Legal trading of wild caught reptiles

[Sean_L]

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]

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]

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]

oh was it me that called everyone an ***** 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]

I dont think I ever called anyone an ***** directly. I may have implied it however. If youre not an ***** 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.