# Gas plant construction makes WA history by moving 30,000 native animals to safety



## cagey (Jul 26, 2019)

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tory-by-moving-30000-native-animals-to-safety

Nice photo of the Death Adder; someone else can pick up the 50 cents.


----------



## Sdaji (Jul 26, 2019)

Most people will see this as a good thing, but (and I say this as a qualified ecologist), this is a very destructive thing to do, literally worse and more destructive than systematically killing them where they were. It's a shame to see practises like this which go completely against basic ecology being carried out, just to make people who don't understand the situation feel good.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jul 26, 2019)

Sdaji said:


> Most people will see this as a good thing, but (and I say this as a qualified ecologist), this is a very destructive thing to do, literally worse and more destructive than systematically killing them where they were. It's a shame to see practises like this which go completely against basic ecology being carried out, just to make people who don't understand the situation feel good.


Pretty sure this is what's happening with the Black-throated finch thanks to Adani.


----------



## dragonlover1 (Jul 26, 2019)

They may think they have tenderly moved all these creatures to a new and safer home but they have probably just killed them slower than just running them over with a bulldozer


----------



## Kyle Hamilton (Jul 27, 2019)

Its unusual that they are allowed to move wildlife ,in my experience they do little and just bulldoze over reptiles. Many a good reptile is under highways and housing estates ,they are trying to do the right thing to make the public feel good so people dont spill their coffee and the corn flakes are properly digested


----------



## nuttylizardguy (Jul 27, 2019)

No consideration given to the how this will effect what are animals who are very territorial and will now have to compete with the resident animals who have established territories in the area they were relocated to , not to mention increasing the density of animals in the relocation area and the stresses and problems this will cause , all in pursuit the holy $ for a multinational .


----------



## Licespray (Jul 27, 2019)

I dunno, seems a damned if you do, damned if you don’t here..


----------



## Sdaji (Jul 28, 2019)

Licespray said:


> I dunno, seems a damned if you do, damned if you don’t here..



Whether or not the environmental impact of destroying habitat to make way for a mine or industrial facility is justified can be argued. However, if that habitat is to be destroyed, whether justified or not, collecting the reptiles and putting them in a new location is worse (by the actual reality of the impact on the environment, but probably not in terms of the opinion of the average member of the public) than simply killing them all on site.

When all is said and done, if you reduce the available habitat by x% you reduce the amount of wildlife by at least x% (generally slightly more). By destroying available habitat, you reduce the potential number of animals which can exist.

You can't just destroy half of the available habitat, collect all the animals from that habitat, put them into the remaining habitat, and think that the remaining habitat will magically sustain more animals than it previously did. Dumping animals into a balanced ecosystem destroys the balance. It does nothing good to it, it definitely does harm, best case scenario all the added animals die quickly and the balance eventually comes back, worst case scenario the balance never restores because vulnerable species become locally extinct while the imbalance exists, foreign genetics (or species) are introduced, diseases or parasites get spread, or other human influences cause problems.

It is a great shame such an obviously harmful mistake (obvious to any ecologist) was made, just to allow people to pretend damage wasn't being done. The relocation here has caused only harm, no good, at high expense, and most people will applaud it, wrongly thinking they did something good.


----------



## Wokka (Jul 28, 2019)

Does the same argument apply to people?


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Jul 28, 2019)

Wokka said:


> Does the same argument apply to people?


Obviously however your opinion of it will vary depending on whether you're being relocated yourself to a "new habitat" (refugees) or having people relocated to your own locale.


----------



## nuttylizardguy (Aug 2, 2019)

Wokka said:


> Does the same argument apply to people?



People have enough brain power to know there might be a better place and will try to go there is the place they live becomes "unliveable" / too dangerous.

Animals don't know there might be a better place.


----------



## Wokka (Aug 2, 2019)

On the contrary, people often don't realise that they are running out of places to go as they destroy where they live.Just like animals, relocating to a new environment every time the present environment is destroyed isn't sustainable and only accelerates the "overloading" of the new environment.


----------



## Nero Egernia (Aug 5, 2019)

I agree that relocating them has most likely just signed their death sentence. Ideally they would have left the environment untouched. However, those in power seem to care little about our wildlife and only care about making money or watering their ego flowers. If destruction can't be avoided for whatever feeble reason the great powers can devise, the next best solution would be collecting the now homeless animals and keeping them in captivity.


----------



## longirostris (Aug 5, 2019)

Nero Egernia said:


> I agree that relocating them has most likely just signed their death sentence. Ideally they would have left the environment untouched. However, those in power seem to care little about our wildlife and only care about making money or watering their ego flowers. If destruction can't be avoided for whatever feeble reason the great powers can devise, the next best solution would be collecting the now homeless animals and keeping them in captivity.



Here Here,... What a good idea!!!!! Finally, for me, a sensible and constructive suggestion on a topic that has been giving me and others like me the brace and bits for a long long time. Yes. Yes. Yes. Why not actually get some positive benefit out of what would otherwise be an ecological disaster. Why not actually allow licensed takers to walk through the land earmarked for clearing and let them collect what they think has a commercial value for private keepers, hobbyists and other institutions including zoos and wildlife parks both private and public etc, around the country. Better yet why not actually let these people take orders from interested parties in advance. Large tracts of land earmarked for clearing for whatever purpose should be gazetted for a certain period of time before the clearing takes place to allow licensed wildlife takers to fill orders and locate and move species of significance or species that may be vulnerable such as the Northern Quoll found and collected in this case.

Now all we have to do is get the morons in our wildlife Regulatory authorities and State and federal Government Environment Ministers to actually recognise that this might actually be a better outcome for wildlife on these parcels of land earmarked for clearing and go along with the idea and we might actually get at least some small positive outcome out of what would otherwise be a total disaster for the wildlife and environment generally. So far though every time this "idea" comes up and is suggested to wildlife authorities, the all powerful animal welfare lobby (AWL) exert their misguided opinions and influence on the matter and so we end up with unacceptable outcomes for the wildlife concerned. The consensus AWL view is that they would rather the animal die in the wild under a bulldozer then be collected and placed in a captive environment where it has every chance of living a healthy long life and contributing to or helping to establish captive populations. Populations that could very well end up being rescue and recovery populations for those species being killed in the wild by land clearing, feral cats, foxes, road kill and other non natural causes. The AWL consensus view is that any animal taken out of its natural environment may as well be dead. I have actually had representatives of these organisations openly state this. What I don't get is the hypocrisy in their support of relocation of wildlife yet they vehemently oppose and object to the collection of wildlife for private and even public collections.

And so we end up with regulators and more to the point their masters, the incumbent governments of the day, who do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the morons in the AWL for fear of negative advertising campaigns run by them (the AWL) come election time. As a consequence we have the ridiculous situation we have today. Land clearing goes on unabated. Wildlife on that land dies under the bulldozers or in the case above gets collected and relocated in the misguided if not contrived belief that the collected animals will survive and thrive in their relocated "wild" environment. Everybody with even a basic knowledge of wildlife and its ecology, even those of us who have no formal training in this field know that relocated animals do not fare well after relocation particularly into an area where other members of the same species already exist.

So this begs the obvious question. Why would there be any objection FROM ANYBODY to the collection of wildlife from land earmarked for clearing for the purpose of placing that wildlife into a captive environment, (whether it be public or private collections) and giving it at least some opportunity and prospects to live a longer and hopefully healthy and productive life.

Watch the ratbags and morons crawl out of their pile of self righteous BS and flame me for my point of view on this topic.

Mark Hawker


----------



## nuttylizardguy (Aug 8, 2019)

longirostris said:


> Here Here,... What a good idea!!!!! Finally, for me, a sensible and constructive suggestion on a topic that has been giving me and others like me the brace and bits for a long long time. Yes. Yes. Yes. Why not actually get some positive benefit out of what would otherwise be an ecological disaster. Why not actually allow licensed takers to walk through the land earmarked for clearing and let them collect what they think has a commercial value for private keepers, hobbyists and other institutions including zoos and wildlife parks both private and public etc, around the country. Better yet why not actually let these people take orders from interested parties in advance. Large tracts of land earmarked for clearing for whatever purpose should be gazetted for a certain period of time before the clearing takes place to allow licensed wildlife takers to fill orders and locate and move species of significance or species that may be vulnerable such as the Northern Quoll found and collected in this case.
> 
> Now all we have to do is get the morons in our wildlife Regulatory authorities and State and federal Government Environment Ministers to actually recognise that this might actually be a better outcome for wildlife on these parcels of land earmarked for clearing and go along with the idea and we might actually get at least some small positive outcome out of what would otherwise be a total disaster for the wildlife and environment generally. So far though every time this "idea" comes up and is suggested to wildlife authorities, the all powerful animal welfare lobby (AWL) exert their misguided opinions and influence on the matter and so we end up with unacceptable outcomes for the wildlife concerned. The consensus AWL view is that they would rather the animal die in the wild under a bulldozer then be collected and placed in a captive environment where it has every chance of living a healthy long life and contributing to or helping to establish captive populations. Populations that could very well end up being rescue and recovery populations for those species being killed in the wild by land clearing, feral cats, foxes, road kill and other non natural causes. The AWL consensus view is that any animal taken out of its natural environment may as well be dead. I have actually had representatives of these organisations openly state this. What I don't get is the hypocrisy in their support of relocation of wildlife yet they vehemently oppose and object to the collection of wildlife for private and even public collections.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more , better to take them from the wild and sell to licensed keepers , at least that way most of the refugee animals have a good chance of living and perhaps breeding ( hence ensuring their species don't become endangered or extinct ) .


----------



## dragonlover1 (Aug 8, 2019)

longirostris, I couldn't agree more ! If these creatures were spread out among people and organizations that would actually make sure they survived would have to be a better outcome then bulldozing them or signing a death warrant by " relocating" them,BUT the boofocrats will never agree to something that might actually be the RIGHT thing to do.It's easier to just pretend they do the right thing so they can rake in the profits.


----------



## nuttylizardguy (Aug 10, 2019)

Unfortunately reptiles don't look "cute" to most people and have a very low priority when protecting their habitat is concerned.

Best way of ensuring reptiles survive , it to ensure
>> there is a large enough gene pool
>> enough LINKED habitat
>> stricter controls on development / clearing
>> introduced ferals and strays ( cats, dogs mostly ) are exterminated and not allowed to breed
>> distributed captive breeding takes place (even if the offspring are never released).


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (Aug 10, 2019)

nuttylizardguy said:


> Unfortunately reptiles don't look "cute" to most people and have a very low priority when protecting their habitat is concerned.
> 
> Best way of ensuring reptiles survive , it to ensure
> >> there is a large enough gene pool
> ...


>> Eliminate poaching.


----------

