New Froggy friend, ID anyone?
- Thread starter Manda1032
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
Gavin_G
New Member
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
No worries Gavin. You are more than welcome. It is remarkable how superficially similar some of our frog species are.
Mandy, I think you are allowed 2 of each species and there is a limit on the number of species you can collect and also the species types. You are not allowed to sell them, either. Anyone may hold a licence so that is no guarantee of competence in husbandry. The idea of making wild collection off limits to licensed holders is probably to stop wild collecting to replace or replenish licensed stocks which are being on-sold.
Mike
Mandy, I think you are allowed 2 of each species and there is a limit on the number of species you can collect and also the species types. You are not allowed to sell them, either. Anyone may hold a licence so that is no guarantee of competence in husbandry. The idea of making wild collection off limits to licensed holders is probably to stop wild collecting to replace or replenish licensed stocks which are being on-sold.
Mike
My understanding is the law was put in primarily to allow children to raise some tadpoles found on their property and watch them metamorph into frogs. They must be released back onto the property if you move house. You are only allowed to have up to 8 specimens, cannot hold a wildlife permit and they must not be taken from the premises. In addition you are only allowed to hold species that are classified as least concern.
Cheers
scott
Cheers
scott
Manda1032
Very Well-Known Member
It seems quite silly. You could build a frog pond and fill it with collected tadpoles and just say they were layed there. The same goes for "natural increase" and wild collection. So much of our laws rely on peoples honesty! I can Honestly say I'm not interested in collecting the frogs around here, I have enough mouths to feed
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
Manda,
It seems clear enough that you have an issue with wild taking. An understanding of population dynamics and the concept of sustainable yield is required to see why it is not the 'bogie man' it is portrayed by many to be.
As early as 1798, an Englishman named Thomas Malthus wrote an essay on the nature of populations in which he espoused the basic principle that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive. Let's look at a simple example, the common Green Tree Frog. They can live up to 20 years or more, produce up to 2000 eggs in a spawn and are sexually mature at the age of one year. If a female begins reproducing at the age of two continues to the age of 10 years, when she dies. Let's also say she produced an average spawn of 1000 eggs per year. She produces 8 x 1000 = 8,000 fertilised eggs. If three quarters successfully hatch, the single female and her mate have produced 6,000 tadpoles (a very conservative estimate). How many of those 6,000 are required to mature and metamorphose into frogs to replace mum and dad and keep the population stable? TWO out of 6,000. This means that 5,998 MUST perish. In round figures, for every year for each one pair of GTFs, in order to maintain a stable population, 600 tadpoles/froglets/frogs must die. And we were very conservative in our estimates. In real life, the figure is higher.
You can do the same exercise species with low fecundity and you still get the majority of offspring having to die. For example a gecko living five years, producing only on clutch per year (most will have three) and breeding from years 2 to 5, will produce 8 offspring, of which 6 must die. So you can remove one gecko every year for every breeding pair in the population and not affect the population. With the more usual three clutches, you would get 24 offspring, of which 22 must die. So for each breeding pair in the population, 5 geckoes must die each year to maintain a stable population.
For any given population, there is a number of individuals that can be removed each and every year without affecting the size of the population. This is known as the sustainable yield. A good example is grey and red kangaroos. These animals are shot in their thousands every year across Australia to provide pet food and more recently, meat for human consumption. This practice has been going on for a century and yet there has been no sustained reduction in the populations of these animals. This is because the cull, huge as it is, is still within the sustainable yield. This is a biological reality!
Blue
It seems clear enough that you have an issue with wild taking. An understanding of population dynamics and the concept of sustainable yield is required to see why it is not the 'bogie man' it is portrayed by many to be.
As early as 1798, an Englishman named Thomas Malthus wrote an essay on the nature of populations in which he espoused the basic principle that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive. Let's look at a simple example, the common Green Tree Frog. They can live up to 20 years or more, produce up to 2000 eggs in a spawn and are sexually mature at the age of one year. If a female begins reproducing at the age of two continues to the age of 10 years, when she dies. Let's also say she produced an average spawn of 1000 eggs per year. She produces 8 x 1000 = 8,000 fertilised eggs. If three quarters successfully hatch, the single female and her mate have produced 6,000 tadpoles (a very conservative estimate). How many of those 6,000 are required to mature and metamorphose into frogs to replace mum and dad and keep the population stable? TWO out of 6,000. This means that 5,998 MUST perish. In round figures, for every year for each one pair of GTFs, in order to maintain a stable population, 600 tadpoles/froglets/frogs must die. And we were very conservative in our estimates. In real life, the figure is higher.
You can do the same exercise species with low fecundity and you still get the majority of offspring having to die. For example a gecko living five years, producing only on clutch per year (most will have three) and breeding from years 2 to 5, will produce 8 offspring, of which 6 must die. So you can remove one gecko every year for every breeding pair in the population and not affect the population. With the more usual three clutches, you would get 24 offspring, of which 22 must die. So for each breeding pair in the population, 5 geckoes must die each year to maintain a stable population.
For any given population, there is a number of individuals that can be removed each and every year without affecting the size of the population. This is known as the sustainable yield. A good example is grey and red kangaroos. These animals are shot in their thousands every year across Australia to provide pet food and more recently, meat for human consumption. This practice has been going on for a century and yet there has been no sustained reduction in the populations of these animals. This is because the cull, huge as it is, is still within the sustainable yield. This is a biological reality!
Blue
Manda1032
Very Well-Known Member
My issue with taking from the wild is that I don't think it should be allowed. example, If there were no licensing laws and green zones Moreton bay would have no fish. There is sustainability and there is completely wiping out populations.
Last winter I noticed it, don't know if it happened anywhere else but I had a lot of frogs in my care. a LOT! They were comming out of brumation way to early, were very thin and pastey skinned. Incredibly sickly. Not restricted to just one species either. I had dainty's and Green trees even a Red's tree frog. Sadly most did not survive despite my best efforts. I had them all in tubs where ever I could find warmth for them. It broke my heart. Those that were released I monitored, Most of the Dainty's made it a couple of the greens didn't.
I don't know what happened but this year I'm prepared. I have more heat cords and tubs that I hope I don't use.
But this is just my little humble opinion
Last winter I noticed it, don't know if it happened anywhere else but I had a lot of frogs in my care. a LOT! They were comming out of brumation way to early, were very thin and pastey skinned. Incredibly sickly. Not restricted to just one species either. I had dainty's and Green trees even a Red's tree frog. Sadly most did not survive despite my best efforts. I had them all in tubs where ever I could find warmth for them. It broke my heart. Those that were released I monitored, Most of the Dainty's made it a couple of the greens didn't.
I don't know what happened but this year I'm prepared. I have more heat cords and tubs that I hope I don't use.
But this is just my little humble opinion
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
Wild taking does need to be regulated. Otherwise there is nothing to stop people exceeding the sustainable yield and potentially decimating populations.
The sustainable yield is also affected by a number of factors other than fecundity, that I did not mention, more for simplicity sake and space reasons (the post was too long as it is – must work on that!). What I was endeavouring to get across is that a small number of individuals collected from populations of common species will have zero long term affect on those populations.
Collecting in large numbers from the same population will have a detrimental effect. Fish stocks and other aquatic food animals are a prime example. Too many people taking too much for too long. This is why we need green bans and bag limits.
Your frogs sound as though they might have been diseased. Coming out of brumation early is really weird. It should be temperature controlled. Certainly makes me wonder if something was affecting their metabolism. The address below has photos and information on different frogs illnesses and comes from the Queensland Frog Society. You could approach them for an explanation or the Queensland Museum or James Cook Uni in Townsville. http://www.qldfrogs.asn.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=36
Blue
The sustainable yield is also affected by a number of factors other than fecundity, that I did not mention, more for simplicity sake and space reasons (the post was too long as it is – must work on that!). What I was endeavouring to get across is that a small number of individuals collected from populations of common species will have zero long term affect on those populations.
Collecting in large numbers from the same population will have a detrimental effect. Fish stocks and other aquatic food animals are a prime example. Too many people taking too much for too long. This is why we need green bans and bag limits.
Your frogs sound as though they might have been diseased. Coming out of brumation early is really weird. It should be temperature controlled. Certainly makes me wonder if something was affecting their metabolism. The address below has photos and information on different frogs illnesses and comes from the Queensland Frog Society. You could approach them for an explanation or the Queensland Museum or James Cook Uni in Townsville. http://www.qldfrogs.asn.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=36
Blue
Manda1032
Very Well-Known Member
Thanks Blue Tongue. It puzzled my whole family. Been here for over 5 years and I've had the occasional lost soul or someone who's been disturbed but to have 6 frogs sick at one time.... :/ I'll continue researching in the hopes I can help them better
Treknotechelaps
Not so new Member
There's a **** load less people in Tassy so there wouldn't be such a heavy impact on populations like the mainland. But I reckon that the laws will eventually change over there so its illegal to collect from the wild in Tas. There's more people in the world every year and even least concern species can change to threatened or vulnerable in a short space of time. But, yeh, not many species to collect there except mostly Niveoscincus skinks and a few others.
In other words it should be illegal to collect them from the wild there as it is everywhere else in Australia.
- Status
Similar threads
