This whole report and the skunk apes (which I never heard of before) could inspire another hilarious book from Carl Hiaassen.
> An Unstoppable Anaconda Invasion in Florida? What Slate Got Wrong. > Photo By Dave Lonsdale, Wikimedia > by Dr. David Steen from his Living Alongside Wildlife blog. > > Last week Slate ran a piece in their Wild Things blog entitled, Green > Anacondas in the Everglades: The Largest Snake in the World has Invaded > the > United States. Obviously the sensational headline caught my attention as > did the subtitle, which refers to this invasion as "unstoppable." However, > after reading the actual article I realized that it was basically just a > smattering of anecdotes. That makes for a fun story and some interesting > conversations, but unfortunately it is too easy to interpret the article > as > news. Let me be clear: There is virtually no evidence that a population of > anacondas exists in Florida. > > Curiously, Slate does not mention that the two individuals that > provided > the bulk of their anaconda information are affiliated with the Skunk Ape > Museum in Ochopee, Florida (the facility is instead described as a > roadside > zoo or the Trail Lakes Campground). The Skunk Ape, if youre not > familiar, is the South Florida equivalent of Bigfoot. For what its worth, > the official website of the Skunk Ape Museum unequivocally states that > there > are between 7-9 Skunk Apes living in the Everglades. Now, just because > someone believes that there is a population of Skunk Apes living in the > Everglades does not mean that we can or should discount everything they > say, > but it does indicate that they probably have different standards than most > people when deciding what is circumstantial evidence and what is proof > when > it comes to determining whether an animal population exists. > > If you give the article a careful read, the entire premise that there > is > a breeding population of Green Anacondas (Eunectes murinus) in the > Everglades boils down to: 1) ten years ago a juvenile Green Anaconda was > found in the Everglades; the snake didnt eat anything and died, 2) > another > Green Anaconda was later found in the region and finally, 3) lots of > people > around the Everglades have seen large snakes they did not identify but > that > possibly could have been Green Anacondas. > > I don't know about you, but this does not convince me that anacondas > have invaded South Florida. > > The worst (and incredibly ironic) part of the article is that it > repeatedly suggests that the well-publicized concern about the Burmese > Python in Florida is largely a result of media-hype while the real problem > (i.e., Green Anacondas) is overlooked. The fact that there is a large, > reproducing population of Burmese Pythons in Florida is well-documented: > thousands have been found including everything from juveniles to giant > adults with 87 eggs inside. This population has been the subject of > several > large and ongoing research projects that have produced numerous scientific > papers. For example, a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National > Academy of Sciences described how mammal populations have crashed as the > Burmese Python population expanded (and presumably, as they ate many of > the > mammals). > > On the other hand, documentation of the Green Anaconda "invasion" > basically consists entirely of the majorly hyped-up Slate article, which > hints that the snakes can get as wide as hula-hoops (they cant) and > probably eat people. > > The irony boggled my mind. Because I only have very little first-hand > experience with large invasive snakes, I contacted some of my friends and > colleagues that study these Florida reptiles for their perspectives on the > article. Unfortunately, I cant repeat most of their reactions here (this > is > a family-friendly blog after all). But, fortunately Dr. J.D. Willson did > provide a printable response. J.D. is an Assistant Professor at the > University of Arkansas and has authored numerous articles about Burmese > Pythons in Florida. Notably, he is also co-author of the new book, > Invasive > Pythons in the United States: Ecology of an Introduced Predator. I figured > he could set the record straight. > > J.D. replied, Although there certainly has been a strong dose of > sensationalism about the Burmese Python issue from the media, our research > suggests that the problem is severe and should be considered a major > threat > to the Everglades. Over the past decade, Burmese Pythons have spread over > an > area of at least 4,000 square miles and including all of Everglades > National > Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. They also appear to have wiped out > mammals such as rabbits, raccoons, and bobcats in the heart of the > Everglades National Park. Over 2,000 of these snakes have been captured > and > our research shows that this is just a tiny fraction of the overall > population " > > On the other hand > > We currently have no reason to suspect that anacondas are established in > South Florida. This species certainly is kept in captivity and apparently > escaped or released pets have been found. However, the small number of > individuals that have been found were far apart and there has been no > evidence of reproduction or of a hotspot where sightings are > concentrated. > > Is it possible that there is a population of Green Anacondas prowling > through the isolated marshes of the Everglades? Yes. When the author notes > that even big snakes can effectively evade detection in the Everglades, he > is completely correct. In addition, Burmese Pythons were already firmly > established in Florida before there was indisputable proof that they > represented a reproducing population. But there is really no compelling > reason to think there is a Green Anaconda population in the Everglades; a > grand total of four Green Anacondas have ever been confirmed in Florida, > this despite a large-scale reporting and monitoring system that was > recently > put in place to track the presence of large invasive snakes there. If we > use > four animals as evidence of a population, for consistency we then also > have > to believe that just about every other exotic animal ever found in the > state > also represents an established population, with the possible exception of > Skunk Apes. > > But what about all the large snakes people have reported seeing in the > Everglades? This phenomenon is not unique to that region. Anyone that has > spent any time answering snake questions knows that in general, people are > not very good at identifying snakes and tend to exaggerate both their size > and their potential to inflict bodily harm. > > Before closing, I want to address two specific points from the > original > article. First, the juvenile anaconda that was captured in the Everglades > did not eat and later died. Is this compelling evidence that it was a wild > snake and therefore that anacondas are breeding in the Everglades? > > Anyone that has experience with captive snakes knows that some are > picky > eaters, perhaps especially when said snake is an exotic species from a > faraway land with unique habitats (like, for example, the Amazon). If we > are > to believe that a snake that did not eat is evidence that it is wild, > should > we then also believe that the only other individual Green Anaconda > captured > in the Everglades and mentioned in the article is actually an escaped > captive because it did eat? > > Second, the original article argues that the Burmese Python invasion > is > no big deal compared to an invasion of Green Anacondas because fire ants > kill pythons but not anacondas. Laboratory studies have confirmed that > fire > ants (i.e., Solenopsis invicta) are capable of penetrating reptile eggs, > including those of Burmese Pythons. In addition, some have suggested that > egg-laying reptiles are more susceptible to being killed by fire-ants than > are reptiles that give birth to live young. Fire ants have even been > implicated in the declines of some snakes in the southeastern United > States, > like Southern Hognosed Snakes (Heterodon simus) and Kingsnakes > (Lampropeltis > getula). But, these are just ideas. There is no evidence that fire ants > are > influencing the population growth of any reptile. > > To say with confidence that fire ants are limiting the population > growth > of Burmese Pythons we would need to have some kind of idea regarding how > many young Burmese Pythons are being produced and how many are being > killed > by fire ants and this information is not available to us. The article > notes > that a single captive Burmese Python and her eggs were killed by fire ants > and this is interesting. But, it does not suggest that the wild population > is being affected at all. To put it another way, a paper published in 1989 > identified 10 confirmed cases of fire ants killing human beings in Florida > (and there surely have been more cases since that publication). I dont > think anyone would take that information and then suggest that fire ants > are > limiting human population growth. > > The possibility of Green Anacondas secretly prowling and reproducing > throughout the Everglades is a fun topic to discuss around the campfire. > But, it doesnt stand up to scientific scrutiny. I wish Slate had made > that > clear. > > You can follow me on Twitter and/or subscribe to this blog by e-mail. > > Some Relevant Scientific Papers: > > Diffie, S., Miller, J, & Murray, K. (2010). Laboratory Observations of Red > Imported Fire Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Predation on Reptilian and > Avian > Eggs Journal of Herpetology (44), 294-296 DOI: 10.1670/08-282.1 > > Dorcas ME, Willson JD, Reed RN, Snow RW, Rochford MR, Miller MA, Meshaka > WE > Jr, Andreadis PT, Mazzotti FJ, Romagosa CM, & Hart KM (2012). Severe > mammal > declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in > Everglades National Park. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences > of > the United States of America, 109 (7), 2418-22 PMID: 22308381 > > Rhoades RB, Stafford CT, & James FK Jr. (1989). Survey of fatal > anaphylactic > reactions to imported fire ant stings J Allergy Clin Immunol., 84, 159-162 > DOI: 10.1016/0091-6749(88)90373-9 >
