Biologist finds rare garter snakes in California

[GradStudentLeper]

reminds me of a saying....

If you have a problem with farmers, dont talk with your mouth full.

It isnt a problem with farmers as their farming practices and the fact that they moan, complain, and and cry for mommy when their poor farming practices come back and bite them.

The farmers in the central valley have eutrophicated the ocean, drained wetlands, and turned sex reversed frogs hundreds of miles down wind. Their choice in what to farm has forced them not only to kill off a few endangered species (and complain when the state/feds enforce the law) but they also have to import the vast majority of their water from OTHER parched desert states. Considering the population growth in the region, and how most of the rivers (like the Salt and Colorado River) dont reach the ocean anymore because they are so heavily drained.... Yeah, screw them. I am willing to deal with higher food prices.

[charles parenteau]

VEry nice find!

[FunkyRes]

You have a point, Rhea... but totally unscientifically, I find it hard to believe that 1000 acres of farmland creates more problems than covering that 1000 acres with apartments, tract housing, auto malls, more shopping centers with the exact same stores and restaurants as the one 5 miles down the road... you get the idea... even if it's aestetics only... I'd prefer farm land. No doubt, work still needs to be done with farm owners regarding water use, land erosion, and pestisides, but covering the area in asphalt can't possibly be better???

Let me give an example that gives anecdotal support.
A tract of land in Contra Costa County owned by a Cattle rancher was given to the East Bay Regional Park district in the late 80s. Initially the city/county wanted to buy it to turn it into a landfill, but the son of the rancher who ranched the land wouldn't have it, he wanted it to be available to the public.

Since then, they have found San Joaquin Kit Fox, California Red-legged Frogs, and other rare species living there. Glad it wasn't turned into a dump! It also since that time has become one of the only places in Contra Costa County that has Golden Eagles nesting there.

10 driving miles away from there is where my parents live. A developer bulldozed land and started to build, but now that land is bulldozed, with streets, but empty - and completely useless. What may have lived on that land that now is gone? Sure - it was farmland before, but a lot of the farmland there currently (largely fruit trees, corn, strawberries, grapes) supports a wide variety of wildlife. When they bulldoze it, it supports almost nothing.

[GarterGeek]

Oh don't be too judgemental on the farmers. They're just people and they struggle to make a living too. Worm-eaten food doesn't sell...they can't help that.

[jitami]

When they bulldoze it, it supports almost nothing.

My point exactly. Of course, having any land turned into protected public land is ideal... and yours was an awesome example!... but we still live in a capitalistic society and if I have to chose between farm land and development I'll chose farmers every time.

[GradStudentLeper]

My point exactly. Of course, having any land turned into protected public land is ideal... and yours was an awesome example!... but we still live in a capitalistic society and if I have to chose between farm land and development I'll chose farmers every time.

Why? How do you justify that ethically? Because we live in a capitalistic society? Have you considered that perhaps we shouldnt? Or that, perhaps the needs of humans can be outweighed by the needs of other organisms. Your position would have us Slash and Burn the entire country of Brazil to make room for additional cattle, and the destruction of entire river deltas and all of the life they possess for rice patties.

Moreover, farming takes a LOT of water. Fresh water is very limited, so if we ALWAYS gave into the demands of farmers we would have water shortages more severe than we already have.

Your own state of CA has severe water shortages because the local farmers cant be bothered to conserve water, and they have single handedly destroyed not just the Central valley, but everything down stream and downwind.

If I bulldoze a plot of land, I destroy that plot. If I turn it into farmland, not only do I destroy the vast majority of life there (the above example is poor because animals can migrate to area turned into public land, it did not support that life before, those organisms recolonized it afterward), but I must take water from the surrounding countryside, and when that water leaves my plot of farmland it is polluted, killing or otherwise harming everything up stream. The wind blows the same chemicals elsewhere, and due to Evolution, the pest insects I have pesticides for become resistant to pesticides, including natural compounds native plants use for defense. As a result, I create super-insects that devastate local plants.

[FunkyRes]

That's awesome! It'd be cool to breed the 'giant' blood into other garters

I believe some subspecies of T sirtalis are bigger.
I personally have seen a wild California Red-sided that was over 4 feet long.

I don't have a problem with hybrids in captivity, but size is often not a simple gene, so crossing giant garters with other species may not have the effect you are looking for in first few generations. As hybrids get farther from first few generations, the greater the odds of something called outcross depression, where the line has incompatible homozygous gene pairs that result in problems.

Single genes are easier to borrow via hybrids, by crossing the F1 hybrid lines back to one parent species you reduce the number of some homozygous pairs belonging to the species you are borrowing the gene from (though your goal is to get the borrowed gene as homozygous), but for complex traits like size that is much harder to do because many homozygous pairs are needed.

-=-
I would love to see this species in the wild someday.

[FunkyRes]

Why? How do you justify that ethically? Because we live in a capitalistic society? Have you considered that perhaps we shouldnt? Or that, perhaps the needs of humans can be outweighed by the needs of other organisms.

You'd be amazed at how often species disappear from habitat set aside for them but remain on privately owned property. National Parks really screwed up, for example, by planting sport fish to attract tourists - while many private land owners, including ranches, did not do such things and thus still have native rana species.

Your position would have us Slash and Burn the entire country of Brazil to make room for additional cattle, and the destruction of entire river deltas and all of the life they possess for rice patties.

Nothing was said about completely unregulated farming.

Moreover, farming takes a LOT of water. Fresh water is very limited, so if we ALWAYS gave into the demands of farmers we would have water shortages more severe than we already have.

Your own state of CA has severe water shortages because the local farmers cant be bothered to conserve water, and they have single handedly destroyed not just the Central valley, but everything down stream and downwind.

Much of the water shortage currently going on is artificial, caused by a small minnow in the Delta. Seems they sometimes get killed in the pumps, so they turned the pumps off.

Our politicians are too stupid to figure out the unemployment costs are likely higher than the cost of a captive breeding program to supplement the wild minnow population.

If I bulldoze a plot of land, I destroy that plot. If I turn it into farmland, not only do I destroy the vast majority of life there (the above example is poor because animals can migrate to area turned into public land, it did not support that life before, those organisms recolonized it afterward), but I must take water from the surrounding countryside, and when that water leaves my plot of farmland it is polluted, killing or otherwise harming everything up stream. The wind blows the same chemicals elsewhere, and due to Evolution, the pest insects I have pesticides for become resistant to pesticides, including natural compounds native plants use for defense. As a result, I create super-insects that devastate local plants.

When people starve, you end up with revolution. War does a lot of damage.
I suspect, btw, that you'll find most ecological damage actually comes from lawns and pesticides used to keep lawns green aphids off the roses.

Farmers use science for the application of their fertilizers and pesticides, often they are required to by law but it also is cheaper for them. Use too much and the cost of excess hurts their bottom line, it is worthwhile for them to do frequent soil samples, etc.

Joe Six Pac does not use science, his runoff probably does more damage.

Yes, agriculture has ecological impact. Yes, methods continue to improve reducing that impact. We do need to change the way we farm and go more organic, but keep in mind, the less pesticides used the lower the crop yield, thus more land needs to be turned into farmland to feed the population.

[Stefan-A]

I suspect, btw, that you'll find most ecological damage actually comes from lawns and pesticides used to keep lawns green aphids off the roses.

I can pretty much guarantee that it's not the case. Every square inch of a field gets sprayed with herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, but not even remotely every rose bush and the quantities definitely cannot be compared. Even if the amount was the same per area of land, you'll find that crops cover a far larger area than gardens. It's also a matter of location, paved areas aren't that valuable, but the areas surrounding farms are likely to be.

Farmers use science for the application of their fertilizers and pesticides, often they are required to by law but it also is cheaper for them. Use too much and the cost of excess hurts their bottom line, it is worthwhile for them to do frequent soil samples, etc.

Last year, I took part in a project intended to map threats to groundwater in a heavily farmed area and this is the impression that I got: Farmers tend to use science selectively. We can try to convince them to use the best available methods, but I can tell you that they usually don't listen and they do pretty much as they please and really don't appreciate any advice, even if it would actually benefit them. They can get very defensive and do things the wrong way simply out of spite. They often even brag about it. They care more about getting successful crops, than about saving money on pesticides, so over-use is a risk they're willing to take.

[jitami]

Why? How do you justify that ethically? Because we live in a capitalistic society? Have you considered that perhaps we shouldnt? Or that, perhaps the needs of humans can be outweighed by the needs of other organisms. Your position would have us Slash and Burn the entire country of Brazil to make room for additional cattle, and the destruction of entire river deltas and all of the life they possess for rice patties.

Have you been to the central valley of California? I'm not talking about slashing and burning anything. The farms are already here and well established. Of course, they are struggling, as are the rest of us. Whether or not we should live in a capitalistic society has no bearing here. We live in one. It's not changing. We can chose to stay or go, but I've chosen to stay. Perhaps you will chose otherwise? Completely your decision. For now, I'm staying and enjoying the vast diversity California has to offer.

I am honestly tired of arguing with you... which I'm beginning to believe is your sole purpose here. I really don't care what your purpose is at this point. I've came to the conclusion that you are young, idealistic, and refuse to look at the realism of living in this world and learning to work with others. Hopefully that will come with time and experience. Perhaps when you have children you will learn compassion. Perhaps you will learn to be accepting of others despite their beliefs and opinions. Nothing is ever going to go your way 100 percent of the time. Sure fight for what you think is right, but compromise and understanding can get you a long way. Again, you obviously have more time and passion to devote to arguing. I do not.