Question 4: Is an Albino Jungle Jaguar carpet python really Wild life?

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

glebo

Not so new Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
31
Reaction score
2
Hello again for Q4

Almost there at question five which will be an easy one, and I am so glad to see the debate in each of the questions continue. I deliberately left the previous question ambiguous as to where I stood and was called on it, which is great. There are many well thought out answers, then further answers that show passion and understanding. As I said from the outset, it was important for me to hear from you all where you stood on many issues, and where you see the hobby, the laws, the state and level of conservation and a raft of things that by virtue of the fact that you are prepared to voice your opinion, means you are prepared think about. In this day and age talk is cheap, but it is necessary and important so that the views of everyone are heard. These views form the basis of an overall understanding of our hobby and how we can grow, not just in keeping animals but also in being taken seriously as a big and diverse interest group. This week I would like to ask the simple question: should an Albino Jungle Jaguar Carpet Python be considered Australian Native wildlife? Where should the wildlife laws draw the line?

Thanks again for your thoughts
Regards
Gavin Bedford
 
Since the Jag gene was introduced into the pet trade in Aus, I would consider them as Australian Pet Animals and not wildlife
But since wildlife services consider any Australian Pet reptile as wildlife???
 
No more so than a poodle (but isn't it canis familiaris same as a dingo?) I say not. IMO "wildlife" is life that can be found in the wild.
 
I believe cross or unknown locality species hold no conservation value thus being nothing more then pets and should not be on the licensing system. I think the licensing system should be used for conservation purposes where the public holds pure locality specific forms as a gene bank type system just in case they are needed in the future for re population and that is the argument the S.A. department of environment used to justify destroying the bredli jag clutch.
 
I think that they are best described as native Australian pets. I hear a lot of people say no captive python will ever be able to be released into the wild so can we really call them wildlife?
 
I think they are described as a disgrace to nature!

So the question begs...are we (Homo sapiens) a product of nature or the plaything of some God? If we are natural then our efforts, no matter how objectionable, are nature at work. Are we a key to new evolution or a satanic spawn killing the world? I believe we are an arm of nature, for good or bad, exctinction gives the opportunity for a new species to fill the gap and diversify.

It's why we have the staggering diversity we are whittling away right now. Things come things go.

Life is a finite gift. Enjoy it while you can.

Back to the question, the jag gene was created by nature, not us, but doesn't make the cut in the real world (Wild world). Jags are not wildlife.
 
If it can be found in the wild and is native then it can be classed as wildlife, if it is a morph of impossible natural mixes then its not WILDlife. An albino Darwin is excepted because its a natural rare morph however jungle jag albino has not and will not ever happen naturally, so no it shouldn't be considered wildlife. And to this end I cannot see why someone needs a licence for this morph as its not in my eyes native Aust wildlife
 
So the question begs...are we (Homo sapiens) a product of nature or the plaything of some God? If we are natural then our efforts, no matter how objectionable, are nature at work. Are we a key to new evolution or a satanic spawn killing the world? I believe we are an arm of nature, for good or bad, exctinction gives the opportunity for a new species to fill the gap and diversify.

It's why we have the staggering diversity we are whittling away right now. Things come things go.

Life is a finite gift. Enjoy it while you can.

Back to the question, the jag gene was created by nature, not us, but doesn't make the cut in the real world (Wild world). Jags are not wildlife.


I don't think Ligers ,Zonkey's , and the like are considered natives either .

Now the reason I quoted --- only a true Naturist could answer that ,. ^^^^
 
I think if you are looking to use private reptile collections as captive breeding programs then you cannot include the genetic morphs that arise because of inbreeding. Even if these morphs occurred in nature they would probably not survive (reduced fitness).
 
Albinos are ok because theyre natural
im just not for the jags and breeding of subspecies and different species just to look cool, thats annoys me
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just pets, not wildlife.
This is the only answer IMO....it answers the question asked.... Jags? They have come through evolution, not man made so get used to them... Crossing?... Well it's here and what ever people say or do its not going to change ... Before people jump on the band wagon I stuck by purists for yrs but after spending lots of time researching I decided that things will always move on... Where will computers and tv's be in 10 yrs?.... OHHH and what happened to Dinosaurs??... Enough from me
 
Last edited:
Where should the line be drawn?- i think wildlife should be life in the wilds not in captivity. Whilst the National Parks and Wildlife Service virtually abandon wild reptiles, instead taking the easy gig of captive reptiles. Captive reptiles dont need NPWS help. They are doing just fine. It is about time the NPWS looked after their charged responsibility instead of wasting their limited rescourses on captive reptiles. Any captive reptile is not wildlife and therefore should not be subject to licence. Crossbreds and morphs are certainly not wildlife!
 
The only captive snakes that should be eligible for a repopulation breeding program are ones caught by scientists or zoos from the wild which are specifically bred for this reason. Any snake that we own in the hobby can't be guaranteed as a pure locality and so it has lost the chance to be used for breeding and releasing specimens into the wild. Even if it was "pure" it has still be bred to look the way we want it to look and not the way nature has intended it to look.

As for the question...

No morph, should in any way be considered wild life. The jag gene, while it occurred as naturally as it possibly could in a captive snake, has been taken advantage off by people. In the wild, this snake likely would have died and not be able to effect the wild population of snakes. Yes it is possible, but very unlikely. Any jag other than a coastal is particularly impossible to exist in the wild because these two snakes would never meet in the wild and be able to breed.
 
What is the conservation value of privately kept snakes? When was the last time private keepers were called upon for their home bred reptiles to repopulate diminished wild populations? Where would you release an albino jungle jaguar carpet python to replenish dwindling populations?
 
Short answer: no

Long answer:
It is naive to think that the vast majority of captive reptiles have conservation value. They are not wildlife. Some rare species are kept in captivity and have some conservation value, but there is little chance that they will ever be 'wild' again or able to live in their natural environments, due primarily to habitat destruction. Without a careful and documented breeding program to maintain genetic diversity, their conservation value diminishes with successive generations in captivity and continued inbreeding. We have little idea of the genetic variation in wild populations of these species because specimens are so rare, so we cannot pretend to maintain this in captivity. I am thinking specifically of the RSP and Oenpelli projects in this case. For both species, founders were terribly difficult to obtain. New individuals are unlikely to be added to the gene pool in captivity, so artificial selection starts to happen. Those which adjust to captivity most completely breed more readily and are increasingly represented in the future gene pool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top