PilbaraPythons
Very Well-Known Member
Why am I still reading this post, its making my brain hurt
Legal trading of wild caught reptiles
- Thread starter mje772003
- Start date
-
- Tags
- antaresia maculosa antaresia stimsoni aspidites melanocephalus aspidites ramsayi ctenotus lancelini dendrelaphis punctulata egernia frerei egernia major morelia bredli morelia carinata morelia oenpelliensis morelia spilota mcdowelli morelia spilota spilota morelia spilota variegata oedura tryoni pseudechis guttatus pseudechis porphyriacus varanus giganteus varanus indicus
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
CrystalMoon
Reptile Lover
I am not all that intelligent, so struggle a bit with some of the posts. However I am learning quite a lot 
Last edited by a moderator:
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
How many genes out of the many thousands in the genome of a given species do you reckon might be concerned with visible colour and pattern? If you examined the genetics of two widely separated populations of very similar looking jungles, would they be more similar to each other or to the nearby populations of coastals, from which they were derived?
Sean, I am not saying that what you are suggesting is not worth doing. I believe it is. What I am saying is that the reasons you have given for doing it do not stand up to scrutiny. If you are passionate about trying to make it work then perhaps creating a group on APS might be one way to go. You can then hopefully get access to the multiple animals required to make it work effectively. It likely will not produce animals that can be released back to their origins, for reasons already discussed. I will add that the chances of sanctioned release, at this point in time, are zero. All breed and release projects have stringent criteria and regular inspections attached to them. Animals destined for release have to be raised in isolation, so an enthusiast would be required to stick with one species from one locale and that’s it! However, what you are suggesting will provide enthusiasts with access to animals that are as close as it gets to representative of specific wild populations. This I believe is a good thing.
Butters... yet another shocking indictment of the environmental malaise that has crept into government in general and those charged with preserving biodiversity in particular. Working at the coalface you must find it unbelievably frustrating, to say nothing of the disappointment. The basics, such as removal of invasive plants and animals, have to be ongoing if we are to have any chance of success in preserving biodiversity in those areas explicitly set aside to do so.
You cannot bottle biodiversity. Insects alone number in the millions and we have formally described but a fraction. There are millions of other terrestrial invertebrates that also await formal description. What about microbes? Hundreds of thousands of species are being lost around the world every time tracts of land are cleared for agriculture, every time ecosystems are polluted and poisoned by disasters such as Ok Tedi, every time natural land is razed to make ‘living space’ for the ever growing human population... The best we can do it try and maintain those areas of greatest biodiversity, which is what the system of National Parks is supposed to be about.
CrystalMoon, personally I have invariably found your posts thoughtful and sensitive... both hallmarks of intelligence in my book. Intelligence takes many forms. One’s educational background does not equal intellect, but where it has been limited, for whatever reasons, it does make intellect difficult to use, display and believe in for one's self. A desire to learn, a thirst for knowledge and understanding, has always impressed me and that is a big part of why I chose to become a teacher (although I did many other jobs along the way).
Blue
Sean, I am not saying that what you are suggesting is not worth doing. I believe it is. What I am saying is that the reasons you have given for doing it do not stand up to scrutiny. If you are passionate about trying to make it work then perhaps creating a group on APS might be one way to go. You can then hopefully get access to the multiple animals required to make it work effectively. It likely will not produce animals that can be released back to their origins, for reasons already discussed. I will add that the chances of sanctioned release, at this point in time, are zero. All breed and release projects have stringent criteria and regular inspections attached to them. Animals destined for release have to be raised in isolation, so an enthusiast would be required to stick with one species from one locale and that’s it! However, what you are suggesting will provide enthusiasts with access to animals that are as close as it gets to representative of specific wild populations. This I believe is a good thing.
Butters... yet another shocking indictment of the environmental malaise that has crept into government in general and those charged with preserving biodiversity in particular. Working at the coalface you must find it unbelievably frustrating, to say nothing of the disappointment. The basics, such as removal of invasive plants and animals, have to be ongoing if we are to have any chance of success in preserving biodiversity in those areas explicitly set aside to do so.
You cannot bottle biodiversity. Insects alone number in the millions and we have formally described but a fraction. There are millions of other terrestrial invertebrates that also await formal description. What about microbes? Hundreds of thousands of species are being lost around the world every time tracts of land are cleared for agriculture, every time ecosystems are polluted and poisoned by disasters such as Ok Tedi, every time natural land is razed to make ‘living space’ for the ever growing human population... The best we can do it try and maintain those areas of greatest biodiversity, which is what the system of National Parks is supposed to be about.
CrystalMoon, personally I have invariably found your posts thoughtful and sensitive... both hallmarks of intelligence in my book. Intelligence takes many forms. One’s educational background does not equal intellect, but where it has been limited, for whatever reasons, it does make intellect difficult to use, display and believe in for one's self. A desire to learn, a thirst for knowledge and understanding, has always impressed me and that is a big part of why I chose to become a teacher (although I did many other jobs along the way).
Blue
Last edited by a moderator:
Sean_L
Not so new Member
^^^ Agreed.
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
Two last comments related to captives in the wild. I think it important to have an understanding of both.
“No one is pretending that morphs are viable in the wild, they scream "hey kookaburras, over here"...
It is a fact that morphs can and do survive in the wild. They tend to fairly quickly revert to the ‘wild type’ characteristics. You are extremely unlikely to see soft fluffy white feral cat. A number of Brisbane creeks have populations of Swordtail aquarium fish but they are not your usual orange colour. Florida’s Burmese wild pythons lack the designer patterns of those that were released or escaped.
There was comment related to genetic pollution....
Consider the scenario where a single Darwin carpet escapes or is released on the east coast amongst a population of Coastal carpets. If the Darwin breeds, it will pass on only half of its genes. Its offspring will pass on only half of theirs, which is one quarter of the original Darwin genes. Their offspring will pass on one eighth... the 1/16[SUP]th[/SUP], 1/32[SUP]nd[/SUP], 1/64[SUP]th[/SUP] and so forth. In other words, within the matter of a few generations those genes will effectively disappear.
Now consider the situation of an unlicensed keeper, in the same location, trying to breed albino Darwins. They put a known het male over 3 66% het females and get 2 albino offspring out of a total of 62. Rather than euthanize the unwanted young, they are released. If sufficient survive to reproductive age, they will be able to breed with each and their offspring will be able to breed with related individuals and so on for future generations. Effectively, they can establish a self sustaining population which contributes ongoing multiple contributions of foreign genetic information to the local population of Coastals i.e. genetic pollution.
Sean, I only tend to correct statements in those areas where I feel competent. I do so for the sake of the other readers rather than trying to convince the author. Your last comment reflects very positively on you!
Blue
“No one is pretending that morphs are viable in the wild, they scream "hey kookaburras, over here"...
It is a fact that morphs can and do survive in the wild. They tend to fairly quickly revert to the ‘wild type’ characteristics. You are extremely unlikely to see soft fluffy white feral cat. A number of Brisbane creeks have populations of Swordtail aquarium fish but they are not your usual orange colour. Florida’s Burmese wild pythons lack the designer patterns of those that were released or escaped.
There was comment related to genetic pollution....
Consider the scenario where a single Darwin carpet escapes or is released on the east coast amongst a population of Coastal carpets. If the Darwin breeds, it will pass on only half of its genes. Its offspring will pass on only half of theirs, which is one quarter of the original Darwin genes. Their offspring will pass on one eighth... the 1/16[SUP]th[/SUP], 1/32[SUP]nd[/SUP], 1/64[SUP]th[/SUP] and so forth. In other words, within the matter of a few generations those genes will effectively disappear.
Now consider the situation of an unlicensed keeper, in the same location, trying to breed albino Darwins. They put a known het male over 3 66% het females and get 2 albino offspring out of a total of 62. Rather than euthanize the unwanted young, they are released. If sufficient survive to reproductive age, they will be able to breed with each and their offspring will be able to breed with related individuals and so on for future generations. Effectively, they can establish a self sustaining population which contributes ongoing multiple contributions of foreign genetic information to the local population of Coastals i.e. genetic pollution.
Sean, I only tend to correct statements in those areas where I feel competent. I do so for the sake of the other readers rather than trying to convince the author. Your last comment reflects very positively on you!
Blue
andynic07
Very Well-Known Member
Everyone is quickly saying that most morphs would not last long in the wild and this is probably true for their natural bush setting but a lot of this bush is disappearing or at least changing so there may be a possibility that reptile patterns will evolve to suit and a morph may be the best colour/pattern option for the urban environment. I have read that Queensland red bellied blacks are developing smaller heads because they have a better chance of survival because there is less chance that they will eat a large toad that could kill them.
cement
Very Well-Known Member
Bluetongue1's is spot on re the releasing and the probability of it never occurring un less the countryside is returned to it's natural state, which once you lose the fundamental bacterias and microbes and insects....if they are gone for good and if they have no pathway back to the newly instated regrowth, then viability may be lost. I also agree that with no support for reptiles in the wild there is no support for us, so if the main topic here is cataclysm, then we are all stuffed
The good news is that most bushland inc rainforest can be clear felled and returned to its natural state within the life time of a man. Don't read this with negativity.
The whole idea of choosing pairings to create wild type looking (or as close to wild type looking )individuals, from captive animals for releasing is exactly the same as breeding jags and would have no place in re-establishing a colony in the wild. For the simple matter that it is the multiple differences (read diversity), in the genetic makeup that gives the most chance for survival. Not releasing a particular animal because of its phenotype will not ensure anything nor will releasing an animal because of its phenotype.
Jamie said it quite simply, a vigorous or robust individual WILL survive if it finds a place(places) of adequete food source and shelter.
Like I mentioned earlier, yet it seemed to go unnoticed, like all the other poignant points that have been probably read but not sink in, the only way I see ANYONE making a real change to the environment, is by wealth. If you feel so strongly about conservation, then your only path is to sell your toys, sell your pets and anything else that is an expenditure and begin a pathway of wealth creation. The golden rule is that 'who has the most gold....makes the rules".
This is reality.
Irwin was getting so close to being able to make massive changes, he did make quite a few. Most people would be able (with some planning, forethought and discipline) to eventually buy up acres and lock it up as heritage, but even that small scale only really serves the local population.
Butters - my hat is off to you mate. You are a credit to us.
The good news is that most bushland inc rainforest can be clear felled and returned to its natural state within the life time of a man. Don't read this with negativity.
The whole idea of choosing pairings to create wild type looking (or as close to wild type looking )individuals, from captive animals for releasing is exactly the same as breeding jags and would have no place in re-establishing a colony in the wild. For the simple matter that it is the multiple differences (read diversity), in the genetic makeup that gives the most chance for survival. Not releasing a particular animal because of its phenotype will not ensure anything nor will releasing an animal because of its phenotype.
Jamie said it quite simply, a vigorous or robust individual WILL survive if it finds a place(places) of adequete food source and shelter.
Like I mentioned earlier, yet it seemed to go unnoticed, like all the other poignant points that have been probably read but not sink in, the only way I see ANYONE making a real change to the environment, is by wealth. If you feel so strongly about conservation, then your only path is to sell your toys, sell your pets and anything else that is an expenditure and begin a pathway of wealth creation. The golden rule is that 'who has the most gold....makes the rules".
This is reality.
Irwin was getting so close to being able to make massive changes, he did make quite a few. Most people would be able (with some planning, forethought and discipline) to eventually buy up acres and lock it up as heritage, but even that small scale only really serves the local population.
Butters - my hat is off to you mate. You are a credit to us.
Last edited by a moderator:
P
Pythoninfinite
Guest
The natural morph thing is interesting. Every reptile is some kind of "morph" in my opinion, but some are just quite different to others. The "line-breeding" or "inbreeding" things is also interesting. I would like to suggest that there are isolated communities of reptile species that regularly, even routinely breed within their related groups. Wheatbelt Stimson's are a prime example - they occur in communal groups on often small and isolated granite outcrops in SW WA. These outcrops may be separated by kilometres from their nearest neighbours, with land that is probably hostile to the species in between (and I'm not referring to land cleared for agriculture). I would hazard a guess that very few individuals make the trek between these outcrops, and yet the populations remain robust, and their patterns, "morphs" if you like, maintain their distinctive appearance. There would be many reptile species similarly situated - certainly skinks very often live in strong family groups, and habitat specialisers like geckos don't move far from their preferred shelters.
Similarly, I live in an area that is extremely rich in Intergrade "morphs." It is quite clear to me that the animals from certain areas demonstrate strongly aligned characteristics, be it vertebral striping, large blotching, high-yellow colouring etc... Given that adult pythons (of breeding age) are fairly sedentary - I see the same individuals on our block and around our house year in, year out, and have done for the eight years I've lived here - it seems to me that breeding between genetically related animals is probably very common in the wild, and may not be as catastrophic as has been forecast by some contributors to this way-off-topic thread.
Just as an unrelated aside, yesterday I saw a beautiful highly coloured python lying by the Pacific Hwy only a metre from the traffic - it didn't look dead, so I turned around to check it out but by the time I got there it was gone. I think it was sunning itself in a very dangerous place!
Jamie
Similarly, I live in an area that is extremely rich in Intergrade "morphs." It is quite clear to me that the animals from certain areas demonstrate strongly aligned characteristics, be it vertebral striping, large blotching, high-yellow colouring etc... Given that adult pythons (of breeding age) are fairly sedentary - I see the same individuals on our block and around our house year in, year out, and have done for the eight years I've lived here - it seems to me that breeding between genetically related animals is probably very common in the wild, and may not be as catastrophic as has been forecast by some contributors to this way-off-topic thread.
Just as an unrelated aside, yesterday I saw a beautiful highly coloured python lying by the Pacific Hwy only a metre from the traffic - it didn't look dead, so I turned around to check it out but by the time I got there it was gone. I think it was sunning itself in a very dangerous place!
Jamie
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
Andy, It is not a case of morphs might survive in an altered environment. It is a fact is that they do survive in natural environments. Corn snakes come little else than bright colours, yet they have been collected alive and well from both urban and natural bushland environments. I am not sure how the original albino Darwin carpet (Goldie) was when collected, but I gather she was a yearling at least. You get white crows, white alligators, white squirrels etc that all survive OK, at least in the short term.
There are a few things about natural selection that are pertinent to this discussion. Firstly, there is an element of luck involved in surviving in nature. Natural selection does not operate over just one generation. It operates over the long term and in this way ultimately cancels out the short term effects of luck. This is why you can find abnormal or atypical specimens in natural populations.
In times of plenty, when a population is growing and flourishing, natural selection will have minimal effect. When a population is in decline, due to tough times following a period of plenty, natural selection will have a maximal effect.
From the perspective of the bottom line, what natural selection does is to change the frequencies of genes within a population. Evolution is the origin of new species from previously existing species. Putting the two together then, when the accumulated genetic change in a population is sufficient to warrant identifying it as a new species, then evolution has occurred. The time frame of species change involves hundred of generations.
Blue
There are a few things about natural selection that are pertinent to this discussion. Firstly, there is an element of luck involved in surviving in nature. Natural selection does not operate over just one generation. It operates over the long term and in this way ultimately cancels out the short term effects of luck. This is why you can find abnormal or atypical specimens in natural populations.
In times of plenty, when a population is growing and flourishing, natural selection will have minimal effect. When a population is in decline, due to tough times following a period of plenty, natural selection will have a maximal effect.
From the perspective of the bottom line, what natural selection does is to change the frequencies of genes within a population. Evolution is the origin of new species from previously existing species. Putting the two together then, when the accumulated genetic change in a population is sufficient to warrant identifying it as a new species, then evolution has occurred. The time frame of species change involves hundred of generations.
Blue
Cement, not really I just try and do the little bit that I may have an impact on. I'm sure many on here do the same and much more through varying different means.
I work in the mining sector which is well and truly one of the worst offenders. I try and offset this in ways that I can and as I have a definite interest in the environment I am really doing it for my own selfish reasons. At the end of the day even if we all do our only little thing to help in the broad scale of things it won't make a difference. This is I think what bluetongue and Sean were trying to convey.
Many of the issues faced are huge and even though an individual may make a small local difference it is beyond the individual to make real change unless they are ridiculously wealthy.
That's were governments come in and at present ours doesn't seem to be interested.
- - - Updated - - -
On a similar note to Jamie's just recently I was asked to remove a carpet python locally that had classic jungle patterning but classic coastal colouring. I don't think it was a cross from an escaped jungle just an example of local variation that happened to look just like a jungle.
I work in the mining sector which is well and truly one of the worst offenders. I try and offset this in ways that I can and as I have a definite interest in the environment I am really doing it for my own selfish reasons. At the end of the day even if we all do our only little thing to help in the broad scale of things it won't make a difference. This is I think what bluetongue and Sean were trying to convey.
Many of the issues faced are huge and even though an individual may make a small local difference it is beyond the individual to make real change unless they are ridiculously wealthy.
That's were governments come in and at present ours doesn't seem to be interested.
- - - Updated - - -
On a similar note to Jamie's just recently I was asked to remove a carpet python locally that had classic jungle patterning but classic coastal colouring. I don't think it was a cross from an escaped jungle just an example of local variation that happened to look just like a jungle.
Sean_L
Not so new Member
I can understand that Blue.
Its not just a handful of individuals that are reading this, its potentially hundreds even thousands of people. Some wont fully comprehend whats being discussed and some people can very readily adopt a new understanding of something without proper consideration if theyre provided with only one side or half of the story. At least they are being provided with a range of ideas. I can appreciate that.
Your efforts are appreciated by others as well, Im sure.
Last edited:
B
Bluetongue1
Guest
With respect to inbreeding...
Where there is a continuous distribution, there will be gene flow, and that will mitigate against the effects of inbreeding. For isolated small populations it is possible that many deleterious alleles have in fact been purged through natural selection.
The effects of rare recessive genes are not readily seen. Where two siblings are mated together or one is mated back to one of the parents, there is a 25% chance of producing a homozgous pair of alleles for a given trait. Half-brother with half-sister or grand parent with grandchild gives a 12.5% chance. Similarly with uncle/niece or aunt/nephew. Half-uncle/niece or half-aunt/nephew and first cousins both have a 6.25% chance. The deliberately manipulated pairings by a breeder have the potential to increase these percentages, as against the more random matings in a natural population.
Blue
Where there is a continuous distribution, there will be gene flow, and that will mitigate against the effects of inbreeding. For isolated small populations it is possible that many deleterious alleles have in fact been purged through natural selection.
The effects of rare recessive genes are not readily seen. Where two siblings are mated together or one is mated back to one of the parents, there is a 25% chance of producing a homozgous pair of alleles for a given trait. Half-brother with half-sister or grand parent with grandchild gives a 12.5% chance. Similarly with uncle/niece or aunt/nephew. Half-uncle/niece or half-aunt/nephew and first cousins both have a 6.25% chance. The deliberately manipulated pairings by a breeder have the potential to increase these percentages, as against the more random matings in a natural population.
Blue
cement
Very Well-Known Member
Butters - I understand where your coming from but don't underestimate the influence that you (by your actions) have on the others that are involved in some way, shape or form with what you have acheived. Yes it is a small token, but the energy and effort of positive reality, over negative sedentary non effort, is a powerful thing. Its always better to do, then not to, even if it is just one misplaced or lost reptile at a time.
Australia was once thought of as a BAD PLACE. It was demonised by new comers because of its natural state. Only the koori's which had been here living WITH the land understood the possibility with bonding to the country.
This demonisation by white man has been strongly etched into the psyche of todays population and is extremely evident to anyone who (for example) relocates wildlife....we see this psyche manifest everyday.
So the little things we do to promote awareness and maybe even a touch closer to nature, (ie a change of veiwpoint, even if it's someone realising that not all snakes are venomous or dangerous), then you are slowly pulling the demon out.
Here's a thought to anyone who thinks things are bad. Compare yourself to this
- Bill Gates = Richest man in the world at number 100. wealthy
- Diseased Beggar on the streets of India at number 0. lack of wealth
Where do you fit into this scale?
I'll come back to this later.
Here is a quote that I love and may help Butters and others to realize that you can still be you, and have to earn a living too. And maybe if this guy was still around, then we could just ask him!
A human being is part of the whole, called by us, "Universe", apart limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his
thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind
of optical illusion of his consciousness. The delusion is a kind of
prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to
affection for a few persons near to us. Our task must be to free
ourselves from this prison, by widening our compassion to embrace
all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
Albert Einstein
Australia was once thought of as a BAD PLACE. It was demonised by new comers because of its natural state. Only the koori's which had been here living WITH the land understood the possibility with bonding to the country.
This demonisation by white man has been strongly etched into the psyche of todays population and is extremely evident to anyone who (for example) relocates wildlife....we see this psyche manifest everyday.
So the little things we do to promote awareness and maybe even a touch closer to nature, (ie a change of veiwpoint, even if it's someone realising that not all snakes are venomous or dangerous), then you are slowly pulling the demon out.
Here's a thought to anyone who thinks things are bad. Compare yourself to this
- Bill Gates = Richest man in the world at number 100. wealthy
- Diseased Beggar on the streets of India at number 0. lack of wealth
Where do you fit into this scale?
I'll come back to this later.
Here is a quote that I love and may help Butters and others to realize that you can still be you, and have to earn a living too. And maybe if this guy was still around, then we could just ask him!
A human being is part of the whole, called by us, "Universe", apart limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his
thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind
of optical illusion of his consciousness. The delusion is a kind of
prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to
affection for a few persons near to us. Our task must be to free
ourselves from this prison, by widening our compassion to embrace
all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
Albert Einstein
Sean_L
Not so new Member
Completely true cement.
I caught up with another keeper a few weeks ago who purchased my pair of macs. We were meeting for the first time and met halfway between our houses to save each other a bit of travel. We were both parked outside a strangers house and as he was examining the snakes (with a huge smile on his face as he really liked these individuals) the woman who presumably lived at the address came to get gate to check her mail. She looked towards us in a state of semi-confusion and disgust and said " I hope that didnt come from around here!?".
My mate replied " Dont worry ma'am, we're reptile keepers, the snake is captive bred. Its completely harmless".
She turned, shaking her head and with a 'knowledgeable' tone, 'No snake is harmless'. And then hinted that we please move on.
I felt like turning to her and explaining that ANY human can be far more dangerous than ANY snake. But realised this would have achieved nothing.
Just goes to show what the general public thinks of reptiles in general. And what we're up against when we try to raise awareness.
I caught up with another keeper a few weeks ago who purchased my pair of macs. We were meeting for the first time and met halfway between our houses to save each other a bit of travel. We were both parked outside a strangers house and as he was examining the snakes (with a huge smile on his face as he really liked these individuals) the woman who presumably lived at the address came to get gate to check her mail. She looked towards us in a state of semi-confusion and disgust and said " I hope that didnt come from around here!?".
My mate replied " Dont worry ma'am, we're reptile keepers, the snake is captive bred. Its completely harmless".
She turned, shaking her head and with a 'knowledgeable' tone, 'No snake is harmless'. And then hinted that we please move on.
I felt like turning to her and explaining that ANY human can be far more dangerous than ANY snake. But realised this would have achieved nothing.
Just goes to show what the general public thinks of reptiles in general. And what we're up against when we try to raise awareness.
Don't worry cement I do realize that what I do has a bearing on others. That's why I do it or rather that's why I involve as many others in it as I can. My making my yard a small haven for wildlife has a very localised effect but by involving Neighbours it extends it out that little bit. By mentioning it on here it may extend that a little bit more, Education is the key. Even if it's just to show them how to ID a green tree snake so that they won't remove it's head on sight. Most yards just aren't big enough for many species to establish a territory. Also it doesn't matter how large your yard is if you own a cat or your Neighbour owns a cat. Cats will cut the vertebrate diversity in your local area within days of arriving.
As far as I am concerned cats have no place in Australia but the reality is they are here to stay. There's compelling evidence to suggest they were even here before the arrival of European colonists. Doesn't negate the impact they have had.
If it's not inside it's fair game to me. You get a week to keep it indoors after that it's trapped and taken to the local animal control. If you are happy to retrieve it from the pound a couple of times a week every week then you are incredibly stupid. One day it will just disappear. Most get the hint.
I didn't mention rabbits at all bluetongue to be honest because they just aren't a feature in most of the places I frequent. No rabbits anywhere near home and none where I work. That's the downside I guess of personal experience and observations. They are really just relevant in the small sphere we inhabit. To me rabbits are a non event because I don't see them or their effects. I do know though that their impact across Australia has been huge. Someone who lived in an area of high rabbit concentrations would have a very different view to mine.
I normally don't make mention of what I do either in a public forum but because I thought this thread may be seen by a few thought it prudent to mention some of these things to show that we can all make a little bit of a difference. It won't save womas in the brigalow belt but it may keep a few species from being swallowed up by suburbia or rather give them a place in suburbia.
Its just a shame that because of the title of this thread and the way it jumps around so far from the original topic few people will read most of it. There are some good points in it on a couple of topics. Also many of the people that could have contributed have left the discussion. That's a shame.
As far as I am concerned cats have no place in Australia but the reality is they are here to stay. There's compelling evidence to suggest they were even here before the arrival of European colonists. Doesn't negate the impact they have had.
If it's not inside it's fair game to me. You get a week to keep it indoors after that it's trapped and taken to the local animal control. If you are happy to retrieve it from the pound a couple of times a week every week then you are incredibly stupid. One day it will just disappear. Most get the hint.
I didn't mention rabbits at all bluetongue to be honest because they just aren't a feature in most of the places I frequent. No rabbits anywhere near home and none where I work. That's the downside I guess of personal experience and observations. They are really just relevant in the small sphere we inhabit. To me rabbits are a non event because I don't see them or their effects. I do know though that their impact across Australia has been huge. Someone who lived in an area of high rabbit concentrations would have a very different view to mine.
I normally don't make mention of what I do either in a public forum but because I thought this thread may be seen by a few thought it prudent to mention some of these things to show that we can all make a little bit of a difference. It won't save womas in the brigalow belt but it may keep a few species from being swallowed up by suburbia or rather give them a place in suburbia.
Its just a shame that because of the title of this thread and the way it jumps around so far from the original topic few people will read most of it. There are some good points in it on a couple of topics. Also many of the people that could have contributed have left the discussion. That's a shame.
cement
Very Well-Known Member
Another thing worth mentioning regarding the govt, is that they really are no more then a business. Big business to be sure but a business just the same. Simplistic version, but when you realise that and think about the govt as a business or a company then its easier to see ways to get things done. Govt only care about ROI. Return on investment. If they build a freeway to open up new tracts of land then you can bet that they will be putting heat on the local council with regard to development to secure their ROI. Sell more land, pay more stamp duty etc,etc.
Problem with conservation is it doesn't turn a dollar. I would bet that if someone came up with a way the govt could make money from conservation they would be all over it. Tourism is the closest we have, which is great, but how friggin expensive is it to go to say Frazer or Nth Straddie thesedays!
Australia's untapped resources is both its downfall and its saviour.
getting back to what I mentioned earlier, the scale of 0-100 is the poorest person to the richest in the world.
By just simply living, in Australia your at 92, and if can put food on the table daily and have a roof over your head then you are automatically at 98! Yeah it might be hard work etc, but compared to the rest of the world....
How does this help conservation though?
At the very moment we are going through the start of a boom in the property sector. Mainly driven by the influx in population growth, especially wealthy chinese who are spending the profits from their manufacturing boom over the last decade. They are buying up left right and centre, and the govt is giving them grants etc. It doesn't matter who they are, 35 years ago it was the Japanese, there is always immigration.
This has created a huge demand for housing that we don't have, which in turn is putting pressure on federal and local govts to supply. There are so many builders and architects designing tiny donga type accomodation in and around the epicentres of population at the moment, to not only take up the slack, but to get very wealthy off it as well.
Town planning is at a crucial level of development too. If anyone has looked at zoning maps of their local councils lately you may see changes being made. Not all bad either, a new LEP (local environmental Plan ) just came through Gosford in Feb, and beleive me it makes building in certain areas more difficult.
It's the town planners that need to get it right. Every council has percentage driven zones for land (ie a block this big can only be covered (building size) by this much).
So if every block of land zoned low - medium residential or rural, can only ever be built on or covered by buildings by a certain %, this leaves a lot of land to be maintained as non exotic garden or bush. Having these concentric circles of areas up and down or even right along the East coast should leave plenty of scope for bio-diversity and conserved native flora and fauna.
Butters has the exact same thing in place right now. Legend!
Before anyone gets to depressed about the future, take a look at your local council and see exactly what they have in place and do some research on wether it is getting harder to develop land or easier, and what do the zonings in a council shire mean.
The old die hard NPWS officers of past that are holding tightly onto the reins now, won't be there forever. So educate the kids properly, the farmers properly, and slowly but surely people will see that Australia isn't a BAD place and its quite safe to live with native flora and fauna.
Again with Butters concept - your backyard isn't just ALL you can do, It is the BEST place to do! And yes, it means getting rid of exotic pests, both plant and animal.
Problem with conservation is it doesn't turn a dollar. I would bet that if someone came up with a way the govt could make money from conservation they would be all over it. Tourism is the closest we have, which is great, but how friggin expensive is it to go to say Frazer or Nth Straddie thesedays!
Australia's untapped resources is both its downfall and its saviour.
getting back to what I mentioned earlier, the scale of 0-100 is the poorest person to the richest in the world.
By just simply living, in Australia your at 92, and if can put food on the table daily and have a roof over your head then you are automatically at 98! Yeah it might be hard work etc, but compared to the rest of the world....
How does this help conservation though?
At the very moment we are going through the start of a boom in the property sector. Mainly driven by the influx in population growth, especially wealthy chinese who are spending the profits from their manufacturing boom over the last decade. They are buying up left right and centre, and the govt is giving them grants etc. It doesn't matter who they are, 35 years ago it was the Japanese, there is always immigration.
This has created a huge demand for housing that we don't have, which in turn is putting pressure on federal and local govts to supply. There are so many builders and architects designing tiny donga type accomodation in and around the epicentres of population at the moment, to not only take up the slack, but to get very wealthy off it as well.
Town planning is at a crucial level of development too. If anyone has looked at zoning maps of their local councils lately you may see changes being made. Not all bad either, a new LEP (local environmental Plan ) just came through Gosford in Feb, and beleive me it makes building in certain areas more difficult.
It's the town planners that need to get it right. Every council has percentage driven zones for land (ie a block this big can only be covered (building size) by this much).
So if every block of land zoned low - medium residential or rural, can only ever be built on or covered by buildings by a certain %, this leaves a lot of land to be maintained as non exotic garden or bush. Having these concentric circles of areas up and down or even right along the East coast should leave plenty of scope for bio-diversity and conserved native flora and fauna.
Butters has the exact same thing in place right now. Legend!
Before anyone gets to depressed about the future, take a look at your local council and see exactly what they have in place and do some research on wether it is getting harder to develop land or easier, and what do the zonings in a council shire mean.
The old die hard NPWS officers of past that are holding tightly onto the reins now, won't be there forever. So educate the kids properly, the farmers properly, and slowly but surely people will see that Australia isn't a BAD place and its quite safe to live with native flora and fauna.
Again with Butters concept - your backyard isn't just ALL you can do, It is the BEST place to do! And yes, it means getting rid of exotic pests, both plant and animal.
This thread has taken off far more than I ever anticipated! Thanks again [MENTION=32947]Rob72[/MENTION] for moving the first few comments over from the olive thread for me, I thought it would be a good topic to discuss and others have obviously thought so too
Nearly every point raised has been discussed in depth and I've learnt so much, thank you everyone!
One semi-recent post that raised my eyebrows and I didn't feel was addressed was this:
My mind boggles at how that would be simulating a natural environment for the reptiles in question. Regardless of how large an "enclosure" you create for them you are essentially still keeping them in a box, albeit a rather large one, but a box nonetheless.
Your posts seem to jump from left to right field so I'm not quite sure where you stand on all of it but [MENTION=9894]butters[/MENTION] seems to have the right idea about making your backyard into a wildlife haven. That's a fantastic idea!
I thought I'd jump in with this (somewhat irrelevant) train of thought as I've been reading but not joining in on any of the discussions thus far mainly because I didn't know where to begin!
I'd better also apologise to [MENTION=38897]Beans[/MENTION] as I mainly started the thread because of her initial post. I didn't mean to single you out to be flamed, I just found your pov rather outside the box and was curious to find out how you came up with the notion.
Nearly every point raised has been discussed in depth and I've learnt so much, thank you everyone!
One semi-recent post that raised my eyebrows and I didn't feel was addressed was this:
My mind boggles at how that would be simulating a natural environment for the reptiles in question. Regardless of how large an "enclosure" you create for them you are essentially still keeping them in a box, albeit a rather large one, but a box nonetheless.
Your posts seem to jump from left to right field so I'm not quite sure where you stand on all of it but [MENTION=9894]butters[/MENTION] seems to have the right idea about making your backyard into a wildlife haven. That's a fantastic idea!
I thought I'd jump in with this (somewhat irrelevant) train of thought as I've been reading but not joining in on any of the discussions thus far mainly because I didn't know where to begin!
I'd better also apologise to [MENTION=38897]Beans[/MENTION] as I mainly started the thread because of her initial post. I didn't mean to single you out to be flamed, I just found your pov rather outside the box and was curious to find out how you came up with the notion.
andynic07
Very Well-Known Member
This is the scale that is required not a 10m x 10m enclosure.This thread has taken off far more than I ever anticipated! Thanks again @Rob72 for moving the first few comments over from the olive thread for me, I thought it would be a good topic to discuss and others have obviously thought so too
Nearly every point raised has been discussed in depth and I've learnt so much, thank you everyone!
One semi-recent post that raised my eyebrows and I didn't feel was addressed was this:
My mind boggles at how that would be simulating a natural environment for the reptiles in question. Regardless of how large an "enclosure" you create for them you are essentially still keeping them in a box, albeit a rather large one, but a box nonetheless.
Your posts seem to jump from left to right field so I'm not quite sure where you stand on all of it but @butters seems to have the right idea about making your backyard into a wildlife haven. That's a fantastic idea!
I thought I'd jump in with this (somewhat irrelevant) train of thought as I've been reading but not joining in on any of the discussions thus far mainly because I didn't know where to begin!
I'd better also apologise to @Beans as I mainly started the thread because of her initial post. I didn't mean to single you out to be flamed, I just found your pov rather outside the box and was curious to find out how you came up with the notion.
Past Programs - Adelaide Zoo and Monarto Zoo. Australian Panda home.
andynic07
Very Well-Known Member
What about?Still confused
- Status
