local wild chameleons

[Eltortu]

Please explain, why should I care about chameleons being an invasive species? What about the invasive race that practically exterminated Native Americans? What about the fact that non-native plants are actually a much bigger threat than chameleons? How do you intend to stop something that is impossible to stop? And why should anyone waste their money and time, on a lizard hunt, when we are a much bigger threat to the ecosystem than the chameleons could ever be?

Tell me, why should I care about chameleons, when the government is not even organized enough to regulate the amount of antibiotics and drugs that are feed to the hamburgers that we eat? When we have so many rivers flowing with high toxicity levels? And you are actually concerned about chameleons because chameleons are -by definition- an invasive species?

Well I fully disagree with your condescending notion, I think it is absurd. If you knew how many plants are non-native invasive species, and how much the invasive plants have in turn affected native animals, you wouldn't be at all concerned about chameleons.

You talk a good deal about ignorance: tell me smart man, what do you intend to do about it? Whom would pay for it? Whom would benefit from it?

My opinion is, for each chameleon that you catch, there is a corporation that is completely unregulated, throwing toxic into the water, feeding animals whom naturally eat grass with a combo of corn and antibiotics to counter the fact that the animal gets sick from eating something that it should not be eating, etc, etc. If you think you would be doing the world a favor by fighting against the great aggressor that the chameleon is, then perhaps you already are in that pit of ignorance that you seem to despise.

Human beings do not even know if they are 100% native or if there is an alien element in the mix, yet people like you are arrogant enough to believe that they actually do have a say in what is native and what isn't: I find your argument idiotic, not because I think it's conceptually wrong, but because it's disconnected from reality and would be detrimental if effectuated under the given circumstances.

If you had any real conviction, you would not own any chameleons nor any other non-native invasive species. If you cared so much about the native ecosystem, then a little hobby is a small price to pay, wouldn't you think? Yet you are incapable of giving up a small luxury in exchange for the well being of the ecosystem.

If invasive species were all illegal for every person, then fair enough, but to be the legal owner of an exotic pet and at the same time complain about an inevitable outcome, is, as far as I'm concerned, comparable to eating meat and simultaneously arguing that meat is murder: completely devoid of any real conviction.

I have no real problem with the argument from a conceptual point of view, if certain animals are a real threat to the ecosystem of a nation, then make them illegal for all people, and that should greatly minimize the threat; but when a chameleon owner is the one whom is complaining, I find it offensive and condescending.

Do you need a hug?

 

[Amateur]

::shakes head::

Most people on the street do not know or care that other people out there keep chameleons, or all sorts of other exotic animals, absolutely including politicians. This changes quickly when those animals find their way into the wild, and especially if they are actually able to establish reproductive populations. Then people begin to know, and care, and often begin to think (reasonably, I might add) that species like that should be banned, to prevent further introductions.

Most introduced species in most places don't become established, even if they are accidentally released. For example, corn, or wheat, or chameleons are not taking over upstate New York, even though they are present there. Sometimes, however, introduced species do become established, do spread, and do cause serious ecological and economic harm. The examples are extremely numerous, especially here in Hawaii.

Jackson's chameleons here were intentionally released into the environment, but with the intention of recapturing them after they recovered from importation stress. Well, that didn't work so well, and within a few years they had established a substantial population. They haven't devestated the ecosystem the way that some invasives do in some places, but there's no question they compete with native birds for insect prey, at the very least.

Hawaii allowed chameleon exports to the mainland for a time, but shut the operation down after it became clear that people were intentionally spreading the animals around Oahu, Maui, and the Big Island, so as to establish new populations for collection purposes. Collectors also made nuisanses of themselves, from what I hear. By this time the animals were so well established, erradication was simply infeasible. Now you can maintain pet Jackson's collected locally, but you cannot transport them between islands (they are present on Oahu, Maui, and the Big Island, but not on Kauai yet, and Kahoolawe, Lanai and Niihau are probably far too dry for them). You can hand carry up to four animals out of the state one time, but shipping them or taking more than four is highly illegal (though some illegal animals probably do make it out). While I love them, find them a joy, and think myself extremely fortunate to live in their midst, I sincerely wish that neither they nor any other non-native species would have been introduced to the islands. Native Hawaiian flora and fauna are spectacular, and much of it has been driven extinct or to ecological extinction by introduced species.

Veiled chamelons were brought to Maui a few years ago, as illegal animals, and established a small population. Happily, this introduction was caught fairly early, and the population looks to be erradicated, or close to it. There's a small but established population of Giant Day Geckos in upper Manoa valley. Gold dust day geckos are established in many places around Oahu (there's a group that lives a few houses down from me, and a few more populations I've seen within about a mile radius of my place). These species, while established, are considered invasive and cannot be kept as pets, under penalty of substantial fines, and possible jail time.

Exotic species should not be released, should not be allowed to become established, and established populations, if possible, should be removed. This goes as much for chameleons as anything else. Firstly, introduced species can and do cause devestating harm in many cases, and there's usually no way to know if they will until they are so well established that control is infeasible. Second, I can think of no better way possible to get the exotic pet trade (including the chameleon trade) shut down than for these species to establish feral populations. There was little effort and zero traction most places in banning exotic pythons and other species until they started showing up in the wild. Once that ball got rolling, it was hard to stop, and frankly, perhaps those species really shouldn't be kept by most people in environments where they can survive and breed.

If you want to see this hobby made illegal then let those feral populations spread, and perhaps even start new ones. If you want this hobby to remain legal, do everything you can to ensure that chameleons (and other exotics) stay in captivity, and out of ecosystems where they are not native.

cj

How can I do everything I can to ensure that chameleons (and other exotics) stay in captivity? If a random person who owns a lot of private property, decides to breed chameleons, what can I do about it? Or do you think the location of an animal that sells for $75 a pop will be known by the average person?

In an ideal world, your advice is good and fair, however, in the real world, your advice is neither fair nor realistic, and in general a complete waste of time that could be used to fight the injustices that we can actually fight against.

Chameleons have been sold to just about anyone, since the 1980s, it cannot be stopped, the people who know the location of the populations will not give away the information, and most importantly, the people who know the location of the populations do not actually have a real level of control over the chameleons, chameleons must have reproduced beyond the limits of their capacity. At this point, even if you make it "illegal", you already have chameleon breeders, and you can be certain that chameleons will be sold illegally for many years down the line.

So I disagree with you in that respect, you make it sound as though if any chameleon owner could do something against it, when the truth is, I have a job, I don't know the people who introduced these chameleons into the wild, I don't know the people who illegally breed and sell chameleons -- What the hell do you expect me to do? Quit my job and go out on a blind lizard hunt? If the hobby is made illegal, I blame it on human nature, I don't blame it on people not doing enough to stop it.

 

[Amateur]

This thread is over a year old.

Chris Anderson actually studies chameleons and regularly goes out on expeditions to study them in their natural environments. He's not your average, every day keeper here.

I am not questioning his knowledge on chameleons, I am questioning how exactly would it be beneficial to be concerned about chameleons in the actual context in which we live in today, I feel it is a very valid concern and counter argument.

If you are going to be condescending towards a person whom you consider blissfully ignorant, you might as well explain how -exactly- you intend to do something about it: who would pay for it? How many people would you need considering each female veiled chameleon will lay about 40 eggs?

I just find it's very easy to get on the proverbial high horse and say "hey chameleons are actually detrimental to the natural fauna" -- well, I do know that, but what do you intend to do about it?

Again, not questioning Chris's abilities nor knowledge, I'm merely questioning what he intends to do about it, whom would pay for it, would you see it working in the long term or do you think it would ultimately cost more (both economically and environmentally) than it would produce, etc. Just simple questions, don't see anything wrong here.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Amateur,

Did you even read my post before you replied to it? If so, I recommend reading it again because its very clear you failed to understand anything I said.

Please explain, why should I care about chameleons being an invasive species? What about the invasive race that practically exterminated Native Americans? What about the fact that non-native plants are actually a much bigger threat than chameleons? How do you intend to stop something that is impossible to stop? And why should anyone waste their money and time, on a lizard hunt, when we are a much bigger threat to the ecosystem than the chameleons could ever be?

I never indicated that chameleons were a devastating invasive species nor did I indicate that there aren't other invasive species that are doing more damage. I did indicate that as an invasive species that does not naturally occur in Florida, Hawaii or California that they should not be protected.

You are correct that non-native plants are a huge problem to native ecosystems and that humans have had massive detrimental effects on environments around the world. I would also agree that while studies quantifying the impact of invasive chameleon populations on local ecosystems have not been conducted, that both the two aforementioned cases are likely much more detrimental to local ecosystems than chameleons are.

As for trying to stop something that is impossible to stop or wasting money on a chameleon hunt, once again, I never said anything of the sort. I only stated that introduced chameleon populations should not be protected. What does that have to do with wasting money on a chameleon hunt or trying to stop something that is impossible to stop?

Tell me, why should I care about chameleons, when the government is not even organized enough to regulate the amount of antibiotics and drugs that are feed to the hamburgers that we eat? When we have so many rivers flowing with high toxicity levels? And you are actually concerned about chameleons because chameleons are -by definition- an invasive species?

Once again, I never indicated that we should devote huge sums of money to fight the invasive chameleon populations in the US, I only indicated that they should not be protected. Please read my posts before you put words in my mouth.

Am I concerned about chameleons because they are an invasive species? Yes, I am. I'm concerned because we do not know at this point what their true impact is on local ecosystems and they have been documented feeding on native species. Further, as an enthusiast, these invasive populations are ammunition for legislation against responsible keepers being able to work with these species in captivity, which is a shame. Similarly, as a scientist, any legislation supported by the presence of these invasive populations also inhibits my ability to conduct research to help us better understand chameleons in general.

As for your comments on the government not being organized enough to deal with health and ecotoxicology issues, I agree that this is also troubling. I fail to see, however, how it effects whether or not introduced chameleon populations should be protected or not, or whether or not they have an impact on local ecosystems, even if it is likely less than other issues.

Well I fully disagree with your condescending notion, I think it is absurd. If you knew how many plants are non-native invasive species, and how much the invasive plants have in turn affected native animals, you wouldn't be at all concerned about chameleons.

What notion of mine is it that you disagree with? While you've put a lot of words in my mouth, so far you haven't talked about a single thing I said.

I am very aware of the issue non-native plants, domesticated cats, humans, etc., have on local ecosystems. That does not, however, mean that introduced chameleon populations have no impact, even if it is less than these other examples. Further, it does not mean that introduced chameleon populations should be protected.

You talk a good deal about ignorance: tell me smart man, what do you intend to do about it? Whom would pay for it? Whom would benefit from it?

As a biologist, most of my research is focused on chameleons. I have consulted with Florida FWC on the invasive chameleon populations in Florida, their biology, their likely threat level to local ecosystems, provided suggestions on ways to study them, have been given animals from FL FWC after they were collected from introduced populations, etc. I am also a member of the IUCN Species Survival Commission's Chameleon Specialist Group, which is involved in a range of chameleon related research and evaluations, including providing recommendations to regulatory bodies (CITES, etc.). My research is funded by federal grants, international research societies and fraternities, private donations, etc. What are you doing?

My opinion is, for each chameleon that you catch, there is a corporation that is completely unregulated, throwing toxic into the water, feeding animals whom naturally eat grass with a combo of corn and antibiotics to counter the fact that the animal gets sick from eating something that it should not be eating, etc, etc. If you think you would be doing the world a favor by fighting against the great aggressor that the chameleon is, then perhaps you already are in that pit of ignorance that you seem to despise.

Again, how does this have anything to do with my statement that introduced chameleon populations should not be protected? Are you also suggesting that if it isn't what you'd consider a major problem, it should just be ignored? Thats like refusing to pay your credit card bill because you're having trouble paying your mortgage. You can only ignore smaller problems for so long before they become much bigger.

Human beings do not even know if they are 100% native or if there is an alien element in the mix, yet people like you are arrogant enough to believe that they actually do have a say in what is native and what isn't: I find your argument idiotic, not because I think it's conceptually wrong, but because it's disconnected from reality and would be detrimental if effectuated under the given circumstances.

Yes, I am arrogant enough to believe that we know chameleons are not naturally found in Florida, Hawaii or California and are thus not native. There are a lot of things we don't know about chameleons but whether or not they are native to these areas is one thing we definitely do.

What is disconnected from reality about not protecting introduced chameleon populations? Again, you seem to have failed to understand anything I wrote in my posts. If anything is disconnected from reality its your reply to my posts.

If you had any real conviction, you would not own any chameleons nor any other non-native invasive species. If you cared so much about the native ecosystem, then a little hobby is a small price to pay, wouldn't you think? Yet you are incapable of giving up a small luxury in exchange for the well being of the ecosystem.

I do not release my animals into local ecosystems and work very hard to advance our understanding of these animals on a variety of levels. My conviction as a biologist is not in question. I am wondering about your reading comprehension though...

If invasive species were all illegal for every person, then fair enough, but to be the legal owner of an exotic pet and at the same time complain about an inevitable outcome, is, as far as I'm concerned, comparable to eating meat and simultaneously arguing that meat is murder: completely devoid of any real conviction.

There should be nothing inevitable about exotic pets becoming invasive species and as I said, if they do become so, they should not be protected. How does that have anything to do with eating meat and arguing that meat is murder?

I have no real problem with the argument from a conceptual point of view, if certain animals are a considerable threat to the ecosystem of a nation, then make them illegal for all people, and that should greatly minimize the threat; but when a chameleon owner is the one whom is complaining, I find it offensive and condescending.

I have no problem with chameleons being kept in captivity in a responsible and sustainable manner. I have a problem, however, when irresponsible individuals release these animals into native ecosystems that they do not belong in or when the trade is conducted in a manner that is not sustainable. When these animals are released by irresponsible individuals into environments that they do not belong, I do not believe they should be protected. There is nothing offensive or condescending about that.

Though of course, is doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, illegal or not, non-native animals will be introduced one way or the other, it is inevitable, it is what happens when you throw human beings into the mix, and I just fail to see why I should be concerned about chameleons in the US, I don't see it as a reason to be concerned, I see it as the inevitable outcome of globalization.

There should be nothing inevitable about non-native animals being introduced to environments they do not belong. Irresponsible keepers have no business working with exotic animals and responsible keepers should have no problem preventing their animals from escaping into local environments. As my previous posts indicated, it would be irresponsible of anyone to protect these introduced populations, however.

Chris

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Chameleons and other plants, insects, and animals have a place in modern society outside of their home ranges. They create a link to whatever part of the world that these specimens are from and make keepers and fans of these species much more aware to conservation issues that are going on outside of their home country which in the modern world is extremely important. Plus keeping these species is a good at home experience with biology which can be a great to to start kids off for biology schooling or another avenue away from mass media markets that are going on today.

The main problem is as Chris has stated making specimens available only if it is done in a sustainable way. However the privileged keepers that end up working with these specimens are inherently responsible to make sure these species do not make it into non native ecosystem. There are some grass roots conservation groups that specialize in restorations to remove invasive species and I would not be surprise to see something of a restoration happen if chameleons become considered a major threat to local native species.

 

[Amateur]

Amateur,

Did you even read my post before you replied to it? If so, I recommend reading it again because its very clear you failed to understand anything I said.

I never indicated that chameleons were a devastating invasive species nor did I indicate that there aren't other invasive species that are doing more damage. I did indicate that as an invasive species that does not naturally occur in Florida, Hawaii or California that they should not be protected.

You are correct that non-native plants are a huge problem to native ecosystems and that humans have had massive detrimental effects on environments around the world. I would also agree that while studies quantifying the impact of invasive chameleon populations on local ecosystems have not been conducted, that both the two aforementioned cases are likely much more detrimental to local ecosystems than chameleons are.

As for trying to stop something that is impossible to stop or wasting money on a chameleon hunt, once again, I never said anything of the sort. I only stated that introduced chameleon populations should not be protected. What does that have to do with wasting money on a chameleon hunt or trying to stop something that is impossible to stop?

First off, I want to apologize for jumping to an incorrect conclusion, I had been reading about this for quite some time, listening to suggestions such as search and catch parties and such, and by the time I read your post, I identified you as a part of the same group. Hence why you don't get where I'm coming from.

Am I concerned about chameleons because they are an invasive species? Yes, I am. I'm concerned because we do not know at this point what their true impact is on local ecosystems and they have been documented feeding on native species. Further, as an enthusiast, these invasive populations are ammunition for legislation against responsible keepers being able to work with these species in captivity, which is a shame. Similarly, as a scientist, any legislation supported by the presence of these invasive populations also inhibits my ability to conduct research to help us better understand chameleons in general.

As for your comments on the government not being organized enough to deal with health and ecotoxicology issues, I agree that this is also troubling. I fail to see, however, how it effects whether or not introduced chameleon populations should be protected or not, or whether or not they have an impact on local ecosystems, even if it is likely less than other issues.

What notion of mine is it that you disagree with? While you've put a lot of words in my mouth, so far you haven't talked about a single thing I said.

Not protecting them, doesn't do anything about random people breeding them in their own private property and the chameleons reproducing beyond the limits of their capacity, which is probably happening as we speak. Whilst I do disagree with some of the things you've said, I did unintentionally put words in your mouth, and I do apologize for that.

As a biologist, most of my research is focused on chameleons. I have consulted with Florida FWC on the invasive chameleon populations in Florida, their biology, their likely threat level to local ecosystems, provided suggestions on ways to study them, have been given animals from FL FWC after they were collected from introduced populations, etc. I am also a member of the IUCN Species Survival Commission's Chameleon Specialist Group, which is involved in a range of chameleon related research and evaluations, including providing recommendations to regulatory bodies (CITES, etc.). My research is funded by federal grants, international research societies and fraternities, private donations, etc. What are you doing?

I am an admirer of chameleons because I find them fascinating to watch in something that resembles their natural habitat, but I'm doing absolutely nothing about chameleons, all of my efforts are directed at something else, and I can assure you that I am doing something about the things that I consider relevant to my view of the world.

Again, how does this have anything to do with my statement that introduced chameleon populations should not be protected? Are you also suggesting that if it isn't what you'd consider a major problem, it should just be ignored? Thats like refusing to pay your credit card bill because you're having trouble paying your mortgage. You can only ignore smaller problems for so long before they become much bigger.

Not at all, I am not suggesting that, I don't believe it should be ignored, but I feel it is redundant to do something against it: documenting the facts that you've gathered through observation is always positive, on the other hand, using money in an effort to search and catch chameleons I feel is a waste of money, provided the government has something to do with it.

Again, you never suggested that the government should be involved, you merely vaguely said that invasive species should not be protected, and I jumped to the wrong conclusion: my mistake.

Yes, I am arrogant enough to believe that we know chameleons are not naturally found in Florida, Hawaii or California and are thus not native. There are a lot of things we don't know about chameleons but whether or not they are native to these areas is one thing we definitely do.

I never claimed that you were arrogant for that reason, I called you arrogant because it was my understanding that you actually believe that you can stop the growth of a lizard that can lay clutches of 40 eggs and can hide itself as effectively as a chameleon can, and I do feel that is extremely arrogant and unrealistic; studying them? Saying that they should not be protected? Fair enough. Believing that it can be contained before it gets bigger? I believe is a mistake and whomever is paid for such a purpose, would be better employed doing more relevant things, in my opinion.

I do not release my animals into local ecosystems and work very hard to advance our understanding of these animals on a variety of levels. My conviction as a biologist is not in question. I am wondering about your reading comprehension though...

You are putting words in my mouth there, as I never claimed that your conviction as a "biologist" was in question, I did questioned your conviction on false grounds (unintentionally), but never as a biologist.

There should be nothing inevitable about exotic pets becoming invasive species and as I said, if they do become so, they should not be protected. How does that have anything to do with eating meat and arguing that meat is murder?

The same way there should be nothing inevitable nor impossible about Communism? You give power to human beings, human beings do stupid shit with the responsibility that you give them, that's a fact of life.

If a majority of people can buy chameleons, some of these people will do something naive and stupid, and the thing about doing stupid shit with an animal that can lay clutches of 40 eggs rather quickly, is what happened in Hawaii, and what could easily happen in Puerto Rico as soon as an enthusiast manages to release twenty or thirty chameleons on El Yunque National Forest. If it's legal to buy non-native animals in a region where they can survive, they will find their way into the wild one way or the other, as far as I'm concerned, it is just as inevitable as politicians creating laws to benefit the most corrupt (read: wealthy) people of the lot.

I am no expert though.

I have no problem with chameleons being kept in captivity in a responsible and sustainable manner. I have a problem, however, when irresponsible individuals release these animals into native ecosystems that they do not belong in or when the trade is conducted in a manner that is not sustainable. When these animals are released by irresponsible individuals into environments that they do not belong, I do not believe they should be protected. There is nothing offensive or condescending about that.

There should be nothing inevitable about non-native animals being introduced to environments they do not belong. Irresponsible keepers have no business working with exotic animals and responsible keepers should have no problem preventing their animals from escaping into local environments. As my previous posts indicated, it would be irresponsible of anyone to protect these introduced populations, however.

Chris

How do you control what individual people do with their property? It is not natural at all, to have non-native animals in places where they shouldn't be, but when people can buy these animals in regions where these animals can survive, I think it is inevitable that non-native animals will be introduced to environments they do not belong.

Our education is not very good, I am pretty sure that the people in Hawaii didn't think that chameleons would reproduce as quickly as that, yet all that needed to happen was to have an irresponsible person leave the chameleons in some backyard. It's inevitable as far as I'm concerned, just one of the many inevitable consequences of globalization.

It would be a shame if responsible owners are penalized, as that would in no way stop illegal breeding and sales, but to argue that it is not inevitable, I feel is unrealistic, even more so in the face of so much evidence.

Anyways, let's say that in a few years it can be scientifically proven that chameleons -with no direct competitor- will become a pest in the next 20 years, what do you think could be done to reduce or contain the growth of these lizards?

 

[Elizadolots]

What's funny is that to me, a reasonably objective observer, it seems you both agree.

Chameleons "in the wild" in America are all "introduced" so there is no reason to protect them legally the way there would be a species which only existed here.

Right?

There you go...I think that's what both of you are saying.

 

[Amateur]

What's funny is that to me, a reasonably objective observer, it seems you both agree.

Chameleons "in the wild" in America are all "introduced" so there is no reason to protect them legally the way there would be a species which only existed here.

Right?

There you go...I think that's what both of you are saying.

Not exactly, but I appreciate the fact that Chris responded reasonably well, better than I did in my opinion, which is certainly appreciated.

But for instance, let's say that 30 years down the line, the Hawaii Jackson Chameleon evolves into a slightly different version than the Original Jackson Chameleon, and let's say the animals that are threatened by the presence of the Jackson Chameleon evolve into a fitter prey, would the Jackson Chameleon still be considered a non-native invasive species?

Furthermore, studying wild chameleons sounds like a cool job; however, the idea of containing the growth of a lizard that as of this moment we do not exactly know how well established it is in the US, seems unrealistic to me, I suspect people are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

In any case, as you mentioned, I mostly agree with Chris, though I do believe that it is inevitable that -if the conditions allow it- that chameleons will be intentionally or unintentionally introduced into an alien habitat, be it for profit making or due to the simple fact that you thought it would be cool to release some chameleons into the wild in order to see how well they managed.

 

[Solid Snake]

But for instance, let's say that 30 years down the line, the Hawaii Jackson Chameleon evolves into a slightly different version than the Original Jackson Chameleon, and let's say the animals that are threatened by the presence of the Jackson Chameleon evolve into a fitter prey, would the Jackson Chameleon still be considered a non-native invasive species?

I would think so, yes.
They would just be proving their invasive-ness in that scenario.



Why practice conservation? When nothing is "untouched" at this point anyhow?(<-my interpretation of a question posed here)

I feel that it would behoove us as humans, to try to slow the the damage that is being played out by past actions. The world is a fragile and delicate system, that is living, and that operates, and is effected by the rules of nature. Nature is always trying to bring things into homeostasis. When things change one place, things have to change elsewhere to compensate. The effects of these invasive non-native species directly impacts all of us, as it directly impacts a balanced system, which then has to change to re-balance, or, achieve homeostasis. Now, I dont intend to give the idea, that there is/was a perfectly balanced planet at any point in time. It is, and needs to be dynamic, to survive. I mean to say that we enjoy it being balanced to an extent, that we can thrive in it. Go "rocking the boat" too much, and were going to sink.

So can things be fixed? I dont know, I feel its doubtful.
Should we try and slow/stop any further damage, and repair known mistakes? Why not? Cant hurt.

These are just my opinions.

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

I would think so, yes.
They would just be proving their invasive-ness in that scenario.



Why practice conservation? When nothing is "untouched" at this point anyhow?(<-my interpretation of a question posed here)

I feel that it would behoove us as humans, to try to slow the the damage that is being played out by past actions. The world is a fragile and delicate system, that is living, and that operates, and is effected by the rules of nature. Nature is always trying to bring things into homeostasis. When things change one place, things have to change elsewhere to compensate. The effects of these invasive non-native species directly impacts all of us, as it directly impacts a balanced system, which then has to change to re-balance, or, achieve homeostasis. Now, I dont intend to give the idea, that there is/was a perfectly balanced planet at any point in time. It is, and needs to be dynamic, to survive. I mean to say that we enjoy it being balanced to an extent, that we can thrive in it. Go "rocking the boat" too much, and were going to sink.

So can things be fixed? I dont know, I feel its doubtful.
Should we try and slow/stop any further damage, and repair known mistakes? Why not? Cant hurt.

These are just my opinions.

Conservation and the preservation of Biodiversity adds more variety to the world we live. And if allowed to evolve long enough in isolation can evolve into many spectacular species as seen with many species in Madagascar with a great example being chameleons. That is just the ecology of preserving biodiversity. There are other technical aspect that can be found from unique ecosystems and habitats and is actually something Chris is working on. Another technical example is the possible discovery of unique chemical compounds and their application to the modern world as medicine or for other uses. Inherently protecting native biodiversity is extremely important.

 

[Elizadolots]

Yet, there seems to be a press to return to "original" whenever possible. I live in San Diego and there have been Eucalyptus trees here since 1853. Yet, ecologists are pushing to get rid of them.

A worldwide study of the tree sponsored by the United Nations in 1955 concluded that in California, eucalyptuses had become useful only as windbreaks in citrus groves. Ecologists have been less kind, calling the tree an invasive pest that kills native vegetation and threatens biodiversity.

They are being trimmed back and removed as much as possible. Ditto palm trees.

I know, trees aren't animals, but I have to think that the same logic would apply. An invasive species brought in by humans would always be considered something to be removed, even if it had adapted well to its new environment.

Emotionally I see the other side of the argument. If they've flourished there, have even begun to adapt to form unique variants, then it seems those should be preserved, but I have to think that my emotional reaction is probably not scientifically sound....

 

[chameleoman]

1.This thread makes me laugh

2. Its just funny

3. I never want to get on chris's bad side!!!

4. I agree with chris on everything so i dont get a lecture

5. i cant believe im still typing

6. this thread IS a year old

7.goodbye. . . . . . .

 

[JackP308]

may be a year old but that dont change that the fact there are local wild chameleons lol. Did anyone in Cali actually find any over the year. I know a lot in FL have and one member in Cali had found the veiled and posted notes thinking it may have been a pet at the time.

 

[Elizadolots]

Well, the Jackson's in the Moro Bay area are well documented.

This was posted earlier in the thread: http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/c.jacksonii.html

 

[ph34r]

wow this thread is amazing, me being from canada and all i was totally unaware of the situation going on in the lower states i read this thread from front to back and enjoyed every minute of it

 

[Seeco]

Ya this is the most detailed, point for point debate I can recall here.

But of course there is really no argument -- if it can be done for cheap or for free we should always eradicate introduced species before they become uncontrollable...

 

[Amateur]

I found this cool video on YouTube, thought you guys would find it worth the watch, here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg-RvL4e2hs

I would think so, yes.
They would just be proving their invasive-ness in that scenario.



Why practice conservation? When nothing is "untouched" at this point anyhow?(<-my interpretation of a question posed here)

I feel that it would behoove us as humans, to try to slow the the damage that is being played out by past actions. The world is a fragile and delicate system, that is living, and that operates, and is effected by the rules of nature. Nature is always trying to bring things into homeostasis. When things change one place, things have to change elsewhere to compensate. The effects of these invasive non-native species directly impacts all of us, as it directly impacts a balanced system, which then has to change to re-balance, or, achieve homeostasis. Now, I dont intend to give the idea, that there is/was a perfectly balanced planet at any point in time. It is, and needs to be dynamic, to survive. I mean to say that we enjoy it being balanced to an extent, that we can thrive in it. Go "rocking the boat" too much, and were going to sink.

So can things be fixed? I dont know, I feel its doubtful.
Should we try and slow/stop any further damage, and repair known mistakes? Why not? Cant hurt.

These are just my opinions.

That's a very good point, and ideally I am very much in favor of that, though realistically I have a different opinion. To me, it's not a dilemma between an emotional response vs scientific conviction, to me it's a case of what to do with what you have, which has more to do with the cold hard numbers than with the vast universe that is science.

My opinion is, in today's context we -the human race- are a much bigger threat to biodiversity, than the introduction of chameleons into alien habitats. Therefore, considering the fact that we are seeing one of the unhealthiest generations of humans ever documented at a time when the supposed scientific and medicinal achievements should sustain a different reality, I feel that any qualified person that can do something in favor of green technology and against pollution, is carrying out a much more valuable service, than a person whom is out in the jungle looking for chameleons to be captured.

I mean, when people talk to me about the threat of non-native invasive chameleons, I'm thinking about how the new antibiotic-resistant parasites which only exist due to our rigged food system, are a much bigger threat towards biodiversity, due to the fact that the meat that 80% of the world consumes comes from the same vendor that feeds his livestock with drugs that are owned by another prostitute of the same monopoly, and due to the fact that this has severe repercussions on the balance and biodiversity of this magnificent planet.

I mean, where I live we didn't have crocodiles back in the 1970s, absolutely no crocodiles, the whole island was danger-free, you could get lost and not find a single poisonous snake nor a crocodile; yet today, we now have a pest of pythons in certain areas, we have crocodiles in other areas, we have non-native monkeys all over the place, all of these animals are dangerous, yet no chameleons.

And absolutely nothing was done to contain the growth of such dangerous animals, because it's not a lucrative business, because we barely have any money for the essential things in life, because the government and private equity are beyond a joke, because the education completes the joke, etc, etc.

Furthermore, even in it's own field of non-native invasive species, chameleons are the little guys in comparison to other animals and plants. You compare monkeys whom are an immediate threat to the agriculture of your country, who do not lay clutches of 30+ eggs, whom are aggressive towards humans, whom are easier to spot (albeit certainly not easier to catch), and chameleons look insignificant in comparison.

At the end of the day, the way I see it, we simply have bigger problems, and only very few people are qualified to make a difference. I would not be happy if the government got involved in anything that has anything to do with non-native chameleons; if a private company can take care of it, then they are welcomed, but even that, I think is unrealistic due to how the corporate world works.

I've listened to people suggesting that "next time you go to Morro Bay catch as many as you can, these are not native and are a threat to the blah blah" as if catching one or twenty specimens of an elusive lizard that can lay clutches of about 30+ eggs amounts to something relevant.... I just wonder where the fuck are these super heroes when the world needs them.... probably in Morrow Bay looking for a hobby that can justify their self-righteous bullshit.

PS

No disrespect towards your point though, like I said, ideally I agree with that, but realistically I do not view it as something that should be done via government funds, nor as something that can be done via private enterprise. Of course, I could very easily be wrong. That's my two cents on the whole thing.

 

[showjet95]

Ya this is the most detailed, point for point debate I can recall here.

But of course there is really no argument -- if it can be done for cheap or for free we should always eradicate introduced species before they become uncontrollable...

Like us humans? We are the biggest parasite to this earth wherever we go. We're an introduced species almost everywhere and we destroy native plant and animal species like no other plant or animal do. We are the worst thing that has ever happened to this beautiful planet unfortunately.


Sorry to bring up this old thread. Btw, what ever happened to the cham hunt? I'm assuming it never actually took place right? Lol

 

[qdude46]

If I knew what area I would definitely go on a hunt because someone mentioned a small population in huntington beach which is where I live and I have never heard of chameleons here but I would try to find them if they do exist.