# WA and Bearded dragons



## Daydreamer (Nov 18, 2017)

hi 
I'm new and just learning about reptiles, but does anyone know if central bearded dragons will ever be aloud in WA? I mean we can have dwarf bearded dragons but not the larger ones? I tried to ask dpaw if we could get a permit but they said no because they aren't local to wa and only zoos can keep a permit to have them but not pet keepers and I don't really understand why we can't bring them here I mean surly it wouldn't threaten the Eco system because I assume the dwarf bearded dragons and the central ones eat the same thing and everything? I guess the temperature would be a little different? Or maybe is there a way to get the dpaw to consider them? Or something? Does anyone know?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Nov 18, 2017)

Having been integrally involved in the introduction of reptiles as pets in WA and in drafting keeping lists, I can assure you that introduction of non-endemic species of reptiles to WA keeping is simply not going to happen. There are several reasons for this, some rational and some not. 

As it is, despite agreement from the late Director General of CALM and the previous Director of the Nature Conservation Branch, the introduction of additional local species to the WA keeping lists has been stymied in the last year or so by current elements within DPaW. It would seem that those in a position of influence within the Science and Conservation Division would rather the keeping of reptiles as pets was not allowed in WA.


----------



## Daydreamer (Nov 19, 2017)

Ah okay I see. Still I feel like the rest of Australia can keep reptiles fine and there hasn't really been a problem it's just WA, and I can understand why they wouldn't want reptiles to be kept as pets because they are wild animals but at the same time there are already ones that are captive bred in other states I guess it's just if they escaped their enclosure or something that would be the problem but surly if that happened the bearded dragons I mean they would be just like the dwarf ones and eat the same things ect... but anyways, lol sorry I'm just putting my thoughts about it online because it was bothering me. And a rant lol. but Thank you for enlightening me about it


----------



## Imported_tuatara (Nov 19, 2017)

no- that's not why. if that was the case they'd just ban the taking of wild specimens from the wild, and instead make it so only captive bred animals are allowed.


----------



## ronhalling (Nov 19, 2017)

Popcorn time  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) -ronhalling-


----------



## Daydreamer (Nov 19, 2017)

hmm okay, so why then?


----------



## Yellowtail (Nov 19, 2017)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Having been integrally involved in the introduction of reptiles as pets in WA and in drafting keeping lists, I can assure you that introduction of non-endemic species of reptiles to WA keeping is simply not going to happen. There are several reasons for this, some rational and some not.
> 
> As it is, despite agreement from the late Director General of CALM and the previous Director of the Nature Conservation Branch, the introduction of additional local species to the WA keeping lists has been stymied in the last year or so by current elements within DPaW. It would seem that those in a position of influence within the Science and Conservation Division would rather the keeping of reptiles as pets was not allowed in WA.



Just curious Bluetongue1 but you seem to know a bit about it, I left WA as a teenager in 1960 and way back then the keeping of native animals including reptiles as pets was quite popular and encouraged in some schools, it was seen by its supporters as educational and better than the redneck attitude of killing snakes on sight and treating most animals as pests to be eradicated. It was not regulated in any way despite the fact even bicycles were licensed in those days. Since then SW forests were cut down, the coastal plain bulldozed (how many reptiles killed) and vast areas of natural habitat developed for housing and how many reptiles perished in the massive mining projects, that's ok but keeping a reptile as a pet became a crime.
Now it is considered inevitable that the cane toad invasion will destroy a high percentage of reptiles in the north but keeping some of them in private collections in WA is forbidden. ???


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 19, 2017)

When it comes to reptiles... their licensing systems and laws, Western Australia and Victoria get this reaction from me...


----------



## dragonlover1 (Nov 19, 2017)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Having been integrally involved in the introduction of reptiles as pets in WA and in drafting keeping lists, I can assure you that introduction of non-endemic species of reptiles to WA keeping is simply not going to happen. There are several reasons for this, some rational and some not.
> 
> As it is, despite agreement from the late Director General of CALM and the previous Director of the Nature Conservation Branch, the introduction of additional local species to the WA keeping lists has been stymied in the last year or so by current elements within DPaW. It would seem that those in a position of influence within the Science and Conservation Division would rather the keeping of reptiles as pets was not allowed in WA.


Typical attitude from BOOFOCRATS who have no idea !!!!



Yellowtail said:


> Just curious Bluetongue1 but you seem to know a bit about it, I left WA as a teenager in 1960 and way back then the keeping of native animals including reptiles as pets was quite popular and encouraged in some schools, it was seen by its supporters as educational and better than the redneck attitude of killing snakes on sight and treating most animals as pests to be eradicated. It was not regulated in any way despite the fact even bicycles were licensed in those days. Since then SW forests were cut down, the coastal plain bulldozed (how many reptiles killed) and vast areas of natural habitat developed for housing and how many reptiles perished in the massive mining projects, that's ok but keeping a reptile as a pet became a crime.
> Now it is considered inevitable that the cane toad invasion will destroy a high percentage of reptiles in the north but keeping some of them in private collections in WA is forbidden. ???


This is where the govt argument falls apart,surely it is better for the future of reptiles etc. if they are held in private collections? Then there will be live samples of every creature when there is nothing left in the wild.We then have a chance of repopulating the country with what is supposed to be out there.
Or am I just a D***head ?


----------



## Scutellatus (Nov 19, 2017)

dragonlover1 said:


> This is where the govt argument falls apart,surely it is better for the future of reptiles etc. if they are held in private collections? Then there will be live samples of every creature when there is nothing left in the wild.We then have a chance of repopulating the country with what is supposed to be out there.
> Or am I just a D***head ?


Definitely the latter Dragon. Hahaha.
Seriously though what you suggest is a good idea apart from the fact that once they are gone from the wild whatever it is that has killed them all will still remain. We won't be able to release anything to repopulate the eco system without dealing with the cause first. This is a battle we have already lost. Maybe they can build a 'cane toad proof fence' around the whole border of Western Australia.


----------



## Wally (Nov 19, 2017)

dragonlover1 said:


> Typical attitude from BOOFOCRATS who have no idea !!!!
> 
> 
> This is where the govt argument falls apart,surely it is better for the future of reptiles etc. if they are held in private collections? Then there will be live samples of every creature when there is nothing left in the wild.We then have a chance of repopulating the country with what is supposed to be out there.
> Or am I just a D***head ?



Once we've spent an age discussing why they've disappeared in the first place it's probably going to be too late to correct those issues.

Privately owned fauna are rarely if ever used in re population programs in oz.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 19, 2017)

Scutellatus said:


> Definitely the latter Dragon. Hahaha.
> Seriously though what you suggest is a good idea apart from the fact that once they are gone from the wild whatever it is that has killed them all will still remain. We won't be able to release anything to repopulate the eco system without dealing with the cause first. This is a battle we have already lost. Maybe they can build a 'cane toad proof fence' around the whole border of Western Australia.


Pretty much like the Lake Eacham Rainbow fish... they are extinct or at least thought to be in the wild (Lake Eacham) thanks to illegally introduced (in the 80's) Barred Grunter (_Amniataba percoides_) and Mouth Almighty (_Glossamia aprion_). They exist in aquarist's private collections, however, the gene pool would be severely depleted.


----------



## Buggster (Nov 19, 2017)

Daydreamer said:


> I guess it's just if they escaped their enclosure or something that would be the problem but surly if that happened the bearded dragons I mean they would be just like the dwarf ones and eat the same things ect...



I’m pretty sure that’s the reason they don’t want them...
If and when they escape (because let’s be real, it happens more than people will admit), the larger dragons will outcompete the smaller ones. As they have pretty much identical needs, the larger dragons will thrive and bully the smaller ones off food and territory. 
Then suddenly all the smaller ones have no food and no place to live. 

While it does seem a bit rigid, I can understand where they might be coming from (but at the same time I’m very grateful to be in NSW and have very little restrictions)


----------



## dragonlover1 (Nov 19, 2017)

I get what you guys are saying but I still think that what people have in private collections,zoos etc. will surely save these creatures from extinction if not rebuilding wild populations.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 19, 2017)

dragonlover1 said:


> I get what you guys are saying but I still think that what people have in private collections,zoos etc. will surely save these creatures from extinction if not rebuilding wild populations.


Pretty sure this is what the Taronga Zoo is currently doing with the Bellinger River turtle which was almost wiped out by an aggressive virus a couple of years ago.


----------



## ronhalling (Nov 19, 2017)

Well this did not go off like i thought it would when @Bluetongue1 was contradicted lol.


 *( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) -ronhalling-*


.


----------



## GBWhite (Nov 20, 2017)

dragonlover1 said:


> I get what you guys are saying but I still think that what people have in private collections,zoos etc. will surely save these creatures from extinction if not rebuilding wild populations.



It's very doubtful that recovery plans will include the assistance of private collection but as Kev alluded there is a program currently in place at a couple of Zoos in an attempt to repopulate the Bellinger River Turtle which suffered an estimated 90% mass mortality event in 2015 as a result of a new unidentified iridovirus which now carries the label of the Bellinger River Virus (BRV).

The recovery plan includes "headstarting" (a process whereby healthy adult turtles are collected from the river and bread in captivity with the intention to release juveniles back into the wild in the hope of rebuilding the the population). This is being undertaken, under very strict quarantine at Taronga and Symbio Zoos. The head scientist predicts that provided no further catastrophic events (such as a recurrence of the virus) happen that it will take at least 100 years and maybe as long as 200 years for the population to recover. He has also stated that as much as identification is important, it is far more important to understand why the event happened when it did. At this stage they don't know why it happened or how the virus was introduced to the river in the first place. I've also been told by a friend that is involved with the ongoing surveillance of the species that it appears the recovery team have virtually abandoned investigating why it happened and are concentrating on ongoing surveillance of those that remain in the river and the breeding program. It seems odd to me that they would consider releasing any juveniles without confirming the reason for or the origin of the original outbreak.

Information indicates that successful matings and production of juveniles occurred last breeding season but as far as I'm aware no juveniles have been released back into the wild at this stage.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 20, 2017)

GBWhite said:


> Information indicates that successful matings and production of juveniles occurred last breeding season but as far as I'm aware no juveniles have been released back into the wild at this stage.


Since the outbreak, healthy juvenile turtles, not showing any symptoms of the virus have been located within the Bellinger river system. The recovery, as you mentioned is going to be a very, very long one. The introduced Murray River turtle will have a significant detrimental impact on the species' recovery.


----------



## GBWhite (Nov 20, 2017)

Aussiepride83 said:


> Since the outbreak, healthy juvenile turtles, not showing any symptoms of the virus have been located within the Bellinger river system. The recovery, as you mentioned is going to be a very, very long one. The introduced Murray River turtle will have a significant detrimental impact on the species' recovery.



Yeah I know. I live in Bellingen.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 20, 2017)

GBWhite said:


> Yeah I know. I live in Bellingen.


From 1986 - 2003 I lived in the upper Macleay Valley, west of Kempsey... Top part of the world, I know the Macleay, Clarence, Hastings, Hunter and Bellinger systems like the back of my hand.


----------



## GBWhite (Nov 20, 2017)

Ditto, I know all those areas pretty well myself. Except for a spell in Inverell I've lived in the area for about 45 years and yes it is a top part of the world.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 20, 2017)

GBWhite said:


> Ditto, I know all those areas pretty well myself. Except for a spell in Inverell I've lived in the area for about 45 years and yes it is a top part of the world.


My main focus right now is the Manning River turtle, _Flaviemys purvisi _- I'm fortunate enough to be one of only 2 people in Australia that have this species in captivity. Very little is known about them and their classification has recently been upgraded to Endangered. They are arguably Australia's most attractive freshwater turtle species. A species that definitely needs conservation efforts. Even after the catastrophic events in the Bellinger, _Wollumbinia georgesi _are still more prolific than _Flaviemys purvisi_.


----------



## Scutellatus (Nov 20, 2017)

@GBWhite 
Is the Wollumbinia Georgesi related to you in any way George?


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 20, 2017)

Scutellatus said:


> @GBWhite
> Is the Wollumbinia Georgesi related to you in any way George?


No, it was discovered by Arthur Georges I believe...


----------



## GBWhite (Nov 20, 2017)

No mate but nice of you to think that it may have...lol. It's had a few names. I believe it was originally described by John Cann 1997 and named _Elseya georgesi _after Arthur Georges ( a known turtle man). In 2007 it was reclassified by Richard Wells as _Wollumbinia georgesi_. More recently as _Myuchelys georgesi _by A Georges & Thompson. There is a bit of a (shall I call it friendly...hahaha) disagreement between certain taxonomists at the moment regarding the use of Wollumbinia & Myuchelys.


----------



## Scutellatus (Nov 20, 2017)

Obviously it comes from the Mt Warning area. Is it restricted to a certain river around there or all the river systems around The Great Cloud Catcher?


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 20, 2017)

Just like in Cann's latest book, Purvis' turtle has been classified as _Wollumbinia purvisi_.... that is just not accurate and considering the Manning River turtle is far older (55 million years) than the relatively newer _georgesi_, I'll be sticking with _Flaviemys purvisi _as will most... _Elseya_ is the Southern and Northern snappers, _albagula_ and _dentata_, including Jukes, Irwin's, etc..._Myuchelys latisternum_ - Saw Shelled turtle... it's a huge s**t fight... before long everything will just be _Emydura macquarii._


----------



## GBWhite (Nov 20, 2017)

Scutellatus said:


> Obviously it comes from the Mt Warning area. Is it restricted to a certain river around there or all the river systems around The Great Cloud Catcher?



It's actually only found in the Bellinger River which is quite some distance from Mt Warning.

The biogeological complexity for Australian turtles has, up until recently been poorly researched, and as a result is not yet well understood, particularly along the east coast. As far as I'm aware even recent genetic studies by Arthur Georges (who's recognised as an authority on Australian turtles) indicate that it's difficult to define subspecies of Emydura that appear to represent geographically distinct populations. 

Wellsy and myself have discussed the suggestion surrounding the assumption that the local Emydura is an introduced species and for a number of reasons question the validity of the dna data gathered to date to claim that it is an introduced species. Ricky Spencer alleges it was introduced to the river in 1992 or thereabouts but we've known of its presence here since the early 1970's and considering that the east coast was once a huge floodplain it's more reasonable to assume that they have been present along the east coast for a considerable time. DNA analysis indicates they are from the Clarence however, the Clarence isn't that far from Bellingen and there are no real geographic barriers to indicate they were ever isolated from each other. I believe that without absolute confirmation it's reasonable to assume that they share the same heritage. I also believe that the use of molecular dna data to identify or validate "new" species/subspecies should be resolved further because as it stands at the moment there are no specific standards to comply with.


----------



## Scutellatus (Nov 20, 2017)

@GBWhite
Where does the Wollumbinia fit in to all of this? I thought the name would only be associated within a tight border around Wollumbin (Mt Warning).


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Nov 20, 2017)

Yellowtail said:


> Just curious Bluetongue1 but you seem to know a bit about it, I left WA as a teenager in 1960 and way back then the keeping of native animals including reptiles as pets was quite popular and encouraged in some schools, it was seen by its supporters as educational and better than the redneck attitude of killing snakes on sight and treating most animals as pests to be eradicated. It was not regulated in any way despite the fact even bicycles were licensed in those days. ...


 The Fauna Protection Act was legislated in WA in 1950 and was amended to become the Wildlife Conservation Act to include native flora in 1980. So it is now referred to as the “Wildlife Conservation Act 1950”. Anyway, the Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970 were introduced under the act and I think that was when they began to enforce no keeping (but I don’t know for certain as I have not got a copy of these regs. Although I have waded through the Act, it was too long ago).



Daydreamer said:


> Ah okay I see. Still I feel like the rest of Australia can keep reptiles fine and there hasn't really been a problem it's just WA, and I can understand why they wouldn't want reptiles to be kept as pets because they are wild animals but at the same time there are already ones that are captive bred in other states I guess it's just if they escaped their enclosure or something that would be the problem but surly if that happened the bearded dragons I mean they would be just like the dwarf ones and eat the same things ect... but anyways, lol sorry I'm just putting my thoughts about it online because it was bothering me. And a rant lol. but Thank you for enlightening me about it


It is important to realise that there is a difference between the regulations and how they are enforced. Yes, WA regs are restrictive compared to other states (except Tasmania) and compared to other animal groups kept as pets. However, there is no need for the stranglehold they have put on additions to our keeping lists. Six animals every five years if all goes well… What is the point to stringing it out like that? They should have allowed animals such as _Varanus glauerti_ to be collected and kept by now, for as Yellowtail pointed out they are particularly vulnerable to decimation by cane toads. There is far too much personal influence by certain individuals at work here.

There are plenty of examples overseas, and even here where, animals that have been kept as pets have escaped or been released outside their natural range within their own country, and caused declines and even the local extinction of animals native to that area. An individual animal’s capacity to establish and cause adverse ecological effects needs to be thoroughly evaluated, because you don’t get a second chance with these things. It was decided by the department to concentrate on locally occurring species for this and other reasons. Eastern states’ species are not excluded by the regs, they are just not going to get a look-in for a long, long time.

Wild taking of a species, when done properly, has no influence on overall population size. For example, they have been culling tens of thousands of common roo species for decades and decades, yet they are still around in the same sorts of numbers. Its people who don’t do it properly that give the practice a bad name.


----------



## GBWhite (Nov 20, 2017)

Scutellatus said:


> @GBWhite
> Where does the Wollumbinia fit in to all of this? I thought the name would only be associated within a tight border around Wollumbin (Mt Warning).


 
To tell the truth I don't really know. You'd probably have to ask Richard where he got it from and why he chose it for the genus. I can't find his 2007 paper so I'll try and remember to ask him the next time I'm talking with him. In the meantime maybe someone else can enlighten us. I do know the genus Myuchelys is made up of the indigenous word "myuna" meaning clear water and the Greek Word "chelys" meaning turtle.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Nov 20, 2017)

GBWhite said:


> To tell the truth I don't really know. I can't find his 2007 paper


Are you talking about the Australian Biodiversity Record? 2009 (No 1) ISSN 1325-2992 January, 2009 - Some Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Considerations on the Class Reptilia in Australia. A New Species of Freshwater Turtle in the Genus Wollumbinia Wells 2007 (Reptilia: Chelidae) from Eastern Australia. By Richard W. Wells.

@GBWhite Is this what you were after??
http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Articles/Wells_2007c.pdf


----------



## GBWhite (Nov 20, 2017)

Aussiepride83 said:


> @GBWhite Is this what you were after??
> http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Articles/Wells_2007c.pdf



Thanks for that. It was the one I was looking for



Scutellatus said:


> @GBWhite
> Where does the Wollumbinia fit in to all of this? I thought the name would only be associated within a tight border around Wollumbin (Mt Warning).



Here you go. I thought it had something to do with the indigenous name but wasn't going to say so unless I was sure.

Etymology : Named from Wollumbin, the Bundjalung peopleís name for Mt Warning, in northeastern N.S.W., a significant place in the evolutionary history for this group of turtles.


----------

