# Regulated taking of wildlife.



## Rocket (Feb 26, 2012)

Now, I don't know if this has been done before so forgive me if it has. Also, this is strictly an opinion-based thread so there is no need to get all "huffy and puffy" and cause a virtual riot.

In light of recent... stories in regards to smuggling and illegal removal of herpetofauna from the wild, it has gotten me thinking about what the consensus of keepers/ breeders generally think about current legislation and our access to native fauna. Some states/ territories generally prohibit collection of wild animals whilst some (SA, NT, Tas, WA) allow it under rather strict regulations. 

My question is: Should a new system (perhaps a uniform system) be established to allow controlled taking? Would this system involve generic applications and justification (perhaps establishment in captivity, restocking, addition of new genetic material etc)? Do you think this would lower the appeal of illegal smuggling and would this dramatically alter wild populations for the worse, or maybe even for the better?

I agree, specialist species, or those that are red-listed or otherwise considered vulnerable, would probably be excluded from being taken but what about other species not believed to in any forseeable danger?

If controlled strictly (but not completely ridiculously with every applicant rejected), do you think this would benefit both the hobby and conservation of Australian herpetofauna?


----------



## longqi (Feb 26, 2012)

Apart from a small number of species all of the rest have plenty of genetic diversity already in captivity

Every reptile and amphibian in Australia except for one notable exception is declining in numbers

Why add to the decline??


----------



## Echiopsis (Feb 26, 2012)

longqi said:


> Apart from a small number of species all of the rest have plenty of genetic diversity already in captivity
> 
> Every reptile and amphibian in Australia except for one notable exception is declining in numbers
> 
> Why add to the decline??




What? I dont even know where to start addressing this. Care to clarify?

In answer to the question: I dont have an issue with wild collection of species that are stable in the wild. Make it expensive, limit the numbers and stop issuing permits when the species is established in captivity. Prices go down, desirability goes down with it to a degree and it suddenly becomes far less attractive to drive across the country with a car full of emaciated reptiles and bodge them onto the books when you get home.


----------



## longqi (Feb 27, 2012)

Echiopsis said:


> What? I dont even know where to start addressing this. Care to clarify?
> 
> In answer to the question: I dont have an issue with wild collection of species that are stable in the wild. Make it expensive, limit the numbers and stop issuing permits when the species is established in captivity. Prices go down, desirability goes down with it to a degree and it suddenly becomes far less attractive to drive across the country with a car full of emaciated reptiles and bodge them onto the books when you get home.



Please name two species of reptile that are increasing in numbers in the wild??
Number one is simple
Number two answer will be waited for with baited breath

Stable; as you quoted means neither increasing nor decreasing???

Since scientific studies categorically prove they are all decreasing bar one; you just shot yourself in the foot

Yet you would happily legalise even more wild collections knowing full well that those legal collections may just be the final straw with some species

When we reach a point where our 'pet' reptiles, which will never be released and therefore have no bearing on wild stocks, have become more important than Australian ecology, it is time to take a very hard look at what we really love

Everyone considering this should ask themselves a simple question
Do I love reptiles?
Or do I love a pet in a box?

Regarding the boot full of reptiles analogy. there will always be scumbags out there
Legalising more collections only adds to the problem


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 27, 2012)

I was always taught if it's taken from the wild then it should stay in the wild. I personally wouldn't risk disease or being caught and I think it's unnecessary to stress an animal when we are already blessed with an awesome pet trade  

That's what I think anyway


----------



## jedi_339 (Feb 27, 2012)

I don't think that legalised harvesting should be allowed, in theory it sounds like a good idea, increasing supply, driving down demand and the profitability of illegal poachers, genetic diversity etc etc etc,

But what it is also doing is messing unneccesarily with a natural system that is already in equilibrium, and already suffering (possibly but most likely) from anthropogenic influences. While it may add to the genetic diversity of our captive populations it would also decrease the diversity within wild populations.

Overall I feel it's a bad idea, however there would be certain circumstances where it could be the saving grace for a species, imagine if a captive population of Rheobactrus was established back in the day.........well I'm sure you get the picture


----------



## miss_mosher (Feb 27, 2012)

Something that's sort of related to this thread that caught my eye today, has anyone else seen the TV add for saveajoey.org (I think that's the site).


----------



## longqi (Feb 27, 2012)

jedi_339 said:


> I don't think that legalised harvesting should be allowed, in theory it sounds like a good idea, increasing supply, driving down demand and the profitability of illegal poachers, genetic diversity etc etc etc,
> 
> But what it is also doing is messing unneccesarily with a natural system that is already in equilibrium, and already suffering (possibly but most likely) from anthropogenic influences. While it may add to the genetic diversity of our captive populations it would also decrease the diversity within wild populations.
> 
> Overall I feel it's a bad idea, however there would be certain circumstances where it could be the saving grace for a species, imagine if a captive population of Rheobactrus was established back in the day.........well I'm sure you get the picture



Absolutely agree with reptiles such as the oenpellis being collected to try to save them
But thats under very stringent guidelines and probably a one of situation where I believe the majority of any successful breeding is destined for more breeding and relocation
Its a bit different to collecting for the pet trade


----------



## Morgwynn (Feb 27, 2012)

I am strongly against collecting animals from the wild for the pet trade. We have plenty of animals in captivity to breed from, and people who are picking up wild animals are not necessarily going to do their research on how to best look after an animal, because it's so easy to just go get another one. It would be impossible to regulate, and you'd end up with people rereleasing their 'wild' pets back into areas they don't belong because they bite, they're hard to care for, or they just don't adjust well to captive environments. It will suddenly become far easier to transmit diseases - captive diseases back into wild populations, and wild diseases back into our captive populations, which is detrimental to the species as a whole.

I am not against zoos or researchers being issued permits for limited numbers of collections, for education and to establish captive breeding populations as insurance against extinctions. Like longqi said, the oenpelli is a perfect example of that. If they then make their way into the pet trade, that's awesome, but it shouldn't start with the pet trade - the sad fact is that reptile keepers can simply not be trusted not to overcollect. The government does not do close monitoring on reptile populations and it is very easy for an animal to go from common to locally extinct.


----------



## Beard (Feb 27, 2012)

miss_mosher said:


> Something that's sort of related to this thread that caught my eye today, has anyone else seen the TV add for saveajoey.org (I think that's the site).




Yea I've seen that ad and it really pissed me off!!!!!!!

I believe in the use of our natural resources. Kangaroo meat is lean, high in protein, the leather is amazingly strong and pliable and the use of kangaroos is very ecologically sound (there is bugger all environmental impact compared with that of farming traditional food animals).

I know a few pro shooters and I've considered it myself. Pro shooters are just that, Professional! Only take a shot that is a certainty. A single shot to the head from a fast, flat shooting centrefire rifle while the animal is grazing and completly unsuspecting is alot more humane than leading animals down the killing plank to an area that stinks like blood and faecal matter (DEATH), bolting it in the head, electrocuting or sticking it with a knife.



This campaign only exists because 'roo's are seen as cute and cuddly.


----------



## reptilian1924 (Feb 27, 2012)

Morgwynn said:


> I am strongly against collecting animals from the wild for the pet trade. We have plenty of animals in captivity to breed from, and people who are picking up wild animals are not necessarily going to do their research on how to best look after an animal, because it's so easy to just go get another one. It would be impossible to regulate, and you'd end up with people rereleasing their 'wild' pets back into areas they don't belong because they bite, they're hard to care for, or they just don't adjust well to captive environments. It will suddenly become far easier to transmit diseases - captive diseases back into wild populations, and wild diseases back into our captive populations, which is detrimental to the species as a whole.
> 
> I am not against zoos or researchers being issued permits for limited numbers of collections, for education and to establish captive breeding populations as insurance against extinctions. Like longqi said, the oenpelli is a perfect example of that. If they then make their way into the pet trade, that's awesome, but it shouldn't start with the pet trade - the sad fact is that reptile keepers can simply not be trusted not to overcollect. The government does not do close monitoring on reptile populations and it is very easy for an animal to go from common to locally extinct.



Morgwynn, l agree 100% with what you have said here in your post, in regards to being allowed to take from the wild Reptiles.

That only Zoos -Museums-Research Organisations such as CSIRO & University's, should be allowed to collect a limited numbers of Reptiles, for education - breeding - conservation - studies, from the wild on very strick conditions, not private keepers or breeders who only do it for one reason money, and don't bother doing any research on what they want from the wild, before they even contemplate on lodging a take from the wild application with the appropriate Wildlife Authorities. IMO. so leave them alone out in the wild where they all belong.


----------



## wokka (Feb 27, 2012)

The system is fine as it is. If you have a good enough case the authorities allow collection, but generally there is enough available from captive bred. The various powers that be dont seem to be able to supervise what they have now , without increasing licenced collectors. Getting a permit to collect should be hard as it means only "qualified" collectors will apply.


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 27, 2012)

I think it all depends where the animals are being collected from. 

The reality is that as a society we don't want snakes in built up populated areas. I think all relocators should be allowed to keep what they catch on call outs.

Edit: Actually, no i don't. 

I've seen what being allowed to keep what you catch can go to peoples head and them become disgustingly greedy. I would like to see all relocators be allowed to apply to keep a specified number of animals that they get on callouts.


----------



## Jungle_Freak (Feb 27, 2012)

Wild types to stay put in the wild , there is no need to collect from the wild .
The exception would be for species under population pressures or that are becoming rare etc 
Re Rough Scaled python and Oenpelli .
But genetic anomalies' like albinos or leucistic morphs should be allowed to be kept for hobby purposes .
Wild types to stay in the bush but morphs should be allowed to be kept.


----------



## OzGecko (Feb 27, 2012)

Morgwynn said:


> I am not against zoos or researchers being issued permits for limited numbers of collections, for education and to establish captive breeding populations as insurance against extinctions. Like longqi said, the oenpelli is a perfect example of that. If they then make their way into the pet trade, that's awesome, but it shouldn't start with the pet trade - the sad fact is that reptile keepers can simply not be trusted not to overcollect. The government does not do close monitoring on reptile populations and it is very easy for an animal to go from common to locally extinct.



Most zoos are only interested in holding animals that would make for interesting displays. Why would they devote time to a hypothetical endangered small brown skink when the majority of the paying public would rather see a panda or big cat. Let's face it with admission prices to zoo's and the zoo's running costs in terms of salaries and up-keep of animals and grounds, they generally dont make a profit (A prime example is Adelaide Zoo).
Where as there are dedicated keepers out there who are more than willing to devote time and their own resources to the ongoing conservation of say this same hypothetical endangered small brown skink. Even doing so knowing they will not profit from keeping it. Not everyone keeps reptiles for money.
I dont mean to pick, but I find your use of the Oenpelli python, particularly where you say "If they make their way into the pet trade..... but it shouldn't start with the pet trade" rather confusing. I have no problem what so ever with these animals being collected myself, but you should read the website and offer regarding these animals. They are basically being collected for the pet trade (as the pet trade is what is helping Gavin to fund the process of collecting them, by pre-sale of a number of the initial offspring produced) as a way of conserving them for the future.

I have no problem with Take Permits being issued to experienced private keepers based on the merit of each application. I personally have been issued a Take Permit in the past for a species of which I have made no money what so ever from. Would I do it again for this species, Yes.

Regards,
Daniel


----------



## jedi_339 (Feb 27, 2012)

Beard said:


> Yea I've seen that ad and it really pissed me off!!!!!!!
> 
> I believe in the use of our natural resources. Kangaroo meat is lean, high in protein, the leather is amazingly strong and pliable and the use of kangaroos is very ecologically sound (there is bugger all environmental impact compared with that of farming traditional food animals).
> 
> ...



Australia does have a very sustainable harvest of kangaroos each year, the number of permits are on a sliding scale each year and it's heavily regulated. The way I see it, we've created the problem with kangaroos, by clearing bushland we've increased the carrying capacity of the environment and it is therefore our duty to manage the overabundance of them.

It's a similar thing to last time I went to Australia zoo, they had a big placard on the front wall near the gates, ''We do not support eating our native animals for food, stop the killing of kangaroos for meat'' (or something to that effect) How can they call themselves wildlife warriors when they ignore some major issues and choose to get behind others?

Oh and I should mention I agree with you completely Beard :lol:

what's better? living your life in a farm being specifically bread to die?
or living out your life in a natural environment and then dying suddenly not even knowing what happened?


----------



## Morgwynn (Feb 27, 2012)

OzGecko said:


> Where as there are dedicated keepers out there who are more than willing to devote time and their own resources to the ongoing conservation of say this same hypothetical endangered small brown skink. Even doing so knowing they will not profit from keeping it. Not everyone keeps reptiles for money.
> I dont mean to pick, but I find your use of the Oenpelli python, particularly where you say "If they make their way into the pet trade..... but it shouldn't start with the pet trade" rather confusing. I have no problem what so ever with these animals being collected myself, but you should read the website and offer regarding these animals. They are basically being collected for the pet trade (as the pet trade is what is helping Gavin to fund the process of collecting them, by pre-sale of a number of the initial offspring produced) as a way of conserving them for the future.



Many zoos have off-display areas with animals that don't make for good display, and some of them certainly are breeding endangered animals. Yes, zoos exist to make a profit, but things have changed compared to how they used to be. There is more focus on conservation and education.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear on regards to it starting with the pet trade - I meant that every private keeper should not be allowed to go help themselves. The pet trade may be helping Gavin with funding, and that's fine, but it's still Gavin who will be collecting from the wild, and it'll be Gavin who is establishing that initial captive breeding population. 
Rough scale pythons are an excellent example of how the process should work.

You are right, though, experienced private keepers being issued take permits for certain numbers of a certain species may be acceptable, but it should definitely be a strictly regulated process.

I am still firmly of the opinion that the primary reason for removing any wild animal from it's natural habitat should be conservation, first and foremost.


----------



## Beard (Feb 27, 2012)

jedi_339 said:


> Australia does have a very sustainable harvest of kangaroos each year, the number of permits are on a sliding scale each year and it's heavily regulated. The way I see it, we've created the problem with kangaroos, by clearing bushland we've increased the carrying capacity of the environment and it is therefore our duty to manage the overabundance of them.
> 
> It's a similar thing to last time I went to Australia zoo, they had a big placard on the front wall near the gates, ''We do not support eating our native animals for food, stop the killing of kangaroos for meat'' (or something to that effect) How can they call themselves wildlife warriors when they ignore some major issues and choose to get behind others?
> 
> ...




Its because the larger majority of people see conservation as "protection" and they fail to realise that conservation also requires a large amount of management too. This management, at times calls for number controll. Alot of people don't realise how prolific 'roo's breed. One Joey at foot, one (occasionally twins) in the pouch and one suspended in utero waiting for the pouch to become available (or the seasional conditions to be correct). 

If there is a mob of say, 100 adult individuals, lets assume that 70% are doe's (Buck's move out to find their own harem). Thats 70 doe's and a potential minimum of 210 joeys at varying stages of development. That mob is actually, at a minimum, 310 individuals. Females become sexually mature at 18 months so its safe to assume (in a very rough estimate) that every 18 months the mob will increase by 70%.

Thats alot of animals.

In Canberra, large culls are carried out (many thousands killed) regularly. As an observer, the cull isn't noticeable, ie., the number drop isn't significant.


----------



## longqi (Feb 27, 2012)

Beard said:


> Its because the larger majority of people see conservation as "protection" and they fail to realise that conservation also requires a large amount of management too. This management, at times calls for number controll. Alot of people don't realise how prolific 'roo's breed. One Joey at foot, one (occasionally twins) in the pouch and one suspended in utero waiting for the pouch to become available (or the seasional conditions to be correct).
> 
> If there is a mob of say, 100 adult individuals, lets assume that 70% are doe's (Buck's move out to find their own harem). Thats 70 doe's and a potential minimum of 210 joeys at varying stages of development. That mob is actually, at a minimum, 310 individuals. Females become sexually mature at 18 months so its safe to assume (in a very rough estimate) that every 18 months the mob will increase by 70%.
> 
> ...



Just a small aside here
How much land that has been destroyed by cattle and sheep would turn back into fertile country if kangaroos were 'farmed' instead??
Excellent healthy meat, beautiful leather, rapid growth and breeding with minimal environmental damage to natural scrub/grassland
Maybe the dust bowls we create now would disappear after a while??


----------



## Beard (Feb 27, 2012)

longqi said:


> Just a small aside here
> How much land that has been destroyed by cattle and sheep would turn back into fertile country if kangaroos were 'farmed' instead??
> Excellent healthy meat, beautiful leather, rapid growth and breeding with minimal environmental damage to natural scrub/grassland
> Maybe the dust bowls we create now would disappear after a while??




And that is a statement that I've held for many years.


----------



## eipper (Feb 27, 2012)

There is no evidence that if regulated, collection from the wild of both reptiles and amphibians would cause any harm to a species or ecosystem as a whole.

There are significant variables on how a system could work, how to make it cost effective and actually use money gained for real conservation benefit.

For instance, For any system to work I believe there needs to be a revamp of the wildlife permit system. For starters, it should be national and run by DPI not the various wildlife departments. This would save on the costs to the tax payer significantly, benefit the keeper by helping with confusion surrounding licensing and free up the various versions of the parks and wildlife services to do there job in managing the conservation of Australia's natural and cultural heritage. 

The animals that are in captivity for the most part have no direct conservation value and will not assist in repatriation of a species in decline. 

So how to regulate???

Well I feel it is fairly simple...cut out the need for a person to have a licence to keep any species that does not pose a threat to humans and has a classification of least concern. Allow for private collection only (you cannot catch to sell) and only from private land. You must register as a reptile keeper with the relevant authority. This specifically excludes taking from any reserve. If someone is caught collecting in a reserve the penalty should be a mandatory sentance.

For potentially dangerous species, they could only be taken and kept by a licence holder, again the protection classification and limitations on where collected would need to be upheld.

So what about other species such as rare, vulnerable, threatened etc. You must have a licence for these species. Any collection must be authorised prior and there would be a subject on a case by case basis but at a minimum would require a studbook, collection data, deposit of the specimen to a museum upon death, a species captive management plan etc

How trade under such a system???? Well its fairly simple the common level allows for trade of captive bred progeny. The potentially dangerous species can only be traded to another similar licence holder. For the restricted/threatened fauna permission from the permit giver would need to be sought prior to trade.

Collection for trade, this would be a license that allows a person to collect for petshops etc. 

A couple of broad overlying restrictions would need to be in place. Firstly there must be no public exhibition of animals without a relevant exhibit permit (eg schools, childcare centres, birthday parties, fetes etc) All people keeping reptiles must comply with a single annual return of transactions, deaths, aquisitions, escapes etc.

Obviously there are some commerical gain and these would incurr fees for the oppotunity eg harvasting, demonstrations etc

Cheers


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Feb 27, 2012)

Being no scientist, I can only rely on being a hands on observational witness. I can categorically state though, as a licensed reptile taker, I have in the areas I harvest seen an obvious increase in populations of both Stimsons, Woma’s and Black-headed pythons. Obviously numbers seen each year fluctuate and we all know that populations are indirectly influenced by the rainfall and its effect on available prey the following season but clearly the population numbers have nothing to do with the amount of reptiles I have taken. These days I spend about half the hours on the road as I ever used to and yet see more than I used to. I can only speak for a seven year period however.
Just for curiosity sake, this is how many Woma’s were seen in the wild over a few years by the family or crew helping us.
Year one, 13 using three vehicle spotters
Year two, 25 using three vehicle spotters
Year three, 40 plus, using three vehicle spotters 
Year four, 60 plus, using two vehicle spotters
Year five, estimated around 90, using one vehicle
Year 6 (more than I have ever seen before) l can’t provide an accurate figure for year 6 because we seldom had a need to collect and therefore record, only one vehicle spotting though far less hours. 
In most cases wild collecting of many species desired in the pet trade has next to no impact the sustainability of the species in the wild ( In this area at the very least ).


----------



## GeckoJosh (Feb 27, 2012)

PilbaraPythons said:


> Being no scientist, I can only rely on being a hands on observational witness. I can categorically state though, as a licensed reptile taker, I have in the areas I harvest seen an obvious increase in populations of both Stimsons, Woma’s and Black-headed pythons. Obviously numbers seen each year fluctuate and we all know that populations are indirectly influenced by the rainfall and its effect on available prey the following season but clearly the population numbers have nothing to do with the amount of reptiles I have taken. These days I spend about half the hours on the road as I ever used to and yet see more than I used to. I can only speak for a seven year period however.
> Just for curiosity sake, this is how many Woma’s were seen in the wild over a few years by the family or crew helping us.
> Year one, 13 using three vehicle spotters
> Year two, 25 using three vehicle spotters
> ...



Do you think the experience gained from previous years has allowed to you find more as you get to know the right places/times to go looking?


----------



## FAY (Feb 27, 2012)

One thing that I would like to ask you Dave. This is a question that I have wanted to ask for a while. This question is with all due respect. Why does the WA government keep allowing you or anyone else with the reptile taker licence to keep taking from the wild? Is there,or if there is not, why is there no condition that you take xx amount from the wild, then you have to at least start breeding your own stock and leave the wild populations alone? When will taking from the wild in WA by yourself and others end?




PilbaraPythons said:


> Being no scientist, I can only rely on being a hands on observational witness. I can categorically state though, as a licensed reptile taker, I have in the areas I harvest seen an obvious increase in populations of both Stimsons, Woma’s and Black-headed pythons. Obviously numbers seen each year fluctuate and we all know that populations are indirectly influenced by the rainfall and its effect on available prey the following season but clearly the population numbers have nothing to do with the amount of reptiles I have taken. These days I spend about half the hours on the road as I ever used to and yet see more than I used to. I can only speak for a seven year period however.
> Just for curiosity sake, this is how many Woma’s were seen in the wild over a few years by the family or crew helping us.
> Year one, 13 using three vehicle spotters
> Year two, 25 using three vehicle spotters
> ...


----------



## longqi (Feb 27, 2012)

In every country where they permit wild collection of animals the animals are in serious decline

There is a small island near Papua called Misool
It was my favourite walking/treking spot for years and every trip I saw a minimum of 20+ chondros
Then someone 'discovered' the chondros
They became famous a few years ago as canary yellows

It is virtually impossible to even see a chondro there now
Even the local snake catchers travel to kofiau instead
An entire subspecies possibly beyond recovery in only a few years

Exactly the same thing is happening with every one of the Island based Dwarf retics and burmese

Pet collectors only want the best
So the genetic diversity is destroyed very quickly when only the biggest healthiest and most beautiful are taken
You have to ask a simple question
If you had a permit to collect 10 xxxxx, would you take any 10, or would you collect 50 and select the best 10 out of those before releasing the rest, hopefully somewhere near where you caught them??

That should be of primary concern

The thing with the Oenpellis is so very different as its attempting to preserve a species
Any other collecting is not unless its under the same rigid guidelines



eipper said:


> There is no evidence that if regulated, collection from the wild of both reptiles and amphibians would cause any harm to a species or ecosystem as a whole.
> 
> Cheers



Google is your friend
Every single country that collects ball or royal pythons has complained about the vast drop in numbers and thus the resulting reduction in income
Indian pythons are virtually extinct
Many boa species have totally vanished from small islands
Simple little things like the corn snake sub species now considered extinct in its natural range

So there are hundreds of bits of direct evidence to the contrary if you care to look


----------



## killimike (Feb 27, 2012)

I think people are a little focused on only reptiles. Ok, and roos  

Currently, thousands upon thousands of fish are taken from the environment in Australia every year by individuals with minimal governmental supervision or intervention. In addition to rec fishing for sport or food, this includes hobbyists who take them for 'the pet trade', as unclear as that kinda language is, like myself. But the sky is not falling. 

Collecting from the wild is already taking place, in a number of states, for the pet trade, legally. It is also happening for research and conservation. These are good goals and reasons, but the animals that are pickled in a museum are just as removed from the wild as an animal collected for 'the pet trade'. Only they will never reproduce 

So it's happening for other animals, and it's already happening for reptiles....


----------



## Echiopsis (Feb 27, 2012)

longqi said:


> Please name two species of reptile that are increasing in numbers in the wild??
> Number one is simple
> Number two answer will be waited for with baited breath
> 
> ...



Emotional rubbish, the kind of dribble arm chair herpers like to spout. 

Got some literature to back up the statement "Since scientific studies categorically prove they are all decreasing bar one; you just shot yourself in the foot"? The only shooting going on here is you shooting your mouth off about subjects you know nothing about.

When did I say i would happily legalise wild collection of species knowing it might be the final straw? You need to lay off the hooch and actually read what is written. You quoted my reference to stability so you obviously read it, what are you not understanding?

Wild collection is happening regardless of what laws are in place. Legalise the limited collection of species, drop the value and decrease the desirability in turn decreasing the urge to poach. Once the dollar value of an animal drops off the wild stocks will be left alone.

I dont give a rats **** about pet keeping, i work with reptiles in the field and see first hand what damage is done when 'collectors' are forced to smash and grab rather than carefully collect. This site is populated by hypocrites, you all find wild collection so horrible but dont mind buying the offsrping of these wild caught animals in the slightest. 

Longqi, your an emotional fool.



longqi said:


> In every country where they permit wild collection of animals the animals are in serious decline
> 
> There is a small island near Papua called Misool
> It was my favourite walking/treking spot for years and every trip I saw a minimum of 20+ chondros
> ...



You use island populations and species found in third world countries as examples when arguing about the impact on Australian species, come on! :lol:


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Feb 27, 2012)

Geckjosh
Good question and I am glad you asked. Yes there is no doubt that experience has made the finds more frequent but this was only really reflected in the difference between the first and second year. The roads we used have not changed however.
Fay 
I am assuming the D.E.C already know that demand will neatly dictate the need to collect and that demand will undoubtedly become smaller and smaller as private captive bred stock makes its way to the dealers. Licensed dealers are not permitted to breed by the way ( only licenced keepers).
Even if dealer could breed there is little incentive to do so as progeny has to be retained for 3 months which is would be time consuming and it is more cost effective to simply collect.
The current reality is that we only collect for specific orders or if I stumble across something I personally want myself. I hope the DEC continues this privilege. The demand for wild collected over captive bred is small compared to the demand for captive bred but will it probably always be there.
The Bottom line is (personal ethics aside of course), it is either sustainable or not. The D.E.C obviously thinks at the current numbers taken, it is.


----------



## Red-Ink (Feb 27, 2012)

PilbaraPythons said:


> Geckjosh
> Good question and I am glad you asked. Yes there is no doubt that experience has made the finds more frequent but this was only really reflected in the difference between the first and second year. The roads we used have not changed however.
> Fay
> I am assuming the D.E.C already know that demand will neatly dictate the need to collect and that demand will undoubtedly become smaller and smaller as private captive bred stock makes its way to the dealers. Licensed dealers are not permitted to breed by the way ( only licenced keepers).
> ...



Is there a cap on the number of collected specimens and the number of collecting trips anually? Is there also a "bag limit" in regards to specific species? Forgive me if the questions are rude, I'm just curious to the whole process.


----------



## longqi (Feb 27, 2012)

Echiopsis
Australia has one of the most delicately balanced ecosystems on Earth
In many cases there are small localised groups of reptiles
Very similar to an island in many ways??
So using that correlation is perfectly valid
I also used them because they, in particular the ball pythons and island boas, were fairly well regulated
The PET TRADE set the limits with payments and setting up collection centres
Oops
Didnt work real well

I notice you never even attempted to say which Aussie species are stable and not in decline
As you say, you work in the field so please tell us
Id be happy to learn that some are at least stable

Every study Ive ever read states they are in decline and every area I herped in 25 years ago appears to have less now than it did then

Of course illegal wild collecting happens
Drugs are illegal too
Doesnt stop people using them

There are very very few Aussie species where collection is still necessary to improve genetic diversity

The pet trade has enough now
But it can be a greedy monster


----------



## PMyers (Feb 27, 2012)

longqi said:


> Absolutely agree with reptiles such as the oenpellis being collected to try to save them
> But thats under very stringent guidelines and probably a one of situation where I believe the majority of any successful breeding is destined for more breeding and relocation
> Its a bit different to collecting for the pet trade



Call me an incredible cynic (I am, I know), but at the recently advertised price of $10,000 a pop, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the pet trade isn't at least near the very top of the list of reasons why a certain someone wishes to collect oenpelli from the wild.


----------



## jahan (Feb 27, 2012)

Urban development and road kills take alot more than poaches.
There must be thousands killed on the road every day.


----------



## Beard (Feb 27, 2012)

Echiopsis said:


> Wild collection is happening regardless of what laws are in place. Legalise the limited collection of species, drop the value and decrease the desirability in turn decreasing the urge to poach. Once the dollar value of an animal drops off the wild stocks will be left alone.



I completely agree with this. Unfortunately there are many who rely on profiting from this 'hobby' who would fight tooth and nail to block this eventuating.



jahan said:


> Urban development and road kills take alot more than poaches.
> There must be thousands killed on the road every day.




About 5 million per annum on the nations roads.


----------



## jordo (Feb 27, 2012)

longqi said:


> Apart from a small number of species all of the rest have plenty of genetic diversity already in captivity
> 
> Every reptile and amphibian in Australia except for one notable exception is declining in numbers
> 
> Why add to the decline??


What is the one notable exception?



longqi said:


> Echiopsis
> Australia has one of the most delicately balanced ecosystems on Earth
> In many cases there are small localised groups of reptiles
> Very similar to an island in many ways??
> ...


You can't compare overseas examples because that is an international trade. If Australia was part of that international trade there would be infinite demand for our animals... But it's not.

Oh and I think I could put together a pretty good list for you. Just some examples: Pogona vitticeps, Tiliqua scincoides/rugosu/occipitalis/multifasciata/nigrolutea, hmm most species that comes to mind really... Ctenotus leonhardii, Lampropholis guichenoti, Pseudonaja textilis...

Would you disagree with any I've included?


----------



## Echiopsis (Feb 27, 2012)

> Echiopsis
> Australia has one of the most delicately balanced ecosystems on Earth
> In many cases there are small localised groups of reptiles
> Very similar to an island in many ways??
> ...



Your grasping at straws here. Obviously conservation significant species with limited distributions or species already under pressure due to habitat loss or other external pressures cant be harvested in large numbers (or at all). I thought that was a given, did anyone really need it spelled out?
Island populations in third world countries are bound to succumb to the pressure of collection when the snakes are being harvested to feed a mans family, thats not the case in Australia.



> I notice you never even attempted to say which Aussie species are stable and not in decline
> As you say, you work in the field so please tell us
> Id be happy to learn that some are at least stable



No i didnt, im not in the habit of making things up to win an arguement. I dont know what species are stable, what species are decreasing and what species are increasing but im confident that what you are saying is rubbish. That said, it is my opinion and as i dont have any hard facts to back me up i will refrain from making sweeping statements as to the numbers of every species of herp on the continent.



> Every study Ive ever read states they are in decline and every area I herped in 25 years ago appears to have less now than it did then



Care to cite some references? And no, reference to mismanaged island pops. in third world countries wont do. Lets see some hard facts relating to the subject at hand.



> Of course illegal wild collecting happens
> Drugs are illegal too
> Doesnt stop people using them



Obviously :lol: Where your happy to bury your head in the sand and hope it all sorts itself out im being realistic. You dont offer an alternative, you just state its wrong with some flowery sentences about ecosystems. Whats the alternative? Every desirable species in Australia will make its way onto the books eventually, many by illegal means. Why not cut the corner, skip the BS and make them available in a controlled way?



> There are very very few Aussie species where collection is still necessary to improve genetic diversity
> 
> The pet trade has enough now
> But it can be a greedy monster



Where are you getting this stuff? There are hundreds of species that arent available to the pet trade at all but as interest increases and the hobby craves new projects any species predicted to be worth a buck will make their way onto the books.


----------



## eipper (Feb 27, 2012)

longqi said:


> Google is your friend
> Every single country that collects ball or royal pythons has complained about the vast drop in numbers and thus the resulting reduction in income
> Indian pythons are virtually extinct
> Many boa species have totally vanished from small islands
> ...



Google...come on that's the same as wikipedia....in your case maybe a friend....but friends can be misguided!!!!

You state clearly that there is evidence to the contrary....can you please give me a link to a scientific paper confirming your emotive position. Anecdotal reports do not begin to qualify.

Keep in mind that insular populations are already biased genetically and that genetic depression may result in species population decline. 

As for my actual post I stated species of least concern (you may want to look that up).

I would like to ask where you have gained your knowledge about the populations of Australian reptiles when you make the statement that all Australian Reptiles are in decline with one exception. Do you have data that no person has access to or are you basing it from emotion. I assume the species that is not in decline you refer to is Salt Water Crocodile, _Crocodylus porosus_.

My understanding is that very few detailed studies of population dynamics have been studied and I cannot think of one with the exception of a few endangered species (which would not be collected under the proposal I suggested anyway) that have been surveyed across their range. Localised populations have the same effects as insular ones via isolation. 

Looking forward to reading the papers you provide


----------



## zulu (Feb 27, 2012)

FAY said:


> One thing that I would like to ask you Dave. This is a question that I have wanted to ask for a while. This question is with all due respect. Why does the WA government keep allowing you or anyone else with the reptile taker licence to keep taking from the wild? Is there,or if there is not, why is there no condition that you take xx amount from the wild, then you have to at least start breeding your own stock and leave the wild populations alone? When will taking from the wild in WA by yourself and others end?



This is the problem with the takers system fay, Dec has no plans to stop,its just a simple revenue thing.
It goes beyond the argument of taking sustainably,the numbers taken do not impact on the wild populations as a whole but they along with various animals taken legally in SA and NT have a negative impact on the prices of captive bred.

Its a very small market when its divided into select species to keepers,with some of the species like monitors and western bluetongues the prices have dropped like a stone in relation to government sponsored taking.

Pythons has seen similar falls, bhps,womas,stimsons.

Less damage would be done to the economy as a whole if limited numbers of rarer species were collected but the governments like DECC know no bounds when faced with the almighty $$$$$$$


----------



## dragonlover1 (Feb 27, 2012)

Wow,this subject has kicked the hornets nest.everybody has a different idea but no agreement even a couple have their claws out.I'm sort of torn in 2,I have captive reptiles that I know would probably be happier in the natural environment but on the other hand if all creatures were only in the wild most of us would never see any of them. Longqi said "do you want a pet in a box or are you a reptile lover?"
I say if we didn't have a pet in a box we wouldn't be reptile lovers.So I'm in favour of *some* de-regulation here as well as in the impossible war on illegal drugs.The govt controls and distributes=win win


----------



## longqi (Feb 27, 2012)

eipper said:


> Google...come on that's the same as wikipedia....in your case maybe a friend....but friends can be misguided!!!!
> 
> You state clearly that there is evidence to the contrary....can you please give me a link to a scientific paper confirming your emotive position. Anecdotal reports do not begin to qualify.
> 
> ...



Getting the Aussie papers will take me a few days to contact a couple of people
The rest can be provided at any time

Anecdotal evidence is accepted in law, but not by you?
I loved your comment about collectors being forced to wreak havoc in their haste
Nobody is being forced to take reptiles from the wild
They do it through greed and greed alone
Illegal collection is never done for the benefit of wild stocks

I know of one single place in Aus where the population of snakes is still hopefully increasing
Every other area I used to go herping in shows marked reductions in populations
These reductions are because of many reasons including cats toads development forestry and mining etc etc but they most definitely dont need any more pressure on them

As you said every desirable species will eventually end up on someones books somehow
So there is no need to cut corners
Just wait

We have to learn from the horrible mistakes that were made internationally
If a species is of least concern why do we need to collect them??
Ball pythons burmese boas bloods chondros and retics would all have been species of least concern once and certain sub species of each of these are now virtually extinct in the wild

Someone commented about the proposed price of oenpellis being around $10,000
Its only a few years ago chondros were $15,000 each so $10,000 is quite reasonable when you consider the work and time that will go into these imo, pretty ordinary snakes

You have an open invitation to drop in here one day
I can take you on night treks to tribal places untouched by collectors in Sumatra Kalimantan and Papua and you will be in shock at the life there
Then we will visit environmentally similar areas where collectors have been
And you will be in total shock at the difference

Sustainable collection of snakes and lizards for the pet trade hasnt worked anywhere on Earth yet
I see no reason why it could work in Aus
After reading the posts here I also see no valid reason why it could be necessary


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 27, 2012)

*Wild Taking*
Before opening any debate on wild taking, an understanding of basic population dynamics should have been forward. All populations produce more offspring than can possibly survive. (If they did not they would soon become extinct). This means that a certain number of individuals each year must die. For example I was reading a CSIRO article on the Honey Possum not so long ago which stated its mortality rate is around 86%. While this is clearly a high rate, it clearly illustrates that the animal is able to maintain a stable population with 86 out of every 100 animals dying each year. 

Say you have a gecko that lives for 4 years only, does not reach sexual maturity until its second year and has only one clutch per year. This would be an extremely low reproductive potential (fecundity). Over 5 years it produces 6 offspring. Only 2 of these are required to survive to maintain a stable population (i.e. to replace the adults at death). So 4 out of 6 or 67% of the offspring must die. In real life, most Australian geckoes are much more fecund and like to produce around two dozen offspring, meaning 22 or 93% of offspring must die.

*Sustainable Yield*
It is possible to harvest a percentage of animals ANNUALLY from any given population such that it has ZERO effect on the long-term size of the population. This means that the population size will continue to fluctuate within the normal range set by the effects of the limiting factors operating on that population – commonly referred to as a "stable population".

As mentioned, kangaroos are shot in the tens of thousands every year. This has been going on for more than a century, originally to supply pet meat but more recently for human consumption as well. Shooters have to follow a protocol that include inspecting females for pouch young and humanely dispensing with them if there are. Take your pick – you can have older roos killed instantly with a bullet or joeys slowly starving to death or dying of dehydration or diseases (to which they become susceptible due to their weaken state).





PMyers said:


> Call me an incredible cynic (I am, I know), but at the recently advertised price of $10,000 a pop, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the pet trade isn't at least near the very top of the list of reasons why a certain someone wishes to collect oenpelli from the wild.


 If you do not know the man, his qualifications or his past history, then I would suggest that it is not appropriate to speculate on his motivation. At least do a little research first.


Blue


----------



## PMyers (Feb 27, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> If you do not know the man, his qualifications or his past history, then I would suggest that it is not appropriate to speculate on his motivation. At least do a little research first.



As I said, I am in incredible cynic.

I do hope I'm wrong in this, but the price, coupled with the fact that he would offer to sell something he does not even possess yet, and can not say with absolute certainty that he ever will, adds greatly to the cynicism. But yes, I do hope I'm wrong...

Oh, and I do know of his qualifications, and admire that. Don't know the man personally though.


----------



## eipper (Feb 27, 2012)

longqi said:


> Getting the Aussie papers will take me a few days to contact a couple of people
> The rest can be provided at any time
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is accepted in law, but not by you?
> ...




well done longi you just wasted another 2 minutes of my day....you successfully answered none of my questions

So I will ask again the main question I want answered....What herp of least concern in Australia has ever been endangered directly as a result of over collection? Other environmental factors such as ferals, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, insular geographical isolation are not a result of "poaching" and should not be factored in.

Cheers


----------



## longirostris (Feb 27, 2012)

Advocates of "no collecting from wild" populations need to remember that even commonly held species were once originally collected from the wild, no matter how many generations removed they may be now.


----------



## jedi_339 (Feb 27, 2012)

eipper said:


> So how to regulate???
> 
> Well I feel it is fairly simple...cut out the need for a person to have a licence to keep any species that does not pose a threat to humans and has a classification of least concern. *Allow for private collection only (you cannot catch to sell) and only from private land.* You must register as a reptile keeper with the relevant authority. This specifically excludes taking from any reserve. If someone is caught collecting in a reserve the penalty should be a mandatory sentance.
> 
> ...




I'd just like some clarification Eipper

in your system that you suggested,


Would you condone the harvesting of Least concern species for private recreational keeping purposes from private land etc? And these reptiles cannot be sold

And then you would also condone the trade of these species direct captive bred progeny?


Or am I interpreting it wrong?



If I am reading it right, how would the captive bred vs collected animals be regulated to ensure that people weren't say catching 2 Levis (as an adult pair), catching a heap of babies or yearlings calling them holdbacks etc then selling off the newly caught animals as progeny?


Just a thought



longirostris said:


> Advocates of "no collecting from wild" populations need to remember that even commonly held species were once originally collected from the wild, no matter how many generations removed they may be now.



This is true, however small numbers were initially taken, at least that is my understanding of it, to form these captive populations of generations,

To drive down the prices of smuggled or poached reptiles (which is what the OP is partially talking about) there would need to be a sufficiently high initial influx of reptiles almost flooding the market to make it uneconomical for poachers etc. I think this would be a much higher harvest then some of the established herps had in their infancy


----------



## eipper (Feb 27, 2012)

jedi_339 said:


> I'd just like some clarification Eipper
> 
> in your system that you suggested,
> 
> ...



You have it spot on. As for the i bred it argument, I admit that is certainly a hole. Mind you that very same hole is exploited now as well in the current system.

In reality I don't think it will make much difference if they did it or not...to the wild populations of a least concern species.

The system I proposed was all of 5 minutes thought and I am sure if could refine it but again this is hypothethical. First point of call for any proper system would be to make it national!!!!

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## PMyers (Feb 27, 2012)

jedi_339 said:


> If I am reading it right, how would the captive bred vs collected animals be regulated to ensure that people weren't say catching 2 Levis (as an adult pair), catching a heap of babies or yearlings calling them holdbacks etc then selling off the newly caught animals as progeny?



The same thing that stops someone with a pair of tree snakes (for example) traipsing through the bush, collecting dozens of juveniles and adjusting their books to say they are progeny... absolutely nothing. Certainly not condoning this - far from it - I'm just saying that it could easily occur, and more than likely does.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 27, 2012)

To answer the above question - DNA testing to see if the offspring do come from the claimed parents. This has been used a number of times in WA wildlife prosecutions.

*Putting Wild Taking into Perspective*
As *Beard* mentioned, an estimated 5 million animals are killed on roads each and every year. The numbers collected from the wild pale into insignificance in comparison. A study over a 10 year period at Roxby Downs (SA) found about 1000 small reptiles are consumed by feral cats and foxes per square kilometre of mallee per year. We have about 80,000 km[SUP]2[/SUP] of cat and fox infested mallee in WA. By my reckoning, these ferals are likely to accounting for about 80 million small reptiles per year, every year, in WA mallee areas. Despite the huge numbers being taken unnaturally every year, year after, the population of the reptiles involved continue unabated.

However, exceed the sustainable yield and numbers will begin to decline. Populations that are confined to limited areas by geographic barriers have their population size limited as a result. Clearly, the size of the sustainable yield from such populations is reduced accordingly and for small islands could readily be exceeded. Along similar lines, the intensity of collection within a given area may exceed the sustainable yield for that area. This is also influenced by the accessibility of the specific animals. The more accessible they are the more prone they are to over harvesting.

Blue


----------



## snakerelocation (Feb 27, 2012)

waruikazi said:


> I think it all depends where the animals are being collected from.
> 
> The reality is that as a society we don't want snakes in built up populated areas. I think all relocators should be allowed to keep what they catch on call outs.
> 
> ...




the only problem with that idea, id have a crap load of eastern browns in my place then-
on average take 2 a week.
pythons- 12 a week
tree snakes- 3 a week.
you get a little over seeing them, so why would you want to keep them, especially carpets


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 27, 2012)

Scott i think the problem of people poaching and selling thw wild caught animals is far far far overstated. Especially the animals that are easily washed and paper trails created for because there simply isn't a big enough market for them.

I think a more realistic description of a poacher is either an opportunistic novice, someone who has little knowledge of reptiles and finds something of interest when they are gardening or bush walking and decides to keep it. Or herpetologists who take some of the animals they are particularly interested in because they cannot source them legally.



eipper said:


> You have it spot on. As for the i bred it argument, I admit that is certainly a hole. Mind you that very same hole is exploited now as well in the current system.
> 
> In reality I don't think it will make much difference if they did it or not...to the wild populations of a least concern species.
> 
> ...


----------



## Morgwynn (Feb 27, 2012)

Bluetongue1 said:


> As mentioned, kangaroos are shot in the tens of thousands every year. This has been going on for more than a century, originally to supply pet meat but more recently for human consumption as well. Shooters have to follow a protocol that include inspecting females for pouch young and humanely dispensing with them if there are. Take your pick – you can have older roos killed instantly with a bullet or joeys slowly starving to death or dying of dehydration or diseases (to which they become susceptible due to their weaken state).



One of the major problems with the kangaroo industry is that the humane disposal of in pouch and at foot joeys is simply not happening, but that's a discussion for another day.



eipper said:


> So I will ask again the main question I want answered....What herp of least concern in Australia has ever been endangered directly as a result of over collection? Other environmental factors such as ferals, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, insular geographical isolation are not a result of "poaching" and should not be factored in.



You can't just not factor in ferals, habitat loss etc. There is nowhere in this country where animals are not under pressure from those threats. But since you asked, two species where human overcollection has played a part in the population decline are the Broad Headed Snake and the Rusty Monitor (collected heavily in the 1970's - there's more information on Australia Zoo's website).

And be honest here, experienced keepers don't want to collect common and 'Least Concern' species because the majority of those species are already in the pet trade in sufficient numbers to ensure genetic diversity. Experienced keepers want the unusual - and often threatened - animals.


----------



## colubridking (Feb 27, 2012)

longqi said:


> I also used them because they, in particular the ball pythons and island boas, were fairly well regulated
> The PET TRADE set the limits with payments and setting up collection centres
> I notice you never even attempted to say which Aussie species are stable and not in decline
> As you say, you work in the field so please tell us
> ...



Longqi i think you fail to understand that when you compare species such as island chondros, boas etc and then Australian reptiles are similar in decline, you cant compare because you have every country in the world after these chondros - the market over in the other countries is HUGE because they are legal there, it doesnt matter what species people seem to have, so you have poachers from all over the world come to small islands and take the snakes, no **** they are going to decline but i bet they are still there doing fine. 

Australian species are still sought after overseas but that becomes off topic, another thing you and several other people fail to understand however, is that it is a licensed collection for particular species. No one would be stupid enough to pay big dollars for a permit to collect a few bearded dragons, they are dirt cheap now days. the licensing is for species which aren't common in captivity but thrive in the wild. i notice you claim to have read all sorts of documents about Australian wildlife - noting reptiles, to be in decline. i dont know if you've got out of your chair and done some herping over here but if you know where to look and go to the right places, reptiles are common as hell. 
you note that one of the other members doesnt mention a species that is stable.

_Stimson's Python_ Antaresia stimsoni are common as hell provided you know where to look
Desert sand monitors varanus gouldii flavirufus are also common as hell, we kept records and in a single day we found 8 in the space of an hour, thats not including road kills.

a list can go on, and on and on. you arm chair herpers read some papers, fail to find anything then agree that the environment is on its way out. Reptiles in particular dominate this whole continent. 

licensing of wild collecting would be simple enough to work out. there is no relevance in taking species that a established in captivity, however take a small group of animals that arent common and set them up in captivity and it would be fine. 

theres too much to point out that some of you need to open your eyes too!!!!


----------



## waruikazi (Feb 27, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> the only problem with that idea, id have a crap load of eastern browns in my place then-
> on average take 2 a week.
> pythons- 12 a week
> tree snakes- 3 a week.
> you get a little over seeing them, so why would you want to keep them, especially carpets



If you get sick of the animals you see all the time then are you going to get sick of the animals you have in glass boxes at home? lol

The idea is that you might get something another herper wants to keep and they might get somehting that you want and you could either trade, sell or buy off each other. Pretty similar to the way things are now except you could take some from the wild.

But that was the problem with having a take permit attached to your interfere permit. It went to some peoples head and they kept everything they could.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Feb 27, 2012)

> Every study Ive ever read states they are in decline and every area I herped in 25 years ago appears to have less now than it did then



That's because nobody studies population dynamics of species that are obviously in good numbers. People get funding to study population dynamics of species that are at risk of decline, unless that reptiles population has a large effect on humans such as Salt Water Crocodiles. 





I'm fully for a strictly controlled legalised taking from the wild. I think one thing that should be implemented is that all wild collectiong goes through a license application and that no more than a certain low quota over a period of say 5 years is allowed. In this way it allows a small amount of reptiles to be added for genetic diversity and allows collection of new species for the hobby without having an all out free for all for animals. Of course many refinements would have to be made to any approach before it would really stand up to the test of being put into place.


----------



## eipper (Feb 27, 2012)

Both Rustys and Broadys are not classified as least concern, secondly habitat destruction is the primary cause for decline not collection for trade...

read the whole post instead of a bit. As for my question.....longi said that all reptiles and amphibians are in decline....I say bull...., secondly my opinion is that taking of species of least concern will have no measurable effect of the populations of these species.


----------



## PMyers (Feb 27, 2012)

GeckPhotographer said:


> Of course many refinements would have to be made to any approach before it would really stand up to the test of being put into place.



Like ensuring that those who acquire a collectors permit are only those who can show real evidence that they are competent enough with reptile husbandry to ensure that those specimens collected would have the best chance of actually breeding. This is in contrast, of course, to those with a few months experience and a fat cheque book. Proof of competence. No exorbitant fees. Like that's ever going to happen...


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Feb 27, 2012)

> And be honest here, experienced keepers don't want to collect common and 'Least Concern' species because the majority of those species are already in the pet trade in sufficient numbers to ensure genetic diversity.



Name me 20 species of Ctenotus that I could find more than one person selling captive bred offspring of anywhere in Australia? 

No? 

Ok then I'll have you name some breeders of Crenodactylus, half the Lucasium species, anyone that breeds more than one Gehyra species, or in fact anyone other than myself with Gehyra australis sensu lato, the list of geckos and skinks that some keepers on here would just about kill for goes on and on.




> Like ensuring that those who acquire a collectors permit are only those who can show real evidence that they are competent enough with reptile husbandry to ensure that those specimens collected would have the best chance of actually breeding. This is in contrast, of course, to those with a few months experience and a fat cheque book. Proof of competence. No exorbitant fees. Like that's ever going to happen...


I don't disagree with any of this. That said, I think the hypothetical questing is talking about if a smoothed out legislation like this could be put in place.


----------



## PMyers (Feb 27, 2012)

GeckPhotographer said:


> That said, I think the hypothetical questing is talking about if a smoothed out legislation like this could be put in place.



Here's hoping. But the speed at which our respective licencing and regulatory bodies work, I think we would be seeing the fabled "National System" before something like this ever came to light.


----------



## Rocket (Feb 27, 2012)

I too struggle to see how all species of reptiles and amphibians (bar one) are believed to be experiencing a decline in abundance. Longqi, you stated they are all dropping exponentially (well, you never stated to what degree so you must mean exponentially) and are therefore considered not to be stable. Based on this, ALL species are heading for extinction?... I doubt it.

Yes, more accessible species will be collected faster, and easier, but many breed young and multiclutch and will therefore disperse amongst the market quicker, lowering the appeal for continual collection. Species with high colour and pattern variation for instance, such as Nephrurus spp., will most likely be sought to supplement existing genetics that support new morphs, however, with such a healthy captive population, what authority would grant a take permit? None with half a brain, thats who. Then again, you might say, they'll just grab them anyway and say they bred them... how is that any different to what can occur now? 

Take widespread, common and (as eipper has said, Least concern) species for instance, some are kept in captivity (bearded dragons, knob-tailed geckos, blue-tongued skinks etc) however, the vast majority are not, as stated by GeckPhotographer. Collection of a limited number of animals, for the establishment of the species in captivity has proven to be quite successful, look at Morelia carinata, Nephrurus wheeleri, N.l.occidentalis and N.l.pilbarensis, well, obviously all captive species. Collectors would need to remain vigilant of the genetic availability within several seasons based on the numbers and origin of wild-caught animals. To me, collection (along with stringent regulations) will not have a negative effect on wild populations that are considered secure without forseeable threat. I base this on the mortality of reptiles on roads and by feral predators; and the lack of MVP studies into many of the widespread, commonly encountered species that many breeders are keen to acquire.

Take species such as Morelia carinata, they were collected and they are quite common in captivity now (to the point where they dropped $10,000+ in value in a matter of years). However, following carefully regulated taking, proper insurance of genetic availability (although, can we really rule out that they aren't being inbred now?) and knowledgeable keepers, where have all the reports gone stating that this species has now sufferred a noticeable drop in wild population numbers since original collection by Weigel etc? What's that? They haven't dropped? Even after being collected? Even if they are remote species from a rather small range? 

What can we extrapolate from this example to other widespread species?

Collecting species, making them available to hobbyists and lowering ridiculous price tags, to me, has the potential to cut poaching and illegal collection considerably.

If people disagree with me, prove me wrong. Provide scientific articles (refereed and supported) that disproves what myself, eipper, GeckPhotographer etc believe.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 27, 2012)

The Federal and State governments have deemed all native wildlife protected. Harvesting of anything from abalone to kangaroos is regulated. It might be by way of an exemption with a few conditions attached. Or the other extreme, an expensive licence where royalties are to be paid and detailed records to be kept and regularly submitted. And there's lots in between.

As *Eipper* referred to earlier, Australia's wildlife have been categorised according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria. The relevant categories are follows...
*Critically Endangered* - Extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.
*Endangered* - High risk of extinction in the wild.
*Vulnerable* - High risk of endangerment in the wild.
*Near Threatened* - Likely to become endangered in the near future.
*Least Concern* - Lowest risk. Does not qualify for a more at risk category. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.

Data on distribution and abundance data from museums and scientific surveys is used, along with other data to determine the appropriate category. According to the scientists who put this together and those international scientists that check their work, for all the species on the "least concern" list there has been no significant decrease in population. I can understand why no-one wants to publish about populations that are ticking over and doing alright... makes better copy if a population is crashing. I wonder if those same prophets of doom wrote anything on the Pygmy Bluetongue, the Western Swamp Tortoise or the Lancelin Island Skink. 

Blue


----------



## dragonlover1 (Feb 27, 2012)

snakerelocation said:


> the only problem with that idea, id have a crap load of eastern browns in my place then-
> on average take 2 a week.
> pythons- 12 a week
> tree snakes- 3 a week.
> you get a little over seeing them, so why would you want to keep them, especially carpets



haha can see where that might be a problem


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 27, 2012)

*Fay*,
Wild taking In WA is self-limiting. Collectors have to pay for... car and running costs, their time and energy spent out in the field, a royalty on every animal collected, a GPS of a certain standard to take readings of the collection point. They have paperwork to fill in for each and evey animal collected requiring the GPS co-ordinates of the point of collection. They must obtain prior permission of the land owner and send copy to DEC and keep a copy on them while collecting. They must hang onto all animals collected for at least 21 days.

To be competitive and maintain a sound reputation, they also need to get these animals feeding and frozen rodents, settled in captivity and wormed to get rid internal of parasite loads. 

Appearance and eating being equal, would you buy captive bred or wild caught? Once supply meets demand due to the production of captive born offspring, it is no longer economically viable for a taker to collect wild specimens.

So why allow further collection? Occasionally collectors come across a specimen that stands out as different and has real potential for bringing something different or new to the hobby. Also, there are certain keepers who like to breed animals of a specific locale. They may wish to replace a lost animal or to reinvigorate the gene pool of their captive animals. This is, in fact, a very wise thing to do from time to time. It is not often possible to buy animals from a given locale with absolute surety of their true genetic origins. However, for those prepared to pay the extra the can be guaranteed by wild collection. So long as there is no change in the conservation status of an animal listed as available to be collected in WA, there is no need to remove it from the taker's list.

Let's take a real life example of an extremely desirable and popular reptile. There were many prophets who maintain that womas would be endangered under the wild taking arrangement. There were even those who forecast extinction of WA populations. As *Pilbara Pythons* and others around the state will tell you, the reality is that the general population in WA has increased over the taking period (due to natural factors). As best as I can ascertain it is virtually no longer being collected. I suspect we will see a decline in the overall population in the coming years, due to natural fluctuations/cycles (if you like) and it will be when collecting has ceased.

Blue


----------



## Morgwynn (Feb 27, 2012)

eipper said:


> Both Rustys and Broadys are not classified as least concern, secondly habitat destruction is the primary cause for decline not collection for trade...
> .


Was that not what you asked for? Both of those species were both abundant, once, and now they are not, with overcollection as one of the culprits.

Look, I'm not arguing that all collection from the wild is bad, but I don't think it should be in the hands of every private keeper. Population surveys of common reptiles are not conducted with anything near enough frequency for the relevant authority to keep track. Which is why I said, earlier in the thread, that only persons of relevant experience should be allowed to collect limited numbers of certain types of animals. People who have a good reason for bringing the animal into captivity. I'm sorry, but I don't think "This is a pretty pet, people will give me lots of money for it" is a good enough reason to remove animals from their native environment. As GeckoPhotographer said, any such system would have to be strictly controlled as to the who, why, when and what is allowed to be collected. 

I said it earlier, but the Rough Scale Python is a perfect example of how it should be done. John Weigel had the knowledge, experience and money to work out specific husbandry guidelines for the species and they are now readily available in the pet trade.

What I am arguing against is unregulated or poorly regulated collection by every day keepers, who may just see something they like in the bush and bring it home with no research or consideration into what the animals require. And if it's cheap or free to just go pick up another one, what does it matter if it dies? You've all seen the posts on here from people who get animals and end up killing them through sheer ignorance... would you trust those people to responsibly collect wild animals and research their needs?

Also, apologies, GeckPhotographer is right. My last comment about people not wanting 'common' species was not thought out at all, just a poor reaction.


----------



## nathancl (Feb 27, 2012)

im a twat lol dw


----------



## Pseudo (Feb 27, 2012)

I would love to argue with longi, but it seems I would be banging my head on a brick wall. Eipper and Echiopsis have covered it well. I find it amusing that one can claim that ALL but 1 reptile species in Aus are declining. I think you've spent too much time on that island of yours. There is a long list of reptiles that are far from on the decline, although I wish Cryptophis nigrescens was on that "decline" list of yours!


----------



## eipper (Feb 27, 2012)

If you re read the original post it is about species of least concern, not species in apparent recent decline (in both cases more likely habitat destruction rather than collection). In the case of both of these species I have little knowledge of their specific habits first hand, so I may stand corrected but as I understand....

In the case of both these species they are both micro and macro habitat specific


Semi's were collected en mass in the seventies. Yes indeed many died in the hands of keepers. At the same time many resorts bulldozed mangroves to make way for marinas and the like. Thus reducing available habitat causing decline. From the people in qpws that have surveyed for them they are in quite good numbers where the habitat remains good. While granted there is probably less of this species being taken from the wild at present than previously I think it shows that reduction in habitat is of great ( if not greater) significance than apparent collection.

For hops these are in part sandstone specialists, that have a historically small distribution. The available habitat for these snakes is greatly reduced by housing, habitat fragmentation, feral impact in particular goats and the collection of rock for landscaping. They are a snake that has been of interest for many years prior to blanket protection by wildlife officials and subsequently collected quite commonly. I do not doubt that many hops have been collected and their numbers are reduced from the time of white settlement, however I don't believe that the primary cause for their decline is collection by keepers. Could they have an impact now? I certainly think they would... It's a species in demand with very specific requirements, low fecundity hence why they are on the vulnerable list not least concern. 

Both of these species in what I proposed would require approval for collection.


----------



## colubridking (Feb 28, 2012)

longqi......?? im still interested in your ideas and visuals on this subject???


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Feb 29, 2012)

*Morgwynn*,
In the days before regulation in NSW, you could catch and keep what you wanted and pet shops were able to sell reptiles. To my knowledge no species, or even population, was decimated through collection. (I am happy to talk about the Broad-headed Snake if you are interested.) 

Given the size of the potential herp market in Australia, I believe if you allowed nation-wide taking of all "least concern" species with no limits, there would be no species negatively impacted upon (assuming no habitat damage). The value of wild-caught specimens would fall through the floor. People would soon realise that wild-caught specimens are a lot more initial work than captive bred, requiring a certain set of skills to get them up to par. There are only so many reptiles you can keep and feed and water and house and pay the electricity on etc. They would also realise it is cheaper to buy most species at home than travel thousands of kilometres to procure wild-caught specimens. Reality would quickly overtake greed, particularly when you no longer have a market to off-load wild caught animals on. Once the dust settled, most individuals would not be overly interested in wild collected. Attention would be on rarer captive bred morphs, while naturally occurring animals would be mostly considered just "ho-hum!" 

There are, however, other issues that need to be looked at... 
The potential for habitat destruction by uncaring and irresponsible collectors;
Excessive collection due to greed and resultant death of animals;
Collection on a commercial scale;
Collection by those lacking the expertise and/or equipment to provide required care;
Release of excess collected animals;
Release of animals owners are bored with so they can collect something different;
If it doesn't cost, it often doesn't get looked after;
Indiscriminate inter-breeding of different sub-species and possible release.

So while I have no concerns with respect to numbers collected, I have lots of other concerns that I believe do need to be addressed. Regulation is clearly required in order to address the issues listed. But that regulation needs to be realistic, effective and appropriate. The checks and balances put in place to ensure the regulations are being adhered to also need to be realistic, effective and appropriate. Most importantly, they need to actually happen!

Blue


----------

