# Bad Education



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

I teach high school Environmental Science. Our brand new textbook is "Environmental Science" by G. Tyler Miller and Scott Spoolman. The book is produced by Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Anyway, I'm preparing for today's discussion, where we will be talking about invasive species, and I come across this paragraph:

"In the Everglades in the U.S. state of Florida, the population of the huge Burmese python snake is growing. This native of Southeast Asia was imported as a pet and ended up being dumped in the Everglades by people who learned that, when they get larger, pythons do not make good pets. They can live 25 years, reach 6 meters in length, and weigh more than 90 kilograms. They have razor-sharp teeth and can catch, squeeze to death, and swallow whole practically anything that moves and is warm-blooded, including a variety of birds and full-grown deer. They are slowly spreading to other areas and, by 2100, could be found in most of the southern half of the continental United States."

This reads like a horror movie script! This kind of biased propaganda targeting school age children really gets under my skin, and is exactly why people are constantly targeting reptile owners with new laws.

A simple search on the internet produced this study from last year:

Cold weather limits potential range of Burmese python*invasion - Conservation News - Conservation Maven

Thoughts?


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

I've heard of them. They have been breeding with another python down there.


----------



## InHoc1855 (Apr 28, 2011)

Ive repeated this exact argument before. And a TV show even was attempting to prove that large Burmese pythons cannot survive Florida's freezes.

However, i cannot disagree that there is major damage being caused to ecosystem where these invasive species are able to survive. It is understandable if Florida and a few other states that have found thriving populations of foreign species enact strict laws on keeping exotic animals as pets.


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

Anything that can eat a human, is not a F'ing pet especially not in a city.


----------



## freaky_tah (Jan 21, 2009)

Well it isn't the first time that biased information has been passed down through education...Thanksgiving...Columbus...etc...

Models for invasibility can vary greatly depending on the one used, and is evident in the paper you provided (one says they can spread to Delaware, the other only to the southern tip of Texas). I wonder where the book is getting the "year 2100" information from. I certainly hope they don't spread further north than Florida, but the damage they're going to continue to cause in Florida is a good lesson to learn.


----------



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

B-NICE said:


> I've heard of them. They have been breeding with another python down there.


what python? Evidence?

They have been in the Everglades for years, but the fact is that they aren't likely to spread even out of Florida, where below freezing temps are a common occurrence in the winter.


----------



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

B-NICE said:


> Anything that can eat a human, is not a F'ing pet especially not in a city.


Alot of the dogs that people keep could eat or kill a human, especially a baby.


----------



## eldalote2 (Jun 3, 2009)

Our Florida panthers have a really difficult time dispersing through the area with the amount of roads and cities. 

I think a lot of the burms trying to leave the Everglades will get smooshed on the road or picked off by humans once they reach civilization. North Florida gets some pretty serious freezes in the winter time but a burm might know how to hole up for the winter time. 

I understand they are a top predator but they are cold blooded. 

You have to remember that all we hear about is the irresponsible owners who are letting their exotics go. You never hear about the person who owns giants and has never had a problem. That wouldn't make much of a news story would it.


----------



## freaky_tah (Jan 21, 2009)

lincolnrailers said:


> Alot of the dogs that people keep could eat or kill a human, especially a baby.


That was my thought when I read that one!

According to the all knowing, never wrong wikipedia there have been 10 reported human fatalities from dogs in the US so far this year.

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

lincolnrailers said:


> Alot of the dogs that people keep could eat or kill a human, especially a baby.


Thats true. However I'm not a fan of DOGS or Cats. I can't get with the fur and death disposale. I wouldnt want to deal with getting rid of a big dead animal (dog or cat) . ewww......


----------



## freaky_tah (Jan 21, 2009)

B-NICE said:


> Thats true. However I'm not a fan of DOGS or Cats. I can't get with the fur and death disposale. I wouldnt want to deal with getting rid of a big dead animal (dog or cat) . ewww......


lol huh??


----------



## eldalote2 (Jun 3, 2009)

Back to the subject.

It's like media is telling us how to form opinions on everything.

News articles could read like this:

"Giant python that can grow to be 6ft long and will consume your pets!"

While facts are:
It's a ball python and it was only 2 ft long and it might eat your pet rat or mouse or small kitten as an adult.

Do you have to teach exactly to the book? Maybe make this an opportunity to show kids to not rely on media for their information and find out the facts for themselves in order to make their own opinion.


----------



## patm (Mar 21, 2004)

B-NICE said:


> I've heard of them. They have been breeding with another python down there.


This is also propaganda, people talking about a burm/rock python cross. But certainly not true.

Pat


----------



## phender (Jan 9, 2009)

I am a science teacher as well. Textbooks are wrong in science all the time. It is up to you to teach the concept of invasive species. You don't need to use the book's examples, or like mentioned before, you can use the book as an example of propaganda. The internet is a brand new source of bad and slanted information. We have to help our students sift through the garbage to find the truth.


----------



## Logqan (Sep 24, 2008)

A dog died this summer in my area from neglect in someones back yard and a snake was spotted near the area. The neighbors said they saw a reticulated python kill the dog.....Of course this wasn't true but the news covered it and it turned the area against exotic pet owners for a while. They came to our lab(Herp lab) at the university with photos and it was a blurry photo of a black rat snake...that they claimed strangled a husky. People are stupid really. This type of media doesn't help and books like yours don't either.


----------



## Dangerously (Dec 19, 2007)

And no mention of this?

"Hurricane Andrew devastated Florida in 1992, and it damaged quite a few zoos, pet stores, exotic animal warehouses, and wildlife refuges in the process. Many of the escaped animals -- ranging from monkeys to mountain lions -- were rounded up after the storm. Some, unfortunately, were put down. But many animals eluded capture. It has been documented that a large (but unknown) number of Burmese pythons were "liberated" by Hurricane Andrew, escaping into the Florida Everglades and other parts of the state."

Burmese Pythons in Florida - History and Current Status

I can't find the scientific article I'm looking for, but it's hard as hell to get a population started from released pets. The event was likely the mass escapes from the damaged breeders' facilities after hurricane Andrew in '92.


----------



## Dendroguy (Dec 4, 2010)

Ugh this really gets under my skin!


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

I have to say I am really happy to see dialougue about this on this thread, rational too. It is nice to see people not beleive the propaganda.


----------



## eldalote2 (Jun 3, 2009)

Another example. I bet any newspaper could write a horror story about any of our animals. 

"None of the frogs had fresh water or food available in their tiny, cramped enclosures. The floor of their containers was covered in rotten leaves and only a single tiny hut for the animals to hide in. Frogs were segregated into fish tanks with a solid glass lid in which they were unable to get fresh air. Tanks were precariously stacked on top of one another on a rickety metal rack. The animals were obviously unhappy.

Tadpoles were shoved in tiny cups with barely any water. The water was brown and had not been changed in some time. Cups of flies sat on the counter, feeding and breeding in the same substance they walked on. There looked like there was some fungus growing in with the flies. It was a major health risk"


That made me cringe and I am writing about my own frogs!


----------



## james67 (Jun 28, 2008)

Dangerously said:


> And no mention of this?
> 
> "Hurricane Andrew devastated Florida in 1992, and it damaged quite a few zoos, pet stores, exotic animal warehouses, and wildlife refuges in the process. Many of the escaped animals -- ranging from monkeys to mountain lions -- were rounded up after the storm. Some, unfortunately, were put down. But many animals eluded capture. It has been documented that a large (but unknown) number of Burmese pythons were "liberated" by Hurricane Andrew, escaping into the Florida Everglades and other parts of the state."
> 
> ...


this is the way ive understood the problem as well. there is a reason were seeing large groups of similar sized animals, and none whose size indicates tat they were there before andrew. south FL has always been a major hub for the exotic animal trade and while i could see that some snakes have been released by owners it seems much more likely that in this case were seeing the results of a mass release from the damage caused by this natural disaster.

james


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

InHoc1855 said:


> Ive repeated this exact argument before. And a TV show even was attempting to prove that large Burmese pythons cannot survive Florida's freezes.
> 
> However, i cannot disagree that there is major damage being caused to ecosystem where these invasive species are able to survive. It is understandable if Florida and a few other states that have found thriving populations of foreign species enact strict laws on keeping exotic animals as pets.


I'm not sure that we have seen any really good documentation of major damage. A lot of damage has been predictions and speculation based on diet. This means we really don't know if there will be major damage in the long run. It isn't uncommon in early research publications for the speculation in potential problems to be highly conservative as it prepares for the worst case scenario however what is uncommon is for those premises to be taken and used as a major support for an action. Although we have seen similar impacts such as the vitamin A scare in herp supplements, springtails as a cause for Morgellons syndrome, and even the paper that supposedly linked autism to vaccinations.

(Referring to other posts) I'm going to have to say that the attempt to compare dogs to it is incorrect at best since the feral burms are not the same as dogs in a household. It is an apples and oranges comparision. Feral dog populations also don't tend to establish and expand thier range on thier own. They require continous recruitment from strays or abandoned pets to maintain thier population (See The domestic dog: its evolution ... - James Serpell - Google Books) which is another reason why it doesn't compare to the feral burm issue. 

In general many exotics that become established have extremely limited populations or don't impact the enviroment a whole lot and many often die out over time (see for example Lacertas in Philadelphia). In general it is the uncommon species that becomes an issue (like kudzu, feral pigs, starlings, house sparrows). In some cases, they become widespread and don't appear to impact the enviroment sufficiently to be considered invasive (like broad-leaf plantain). Part of the problem is that we don't have good predictors of how invasive a species is going to be which often results in excessively conservative predictions (although this in no way justifys the paper produced by Reed and Rhoda). 

There is a lot of premature hype driving the constrictor issue and that is a problem. So far we have been lucky in that we haven't see a whole bunch of bad movies sensationalizing the issue (as was seen with snake heads, and "killer bees"). 

I am troubled by the hype over the burm issue and some of the reactions to date.. for example if the burms are considered to be that much of an issue in Florida then why do they have a very short open season on them during the time of the year when they are going to be much less active.... 

Ed


----------



## freaky_tah (Jan 21, 2009)

Ed said:


> I'm going to have to say that the attempt to compare dogs to it is incorrect at best since the feral burms are not the same as dogs in a household. It is an apples and oranges comparision.


I wasn't trying to compare dogs to this problem if you're referring back to a few of my posts. I was just replying to the random post about anything able to eat a human shouldn't be a pet, or something along those lines.

Just havin a little fun with a random comment...certainly not trying to link domesticated dogs and feral pythons together


----------



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

Do you have to teach exactly to the book? Maybe make this an opportunity to show kids to not rely on media for their information and find out the facts for themselves in order to make their own opinion.[/QUOTE said:


> I do this all the time!  The mainstream media in our country is extremely biased!


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

freaky_tah said:


> I wasn't trying to compare dogs to this problem if you're referring back to a few of my posts. I was just replying to the random post about anything able to eat a human shouldn't be a pet, or something along those lines.
> 
> Just havin a little fun with a random comment...certainly not trying to link domesticated dogs and feral pythons together


 
Just clarifying. If you follow any of the threads on many herp sites about the issue, it doesn't take many posts before someone is referencing dogs.. 

Ed


----------



## freaky_tah (Jan 21, 2009)

Ed said:


> Just clarifying. If you follow any of the threads on many herp sites about the issue, it doesn't take many posts before someone is referencing dogs..
> 
> Ed


Cool no worries, just wanted to make sure I wasn't getting grouped in with those types of responses!


----------



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

Ed said:


> Just clarifying. If you follow any of the threads on many herp sites about the issue, it doesn't take many posts before someone is referencing dogs..
> 
> Ed


I referenced dogs, because the previous quote was "anything that can eat a person shouldn't be a pet".........which is a ridiculous statement. I wasn't referencing the spread of dogs that are released by their owners, although you could find more support for dogs colonizing the USA and eventually overthrowing the humans!


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

B-NICE said:


> Thats true. However I'm not a fan of DOGS or Cats. I can't get with the fur and death disposale. I wouldnt want to deal with getting rid of a big dead animal (dog or cat) . ewww......


Most of us tend to keep live pets, not dead ones.


----------



## billschwinn (Dec 17, 2008)

eldalote2 said:


> Another example. I bet any newspaper could write a horror story about any of our animals.
> 
> "None of the frogs had fresh water or food available in their tiny, cramped enclosures. The floor of their containers was covered in rotten leaves and only a single tiny hut for the animals to hide in. Frogs were segregated into fish tanks with a solid glass lid in which they were unable to get fresh air. Tanks were precariously stacked on top of one another on a rickety metal rack. The animals were obviously unhappy.
> 
> ...


Do you write for the Orlando Slantinal?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

lincolnrailers said:


> I referenced dogs, because the previous quote was "anything that can eat a person shouldn't be a pet".........which is a ridiculous statement. I wasn't referencing the spread of dogs that are released by their owners, although you could find more support for dogs colonizing the USA and eventually overthrowing the humans!


Why not choose something that is a little less of a poster child like pigs? The problem with dogs is that it gets mixed up too much with the other examples and it is a little hard to imagine someone getting eating by a toy or minature breed..... might as well suggest chickens (since they would try to eat you if you became incapacitated).... 

Ed


----------



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

Ed said:


> it is a little hard to imagine someone getting eating by a toy or minature breed.....
> Ed


You have obviously never tried to get between my mini schnauzer and a plate of turkey!


----------



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

Ed said:


> Why not choose something that is a little less of a poster child like pigs? The problem with dogs is that it gets mixed up too much with the other examples and it is a little hard to imagine someone getting eating by a toy or minature breed..... might as well suggest chickens (since they would try to eat you if you became incapacitated)....
> 
> Ed


Most people in the US would be more familiar with dogs than chickens or pigs......

But the biggest issue is that when people talk about burmese spreading north, they usually are just looking at whether they CAN SURVIVE there, but that's not a good assumption. Lots of animals CAN SURVIVE here in central Illinois, but the people/roads/cars/farm equipment/cities/lack of habitat/etc/etc prevent most of them from spreading and taking up residence. I mean, most of the animals that roamed these prairies still exist out West, but they aren't spreading back this way anytime soon.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

lincolnrailers said:


> Most people in the US would be more familiar with dogs than chickens or pigs......
> 
> But the biggest issue is that when people talk about burmese spreading north, they usually are just looking at whether they CAN SURVIVE there, but that's not a good assumption. Lots of animals CAN SURVIVE here in central Illinois, but the people/roads/cars/farm equipment/cities/lack of habitat/etc/etc prevent most of them from spreading and taking up residence. I mean, most of the animals that roamed these prairies still exist out West, but they aren't spreading back this way anytime soon.


The problem is that people are not going to equate dogs with the risk and there is a disjunction in thier perception. Too many people equate dogs with family. To them it is like suggestion that the risk is the same as a child or sibling killing and eating them. 

As for your little dog... I've worked with wolves in the past (very briefly) and prefer primitive breed dogs... This gets away from the point. 

The issue is that most invasives are good at exploiting a niche that is currently empty. We see this in a number of species for example, house sparrows filled the niche in city enviroments of small cavity nesting birds and from there expanded out to the suburbs displacing other cavity nesting species like bluebirds. 

We are seeing a population explosion of raccoons because we have created a massive amount of disturbed habitat for them...


----------



## SmackoftheGods (Jan 28, 2009)

B-NICE said:


> Anything that can eat a human, is not a F'ing pet especially not in a city.





B-NICE said:


> Thats true. However I'm not a fan of DOGS or Cats. I can't get with the fur and death disposale. I wouldnt want to deal with getting rid of a big dead animal (dog or cat) . ewww......


I would ask that next time, before you post, you take a minute to think about what you want to say, make _sure_ you want to say it, and then think about what the best way to articulate that thought would be. I see zero thought process, zero evidence, really... no thought whatsoever that has been put into these posts. The best intention I can see that you might mean is: you wouldn't want to have a pet that could kill a human, and because you wouldn't want to have one you don't want anyone else to have one either.


----------



## ZookeeperDoug (Jun 5, 2011)

lincolnrailers said:


> You have obviously never tried to get between my mini schnauzer and a plate of turkey!


Or between one of my chihuahuas and my wife at night. You will be maimed!


----------



## fishman9809 (Dec 8, 2008)

Frankly I don't think it's propaganda. Invasive species really are a nightmare. Although they definitely should not phrase the text in a way that persecutes reptile owners, they also definitely should not underplay the effects of invasive species on an ecosystem. Seems as if the paragraph could have surely been better written though.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

fishman9809 said:


> Frankly I don't think it's propaganda. Invasive species really are a nightmare. Although they definitely should not phrase the text in a way that persecutes reptile owners, they also definitely should not underplay the effects of invasive species on an ecosystem. Seems as if the paragraph could have surely been better written though.


True invasives are a problem howeve not all introduced species become true invasives. Some naturalize and do not cause real issues with the ecosystem, we don't know where it is going to go with these as of yet. There are examples of this.. for example in the US, red eared sliders are introduced in waterways across the country, yet it isn't considered a (except where it is hybridizing with other sliders). This isn't the case in many other countries where it has been introduced. 

I do have to say that since it made a splash, burmese pythons are becoming very well researched (except for Reed and Rhoda who still refuse to acknowledge that inclusion of Indian python data for burmese pythons is an error of methodology, although they were quick to jump onto the error in another paper that critized thier process where several data points (less than 5 ) from blood pythons). 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

ZookeeperDoug said:


> Or between one of my chihuahuas and my wife at night. You will be maimed!


Don't you ever watch the dog whisperer?


----------



## fishman9809 (Dec 8, 2008)

Definitely not going to argue that because I agree 100% with what you said Ed, but I still think that textbooks should keep the almost scary stories of invasive species (without persecuting any pet owners, plant growers, etc.) because it shows what COULD happen with introduced species, even if not all do in fact become a problem. Not sure if many agree with that, but I feel that type of education (precautionary) is important.


----------



## eldalote2 (Jun 3, 2009)

Ed, would the camels in Australia be an example of naturalized invasives?


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

fishman9809 said:


> Definitely not going to argue that because I agree 100% with what you said Ed, but I still think that textbooks should keep the almost scary stories of invasive species (without persecuting any pet owners, plant growers, etc.) because it shows what COULD happen with introduced species, even if not all do in fact become a problem. Not sure if many agree with that, but I feel that type of education (precautionary) is important.


Cane toads and Cuban tree frogs are probably better examples, as of right now I don't think the pythons have really extirpated any species... though it might be possible in the future. My personal guess is that hard winters will keep the populations low enough that they won't really wreak apocalyptic havoc on native species, though I suppose they could develop a better resistance to the cold in future generations. Their presence is obviously unwelcome.... but in a state that has plenty of venomous snakes and alligators, people should already be accounting for their children/dogs/cats. 

If a pet or child gets attacked by an alligator, is it any better than it being eaten by a python? No, and either would make the news, but the media coverage on the latter is going to be through the roof every time.


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

SmackoftheGods said:


> I would ask that next time, before you post, you take a minute to think about what you want to say, make _sure_ you want to say it, and then think about what the best way to articulate that thought would be. I see zero thought process, zero evidence, really... no thought whatsoever that has been put into these posts. The best intention I can see that you might mean is: you wouldn't want to have a pet that could kill a human, and because you wouldn't want to have one you don't want anyone else to have one either.


I've noticed you usually beat me to saying what I want to say...and usually word it better then I would  

Either way, look at the bright side linconrailers, you get to actually teach environmental science in high school. That's not real common unfortunately.


----------



## Cfrog (Oct 28, 2011)

B-NICE said:


> Thats true. However I'm not a fan of DOGS or Cats. I can't get with the fur and death disposale. I wouldnt want to deal with getting rid of a big dead animal (dog or cat) . ewww......


Feed them to the snakes in Florida


----------



## tclipse (Sep 19, 2009)

B-NICE said:


> Anything that can eat a human, is not a F'ing pet especially not in a city.


What about something that can kill people, but not eat them? Like, some colorful frogs from Central/South America?


----------



## freaky_tah (Jan 21, 2009)

Ed said:


> Some naturalize and do not cause real issues with the ecosystem, we don't know where it is going to go with these as of yet. There are examples of this.. for example in the US, red eared sliders are introduced in waterways across the country, yet it isn't considered a (except where it is hybridizing with other sliders). This isn't the case in many other countries where it has been introduced.


I'm guessing we're on the same page, but I wanted to further clarify between invasive/naturalized as I've seen people confuse them in the past. The term "naturalized" means that the non-native plant/animal is capable of reproduction without human intervention for an indefinite period. 

Some naturalized species won't spread to new areas, and aren't classified as invasive, yet there are others that can and will aggressively spread...greatly displacing natives (reed canary, curly-leaf, purple loosestrife etc.), and will be classified as invasive as a result.

example: Departure from naturalized to invasive stage: a disturbance-induced mechanism and associated interacting factors. Journal of Plant Ecology (2010) 3(4) p231-242


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

fishman9809 said:


> Definitely not going to argue that because I agree 100% with what you said Ed, but I still think that textbooks should keep the almost scary stories of invasive species (without persecuting any pet owners, plant growers, etc.) because it shows what COULD happen with introduced species, even if not all do in fact become a problem. Not sure if many agree with that, but I feel that type of education (precautionary) is important.


Yes but there are plenty of examples of documented true invasives, kudzu and big head carp in the US, rabbits, cane toads and prickly pear cactus in Australia and so forth. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

eldalote2 said:


> Ed, would the camels in Australia be an example of naturalized invasives?


Under the technical definition yes. They have been documented to be very destructive to the habitat and lack predators of any consequence. 
The Feral Camel (Camelus dromedarius) - Invasive species fact sheet


Ed


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

freaky_tah said:


> I'm guessing we're on the same page, but I wanted to further clarify between invasive/naturalized as I've seen people confuse them in the past. The term "naturalized" means that the non-native plant/animal is capable of reproduction without human intervention for an indefinite period.


Naturalized usually means the plant/animal isn't causing problems in the non-native ecosystem they were introduced to.

Examples: Virginia Opossums here in the NW, or Dingos in Australia (they replaced Thylacines).


----------



## freaky_tah (Jan 21, 2009)

thedude said:


> Naturalized usually means the plant/animal isn't causing problems in the non-native ecosystem they were introduced to.


Right, but species designated as invasive are also, by definition, naturalized. There's a flow from introduction, naturalization, to invasion. Like you mentioned, not all introduced species make it all the way to the invasive category. There is some ambiguity out there, but here's a paper that tries to break it down. It's actually an interesting read about the topic, highlighting how often the two terms can be misused/interchanged.

http://www.cbd.int/doc/articles/2002-/A-00249.pdf

From the abstract: Naturalization starts when abiotic and biotic barriers to survival are surmounted and when various barriers to regular
reproduction are overcome.

Invasion further requires that introduced plants produce reproductive offspring in areas distant from sites of introduction.


----------

