# Legal trading of wild caught reptiles



## mje772003 (Mar 29, 2014)

which states are you allowed to catch wild animals?


----------



## Snowman (Mar 29, 2014)

mje772003 said:


> which states are you allowed to catch wild animals?


Don't know the rules of the other states, but WA allows wild taking of reptiles on the keepers list if you hold a takers license. The takers license is $1000 per year.


----------



## mje772003 (Apr 11, 2014)

ouch that is a hefty price for free range animals


----------



## Beans (Apr 12, 2014)

I don't like taking animals from the wild. Just go out and buy one from a breeder, why take from the wild

Seems selfish to me. : /


----------



## Lawra (Apr 12, 2014)

[MENTION=38897]Beans[/MENTION] how do you think breeders initially acquired their reptiles? Might I suggest doing a quick search on WA rules & regs, it will help you see that [MENTION=16366]Snowman[/MENTION]'s actions are no more selfish than one who keeps captive bred reptiles. 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Beans (Apr 12, 2014)

Yes Lawra. I am aware that's how we initially got them but captive bred were, well captive bred they were never in the wild. Wild ones however were. So taking them from their nice environment and stuffing it into a tank for personal gain is selfish. Anyway I won't hijack this thread anymore. Continue with the pretty olives! 

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 12, 2014)

Northern Territory allows wild animals to be caught and sold but I am not sure of the rules around it. Can I digress and ask you one question [MENTION=38897]Beans[/MENTION] , if there is a species such as the oenpelli python that does not exist in captive populations are you against this being caught and populated in captive collections?


----------



## Beans (Apr 12, 2014)

Don't give me ultimatums. I think it's wrong and that's just how I feel.

Sorry I said anything.


----------



## Stevo2 (Apr 12, 2014)

I think if it's an already established species in captivity then there's no need to put pressure on wild populations. I'm with Beans on this one.


----------



## Senator358 (Apr 12, 2014)

Tasmania allows collecting from the wild as they do not allow importing/ exporting of any species. You can have up to six of each allowed species which includes copperheads, tigers, and white lips. No reptiles can be sold though and any excess must be returned to the place of collection.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 12, 2014)

Let me add food for thought here. While I too dont necessarily agree with taking wild animals from their habitat, have a think about the following examples;

In-breeding of the same genetic stock, to the point where the animal is adversly affected, or at the very least is no longer a representative of the wild animal, merely a diluted, mutated and selectively created 'version' of the original. 
Starting again, or at least reinvigorating the genetic lines of these animals surley has positives accossiated with it. At the very furthest end of the scale, when these species eventually become endangered, which they ALL INEVITIABLY WILL, then the capitve populations that are some of the few remants of the species will be comparatively far from the wild animal and in my opinion, far from capable of repopulating in the wild because of their captive flaws.

and

Small populations of certain localised races or even whole species in the wild that are especially vulnerable to extinction. Some of these species and races have only been recently discovered and so are unlikely to have a foothold in captive populations. What Im saying is WHEN THEYRE GONE, THEYRE GONE. Unless we (preferably purists) have captive representatives. These need to be caught from the wild.

Like I said, I dont think everyone should be able to just go out and catch wild reptiles on a whim. But in my opinion, there are reasons to do so, in special circumstances.


----------



## Beans (Apr 12, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Let me add food for thought here. While I too dont necessarily agree with taking wild animals from their habitat, have a think about the following examples;
> 
> In-breeding of the same genetic stock, to the point where the animal is adversly affected, or at the very least is no longer a representative of the wild animal, merely a diluted, mutated and selectively created 'version' of the original.
> Starting again, or at least reinvigorating the genetic lines of these animals surley has positives accossiated with it. At the very furthest end of the scale, when these species eventually become endangered, which they ALL INEVITIABLY WILL, then the capitve populations that are some of the few remants of the species will be comparatively far from the wild animal and in my opinion, far from capable of repopulating in the wild because of their captive flaws.
> ...




So maybe you could just take the snake breed that snake to some females to introduce new blood. Then let it go. I wouldnt see a problem with that.

But keeping it and not letting it go, I don't agree with that.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 12, 2014)

Im not sure how that particular example would work. If you already have members of the species, theres nothing stopping some one from releasing a captive bred animal and keeping the wild caught in its place. 
Not to mention the possibility of releasing diseases, etc back into wild populations where they mightn't be present. 
But, i dont know, maybe its a possibility.


----------



## AUSHERP (Apr 12, 2014)

Millions of fish (marine and fresh water) are collected every year for the aquarium trade.
Collecting reptiles from the wild is the purest and cleanest way to ensure animals are locale specific and of a trusted lineage (mother nature)
There is obviously pros and cons for both sides of the argument but at the end of the day it does put pressure on wild populations already pushed to the edge by our constant expansion.
I am a big fan of controlled projects such as the RSP.

The general public could not be trusted with such a responsibility.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 12, 2014)

It's hilarious that the hobby as got to the stage where people can keep reptiles, yet have no idea about wild specimens let alone regularly observe them in the wild. 
Most states that have established pet stock don't allow wild taking. However the original stock was obviously most certainly wild caught. 
WA and Tasmania do not allow pythons or some reptiles to be imported. So the taking is really to set up captive stock for the pet trade. 

It is always disturbing to me the amount of emotion and I guess anthropomorphic views of some of our less experienced and educated members. I understand these views are well meant, but they are not factual or scientific and add nothing of value. 

I keep and and breed wild caught and captive bred specimens. I watch them closely and can tell you there is very little difference in behavior. This no doubt is mostly attributed to the snakes evolving to be such basic creatures which have incredible instinct. If their needs are met, then I can't see how a wild caught specimen being kept could be viewed as cruel. Snakes do not go for walks and admire the scenery. They are instinct driven to find food and water, breeding season to find mates. 

People who have zero experience keeping wild caught should not comment at all. They have no experience in this field and no idea what they are talking about. Only those who have kept both wild and captive can tell you the differences. 

Im grateful for the privilege to keep locale specific wild caught. Pure specimens that do not have mixed genes from other areas. Most people breed the same species or sub species from different areas. Once you have a mixed locale anything pure is gone. It doesn't make much different to how much you love your pet. But for some it's interesting and local specific is quite a rare trait to have. A specimen in its natural form that hasn't had mixed genetics for thousands of years. A pure product of evolution. 

Even with things like wheatbelt etc. These places are huge and the isolated populations vary depending where in the wheatbelt the original specimens were collected. 

It has been proven that wild taking is limited and has little impact on existing populations. The most common wild specimens taken in WA were pythons. None of these species are under threat. And the only areas that they have been is the places that were cleared for development. For the most part people want captive bred, a hatchie or at least a specimen that hasn't got the scars and look of a wild caught. (Though some wild caught are in pristine condition). My BHP's are captive bred. I had no interest in locale specific BHP's. 

Anyway. That's my experience with wild caught.

- - - Updated - - -



Beans said:


> I don't like taking animals from the wild. Just go out and buy one from a breeder, why take from the wild
> 
> Seems selfish to me. : /



Because there are no breeders to get them from. You cannot get a captive bred olive etc in WA. One day you will be able to, but for now it's wild taking to get breeding stock.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 12, 2014)

I agree, basically, with Snowmans (little more than) philosophical thoughts above. 

However I also suggest that one musnt assume they know anything about someone else's experience level, based on, nothing.

I have kept wild and captive animals over the last 15 years and spent extensive time observing both during this time. There is a difference. 


And as AUSHERP said, the general public cannot be trusted to responsibly collect wildlife.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 12, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> I agree, basically, with Snowmans (little more than) philosophical thoughts above.
> 
> However I also suggest that one musnt assume they know anything about someone else's experience level, based on, nothing.
> 
> ...



Can you elaborate on the differences? I'll agree there are some subtle differences. But for the most part a captive bred that has never been handled behaves quite similarly. 
Wild caught can take a bit of time to move to dead rodents. But areas where rats and mice are abundant they take them readily. 
Im lucky to know people who have been wild breeding and doing studies for decades. The takers license isn't just given to anyone. You have to be interviewed capable of identification at least and also you can only collect on private property. If you don't know any land owners where the species are found then you have no chance of being able to get any wild caught stock. It's not as simple as just getting a license and catching whatever you can find.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 12, 2014)

I have had a play with some wild caught mulga's and compared to captive bred are very jumpy and nervous, I guess a captive bred one could be the same if it wasn't handled but the fact is they are so I would list it as a difference. They seem to eat fine and act in he same manor as captive snakes though. Hopefully these will be bred this year and I will get to see this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Snowman (Apr 12, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> I have had a play with some wild caught mulga's and compared to captive bred are very jumpy and nervous, I guess a captive bred one could be the same if it wasn't handled but the fact is they are so I would list it as a difference. They seem to eat fine and act in he same manor as captive snakes though. Hopefully these will be bred this year and I will get to see this.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't consider defensive vs tolerant to be a difference. I can see why some
would. But to me it's just conditioning. When left to their own devices they tend to act the same. Though some will hide for a period in the beginning. 

My my own wild caught keeping experience is limited to carpets, olives, brown tree snakes, stimi's.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 12, 2014)

I think young mulga's very often are assist fed to start so captive bred snakes are introduced to people straight away. I am classing this as a difference because that can be the only differences between the two behavioural. They both eat , poo and shed as a must do thing so can't see what else could be different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 12, 2014)

My statement covers more than simply snakes. Being, as you have also said, extremely instinctually driven creatures, the differences in snakes are perhaps less pronounced than with other reptiles, like lizards. As andynic has postulated, the behaviour of captive vs wild snakes is quite clear through their handleability, but yes, I would agree that this is perhaps a poor example. However, when it comes to snakes in particular, feeding habits can be very different between wild specimens and those that have come from long captive lineages. The vigor, accuracy, bite location, coil speed, the length of time for suffocation, and other factors are all noticably different between the two groups. 

Although often subtle in snakes, the differences in lizards like dragons are there, I assure you.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 12, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> I think young mulga's very often are assist fed to start so captive bred snakes are introduced to people straight away. I am classing this as a difference because that can be the only differences between the two behavioural. They both eat , poo and shed as a must do thing so can't see what else could be different?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Feeding is definitely up there. Especially if we are offering prey that they aren't used to. My olive was a pain to get feeding. There are also many captive bred species like wellsi that need to be force fed, as they usually won't take rodents when born. 
My wheatbelts smash mice. And no doubt the wheatbelt has some healthy mice populations haha.

- - - Updated - - -



andynic07 said:


> I think young mulga's very often are assist fed to start so captive bred snakes are introduced to people straight away. I am classing this as a difference because that can be the only differences between the two behavioural. They both eat , poo and shed as a must do thing so can't see what else could be different?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Feeding is definitely up there. Especially if we are offering prey that they aren't used to. My olive was a pain to get feeding. There are also many captive bred species like wellsi that need to be force fed, as they usually won't take rodents when born. 
My wheatbelts smash mice. And no doubt the wheatbelt has some healthy mice populations haha.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 12, 2014)

I think I notice the differences more than some perhaps because I have fed all manner of reptiles on live food on various occassions. We wont go into the reasons for this, nor the usual moral bull thats associated with it, but thats where you really notice the difference in approach between the two. Quite fascinating to watch a true predator at work, and quite unremarkable to watch a captive excuse for one. Dont get me wrong though, some species are more far gone than others.


----------



## Focus (Apr 12, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> The vigor, accuracy, bite location, coil speed, the length of time for suffocation, and other factors are all noticably different between the two groups.
> 
> Although often subtle in snakes, the differences in lizards like dragons are there, I assure you.



Can you detail what differences you see in in wild vs cb snakes in feeding? Just for interests sake, I think it's a good topic to be get an educated view on.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Its a little off track from the main topic but Ill give a few brief observations Ive made. In a confined space, such as an enclosure, a wild snake will (ok, almost) never miss a strike. Not so with a number of captive bred animals Ive seen. 
Wild pythons will ALWAYS throw numerous coils around a prey item, with accuracy, while maintaining a grip on the animal with its jaws. Ive seen captive pythons barely manage to get a coil around a live prey item and then fail to hold onto the animal, only to strike again, miss, and then finally subdue the prey on a third attempt. Ive also seen examples where the snake hasn't even bothered to coil at all.
You could argue that in some instances this is merely due to the fact that the snake has become used to a routine and 'knows' that a food item is pre-killed. All I can say to this is that I have varied live and pre-killed feedings and never feed my animals routinely, and have still witnessed this. 
I have also seen examples of where pythons merely reach out and take an item carefully. A wild snake will not do this.


----------



## Focus (Apr 13, 2014)

[MENTION=40131]Sean_L[/MENTION] cheers mate, it's interesting info. I've often wondered wondered how wild snakes survive if they display the same hunting behaviour that some captives do though I realise that's probably a simplistic view. But you're right, it's a subject for another thread.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> .I have also seen examples of where pythons merely reach out and take an item carefully.  A wild snake will not do this.



A few people that have wild caught M. s. imbricata will tell that they do that sometimes with dead rodents. @lithopian @Niall 
I've thought it strange myself and its the older ones that do it, never the juvies. I'm not sure if they were once near roads and occasionally ate road kill or if they are just hesitant to eat a non moving prey item. These particular specimens wont take food from tongs, they are too nervous, and only eat birds and rodents that are left in with them so that they can approach them cautiously. 

Another difference I forgot about with Wild vs Captive is their internal clocks. Wild (and some captive) seem to switch off feeding regardless of temp. I'm used to ant's doing this, but it is unusual to see carpets in particular do this. None of my captive bred switch off feeding with the same temps.


----------



## longqi (Apr 13, 2014)

Permanent sustainability of wild caught collection should be the only criteria permitting wild collection of wildlife that is already in the pet trade
[for species such as oenpellis different criteria are justified]

Australia may be a big chunk of dirt but really its just a group of islands genetically
Those islands provide the locales everybody wants

If an isolated locale anywhere becomes flavour of the month it can be hit hard and the gene pool adversely affected when only the best of the best specimens are collected
Avoiding that can be difficult if strict controls are not in place


----------



## Snowman (Apr 13, 2014)

longqi said:


> Permanent sustainability of wild caught collection should be the only criteria permitting wild collection of wildlife that is already in the pet trade
> [for species such as oenpellis different criteria are justified]
> 
> Australia may be a big chunk of dirt but really its just a group of islands genetically
> ...



What we have seen in WA is that those few who do licensed taking are generally responsible. But the poachers are ruthless.. When wheatbelt stimis became popular over east the granite outcrops got hit hard. To the point no capping was left and it was all flipped and smashed in many areas. A few people were caught, but most got away it seems.


----------



## longqi (Apr 13, 2014)

Snowman said:


> What we have seen in WA is that those few who do licensed taking are generally responsible. But the poachers are ruthless.. When wheatbelt stimis became popular over east the granite outcrops got hit hard. To the point no capping was left and it was all flipped and smashed in many areas. A few people were caught, but most got away it seems.



There has never been any legal permits for collecting Kofiau or Misool Chondros, [canary yellows]
Despite that, when they became popular about 12 years ago the numbers were devastated to the point where snake smugglers now consider both island as no longer commercially viable

Now Dwarf retics are in fashion so Kalataus etc are reaching the same point

Scientists only need less than 150 humans to continually breed without genetic problems
So how can the gene pool argument be really justified??


----------



## Snowman (Apr 13, 2014)

longqi said:


> There has never been any legal permits for collecting Kofiau or Misool Chondros, [canary yellows]
> Despite that, when they became popular about 12 years ago the numbers were devastated to the point where snake smugglers now consider both island as no longer commercially viable
> 
> Now Dwarf retics are in fashion so Kalataus etc are reaching the same point
> ...



I don't think the gene pool has ever been a valid argument. Look at how well RSP have done from only a few specimens.


----------



## Beans (Apr 13, 2014)

I know what I'm saying has no 'factual or scientific' value because it is my opinion. And I would appreciate it if you didn't imply I was an idiot for having said opinion.

I can see why people would do it but I still don't agree with it. I'm well aware of the fact that snakes don't go for walks and take in scenery.

I also don't appreciate you saying that I shouldn't comment because I don't know anything about this discussion. That is extremely rude, and as this is a discussion I will put my 2 cents in it even if some people don't like it or agree with that I'm saying. I guess that's the difference in opinion hey. I don't think you're an idiot because you take from the wild and have different views to me.

And just like a lot of other members here, I'm here to learn about things and expand my knowledge from more experienced keepers like your self. Which I appreciate greatly.
Thanks


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 13, 2014)

There have been a few more posts while I constructed this one. There is a measure of simplification for pragmatic reasons only. It is not personal in nature. I am simply providing facts to be considered...

I have seen a two and a half metre wild-caught Mulga that was so laid back the owner could hang it around his neck without holding it. It has been in captivity a long time. The point to be made here is that snakes learn. Wild caught snakes alter their behaviour over time when in captivity, even more so if regularly handled. I would suggest that most of the observed differences are related to the time in captivity and the amount and frequency of handling. I recognise that individual snakes vary so we are necessarily dealing in generalisations here.

Another possible source of certain ‘captive’ behaviours, although it is yet to be demonstrated, may be the result of the lack of pressure to survive in the wild. In captivity we ensure as many individuals in a clutch survive as possible, even if it requires force or assist feeding of some. Would these individuals survive in the wild and are we propagating animals with ‘weak genes’?

On the subject of captivity, it removes animals from predators, competitors, temperature extremes, the effects of prolonged lack of rain, the uncertainty of where and when the next meal is coming from, natural disasters such as bushfires, cyclones and floods, introduced sources of physical injury such as cars, trucks, cattle and horses, and ecto- and endo-parasites. If the husbandry is correct then the animal’s needs are being met in captivity. Many people think of nature as a great place to be for animals. The reality is that more offspring are produced that can possibly survive (due to limited resources available). There is therefore a struggle for existence. The reality of nature? ...it’s a ‘jungle’ out there! 

The excess of offspring produced is why wild taking of non-endangered animals has no lasting effect on their populations. In the NT they annually harvest 50,000 plus crocodile eggs and remove an average of 282 animals per year (based on the past four years), including individuals in excess of 4.5 m. Yet the crocodile population continues to expand, both in numbers and average size. This annual harvest, which has no effect on the total population, is biologically referred to as *sustainable yield*.

Even reptiles with low fecundity, such as geckoes, have a sustainable yield. A pair of geckos might live for 5 years and breed for say 3 of those. If they produce three clutches of two eggs in a season, that is a total of 18 offspring over the 3 years. To maintain the population only 2 offspring are required to survive and reproduce. Therefore, 16 out of 18 must die early. Harvesting a percentage (usually around 10% to 15% to be conservative) of those doomed to die will have no overall effect on the population.

Blue


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 13, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> There have been a few more posts while I constructed this one. There is a measure of simplification for pragmatic reasons only. It is not personal in nature. I am simply providing facts to be considered...
> 
> I have seen a two and a half metre wild-caught Mulga that was so laid back the owner could hang it around his neck without holding it. It has been in captivity a long time. The point to be made here is that snakes learn. Wild caught snakes alter their behaviour over time when in captivity, even more so if regularly handled. I would suggest that most of the observed differences are related to the time in captivity and the amount and frequency of handling. I recognise that individual snakes vary so we are necessarily dealing in generalisations here.
> 
> ...




Very good post Blue and I agree with what you have said , I think that all of the differences mentioned between wild caught and captive are learned behaviour and can eventually be changed in captivity.

As for the accuracy of striking I do not have a lot of experience with both examples of one species so I won't make claims but will just say what I have seen. When I was young I used to love catching gts's and keeping them for a while and then letting them go. I would keep them and feed them but found that they were very inaccurate with their strikes, it would usually take two or three attempts to get the prey item (live). I have seen numerous elapids that are captive bred (adders, taipans) that were extremely fast and accurate with their strikes. I have actually seen one taipan being live fed and it struck the rat with lightning speed and accuracy, we expected the rat to die very quickly but it didn't , the rat ran around the enclosure within striking distance of the taipan and the snake would not strike again. The owner was thinking that maybe it wasn't hungry and was wondering how he would get the rat out when the rat started to shake and then keeled over. We noticed a small scratch on the tail of the rat where it was bitten and figured that the snake had know that the rat was envenomated and was not going to waste more venom to kill it faster and assimilated this to wild instincts. 

As for coiling with vigor I have not seen live feeding so can't comment on that but I have seen wild pythons, wild coastal carpets that I have found take dead rats placed in front of them without the coiling vigor that you would expect or that I have seem from my diamond cross , my woma python or my two bhp's. As my other experiences there is nothing scientific about my observations because it is comparing apples to oranges and sample sizes are very small.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 13, 2014)

*Andy,* any correctly recorded or reiterated observation can potentially be contributing data to a scientific investigation. Facts, while not scientific of themselves, do constitute the basis of scientific decision making. This and their relevance to the discussion at hand are why I consider your observations of scientific worth. 

Taipans are strike and release hunters - in order to avoid being damaged by the teeth of large rodents which constitute their main prey. They have an acute sense of smell/taste and are easily able to track a prey item. Despite their speed, I would agree that they would likely have a pretty good idea whether or not they managed to sink a fang in or not. If there was any doubt, I would imagine that the snake would wait it out for some good measure of time before having another crack at a live animal.

As *Longqi* points out, localised populations can be harvested beyond sustainable limits. The examples given involve collectors who are out to collect every single specimen they see and keep collecting from the same area until they can no longer find enough specimens to make a profit. With species that are readily located within their natural habitat, this sort of collecting can decimate a population. For species that are particularly cryptic or quick to hide in inaccessible places, even attempts at intense collection will have much less effect on the total population. 

To me, the most concerning aspect of wild taking here is the destruction of habitat. It is not only illegal but incredibly irresponsible. Destruction of cap sheets on granite outcrops, for example, will take nature many thousands of years to even begin to replace. This sort of damage is clearly not the work of someone who wants to return and collect in the same area again. I should also point out that a percentage of habitat destruction is the result of simple wanton vandalism and not all down to illegal collecting.

Blue


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Snowman said:


> A few people that have wild caught M. s. imbricata will tell that they do that sometimes with dead rodents. @lithopian @Niall
> I've thought it strange myself and its the older ones that do it, never the juvies. I'm not sure if they were once near roads and occasionally ate road kill or if they are just hesitant to eat a non moving prey item. These particular specimens wont take food from tongs, they are too nervous, and only eat birds and rodents that are left in with them so that they can approach them cautiously.
> 
> Another difference I forgot about with Wild vs Captive is their internal clocks. Wild (and some captive) seem to switch off feeding regardless of temp. I'm used to ant's doing this, but it is unusual to see carpets in particular do this. None of my captive bred switch off feeding with the same temps.



Thats quite an interesting observation. I wonder if many other species behave in a similar manner? Presumably the prey is fresh killed and still warm, or is the snake simply going on scent? 
I suppose being roadside any residual heat from the road may warm the prey. However then youd expect the normal strike behaviour. Maybe it is purely scent. The snake just knows theres a lump of food in front of it.

I always attempt to simulate live animal behaviour when feeding snakes, rather than simply holding the food item out to snake, and always have the body temp of the prey item higher than ambient to give the impression its alive. Even with these factors, that should produce a normal intense feeding response, I have seen the 'reach out and take' behaviour. Just an observation.

- - - Updated - - -

On the subject of needing only 150 humans to maintain stable genetics, I would argue that these 150 would be strictly controlled in the manner in which they 'bred'. There would be very specific rules in place to ensure that as much variation as possible in the individuals' genes was present.

In terms of snakes, keepers have far less than 150 snakes, of the same species, in their collection with which to breed and further more, use only a small percentage of their animals to intensify genetic mutations, etc. This smaller number of source animals and repeated recycling of genes through sibling/sibling and parent/off spring breeding intensifies the genetic degredation, or at the very least, the genetic divergence from the original animal.
Its still very earlier days for the RSP, in comparison to other species. Time will tell whether that example holds up (unless of course more blood is added to the line).

Look at it in terms of physical attributes then, as behaviour can vary so much between animals of even the same up-bringing. In my opinion, of course, ANY difference in normal physical traits, be it colour, pattern or physical structures such as crests or 'horns' is an example of genetic difference between captive and wild animals. We know that the shape and colour of an animal have been honed over thousands, if not millions of years to produce the 'best suited' version of that species. When this is changed, what results is a less than perfect mutation. How can you possibly say that the 'gene pool argument' has never been vaild. If the animal looks different, how can it possibly be the same in every other way, to a wild specimen? 

When you interfere with natural selection and begin to pick and choose your own prime genetic traits you inevitably take a number along with you that are unwanted because the many, many selection criteria for survival havent been met or even experienced, theyve been circumvented by captive husbandry. What has been created is no longer a wild animal, how can it be compared to one?

I always come back to dogs because its such a perfect and well displayed example. Despite the fact that dogs all behave differently, all have their own quirks and behavioural traits, you can catergorise an individuals behaviour, etc based soley on its breed with a fair amount of certainty. This is because those 'other' gentic traits, like behaviour, have been passed along with the physical traits of size, colour and hair length. Of course, there are examples of where the behaviour is the selected trait, such as in guard and hunting dogs, but you'll notice that the physcal traits of these species come along with those behaviour traits too. Theyre part and parcel.

Argue that a captive snake that is completely different in terms of physical attributes can possibly be the same in terms of its behaviour.

If you still cant see it, give it time, theyve been breeding dogs alot longer and more intensly than snakes. 
Just wait, and by the time there are no snakes in the wild, whats left in captivity will be far from what was lost.

- - - Updated - - -

And yes bluetongue, we are propagating animals with weak genes. Theres a reason the speceis that are present today have survived. Because the weak individuals didnt.
When half of your clutch dies in the egg (this happens alot with pythons breeders nowadays) the warning bells should be going off!


----------



## cement (Apr 13, 2014)

I have to agree to disagree on quite a few points here.
Most of my experience straddles equally both wild and captive animals including breeding s from both. Multi generational captive breedings against straight out wild caught breedings.
It may be different now in this day and age but I really don't beleive so.
Years ago there was only wild caught and I know of many clutches where the survival rate or the deformity rate of wild bred clutches were higher then captive bred clutches.
Even today my daughters spotted pythons that are captive for many generations are still throwing 100% fertile and robust hatch rate.
The point about feeding being different may be due simply to 'overfeeding'. In captivity over feeding is prevalent.... even slight over feeding can slow down a snake, but leave that snake for a year with no food and they revert quite easily back to the 'smash at all costs' predator they are. And yes, I beleive that any adult python in decent condition will survive a year without food.
Like I mentioned before, mortality/deformity rates in wild bred snakes can quite often be higher then captives, but in saying this, and making these observations, I also beleive that each animal has its own personal weaknesses and strengths. Handling a snake doesn't necesarily make a snake docile. I have caught many wild snakes that have been dog tame, and I have seen many captive snakes that are the opposite. I have some in my collection that are dog tame at certain times of the year, but if you stick your hand in their cage through the feeding months, or try handling them for long periods, you will get bitten. 

I genuinly wonder that if there was a competition to actually look and handle and feed 10 snakes of unknown origin, then have to guess the wild caught versus the captive bred, how many would you get correct?
I pick up many escaped pet snakes, and they sometimes have full bellies....For example a bredl's that I caught on the central coast a couple of months back was at least 3 yrs old, had a large rat in its gut, when I would clean its holding tub I would put it to the side where it would wrap around a bookshelf and take multiple strikes at me though I was 3 feet away.
Was it 'wild bred'?, was it 'captive bred'? was it just a naughty individual?


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Apr 13, 2014)

^ +1

With regard to propagating animals with weak genes, there may be some of that, but by far the biggest number of wild baby snakes which make it to hatch successfully are strong enough to survive in the wild if they are not deformed, they can find food, if weather conditions suit them for a time after they hatch, and if they are not predated on. Any snake that makes it through the rigours of gestation and incubation and is physically sound is likely to be a survivor if it can find food and shelter.

Jamie


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

@ cement 
Thats all good and well cement, but your daughters spotted python eggs are kept neat and warm in an incubator, from a perfectly healthy, well fed, well cared for animal, without a worry in the world. Your comparison doesnt really enter into it im afraid.

Im not attempting to force anything upon you that can readily be observed everyday. In most instances, the evidence is still subtle. Im merely trying to educate anyone thats interested of the potential severity of genetic sloppyness. 

Its anyone's right to disagree. Its everyones right to ignore scientific observations and logic as well. 
The point im making is that, yes it may be youre right to feel as though nothing is wrong, and your actions arent potentially harmful.....but its the future that will prove yet another string of mistakes has been made, and only then will something be done........futile attempts to rectify a problem that will no longer be solveable. 
We wont have any of the species we have today. Who knows what we'll have. 

But yes, I do agree with the fact that a python can survive 12 months quite happily on reserves from a good meal.
As for your hypothesis however, I dont overfeed my reptiles (as far as you can compare reasonably regular meals to potentially hugely irregular meals in the wild).


@ pythoninfinite
'Likely to survive in the wild' and continuing a strong genetic line for the survival of an entire species are two very different things. Id put 10 pure, wild animals against 10 of the best captives any day of the week. Maybe thats just me, but wild will always be genetically superior in my opinion.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> @ cement
> Thats all good and well cement, but your daughters spotted python eggs are kept neat and warm in an incubator, from a perfectly healthy, well fed, well cared for animal, without a worry in the world. Your comparison doesnt really enter into it im afraid.
> 
> Im not attempting to force anything upon you that can readily be observed everyday. In most instances, the evidence is still subtle. Im merely trying to educate anyone thats interested of the potential severity of genetic sloppyness.
> ...



Your last statement addressing my post is pure supposition and not based on anything proveable, as you say it's only your opinion. You may be right, you may be quite wrong, I couldn't say one way or the other, but your "opinion" is just that... an opinion, nothing more.

Jamie


----------



## Ramy (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Its anyone's right to disagree. Its everyones right to ignore scientific observations and logic as well.


That's coming close to getting personal. Please keep it cool.



> 'Likely to survive in the wild' and continuing a strong genetic line for the survival of an entire species are two very different things. Id put 10 pure, wild animals against 10 of the best captives any day of the week. Maybe thats just me, but wild will always be genetically superior in my opinion.


That's a nice romantic sentiment. The only reason I'd put my money on wild caught animals surviving is learned behaviour. This is a very complicated topic and involves far more than just genes and instinct. A captive animal has a lower chance of surviving parasites, however I'm inclined to believe a wild animal is more likely to have lasting health problems from being exposed to them to begin with. _Assuming we're ignoring morphs_, the differences in genes and appearance aren't _nescessarily _pronounced enough to make a captive animal unviable in the wild.

On the matter of feeding, I only have experience with captive animals _however_ I've had animals who'll pick up a meal and swallow without a second thought but if you deprive food for a while they'll go straight back to coil and kill. This combined with the variety of accounts given above leads me to believe that there are many factors, including but not limited to whether the prey needs killing and how hungry the predator is.

The trouble with moral arguements (*and this IS a moral arguement*) is that they're emotional and hard to prove one way or the other. Being uncomfortable with something doesn't make it wrong. If there was a scientific way to prove beyond a doubt which animals are 'stressed' or 'in pain', then we'd have something to go on. But the best evidence we have is whether they eat, poop, shed and breed like they're expected to. If an animal takes time to adjust, but then seems to settle when they decide that they're not going to be predated upon, then that's a good sign that it's not distressed by being in a 'small' enclosure. Providing individual specimens show no signs of stress, my only concern is the impact on wild populations. Show me evidence that wild caught animals are stressed, and I'll gladly change my mind. Until then, I'm happy to see wild animals being brought into captivity.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Maybe so.
But my opinion stems from a real concern. Your opinion doesnt serve to do anything other than 'wait and see'.

I truly believe it will be proveable. Itll just take time is all. Much like everything else that has ever been ignored or underestimated and proven to be, in the end..........more than just an opinion.


----------



## cement (Apr 13, 2014)

No worries Sean, its all good.
I am not actually putting forward a hypothesis, just general points. I am always interested in being educated, but if you want to educated me, then i'll need more than just a line saying that its my right to ignore scientific evidence and logic.

Also, how can you put 10 wild against 10 captive, anyday of the week? Is there a test that you know of that can be done that the 10 captives will fail, and the 10 wild will triumph?

Are there any scientific studies with results that pertain specifically to snakes, that you have done/studied or read that make you beleive what you are trying to educate us on ?

When or what time frame would you consider that we will lose our wild snakes?

I am quite aware of the local population and its stronghold in my local shire because I am a local snake catcher, which is 50-50 suburbia and native bush. But the rest of Aus is HUGE and I seriously doubt that wild snakes are in trouble

Quote"The point im making is that, yes it may be youre right to feel as though nothing is wrong, and your actions arent potentially harmful.....but its the future that will prove yet another string of mistakes has been made, and only then will something be done........futile attempts to rectify a problem that will no longer be solveable. 
We wont have any of the species we have today. Who knows what we'll have."

I don't know Sean, I could have made that example from any one of any species i have bred not just the spotted, but can you correctly elaborate on what harm I am doing, without knowing me and my collection? You won't see a change of species in your lifetime.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Ramy said:


> That's a nice romantic sentiment. The only reason I'd put my money on wild caught animals surviving is learned behaviour. This is a very complicated topic and involves far more than just genes and instinct. A captive animal has a lower chance of surviving parasites, however I'm inclined to believe a wild animal is more likely to have lasting health problems from being exposed to them to begin with. _Assuming we're ignoring morphs_, the differences in genes and appearance aren't _nescessarily _pronounced enough to make a captive animal unviable in the wild.



Firstly, there is never only one reason for anything. 
And when did morphs become something other than a reptile. Morphs are entirley involved in this discussion. Nothing could be more to the point. 
They are exactly an example of what can and will go wrong with genetic manipulation without regard for the animal or its viability as a creature that can survive of its on accord. 
Every time you breed a captive animal with a wild animal, the offspring are both better versions of captives and worse versions of wild animals. But that last part is my opinion, for now.



Ramy said:


> The trouble with moral arguements (*and this IS a moral arguement*) is that they're emotional and hard to prove one way or the other. Being uncomfortable with something doesn't make it wrong. If there was a scientific way to prove beyond a doubt which animals are 'stressed' or 'in pain', then we'd have something to go on. But the best evidence we have is whether they eat, poop, shed and breed like they're expected to. If an animal takes time to adjust, but then seems to settle when they decide that they're not going to be predated upon, then that's a good sign that it's not distressed by being in a 'small' enclosure. Providing individual specimens show no signs of stress, my only concern is the impact on wild populations. Show me evidence that wild caught animals are stressed, and I'll gladly change my mind. Until then, I'm happy to see wild animals being brought into captivity.



And I think youre missing the point (or maybe I am). These last few points have moved from 'should be take animals from the wild?' to 'Is there a negative difference between captive bred animals and wild animals of the same species?'. Different, I know. But it happened nonetheless.

Even so, although you *think* it is a moral argument from your point of view, doesnt change the fact that from my point of view, the sustainability of wild populations is *very scientific*. Im afraid youve missed the point again if you truly think we are simply tossing around 'feelings' here. This is about the scientific opinions (yes, i said it) of those concerned, or not concerned as it would seem, about the well being of wild reptiles.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean what is your background in zoology/biology etc? Only asking because a lot if your posts are opinion other than fact. Since you are a new member here we don't know much about you and your experience, as opposed to older forum members we know on and off the forum through friends and reptile societies.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

cement said:


> Also, how can you put 10 wild against 10 captive, anyday of the week? Is there a test that you know of that can be done that the 10 captives will fail, and the 10 wild will triumph?



Put 10 wild snakes and 10 neuro Jags in the wild. Youll see what Im talking about.




cement said:


> Are there any scientific studies with results that pertain specifically to snakes, that you have done/studied or read that make you beleive what you are trying to educate us on ?



I need only ask you to look at any number of species in the world that are no longer with us and then ponder what may have become of them had some forthought been had.



cement said:


> When or what time frame would you consider that we will lose our wild snakes?
> 
> But the rest of Aus is HUGE and I seriously doubt that wild snakes are in trouble
> 
> I don't know Sean, I could have made that example from any one of any species i have bred not just the spotted, but can you correctly elaborate on what harm I am doing, without knowing me and my collection? You won't see a change of species in your lifetime.



This is exactly the problem, Im afraid. 'It wont matter what I do, Im only an individual in a HUGE world'. No-one seems to be able to think ahead, nor care what happens unless it happens in THEIR lifetime. The world will be around alot longer than any of us here today. However, I guarantee you, ALL reptiles in general will eventually be lost if we continue the way we are headed. If you need convincing of that, or cant fathom it, youre unlikely to grasp any further concepts on conservation. 

I dont mean to point you out as doing harm. I dont remember saying 'Cement, stop harming your reptiles'. Haha.
I merely aim to suggest that any actions that take a species genetically away from its natural ancestors is completely ridding any opportunity to save said speices when the time comes. If youre happy to have sunglows and jags, Albino beardeds and hypo thicktails as the only surviving reptiles in 200 years, then thats ok. I guess.

I know my examples here are all morphs, but you clearly need examples of what genetic manipulation will lead to. Thats whats in store for all captives at some point.


----------



## cement (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Put 10 wild snakes and 10 neuro Jags in the wild. Youll see what Im talking about.
> 
> Well, I have been told by a couple of pro jag people that jags are no different to other pythons, so if I was to take their word for it (which I don't), then I would have to assume that an escapee would go allright inthe wild, just like the coastals, jungle crosses, bredli's etc that we catch do.
> 
> ...



What I clearly need, is for you to produce something tangible, instead of assumptions.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Snowman said:


> Sean what is your background in zoology/biology etc? Only asking because a lot if your posts are opinion other than fact. Since you are a new member here we don't know much about you and your experience, as opposed to older forum members we know on and off the forum through friends and reptile societies.



My background doesnt include a qualification on a piece of paper. While Id love to say that I was a successful herpetologist, that simply isnt what happened. A great majority of posts on forums are opinion. If they were already fact, they probably wouldnt need arguing now would they. 
For the sake of your interest and getting know each other (which is good), Ive been keeping reptiles for 15 years. My reptiles live in naturalistic enclosures or outdoor pits, they are fed irregularily on a variety of foods from a variety of sources. Ive spent a great deal of my life observing and capturing wild reptiles. Ive watched their behaviour with intrigue and find them equally as facinating as anyone here.
I dont need to be a memebr of a reptile society to be of value, nor do I need to have befriended well known reptile enthusiasts to be able to see where the state of things is headed.
I know of many keepers fed up with the infighting, greed and jealousy of many reptiles keepers in todays hobby-come-industry. Id prefer to stay clear of those individuals if possible. My interest is in reptiles and their study. Not hybrids, or mass breeding for money nor in competing with other keepers for the 'best'. I simply respect and appreciate reptiles. Always have and always will.

- - - Updated - - -

Mammoths. Really?

Nearly 60 species of animal have become extinct in Australia since settlement. How about we lose the sarcasm and ignorance and look at one of them.

Also, my comments are no more assumptive than anyone elses. 
Its so easy to convince people that nothing is wrong or that they dont need to change anything. 
Its far, far harder to encourage someone to consider something theyve not already.


----------



## Focus (Apr 13, 2014)

This topic really should have its own thread. Some people will overlook an interesting discussion on genetics because of title. 




Sean_L said:


> I merely aim to suggest that any actions that take a species genetically away from its natural ancestors is completely ridding any opportunity to save said speices when the time comes. If youre happy to have sunglows and jags, Albino beardeds and hypo thicktails as the only surviving reptiles in 200 years, then thats ok. I guess.
> 
> I know my examples here are all morphs, but you clearly need examples of what genetic manipulation will lead to. Thats whats in store for all captives at some point.



I can't comment on the veracity of that comment Sean, I'm not educated enough in this area. However it seems that you've made a few assumptions. There are still some breeders concerned with not only keeping species pure but also keeping localities pure. Not at all people are interested in jags or crosses (I'm not). Whether that's worth anything to wild populations is up for debate, as the pet trade really isn't conservation based currently. But I gather you believe that keeping lines pure isn't good enough anyway due to genetic weaknesses from inbreeding?

Also, why are you under the impression that reptiles will disappear in 200 years? Wild collection? Habitat destruction? What is that based on?

I think most of us are concerned and can understand the need for conversation into the future, I'm just a bit more blurry about what it is you think should be done.


----------



## jahan (Apr 13, 2014)

[MENTION=40131]Sean_L[/MENTION], What license do you have that allows you to catch wild reptiles?


----------



## Stevo2 (Apr 13, 2014)

I don't think that irresponsible breeding by herpers provides justification to collect _more _pure species from the wild. Surely that should be an argument against, not for.....


----------



## Ramy (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> And I think youre missing the point (or maybe I am). These last few points have moved from 'should be take animals from the wild?' to 'Is there a negative difference between captive bred animals and wild animals of the same species?'. Different, I know. But it happened nonetheless.


I went back to review the thread and realised my error. The downside of reading a whole thread all at once and then replying to it is that you usually end up replying to the whole thread, not to individual posts. My error is in not clarifying that some of my post was in reply specifically to yours, and that the second 2 paragraphs were my response to the whole conversation.



Sean_L said:


> I merely aim to suggest that any actions that take a species genetically away from its natural ancestors is completely ridding any opportunity to save said speices when the time comes. If youre happy to have sunglows and jags, Albino beardeds and hypo thicktails as the only surviving reptiles in 200 years, then thats ok. I guess.


No one is pretending that morphs are viable in the wild, they scream "hey kookaburras, over here". That's why I felt it nescessary to define my terms. You're making the mistake of assuming that all captive breeding is taking wild animals in the direction of neuro jags. I personally believe it is possible to keep captive reptiles with an intent of keeping them _as similar as possible_ to their wild counterparts. And you don't need to constantly introduce wild stock to do it. A diamond python that's several generations captive, even with a little carpet accidentally mixed in by the lay breeders, can be hard to tell from a wild caught diamond python. (not impossible, maybe, but hard). So beyond looking at the circumstances of an individual's growth and development, how can you have enough evidence to speculate what will survive and what won't?

Furthermore, there are many species of animal, such as the blue tongue lizard, which have proven to have stable populations in urbanised environments. Therefore your opinion that _all_ reptiles will become extinct in the next 200 years seems unfounded. Many, sure. But not all.



Sean_L said:


> Even so, although you *think* it is a moral argument from your point of view, doesnt change the fact that from my point of view, the sustainability of wild populations is *very scientific*. Im afraid youve missed the point again if you truly think we are simply tossing around 'feelings' here. This is about the scientific opinions (yes, i said it) of those concerned, or not concerned as it would seem, about the well being of wild reptiles.


When we go beyond the scope of the evidence available to us, all that is left is theory. When you form opinions based on that theory, especially in regard to "right and wrong", all we are left with is morals. I believe we have reached the point that there is insufficient evidence available to us.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Focus said:


> This topic really should have its own thread. Some people will overlook an interesting discussion on genetics because of title.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thats a fair enough comment focus. I admit that none of us are geneticists. But remarkably often is something discovered by someone who wasnt an 'insert proffession'. An open, less educated mind can be far more useful than a closed, educated one in terms of discovery. 
I am glad that there are members of the hobby that are still interested in the 'pure' reptiles. I applaud that. I really do. However, its the idea that reptile keeping is just a pet trade that is disappointing. We have an opportunity to do more than simlpy enjoy these animals/ make money from them. 
Why do I think they'll disappear? Because they already are. Ive spent more than enough time around wild populations to see decline. While yes, most species have a foothold in ranges beyond the reach of humans, the reach of humans is ever expanding. Perhaps the average person doesnt realise what the current growth rate is really like. 
With what has already been wiped out, i find it hard to see why people arent quick to agree that each and every animal will be at risk unless it can survive in a concrete backyard. 

As for what can be done. I dont have the answers. Im only one person. But if I know anything, its that ignorance and disimissal are exactly what SHOULDNT be done in terms of conservation in the future. Itll take more than an individual to change anything for the better.


----------



## cement (Apr 13, 2014)

What do you want mate? Talk about infighting!
You said ANY number of species IN THE WORLD!!

You want to be rude about the way you present your opinions, all I am asking for is some evidence that backs up your point.

I understand where your coming from, you love the native herps. Well so do I, and I work with them, so I put my money where my mouth is. What do you do as far as wild native animals go? Are you working with them, or are you just sitting on a computer, predicting doomsday like the freaks of past days that used to wear big signs around their necks?

I'll mirror back to you what you give me ok, so if you want me to stop the rudeness then you stop being condescending and we'll get on fine.

Actually, I have a family to cook dinner for now, so you enjoy your evening sean.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Stevo2 said:


> I don't think that irresponsible breeding by herpers provides justification to collect _more _pure species from the wild. Surely that should be an argument against, not for.....




Absolutely. Youve miss-understood me. As i said, earlier, I think the topic has changed a little.
Im for the protection of wild populations through the investment in the keeping of as pure as possible lineages in captivity. I dont propose the continual collection of wild animals, merely the protection of the genes of precaptured individuals/

- - - Updated - - -



Ramy said:


> I personally believe it is possible to keep captive reptiles with an intent of keeping them _as similar as possible_ to their wild counterparts. And you don't need to constantly introduce wild stock to do it.



THIS. COMPLETELY THIS. I agree. Thats all I want. Focus on sustainable husbandry that protects the species. I apologise if it seems Im suggesting that wild animals are required to make this work, that was not my intention. Again....against excessive removal of animals from the wild.



Ramy said:


> Furthermore, there are many species of animal, such as the blue tongue lizard, which have proven to have stable populations in urbanised environments. Therefore your opinion that _all_ reptiles will become extinct in the next 200 years seems unfounded. Many, sure. But not all.



I disagree. The 'aussie backyard', a wonderous place where animals thrive and one can mow a lawn, is a myth in a place like New York city or London. Our country is VERY young. Look at any new housing development and tell me you honestly think it could sustain a population of bluetongues.

- - - Updated - - -



cement said:


> What do you want mate? Talk about infighting!
> You said ANY number of species IN THE WORLD!!
> 
> You want to be rude about the way you present your opinions, all I am asking for is some evidence that backs up your point.
> ...



Youve taken it far too personally mate. Im not out to attack you. Any negativity is purely 'misrepresented dismay' at an age old case of refusal to see that things may be different. I apologise, sincerley. My rudeness is only frustration. 
Im no doomsayer, I assure you. But I am a cynic. People like John Walmsley, who had the right idea, but approached the public in the wrong way have been trying to change things for years. Whether it be rudeness, a giant sign, a cat hat or a full blown riot, sometimes it takes something extra to try and get a point across. Thats just how it is with people. 
I too am off to have dinner. Mine is take away fish and chips however, so points to you there.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 13, 2014)

Maybe we should introduce international captive bred species if they do not have the instincts to survive in the wild. I think that captive snakes are resilient enough and learn well enough to not only survive but to also thrive.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Thats not a helpful statement now is it. Maybe we should make everyone smoke, because youre not necessary going to die from it. It doesnt help the conversation at all. 
While I agree that a majority of captive snakes could very well survive, I also state that there are numerous that couldnt, for whatever reason, be it colour and pattern, inability to feed correctly or because theyre just neurologically stagnant.

I simply propose that without care, this may befall any captive reptile species in the coming decades. If you cant see that, I cant help you. 
Downright refusing a proposal takes no intelligence at all.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Thats not a helpful statement now is it. Maybe we should make everyone smoke, because youre not necessary going to die from it. It doesnt help the conversation at all.
> While I agree that a majority of captive snakes could very well survive, I also state that there are numerous that couldnt, for whatever reason, be it colour and pattern, inability to feed correctly or because theyre just neurologically stagnant.
> 
> I simply propose that without care, this may befall any captive reptile species in the coming decades. If you cant see that, I cant help you.
> Downright refusing a proposal takes no intelligence at all.


I simply feel that your thought about captive snakes not doing well in the wild is incorrect and made a little joke about it in lieu of a long winded post. There are many reasons that I think they will not only survive but will thrive and international species escaping and taking hold is only one of them. You make the point that there will be a lot of genetically weaker animals may die from a captive clutch in the wild but I feel that happens with wild clutches the same. Unless a species of wild snake is expanding then on average only one offspring from every snake needs to survive to keep the population stable. You can insinuate that myself or any others are not intelligent if you wish but that too does not bring credibility to your argument.


----------



## champagne (Apr 13, 2014)

the gene pool argument is total bs... how many Oenpelli are being collected? The biggest threat to Australian wildlife as a whole is habitat destruction, not legal or illegal collecting.


----------



## butters (Apr 13, 2014)

I live in a relatively new housing estate, around 10 years. We built the house on what was a dairy farm but the surrounding area has been suburbia for 40+ years with a state forest bordering the edge of the suburb on two sides.

In the first 18 months I saw virtually no reptiles. Now I have resident populations of GW skinks and water dragons. By resident populations I mean a core group of about 20 adult GWSand about 6 permanent adult water dragons. During spring and summer that population swells to 3 times that until the young disperse. We also have resident YF whip snakes, green tree snakes, Burton's, various small skink species (at least 7), marsh snakes, keel backs, pink tongues, bearded dragons, the occasional Lacie, carpet snake, major skink, kreft's, white crown, gold crown, brown tree and guess what? Blue tongues have moved in over the last couple of years. Now we have 3 pretty much permanent residents with a handful of offspring which come and go.

I grew up in this suburb and can confidently say that the native reptile fauna is greater around here now than it was 40 years ago. I have been keeping reptiles and actively herping in the area for that long so am in a position to make an informed observation.

The only reptiles I have seen a decline in are the larger elapids. As a kid I regularly found adders, RBB's and the occasional eastern brown. Now I only see a couple of browns and rbb's each year. The adders are gone but I can find them within 1km of my house along with a ridiculous number of other species.

So yes I think I can confidently say that after 40+ years on and off of living in this suburb and now living in a new housing estate in that suburb that reptiles (in particular blue tongues ) can survive and even thrive in suburbia with a few exceptions.

My grandfather lives on a street parallel to Petrie Terrace in town. This is within 2km of the centre of Brisbane. His house has been there for over 100 hundreds years ( he was born in the house) and guess what? There is a resident population of blue tongues that lives in his yard and they've been there at least since I was a young child. My dad says they have been there since he was a kid. So they have been there over 70 years. He also gets water dragons, carpets, green trees, tenuis, GWS all within throwing distance of the CBD.

To say that native reptiles can't survive in suburbia is I believe quite misguided, blatantly wrong and suggests a very narrow point of view. Maybe mine is narrow too.

They can and do thrive, at least here in Brisbane. I can sit on my step, in a newish housing estate, and see more species than I see on some herping trips that last days. Maybe they are not flashy reptick species but they are pretty cool non the less.


----------



## Ramy (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Thats not a helpful statement now is it.
> ...
> Downright refusing a proposal takes no intelligence at all.


I joined this thread because I thought it was interesting. But it no longer feels like a conversation, and I will not be continuing the discussion. If you feel like anyone is being hostile or obstinant, maybe you should consider how your posts look to us? If you considered your posts for a little longer before posting them, we all might feel a little less insulted and you might explain your case clearly enough that you didn't sound like you were spouting opinion without bothering to back it up. No one appreciates being told that they are ignoring the scientific facts when all you've produced is here say and anecdotes.


----------



## butters (Apr 13, 2014)

Sustainable wild collection of reptiles is just that- sustainable. Let's get serious more reptiles are killed on the roads in one year than could be collected for the Australian market in 30. There just isn't a market for that many reptiles here and captive bred supplies the majority of it.

There will always be keepers who will do their best to keep lines pure and as close to wild type as possible and these are the ones who are most likely to purchase a wild caught animal. Generally not your average hobbyist unless you live in WA. Why? Because someone who just wants a pet snake is not going to pay the extra or go through the sometimes hassle of getting it feeding on unfamiliar prey in captivity. Neither will most hybrid breeders because they are looking for known, heritable traits in most cases unless it is an unusual wild caught specimen eg albino Darwin's.

Maybe you have a point Sean in that the gene pool in captive populations could become weaker leading to higher predation, deformities whatever if they were ever to be introduced back into the wild.

Personally I don't see that as a major problem because all you need is a couple to survive to breed and you will soon be back to a wild population that looks and acts exactly as their wild ancestors. 

Why? Because the same pressures that cause them to look and act the way they do will bring you right back to the same result.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

I guess its not a problem then. We'll have bluetongues and water dragons for years to come. I guess the environment doesnt matter and Green tree pythons will thrive in our postage stamp backyards of the future. 
I guess all that can be said to anyone that does care about the wellbeing of native species is...... enjoy them while you can, no one else cares or is concerned enough to admit anything, nor see any sense, nor take any responsibilty for the future. 


At least when the time comes, some of the few who can see past their own rubbish can say 'I told you so'.
Not that itll do any wildlife any good whatsoever.


----------



## Rlpreston (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L , you can hardly keep insisting that your opinions are scientifically based and then dance around it and become combative when you are asked to prove your claims. You've already admitted to not being qualified in any kind of environmental, biological or zoological sciences, you've not conducted controlled studies or research and your observations are all your own casual observations while undertaking a personal hobby (not objective).


As for the insistence that wild taking reptiles will cause the extinction of entire populations, that's simply not true. 
The concept of population yield has already been explained in this thread. Also relevant is the fact that the permits to wild collect aren't just handed out to any applicant, there are limits. 

You seem to be very passionate about conservation, which is great, but the focus needs to be on the real proven issues our environment faces and not on bashing any practice you personally disagree with.


----------



## Ramy (Apr 13, 2014)

butters said:


> Sustainable wild collection of reptiles is just that- sustainable. Let's get serious more reptiles are killed on the roads in one year than could be collected for the Australian market in 30. There just isn't a market for that many reptiles here and captive bred supplies the majority of it.


Unfortunately the poachers/smugglers aren't trying to sell Australian snakes to Australians. They're exporting illegally and in such a way as not every animal survives the journey. It makes me sad. I don't know to what extent it happens in Australia (if we did know, we'd probably know how to stop it), but ANY illegal import/export is too much. Seriously, all those people who think battery hens are bad... they should see what it takes to smuggle reptiles.

That said, there are so many people out there who _are _responsible about where and when they catch wild animals that I think it would be a shame to deprive them of the privilege.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 13, 2014)

It is the licensed people who take from the wild that are responsible and those that are doing it illegally that aren't. The same happens with guns, the people who go and get a license do the right thing and it those without licenses and illegal guns that shoot people.


----------



## butters (Apr 13, 2014)

.

This wild olive tried to eat my phone while I was taking a picture. No strike, no coiling just casually reached out, opened its mouth and tried to eat my phone. So not all wild snakes smash and grab every time.

My Neighbour has a video of it trying to eat my phone. I couldn't take a picture as I was trying to keep my phone.

By the way that bulge in it is my neighbors sock that he had shoved in his boots outside his room. Obviously liked the smell although I can't confirm if it struck and coiled as it was already in it's stomach by the time we found it.


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 13, 2014)

Getting back to the flavor of the thread somewhat, I would just like to point out to those few who have delusional ideas that our wild herps are greatly under threat from legal collecting that the demand and the ability to supply dictates its price eventually. As more and more people breed the species legally able to be collected the less lucrative and desirable that practice of collecting becomes.
This means that the practice of collecting undoubtedly becomes self regulatory in regards to numbers collected. Licensed takers records in W.A have clearly shown this. While there are still a couple of cowboys out there that over estimate the demand and over collect at times, they will soon quickly learn the hard way when they reach their limit in time and money maintaining reptiles they can’t sell.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Haha. Im amazed how many people get the wrong end of the stick. At no point have I said anything regarding taking wild reptiles and its relationship to their extinction.

The only point Ive tried to make this entire time is this:

The unmanaged breeding of captive species leads to genetic degredation in any given species (eventually, it takes time) and results in an animal that is no longer worthy of it species name, and very likely, would be unable to continue the survival of its species (without the help of wild animals in the same range). All reptiles (except for bluetongues it seems) will one day be a risk from evironmental impact and climate change, etc, as the habitat in the most vile of modern cities (brisbane is very young) is not conducive to the survival of many (if any) reptile species. As such, Im stating that as keepers of reptiles we have an opportunity (if not responsibility) to maintain these species as they are in the wild (not through continued wild collection however, I dont know why people keep assuming that) so that when they no longer exist in the wild, theyll be preserved in captivity in their full, natural glory. 

I dont see why thats so hard to accept. People dont seem to be able to see beyond the next 10 years of their life.

Where is my evidence? 


_Wont be able to continue the survival of its species.....

_All of the species that are hybridised in captivity now and would not survive because of their colouration and neurological defects. This can happen to any species without management. 

_Will one day be at risk......

_The many species that are now extinct as a direct result of human impact. 

The continually growing list of threatened species and the ever encroaching human 'habitat'.

_Not conducive to the survival of reptile species.....

_Do I really need to provide evidence of this. Could you really see a knob-tail living in a city. Or a mangrove monitor surviving at surfer's. Im afraid very few species are capable of surviving in suburbia, and even those few will find it hard (not possible) once our level of development starts to reach that of other more establish foreign countries.
Maybe youre happy with a handful of species remaining in the 'country of the reptiles'. Im not. But thats just my opinion.


----------



## butters (Apr 13, 2014)

Hey you brought up the blue tongues Sean I was just showing that they probably will be around in suburbia because historically they have been not too far from where you are and in an area of Brisbane that has probably had the longest European settlement. Is 70 years a long enough case study? 

Of course there are going to be examples of species that can't survive in suburbia. The large elapids in my local area are a classic example. But it's not all doom and gloom was the point I was trying to make. Reptiles are resilient to a point. It's highly unlikely that suburbia is going to pop up in the iron ranges so I think green tree pythons are safe from that pressure for now. The same can't be said for all species.

and who says I don't care? I do take responsibility. Probably more than most. My background is in environmental science. Did you even think to wonder why I have so many species on my property? Why I am even aware they are there?

Its because I have made it suitable for a range of species to live and have encouraged my neighbors to do the same. It's because my kids will never own a cat. My neighbors will probably never own a cat because of what I have shown them and the results they have seen with no cats around. If they see a whip snake or green tree in their yard they don't run for the shovel anymore. They call me and say " cool look what we found in the garden today".

Aside from my day job I also work for a friend who is a wildlife demonstrator. Educating people on wildlife identification, fauna and venomous snake handling, ways to encourage wildlife to their yards, benefits of attracting wildlife to their yards, just letting people know what is out there and trying to interest them etc. 

My captive collection is predominantly of species no one else bothers with. I keep a range of small, non descript skinks, geckos that are too fiddly for others to bother with and small dragons you won't see advertised for sale. You won't find a crossbreed or designer mutation in my collection.

oh and I rarely sell anything I breed. Most is given away to people who I know will try and keep a viable population of that species in captivity.

So yes I do put my money where my mouth is and do a lot more than just talk about it. I do take responsibility where I can.


----------



## cement (Apr 13, 2014)

Well Sean, we are all well versed in what your opinion is now.

The problem is that you don't know what is actually happening out there in the 'hobby'. I tell you now that there is quite a few dedicated 'purists' who are doing exactly what you dream of.
Details will never be given by these people on a forum like this, they don't want negativity. But they are some very experienced herpers and continuation of species is important to many of them.
Instead of getting on your soap box and making a fool of yourself, maybe you could spend your time in more worthwhile pursuits that actually go towards acheiving whatever change it is that you think is so necessary. Heres some hints.... if you want change, then be the change.
And, if you seriously want to make a real change to the world and the animals that in it then you had better get very,very wealthy. With real wealth, comes the ability to facilitate real change to the way things are done. The only person/conservationist I have seen who has had the ability to reach this level was Steve Irwin. He attained the point of monetary wealth that enabled him to buy up large tracts of habitat and return it to its natural state, as well as facilitate much research on lessor known animals etc,etc. His early death stopped a juggernaut of conservation change in its tracks. He hit a level where he was reaching into millions of minds, especially kids and showing it was cool to love the animals.

Everyone else has to be satisfied with what they can do, but at least if you feel that strong, DO SOMETHING, because whinging and moaning that your the only one that has the intelligence to look into a crystal ball and see nothing but crap, is as soul-less as the future you see.


----------



## butters (Apr 13, 2014)

By the way I do agree with many of your points Sean just not necessarily the way you are trying to make them.
What's happening to the environment will have far more effect on wildlife than any population of captive animals or collecting under permit.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Thats great to hear butters. If you feel so strongly about conservation also, why deny the problem? That makes no sense to me.

Im not trying to change the world cement. I cant achieve that. Maybe with a lot of bullets I could affect a small change, but beyond that I dont have and will never have the means. But if I can make one, only one person stop and think, holy crap, maybe one day there will be no wildlife, then Ive achieved something. 
Your opinion, nothing more also, that the future isnt so bleak, is wrong Im afraid. Plain and simple. It will be damn bleak. Theres no sense denying it. But theres sense in accepting it and maybe doing a little preparation instead of sitting back and feeling secure because 'right now' its not so bad. 

Tell any conservationist there wont be an issue, that she'll be right mate and youll either be laughed at or slapped. 

- - - Updated - - -



butters said:


> By the way I do agree with many of your points Sean just not necessarily the way you are trying to make them.
> What's happening to the environment will have far more effect on wildlife than any population of captive animals or collecting under permit.



I understand that mate. Really. I think my point has just been lost because its not on topic.


All Im after is for someone to say, yes, I agree that reptiles in Australia will eventaully come under dire threat from human expansion in the future. I just want that fact to be accepted.
Once its accepted it can be worked on. Until then, denying it by saying that itll be ok because some animals already manage to live in suburbia doesnt achieve anything useful. The suburbia of tomorrow wont look like your backyard right now.


----------



## Rlpreston (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Haha. Im amazed how many people get the wrong end of the stick. At no point have I said anything regarding taking wild reptiles and its relationship to their extinction.
> 
> The only point Ive tried to make this entire time is this:
> 
> ...



That's not evidence, those are part sentences that could have come from anywhere.... Show your sources! 

I don't think it's others getting the wrong idea, I think it's you not making any sense! It really is becoming hard to follow what you are trying to convey post to post.

You stated earlier in the thread that you were only for wild collection for the purpose of obtaining pure lines of species to bank for the reptile apocalypse (as foretold by yourself), or words to that effect. You then go on in your last post to insist you said nothing about wild taking.... You are treading very close to the line of making people really upset with your insinuation that you, alone, are the only one here that cares for wildlife. 

My opinion here is, if there is no commercial value on a species then there will be no concern by the wider public to conserve it. Being that this thread is about reptiles that are popular in the pet trade, you are barking up the wrong tree. I think you're looking for the 'I hate cross breeds because one day we should play god and repopulate the earth with our pet stock' thread...


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Rlpreston said:


> That's not evidence, those are part sentences that could have come from anywhere.... Show your sources!
> 
> I don't think it's others getting the wrong idea, I think it's you not making any sense! It really is becoming hard to follow what you are trying to convey post to post.
> 
> ...



Haha. I think youre pretty close there on a few things. Its hard to make coherent points while concurrently defending your point from blatant denial. I think the 'reptile apocalypse' should be changed to repocalypse, because its much catchier. Itll make it easier to talk about when the time actually comes. If youre denying the real threat to native species worldwide, maybe you should turn on a doco some time. Any one of them will do.

I am for the limited collection of species not already in captive collections. I am not for the continual collection for the purposes of profit. That hasnt changed. At all.

Im not saying that no-one else cares for wildlife. Im saying that no-one else seems responsible enough to admit that there will be a real problem in the future. Almost any species thats currently extinct could potentially have been saved if people had stopped and taken that responsibility and took action. Most importantly, if theyd accepted that the problem will occur. If theyd had some foresight. I dont see why anyone needs anymore evidence that ignorance leads to extinction. Take ANY (well almost any) extinct animal that has come in contact with humans 

Your last comment sums it up though. In general, people dont care. They like their pets and arent interested in wildlife or its well being unless they have a slice or make some dough. Your paraphrased words, not mine.


----------



## Rlpreston (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Haha. I think youre pretty close there on a few things. Its hard to make coherent points while concurrently defending your point from blatant denial. I think the 'reptile apocalypse' should be changed to repocalypse, because its much catchier. Itll make it easier to talk about when the time actually comes. If youre denying the real threat to native species worldwide, maybe you should turn on a doco some time. Any one of them will do.
> 
> I am for the limited collection of species not already in captive collections. I am not for the continual collection for the purposes of profit. That hasnt changed. At all.
> 
> ...



Nobody is arguing that conservation isn't an issue, and you're certainly incorrect to assume that of myself (or that I have no knowledge of such).

Your agenda is clear and the cause you are trying to represent is worthy, but suggesting that everyone but yourself is either an idiot, in denial, or an uncaring and selfish being is no way to further any cause.

As I said before, you've got the wrong audience and platform here for your agenda.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

Perhaps you are correct. I mistakenly assumed that a reptile forum would be more interested in the conservation of wild reptiles. But youre right about people in general. If there was a real concern for conservation, the word conservation wouldnt even exist, it would just be fair and sustainable 'life'. 
Its hard to share my 'agenda' as you put it. I could easily go to a forum about conservation, which Im sure exists, but everyone there already feels the way I do. Theres no point in reaffirming what we'd all already accept.
The point of telling people who dont already accept something, is so that they will hopefully come to accept it. Its about enlightening people who, as youve already agreed, arent interested in things that should be considered important. 
Maybe they just dont see it as something worth worrying about. We already have pet reptiles, why do we need wild ones?

In some ways I guess this is true and perhaps the collection of wild reptiles will cease altogether when the market decides they arent even interested in anything that isnt designer. 
I guess I hope that those few that have already come forward and explained that they do care about the purity of native wildlife are still around when the time comes. I just wish these people would openly join the cause, I guess.


----------



## butters (Apr 13, 2014)

Sorry Sean I am not denying that there hasn't been, is or will be a problem. I was only commenting on specific examples you had made. I also don't believe that in 20, 50, 100, 500 years time there will be no reptiles in Australia. Just because Australia is not as "old" as other communities doesn't mean that we will ultimately be just like them. We have a lot of natural barriers and limits on some resources that will limit what can and will happen here as well as the chance to learn from others mistakes. Australia is a very big country and we really just cling to the edges. It's the critters in these edges that should be at threat.

Historically though it has been the critters in the least populated areas that have been the hardest hit in terms of extinction since European settlement. Many of those were not from what we did but what we brought with us. We have learnt somewhat from those examples and have some of the strictest import legislation in the world. We don't police that legislation well enough but that's a whole different topic.

its a bit of a catch 22 really. In order to protect suitable habitat we need to develop more high density housing which in turn limits the native species that can live in those areas whilst saving other areas. At the same time low density housing with large yards and gardens can encourage many native species to move in. My area is a classic example. Which is the better model to ensure the continued survival of local species? It's not as simple as it sounds.

With increase in high density housing comes a greater reliance on farmed produce etc as you have little room to grow your own. Which in turn puts pressure on outlying areas. Intensive farming areas typically having lower species diversity than less intensively farmed areas but to limit the impact footprint wouldn't you go intensive? So you are simply moving the problem from suburbia to the country.

Im not denying there is a problem but I do try to tackle it in my own little way in the means that I can. One of those is education, another is to make the one little area I have the most control over as suitable as possible for locally occurring species. Everyone can do this.

- - - Updated - - -



Ramy said:


> Unfortunately the poachers/smugglers aren't trying to sell Australian snakes to Australians. They're exporting illegally and in such a way as not every animal survives the journey. It makes me sad. I don't know to what extent it happens in Australia (if we did know, we'd probably know how to stop it), but ANY illegal import/export is too much. Seriously, all those people who think battery hens are bad... they should see what it takes to smuggle reptiles.
> 
> That said, there are so many people out there who _are _responsible about where and when they catch wild animals that I think it would be a shame to deprive them of the privilege.



I was really talking about the legal australian market. Even if there was no legal market in Australia the illegal poaching and smuggling would probably occur. Reptile keeping has really only been allowed in WA for a short period of time and yet there are WA endemics that have been available overseas for longer than they have been available here. Hell they have species we can't even keep here and have had them for a while. Smuggling will occur without a domestic reptile hobby regardless.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

A very well thought out and compelling post. And I agree with it. 

I dont agree that the world wont change more dramatically than you could ever have predicted, and so Ill agree to diagree with your greater than half millennium estimate, but thats ok, neither of us will ever know. 

Im glad that youre doing your part, I really am. What I would like is more people to do what youre already doing. Im unaware of any other way of getting people to act other than calling them an idiot for not acting.
Attenborough and Irwin have tried for years to tell people nicely that they need to wake up. Although a larger portion of the public now undertand the issue, the population of the world grows so quickly that this educated portion pails in comparison. 
Its very hard to get people to accept something, short of paying them to agree, and since asking nicely doesnt work, asking them to feel stupid seems like the only other option.


----------



## Rlpreston (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Perhaps you are correct. I mistakenly assumed that a reptile forum would be more interested in the conservation of wild reptiles.



That's not the point I was trying to make. Reptile owners and breeders generally DO (or so I have found) care for the environment and there are many here on this forum who will demonstrate that. 

The majority of all humans? Not so much I'm afraid, but that's for another thread I think (maybe you can start one?).


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 13, 2014)

I apologise for misinterpreting your statement. 
Unfortunately, if I started such a thread the likelyhood would be that its main posters would be supporters that are already aware and the message would be skipped over by those that actually need to read it.


----------



## butters (Apr 13, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Im glad that youre doing your part, I really am. What I would like is more people to do what youre already doing. Im unaware of any other way of getting people to act other than calling them an idiot .



I have found that calling anyone an idiot rarely gets the desired result. Unless that result is to have them fire up.

That's why I have gone with my approach of showing them what will happen if you do certain things and they work the rest out by themselves. The majority of people would rather have critters crawling around their yard than not I have found. I can't get one of my neighbors to like snakes but he tolerates them now. He still screams like a girl but does it from the deck without a shovel in his hand. It's a start.

If there are no reptiles around in 500 years then nothing will be around. If anything is still alive it may not be the same suite of species but some will be here.

i guess in some respects I don't always see extinction as a bad thing. It's a natural part of life. The number of species on this planet is but a fraction of the number of species that have gone extinct over time. Difference is that we now know we are the definite cause for some and may have an influence on others. Humans have been causing the extinction of species since we popped up. It's not a new phenomenon, all that has changed is the rate. We will continue to cause extinctions as long as we are here.

We can try and limit our impact but will never negate it IMO. We cause extinctions just by existing. There are some species that we may be able to have an influence upon their continued survival but there are others that would probably go extinct without our intervention good or bad.

So in the end, yes. You can get legal wild caught from NT and WA. You can catch your own in Tassie. The others states any wild caught must have been collected from either WA or NT or under some kind of scientific permit.
How long for? Who knows? If humans stay on this planet according to some not for long. Me? I'm a bit more optimistic.


----------



## Tobe404 (Apr 13, 2014)

Depends entirely on the situation... Already well established (in the Pet/Breeding trade) I say leave in the wild.
However for the rarer Animals I'd say IN THE RIGHT HANDS of a select few. Only purpose of taking from the wild would be to preserve them for future generations.
IF they become readilty available down the track once success is had breeding them in captivity then even better.
The World isn't always going to be in the state it once was. A number of Animals have already become extinct because of habitat loss, introduced exotics, etc.


----------



## longqi (Apr 14, 2014)

regarding reptiles surviving amongst humans

one of my favourite herping spots is in the middle of the biggest city in Bali
retics vipers rat snakes racers vines bronzebacks boigas monitors etc etc
and this is in a country that doesnt care less about reptiles

in 2 hours I can find 10 cobras anywhere in denpassar kuta or seminyak etc
retics are more common in the towns than in the jungle

regarding captive bred and neuro
only a tiny percentage of cb reptiles have neuro
[everybody knows my feelings so I wont repeat them]
but neuro prone paint jobs will never dominate the pet trade 

I do have concerns about small locales
Too much evidence here to prove that they can be hit very hard


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 14, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> I apologise for misinterpreting your statement.
> Unfortunately, if I started such a thread the likelyhood would be that its main posters would be supporters that are already aware and the message would be skipped over by those that actually need to read it.


This is a thread started by member about the legal taking of reptiles for the pet industry in Australia. You started your posts saying that you didn't agree with this because it is putting a strain on the native population and possibly driving them to extinction. Your argument seems to change slightly every few posts which you are blaming on what others have said to you. You have also resorted to name calling and trying to belittle posters on this thread. Your final message is that our wildlife in under threat from habitat destruction and other environmental factors which nobody is denying , I think the only points that people have argued is that taking of wild reptiles under management will not have an adverse effect on the overall reptile population and that people think that there is not a lot of differences (ones that will affect wild survival) between wild and captive reptiles. Most people on this site are pro conservation and would hate to see the loss of more species but you seem to be suggesting that you choose this particular thread to voice your conservation message because there would be the largest number of people that have no interest in conservation which to me is another insult.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 14, 2014)

jahan said:


> @Sean_L, What license do you have that allows you to catch wild reptiles?



Did this ever get answered amongst the dribble? I'd be interested to know this too. As well as how he has kept wild caught specimens in QLD?

At the end if the day none of the legally wild caught species are under threat. That's why they have been specifically chosen for establishing a foundation stock for WA pet reptiles. As usual we have a host of opinions that have very little idea of what they are talking about. And then some others with another agenda trying to argue a half baked theory that they have concocted based on zero evidence and zero qualifications in that field. 

Grateful for the the ignore function on this forum that let's me block some of these individuals.


----------



## Rlpreston (Apr 14, 2014)

Snowman said:


> Did this ever get answered amongst the dribble? I'd be interested to know this too. As well as how he has kept wild caught specimens in QLD?
> 
> At the end if the day none of the legally wild caught species are under threat. That's why they have been specifically chosen for establishing a foundation stock for WA pet reptiles. As usual we have a host of opinions that have very little idea of what they are talking about. And then some others with another agenda trying to argue a half baked theory that they have concocted based on zero evidence and zero qualifications in that field.
> 
> Gratful for the the ignore function on this forum that let's me block some of these individuals.



Am I still blocked Snowman? I think we should give each other another chance! We're not so different, you and I! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Snowman (Apr 14, 2014)

Rlpreston said:


> Am I still blocked Snowman? I think we should give each other another chance! We're not so different, you and I!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Nah you've been unblocked. You're not really a bad egg 

mostly I just block people who stray ridiculously far from facts.


----------



## Rlpreston (Apr 14, 2014)

Snowman said:


> Nah you've been unblocked. You're not really a bad egg



You're not so bad yourself... Glad we got that sorted!  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Snowman (Apr 14, 2014)

Rlpreston said:


> You're not so bad yourself... Glad we got that sorted!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Haha. Some people don't like my autistic style directness and being blunt. Those people have every right to block me  That's what the function is for after all


----------



## champagne (Apr 14, 2014)

In general, people dont care. They like their pets and arent interested in wildlife or its well being unless they have a slice or make some dough.

you guys are basing your opinion on a small part of the hobby... There are a lot of people that only keep and breed pure and/or locality reptiles. All these designer morphs are just the flavour of the month and this is why people new to the hobby think that this is the majority of what goes on. Also a lot of people that do breed ''designer'' reptiles, still keep and breed pure locality reptiles as well.


----------



## butters (Apr 14, 2014)

You can keep wild caught animals in queensland snowman just as you can in WA. You just can't catch your own. It has to be imported into the state from a state that does allow it legally.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 14, 2014)

butters said:


> You can keep wild caught animals in queensland snowman just as you can in WA. You just can't catch your own. It has to be imported into the state from a state that does allow it legally.


Yes but he said:



Sean_L said:


> My background doesnt include a qualification on a piece of paper. While Id love to say that I was a successful herpetologist, that simply isnt what happened
> 
> Ive been keeping reptiles for 15 years. My reptiles live in naturalistic enclosures or outdoor pits, they are fed irregularily on a variety of foods from a variety of sources. Ive spent a great deal of my life observing and capturing wild reptiles. Ive watched their behaviour with intrigue and find them equally as facinating as anyone here.
> .


----------



## butters (Apr 14, 2014)

Sorry I must have missed the part where he said he then kept those wild reptiles that he caught.

I thought it odd when you asked that question.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 14, 2014)

butters said:


> Sorry I must have missed the part where he said he then kept those wild reptiles that he caught.
> 
> I thought it odd when you asked that question.



That's okay. Don't beat yourself up over it. 

Yes we were discussing the topic of keeping wild caught specimens in captivity and people's experience pertaining to this. It would be a bit pointless if he was commenting without keeping wild caught animals.

In most states you can not catch reptiles even if you release them without a license or permit to do so. That should be obvious


----------



## lithopian (Apr 14, 2014)

OK… I was tagged earlier in regards to the behavioural differences between captive and wild caught carpets from WA and their eating habits. I can attest to the fact that my adult WC carpet becomes very distressed when approached with a prey item in tongs and has never eaten this way. I feed all my pythons in a feeding tub outside their enclosures and I have never even bothered trying this carpet in the tub because it immediately loses interest in food once disturbed. Even waving the item in front of the hide hole has never worked. The item is left at the entrance to the hide and has always been consumed by morning. Incidentally, this particular carpet has stopped eating and after altering numerous environmental factors I am wondering whether it has switched off feeding even though it is not being cooled. 

Someone also said (around page 2 or 3) that CB snakes will rarely coil around a prey item and sometimes do not coil at all whereas a WC will throw 2 or 3 coils before consuming. I have not found this to be the case over my womas and carpets. One of my wild caught carpets does not coil at all around prey items whilst the others always coil. Of my captive bred womas, two of them coil at least three times and will squeeze the prey item for lengthy periods (often busting blood out of the rodents’ orifices) before consuming. I have also noted that some of my CB pythons are better strikers (more accurate) than a couple of my WC pythons. I believe the general habits of snakes come down to the individual and there is not enough data to generalise what CB snakes will do compared to WC snakes. This is only my observation with my own pythons.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 14, 2014)

lithopian said:


> OK… I was tagged earlier in regards to the behavioural differences between captive and wild caught carpets from WA and their eating habits. I can attest to the fact that my adult WC carpet becomes very distressed when approached with a prey item in tongs and has never eaten this way. I feed all my pythons in a feeding tub outside their enclosures and I have never even bothered trying this carpet in the tub because it immediately loses interest in food once disturbed. Even waving the item in front of the hide hole has never worked. The item is left at the entrance to the hide and has always been consumed by morning. Incidentally, this particular carpet has stopped eating and after altering numerous environmental factors I am wondering whether it has switched off feeding even though it is not being cooled.
> 
> Someone also said (around page 2 or 3) that CB snakes will rarely coil around a prey item and sometimes do not coil at all whereas a WC will throw 2 or 3 coils before consuming. I have not found this to be the case over my womas and carpets. One of my wild caught carpets does not coil at all around prey items whilst the others always coil. Of my captive bred womas, two of them coil at least three times and will squeeze the prey item for lengthy periods (often busting blood out of the rodents’ orifices) before consuming. I have also noted that some of my CB pythons are better strikers (more accurate) than a couple of my WC pythons. I believe the general habits of snakes come down to the individual and there is not enough data to generalise what CB snakes will do compared to WC snakes. This is only my observation with my own pythons.



This is very close to my observations with wild caught specimens also. Which is in stark contrast to this:



Sean_L said:


> Its a little off track from the main topic but Ill give a few brief observations Ive made. In a confined space, such as an enclosure, a wild snake will (ok, almost) never miss a strike. Not so with a number of captive bred animals Ive seen.
> Wild pythons will ALWAYS throw numerous coils around a prey item, with accuracy, while maintaining a grip on the animal with its jaws. Ive seen captive pythons barely manage to get a coil around a live prey item and then fail to hold onto the animal, only to strike again, miss, and then finally subdue the prey on a third attempt. Ive also seen examples where the snake hasn't even bothered to coil at all.
> You could argue that in some instances this is merely due to the fact that the snake has become used to a routine and 'knows' that a food item is pre-killed. All I can say to this is that I have varied live and pre-killed feedings and never feed my animals routinely, and have still witnessed this.
> I have also seen examples of where pythons merely reach out and take an item carefully. A wild snake will not do this.



- - - Updated - - -

I prefer not to state "a wild will do this", "a captive will do that". As it seems each individual is quite different regardless of it's status of captive or wild bred.


----------



## lithopian (Apr 14, 2014)

I should probably add that I have never offered my pythons anything other than defrosted rodents so cannot comment on their behaviour consuming/killing live prey. The argument of live/dead prey is simply just another variable to show that not enough research has been done to quantify the differences between WC and CB pythons in captivity. I find people's accounts of feeding habits and general python behaviour fascinating for this very reason but would not be comfortable generalising as Snow said above.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 14, 2014)

Ive just been reading back through this thread. Pretty messy, let me say. Ill take some of the blame for that. But I will say this. Theres a lot of hate going on here. Im no hippy, I fight violence with violence, and thats what has happened here. I postulated a theory based on intelligence and personal observation, comparable to anyone here, and was immediately prosecuted for my statement, as though I had personally attacked people, some of which werent even in the conversation yet. It then desended into a turbulent swill of defensive comments from myself, Ill admit, aimed at various people uninterested in accepting a new idea, ie, one they didnt already believe. 
The world doesnt always provide you with answers people, sometimes you have to find some for yourself. Constantly attacking someone for 'evidence' and then shooting down their observations and ideas is not at all helpful. You get insulted for doing this. Yet again, what has happened. Its not my fault if you felt I implied youre an idiot. All that proves is that you were one of the negative forces behind the less constructive parts of this discussion. Indeed theres people like you on every forum, the ones that scare off new members because youre so set in your ways and instead of providing helpful insight or constructive testaments, you attack, and fill any given thread with a negative attitude, painting anyone with a different idea to you as a bad person, and ultimately succeeding in drawing it out of them while they attempt to defend their position. I guarantee that the reply to this statement will be something along the lines of;

'It was your fault, you started it'
'You attacked us, it was your negativety'
'When you call someone an idiot, theyre going to attack you back'

Im afraid thats how you'll always see it. Youre unable to comprehend that your negativety IS actually the first blow. Some people just take it when theyre told theyre wrong by other people. In my experience, other people are generally wrong. The majority of people are idiots. Thats just how the world is. Ill stand my ground. 

The correct way to disagree with someone's idea is this;

'Thats interesting, however, ive noticed something different. Of course, my experience and knowledge may be no more than yours, and so my opinion is no better than yours and if I were to outwardly deny your claim, id be a everything thats wrong with peope today'

Im no longer interested in this discussion, Im afraid. Some members have proven in the end to be reasonable, butters, but others are still only interested in proving something about themselves, or myself. I dont even know what theyre trying to prove in fact. 
I guess attempting to discredit someone in whatever means they can, whether it be misconstruding their past words or selectively highlighting something that can be made out to be bad or wrong, is just what people with nothing constructive to say always fall back on.

To answer you question, 'insert whoever asked it, I honestly forget and dont really care', butters is correct in that the captive animals I have kept on licence are imports from NT. However, as any young boy interested in reptiles has done, I did keep wild reptiles in the past, before I got my licence. Im sure Im not the only one to have done this. I wont have been the last.

My statement that I catch wild reptiles. I dont mean to belittle anyone, but if youve honestly never caught a reptile while herping, youre not really herping. 
You learn only half the facts through observation and photography. 
If youve never held a small dragon from gemmatophora or diporiphora you wont know that their breath all smells the same, an earthy, bush smell thats common to all of them, strange, i know, but their it is. 
You wont know that the scales on the underside of a Angle Headed Dragons tail are enlarged, raised and strongly keeled to give them strength and provide the animal with a set of climbing spikes, supporting the dragon on vertical limbs with no effort.
If youve never caught a green tree snake, or a keelback, you wont understand how strong the musk from these animals can be, and how terribly difficult it is to removed. 
If youve never disturbed a stone gecko, because youve only watched from affar you wont have heard the intense scream it produces as a defense mechanism.
If youve never held a wild land mullet youll know nothing of the intense body strength they possess.
And if youve never held a number of Odatria you wont realise that they attempt to escape youre grip by wiggling backward, rather than pulling forward like a dragon or skink. Why, I dont know? But I wouldnt even have thought to ponder it, unless Id actually taken the observation to the level that any zoologically minded individual does.
If youre lucky, or wealthy enough to keep every species of reptile in Australia, Im happy for you. But quite honestly, Id still rather experience them in the wild. 

Im sorry, but I will always capture and study every tiny detail of any reptile I come across. Why? Because Im genuinely interested in them. Not just how the look, but how they feel, their texture and strength, their vocalisations and indeed their smell. If you'd rather not touch them, thats your perogative, but dont insinuate Im a bad person because I choose to take my passion further than you, may. 

(you like how I said 'may' at the end there. That was so people cant say that Im singling them out. They seem to get very defensive when you say, well, anything). 

Finally, If you dont have something constructive to say in reply to this thread, dont reply. The above doesnt need attacking, thats not constructive, at all. Im probably wasting my breath ( and unecessarily rubbing the letters off my keys) but...... _you do not need to attack this comment. There are better things to do that are more beneficial to everyone. Cool_?

- - - Updated - - -

@ snowman and lithopian

My statement about ALWAYS throwing coils is in regards to live prey animals, in my experience. I admit, it may have been hastly to generalise without more input from others' experiences. I guess thats what a discussion is about.
I admit also snowman, that the evidence is inconclusive to someone who isnt already biased. I believe the evidence could be provided by proper studies however, especially down the track when differences are likely to become more apparent with continued breeding.


----------



## butters (Apr 14, 2014)

Haha I wasn't worried, no skin off my nose. &nbsp;I just put the sorry in there because I always try to be polite.  .

He could have a damage mitigation permit to catch and release for all I know but as you mentioned in queensland you then can't keep an animal once caught. Still plenty of avenues to legally keep wild caught. I keep some myself legally caught and imported from NT and they are just a snake. To me no different than captive bred in behaviour.

I agree not all wild caught will do strike every time and it's IMO like yours that it's an individual thing. Which is why I posted the photo of a wild olive that I witnessed neither striking or coiling.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 14, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Its a little off track from the main topic but Ill give a few brief observations Ive made. In a confined space, such as an enclosure, a wild snake will (ok, almost) never miss a strike. Not so with a number of captive bred animals Ive seen.
> Wild pythons will ALWAYS throw numerous coils around a prey item, with accuracy, while maintaining a grip on the animal with its jaws. Ive seen captive pythons barely manage to get a coil around a live prey item and then fail to hold onto the animal, only to strike again, miss, and then finally subdue the prey on a third attempt. Ive also seen examples where the snake hasn't even bothered to coil at all.
> You could argue that in some instances this is merely due to the fact that the snake has become used to a routine and 'knows' that a food item is pre-killed. All I can say to this is that I have varied live and pre-killed feedings and never feed my animals routinely, and have still witnessed this.
> I have also seen examples of where pythons merely reach out and take an item carefully. A wild snake will not do this.





Sean_L said:


> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> @ snowman and lithopian
> 
> ...



Too many inconsistencies across all of your posts. I find this hard to follow and I'm left wondering what point you are trying to convey. It's okay I wont see any of these future posts. I prefer a less convoluted factual discussion. All the best.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 14, 2014)

Its honestly not meant to be that difficult to follow, mate. Youre making it difficult for yourself by trying to make it seem like Im saying something contradictory. Its not my doing.

_*In regards to live prey: Wild pythons *will ALWAYS throw numerous coils around a *(live) *prey item, with accuracy, while maintaining a grip on the animal with its jaws. Ive seen *captive pythons *barely manage to get a coil around a *live prey item *and then fail to hold onto the animal, only to strike again, miss, and then finally subdue the prey on a third attempt.

*In regards to dead:* Ive also seen examples where the snake *(Captive bred)* hasn't even bothered to coil at all.
You could argue that in some instances this is merely due to the fact that the snake *(captive bred)* has become used to a routine and 'knows' that a food item is pre-killed. 
*Evidence of varying the factors to improve the validity of the results:* All I can say to this is that I have varied live and pre-killed feedings and never feed my animals routinely, and have still witnessed this. 

I apologise if its confusing. It makes sense to me. But then I am writing it.

I took out the captials. It makes it seem like im yelling. _


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 14, 2014)

To be perfectly honest I haven’t noticed anything different with regards to feeding behaviour differences between wild collected and captive bred specimens after long term captivity. This to me adds up to conditioning.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 14, 2014)

PilbaraPythons said:


> To be perfectly honest I haven’t noticed anything different with regards to feeding behaviour differences between wild collected and captive bred specimens after long term captivity. This to me adds up to conditioning.


Can't imagine there are too many people who have seen/kept the number of wild collected animals that you have over the last decade or so.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 14, 2014)

'Havent noticed' and 'havent actively observed for the purposes of reaching a conclusion' are different, but Ill differ to your experience.
Ill put aside my theory until evidence is either found, or disproved in the future. It is great to get a many opinions as possible.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 15, 2014)

It both disappoints and annoys me when statements are challenged on the basis of presumed personality, personal background or other personal attributes. It is seldom warranted and almost invariably subsumes or totally replaces factual discussion with a mire of convoluted defensive rhetoric and/or comments bent more on retribution that making a positive contribution to the discussion. This is a situation in which there are no winners. I do agree that it puts others off posting - myself for instance. I am pleased to see that there seems no lasting animosity and I am happy to post now if anyone is still interested.

A catchphrase I have used in the past: "If you must, attack the post NOT the poster". 

Blue


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> It both disappoints and annoys me when statements are challenged on the basis of presumed personality, personal background or other personal attributes. It is seldom warranted and almost invariably subsumes or totally replaces factual discussion with a mire of convoluted defensive rhetoric and/or comments bent more on retribution that making a positive contribution to the discussion. This is a situation in which there are no winners. I do agree that it puts others off posting - myself for instance. I am pleased to see that there seems no lasting animosity and I am happy to post now if anyone is still interested.
> 
> A catchphrase I have used in the past: "If you must, attack the post NOT the poster".
> 
> Blue


I for one would be happy to here your input which I hope is both personal experience and scientific fact.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 15, 2014)

Thanks *Andy*. I simply feel there are a number of statements that have been made that need some simple hard facts to accompany them. Here’s just a few...

Science puts forward hypotheses to test ideas. A good scientific hypothesis is both testable and based on extensive observations. The term “hypothesis”, and also “theory”, is often used to describe ideas, particularly generalisations, which individuals have generated. This usage does not meet the rigorous criteria required in scientific endeavour. So it must not be accorded the characteristics of same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not too sure that humans have been causing extinctions from when we first “popped up”, whenever that is meant to be, but there seems little doubt that with their use of fire, hunting weapons and traps, that some populations were hunted to extinction through prehistory. The expected (‘natural’) rate of extinction is 1 to 2 species per year. With current global clearing of remaining rainforest it is estimated that the current rate is at least hundreds times the natural rate and quite likely thousands of times greater. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statement: “We cause extinctions just by existing” is both uninformative and technically incorrect to me. I feel it is important that people do have some clear idea of how human activities contribute to declining populations and ultimately extinction. The following list is not exhaustive...

Direct degradation or total destruction of natural habitat is a major one. Massive land clearing for agriculture, from the wheat belt to the coastal beef and dairy farms, orchards and fruit and vegetable plantations. Urbanisation. Damming rivers for water supplies. Irrigation and loss of arable lands due to salt. Burning areas more frequently or more than occurs in nature.
Exploitation of natural resources such as forestry, mining and fishing. Use of clear felling, over harvesting of fish stocks and certain mining techniques or failure to implement appropriate environmental safe guards.
Introduction of exotic plants and animals. Animals introduced for food and/or other products, such as grazing stock, alter the plant species composition of areas and the binding of soil, so in conjunction with stock with hard hooves facilitate soil erosion. We have already mentioned predators and competitors. Invasive exotic plants reduce the biodiversity of areas where they establish. Exotic pests and diseases are also introduced by foreign imports, although legal imports are subject to quarantine in an attempt to eliminate this risk. 
Human activities produce pollution that affects the air, soil and water, including the oceans e.g. oil slicks, dumping of toxic wastes.
Accelerating climate change through use of fossil fuels for producing power, transport and petrochemicals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia has had over 20 mammals go extinct in the last 200 years. It is believed nearly all were the result of a combination of predation by foxes and cats and grazing competition with stock and rabbits. Foxes (1845 on) and rabbits (1859 on) were released for hunting. Thomas Austin, first to release 24 rabbits on his property, is recorded as saying: "The introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home, in addition to a spot of hunting." Cats were kept as passengers on ships in order to control rats and mice that would otherwise spoil food stores. Between shipwrecks and their similar use to protect colonists’ food stores, feral cat colonies had become established in the wild by the 1850s. 

Given that the knowledge, understandings and attitudes we have today did not exist then, were these extinctions really avoidable by forethought? The releases involved plenty of forethough, much of it by accmplished intelligent individuals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Australia is currently facing another potential wave of extinctions. There are 15 frogs, 16 reptiles, 44 birds, 35 mammals and 531 plants on Australia's endangered species list. Professor Corey Bradshaw, director of the Environment Institute's Climate and Ecology Centre at The University of Adelaide, says Kakadu National Park has suffered a 95 per cent decline in mammals. He stated: “The Great Barrier Reef has been suffering biodiversity declines for decades. Now if we can't get it right in our two biggest and most well-known and certainly the best-funded parks and protected areas in Australia, what hope have we for the rest of our national parks?" I would make additional note that the Oenpelli Python and the Arnhem Land Skink are also in trouble, based on the lack of recent sightings and difficulty in locating specimens where they were once common place. The skink has not been sighted in two years.

These losses are occurring in natural habitat. They are happening NOW. There is nothing in the scientific literature that I can locate which talks about either a doomsday scenario for reptiles or a timeline of a couple of centuries.

Blue


----------



## wokka (Apr 15, 2014)

Nice summary Blue. 
My opinion is that loss of habitat is the major force affecting wild numbers of animals, not the removal by wild harvest of the particular animals. If a gap appears in the numbers of animals in a particular area the local population will reproduce to fill that gap to a sustainable level. If every one of Australias 30 million humans each took a reptile from the wild it would have little effect on the billions of reptiles which populate Australia. As for the arguements about how happy captive animals are after removal from the wild, I just dont know!


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

Sorry bluetongue but my posts were long enough as it was so I didn't think it prudent to make them longer. It had already gone way off track.

The arrival of humans to areas previously unoccupied through the fossil records coincides with the disappearance of numerous species. Australia is no different than the rest of the world and we have 2 distinct and different arrivals with at least 2 concentrations of extinctions. Look at recent extinctions and you will see that most of them happened soon after the arrival of humans.
It's more apparent to us now though as modern history has numerous examples, Great Auk, Dodo, Stellers Sea Cow, Toolache Wallaby.
You have listed what some of of the causes are but I guess I was being naive in thinking that most on here would already be aware of these things so didn't feel it necessary to elaborate.

That is what I meant by that statement.

I know you are already aware of this

We cause this by existing was a simple statement that if we weren't here the majority of the current extinctions wouldn't be happening. Simple as that. Some species would still go extinct and others would appear but not at the rate they are now. 

I agree with Andy in that it is great to have you on here and it would be a shame to not have you post.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Apr 15, 2014)

One thing worth mentioning with regard to recent human arrivals and ensuing extinctions, not just in Oz but any number of islands and lands around the world, is that it's not necessarily the humans that directly cause the extinctions, it is often what they bring with them - rats, pigs, dogs, cats etc, etc. New Zealand is a prime example - island populations of critters, many of which had lost the ability to fly or which could live and breed safely on the ground... Bring rats, pigs and cats into the equation and these things can do far more damage over a much wider area in a far shorter time than humans ever can. We've done it very recently with bloody Cane Toads!

Jamie


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 15, 2014)

Here is some interesting data that I have come across in my resarch/reading....

The Australian Wildlife Conservancy has estimated that feral cats kill 75 million native animals every night. Their estimate is based on long term studies of feral cat predation and extrapolation from known densities across Australia. A fair percentage of these will be reptiles. In a study conducted at Roxby Downs in SA, one feral cat captured mid-morning regurgitated 30 lizards. Ehmann and Cogger (1985) documented known road kill rates and from these estimated that some 5 million amphibians and reptiles are killed annually on Australian roads. Bennet (1991) search a half kilometre transect of road in western Victoria and recorded 419 carcasses of 5 species of frog, all casualties of a single night following heavy rainfall.

It makes wild-taking for the pet industry pale into insignificance. Clearly, our wild populations are resilient to continue unabated given that sort of removal rate. It is only populations of species which are rare or endangered or occur only in small, specific locales that would be a chance to be adversely affected by wild taking.

*Warwick,* I did not actually say that wild-caught snakes, or other reptiles, would be ‘happy’ when brought into captivity. The point I did make is that they would ultimately be a lot better off for a range of reasons. Any dramatic change of environment requires a period of time for an animal to adjust to it. One would naturally expect those animals that are wide ranging or highly active to take longer to adapt compared to sedentary species.

Blue

- - - Updated - - -

*Butters*, thank you for clarifying. 
The debate over when Aboriginals arrived in Australia and whether it was a one-off colonisation or waves of arrivals still goes on amongst academics. As best I can ascertain, 60,000 years BP for their arrival here is as far as it has been pushed based on sound data. The question is, was it climate change (the ice age setting in) or human hunting or perhaps human manipulation of the environment through use of fire or a combination of these that resulted in the extinction of Australia’s megafauna? We do not know for certain.

Blue


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

Agreed Jamie as I mentioned earlier it's not always so much us but what we bring with us. 
Imagine how different Australian wildlife populations and make ups would be if only one of those feral species wasn't present. Cats probably have the greatest effect over a range of species than others but the removal of any of them would have a beneficial impact.
I have seen the impact that having no resident cats can have on a few small suburban blocks.

As for regulated wild collecting the impact on populations would be almost non existent when compared to things like feral predation, road kill or even a good climatic event except for small localized populations.

Although not directly related the collection of live corals for the aquarium trade on the Great Barrier Reef has had many detractors and opponents, mostly from people who have no real concept or idea of what impact it could have. In most cases the objections are purely emotionally driven with no real basis in fact.

Research undertaken by AIMS to help support moves to close down the industry proved the exact opposite. It was found that the collection of live corals under the current system was probably the most sustainable fishery in Australia by an incredible margin. The yearly coral quota and collection rates were but a fraction of one percent of the new coral produced on the reef each year. One cyclone removed far more coral from the reef.
This doesn't take into account other factors affecting the reef but you could find analogies between this situation and the wild collection of reptiles . You could probably even use data already collected for other studies that would be relevant.


----------



## cement (Apr 15, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Im not trying to change the world cement. I cant achieve that. Maybe with a lot of bullets I could affect a small change, but beyond that I dont have and will never have the means. But if I can make one, only one person stop and think, holy crap, maybe one day there will be no wildlife, then Ive achieved something.
> Your opinion, nothing more also, that the future isnt so bleak, is wrong Im afraid. Plain and simple. It will be damn bleak. Theres no sense denying it. But theres sense in accepting it and maybe doing a little preparation instead of sitting back and feeling secure because 'right now' its not so bad.
> 
> Tell any conservationist there wont be an issue, that she'll be right mate and youll either be laughed at or slapped.
> ...


----------



## wokka (Apr 15, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> *Warwick,* I did not actually say that wild-caught snakes, or other reptiles, would be ‘happy’ when brought into captivity. The point I did make is that they would ultimately be a lot better off for a range of reasons. Any dramatic change of environment requires a period of time for an animal to adjust to it. One would naturally expect those animals that are wide ranging or highly active to take longer to adapt compared to sedentary species.
> 
> Blue
> 
> Blue


#Blue my comment about happiness was not in reply to your post but rather in reply to some of the earlier comments by others.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Apr 15, 2014)

Plain and simple, it's people pressure that's blighting our planet. But the same will happen to us as happens to any overcrowded community of creatures with nowhere else to expand - they either die of some sort of communicable disease, or they kill off huge numbers of themselves in the fight for resources such as space, water and food. The former was certainly a great leveller in centuries past (as it will be in the future) and the latter, with the addition of idealogical wars, is happening right now. Into this mix you can add all sorts of man-made hurdles to the recovery of the planet as we have known it - pervasive toxic chemicals not seen till man came along, radioactivity artificially boosted to massively dangerous levels - many of these things will never go away... think Japan...

We are a long way past being able to put the genie back in the bottle I'm afraid. When money is controlled by those for whom it is their ownly concern, and they continue to accumulate obscene amounts more by raping and pillaging the Earth, with regard for no-one but their own selfish aspirations and those of the politicians whose approval they buy (no more so than here these days), men and women in the street have no hope of taking back control of their environment. Politicians change the laws to make effective protest difficult and expensive.

Jamie


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 15, 2014)

*Butters*, staying within the limit of sustainable yield simply applies to all living things. I presented a deliberately simplified version. Determining what the sustainable limit is requires that things like growth rate and maturation time are also taken into account and if there are any other influences, such as how Barramundi change sex at a certain size. As the animals being removed are part of a food web, any effect that might that have on their prey or predator populations also needs to be considered. Usually not a problem as what cannot eat them can often eat what they would have eaten, directly or indirectly. At harvesting levels below 15% it is unlikely to have any measurable effect and at or below 10% you would hardly know a population was harvested from. 


If I had a choice I’d get rid of rabbits...

Grazing and burrowing by rabbits can causes serious erosion problems, reduces recruitment and survival of native plants, and modifies entire landscapes. At even one rabbit per hectare, they are preventing regeneration of mulga, western myall, black oak, and several other key components of woodlands and so will ultimately turn woodlands into grasslands. This will exclude and those animals dependent on the trees for things like insects, sap, nectar, seed, shelter and breeding places. Rabbits overgraze native and sown pastures, leading to loss of plant biodiversity and reduced crop yields. They compete with native animals and domestic livestock for food and increasing grazing pressure thereby lowering the land’s carrying capacity. They increase and spread invasive weeds through their droppings. They breed younger, faster and more prolifically then their native counterparts, which means they get the jump on natives following drought times. They also sustain high numbers of predators such as foxes, cats and dogs. Without rabbits, foxes and cats would not be half as prevalent as what they are.

Blue

Apologies *Warwick* - my mistake.


----------



## Snowman (Apr 15, 2014)

longqi said:


> There has never been any legal permits for collecting Kofiau or Misool Chondros, [canary yellows]
> Despite that, when they became popular about 12 years ago the numbers were devastated to the point where snake smugglers now consider both island as no longer commercially viable
> 
> Now Dwarf retics are in fashion so Kalataus etc are reaching the same point
> ...



I wonder if they allowed legal collection and had breeding programs to flood the demand, if there would still be the same poaching problems?

Before WA had a legal keeping system in place SWCP were the most common off license snakes being kept. These days they don't seem to pop up as much now that they are kept and bred in largish numbers and readily available to the public.

Sometimes the best way to reduce wild taking might be to make the species readily available...

As for the gene pool.. I haven't though much about the need to introduce new blood lines into reptiles, since the stock we have in WA is mostly only a few generations old. But I can tell you it isn't being run and tracked by scientists. So in comparison to the human analogy, there aren't any restrictions or guidelines in place to strategically breed without genetic problems, as I'm sure there must be some restrictions and guidelines needed to keep the base of 150 humans going for eternity without genetic problems. Then there is the whole thing of man and reptile evolving very differently. We can breed pythons back to parents and sibs for many generations without problem. Is that the case with humans? (horrible thought humans breeding back to their mothers and siblings!)


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

cement said:


> ok sean_l,
> 
> How does being a purist reptile keeper stave off the bleak outlook that you have?
> 
> ...



Hi cement, I thought we had moved on a little, but Ill answer your questions happily.

My belief is that being a purist maintains the individual glory of each species, as it lives in the wild. I dont pretend to suggest that keeping reptiles in a purist manner will prevent their future endangerment, merely provide insurance for future generations to experience them when there, may, no longer be any individuals remaining in the wild.


I dont pretend to have all the answers. If i had them, I wouldnt need to try to convince anyone that action might actually need to be taken. My hope is that continual discussion, (sort of) like this, may produce the answers we need. Awareness is in itself a precaution. Thats a good place to start.

I apologise for my assumptions, I merely imagined that someone who was concerned with conservation would be more open to discussing the possible future of our wildlife, instead of denying any problem may arise. Once again, I apologise. 

Also off topic, at no point did I say I was going to slap you. Haha. 
Id honestly feel a little hypocritical if I called myself a Conservationist (with the capital 'C' and everything). While I am concerned with conservation, I, along with many others of course, could be doing much more for the environment. Therefore, as Im not in that catergory, my statement is completely unrelated to my hand and your face. Haha. 

Once again though, you know nothing about me either. How can you be so sure a slap would be any trouble at all.  Haha


----------



## champagne (Apr 15, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> My belief is that being a purist maintains the individual glory of each species, as it lives in the wild. I dont pretend to suggest that keeping reptiles in a purist manner will prevent their future endangerment, merely provide insurance for future generations to experience them when there, may, no longer be any individuals remaining in the wild.



''purist'' still select for desirable traits ie stripes, rp, hypo ect. which to some extent are not a true representation of their wild counterparts. I would say very few breeders (if any) are selecting for a true wild type representation over a desirable colour or pattern trait.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

I believe that specifically selecting any traits that arent the norm in the general population would be going against what it is to be a purist. 
A purist, in my opinion alone, breeds locale specific individuals only with others from that locale and produces animals representative of the location in all aspects. Basically a 'copy' of what lives somewhere.
Leading the genetic line down any other path (hypo, striped, etc, or selectively breeding at all) would go against the definition. My impression could be wrong though. Id like to hear what other people consider being a 'purist' actually involves.

Im one of those very few it seems. Thats ok though. Im not knocking mutations, as a whole. I just think a decent number of breeders should keep the original animals' form intact. Let collectors, collect and purists, protect. I guess.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> I believe that specifically selecting any traits that arent the norm in the general population would be going against what it is to be a purist.
> A purist, in my opinion alone, breeds locale specific individuals only with others from that locale and produces animals representative of the location in all aspects. Basically a 'copy' of what lives somewhere.
> Leading the genetic line down any other path (hypo, striped, etc, or selectively breeding at all) would go against the definition. My impression could be wrong though. Id like to hear what other people consider being a 'purist' actually involves.
> 
> Im one of those very few it seems. Thats ok though. Im not knocking mutations, as a whole. I just think a decent number of breeders should keep the original animals' form intact. Let collectors, collect and purists, protect. I guess.


The only true way to let nature take it's course is to let nature take it's course. Any time that it is a person that is picking snake pairings then it is selective breeding and therefore does not meet your criteria of "purist". Many morphs pop up in the wild but are not considered what people call typical but because they have been produced in the wild makes them by definition typical and typical being a very wide group of characteristics.


----------



## wilburs1 (Apr 15, 2014)

I would like to add that wild caught have some genetic advantages but ther has to be accountability which in my opinion mostly just isnt there yet.I have seen more wild caught in this area than captive bred. Some locals just go and catch one or even two keep them without a license. I know there is not much anyone can do but I believe there are more pythons kept in this state without a license than with. yet tha population here is fairly stable. I dont recomend everyone going and just grabbing their own but it does need looking into somehow finding out just how many are out there it may require a softer license approach I wouldnt know or suggest how just something needs to be done some of the pythons illegally owned are not kept well we should be able to do something I have seen some of the snakes involved and feel for them. it is so sad that some just dont care which has been the case and made it harder for all.Our laws in nsw are a little harder than some I remember in the early seventies nearly everyone had reptiles when the law changed so you couldnt have a reptile without a license i had to give up my reptiles I wasnt old enough to have a license then and my parents didnt want to get one and be responsible so that was it till I got old enough now I rescue them with fawna an see both sides of the story. I often have to rehabilitate someones reptile that was kept without a license. somecan be released as they were still wild while others were to captive and posibly infected with God knows what the way they were treated so I dont think just any one should be able to go and get wild specimens withoutaccountability. Ive said to much so I will retreat again to my wild snakes in meshed and watch them in awe hoping to oneday have one that would be friendly in the wild [dreamer]


----------



## cement (Apr 15, 2014)

oh was it me that called everyone an idiot and unintelligent was it?

or are you just unable to do yourself credit and answer a simple question?

You might even gain some respect if you could at least follow up with what you beleive we should be doing. You stated it, I am just genuinly interested to know what they are. 

The definition of purist is simple. Its someone who doesnt hybidize, cross breed subspecies or jags. 

ok your turn.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

I dont think I ever called anyone an idiot directly. I may have implied it however. If youre not an idiot though, then you have nothing to worry about. 

On the subject of purists, what would your personal definition say about selectively breeding for stripes, etc, as Champagne suggested. Is that still purism (sound like a legitimate term)?

In terms of what we should be doing....... like I said, I dont have all the answers. However I truly believe that hammering it into people that there will be a catostrophic problem in the future will surely do more good than bad. 
With the %75 of Tasmanian Old growth set for paper chipping and the Great barrier reef being dredged (just as 2 examples) something is going to reach breaking point. Each action chain reacts with the next and when you put all the extinctions, feral species, land clearing, climate change and ignorance over environmental issues together, what you get isnt pretty. 
The way I see it, if more people accepted that a 'doomsday' scenario is actually possible then perhaps theyd do something more to help protect our environment. You say that people are taking action, like yourself, but destructive behaviour is still rampant. Whats being done isnt enough, but that wont change unless more peolpe accept a 'bleak' future is on the cards. Telling them that its unlikely to be as bad as I think, does nothing but set the general public at ease, as though nothing really needs to be changed. 

As many here have hinted, the continued expansion of humans is inevitable. To me, based on the past and present species extinctions, this means that more extinctions are inevitable. And not just the one or two a year thats apparently normal. If we cant stop it, at least we can maintain these species, in a pure form, in captive collections. It doesnt help the evironment, but by that time, I dont think there will be much environment left.

What can we do right now? Protect as many remant habitats as we can so that at the very least, these species can cling to survival for as long as possible. I know that isnt anything new or revolutionary, but getting people to believe that it could all be gone one day, must surely help this process along.
Ask anyone on the street if there are endagered animals and theyll agree. They might even name one or two. Ask them if they think they will all be extinct in the wild one day and Im not sure whether or not theyll agree. You cetainly wouldnt, it seems. They should though. Because even if it doesnt turn out to be true....... even if it doesnt turn out to be quite so bad at all (which in my opinion it will) at least it might put a bit of pressure on the world to start looking at things a little more intensively instead of waiting until its too late to do anything.
I just cant see how its a bad thing to give species protection a bigger profile. Which is why I cant see why you attempt to shut down the idea of mass extinction. It cant possibly hurt to be more concerned can it?. It honestly just seems like you want to argue.
Rather than claim in as many ways as you possibly can that my theory has no validity, why not just disagree quietly and say, either way, some more support for the environment wouldnt be a bad thing?


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

My definition of purist probably follows more along the lines of Sean's. It should most resemble a random sample of animals from that area. No hypo, no melanistic etc unless that is the norm for that area. If you were to keep a tiger from many of the bass strait islands it should be predominantly black as an example.

That's IMO the essence of locale specific animals. They look just like a sample of animals from that area. 

Just ask pilbara pythons though the variation within a local population can be pronounced. Without taking a random sample from an area how do you know what the norm is?

If the bumblebee bhp was the norm for a locale we would see more of them collected. To me even though that is a wild caught example it would not fit into a purist definition of a locale animal IMO as it would probably not look like a random sample from the same area. Unless of course they all look like that at that locale.

Pilbara pythons would be the only one I would imagine that could answer that question.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

I don't think Pilbra Pythons would bother adding their observations to the discussion again. [MENTION=9894]butters[/MENTION]. I think that it would be a shame to only produce the animals that most resemble an area and not celebrate the vast differences within each location and the morphs that can pop up from two seemingly "normal" looking pythons.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

I agree butters. Thats an interesting point regarding variation within populations however. I guess a fairly extensive sample would need be observed in order to define a 'pure' individual in each area. I dont see how this couldnt be done however. Just as an experienced keeper can quite often define an animal's approximate location just from a photograph.

I would like to hear what pilbara pythons thinks also.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

Don't get me wrong Andy I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong by doing as you suggested. I can appreciate them as much as the next person.

They just wouldn't fit into my definition of a locale animal or one that most closely resemble it's wild ancestors.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> I don't think Pilbra Pythons would bother adding their observations to the discussion again. @butters. I think that it would be a shame to only produce the animals that most resemble an area and not celebrate the vast differences within each location and the morphs that can pop up from two seemingly "normal" looking pythons.



I guess I can appreciate that Andy. Im simply proposing, as it has already been proposed by other 'purists' of course, that we should maintain pure animals as well. Not instead, but as well. Then everyones happy.

Actually, ill amend my statement to this. I think that some (self)nominated keepers should be required to keep pure specimens. I feel its some sort of responsibility, i think. Not for everyone of course, but those that are passionate about being purist, I guess. I know Id volunteer for Pure duty.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

I picked Dave because everybody would be aware he sees a large number of animals from certain locales in the wild and would view his observations with a bit more weight than others. Anybody who has spent a lot of time in a given area and observed numerous animals in that area should be able to tell you what is the norm for that area.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> I guess I can appreciate that Andy. Im simply proposing, as it has already been proposed by other 'purists' of course, that we should maintain pure animals as well. Not instead, but as well. Then everyones happy.
> 
> Actually, ill amend my statement to this. I think that some (self)nominated keepers should be required to keep pure specimens. I feel its some sort of responsibility, i think. Not for everyone of course, but those that are passionate about being purist, I guess. I know Id volunteer for Pure duty.


I agree that pure species need to be kept as well and think that there is this niche' in the hobby already and furthermore feel that the taking of wild specimens is the perfect way to do this.








A couple of wild caught Alice spring mulga's , quite different to the red variety of St George mulga.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

I agree. Paradox is that many of the new mutations come from animals found in the wild. Albino Darwin's and olives are classic examples. They don't look like their neighbors and yet have occurred naturally.
Even things like full stripes, hypos, hypers can all be found in wild populations. They just may not be the norm.


----------



## champagne (Apr 15, 2014)

To most people a purist is someone who doesn't cross species or sub species and a true purist doesn't cross pure known locality animals. 

The problem with your interpretation of purist is even if you are trying to select for a true representation of the locality, you will still be selecting the best looking animals. For example look at Julatten locality jungles, the purists are still selecting for a high contrast animal that doesn't muddy out with age. These animals are still pure locality animals and you can find animals just as clean if not better in the wild.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

Those mulga examples would fit in with a purist definition of a locale Andy and still be pure examples of that species in that area. With the huge range of some of our species there is lots of variation but animals in one area will tend to look the same. Only things with small ranges are likely to all look the same. Take rough scaled pythons as an example, even then there may be differences between specimens from different catchments.

That's why people label locales. If it comes from x area it should look like this. There in lies one of the limitations in keeping a pure line of a species. If all of the mulgas in st George died out for whatever reason would you reintroduce specimens from Alice springs to reintroduce that species in the area? It's still a mulga. At least at the moment.

You need to keep pure lines of all local variations to make it viable.


----------



## champagne (Apr 15, 2014)

butters said:


> Those mulga examples would fit in with a purist definition of a locale Andy and still be pure examples of that species in that area. With the huge range of some of our species there is lots of variation but animals in one area will tend to look the same. Only things with small ranges are likely to all look the same. Take rough scaled pythons as an example, even then there may be differences between specimens from different catchments.
> 
> That's why people label locales. If it comes from x area it should look like this. There in lies one of the limitations in keeping a pure line of a species. If all of the mulgas in st George died out for whatever reason would you reintroduce specimens from Alice springs to reintroduce that species in the area? It's still a mulga. At least at the moment.
> 
> You need to keep pure lines of all local variations to make it viable.



''If it comes from x area it should look like this'' I think you are forgetting how polygenic reptiles are even within the same clutch let alone x area, I have seen massive variations in wild populations of pythons within the same small locality.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

I agree [MENTION=9894]butters[/MENTION] you would not populate St George with Alice mulga's. There are many differences between the two including venom and size which to me is grounds to investigate subspecies division of the species. A lot of jungle localities are the same as well in regards to size and colour variations.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

Champagne;

'To most people a purist is someone who doesn't cross species or sub species and a true purist doesn't cross pure known locality animals. 

The problem with your interpretation of purist is even if you are trying to select for a true representation of the locality, you will still be selecting the best looking animals. For example look at Julatten locality jungles, the purists are still selecting for a high contrast animal that doesn't muddy out with age. These animals are still pure locality animals and you can find animals just as clean if not better in the wild. '​I guess that where I personally differ. If I was to collect a new species for the hobby I would simply take any healthy, appropriate looking pair from the number of animals available to me. If I wanted a different 'version' Id attempt to locate a locale that was more to my liking. Thats just me though. I like it as it comes. I find a darwin's natural patterning and colouration far more intricate and wonderful than any albino darwin. Thats why I dont own any albino darwins. Nor will I. 
But other people are welcome to, dont get me wrong.
A jungle that muddy's with age is just a normal jungle. I accept that. Thats just what I find appealing. And while I understand that more vibrant individuals do occur, its when you specifically take 2 vibrant animals and selectively breed them is when I personally feel you tread the line of staying purist. Sure, if you happen upon a more spectacular animal you can keep it, but be happy to breed it with a normal one and treat it as you would any other individual. If youre a purist that is. Otherwise do what you like, Im happy.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

Sure you can find them champagne but are they the norm. If you can go to the area, grab a heap, compare and find a reasonable percentage that look the same then yes. They would fit the definition. 
To me a locale animal should look like the majority or a representative sample from that area. Otherwise it's a line bred julatten selected for a certain trait but not a representative of the wild population. It's still a julatten.

Remember this is all just my interpretation of the definition and has no bearing what so ever on reality. It's just IMO.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> I guess that where I personally differ. If I was to collect a new species for the hobby I would simply take any healthy, appropriate looking pair from the number of animals available to me. If I wanted a different 'version' Id attempt to locate a locale that was more to my liking. Thats just me though. I like it as it comes. I find a darwin's natural patterning and colouration far more intricate and wonderful than any albino darwin. Thats why I dont own any albino darwins. Nor will I.
> But other people are welcome to, dont get me wrong.
> A jungle that muddy's with age is just a normal jungle. I accept that. Thats just what I find appealing. And while I understand that more vibrant individuals do occur, its when you specifically take 2 vibrant animals and selectively breed them is when I personally feel you tread the line of staying purist. Sure, if you happen upon a more spectacular animal you can keep it, but be happy to breed it with a normal one and treat it as you would any other individual. If youre a purist that is. Otherwise do what you like, Im happy.


My question is if you breed animals or intend on breeding how would you pick a male and female? would it be enclose 1 with enclosure 10 or would you pick two that you thought were "pure locality looking"? If so then that there is selective breeding and may change what is produced because in the wild it is usually the strongest male that mates and this ensures the survival of the species.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

If I had the choice, Id put them all together. In a large communal enclosure. Then theyd choose each other. Thats just me though.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> If I had the choice, Id put them all together. In a large communal enclosure. Then theyd choose each other. Thats just me though.


A little bit dangerous for the weaker males.


----------



## champagne (Apr 15, 2014)

butters said:


> Sure you can find them champagne but are they the norm. If you can go to the area, grab a heap, compare and find a reasonable percentage that look the same then yes. They would fit the definition.
> To me a locale animal should look like the majority or a representative sample from that area. Otherwise it's a line bred julatten selected for a certain trait but not a representative of the wild population. It's still a julatten.
> 
> Remember this is all just my interpretation of the definition and has no bearing what so ever on reality. It's just IMO.



yes I have found several different colour and/or pattern variations in numbers that you could consider the normal representation of pythons for that area.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

Im talking 10m x 10m enclosure here, minimum. If only I had the space for each species.
Each enclosure would contain the same plants/ substrate and accessories as the animals original habitat. I get a kick out of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats life. Its tuff. (in response to weaker males)
As long as numbers were kept within reason, I dont see too much of a problem.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

When people talk about Local specific animals what is the interpretation of this? Would you consider a Brisbane coastal carpet a locality? If so there is a vast difference in pockets within Brisbane itself. All of the coastals that I have found on my property have all been different colours or patterns.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

Haven't forgotten champagne in fact I have mentioned a number of times about the variation within populations. They all still tend to look the same though. You don't get something that looks like a diamond popping up in bundaberg. Unless it's an escapee.


----------



## champagne (Apr 15, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Champagne;
> 'To most people a purist is someone who doesn't cross species or sub species and a true purist doesn't cross pure known locality animals.
> 
> The problem with your interpretation of purist is even if you are trying to select for a true representation of the locality, you will still be selecting the best looking animals. For example look at Julatten locality jungles, the purists are still selecting for a high contrast animal that doesn't muddy out with age. These animals are still pure locality animals and you can find animals just as clean if not better in the wild. '​I guess that where I personally differ. If I was to collect a new species for the hobby I would simply take any healthy, appropriate looking pair from the number of animals available to me. If I wanted a different 'version' Id attempt to locate a locale that was more to my liking. Thats just me though. I like it as it comes. I find a darwin's natural patterning and colouration far more intricate and wonderful than any albino darwin. Thats why I dont own any albino darwins. Nor will I.
> ...



''I find a darwin's natural patterning and colouration far more intricate.'' I agree but have you seen the variation of darwins within a locality? how would you choose the ''wild representation'' for that area? and which would be the right one to reintroduce if the wild population was to disappear?


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

I think to be 'Locale specific' the animal needs to show distinct variation from others of its species, while retaining similarity between others within its same range. That my interpretation. Unless you can pin down similarities that are distinct within the area (and different from other areas), I dont think you can safely call it a 'locale'.
This would obviously need more thought though. Thats off the top of my head.


----------



## champagne (Apr 15, 2014)

butters said:


> Haven't forgotten champagne in fact I have mentioned a number of times about the variation within populations. They all still tend to look the same though. You don't get something that looks like a diamond popping up in bundaberg. Unless it's an escapee.



yes but you do get reduced patterns, hypos and what would be referred to as ''wild types'' within the same area and Im not talking about the one off breath takers that you find but in large numbers. so which one is the correct wild representation for that locality?


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

champagne said:


> ''I find a darwin's natural patterning and colouration far more intricate.'' I agree but have you seen the variation of darwins within a locality? how would you choose the ''wild representation'' for that area? and which would be the right one to reintroduce if the wild population was to disappear?



That which is the dominant colour form in a given range. One that is clearly distinct from the adjacent range. Im only postulating however. 
Pattern will vary, as each animal is unique in its own way. Colour will vary too as mood and temperature, as well as health, can alter the colour of even an individual animal. However the habitat that an animal resides in determines its colour and pattern. Whichever animal is best suited to the environment will likely be the most common, due to natural selection. Thats the one Id reintroduce.

- - - Updated - - -



champagne said:


> yes but you do get reduced patterns, hypos and what would be referred to as ''wild types'' within the same area and Im not talking about the one off breath takers that you find but in large numbers. so which one is the correct wild representation for that locality?




Large numbers perhaps, but I challenge you to show me theyre a majority.


----------



## champagne (Apr 15, 2014)

I do agree with you guys (in theory) and in an ideal world everyone would be a locality purist or at least not cross sub species but unfortunately its quicker to just cross localities and sub species to get your desired paint job.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

If they pop up in a reasonable percentage champagne then they would be a representation for that area IMO. As you mentioned even animals from the same clutch will differ markedly but not to the extent that you might confuse them as something else. Some areas conversely will have most of the individuals that look the same and this is where most of our locale animals come from. 

Andy could you readily say that all of the ones you found were local carpet pythons and weren't escapees? Coastal carpets change a lot with age though so I'd probably go more with adult appearance that by comparing juveniles and adults. I have seen some pretty awesome looking coastal hatchlings that when mature looked just like your average brisbane animal.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

Maybe we could get some photos posted of wild type locality specific animals as examples and discuss from there what personal experiences we have had and variations we have seen. This may pronounce how hard it is to actually pin down a colour or pattern of a locality. I think locality animals are more generalised characteristics rather than being the majority of the population.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

champagne said:


> I do agree with you guys (in theory) and in an ideal world everyone would be a locality purist or at least not cross sub species but unfortunately its quicker to just cross localities and sub species to get your desired paint job.



Thats the difference. A true 'purist' isnt after a 'desired paintjob'. Theyre after an untouched representative animal from a specific area and it means more to them because of this. But as I said, there nothing wrong with paintjobs (haha, paintjobs), but I just personally dont see this as purist.

- - - Updated - - -



andynic07 said:


> Maybe we could get some photos posted of wild type locality specific animals as examples and discuss from there what personal experiences we have had and variations we have seen. This may pronounce how hard it is to actually pin down a colour or pattern of a locality. I think locality animals are *more generalised characteristics rather than being the majority of the population*.




The two arent mutually exclusive. In fact, they compliment each other. They are generalised because there is a _general_ majority. IMO

But, good idea. We should get some photos to discuss.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

I agree Andy there is huge variation but if you go to a given area you can expect a given species to look a certain way. Coastal carpets are a poor choice of comparison because for the majority of their range they look similar enough that most people couldn't tell the difference.

Stimsons would be a better choice as they do look decidedly different in different areas. A coastal from Brisbane and a coastal from bundaberg aren't going to differ enough to say it's not just local variation. If you put the two together without telling a point of origin most people wouldn't be able to pick. A stimsoni from the wheat belt is going to look different to one from the pilbara. Much greater distance between them but you should get the idea.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 15, 2014)

Firstly, on the notion of “purist” there is no definition with respect to reptile breeding. Secondly, artificial of any kind is not the same as natural selection which happens in the wild. 

Now for a few simple realities.... 

Removing animals form the wild stops natural selection from operating. So the population produced as a result of captive breeding will differ from the population in the wild under going natural selection. This is why ‘breed and release’ programs begin their releases after only a few generations of captive breeding (to build up numbers).

If you have one male and one female from a specific locale, inbreeding will be necessary to build up numbers. However, with ten individuals, say 5 males and 5 females, one could avoid having to inbreed for quite a few generations.

If we lose the environment in which these reptiles live, then we will also lose all of the other organism that live in that environment. That loss of biodiversity is of far more concern then the loss of the reptile component. Loss of biodiversity is the single greatest threat to the continued existence of humans on this planet.

Having people hit the panic button for the wrong reasons will not engender sensible change. Provide a fuller understanding of the ecological issues facing human kind and you should get a more constructive response. People need to oppose the present government’s intentions to allow continuation of clear fell logging along the disputed delineating border. People need to oppose the natural gas plant at Abbott’s Point which require dredging within the Barrier Reef World Heritage area. This is essential to stop now!

The solutions to the planet’s environmental problems are complex, difficult to enact and vary with each individual environment. Many of the solutions are not even known and much research into many of the problems is required if we are to find solutions. I can tell you that having a collection of life forms in glass cases is NOT a solution. It simply does not function as an interactive web of life and you will never be able to ‘bottle’ the biodiversity of even the most simple of ecological 

Human existence depends on biodiversity. From bacteria and fungi to primitive plants to grasses, flowering annuals and perennials, to shrubs and trees. From worms and other invertebrates and microbes in the soil, to insects that pollinate and provide food for small invertebrates, to medium and large invertebrates used as food, for products and to d work. It is a lot more complex that the thumb nail outline above. The bottom line is the need to maintain biodiversity in order for humans to survive. Every cut into the planet’s remaining biodiversity is pushing the human race that much closer to extinction. 

We need to get out there and find out what is happening with our environment now! And hopefully then be able to dsmething about it. So volunteering to help collect data, run surveys, try and slow down cane toad advances, put up car warning signs for various wildlife, educate others what needs to be done now – these are things that will really help!

Blue


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 15, 2014)

butters said:


> I agree Andy there is huge variation but if you go to a given area you can expect a given species to look a certain way. Coastal carpets are a poor choice of comparison because for the majority of their range they look similar enough that most people couldn't tell the difference.
> 
> Stimsons would be a better choice as they do look decidedly different in different areas. A coastal from Brisbane and a coastal from bundaberg aren't going to differ enough to say it's not just local variation. If you put the two together without telling a point of origin most people wouldn't be able to pick. A stimsoni from the wheat belt is going to look different to one from the pilbara. Much greater distance between them but you should get the idea.


You are right but I chose coastals because they are something that I have seen many times so I could talk actual experience and have noticed big variations in. Maybe [MENTION=4778]cement[/MENTION] could weigh back in on this discussion with the years of experience of field herping he would have certainly seen many variations of different species and may be able to give us a feel for if there is such a thing as a text book locality animal.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 15, 2014)

Firstly, on the notion of “purist” there is no definition with respect to reptile breeding. Secondly, artificial of any kind is not the same as natural selection which happens in the wild. 

*Of course no-one is claiming it is. Were going for the closer the better I believe.

*Now for a few simple realities.... 

Removing animals form the wild stops natural selection from operating. So the population produced as a result of captive breeding will differ from the population in the wild under going natural selection. This is why ‘breed and release’ programs begin their releases after only a few generations of captive breeding (to build up numbers).

*Understood. I fully agree. But once again, something as close as possible is better than nothing, IMO*

If you have one male and one female from a specific locale, inbreeding will be necessary to build up numbers. However, with ten individuals, say 5 males and 5 females, one could avoid having to inbreed for quite a few generations.

*Agreed. This would be necessary. Mutual involvement from a number of keepers with the same locailty would help this also.*

If we lose the environment in which these reptiles live, then we will also lose all of the other organism that live in that environment. That loss of biodiversity is of far more concern then the loss of the reptile component. Loss of biodiversity is the single greatest threat to the continued existence of humans on this planet.

*Also, understood. But this is a reptile forum. Thats the main topic of this discussion. Although that doesnt make your point any less true. Hopefully the entomology forum and the ornithology forum, etc can all come together at some point.*

Having people hit the panic button for the wrong reasons will not engender sensible change. Provide a fuller understanding of the ecological issues facing human kind and you should get a more constructive response. People need to oppose the present government’s intentions to allow continuation of clear fell logging along the disputed delineating border. People need to oppose the natural gas plant at Abbott’s Point which require dredging within the Barrier Reef World Heritage area. This is essential to stop now!

*This is where I disagree. Weve been politely telling people to clean up their act and attempting invain to gently educate people on environmental importance. I propose a new strategy. Something more dramatic. Thats only my opinion however.
Everything else in that paragraph though....thumbs up %110.*

The solutions to the planet’s environmental problems are complex, difficult to enact and vary with each individual environment. Many of the solutions are not even known and much research into many of the problems is required if we are to find solutions. I can tell you that having a collection of life forms in glass cases is NOT a solution. It simply does not function as an interactive web of life and you will never be able to ‘bottle’ the biodiversity of even the most simple of ecological 

*As i said ealier, I dont see the captive preservation of species in a preventative manner. Merely insurance for the species involved. My honest belief is that regardless of ANY action, there will inevitably be a majority of species lost. Theres just too many individual habitat types to protect them all. Especially while Abbott attempts to negate the Heritage Listing defensive line completely. I feel a live specimen in the future is better than nothing.
But of course that doesnt lessen the need for action besides this.*

Human existence depends on biodiversity. From bacteria and fungi to primitive plants to grasses, flowering annuals and perennials, to shrubs and trees. From worms and other invertebrates and microbes in the soil, to insects that pollinate and provide food for small invertebrates, to medium and large invertebrates used as food, for products and to d work. It is a lot more complex that the thumb nail outline above. The bottom line is the need to maintain biodiversity in order for humans to survive. Every cut into the planet’s remaining biodiversity is pushing the human race that much closer to extinction. 

We need to get out there and find out what is happening with our environment now! And hopefully then be able to dsmething about it. So volunteering to help collect data, run surveys, try and slow down cane toad advances, put up car warning signs for various wildlife, educate others what needs to be done now – these are things that will really help!

*All true. I agree. The more who are involved the more that can be achieved.*

Blue

- - - Updated - - -

Heres some examples of Southern Spotted Velvet Geckos, _Oedura tryoni. _I have some of these that hail from around Gympie region. They look different to each of these, as each of these looks different to the next. This is jst an example, however.

This sandy coast example has much fewer spots than any other Southern Spotted Velvet gecko form Im familiar with (RP haha)


This Girraween individual has much darker colouration and many more spots. It lives around granite outcrops


Finally heres an example from MT Glorious. It has less regular spotting and MUCH greater levels of yellow. (High Yellow, perhaps?) I can attest that the general majority from MT Glorious all look like this, just as those from Giraween all look similar to the pic above. 
Ive not seen them around Fraser, but thought Id add the first photo as I know its location and its a nice example of variation in the same species.



- - - Updated - - -

As I said, just an example to get the ball rolling. If you showed me an individual from any of these areas, I would be (with reasonable certainty) able to tell you which of the 4 areas (including gympie) it originates from. Of course, other locales could look quite similar to these here and so that would confuse the issue. Im not an expert on all of tryoni's various forms though, hence this is just an example.


----------



## butters (Apr 15, 2014)

Agreed bluetongue which is why I tried to explain my interpretation of a definition. As there is no real definition everyone will have a different idea of what it means.

yep it doesn't matter what we save if there is nowhere for it to go back to. Questions about what is pure, what is a good representation are all meaningless if there is nowhere for a species to go back to. Keeping a species alive in captivity when it has no chance of surviving back in its original habitat has no benefit except to make us feel better. It's already functionally extinct. 

If we fix the causes of decline then there is a chance.

IMO the current government cares nothing about the environment but there haven't been any recently that really do. This filters down to areas like national parks etc through varying means. In queensland as far as conservation is concerned it has become a bit of a joke in many respects although I am sure there are areas where good outcomes are being seen.

There are plenty of NP employees who are passionate about what they do, would love to make a difference and often do but when your budget gets stripped year after year until you are almost running on empty its pushing the proverbial up a hill. Focuses change as well due to limited budgets so if an area is doing well funding can be moved to somewhere else. Inevitably this just causes the good areas to degrade as well.

Locally there are numerous efforts that were undertaken that aren't anymore. Feral pest removal, invasive weed removal, maintainence of fire breaks etc protecting key areas no longer occur when 10 years ago they were the norm. I have actually enquired what would be involved in getting permission to volunteer in invasive weed removal at a local national park and been told no chance. They would never give permission for it. Same goes for trapping feral cats.

As you mentioned bluetongue the issue is much broader and seemingly small decisions in one area can have huge impacts for a large area.


----------



## humba_jumba (Apr 16, 2014)

how would you pick the rough scaled pythons??? They look very similar to me... Just a thought and I don't know how accurate it is however wouldn't getting the best representation of a locale include finding the older animals in that area??? or the originals??? Especially with certain species you would think that there would be all sorts of different colours and patterning not so much one specific looking snake... Sharp colours, muddy colours, striping, reduced pattern, a lot of them wouldn't be any less locale because it looks different... unless someone has introduced another locale into an area... Just my thoughts...


----------



## PilbaraPythons (Apr 16, 2014)

Why am I still reading this post, its making my brain hurt


----------



## CrystalMoon (Apr 16, 2014)

I am not all that intelligent, so struggle a bit with some of the posts. However I am learning quite a lot


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 16, 2014)

How many genes out of the many thousands in the genome of a given species do you reckon might be concerned with visible colour and pattern? If you examined the genetics of two widely separated populations of very similar looking jungles, would they be more similar to each other or to the nearby populations of coastals, from which they were derived?

*Sean,* I am not saying that what you are suggesting is not worth doing. I believe it is. What I am saying is that the reasons you have given for doing it do not stand up to scrutiny. If you are passionate about trying to make it work then perhaps creating a group on APS might be one way to go. You can then hopefully get access to the multiple animals required to make it work effectively. It likely will not produce animals that can be released back to their origins, for reasons already discussed. I will add that the chances of sanctioned release, at this point in time, are zero. All breed and release projects have stringent criteria and regular inspections attached to them. Animals destined for release have to be raised in isolation, so an enthusiast would be required to stick with one species from one locale and that’s it! However, what you are suggesting will provide enthusiasts with access to animals that are as close as it gets to representative of specific wild populations. This I believe is a good thing.


*Butters*... yet another shocking indictment of the environmental malaise that has crept into government in general and those charged with preserving biodiversity in particular. Working at the coalface you must find it unbelievably frustrating, to say nothing of the disappointment. The basics, such as removal of invasive plants and animals, have to be ongoing if we are to have any chance of success in preserving biodiversity in those areas explicitly set aside to do so.

You cannot bottle biodiversity. Insects alone number in the millions and we have formally described but a fraction. There are millions of other terrestrial invertebrates that also await formal description. What about microbes? Hundreds of thousands of species are being lost around the world every time tracts of land are cleared for agriculture, every time ecosystems are polluted and poisoned by disasters such as Ok Tedi, every time natural land is razed to make ‘living space’ for the ever growing human population... The best we can do it try and maintain those areas of greatest biodiversity, which is what the system of National Parks is supposed to be about. 


*CrystalMoon*, personally I have invariably found your posts thoughtful and sensitive... both hallmarks of intelligence in my book. Intelligence takes many forms. One’s educational background does not equal intellect, but where it has been limited, for whatever reasons, it does make intellect difficult to use, display and believe in for one's self. A desire to learn, a thirst for knowledge and understanding, has always impressed me and that is a big part of why I chose to become a teacher (although I did many other jobs along the way). 

Blue


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 16, 2014)

^^^ Agreed.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 17, 2014)

Two last comments related to captives in the wild. I think it important to have an understanding of both.

“No one is pretending that morphs are viable in the wild, they scream "hey kookaburras, over here"...
It is a fact that morphs can and do survive in the wild. They tend to fairly quickly revert to the ‘wild type’ characteristics. You are extremely unlikely to see soft fluffy white feral cat. A number of Brisbane creeks have populations of Swordtail aquarium fish but they are not your usual orange colour. Florida’s Burmese wild pythons lack the designer patterns of those that were released or escaped.


There was comment related to genetic pollution....
Consider the scenario where a single Darwin carpet escapes or is released on the east coast amongst a population of Coastal carpets. If the Darwin breeds, it will pass on only half of its genes. Its offspring will pass on only half of theirs, which is one quarter of the original Darwin genes. Their offspring will pass on one eighth... the 1/16[SUP]th[/SUP], 1/32[SUP]nd[/SUP], 1/64[SUP]th[/SUP] and so forth. In other words, within the matter of a few generations those genes will effectively disappear. 

Now consider the situation of an unlicensed keeper, in the same location, trying to breed albino Darwins. They put a known het male over 3 66% het females and get 2 albino offspring out of a total of 62. Rather than euthanize the unwanted young, they are released. If sufficient survive to reproductive age, they will be able to breed with each and their offspring will be able to breed with related individuals and so on for future generations. Effectively, they can establish a self sustaining population which contributes ongoing multiple contributions of foreign genetic information to the local population of Coastals i.e. genetic pollution.
*Sean*, I only tend to correct statements in those areas where I feel competent. I do so for the sake of the other readers rather than trying to convince the author. Your last comment reflects very positively on you!

Blue


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 17, 2014)

Everyone is quickly saying that most morphs would not last long in the wild and this is probably true for their natural bush setting but a lot of this bush is disappearing or at least changing so there may be a possibility that reptile patterns will evolve to suit and a morph may be the best colour/pattern option for the urban environment. I have read that Queensland red bellied blacks are developing smaller heads because they have a better chance of survival because there is less chance that they will eat a large toad that could kill them.


----------



## cement (Apr 17, 2014)

Bluetongue1's is spot on re the releasing and the probability of it never occurring un less the countryside is returned to it's natural state, which once you lose the fundamental bacterias and microbes and insects....if they are gone for good and if they have no pathway back to the newly instated regrowth, then viability may be lost. I also agree that with no support for reptiles in the wild there is no support for us, so if the main topic here is cataclysm, then we are all stuffed
The good news is that most bushland inc rainforest can be clear felled and returned to its natural state within the life time of a man. Don't read this with negativity.
The whole idea of choosing pairings to create wild type looking (or as close to wild type looking )individuals, from captive animals for releasing is exactly the same as breeding jags and would have no place in re-establishing a colony in the wild. For the simple matter that it is the multiple differences (read diversity), in the genetic makeup that gives the most chance for survival. Not releasing a particular animal because of its phenotype will not ensure anything nor will releasing an animal because of its phenotype.
Jamie said it quite simply, a vigorous or robust individual WILL survive if it finds a place(places) of adequete food source and shelter. 

Like I mentioned earlier, yet it seemed to go unnoticed, like all the other poignant points that have been probably read but not sink in, the only way I see ANYONE making a real change to the environment, is by wealth. If you feel so strongly about conservation, then your only path is to sell your toys, sell your pets and anything else that is an expenditure and begin a pathway of wealth creation. The golden rule is that 'who has the most gold....makes the rules".
This is reality.
Irwin was getting so close to being able to make massive changes, he did make quite a few. Most people would be able (with some planning, forethought and discipline) to eventually buy up acres and lock it up as heritage, but even that small scale only really serves the local population.

Butters - my hat is off to you mate. You are a credit to us.


----------



## Pythoninfinite (Apr 17, 2014)

The natural morph thing is interesting. Every reptile is some kind of "morph" in my opinion, but some are just quite different to others. The "line-breeding" or "inbreeding" things is also interesting. I would like to suggest that there are isolated communities of reptile species that regularly, even routinely breed within their related groups. Wheatbelt Stimson's are a prime example - they occur in communal groups on often small and isolated granite outcrops in SW WA. These outcrops may be separated by kilometres from their nearest neighbours, with land that is probably hostile to the species in between (and I'm not referring to land cleared for agriculture). I would hazard a guess that very few individuals make the trek between these outcrops, and yet the populations remain robust, and their patterns, "morphs" if you like, maintain their distinctive appearance. There would be many reptile species similarly situated - certainly skinks very often live in strong family groups, and habitat specialisers like geckos don't move far from their preferred shelters.

Similarly, I live in an area that is extremely rich in Intergrade "morphs." It is quite clear to me that the animals from certain areas demonstrate strongly aligned characteristics, be it vertebral striping, large blotching, high-yellow colouring etc... Given that adult pythons (of breeding age) are fairly sedentary - I see the same individuals on our block and around our house year in, year out, and have done for the eight years I've lived here - it seems to me that breeding between genetically related animals is probably very common in the wild, and may not be as catastrophic as has been forecast by some contributors to this way-off-topic thread.

Just as an unrelated aside, yesterday I saw a beautiful highly coloured python lying by the Pacific Hwy only a metre from the traffic - it didn't look dead, so I turned around to check it out but by the time I got there it was gone. I think it was sunning itself in a very dangerous place!

Jamie


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 17, 2014)

*Andy*, It is not a case of morphs might survive in an altered environment. It is a fact is that they do survive in natural environments. Corn snakes come little else than bright colours, yet they have been collected alive and well from both urban and natural bushland environments. I am not sure how the original albino Darwin carpet (Goldie) was when collected, but I gather she was a yearling at least. You get white crows, white alligators, white squirrels etc that all survive OK, at least in the short term.

There are a few things about natural selection that are pertinent to this discussion. Firstly, there is an element of luck involved in surviving in nature. Natural selection does not operate over just one generation. It operates over the long term and in this way ultimately cancels out the short term effects of luck. This is why you can find abnormal or atypical specimens in natural populations.

In times of plenty, when a population is growing and flourishing, natural selection will have minimal effect. When a population is in decline, due to tough times following a period of plenty, natural selection will have a maximal effect.

From the perspective of the bottom line, what natural selection does is to change the frequencies of genes within a population. Evolution is the origin of new species from previously existing species. Putting the two together then, when the accumulated genetic change in a population is sufficient to warrant identifying it as a new species, then evolution has occurred. The time frame of species change involves hundred of generations.

Blue


----------



## butters (Apr 17, 2014)

Cement, not really I just try and do the little bit that I may have an impact on. I'm sure many on here do the same and much more through varying different means.

I work in the mining sector which is well and truly one of the worst offenders. I try and offset this in ways that I can and as I have a definite interest in the environment I am really doing it for my own selfish reasons. At the end of the day even if we all do our only little thing to help in the broad scale of things it won't make a difference. This is I think what bluetongue and Sean were trying to convey. 

Many of the issues faced are huge and even though an individual may make a small local difference it is beyond the individual to make real change unless they are ridiculously wealthy. 

That's were governments come in and at present ours doesn't seem to be interested.

- - - Updated - - -

On a similar note to Jamie's just recently I was asked to remove a carpet python locally that had classic jungle patterning but classic coastal colouring. I don't think it was a cross from an escaped jungle just an example of local variation that happened to look just like a jungle.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 17, 2014)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Two last comments related to captives in the wild. I think it important to have an understanding of both.
> 
> “No one is pretending that morphs are viable in the wild, they scream "hey kookaburras, over here"...
> It is a fact that morphs can and do survive in the wild. They tend to fairly quickly revert to the ‘wild type’ characteristics. You are extremely unlikely to see soft fluffy white feral cat. A number of Brisbane creeks have populations of Swordtail aquarium fish but they are not your usual orange colour. Florida’s Burmese wild pythons lack the designer patterns of those that were released or escaped.
> ...



I can understand that Blue.
Its not just a handful of individuals that are reading this, its potentially hundreds even thousands of people. Some wont fully comprehend whats being discussed and some people can very readily adopt a new understanding of something without proper consideration if theyre provided with only one side or half of the story. At least they are being provided with a range of ideas. I can appreciate that. 
Your efforts are appreciated by others as well, Im sure.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 17, 2014)

With respect to inbreeding...

Where there is a continuous distribution, there will be gene flow, and that will mitigate against the effects of inbreeding. For isolated small populations it is possible that many deleterious alleles have in fact been purged through natural selection. 

The effects of rare recessive genes are not readily seen. Where two siblings are mated together or one is mated back to one of the parents, there is a 25% chance of producing a homozgous pair of alleles for a given trait. Half-brother with half-sister or grand parent with grandchild gives a 12.5% chance. Similarly with uncle/niece or aunt/nephew. Half-uncle/niece or half-aunt/nephew and first cousins both have a 6.25% chance. The deliberately manipulated pairings by a breeder have the potential to increase these percentages, as against the more random matings in a natural population.

Blue


----------



## cement (Apr 17, 2014)

Butters - I understand where your coming from but don't underestimate the influence that you (by your actions) have on the others that are involved in some way, shape or form with what you have acheived. Yes it is a small token, but the energy and effort of positive reality, over negative sedentary non effort, is a powerful thing. Its always better to do, then not to, even if it is just one misplaced or lost reptile at a time.
 Australia was once thought of as a BAD PLACE. It was demonised by new comers because of its natural state. Only the koori's which had been here living WITH the land understood the possibility with bonding to the country.
This demonisation by white man has been strongly etched into the psyche of todays population and is extremely evident to anyone who (for example) relocates wildlife....we see this psyche manifest everyday.
So the little things we do to promote awareness and maybe even a touch closer to nature, (ie a change of veiwpoint, even if it's someone realising that not all snakes are venomous or dangerous), then you are slowly pulling the demon out.

Here's a thought to anyone who thinks things are bad. Compare yourself to this 
- Bill Gates = Richest man in the world at number 100. wealthy
- Diseased Beggar on the streets of India at number 0. lack of wealth
Where do you fit into this scale?
I'll come back to this later.

Here is a quote that I love and may help Butters and others to realize that you can still be you, and have to earn a living too. And maybe if this guy was still around, then we could just ask him!

A human being is part of the whole, called by us, "Universe", apart limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his
thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind
of optical illusion of his consciousness. The delusion is a kind of
prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to
affection for a few persons near to us. Our task must be to free
ourselves from this prison, by widening our compassion to embrace
all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
Albert Einstein


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 17, 2014)

Completely true cement.
I caught up with another keeper a few weeks ago who purchased my pair of macs. We were meeting for the first time and met halfway between our houses to save each other a bit of travel. We were both parked outside a strangers house and as he was examining the snakes (with a huge smile on his face as he really liked these individuals) the woman who presumably lived at the address came to get gate to check her mail. She looked towards us in a state of semi-confusion and disgust and said " I hope that didnt come from around here!?".
My mate replied " Dont worry ma'am, we're reptile keepers, the snake is captive bred. Its completely harmless".
She turned, shaking her head and with a 'knowledgeable' tone, 'No snake is harmless'. And then hinted that we please move on.

I felt like turning to her and explaining that ANY human can be far more dangerous than ANY snake. But realised this would have achieved nothing. 
Just goes to show what the general public thinks of reptiles in general. And what we're up against when we try to raise awareness.


----------



## butters (Apr 17, 2014)

Don't worry cement I do realize that what I do has a bearing on others. That's why I do it or rather that's why I involve as many others in it as I can. My making my yard a small haven for wildlife has a very localised effect but by involving Neighbours it extends it out that little bit. By mentioning it on here it may extend that a little bit more, Education is the key. Even if it's just to show them how to ID a green tree snake so that they won't remove it's head on sight. Most yards just aren't big enough for many species to establish a territory. Also it doesn't matter how large your yard is if you own a cat or your Neighbour owns a cat. Cats will cut the vertebrate diversity in your local area within days of arriving. 

As far as I am concerned cats have no place in Australia but the reality is they are here to stay. There's compelling evidence to suggest they were even here before the arrival of European colonists. Doesn't negate the impact they have had. 

If it's not inside it's fair game to me. You get a week to keep it indoors after that it's trapped and taken to the local animal control. If you are happy to retrieve it from the pound a couple of times a week every week then you are incredibly stupid. One day it will just disappear. Most get the hint.

I didn't mention rabbits at all bluetongue to be honest because they just aren't a feature in most of the places I frequent. No rabbits anywhere near home and none where I work. That's the downside I guess of personal experience and observations. They are really just relevant in the small sphere we inhabit. To me rabbits are a non event because I don't see them or their effects. I do know though that their impact across Australia has been huge. Someone who lived in an area of high rabbit concentrations would have a very different view to mine.

I normally don't make mention of what I do either in a public forum but because I thought this thread may be seen by a few thought it prudent to mention some of these things to show that we can all make a little bit of a difference. It won't save womas in the brigalow belt but it may keep a few species from being swallowed up by suburbia or rather give them a place in suburbia. 

Its just a shame that because of the title of this thread and the way it jumps around so far from the original topic few people will read most of it. There are some good points in it on a couple of topics. Also many of the people that could have contributed have left the discussion. That's a shame.


----------



## cement (Apr 17, 2014)

Another thing worth mentioning regarding the govt, is that they really are no more then a business. Big business to be sure but a business just the same. Simplistic version, but when you realise that and think about the govt as a business or a company then its easier to see ways to get things done. Govt only care about ROI. Return on investment. If they build a freeway to open up new tracts of land then you can bet that they will be putting heat on the local council with regard to development to secure their ROI. Sell more land, pay more stamp duty etc,etc.
Problem with conservation is it doesn't turn a dollar. I would bet that if someone came up with a way the govt could make money from conservation they would be all over it. Tourism is the closest we have, which is great, but how friggin expensive is it to go to say Frazer or Nth Straddie thesedays! 
Australia's untapped resources is both its downfall and its saviour.
getting back to what I mentioned earlier, the scale of 0-100 is the poorest person to the richest in the world.
By just simply living, in Australia your at 92, and if can put food on the table daily and have a roof over your head then you are automatically at 98! Yeah it might be hard work etc, but compared to the rest of the world....
How does this help conservation though?
At the very moment we are going through the start of a boom in the property sector. Mainly driven by the influx in population growth, especially wealthy chinese who are spending the profits from their manufacturing boom over the last decade. They are buying up left right and centre, and the govt is giving them grants etc. It doesn't matter who they are, 35 years ago it was the Japanese, there is always immigration.
This has created a huge demand for housing that we don't have, which in turn is putting pressure on federal and local govts to supply. There are so many builders and architects designing tiny donga type accomodation in and around the epicentres of population at the moment, to not only take up the slack, but to get very wealthy off it as well.
Town planning is at a crucial level of development too. If anyone has looked at zoning maps of their local councils lately you may see changes being made. Not all bad either, a new LEP (local environmental Plan ) just came through Gosford in Feb, and beleive me it makes building in certain areas more difficult.
It's the town planners that need to get it right. Every council has percentage driven zones for land (ie a block this big can only be covered (building size) by this much).
So if every block of land zoned low - medium residential or rural, can only ever be built on or covered by buildings by a certain %, this leaves a lot of land to be maintained as non exotic garden or bush. Having these concentric circles of areas up and down or even right along the East coast should leave plenty of scope for bio-diversity and conserved native flora and fauna.
Butters has the exact same thing in place right now. Legend!
Before anyone gets to depressed about the future, take a look at your local council and see exactly what they have in place and do some research on wether it is getting harder to develop land or easier, and what do the zonings in a council shire mean. 
The old die hard NPWS officers of past that are holding tightly onto the reins now, won't be there forever. So educate the kids properly, the farmers properly, and slowly but surely people will see that Australia isn't a BAD place and its quite safe to live with native flora and fauna. 
Again with Butters concept - your backyard isn't just ALL you can do, It is the BEST place to do! And yes, it means getting rid of exotic pests, both plant and animal.


----------



## Lawra (Apr 18, 2014)

This thread has taken off far more than I ever anticipated! Thanks again [MENTION=32947]Rob72[/MENTION] for moving the first few comments over from the olive thread for me, I thought it would be a good topic to discuss and others have obviously thought so too 

Nearly every point raised has been discussed in depth and I've learnt so much, thank you everyone!

One semi-recent post that raised my eyebrows and I didn't feel was addressed was this:



Sean_L said:


> Im talking 10m x 10m enclosure here, minimum. If only I had the space for each species.
> Each enclosure would contain the same plants/ substrate and accessories as the animals original habitat. I get a kick out of that.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> ...



My mind boggles at how that would be simulating a natural environment for the reptiles in question. Regardless of how large an "enclosure" you create for them you are essentially still keeping them in a box, albeit a rather large one, but a box nonetheless. 

Your posts seem to jump from left to right field so I'm not quite sure where you stand on all of it but [MENTION=9894]butters[/MENTION] seems to have the right idea about making your backyard into a wildlife haven. That's a fantastic idea! 

I thought I'd jump in with this (somewhat irrelevant) train of thought as I've been reading but not joining in on any of the discussions thus far mainly because I didn't know where to begin! 

I'd better also apologise to [MENTION=38897]Beans[/MENTION] as I mainly started the thread because of her initial post. I didn't mean to single you out to be flamed, I just found your pov rather outside the box and was curious to find out how you came up with the notion.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 18, 2014)

Lawra said:


> This thread has taken off far more than I ever anticipated! Thanks again @Rob72 for moving the first few comments over from the olive thread for me, I thought it would be a good topic to discuss and others have obviously thought so too
> 
> Nearly every point raised has been discussed in depth and I've learnt so much, thank you everyone!
> 
> ...


This is the scale that is required not a 10m x 10m enclosure.

Past Programs - Adelaide Zoo and Monarto Zoo. Australian Panda home.


----------



## Lawra (Apr 18, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> This is the scale that is required not a 10m x 10m enclosure.
> 
> Past Programs - Adelaide Zoo and Monarto Zoo. Australian Panda home.



Still confused


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 18, 2014)

Lawra said:


> Still confused


What about?


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 18, 2014)

Hi Lawra, I agree that its not the best solution. The best solution for native reptiles is the wild. However, in my opinion, large enclosures like this are the best option for keeping captive animals in as close to a natural setting as anyone can manage (beyond owning 100 of acres of natural habitat and rabbit/dog/cat proof fencing it. Although this would only suit species native to that kind of environment). 
In terms of suburbia, butters' balance of reptile conducive backyards and neighbourhood awreness are of course fantastic steps towards ensuring the survival of native species. However, it only benefits the native species that live in that area. If you want to insure (that may be all it is, insurance) against the permanent loss of a species, say N. levis pilbarensis, youre going to have to create a modified habitat within the space that you have available. And of course this is what people already do by keeping reptiles in captivity, inside or in smaller pits. Im only saying that Id prefer to keep them in as large a 'naturalistic' enclosure as possible where they can mingle as they please, breed as they will and hunt and find food in a more natural manner. This is just my opinion. Im sure some will disagree. Thats ok.

As we've decided in this dicussion, this of course does nothing to help native populations, as it seems most dont beleive that it would be vialbe to repopulate habitats with these animals (although the link provided by Andy might suggest otherwise). And indeed that may be so. 
Regardless of the animals' suitability, the habitat mightn't exist itself anymore anyway.
But Id rather have the animal preserved in as close a natural fashion as possible for future generations. Thats just how I feel.
Others are free to do as they please, but itd be comforting to me to know that at least a few individuals had chosen to keep animals in the manner. I know of a few. Id just like to see more.

To put it simply, a backyard sized box is better, in my opinion, than a platic tub sized box. 
Just in case, Ill make it clear.......... Im not knocking how others keep their reptiles. 

Andy, thanks for that link. Its a great concept that will hopefully do some good in suitable areas. All I can say is that I would see 'my' style of enclosure as the step before release. A captive environment that is a 'mini natural habitat' is surely a good stepping stone towards release into the wild, when compared to a rack system. (Once again, Im not knocking rack systems, only in the sense that they probably arent the best thing to keep your reptiles in if you intend to release them into the wild at some point)
Thanks Andy.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 19, 2014)

*Lawra,* it seems to me that you have probably never seen an appropriately landscaped open-air pit of those dimensions. If you had, I don’t believe you would be saying it is “essentially still keeping them in a box”. For a start, it has full exposure to the elements – continuously increasing and decreasing temperatures; Day and night with the sun and the moon and the stars; The extremes of temperature that accompany particularly hot days and particularly cold days; The full spectrum of visible, IR and UV light in natural spectral quantities and intensities; Rain; Dew; Changing cloud cover; Wind. You do not get ventilation like that in a ‘box’. Insects, other forms of small terrestrial arthropods; snails and slugs. The substrate is 100% natural, as is the texture and hardness of the rocks and timber, which can be of sufficient size to allow occupants to clamber around upon. Those animals that would naturally burrow have the opportunity to do so. Living plants which may have edible leaves, flowers or fruit. 

When done properly, the landscaping is dramatically different to the standard enclosure. There should be plenty of high and low points (local relief), with access to dry cover on the elevated areas in case of a torrential downpour. Grasses and shrubs should be strategically positioned to further interrupt the lines of sight, such that individuals do not have vision of each other. For riparian animals you can add a decent sized creek and/or pond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Frogs and small reptiles that are insectivorous, require daily individualised access for feeding. Where such species 
are vulnerable or endangered and are being raised for released, they have to be kept in fairly standard enclosures. For example, the Lancelin Island Skink (a medium Ctenotus) their enclosures were about 2m x 0.75m x 0.5m with calcareous sand and a few small limestone rocks, as is found in their natural habitat. I think they kept 6 skinks per enclosure but please don’t quote me. 165 Lancelin Island Skinks bred at the Zoo were released. Since 1992, more than 2400 animals bred at Perth Zoo have been released into the wild as part of recovery programs for threatened native species (figure as at October 2013).

With Western Swamp Turtles, which got down to 29 individuals, Perth Zoo has bred 800 and released 600. Without this breeding program, they would likely be extinct now. These turtles need access to their natural habitat of shallow ephemeral lakes in order to breed successfully. The Zoo has set up wire runs, like chook pens, with one end inundated during winter and spring, and the other end with grass covered peaty soil leading gently sloping up above the water line. The turtles need to aestivate over summer and autumn when the ‘lake’ dries out. They bury themselves in moist soil at this time. Females can also choose and use a nest site, from where the eggs are retrieved for incubating.

Perth Zoo has a quarantine protocol in place for all its breed and release programs. Animals bred by a private keeper may undergo the same protocol but without an official there continually to verify adherence the department will not give permission for release of such animals. The same is true of other states and unfortunately I don’t see that attitude changing. *Sean*, this is a major reason why I felt your project would not work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So what are the advantages of the backyard populations of reptiles of *Butters* and neighbours? It is always a pleasure to be able to walk out a backdoor and find reptiles. To have gotten the neighbours on board is quite remarkable. However, even with native bush nearby, an urban backyard or three will sustain the diversity of reptiles and frog that would have previously inhabited the area. As it is, to maintain existing population, the use of most hardline pesticides is out. No baiting snails and slugs as this will also kill off slaters and earwigs and other invertebrate herbivores. Dispersants (ERROR: I actually meant surfactant) used with herbicides like Roundup have been demonstrated to be deadly to tadpoles at dilution rates of parts per billion (Mike Tyler per comm). The reduction in pesticides has further reaching effect than the immediate backyard.

What is of greatest value is that others have been educated to appreciate reptiles. They are more aware of what a more natural environment can carry. They understand a bit about the other species they have loss and are therefore more knowledgeable and understanding of the total loss with loss of environment. They are more environmentally conscious and likely a lot more. Given the opportunity, they may well take action where governments fail to look after the environment. They may well engender in others a greater awareness of environment by relating their personal experiences.


----------



## butters (Apr 19, 2014)

Yes pesticides are out. We don't have a can of bug spray in the house and even though I have a reasonably productive veggie garden the only pesticide used is Derris dust. Whilst not completely harmless it's at the low end of the scale. The only reason I use that is that I just can't grow anything from the cabbage family to harvest without it. A number of native snail and slug species are present as are 2 introduced species. There are very few of the common garden snail but I collect hundreds of the introduced Asian market garden snails on a regular basis to feed various captive animals. I've never used snail baits and don't see the need as I find the damage from them to be minimal. Plus I get free food for my animals only requiring the effort to collect them. Picking up 100 snails individually though is no small chore.

I do however have to fence my veggie garden because scrub turkeys and long nose bandicoots think it's a smorgasbord otherwise.

Interesting that you mentioned roundup bluetongue as I do use an equivalent on occasion and have a thriving frog population. At least seven species are regular residents and I have a number of water bodies set up for them. Small shallow pools buried in the vegetation for tusked, striped marsh and the local stony creek species as well as one of those 1000 liter ibc's cut in half and planted with marginals for gracefuls, eastern sedge and green trees. The tall sides of the ibc's prohibits toads from getting access although I have never noticed toad spawn in the shallower ponds.

getting my Neighbours involved in my case was a bit easier as I live in a quiet culdesac, we all know each other and get on. I realize that not all people have the same luxury.

Also planting only native species is not necessary. Only about a third of the species planted on my block are natives and then there's only a couple that are native to the area. What's important is the different habitat structure providing homes for different species.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 19, 2014)

A very informative post Blue. And I agree regarding the difficulties of meeting officials' regulations. Perhaps in years to come a new licensing system could be implemented and made available to those with a desire to take on this kind of responsibility. Strict adherance and prior proof of ability and reliability in breeding species capable of reintroduction would limit the number of individuals capable of aquiring the license, but perhaps thats not a bad thing.
It would of course require a more environmentally minded government in order to develop the idea and actually implement it, providing funding and official, professional roles to individuals entrusted with monitoring those specially licensed keepers.
This of course brings up (or re-brings up) the issue of a private herpetological body. At least then we (i say 'we' but I of course refer mainly to qualified professionals, although a certain degree of democracy would be required to get everyone behind the idea) would have the say in regards to protecting the environment. I think everyone in this discussion so far has proven that they care more about Australia's ecological well being than any politician. 
There are possible negatives to this scheme I must admit. Im sure they could be worked on however, in good time.


----------



## GBWhite (Apr 19, 2014)

Hi Sean,

Your not alone in your endeavour to protect and conserve our native reptiles. Can I suggest that if you really want to contribute it may be an idea to engage with the greater herpetological community and if possible volunteer your services to a project.

I have to agree with Blue where he has stated; 

“Firstly, on the notion of “purist” there is no definition with respect to reptile breeding. Secondly, artificial of any kind is not the same as natural selection which happens in the wild.”

I also think he’s hit the nail on the head with his “simple realities”.

I’m of the belief that conservation of Australian reptiles has never been at the forefront of concern as it has been in recent times.

I don’t know if you are aware that the recognised need to conserve and protect our native herpetofauna stretches back to the early 1990’s when a number of recognised herpetologists were commissioned by the Federal Government to devise a Recovery Plan for recognised threatened species and recovery proposals. Unfortunately the proposal was never enacted and currently sits in Government Archives.

I believe the reason it wasn’t enacted was because at the time the Federal Government didn’t want to contribute the funds.

Here’s a link if your interested.

The action plan for Australian reptiles

I have no argument that the extinction of many native species across the planet is occurring at a phenomenal rate and appears to be imminent in most recognised cases.

The truth is that we can’t save them all.

It appears that the Australian Government’s concern has made a U turn in recent times. Here’s a link to an article from ABC news that might enlighten you (and anyone else interested) where despite the bleak outlook, Environment Minister, Greg Hunt outlines measures the Federal Government are initiating in an attempt to and address the problem. 

Scientists resign 'living dead' species to extinction, call for triage debate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I believe it may be the same article where Blue obtained the information in his post regarding the quote of Professor Bradshaw. In the same article Prof Bowman of the University of Tasmania states, *“I’m afraid to tell everyone we’re in a terminal situation. We’re confronting a whole raft of species about to go over the extinction cliff”.*

There is no doubt that the majority of extinctions of Australian native mammals and birds since European settlement can be directly contributed to increased population, land clearing, domestic stock and the introduction of feral animals. There is also no doubt that foxes, cats, cane toads and rats have also contributed to the decline in native herp species however; the main contributing factor for the current decline at present appear to be loss of habitat.

I applaud you enthusiasm for wanting to maintaining "pure" genetic stock however; I can assure you that due to many reasons, if populations of specific species are recognised as reaching a point of extreme vulnerability or their existence appears to be considerably threatened, and the authorities decide to take measures to replenish or even reintroduce a species to an area they won't look toward the average Joe Keeper to assist them with the task. The management of the project will be undertaken by a selected individual or group of individuals chosen by the powers that be, who are recognised by them to be capable and competent in performing the task according to specified directions and guidelines. 

Here’s a link to The Society of Herpetologists which is a professional body for practising herpetologists.

The Australian Society of Herpetologists - home page

It may change in the future but personally I doubt it.

As far as measures go regarding reptile conservation in Australia there is research being undertaken that often goes unnoticed by the hobbyist. There are people engaged and undertaking field research with the aim to identify population densities of not only given species of reptiles but other species in general. They are also assigned the tasks to identify threats that may impact on both. This work has contributed to the identification of species designated as threatened or vulnerable in the first instance. I can assure you that these studies are undertaken by competent and experienced herpetologists and conservation biologists who are very familiar and adept with locating animals and recording data. 

Much of this information goes unpublished and ends up under the radar of the hobbyist. Here’s links to some examples;

Perth Zoo | Western Australia | Page 5

QMDC - Reptile Recovery - the scaly facts

South Australian Museum - Reptiles & Amphibians

Reptile Conservation - National Zoo| FONZ

I agree that wild populations of some endemic Australian species have declined considerably over recent years and unfortunately due to first hand observations and information provided I’m of the belief the decline definitely correlates with the establishment and escalation of the hobby world wide.

Whether this will have a distinct bearing on the possible future extinction of certain species is up for debate but again I doubt it. 

It is commonly accepted that reptiles are very resilient as a species and apart from the effects of climate change; if recognised threats to Australian species can be decreased (albeit eliminated) they are more than capable of looking after themselves for quite a number of generation to come.

The criteria to repopulate an area involves many varying factors including the reason for the decline of the species in the first place and the suitability of an area to successfully initiate the project as well as maintain sustainability of the species. This requires a detailed assessment of (amongst other things) suitable habitat (including micro habitat), predation by native and introduced species, competition for and availability of preferred food items.

The Adelaide Zoo’s failed program to re-introduce Woma Pythons was a result of them not doing their homework in the first place. The project managers were naive to think they could just release 9 animals and all would be good. Hopefully it has been a lesson well learnt.

Here’s a link to the IUCN Global Re-Introduction Perspective 2010 with a further link to the paper. 

Trial re-introduction of the woma python in northern South Australia | Greg Johnston - Academia.edu

The real question is…How is a pure local specimen identified? I see that you have referenced some species of pythons and geckoes but what about the rest of our herpetofauna. As stated morphological variations can vary within habitats, indeed within micro habitats. 

For example I live in the New England Ranges of NSW and have collected many Tryons identical to those in your first and third photos from Tamworth to Ashford which are a long way from Mt Glorious and Burrum Head. We get Spotted Black Snakes (Pseudechis guttatus) in morphs that are jet black with minimal white spotting and distinct blue bellies, others are chequered black and white with distinct black head and neck and then there are chequered brown and white with distinct brown head all within a ten kilometre radius of our town centre. We get Common Brown Snakes (Pseudonaja textillis) occurring in a multitude of colours and patterns (including jet black with high yellow bellies) again all within a ten kilometre range of our town centre.

I could site many, many more examples of geckoes, legless lizards, dragons, monitors, boids and elapids. 

Have you had a look at the Morelia spilota group in the new Cogger’s? He acknowledges the subspecies listed have distinct colours and patterns but anyone who does field research knows these can vary even within the sub species. Have a look at what he has identified as M s cheynei. It is nothing like the ones that are jet black with bright yellow banding. The group as a whole is subject to enormous variations. Genetically they are all the same snake with the only difference being colour and patterning. 

Unfortunately my friend I’m of the opinion (and it is just my opinion and remember you’ve stated that it’s good to get opinions) your suggestion that taking wild specimens to maintain a pure genetic line for the hobbyist does not hold merit. The hobby of maintaining a collection of reptiles is just that…a hobby.

I think you might find that if it ever becomes the case, the responsibility for maintaining specific blood lines to reinstate into the wild will not fall into the hands of the hobbyist. If anything it will remain the responsibility of zoos, recognised herpetologists, conservation biologists and similar.

Cheers,

George.


----------



## champagne (Apr 19, 2014)

What are you saying? That hobbyists who keep and breed reptiles are just that? Judging by half the posts and egos you'd think some of them were saving the world....


----------



## butters (Apr 19, 2014)

Ha I keep a number of rarer species
but they are only rare in the hobby. I try and keep them in the hobby because once they are out of it its hard to get them back.

They will never be reased into the wild. I have no illusions about that. They are pets nothing more. Nor should they be. As George pointed out the likelihood of animals being legally released from private collections is zero.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 19, 2014)

......attempting to. In some small way, even if only through raising awareness. 
A damn sight better that doing nothing. 

Thanks for all the links George. Ill attempt to go through as many as possible. They wont go unused by others too, Im sure. 
I can see what youre saying. And indeed Ive met and heard from enough reptiles keepers to know that some arent worth their weight in anything, especially when it comes to conservation. But if youd read my previous post youd see that I already realise the need for strict filtering and various criteria in order to select the right people for the job. If there was a private body, then the governments greedy business mentallity wouldnt even enter into the issue. 

I agree with your belief that 'conservation directed purism' (Ive just coined that term to refer to what were talking about) is not suitable for the average hobbyist. I forget that there are people out there that keep reptiles as 'pets' and nothing more. I guess Im just not refering to those people when Im suggesting this concept. 
However raising awarness for environmental issues should be everyones concern.


Of course, as I said, the tryoini were just an example. What I said much earlier about species colouration and patterning in reference to their habitat explains all of this however. If two animals of the same species originate from the same rock type/vegetation type (habitat) then of course theres a good chance they'll look very much the same.
Even so, I understand that its hard to catergorise species based on their locale alone. But lots of things are hard. That doesnt mean they shouldnt/cant be done however.
Releasing an animal (for example) back into an environment that it isnt suited to gives it a poor chance at survival. I feel that an animal that is proven to originate from a specific locale, should by all accounts, have a better chance of survival there, where it has evolved. 
Variation is fine. If there are relatively even numbers of various morphs in a given singular habitat type, then work with the range of morphs present. Otherwise, pick the most abundant variation. Presumably the most suited to that range. Highly simplified, I know, but thats my take on it.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 19, 2014)

champagne said:


> What are you saying? That hobbyists who keep and breed reptiles are just that? Judging by half the posts and egos you'd think some of them were saving the world....


A comment of this nature contributes nothing to value of the discussion and serves only to devalue it. That you are comfortable to make such a comment clearly indicates that you have entirely ignored the educational value involved in the progression of the thread and the pragmatic reappraisal and adjustment of the initial positions held by many of the significant contributors. It would seem you are happy to deride open discussion, at the risk of putting individuals off feeling free to express their personal and often cherished beliefs and attitudes, be they right or wrong. The value of such discussion through the personal development and changes that it can engender, in addition to the learning experience for reading but not contributing, deserves a lot more respect than your demeaning comment accords it. 


*George,* thanks for your further reaffirmation and supporting references of so many of the points made. I believe what Sean is angling towards is to try and breed animals from a specific locale such that it contributes positively to conservation. Ignore breeding for release, animals from a locale that under pressure and populations are in decline there, would be the ideal animals to target. 

Hobbyists have been recognised and utilised for their skills. In Western Australia, selected hobbyists were utilised to breed the Naretha Bluebonnet for release on the Nullarbor where its numbers had become critically low. I am not 100% up on what was required but I do know the requirements were stringent. So perhaps there hope for herp hobbyists yet. 

*Butters,* I was tired when I wrote that spiel and I used the wrong term. Where I wrote “dispersant” I should have written “surfactant”, which is basically a form of non-frothing soap/detergent that assists the uptake of the herbicide by leaves with a particularly waxy epidermis. I am not sure if it is one or both of the specific surfactants that you can buy premixed with Monsanto produced Roundup. I use plain Glysophate and add dishwashing detergent. Seems to do the trick. Glysophate is certainly one of the least residual herbicides. The other herbicide I use when needed is Fusilade, to get rid of grass weeds in my native garden. 

Blue


----------



## longqi (Apr 20, 2014)

A 25 acre semi rural block right beside a city can turn itself into the Garden of Eden in a very short period of time
All you need is to first fence it and provide water from stream or vegetated ponds
Then eliminate cats dogs and foxes
Plant more native plants to encourage birds
Within 6 months small lizards frogs birds and a few snakes will turn up
Within 2 years large lizards possums phasogale echidnas koalas etc will be there

If they know there is a safe haven they will go there
I used to walk the fence line daily and bring inside the wildlife that couldnt get through the fence
Outside the fence remained barren with cats dogs and foxes killing anything that moved

Then if you want to see the real effect of feral pests remove the fence
Within 6 months you are back to a wildlife desert

Our wildlife can be resiliant if we let it
We just need to provide safe havens


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 20, 2014)

longqi said:


> A 25 acre semi rural block right beside a city can turn itself into the Garden of Eden in a very short period of time
> All you need is to first fence it and provide water from stream or vegetated ponds
> Then eliminate cats dogs and foxes
> Plant more native plants to encourage birds
> ...



I agree. I just worry that when the barren deserts between the havens become too large then how does the wildlife populate these protected areas.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 20, 2014)

The greatest straight up loss of habitat is due to land clearing for agriculture. Here is an excerpt from an article I read, which puts some figures on it.... Some of the ecosystems lost over the past 200 years:


75% of rainforests and nearly 50% of all forests;
over 60% of coastal wetlands in southern and eastern Australia;
nearly 90% of temperate woodlands and mallee;
more than 99% of south-eastern Australia's temperate lowland grasslands;
over 83% of Tasmania's lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands;
about 95% of brigalow scrub that originally grew in Queensland;
over 90% of Victoria's grasslands.
The more remote areas of the north of Australia and the arid and semi-arid areas still have large tracts of relatively untouched habitat. Yet the last two decades has seen a catastrophic decline in small mammal numbers and some wildlife in the past two decades. We don’t know why yet.

Feral animals, stock and invasive weeds degrade habitat physically and structurally. For example, removal of 95% of water buffalos and stray stock has seen mud wallows return to naturally vegetated billabong fringes with a consequent improvement in water quality due to reduced turbidity and excessive nutrient loads from bovine and horse dung. Keeping down number of ferals, non-natives and invasive weeds needs to be on-going. The issue of fire regimes is a tough one and may prove to be critical in many areas.

In my opinion, there will be plenty of habitat available for the future if we look after what have. After 200 years of mismanagement many of the inland areas will remain as is. Those areas around the coastal fringe, which have the highest biodiversity, are the most at risk of further degradation.

Blue


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 20, 2014)

Lets hope we can hold onto those fragments Blue, and perhaps try to revegetate on a larger scale to combat some of the past damage. 

Itd be nice though if the powers that be would ease up. I was instructed, a few years ago, to leave a national park at Cunningham's Gap because I was destroying plant life. I was warned that if I was seen doing it again Id be fined, heavily. 
The 'plant life' was lantana.


----------



## james066 (Apr 20, 2014)

Hey everybody, 
I'm just a newbie but I have been following this thread with great interest and relish the opportunity to learn from some of the more experienced people on this forum. After finally reading through all of the above post, I have summoned the courage to make a post of my own haha sorry for rambling on! Anyways here's a link to a new study I have just come across, hopefully you guys will see it as some what relevant to the conversation! My apologies if it is off topic! 
Researchers rethink 'natural' habitat for wildlife -- ScienceDaily
The study's findings point to the need for new approaches that integrate conservation and food production, to make agricultural lands more hospitable to wildlife by reducing chemical inputs, preserving fragments of forest and other natural habitats and rewarding farmers and ranchers for the benefits that result.
A theory of countryside biogeography is pivotal to conservation strategy in the agricultural ecosystems that comprise roughly half of the global land surface and are likely to increase even further in the future


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 20, 2014)

Sounds to me that it is mostly likely to be a ‘training issue’. Firstly lack of training in how to appropriately approach the public in order to get them on side, particularly if they are perceived as doing the wrong thing. Shoot first and ask questions later is not the way to win public support and cooperation. It was probably also the a result of inability to identify a major invasive weed, which again would indicate a deficiency in training. 

Our national parks system is not in a good state overall at the moment. The wrong attitudes from the top brass and the cut backs in funding have in recent times seen them fall well short of performing the functions they were set up for in the first place (as Butters has illustrated and lamented). However, that is anther topic all on its own.

Blue


----------



## CrystalMoon (Apr 20, 2014)

I managed a tourist concern in the Gulf for 5 years, this property was 1.76 million acres. Most was untouched(apart from cleanskin cattle and feral pigs etc) Parks and wildlife worked together with the land owner to conserve the Carpentarian Rock Rat population's habitat. It is stated by them that it is the only place in the world where these little critters inhabit. Unfortunately no-one there apart from myself shared a love of Reptiles, I did impose an instant dismissal rule on any employee who harmed/killed reptiles. I would relocate any that strayed into areas that may cause them harm(Reptiles not people). This Property actually closed it's doors to the tourists because of the damage they were inflicting on the beach/coastal environment. The Land Owners also made a strong effort to cause as minimal damage as possible whilst farming their cattle. Could they have done more? Absolutely, did they do the wrong thing at times? Darn tootin, my point is that they were trying and I am sure they would've become better educated as time rolled on. I guess what I am trying to articulate is that I know of at least one rather large fragment that is still raw and kicking along  To me, this was my Heaven and I felt so privileged to be able to explore such an untouched wilderness for 5 glorious years.


----------



## Bushfire (Apr 20, 2014)

From my observations of threaten species re introductions, it seems that locale specific isn't really as strict as it's painted to be in this thread. The bilbies released in southern WA came from Northern WA and QLD, the marla from NT. In NSW it's proposed to release tassie eastern quolls into Wollemi, and then there is the just recently announced to be at least 8 species that disappeared from NSW to be reintroduced.
It seems that if the will for a species to be reintroduced or saved is of great public interest then they just take whatever genetic stock they can and let nature sort out the fittest individuals.


----------



## butters (Apr 20, 2014)

In those instances was there actually any existing local genetics to be released back into the habitat?

if bilibies were part of the original fauna I'm guessing the decision was made based on what was available. As a species they may have been present but if the genetics for that region were non existent anymore the next best thing would be from another area?

From what I can gather visually those examples would not appear noticeably different from region to region unlike some reptile species. It would be less likely for a mammal species to be split up by taxonomists to the extent that reptile species are likely to be as well. Possible but not as likely.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 24, 2014)

*Butters*, On the whole mammals appear less taxonomically diverse than reptiles at the species level possibly due to their weverHHOoohigher level of mobility, and therefore potentially higher rate of gene flow, or their highly specific habitat resulting in an extremely limited distribution. Neve the less there are still many mammal species which are split up into subspecies, such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot which has 3 subspecies, as does also the Long-nosed Bandicoot and the Sugar Glider plus others, while the Common Ring-tailed Possum has 5, as does the Black-footed Rock-wallaby and so on for a significant number of other species.

*Bushfire*, you stated: “From my observations of threaten species re introductions, it seems that locale specific isn't really as strict as it's painted to be in this thread”. From my own observations you appear to have a tendency to omit salient facts when making a point. For example, there are two WA island subspecies of *Mala* that were not considered genetically appropriate in using to re-establish a population of the unnamed mainland Mala. Individuals from the Tanami region were the last remaining wild populations and they provided the stock for WA’s breed and release program for re-establishing the mainland animals. Similarly with respect to the *Bilbies*, the overwhelming majority of those in WA were sourced from WA. However, the following excerpts explains why there may be sometimes be out breeding... “Because Bilby colonies are so isolated, each colony is vulnerable to disease and inbreeding.” “The Studbook Keeper maintains the genetic records of all the bilbies in the captive breeding programme and provides advice to all the bilby breeding facilities around Australia. Following advice from the Studbook Keeper, animals are regularly transferred between different captive breeding centres. Lastly, the *Eastern Quoll* was once widespread through the coastal regions of Victoria, most of Tassie and also the coastal regions of NSW. It is now extinct on the mainland. The only source of this species is Tassie.

Animals are assessed as genetically appropriate and not simply collected willy nilly for breed and release programs. Here is a list of locals bred for local release in WA that you seem to have over-looked...
*Chuditch*: 315 captive bred and released. 
*Shark** Bay** Mouse:* 346 and then 114 captive bred and released.
*Greater Stick-nest Rat:* The captive population was found to have two disease problems which, upon investigation, were also present in the captive population in South Australia and the population in the wild. From analysis of the studbook the disease appeared to be genetically inherited. The recovery team decided that all future animals for release should come from the island populations rather than captive breeding programs so the program was closed down.
*Lancelin** Island** Skink:* 152 captive bred and released.
*Numbat:* 135 captive bred and released.
*Dibbler:* 88 captive bred “Island” Dibblers releasedonto Escape Island. Over 200 captive bred ‘mainland” Dibblers have released into Peniup Reserve and into the Stirling Range National Park in the SW of WA. 
*Western** Swamp** Turtle:* 394 captive bred and released.
*Central Rock Rat:* 27 young bred and successfully weaned. Breeding then ceased. Eighteen months later was re-established and one female produced three litters. Of the 10 young produced only 6 survived (two from each litter).
*Sandhill Dunnart:* Research into the captive breeding of this species, including the determination of their reproductive cycles, their reproductive behaviour and the growth and development of their young is being conducted at Perth Zoo. This program has a purely research focus at the moment rather than a breed for release focus.
*Sunset Frogs: *30 frogs and 251 tadpoles were released. Most of the adult frogs were reared from collected eggs and all the tadpoles were bred at Perth Zoo. 
*Orange-bellied Frog:* Perth Zoo rears egg nests of _Geocrinia vitellina_ collected from the wild for 12
months and then releases the juvenile frogs back into the wild. Egg nests are heavily predated in the wild so this protective rearing at the Zoo is an important step.
*White-bellied Frogs:* Perth Zoo collect egg nests of _Geocrinia alba_ and rear them for 12 months before releasing the juvenile frogs back into the wild. Egg nests are heavily predated in the wild so the protective rearing at the Zoo is an important step.


----------



## Jacknife (Apr 24, 2014)

How has a post with a very obvious, simple, straight forward, single post answer managed to schlep along for 14 pages?


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 24, 2014)

Badsville said:


> How has a post with a very obvious, simple, straight forward, single post answer managed to schlep along for 14 pages?



The original question was answered by the 10th post... being a forum people introduce new ideas to the thread for discussion and it moves along from there. Pretty straight forward really, well I thought anyway.


----------



## Jacknife (Apr 24, 2014)

Red-Ink said:


> The original question was answered by the 10th post... being a forum people introduce new ideas to the thread for discussion and it moves along from there. Pretty straight forward really, well I thought anyway.



Pretty straight forward for 14 pages... hehe


----------



## eipper (Apr 24, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> I agree @butters you would not populate St George with Alice mulga's. There are many differences between the two including venom and size which to me is grounds to investigate subspecies division of the species. A lot of jungle localities are the same as well in regards to size and colour variations.


 
Hi all, 

The name _Cannia centralis_ was applied to the central Australian Mulga population by Wells and Wellington 1985. They are almost genetically indentical to the "st George" type animals and reach a similar size. The colouration while seemilingly different is within and clinal variation of the population. They are def the same sp and subspecies IMO

In general.....

If you were to be true locality specific animals they need to be collected within the natural range of that species. For some species that could be a distance no greater than say 200 meters square to in the case of say a Perentie up 8 km. 

Without going into great detail as to why (I cannot be bothered nor do I have the inclination) hobby collections are of little conservation value. Private collections of animals from an unknown or dubious source (as in locality accuracy) are useless as is the case in most collections privately held. These collections are basically no value for conservation other than exposure to other people.

The genetic integrity of a natural population is governed by the species home range, environmental and ecological factors. The instant you change the selection process by mate choice, etc even within the home range confines the offspring produced are still somewhat artificial. By mate selection you can rapidly change phenotype of an animal while still maintaining a "locale specific" line. 

To go back to the original question

with a permit you are able to capture wildlife in all states however I will assume that you mean for pets.... WA have a system in place, Tasmania does as well. In the NT animals found on call outs are able to be sold by the removalists. In SA removalists used to be able to sell Eastern Brown Snakes. In Qld you are aloud to collect a small number of frogs (if you don't have a wildlife licence) as pets too.

cheers
scott


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 24, 2014)

*Badsville,*

Where questions related to the OP arise and the ensuing answers and discussion is clearly worthwhile, then discretion to allow it to continue can be exercised. The fact that unsolicited comments were made to the effect of how much some readers were learning is testimony to the value of letting it run, despite the tenuous link to the original post at times. One seldom sees such comments made outside of husbandry topics.

Blue


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 24, 2014)

*Blue,

*Thanks for the concise response, though the vocabulary used has some what got me reading your repose twice. I do however appreciate the time you have taken to do so, from my menial understanding; I will go ahead ahead and presume that we are on the same premise:

A thread such as this evolves from such a simple question through the introduction of new ideas, ideas that warranted further exploration from numerous contributors given the continuity of discussions.

I agree in the value and impact it has made to some of the threads audience as evident through the unsolicited comments of appreciation in regards to knowledge gained through the continuation of the thread discussions of new ideas - far set apart from the original question.

I sincerely hope I haven't been presumptuous in my assumptions from my understanding of your response.


----------



## cement (Apr 24, 2014)

Is there lawyer in the house? I need this all translated.:lol:


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 24, 2014)

I feel an advanced vocabulary in no way warrants a smart mouth. Perhaps if the general population had knuckled down a little more in school then their own understanding of the very language they speak would be less atrocious. 

Besides, your attempt at over-embellished babble makes very little sense as it happens.
Whoring vocabulary and understanding its correct use are very different things, as is quite clear above.

I agree, however.
As long as the topics presented are relevant to reptiles in general, then I cant see why any friendly discussion is harmful in any way, especially if other members (and those directly involved) have the opportunity to learn. I, for one, greatly appreciate Blue's intellectual input.


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 24, 2014)

@Sean_L 

Was your response directed at me?


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 24, 2014)

Hi *Red-Ink,

*Yes and no. This is the third example Ive seen today of this sort of thing and I had to say something.

If your comment was indeed meant to be disrespectful and condescending then, yes, it is directed at you.

If I missed something, however, and this is not the case, Ill happily apologise.


----------



## cement (Apr 25, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> Perhaps if the general population had knuckled down a little more in school then their own understanding of the very language they speak would be less atrocious.
> 
> Yes, my thoughts exactly SeanunderscoreL.
> I hate the way the general population just don't try hard enough anymore. Why when I was a lad, and I'm sure it was the same for you, if we didn't knuckle RIGHT down we knew we just wouldn't cut the mustard didn't we.
> Its atrocious all right.


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 25, 2014)

Hi Sean,

I did some what find your post slightly offensive (ironically a bit condescending as well). Given the inference to the mis-use of language, lack of understanding and the "attempt at over-embelished babble making little sense"

Can I suggest you have another read of my post in reply to Bluetounge. If you find anything I said on the post to be disrespectful or condescending please highlight them and I can clarify further.

As for the language used in my response, I simply attempted to mimic my target audience's vocabulary (blue - and hope he hasn't taken offense by doing so). Not to be a smart alec or condescending but to simply ensure we're speaking the same way and communicating the same way as it the language blue presented his response directed to me.

Blue could have easily chosen to phrase his response to me the way I responded to badsville - he asked the original question, but he choose to "word" his response in the manner that he did.

Just to get it out there, I was not trying to be condescending nor offensive to blue nor did I take his directed response to me as such either. 

Surely as you could have interpreted my response to be condescending, then I could have interpreted blue's post directed to me as the same - I did not though find it condescending or offensive as I've already stated.


----------



## eipper (Apr 25, 2014)

Sean,

I have no idea who you are but the only person continually being offensive throughtout this thread is you. Your pompous, under researched and over-stated views are for the most part unfounded and or incorrect. When politely pointed out you are wrong you then make a futile attempt to clarify your position. Sweeping claims without research or evidence to back it up is a joke.

You claim to have 15 years experience in the field, experience on keeping wild reptiles, making sweeping statements about how they apparently behave, which more often and than not when I have read your responses I have been left shaking my head. I suggest that you spend more time watching what the reptiles are actually doing rather than making grandiose assumptions. 

Herpetofauna is for the most part adaptable. Most species are able to adapt to urban environments, the population has now doubt fallen due to a myriad of factors including habitat fragmentation, loss, introduced species, Chytridiomycosis, fire regimes etc. These losses have been across the whole biota not just a class group. Plants, Inverts, birds and mammals have all suffer decline- lack of prey items/food restricts reproductive output- this in turn equates to low fecundity- which can in turn drop below the species population recruitment level (not enough offspring make it to adulthood to breed to maintain the population levels). If man continues at the rate we are, then will the earth as a whole be able to handle it without mass extinction? Who knows? I doubt however, without a catastrophic event this is the case. I firmly believe that reptiles and amphibians will remain part of Australia's urban environment.


----------



## RedFox (Apr 25, 2014)

This thread:

Wildcaught animals--> WA & NT---> reptile apocalypse--> save the reptiles, save the world--> vocabulary....

A lot of this thread makes little sense. 
[MENTION=16176]bluetongue[/MENTION] while I find most of your posts informative I think some of the language you use and the way you phrase your posts is unnecessary and could easily be simplified in order to reach a broader audience. We have quite a few children on this forum that would find your posts daunting. Not everyone uses such a broad range of vocabulary in their everyday lives. 

One of the great things about this forum is the range of ages and backgrounds of its users, why exclude people (even if done so unintentionally) with confusing language? 

[MENTION=9894]butters[/MENTION] I enjoyed reading your posts. The place I'm house sharing at the moment has a stunning garden filled with mostly native plants and while we don't get all that many reptiles due to where we are in suburbia, the range of native birds and frogs is beautiful. I would love to set up a similar 'backyard habitat' when I own my own house. 

[MENTION=40131]Sean_L[/MENTION] maybe you should look into a book called 'The Invisible Ark' David Barker. I believe it discusses how captivity can help with conservation.


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 25, 2014)

As I said, *Red-Ink*, Im happy to apologise if I was wrong. Which Ill do right now......I apologise for my comment.
Ill explain though that I found your response snarky and felt it was designed to poke fun. When you say that you 'worded' your response so that he could 'undertand it', I feel that is a little ridiculous. Im sure that as blue clearly has a large vocabulary, he can understand a simple one. That makes no sense to me at all and as such, I still feel as though there was another motive here.
I highly doubt that Blue purposefully worded his comment in a manner that was unatural for him. I cant imagine him typing away and repeatedly referencing a thesaurus in order to appear more intellectual. I believe that he simply has a more educated way of speaking and writing. 
Any why do I take offense to this anyway? Quite simply because I have suffered the same ridicule for speaking in a more refined manner than others, a majority of which have language abilities that very clearly match their intelligence levels. 
Just as making fun of someone's lesser vocabulary is unacceptable, the opposite is also true.


*eipper.* Your first two paragraphs........ I'll simply ignore your own pompous, unfounded remarks from your own grandiose mouth.

Your second paragraph...............I agree, for the most part. What you say is true. However, I cant help but feel that a few species surviving in and around cities is far from acceptable in terms of the diversity we have now and are at risk of losing. People keep highlighting that a number of species can survive suburbia, and even the depths of our cities. I live in suburbia and I have frequented cities. I realise theres two dozen species there, but honestly, a few skinks, pythons and the odd dragon is a far cry from whats out there and has already displayed an inability to survive in a city. 


*Red Fox.* While I can agree with the concept of making each post easily accessible for all readers, I dont see why someone should be required to change themselves to suit others. A better vocabulary is just that.......better. I dont see why it should be down graded for the lesser academic. Why not also learn a few new words while learning about herp related issues. Seems like a win-win to me.


Ill look into that. Thanks for the reference.


----------



## andynic07 (Apr 25, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> As I said, *Red-Ink*, Im happy to apologise if I was wrong. Which Ill do right now......I apologise for my comment.
> Ill explain though that I found your response snarky and felt it was designed to poke fun. When you say that you 'worded' your response so that he could 'undertand it', I feel that is a little ridiculous. Im sure that as blue clearly has a large vocabulary, he can understand a simple one. That makes no sense to me at all and as such, I still feel as though there was another motive here.
> I highly doubt that Blue purposefully worded his comment in a manner that was unatural for him. I cant imagine him typing away and repeatedly referencing a thesaurus in order to appear more intellectual. I believe that he simply has a more educated way of speaking and writing.
> Any why do I take offense to this anyway? Quite simply because I have suffered the same ridicule for speaking in a more refined manner than others, a majority of which have language abilities that very clearly match their intelligence levels.
> ...



I think that it is a very big mistake to make to judge someone's intelligence on the the choice of words they use. Someone that has grown up in a society that does not use those words will not use them and that is completely independent of their intellectual capacity. I found English very boring and either didn't attend or didn't listen but did very well in maths and science.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 25, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> As I said, *Red-Ink*, Im happy to apologise if I was wrong. Which Ill do right now......I apologise for my comment.
> Ill explain though that I found your response snarky and felt it was designed to poke fun. When you say that you 'worded' your response so that he could 'undertand it', I feel that is a little ridiculous. Im sure that as blue clearly has a large vocabulary, he can understand a simple one. That makes no sense to me at all and as such, I still feel as though there was another motive here.
> I highly doubt that Blue purposefully worded his comment in a manner that was unatural for him. I cant imagine him typing away and repeatedly referencing a thesaurus in order to appear more intellectual. I believe that he simply has a more educated way of speaking and writing.
> Any why do I take offense to this anyway? *Quite simply because I have suffered the same ridicule for speaking in a more refined manner than others, a majority of which have language abilities that very clearly match their intelligence levels.
> Just as making fun of someone's lesser vocabulary is unacceptable, the opposite is also true.*



All good mate... no stress at all. There was no other motive on my part, I have been around here a while and so has blue. I know he is intelligent and has a certain way of "wording" things, I merely responded in kind.

Although just one little thing, you did exactly the same thing in a post that you claim offend's you and you find unacceptable. Bit of irony there...




Sean_L said:


> I feel an advanced vocabulary in no way warrants a smart mouth. Perhaps if the general population had knuckled down a little more in school then their own understanding of the very language they speak would be less atrocious.
> 
> Besides, your attempt at over-embellished babble makes very little sense as it happens.
> Whoring vocabulary and understanding its correct use are very different things, as is quite clear above.


----------



## Serpent_Gazeux (Apr 25, 2014)

.


----------



## eipper (Apr 25, 2014)

Sean_L said:


> As I said, *Red-Ink*, Im happy to apologise if I was wrong. Which Ill do right now......I apologise for my comment.
> Ill explain though that I found your response snarky and felt it was designed to poke fun. When you say that you 'worded' your response so that he could 'undertand it', I feel that is a little ridiculous. Im sure that as blue clearly has a large vocabulary, he can understand a simple one. That makes no sense to me at all and as such, I still feel as though there was another motive here.
> I highly doubt that Blue purposefully worded his comment in a manner that was unatural for him. I cant imagine him typing away and repeatedly referencing a thesaurus in order to appear more intellectual. I believe that he simply has a more educated way of speaking and writing.
> Any why do I take offense to this anyway? Quite simply because I have suffered the same ridicule for speaking in a more refined manner than others, a majority of which have language abilities that very clearly match their intelligence levels.
> ...



Sean,

I suggest you do a search as to my unfounded views and opinion, rather than ignore it. While I may come across as arrogant and pompous I have the publications and field experience to back up my claims.

by all means I am happy to find out your history if you care to elaborate?

Cheers,
Scott Eipper


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 25, 2014)

andynic07 said:


> I think that it is a very big mistake to make to judge someone's intelligence on the the choice of words they use. Someone that has grown up in a society that does not use those words will not use them and that is completely independent of their intellectual capacity. I found English very boring and either didn't attend or didn't listen but did very well in maths and science.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hi andy, Yeah I know. I originally had a sentence in there stating that I felt that an individual's vocab is basically irrelevant to their potential intelligence. Im sorry if I offended anyone with that aspect. The words people use to express themselves dont make the individual's expressions any less important or meaningful. I should have left that part in. Thanks for bringing it up though so I could clarify.

- - - Updated - - -



Red-Ink said:


> All good mate... no stress at all. There was no other motive on my part, I have been around here a while and so has blue. I know he is intelligent and has a certain way of "wording" things, I merely responded in kind.
> 
> Although just one little thing, you did exactly the same thing in a post that you claim offend's you and you find unacceptable. Bit of irony there...



Thats ok mate. If you really didnt mean anything by it, then of course, theres no issue at all. Like I said, I had seen a few examples on the same day and reached the tipping point a little. I apologise if I gave you the impression I was calling you unintelligent, just not great with advanced (generally unused) vocabulary. Thats all. BUt thats ok.

And yes I know that was a little hypocritical. A case of 'you started it, so I can too' sort of thing. Water under the bridge.

- - - Updated - - -



eipper said:


> Sean,
> 
> I suggest you do a search as to my unfounded views and opinion, rather than ignore it. While I may come across as arrogant and pompous I have the publications and field experience to back up my claims.
> 
> ...



Scott, I have no idea who your are, or what your veiws are. All i have to go on is your abrupt and rude comment. If you really do have something to offer then I would of course enjoying getting to know you and your views, and perhaps even look forward to it.
But your out-of-the-blue remark leaves me with little respect, as a first impression. Your publications or field experience, or even royal heritage for that matter, dont give you any right to come across as arrogant or pompous and expect anyone to simply accept it.

Lose your (now self proclaimed) pomposity and Id be more than happy to learn form your experience.

Thanks


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 25, 2014)

*Red-Ink, *
My apologies if it seems that I came in over the top of your post responding to Badsville’s comment. I started my reply when there were no other posts but was interrupted. When I’d finished it and was about to post, I saw yours. (As I have a form of dyslexia and no typing skills, I need to construct my posts in Word.)

It only takes one personal comment to star a cascade of them... I shall say no more. 

I deliberately stayed clear of using or trying to defining the term “locale”. I suspect most see it as a locality from which snakes (and other reptiles to a lesser degree) of a particular appearance have originated. What degree of variation is acceptable and who makes that decision? There is no clear definition. People talk about Wheat-belt Stimmies and Windorah Stimmies etc. Does that make the wheat belt a location? How close to the town of Windorah is acceptable as being that locale? This is why I asked the question earlier about the percentage of the genetic makeup that controls these characteristics. 

In terms of breed and release programs, genetic profiles (and any potential debilitating genetic characteristics) are taken into account more than specific ‘locales’. The genetics of such populations found in specific locations would likely be sampled and the population can then be referred to as a whole. It is worth pointing out that endangered animals often only remain in small isolated populations. 

Blue


----------



## eipper (Apr 25, 2014)

Sean,

Unlike you I am fairly well known in Australian Herpetological circles. This is because of my publications, assistance and collaborative efforts with others, field work that ranges from species management, identification, surveys, husbandry and specimen collection for taxonomic work. Again the conclusions you have drawn throughout this thread are unfounded. I wonder why I bother at times to even respond to someone who refuses to actually answer a simple question as to their experience. 

My comment towards you was not rude or pompous but blunt and honest. The c rap you have said throughout this thread has been as laughable as it is sad, misinforming other readers here certainly does not help anyone. I respect those who earn it..... You have not. I have not just suddenly popped up here in this thread... I have been on these forums for awhile. Piece of free advice.... Read and observe more..... You might just learn about what you claim to already know. 

Btw I suggest you look at some fauna lists ..... There are a lot more than two dozen species found in the urban environments of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Darwin. 
Cheers
scott


----------



## Red-Ink (Apr 25, 2014)

*Blue​,


*​No need to apologise, I found no malice in your post and as such took no offense from it


----------



## eipper (Apr 25, 2014)

Blue,

locale specific to me is animals from a particular location. This may have a common dominate phenotype for the area. The problem is that is often bastar-dized in the hobby.... Animals that either express a phenotype similar to that of a locality....eg St George Mulgas....that look the same from Dalby to Cunamulla ..... So they all get called St George Mulgas even though they are found elsewhere.

A locale specific pairing should be from animals that originate from within the same home range of those specimens of that species. The locality often given to images in books is taken to the nearest town or station but may be deliberately left vague by workers if they think illegal activities may result from the locality being published. Recently there have been cases where museums are censoring the locality of highly endangered species from within the public records.

hope that helps


----------



## Sean_L (Apr 25, 2014)

eipper said:


> Sean,
> 
> Unlike you I am fairly well known in Australian Herpetological circles. This is because of my publications, assistance and collaborative efforts with others, field work that ranges from species management, identification, surveys, husbandry and specimen collection for taxonomic work. Again the conclusions you have drawn throughout this thread are unfounded. I wonder why I bother at times to even respond to someone who refuses to actually answer a simple question as to their experience.



Im very happy for you. Im glad youve taken what is clearly a passion of yours to a higher level. I applaud you for your comitment and genuine interest. 
My conclusions are my own. And I have as much right as anyone to pose them as my opinion. You can take them, or leave them. 



> My comment towards you was not rude or pompous but blunt and honest. The c rap you have said throughout this thread has been as laughable as it is sad, misinforming other readers here certainly does not help anyone. I respect those who earn it..... You have not. I have not just suddenly popped up here in this thread... I have been on these forums for awhile. Piece of free advice.... Read and observe more..... You might just learn about what you claim to already know.



Blunt honesty is more often than not, rude. Thats why people learn to show tact, so they dont recieve backlash. A piece of free advice.....Read people's responses and observe society more.....You might just learn about tact, something you dont seem to know anything about. 
I too believe that respect is earnt. You dont get it automatically. Regardless of how much you think you know.



> Btw I suggest you look at some fauna lists ..... There are a lot more than two dozen species found in the urban environments of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Darwin.
> Cheers
> scott



And I realise this, of course. I was making a point. I feel that this small quantity is a far cry from the 940 species we have to try to defend from ourselves.
You feel that reptiles and amphibians will always be a part of suburbia. For how long is 'always'? When suburbia is eventaully formed into inner city? When that city is the concrete jungle of other countries. The evdience is there. Just look at the biodiversity of Los Angeles, or Tokyo. Yes, we have more species to start with. But thats just more to lose.

- - - Updated - - -



eipper said:


> Blue,
> 
> Recently there have been cases where museums are censoring the locality of highly endangered species from within the public records.



Its pretty sad it has come to that. Certainly interesting to hear that this is happening, thanks.


----------



## Firepac (Apr 25, 2014)

Let's get this thread back on topic and keep it there. The has been some interesting, intelligent and thought provoking posts but lately it has deteriorated into off topic garbage with people just having a go at each other or making snide remarks. If it continues in that vein the thread will be locked.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Apr 26, 2014)

*Red-Ink*,
I do need to apologise. I just realised that I put your name on the reply meant for Badsville. I have now corrected it and hopefully you can now make sense of the muddle. Meanwhile I shall return to my corner wearing the conical hat with a large “D” on it. DOH!....

*Eipper*,
The issue selecting mates in captivity versus them selecting their own was already aired with the same conclusion you stated. 

It was also pointed out that there is a measure of luck involved in survival as natural selection does not necessarily operate on every individual in a given generation. The effects of natural selection are cumulative over time, resulting in changes to the frequencies of genes in a given population or species.

It seems to me that you are defining a specific locale in terms of all home ranges of a species which overlap a specific spot or a confined geographic entity such as a small town, a mountain, a lake, and the like. Do I read that correctly?

It was mentioned by someone that in a particular locality that there was a lot of variation. From what I have seen of the use of “locale”, that example would not make the grade for most people. Of course the reason is people want to purchase animals on the basis of looks and only locations that have populations with distinct, desirable and consistent colouring and pattern tend to be captioned as a “locale” specific animal. Yet colour and pattern are the result of a tiny number of genes compared to the total genetic package. 

Personally, I think much of the importance and emphasis still accorded to morphological features, derives from several centuries of museum taxonomy, where that was virtually exclusively all they had to work with. Hence the changing taxonomy as a different curator took over a museum post and but greater emphasis on a different set of features than his or her predecessor. Things have changed but morphology most definitely still has its place, especially with field IDs. But morphology involves a lot more than colour and pattern.

Blue


----------

