Legal trading of wild caught reptiles

[eipper]

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]

Blue​,


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

 

[eipper]

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]

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 - - -

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]

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]

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