Challenging The State

[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.

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.

[Armiyana]

(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.

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).



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.

[YungRasputin]

"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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

[Bogertophis]

...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.

[Armiyana]

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.

[nikkubus]

-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.

[Armiyana]

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.

[Malum Argenteum]

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.