Legal trading of wild caught reptiles

[Sean_L]

Hi Lawra, I agree that its not the best solution. The best solution for native reptiles is the wild. However, in my opinion, large enclosures like this are the best option for keeping captive animals in as close to a natural setting as anyone can manage (beyond owning 100 of acres of natural habitat and rabbit/dog/cat proof fencing it. Although this would only suit species native to that kind of environment).
In terms of suburbia, butters' balance of reptile conducive backyards and neighbourhood awreness are of course fantastic steps towards ensuring the survival of native species. However, it only benefits the native species that live in that area. If you want to insure (that may be all it is, insurance) against the permanent loss of a species, say N. levis pilbarensis, youre going to have to create a modified habitat within the space that you have available. And of course this is what people already do by keeping reptiles in captivity, inside or in smaller pits. Im only saying that Id prefer to keep them in as large a 'naturalistic' enclosure as possible where they can mingle as they please, breed as they will and hunt and find food in a more natural manner. This is just my opinion. Im sure some will disagree. Thats ok.

As we've decided in this dicussion, this of course does nothing to help native populations, as it seems most dont beleive that it would be vialbe to repopulate habitats with these animals (although the link provided by Andy might suggest otherwise). And indeed that may be so.
Regardless of the animals' suitability, the habitat mightn't exist itself anymore anyway.
But Id rather have the animal preserved in as close a natural fashion as possible for future generations. Thats just how I feel.
Others are free to do as they please, but itd be comforting to me to know that at least a few individuals had chosen to keep animals in the manner. I know of a few. Id just like to see more.

To put it simply, a backyard sized box is better, in my opinion, than a platic tub sized box.
Just in case, Ill make it clear.......... Im not knocking how others keep their reptiles.

Andy, thanks for that link. Its a great concept that will hopefully do some good in suitable areas. All I can say is that I would see 'my' style of enclosure as the step before release. A captive environment that is a 'mini natural habitat' is surely a good stepping stone towards release into the wild, when compared to a rack system. (Once again, Im not knocking rack systems, only in the sense that they probably arent the best thing to keep your reptiles in if you intend to release them into the wild at some point)
Thanks Andy.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Lawra, it seems to me that you have probably never seen an appropriately landscaped open-air pit of those dimensions. If you had, I don’t believe you would be saying it is “essentially still keeping them in a box”. For a start, it has full exposure to the elements – continuously increasing and decreasing temperatures; Day and night with the sun and the moon and the stars; The extremes of temperature that accompany particularly hot days and particularly cold days; The full spectrum of visible, IR and UV light in natural spectral quantities and intensities; Rain; Dew; Changing cloud cover; Wind. You do not get ventilation like that in a ‘box’. Insects, other forms of small terrestrial arthropods; snails and slugs. The substrate is 100% natural, as is the texture and hardness of the rocks and timber, which can be of sufficient size to allow occupants to clamber around upon. Those animals that would naturally burrow have the opportunity to do so. Living plants which may have edible leaves, flowers or fruit.

When done properly, the landscaping is dramatically different to the standard enclosure. There should be plenty of high and low points (local relief), with access to dry cover on the elevated areas in case of a torrential downpour. Grasses and shrubs should be strategically positioned to further interrupt the lines of sight, such that individuals do not have vision of each other. For riparian animals you can add a decent sized creek and/or pond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Frogs and small reptiles that are insectivorous, require daily individualised access for feeding. Where such species
are vulnerable or endangered and are being raised for released, they have to be kept in fairly standard enclosures. For example, the Lancelin Island Skink (a medium Ctenotus) their enclosures were about 2m x 0.75m x 0.5m with calcareous sand and a few small limestone rocks, as is found in their natural habitat. I think they kept 6 skinks per enclosure but please don’t quote me. 165 Lancelin Island Skinks bred at the Zoo were released. Since 1992, more than 2400 animals bred at Perth Zoo have been released into the wild as part of recovery programs for threatened native species (figure as at October 2013).

With Western Swamp Turtles, which got down to 29 individuals, Perth Zoo has bred 800 and released 600. Without this breeding program, they would likely be extinct now. These turtles need access to their natural habitat of shallow ephemeral lakes in order to breed successfully. The Zoo has set up wire runs, like chook pens, with one end inundated during winter and spring, and the other end with grass covered peaty soil leading gently sloping up above the water line. The turtles need to aestivate over summer and autumn when the ‘lake’ dries out. They bury themselves in moist soil at this time. Females can also choose and use a nest site, from where the eggs are retrieved for incubating.

Perth Zoo has a quarantine protocol in place for all its breed and release programs. Animals bred by a private keeper may undergo the same protocol but without an official there continually to verify adherence the department will not give permission for release of such animals. The same is true of other states and unfortunately I don’t see that attitude changing. Sean, this is a major reason why I felt your project would not work.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So what are the advantages of the backyard populations of reptiles of Butters and neighbours? It is always a pleasure to be able to walk out a backdoor and find reptiles. To have gotten the neighbours on board is quite remarkable. However, even with native bush nearby, an urban backyard or three will sustain the diversity of reptiles and frog that would have previously inhabited the area. As it is, to maintain existing population, the use of most hardline pesticides is out. No baiting snails and slugs as this will also kill off slaters and earwigs and other invertebrate herbivores. Dispersants (ERROR: I actually meant surfactant) used with herbicides like Roundup have been demonstrated to be deadly to tadpoles at dilution rates of parts per billion (Mike Tyler per comm). The reduction in pesticides has further reaching effect than the immediate backyard.

What is of greatest value is that others have been educated to appreciate reptiles. They are more aware of what a more natural environment can carry. They understand a bit about the other species they have loss and are therefore more knowledgeable and understanding of the total loss with loss of environment. They are more environmentally conscious and likely a lot more. Given the opportunity, they may well take action where governments fail to look after the environment. They may well engender in others a greater awareness of environment by relating their personal experiences.

 

[butters]

Yes pesticides are out. We don't have a can of bug spray in the house and even though I have a reasonably productive veggie garden the only pesticide used is Derris dust. Whilst not completely harmless it's at the low end of the scale. The only reason I use that is that I just can't grow anything from the cabbage family to harvest without it. A number of native snail and slug species are present as are 2 introduced species. There are very few of the common garden snail but I collect hundreds of the introduced Asian market garden snails on a regular basis to feed various captive animals. I've never used snail baits and don't see the need as I find the damage from them to be minimal. Plus I get free food for my animals only requiring the effort to collect them. Picking up 100 snails individually though is no small chore.

I do however have to fence my veggie garden because scrub turkeys and long nose bandicoots think it's a smorgasbord otherwise.

Interesting that you mentioned roundup bluetongue as I do use an equivalent on occasion and have a thriving frog population. At least seven species are regular residents and I have a number of water bodies set up for them. Small shallow pools buried in the vegetation for tusked, striped marsh and the local stony creek species as well as one of those 1000 liter ibc's cut in half and planted with marginals for gracefuls, eastern sedge and green trees. The tall sides of the ibc's prohibits toads from getting access although I have never noticed toad spawn in the shallower ponds.

getting my Neighbours involved in my case was a bit easier as I live in a quiet culdesac, we all know each other and get on. I realize that not all people have the same luxury.

Also planting only native species is not necessary. Only about a third of the species planted on my block are natives and then there's only a couple that are native to the area. What's important is the different habitat structure providing homes for different species.

 

[Sean_L]

A very informative post Blue. And I agree regarding the difficulties of meeting officials' regulations. Perhaps in years to come a new licensing system could be implemented and made available to those with a desire to take on this kind of responsibility. Strict adherance and prior proof of ability and reliability in breeding species capable of reintroduction would limit the number of individuals capable of aquiring the license, but perhaps thats not a bad thing.
It would of course require a more environmentally minded government in order to develop the idea and actually implement it, providing funding and official, professional roles to individuals entrusted with monitoring those specially licensed keepers.
This of course brings up (or re-brings up) the issue of a private herpetological body. At least then we (i say 'we' but I of course refer mainly to qualified professionals, although a certain degree of democracy would be required to get everyone behind the idea) would have the say in regards to protecting the environment. I think everyone in this discussion so far has proven that they care more about Australia's ecological well being than any politician.
There are possible negatives to this scheme I must admit. Im sure they could be worked on however, in good time.

 

[GBWhite]

Hi Sean,

Your not alone in your endeavour to protect and conserve our native reptiles. Can I suggest that if you really want to contribute it may be an idea to engage with the greater herpetological community and if possible volunteer your services to a project.

I have to agree with Blue where he has stated;

“Firstly, on the notion of “purist” there is no definition with respect to reptile breeding. Secondly, artificial of any kind is not the same as natural selection which happens in the wild.”

I also think he’s hit the nail on the head with his “simple realities”.

I’m of the belief that conservation of Australian reptiles has never been at the forefront of concern as it has been in recent times.

I don’t know if you are aware that the recognised need to conserve and protect our native herpetofauna stretches back to the early 1990’s when a number of recognised herpetologists were commissioned by the Federal Government to devise a Recovery Plan for recognised threatened species and recovery proposals. Unfortunately the proposal was never enacted and currently sits in Government Archives.

I believe the reason it wasn’t enacted was because at the time the Federal Government didn’t want to contribute the funds.

Here’s a link if your interested.

The action plan for Australian reptiles

I have no argument that the extinction of many native species across the planet is occurring at a phenomenal rate and appears to be imminent in most recognised cases.

The truth is that we can’t save them all.

It appears that the Australian Government’s concern has made a U turn in recent times. Here’s a link to an article from ABC news that might enlighten you (and anyone else interested) where despite the bleak outlook, Environment Minister, Greg Hunt outlines measures the Federal Government are initiating in an attempt to and address the problem.

Scientists resign 'living dead' species to extinction, call for triage debate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I believe it may be the same article where Blue obtained the information in his post regarding the quote of Professor Bradshaw. In the same article Prof Bowman of the University of Tasmania states, “I’m afraid to tell everyone we’re in a terminal situation. We’re confronting a whole raft of species about to go over the extinction cliff”.

There is no doubt that the majority of extinctions of Australian native mammals and birds since European settlement can be directly contributed to increased population, land clearing, domestic stock and the introduction of feral animals. There is also no doubt that foxes, cats, cane toads and rats have also contributed to the decline in native herp species however; the main contributing factor for the current decline at present appear to be loss of habitat.

I applaud you enthusiasm for wanting to maintaining "pure" genetic stock however; I can assure you that due to many reasons, if populations of specific species are recognised as reaching a point of extreme vulnerability or their existence appears to be considerably threatened, and the authorities decide to take measures to replenish or even reintroduce a species to an area they won't look toward the average Joe Keeper to assist them with the task. The management of the project will be undertaken by a selected individual or group of individuals chosen by the powers that be, who are recognised by them to be capable and competent in performing the task according to specified directions and guidelines.

Here’s a link to The Society of Herpetologists which is a professional body for practising herpetologists.

The Australian Society of Herpetologists - home page

It may change in the future but personally I doubt it.

As far as measures go regarding reptile conservation in Australia there is research being undertaken that often goes unnoticed by the hobbyist. There are people engaged and undertaking field research with the aim to identify population densities of not only given species of reptiles but other species in general. They are also assigned the tasks to identify threats that may impact on both. This work has contributed to the identification of species designated as threatened or vulnerable in the first instance. I can assure you that these studies are undertaken by competent and experienced herpetologists and conservation biologists who are very familiar and adept with locating animals and recording data.

Much of this information goes unpublished and ends up under the radar of the hobbyist. Here’s links to some examples;

Perth Zoo | Western Australia | Page 5

QMDC - Reptile Recovery - the scaly facts

South Australian Museum - Reptiles & Amphibians

Reptile Conservation - National Zoo| FONZ

I agree that wild populations of some endemic Australian species have declined considerably over recent years and unfortunately due to first hand observations and information provided I’m of the belief the decline definitely correlates with the establishment and escalation of the hobby world wide.

Whether this will have a distinct bearing on the possible future extinction of certain species is up for debate but again I doubt it.

It is commonly accepted that reptiles are very resilient as a species and apart from the effects of climate change; if recognised threats to Australian species can be decreased (albeit eliminated) they are more than capable of looking after themselves for quite a number of generation to come.

The criteria to repopulate an area involves many varying factors including the reason for the decline of the species in the first place and the suitability of an area to successfully initiate the project as well as maintain sustainability of the species. This requires a detailed assessment of (amongst other things) suitable habitat (including micro habitat), predation by native and introduced species, competition for and availability of preferred food items.

The Adelaide Zoo’s failed program to re-introduce Woma Pythons was a result of them not doing their homework in the first place. The project managers were naive to think they could just release 9 animals and all would be good. Hopefully it has been a lesson well learnt.

Here’s a link to the IUCN Global Re-Introduction Perspective 2010 with a further link to the paper.

Trial re-introduction of the woma python in northern South Australia | Greg Johnston - Academia.edu

The real question is…How is a pure local specimen identified? I see that you have referenced some species of pythons and geckoes but what about the rest of our herpetofauna. As stated morphological variations can vary within habitats, indeed within micro habitats.

For example I live in the New England Ranges of NSW and have collected many Tryons identical to those in your first and third photos from Tamworth to Ashford which are a long way from Mt Glorious and Burrum Head. We get Spotted Black Snakes (Pseudechis guttatus) in morphs that are jet black with minimal white spotting and distinct blue bellies, others are chequered black and white with distinct black head and neck and then there are chequered brown and white with distinct brown head all within a ten kilometre radius of our town centre. We get Common Brown Snakes (Pseudonaja textillis) occurring in a multitude of colours and patterns (including jet black with high yellow bellies) again all within a ten kilometre range of our town centre.

I could site many, many more examples of geckoes, legless lizards, dragons, monitors, boids and elapids.

Have you had a look at the Morelia spilota group in the new Cogger’s? He acknowledges the subspecies listed have distinct colours and patterns but anyone who does field research knows these can vary even within the sub species. Have a look at what he has identified as M s cheynei. It is nothing like the ones that are jet black with bright yellow banding. The group as a whole is subject to enormous variations. Genetically they are all the same snake with the only difference being colour and patterning.

Unfortunately my friend I’m of the opinion (and it is just my opinion and remember you’ve stated that it’s good to get opinions) your suggestion that taking wild specimens to maintain a pure genetic line for the hobbyist does not hold merit. The hobby of maintaining a collection of reptiles is just that…a hobby.

I think you might find that if it ever becomes the case, the responsibility for maintaining specific blood lines to reinstate into the wild will not fall into the hands of the hobbyist. If anything it will remain the responsibility of zoos, recognised herpetologists, conservation biologists and similar.

Cheers,

George.

 

[champagne]

What are you saying? That hobbyists who keep and breed reptiles are just that? Judging by half the posts and egos you'd think some of them were saving the world....

 

[butters]

Ha I keep a number of rarer species
but they are only rare in the hobby. I try and keep them in the hobby because once they are out of it its hard to get them back.

They will never be reased into the wild. I have no illusions about that. They are pets nothing more. Nor should they be. As George pointed out the likelihood of animals being legally released from private collections is zero.

 

[Sean_L]

......attempting to. In some small way, even if only through raising awareness.
A damn sight better that doing nothing.

Thanks for all the links George. Ill attempt to go through as many as possible. They wont go unused by others too, Im sure.
I can see what youre saying. And indeed Ive met and heard from enough reptiles keepers to know that some arent worth their weight in anything, especially when it comes to conservation. But if youd read my previous post youd see that I already realise the need for strict filtering and various criteria in order to select the right people for the job. If there was a private body, then the governments greedy business mentallity wouldnt even enter into the issue.

I agree with your belief that 'conservation directed purism' (Ive just coined that term to refer to what were talking about) is not suitable for the average hobbyist. I forget that there are people out there that keep reptiles as 'pets' and nothing more. I guess Im just not refering to those people when Im suggesting this concept.
However raising awarness for environmental issues should be everyones concern.


Of course, as I said, the tryoini were just an example. What I said much earlier about species colouration and patterning in reference to their habitat explains all of this however. If two animals of the same species originate from the same rock type/vegetation type (habitat) then of course theres a good chance they'll look very much the same.
Even so, I understand that its hard to catergorise species based on their locale alone. But lots of things are hard. That doesnt mean they shouldnt/cant be done however.
Releasing an animal (for example) back into an environment that it isnt suited to gives it a poor chance at survival. I feel that an animal that is proven to originate from a specific locale, should by all accounts, have a better chance of survival there, where it has evolved.
Variation is fine. If there are relatively even numbers of various morphs in a given singular habitat type, then work with the range of morphs present. Otherwise, pick the most abundant variation. Presumably the most suited to that range. Highly simplified, I know, but thats my take on it.

 

[Bluetongue1]

What are you saying? That hobbyists who keep and breed reptiles are just that? Judging by half the posts and egos you'd think some of them were saving the world....

A comment of this nature contributes nothing to value of the discussion and serves only to devalue it. That you are comfortable to make such a comment clearly indicates that you have entirely ignored the educational value involved in the progression of the thread and the pragmatic reappraisal and adjustment of the initial positions held by many of the significant contributors. It would seem you are happy to deride open discussion, at the risk of putting individuals off feeling free to express their personal and often cherished beliefs and attitudes, be they right or wrong. The value of such discussion through the personal development and changes that it can engender, in addition to the learning experience for reading but not contributing, deserves a lot more respect than your demeaning comment accords it.


George, thanks for your further reaffirmation and supporting references of so many of the points made. I believe what Sean is angling towards is to try and breed animals from a specific locale such that it contributes positively to conservation. Ignore breeding for release, animals from a locale that under pressure and populations are in decline there, would be the ideal animals to target.

Hobbyists have been recognised and utilised for their skills. In Western Australia, selected hobbyists were utilised to breed the Naretha Bluebonnet for release on the Nullarbor where its numbers had become critically low. I am not 100% up on what was required but I do know the requirements were stringent. So perhaps there hope for herp hobbyists yet.

Butters, I was tired when I wrote that spiel and I used the wrong term. Where I wrote “dispersant” I should have written “surfactant”, which is basically a form of non-frothing soap/detergent that assists the uptake of the herbicide by leaves with a particularly waxy epidermis. I am not sure if it is one or both of the specific surfactants that you can buy premixed with Monsanto produced Roundup. I use plain Glysophate and add dishwashing detergent. Seems to do the trick. Glysophate is certainly one of the least residual herbicides. The other herbicide I use when needed is Fusilade, to get rid of grass weeds in my native garden.

Blue

 

[longqi]

A 25 acre semi rural block right beside a city can turn itself into the Garden of Eden in a very short period of time
All you need is to first fence it and provide water from stream or vegetated ponds
Then eliminate cats dogs and foxes
Plant more native plants to encourage birds
Within 6 months small lizards frogs birds and a few snakes will turn up
Within 2 years large lizards possums phasogale echidnas koalas etc will be there

If they know there is a safe haven they will go there
I used to walk the fence line daily and bring inside the wildlife that couldnt get through the fence
Outside the fence remained barren with cats dogs and foxes killing anything that moved

Then if you want to see the real effect of feral pests remove the fence
Within 6 months you are back to a wildlife desert

Our wildlife can be resiliant if we let it
We just need to provide safe havens

 

[Sean_L]

A 25 acre semi rural block right beside a city can turn itself into the Garden of Eden in a very short period of time
All you need is to first fence it and provide water from stream or vegetated ponds
Then eliminate cats dogs and foxes
Plant more native plants to encourage birds
Within 6 months small lizards frogs birds and a few snakes will turn up
Within 2 years large lizards possums phasogale echidnas koalas etc will be there

If they know there is a safe haven they will go there
I used to walk the fence line daily and bring inside the wildlife that couldnt get through the fence
Outside the fence remained barren with cats dogs and foxes killing anything that moved

Then if you want to see the real effect of feral pests remove the fence
Within 6 months you are back to a wildlife desert

Our wildlife can be resiliant if we let it
We just need to provide safe havens

I agree. I just worry that when the barren deserts between the havens become too large then how does the wildlife populate these protected areas.

 

[Bluetongue1]

The greatest straight up loss of habitat is due to land clearing for agriculture. Here is an excerpt from an article I read, which puts some figures on it.... Some of the ecosystems lost over the past 200 years:

• 75% of rainforests and nearly 50% of all forests;
• over 60% of coastal wetlands in southern and eastern Australia;
• nearly 90% of temperate woodlands and mallee;
• more than 99% of south-eastern Australia's temperate lowland grasslands;
• over 83% of Tasmania's lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands;
• about 95% of brigalow scrub that originally grew in Queensland;
• over 90% of Victoria's grasslands.

The more remote areas of the north of Australia and the arid and semi-arid areas still have large tracts of relatively untouched habitat. Yet the last two decades has seen a catastrophic decline in small mammal numbers and some wildlife in the past two decades. We don’t know why yet.

Feral animals, stock and invasive weeds degrade habitat physically and structurally. For example, removal of 95% of water buffalos and stray stock has seen mud wallows return to naturally vegetated billabong fringes with a consequent improvement in water quality due to reduced turbidity and excessive nutrient loads from bovine and horse dung. Keeping down number of ferals, non-natives and invasive weeds needs to be on-going. The issue of fire regimes is a tough one and may prove to be critical in many areas.

In my opinion, there will be plenty of habitat available for the future if we look after what have. After 200 years of mismanagement many of the inland areas will remain as is. Those areas around the coastal fringe, which have the highest biodiversity, are the most at risk of further degradation.

Blue

 

[Sean_L]

Lets hope we can hold onto those fragments Blue, and perhaps try to revegetate on a larger scale to combat some of the past damage.

Itd be nice though if the powers that be would ease up. I was instructed, a few years ago, to leave a national park at Cunningham's Gap because I was destroying plant life. I was warned that if I was seen doing it again Id be fined, heavily.
The 'plant life' was lantana.

 

[james066]

Hey everybody,
I'm just a newbie but I have been following this thread with great interest and relish the opportunity to learn from some of the more experienced people on this forum. After finally reading through all of the above post, I have summoned the courage to make a post of my own haha sorry for rambling on! Anyways here's a link to a new study I have just come across, hopefully you guys will see it as some what relevant to the conversation! My apologies if it is off topic!
Researchers rethink 'natural' habitat for wildlife -- ScienceDaily
The study's findings point to the need for new approaches that integrate conservation and food production, to make agricultural lands more hospitable to wildlife by reducing chemical inputs, preserving fragments of forest and other natural habitats and rewarding farmers and ranchers for the benefits that result.
A theory of countryside biogeography is pivotal to conservation strategy in the agricultural ecosystems that comprise roughly half of the global land surface and are likely to increase even further in the future

 

[Bluetongue1]

Sounds to me that it is mostly likely to be a ‘training issue’. Firstly lack of training in how to appropriately approach the public in order to get them on side, particularly if they are perceived as doing the wrong thing. Shoot first and ask questions later is not the way to win public support and cooperation. It was probably also the a result of inability to identify a major invasive weed, which again would indicate a deficiency in training.

Our national parks system is not in a good state overall at the moment. The wrong attitudes from the top brass and the cut backs in funding have in recent times seen them fall well short of performing the functions they were set up for in the first place (as Butters has illustrated and lamented). However, that is anther topic all on its own.

Blue

 

[CrystalMoon]

I managed a tourist concern in the Gulf for 5 years, this property was 1.76 million acres. Most was untouched(apart from cleanskin cattle and feral pigs etc) Parks and wildlife worked together with the land owner to conserve the Carpentarian Rock Rat population's habitat. It is stated by them that it is the only place in the world where these little critters inhabit. Unfortunately no-one there apart from myself shared a love of Reptiles, I did impose an instant dismissal rule on any employee who harmed/killed reptiles. I would relocate any that strayed into areas that may cause them harm(Reptiles not people). This Property actually closed it's doors to the tourists because of the damage they were inflicting on the beach/coastal environment. The Land Owners also made a strong effort to cause as minimal damage as possible whilst farming their cattle. Could they have done more? Absolutely, did they do the wrong thing at times? Darn tootin, my point is that they were trying and I am sure they would've become better educated as time rolled on. I guess what I am trying to articulate is that I know of at least one rather large fragment that is still raw and kicking along To me, this was my Heaven and I felt so privileged to be able to explore such an untouched wilderness for 5 glorious years.

 

[Bushfire]

From my observations of threaten species re introductions, it seems that locale specific isn't really as strict as it's painted to be in this thread. The bilbies released in southern WA came from Northern WA and QLD, the marla from NT. In NSW it's proposed to release tassie eastern quolls into Wollemi, and then there is the just recently announced to be at least 8 species that disappeared from NSW to be reintroduced.
It seems that if the will for a species to be reintroduced or saved is of great public interest then they just take whatever genetic stock they can and let nature sort out the fittest individuals.

 

[butters]

In those instances was there actually any existing local genetics to be released back into the habitat?

if bilibies were part of the original fauna I'm guessing the decision was made based on what was available. As a species they may have been present but if the genetics for that region were non existent anymore the next best thing would be from another area?

From what I can gather visually those examples would not appear noticeably different from region to region unlike some reptile species. It would be less likely for a mammal species to be split up by taxonomists to the extent that reptile species are likely to be as well. Possible but not as likely.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Butters, On the whole mammals appear less taxonomically diverse than reptiles at the species level possibly due to their weverHHOoohigher level of mobility, and therefore potentially higher rate of gene flow, or their highly specific habitat resulting in an extremely limited distribution. Neve the less there are still many mammal species which are split up into subspecies, such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot which has 3 subspecies, as does also the Long-nosed Bandicoot and the Sugar Glider plus others, while the Common Ring-tailed Possum has 5, as does the Black-footed Rock-wallaby and so on for a significant number of other species.

Bushfire, you stated: “From my observations of threaten species re introductions, it seems that locale specific isn't really as strict as it's painted to be in this thread”. From my own observations you appear to have a tendency to omit salient facts when making a point. For example, there are two WA island subspecies of Mala that were not considered genetically appropriate in using to re-establish a population of the unnamed mainland Mala. Individuals from the Tanami region were the last remaining wild populations and they provided the stock for WA’s breed and release program for re-establishing the mainland animals. Similarly with respect to the Bilbies, the overwhelming majority of those in WA were sourced from WA. However, the following excerpts explains why there may be sometimes be out breeding... “Because Bilby colonies are so isolated, each colony is vulnerable to disease and inbreeding.” “The Studbook Keeper maintains the genetic records of all the bilbies in the captive breeding programme and provides advice to all the bilby breeding facilities around Australia. Following advice from the Studbook Keeper, animals are regularly transferred between different captive breeding centres. Lastly, the Eastern Quoll was once widespread through the coastal regions of Victoria, most of Tassie and also the coastal regions of NSW. It is now extinct on the mainland. The only source of this species is Tassie.

Animals are assessed as genetically appropriate and not simply collected willy nilly for breed and release programs. Here is a list of locals bred for local release in WA that you seem to have over-looked...
Chuditch: 315 captive bred and released.
Shark Bay Mouse: 346 and then 114 captive bred and released.
Greater Stick-nest Rat: The captive population was found to have two disease problems which, upon investigation, were also present in the captive population in South Australia and the population in the wild. From analysis of the studbook the disease appeared to be genetically inherited. The recovery team decided that all future animals for release should come from the island populations rather than captive breeding programs so the program was closed down.
Lancelin Island Skink: 152 captive bred and released.
Numbat: 135 captive bred and released.
Dibbler: 88 captive bred “Island” Dibblers releasedonto Escape Island. Over 200 captive bred ‘mainland” Dibblers have released into Peniup Reserve and into the Stirling Range National Park in the SW of WA.
Western Swamp Turtle: 394 captive bred and released.
Central Rock Rat: 27 young bred and successfully weaned. Breeding then ceased. Eighteen months later was re-established and one female produced three litters. Of the 10 young produced only 6 survived (two from each litter).
Sandhill Dunnart: Research into the captive breeding of this species, including the determination of their reproductive cycles, their reproductive behaviour and the growth and development of their young is being conducted at Perth Zoo. This program has a purely research focus at the moment rather than a breed for release focus.
Sunset Frogs: 30 frogs and 251 tadpoles were released. Most of the adult frogs were reared from collected eggs and all the tadpoles were bred at Perth Zoo.
Orange-bellied Frog: Perth Zoo rears egg nests of Geocrinia vitellina collected from the wild for 12
months and then releases the juvenile frogs back into the wild. Egg nests are heavily predated in the wild so this protective rearing at the Zoo is an important step.
White-bellied Frogs: Perth Zoo collect egg nests of Geocrinia alba and rear them for 12 months before releasing the juvenile frogs back into the wild. Egg nests are heavily predated in the wild so the protective rearing at the Zoo is an important step.

 

[Jacknife]

How has a post with a very obvious, simple, straight forward, single post answer managed to schlep along for 14 pages?