Include

[Sdaji]

Originally Posted by natrix

I don't doubt that you're correct but could you elaborate a little on why it'd do more harm than good , thanks.

To fully understand the situation you really need to spend a few months studying population ecology. The short version of the story is that nature establishes a balance, the reptiles in a population increase in number until the available system can not support any more (the same applies to most types of animals). If you add more, the system can't support them, the balance is tipped, and problems occur. The type of problems depends upon the nature of the system. There are countless possibilities. Best case scenario would be something like a lack of shelter sites, resulting in the reptiles not being able to hide properly, resulting in migratory birds eating them and flying away, leaving the system as it was previously. A likely outcome is that there would not be enough food to support them all, so none of them are properly nourished and while the population remains high, it is made up of undernourished adults which don't reproduce well - an aging, unproductive population is certainly not a good one! In some cases, this can result in the extinction of a local, isolated population. A likely outcome for some species is that they will fight over territory, leaving some animals dead anyway. A possible outcome (likely to happen, but unlikely to happen to a particularly damaging extent) is that the overabundance of a particular species will result in local predators targetting them, and continuing until there are fewer than they started with. Since the predators will most likely stop targetting them soon after they go back to the normal threshold level, it's most likely to basically nullify the relocation effort (best case scenario), although it could be worse. I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea.

Other than the fact that it is absolutely inevitable that the reptile populations will return to their original level one way or another (assuming they aren't wiped out), so there is nothing to be gained, there are concerns about the spread of disease and inappropriate genetics. Whenever people interfere, there are all sorts of risks involved. I am not saying it is best to leave them to be bulldozed because I am heartless, I am saying it because I care enough to have spent many years studying the issue.

Although the uniformed public typically love them, animal releases almost always cause harm and rarely do any good. The only time animals should be released is when a population has been exterminated or severely reduced, the reason for its extermination/reduction has been permanently removed and the population can be reestablished (the other time is when a species is under extreme thread and a population can be established outside its original range, and it is considered better to create an unnatural population at the expense of the local biological community than let the species of interest go extinct - this is extremely rarely a good idea). Releasing animals into a healthy population of their own species is always inappropriate. Sadly, because public opinion is based on emotion and a lack of understanding, animal releases are popular and often fully endorsed by the government (the government is interested in money and keeping the public happy, it cares nothing for ecology). Most of the most spectacularly problematic animal releases have been done with full government support. Fortunately, the most common outcome is simply the released animals dropping dead when released into an area which can't support them.

Keep in mind that a lengthy forum post is nothing compared to several years of studying population ecology, and the full story is much, much more elaborate.