Challenging The State

as part of my current line of research i wanted to reach out to everyone here and pull resources - i am currently trying to obtain data related to the history of the FWC, anti-animal legislation within FL, and the actual efficacy thereof as this seems much the same as the militarization of the police within the US eg: backwater law enforcement agencies receiving heavy combat equipment that they don’t need, given powers they shouldn’t have, all to address criminal issues which don’t actually exist

because while yes, pythons in FL have had an ecological impact on Floridian ecosystems i would like to find, see, analyze, etc any data showing that these laws have a *measurable* impact on either a) existing python populations or b) mitigating their environmental impact - my guess is that it has not and will not, which should of course beg the question - if these policies have no demonstrable effect why do they exist and who, exactly, is behind them

because what i have also noticed, per a recent upload from USARK-FL, that none of the people in the FWC who are making decisions have any academic credentials or expertise to justify their positions nor do any of the animal rights people because i do, absolutely believe, that any discussion which excludes actual experts is folly - no zoologists, no ecologists, no one with any relevant degrees or expertise - just a bunch of anti-science bureaucrats - the only people in the meeting that i saw which did have creds/expertise were the USARK reps, people within the animal industry, etc

but at any rate - if anyone has data related to the above please post

My memory is a bit foggy because this legislation really ramped up about 15 years ago. There was a lot of money thrown at this from both sides. A lot of big non-profits really wanted that ban and the Lacey Act amendment banning large snakes put into place, and they spent millions to make it happen. There were a lot of studies being done around that time, but to my knowledge none of them sufficiently proved measurable impacts to the environment, especially not outside the limited area in FL where it's an issue. There was a big study done, I think it was in NC, where they were trying to figure out just how far North Burms could survive, and none of them made it through the winter, but somehow they still used the study to push for the ban. I'd go the route of searching up the big snake ban Lacey Act, even though you are specifically asking about FL, because there is a lot of overlap in what was used to push for both.

It's my opinion, but I don't think the legislation has helped slow or reverse the problem at all. The fact that Burms were able to establish a wild population in the first place, it's going to be near impossible to eradicate them, but a lot of passionate people in FL go out and hunt them to try and keep the numbers in check, and I think that has had a much bigger impact keeping them in check than the laws have.

the same as the militarization of the police within the US eg: backwater law enforcement agencies receiving heavy combat equipment that they don’t need, given powers they shouldn’t have, all to address criminal issues which don’t actually exist


You clearly don't understand law enforcement, or how the funding of state, county and local agencies works, nor do you seem to be aware of the challenges faced by police. In this state we just had 3 officers shot at one domestic call. One of those three officers died because of it.

I could continue to elaborate here, but this board is not the place for it.

I would refrain from parroting information that you may have heard about law enforcement "militarization" and stick with reptiles.

Just a reminder to everyone- this site's rules expressly prohibit "political" discussions- with the exception of how they affect the animals we keep. Thus, we support & post information from USARK, but this is NOT the place to debate law enforcement issues overall, & if that continues, such posts may be edited, moved to "Quarantine", &/or infracted for rules violations. So please stay on topic, OK? That being the issues with FWC, the increase of anti-animal regulations, & the ecological impact of non-native herps in Florida & elsewhere. Thanks-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikkubus

My memory is a bit foggy because this legislation really ramped up about 15 years ago. There was a lot of money thrown at this from both sides. A lot of big non-profits really wanted that ban and the Lacey Act amendment banning large snakes put into place, and they spent millions to make it happen. There were a lot of studies being done around that time, but to my knowledge none of them sufficiently proved measurable impacts to the environment, especially not outside the limited area in FL where it's an issue. There was a big study done, I think it was in NC, where they were trying to figure out just how far North Burms could survive, and none of them made it through the winter, but somehow they still used the study to push for the ban. I'd go the route of searching up the big snake ban Lacey Act, even though you are specifically asking about FL, because there is a lot of overlap in what was used to push for both.

It's my opinion, but I don't think the legislation has helped slow or reverse the problem at all. The fact that Burms were able to establish a wild population in the first place, it's going to be near impossible to eradicate them, but a lot of passionate people in FL go out and hunt them to try and keep the numbers in check, and I think that has had a much bigger impact keeping them in check than the laws have.

---

many thanks for this reply! this is p much what i was expecting - will use this to do more digging but this does go along with my ultimate point that if these totalitarian measures aren’t working then what is the actual point

i am also curious if there is a profit motive behind this emerging “python hunting” culture insomuch as in Asia Burms and other snakes are actively hunted, killed and skinned for leather and other related products so i would be curious about what all of these hunters and the FWC does with the animals they murder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YungRasputin

because what i have also noticed, per a recent upload from USARK-FL, that none of the people in the FWC who are making decisions have any academic credentials or expertise to justify their positions nor do any of the animal rights people because i do, absolutely believe, that any discussion which excludes actual experts is folly - no zoologists, no ecologists, no one with any relevant degrees or expertise - just a bunch of anti-science bureaucrats - the only people in the meeting that i saw which did have creds/expertise were the USARK reps, people within the animal industry, etc

---

On USARK's board, there is no one with appropriate credentials to be considered well versed in conservation biology. There is one genetics PhD (their science director, whose only connection to conservation biology is one paper on island colonization by boas on which he was a secondary author), five people who are financially directly connected to the animal industry, and one person with random animal industry experience. From an objective point of view, that is a very biased panel with a very clear profit motive. This shouldn't be (and isn't) surprising, as USARK is an industry lobbying organization.

A look to FWC's website uncovers many academic connections. For example, their non-native species publication list here links to this paper (again, just one example) that lists two authors (one the lead author) from USGS, one from FWC, and five with academic affiliations.

Folks with herpetoculture interests need to do a lot better than these sorts of ad hominem claims, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malum Argenteum

On USARK's board, there is no one with appropriate credentials to be considered well versed in conservation biology. There is one genetics PhD (their science director, whose only connection to conservation biology is one paper on island colonization by boas on which he was a secondary author), five people who are financially directly connected to the animal industry, and one person with random animal industry experience. From an objective point of view, that is a very biased panel with a very clear profit motive. This shouldn't be (and isn't) surprising, as USARK is an industry lobbying organization.

A look to FWC's website uncovers many academic connections. For example, their non-native species publication list here links to this paper (again, just one example) that lists two authors (one the lead author) from USGS, one from FWC, and five with academic affiliations.

Folks with herpetoculture interests need to do a lot better than these sorts of ad hominem claims, in my opinion.

---

i made a point to say “academic credentials or expertise” i.e. people without degrees who’ve spent decades working with the animals in question - it is true that those who work within the animal industry are subject to the profit motive *as are* those within the non-profit industrial complex

it’s also not unreasonable to want people with actual expertise or credentials to be deciding these things - not know-nothing bureaucrats receiving generous donations from non-profits

outside of the study in which someone in the FWC was actually involved in - any org can post links to studies they had nothing to do with and that isn’t to suggest that those in charge of policy and decision making are those people or by proxy, share their credentials

Not that this necessarily exactly translates to the FWC situation (since I'm not at all in law enforcement, or government, or conservation biology), but my own academic PhD department was extensively connected to industry, namely health care (many of the faculty were bioethicists, including three members of my committee).

None of the implications you're making about the disconnect between the deciders and the academics ring true based on my admittedly second-hand experience. Academics are not generally likely to sell their souls by putting their names on a paper they're not fully behind -- that's not to say exceptions can't be found, but the blanket claim about "sharing one's credentials" just doesn't wash.

Nor is it remotely credible to compare the experiences of people "who’ve spent decades working with the animals in question" in captive and business settings to academic conservation biologists in this particular context; flipping reptiles or running expos or breeding feeder insects is not relevant expertise in invasive species management.

"outside of the study in which someone in the FWC was actually involved in" -- it isn't just one study. Inside FWC's umbrella is the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, which has an $83 million budget ($13 million of which goes to wildlife research).

http://fwcresearch.com/publications/
https://wec.ifas.ufl.edu/coop/

Just to be clear, the relevant laws under discussion here sound pretty far off base to me too. That's not why I'm disagreeing (see: 'not in conservation biology', above). I'm disagreeing with the culpably false claims and fallacious reasoning that are employed (here and in the larger discussion) to argue against the effectiveness of those laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malum Argenteum

Not that this necessarily exactly translates to the FWC situation (since I'm not at all in law enforcement, or government, or conservation biology), but my own academic PhD department was extensively connected to industry, namely health care (many of the faculty were bioethicists, including three members of my committee).

None of the implications you're making about the disconnect between the deciders and the academics ring true based on my admittedly second-hand experience. Academics are not generally likely to sell their souls by putting their names on a paper they're not fully behind -- that's not to say exceptions can't be found, but the blanket claim about "sharing one's credentials" just doesn't wash.

---

again, why is it unreasonable to ask that the people in charge of stripping people of their civil rights know what they’re talking about based upon demonstrated credentials be they academic or experiential? i mean when it comes to public policy it seems like an extremely low standard and a v little thing to ask - i would be much more inclined to listen to policy proposals from scientists who know what they’re talking about than bureaucrats who don’t, have material incentives to be persuade by lobbyists, etc

Quote:

---

Nor is it remotely credible to compare the experiences of people "who’ve spent decades working with the animals in question" in captive and business settings to academic conservation biologists in this particular context; flipping reptiles or running expos or breeding feeder insects is not relevant expertise in invasive species management.

---

who is going to know more about how an animal behaves - someone with actual experience with that animal or someone who has never spent any significant amount of time with that animal at all period? because yes i am sure that a conservation specialist would have more expertise than a hobby breeder however those experts where not present in the meeting posted by USARK-FL - which was the basis of my comments - i don’t much see the point in saying at first “well here’s this” and when i say “ok and?” it’s then said “well actually they have a whole research institute” - which again i would say “and?”

it seems fallacious to suggest that the existence of such an institute inherently implies that the anti-snake policies and activities carried out by and advocated by the FWC are effective, are genuinely reflective of any sort of scientific backing or indeed, actually based on the science in question - since it is entirely possible to create policy independent of that if not contradictory to that - i would think it would be as easy as “based on research we have come up with X policy proposal” - which could then be debated and so on

if there are no data sets suggesting that the wholesale slaughter of and the complete blacklisting/ban of pythons in FL has actually had an measurable impact then how could it be said that such policies are reflective of “the science” or any of the studies from this institute? because if the science was directing the policy then it could be shown that their policies are justifiable and not just the wanton murder of sentient non-human animals with no actual point or purpose other than general society doesn’t like exotics (doesn’t seem v scientific to say something is effective when there doesn’t seem to evidences substantiating that)

this is also not mentioning that per those links a good number of those studies seem to be cataloguing the ecological impact of X invasive animal - which i have not disputed the impact of pythons in FL’s ecosystem because this is not the point - my point is simply who is deciding these policies, do they have an material basis to legitimize their authority in doing so, are their methods ethical, are their policies effective, etc

i mean, i may be an annoying bimbo, a novice, presently a lay person (actively working on changing that), etc but what’s it say about the actual strength of the arguments, policies, etc if someone like me can poke holes like this at the beginning of my research into the subject? because largely what i am calling into question are things which seem to be taken as axiomatic truths both without and within the hobby eg: “pet owners are the cause of invasive pythons in FL” “extermination policies are effective” “banning private ownership of specific invasive animals while completely ignoring other more significant invasive species is both effective and fair” “the people deciding these policies are actual conservation experts with demonstrated credentials, expertise or whatever” etc - there seems to be a tremendous amount of fallacious argumentation being presented and used as both pretext and justification for unethical and totalitarian policies

"wanton murder"
"totalitarian policies"

It wasn't (because of the legal definition of 'murder'), and they're not (because of the meaning of 'totalitarian'). Using emotive language like that is both factually incorrect and undermining of rational discourse. So please don't, OK? It doesn't advance the discussion.

I'm not going to go through and address every one of the varied claims above, but as an example it is pretty simple to show that this isn't an axiom (=accepted without proof):

"because largely what i am calling into question are things which seem to be taken as axiomatic truths both without and within the hobby eg: “pet owners are the cause of invasive pythons in FL”"

That pet owners are the cause of invasive pythons in FL (well, specifically and more accurately that captive Burmese pythons that were in private collections are the most likely source of the current invasive populations, of which there seem to be two) is based on published data along with reasoning to the best explanation (this phrase doesn't just mean something like 'one possible explanation'; the phrase refers to a specific and well-studied process in scientific inference, where it is sometimes called 'abduction'). It starts on p. 34, in Burmese Pythons in Florida.

If a person wants to dispute the claim about pet owners being the cause, the way to do so is to look at the data and figure out why it is incorrect, or incomplete, or being interpreted incorrectly. That's quite a project, but that's the way science works. That's how holes get poked in arguments.

I'll also point out that playing the 'fallacy' card in a sloppy way isn't a win, neither here nor in any sort of legal challenge that one might want to flow from this. What I meant by 'fallacious reasoning' was actual argumentative fallacies -- that is, asserting reasons that do not support the conclusion in spite of looking like they do. Here's a familiar example: the claim that banning snakes shouldn't be done because cats cause more environmental harm. Now while it may be true that cats do more environmental harm (I think this would be fairly simple to show) and it may be true that banning snakes shouldn't be done (also likely demonstrable, though with more difficulty and possibly only to a degree), one doesn't follow from the other because the cat concern is a 'straw man' (sometimes called the 'appeal to worse problems'): the facts about whether banning snakes is environmentally beneficial neither stands nor falls on any facts about cats whatsoever and would be the same even in a world where cats never evolved -- their truth values are independent. And so while mentioning the cat situation makes many people (including me, honestly) feel superior and think they have the upper hand, it isn't a relevant consideration.

Oh, here's another easy one: "it seems fallacious to suggest that the existence of such an institute inherently implies that the anti-snake policies and activities carried out by and advocated by the FWC are effective". Yes, it would be fallacious (it would be an appeal to authority, I suppose), but I did not assert that the existence of such an institute implies that FWC's policies are effective. I mentioned the FWRi to counter this claim: "outside of the study in which someone in the FWC was actually involved in - any org can post links to studies they had nothing to do with". Refuting something I did not claim is another straw man (that's a common one in many discussions).

The reason this is all interesting is that if the herp hobby wants to change these legislative situations, we need to up our game.

(Disclaimer: This is just some random mussing on matters I've had... just kind of spitballing it here to get thoughts out.)

It a really frustrating issue based around fear and the lack of properly experienced individuals.
It sucks that things reached the point that they have...and I don't quite understand how the people in the area are more afraid of the snakes than they are of gators? But I guess it's just the stigma the whole of snakes get. And there is the obvious issues of them being invasive and damaging the ecosystem that has no protection from an animal like that. The invasiveness of the issue is not the one they seem to focus on. It definitely feels more like the general dislike of ownership of anything other than what you see in a big box shop is top player here.

While sadly I do agree that hunting should be permitted as they are an invasive species and such...the reality of it is no one has been properly sorted/designated for it. Allowing bounties can just lead to people pulling stunts like in some youtube videos for clicks and some cash. It should be something where the FWC has two focuses
1 would be the rehabilitation or culling of invasive specimens located in the field. With properly vetted and permitted help if needed.
2 would be a better handling of the control of the species in captivity.

Most reputable breeders would have no problems adhering to the guidelines if they were standardized and followed a set model.
If a permit and having the animal microchipped was required for ownership? Awesome. Maybe every so often they would have someone appear to inspect the enclosures. Breeders would probably have a more expensive permit and stricter inspections. They would need to retain records of the number of hatchlings and potentially hold them over until they are slightly older than they're typically sold to allow for microchipping before the sale.
The biggest downside is trying to control what happens once the animal is out of the breeder's hands. How to transfer ownership and such if the animal is no longer feasible for the owner.
But no one wants to make a team responsible for this or properly implement it. And I hate to admit it.... sometimes reptile enthusiasts in general are aggressive about changes like this being done. If the other option is not allowing them at all?? That's fairly easy stuff.

:twocents: This is just like... a dart being thrown at a wall. Not feasible. Barely possible. Too expensive, not safe with current numbers of people familiar with reptile husbandry let alone medical issues... and probably upsetting for some to consider...
If there was a way to safely and humanely neuter the animals being sold along with the microchipping that would be a good step towards maintaining control as well. Anyone found dumping animals can be fined if the chips are scanned. Any that are missed, while still invasive and possibly damaging by themselves, are no longer capable of reproducing. This is just something we may see possible in future times. No one really bats an eye at the fact that pet female ferrets are all spayed. (Albeit for health not public safety/invasiveness). :twocents:



There's way too much involved on trying to get everything on the same page and finalize something that works for everyone. It's extremely frustrating all around.
Hopefully in the coming years we will see more people in prominent positions who are fully knowledgeable about the animals they are working with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malum Argenteum

"wanton murder"
"totalitarian policies"

It wasn't (because of the legal definition of 'murder'), and they're not (because of the meaning of 'totalitarian'). Using emotive language like that is both factually incorrect and undermining of rational discourse. So please don't, OK? It doesn't advance the discussion.

---

-wanton: indiscriminate and/or unprovoked attack
-murder: unjustifiable taking of life
-totalitarian: the centralization of authority and monopoly on violence in which state apparati are used to assert said authority typically in the form of social control via curtailing of civil rights

these are categories which do require emotional input - it is what it is - none of the pythons murdered in the Holy Thursday massacre, oops, “killed without warrant” posed a threat - they were not sick, they were not critically injured, they were not escaping, there was no indication that escape was possible and so on and so on - and - given that this is not the way in which other keepers of invasive species have been treated i would say it’s absolutely fair to use this particular verbiage

Quote:

---

I'm not going to go through and address every one of the varied claims above, but as an example it is pretty simple to show that this isn't an axiom (=accepted without proof):

---

-axiomatic: self-evident, self-referential, unquestionable, etc argumentation, positions, statements, etc - English may be a second language but i am indeed using these words correctly

Quote:

---

That pet owners are the cause of invasive pythons in FL (well, specifically and more accurately that captive Burmese pythons that were in private collections are the most likely source of the current invasive populations, of which there seem to be two) is based on published data along with reasoning to the best explanation (this phrase doesn't just mean something like 'one possible explanation'; the phrase refers to a specific and well-studied process in scientific inference, where it is sometimes called 'abduction'). It starts on p. 34, in Burmese Pythons in Florida.

---

the link is not published data - it is an apriori assertion in which it is ‘assumed’ that X was the origins of the issue - in the link it simply said “it is believed” and offers a citation to another source which likewise i am willing to bet - says “we believe” - no where in there does it say - “in 1979 we caught an invasive python which through genetic testing and physical evaluation we have determined the specimen to be P. bivittatus” - as far as i am aware the 1979 sighting was just that - a sighting - in a state where they can’t even tell the difference between B. imperator and P. bivittatus - 2 snakes which look absolutely nothing alike (not to mention FL is a stone throw away from Cuba where there exists boa species, which can be comparable in size, which could have “rafted” to FL following seasonal natural calamities and so on)

moreover - i am skeptical of this claim also because “as far as I presently know” - Bob Clark and other early Burm importers didn’t start receiving/breeding their imported founder pairs until 1980 onwards - additionally, a lot of those early Burms that were being imported from Thailand were wild occurring morphs such as granite, albino, lab, etc (and yet i have not seen 1 photo of a “hobby form” Burm being captured in FL, they’re all normal wild types - curious that after 40+ years there hasn’t been any “hobby forms” captured even with now active “python hunts”) - so my question would be: if hobby breeders didn’t start importing and breeding Burms until the 1980s how did some random person in FL obtain one and release it?

Quote:

---

If a person wants to dispute the claim about pet owners being the cause, the way to do so is to look at the data and figure out why it is incorrect, or incomplete, or being interpreted incorrectly. That's quite a project, but that's the way science works. That's how holes get poked in arguments.

---

it should be disputed because it’s being taken as unfalsifiable truth despite it not making sense

Quote:

---

I'll also point out that playing the 'fallacy' card in a sloppy way isn't a win, neither here nor in any sort of legal challenge that one might want to flow from this. What I meant by 'fallacious reasoning' was actual argumentative fallacies -- that is, asserting reasons that do not support the conclusion in spite of looking like they do. Here's a familiar example: the claim that banning snakes shouldn't be done because cats cause more environmental harm. Now while it may be true that cats do more environmental harm (I think this would be fairly simple to show) and it may be true that banning snakes shouldn't be done (also likely demonstrable, though with more difficulty and possibly only to a degree), one doesn't follow from the other because the cat concern is a 'straw man' (sometimes called the 'appeal to worse problems'): the facts about whether banning snakes is environmentally beneficial neither stands nor falls on any facts about cats whatsoever and would be the same even in a world where cats never evolved -- their truth values are independent. And so while mentioning the cat situation makes many people (including me, honestly) feel superior and think they have the upper hand, it isn't a relevant consideration.

---

my points about cats does not conform to strawmaning - i am drawing an illustrative comparison i.e. if cat owners are not subject to state repression and violence and are only encouraged to practice safer cat owning practices why then should this more reasonable route not be taken with reptiles when feral cats are a bigger problem - the argument is not “because there are no restrictions or bans on cats there should not be bans on snakes because cats represent a bigger problem” - the argument is “the banning of animals does more harm than good assuming it has any impact at all and if the argument is that bans work so well, why is not being evenly applied to all invasive species in FL” - i would also say, in all due respect, this is drifting towards argumentum ad logicam

Quote:

---

Oh, here's another easy one: "it seems fallacious to suggest that the existence of such an institute inherently implies that the anti-snake policies and activities carried out by and advocated by the FWC are effective". Yes, it would be fallacious (it would be an appeal to authority, I suppose), but I did not assert that the existence of such an institute implies that FWC's policies are effective. I mentioned the FWRi to counter this claim: "outside of the study in which someone in the FWC was actually involved in - any org can post links to studies they had nothing to do with". Refuting something I did not claim is another straw man (that's a common one in many discussions).

---

that’s fair but as previously stated my comments are also fair because the institute wasn’t brought up until your subsequent responses and wasn’t apart of your initial presentation - was just that they have listed some sources of studies on their website and that an FWC staff member was involved in one of those studies

Quote:

---

The reason this is all interesting is that if the herp hobby wants to change these legislative situations, we need to up our game.

---

agreed - that was my intent with this thread and my comments - which were not directed at anyone here - i just think “the hobby” concedes grounds and accepts arguments when there isn’t actually a reason to and more than that, it’s self-defeating to do so because then the terrain becomes “well even people within the hobby/industry are saying X, Y, and Z”

i also wish to apologize for being sleep dep and angry and my responses being more aggro than originally intended - it’s a v bad habit and i apologize - i will make a genuine commitment in the future to take a nap and not angry-post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YungRasputin

...i also wish to apologize for being sleep dep and angry and my responses being more aggro than originally intended - it’s a v bad habit and i apologize - i will make a genuine commitment in the future to take a nap and not angry-post

---

Thanks, we'd appreciate that. It helps neither the forum nor the cause- in fact, it does just the opposite. That goes for pm's too.

One thing to keep in mind as well...
Hobby morphs can be quite obvious when placed into a natural setting. An albino burm would be more likely to be picked up by someone who knows what it is and rehabilitated or eaten by something before it can get to be a hazard. Or any fancy morph for that matter. I don't think there's anyone keeping tabs of which morphs are being found either to my recollection?

And while you can argue that some boas are close enough to raft over, like deer swimming to Staten Island, NY (which didn't exist as an established population for a long time and only recently started to overpopulate and become a nuisance) that still doesn't give credibility to the asian species. Sure, they may have found one or two in the past before they became popular or breeders became established... But you're talking about 2 species that can lay more than 30 eggs at a time. It is very easy to establish a wild population from just a handful of pets. 20-30 years is more than enough time to explode in numbers.

There really isn't a feasible way to say that these animals just happened to travel across an ocean in numbers large enough to establish a population without the help of human hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YungRasputin

-wanton: indiscriminate and/or unprovoked attack
-murder: unjustifiable taking of life

---

Despite agreeing with a lot for what you say, I gotta admit this part even threw me for a loop. Hunters trying to remove an invasive species is something I would certainly qualify as justified. Maybe I got confused with the context and you were referring to ones where they are native, I don't know.

Correction: apparently labyrinth burms are also found occasionally. This couple has found a few as road kill in the past https://youtu.be/_PBmeb0eVA0

That's a darker and easy to camo morph though. Also recessive. So takes a bit for the population to cross back and produce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikkubus

Despite agreeing with a lot for what you say, I gotta admit this part even threw me for a loop. Hunters trying to remove an invasive species is something I would certainly qualify as justified. Maybe I got confused with the context and you were referring to ones where they are native, I don't know.

---

Even more, 'murder' in both US code (again, this is a legal issue under debate here) and dictionary definitions refers only to the killing of a person (i.e. a human being) by another, and is a usage that is said to date back to about 1300. Any other use is metaphorical ("that hike was murder on my knees") or inflammatory, neither of which are useful in this discussion.

Further, if a discussion about whether a killing is justified or not (certainly a relevant issue here) is to take place, calling it a murder is question begging.