Discussion in 'Reptile News' started by RoryBreaker, Jan 26, 2020.
BEST WAY to ensure the species survives is to set up a breeding colony and make about 1/2 the offspring available to the amateur keepers who are obligated to give 1/2 the offspring from their breeding groups to the national parks for release into the wild at suitable locations.
A widely distributed remnant population who's kept safe and allowed to breed in the wild and in captivity has the best chance of not going extinct.
The first part, yes, is a good idea. The second part (taking half the offspring produced by private keepers and releasing them into the wild) is utterly stupid and destructive, as well as logistically unrealistic.
Private keepers are all sorts of irresponsible. They give their reptiles parasites and diseases. Releasing animals from private keepers into the wild is about as good an idea as using an anvil for a parachute. Asking private keepers to give up half their produce and keep the other half is going to make them give the animals with any defects etc and keep the good ones for themselves, and good luck getting a system like this which relies on the honesty system to work!
Widely-distributed remnant population is an oxymoron. That population including captive individuals is nonsensical.
Establishing an auxiliary population in captivity though, yes, is a good way to ensure the species' survival. The zoos should breed them up, sell them into the foreign market with a 90% tax rate with proceeds going to conservation, and everyone will win. This will not happen.
Some keepers who might be issued a special permit to participate maybe .
I wonder if you are really just making some kind of Freudian slipup her and just displaying to us how you'd behave if part of this distributed survival breeding campaign.
So if amateurs are honest enough and unreliable , keep the amateurs out of the scheme ( no loss there as they are not available anyway ) and involve zoos only then .
As it stands now , the chances of the species surviving is poor, they aren't widely enough dispersed in genetically viable pockets that are isolated from each other and safe from introduced predators.
This is a really bad idea.
This doesn't even make sense. I'm aware that there are thieves, rapists, pedophiles, vandals, vegans, politicians and other evil categories of people out there but awareness of their existence doesn't make me one. Private keepers aren't as bad as any of the groups above, but being realistic as a qualified biologist and herper with decades of keeping experience, I've seen that most keepers don't have the knowledge or integrity to be do the right thing. Even those genuinely wanting to do the right thing generally are not capable of it. Your own words demonstrate that you don't understand what is and isn't viable. Your heart is in the right place but your proposal is flawed.
There's nothing wrong with amateurs being involved, we just need to be realistic about what they are willing and able to do. They will breed them and establish a viable captive population, that's a good thing. It means no one will want to catch them and if worst comes to worse and the wild ones go extinct, the species still exists. This can be done profitably and never needs to cost the government/taxpayer anything to maintain.
So your proposal is to get a captive population run by hobbyists who will reduce genetic variation and then flood wild population with genetically uniform animals, harming the allelic structure of existing wild populations and contributing to their demise while putting additional animals into areas they have already become extinct in so that they can die of the same causes which killed the animals which existed there before them, while with each introduction bringing the risk of putting diseases and parasites into the wild? We need to do something positive or nothing at all. We shouldn't just take action which is harmful because we feel like doing something.
Introduced predators aren't the main thing killing this species off, it's habitat destruction. Even if it was introduced predators, releasing new animals would not be beneficial, unless those predators had been permanently eliminated and the existing population of lizards had been wiped out. In that scenario (which isn't at all like the reality), *maybe* a reintroduction could be appropriate.
While generally seen as noble and good, introducing animals into the wild, even when it is done by teams of biologists, does more harm than good. In most cases it is just a very expensive way of killing animals and achieving nothing. Very very very rarely does it do anything good.
I know they breed easy and they are for sale here, captive bred, in europe.
I didn't know they were over there, but it's not a big surprise and it's good news. The Australian government should have made this happen and profited from it, but however it happened it will ensure the species isn't lost.
I know of 2 who breeds them, a pair of babies are about 12000 aus dollars
Wow. That's a tad more than I'd have guessed. They don't look particularly amazing, I wouldn't have thought they'd be any more interesting to hobbyists than a lot of other medium sized skinks.
But shows the reason why poachers / wildlife traffickers regard it as such an easy get rich very fast scheme . Lot of reptile keepers in the USA and Europe and Asia don't care if the reptiles are wild caught and trafficked .
Most of the bluetongues in europe come from poaching/smugling at some stage so it is almost impossible to be a good person and care if you want aussie bluetongues
Right, and since this is a reality no one can change, the government should have allowed government-owned zoos to breed them and sell them to the foreign market, bringing money into the country and making them available in the most responsible way possible. It should take a similar approach to similar situations in the future (but it won't, and the reality will be the same as this in similar situations in the future).