Rock Python

[Elapidae1]

I have just got around to reading Slicks link to, the great native pet debate on the previous page, it makes for some good reading, what may be of interest also is the reader comments at the end, in particularly the first one, which gives good insight into the mentality of some people that will be staunchly opposed to any attempt at bringing Oenpelli's into captivity or any other native for that matter.

Steve

 

[Slickturtle]

Hi Steve and all
My place is only open to people called Steve!!!

As for your comments on the Great native Pet debate - I show here for all to read from the person opposing keeping native animals - she said:
Susie Hearder :
23 Apr 2010 5:37:40pm

"Suggest before you make any comments that you
1. become a wildlife carer to see what is truly involved.
2. volunteer at a local pound/shelter and see a cute puppy wagging its tail as it is put to death ( this happens every 4 minutes in Australia so not hard to find )
3. travel to inland Australia and see Budgies in the wild.
4. spend a day living in a small cage as most pet Budgies do
( I know I'd rather be extinct.)

Hasn't been much mention of quality of life for the poor wildlife!

Ponder the thought - who is it that doesn't really belong here - could it be us humans who couldn't really give a rats about any other species than ourselves.
There are thousands of other groups out there other than the RSPCA mopping up the bloodshed of the current pet industry.
Whats rare for these volunteers is finding responsible pet owners and thats for pets where you can buy their food in a tin at the local shop. The dogs are being discarded as easily as the tin can.
Humans being an endangered species - now theres an idea! Other species might have half a chance then.
Fancy living in a cage for the rest of your life then."

I reckon that if I sat down with this woman for a hour, there is a good chance that she would come away with the opposite point of view.

I base this on the premise that the average person out there has no idea of what is really happening. If the realities are explained it would take a very strange person NOT to take our view. For the most part - this woman has no idea what she is talking about.
Cheers

Slick

I have just got around to reading Slicks link to, the great native pet debate on the previous page, it makes for some good reading, what may be of interest also is the reader comments at the end, in particularly the first one, which gives good insight into the mentality of some people that will be staunchly opposed to any attempt at bringing Oenpelli's into captivity or any other native for that matter.

Steve

 

[Waterrat]

I wonder what credentials Susie has got to make make such suggestion. Has she studied wildlife, biology, ecology or is she a wildlife specialist vet? Would she know the differences between lower and higher vertebrates?
I trust she has got a good hart, feelings for animals, appreciation for nature and good ethics but those pink glasses really don't suit her. Loving and understanding animals are two different things (though not mutually exclusive).

M

 

[Elapidae1]

Wow don't I feel privileged to be called Steve but I get the feeling this may be based on which day of the week it is, Wednesdays being only for people called Gordon, LOL. Unfortunately I can't just drop in, however I have a family member who just so happens to have bought a property in Humpty Doo, so maybe one day.

I agree you probably could turn her opinions around in an hour, but how do you reach the very noisy army of followers behind her, as her attitudes seem to be quite similar to the prevailing attitudes of the government departments you have to convince otherwise.

Please excuse the negative tone of my posts but they are realistic hurdles that will eventually have to be faced. When aiming for the most positive outcome you still need to plan for the worst

 

[Kristy_07]

I understand where you are coming from re commercialisation. But the reality is that if that negative view persists them we might as well give up now and let numerous species slip into extinction without a fight. This is because it is essential for animal breeders to be able to sell their young in order to pay for the expenses of setting up a quality breeding facility. My own case is a good example. I breed Pig Nosed Turtles which were listed as Vulnerable at the time that I applied to get adult breeders. I built the facility myself but it still cost more than $12,000. If I had others build it the price would have been more like $30,000. Now, if I knew that I could not sell the babies I would not have done it. And niether will others. If you cannot sell young animals then breeding will not happen at the scale that is needed to maintain numbers out of the Endangered category.

The second part is that if you cannot sel your young animals what do you do with them. You are not allowed to release them into the wild. So this means that you would have to give them away. Does this make sense - I spend $12,000 to breed turtles and then give them away? I don't think so. In addition, if people don't pay a goodly amount of money for an animal they are less likely to care for it. On the other hand, if someone buys one of my tuurtles for $800 I am going to be reasonably assured that they are going to care for it well.

The cash flow in this scenario is the lubricant that allows the conservation wheels to turn. Without lubricant, the wheels will stop and there will be no conservation role for captive breeding.

Cheers

Slick


- A

I agree with you 100% on this, Greg, as I voiced earlier in the thread.

It's for the reasons that you have mentioned that I think that there could be some overlap between captive-breeding conservation programs and the pet industry. If you have taken the time, effort, and hard-earned dollars to establish a bevy of turtles from a vulnerable population, then of course people should be paying a higher price for them. The same as people in the pet industry will pay a higher price for a quality-line of pedigree Husky.

The hardest part of conservation is always the money involved in saving/relocating/surveying a species - introducing the idea of a conservation plan or captive breeding program that is partly funded by the pet-trade is, I think, a very viable solution. I agree with you as well that the more people pay for an animal, the more likely they are to be dedicated to its proper care. I, for one, am all for it.

I agree you probably could turn her opinions around in an hour, but how do you reach the very noisy army of followers behind her, as her attitudes seem to be quite similar to the prevailing attitudes of the government departments you have to convince otherwise.

Please excuse the negative tone of my posts but they are realistic hurdles that will eventually have to be faced. When aiming for the most positive outcome you still need to plan for the worst

I also agree with Steve on this point, though. To take the position of the "noisy rabble" that is passionate about animal rights and wants to protect those death-row puppies, even if only by making a bit of noise, is a lot easier for Joe Bloggs on the street to take. I can't imagine that there would be strong support of this new way of thinking by the general public. But perhaps we can lead by example, and show them the way

 

[Pythoninfinite]

I wouldn't be optimistic that spending an hour with one animal rights activist would cause a change in that individual, even in the long run - the movement is very 'clubbish' and peer pressure is huge, as mentioned, there would be outrage at such a turnaround.

I agree that in an ideal world, consensus is the way to go, but this will never happen in the scenario we are discussing here. The important thing is to recognise and acknowledge the enemy (my word) and face them head on. If your voice is loud and logical, you'll beat them because logic is not their strong suit. However, they are persistent, subtle, and very skilled at getting in on the ground floor, often laying the rules by which those they oppose have to follow.

There is a limit to how 'touchy feely' I'd be prepared to get with these guys (although they seem to be mostly gals from what I see in the press...)

Jamie

 

[Guest]

Ok I may as well put my foot in the fire again!
im still struggling to grasp what this idea has to do with the conservation of the animal?
or is this just a ploy to get a few of this species on licence for private collections? Im not at all against this either as i would love as much as anyone to own one of these great pythons but im just wondering why only a certin group of people would be granted this and not others?
Im just wondering what the objectives of the group in control of this project would be? (if it is not for the private keeping and sale of the species)
from what i can gather there would not be any strict breeding program to ensure genetics are suitable for a release if needed?
there would only be a small few granted permission to keep these animals (even though the example used of the RSP's success is based on the fact that everyone can now have their own one)?
if these animals were bred and offered to the public would their price be in the hundreds so that everyone could afford to get one and breed it and increase the captive population or would it be in the high thousands so that only a few would be sold each year and someone gets quite wealthy in the process?(like weigel did)
would this group be interested in the "breeding for conservation" of other less attractive species?

 

[Bushfire]

Slick would be able to give you a better idea of the concept but to me the whole concept is about making sure at risk species live beyond another one or two of our generations.

On a whole, government are only prepared to throw x amount of money to the environment. Sadly this figure is miles short of the actual amount needed to maintain the existing bushland we have. This isn't anyone working in those areas fault, you will find the majority of them extremely passionate people that can only do with what was given. Therefore the bush is in decline till we get to the point of what we can maintain. Realistically for many species to survive they either have to adapt to our changing of their habitat to suit our management practices or go extinct. Many are fast tracking to the extinct side at an alarming rate. But those on that track have one not yet available option to live beyond the next 20 to 50 years and that is life in captivity. With the issues of climate change and those above, these animals may never get to the point of being able to be released. Should we just accept them as past of the past only available as pictures or bring them into private hands where we can ensure their exist in some way.

The objectives of such a group of keepers is to get the species going so that our grandchildren could have a chance to experience them. I imagine the prices would vary as the ones we keep now do. Considering how much weigel paid to get the species I'm not sure he had as much as others believe but if he did he fully deserves it. If some people get rich ensuring some species exist so be it. Thats the hard part to sell as many cant/don't see the situation as it is developing and don't believe people should profit from our wildlife. They cant/don't want to see the bigger picture. As pointed out earlier we have people in this country that will rather see a species extinct than in captivity.

P.S For those species deemed unattractive for private keeper either zoos pick up the breeding program or it goes extinct. This radical project IMO is about minimising the losses instead of save everything, we would prefer the later but realistically it isn't possible. We all sadly must accept that losses are unavoidable.

 

[Guest]

well that is my point! it seems this is not about the conservation of the species but more to get the species into private collections (I am in no way against this at all either) but if this is the case what would the "new" organisation/group be for? why wouldnt this just come under the private keepers banner and we all have one?

 

[nathancl]

It would be better in a way to organise a permit similar to that of what the Lattas have which permits them to breed and release the offspring. this would be ideal for threatened/rare species. due to certain authorities being opposed to give out permits for bringing animals into captivity for the hobby the release of offspring is more of a conservation thing and therefore could perhaps be more appealing?

However in saying that there needs to be research into the effects that the released animals would have on the eco systems. The wild population as it is may be rare or small due to the way the eco system works and not due to human impact.

oenpellis for example may have a small population that is sustainable but small for a reason unknown to us at this time. releasing more into the habitat with success may then take its toll on another part of that eco system and it would be like a chain reaction.

just random thoughts of mine.

 

[Bushfire]

I'm sure Slick will explain it must better as its his project I only gave my interpretion of it which could very well be wrong.

I think its very much so is about conservation. Look at the RSP, its a very limited and restricted habitat that is highly suspect able to threats. It wouldn't take much to wipe them out as oppose to say the bearded dragon which would be harder to wipe out. The RSP, may well always had a small population but having a captive population ensures that species if / when disaster strikes, the species isn't totally lost, it may become extinct in the wild but not forever lost. Isn't that species future outlook at least a little brighter than totally gone? How is that not in part conserving the species? Of course we should also try to conserve the wild populations but at this stage we are failing and as government budgets continue to be tightened its highly likely we will continue to fail.

For the group's aim would be to increase numbers that will filter through to private collections. These animals need to be put into the best hands to ensure we can have the best chances of keeping them alive. Once their numbers are built up release to the other private keepers. This staged approach, will lessen the chances of the cative population crashing due to inexperience. Let the most experienced understand the captive requirements and develop the information needed by the other keepers to be sucessful.

 

[Daz_McC]

This is a very thought-provoking thread. I'm wondering how the government decides who gets to keep these threatened reptiles. Do the elite keepers select themselves or should they have to sit some sort of exam to test their knowledge? Perhaps the herp societies can nominate their top keepers. Or maybe charge people $50,000 per breeding pair. That way only the most successful keepers will be tempted to have a crack at breeding them. And the money raised from handing them over to keepers can be spent on conserving the wild population. Anyway, just some late-night ideas.

 

[Waterrat]

Daz_McC, would you like to be one of the selected breeders and pay 100K for a couple of pairs, provide the facility and your time at your expense and then hand over money you make from breeding them? Just curious.

 

[FAY]

Ummm so the very well off get the look in??
Some of the BEST breeders may not have that type of money.

 

[mungus]

Daz_McC, would you like to be one of the selected breeders and pay 100K for a couple of pairs, provide the facility and your time at your expense and then hand over money you make from breeding them? Just curious.

I would.
BUT...........They would have to pay for power, feed etc.
Most of all, they would be paying me a wage also.........say $70 an hour @ an 8 hour day.
Due to the fact it would have to be a business deal due to the money involved.
No longer a hobby imo.

 

[Waterrat]

No longer a hobby whichever way you look at it. It would require commitment, responsibility, investment, knowledge, experience and ethics.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

The last few posts seem to imply that this program would be designed & run by private keepers, for the potential benefit of those private keepers. This is well removed from the way it would have to work.

Private keepers would be selected on the basis of their technical expertise and their ethical history and ethical point of view. This MUST be done by an independent arbiter, very likely the state 'conservation' body. Some will regard this as elitism, but if those 'elite' breeders have the runs on the board and a demonstrated, strong ethical history, they should definitely be in the running for consideration. personally, I think Peter Krausss should be amongst the first to be considered if he was interested, notwithstanding his brush with the law with these animals - he has definitely got the expertise, and more history with Oenpellis than anyone else in the country.

The suggestions that Daz_McC has put forward would probably be fraught with problems - Herp Societies are no more noble than any other group when it comes to ethics. Charging a huge sum would similarly not guarantee that the best choice is made - it would be very open to corruption.

Who knows, this species may be very like the Boelen's Python in a recent thread here - the species has defied some of the best breeders in the world when it comes to breeding. Oenpellis aren't something you can just go out and collect when you feel like it, and when serious searching does begin, it could be hugely a expensive exercise. If I recall, JW undertook almost 20 trips to the remote Kimberley when researching and collecting the RSP, and people still begrudge the early prices on the first captive bred animals...

I don't think money comes into the equation for the first one or two captive-bred generations. As soon as the lure of the dollar is part of the deal, the early and most important part of the project will be corrupted - there are many very experienced keepers out there who would give their right arm to be part of a project like this simply for the love of the animals and the challenge it presents. They're the ones who should be sought at this point in time. Once you have 50-100 animals established in captivity (wild-caught and their progeny), only then would you consider putting a value on animals bred from them, and they could be released at a fixed price on a ballot system, to others with considerable experience. (To be eligible for the ballot, you must demonstrate a satisfactory history). From then on, they could go into the open market.

This would ensure that good numbers were in the hands of experienced keepers well before they become available to Joe Blow.

Jamie.

 

[Slickturtle]

Hi Farma

Your questions are good ones and it is important to ask them so that the people behind this new push can test their own convictions. It is much better that people like you throw up any unforeseen conceptual problem now - than have it happen in some auditorium full of people and parks officials.

Bushfire and Pythoninfinite have answered you very well, but I will take it a bit further in terms of "conservation" Is it conservation? For a long time I avoided this word as I struggled with the idea of having animals in captivity, but extinct in the wild as 'conservation'. I always called what we are talking about as an "Anti - extinction strategy" (and it is that too) But then I turned to the dictionaries and here is what they say:

The Shorter Oxford English Dic defines conservation as: “ The action of conserving; preservation from destructive influences, decay or waste”.

The IUCN/UNEP/WWF, World Conservation Strategy (1980) defines it as:
“Conservation is the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may
yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its
potential to meet the needs and aspirations of the future generations.”

So, by dictionary definition I would argue that taking animals into a safe setting where they are otherwise unsafe in the bush is Conservation.

So, the breeding of rare animals in captivity whether it is by fat cats looking to make a big buck or a struggling amateur IS conservation. IMO

A good example (although coming at it from a different angle) of this happened recently in Victoria. The Brush Tailed Rock Wallaby is endangered in Victoria (there are some in NSW too but rare everywhere.) The big bushfires of 2 years ago totally wiped out the Victorian population. But because of captive breeding and remnant wild populations in NSW it is possible to reintroduce them. But when you look at the Oenpelli Python (also rare) if some disaster overtakes it, there is no other population anywhere to reintroduce. But if there were a couple of thousand captive bred ones in private hands - then there is always a possibility of a return to the wild. (BUT, in saying that I am well aware of the likely success of a reintroduction - very slim).

That was a good question Farma - keep it up.

That is all

Slick

 

[Slickturtle]

Hi Dazmc

The way I see it is that the government is a passive monster asleep on the job. It seems as though anyone who wants to apply to catch and breed a rare animal has to tip toe up to it with exhaustive application in hand like a male spider approaching a female. Your words suggest that the park service is actively considering these things. I get the impression (in most states anyway - the NT is pretty good) that the captive breeding initiatives have to be dreamed up, funded, written up and otherwise pursued in an atmosphere of disinterest at best and more likely, resistance and suspicion from the Government. One way to tackle this passive resistance that the Government shows towards private individuals trying to help save wildlife is to work through an existing recognised conservation organisation. Have a look at the FAME website.
FAME - Foundation for Australia's Most Endangered Species Inc.
This is just thinking out loud now but I put it "out there" to consider. I wonder if people like us could connect "limpet like" to FAME or its equivalent in each state and form an interlinked network within that organisation which specialises in captive breeding. The main danger of this of course would be conforming to that organisations constitution which might say that no one can privately keep the products of their captive breeding. But on the plus side, Nat parks might be much less resistant to ideas coming forward from a recognised NGO conservation group.

That is all - {that is enough!!}

Slick

This is a very thought-provoking thread. I'm wondering how the government decides who gets to keep these threatened reptiles. Do the elite keepers select themselves or should they have to sit some sort of exam to test their knowledge? Perhaps the herp societies can nominate their top keepers. Or maybe charge people $50,000 per breeding pair. That way only the most successful keepers will be tempted to have a crack at breeding them. And the money raised from handing them over to keepers can be spent on conserving the wild population. Anyway, just some late-night ideas.

 

[Slickturtle]

Hi Fay

The In an ideal world the Parks Service should be advertising right now for interested parties to set up captive breeding of rare and endangered animals. In the same way that they advertise for any company to provide long term goods or services - such as interpretive services. They could set the parameters and see what offers come in. They would then choose who they believe can deliver the best outcome and give them an ongoing contract. Funding of the breeding contract would come from sales of the products with a royalty going to Parks to fund their costs in administering the contract. The contract would only last for a few years as the prices for the products would come down over time as the animals become more common. Then Parks could run a new ad for a different species. Any given company could have multiple contracts involving multiple species running simultaneously. As they sell the product out into the private sector each animal would be accompanied with Care Sheets and contact details of which specialist in the company can give husbandry advice. The company would also maintain stud books and a record of sales that Parks could follow.

There is an idea.

Slick