actually hold up when it comes down to it. I know apples are scary to some people and if they are uninformed they might think that since they have vitamin C in them they should be outlawed. That's where groups like USARK, PIJAC and scientists come in and inform them that vitamin C will not be harming them in this form and that the oranges they love so dearly also contain vitamin C.

We shouldn't hinder any scientific progress just because some people are too ignorant to find out what the results actually mean. If we stopped every time someone said "Hey! I don't really like what you are doing!" our society would be nowhere.

It is the job of the people passing laws to know all aspects of the argument. It is THEIR JOB, we should not stifle progress, be it this or any other because we fear that men in suits might not like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deborah

Seems to me that you are not grasping what has been going on those past couple of years, cat owners do not have a target on their back (well not yet) snake owners do because right now they are HSUS easiest target. Right now in case you are not aware there are people who want to take away your right to own reptiles, no one want to take away your phone or your keyboard :rolleyes:

You are comparing apple and oranges here.

---

I can empathize with what you're talking about, but I feel like you're going out on a limb with a study like this.

I understand everyone is sensitive because of the most recent issues concerning the species that have been targeted recently. But I feel like the reasons those animals were targeted is VERY different than ball pythons or corn snakes. I think they were much too harsh with the law passed concerning these species, but I agree TO A MINIMAL degree that there should be some regulations concerning dangerous wildlife, such as there are with lions and other large predators. The average citizen shouldn't own a pet alligator, lion, or 20 foot long retic. However, to make such harsh, general, and sweeping laws regarding these animals was ridiculous. We should have found a compromise, similar to venomous snake permits in many states.

Nevertheless, I'm not worried about the future security of my ball python collection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsychD_Student

I can empathize with what you're talking about, but I feel like you're going out on a limb with a study like this.

I understand everyone is sensitive because of the most recent issues concerning the species that have been targeted recently. But I feel like the reasons those animals were targeted is VERY different than ball pythons or corn snakes. I think they were much too harsh with the law passed concerning these species, but I agree TO A MINIMAL degree that there should be some regulations concerning dangerous wildlife, such as there are with lions and other large predators. The average citizen shouldn't own a pet alligator, lion, or 20 foot long retic. However, to make such harsh, general, and sweeping laws regarding these animals was ridiculous. We should have found a compromise, similar to venomous snake permits in many states.

Nevertheless, I'm not worried about the future security of my ball python collection.

---

Sooo...you think Burms and African Rocks were targeted for a reason other than being snakes? And that, when the "reasons" are sensationalized on TV, BPs will be immune...due to logic and facts? Is the destruction of ecosystems why there are government-sponsored and televised "stray cat round-ups" now, just like with rattlesnakes? Ignorance (or is it arrogance?) in the guise of a search for knowledge is a dangerous thing.

To the OP - I don't have an issue with research or investigation for the sake of learning firsthand, UNLESS it has an obvious detriment to something I care about, and can potentially and in all likelihood add fuel to the fear-mongering that is already a very dangerous political tool for the HSUS and PETA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

I don't think anyone was claiming to be a scientist. No one is trying to make anyone hand over their animals for study. They only asked. And the fear that this would give cause to damage the hobby because E. coli is scary then I strongly encourage you to read up on what is lurking on your keyboard right now, your cellphone, door handles, any living thing in your house, the air you are breathing. All of it full of dangerous microbes with the potential to kill. All of it documented. We don't outlaw cats for carrying germs. If we outlawed everything that had the potential to harm us we would all be dead. If you think they would try to outlaw BPs for having E. coli in their mouths then I think they have some bigger problems to tackle first. Like cows, they're just chock full of E. coli, yet I have easy access to their meat. So they would first be working on outlawing these deadly organisms in our grocery stores before focusing down on a select group.

- - - Updated - - -



If it is so widely available and at least 3 studies have been done could you link me to them? It shouldn't be too much of a bother to find them since they are so widely available. It's just that I can only seem to find one.

---

I've done that link thing in the past and the thing where I scan and e-mail articles and chapters of books in my possession to those that ask. Usually all I ask in exchange is that we have an off-line discussion about the information I've provided as repayment and I don't think I've ever received that courtesy in return so fudge on that idea. I'd much rather have someone jump up and down and claim the information isn't out there and then wait awhile and spring it on them in bits and pieces. Let's just say that there are God knows how many studies regarding the normal bacterium in dozens and dozens of snake species. Slapping it into jstor, google or ncbi isn't going to cut it.

For example, who did the first studies on how enclosure cleaning in captive snakes often triggers defecation? Or how doing a less thorough cleaning job doesn't induce the same behavior? Ain't gonna find that one on the interwebs. But that does not mean it does not exist or is widely know by people who have cut their teeth in this hobby.

Or how to sex rhamphiophis rubropunctatus. Find me that one on the interwebs...........

Google is not the end all be all research compendium. Before people got their knowledge so cheaply off the internet, you used to have access to zoo libraries and old books and actually read instead of cherry picking and regurgitating. One of the cool things about captive breeding some oddball species is that some of your clients open up their databases to you.

You want to figure out the sources, start thinking about who the information is important to and why they would need it. Ask yourself the question - how does a qualified herp vet distinguish between normal bacteria levels in tracheal washes if those reference values were not well known? Somewhere in this reply, I've given you a hint on another name to research. I probably understated the amount of studies out there. The OP is replicating something that has already been replicated and re-replicated. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annarose15

Sooo...you think Burms and African Rocks were targeted for a reason other than being snakes?

---

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES HOLY FREAKING CRAP YES

They were absolutely targeted for other reasons than being snakes. Do you understand what an invasive species is? What they do? Are Asian carp being targeted because they are fish? Are zebra muscles being targeted for being muscles? NO. Invasive species are targeted because they are a threat to local ecosystems. This doesn't apply in places they can't survive, but they ABSOLUTELY were targeted for reasons other than being snakes.

Do I agree with the ban? No I don't, I don't think that a few crappy keepers should be able to ruin it for everyone.