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

[Striker]

Yes the question definitely poses some interesting issues. I guess rather than collecting on a massive scale you could invite licensed keepers who intend to keep what they find/catch to come onto the land then leave it at that. Some animals may be rescued. The rest would be wiped out (as currently occurs). I definitely see Gavin's point in that if we are wiping out the animals why not let people collect them....but it's certainly not a black and white scenario with an obvious ethical solution.

And once again the whole issue highlights anomalies (or stupidity) in relation to many of our laws and licensing restrictions. The discussion here clearly demonstrates the benefit of Gavins proposed group of representatives - to nut out the pros and cons of issues like this, compromise, figure out a way forward and then go fight the fight with the regulators and law makers.

 

[cement]

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.

I find in most cases, if theres a shortage of animals in an area it usually has to do with developers.