Regulated taking of wildlife.

[PMyers]

If I am reading it right, how would the captive bred vs collected animals be regulated to ensure that people weren't say catching 2 Levis (as an adult pair), catching a heap of babies or yearlings calling them holdbacks etc then selling off the newly caught animals as progeny?

The same thing that stops someone with a pair of tree snakes (for example) traipsing through the bush, collecting dozens of juveniles and adjusting their books to say they are progeny... absolutely nothing. Certainly not condoning this - far from it - I'm just saying that it could easily occur, and more than likely does.

[Bluetongue1]

To answer the above question - DNA testing to see if the offspring do come from the claimed parents. This has been used a number of times in WA wildlife prosecutions.

Putting Wild Taking into Perspective
As Beard mentioned, an estimated 5 million animals are killed on roads each and every year. The numbers collected from the wild pale into insignificance in comparison. A study over a 10 year period at Roxby Downs (SA) found about 1000 small reptiles are consumed by feral cats and foxes per square kilometre of mallee per year. We have about 80,000 km² of cat and fox infested mallee in WA. By my reckoning, these ferals are likely to accounting for about 80 million small reptiles per year, every year, in WA mallee areas. Despite the huge numbers being taken unnaturally every year, year after, the population of the reptiles involved continue unabated.

However, exceed the sustainable yield and numbers will begin to decline. Populations that are confined to limited areas by geographic barriers have their population size limited as a result. Clearly, the size of the sustainable yield from such populations is reduced accordingly and for small islands could readily be exceeded. Along similar lines, the intensity of collection within a given area may exceed the sustainable yield for that area. This is also influenced by the accessibility of the specific animals. The more accessible they are the more prone they are to over harvesting.

Blue

[snakerelocation]

I think it all depends where the animals are being collected from.

The reality is that as a society we don't want snakes in built up populated areas. I think all relocators should be allowed to keep what they catch on call outs.

Edit: Actually, no i don't.


I've seen what being allowed to keep what you catch can go to peoples head and them become disgustingly greedy. I would like to see all relocators be allowed to apply to keep a specified number of animals that they get on callouts.

the only problem with that idea, id have a crap load of eastern browns in my place then-
on average take 2 a week.
pythons- 12 a week
tree snakes- 3 a week.
you get a little over seeing them, so why would you want to keep them, especially carpets

[waruikazi]

Scott i think the problem of people poaching and selling thw wild caught animals is far far far overstated. Especially the animals that are easily washed and paper trails created for because there simply isn't a big enough market for them.

I think a more realistic description of a poacher is either an opportunistic novice, someone who has little knowledge of reptiles and finds something of interest when they are gardening or bush walking and decides to keep it. Or herpetologists who take some of the animals they are particularly interested in because they cannot source them legally.

You have it spot on. As for the i bred it argument, I admit that is certainly a hole. Mind you that very same hole is exploited now as well in the current system.

In reality I don't think it will make much difference if they did it or not...to the wild populations of a least concern species.

The system I proposed was all of 5 minutes thought and I am sure if could refine it but again this is hypothethical. First point of call for any proper system would be to make it national!!!!

Cheers,
Scott

[Morgwynn]

As mentioned, kangaroos are shot in the tens of thousands every year. This has been going on for more than a century, originally to supply pet meat but more recently for human consumption as well. Shooters have to follow a protocol that include inspecting females for pouch young and humanely dispensing with them if there are. Take your pick – you can have older roos killed instantly with a bullet or joeys slowly starving to death or dying of dehydration or diseases (to which they become susceptible due to their weaken state).

One of the major problems with the kangaroo industry is that the humane disposal of in pouch and at foot joeys is simply not happening, but that's a discussion for another day.

So I will ask again the main question I want answered....What herp of least concern in Australia has ever been endangered directly as a result of over collection? Other environmental factors such as ferals, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, insular geographical isolation are not a result of "poaching" and should not be factored in.

You can't just not factor in ferals, habitat loss etc. There is nowhere in this country where animals are not under pressure from those threats. But since you asked, two species where human overcollection has played a part in the population decline are the Broad Headed Snake and the Rusty Monitor (collected heavily in the 1970's - there's more information on Australia Zoo's website).

And be honest here, experienced keepers don't want to collect common and 'Least Concern' species because the majority of those species are already in the pet trade in sufficient numbers to ensure genetic diversity. Experienced keepers want the unusual - and often threatened - animals.

[colubridking]

I also used them because they, in particular the ball pythons and island boas, were fairly well regulated
The PET TRADE set the limits with payments and setting up collection centres
I notice you never even attempted to say which Aussie species are stable and not in decline
As you say, you work in the field so please tell us

There are very very few Aussie species where collection is still necessary to improve genetic diversity

Longqi i think you fail to understand that when you compare species such as island chondros, boas etc and then Australian reptiles are similar in decline, you cant compare because you have every country in the world after these chondros - the market over in the other countries is HUGE because they are legal there, it doesnt matter what species people seem to have, so you have poachers from all over the world come to small islands and take the snakes, no **** they are going to decline but i bet they are still there doing fine.

Australian species are still sought after overseas but that becomes off topic, another thing you and several other people fail to understand however, is that it is a licensed collection for particular species. No one would be stupid enough to pay big dollars for a permit to collect a few bearded dragons, they are dirt cheap now days. the licensing is for species which aren't common in captivity but thrive in the wild. i notice you claim to have read all sorts of documents about Australian wildlife - noting reptiles, to be in decline. i dont know if you've got out of your chair and done some herping over here but if you know where to look and go to the right places, reptiles are common as hell.
you note that one of the other members doesnt mention a species that is stable.

Stimson's Python Antaresia stimsoni are common as hell provided you know where to look
Desert sand monitors varanus gouldii flavirufus are also common as hell, we kept records and in a single day we found 8 in the space of an hour, thats not including road kills.

a list can go on, and on and on. you arm chair herpers read some papers, fail to find anything then agree that the environment is on its way out. Reptiles in particular dominate this whole continent.

licensing of wild collecting would be simple enough to work out. there is no relevance in taking species that a established in captivity, however take a small group of animals that arent common and set them up in captivity and it would be fine.

theres too much to point out that some of you need to open your eyes too!!!!

[waruikazi]

the only problem with that idea, id have a crap load of eastern browns in my place then-
on average take 2 a week.
pythons- 12 a week
tree snakes- 3 a week.
you get a little over seeing them, so why would you want to keep them, especially carpets

If you get sick of the animals you see all the time then are you going to get sick of the animals you have in glass boxes at home? lol

The idea is that you might get something another herper wants to keep and they might get somehting that you want and you could either trade, sell or buy off each other. Pretty similar to the way things are now except you could take some from the wild.

But that was the problem with having a take permit attached to your interfere permit. It went to some peoples head and they kept everything they could.

[GeckPhotographer]

Every study Ive ever read states they are in decline and every area I herped in 25 years ago appears to have less now than it did then

That's because nobody studies population dynamics of species that are obviously in good numbers. People get funding to study population dynamics of species that are at risk of decline, unless that reptiles population has a large effect on humans such as Salt Water Crocodiles.





I'm fully for a strictly controlled legalised taking from the wild. I think one thing that should be implemented is that all wild collectiong goes through a license application and that no more than a certain low quota over a period of say 5 years is allowed. In this way it allows a small amount of reptiles to be added for genetic diversity and allows collection of new species for the hobby without having an all out free for all for animals. Of course many refinements would have to be made to any approach before it would really stand up to the test of being put into place.

[eipper]

Both Rustys and Broadys are not classified as least concern, secondly habitat destruction is the primary cause for decline not collection for trade...

read the whole post instead of a bit. As for my question.....longi said that all reptiles and amphibians are in decline....I say bull...., secondly my opinion is that taking of species of least concern will have no measurable effect of the populations of these species.

[PMyers]

Of course many refinements would have to be made to any approach before it would really stand up to the test of being put into place.

Like ensuring that those who acquire a collectors permit are only those who can show real evidence that they are competent enough with reptile husbandry to ensure that those specimens collected would have the best chance of actually breeding. This is in contrast, of course, to those with a few months experience and a fat cheque book. Proof of competence. No exorbitant fees. Like that's ever going to happen...

[GeckPhotographer]

And be honest here, experienced keepers don't want to collect common and 'Least Concern' species because the majority of those species are already in the pet trade in sufficient numbers to ensure genetic diversity.

Name me 20 species of Ctenotus that I could find more than one person selling captive bred offspring of anywhere in Australia?

No?

Ok then I'll have you name some breeders of Crenodactylus, half the Lucasium species, anyone that breeds more than one Gehyra species, or in fact anyone other than myself with Gehyra australis sensu lato, the list of geckos and skinks that some keepers on here would just about kill for goes on and on.

Like ensuring that those who acquire a collectors permit are only those who can show real evidence that they are competent enough with reptile husbandry to ensure that those specimens collected would have the best chance of actually breeding. This is in contrast, of course, to those with a few months experience and a fat cheque book. Proof of competence. No exorbitant fees. Like that's ever going to happen...

I don't disagree with any of this. That said, I think the hypothetical questing is talking about if a smoothed out legislation like this could be put in place.

[PMyers]

That said, I think the hypothetical questing is talking about if a smoothed out legislation like this could be put in place.

Here's hoping. But the speed at which our respective licencing and regulatory bodies work, I think we would be seeing the fabled "National System" before something like this ever came to light.

[Rocket]

I too struggle to see how all species of reptiles and amphibians (bar one) are believed to be experiencing a decline in abundance. Longqi, you stated they are all dropping exponentially (well, you never stated to what degree so you must mean exponentially) and are therefore considered not to be stable. Based on this, ALL species are heading for extinction?... I doubt it.

Yes, more accessible species will be collected faster, and easier, but many breed young and multiclutch and will therefore disperse amongst the market quicker, lowering the appeal for continual collection. Species with high colour and pattern variation for instance, such as Nephrurus spp., will most likely be sought to supplement existing genetics that support new morphs, however, with such a healthy captive population, what authority would grant a take permit? None with half a brain, thats who. Then again, you might say, they'll just grab them anyway and say they bred them... how is that any different to what can occur now?

Take widespread, common and (as eipper has said, Least concern) species for instance, some are kept in captivity (bearded dragons, knob-tailed geckos, blue-tongued skinks etc) however, the vast majority are not, as stated by GeckPhotographer. Collection of a limited number of animals, for the establishment of the species in captivity has proven to be quite successful, look at Morelia carinata, Nephrurus wheeleri, N.l.occidentalis and N.l.pilbarensis, well, obviously all captive species. Collectors would need to remain vigilant of the genetic availability within several seasons based on the numbers and origin of wild-caught animals. To me, collection (along with stringent regulations) will not have a negative effect on wild populations that are considered secure without forseeable threat. I base this on the mortality of reptiles on roads and by feral predators; and the lack of MVP studies into many of the widespread, commonly encountered species that many breeders are keen to acquire.

Take species such as Morelia carinata, they were collected and they are quite common in captivity now (to the point where they dropped $10,000+ in value in a matter of years). However, following carefully regulated taking, proper insurance of genetic availability (although, can we really rule out that they aren't being inbred now?) and knowledgeable keepers, where have all the reports gone stating that this species has now sufferred a noticeable drop in wild population numbers since original collection by Weigel etc? What's that? They haven't dropped? Even after being collected? Even if they are remote species from a rather small range?

What can we extrapolate from this example to other widespread species?

Collecting species, making them available to hobbyists and lowering ridiculous price tags, to me, has the potential to cut poaching and illegal collection considerably.

If people disagree with me, prove me wrong. Provide scientific articles (refereed and supported) that disproves what myself, eipper, GeckPhotographer etc believe.

[Bluetongue1]

The Federal and State governments have deemed all native wildlife protected. Harvesting of anything from abalone to kangaroos is regulated. It might be by way of an exemption with a few conditions attached. Or the other extreme, an expensive licence where royalties are to be paid and detailed records to be kept and regularly submitted. And there's lots in between.

As Eipper referred to earlier, Australia's wildlife have been categorised according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria. The relevant categories are follows...
Critically Endangered - Extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.
Endangered - High risk of extinction in the wild.
Vulnerable - High risk of endangerment in the wild.
Near Threatened - Likely to become endangered in the near future.
Least Concern - Lowest risk. Does not qualify for a more at risk category. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.

Data on distribution and abundance data from museums and scientific surveys is used, along with other data to determine the appropriate category. According to the scientists who put this together and those international scientists that check their work, for all the species on the "least concern" list there has been no significant decrease in population. I can understand why no-one wants to publish about populations that are ticking over and doing alright... makes better copy if a population is crashing. I wonder if those same prophets of doom wrote anything on the Pygmy Bluetongue, the Western Swamp Tortoise or the Lancelin Island Skink.

Blue

[dragonlover1]

the only problem with that idea, id have a crap load of eastern browns in my place then-
on average take 2 a week.
pythons- 12 a week
tree snakes- 3 a week.
you get a little over seeing them, so why would you want to keep them, especially carpets

haha can see where that might be a problem