# Senator pushes for Quolls to replace cats as pets



## RoryBreaker (Mar 18, 2015)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-18/leyonhjelm-pushes-for-quolls-to-replace-cats-as-pets/6329674

This Senator has said some crazy stuff in the recent past but this might be the first elected representative to say this sort of thing publicly.

"He cited examples overseas of sugar gliders and blue tongue lizards living longer in captivity than the wild.
Senator Leyonhjelm said the native animals would "need to be bred as pets".
He also noted that Australians can legally own a number of pets that kill native animals."

Doesn't look like the Greens are on board though.


----------



## spud_meister (Mar 19, 2015)

Quolls only live for around 5 years. Theoretically, it's a good idea, but realistically it wouldn't work.


----------



## wokka (Mar 19, 2015)

It sounds quite realistic to me!


----------



## glebo (Mar 19, 2015)

The whole idea has been articulated for the past 20 years from Prof. Mike Archer and others, and even been the subject of PhD theses. Unfortunately most people still think that Governments protect everything from Green frogs to Oenpelli pythons through parks and permits. The way the world is going that kind of belief has to be broken down and shown to, in many instances, be wrong. Recent extinctions on Christmas Island of a bat and reptiles, and elsewhere show this. I was at the Vic Reptile expo last weekend and in my talk on the Oenpelli python story, as I have many times, I pointed out that so many people who keep reptiles are keeping a very recently protected *wild* animal (only a few generations in captivity). It is giving the keeper skills that are directly transferable with time and increased skill level to be able to keep and maintain animals that are heading down the extinction trail. With these skills and belief in a different way of looking at things we can actually work with authorities to conserve OUR wildlife not just have some faceless and unaccountable Government person tell us we have lost another species without a fight - all because we werent allowed to help. Budgies are native and kept around the world - dont even need a permit because no-one is worried about them going extinct and now they cant as they are everywhere. Im not advocating anyone be allowed to keep everything - that wont happen anyway, but I think there is a whole heap more we can do cooperatively with Government Authorities if given the chance to help and be seen as a useful resource that can maintain native wildlife, instead of the way the authorities seemed to view reptile keepers at the Victorian Expo. This means keeping some simple to keep animals including mammals as pets and who knows it may just work to conserve our native willdife in a way that many Governments believe it wont - just need to think laterally. It wont happen quickly but it is up to us all to keep believing in ourselves and push to make it happen - our wildlife depend on it!!
Cheers
Gavin Bedford


----------



## RoryBreaker (Mar 19, 2015)

glebo said:


> instead of the way the authorities seemed to view reptile keepers at the Victorian Expo.
> Cheers
> Gavin Bedford



Are you referring to the draconian way he authorities harassed the vendors of live animals at the VHS expo? I heard on the grapevine no less than 15 uniformed 'parks' people plus some plain clothes types were bringing on the heat.

What was the go with that? I'm guessing the show of force was an effort to impress their new political masters, ie. the new Victorian state gov. Maybe I'm a little too cynical.

cheers,
Dave.


----------



## Firedrake (Mar 19, 2015)

I'd love to have a quoll instead of cats, but are they capable of being as affectionate as cats? Only ones I've ever seen are extremely aggressive and I have a feeling it would take a while to breed them tame enough for your regular family to handle. 
Plus what are the chances of them ending up everywhere as well and ending up as bad as cats?
Bandicoots might be a better idea?


----------



## glebo (Mar 19, 2015)

I was amazed that there were so many authorities there and werent, that I could see, engaged in a PR exercise. I would like to think that they were there so that people could see they liked the idea of people keeping reptiles and that they could engage in a way that mutually beneficial. Maybe they were but the response I got from the many people I spoke to didnt suggest that unfortunately. I live in Darwin and am grateful that the Parks and Wildlife people are in the main very progressive and able to engage such that we can achieve things. The Oenpelli project which to many states would NEVER, i repeat, NEVER happen, was only possible because P&WNT could see it had more benefits than negatives. If only that thinking transferred elsewhere. Keep on trying though! Loved to see the passion that Victorians had for the Expo and the reptiles there. The hobby will grow in spite of opposition, we are no longer 'fringe dwellers' (their words not mine), we are becoming mainstream pet owners - as we should.
Cheers
Gavin Bedford


----------



## moosenoose (Mar 19, 2015)

Typical of the bloody Greens to oppose it. If the Greens are the great white hope for animals and conservation in general - god help them!

Of course allowing the public to obtain these animals can be open for abuse, but just keep the regs & conditions tight. We've all seen the positives for vulnerable species of reptiles within this hobby, why not extend it to other animals that require help?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 19, 2015)

Some relevant quotes, which are worth a read, from an interview with Mike Archer...

?In the time that I have been associated with Australian mammals, I have kept many that were brought to me that were commonly damaged by pussy cats. In fixing them up, I often took them home, where they lived with me as they healed, and by far the majority bonded very strongly with me and were wonderful companions? more rewarding in many ways than cats and dogs. Quolls, for example, were obsessive users of kitty litter, loved to play and remained playful like kittens through their life. Unfortunately, legal restrictions enable us to breed cats ? which I regard as an immoral exercise ? but we risk fines if we keep native animals. I think this is a balance that the Australian society should re-examine.?

?If we do not value Australian wildlife in many different ways, we will lose it. One way among many to value wildlife is to consider keeping native animals as pets ? in particular the ones most in danger of extinction through reliance on current methods which may prove inadequate. I like to think of the effort to conserve Australia's animals as being similar to a golfer's challenge in winning a game. If the golfer puts just one club in his bag, he is unlikely to win. Conservationists too need many strategies in their bag if they are serious about winning conservation goals. These strategies are entirely compatible, it needn't be just one or the other.?

?It [keeping native animals] also engages and inspires interest in native animals in our children. At the moment, Australian children are far more aware of cats and dogs than they are of any Australian marsupial. If these kids are not committed to the welfare of Australian animals in the future, what hope is there??

Source:http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/webchats/263755/professor-mike-archer-on-animal-extinction

Blue


----------



## kingofnobbys (Mar 19, 2015)

IMO it's an excellent idea. There are other marsupials as well as quolls that would make great domestic pets rather than cats. (Some of which are critically endangered cf cats (not just ferals)).


----------



## Firedrake (Mar 19, 2015)

I hope this comes through in my lifetime, if quolls (and other native species) really do make good pets. 
On the other hand, keeping Aussie natives seems like good idea, but would it then leave the species subject to our humanity? We fiddle and "fix" animals that don't meet our standards of perfection. Would it then move onto hybridisation and colour morphs or certain "lines" of quolls? I understand this sounds awfully extreme, but it's happened in so many animals that we take it upon ourselves to domesticate. Cats that have no nasal functionality, dogs that have congenital hip and skin problems, breeds that require C-sections for every litter, snakes with neuro issues, the list goes on. We voluntarily keep, breed and even pay a fortune for defective animals that are "pretty" I would be afraid that our natives would go the same way. 
Having said that, I'd still love to own one


----------



## kingofnobbys (Mar 19, 2015)

Edit : MOST of which are critically endangered cf cats 

just a clarification.

- - - Updated - - -

See http://www.wildthings.org.au/files/8013/3696/8385/Final_Report.pdf , page 11 AND 12 for list of natives some people can keep as pets / companion animals , I imagine this list could easily be expanded to include keeping endangered species under a licence as pets and to breed (with perhaps mandatory return of some/most offspring to wild to establish breeding colonies and to repopulate areas where they used to be found and but are now extinct locally).

Heck we all keep lizards and snakes , none of which are "affectionate" as cats , though , all my lizards (skinks and beardies) are pretty darned affectionate. I'm sure plenty sure a lot of us have affectionate reptiles.


----------



## Sean_L (Mar 19, 2015)

[MENTION=28495]Firedrake[/MENTION] 
You brought up exactly the issue I was going to bring to the table. 
I love the idea of native mammals as 'pets'. But the definition is tricky. Experienced keepers breeding and maintaining captive populations of threatened species is something that I've long been an advocate for. However there is a difference between keeping a kowari (something Id love to keep) as a pet and keeping a captive population. I know many people have the opinion that there is little to no difference, in that when you keep an animal in a captive setting it is inherently different to a wild animal as a direct result. And indeed there is truth to this statement.
Extreme examples of captive rearing in species such as Condors and some species of endangered stork involve minimal (if any) contact with humans in order to preserve the wild nature of the species, with a view to releasing the animals in question. This is extremely time consuming and diverts a great deal of energy into a small number of animals. 
If we take a step back and instead look at quantity over quality, then perhaps a large number of individuals keeping native mammals in a more recreational sense is still in some way beneficial. A lot of the time, for me anyway, it comes back to the sheer fact that by the time many of these species are stable in captivity and times have changed to a point where something can be gained from the whole exercise, most of the habitat that these animals could be released back into will be completely destroyed or damaged irreparably by introduced flora and fauna that have gained a foothold and reformed the ecosystem to suit themselves. Point being, there will be no where to release these animals anyway.
In my opinion this doesn't draw from the positives of an initiative such as this. I personally believe that even with no hope of a species ever being returned to its original habitat, because that habitat no longer exists, there is still merit in continuing its existence on this planet. Whether it be for personal enjoyment, scientific benefit or more simply the preservation of life equally as unique as our own, a multitude of flora and fauna on this planet will always be better than a stagnant, shallow pond of invariability.

But back to my original statement. I think a line has to be drawn in the sand even at the recreational level. I feel this should be the case for reptiles also, but that's another thread. Designer species are not my cup of tea. Lets just get that out in the open. Id rather any morelia sp. over an albino any day of the week, and a patternless 'anything' takes away from what makes the species beautiful to me in the first place. But that's ok, each to their own. If though, we want to be taken seriously when it comes to a public conservation initiative we need to put in a place a set of standards to maintain a species viability in captivity, as a representative of the wild species itself. Im not suggest that we outlaw selective breeding for morphs, merely separate it from the conservation effort. Put in place a series of guidelines and rules in order to (as best as possible) maintain reasonable and responsible actions regarding the treatment of these species in captivity. In short, keep them as natural as possible through selective and monitored breeding practices with other keepers. 

If this seems too complicated for the average keeper, well, that's kind of the idea. Do I believe that just anybody can keep native mammals and have it benefit the species. No I don't. Do I believe that only those who can benefit the species should have the right to keep one. No I don't. But I do feel there's a difference there that would need to be addressed in order to gain maximum benefit from this concept.


----------



## Firedrake (Mar 19, 2015)

Definitely would have to be kept separate, although the regulation of such would be quite difficult I feel. Maybe there could be a registry and stud book effect and you can register as a "natural" breeder, or someone breeding for the modified pet trade, or as a pet owner only? That way there is choice.

Also this time start before things get out of hand and make solid enforced rules somewhat like the ones we already have for our reptiles about desexing, microchipping, registration for pets, and perhaps confinement, since we know how hard it is to make cat owners keep their pets inside or in runs when they've never had to before, start at the beginning so things don't have to be difficult!


----------



## BrownHash (Mar 19, 2015)

I feel that the idea has some merit, but I don't believe that it is really a solution to the destruction of our environment and protection of endangered species. My first thought was; how long before people will be owning leucistic T+ albino 66% melanistic tiger quoll x chuditch hybrids, and how much benefit to the survival of the species will this have? If this is going to happen I believe, as suggested by [MENTION=40131]Sean_L[/MENTION], that the public conservation initiative needs to be separated from private ownership of native fauna. How they do this and maintain the integrity of such a program, I don't know, but obviously this needs to be explored. The Oenpelli project may be a good case study in the effectiveness of these sorts of programs.

I also don't think that it will have a positive impact on our native fauna's main threat, habitat destruction. Introduced animals have little impact compared to the threat of habitat destruction. If we remove the threat to the "cute and cuddly" mascots of environmental issues then where does it leave the rest of its ecosystem. Developers and government will push for there being less need to protect habitat, which will then put more pressure on other species, especially species already under threat. The Greens made the statement that they see this as an attack on National Parks, which I kind of agree with. I would think that the number of quolls already in captivity would be sufficient enough to stop them from going extinct. I guess that the government is also looking a ways to save money, if they get the public to keep and breed native animals they wont have to allocate as much money to zoos and parks for breeding programs.

Any conservation achieved will only work for a few of our threatened species. Who, when reading this article thought, "Cool, hopefully this will mean that I can keep and breed Glenelg Freshwater Mussels like I've always wanted". I realise that Senator Leyonhjelm knows this, but I don't think he has considered the effect on less favourable animals that depend on the publicity and umbrella protection they get from sharing habitat with fauna like the quoll.

Having said this, I think having native fauna as pets is a good idea, it just need to remove it from the idea that it will be contributing to the conservation of that species. Having worked with quolls I definitely see the appeal, they are inquisitive little characters that would make a great pet. Their impact on the natural environment as a domesticated pet will be far less than that of cats. In addition it is likely to increase awareness of our natural fauna.

Mike


----------



## glebo (Mar 19, 2015)

"I realise that Senator Leyonhjelm knows this, but I don't think he has considered the effect on less favourable animals that depend on the publicity and umbrella protection they get from sharing habitat with fauna like the quoll."

If the quoll is on its way out, as it is if you live in the Northern Territory, then isnt sharing its habitat with many other species almost like a mutual death sentence to them all? Up here so many mammals are in deep depths of decline and they DO live in parks, so im struggling to see how thinking outside the box like keeping some as pets will facilitate a quicker decline in all the animals concerned. I agree with both Sean and Mike in many aspects but I feel like we are all brainwashed to believe that the problem is someone else's not ours. In my mind they are all our animals (held as a public good by Governments) yet with all the Parks authorities good intentions and capacity (declining as always due to funding constraints because most other aspects in human endeavour are more important than spending on the environment) the animals are declining and in some instances in Northern Australia a number of species may already be functionally extinct. I tend to see opposition on the grounds of inbreeding, hybridising and a myriad other excuses as the 1% chance of each happening and this then becomes the justification to sit on our hands, as well as again be dictated to as to how our wildlife should leave the planet and who isnt responsible for their demise. Instead I would rather be proactive and take the 99% option of ensuring the species is not extinct and then work on what to do with it. I have done enough on repatriation of wildlife to know it is a tough gig, with failure the norm. But the more we do it in a controlled way with cooperation on all sides the more we have the chance to get it right. If we just say - "all animals returned to a block of dirt where they once were but are not now are destined to die", then we have already given up trying to make a difference in their survival and then there is probably no reason not to keep mammals in captivity anyway - just to look pretty. Doing something to help our wildlife survive in the wild takes more than procrastination, and I can see many benefits from us keeping any native animal as a pet as opposed to the usual imported pets we do keep, because if you have never kept one - you dont get it. This then puts you in a poor position for understanding the requirements and constraints of a native pet. A bit like men discussing the pains of childbirth!!


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 19, 2015)

RoryBreaker said:


> ....Doesn'tlook like the Greens are on board though.


The Greens? environment spokesperson (Senator Larissa Waters) is actually not too wrong in saying that Senator Leyonhjelm?s statement was ?an attack on our national parks?. However, this 'attack' was not simply a bludgeoning of the role of national parks. It was, instead, a much needed wake-up call . The harsh reality is that a great many of our native species, including those occupying pristine habitat within the boundaries of national parks and reserves, are currently in serious decline and seem headed inexorably towards extinction. The decision makers need to alter their misguided beliefs that the national parks and reserves system is an effective solution for conserving all flora and fauna held within. The facts say different! Clearly we need to implement other conservation strategies in addition (and sooner rather than later) if we are to have any chance what-so-ever of defraying the current widespread wave of looming extinctions. Professor Archer, both in the interview and otherarticles, is saying exactly this - though perhaps with a little more tact than Senator Leyonhjelm.

It is a sad fact of life that a majority of politicians are not familiar with the facts ? both the serious major declines of a large range of wildlife, including within the boundaries of national parks and reserves, or of the suitability of many native animals to being raised in captivity and even as domestic pets. Yet in their blissful ignorance, many continue to maintain inappropriate attitudes, to spruke incorrect rhetoric and to make poor, uniformed decisions - all of which have far-reaching effects on the future of our wildlife (and our native flora). ...hops off soapbox...




BrownHash said:


> I feel that theidea has some merit, but I don't believe that it is really a solution to thedestruction of our environment and protection of endangered species. ....


If you examine ANY single conservation strategy in isolation, then you would conclude every time that it cannot work. There is a reason for this... the complexities of the problems facing our wildlife require a multi-pronged (complex) approach if there is to be any chance of ultimate success (to whatever degree). So instead of automatically branding an individual strategy as useless or bound to fail, based on face value, it needs to be considered in the boader context of being implemented as just one part of a number of simultaneous strategies, some of which may well be interim measures only. 

This is the same point that those truly knowledgable and truly concerned about what is happening in our national parks and reserves, are trying to make with those entrusted with yhe regulation of conservation. These decision makers need to acknowledge that ?locking up tracts of suitable habitat? is not the stand-alone panacea of conservation that it was once believed to. They need to acknowledge that this stategy is failing to conserve a very significant number species that it was designed to protect and maintain. This does not mean the reserves system is not working at all. It still has an integral on-going role to play. But because it is clearly not working for all species nor that it is not import on-going role toplay. Because it is not working for some of the species it is suppose to afford protection, then clearly we need more strategies than just this one. 

Some of the suggested alternative strategies will only work in the short-term. But they can buy time to develop longer-term, sustainable solutions, before it is too late. So they should not be summarily dismissed as ultimately useless. They should be seen for what they are - important and much needed interim measures.

In order to achieve any real long-term success, there are some very major changes required. This makes for a truly daunting task. It may often seems virtually intractable. However, I believe this is never reason enough to adopt a pessimistic fatalistic outlook and succumb to frequently espoused credo of ?give up now because we cannot hope to succeed?? I doubt that such ?doomsday prophets? will ever be in short supply. It is easy to make excuses and to just roll over and capitulate when your are battling against the odds. But surely it is better to ultimately fail trying, then not to try at all and fail?

Bear in mind that every little bit helps. By embracing each new piece of the puzzle, no matter how small a part of the ultimate solution, then, and only then, do we have a chance at truly solving the problems. The yet to be discovered or invented 'pieces' may make it currently impossibleto see any final solution at all... but does that equate to there being no solution?

Blue


----------



## kingofnobbys (Mar 19, 2015)

I'd be 100% opposed to breeders monkeying about with these animals through selective breeding to create animals you would never find in nature purely to attract a premium price for their so-called special "products. IMO too much of that already occurs with cats, dogs, chickens, lizards and snakes.


----------



## Firedrake (Mar 19, 2015)

kingofnobbys said:


> I'd be 100% opposed to breeders monkeying about with these animals through selective breeding to create animals you would never find in nature purely to attract a premium price for their so-called special "products. IMO too much of that already occurs with cats, dogs, chickens, lizards and snakes.



Yes, as am I, because I 100% detest what humans have done to most captive species, but it's human nature to want the biggest and the best, and unfortunately the second you put a price on anything, someone is going to want the version one step up from that. Since we KNOW the human way, it's better to plan for the worst and not have it come to that, than to expect everything to work perfectly and be completely unprepared when things go pear-shaped.

I don't believe having natives as pets will be something that can save them in the wild, nor will those animals be any use being released since there won't be any habitat for them to survive in, but at the least we can start a real proper cull on non-native pests and the wound will be bandaged with the introduction of a new unique fluffy pet that isn't likely to take over the world, and we get the bonus of saving a species from total extinction. I mean how cool would it have been if we'd been able to keep the tassie tiger alive, even if there were only captive species left and we couldn't release them? 

There's always someone who wants a "true to original form" animal, so along with being turned into different breeds or morphs, there will always be the "purists" to make sure there are some original type animals left of a species.
Something I've always wondered, where are the "natives" of the species canis familiaris? What did their true original form look like?


----------



## hulloosenator (Mar 19, 2015)

lets all keep Quolls ...... soon there will be thousands in captivity - thriving like mad.
But out in the wild - they will have become extinct , due to the domestic cat becoming so feral that all Quoll are wiped out .
Then , when our Quolls start escaping or we release them into the wild due to huge licensing fees they might just start to wipe out the feral cat into extinction - Karma ! hahahaha


----------



## kingofnobbys (Mar 19, 2015)

hulloosenator said:


> lets all keep Quolls ...... soon there will be thousands in captivity - thriving like mad.
> But out in the wild - they will have become extinct , due to the domestic cat becoming so feral that all Quoll are wiped out .
> Then , when our Quolls start escaping or we release them into the wild due to huge licensing fees they might just start to wipe out the feral cat into extinction - Karma ! hahahaha


It would be nice if cats became an endangered species (even better if they were driven to total extinction) here in Australia. 

First step in that happening is the government labelling them (all cats) as noxious pests exactly like they have for cane toads , foxes , carp and most other introduced species have been and manning up and deciding to enforce laws to ensure their extermination and maybe commissioning the CSIRO to manufacture a biological weapon that's specific to cats and 100% lethal to them.

But we've had that discussion.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Mar 20, 2015)

kingofnobbys said:


> It would be nice if cats became an endangered species (even better if they were driven to total extinction) here in Australia.
> 
> First step in that happening is the government labelling them (all cats) as noxious pests exactly like they have for cane toads , foxes , carp and most other introduced species have been and manning up and deciding to enforce laws to ensure their extermination and maybe commissioning the CSIRO to manufacture a biological weapon that's specific to cats and 100% lethal to them.



Unfortunately the government continues to make lots of money from the legal import of these non native species so they will never want to stop it regardless of the impact on the environment. Nothing will change unless the plan includes a way for it to be profitable for the government. (More profitable than the current arrangement)


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 20, 2015)

Firedrake said:


> ...We fiddle and "fix" animals that don't meet our standards of perfection. Would it then move onto hybridisation and colour morphs or certain "lines" of quolls?...


 
Look at what happens when domesticated breeds go feral. They tend to revert back to their wild-type form, colours and behaviours. Typical of this are feral cats, pigs, goldfish and sword-tails, to name but a few. I do not know for certain why this happens, but I can hazard a guess. It could well be that the gene pool as a whole still contains wild-type alleles of pretty much all the genes and that these are being selected for. It may also be that some or many of these traits are achieved by minor genetic changes which can readily occur. Whatever the mechanisms, beginning feral populations would certainly be under intense selective pressure towards attributes that suit them to survival in their ?wild? environment. While founding populations may be full of artificially selected morphs, the resultant feral populations, after a number of generations, display a remarkable shift towards their wild-type ancestors. Based on the foregoing, I suspect the issue of selectively bred captive animals being genetically unsuitable as a basis for re-establishing species that have become extinct in the wild is more imagined than real. 

Attempts to re-establishing locale-specific varieties will be more problematic. Even where pure locale-specific lines have been bred, one would still expect a deviation from the gene-frequencies of the original population. However, assuming no significant environmental changes to the locale?s habitat, then you would expect the same selective pressures to continue operating. Given that a founding population has a fair sampling of the range of alleles that naturally occurred in the area, with time, competition and natural selection, one would expect a large degree of convergence between the original population and the re-established one. Irrespective, Mother Nature will sculpt a population that is tailored for survival in that particular environment, which really should be the ultimate goal in re-establishment. Preservation of specific or distinctive colours, patterns or shapes, which is often an aesthetic desire of some humans,s may or may not be a part of the adaptive changes orchestrated by nature. 

Hybrids open up a nightmare of possibilities. However, given their natural occurrence in nature and yet their continued persistence in limited regions only, there is good reason to hope that the natural order of things may prevail in the long term. After all, Nature is in the habit of burying her own mistakes!



Firedrake said:


> ....Something I've always wondered, where are the "natives" of the species canis familiaris? What did their true original form look like?


The original ancestor of all modern dogs is the Grey Wolf (_Canis lupus_). Molecular studies have shown the two groups to be conspecific (the same species) and the domestic dog?s scientific name has been changed to _Canis lupus familiaris_ to reflect this.

Blue


----------



## Firedrake (Mar 20, 2015)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Look at what happens when domesticated breeds go feral. They tend to revert back to their wild-type form, colours and behaviours...



I guess so, dogs go back to being small, medium, or large and black, brown or brindle given the chance, and I suppose if a dodgy morph was to escape it would probably just die anyway not being able to fend for itself.



Bluetongue1 said:


> ...The original ancestor of all modern dogs is the Grey Wolf (_Canis lupus_). Molecular studies have shown the two groups to be conspecific (the same species) and the domestic dog?s scientific name has been changed to _Canis lupus familiaris_ to reflect this...



I didn't know they'd changed it, so domestic dogs are essentially a subspecies of wolf? Given that they can interbreed and create viable offspring I suppose I should have guessed that.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 20, 2015)

Mike Archer and I were each fortunate to obtain a baby Western Quoll (Chuditch) when they were bred at the Royal Perth Hospital animal house around 1970. (Mike was doing his PhD at the WA Museum at the time). Have to say they were simply the most gorgeous looking little critters, and do all the things that Mike has suggested they do. Mine lived for about seven years, and Mikes died after eating a Cane Toad following his move to Brisbane - a great loss for him.

One of the things that needs to be considered seriously when discussing (particularly) the smaller native mammals for pets, and I believe it has already been mentioned, is that most of them are highly and incontrovertibly nocturnal, and thus can be quite a bit more demanding in terms of time, than the usual cats & dogs, whose activity times more or less match ours.

There is no doubt that Quolls, Phascogales, Dunnarts, Mulgaras, gliders and a number of other species are cute as pie, and the notion of keeping them as pets has great appeal, but the elephant in the room will always be peoples' expectations of just what a "pet" should be. Not for a moment am I pouring cold water on the idea of public keeping of native fauna, but I suspect that many of these critters would be quickly found to be unsuitable as "pets" by many households which acquired them initially for the wrong reasons. It takes a particular type of person to breed or buy the sorts of food they need to eat (to remain healthy), and to be willing to provide the sort of environment they need to thrive, given that their activity clocks are about 12 hours out of sync with ours, and they might also bite if displeased. Mike & I were quite happy to have our Quolls running and climbing around our houses all night and making noises that kept us awake quite often. Many others would not be so tolerant.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there would need to be some sort of filtering system attached to the availability of these species to try and ensure that they were in knowledgeable and tolerant hands. I'm sure that the same applies to reptiles, but the needs of mammals are far more immediate. My suspicion is that, faced with unwanted native "pets" which were not living up to expectations, they would be more easily released rather than rehomed, and that could be a significant hurdle to overcome.

Jamie


----------



## Firedrake (Mar 20, 2015)

100% agree, natives might not be for everyone.
Quolls sort of remind me of ferrets.
Jamie, if you were to keep your quoll awake during light hours, and they were so exhausted they had to sleep at night, would you be able to reverse their clock or would they just sleep right through and be up all the next night?
I assume that would be somthing you could breed for as well if you were so inclined, and it would take forever, but I'm sure you could.
My cats sleep all day while I'm at work and run around like idiots at night chasing each other and the dog, with bells on their collars, so I'm quite used to nighttime noises, but I'm sure a lot of families wouldn't take that into consideration. 

I think a licensing system of sorts would work, we know what happens when parents buy their kids cute baby animals for gifts that don't turn out the way they expect 

ETA: What do they eat exactly? I thought chuditches ate meat?


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 20, 2015)

I doubt very much if keeping them awake during the daylight hours would do much more that stress them to death very quickly. The dasyurids are night hunters, their prey is also largely nocturnal - they eat pretty much whatever they can overpower and kill. In southern WA, they can be a pest in chook pens, but they will eat invertebrates and vertebrates with equal relish. Rats & mice are favourites.

With regard to living at large in houses - you need to remove any items which may fall or be knocked off shelves, mantlepieces etc because they are great investigators which haven't lived around humans for all the generations that domestic dogs & cats have, in order for them to take living in houses for granted.

Jamie


----------



## Firedrake (Mar 20, 2015)

Fair enough, wouldn't want to stress them out. 
Quolls themselves wouldn't be that hard to feed by the sounds, they eat all the same stuff our reps do
Would they be better off spending any unsupervised time in a big house-cage? Like ferrets, I mean you wouldn't let them roam around on their own.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 20, 2015)

Oh they're easy to feed alright! They just eat a lot more than reptiles do so could end up being quite expensive, although the do skin their prey before eating it in the case of other mammals, so a diet based on chicken seemed to work for me (and my Quoll as well !).

A large enclosure would be necessary because they're very active when on the move, and they'd need plenty of stimulation & challenges to keep them entertained - putting food inside containers that they need to open etc.

Jamie


----------



## Firedrake (Mar 20, 2015)

Argh they sound so cute, like native ferrets! Make it legal already!


----------



## kingofnobbys (Mar 20, 2015)

Hell, why not, they sound like a real hoot to have as a family pet. 

Even better can feed them insects and chicken (mince) and I'm sure the pet food companies would pretty quickly produce foods in packets and tins that are tailored to their specific dietary needs if it really caught on, and it's easy to get insects (can buy in bulk online pretty cheaply from places like Frog Arcade which doubles the benefit because they use a big chunk of the money on frog habitat and frog breeding and repopulating frogs).

As far being a money spinner for the government- easy, require either a companion animal permit (with a class for them) or if someone wants more than one, similar permits as we have for other native animals like snakes, lizards, frogs, etc already. No permit no sale. Plenty of $ in that for them, probably a lot more per animal than they get from registering cats and dogs. Plus the council would get a cut as they would want them microchipped and registered (even more $).

I see very few negatives (for owners and the animals) and lots of positives including the potential to save some from extinction (once extinct it's forever). If they were permitted and I had the money I'd keep some in a heartbeat and be proud to be able to do my little bit for conserving an endangered or not so endangered native species.


----------



## stusnake (Mar 20, 2015)

Would be a good thing to see legalised, so long as its done right. Working with native wildlife for a number of years now, I have come to know that many are hardy, easy to care for and can be just as loving and affectionate as any other domestic animal in their own right.
Like with a number of native species that are currently able to be legally kept, I think as far as mammals are concerned the licenceing and code of practice will need to be carefully looked at to ensure licensees have appropriate expeirience and husbandry conditions, With particular species, having micochipping or tattooing may also be another point to look at along the lines of having a map so to speak to create an extended genetic diveristy, allowing private keepers to be activley involved in breeding programs to aid rare and threatend species.
A hyperthetical for instance would be say the devils. Intitially after 2007 it was a knuckle biting effort to establish a viable captive population of 1000 devils, which we thought would be an impossible figure to reach within the zoological network, but was acheived.
As far as I am aware that figure now needs to grow to around 3000 for long term sustainability. With only so many that can be kept and maintained in various institutions along with ageing animals no longer viable for breeding, this makes it hard to acheive ther target goal. So whats the answer? Do non breeding animals get moved out to other parks and zoos that currently dont have or breed devils as a means to maintain space for those successfully breeding? do surplus animals become available for mobile exhibitors to assist with number allocation and conservation/education programs? Or do retired breeding animals non viable breeders go into the care of experienced private carers. And do we allow devils to be kept privately on restricted licences to spread things out?
We have seen where captive management has taken animals on the brink in the wild and become highly common in domestic/captive environment, there are many examples of this in birds and reptiles. 
Whats to say we cant achieve the same with native mammals, just so long as we get the logistics right and well cemented first so as we dont see the same dramas encountered as per reptiles, birds, etc.

- - - Updated - - -



kingofnobbys said:


> Hell, why not, they sound like a real hoot to have as a family pet.
> 
> Even better can feed them insects and chicken (mince) and I'm sure the pet food companies would pretty quickly produce foods in packets and tins that are tailored to their specific dietary needs if it really caught on, and it's easy to get insects (can buy in bulk online pretty cheaply from places like Frog Arcade which doubles the benefit because they use a big chunk of the money on frog habitat and frog breeding and repopulating frogs).
> 
> ...



Thats right, there will always be plenty of for and against arguements, its just a matter of what we can take from both sides and put together to make good licencing laws and requirements to make it work. And if its done right I think it could work and potentially have huge and positive affects for our fauna.
With the current dramas facing many of our native species and their habitats, things have to change, and zoos and parks cant do it all along, its bigger than that now. Through private keeping, we may at least be able to increase species population growth, genetic diversity, and breeding colonies.


----------



## GBWhite (Mar 20, 2015)

Having read the entire thread I see many posts that have been thought out and delivered with good intention and argument however; I feel the only one who displays any real common sense is Jamie.

I think a lot of people have dismissed the fact that the domestication of our common household pets has occurred over millenniums and I believe any consideration to domesticate any of our naive fauna to a point where they would be readily accepted as household pets by the general public would take an extensive period of time, maybe not millenniums but a long, long time none the less. I can see them, as with current popularity with reptiles, being accepted as bouquet pets but as for allowing them to have free access to roam the living room at will, curling up at our feet, sleeping soundly on the ends of our beds or chilling out in front of the TV...I'm not so sure. On top of that there is the consideration of the expense of special diets and housing requirements and the expectation to bond with humans. From memory native nocturnal fauna also seem to possess a distinctively strong odour when housed in an enclosure let alone closed up in a house.

Dogs and cats are here to stay as the preferred domestic pets. No government is going to put blanket restrictions or consider heavy legislation on having these critter as pets. It would be nothing short of political suicide. One would have to consider where the money would come from for any type of bounty or funding to develop a control measure. Then one would have to consider the uproar from the domestic pet loving community, which by the way would no doubt overwhelm the voting power of native fauna lovers. 

As for keeping and breeding them in captivity for the intention to re-introduce them into the wild in an attempt to to stay off extinction or replace extinct species, again it's notable and well intended but again I think a lot of people forget that it's not just feral animals that contribute to the decline and/or extinction of native fauna but many other factors, such as loss of habitat/micro-habitat and food and water resources and the increased dominance of both native and feral animals throughout the landscape once their numbers have declined or worse, been eliminated.

As I said I can see a lot of good intentions posted by a lot of well meaning people but i have to question the practicality of undertaking such a project. I hate to be the fly in the ointment but being the realist I am, it's just the way I see it.

George.

t.


----------



## RoryBreaker (Mar 20, 2015)

A bit of a follow up article on cats.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-20/scrunchies-prevent-wildlife-death-study-finds/6337222

[h=1]Scrunchies saving wildlife from being killed by cats: study[/h] By Stephanie Dalzell  
Updated 16 minutes agoFri 20 Mar 2015, 7:45pm 


* Photo:* A new study has found putting brightly-coloured scrunchies on cats prevents them from killing wildlife. (Supplied) 

*Map: * WA

A fashion relic of the late eighties and nineties, the humble scrunchie has found a new lease on life preventing the slaughter of wildlife by domestic cats.
In a new study, West Australian researchers found putting a scrunchie-like collar on cats reduced the amount of native wildlife killed by more than half.
Murdoch University PhD student Catherine Hall spearheaded the research which observed the behaviour of 114 cats for two years. 
Over the course of the study, the owners of the cats froze everything their pets caught, both with and without the collar.
She said the results showed the scrunchie-esque neckwear reduced the number of birds, reptiles and amphibians captured by the cats by 54 per cent.
"Bright colours are very noticeable to songbirds, they should see the cats further away, allowing them to escape earlier," Ms Hall said.
"Because it's based on colour and vision, cats won't be able to learn to make it stop working.
"Unlike what people say about bells. [They say] that cats can learn to make them less effective over time."
The study found the collar did not make a difference to the number of mice and other mammals caught as their colour vision was not as good, meaning owners could still use their cats to catch garden pests.
"For people who want their cats to catch small rodents like rats and mice but don't want them to catch birds, this is an effective device to use," Ms Hall said. 
Serpentine resident Robyn Brown's two cats, Chocco and Milo, were recruited for the study.
She said they used to be active wildlife hunters and would often leave birds like wrens on her doorstep.
"We were very concerned about that. We've tried everything. We've tried double bells and all kinds of things and we've tried locking them in at night time," she said.
But she said since the collars were placed on her cats more than two years ago, they had not caught a single bird. 
"We just can't believe it. We're very happy," Ms Brown said.
"I've always loved cats ... I didn't want to give up cats because I had birds as well, and I loved having them in the environment, but now I can have both."


----------



## Sean_L (Mar 20, 2015)

[MENTION=39076]GBWhite[/MENTION] So we don't bother at all then George? Let National Parks continue to think they're doing anything other that simply drawing a line around an area so that it can be encroached upon by feral flora and fauna anyway. Change nothing because there's no point? 
I'm all for your opinion but don't just sit there and point out the negatives without providing some kind of alternative or useful positive input. That achieves nothing other than continue to trick the sheep into thinking nothing needs to change, or that there's no point in trying.
Are these animals right for everyone, almost certainly not. But the concept of larger numbers of native animals in captivity under the care of informed and responsible people is a distinctly positive idea. Not fool proof and not fully conceptualised yet though of course.

That's about the most unscientific study I've ever heard of. If they wanted to actually improve on the concept though they could add colours or materials that reflect light in the Violet to Ultra Violet range, that birds perceive quite well. A full body spray/dye could be created that covers the majority of the cats coat and specifically reflect the shorter wavelengths of light. This way they'd stick out like a sore thumb to native birds and some reptiles, but the owner wouldn't notice any difference in the colour of their cat as its outside our visible spectrum. 

Better yet, dont let the cat outside where it can harm wildlife. "We've tried everything......" This is why have no respect for dumb cat owners.

"I keep slamming this door on my hand, but I just can't understand why it keeps hurting like this!'. Idiots.


----------



## kingofnobbys (Mar 20, 2015)

RoryBreaker said:


> A bit of a follow up article on cats.
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-20/scrunchies-prevent-wildlife-death-study-finds/6337222
> 
> [h=1]Scrunchies saving wildlife from being killed by cats: study[/h] By Stephanie Dalzell
> ...



Wont stop them from killing and maiming defenceless native animals , how many cats will tolerate such a thing around their neck for more than a few minutes ?

The only easy solution is keep all cats locked up inside behind these things called "DOORS"  and never allow them to go outside ever.

- - - Updated - - -



Sean_L said:


> @GBWhite So we don't bother at all then George? Let National Parks continue to think they're doing anything other that simply drawing a line around an area so that it can be encroached upon by feral flora and fauna anyway. Change nothing because there's no point?
> I'm all for your opinion but don't just sit there and point out the negatives without providing some kind of alternative or useful positive input. That achieves nothing other than continue to trick the sheep into thinking nothing needs to change, or that there's no point in trying.
> Are these animals right for everyone, almost certainly not. But the concept of larger numbers of native animals in captivity under the care of informed and responsible people is a distinctly positive idea. Not fool proof and not fully conceptualised yet though of course.
> 
> ...



Pretty hair-brained actually, and even if (and that's a BIG IF) it worked and only saved 50% of natives. that's NOT ANYWHERE NEAR ACCEPTABLE.


----------



## Sean_L (Mar 21, 2015)

Well its not 'hair-brained'. I'm a very intelligent person and make conclusions (at least) roughly based on science where ever I can. But you are right. As you already know, I'm on your side with cats. If it were up to me (us) there wouldn't be any in Australia. But if John Walmsley proved anything, its that being too radical for the public only alienates you.
An extreme 'yes' can be just as bad as an extreme 'no' though in some cases. [MENTION=39076]GBWhite[/MENTION] for example; where an overly positive attitude comes off as over-ambitious and uninformed. Equally as unhelpful as a radical view.

I think its going to be baby steps for any and all of these issues, and that's if anything comes of them at all. It may just take as few individuals with guts and the right abilities and experience to take the matter into their own hands and start the ball rolling. The amnesty in NSW probably helped to stabilise the established captive populations of many of the various reptile species we have available today. That's quite a bit of conjecture though. People are bound to disagree. 
Point is though, just because its the 'law', doesn't always mean its the best course of action. But that's highly subjective of course. I'm not promoting rebel smugglers in any way, shape or form. But, yeah, anyway.


----------



## GBWhite (Mar 21, 2015)

Sean_L said:


> @GBWhite So we don't bother at all then George? Let National Parks continue to think they're doing anything other that simply drawing a line around an area so that it can be encroached upon by feral flora and fauna anyway. Change nothing because there's no point?
> I'm all for your opinion but don't just sit there and point out the negatives without providing some kind of alternative or useful positive input. That achieves nothing other than continue to trick the sheep into thinking nothing needs to change, or that there's no point in trying.
> Are these animals right for everyone, almost certainly not. But the concept of larger numbers of native animals in captivity under the care of informed and responsible people is a distinctly positive idea. Not fool proof and not fully conceptualised yet though of course.



I've heard it all before Sean_L over and over again throughout the last 4 decades and as I said before it's commendable and thought provoking but I see it all as being an impracticable pipedream. Just as what is evident to a blind man, it will be no different to what is happening in the herp scene lately, it would be wide open to corruption and exploitation by those who are willingly to jump on the bandwagon for personal gain at the further expense of wild populations that are already in danger.

As for not pointing out positives and providing alternative and useful input, it was not my intention of the post. I simply posted what a lot of people don't want to hear and unfortunately its the truth about the wall that is staring everybody in the face. It's no good preaching to the converted on forums like this and maybe the sheep you are referring to are actually the ones that will follow blindly into the sphere of those that see the potential for commercial gain under the guise of protecting a species.

Again, just my thoughts,

Cheers,

George.


----------



## Sean_L (Mar 21, 2015)

[MENTION=39076]GBWhite[/MENTION] That's fair enough. I'm sure it must be frustrating from your point of view given that you've been in the game for so long and as you said, have seen it all before. I guess the real changes need to happen a lot further up than with the public consensus. Ironically, the corruption is equally thick from those that desire their personal gain and those that decide the rules. Oh wait, they're the same. Not so ironic after all. 
A funny world we live in.


----------



## Bushfire (Mar 21, 2015)

If it was finally allowed, the biggish hurdle I can see is not genetic diversity, not hybrids / morphs or suitability; it will be the supply line of the animals. There is only a limited number of people who could or want to supply the hobbyist. Most zoos and private conservation organisations who could potentially supply animals and have the variety have already indicated their un-interest in taking part or to be seen to be taking part. The only other option would be a take system which would be extremely unpopular and cement the fear that such a system is replacing "traditional" methods which really is an unfounded fear.


----------



## Planky (Mar 21, 2015)

We're allowed 2 species of quoll in vic


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 22, 2015)

?Missing the point?... well I find that accusation more than a little ironic. The article was about the idea of keeping native mammals as pets, rather than cats and dogs, ?in an effort to preserve native mammal populations? i.e. it was about another way through which we could assist conservation. Yet somehow it got hijacked into primarily a discussion/argument about whether or not it is practical, or even possible, to keep native Australian mammals as pets.

Rather than invent an opinion based on personal perceptions (as many others have done) to contribute to this discussion/argument, following is a quote taken directly from the Marsupial Society?s website. Bear in mind that these statements are based on the real experiences of people who have actually ?been there, done that?... and are STILL doing it!

?Once you learn the basics in keeping and the extent of their needs, you will find they [marsupials and other native mammals] are no more difficult to care for than a dog or cat. Just as with the usual fair of domestic pets, not all are suitable for the suburban backyard or unit. So do your homework to ensure you get the right mammal for you. Avoid an impulse purchase in a shop and be patient in acquiring the animal you decide on.

Marsupial and native mammal housing comes in many forms. An aviary for possums, gliders and bettongs, a vivarium for dunnarts and rodents, a small fenced yard for wallabies and other small macropods, up to large sized fenced paddock for kangaroos and wallaroos. Wombats require extra consideration for housing and to maintain their overall well being. Further knowledge and information about how to care for your native mammal/pet can be obtained by joining the Marsupial Society.?

There were a couple of criticisms levelled at Senator Leyonhjelm, rather undeservedly I felt. Judging from the quotes of the senator?s spiel to the senate, he seemed well informed on the subject. He pointed out that where a pet is wide kept, such as dogs and cats, then that species is in no danger of dying out. Popularity as a pet gives an animal an added value by society at large (not just those concerned with conservation). He used the example of Sugar Gliders in the US to illustrate that it is achievable. Yet he also showed awareness of the limitations... "There is no disputing that some native animals may make unsuitable pets, at least in certain situations." "Many are nocturnal, for example, which might require us to adjust our own sleeping habits to enjoy them." 


I do have one question before I attempt to get some sleep... what is so difficult about being positive???

Blue


----------



## GBWhite (Mar 22, 2015)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I don't see any posts that state it is impractical to keep native fauna as pets. 

The article is about the senators suggestion for native animals to replace domestic cats and that's what I see as impractical. 

[/FONT]*"Crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm has declared the quoll should replace the domestic cat in an effort to preserve native mammal populations."*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with people keeping native marsupials and/or mammals as pets if they so choose and competent in doing so but, as for them actually replacing popular domestic pets, again I think, that itself, is nothing more than a pipe dream.

I must add the assumption that many of the opinions here are invented based on personal perception rather than first hand experience of people who it is assumed have "not been there, or done that" is naive in itself. Unless you know them personally how could one make such an accusation. 

Allowing people to keep native fauna as pets no doubt maintains species as well as raises the awareness and adds value to native fauna in the eyes of the general public but I must ask, "What contribution would it make to conservation other than to have them caged up in private collections?" (not that I see this as a bad thing) I ask this because as for replacing the populations of wild fauna from "domesticated stock" I doubt very much that it will ever happen due to the genuine concern of introducing any type of virus or disease that may in turn have a detrimental affect on not only targeted native species but potentially spread to others and causing even more havoc . As I've mentioned on previous threads any such projects would be undertaken through the consent of the scientific community with strict governances attached and as far as I'm aware, rarely does it involve private keepers. 

Cheers.


[/FONT]


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 22, 2015)

I don't think George was suggesting the idea not be given consideration, he was, like me, expressing reservations about the notions we have as a community, on what constitutes a "pet." It will take generations of human lives to change the culture that dictates to us that pets are cats, dogs, chooks, horses. Like reptiles, Quolls and any other of the species I've mentioned will need very careful captive management to remain safe themselves. They cannot survive the inevitable attacks from cats and dogs, and these domesticated animals will rejoice at the extra resources we would be offering them should native mammals be more common in suburbia. They cannot be left to roam freely outside for the same reasons, and the "call of the wild" would inevitably see them disappearing forever into the dark. 

You can be fairly casual about your responsibilities when it comes to keeping cats & dogs etc, but definitely not when it comes to vulnerable, nervous and highly strung nocturnal native species. 

Not saying it couldn't or shouldn't be done, just saying that great caution is needed because the initial appeal is great, the follow-up responsibility is greater, and therefore native animals definitely do not fit into the "universally good" pet category. Many people would find the time requirements and responsibility quite onerous after a very short time.

Jamie


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 23, 2015)

GBWhite said:


> The article is about the senators suggestion for native animals to replace domestic cats and that's what I see as impractical.
> 
> "Crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm has declared the quoll should replace the domestic cat in an effort to preserve native mammal populations." ...


 This quote you have used as the basis for determining what the article was supposedly about, is an incorrectly paraphrased statement and is also taken out of context. 

While this attention-grabbing first paragraph states that the Senator declared the quoll should replace the domestic cat, a later verbatim quote from his senate speech reveals what he actually said was: ?The quoll may replace domestic cats?. Please note use of the word ?may?. This direct excerpt confirms that the first paragraph (which is what you quoted) is nothing more than sensationalistic journalese. 

To put your quote into context, here are the next four paragraphs which immediately followed it...
?In a speech to Parliament the Liberal Democratic Party senator argued making it legal to domesticate native animals like the quoll and bilby would ensure their survival.
"Certain kinds of wallabies make great pets. The quoll may replace domestic cats," he told the Senate.
"The bilby is often nominated as a great candidate for domestication.
"In the right circumstances, possums, Tasmanian devils, wombats, native rats, antechinus and bandicoots would also be great pets."
Clearly, the point of the article is not solely about ?native animals replacing cats?. 

The range of native mammals available as potential pets is very broad. Person?s involved with wildlife (wildlife parks and other tourist attractions. rehabilitator?s and members of groups such as the Marsupial Society) have shown that many, but certainly not all, are readily amenable to captivity, without requiring undue effort or changes to personal life styles. In contrast, hand-rearing parrots and the like can be considerably more demanding than raising many of our marsupials and native mammals. Yet there are many enthusiasts prepared to take on difficult birds as pets. The point I am trying to make is that it seems apparent that the negatives are being repeatedly over-stated. Something not helped by limiting the focus to quolls. Surely the success with animals like the Sugar Gliders or Mitchell?s Hopping Mice is indicative that it is not always difficult. 

The perceived benefits to conservation of keeping native animals as pets are clearly articulated by Professor Archer in the interview article referred to earlier.


----------



## GBWhite (Mar 23, 2015)

Ho Hum. Very petty.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 23, 2015)

The big problem is, and always will be, that what we, as humans, "need" from our "pets." It may be unfortunate, but native mammals will never replace cats as the "pet" of choice because what these different species deliver in terms of companionship is very different indeed. There is a vast difference also in keeping animals outside in cages and having a cat curled up in your lap in front of the fire on a cold winter night.

I have no problem with the keeping and breeding of native animals & birds of all sorts in captivity, especially if it makes otherwise endangered species more prolific (Rough scaled Python is a remarkable example of this), but to promote them universally as ideal "pets" is courting disaster and disappointment for those initially enthused by attempts to popularise them.

It remains my opinion, as a person who has kept quite a number of these things - Brushtailed Possums, Ring-tailed Possums, Mulgara, a Quoll, Water Rats to name a few, that they probably appeal to those who wish to keep non-domesticated native species and who are aware of the limitations and idiosyncracies of these animals, and whose expectations are realistic in terms of what they get back for their effort.

Jamie


----------



## Sean_L (Mar 23, 2015)

I value your reasoning and dedication to a subject above almost all other members on this forum @ Bluetongue1. I don't think you're always right or necessarily always agree with you, but at least you put the effort into your arguments and look at things with the ability to adjust your mind set. I'm slowly changing my mind about a few things related to this discussion also.

I think certain members here should get off of their high horses. Just because in your era something failed to happen, doesn't mean that in another a few might have the balls to actually do something positive. You actually need to make something happen, for it to happen.

I'm probably being petty though. ;-)



Id also like to hear more from [MENTION=33537]Planky[/MENTION].


----------



## moosenoose (Mar 23, 2015)

Maybe do what the zoos do and shift their night period to daylight hours and visa-versa. Just need a large room with natural ventilation etc and then you can enjoy them during the day :lol:  I know I don't get into my enclosures and wake my snakes up during the day. If they're not there...then they're not there. I don't get selfish enough to go dragging them out of their hides every time I pop into the snake room.


----------



## GBWhite (Mar 23, 2015)

I'm just going to get a bigger horse because I'm not dead and it's still my era. I think a certain member on here should put his money where his mouth is and if he thinks he's got big enough balls to take on the powers that be...then by all means go for it. When he's been on here long enough he might come to realise why myself and a few friends refer to another certain member as Dr John A. Voidberg.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 24, 2015)

What I don?t understand is why maintain the focus on ?replacing cats?? It may be the title of the thread but in the article it is only cited in a six-word quote from the speech referring only to quolls. The mainstay of the article was about a senator arguing for ?making it legal to domesticate native animals? to help assist conservation. As it is this quote contains the qualification of ?may replace?. 

I strongly suspect this commenti, which was first made by Mike Archer, originated as a result of the old name for quolls... ?native cats?. I also suspect that the comment was more intended to attract publicity in order to spread the broader message. Much the same as many journos deliberately take liberties and sensationalise headlines and introductory paragraphs to grab attention. 

The example of Sugar Gliders was given specifically because these animals actually need to bond and interact with their carers and/or others animals. As a consequence of this, they provide all the interactions and companionship that have been mentioned for domestic cats. As a result of the knowledge and understandings gained from a decade plus of wide-spread keeping, these animals require less effort and expense to correctly maintain than many of the more traditional domestic pets. Properly managed they are hardy, clean and pretty much disease and problem free. These attributes help to explain their degree of popularity in many countries aroundthe globe.

While I do agree that many natives species would likely provide limited interaction with humans, I do not understand why there is such a reluctance to acknowledge the fact that there are some current demonstrable exceptions and there is a real potential for other species to fill a similar niche. The Squirrel Glider, for example, is an almost identical but larger version of the Sugar Glider and with similar potential. 

OK, the Fat-tailed Dunnart I once kept was way cute, but definitely not cuddly. However Red-necked Pademelon Wallabies are a different ballgame entirely. A small colony was maintained for at least 15 years (that I know of) in the wooded backyard of a house not far from where I grew up in suburban Sydney. These animals showed a preference to being hand-fed by their owners, appeared to enjoy a good ?scratch behind the ear? and would even jump up onto their owner?s lap to be petted or cuddle up for a rest or sleep. I don?t recall if they were allowed inside the house or not, but they povided plenty of intimate contact and bonding with their human carers. In conclusion, based on actual facts and my own observations, there is arguably more potential for select native mammals to become companion pets than has been given credence in this thread. 

Blue


----------



## wokka (Mar 24, 2015)

I grew up in Lane Cove which is now neareniough to the center of Sydney. I had a pet bandicoot which lived in an avairy and me mate had a wallaby which slept in a hessian bag hanging on the back of his bedroom door. All of us kids shared about a dozen tortoses which spent their time escaping down the gully to the creek where they would be recaptured by the next gang of warriors for their turn "caring" for the wildlife. Even then it was probably illegal.
Now the gully has been filled with demolition material from the city and turned into a golf course. Far less wildlife now.......and far more legislation.


----------



## apprenticegnome (Mar 24, 2015)

if people weren't so negative in attitudes towards the Tasmanian Tiger decades ago and some people had taken the time to take them on as pets would the species still be alive today? I am pretty confident the answer would be yes so I agree with those who see keeping native animals as pets as a realistic option to a species survival.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 24, 2015)

A few extra but relevant comments...

I doubt that the senator expects to see native animals replace cats to any marked degree, if at all. I suspect that he was following Mike Archer's lead in making that comment. 

Whether or not native pet animals will curl up with humans while watching TV, or whatever, the potential conservation benefits ofbkeeping natives are still there regardless. As Mike Archer pointed out, our kids have far more contact with, know more about, and relate more to exotic pets such as dogs and cats, then they do with our own native animals. As we all know, even keeping reptiles or amphibians is an educative and awareness-raising process, that alters perspectives and atitudes. It gives our native wildlife a real value in the eyes of their keepers. It encourages people to take a more active interest in issues surrounding the conservation of such animals (e.g. frog declines, the Broad-headed Snake and the Oenpelli Python). It can even provides a buffer from extinction should a captive species disappear completely from the wild ? as has happened with numerous different species around the world. It also produces an in-your-face reality that clearly defines and makes these animals (and related species) very real to keepers, rather than being just vague creatures that one might occasionally see at a distance behind glass or fences or on a screen, or simply read or hear about. 

Finally, I don?t know that anyone seriously expects to see domestic cats removed or replaced. At least not in our lifetimes. And feral cats are exceedingly unlikely to ever be totally eradicated ? certainly not in the foreseeable future. However, that does not mean that we should throw up our hands and give up trying. We need to continuing pushing for achievable progress, such as demanding appropriate changes to the regulations controlling domestic cats. Despite what some have declared elsewhere on this forum, in the last two decades there have been important legislative changes achieved in this respect - at both state and local government levels. These changes (such as compulsory sterilisation and micro-chipping) are on-going and only happening because of the actions of people. Don?t give up pushing for what is needed,despite what the knockers say, because it can and will ultimately make adifference!

Blue


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Mar 25, 2015)

I doubt very much that "domesticating" native species does much to increase awareness, change perspectives or attitudes, except in the very early days of the process when those who are deeply interested in the species become involved in breeding. As animals become more readily available to those without any interest in the "big picture," they are more & more regarded simply as curiosities. This is very evident with the nature of reptile keeping today. I've said it on a few occasions in the past, and it's an opinion shared by my peers, that reptiles are now being kept more and more by people who have little or no interest in the natural history of their pets. They don't see, and have no interest in, learning about any of the broader contexts surrounding the creatures they keep, and unfortunately, today's lifestyles and urban or apartment living don't encourage investigation.

Over the past few years, the nature of reptile keeping has changed. In the early days reptiles were caught and kept by people like myself - we spent much of our lives as kids and young adults out and about in the bush, turning over bits of tin and looking for critters of all sorts. This gave me and my peers a great deal of knowledge about the lives these creatures live in their natural habitat. As reptile keeping developed and breeding became more common, the spread of reptiles in the community went from those who had a close connection to reptiles and where they fitted into the ecosystem, to those who had connections with the breeders, and from there, diffusing into the community at large, to the scenario today, where many (maybe even most) of those why buy reptiles have no knowledge or even any interest in doing more than manage their animals in a cage. They are not remotely interested in the broader context.

This may or may not be a bad thing, but I think you'll find, despite the very large number of reptile keepers in this country now, that it will be the same few deeply interested individuals who continue to push the barrow of change. You only have to look at the frenzy in the herp community to acquire the latest (obviously smuggled) morph when their presence is announced in this country to see where the values of the broader keeping community lie. 

Once again, not saying it shouldn't be done, just that there are only a few individuals in our community who are politically minded, and politically savvy enough, and with the time needed to bring about change.

Jamie


----------



## apprenticegnome (Mar 25, 2015)

I look at the idea from a personal perspective. Because I am able to keep certain natives legally I have chosen to own some reptiles. I have shovelled the odd snake that I was unable to relocate when I was younger and not connected to the hobby although I did have an interest there. Because I now keep snakes and have done a handling course the interest I had as a youth has now grown and has stimulated my curiosity to explore the bush further, to read up on plants and animals, to involve my Grandson and pass on what I know. We study behaviour of animals in the bush and learn their habits. Without the ability to keep such animals would have limited my knowledge and skills, unfortunately by being pushed from the bush growing up into town living as an adult that initial interest was taking a backseat. The road forward in keeping Natives and increasing the list of allowable species does have some negatives ie; designer pets and unwanted animals but I do believe that the keeping of snakes for example has reduced the number of people who shovel them and a greater acceptance of nature. Some of us out there are learning and in turn trying to educate others. Hopefully in time the species list increases to include other animals that suit people who are not into what is currently there.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 27, 2015)

@Pythoninfinite... 

All-inclusive generalisations ignore the important fact that while some things may be true of a percentage of people, there are also thosethat to which they do not apply. Any increase in the number of people interested in our native animals is a positive. However, this cannot happen if we do not provide the opportunity for it to happen.

A desire to learn about the natural history of the animals being kept was not what was meant by developing ?an interest? or?awareness? in native animals. What was in fact implied was a general interest in native animals as whole. The more generalised the interest, the better, as it incorporates all those members of a group not being kept. The sort of interest referred to is that which might lead to someone watching a TV program on native animals or reading a newspaper or internet article about them. Where these programs or articles contain reference to aspects of conservation, then this should serve to increase awareness of this issue in the reader. I think it a fair presumption to say that without that the reality provided by keeping, this sort of interest is less likely to develop in a lot of cases.

The stated requirements for achieving change or reform, and the roles that keepers of native animals might have to play, seem over-the- top. I mean, there are millions of cat owners in Australia, yet despite such a huge potential opposition, a range of restrictive controls have been introduced throughout the country in recent years. How then did these changes come about? They certainly didn?t happen because politicians had nothing better to do, so decided to get up the noses of their cat-keeping constituents to alleviate the boredom. Nor did it involve banner bearing hordes waving placards while marching down the main street. It requires only a very few activists to start the ball rolling and then a show of support from everyday people. That ?show of support? can be as simple and easy as writing a letter, typing an internet post or clicking a ?like?, making a phone-call, signing a petition or some other simple measure - as suggested,encouraged and co-ordinated by those few prepared to play a more active role. The actual percentage of a population required to demonstrate their support, in order to galvanise politicians into action, is surprisingly minute. 

The whole notion of legalising keeping of a wider range of native animals is not being touted as a panacea to cure all of the problems currently be setting them. It will also, no doubt create a few difficulties of its own, as is the case with keeping of all types of pets. However, it does have the potential for making a positive contribution. How much and what effect, remains to be seen. The idea is being put forward because of this potential it has to help. Shooting it down in flames, either by denying it has this positive potential, or by putting obstacles in the way, can only be viewed as a retrograde step in trying to tackle a particularly vexing problem. 

Blue


----------



## kingofnobbys (Apr 1, 2015)

I know I am probably preaching to the converted here - but we all know what happens when breeding groups of an apex predator find themselves in a place where the prey have no defences from them , they wipe them out (because they are easy prey) and they breed up and the number apex predators increases exponentially until suddenly there is no more prey left to eat (they've been exterminated). The apex predators then starve and die off (we are talking cats (and to lesser extent dogs here) so the loopy cat lovers will view the starvation of these cats as a horrible event and will want them to be rescued).Something is very wrong with this. 

More sensible to sterilise all cats and remove / kill of all roaming cats (domestic or otherwise) and make it mandatory to keep cats indoors 100% of the time, and thereby give the indigenous wildlife a fighting change to recover providing they are not already past the point of having a large enough genetic pool to recreate a sustainable population. Keeping indigenous animals as pets can assist in this recovery, even more so if the species are endangered (a case where human intervention is desireable and warranted) and the only thing stopping this from happening are current rules regarding keeping these animals in the various states (some more restrictive than others) and a great lack of awareness by Joe Citisen and our political types. 

There is no reason why fury indigenous animals can't become so tame that they will happily curl up on your lap and enjoy your company - it's only a matter of developing a strong trusting bond with these animals and not beyond many of their capabilities.


----------

