Herp Lover Needed Urgenly

[W.T.BUY]

rang them and was ignored. Hope you guys have better luck.

[Colin]

Originally Posted by Sdaji

Regardless of the legalities, what you're describing will cause a lot more harm than good, and sadly, it would be better to allow the animals to be bulldozed (yes, I know, it's extremely sad, but unfortunately you can't bulldoze a large area without causing a lot of harm).

If you can obtain permits to bring them into captivity, wonderful, if not, I suggest you leave the situation alone.

On the other hand, I expect this advice to fall on deaf ears... have fun

I have to agree with sdaji. By relocating them it would cause more harm than good. Theres probably no chance of getting permits to take them into captivity either. The thing is most of the herps (whatevers there) will avoid the place once building comences and probably relocate themselves. A small amount of skinks, geckos etc may be killed but theres not much you can do about that except illegally take them into captivity. Building and habitat destruction has been going on for years and we still have reptiles in the wild.

[cockney red]

You'd make a wonderful secretary. Take me a year to type that lot.

Originally Posted by Sdaji

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.

[Jozz]

You should all listen to Sdaji - he knows what he's talking about.

I love SA when it comes to this stuff. I reckon they've got more sense than other states regarding releasing / relocating (or not) animals.

[Sdaji]

Originally Posted by cockney red

You'd make a wonderful secretary. Take me a year to type that lot.

Secretary? Nah, it's just not me I made a good uni student though

[salebrosus]

Originally Posted by dickyknee

I have driven past that place a million times and never thought there be to many animals in there ....

You would be surprised what you can get in that place.

QUOTE=jessb;1053838]In order to get a development permit they would have to have conducted an environmental study proving that no endangered species were going to be affected. Maybe rather than relocating animals yourself and risking a fine, contact local council and request a copy of the envirnmental study. Then you could take it to one of the govt environmental agencies and they could give permission for it to be done officially.
![/quote]

Environmental Study may not have been done. I am a planner in a rural area of Queensland and some of them have never heard of Environmental Plans or studies etc. Some planners are not environmentally minded.

Simone.

[Dipcdame]

Good luck, the sentiments are good, and whatever eventuates, I just hope teh subjects of all this (the animals under threat) get a good deal out of it, and a chance to continue to live happily, and wild!

[tfor2]

I know they do handle all relations to wildlife in the film industry.. Even though they may not handle wildlife directly they are the ones that give everything the yay or nay!

[IsK67]

Originally Posted by tfor2

I know they do handle all relations to wildlife in the film industry.. Even though they may not handle wildlife directly they are the ones that give everything the yay or nay!

I fail to see what the film industry has to do with this thread. But anyway I'm interested in how this could be so considering they apparently have "nobody trained to deal with reptiles"

IsK

[tfor2]

Im simply impying that i have had a lot of dealings with national parks and the rspca and when it comes to reptiles the RSPCA seem to have the final say on things. In NSW anyway.
You dont need to get defensive... IM JUST TELLING YOU THE WAY IT IS.

[MrBredli]

Originally Posted by Sdaji

Secretary? Nah, it's just not me

That's a shame, i reckon you'd look quite good in a mini skirt and heels.

[IsK67]

Originally Posted by tfor2

Im simply impying that i have had a lot of dealings with national parks and the rspca and when it comes to reptiles the RSPCA seem to have the final say on things. In NSW anyway.
You dont need to get defensive... IM JUST TELLING YOU THE WAY IT IS.

???

I just posted that I was interested in something you stated. Sorry but there was never any implication by you, or anyone else for that matter, that you have "had a lot of dealings with national parks and the rspca".

You did however imply some knowledge of the Film industry and the RSPCA and that was what I was interested in.

But don't worry it was just an interest and, like a bad prawn curry, it has passed. So no need to shout any more.

Namasté.
IsK

[MrBredli]

I don't understand either... sure RSPCA may have been overlooking the filming of Skippy to ensure the animals' welfare was upheld, but permits etc for film/relocation etc are issued by NPWS/DECC.

[tfor2]

Your probably right, its mostly for the animals welfare.... But it does pertain to all wildlife activities, whether wild or captive. So they do work together (the rspca and npws) You cant get a permit from just one of them (including filming) for what reason, Ive never looked into. Whether they actually do anything or not (with all that government funding) is prob another story.

[JasonL]

Your probably looking at a few Long neck turts, a few eastern blueys, a golden crown or two, the odd passing RBB, and waterskinks plus the usual 3 - 5 sp of frog that are common in the area. They will not let any un-insured person on the site full stop, and these days you can't blame them.