Legal trading of wild caught reptiles

[Red-Ink]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Sean_L]

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]

@Sean_L

Was your response directed at me?

 

[Sean_L]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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...

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]

.

 

[eipper]

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.

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]

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 - - -

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 - - -

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

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]

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