Challenging The State

[YungRasputin]

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

[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.

[Gio]

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.

[Bogertophis]

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-

[YungRasputin]

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

[Malum Argenteum]

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.

[YungRasputin]

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

[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.

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.

[YungRasputin]

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

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

[YungRasputin]

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