The hobby & conservation
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
waruikazi
Legendary
Righto i'll get the ball rolling.
I would like to see the Egernia obiri established in captivity either as an insurance policy or as pets. They would probably be suitable for most herpers to keep, they aren't likely to have a massive price tag attached to them, they probably wont be morphed and blah blah blah because of their plain looks. Their numbers have taken a massive hit in the last 40 years and they have already been written off as extinct, but it is likely that this isn't the case.
I would like to see the Egernia obiri established in captivity either as an insurance policy or as pets. They would probably be suitable for most herpers to keep, they aren't likely to have a massive price tag attached to them, they probably wont be morphed and blah blah blah because of their plain looks. Their numbers have taken a massive hit in the last 40 years and they have already been written off as extinct, but it is likely that this isn't the case.
P
-Peter
Guest
Ok, so you have highlighted E.obire, now explain how breeding them in captivity is going to save them as a wild population. How has their habitat been effected and what step are going to be put in place to make for their re-release. What needs to be put in place for them?
Keep in mind that the Latta's AFTCRA Mary River Turtle project relied upon the fact that the riffle zones taken over by agriculture were being rehabilitated to allow the turtle places to breed. They had specific environmental need that a seemingly healthy river system wasn't supplying.
Otherwise its just a grab at rare species at the best.
Just being the fly in the ointment for arguements sake.
BTW, people with money currently particpate in breeding programmes for rare and endangered native species. They need to supply vermin proof enclosures duplicating a quasi natural environment and meet whatever other requirements the authority overseeing the project require.
It takes time, space and money generally.
The Lord Howe Island phasmids and several wallaby species come to mind.
Keep in mind that the Latta's AFTCRA Mary River Turtle project relied upon the fact that the riffle zones taken over by agriculture were being rehabilitated to allow the turtle places to breed. They had specific environmental need that a seemingly healthy river system wasn't supplying.
Otherwise its just a grab at rare species at the best.
Just being the fly in the ointment for arguements sake.
BTW, people with money currently particpate in breeding programmes for rare and endangered native species. They need to supply vermin proof enclosures duplicating a quasi natural environment and meet whatever other requirements the authority overseeing the project require.
It takes time, space and money generally.
The Lord Howe Island phasmids and several wallaby species come to mind.
waruikazi
Legendary
It will not save them as a wild species. I've been making that argument from the begining, all this could possibly be called from a conservation POV is a total extinction insurance plan. All the reading i have done cannot explain why their numbers are declining, there is an assumed correlation with changed fire regimes, introduced predators and toads (which i don't beleive because their numbers were declining before the advance of toads). If they are the three issues that are effecting their numbers then i really can't see how we will ever be able to reintroduce this species with any degree of success.
I would like to see "conservation breeding program" for all species with extremely small distribution range, e.g. Black Mt. gecko and the skink, Christmas Island skinks and geckos and some of the species inhabiting the Torres Strait islands.
If i species was wiped out from the wild wouldnt it be better to have captive stock then to have no stock at all? While alot of these threatened species may never recover and may be lost in the wild id much rather see them in zoo's and private collection then dead in jars in a museum and i'm sure alot of others would feel the same
waruikazi
Legendary
But they are essentially the same thing...
From an ecological point of view - yes but from a conservation point of view - no.
The Tassie devils will most probably go in the wild but there is a hope the species will survive and potentially be re-introduced. The Lake Echam Rainbowfish can not be released back but it is extant in captivity - isn't some good in all that? If we took that sort of over-pragmatic attitude you suggested, we may as well throw the towel in on all species, sit back and wait for the doom and gloom with a glass of scotch in our hands (I would!)
waruikazi
Legendary
The tassie devils are not in private hands. As far as i know anyway.
I'm all for keeping anything in captivity as long as it can be looked after appropriately, but i don't buy the argument that we need to take all these species into captivity (in our collections) for conservation reasons. We want to bring them into captivity for our own purposes.
My point of view is that if they are extinct in the wild then they are useless in private collections. That doesn't mean i wouldn't like to see them in in private hands.
P
Pythoninfinite
Guest
There are a few sweeping assumptions here, many of which are patently nonsensical. The term 'poaching' is a stupid one when describing the removal of some animals from the wild in a country like Australia. It conjures up pictures of men in tweed coats going about their business in the dark of night, stealing pheasants and rabbits and hares from rich landholders in good old England...
If you really think the removal of a few reptiles from limited areas in this vast land is going to do anywhere remotely near the damage to wild populations that natural processes like fires, floods and droughts do, you've got rocks in your head. Look at the floods in Queensland at the moment - literally millions of hectares of land under water for weeks so far... What will be the effect on terrestrial species of geckos, skinks, snakes etc? Look at the spinifex fires that rage, uncontrolled, for weeks, over millions of hecatares, in WA's Pilbara and Kimberley regions every year, and the massive grassfires (now an annual event, unlike the fires that occurred when the vegetation was 'natural), that are even sterilising the soils of the Northern Territory...
I'm NOT condoning the breaking of laws, which served a purpose (perhaps) when they were conceived. I'm simply suggesting that those of us interested in keeping reptiles, and are interested in more than having a pet Spotted Python named 'Fluffy', need to look objectively at what damage a limited harvest of animals from the wild will do. We need to stop thrashing around in a soup of bureaucratically induced guilt - Steve1 can I ask you why, in WA, you approve of the taking of unlimited numbers of 'permitted' species in the past 7 years, and why this is likely to be less damaging to the 'environment (your word) than unlicensed collecting for which DEC receives no handsome royalty? Maybe you have some info on just how many Stimson's Pythons and threatened South Western Carpet Pythons have been taken legally from the wild. The state has approved the collection of UNLIMITED NUMBERS of these and about 40-odd other species for SEVEN YEARS... The hypocrisy is breathtaking...
Steve1, give us some examples of where the "pet trade has definitely created an environment... has a detrimental impact on the environment."
Sweeping statements like "It could take decades or even centuries before the extent of damage is fully realized." are unfounded in fact and similar to the propaganda that is propounded by the bureaucracies. Any objective observer will tell you that one moonless night with heavy traffic on Great Northern Highway will claim more and varied reptile numbers than any 'poacher' could do in a month of hunting. Even for species such as the Broad-headed Snake here in NSW, habitat damage (the removal of sandstone slabs for Sydney gardens) is the primary reason for the decline of the species.
"This impact may not be severe enough to cause extinction but itdefinitely impacts on population numbers of reptiles and all other animals that inhabit their particular environments." This is an assumption for which you can produce no proof whatsoever... animals of all sorts have been eaten, drowned, burnt, and otherwise killed (we can now add land clearing, road killed, poisoned (aerial spraying for locusts etc)) in their own environments for as long as they have existed. The populations are not as fragile as you would have us believe, especially for the many highly cryptic reptile species.
All I ask is that we bring an end to the hand-wringing guilt that reptile keepers foment even amongst themselves, and begin to believe that we actually have something positive to contribute to our knowledge of the world.
cement
Very Well-Known Member
So Gordon.. you are of the mind that ( and I use RSP as a hypothetical) if Rough Scaled Python was wiped out in the wild, that the ones being held in captivity have no conservation value?
Like you mentioned earlier, if the problem is removed then the re-stocking can be attempted. So surely there is value in keeping a threatened species.
The role of zoo's has changed dramatically in the past 20-30 yrs.
In my earlier post I mentioned poison arrow frog, though I meant Corroboree frog.
The most endangered thing on this planet is habitat. And the main forces of destruction are natural disasters, developers, miners, and governments.
Like you mentioned earlier, if the problem is removed then the re-stocking can be attempted. So surely there is value in keeping a threatened species.
The role of zoo's has changed dramatically in the past 20-30 yrs.
In my earlier post I mentioned poison arrow frog, though I meant Corroboree frog.
The most endangered thing on this planet is habitat. And the main forces of destruction are natural disasters, developers, miners, and governments.
waruikazi
Legendary
The ones held in private collections have no current or future role in the ecosystem. They are total extinction insurance, that's all. Or maybe not even that, maybe they are just a stall.
If there is a captive population that has been set up to maintain genetic diversity and all that jazz, like the tassie devils, then there is a possibility that they could be used to restock the wild population. Currently, with the way our hobby works, i do not beleive that we could be trusted to maintain such stock.
Wow Jamie and to think I thought my post had gone unnoticed. I respect people that are straight to the point but this response I find rather arrogant.
The term poaching is not stupid and to me it conjures up pictures of ordinary looking people taking wildlife illegally. Regardless of my moral stance and views, if you turn over a rock and take a reptile, by my understanding of the law you are poaching.
I have witnessed widespread habitat destruction over vast areas of Perth and its surrounds, particularly on granite outcrops, I have been told by people whom opinions I respect that this destruction became much more widespread when the reptile keeping system was implemented.
You yourself have suggested in at least a few threads that licensed takers have removed animals and bodged coordinates to legitimize illegally taken animals (poaching as I understand the law). Some licensed takers I believe were quite indiscriminate in the amount of animals taken and the disregard for the environment they were taken from.
Then when little Johnny's snake or gecko died he also hit these areas to replace a legitimately purchased animal (Again Poaching)
Then little johnny told dad about the huge slabs he had broken away and rolled down the hill, who in turn backed in his trailer for garden slabs. (Poaching)
Just a few examples Of how the pet trade and poaching go hand in hand therefore creating a situation in which the environment suffers.
If by merely having a reptile license in WA you are suggesting that I approve of the indiscriminate taking of permitted reptiles then guilty as charged.
I haven't stated anywhere else that I approve of this.
I don't understand how you can argue that this destruction doesn't affect population levels in a particular environment. If you smash to bits a piece of cap rock, lets say 1m square and find for example, 2 stimmies and a gecko and squash a couple of scorpions in the process then you are in effect having an impact on population levels in that area, if that same area is constantly targeted then that impact must surely compound.
Like I said it may not be enough to cause extinction but there is an impact.
I agree, my statement that "it may take decades or centuries before the full extent of damage may be realized" is a little sweeping, but it's often the way of humans that we don't realize the consequences of our actions until it's to late.
Oh and I don't have rocks in my head, I just form my opinions on the information I have in front of me and my personal observations, if you disagree with me then fine, I welcome your input. By challenging my ideas and opinions you create an opportunity for me to learn something new. I just don't see the point in criticizing my intelligence.
Steve
The term poaching is not stupid and to me it conjures up pictures of ordinary looking people taking wildlife illegally. Regardless of my moral stance and views, if you turn over a rock and take a reptile, by my understanding of the law you are poaching.
I have witnessed widespread habitat destruction over vast areas of Perth and its surrounds, particularly on granite outcrops, I have been told by people whom opinions I respect that this destruction became much more widespread when the reptile keeping system was implemented.
You yourself have suggested in at least a few threads that licensed takers have removed animals and bodged coordinates to legitimize illegally taken animals (poaching as I understand the law). Some licensed takers I believe were quite indiscriminate in the amount of animals taken and the disregard for the environment they were taken from.
Then when little Johnny's snake or gecko died he also hit these areas to replace a legitimately purchased animal (Again Poaching)
Then little johnny told dad about the huge slabs he had broken away and rolled down the hill, who in turn backed in his trailer for garden slabs. (Poaching)
Just a few examples Of how the pet trade and poaching go hand in hand therefore creating a situation in which the environment suffers.
If by merely having a reptile license in WA you are suggesting that I approve of the indiscriminate taking of permitted reptiles then guilty as charged.
I haven't stated anywhere else that I approve of this.
I don't understand how you can argue that this destruction doesn't affect population levels in a particular environment. If you smash to bits a piece of cap rock, lets say 1m square and find for example, 2 stimmies and a gecko and squash a couple of scorpions in the process then you are in effect having an impact on population levels in that area, if that same area is constantly targeted then that impact must surely compound.
Like I said it may not be enough to cause extinction but there is an impact.
I agree, my statement that "it may take decades or centuries before the full extent of damage may be realized" is a little sweeping, but it's often the way of humans that we don't realize the consequences of our actions until it's to late.
Oh and I don't have rocks in my head, I just form my opinions on the information I have in front of me and my personal observations, if you disagree with me then fine, I welcome your input. By challenging my ideas and opinions you create an opportunity for me to learn something new. I just don't see the point in criticizing my intelligence.
Steve
Last edited:
P
Pythoninfinite
Guest
Rather than criticising your intelligence, I was commenting on the very subjective conclusions drawn by you in your post Steve.
Population dynamics are far more complex than you allude to, and by implying that the removal of some individuals from a population of reptiles will cause an effect which we may not understand for decades or centuries, is simply scaremongering without any sound, reasoned assessment.
I fully agree that the granites around and to the east of Perth have suffered hugely in the past - first from the relentless collecting and selling of slab for the landscape industry, and also from vandalism and collecting. The destruction of wheatbelt granite habitat simply to collect the highly desirable 'Wheatbelt Stimson's' is nothing short of disgraceful... but it has been fully supported by the system that DEC oversees, with no sanctions imposed on those who do the damage, and handsome royalties paid to DEC if you have a successful weekend smashing rocks and catching snakes. But you are simply supporting my argument - what you see as the damage being done removing a few animals is, in fact, compounded hugely by the destruction of habitat. This is, as other respondents have suggested, the single biggest problem...
And you have DEC expressly forbidding collection from public roads - where habitat damage is nil, and the animals collected may have been killed anyway... very weird indeed...
Of course it is always easy to build scenarios like "If you smash to bits a piece of cap rock, lets say 1m square and find for example, 2 stimmies and a gecko and squash a couple of scorpions in the process then you are in effect having an impact on population levels in that area, if that same area is constantly targeted then that impact must surely compound.", but this has always happened (I'm over 60 and it was the case, even when I was in my early teens) and so is not a new phenomenon. My premise would always be that if some animals are removed from a population, and it is done WITHOUT degrading the habitat on which the species depends for survival, then the impact will be, at it's worst, temporary. There may be a few exceptions to this general rule, but examples don't readily come to mind. Each species would have to be considered on it's merits.
Destroying habitat to collect those animals is a whole different story. Your observation that I've made the point that GPS readings have been doctored to comply with DEC requirements is a fair one, however, this has been done mostly to prevent the backlash from DEC if they check and find that animals are being collected from public roads. Are these animals 'illegally taken'? I don't know about that... Road collecting is the easiest way to find many species, it does NO environmental damage, and saves animals from what would otherwise be a pointless and pulpy death... but DEC forbids it for some nanny concern about safety... The Department is far more concerned about remaining safe from prosecution than it is about the destruction of habitat.
Anyway... to get this interesting thread back on track...
In my opinion, the keeping of voucher populations of native species in captivity, rather than letting them go extinct over time, is essential. Forever is a very long time, and we cannot ever say with certainty that the Cane Toad problem, or the invasive weed problem, or the cat, rabbit and fox problems, won't one day be solved, allowing at least some hope for us to restore habitat to the point where reintroduction may be possible. We have no choice but to cover all bases... we can't change the past, but we sure as hell can have a good shot at changing the future...
Jamie
Population dynamics are far more complex than you allude to, and by implying that the removal of some individuals from a population of reptiles will cause an effect which we may not understand for decades or centuries, is simply scaremongering without any sound, reasoned assessment.
I fully agree that the granites around and to the east of Perth have suffered hugely in the past - first from the relentless collecting and selling of slab for the landscape industry, and also from vandalism and collecting. The destruction of wheatbelt granite habitat simply to collect the highly desirable 'Wheatbelt Stimson's' is nothing short of disgraceful... but it has been fully supported by the system that DEC oversees, with no sanctions imposed on those who do the damage, and handsome royalties paid to DEC if you have a successful weekend smashing rocks and catching snakes. But you are simply supporting my argument - what you see as the damage being done removing a few animals is, in fact, compounded hugely by the destruction of habitat. This is, as other respondents have suggested, the single biggest problem...
And you have DEC expressly forbidding collection from public roads - where habitat damage is nil, and the animals collected may have been killed anyway... very weird indeed...
Of course it is always easy to build scenarios like "If you smash to bits a piece of cap rock, lets say 1m square and find for example, 2 stimmies and a gecko and squash a couple of scorpions in the process then you are in effect having an impact on population levels in that area, if that same area is constantly targeted then that impact must surely compound.", but this has always happened (I'm over 60 and it was the case, even when I was in my early teens) and so is not a new phenomenon. My premise would always be that if some animals are removed from a population, and it is done WITHOUT degrading the habitat on which the species depends for survival, then the impact will be, at it's worst, temporary. There may be a few exceptions to this general rule, but examples don't readily come to mind. Each species would have to be considered on it's merits.
Destroying habitat to collect those animals is a whole different story. Your observation that I've made the point that GPS readings have been doctored to comply with DEC requirements is a fair one, however, this has been done mostly to prevent the backlash from DEC if they check and find that animals are being collected from public roads. Are these animals 'illegally taken'? I don't know about that... Road collecting is the easiest way to find many species, it does NO environmental damage, and saves animals from what would otherwise be a pointless and pulpy death... but DEC forbids it for some nanny concern about safety... The Department is far more concerned about remaining safe from prosecution than it is about the destruction of habitat.
Anyway... to get this interesting thread back on track...
In my opinion, the keeping of voucher populations of native species in captivity, rather than letting them go extinct over time, is essential. Forever is a very long time, and we cannot ever say with certainty that the Cane Toad problem, or the invasive weed problem, or the cat, rabbit and fox problems, won't one day be solved, allowing at least some hope for us to restore habitat to the point where reintroduction may be possible. We have no choice but to cover all bases... we can't change the past, but we sure as hell can have a good shot at changing the future...
Jamie
P
-Peter
Guest
Collection from roads is an interesting situation. Richard Wells hypothesised that the loss of Tiliqua rugosa asper around the Goulbourne area, where they were once common, can be attributed to the upgrading of roads in the area.
The prime habitat became the verges where abundant food and water run off created ideal conditions. Possibly due to roadkill and removals the outlaying populations moved towards the main roads to fill the gaps left until there numbers became so low as to be non existent.
I cant attribute this to "poaching"(oddly enough this conjures up images of food in simmering stock or water for me. One's interpretation says more about themselves than others I guess.) but I'm sure it had some role albeit minor.
Jamie, there is an recent study on burning that has some findings that will likely upset a few people. Probably not you though. It has put together evidence that "firestick farming" is a product of Colonisation not tradition and that it's impact on the environment has been catastrophic.
The prime habitat became the verges where abundant food and water run off created ideal conditions. Possibly due to roadkill and removals the outlaying populations moved towards the main roads to fill the gaps left until there numbers became so low as to be non existent.
I cant attribute this to "poaching"(oddly enough this conjures up images of food in simmering stock or water for me. One's interpretation says more about themselves than others I guess.) but I'm sure it had some role albeit minor.
Jamie, there is an recent study on burning that has some findings that will likely upset a few people. Probably not you though. It has put together evidence that "firestick farming" is a product of Colonisation not tradition and that it's impact on the environment has been catastrophic.
P
Pythoninfinite
Guest
Interesting comments & observations Peter. I'd cautiously (for political reasons!) agree with you about 'firestick farming' and the devastation caused by fires, especially fire regimes which are now so different than they were 200+ years ago... The introduction of fodder grasses into the north of Australia has meant a massive destructive change to that landscape in recent decades, and because of its flammabilty, the heat produced is actually sterilising soils in many parts of that environment. In the dry seaon, one lighning strike is all it takes for a fire to burn for weeks, so it doesn't even need to be a deliberate act.
I know where you're coming from re: poaching... lol!
Can you tell me where the fire study you mention can be found? Coming from WA where the weather in summer is ferocious and dry, and where 'cool' burning in spring and autumn are routine (I have no firm opinion about this because I don't have much info), I can imagine the damage that could be done with an uncontrolled hot fire in the height of summer. But even with regard to natural fires (lightning strikes...) in this country, which perhaps should be allowed to burn and reduce fuel levels, we step in and put them out. This just delays the inevitable, possibly with even worse consequences in the future...
Jamie.
I know where you're coming from re: poaching... lol!
Can you tell me where the fire study you mention can be found? Coming from WA where the weather in summer is ferocious and dry, and where 'cool' burning in spring and autumn are routine (I have no firm opinion about this because I don't have much info), I can imagine the damage that could be done with an uncontrolled hot fire in the height of summer. But even with regard to natural fires (lightning strikes...) in this country, which perhaps should be allowed to burn and reduce fuel levels, we step in and put them out. This just delays the inevitable, possibly with even worse consequences in the future...
Jamie.
jack
Very Well-Known Member
the head of the npws recovery project recently told me that captive specimens of the broad headed snake had no foreseeble role in reintroduction to the environment. i found this a little odd, as melbourne zoo is a partner in this project and nsw npws let them poach wild animals to establish a breeding colony!
perhaps he was trying to allay my fears the dept was going to confiscate my animals?
i dont see animals in captivity as viable means to conserve animals other than to conserve them as captives... like the corroboree frog, which will soon be extinct in the wild and exist in captivity only.
my reasoning is like many responses to this thread already, the habitat is damaged for many species, and thus reintroduction to a damaged habitat is pointless.
no one else has mentioned it, so i thought i might add that the thing that has destroyed many ecosystems is agriculture. fix or better still forget farming and we may save a few more species.
i also think we need to get rid of the antiquated idea of locking up little islands of bush in national parks, and instead focuss on a country wide holistic approach.
finally, that fire paper has flaws, and was misrepresented in the media, ie the sydney morning herald article that trumpeted its findings.
perhaps he was trying to allay my fears the dept was going to confiscate my animals?
i dont see animals in captivity as viable means to conserve animals other than to conserve them as captives... like the corroboree frog, which will soon be extinct in the wild and exist in captivity only.
my reasoning is like many responses to this thread already, the habitat is damaged for many species, and thus reintroduction to a damaged habitat is pointless.
no one else has mentioned it, so i thought i might add that the thing that has destroyed many ecosystems is agriculture. fix or better still forget farming and we may save a few more species.
i also think we need to get rid of the antiquated idea of locking up little islands of bush in national parks, and instead focuss on a country wide holistic approach.
finally, that fire paper has flaws, and was misrepresented in the media, ie the sydney morning herald article that trumpeted its findings.
Jack, all good, you made some valid points that every straight thinking person would agree with but... this? Do you really regard such activity as poaching? Is in you mind a research collection poaching?
This word should be banned on APS just like f*&k, S#^t and other. LOL
It has been grossly misused and in this instance, it is an insult to Melbourne zoo and the NPWS.
Jamie, I believe Being subjective has a legitimate place in this form of debate, it creates opportunity for people to elaborate on different theories and the ideas of others, I did at the beginning of the post to which you replied state "I often WONDER at what price to the environment" inferring that I didn't fully understand the impacts that the pet trade has on the environment but that I can observe that it does at least have some negative outcomes. For this reason my post was on topic as it could apply to future conservation concerns.
Peter, What does my interpretation of poaching say about me as an individual?
Peter, What does my interpretation of poaching say about me as an individual?
P
-Peter
Guest
Jamie, empty your postbox.
I had a hard time trying to find the info but I did find this abstract in Decembers Aust Geo
Aboriginal burn-off theory hosed down - Australian Geographic
Steve, its says we interpret words differently. Because we have so many words for the one thing we then tend to specialise the interpretation. Sophisticated meaning adulterated over time becomes worldy, urbane and aristocratic.
I had a hard time trying to find the info but I did find this abstract in Decembers Aust Geo
Aboriginal burn-off theory hosed down - Australian Geographic
Steve, its says we interpret words differently. Because we have so many words for the one thing we then tend to specialise the interpretation. Sophisticated meaning adulterated over time becomes worldy, urbane and aristocratic.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
