# Turtle wrongly released into central Australian waterhole prompts ranger's ire



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jun 23, 2020)

ABC Alice Springs
By Samantha Jonscher
June 14, 2020



*It wasn't the first time turtles had been wrongly released into Ellery Creek Big Hole.(ABC News: Katrina Beavan)*


It was supposed to be a good deed, but this act of kindness has attracted the ire of local park rangers.

Parks and Wildlife NT said at least five Murray River turtles had been wrongly released into a prominent central Australian waterhole.

_"There are no native of turtles in central Australia,"_ said wildlife ranger John Tyne.

And yet, Mr Tyne said, he had photographic evidence of members of the community releasing five of the interstate turtle species into Ellery Creek Big Hole over the long weekend.

The park ranger said he believed the turtles had been rescued from the Alice Springs golf course ponds, which were being drained.


*A dinner plate sized Murray River turtle on the loose at the Alice Springs golf course.(Nathan Coates)*


_"I suspect they thought they were doing the right thing, a kind-hearted citizen seeing some turtles in distress and plopping them in the nearest pond,"_ said Mr Tyne.

_"I will be in touch with the people to have a conversation about this."_

The members of the community could face fines of over $1,000 per turtle.

*Delicate ecosystem*
Mr Tyne said that because water was so scarce in central Australia, its few water systems were vulnerable to introduced plants and animals.


*Wildlife Ranger John Tyne said the turtles probably became stranded when the Alice Springs golf course ponds were drained for maintenance.(ABC News: Mitchell Abram)*


_"The Ellery Creek Big Hole is one of a handful of permanent waterholes in the Finke River system, it is a very important refuge for fish and aquatic life during drought years and any introduced exotic species is of concern,"_ said Mr Tyne.

_"This species of turtles is probably not the worst thing that could have shown up, but one of things that could have come along with the turtles are various aquatic plants that could be a bit of a higher risk, or even parasites or viruses."_

He said that because of the time of year, it would be a challenge to catch and remove the animals.

_"The turtles were hibernating in the golf course pond at the time, so it's quite possible they just went straight to the bottom and have gone to sleep, so we may not see them until spring."_

Mr Tyne said it wasn't the first time animals had been wrongly freed into the wild.

Turtles had previously been released into Ellery Creek Big Hole and Simpsons Gap.

_"We've also had to fish goldfish out of Simpsons Gap — which is a bit of a concern,"_ Mr Tyne said.

_"Certainly any aquatic fish shouldn't be dumped in the NT. No animal should be dumped in the NT."_


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 23, 2020)

The public really needs to understand that in almost every case, releasing animals into the wild is a bad thing to do. Even when it's done by zoologists it more often does more harm than good or is just a waste of time, but random members of the public should never do it. This applies to snake catchers too.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 24, 2020)

Members of the general public should definitely not release any animal into the wild. I suspect that many people think that just because an organism is native, it’s OK to release it anywhere in Australia. What is lacking in this simplified logic is an understanding that native organisms have specific ranges, and exist in areas with their own particular ecological webs, of which they are a natural part. Introducing them into systems where they are not a natural part of the ecological web can have the same level of disastrous effects as introducing exotic plants or animals into these areas. Having said that, I most definitely do not agree with the generalisation that: “Even when it's done by zoologists it more often does more harm than good…” At the very minimum, zoologists are aware of the general nature of ecosystems.


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 25, 2020)

Bluetongue1 said:


> At the very minimum, zoologists are aware of the general nature of ecosystems.



You know, it was literally biologists who gave the okay and introduced Cane Toads?

Most often the only damage done when zoologists release animals is to waste all the funding they were given, but sometimes it's much worse. You're kidding yourself if you think most zoologists know what they're doing. There are many examples of serious damage caused by zoologists releasing animals and countless examples of small problems and resources wastage, but extremely few success stories.


----------



## deadcentre (Jun 25, 2020)

Sdaji said:


> You know, it was literally biologists who gave the okay and introduced Cane Toads?
> 
> Most often the only damage done when zoologists release animals is to waste all the funding they were given, but sometimes it's much worse. You're kidding yourself if you think most zoologists know what they're doing. There are many examples of serious damage caused by zoologists releasing animals and countless examples of small problems and resources wastage, but extremely few success stories.


Wow I used to go swimming out there a fair bit in summer hope there isn’t more in other waterholes have only had my first snake for 3 mths now a cool little Stimson python an got a Darwin python hatchling now as well pretty cool love your snakes you see very nice indeed


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 26, 2020)

Sdaji said:


> You know, it was literally biologists who gave the okay and introduced Cane Toads? .


I do know actually. The release of the cane toads in Australia was NOT sanctioned by biologists. It was the result of political pressure from the sugar cane growing industry. In 1933 representatives from Australian attended a sugar industry conference in the Caribbean. Here they heard about toads (from Puerto Rico) being trialled in the Caribbean and Hawaii to control beetles and other insect pests in cane fields. One particular paper seemed to overstate their effectiveness and did not apply to Australian pests. However, based on the spurious reports that were provided, Reginald Mungomery, the biologist in charge of addressing the cane beetle problem, decided to acquire and trial some of these toads. In June 1935 he imported 204 specimens from Hawaii. By August he had bred them to a population approaching 3000. At this stage he had not yet been able to do any of the field testing he had intended, In fact, he did not even know if the toads would eat the beetle species causing the problems here. Given his prior years of diligence and care in assessing a wide range of other control methods, including parasitic fungi, it is not tenable that he would have organised releasing them without field testing first. However, the powerful sugar can lobby wanted an immediate fix to their problems. So about 2,400 were released in the Gordonvale region.

Walter Froggatt, an eminent entomologist, expressed his concerns in The Australian Naturalist, vol. 9, 1936: “This great toad, immune from enemies, omnivorous in its habits, and breeding all the year round, may become as great a pest as the rabbit or cactus.” He was successful in obtaining a ban on further releases via the federal Health Department. However, in1936 Prime Minister Joseph Lyons succumbed to pressure from the Queensland Government and the media to rescind the ban. So the sugar cane industry organised further widespread releases.



Sdaji said:


> …There are many examples of serious damage caused by zoologists releasing animals and countless examples of small problems and resources wastage, but extremely few success stories.


If such is the case then it should not be hard for you to come up several specific examples that do demonstrate this. With regard to successful releases, I am happy to provide you with a long list of just Australian examples where releasing is benrfiting the populations of animals involved. Add in overseas examples and the list would be very long indeed, rather than only the few successes you suggest are out there.



Sdaji said:


> You're kidding yourself if you think most zoologists know what they're doing.


I don’t understand why you say this, because it is certainly not my experience. It also seems to fly in the face of the numerous times you have stated ‘I am a biologist’, presumably to add veracity to your comments.


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 26, 2020)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I do know actually. The release of the cane toads in Australia was NOT sanctioned by biologists. It was the result of political pressure from the sugar cane growing industry. In 1933 representatives from Australian attended a sugar industry conference in the Caribbean. Here they heard about toads (from Puerto Rico) being trialled in the Caribbean and Hawaii to control beetles and other insect pests in cane fields. One particular paper seemed to overstate their effectiveness and did not apply to Australian pests. However, based on the spurious reports that were provided, Reginald Mungomery, the biologist in charge of addressing the cane beetle problem, decided to acquire and trial some of these toads. In June 1935 he imported 204 specimens from Hawaii. By August he had bred them to a population approaching 3000. At this stage he had not yet been able to do any of the field testing he had intended, In fact, he did not even know if the toads would eat the beetle species causing the problems here. Given his prior years of diligence and care in assessing a wide range of other control methods, including parasitic fungi, it is not tenable that he would have organised releasing them without field testing first. However, the powerful sugar can lobby wanted an immediate fix to their problems. So about 2,400 were released in the Gordonvale region.
> 
> Walter Froggatt, an eminent entomologist, expressed his concerns in The Australian Naturalist, vol. 9, 1936: “This great toad, immune from enemies, omnivorous in its habits, and breeding all the year round, may become as great a pest as the rabbit or cactus.” He was successful in obtaining a ban on further releases via the federal Health Department. However, in1936 Prime Minister Joseph Lyons succumbed to pressure from the Queensland Government and the media to rescind the ban. So the sugar cane industry organised further widespread releases.
> 
> ...



As you say, it was a biologist, Reginald Mungomery, who decided to first bring the toads to Australia. He hadn't yet advocated their release, but there weren't big cries from biologists to prevent it. Obviously after their release there were concerns, I think we all know that. And yes, obviously they were brought in due to pressure from the sugar cane industry. Obviously this example needs to be kept in context because it's old and it's a lesson that we now have hindsight on.

If you're talking about successful uses of biological control, there have been some examples such as dung beetles, cactus moths, etc (which have been brought in to deal with other species that were initially brought in, some accidentally, some not).

In the discussion of whether or not releasing native animals for their own sake is beneficial or destructive, it's pretty different from introducing new species such as in biological control. Obviously you're not as likely to cause problems with introducing a species which is going to cause harm if it has already been exterminated from an area. In those cases (which are common), you're simply putting resources into producing these things in captivity or capturing them from other areas then putting them into the place where the previous population existed so that they can also die from the same thing that killed the previously existing population (which is the typical outcome). 

Just as a typical example, when I was at university the main bird guy (I won't name him as I don't want to be putting knives in anyone's back, but it's a typical story) spent several years and swags of government conservation funds setting up a colony of birds, building a huge soft release aviary, eventually letting them go, and the local hawks ate them all. All the efforts, all the funds (which came from taxes, our tax dollars), all the volunteer hours, the environmental disturbance of the aviaries, etc etc, and in the end the same thing could have been achieved by releasing a few pigeons. Before the release I asked him (he was one of my lecturers) if it was really worthwhile, considering that so much funding had gone into the project, and surely it could have benefited more species if it was put into habitat protection rather than just trying to release a few individuals of one species. He gave me the 'flagship species' dogma you're probably familiar with. So in the end, nothing was achieved, and huge amounts of resources were wasted. If you don't consider wasting resources to be a problem, then okay, releasing animals usually doesn't cause a problems when it is done by qualified biologists, but this is the typical outcome. Honestly, you must know that the vast majority of reintroductions are not successful.

If you want to look at releases by amateur biologists etc, such as snake removalists (I use that example here because it's close to home), it clearly causes more harm than good. There are plenty of cases of parasite introduction (mites etc are commonly associated with the well known dump sites used by relocators), often these people have their own pet animals and very often the animals are kept overnight or often longer, getting cross exposure, incorrect genetics are dumped into populations (it's very common to get animals with non local colours and patterns turning up where relocators drop off animals, and there is plenty more genetic material we can't see than what we can), and while most of these relocations/releases results in the best case scenario (the animal fairly quickly dies), if they do survive, they displace a local animal which obviously had local genetics, no introduced diseases, parasites, etc.

And if you want to look at animal releases by random people such as whoever threw this turtle into the pond, or the kid who lets his goldfish go at the local lake, or the fruit shop owner who throws that frog which came in on the bananas into the creek out back of the store, no doubt you'll agree.

When we see the documentaries on the television they always show the release with emotive music giving a sense of hope and optimism, but we don't see that same number of follow ups. It feels happy seeing that animal scurry off into the scrub, but that's the last we see of it. We don't see it slowly starve or displace a local or get eaten by the predators which exterminated its species from the area in the first place. When radio tracking studies are done, we know the results aren't great.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 28, 2020)

I asked for hard factual examples to support your statements. You give me one example, no species name, no details what was done or how, no explanation of the reasons behind doing it, no location and no timeframe. It was obviously some time ago but you don’ even provide an approximate date. Come on! …
While we are at it, is this also your evidence for the generalisation you made that zoologist don’t know what they are doing? 

With regard to wild releases… yes, we were discussing “releasing animals into the wild”, until you decided to limit it to “re-introductions” in your last post… what was done in the past is not what is done today. Most early attempts failed. However scientists learned from these mistakes. Failures can of course still happen, but not of the nature you describe, and most certainly not for the simplistic, inane reasons you would have us believe. 


Two decades ago the national Biodiversity Act introduced a requirement of recovery plans for listed threatened species and ecological communities. These are not static documents, and change as we learn more. They provide a platform for sharing important relevant information such as new learnings, and a framework for how to go about developing and implementing conservation strategies. One of the key requirements in their methodology is the identification/ investigation of threatening processes. That would mean where predators were responsible for depleted a population, it would be a requirement to ameliorate this effect before releasing any of theseanimals into that environment – not what you maintains happens.

Here’s some hard and fast examples of Aussie animals where release(s) into the wild has been beneficial to their conservation: Corroboree Frog, Western Swamp Turtle, Bellinger River Turtle; Northern Quolls (after captive training to avoid eating toads), Bridle Nail-tailed Wallaby, Black-eared Miner, Regent Honeyeater, Southern Emu Wren, Eastern Bristlebird, Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat, Tammar Wallaby, Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby, Mala, Banded Hare Wallaby, Dibbler, Swamp Antechinus, Lakeland Downs Short-tailed Mouse, Shark Bay Mouse, New Holland Mouse, Greater Stick-nest Rat, Brush-tailed Bettong, Southern Brown Bandicoot and Eastern Barred Bandicoot. There are more, but this will suffice to outweigh the “very few successes” claimed. Add overseas examples to the list and one could not fit them all on one page. Details of the projects, what is done their progress are readily available on the net - just add “conservation of” to the species’ name.

Snake relocation is not something I mentioned, or even hinted at including. Clutching at straws?


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 28, 2020)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I asked for hard factual examples to support your statements. You give me one example, no species name, no details what was done or how, no explanation of the reasons behind doing it, no location and no timeframe. It was obviously some time ago but you don’ even provide an approximate date. Come on! …
> While we are at it, is this also your evidence for the generalisation you made that zoologist don’t know what they are doing?
> 
> With regard to wild releases… yes, we were discussing “releasing animals into the wild”, until you decided to limit it to “re-introductions” in your last post… what was done in the past is not what is done today. Most early attempts failed. However scientists learned from these mistakes. Failures can of course still happen, but not of the nature you describe, and most certainly not for the simplistic, inane reasons you would have us believe.
> ...



This is going to get into a very lengthy debate if we continue to put heavy focus on an ever-increasing number of points, but looking at your list of examples, most are failures. The first one, the Corroboree Frog. They're just dumping them into the wild where they're meeting the same fate. It's not even a reintroduction situation. At huge expense they're breeding them in captivity. If it was being done for free by hobbyists and there was a captive population I'd say that was a definitely good thing, but looking at what's being achieved for the amount of money being put in, it's absurd. Shortly after they stop dumping new animals into the wild, the situation will go back to much as it would have been if they never bothered. What's the point? I'm not going to go through each example because it would tiresome, but just putting animals back into the wild, achieving nothing ongoing and declaring it a success doesn't make it a real success.

And, naturally, as you know, even though your short list of "successes" are things you want to call "successes", even by these standards they are outnumbered by failures. You acknowledge that there have been failures but dismiss them because they occurred "in the past"; guess what? Literally everything that has ever happened occurred in the past.

Not that one particular example matters, but the bird example I was referring to started around 20 years ago and I think was still ongoing around 15 years ago.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 16, 2020)

I was not going to bother responding given you’re not being even half-ways fair dinkum. However a friend convinced me otherwise – to get the true facts across. Before doing so, I will point out that you contradict yourself. On the one hand you say a captive population would definitely be a good thing. Yet then you say the situation will go back to much as it would have been if they never bothered, so what's the point? How could it be good thing, even if done for free, if it is pointless? And to answer question about what is the point, the wild population of the Southern Corrobboree Frog had declined by over 99% and without this project it would now be extinct in the wild. The ultimate aim is to establish chytrid resistance wild populations in their natural range. You cannot do that if the species has died out. 



Sdaji said:


> … The first one, the Corroboree Frog. They're just dumping them into the wild where they're meeting the same fate…


This statement is totally false and your use of the emotively charged word “dumping”, with its connotations of irresponsible and illegal use of the environment, is clearly designed to further distort the truth. Many years of ecological study, monitoring of populations and extensive survey work forms the basis for determining release sites, some of which can only be reached by helicopter. 

A common management response for frogs at very high risk of extinction is to establish captive breeding programs paired with reintroductions. However, reintroductions into the sites where the last wild populations persisted, has met limited success due to the continued effects of chytrid fungus. Facilitating the recovery of the Southern Corroboree Frog will require assisting this species to attain greater resistance to Chytridiomycosis at the population level. The National Threat Abatement Plan for Chytridiomycosis recommends implementing a captive breeding and reintroduction program for achieving greater resistance in frog populations threatened with extinction, because maintaining the species in the wild will facilitate ongoing selection for increased resistance. The reintroduction of tadpoles into artificial pools that remain free from Amphibian Chytrid Fungus infection is currently being trialled as a technique to successfully establish wild populations. The following document talks about the whys and wherefores of early failures, what was learned, and the resultant changes in approaches. http://www.amphibianark.org/wp-cont...mphibian-reintroduction-proposal-KNP-2013.pdf. 



Sdaji said:


> … the Corroboree Frog. … It's not even a reintroduction situation.


In words of John McEnroe: You cannot be serious!

I suspect you picked the Corrobboree Frog because you saw it as a chink in the armour. The others on the list are easier for me to vindicate. Many of them are on-going and dependant on controlling feral cats before they can be released into areas without predator-proof fencing or translocated to the mainland. Given those species have been able to establish self-sustaining populations whilst free of feral predators, I am at loss to understand how you deem them as “failures”.

One final comment. Conservation does cost dollars. It does not come cheap. However, compared to the billions and billions of dollars that we have taken out of this land, at great cost to the environment, I consider it precious little to put back in.


----------



## Sdaji (Jul 17, 2020)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I was not going to bother responding given you’re not being even half-ways fair dinkum.



Ah, by starting with an insult I see you have a bee in your bonnet and this is personal to you, haha, oh well, I hope you're not too upset 



> However a friend convinced me otherwise – to get the true facts across. Before doing so, I will point out that you contradict yourself. On the one hand you say a captive population would definitely be a good thing. Yet then you say the situation will go back to much as it would have been if they never bothered, so what's the point? How could it be good thing, even if done for free, if it is pointless?



You're failure to see a point does not mean there is no point, and it is in no way a contradiction. A captive population is a good thing because it is an insurance policy, and in many cases that insurance policy has been necessary. It sounds like you think a species only has value if it exists in the wild. I disagree. There are many species, including some in the pet trade, which are extinct in the wild, but secure in captivity. I think this has value. If I could resurrect the dodo or gastric brooding frogs or countless other species and they could only ever exist in captivity, I would be thrilled to do so. I see value in a species' existence, even if only in captivity and even if you do not. To me, the continued existence of a species has value. It's strange that you disagree, but I can only accept the personal preferences of others.



> And to answer question about what is the point, the wild population of the Southern Corrobboree Frog had declined by over 99% and without this project it would now be extinct in the wild. The ultimate aim is to establish chytrid resistance wild populations in their natural range. You cannot do that if the species has died out.



The thing is, if we stop dumping animals into the wild we're still going to see it go extinct in the wild. We don't really have a wild population, at least not functionally. We're just continually putting more out there. If we stop putting new animals out there, the same thing which would have wiped them out will wipe them out.



> This statement is totally false and your use of the emotively charged word “dumping”, with its connotations of irresponsible and illegal use of the environment, is clearly designed to further distort the truth. Many years of ecological study, monitoring of populations and extensive survey work forms the basis for determining release sites, some of which can only be reached by helicopter.



I'm sorry you get upset about the word and find it necessary to write a short paragraph about a word you don't like. Perhaps you'd like to give me a list of your preferred words and contexts in which you'd like them to be used? Good grief. These animals are being put into an unstable population which is functionally extinct, which is why I say 'dumped'. If the chytrid fungus had been completely exterminated and the other environmental hazards were all gone and you then released some (which is the only appropriate time to do so) then I'd probably choose a different verb.



> A common management response for frogs at very high risk of extinction is to establish captive breeding programs paired with reintroductions. However, reintroductions into the sites where the last wild populations persisted, has met limited success due to the continued effects of chytrid fungus.



We have a lot of common ground here. Captive breeding allows the species to continue to exist, which is what I said I was all for and you said I was somehow wrong, contradictory (?????) and several other nasty adjectives in reference to. You go on to admit that I'm correct and success not exactly being abundant when they're dumped back into the wild... you literally just made the point you attacked me for making!



> Facilitating the recovery of the Southern Corroboree Frog will require assisting this species to attain greater resistance to Chytridiomycosis at the population level. The National Threat Abatement Plan for Chytridiomycosis recommends implementing a captive breeding and reintroduction program for achieving greater resistance in frog populations threatened with extinction, because maintaining the species in the wild will facilitate ongoing selection for increased resistance. The reintroduction of tadpoles into artificial pools that remain free from Amphibian Chytrid Fungus infection is currently being trialled as a technique to successfully establish wild populations. The following document talks about the whys and wherefores of early failures, what was learned, and the resultant changes in approaches. http://www.amphibianark.org/wp-cont...mphibian-reintroduction-proposal-KNP-2013.pdf.



Note your own words which actually match mine: You literally just said the document you ask me to read describes why the project has been failing... 



> In words of John McEnroe: You cannot be serious!



I know, right? What's wrong with you?



> I suspect you picked the Corrobboree Frog because you saw it as a chink in the armour.



For memory I chose it because it was first on your list. It certainly wasn't the best example. In others the animals are being eaten by cats and foxes rather than killed by chytrid, etc etc.



> The others on the list are easier for me to vindicate. Many of them are on-going and dependant on controlling feral cats before they can be released into areas without predator-proof fencing or translocated to the mainland. Given those species have been able to establish self-sustaining populations whilst free of feral predators



As I said earlier, we really don't have time or space to get into each and every one of them, but the general pattern is that a problem occurs which almost or completely wipes out a population/species, the animals are bred in captivity (that part I'm generally all for) and then dumped back into the wild where they die of the original cause. Yes, there are some exceptions, and those exceptions I totally agree with. You've literally given a link to a paper describing why the corroboree frogs died after nastily complaining about me pointing out that they died, and hey, if you release animals and they all die, I think that counts as a failed release and the term 'dumping' is fair to use. As I've said all along (and bizarrely you've attacked me for) I'm all for establishing captive populations, and if it does become possible to fix the problem which harmed/exterminated them in the wild, sure, reintroduce them.

In the few cases of successes, sure, they're successes, I'm happy to call them successes. I've absolutely never said there has been a 100% failure rate in releases, I've said there has been a majority failure rate.



> I am at loss to understand how you deem them as “failures”.



It's really quite easy. You literally give a link to why the corroboree frog releases were failures and you literally used the word "failures" yourself to describe those releases! Literally... used... the... word... "failures"... yourself! You seem to be confused at the difference between "most" and "all".



> One final comment. Conservation does cost dollars. It does not come cheap. However, compared to the billions and billions of dollars that we have taken out of this land, at great cost to the environment, I consider it precious little to put back in.



I've never argued with this, ever. I'm a big advocate of conservation, obviously. The problem I have with conservation funding and efforts it not that it exists, quite the opposite, it's that it gets wasted rather than used efficiently. I have never wanted to see conservation funding reduced. By all means increase it, I won't argue. But I want it used properly, not wasted.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 18, 2020)

The comment I made about you not being even half-ways fair dinkum is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact. A good example is the nonsense in this post about how I supposedly used the term “failure”. 

The 10 authors of the document I listed in my previous post are qualified professional herpetologists, highly respected in their fields. Collectively they have over 150 years of experience working on amphibian recovery and/or research. Yet it would seem you know better than all of them put together…


----------



## Sdaji (Jul 18, 2020)

Bluetongue1 said:


> The comment I made about you not being even half-ways fair dinkum is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact. A good example is the nonsense in this post about how I supposedly used the term “failure”.
> 
> The 10 authors of the document I listed in my previous post are qualified professional herpetologists, highly respected in their fields. Collectively they have over 150 years of experience working on amphibian recovery and/or research. Yet it would seem you know better than all of them put together…



This is a facetious statement.

Here's the bottom line: If they were to cease dumping those frogs into the wild right now, they would soon be extinct in the wild. The 'population' is merely an unstable group of animals maintained by repeatedly dumping more into it.

Those guys know a lot about frogs, I don't dispute that for a moment. I've personally met some of them and they're great people. Any decent scientist has had failures. You'd had failed pursuits, so have I, that doesn't make any of us bad or stupid, I never said or implied anything like that, you are the only one who made that assertion.

As I have said all along, I'm all for having captive populations of endangered/extinct in the wild species (as long as it's done in a cost effective way). If they never go back to the wild at least the species still exists. If in the future it becomes viable to reintroduce them into the wild successfully, wonderful, bravo. I did not say I never wanted it to happen. I said that when it is attempted it usually fails. You literally admitted that attempts to reintroduce this frog had failed, literally giving a real life example of what I was saying. That doesn't mean that it will never be successful in the future.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 21, 2020)

*Dumping* means to rid of something unwanted in a quick and careless manner or irresponsibly. My objection to your use of this term, as already stated, is that this is absolutely NOT what happens. This statement where you used it is blatantly untrue.

What disappoints me about your continued use of this term ‘dumped’ is not just that it is incorrect, but that it also totally demeans all the work behind selecting the most promising release sites. There’s years of surveys and field work, of ecological and physiological research, and other threatening processes that are all taken into account in making these decisions. Yet you imply through the language used that that it is done ad hoc and carelessly. That is a true injustice and very unfair on those many individuals that have put in the hard yards over such a long period.



Sdaji said:


> Any decent scientist has had failures. You'd had failed pursuits, so have I, that doesn't make any of us bad or stupid, I never said or implied anything like that, you are the only one who made that assertion.


I challenge you to point out where I made this assertion. I know you *won’t* *do this* because you can’t – I said no such thing! Yet another example of you not being fair dinkum.

As for why we need to maintain wild populations via reintroductions, try re-reading (my) post #10 again – the bit about the national Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis (2016). One of the key recommendations of this plan is to establish a reintroduction program, because maintaining the species in the wild will facilitate ongoing selection for increased resistance to the fungus - something that is highly unlikely to be achieved via a captive population only. The program is achieving some success, with breeding and production of viable eggs from eggs that were reintroduced.


----------



## Sdaji (Jul 21, 2020)

Bluetongue1 said:


> *Dumping* means to rid of something unwanted in a quick and careless manner or irresponsibly. My objection to your use of this term, as already stated, is that this is absolutely NOT what happens. This statement where you used it is blatantly untrue.
> 
> What disappoints me about your continued use of this term ‘dumped’ is not just that it is incorrect, but that it also totally demeans all the work behind selecting the most promising release sites. There’s years of surveys and field work, of ecological and physiological research, and other threatening processes that are all taken into account in making these decisions. Yet you imply through the language used that that it is done ad hoc and carelessly. That is a true injustice and very unfair on those many individuals that have put in the hard yards over such a long period.



You're obviously not really focussed on anything too sensible if the bulk of your ranting is literally caused by being upset about the technical definition of a word. I don't particularly care what word is used, but I use the word 'dump' because these animals are being released to find their deaths. Yes, you are correct, the technical definition of the word 'dump' implies the thing being dumped has no value. My point is that if something is being put somewhere only to die, it has no value. Yes, I understand the technical definition of 'dump' means that the person discarding of the thing sees it as having no value, but you seem far too hung up on this technicality.




> I challenge you to point out where I made this assertion. I know you *won’t* *do this* because you can’t – I said no such thing! Yet another example of you not being fair dinkum.



The quote you're responding to here simply said that you, me and everyone else has had some failures in their lives. Really, I don't think that needs to be backed up. You seem to be referring to something else, perhaps you accidentally quoted the wrong thing.



> As for why we need to maintain wild populations via reintroductions, try re-reading (my) post #10 again – the bit about the national Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis (2016). One of the key recommendations of this plan is to establish a reintroduction program, because maintaining the species in the wild will facilitate ongoing selection for increased resistance to the fungus - something that is highly unlikely to be achieved via a captive population only. The program is achieving some success, with breeding and production of viable eggs from eggs that were reintroduced.



We're going around in circles at this point, I think any reasonable person can see we've both said enough and it's getting repetitive. I do understand the point you're making about hypothetical future success, but at the same time, it's still only hypothetical, I don't agree that it couldn't be done in captivity (ie, if it's possible at all, which is unlikely), it's extremely expensive and the same amount of money could be better spent on protecting habitat which would do more to save more wildlife/species. I'm still all for maintaining a captive population in a more cost-effective way, which would achieve all the same benefits for this frog, and plenty of people would be thrilled to keep and breed them at zero taxpayer expense but the people working on these frogs are the first to say the public should not be allowed to contribute, and if you take an honest look at the situation you know their selfish reasons - the project and their funding become redundant if the species is otherwise secure. There is too much pride and self interest involved to acknowledge these things.

Again, you can say all you like about hypothetical future success, but even if that was the case (which I don't believe is likely, and it's certainly not going to happen any time soon) the clear fact remains that if they were to stop "releasing" (happy?) these frogs into the wild, the "population" would quickly go extinct (it's already been functionally extinct for a long time). They are merely "releasing" animals into the wild to find their untimely deaths (hence the term 'dumping' making sense). I agree that while these efforts aren't harming anything other than wasting resources, they are a problem because other species are going extinct which could be saved using better resource allocation.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 22, 2020)

Sdaji said:


> The quote you're responding to here simply said that you, me and everyone else has had some failures in their lives. Really, I don't think that needs to be backed up. You seem to be referring to something else, perhaps you accidentally quoted the wrong thing.


This is what I quoted, slightly abbreviated and with the relevant bits bolded so you cannot claim to miss them this time.


Sdaji said:


> Any decent scientist has had failures. You'd h ad failed pursuits, so have I, *that doesn't make any of us bad or stupd*, I never said or implied anything like that,* you are the only one who made that assertion*.


I challenged you point out where I made this assertion. Your response is a truly pathetic attempt to weasel out of it. I take exception to being lied about. An apology would have been the appropriate response. In fact if you stop telling lies then I can stop posting here.

A few pics for you to enjoy of the frogs being ‘dumped’, as you so falsely and disrespectfully refer to it…


----------



## Sdaji (Jul 22, 2020)

Bluetongue1 said:


> This is what I quoted, slightly abbreviated and with the relevant bits bolded so you cannot claim to miss them this time.I challenged you point out where I made this assertion. Your response is a truly pathetic attempt to weasel out of it. I take exception to being lied about. An apology would have been the appropriate response. In fact if you stop telling lies then I can stop posting here.



Ah, okay, I've read my original post (in full, in context). The false assertion you made which I was referring to (in the final sentence of your previous post) was that I claimed to know more about frogs than all of those guys put together.

This is quite comical. Clearly from your repeated ad hominem attacks (as we all know, these are little more than emotional outbursts used when someone doesn't have genuine substance to use) you're rather perturbed and it's obviously stopping you from seeing things properly. The comical thing here is that you're being hypocritical. Here you accuse me of lying about you... along with your tantrum you wish for an apology for something which never happened... while actually doing the thing you were in the process of accusing me of... haha, so by your own standards you owe me an apology, haha! Not that I am triggered enough to want one.



> A few pics for you to enjoy of the frogs being ‘dumped’, as you so falsely and disrespectfully refer to it…



The pictures are pretty, but again, here's the bottom line: If they were to stop dumping frogs there now, there would soon be no live frogs there.

I use the term dump because it is being used in the same context that the word dump is used in common usage. For example, when for whatever reason farmers are forced to dump perfectly good fruit, we call it dumping. Not because we thing the fruit has no value or we dislike fruit, but because it is going to rot and be wasted.

In this case, those frogs will all die. That 'population' is not really a population. Even you described the release of frogs at that location as 'failures'. Frogs have been released in that area, only to die of the same things which caused the population to become functionally extinct in the first place. I'm all for the maintenance of a captive population (though even that is being done in a selfish and squanderous way - if it was really about conserving the species they'd release them into the pet community and the species' continued existence would be assured rather than having them more precariously managed by this one group of people, but of course, then they would no longer be special, being the only people with access to them).

How much money has been spent on all that infrastructure, man hours, etc etc? I'm all for that money being put into conservation, but this species is of zero ecological significance, can be kept alive in captivity no expense to the taxpayer, and all those funds can be used for far more productive things helping more species and ecosystems, rather than a single species with no relevance to other species in a tiny area, in a project which will probably never succeed.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 23, 2020)

Stop wasting my time.


----------



## Sdaji (Jul 23, 2020)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Stop wasting my time.



Haha! Yeah, it makes sense that's the best you can come up with when it's clear you're in the wrong. Again, ironic, considering you were the one initiating the discussion and I was the one responding, but it seems you're done, so that's good.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jul 23, 2020)

Well there's a month of my life I'll never get back.


----------



## Kyle Hamilton (Jul 24, 2020)

Breeding and releasing animals back into the wild is only worthwhile when the reason for their decline has been adequately addressed ,case in point is the release of marsupials where foxes or cats still exist.Mountains of money has been wasted releasing parma wallabies ,brush tailed wallabies etc etc. They are swiftly eaten or die from other causes ,but the biologists get paid,frogs are not any different ,cause of the decline needs to be addressed first.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jul 24, 2020)

Kyle Hamilton said:


> Breeding and releasing animals back into the wild is only worthwhile when the reason for their decline has been adequately addressed ,case in point is the release of marsupials where foxes or cats still exist.Mountains of money has been wasted releasing parma wallabies ,brush tailed wallabies etc etc. They are swiftly eaten or die from other causes ,but the biologists get paid,frogs are not any different ,cause of the decline needs to be addressed first.


Same as there's no point re-releasing Lake Eacham Rainbow fish back into Lake Eacham. It was trialled and failed miserably.


----------



## Sdaji (Jul 24, 2020)

Right, these are good examples. There are countless examples. These frogs are by no means the only one. It's a very expensive way to have outdoor groups of frogs which inevitably die. They literally used to naturally occur there, but now can only exist by continually dumping more and more there. If they stop putting more frogs there, there will be no more frogs there. That's not a population, that's just a place that you're putting frogs to die. The thing which caused the original population's extinction is just going to kill them. Same as the wallabies, rainbow fish, etc etc. 

Taxpayer dollars go to these people, they have a financial bias let's not forget.

Rather than wasting the conservation efforts on this insanity, the funds should go primarily to habitat preservation/restoration (buying land so it can be kept as wilderness is probably the best strategy), fencing off land and elimination of exotic species within that area is sometimes viable (and then it actually sometimes, in rare cases, becomes okay to release locally extinct animals into those areas, this among the very few ways in which reintroductions can be successful, but really it's just an elaborate form of a captive population anyway since it's within a modified, fenced-off area. It's still allowing populations to exist which is a good thing, I'm all for it).

Just putting animals back into the same environment they went extinct in without removing the cause of the extinction is a cruel way to squander conservation dollars.


----------

