The hobby & conservation

[jack]

glad you picked up on that word Michael, i used it deliberately to provoke a response... i was going to put it in inverted commas, but thought why not chuck it in for fun!

as far as i can tell, all the animals at the zoo have done in regards to research is generate one article in herpetofauna, which didnt establish any real new information about the species.
undoubtedly they have had some positive effect on people who have paid to see them in regards to education about a threatened species. and they are an insurance policy against an e.t. bolide strike that destroys the wild populations of southern nsw...

 

[Waterrat]

Sorry about the bold response .... that's me.
I wonder if the hobby community realizes that there is actually very little in way of 'meaningful' research that can be done on captive reptiles. Apart from physiological experiments and some aspects of reproductive biology there isn't much that can be applied to conservation of wild populations. To extrapolate from captive data is a dangerous business, particularly in regards to species' ecology.
So, perhaps the guys at Melbourne zoo have done all they could within their capacity.

 

[-Peter]

I suggest your all using semantics to cloud the debate and in this case we know what poaching is inferring and by legal definition it is the correct term.
Poaching is deemed suitable term for the illegal hunting of wildlife in other countries. why not here?
But, deemed inappropriate by the stylists we are forbidden to use the termed "poached". Perhaps someone could proffer a more appropriate word.
Henceforh I will coddle my eggs and fish.

 

[Waterrat]

But, deemed inappropriate by the stylists we are forbidden to use the termed "poached". Perhaps someone could proffer a more appropriate word.

my personal dictionary (don't like it, don't complain, just ignore me).

Poaching - indiscriminate collecting with no regard for the environment or the animals destined for the market, i.e. sold for money.

Illegal collecting - common reptiles taken in small numbers in non-protected areas for personal use (money not involved).

This is in relation to reptiles, not elephants, tigers or someone's dope.

 

[adderboy]

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

While I agree with this for a range of species, I think we also need to remember we can't play God here. We can indeed breed these animals in captivity, but the longer we do it, the more we will be interfering with the genetic strength of the animals held. Captive breeding does away with many of the natural regulators that keep a species strong - eg predation weeds out the weak, environmental factors, which we control in captivity but are much more variable in the wild, would weed out the weak, and so on. Over many generations we would be enhancing the weaknesses by encouraging them to breed. I'm not talking here about visibly obvious defects, but minor defects, perhaps internal, perhaps completely unobservable in the first few generations, which, over time, will inevtiably manifest themselves.

For this reason, the worth of any captive voucher populations would be of reducing value as each generation passed. The animals need to be returned back to a liveable environment or their value as "wild" animals (at least as they were) will be forever lost. Unfortunately, the chances of environments being "fixed up" enough to allow this to happen might be damned low for some species.

I'm all for the idea of establishing a controlled "pure" population of species at risk, but there needs to be some reasonable chance of returning the species back to the wild within a few generations or all we're doing is taking the remaining stock into captivity and maintaining it as another captive line - "pure" but likely to become weak.

 

[Waterrat]

I agree with you to a point but I just can't see, for example, how predation selects against the weaker. I would say being eaten is a chance, snake / reptile predators don't target weaker individuals unless the weakling is totally disabled, in which case a responsible breeder would cull such individuals anyway. Equally, I don't think environmental factors have any control either. A cyclone will wipe out the strong and the weak, so would floods. One could argue that the stronger snake would be able to swim longer distance and save it self but the weaker swimmer could get into safety just the same if a tree or high ground was closer.
I do, however agree that captive bred reptiles (over generations) may loose the ability to successfully hunt and also, as you said, the genetic pool will be compromised.

 

[adderboy]

Well, I used those two examples (predation and weather) as examples only, but there would potentially be myriad other factors - eg an arboreal species not being able to climb more than a few feet (wouldn't be tested in captivity, but would in the wild), a fossorial species "losing" some of the required traits (esp if being kept in a melamine or similar floor cage) and so on. But my point is that we would not necessarily recognise where and how the genetic strength is being compromised for a while, and by the time we do, the "flaws" will be widespread (ie for us to notice them, they are likely to have been developing for some time).

But I'm not sayng let's not do this - I think it really needs to happen, and the need is urgent for some species. I just think that ultimately, if we want to achieve the restoration of the wild species, we may not succeed unless the environment is rehabilitated within a few generations, or what we may already "lost" what we were trying to save. Just don't ask me what the timeframe is - might not be an issue for many generations.

 

[Owzi]

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.

Hmm, I think a few people at Project Corroboree would disagree with this with the amount of work they are doing in this area. Project Corroboree > Welcome

While we are on the Corroboree Frog, I know the Australian Research Centre (ARC) have a huge role in the conservation of this animal. They also advertise that they sell frogs to the pet trade.
They seem to be privately owned ('The ARC is self funding and provides for its valuable work through sales and sponsorships'), so I wonder how they came to be involved in this project?
The ARC (Amphibian Research Centre)

 

[waruikazi]

Hmm, I think a few people at Project Corroboree would disagree with this with the amount of work they are doing in this area. Project Corroboree > Welcome

While we are on the Corroboree Frog, I know the Australian Research Centre (ARC) have a huge role in the conservation of this animal. They also advertise that they sell frogs to the pet trade.
They seem to be privately owned ('The ARC is self funding and provides for its valuable work through sales and sponsorships'), so I wonder how they came to be involved in this project?
The ARC (Amphibian Research Centre)

The ARC is a private organisation, not a private collector. Similar to Crocodylus, although they are owned by Wildlife Management International they are not owned or run by a government agency. There is a big difference between a private collector and a private organisation.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

I see your point adderboy, but your conclusions are too absolute! Firstly, as Michael says, predation is more a function of exposure to the threat rather than an intrinsic weakness in the animal being preyed upon (unless, say it had poor eyesight and happened to be basking without its glasses lol...) Also, within the captive group, regardless of the genetic flaws which may become apparent, there will still be animals which have the makeup to allow success in the wild, if, at some time in the future, the environment can be regarded as safe. That is, not all animals will suffer from the defects that you say will make the species unviable in the wild.

I also wonder about the crystal balls that people seem to have that tells them that captivity necessarily robs a species of it's inherent ability to survive in the bush after a few generations of captive breeding... This is also only personal theory, with, as far as I know, no research to back it up... Look at sparrows, starlings, mynahs, pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, foxes, camels... all of these animals have prospered enormously in the wild environment, but they came from relatively small numbers of deliberate or accidental introductions. They must have a reltively small gene pool, but they are hugely successful in the bush.

I don't have crystal balls, and I've known Simon for a long, long time so I'm sure someone would have told me if he does ... anyone else out there gifted with this incredible tool for scoping the future???

-Peter - I'll check my mailbox now!

Jamie

 

[Elapidae1]

Although not an example of release back into it's natural environment the Burmese python in Floridas Everglades could be an example of a captive species having success when released into the wild. Purely speculation on my part but the initial wild stock would probably have come from various different scenarios, Wild caught, first generation captive bred, multiple generation captive bred. I imagine the gene pool could have been quite small for some time and possibly already had some genetic flaws through interbreeding in captivity, yet they have thrived on release into a wild environment.

I'm wondering is it worth attempting the controlled release of captive animals that are already endangered into their degraded habitats. Is it possible that if an animal is continually released over a period of many years that they may naturally adapt to their altered environment rather than trying to release once an animal is already extinct.

 

[waruikazi]

Although not an example of release back into it's natural environment the Burmese python in Floridas Everglades could be an example of a captive species having success when released into the wild. Purely speculation on my part but the initial wild stock would probably have come from various different scenarios, Wild caught, first generation captive bred, multiple generation captive bred. I imagine the gene pool could have been quite small for some time and possibly already had some genetic flaws through interbreeding in captivity, yet they have thrived on release into a wild environment.

I'm wondering is it worth attempting the controlled release of captive animals that are already endangered into their degraded habitats. Is it possible that if an animal is continually released over a period of many years that they may naturally adapt to their altered environment rather than trying to release once an animal is already extinct.

Steve that is a ludicrous example in the context of conservation. It is an example repeated thousands of times through out the world, the BTS in the pacific islands, cane toads here, red backs in Japan, iguanas in the Everglades also and Asian house geckoes along our North and East coast. They survived because they are suited to their new environment, not because they have adapted to it.

 

[Waterrat]

I'm wondering is it worth attempting the controlled release of captive animals that are already endangered into their degraded habitats.

Steve, that's where I see the problem - 'degraded habitats' will not support introduced species (recolonization). The species probably vanished from there because the habitat got damaged / degraded.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

I think the threats facing our animals - changed vegetation = changed and devestating fire regimes, the Cane Toad = a threat that cannot diminish until the toad is removed from the environment, and probably a few others that don't come to mind, mean that animals released into that habitat will inevitably go the same way as their predecessors

The Burmese Python thing is an example of an animal which has been given an environment that suits it perfectly - like the Cane Toad here, hence the easy adaptation. I'm not sure what controls the Cane Toad in its natural habitat - there must be something that kills/eats them to keep them under control.

You couldn't teach Varanids not to eat Cane Toads, and you can't release burrowing geckos back into habitat that's going be scorched to dust every year by uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) grass fires...

Remove the problem and natural communities will often rebound with surprising speed. The work done to remove and exclude foxes and cats from Dryandra in WA is a good example - Numbats and Carpet Pythons (to name just 2 species) are now common in that previously troubled ecosystem. Until you remove the threat, you can't fix the problem.

Jamie

Jamie.

 

[Elapidae1]

If a number were released for many consecutive years into that habitat would they eventually adapt?

---------- Post added 05-Jan-11 at 10:20 AM ----------

I used the Burmese Python in the context of captive animals and their reduced gene pools and possible genetic flaws. Not in the context of conservation. But as I said pure speculation as I have know idea of the extent of captivity of the animals that founded the Everglades population

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Nope.

Not sure about the Asian House Gecko - do we know when it arrived in Australia? The indigenous people of northern Australia have been trading with Asian visitors for thousands of years - seems to me that it would be quite possible for them to be called 'almost endemic' Aussies now.

J

 

[Waterrat]

Nope.

Not sure about the Asian House Gecko - do we know when it arrived in Australia? The indigenous people of northern Australia have been trading with Asian visitors for thousands of years - seems to me that it would be quite possible for them to be called 'almost endemic' Aussies now.

J

I don't know exactly when they arrived either but I do remember having Gehyra in and around houses in Cairns in the seventies. The Asian house gecko is an urban dweller that doesn't seem to invade natural habitats and most probably wouldn't survive there. They are nuisance in that they crap onto our furniture but they don't pose any threat to the natural environment. I doubt this species arrived with the Aboriginal people.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

I don't know exactly when they arrived either but I do remember having Gehyra in and around houses in Cairns in the seventies. The Asian house gecko is an urban dweller that doesn't seem to invade natural habitats and most probably wouldn't survive there. They are nuisance in that they crap onto our furniture but they don't pose any threat to the natural environment. I doubt this species arrived with the Aboriginal people.

Interesting... I wasn't thinking that they arrived with Aboriginal travellers, but maybe later in goods or boats that came with Moluccan or Indonesian trepangers or whatever... just a thought really, not a theory. Any idea why the natural landcape is hostile to them Michael?

J

 

[waruikazi]

If a number were released for many consecutive years into that habitat would they eventually adapt

I don't have any experience in to answer this question but i'll give my thoughts on it anyway.

If the animals are being released steadily into the environment i can see no reason why they would adapt. There would be no environmental pressures to drive any evolution or natural selection, because all the new stock is coming out of captivity. The released animals will die and then be replaced by the same thing, which will also die.

 

[Waterrat]

Interesting... I wasn't thinking that they arrived with Aboriginal travellers, but maybe later in goods or boats that came with Moluccan or Indonesian trepangers or whatever... just a thought really, not a theory. Any idea why the natural landcape is hostile to them Michael?

J

I don't know, it's odd. They are in suburban gardens, we have them living in the palms, etc., but you go across the road into the bush and they're not there. Given that the Aboriginals didn't have much of houses to speak of, the geckos probably arrived with some cargo later on.