Question 2 to help the hobby: Lets bulldoze the lot – does it really affect us?

[glebo]

Hello again. It appears that while we have had around a thousand views of the first question, only a handful participated. I must thank all of you that did comment and I know it is a pain to do so. I am not sure why so few wanted to say anything but I ask PLEASE, PLEASE have a say. I want to hear from you all and I am not here to judge or attack you. This is your hobby and mine and together we are stronger than as individuals. If you are worried about being ridiculed or maligned for your say then PM me. It will remain confidential and really help.

I have spent a lifetime working on and with pastoral properties and have never found a person on the land that doesn’t think about the critters on their place. However they do need to make a living and as population goes up so to does the demand for food. Two of the larger states have a policy of ‘if it increases production for human consumption then you will get a permit to bulldoze it to put in more food bearing infrastructure’! Recently I saw a friend of mine bulldoze 50 hectares on TV so I am guessing a few others saw it also. He would very willingly have allowed anyone to come in and get any critters they wanted from this country because he knew that if it stayed there they were dead. Unfortunately they are all now dead, and this happens every day in the name of ‘progress’ right around Australia!


Rough estimates by me for this 50 ha suggest there were around 30 spotted tree goannas, 25 frill neck lizards, 3 olive pythons, 10 children’s pythons, 3 black headed pythons, 15 ridge tailed goannas, 200 splendid dragons, a few bandicoots, some sugar gliders, a couple of Gould’s goannas and a bucket load of critters that are small and rarely kept, among other things.

My question is: should we be able to go into country that is earmarked for destruction and salvage animals that are valued as a resource by us in captivity, or as is the case now in most states we have it die so the authorities don’t have to deal with it or us?

Kind regards
Gavin Bedford

 

[Pauls_Pythons]

Absolutely these animals should be saved.
I'm not convinced that putting them into captivity is the best option but it's certainly better than the alternative. Maybe relocation should be up as an option?

Why is it that govt bodies keep telling us that environmental protection is the forethought of their actions when dealing with us when things like this are allowed to take place with no consideration of the environmental impact? These animals are allegedly protected by the state.

 

[eipper]

Yes, however for the most part it is already happening to a point via relocation. Spotter catching, pre clearing sweeps relocate animals (not only Herps but the fuzzies as well) to areas adjacent not being cleared. In other areas eg suburban Perth catchers often approach land developers to collect of lands getting flattened for housing.

Again this comes back to my answer on q1. If its in someway threatened/rare then advice of suitable individuals should be consulted re best practice... Whether that is a uni lab/researcher, parks and wildlife rep or a consultant from a zoo or private sector or a group comprising of those it does not matter. The common stuff should be able to be collected.

 

[Radar]

I believe we should within reason. I work as a contractor doing wildlife relocations from clearing/construction zones (mines, railway expansions, pipelines for industry, etc, etc). Anyone who has knowledge of the ecology of species involved will tell you that some of the animals don't stand much of a chance when pulled straight from one territory and dumped into another (not just talking about reptiles here), the only difference for a lot of these animals is they just die a slower death. Chances of survival obviously vary from species to species depending on all manner of variables, as well as the carrying capacity of the habitat they are about to be dumped into.

I believe there should be a provision for animals to be taken as captives, if relocation to other suitable habitat is deemed to basically be nonviable for the animal. A point to note for some people that may not know - in Queensland if an animal is taken into care and deemed to be unfit for release it's supposed to be euthanized. So basically even if an individual has adapted well to captivity, can have a great quality of life and be used as an educational tool, most vets will euthanize it on the spot if it can't be released. Doesn't leave much hope for controlled take of wild animals to prevent their death when we already nuke rescued animals.

 

[Stuart]

Yes

 

[Sami-Lochy]

At the moment we live in a society based around the idea of consumption, and nothing's going to change until people start waking up and realising that there is another way, and that we don't have to live in a society that starts wars just for the purpose of controlling resources. Every day we are destroying our earth and the creatures that inhabit it. unfortunately we live in a day and age where if we destroy something created by man we call it vandalism but if we destroy something created by nature we call it "progress". The "system" that we are living in is backwards.

Anyway, back to the question.. That is a great idea, but still it is going to happen, deforestation will occur and animals will be suffering and their habitats destroyed by industry. The only way to stop everything is to go to the heart of the problem and stand up for change, for a world where we can finally see how much destruction, suffering, and waste we create and finally say enough is enough.

 

[Bushman]

This is a good topic of discussion and one that I've often thought long and hard about over the years. I've often been upset at the fact that this happens and even worse when I happen to witness it. I wholeheartedly agree that licensed wildlife collectors should be allowed to collect animals doomed for destruction. Flora and fauna surveys should be conducted on all land to be cleared and any rare and/or endangered animals present should be collected. Similarly, the seeds from rare or uncommon plants should be collected and kept in a seed bank.

 

[Newhere]

Hello everyone,
I think the animals should be relocated although I understand that there would have to be some sort of issues with overpopulation in the area they were relocated to. Maybe there should be some sort of program where these animals are captured and then released into areas that are currently being regenerated/revegetated. I don't think putting them in captivity is a good idea considering the amount of animals already in captivity and to be honest I think its more humane to be run over by a bulldozer than to end up like that poor bloody lizard from gumtree in that other thread.

Anyway this is just my opinion I'm not an expert and I'm only new to this hobby.

K

 

[pythonmum]

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Trapping should be allowed in the interior of the property, but not on border regions where the animals may have ranges that overlap habitat that will remain intact. Relocation makes people feel better, but is really not an option, as the availability of habitat is what limits most species. If you relocate them to the territory of other animals, both sets of critters get stressed and many will die. If trapped, those suitable for captive husbandry can be released to the public for that purpose. Any rare ones may find an appropriate facility or specialist keeper. Those which are damaged or unsuitable for captive husbandry should be humanely euthanised rather than left to die under the wheels of heavy machinery or starve to death in a wasteland.

 

[wokka]

The poitically correct anwer would be yes, but if you take 50 hectares of habitat and food off the planet then the hard truth is that 50 hectares worth or animals depending upon that area need to go as well. If there is a shortage of an animal in an area it is normally because of predators, feed shortage or disease. Rather than importing relocated new animals to that area, it is better to fix the problem causing the population decline.Use of captive animals as pets may be an option as it takes pressure of other sources of wild capture and native animals are a far better choice for pets as they have less negative impact on the environment.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Although relocation sounds like a great idea, my belief is that it rarely works, especially for predators. Of course we should be allowed to clear as many animals from land destined for destruction - it's a bizarre comment of the state of legislation that you can be fined for saving an animal's life in some states. WA may be unique in this area - as they still allow a wild take of certain species, permission can be given for licenced takers to do this. Pity about the hundreds of Rosenberg's killed on the Kwinana Freeway when it went south through all that Banksia bushland behind Cockburn Sound...

Jamie

 

[Luvbuz]

IMHO the powers that be only care about the fuzzy animals. In Qld when a developer wanted to make a creek into a concrete culvert, clear eucalypts and other native trees shrubs and grasses for a housing development he was halted due to concerns for a small koala population, and rightly so. The warm and fuzzy rescuers came in and relocated the koala population about 30kms away to similar habitat. The dozers then went in and killed everything else that couldn't run, crawl, hop, fly or slither away. Countless goannas, snakes, turtles and small critters were crushed as the trees came down and the ground was levelled, but the koalas stayed safe. Until they were decimated by a disease carried by the existing colony to which the new ones weren't resistant! End result - a lovely new housing development, dozens of dead koalas, and hundreds of dead reptiles, natives and numerous others. This was around Strathpine/Petrie on the northside of Brisbane in the 80's - still going on today everywhere. Do we need more food production? Yes! Do we need more housing? Yes! Is there a better way to plan development? Yes! How do we solve the problem? - I don't know!

 

[borntobnude]

IMHO the powers that be only care about the fuzzy animals. In Qld when a developer wanted to make a creek into a concrete culvert, clear eucalypts and other native trees shrubs and grasses for a housing development he was halted due to concerns for a small koala population, and rightly so. The warm and fuzzy rescuers came in and relocated the koala population about 30kms away to similar habitat. The dozers then went in and killed everything else that couldn't run, crawl, hop, fly or slither away. Countless goannas, snakes, turtles and small critters were crushed as the trees came down and the ground was levelled, but the koalas stayed safe. Until they were decimated by a disease carried by the existing colony to which the new ones weren't resistant! End result - a lovely new housing development, dozens of dead koalas, and hundreds of dead reptiles, natives and numerous others. This was around Strathpine/Petrie on the northside of Brisbane in the 80's - still going on today everywhere. Do we need more food production? Yes! Do we need more housing? Yes! Is there a better way to plan development? Yes! How do we solve the problem? - I don't know!

I have witnessed similar acts around Mission Beach over the years , all they care about there is the cassowary population . Many a housing estate has been bulldozed into the rainforest and if you watch you can see all of the animals run ,fly and slither away but not the cassowaries as the were chased out days earlier . and with the intelligence of these destructors many animals go straight onto the roads only to be squashed . so YES !!

 

[crocodile_dan]

The conservation value would be the same, in either scenario (leaving them or taking into captivity) that selection of animals will be removed from the ecosystem and their genetics now absent from the population. And, as many people have expressed above, relocations are never a simple matter of taking X individuals and putting them in Y habitat.

If however they went to exhibitors/demonstrators under the provision that 3-4% of said business' income for the following 1-2 years went back to conserving habitat/species affected by the initial development, then there would be some conservation value attained.

I would also raise the concern of resources and prioritizing their application. Would the required resources into such a program (time and money etc) be better used somewhere else where they would preserve a greater array of species/habitats.

 

[KaotikJezta]

There are many, many problems with relocation unfortunately. The fact that some animals don't take well to relocation and wont stay, increased burden on the animals already established in the relocation zone etc. Taking them into captivity is not always the right answer either, for example sugar gliders, IMO, should not be kept by private keepers. When you see them in the wild you realise keeping them penned up in an aviary is wrong.

 

[Rogue5861]

There are many, many problems with relocation unfortunately. The fact that some animals don't take well to relocation and wont stay, increased burden on the animals already established in the relocation zone etc. Taking them into captivity is not always the right answer either, for example sugar gliders, IMO, should not be kept by private keepers. When you see them in the wild you realise keeping them penned up in an aviary is wrong.

Same could be said about any reptile species or domestic animal. What animal do you know that would prefer to live in a 4x2x2 over the great distances in the wild, forgetting about an dangers there may be.

Im all for collection of any animals that are at the risk of being injured, killed or force out of there home due to no fault of their own (human doings). As stated by others the habitat that reside in is normally bordered by either predators, unacceptable living conditions or territorial behavour. Relocation to another "suitable" habitat could cause stress or an undue death.

Collection of these animals isnt for human benefits, this is to allow the animal a greater chance at living them what relocation my allow.


Rick

 

[Pilbarensis]

The current government departments generally see private keepers as more or less a nuisance as well as a source of income (licence payments, import/export permits etc.) rather than a potential resource to be utilised when it comes to establishing species in captivity and ensuring there will always be a backup population in place. Although not everyone out there would be as interested in keeping and potentially breeding species of apparently little to no interest to the general population (for example delma or pletholax sp.) however there would be those few willing to put in the effort to maintain a small captive population. Departments should allowed to monitor such populations however to ensure general health and breeding results of the species. I would personally see this as only a positive for Australian native reptiles.

In short yes, for a lot of people out there this is a passion not just a hobby and there would be many out there that would be ready to work with departments for the good of Australia's native fauna. Our native fauna, flora and ecosystems are at risk, there is no denying that. If the government wants to be able to ensure the continuing survival of species such as (off the top of my head) the Arnhem Land Egernia (Bellatorias obiri). I encourage people that disagree with what I have said to post as I look forward to seeing this topic progress and learning a thing or two.

 

[MathewB]

I think that in the very least a environmental survey should be carried out, and any species be it plant or animal should be collected whether for relocation or further scientific research. As for the rest of it, i.e. 'least concern' etc. animals perhaps let licenced collectors sweep the area as it were and take their pick of anything they can find, it sounds a bit odd I know but it's better than getting trampled or starving for the animal. Not everything is going to make it either way and as Wokka said one way or another (unless the dozing is forbidden) you're going to be getting rid of 50 hectares worth of whatever sort of wildlife is there so let it be of benefit to science and to our hobby.

 

[Striker]

Yes - sorry for the late response. For some reason I overlooked these question earlier when participating in the first and last of your questions.

Practically what sort of time frame would exist to try catch animals in an area to be cleared? Ie. how long should capture occur for (how many days) and how soon before clearing the land? A mathematical formula would need to be developed against the size of the area being cleared (ie. 3 days of capture within one week of clearing commencement for each 10 hectares) I've made up random numbers but you get the idea...

 

[cement]

Its a great idea in theory, but if thousands of hectares to be cleared had the existing wildlife collected, there would be stockpiles of animals without homes. Would the govt build shelters for these animals, would the developers.......provide food and suitable lodging and pay the keepers a wage to look after them?
Its hard enough finding homes for misplaced herps here on the central coast at times, let alone what you would end up with by collecting from large tracts of earmarked country.
Somewhere. someone, would end up with lots of animals and they would struggle to maintain them.