Talk:Burmese pythons in Florida

January 2010
Please do not re-create this page by reverting the edit to redirect. It is nothing but a copy-paste from the burmese python and alligator articles. If you want to re-write it, with sources and such, great, but as-is, it's nothing but a crappy cut-and-paste job. Mokele (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I made it a copy-paste because I hoped you Mokele Mbembe would change the wording make it a different article. If you cannot do that stay to your little dinosaur friends. --Schmeater (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have much, much more important things to do than to do your work for you. Either make it something actually worth keeping, or stop reverting it.  I'll leave it as-is for a week.  If you're too lazy to make *substantial* improvements by then, I revert it. Mokele (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What much more important things? --Schmeater (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Doing actual science. What's your excuse, too busy editing useless pages of pop-culture dreck? Mokele (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Two days left. Mokele (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let us make it another week. You should have dropped by and given me tips okay without that I say you aint a good dinosaur. Science is solubility not dinosaurs that do not exist got it. --Schmeater (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, been busy teaching medical school. Also, the name is meant to be ironic, since the creature in question turned out to be just a rhino. Mokele (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, time's up and them some. Time to remove anything that's irrelevant, off-topic, or just plain wrong. Mokele (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This was just a first pass - doing nothing more than removing crap and shortening / cleaning up, I've reduced the entire page to barely longer than the section in the Burmese Python article. Honestly, there's no reason not to merge it there. Mokele (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey why do we have killer bees. Because native and non native bees bred together. Forming killer bees. Now what if rock pythons breed with burmese pythons, super snake I agree retarded name. Subject: Not so much. Laws need to be stressed. American Alligator Interactions need to be explained to show that the territory war is still on! Oh and there's a war between you and me too.

So lets cut to the chase. What else should I do to fix this article. I don't want you helping or at least fixing it. --Schmeater (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Show me an actual hybrid individual, and it can be mentioned - any claim without empirical evidence to support it will be immediately removed. Just because two congenerics occur in sympatry doesn't mean there will be hybridization.  And there is NO evidence that gator populations are adversely affected by these snakes - the fact that you even use the term "territory war" shows you have absolutely zero understanding of ecology.


 * What needs to be done is to merge this article back into Burmese Python. There is simply not enough on this topic to warrant its own page, *especially* considering the overlap on that page (which, frankly, I need to clean up as well).  I have been saying this from day one, and not just based on your writing - there simply isn't enough information out there on this topic to warrant a separate page.  Most of what is out there is just pointless alarmism, baseless speculation, or constant re-hashing of what's already known.  Just merge it and be done with the whole mess. Mokele (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not merge back and I will combine our writing how about that. If we have to merge this into anything. It's three articles: Burmese Python, American Alligator, Python Sebae and Florida. Understand, give me suggestions on this page of what to clean. Don't clean it yourself, you don't need to clean it up. Why don't you go teach back at medical school.--Schmeater (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Give me a single good reason NOT to merge it. There *nothing* in here that needs to go into either the gator or rock python page - everything about those species here is baseless speculation.  And the next time you return all of your crap to this page, I'm bringing this to the admins. Mokele (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Give me a good reason to not stop you from merging it. And I want an admin of my choice. Does that seem fair to you. --Schmeater (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did revert back. But then I had an idea, why not work on your version of the page and transform it into my version. The edits I made are very little so if you want bring an admin I did revert back to your version. --Schmeater (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So you support merging it into the relevant section of the Burmese Python article? Mokele (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No. I never said that. I support expanding your version of the article with references. But still keeping it a short and succinct article. What are your thoughts on this? --Schmeater (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if we're going to keep it, first thing we need to do is ditch the trivia. Nobody gives a shit about who took what photo, random quotes, or even that "exploding python" thing. They're colorful but not really informative. I propose the following sections (titles temporary): Introduction (obviously), Origins & Spread, Current Status, Future Predictions, Control/Eradication Attempts, Legislative Response (plus references, links and suchlike). Big points to hit would be the thesis mentioned in one of the links I used (I'll see if I can get ahold of it), Both USGS papers on the topic, the PLoS paper contesting the results, as well as more generalized papers from invasion biology and Rodda's book on Problem Snake management (I have a copy of that). The general senstationalism/alarmism of the mainstream media should probably be avoided if at all possible.Mokele (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, those go very good with it. But we need to give American Alligator at least a mention if not a section. I like your sections.--Schmeater (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good so far - I'll do a major content addition in a week or two, once this latest set of surgeries is done. In the meantime, you should be able to access the VPI pythons pdf I added as a ref for this article as well as the Rodda USGS paper and PLoS paper referenced in the invasive section of Burmese python.  Those give a pretty good idea of what I'm shooting for. Mokele (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. --Schmeater (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Prey and Predators section. Do you like that one? --Schmeater (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a quick note, after reading through this. A Burmese/Rock python hybrid has been available in captivity for quite some time now. The hybrid snake was dubbed a 'cateater'. (The Burmese/Reticulated python cross is a 'Bateater'). This is something very easily found with a quick Google search, so the folks crying 'super snake' really need an education (but, we knew that). You see, Cateaters universally grow up to be smaller animals than either of their parent species. The biggest females rarely exceed 11 feet in length, about the size of a red-tail boa. Males stay 9 to 10 feet. So, far from being an aggressive, dangerous, 'super-snake', they don't pose a threat to humans at all. Additionally, creating a cateater hybrid is not particularly easy. These two species do not prefer to crossbreed, and must be tricked into it. WingedWolf (talk) 5.07 PM, 19 July 2011 (CST)

Photo question
Looking at this picture, which is entitled 'American Alligator predating a Burmese Python', it seems to me that nothing of the sort is happening; the two animals are just lying there, not apparently molesting each other at all; it happens that part of the snake's body is inside the gator's open mouth, but the gator seems oblivious to the opportunity! Unless anyone knows better, perhaps it should be re-captioned.Coleopterist (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The source of the photo, USGS, states it was taken during a predation event. Furthermore, while no "action" is occurring at the moment of the photo, the idea that a python would willingly crawl into the mouth of a live alligator strains credulity, especially given the tendency of gators to reflexively close their jaws when anything touches the inside of their mouth. Mokele (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * have now checked the source and you're right about what the photographer claims (though I don't believe her). I would have thought that as you say, the fact the snake and alligator are indifferent to one another 'strains credulity' and is therefore more interesting than the photographer's sensationalism. Coleopterist (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The photo was obviously taken during a pause in the action. Reptiles often engage in activity in bursts, rather than continuous activity the way mammals and birds often do.  They're both taking a rest--in a moment, the snake will begin to try to move away again, and the gator will slam its jaws down and shake it again.  Such are the lives of ectotherms. ;)

Winged_Wolf (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2011 (CST)

The source

USGS Maps Show Potential Non-Native Python Habitat Along Three U.S. Coasts

says:


 * An American alligator and a Burmese python locked in a struggle to prevail in Everglades National Park. This python appears to be losing, but snakes in similar situations have apparently escaped unharmed, and in other situations pythons have eaten alligators. Photo by Lori Oberhofer, National Park Service.

--Ocdnctx (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

mammal-python paper
Hi, please consult the following recent statement of Mazzotti, an author of this study, and improve the article with it! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-mazzotti/pythons-everglades-study_b_1257911.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false Many thanks, --77.57.177.59 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mazzotti is cited three times from three separate scientific papers in this article. What part of the HuffPo story do you think should be added to this article? --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

release vs escape
I've read numerous places that the original population introduced to the everglades may have come from hurricane andrew (I think that's the one). This is not mentioned in the article. Why? ... aa:talk 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the second theory, the “Hurricane Release,” there is ample evidence to support it. We are aware of multiple facilities that were located in close proximity to ENP that were import facilities containing large quantities of Burmese Pythons. One facility in particular, located just outside the northwest corner of ENP housed over 900 Burmese Pythons the day before hurricane Andrew devastated the area. None of those animals were said to be recovered. Due to the fact that there have been few successful snake “introductions” anywhere in the world, this shows that a mass introduction would have better odds than a handful being released sporadically. There is a genetic study funded by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) that revealed two facts that support a mass release of Burmese Pythons from a single event. The first is that all of the pythons captured and used in the study were very closely related and from one country of origin. Had they been products of pet releases the genetic diversity would have been greater. They were also able to demonstrate that none of the pythons captured were from Vietnam. This is important because Vietnam has been the sole source of imported Burmese Pythons into the United States since 1994. In 2002, 27 pythons were captured in South Florida and the numbers continued to increase until present. Had these animals been the product of irresponsible pet owners releasing their pets, we would have found some DNA that linked them to the Vietnam strain. There have also never been any mutations found in the wild population, which now make up the vast majority of what is in the pet trade. Granted albino babies would not survive, but the other mutations (granites, labrynths, greens, etc) would survive much like the “wild type” strain of Burmese Python currently in the ENP.


 * http://snakebytestv.ning.com/profiles/blogs/facts-about-burmese-pythons
 * ... aa:talk 12:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Biased Dorcas article
Dorcas et al's study, “Severe Mammal Declines Coincide with Proliferation of Invasive Burmese Pythons in Everglades National Park” is cited throughout this article, but it shows several signs of bias and unscientific methodology. He went back to records of road-killed animals in Everglades National Park during the 1990’s before the population of Burmese pythons had become significant and compared them with the number of road side sightings of these same species 10 years later. He concluded that the populations of raccoons, possums, bobcats, and marsh rabbits had been decimated and in some cases had been reduced by 100%. This doesn’t make any sense ecologically. If the population of prey declines in abundance, than the population of predators declines as well because there is nothing for the predators to eat. Burmese pythons couldn’t decimate mammal populations without eventually succombing to starvation themselves. So the results of Dr. Dorcas’s study were unbelievably ridiculous. The following flaws can be found in Dr. Dorcas’s study:

1. The survey for road-killed animals (Dr. Dorcas’s data from the 1990’s) didn’t include critical information–how many observers, the number of miles driven, the number of days the survey was done, and the procedures used to avoid double counting. In other words this data is anecdotal and useless.

2. The year of the pre-python survey was a high water year when more animals were forced to take refuge on the high ground where the road exists. This explains why more animals were counted during the survey than during later drought years. Road-side surveys yield dubious data. Dr. Dorcas should have used live trapping to get an accurate count of mammal populations.

3. There is no actual data on python densities.

4. The timing of the python population increase and the supposed decline in mammal populations is not documented. Scientists can’t explain how python populations could increase following prey population declines (my point exactly).

5. There is no mention in Dr. Dorcas’s study of coyotes. Coyotes recently re-colonized south Florida and may play a role in the decline of mammal populations there.

6. The differences in prey density inside and outside Everglades National Park are likely due to differences in habitat, not the presence of pythons. Everglades National Park is actually very poor wildlife habitat. More wildlife lives outside the park than inside. With very few exceptions most of the best wildlife habitat left in the world is occupied by humans. We give animals the wastelands that are too expensive to commercially develop and call them national parks.

I suggest all references to this article be removed from the article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.193.97 (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Invasive impact
This isn't a subject I have expertise in, but I think the last line is incorrect:

Severe declines in mammalian populations across the Everglades may be tied to the proliferation of pythons.[2][10] Comparisons of road surveys conducted in 1996-1997 (prior to proliferation) and 2003-2011 (after proliferation) indicated declines from 88% to 100% in the frequency of raccoon, opossum, bobcat, rabbit, fox, and other mammalian species sightings.[2] These declines were concordant with the spatial geography of python spread. It should be noted that most of these species are well-known to have increased in numbers following human disturbance, however.

It seems like either the word "increased" should be "decreased" or that the sentence needs rewording to be more clear. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)