P
Pythoninfinite
Guest
This is such a many faceted issue - stupid regulations state-by-state that are actually now contributing to the loss of species, a huge variation in the needs of keepers across the country (Qld keepers basically have no real problems... WA keepers have enormous problems), the credibility difficulties we bring upon ourselves by supporting smuggled morphs/exotics, not to mention the resistance State bureaucracies will have to any suggestion that control be centralised, possibly in Canberra. It would be very difficult for us to demonstrate any POLITICAL advantage in centralisation, regardless of the ease it would give a lobby group in liaising with decision-makers. At the moment, each state/territory thinks they have the best system, and they are united only in their desire to catch miscreants (not a bad thing in itself) - as far as policy goes, the prospect of any of the states handing power to anyone else is just about nil.
I'm certainly not saying that a national group isn't needed, or that it can't achieve success as we move forward, but I see from many of the responses here that as a group we have identified a number of problems from the outset, a major one being the diversity of state regs across the country. To suggest at this stage, when we haven't even undertaken the huge task of surveying the needs of keepers across the country, that centralising and unifying the state wildlife management policies will assist us in achieving our goals, is putting the cart way before the horse. Any such move by the states would be decades away, if it ever happens.
Any lobby group will have to work long and hard to firstly identify the real problems we face in each jurisdiction, and then develop a priority list and strategy for dealing with each one. For me, it would begin with attempting to raise our credibility with these bureaucracies (and bear in mind that it's not only the keepers who lack cred, the departments themselves often lack any shred of credibility when it comes to conservation - WA & the Cane Toad invasion for example). It's people like Gavin who contribute enormously to increasing our credibility as a useful resource for conservation (or at least species preservation) and increased knowledge. I'm sure that in the NT, Gavin's efforts will be met with the interest, appreciation and acknowledgement they deserve... but I've been totally bemused in the last 10 years that John Weigel's efforts with the RSP - a massively important demonstration of what can be done when enthusiasm, determination and skills are combined - have largely been ignored by the CALM/DEC/whatever they call themselves now. In any of the discussions we had over the years up until 2003 when WA came out of the steam era, the RSP story was NEVER mentioned, even though the successes were being acknowledged in other states.
I've had lots of discussions with Greg M about the huge potential the private sector has if it is allowed to become involved (and more importantly participate) in the conservation debate (my particular area of interest) - we have within our ranks the important resources of time, space, some of us have money (not me lol!), a keeness to see beneficial change among other attributes. Not everybody will share my priorities of course, but I think that if we can start the ball rolling by challenging the bureaucratic notion that we are all a bunch of money-hungry exploiters and black-marketeers, and are keen to use our resources to gain a better understanding of our fauna, then hopefully there will be an overarching benefit to reptile keepers as a whole. To me, the question of credibility is the single most important issue we face. There are, within our ranks, individuals who will tear our credibility to shreds for quick personal gain in an instant if we don't develop the means to sideline them, or at least isolate those with demonstrably good intentions from any influence they might have.
Sorry for the massive essay again
, but I did start by saying this is a multi-faceted task. Not an impossible one by any means, but one which will require sound strategies at the outset for dealing with internal matters as well as external. It won't matter how you approach a Government department with your well-intentioned plan on Tuesday if the've busted a significant reptile smuggler the day before. Currently most of us are tarred with the same brush.
Jamie
I'm certainly not saying that a national group isn't needed, or that it can't achieve success as we move forward, but I see from many of the responses here that as a group we have identified a number of problems from the outset, a major one being the diversity of state regs across the country. To suggest at this stage, when we haven't even undertaken the huge task of surveying the needs of keepers across the country, that centralising and unifying the state wildlife management policies will assist us in achieving our goals, is putting the cart way before the horse. Any such move by the states would be decades away, if it ever happens.
Any lobby group will have to work long and hard to firstly identify the real problems we face in each jurisdiction, and then develop a priority list and strategy for dealing with each one. For me, it would begin with attempting to raise our credibility with these bureaucracies (and bear in mind that it's not only the keepers who lack cred, the departments themselves often lack any shred of credibility when it comes to conservation - WA & the Cane Toad invasion for example). It's people like Gavin who contribute enormously to increasing our credibility as a useful resource for conservation (or at least species preservation) and increased knowledge. I'm sure that in the NT, Gavin's efforts will be met with the interest, appreciation and acknowledgement they deserve... but I've been totally bemused in the last 10 years that John Weigel's efforts with the RSP - a massively important demonstration of what can be done when enthusiasm, determination and skills are combined - have largely been ignored by the CALM/DEC/whatever they call themselves now. In any of the discussions we had over the years up until 2003 when WA came out of the steam era, the RSP story was NEVER mentioned, even though the successes were being acknowledged in other states.
I've had lots of discussions with Greg M about the huge potential the private sector has if it is allowed to become involved (and more importantly participate) in the conservation debate (my particular area of interest) - we have within our ranks the important resources of time, space, some of us have money (not me lol!), a keeness to see beneficial change among other attributes. Not everybody will share my priorities of course, but I think that if we can start the ball rolling by challenging the bureaucratic notion that we are all a bunch of money-hungry exploiters and black-marketeers, and are keen to use our resources to gain a better understanding of our fauna, then hopefully there will be an overarching benefit to reptile keepers as a whole. To me, the question of credibility is the single most important issue we face. There are, within our ranks, individuals who will tear our credibility to shreds for quick personal gain in an instant if we don't develop the means to sideline them, or at least isolate those with demonstrably good intentions from any influence they might have.
Sorry for the massive essay again
Jamie