Big ideas

[waruikazi]

You are more than likely doing more damage than good, along with the others doing this.

WR, i dont agree with your comment "The bureaucrats need to realise that no one will put their money into conservation programs if there is not going to be any financial return"
i am not as much i would like to be and willing to be - only thing that is stopping me at the moment is space. However i know people who have given up with the bureaucrats and waiting for laws to change and have purchased legal, captive bred animals from SA, VIC or NT and are breeding them in NSW and releasing youngsters (or once old enough to be released how ever old that is) back into the wild by selectively breeding them and making sure genes are are not crossed etc. I guarantee there are other people doing this with other mammals. and i will to get into it when space is available and honestly i dont really give a **** if people tell me otherwise because i am more them capable of obtaining vulnerable or threatened animals, breeding them and releasing and i will happily do it out of my back pocket. The Bureaucrats waste to much and I, along with many others have given up and taken matters into their own hands.

CK

BTW thanks for the video it was very good!

 

[Waterrat]

Colubridking, that's fine if you don't agree with me, no sweat. What you're doing is not accepted practice, I hope you have a good handle on population genetics and dynamics (doesn't look like you do). Do you really believe you're doing something for conservation? It's like a religion - you can pray five times a day and nothing will change .... but you will feel good. That's all.

 

[imported_Varanus]

Chances are that most of these releases end up further down the food chain, so your not even doing the animals themselves any favours! Any idiot can see how wrong this is, surely?! It reminds me of the Dingo lady on Fraser Island.

 

[waruikazi]

Chances are that most of these releases end up further down the food chain, so your not even doing the animals themselves any favours! Any idiot can see how wrong this is, surely?! It reminds me of the Dingo lady on Fraser Island.

The biggest problem i see is that you are messing with population densities without adressing the issues for the decline in numbers. The environment will support as many of any particular species as it can. Introducing more into an area that is already at its current natural saturation point only increases the pressure on the species and others that compete with it, which will either mean the reintroduced animals will die off, other animals in competition will die off, prey and feed items will die off or the overall health of the population will decrease. Which at best makes the exercise futile at worst detrimental.

This is one reasons why the panel on that video agree that insurance populations are not something that the general keeper wont be the people to get involved.

When people get involved with the environment things get out of balance.

 

[Wally]

I certainly couldn't agree with that approach either colubridking.

 

[Elapidae1]

WR, i dont agree with your comment "The bureaucrats need to realise that no one will put their money into conservation programs if there is not going to be any financial return"
i am not as much i would like to be and willing to be - only thing that is stopping me at the moment is space. However i know people who have given up with the bureaucrats and waiting for laws to change and have purchased legal, captive bred animals from SA, VIC or NT and are breeding them in NSW and releasing youngsters (or once old enough to be released how ever old that is) back into the wild by selectively breeding them and making sure genes are are not crossed etc. I guarantee there are other people doing this with other mammals. and i will to get into it when space is available and honestly i dont really give a **** if people tell me otherwise because i am more them capable of obtaining vulnerable or threatened animals, breeding them and releasing and i will happily do it out of my back pocket. The Bureaucrats waste to much and I, along with many others have given up and taken matters into their own hands.

CK

BTW thanks for the video it was very good!

This practice as well as probably doing more damage than good, is damaging to the whole concept of captives for conservation. When the bureaucrats get wind of this type of stupidty it gives them reason to put a wall around the whole idea to stop it from escalating. Even for someone like myself with only basic understanding of ecology would realize that this practice is wrong and could likely be detrimental to the released species and any other species that occupy the release site.

 

[colubridking]

Like i said, im not doing it, yet...so i don't see why people are saying i don't have a hold of genetics and such things. there are lots of people in on this thing they are doing, and they have it very organised. i don't know who knows who but they do have a good grasp of things which is being organised through conservation parks etc. I don't know enough to go into detail about but some of them have been working with legal capture/release programs to great effect. like i said i dont know how it works, but from what i know, its slowly, getting better.

CK

 

[DanN]

Colubridking,

The initiative you mention poses an unacceptable disease risk. A number of studies document serious disease problems that result from the translocation of animals (see Deem et al. (2001) Putting theory into practice: wildlife health in conservation).

The removal of any animal from the wild, followed by its containment in a non-sterile facility and subsequent release provides a means for introduction of novel pathogens into wild populations. Considering you want to breed threatened or range restricted species for introduction, the effects of a potential disease introduction could be serious!

While the motives behind your proposed actions are no doubt noble (and I think I understand better than most the frustration conservationists have with bureaucrats), doing what you propose will do nothing for the species - but has the potential to do a lot of bad.

I hope that if, you, and your friends, choose to go-ahead with this then you invest considerable (and I mean considerable) time and money so that you are ACTUALLY ultimately benefiting the conservation of the species. Because, anything but perfection, could result in the serious endangerment of the very species you were hoping to protect.

Dan

 

[waruikazi]

If they are doiong it legally then they obviously have all the relevant approvals from the beurocrats and to get that they would most likely have all of the science backing them up, which flies in the face of what you said in your original post. I would be interested to hear a few more specifics from you, like the species, areas and who is doign this.

Like i said, im not doing it, yet...so i don't see why people are saying i don't have a hold of genetics and such things. there are lots of people in on this thing they are doing, and they have it very organised. i don't know who knows who but they do have a good grasp of things which is being organised through conservation parks etc. I don't know enough to go into detail about but some of them have been working with legal capture/release programs to great effect. like i said i dont know how it works, but from what i know, its slowly, getting better.

CK

 

[Waterrat]

By the looks of it, you know very little about what "the others" are doing and perhaps the reality is quite different. Sounds like a lo tof bulldust to me.

 

[waruikazi]

CK it sounds like this is something you have an interest and passion in. If you are really keen to get into these types of things I would encourage you to do it properly. Krefft has been kind enough to let us know that Greg Miles is doing a talk http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/...n-42/attention-nsw-members-greg-miles-164665/ in NSW, if you are in the area i would encourage you to go along and have a good listen to his ideas in this regard.

Like i said, im not doing it, yet...so i don't see why people are saying i don't have a hold of genetics and such things. there are lots of people in on this thing they are doing, and they have it very organised. i don't know who knows who but they do have a good grasp of things which is being organised through conservation parks etc. I don't know enough to go into detail about but some of them have been working with legal capture/release programs to great effect. like i said i dont know how it works, but from what i know, its slowly, getting better.

CK

 

[silverback]

the problem has no simple answers. captive breeding is only part of the solution, and release of progeny may never happen - some animals are already on the conveyor belt to extinction and nothing is being done to protect their habitats. for some species, extinction in the wild is inevitable (due to government inaction) and their only opportunity for survival is in captivity - Lake Eacham Rainbow Fish, Spix Macaw, probably Gastric Brooding frogs and Paradise Parrots, ......... they are better bred than dead.

everybody should get along to this Attention all NSW members - Greg Miles at the AHS if for no other reason than to broaden your views, but you will be both entertained and informed.

 

[Waterrat]

Have to check my frequent flyer points, it's not to be missed.

M

 

[Jackrabbit]

And on a related note ( or a continuation of the above rant ) it appears that in order to get or continue to do snake relocation in QLD you are now required to hold a senior first aid certificate.

Not sure why this is a problem? apart from the additional cost if you don't get paid to relocate. But then a first aid course isn't a bad thing to have anyway. JMO

 

[Slickturtle]

Wokka in terms of wild biodiversity a dead wild one is more useful than a captive live one in a private keepers hands, atleast the dead one is going back into the food chain...

Either way, if they become extinct in the wild but still exist in captivity the effect on the environment is exactly the same.

I think it is much better to have them in captivity than no where. But to me, having them in the average private keeper collections, that isn't conservation.

Hi Gordo. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution. But reading your words I get the impression that your are arguing against your own preferred position. IE would you preserve your own live snakes in a jar because keeping them live does not contribute to 'conservation'? You could save a lot of money if you did!

But firstly I used to have your view that captive breeding of rare animals was an "anti extinction" strategy. But recently I have changed that and I now see it as a conservation strategy. I now argue that captive breeding in private hands is 'conservation' for a couple of good reasons: 1.Look at the following international definitions of conservation very closely.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines conservation as:
“The action of conserving; preservation from destructive influences, decay or waste”. (1973)

and

The IUCN/UNEP/WWF, World Conservation Strategy (1980)
“Conservation is the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of the future generations.”

I would argue under those definitions, that keeping animals in captivity (even if they are extinct in the wild with no prospect of release) is conservation - who am I to argue against the Oxford English and the IUCN/WWF?! Thus, according to the WWF etc., the RSP story is a win for conservation.

and 2. you say "What use are these animals to the environment if they are stuck in glass cages? The answer to this is nothing!" You have to put that in context Gordo. I would counter argue "What use are Oenpelli Pythons to the environment if their population has crashed to only 20% of the original? Same answer - nothing. Look at quolls in your area. They have crashed to about 5% of their pre toad population. What use are the remaining ones to the environment? The answer is nil. In north Australia now - because of toads - we have lots of native animal species which are now "useless" in the environment because their numbers have been reduced below the point of "ecological extinction".

You talk about our selfishness. Selfishness in humans is a force for good as well a force for bad. Your mother possibly had you for selfish reasons - and mine me etc. You could mount the case that a lot of conservation effort is done for selfish reasons - ie people like to live in a nice place.

Finally, we all know that extinctions are just starting in Australia (and we should not get too hung up on the word extinction "population crash" is almost as bad as absolute extinction in my view) so you have to ask the question - Why not?

Forget about reintroductions for the moment, if a species is heading for, or experienced a population crash in the wild - why not let people keep, breed and sell them? What are the reasons against this?

Sorry for being too lengthy. Keep working up your ideas Gordo - we really need good thinkers in our midst.

Greg Miles

Hi Gordo. You say - "The majority of our conservation efforts need to be focused on restoring a balance to our environment. Fix the environment and we won't need insurance policies."

Well after more than 30 years as a Chief Ranger in one of Australia's largest, most famous and wealthiest national parks - I can tell you that for th past 40 or more years the majority of our conservation effort HAS been focused on restoring or maintaining the balance but it ain't working. We can't fix the environment! in countless cases.

Almost all of our protected area are going backwards in terms of environmental quality. Have a walk around the outskirts of your town of Oenpelli and you will see a landscape under mortal attack. Nothing will save it from Mimosa, Para Grass, Mission and Gamba Grass, Olive Hymenacne, Salvinia, destructive fires and Cane Toads. It is because we cannot fix the environment that we must think outside the box to save our wildlife. Commercial utilisation is one thing which can help and because it costs the Government very little, it is doable.

Cheers

GLM

 

[Pythoninfinite]

CK, there's no point in captive breeding and release if we don't know why stuff is going down the tube in the first place - if the habitat is buggered, you're just sending good animals to a certain death - what's the point in that? Habitat restoration may NEVER occur, but if we have a suitable population of captives which can be reintroduced IF the habitat secrets are exposed and dealt with, THEN we MAY be able to put some of them back. That's only an IF, not a primary objective at this point in time.

Jamie

 

[Red-Ink]

Would it be a feasable idea as such for private breeders/hobbyist who have specimens in their collection that have threatened wild populations to give back to a professional conservation body (what ever that may be) a portion/percentage of progeany of their specimens... The conservation programs governing body can then decide the issues of re-introduction if and when that is applicable from the specimens they have.

It'll be like increasing the breeding programs by employing the amateurs. I know quarantine issues will arise from the idea but if there was a way to risk manage and access this, i think it would be a help towards increasing a breeding population program for some threatened species.

 

[waruikazi]

Greg fantastic that you have joined us once again! I was hoping and dreading that you would!

I don't keep many snakes any more, because i prefer to see them in the bush and i do have a much larger preserved collection than live lol. I don't see my keeping of animals as conservation, i keep them/it because i enjoy interacting with them. Right now i encounter dozens of wild reptiles in the environment each week so i really don't feel the need to keep them. But you are right, if i had to choose between seeing a live captive, a preserved animal or nothing at all i would choose the live one any day. But i don't think even you could argue that a live captive is having more of an effect on biodiversity than a preserved one?

I personally see a big difference in 'conservation' keeping and hobby keeping. I haven't got a problem with either and i am all for it, but the way our keeping hobby is currently structured i don't think it can do an awful lot for 'wild' conservation except raising awareness. And i think to preserve a species in captivity, true to its wild counterpart, would take people with more expertise than the average keeper. I'm pretty sure you have agreed with me on that in the past.

I know our current efforts aren't working and we need to try some new things, i think the ideas that you have and the other panel members are fantastic and should be given a crack. I would follow you to the centre of the escarpment and back to get it done! But i still think that the ideas can only be a small part of a greater effort, all of which are as important as each other.

I don't have the experience to argue your point of ecological extinction, so to that all i will say is i get a whole lot more satisfaction out of seeing an animal in the bush than in captivity (and i finally got to see a wild pig nose a month back!)

I'll finish be reitterating that i totally support these ideas and we need to explore more and new methods of conservation if we are to keep many of aour species from total extinction. I think i'm a little more grounded than most people in what we really can acheive but i still think they need to be explored and i support them.

 

[Elapidae1]

Hi Greg, could you please explain "below the point of ecological extinction" a little further, Im assuming it means that said animals are at a point where they can no longer bounce back because their ecological niche is so far degraded it's beyond restoration and extinction is just a matter of time.

 

[Slickturtle]

About national action

How about solutions Gordo?
The problems are well known, and the CB hobby/industry is its own animal.
Satellite colonies are only as good as their genetic diversity, but what else is there.
If these types of colonies had no potential, then where does that leave the tassie Devil. Would people as passionate and knowledgeable as JW get involved in a lost cause?
It is private funding that will save the day for conservation. The politicians will fight tooth and nail to save their sorry backsides and be able to drink coffee and eat donuts at OUR expense.
The way i look at it, in this present moment, is that we need a Juggernaut of support from individuals to combine to add weight and numbers to apply pressure to the govt immediately. Call it network marketing if you like, with branches all over the country like chapters in a book, who can at the right time come together and apply the pressure when needed.
I am talking about this tomorrow at a general meeting of our organisation and will be asking for support in making others aware of this situation. Its a start.
If anyone has some real grunt going in the right direction regarding this, and would like support, feel free to contact me.

I am right there with your Juggernaut concept. Cement.

I think Australia is nearing a tipping point where things will change if we get organised. People have tried in the past but failed. BUT the big difference now is that - we have in hand all the evidence we need to show that the Government wildlife agencies are failing to do the job. That means that for the first time ever, we can now fight them on more even terms. And the general public (I assume and hope) would support us in respect of our goal of saving animals from extinction by keeping, loving and breeding them.

As someone else mentioned, we also need the get the mammal people and the aviculturalists, ANGFA (Aust. Native Fish mob) on board as well. I have written a road map for how we would do this.

Slickturtle