Regulated taking of wildlife.

[Rocket]

Now, I don't know if this has been done before so forgive me if it has. Also, this is strictly an opinion-based thread so there is no need to get all "huffy and puffy" and cause a virtual riot.

In light of recent... stories in regards to smuggling and illegal removal of herpetofauna from the wild, it has gotten me thinking about what the consensus of keepers/ breeders generally think about current legislation and our access to native fauna. Some states/ territories generally prohibit collection of wild animals whilst some (SA, NT, Tas, WA) allow it under rather strict regulations.

My question is: Should a new system (perhaps a uniform system) be established to allow controlled taking? Would this system involve generic applications and justification (perhaps establishment in captivity, restocking, addition of new genetic material etc)? Do you think this would lower the appeal of illegal smuggling and would this dramatically alter wild populations for the worse, or maybe even for the better?

I agree, specialist species, or those that are red-listed or otherwise considered vulnerable, would probably be excluded from being taken but what about other species not believed to in any forseeable danger?

If controlled strictly (but not completely ridiculously with every applicant rejected), do you think this would benefit both the hobby and conservation of Australian herpetofauna?

 

[longqi]

Apart from a small number of species all of the rest have plenty of genetic diversity already in captivity

Every reptile and amphibian in Australia except for one notable exception is declining in numbers

Why add to the decline??

 

[Echiopsis]

Apart from a small number of species all of the rest have plenty of genetic diversity already in captivity

Every reptile and amphibian in Australia except for one notable exception is declining in numbers

Why add to the decline??

What? I dont even know where to start addressing this. Care to clarify?

In answer to the question: I dont have an issue with wild collection of species that are stable in the wild. Make it expensive, limit the numbers and stop issuing permits when the species is established in captivity. Prices go down, desirability goes down with it to a degree and it suddenly becomes far less attractive to drive across the country with a car full of emaciated reptiles and bodge them onto the books when you get home.

 

[longqi]

What? I dont even know where to start addressing this. Care to clarify?

In answer to the question: I dont have an issue with wild collection of species that are stable in the wild. Make it expensive, limit the numbers and stop issuing permits when the species is established in captivity. Prices go down, desirability goes down with it to a degree and it suddenly becomes far less attractive to drive across the country with a car full of emaciated reptiles and bodge them onto the books when you get home.

Please name two species of reptile that are increasing in numbers in the wild??
Number one is simple
Number two answer will be waited for with baited breath

Stable; as you quoted means neither increasing nor decreasing???

Since scientific studies categorically prove they are all decreasing bar one; you just shot yourself in the foot

Yet you would happily legalise even more wild collections knowing full well that those legal collections may just be the final straw with some species

When we reach a point where our 'pet' reptiles, which will never be released and therefore have no bearing on wild stocks, have become more important than Australian ecology, it is time to take a very hard look at what we really love

Everyone considering this should ask themselves a simple question
Do I love reptiles?
Or do I love a pet in a box?

Regarding the boot full of reptiles analogy. there will always be scumbags out there
Legalising more collections only adds to the problem

 

[miss_mosher]

I was always taught if it's taken from the wild then it should stay in the wild. I personally wouldn't risk disease or being caught and I think it's unnecessary to stress an animal when we are already blessed with an awesome pet trade

That's what I think anyway

 

[jedi_339]

I don't think that legalised harvesting should be allowed, in theory it sounds like a good idea, increasing supply, driving down demand and the profitability of illegal poachers, genetic diversity etc etc etc,

But what it is also doing is messing unneccesarily with a natural system that is already in equilibrium, and already suffering (possibly but most likely) from anthropogenic influences. While it may add to the genetic diversity of our captive populations it would also decrease the diversity within wild populations.

Overall I feel it's a bad idea, however there would be certain circumstances where it could be the saving grace for a species, imagine if a captive population of Rheobactrus was established back in the day.........well I'm sure you get the picture

 

[miss_mosher]

Something that's sort of related to this thread that caught my eye today, has anyone else seen the TV add for saveajoey.org (I think that's the site).

 

[longqi]

I don't think that legalised harvesting should be allowed, in theory it sounds like a good idea, increasing supply, driving down demand and the profitability of illegal poachers, genetic diversity etc etc etc,

But what it is also doing is messing unneccesarily with a natural system that is already in equilibrium, and already suffering (possibly but most likely) from anthropogenic influences. While it may add to the genetic diversity of our captive populations it would also decrease the diversity within wild populations.

Overall I feel it's a bad idea, however there would be certain circumstances where it could be the saving grace for a species, imagine if a captive population of Rheobactrus was established back in the day.........well I'm sure you get the picture

Absolutely agree with reptiles such as the oenpellis being collected to try to save them
But thats under very stringent guidelines and probably a one of situation where I believe the majority of any successful breeding is destined for more breeding and relocation
Its a bit different to collecting for the pet trade

 

[Morgwynn]

I am strongly against collecting animals from the wild for the pet trade. We have plenty of animals in captivity to breed from, and people who are picking up wild animals are not necessarily going to do their research on how to best look after an animal, because it's so easy to just go get another one. It would be impossible to regulate, and you'd end up with people rereleasing their 'wild' pets back into areas they don't belong because they bite, they're hard to care for, or they just don't adjust well to captive environments. It will suddenly become far easier to transmit diseases - captive diseases back into wild populations, and wild diseases back into our captive populations, which is detrimental to the species as a whole.

I am not against zoos or researchers being issued permits for limited numbers of collections, for education and to establish captive breeding populations as insurance against extinctions. Like longqi said, the oenpelli is a perfect example of that. If they then make their way into the pet trade, that's awesome, but it shouldn't start with the pet trade - the sad fact is that reptile keepers can simply not be trusted not to overcollect. The government does not do close monitoring on reptile populations and it is very easy for an animal to go from common to locally extinct.

 

[Beard]

Something that's sort of related to this thread that caught my eye today, has anyone else seen the TV add for saveajoey.org (I think that's the site).

Yea I've seen that ad and it really pissed me off!!!!!!!

I believe in the use of our natural resources. Kangaroo meat is lean, high in protein, the leather is amazingly strong and pliable and the use of kangaroos is very ecologically sound (there is bugger all environmental impact compared with that of farming traditional food animals).

I know a few pro shooters and I've considered it myself. Pro shooters are just that, Professional! Only take a shot that is a certainty. A single shot to the head from a fast, flat shooting centrefire rifle while the animal is grazing and completly unsuspecting is alot more humane than leading animals down the killing plank to an area that stinks like blood and faecal matter (DEATH), bolting it in the head, electrocuting or sticking it with a knife.



This campaign only exists because 'roo's are seen as cute and cuddly.

 

[reptilian1924]

I am strongly against collecting animals from the wild for the pet trade. We have plenty of animals in captivity to breed from, and people who are picking up wild animals are not necessarily going to do their research on how to best look after an animal, because it's so easy to just go get another one. It would be impossible to regulate, and you'd end up with people rereleasing their 'wild' pets back into areas they don't belong because they bite, they're hard to care for, or they just don't adjust well to captive environments. It will suddenly become far easier to transmit diseases - captive diseases back into wild populations, and wild diseases back into our captive populations, which is detrimental to the species as a whole.

I am not against zoos or researchers being issued permits for limited numbers of collections, for education and to establish captive breeding populations as insurance against extinctions. Like longqi said, the oenpelli is a perfect example of that. If they then make their way into the pet trade, that's awesome, but it shouldn't start with the pet trade - the sad fact is that reptile keepers can simply not be trusted not to overcollect. The government does not do close monitoring on reptile populations and it is very easy for an animal to go from common to locally extinct.

Morgwynn, l agree 100% with what you have said here in your post, in regards to being allowed to take from the wild Reptiles.

That only Zoos -Museums-Research Organisations such as CSIRO & University's, should be allowed to collect a limited numbers of Reptiles, for education - breeding - conservation - studies, from the wild on very strick conditions, not private keepers or breeders who only do it for one reason money, and don't bother doing any research on what they want from the wild, before they even contemplate on lodging a take from the wild application with the appropriate Wildlife Authorities. IMO. so leave them alone out in the wild where they all belong.

 

[wokka]

The system is fine as it is. If you have a good enough case the authorities allow collection, but generally there is enough available from captive bred. The various powers that be dont seem to be able to supervise what they have now , without increasing licenced collectors. Getting a permit to collect should be hard as it means only "qualified" collectors will apply.

 

[waruikazi]

I think it all depends where the animals are being collected from.

The reality is that as a society we don't want snakes in built up populated areas. I think all relocators should be allowed to keep what they catch on call outs.

Edit: Actually, no i don't.

I've seen what being allowed to keep what you catch can go to peoples head and them become disgustingly greedy. I would like to see all relocators be allowed to apply to keep a specified number of animals that they get on callouts.

 

[Jungle_Freak]

Wild types to stay put in the wild , there is no need to collect from the wild .
The exception would be for species under population pressures or that are becoming rare etc
Re Rough Scaled python and Oenpelli .
But genetic anomalies' like albinos or leucistic morphs should be allowed to be kept for hobby purposes .
Wild types to stay in the bush but morphs should be allowed to be kept.

 

[OzGecko]

I am not against zoos or researchers being issued permits for limited numbers of collections, for education and to establish captive breeding populations as insurance against extinctions. Like longqi said, the oenpelli is a perfect example of that. If they then make their way into the pet trade, that's awesome, but it shouldn't start with the pet trade - the sad fact is that reptile keepers can simply not be trusted not to overcollect. The government does not do close monitoring on reptile populations and it is very easy for an animal to go from common to locally extinct.

Most zoos are only interested in holding animals that would make for interesting displays. Why would they devote time to a hypothetical endangered small brown skink when the majority of the paying public would rather see a panda or big cat. Let's face it with admission prices to zoo's and the zoo's running costs in terms of salaries and up-keep of animals and grounds, they generally dont make a profit (A prime example is Adelaide Zoo).
Where as there are dedicated keepers out there who are more than willing to devote time and their own resources to the ongoing conservation of say this same hypothetical endangered small brown skink. Even doing so knowing they will not profit from keeping it. Not everyone keeps reptiles for money.
I dont mean to pick, but I find your use of the Oenpelli python, particularly where you say "If they make their way into the pet trade..... but it shouldn't start with the pet trade" rather confusing. I have no problem what so ever with these animals being collected myself, but you should read the website and offer regarding these animals. They are basically being collected for the pet trade (as the pet trade is what is helping Gavin to fund the process of collecting them, by pre-sale of a number of the initial offspring produced) as a way of conserving them for the future.

I have no problem with Take Permits being issued to experienced private keepers based on the merit of each application. I personally have been issued a Take Permit in the past for a species of which I have made no money what so ever from. Would I do it again for this species, Yes.

Regards,
Daniel

 

[jedi_339]

Yea I've seen that ad and it really pissed me off!!!!!!!

I believe in the use of our natural resources. Kangaroo meat is lean, high in protein, the leather is amazingly strong and pliable and the use of kangaroos is very ecologically sound (there is bugger all environmental impact compared with that of farming traditional food animals).

I know a few pro shooters and I've considered it myself. Pro shooters are just that, Professional! Only take a shot that is a certainty. A single shot to the head from a fast, flat shooting centrefire rifle while the animal is grazing and completly unsuspecting is alot more humane than leading animals down the killing plank to an area that stinks like blood and faecal matter (DEATH), bolting it in the head, electrocuting or sticking it with a knife.



This campaign only exists because 'roo's are seen as cute and cuddly.

Australia does have a very sustainable harvest of kangaroos each year, the number of permits are on a sliding scale each year and it's heavily regulated. The way I see it, we've created the problem with kangaroos, by clearing bushland we've increased the carrying capacity of the environment and it is therefore our duty to manage the overabundance of them.

It's a similar thing to last time I went to Australia zoo, they had a big placard on the front wall near the gates, ''We do not support eating our native animals for food, stop the killing of kangaroos for meat'' (or something to that effect) How can they call themselves wildlife warriors when they ignore some major issues and choose to get behind others?

Oh and I should mention I agree with you completely Beard :lol:

what's better? living your life in a farm being specifically bread to die?
or living out your life in a natural environment and then dying suddenly not even knowing what happened?

 

[Morgwynn]

Where as there are dedicated keepers out there who are more than willing to devote time and their own resources to the ongoing conservation of say this same hypothetical endangered small brown skink. Even doing so knowing they will not profit from keeping it. Not everyone keeps reptiles for money.
I dont mean to pick, but I find your use of the Oenpelli python, particularly where you say "If they make their way into the pet trade..... but it shouldn't start with the pet trade" rather confusing. I have no problem what so ever with these animals being collected myself, but you should read the website and offer regarding these animals. They are basically being collected for the pet trade (as the pet trade is what is helping Gavin to fund the process of collecting them, by pre-sale of a number of the initial offspring produced) as a way of conserving them for the future.

Many zoos have off-display areas with animals that don't make for good display, and some of them certainly are breeding endangered animals. Yes, zoos exist to make a profit, but things have changed compared to how they used to be. There is more focus on conservation and education.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear on regards to it starting with the pet trade - I meant that every private keeper should not be allowed to go help themselves. The pet trade may be helping Gavin with funding, and that's fine, but it's still Gavin who will be collecting from the wild, and it'll be Gavin who is establishing that initial captive breeding population.
Rough scale pythons are an excellent example of how the process should work.

You are right, though, experienced private keepers being issued take permits for certain numbers of a certain species may be acceptable, but it should definitely be a strictly regulated process.

I am still firmly of the opinion that the primary reason for removing any wild animal from it's natural habitat should be conservation, first and foremost.

 

[Beard]

Australia does have a very sustainable harvest of kangaroos each year, the number of permits are on a sliding scale each year and it's heavily regulated. The way I see it, we've created the problem with kangaroos, by clearing bushland we've increased the carrying capacity of the environment and it is therefore our duty to manage the overabundance of them.

It's a similar thing to last time I went to Australia zoo, they had a big placard on the front wall near the gates, ''We do not support eating our native animals for food, stop the killing of kangaroos for meat'' (or something to that effect) How can they call themselves wildlife warriors when they ignore some major issues and choose to get behind others?

Oh and I should mention I agree with you completely Beard :lol:

what's better? living your life in a farm being specifically bread to die?
or living out your life in a natural environment and then dying suddenly not even knowing what happened?

Its because the larger majority of people see conservation as "protection" and they fail to realise that conservation also requires a large amount of management too. This management, at times calls for number controll. Alot of people don't realise how prolific 'roo's breed. One Joey at foot, one (occasionally twins) in the pouch and one suspended in utero waiting for the pouch to become available (or the seasional conditions to be correct).

If there is a mob of say, 100 adult individuals, lets assume that 70% are doe's (Buck's move out to find their own harem). Thats 70 doe's and a potential minimum of 210 joeys at varying stages of development. That mob is actually, at a minimum, 310 individuals. Females become sexually mature at 18 months so its safe to assume (in a very rough estimate) that every 18 months the mob will increase by 70%.

Thats alot of animals.

In Canberra, large culls are carried out (many thousands killed) regularly. As an observer, the cull isn't noticeable, ie., the number drop isn't significant.

 

[longqi]

Its because the larger majority of people see conservation as "protection" and they fail to realise that conservation also requires a large amount of management too. This management, at times calls for number controll. Alot of people don't realise how prolific 'roo's breed. One Joey at foot, one (occasionally twins) in the pouch and one suspended in utero waiting for the pouch to become available (or the seasional conditions to be correct).

If there is a mob of say, 100 adult individuals, lets assume that 70% are doe's (Buck's move out to find their own harem). Thats 70 doe's and a potential minimum of 210 joeys at varying stages of development. That mob is actually, at a minimum, 310 individuals. Females become sexually mature at 18 months so its safe to assume (in a very rough estimate) that every 18 months the mob will increase by 70%.

Thats alot of animals.

In Canberra, large culls are carried out (many thousands killed) regularly. As an observer, the cull isn't noticeable, ie., the number drop isn't significant.

Just a small aside here
How much land that has been destroyed by cattle and sheep would turn back into fertile country if kangaroos were 'farmed' instead??
Excellent healthy meat, beautiful leather, rapid growth and breeding with minimal environmental damage to natural scrub/grassland
Maybe the dust bowls we create now would disappear after a while??

 

[Beard]

Just a small aside here
How much land that has been destroyed by cattle and sheep would turn back into fertile country if kangaroos were 'farmed' instead??
Excellent healthy meat, beautiful leather, rapid growth and breeding with minimal environmental damage to natural scrub/grassland
Maybe the dust bowls we create now would disappear after a while??

And that is a statement that I've held for many years.