Not the nicest email I have received!
- Thread starter Amazing Amazon
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
caliherp
Well-Known Member
I agree with you, but at the same time who the hell are we to tell them they should change?
Davesgonefishin
Not so new Member
Tradition can sometimes be an excuse for either ignorance or especially arrogance. I can trace ancestry back to Vikings. Should that mean since it was a "tradition" it should be acceptable for me to go rape & pillage throughout northern europe? Should it mean that people can wipe out entire species because of "tradition"? No the world is/has changed.
I am not having a go at you here - just stating my opinion!
KaotikJezta
Very Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,719
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with you, but not with our need to interfere with other people when we have plenty of pillaging of our own environment/flora/fauna going on. It is the holier than thou attitude I can't stand.
disintegratus
Very Well-Known Member
Umm, yes. Vikings are awesome, and you should very much have permission to do viking things.
I
imported_Varanus
Guest
As long as you remember, it's pillage, rape then burn...not the other way round! You Vikings are crazy
!!
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
I am surprised that people are not aware of the plight of non-marine chelonians. Most would be aware of the issues resulting from over harvesting of marine turtles. Once upon a time every corner grocery store carried cans of turtle soup and ladies combs and other fashion accessories were made from polished turtle shell. Maybe you are aware that some of the small land tortoises were endangered through over collection for the pet trade and some of the giant land tortoises were decimated for meat by early sailors. Well things have changed.
The past 15 to 20 years has seen a massive decline in primarily freshwater chelonians throughout Asia as a result a number of Asian countries opening up the borders and allowing trade in these animals. Essentially utilised for food and medicinal products, this trade has produced the current situation where 17 of the top 25 endangered chelonians herald from Asia.
I had the privilege of chatting to Gerald Kuchling about this last year. He put into rather stark perspective for me… 60% of chelonian taxa are vulnerable or endangered. The percentage of species at risk is greater than for frogs. Twenty years ago they were looking pretty good as a group.
These counties are signatories to CITES. In so doing they have given an undertaking to look after threatened species. This is not about us meddling with their culture. It is about them not being effective in monitoring, and where appropriate, curtailing the trade in wildlife from one country to another. Before such trade was allowed there was not such a problem. It is basically run by organised crime, who are greedy and motivated solely by the fact that they stand to make significant profits, with no regard whatsoever for the long term effect on biodiversity.
Ostrich question… Australia has a wild population of ostriches in SA (I think). The birds have minimal impact on the environment. They are also particularly healthy. African populations in the wild have suffered badly. So every year or two, a number of live birds are caught and sold overseas. The lease holder is effectively farming these birds as one would free range cattle.
Blue
The past 15 to 20 years has seen a massive decline in primarily freshwater chelonians throughout Asia as a result a number of Asian countries opening up the borders and allowing trade in these animals. Essentially utilised for food and medicinal products, this trade has produced the current situation where 17 of the top 25 endangered chelonians herald from Asia.
I had the privilege of chatting to Gerald Kuchling about this last year. He put into rather stark perspective for me… 60% of chelonian taxa are vulnerable or endangered. The percentage of species at risk is greater than for frogs. Twenty years ago they were looking pretty good as a group.
These counties are signatories to CITES. In so doing they have given an undertaking to look after threatened species. This is not about us meddling with their culture. It is about them not being effective in monitoring, and where appropriate, curtailing the trade in wildlife from one country to another. Before such trade was allowed there was not such a problem. It is basically run by organised crime, who are greedy and motivated solely by the fact that they stand to make significant profits, with no regard whatsoever for the long term effect on biodiversity.
Ostrich question… Australia has a wild population of ostriches in SA (I think). The birds have minimal impact on the environment. They are also particularly healthy. African populations in the wild have suffered badly. So every year or two, a number of live birds are caught and sold overseas. The lease holder is effectively farming these birds as one would free range cattle.
Blue
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.
Complex issues. Very hard to explain here. Perhaps we need to remember that it’s very easy to pass judgment on the dealings of other peoples while typing into a MacBook Pro from the local coffee shop.
Here is a recent report on python skin trade: The Trade in Southeast Asian Python Skin
The python skin trade probably is sustainable, Longqi – I have no idea why you would claim otherwise? The trade in wild turtles/tortoises (which started the thread) is a different matter…
Jaime, if we are going to protect species and habitats from the impending doom of oil palm, then we need to think about utilizing them to provide alternative income opportunities for local people – so maybe European demand for skins is a good thing…? But, there is evidence that python densities have increased in Asia due to oil palm expansion…
Longqi, if you can get python skins for $10 then give me a call and we’ll go into business together!
- - - Updated - - -
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.
Complex issues. Very hard to explain here. Perhaps we need to remember that it’s very easy to pass judgment on the dealings of other peoples while typing into a MacBook Pro from the local coffee shop.
Here is a recent report on python skin trade: http://www.intracen.org/The-Trade-in-South-East-Asian-Python-Skin/
The python skin trade probably is sustainable, Longqi – I have no idea why you would claim otherwise? The trade in wild turtles/tortoises (which started the thread) is a different matter…
Jaime, if we are going to protect species and habitats from the impending doom of oil palm, then we need to think about utilizing them to provide alternative income opportunities for local people – so maybe European demand for skins is a good thing…? But, there is evidence that python densities have increased in Asia due to oil palm expansion…
Longqi, if you can get python skins for $10 then give me a call and we’ll go into business together!
Complex issues. Very hard to explain here. Perhaps we need to remember that it’s very easy to pass judgment on the dealings of other peoples while typing into a MacBook Pro from the local coffee shop.
Here is a recent report on python skin trade: The Trade in Southeast Asian Python Skin
The python skin trade probably is sustainable, Longqi – I have no idea why you would claim otherwise? The trade in wild turtles/tortoises (which started the thread) is a different matter…
Jaime, if we are going to protect species and habitats from the impending doom of oil palm, then we need to think about utilizing them to provide alternative income opportunities for local people – so maybe European demand for skins is a good thing…? But, there is evidence that python densities have increased in Asia due to oil palm expansion…
Longqi, if you can get python skins for $10 then give me a call and we’ll go into business together!
- - - Updated - - -
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.
Complex issues. Very hard to explain here. Perhaps we need to remember that it’s very easy to pass judgment on the dealings of other peoples while typing into a MacBook Pro from the local coffee shop.
Here is a recent report on python skin trade: http://www.intracen.org/The-Trade-in-South-East-Asian-Python-Skin/
The python skin trade probably is sustainable, Longqi – I have no idea why you would claim otherwise? The trade in wild turtles/tortoises (which started the thread) is a different matter…
Jaime, if we are going to protect species and habitats from the impending doom of oil palm, then we need to think about utilizing them to provide alternative income opportunities for local people – so maybe European demand for skins is a good thing…? But, there is evidence that python densities have increased in Asia due to oil palm expansion…
Longqi, if you can get python skins for $10 then give me a call and we’ll go into business together!
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
DanN,
I did not all of the report but did read enough to find it ambivalent. They express concern about actual numbers of skins declared and methods of circumventing the CITES monitoring. They also express concerns about sustainability of harvesting methods of several species and in particular island morphs. So while they feel confident that in the long term, the overall harvesting is probably sustainable there are real concern regarding insular populations, such as those on islands and those populations in close proximity to regions of intense collection. Given that we understand the importance of maintaining maximum biodiversity for the long term viability of life on earth, any reduction or elimination of genetically distinct populations, be they of minor difference or otherwise, is detrimental to biodiversity and therefore highly undesirable to ecological sustainability.
To put it succinctly, while the skin trade may sustainable in the long term as it now, if it results in a serious reduction or extinction in any local populations, then this is unacceptable in terms of maintaining biodiversity on the planet.
Blue
I did not all of the report but did read enough to find it ambivalent. They express concern about actual numbers of skins declared and methods of circumventing the CITES monitoring. They also express concerns about sustainability of harvesting methods of several species and in particular island morphs. So while they feel confident that in the long term, the overall harvesting is probably sustainable there are real concern regarding insular populations, such as those on islands and those populations in close proximity to regions of intense collection. Given that we understand the importance of maintaining maximum biodiversity for the long term viability of life on earth, any reduction or elimination of genetically distinct populations, be they of minor difference or otherwise, is detrimental to biodiversity and therefore highly undesirable to ecological sustainability.
To put it succinctly, while the skin trade may sustainable in the long term as it now, if it results in a serious reduction or extinction in any local populations, then this is unacceptable in terms of maintaining biodiversity on the planet.
Blue
W
wokka
Guest
.
Ostriches in Australia are remnants of the tax driven investment schemes operated about 20 years ago when they were farmed for their skin (driven by the fashion industry) and worth $10-30,000 each. A bit like snakes, they are capable of breeding very quickly and so soon were over populated. Once the economics was put to the test it was found to be a farce driven by tax concessions. The ostrich meat was a by-product of the Ostrich leather industry. I dont know why Ostriches in Africa are in trouble, but they are relatively easy to breed and could be captively bred in Africa or Aussie bred chicks bred exported. Adult Ostriches are too tall to fit traditional transport crates.
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
I have probably confused camels and ostriches in terms of the health of the original populations. My apologies. Ostriches were farmed for their feathers and their meat. Their hides were also utilised. Australian birds are particularly healthy and robust and considered good stock for breeding. I do not know much about live exports of these animals but I do know some occurs. As for problems with standard transport crates, they would simply have to construct something suitable. They transfer giraffes from zoo to zoo around the world so I cannot see that transporting ostriches is beyond them
Blue.
Blue.
longqi
Very Well-Known Member
Dan
20 years ago the python trade seemed sustainable
Most of my gfs tribe lived as hunters and lived well in Southern Kalimantan
They are all pure bred Dayak
In 2 to 3 days hunting they would have a boat full of skins
Most of them dont bother even going now
All of them have seen a huge decline in both size and numbers of retics and bloods
With bigger better boats the remaining hunters are traveling further now for less return
Exactly the same thing is happening in Sumatra and Sulawesi
Because of the difficulty in hunting some areas, especially North and Western Kalimantan, numbers there
will always stay reasonably high
But thats only because of the terrain, yet its the figures from those areas that are used to 'prove'
that numbers are not in decline
20 years ago the python trade seemed sustainable
Most of my gfs tribe lived as hunters and lived well in Southern Kalimantan
They are all pure bred Dayak
In 2 to 3 days hunting they would have a boat full of skins
Most of them dont bother even going now
All of them have seen a huge decline in both size and numbers of retics and bloods
With bigger better boats the remaining hunters are traveling further now for less return
Exactly the same thing is happening in Sumatra and Sulawesi
Because of the difficulty in hunting some areas, especially North and Western Kalimantan, numbers there
will always stay reasonably high
But thats only because of the terrain, yet its the figures from those areas that are used to 'prove'
that numbers are not in decline
Blue/Longqi
Circumvention of CITES regulations and mis-declaration of skins is illegal. This is of concern, and these concerns are expressed in the report. However, this does not necessarily suggest that trade is unsustainable. The report does not express concerns about the harvesting methods. The insular populations are not of real concern, but given the sensitive nature of island population may become so in the future. “Insular populations” also refers to the subspecies described by Auliya et al. (2002), not island populations in general.
I am not disagreeing that harvesting reduces local populations, but this is an issue of “commercial sustainability” not the “preservation of the species”. Trade alone is unlikely to ever result in the extinction of these species.
Changes in the average size of snakes and reductions in numbers capable of being harvested do not necessarily mean that the trade is unsustainable. It might just mean that trade is focused upon immature individuals. There are other biases also. Perhaps a reduction in local population densities coupled with an increase in hunter numbers make it harder for single individuals to collect as many snakes – rather than indicating a crash? This may very well be the case, because absolute numbers collected from these areas haven’t changed, which would be expected if python populations were crashing.
I don’t want to start a never-ending debate; you could both be right? The trade might be unsustainable, but it’s just that there is little indication as yet.
Don’t get me wrong. Snakes are my favorite critters; I understand the need for ecological sustainability; and the idea of killing a snake for a handbag is a bit weird… All I’m arguing is that if all the available information is evaluated objectively, and holistically, then maybe you would see the trade in a different light? Perhaps not?
Circumvention of CITES regulations and mis-declaration of skins is illegal. This is of concern, and these concerns are expressed in the report. However, this does not necessarily suggest that trade is unsustainable. The report does not express concerns about the harvesting methods. The insular populations are not of real concern, but given the sensitive nature of island population may become so in the future. “Insular populations” also refers to the subspecies described by Auliya et al. (2002), not island populations in general.
I am not disagreeing that harvesting reduces local populations, but this is an issue of “commercial sustainability” not the “preservation of the species”. Trade alone is unlikely to ever result in the extinction of these species.
Changes in the average size of snakes and reductions in numbers capable of being harvested do not necessarily mean that the trade is unsustainable. It might just mean that trade is focused upon immature individuals. There are other biases also. Perhaps a reduction in local population densities coupled with an increase in hunter numbers make it harder for single individuals to collect as many snakes – rather than indicating a crash? This may very well be the case, because absolute numbers collected from these areas haven’t changed, which would be expected if python populations were crashing.
I don’t want to start a never-ending debate; you could both be right? The trade might be unsustainable, but it’s just that there is little indication as yet.
Don’t get me wrong. Snakes are my favorite critters; I understand the need for ecological sustainability; and the idea of killing a snake for a handbag is a bit weird… All I’m arguing is that if all the available information is evaluated objectively, and holistically, then maybe you would see the trade in a different light? Perhaps not?
longqi
Very Well-Known Member
Dan
While I agree that skin numbers remain fairly constant and in many cases have increased
I think this is more to do with higher demand
Dayaks still hunt
But they are traveling further all the time to return the same number of skins and the average size is dropping
I honestly believe that in 5 years time prices for skins will get crazy
That is when I expect wild population to crash in most areas
If you ever do want skins visit Mengwi markets in Bali very early in the morning
100,000idr [$10] for 2metre plus retics
Even at JL Veteran Bird Market which would be one of the dearer places they only get $15
Central Java average about $1 per kilo
While I agree that skin numbers remain fairly constant and in many cases have increased
I think this is more to do with higher demand
Dayaks still hunt
But they are traveling further all the time to return the same number of skins and the average size is dropping
I honestly believe that in 5 years time prices for skins will get crazy
That is when I expect wild population to crash in most areas
If you ever do want skins visit Mengwi markets in Bali very early in the morning
100,000idr [$10] for 2metre plus retics
Even at JL Veteran Bird Market which would be one of the dearer places they only get $15
Central Java average about $1 per kilo
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
DanN,
I can understand your argument. My concerns are that sustainability is based on trade figures which are below the actual figures and that it is based on population estimates in any of the affected areas. So as Longqi pointed out, traditional poulatins have been decimated where there no living to be made collecting from there and so they are going further afield. This is not reflected in the trade figures.
I disagree with you contention about not being able to drive them to extinction. Snakes that are not yet quite ready to breed are still large enough to collect for their skins. If this were not the case, then I would, like you, not be so concerned.
Blue
I can understand your argument. My concerns are that sustainability is based on trade figures which are below the actual figures and that it is based on population estimates in any of the affected areas. So as Longqi pointed out, traditional poulatins have been decimated where there no living to be made collecting from there and so they are going further afield. This is not reflected in the trade figures.
I disagree with you contention about not being able to drive them to extinction. Snakes that are not yet quite ready to breed are still large enough to collect for their skins. If this were not the case, then I would, like you, not be so concerned.
Blue
Thanks for the discussion guys - interesting stuff!
Longqi, what you say is interesting. I trust you understand my skepticism.. it just differs from my experience and that of others If only the Dayaks knew they only needed to travel to Bali for cheap skins... only joking
Until next time,
Dan
Longqi, what you say is interesting. I trust you understand my skepticism.. it just differs from my experience and that of others
If only the Dayaks knew they only needed to travel to Bali for cheap skins... only joking Until next time,
Dan
longqi
Very Well-Known Member
Dan
I truly hope you are right
Nothing would please me more than to be a long way off target regarding this
I truly hope you are right
Nothing would please me more than to be a long way off target regarding this
trader
Very Well-Known Member
- Status
