# The hobby & conservation



## Waterrat (Dec 30, 2010)

I didn't want to steal another thread (where do they came from) but the last few posts raised some questions and thoughts.

What conservation value do captive reptiles have? They can never be released to the wild (not the ones we keep and breed anyway), so how are we contributing to conservation of reptiles? 
Availability and low prices discourage people from poaching (in some cases) but that's not much of an effort on our part, is it? Should we do more or is it the Wildlife Department's job to protect and conserve?
In reality, is "protection", "conservation status", "reserves and Parks" and other passive measures applied by wildlife departments doing anything for conservation of reptiles?

I am posting this as a topic for discussion, not as my personal ideas and opinions, so please .....


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (Dec 30, 2010)

> They can never be released to the wild (not the ones we keep and breed anyway), so how are we contributing to conservation of reptiles?



Micheal 
Is there away around this?
Could a small group of private breeders band together to breed certain species that are currently in captivity but rarer in the wild with government licensing?

I think this question has been asked a few times, sorry if it has. 

Jannico

P.S I love this "hooby"


----------



## mattmc (Dec 30, 2010)

theres always the way, as keepers of reptiles, and through reptile expos etc, you can express the need to conserve the animals in the wild, and if just one person clicks to this, they can spread their influence further, so in a sense the captivity could have some positive influence in the need of conservation efforts, now if only there was a disease like myxomatosis to kill off cane toads

---------- Post added 30-Dec-10 at 04:54 PM ----------




Jannico said:


> Micheal
> Is there away around this?
> Could a small group of private breeders band together to breed certain species that are currently in captivity but rarer in the wild with government licensing?
> 
> ...



that would be dangerous...let alone bad for genetic strength in a wild population i.m.o


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2010)

I think the biggest role in conservation our reptiles play is awareness 
the more people that keep reptiles and spread awareness the better the out come will be for our environment 
I feel a child that was brought up with a pet snake,lizard, possum or wombat will always carry a deeper understanding for our animals than a child that had a pet goldfish or cat 
keeping our native animals as pets is encouraging people to learn more about them and I think thats its rediculous that here in NSW we are allowed to keep a rabbit but not a sugar glider


----------



## cadwallader (Dec 30, 2010)

i guess imo all the parks and protected areas all do help reptiles and unless a carpet python becomes endangered i guess we wont be keeping many rare sp. but then again the breeding techniques we use may help breed any endangered sp. that may be brought in to captivity. 
there is also on growing pressure to do more for conservation but with the amount of budget cut they have received over the last say 5 years it can get hard at times.
but all i can say that i do for the conservation is swerve to miss them on the road and keep a lovely native garden


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 30, 2010)

There is not alot of point to restocking unless the causes of the species decline are adressed. The only situation where restocking will work is if the cause of the decline in numbers is from people removing them from their habitat. 



Jannico said:


> Micheal
> Is there away around this?
> Could a small group of private breeders band together to breed certain species that are currently in captivity but rarer in the wild with government licensing?
> 
> ...


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (Dec 30, 2010)

Thanks Waruikazi 



> There is not alot of point to restocking unless the causes of the species decline are adressed. The only situation where restocking will work is if the cause of the decline in numbers is from people removing them from their habitat.


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 30, 2010)

Jannico said:


> Micheal
> Is there away around this?
> Could a small group of private breeders band together to breed certain species that are currently in captivity but rarer in the wild with government licensing?



It's a great idea and I trust it will eventuate one day but there is one or two stumbling blocks: 
1/ The currently held reptiles hold no integrity because of all the selective breeding, hybridizing, morphing and so on within the hobby (this is not a criticism, just a fact). How can the wildlife authorities trust us? 

2/ The genetic diversity in collections is most likely to be too small and compromised.

3/ A freshly acquired stock from the wild (certified, registered and marked) would be an absolute necessity.

4/ You said a "small group of private breeders ....". Can you imagine the uproar from those not included? Does the word "elitist" ring a bell?

That's how I see it anyway.


----------



## ozziepythons (Dec 30, 2010)

Captive reptiles at zoos, etc are used as 'ambassadors' for conservation, and when used as part of demonstrations to the public. As far as a direct population rehabilitation from captive sources go, I know of one example. Inland carpets are bred in captivity and the progeny released at a site near Adelaide where they occured historically. I have some reservations about the project, which I won't go into here, but the few people I have spoken to have said its overall a move in the right direction.


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 30, 2010)

I wonder if Greg Miles is still reading the forum... now sounds like a good time for him to make a few posts.


----------



## hornet (Dec 30, 2010)

Waterrat said:


> What conservation value do captive reptiles have? They can never be released to the wild (not the ones we keep and breed anyway), so how are we contributing to conservation of reptiles?


 
there are cases of species being bred by private keepers for release into the wild, take craig and gab and the mary river turtle, they release a good number of young turtles back into the wild each year and do regular surveys on the wild populations. I know thats probably the only example of private keepers directly contributing to conservation but its still a great example. I think the biggest effect the hobby has on conservation, as Farma said, is education


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 30, 2010)

hornet said:


> there are cases of species being bred by private keepers for release into the wild, take craig and gab and the mary river turtle, they release a good number of young turtles back into the wild each year and do regular surveys on the wild populations. I know thats probably the only example of private keepers directly contributing to conservation but its still a great example. I think the biggest effect the hobby has on conservation, as Farma said, is education



That in itself solves nothing and is no more than a bandaid approach. Fix the environment and there will be no need to restock.


----------



## hornet (Dec 30, 2010)

I havent read anything that states the reason of this species low numbers but from what i have seen the mary river doesnt seem to be in decline, the water is good, plenty of plant life, aquatic life, invert life and quite a decent frog population in that area so i dont think its so much habitat destruction thats the cause of their status, as far as i know it takes then quite a while to reach breeding size and their eggs used to be harvested in numbers for "pet shop turtles". I may be wrong and probably are, as i said i havent really dont any research into the specifics


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 30, 2010)

Just to spice it up a bit.


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 30, 2010)

If the conditions are as you say then the turtle numbers will recover given tim eand when they are ready.


----------



## hornet (Dec 30, 2010)

good point, i was thinking that mayb its a species that just naturally occurs in small numbers but then small numbers would be natural and no cause for concern so there has to be something thats threatening that species, i know the mary river dam was the biggest threat but there must be others


----------



## stockhorse (Dec 30, 2010)

The problem with mary river turtles is cane toads,brigalow woma are being breed by australia zoo for release and there are several other projects taking place where the main problem is cane toads.
Keeping numbers up in the wild is a temporary measure to help keep a gene pool available until a permanent solution can be found.Most of the reasons causing a decline in numbers of wild reptiles are introduced species and a small percentage due to habitat reduction,again not mostly by man but by introduced species.
Unfortunately many people relate conservation with isolation thus the closure of many national parks to the public,this is making the situation worse as introduced plants and animals thrive and only when the situation is almost ireversable or infact extinction occurs do the authorities act.
As reptile keepers it would do us all well to pressure the govt to keep places (national parks) open to the general public as out of sight out of mind mentality seems to rule many govt dept and extreme conservationists(the fluoro greens).


----------



## MrSpike (Dec 30, 2010)

hornet said:


> there are cases of species being bred by private keepers for release into the wild, take craig and gab and the mary river turtle, they release a good number of young turtles back into the wild each year and do regular surveys on the wild populations. I know thats probably the only example of private keepers directly contributing to conservation but its still a great example. I think the biggest effect the hobby has on conservation, as Farma said, is education



They've done this under AFTCRA. Inc, as registered organisation. Not just two private turtle breeders.


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 30, 2010)

The complexity of reptilian ecology is enormous and as Gordo said, fix the environment and things will be alright.
Unfortunately, we are not fixing the environment, we are stuffing it up, so there is little hope that things will be alright, not in the long term anyway.
So, if we are not instrumental in conservation of reptiles, should we feel guilty? Some things are just beyond our reach, lets live with it. After all, we can always say, "this is just a hobby", we don't have to be conservationists to enjoy keeping reptile as pets.
Wow, what did I say?


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (Dec 30, 2010)

Forgive my ignorance but why can't be expanded to other native animals other than turtles via another registered organization or even make another? 

Although I agree with Micheal and Gordo in saying that it is a bandaid for a bullet wound.


----------



## stockhorse (Dec 30, 2010)

Janico, It can be but first you have to raise the man power and then the funds,backed by research.


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 30, 2010)

stockhorse said:


> Janico, It can be but first you have to raise the man power and then the funds,backed by research.



Exactly. And you also have to identify the problem (if there is any) to form some strategies to fix the problem. For example, there would be no point in restocking an area that has been devastated by cane toads if the toads are still there.
When you look around, realistically, which species would warrant captive breeding efforts in order to prevent extinction?


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 30, 2010)

stockhorse said:


> Janico, It can be but first you have to raise the man power and then the funds,backed by research.



But these things can start on an incredibly small scale. 

Jannico if you went out and started herping a local area, recorded everything you found along with weather conditions etc(just in a diary) and did that for several years you would be suprised how seriously that data would be taken. And the longer you do it the more valuable that data will be.


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (Dec 30, 2010)

No joke?


> Jannico if you went out and started herping a local area, recorded everything you found along with weather conditions etc(just in a diary) and did that for several years you would be suprised how seriously that data would be taken. And the longer you do it the more valuable that data will be.



I may just do that. 
Just for personal reasons


----------



## Owzi (Dec 30, 2010)

Jannico said:


> Micheal
> Is there away around this?
> Could a small group of private breeders band together to breed certain species that are currently in captivity but rarer in the wild with government licensing?
> 
> ...


 
I don't know exact specifics, but a well known Melbourne breeder was asked to be part of a breeding program with Diamond Pythons. I believe DSE were going to remove several founder animals & they wanted this particular individual to breed them for DSE. At first he was excited at the opportunity to help wild populations, then DSE pointed out he would not be able to own any other Diamonds or any other pythons for the integrity of the breeding program.
Would you give up several decades worth of a hobby to help the species in this instance?
Needless to say, he refused to give up his collection so was not given the opportunity.


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 30, 2010)

A hard decision to make, that's for sure. If I was in such situation I would vigorously question the intend, methodology and conservation strategy proposed by the DSE. I wonder if they know what they're doing sometimes.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Dec 30, 2010)

Damn... I've had a few drinks and this is my favourite topic! I'll say this now before getting into it tomorrow - national parks are NOT safe havens any more, in any part of the country - feral pests, invasive plants, cannot be kept from these 'preserves' - the notion that anywhere in the Northern Territory is a safe haven now is a nonsense. Camels, horses, donkeys, cats, dogs, introduced grasses (maybe the single most destructive influence on broadacre preserves in this country because they change fire regimes), not to mention Cane Toads and pathogens like Chytrid Fungus, all combine to make 'wilderness' areas anything but wilderness, and anything but safe.

This country is beset with antiquated thinking about the nature of the threats facing our fauna and flora - we all believe, because we are told it is so, that 'national parks' are the saviour features of our landscape. It's a propaganda that's readily accepted by most people, and seems to be well entrenched in the reptile keeper community, which accepts that it is doing something at the edge of what is permissable with regard to conservation. 

Thanks Michael - this is a big subject, and one which has a long way to go before we have any broad understanding of the true facts surrounding the commonly held (and often mistaken) beliefs of those who keep native animals in this country.

Jamie


----------



## hornet (Dec 30, 2010)

National parks may protect the land scape and the vegetation from being cleared so they do protect some species in the way of stopping habitat destruction but as jamie said the biggest threats to many species and ecosystems cannot be kept out by signs and fences


----------



## Troy K. (Dec 30, 2010)

Conservation is something that not just myself but the rest of the S&T Aust. team care deeply about. As our readers would be able to see, we try to pack as much conservation stuff in the mag. as we can while still keeping it a reptile mag. Right from Issue one we got started with a great article from Gabrielle Latta on the Mary River and we've never stopped. 

That's my plug for the mag. but now for a more personal thought. I used to shot and kill a heap of animals, chain saw trees down and done my fair share to help destroy this planet with out a second thought. Then I started keeping reptiles and started to care about the effect that my actions where having. These days I love the idea of conservation and try and get behind as many good causes as I can to not just fix the damage that I've done to the environment in my past but to try and help with some of the other mess as well. I wouldn't go calling myself a tree hugging hippy but keeping reptiles changed my whole out look on life and I hope that they have had the same affect on others.


----------



## Fuscus (Dec 30, 2010)

There was a woman in Adelaide who was using her own breeding program to re-introduce Murray Darlings into the area. She had all the necessary permissions.


----------



## Dannyboi (Dec 30, 2010)

mattmc said:


> , now if only there was a disease like myxomatosis to kill off cane toads


 
Check this out then Cane toad holy grail | Townsville Bulletin News


----------



## Snakeluvver2 (Dec 30, 2010)

Dude that article was about 3 years ago. 
I'm think the government has declared defeat one the cane toad war.


----------



## hornet (Dec 30, 2010)

Jannico said:


> Dude that article was about 3 years ago.
> I'm think the government has declared defeat one the cane toad war.


 
i doubt it, i'm sure there is still plenty of research being done even if the chances of ever winning this war are minute its worth trying so i dont believe that everyone would have just given up like that


----------



## waruikazi (Dec 30, 2010)

hornet said:


> i doubt it, i'm sure there is still plenty of research being done even if the chances of ever winning this war are minute its worth trying so i dont believe that everyone would have just given up like that



Nope, the csiro quit on this one.


----------



## Dannyboi (Dec 30, 2010)

Well true but these things take time.

---------- Post added 30-Dec-10 at 10:35 PM ----------

You kidding well I think we are just gonna have to kill them the old fashioned way get out the domestos and some gloves!


----------



## hornet (Dec 30, 2010)

waruikazi said:


> Nope, the csiro quit on this one.


 
there has to be someone doing research on this, universities or other institutions? Being such a widespread and devistating problem you would think someone would be persisting


----------



## Dannyboi (Dec 30, 2010)

Sadly people quit on things once its not in the spotlight anymore. Funny how fast they came up with a vaccine for swine flu isn't it.


----------



## moosenoose (Dec 30, 2010)

Farma said:


> I think the biggest role in conservation our reptiles play is awareness
> the more people that keep reptiles and spread awareness the better the out come will be for our environment
> I feel a child that was brought up with a pet snake,lizard, possum or wombat will always carry a deeper understanding for our animals than a child that had a pet goldfish or cat
> keeping our native animals as pets is encouraging people to learn more about them



Spot on! And this often has a contagious effect on other friends/relatives who surround such a person who is passionate about the animals they keep! Society as a whole, IMHO, lacks awareness, education and a general appreciation of many of our native animals, and I think that's a real shame.

Then there is the flip-side, animals within the hobby kept in sub-standard conditions by keepers! Poorly kept animals in pet shops! Smugglers Etc etc, all because a trade in these animals exists, hence a profitable market.

It'd be interesting to see who'd actually be bothered with it all if there was no money to be made in it (the hobby in general).


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 31, 2010)

moosenoose said:


> It'd be interesting to see who'd actually be bothered with it all if there was no money to be made in it (the hobby in general).



Mate, some of us "bothered" with it for decades without any money changing hands. The downside of it was - we couldn't buy a professionally make reptile cage, heating systems, frozen or fresh food, no reptile magazines to buy and still had to pay vet and electricity bills. I am astounded when someone says the HOBBY could do without the INDUSTRY. The hobby will never die but without the industry, and money made from sale of reptiles that supports the industry, the hobby would shrink to a tiny proportion. Good or bad?


----------



## CarpetPythons.com.au (Dec 31, 2010)

Waterrat said:


> Mate, some of us "bothered" with it for decades without any money changing hands. The downside of it was - we couldn't buy a professionally make reptile cage, heating systems, frozen or fresh food, no reptile magazines to buy and still had to pay vet and electricity bills. I am astounded when someone says the HOBBY could do without the INDUSTRY. The hobby will never die but without the industry, and money made from sale of reptiles that supports the industry, the hobby would shrink to a tiny proportion. Good or bad?



I disagree with you on this one Michael. The industry definitely does not need the sales of reptiles to survive!


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Dec 31, 2010)

moosenoose said:


> Spot on! And this often has a contagious effect on other friends/relatives who surround such a person who is passionate about the animals they keep! Society as a whole, IMHO, lacks awareness, education and a general appreciation of many of our native animals, and I think that's a real shame.
> 
> Then there is the flip-side, animals within the hobby kept in sub-standard conditions by keepers! Poorly kept animals in pet shops! Smugglers Etc etc, all because a trade in these animals exists, hence a profitable market.
> 
> It'd be interesting to see who'd actually be bothered with it all if there was no money to be made in it (the hobby in general).



I've been into herps for decades, and I doubt very much whether my profits have come anywhere near my costs in that time. I'm probably an average hobbyist with an average number of animals, and despite having a few GTPs and breeding a few clutches in the past few years, the return, even on them, is not exceptional when you look at what the founder stock cost 5-6 years ago. They are worth far less now than they were even 2 years ago, but I'm still a huge fan of the species, and I have always kept any of my snakes primarily for my own enjoyment. If breeding some animals covers some of my costs, then that's a bonus.

Ask even the bigger breeders - Snake Ranch, or Snake Farmer - they'll tell you that it's a tough business to be in, with patchy sales and poor prices, but big ongoing costs for labour, food and energy that can't be deferred. Even for these people, reptiles are only a sideline, the income from which would probably not sustain a family in the long term.

Jamie


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 31, 2010)

CarpetPythons.com.au said:


> I disagree with you on this one Michael. The industry definitely does not need the sales of reptiles to survive!


 
I didn't say it wouldn't survive, to the contrary, I said "The hobby will never die" but it would suffer. How many people have the skills, room and tools to build cages? How can people living in city units breed mice or rats? Would they spend their hard earned money to buy a $500.- enclosure or two if there were no money coming from sales of reptiles (at least partially)?


----------



## moosenoose (Dec 31, 2010)

That's fine for "some", but I'm talking about other folk who are flooding into to the hobby to simply try and make a buck. I certainly wasn't tarring everyone with the same brush. Don't you find it surprising how prices in recent times have taken a sharp dive?? GTP's from 10k to 1k (and under) in the last few years, RSP's for the same prices also? Did these people dive into the market at those inflated prices simply because the love of animal? Or to make their money back?? Pretty big gamble if the answer is either of my last two choices! I recall plenty of syndicates with people coughing up fairly large sums to share only a few animals?? :?


----------



## Waterrat (Dec 31, 2010)

moosenoose said:


> Did these people dive into the market at those inflated prices simply because the love of animal?



Many of those who "invested" in reptiles were old-timers who kept and bred reptiles long before the hobby boom. Just because they saw an opportunity to make a buck doesn't mean they they didn't love the animals or were in the game ONLY for the money. The gamble didn't work out, so be it. My super took a dive couple of years ago, local real estate hit the bottom 10 years ago but life goes on. None of those people who paid big bucks for their snakes scream "I lost my money" (at least I can't hear them), so why to scream at them that they were money grabbers?
When you say "the prices were inflated" - the market and demand set up the prices, there were plenty of enthusiasts willing to pay - were they silly buggers and those who didn't buy were smart? I don't think so.
If you don't like the idea of selling and buying reptiles, just don't sell or buy, simple as that (you may go to heaven)... but don't criticize those who do, that's their business (they go to hell). 

How did we end up talking money and flooding the market again, the topic was about conservation. :shock:


----------



## MC-Boks (Dec 31, 2010)

hornet said:


> there has to be someone doing research on this, universities or other institutions? Being such a widespread and devistating problem you would think someone would be persisting


 
There is other research going on. Meat ants devour cane toads?(Science Alert) (Sydney Uni - cat food and meat ants). Potentially something that can be carried out by "concerned locals" and I dare say more effective than domestos or a cricket bat.

Mick


----------



## Wallypod (Dec 31, 2010)

i don't know a great deal about this subject so if my comments about are naive and ignorent then please be nice about it.
it seems that most agree that we need to fix the problem rather than the symptom. however wouldn't it make sense to atleast try to keep captive populations with a rich gene pool so that if we cannot fix the problem, then atleast we have enough animals for future generations to enjoy? or even later down the track if worse comes to worse start again?


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 1, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> Many of those who "invested" in reptiles were old-timers who kept and bred reptiles long before the hobby boom. Just because they saw an opportunity to make a buck doesn't mean they they didn't love the animals or were in the game ONLY for the money. The gamble didn't work out, so be it. My super took a dive couple of years ago, local real estate hit the bottom 10 years ago but life goes on. None of those people who paid big bucks for their snakes scream "I lost my money" (at least I can't hear them), so why to scream at them that they were money grabbers?
> When you say "the prices were inflated" - the market and demand set up the prices, there were plenty of enthusiasts willing to pay - were they silly buggers and those who didn't buy were smart? I don't think so.
> If you don't like the idea of selling and buying reptiles, just don't sell or buy, simple as that (you may go to heaven)... but don't criticize those who do, that's their business (they go to hell).
> 
> How did we end up talking money and flooding the market again, the topic was about conservation. :shock:



You seem a little touchy about it! :lol: The conversation got there because I suggested that the hobby was good for general awareness, but people (newcomers, if that makes more sense to you ) were flooding the market with a view to make a buck, and also keeping some of these animals in substandard conditions because their heart was more in the money and profit side of things, than the animals welfare. Surely not too difficult to understand?? :lol:

And btw, Happy New Year to ya!


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 1, 2011)

"people (newcomers, if that makes more sense to you ) were flooding the market with a view to make a buck, and also keeping some of these animals in substandard conditions because their heart was more in the money and profit side of things, than the animals welfare"

Your suggestion that newcomers are flooding the market with a view to making a buck seems to imply that they are attempting to make a career out of reptile breeding. I don't think the average 'newcomer' has enough structured thought to think like this... I think they breed their animals simply because they can in most cases... breeding is the logical next step once you've learned to keep a reptile alive - the info is out there in buckets now, and most newcomers have no concept of 'the market', or indeed the hobby as a whole. They haven't watched the evolution of the hobby (industry?) the way many of us 'old-timers' have, they haven't participated in the (literally) years of political wrangling which has allowed us to be where we are now. Any notion that they're going to make much of a buck breeding reptiles will be quickly dispelled unless they can afford to get into the next popular morph at the very ground floor, and even that requires a bit more educated planning than the average newcomer is capable of.

I don't know where the suggestion that, because of your premise that newbies are in it for the money, they keep their animals in substandard conditions, comes from. That seems to be a long bow to draw unless you survey the accommodations of a large number of newcomer, profit driven keepers... Maybe you have and that's what you found, but it certainly isn't my experience. Doesn't have much to do with the conservation side of the hobby, which is the notional reason for this thread.

I do agree with you that community exposure to our wildlife is good for awareness and helps to soften the indifference that people generally have for our native critters, and this is a major failing of our bureaucratic system in most states, especially evident in the Fauna Nazi states like WA. Unless the community is involved at some level, i.e. allowed some participatory responsibilty and engagement with wildlife, the problem of conservation remains one for the bureaucracies to solve... and they're not doing that very well at all... anywhere.

Not all 'hobbyists' have any concern for conservation per se - many are solely and totally preoccuppied with what happens within the boundaries of their own properties, but there is a very large body of deeply involved keepers who would love to be involved in conservation issues, and perhaps even captive breeding of particular species. The debate will go on & on about the value and relative merits of these activities for any species, but they don't ever get the chance to even participate in any discussion about it, because the keys to the conference room are held firmly in the hands of bureaucracies which regard fauna keepers as a major part of the conservation problem...

My view is that anyone interested enough to invest in the knowledge, time and equipment, to keep and breed our native animals, and who demonstrates a knowledge of the significance of what they are doing (this cuts out 90% of keeprs/breeders) should be given an opportunity to contribute to the overall gaining of knowledge of our fauna... for me, this is what it's all about. There is absolutely nothing for the knowledgeable, ethical and resource rich (time, space, money) reptile keepers in this country to aspire to - we are all regarded as one homogenous, messy and troublesome lump - all busily being greedy, hybridising, smuggling, poaching or engaged in other similarly destructive activities with our reptiles.

We can see from the threads here on this site, and other sites, that the inability of new keepers to conceive of and visualise their aninals in a bush environment (bleaching branches, sterile enclosures, the constant worry about 'germs'...) is growing, and creating a big gulf between those who still see a connection between their animals and the bush, and those who only see their animals as an artefact of human activity. They are two defined and quite disparate groups in the same community, and it troubles me that the former group has no way to differentiate itself from the latter. Aspiring to excellence is a pointless exercise for reptile keepers even if they are conservation conscious...

Jamie


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 1, 2011)

It's easy to understand moosenoose, but what has it got to do with reptile conservation?
I am not touchy, some people (not only you) are obsessed with the money-making concept and just can't get away from it. You're way off the topic, the "making quick bucks" has been done to death in other threads - that's all.
Anyway, happy new year to you and everyone else.

Michael


----------



## moosenoose (Jan 1, 2011)

Thanks for the response pythoninfinite! Great read!

Micheal, my point is that this hobby does nothing for conservation. It merely restocks the pet trade! What are we conserving? Have you been given special permission or had your stocks checked in such a way as to be allowed to release animals back into the wild?? Does anyone on this site breed animals for that purpose? I'd love to know if there is!

Would the hobby as a whole take a steep dive because people aren't buying these animals? Absolutely! Does places like the Snake Ranch do what it does because it simply wants to breed animals simply for the love of it!? You're kidding yourself if you believe that! Yes, I have no doubt guys like John Weigal absolutely love reptiles, and I dont have a problem with them breeding or selling them, but let's call it what it is, it's not conservation, it's the pet trade. So to answer your main question, I don't believe this hobby does anything for conservation except raise awareness. In my humble opinion of course.

---------- Post added 01-Jan-11 at 10:41 AM ----------

Ps: please don't think I'm having a stab at anyone in this thread. I'm not intending to do that. Just trying to relay an opinion.

Also, I often think whether the hobby is even detrimental to conservation, simply because the awareness created through a ballooning hobby growth has promoted "more" poaching. I'm sure there are a few here who have seen or been offered an animal/s off-license for reduced rates. Or gone to buy something that wasn't on license.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 1, 2011)

I totally agree with you on that one. This hobby - 'keeping reptiles' is no different to keeping guinea pigs or aquarium fish. Because I put it up as a question at the first post, I didn't want to express my personal opinion at the same time.

Your last paragraph is an interesting observation, I suppose the more people are in the game, the more chances of poaching but on the other hand, we offset the temptation / need by availability of vast range of species at low prices. No one is going to even consider poaching RSP and many other species any more - that is an achievement we can be proud of. However, there is a downside to this hobby - all the morphing, hybridizing and selective breeding. We are never going to be taken seriously by the wildlife departments because the way they see it, we are converting wildlife into freaky pets. There are some fantastic breeding projects going on out there and I take my hat off to those who are involved but something in the back of my mind is telling me to stay away from it. That's only my perception, probably because I am more interested in reptilian ecology than creating the "unusual". Each to their own.


----------



## cement (Jan 2, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> "
> My view is that anyone interested enough to invest in the knowledge, time and equipment, to keep and breed our native animals, and who demonstrates a knowledge of the significance of what they are doing (this cuts out 90% of keeprs/breeders) should be given an opportunity to contribute to the overall gaining of knowledge of our fauna... for me, this is what it's all about. There is absolutely nothing for the knowledgeable, ethical and resource rich (time, space, money) reptile keepers in this country to aspire to - we are all regarded as one homogenous, messy and troublesome lump - all busily being greedy, hybridising, smuggling, poaching or engaged in other similarly destructive activities with our reptiles.
> 
> We can see from the threads here on this site, and other sites, that the inability of new keepers to conceive of and visualise their aninals in a bush environment (bleaching branches, sterile enclosures, the constant worry about 'germs'...) is growing, and creating a big gulf between those who still see a connection between their animals and the bush, and those who only see their animals as an artefact of human activity. They are two defined and quite disparate groups in the same community, and it troubles me that the former group has no way to differentiate itself from the latter. Aspiring to excellence is a pointless exercise for reptile keepers even if they are conservation conscious...
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. And I have a firm belief that ALL species whose habitat/existence is under threat should be immediately made secure within captivity.

I have my finger on the pulse of my local herp scene because of the work I do with the local wildlife, and have years of capture and relocation records that i am going through to try and assemble a picture of whats been happening the last few years in this area.

One place to start with for finding guaranteed local native stock is with organisations like the one that i work for. We have wild caught stock in captivity, all legally obtained, usually injured animals that take a long time to heal and hence can't now be returned to the wild because of the length of time in captivity. We use them for training purposes and demonstrations to try and gain awareness.

As far as releasing to rebirth a depleted wild stock goes, I don't see it as a problem as anything earmarked for that, would simply be quarantined before hand.
And if finding people who will just do it for the love is difficult then just take a look at the people who willingly give their time and own resources for these wildlife care organisations. They are full of these exact people, and if trained properly are an untapped resource for exactly this topic.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 3, 2011)

cement said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. And I have a firm belief that ALL species whose habitat/existence is under threat should be immediately made secure within captivity.



The thing is but if they are extinct or becoming extinct in the wild anything in captivity is no better than a type in a jar sitting on a museum shelf somewhere. Atleast as far as conservation is concerned. 

The number of species that have been reintroduced to an area where they have become extinct succesfully is incredibly low because the threatening process of a species needs to be adressed before there can be any change. 

So as far as getting different species into captivity, and increasing genetic diversity blah blah blah. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but the argument that it needs to be done in the name of conservation doesn't really wash with me. 

That said, Greg Miles has a very compelling argument on this topic. He calls his idea total extinction insurance (from memory) and does a good job of combining hobbiests and conservation.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jan 3, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> I totally agree with you on that one. This hobby - 'keeping reptiles' is no different to keeping guinea pigs or aquarium fish. Because I put it up as a question at the first post, I didn't want to express my personal opinion at the same time.
> 
> Your last paragraph is an interesting observation, I suppose the more people are in the game, the more chances of poaching but on the other hand, we offset the temptation / need by availability of vast range of species at low prices. No one is going to even consider poaching RSP and many other species any more - that is an achievement we can be proud of. However, there is a downside to this hobby - all the morphing, hybridizing and selective breeding. We are never going to be taken seriously by the wildlife departments because the way they see it, we are converting wildlife into freaky pets. There are some fantastic breeding projects going on out there and I take my hat off to those who are involved but something in the back of my mind is telling me to stay away from it. That's only my perception, probably because I am more interested in reptilian ecology than creating the "unusual". Each to their own.



Poaching and the pet reptile trade live hand in hand with each other, although I enjoy keeping the animals I often wonder at what price to the environment. RSP bred well and prices came down quickly, along with logistical difficulties it's probably no longer cost effective to poach these animals, however the pet trade has definitely created an environment that encourages illegal activity and as a consequence has a detrimental impact on the environment. This impact may not be severe enough to cause extinction but it definitely impacts on population numbers of reptiles and all other animals that inhabit their particular environments. It's also possible that we do not entirely understand the long term impact. It could take decades or even centuries before the extent of damage is fully realized.


----------



## gillsy (Jan 3, 2011)

Just a note on toad research

TEAM BUFO it's a great read.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 3, 2011)

As a matter of interest, could anyone name / list species that you think may need "insurance" in captive breeding for possible re-stocking and state why?
Bear in mind that whilst we know in which tree every f*&%$g koala lives and how many of them there are, we have absolutely zero data on reptile population densities and dynamics. Sad, isn't it!

Leave the oenpelli out of it as that is obviously a target species although we don't know clearly why.


----------



## da_donkey (Jan 3, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> There are some fantastic breeding projects going on out there and I take my hat off to those who are involved but something in the back of my mind is telling me to stay away from it.


 
im with you on that WR


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jan 3, 2011)

M _oenpelliensis. _From what I've readit seems to be the least understood of our pythons, and very difficult to achieve accurate estimations on its numbers in the wild.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 3, 2011)

The ones that need saving are the species that no one knows about. There are far more vunerable plants and inverts out there than there are vertabrates. It's the inverts that are at the bottom of the food chain, they are far more important than any lizard or snake to the environmennt.



Waterrat said:


> As a matter of interest, could anyone name / list species that you think may need "insurance" in captive breeding for possible re-stocking and state why?
> Bear in mind that whilst we know in which tree every f*&%$g koala lives and how many of them there are, we have absolutely zero data on reptile population densities and dynamics. Sad, isn't it!
> 
> Leave the oenpelli out of it as that is obviously a target species although we don't know clearly why.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 3, 2011)

Gordo, that's exactly why I asked the question. We seem to me screaming save this and save that by captive breeding but when it comes to identifying which species actually fall into that category, the list is very short. Are we fooling ourselves?
Lets leave plants and inverts out of this, *which species of reptiles (except marine turtles) should be on the list and why?*


----------



## cement (Jan 3, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> The number of species that have been reintroduced to an area where they have become extinct succesfully is incredibly low because the threatening process of a species needs to be adressed before there can be any change.
> 
> This is what I said isn't it? You secure the species, like what is happening with the poison arrow frog, tassie devil etc until the problem is identified and sorted out. Frogs and chytrid fungus is one eg.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 3, 2011)

Righto i'll get the ball rolling. 

I would like to see the Egernia obiri established in captivity either as an insurance policy or as pets. They would probably be suitable for most herpers to keep, they aren't likely to have a massive price tag attached to them, they probably wont be morphed and blah blah blah because of their plain looks. Their numbers have taken a massive hit in the last 40 years and they have already been written off as extinct, but it is likely that this isn't the case.


----------



## -Peter (Jan 3, 2011)

Ok, so you have highlighted E.obire, now explain how breeding them in captivity is going to save them as a wild population. How has their habitat been effected and what step are going to be put in place to make for their re-release. What needs to be put in place for them?
Keep in mind that the Latta's AFTCRA Mary River Turtle project relied upon the fact that the riffle zones taken over by agriculture were being rehabilitated to allow the turtle places to breed. They had specific environmental need that a seemingly healthy river system wasn't supplying.
Otherwise its just a grab at rare species at the best.
Just being the fly in the ointment for arguements sake.

BTW, people with money currently particpate in breeding programmes for rare and endangered native species. They need to supply vermin proof enclosures duplicating a quasi natural environment and meet whatever other requirements the authority overseeing the project require.
It takes time, space and money generally.
The Lord Howe Island phasmids and several wallaby species come to mind.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 3, 2011)

-Peter said:


> Ok, so you have highlighted E.obire, now explain how breeding them in captivity is going to save them as a wild population. How has their habitat been effected and what step are going to be put in place to make for their re-release. What needs to be put in place for them?
> Keep in mind that the Latta's AFTCRA Mary River Turtle project relied upon the fact that the riffle zones taken over by agriculture were being rehabilitated to allow the turtle places to breed. They had specific environmental need that a seemingly healthy river system wasn't supplying.
> Otherwise its just a grab at rare species at the best.
> Just being the fly in the ointment for arguements sake.
> ...



*It will not save them as a wild species.* I've been making that argument from the begining, all this could possibly be called from a conservation POV is a total extinction insurance plan. All the reading i have done cannot explain why their numbers are declining, there is an assumed correlation with changed fire regimes, introduced predators and toads (which i don't beleive because their numbers were declining before the advance of toads). If they are the three issues that are effecting their numbers then i really can't see how we will ever be able to reintroduce this species with any degree of success.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 3, 2011)

I would like to see "conservation breeding program" for all species with extremely small distribution range, e.g. Black Mt. gecko and the skink, Christmas Island skinks and geckos and some of the species inhabiting the Torres Strait islands.


----------



## hornet (Jan 3, 2011)

If i species was wiped out from the wild wouldnt it be better to have captive stock then to have no stock at all? While alot of these threatened species may never recover and may be lost in the wild id much rather see them in zoo's and private collection then dead in jars in a museum and i'm sure alot of others would feel the same


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 3, 2011)

hornet said:


> If i species was wiped out from the wild wouldnt it be better to have captive stock then to have no stock at all? While alot of these threatened species may never recover and may be lost in the wild id much rather see them in zoo's and private collection then dead in jars in a museum and i'm sure alot of others would feel the same



But they are essentially the same thing...


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 3, 2011)

waruikazi said:


> But they are essentially the same thing...


 
From an ecological point of view - yes but from a conservation point of view - no.
The Tassie devils will most probably go in the wild but there is a hope the species will survive and potentially be re-introduced. The Lake Echam Rainbowfish can not be released back but it is extant in captivity - isn't some good in all that? If we took that sort of over-pragmatic attitude you suggested, we may as well throw the towel in on all species, sit back and wait for the doom and gloom with a glass of scotch in our hands (I would!)


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 3, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> From an ecological point of view - yes but from a conservation point of view - no.
> The Tassie devils will most probably go in the wild but there is a hope the species will survive and potentially be re-introduced. The Lake Echam Rainbowfish can not be released back but it is extant in captivity - isn't some good in all that? If we took that sort of over-pragmatic attitude you suggested, we may as well throw the towel in on all species, sit back and wait for the doom and gloom with a glass of scotch in our hands (I would!)



The tassie devils are not in private hands. As far as i know anyway.

I'm all for keeping anything in captivity as long as it can be looked after appropriately, but i don't buy the argument that we need to take all these species into captivity (in our collections) for conservation reasons. We want to bring them into captivity for our own purposes. 

My point of view is that if they are extinct in the wild then they are useless in private collections. That doesn't mean i wouldn't like to see them in in private hands.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 3, 2011)

steve1 said:


> Poaching and the pet reptile trade live hand in hand with each other, although I enjoy keeping the animals I often wonder at what price to the environment. RSP bred well and prices came down quickly, along with logistical difficulties it's probably no longer cost effective to poach these animals, however the pet trade has definitely created an environment that encourages illegal activity and as a consequence has a detrimental impact on the environment. This impact may not be severe enough to cause extinction but it definitely impacts on population numbers of reptiles and all other animals that inhabit their particular environments. It's also possible that we do not entirely understand the long term impact. It could take decades or even centuries before the extent of damage is fully realized.



There are a few sweeping assumptions here, many of which are patently nonsensical. The term 'poaching' is a stupid one when describing the removal of some animals from the wild in a country like Australia. It conjures up pictures of men in tweed coats going about their business in the dark of night, stealing pheasants and rabbits and hares from rich landholders in good old England...

If you really think the removal of a few reptiles from limited areas in this vast land is going to do anywhere remotely near the damage to wild populations that natural processes like fires, floods and droughts do, you've got rocks in your head. Look at the floods in Queensland at the moment - literally millions of hectares of land under water for weeks so far... What will be the effect on terrestrial species of geckos, skinks, snakes etc? Look at the spinifex fires that rage, uncontrolled, for weeks, over millions of hecatares, in WA's Pilbara and Kimberley regions every year, and the massive grassfires (now an annual event, unlike the fires that occurred when the vegetation was 'natural), that are even sterilising the soils of the Northern Territory...

I'm NOT condoning the breaking of laws, which served a purpose (perhaps) when they were conceived. I'm simply suggesting that those of us interested in keeping reptiles, and are interested in more than having a pet Spotted Python named 'Fluffy', need to look objectively at what damage a limited harvest of animals from the wild will do. We need to stop thrashing around in a soup of bureaucratically induced guilt - Steve1 can I ask you why, in WA, you approve of the taking of unlimited numbers of 'permitted' species in the past 7 years, and why this is likely to be less damaging to the 'environment (your word) than unlicensed collecting for which DEC receives no handsome royalty? Maybe you have some info on just how many Stimson's Pythons and threatened South Western Carpet Pythons have been taken legally from the wild. The state has approved the collection of UNLIMITED NUMBERS of these and about 40-odd other species for SEVEN YEARS... The hypocrisy is breathtaking...

Steve1, give us some examples of where the "pet trade has definitely created an environment... has a detrimental impact on the environment."

Sweeping statements like "It could take decades or even centuries before the extent of damage is fully realized." are unfounded in fact and similar to the propaganda that is propounded by the bureaucracies. Any objective observer will tell you that one moonless night with heavy traffic on Great Northern Highway will claim more and varied reptile numbers than any 'poacher' could do in a month of hunting. Even for species such as the Broad-headed Snake here in NSW, habitat damage (the removal of sandstone slabs for Sydney gardens) is the primary reason for the decline of the species.

"This impact may not be severe enough to cause extinction but itdefinitely impacts on population numbers of reptiles and all other animals that inhabit their particular environments." This is an assumption for which you can produce no proof whatsoever... animals of all sorts have been eaten, drowned, burnt, and otherwise killed (we can now add land clearing, road killed, poisoned (aerial spraying for locusts etc)) in their own environments for as long as they have existed. The populations are not as fragile as you would have us believe, especially for the many highly cryptic reptile species.

All I ask is that we bring an end to the hand-wringing guilt that reptile keepers foment even amongst themselves, and begin to believe that we actually have something positive to contribute to our knowledge of the world.


----------



## cement (Jan 3, 2011)

So Gordon.. you are of the mind that ( and I use RSP as a hypothetical) if Rough Scaled Python was wiped out in the wild, that the ones being held in captivity have no conservation value?

Like you mentioned earlier, if the problem is removed then the re-stocking can be attempted. So surely there is value in keeping a threatened species.

The role of zoo's has changed dramatically in the past 20-30 yrs.

In my earlier post I mentioned poison arrow frog, though I meant Corroboree frog.

The most endangered thing on this planet is habitat. And the main forces of destruction are natural disasters, developers, miners, and governments.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 3, 2011)

cement said:


> So Gordon.. you are of the mind that ( and I use RSP as a hypothetical) if Rough Scaled Python was wiped out in the wild, that the ones being held in captivity have no conservation value?



The ones held in private collections have no current or future role in the ecosystem. They are total extinction insurance, that's all. Or maybe not even that, maybe they are just a stall. 

If there is a captive population that has been set up to maintain genetic diversity and all that jazz, like the tassie devils, then there is a possibility that they could be used to restock the wild population. Currently, with the way our hobby works, i do not beleive that we could be trusted to maintain such stock.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jan 4, 2011)

Wow Jamie and to think I thought my post had gone unnoticed. I respect people that are straight to the point but this response I find rather arrogant.
The term poaching is not stupid and to me it conjures up pictures of ordinary looking people taking wildlife illegally. Regardless of my moral stance and views, if you turn over a rock and take a reptile, by my understanding of the law you are poaching.

I have witnessed widespread habitat destruction over vast areas of Perth and its surrounds, particularly on granite outcrops, I have been told by people whom opinions I respect that this destruction became much more widespread when the reptile keeping system was implemented. 

You yourself have suggested in at least a few threads that licensed takers have removed animals and bodged coordinates to legitimize illegally taken animals (poaching as I understand the law). Some licensed takers I believe were quite indiscriminate in the amount of animals taken and the disregard for the environment they were taken from.

Then when little Johnny's snake or gecko died he also hit these areas to replace a legitimately purchased animal (Again Poaching)

Then little johnny told dad about the huge slabs he had broken away and rolled down the hill, who in turn backed in his trailer for garden slabs. (Poaching)

Just a few examples Of how the pet trade and poaching go hand in hand therefore creating a situation in which the environment suffers.

If by merely having a reptile license in WA you are suggesting that I approve of the indiscriminate taking of permitted reptiles then guilty as charged. 
I haven't stated anywhere else that I approve of this.

I don't understand how you can argue that this destruction doesn't affect population levels in a particular environment. If you smash to bits a piece of cap rock, lets say 1m square and find for example, 2 stimmies and a gecko and squash a couple of scorpions in the process then you are in effect having an impact on population levels in that area, if that same area is constantly targeted then that impact must surely compound. 
Like I said it may not be enough to cause extinction but there is an impact.

I agree, my statement that "it may take decades or centuries before the full extent of damage may be realized" is a little sweeping, but it's often the way of humans that we don't realize the consequences of our actions until it's to late.

Oh and I don't have rocks in my head, I just form my opinions on the information I have in front of me and my personal observations, if you disagree with me then fine, I welcome your input. By challenging my ideas and opinions you create an opportunity for me to learn something new. I just don't see the point in criticizing my intelligence.

Steve


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 4, 2011)

Rather than criticising your intelligence, I was commenting on the very subjective conclusions drawn by you in your post Steve.

Population dynamics are far more complex than you allude to, and by implying that the removal of some individuals from a population of reptiles will cause an effect which we may not understand for decades or centuries, is simply scaremongering without any sound, reasoned assessment.

I fully agree that the granites around and to the east of Perth have suffered hugely in the past - first from the relentless collecting and selling of slab for the landscape industry, and also from vandalism and collecting. The destruction of wheatbelt granite habitat simply to collect the highly desirable 'Wheatbelt Stimson's' is nothing short of disgraceful... but it has been fully supported by the system that DEC oversees, with no sanctions imposed on those who do the damage, and handsome royalties paid to DEC if you have a successful weekend smashing rocks and catching snakes. But you are simply supporting my argument - what you see as the _damage being done removing a few animals_ is, in fact, compounded hugely by the _destruction of habitat_. This is, as other respondents have suggested, the single biggest problem...

And you have DEC expressly forbidding collection from public roads - where habitat damage is nil, and the animals collected may have been killed anyway... very weird indeed...

Of course it is always easy to build scenarios like "If you smash to bits a piece of cap rock, lets say 1m square and find for example, 2 stimmies and a gecko and squash a couple of scorpions in the process then you are in effect having an impact on population levels in that area, if that same area is constantly targeted then that impact must surely compound.", but this has always happened (I'm over 60 and it was the case, even when I was in my early teens) and so is not a new phenomenon. My premise would always be that if some animals are removed from a population, and it is done WITHOUT degrading the habitat on which the species depends for survival, then the impact will be, at it's worst, temporary. There may be a few exceptions to this general rule, but examples don't readily come to mind. Each species would have to be considered on it's merits.

Destroying habitat to collect those animals is a whole different story. Your observation that I've made the point that GPS readings have been doctored to comply with DEC requirements is a fair one, however, this has been done mostly to prevent the backlash from DEC if they check and find that animals are being collected from public roads. Are these animals 'illegally taken'? I don't know about that... Road collecting is the easiest way to find many species, it does NO environmental damage, and saves animals from what would otherwise be a pointless and pulpy death... but DEC forbids it for some nanny concern about safety... The Department is far more concerned about remaining safe from prosecution than it is about the destruction of habitat.

Anyway... to get this interesting thread back on track...

In my opinion, the keeping of voucher populations of native species in captivity, rather than letting them go extinct over time, is essential. Forever is a very long time, and we cannot ever say with certainty that the Cane Toad problem, or the invasive weed problem, or the cat, rabbit and fox problems, won't one day be solved, allowing at least some hope for us to restore habitat to the point where reintroduction may be possible. We have no choice but to cover all bases... we can't change the past, but we sure as hell can have a good shot at changing the future...

Jamie


----------



## -Peter (Jan 4, 2011)

Collection from roads is an interesting situation. Richard Wells hypothesised that the loss of Tiliqua rugosa asper around the Goulbourne area, where they were once common, can be attributed to the upgrading of roads in the area.
The prime habitat became the verges where abundant food and water run off created ideal conditions. Possibly due to roadkill and removals the outlaying populations moved towards the main roads to fill the gaps left until there numbers became so low as to be non existent.
I cant attribute this to "poaching"(oddly enough this conjures up images of food in simmering stock or water for me. One's interpretation says more about themselves than others I guess.) but I'm sure it had some role albeit minor.
Jamie, there is an recent study on burning that has some findings that will likely upset a few people. Probably not you though. It has put together evidence that "firestick farming" is a product of Colonisation not tradition and that it's impact on the environment has been catastrophic.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 4, 2011)

Interesting comments & observations Peter. I'd cautiously (for political reasons!) agree with you about 'firestick farming' and the devastation caused by fires, especially fire regimes which are now so different than they were 200+ years ago... The introduction of fodder grasses into the north of Australia has meant a massive destructive change to that landscape in recent decades, and because of its flammabilty, the heat produced is actually sterilising soils in many parts of that environment. In the dry seaon, one lighning strike is all it takes for a fire to burn for weeks, so it doesn't even need to be a deliberate act.

I know where you're coming from re: poaching... lol!

Can you tell me where the fire study you mention can be found? Coming from WA where the weather in summer is ferocious and dry, and where 'cool' burning in spring and autumn are routine (I have no firm opinion about this because I don't have much info), I can imagine the damage that could be done with an uncontrolled hot fire in the height of summer. But even with regard to natural fires (lightning strikes...) in this country, which perhaps should be allowed to burn and reduce fuel levels, we step in and put them out. This just delays the inevitable, possibly with even worse consequences in the future...

Jamie.


----------



## jack (Jan 4, 2011)

the head of the npws recovery project recently told me that captive specimens of the broad headed snake had no foreseeble role in reintroduction to the environment. i found this a little odd, as melbourne zoo is a partner in this project and nsw npws let them poach wild animals to establish a breeding colony!
perhaps he was trying to allay my fears the dept was going to confiscate my animals?

i dont see animals in captivity as viable means to conserve animals other than to conserve them as captives... like the corroboree frog, which will soon be extinct in the wild and exist in captivity only.

my reasoning is like many responses to this thread already, the habitat is damaged for many species, and thus reintroduction to a damaged habitat is pointless.

no one else has mentioned it, so i thought i might add that the thing that has destroyed many ecosystems is agriculture. fix or better still forget farming and we may save a few more species.

i also think we need to get rid of the antiquated idea of locking up little islands of bush in national parks, and instead focuss on a country wide holistic approach.

finally, that fire paper has flaws, and was misrepresented in the media, ie the sydney morning herald article that trumpeted its findings.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 4, 2011)

jack said:


> melbourne zoo is a partner in this project and nsw npws let them poach wild animals to establish a breeding colony!



Jack, all good, you made some valid points that every straight thinking person would agree with but... this? Do you really regard such activity as poaching? Is in you mind a research collection poaching?
This word should be banned on APS just like f*&k, S#^t and other. LOL
It has been grossly misused and in this instance, it is an insult to Melbourne zoo and the NPWS.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jan 4, 2011)

Jamie, I believe Being subjective has a legitimate place in this form of debate, it creates opportunity for people to elaborate on different theories and the ideas of others, I did at the beginning of the post to which you replied state "I often WONDER at what price to the environment" inferring that I didn't fully understand the impacts that the pet trade has on the environment but that I can observe that it does at least have some negative outcomes. For this reason my post was on topic as it could apply to future conservation concerns.

Peter, What does my interpretation of poaching say about me as an individual?


----------



## -Peter (Jan 4, 2011)

Jamie, empty your postbox.
I had a hard time trying to find the info but I did find this abstract in Decembers Aust Geo
Aboriginal burn-off theory hosed down - Australian Geographic

Steve, its says we interpret words differently. Because we have so many words for the one thing we then tend to specialise the interpretation. Sophisticated meaning adulterated over time becomes worldy, urbane and aristocratic.


----------



## jack (Jan 4, 2011)

glad you picked up on that word Michael, i used it deliberately to provoke a response... i was going to put it in inverted commas, but thought why not chuck it in for fun!

as far as i can tell, all the animals at the zoo have done in regards to research is generate one article in herpetofauna, which didnt establish any real new information about the species. 
undoubtedly they have had some positive effect on people who have paid to see them in regards to education about a threatened species. and they are an insurance policy against an e.t. bolide strike that destroys the wild populations of southern nsw...


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 4, 2011)

Sorry about the bold response .... that's me.
I wonder if the hobby community realizes that there is actually very little in way of 'meaningful' research that can be done on captive reptiles. Apart from physiological experiments and some aspects of reproductive biology there isn't much that can be applied to conservation of wild populations. To extrapolate from captive data is a dangerous business, particularly in regards to species' ecology.
So, perhaps the guys at Melbourne zoo have done all they could within their capacity.


----------



## -Peter (Jan 4, 2011)

I suggest your all using semantics to cloud the debate and in this case we know what poaching is inferring and by legal definition it is the correct term.
Poaching is deemed suitable term for the illegal hunting of wildlife in other countries. why not here?
But, deemed inappropriate by the stylists we are forbidden to use the termed "poached". Perhaps someone could proffer a more appropriate word.
Henceforh I will coddle my eggs and fish.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 4, 2011)

-Peter said:


> But, deemed inappropriate by the stylists we are forbidden to use the termed "poached". Perhaps someone could proffer a more appropriate word.



my personal dictionary (don't like it, don't complain, just ignore me).

*Poaching* - indiscriminate collecting with no regard for the environment or the animals destined for the market, i.e. sold for money.

*Illegal collecting* - common reptiles taken in small numbers in non-protected areas for personal use (money not involved).

This is in relation to reptiles, not elephants, tigers or someone's dope.


----------



## adderboy (Jan 4, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> In my opinion, the keeping of voucher populations of native species in captivity, rather than letting them go extinct over time, is essential. Forever is a very long time, and we cannot ever say with certainty that the Cane Toad problem, or the invasive weed problem, or the cat, rabbit and fox problems, won't one day be solved, allowing at least some hope for us to restore habitat to the point where reintroduction may be possible. We have no choice but to cover all bases... we can't change the past, but we sure as hell can have a good shot at changing the future...
> 
> Jamie


 
While I agree with this for a range of species, I think we also need to remember we can't play God here. We can indeed breed these animals in captivity, but the longer we do it, the more we will be interfering with the genetic strength of the animals held. Captive breeding does away with many of the natural regulators that keep a species strong - eg predation weeds out the weak, environmental factors, which we control in captivity but are much more variable in the wild, would weed out the weak, and so on. Over many generations we would be enhancing the weaknesses by encouraging them to breed. I'm not talking here about visibly obvious defects, but minor defects, perhaps internal, perhaps completely unobservable in the first few generations, which, over time, will inevtiably manifest themselves.

For this reason, the worth of any captive voucher populations would be of reducing value as each generation passed. The animals need to be returned back to a liveable environment or their value as "wild" animals (at least as they were) will be forever lost. Unfortunately, the chances of environments being "fixed up" enough to allow this to happen might be damned low for some species.

I'm all for the idea of establishing a controlled "pure" population of species at risk, but there needs to be some reasonable chance of returning the species back to the wild within a few generations or all we're doing is taking the remaining stock into captivity and maintaining it as another captive line - "pure" but likely to become weak.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 4, 2011)

I agree with you to a point but I just can't see, for example, how predation selects against the weaker. I would say being eaten is a chance, snake / reptile predators don't target weaker individuals unless the weakling is totally disabled, in which case a responsible breeder would cull such individuals anyway. Equally, I don't think environmental factors have any control either. A cyclone will wipe out the strong and the weak, so would floods. One could argue that the stronger snake would be able to swim longer distance and save it self but the weaker swimmer could get into safety just the same if a tree or high ground was closer.
I do, however agree that captive bred reptiles (over generations) may loose the ability to successfully hunt and also, as you said, the genetic pool will be compromised.


----------



## adderboy (Jan 4, 2011)

Well, I used those two examples (predation and weather) as examples only, but there would potentially be myriad other factors - eg an arboreal species not being able to climb more than a few feet (wouldn't be tested in captivity, but would in the wild), a fossorial species "losing" some of the required traits (esp if being kept in a melamine or similar floor cage) and so on. But my point is that we would not necessarily recognise where and how the genetic strength is being compromised for a while, and by the time we do, the "flaws" will be widespread (ie for us to notice them, they are likely to have been developing for some time).

But I'm not sayng let's not do this - I think it really needs to happen, and the need is urgent for some species. I just think that ultimately, if we want to achieve the restoration of the wild species, we may not succeed unless the environment is rehabilitated within a few generations, or what we may already "lost" what we were trying to save. Just don't ask me what the timeframe is - might not be an issue for many generations.


----------



## Owzi (Jan 4, 2011)

jack said:


> i dont see animals in captivity as viable means to conserve animals other than to conserve them as captives... like the corroboree frog, which will soon be extinct in the wild and exist in captivity only.


 
Hmm, I think a few people at Project Corroboree would disagree with this with the amount of work they are doing in this area. Project Corroboree > Welcome

While we are on the Corroboree Frog, I know the Australian Research Centre (ARC) have a huge role in the conservation of this animal. They also advertise that they sell frogs to the pet trade.
They seem to be privately owned ('The ARC is self funding and provides for its valuable work through sales and sponsorships'), so I wonder how they came to be involved in this project?
The ARC (Amphibian Research Centre)


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 4, 2011)

Owzi said:


> Hmm, I think a few people at Project Corroboree would disagree with this with the amount of work they are doing in this area. Project Corroboree > Welcome
> 
> While we are on the Corroboree Frog, I know the Australian Research Centre (ARC) have a huge role in the conservation of this animal. They also advertise that they sell frogs to the pet trade.
> They seem to be privately owned ('The ARC is self funding and provides for its valuable work through sales and sponsorships'), so I wonder how they came to be involved in this project?
> The ARC (Amphibian Research Centre)



The ARC is a private organisation, not a private collector. Similar to Crocodylus, although they are owned by Wildlife Management International they are not owned or run by a government agency. There is a big difference between a private collector and a private organisation.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 5, 2011)

I see your point adderboy, but your conclusions are too absolute! Firstly, as Michael says, predation is more a function of exposure to the threat rather than an intrinsic weakness in the animal being preyed upon (unless, say it had poor eyesight and happened to be basking without its glasses lol...) Also, within the captive group, regardless of the genetic flaws which may become apparent, there will still be animals which have the makeup to allow success in the wild, if, at some time in the future, the environment can be regarded as safe. That is, not all animals will suffer from the defects that you say will make the species unviable in the wild.

I also wonder about the crystal balls that people seem to have that tells them that captivity necessarily robs a species of it's inherent ability to survive in the bush after a few generations of captive breeding... This is also only personal theory, with, as far as I know, no research to back it up... Look at sparrows, starlings, mynahs, pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, foxes, camels... all of these animals have prospered enormously in the wild environment, but they came from relatively small numbers of deliberate or accidental introductions. They must have a reltively small gene pool, but they are hugely successful in the bush.

I don't have crystal balls, and I've known Simon for a long, long time so I'm sure someone would have told me if he does ... anyone else out there gifted with this incredible tool for scoping the future???

-Peter - I'll check my mailbox now!

Jamie


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jan 5, 2011)

Although not an example of release back into it's natural environment the Burmese python in Floridas Everglades could be an example of a captive species having success when released into the wild. Purely speculation on my part but the initial wild stock would probably have come from various different scenarios, Wild caught, first generation captive bred, multiple generation captive bred. I imagine the gene pool could have been quite small for some time and possibly already had some genetic flaws through interbreeding in captivity, yet they have thrived on release into a wild environment.

I'm wondering is it worth attempting the controlled release of captive animals that are already endangered into their degraded habitats. Is it possible that if an animal is continually released over a period of many years that they may naturally adapt to their altered environment rather than trying to release once an animal is already extinct.


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 5, 2011)

steve1 said:


> Although not an example of release back into it's natural environment the Burmese python in Floridas Everglades could be an example of a captive species having success when released into the wild. Purely speculation on my part but the initial wild stock would probably have come from various different scenarios, Wild caught, first generation captive bred, multiple generation captive bred. I imagine the gene pool could have been quite small for some time and possibly already had some genetic flaws through interbreeding in captivity, yet they have thrived on release into a wild environment.
> 
> I'm wondering is it worth attempting the controlled release of captive animals that are already endangered into their degraded habitats. Is it possible that if an animal is continually released over a period of many years that they may naturally adapt to their altered environment rather than trying to release once an animal is already extinct.



Steve that is a ludicrous example in the context of conservation. It is an example repeated thousands of times through out the world, the BTS in the pacific islands, cane toads here, red backs in Japan, iguanas in the Everglades also and Asian house geckoes along our North and East coast. They survived because they are suited to their new environment, not because they have adapted to it.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 5, 2011)

steve1 said:


> I'm wondering is it worth attempting the controlled release of captive animals that are already endangered into their degraded habitats.


 
Steve, that's where I see the problem - 'degraded habitats' will not support introduced species (recolonization). The species probably vanished from there because the habitat got damaged / degraded.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 5, 2011)

I think the threats facing our animals - changed vegetation = changed and devestating fire regimes, the Cane Toad = a threat that cannot diminish until the toad is removed from the environment, and probably a few others that don't come to mind, mean that animals released into that habitat will inevitably go the same way as their predecessors

The Burmese Python thing is an example of an animal which has been given an environment that suits it perfectly - like the Cane Toad here, hence the easy adaptation. I'm not sure what controls the Cane Toad in its natural habitat - there must be something that kills/eats them to keep them under control.

You couldn't teach Varanids not to eat Cane Toads, and you can't release burrowing geckos back into habitat that's going be scorched to dust every year by uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) grass fires...

Remove the problem and natural communities will often rebound with surprising speed. The work done to remove and exclude foxes and cats from Dryandra in WA is a good example - Numbats and Carpet Pythons (to name just 2 species) are now common in that previously troubled ecosystem. Until you remove the threat, you can't fix the problem.

Jamie

Jamie.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jan 5, 2011)

If a number were released for many consecutive years into that habitat would they eventually adapt?

---------- Post added 05-Jan-11 at 10:20 AM ----------

I used the Burmese Python in the context of captive animals and their reduced gene pools and possible genetic flaws. Not in the context of conservation. But as I said pure speculation as I have know idea of the extent of captivity of the animals that founded the Everglades population


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 5, 2011)

Nope.

Not sure about the Asian House Gecko - do we know when it arrived in Australia? The indigenous people of northern Australia have been trading with Asian visitors for thousands of years - seems to me that it would be quite possible for them to be called 'almost endemic' Aussies now.

J


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 5, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> Nope.
> 
> Not sure about the Asian House Gecko - do we know when it arrived in Australia? The indigenous people of northern Australia have been trading with Asian visitors for thousands of years - seems to me that it would be quite possible for them to be called 'almost endemic' Aussies now.
> 
> J



I don't know exactly when they arrived either but I do remember having _Gehyra_ in and around houses in Cairns in the seventies. The Asian house gecko is an urban dweller that doesn't seem to invade natural habitats and most probably wouldn't survive there. They are nuisance in that they crap onto our furniture but they don't pose any threat to the natural environment. I doubt this species arrived with the Aboriginal people.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 5, 2011)

Waterrat said:


> I don't know exactly when they arrived either but I do remember having _Gehyra_ in and around houses in Cairns in the seventies. The Asian house gecko is an urban dweller that doesn't seem to invade natural habitats and most probably wouldn't survive there. They are nuisance in that they crap onto our furniture but they don't pose any threat to the natural environment. I doubt this species arrived with the Aboriginal people.



Interesting... I wasn't thinking that they arrived with Aboriginal travellers, but maybe later in goods or boats that came with Moluccan or Indonesian trepangers or whatever... just a thought really, not a theory. Any idea why the natural landcape is hostile to them Michael?

J


----------



## waruikazi (Jan 5, 2011)

steve1 said:


> If a number were released for many consecutive years into that habitat would they eventually adapt



I don't have any experience in to answer this question but i'll give my thoughts on it anyway.

If the animals are being released steadily into the environment i can see no reason why they would adapt. There would be no environmental pressures to drive any evolution or natural selection, because all the new stock is coming out of captivity. The released animals will die and then be replaced by the same thing, which will also die.


----------



## Waterrat (Jan 5, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> Interesting... I wasn't thinking that they arrived with Aboriginal travellers, but maybe later in goods or boats that came with Moluccan or Indonesian trepangers or whatever... just a thought really, not a theory. Any idea why the natural landcape is hostile to them Michael?
> 
> J



I don't know, it's odd. They are in suburban gardens, we have them living in the palms, etc., but you go across the road into the bush and they're not there. Given that the Aboriginals didn't have much of houses to speak of, the geckos probably arrived with some cargo later on.


----------



## Australis (Jan 5, 2011)

Pythoninfinite said:


> I also wonder about the crystal balls that people seem to have that tells them that captivity necessarily robs a species of it's inherent ability to survive in the bush after a few generations of captive breeding... This is also only personal theory, with, as far as I know, no research to back it up...
> Jamie



Maybe im misunderstanding you..but..
There is considerable research (peer reviewed and published) showing that ex-situ conservation/captive breeding creates a level of weakness to survive in the wild.


----------



## cement (Jan 5, 2011)

It depends on how the captive population are kept, and the genetic diversity of the founding animals.
Large areas like the Calga Wildlife sanctuary provides adequate free range for most animals to be wild yet protected.
For example, if the right landscaping was done there is no reason why a good colony of _Bungaroides_ wouldn't do allright.
This is how I see "insurance populations" being kept.


----------



## -Peter (Jan 6, 2011)

This debate is philosophical and therefore subjective. 
From a geological viewpoint whatever we do is inconsequential as it will have little or no effect a couple of million years down the track. 
From that we can discount it as it has no effect on our descisions in regards to longevity of a species.
Evolutionary considerations would dictate that if the species disappeared it did so because it was unsuitable fro the changing environment and its place will be taken by another organism more suitable. To this end we have played a major part and as such it would seem logical that we will continue to do so. 
Museums as retainers of dead evidence is not considered the way to go these days and interaction between the past, present and future is always attempted. The introduction of live genetic material isn't new but would draw the conclusion that zoos and museums would need to intergrate to make the keeping and ongoing maintenance of living species viable.
Reintroduction into the wild so to speak is a misnomer as the "wild" would be a fabricated, converted and monitored reality. A facsimile if you will.
To that end, I see no reason why animals kept and bred by hobbyists could not play a part.
I do not though see it as some noble crusade, merely a selfish ideal to retain something that is or will be lost. This isn't a critism and not necessarily a negative.
The effects of nature should never be a justification as thats how they got there in the first place. In a fact your intervention may be responsible for a species not appearing.
I dont think poaching (the illegal removal of plants and/or animals from private and/or public land) plays any role unless carried out in an organised, ongoing and systematic way.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Jan 6, 2011)

Your last sentence hits the nail on the head Peter. The 'damage' wrought by casual removal of a few animals or plants from the landscape is, in most cases, greatly overstated. But you are generally on target with my thoughts on the whole subject as well. What humans are doing is what all rising dominant species do - they expand dramatically and therefore reduce the space for other organisms to occupy. The only difference between us and the dominant species which have gone before us, is that we are conscious of the changes we bring, and we feel the need, for some reason, to lock things up so they remain as we think they should.

For me, at this point in time, that's not a bad thing though...

Jamie


----------



## Kristy_07 (Jan 6, 2011)

Not that it adds anything substantial to the debate, but...

Asian House Geckos were first recorded in and around the Brisbane wharves in the early '80s


----------



## -Peter (Jan 6, 2011)

Kristy_07 said:


> Not that it adds anything substantial to the debate, but...
> 
> Asian House Geckos were first recorded in and around the Brisbane wharves in the early '80s



It was very lax around there in the 70s, we used to get gifts from the merchant seaman(family of friends) coming down from PNG that often included foodstuff and plants. Happy plants were a common one, a Dracaena species.
I never thought to ask for reptiles.


----------



## adderboy (Jan 6, 2011)

This article is not entirely unrelated to this topic. Talks about relocating species into environmental arks to save species threatened by climate change...

Relocating species to ensure survival ? News in Science (ABC Science)
S


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jan 6, 2011)

Great article Adderboy. As the article suggests this approach is far from an easy solution and in my opinion there will probably be many failures for each individual success, and there is a very real chance of compounding environmental problems in the relocation zone. Saying that it may well be the only hope for survival in some species.


----------



## murrayanddig (Jan 7, 2011)

really interesting read, with a lot of thought put into the responses. i have a couple of thoughts that may not have been fully covered though.

my local area at the moment is western Eyre Peninsula. we would be pretty close to the eastern limit of M. s. imbricata. i have been keeping an eye out for local carpets and they are pretty hard to find. plenty of anecdotal stories about big ones in the old days. i have personally sent two road kill individuals to the SA museum, both from west of ceduna. and maybe two other confirmed sittings between yalata and whyalla (one me and one from a friend). now there are some big new parks in this area and some good and recovering veg on private land. there also appears to be a big increase in veg extent and condition when comparing aerial photos from the 80's to the most recent in the mid 00's. i would love to be involved in the restocking of areas that are isolated from current populations (broad acre agriculture and massive clearing), but have historically had carpets and look like good habitat. this area is very different from areas on the east coast that would allow easy recolonisation from natural populations.

there has been a lot of discussion from a species conservation viewpoint, but not so much from a ecological role perspective. again using my own backyard as an example. we are south east of the dog fence in a big sheep grazing area. so no dingos here, carpets and maybe wedge tailed eagles would be the top order predators here. so the almost total removal of carpets would be a pretty significant impact. personally if i carry out fox control, i create a rabbit problem, which in turn impacts on my reveg attempts. a trailer load of 8 foot imbricatas to pop down all the rabbit warrens may be an interesting control method.

i also dont think there has been any known extinctions from the odd jungle escaping in sydney or a bredli running loose in a brisbane park. so why the hell do keepers of native animals have to put up with all the bureaucratic bollocks when anyone can have a cat, or rabbit or rat or any other thing with well documented massive ecological impacts?


----------



## cris (Jan 9, 2011)

An interesting thread, i agree with the idea that if something has no place in an ecosystem its a waste of time trying to prop it up for some sort or imaginary benifit. That said its far better having live animals in captive collections rather than having extinct species IMO. Sure many species will have no ecological relevance in the future but that doesnt mean we shouldnt keep koalas alive so we can keep the japanese tourists coming while spitting on their culture of sustainable whaling.

For those who are being extremely negative, get a grip or go rev your car in the garage everything dies eventually :lol:


----------



## longqi (Jan 10, 2011)

That comment about "if something has no place in an ecosystem its a waste of time trying to prop it up for some sort or imaginary benifit." is only valid if we understand the reason why it has no place in that ecosystem any longer
If the reason is one that can be controlled [cats foxes over-development etc etc] then we have a moral obligation to try to sustain that species however possible
Often it is not until species have been eradicated from an area that we finally understand how valuable they were
In Java they removed most of the snakes from near rice fields
Rice crops quickly diminished in size because the rats went crazy
Now they have snake farms whose only purpose is to provide free snakes to farmers
Rice production is improving

Yes everything does die eventually
The problem is it is usually our fault

..


----------

