What are your opinions?

[Scuffling]

What are your opinions on catching wildlife? With these circumstances kept in mind

• The person catching knows how to handle the animal
• They are completely responsible for damage that may be caused to themselves or others around
• They are completely aware of the dangers of handling the animal
• They have proper first aid and know how to correctly apply it
• They do not hurt the animal and release it exactly where it was found
• Basically they are in complete control
• Possesses all necessary permits in order to do so

 

[Monitor_Keeper]

Why pick it up....

 

[Scuffling]

Educational purposes sort of like what Steve Irwin did

 

[Monitor_Keeper]

Steve Irwin used captive animals and also had special permits to take them off site and film etc...

 

[Stevo2]

No need for it.

There's a lot more going on than just the physical interaction. There's a whole bunch of stress involved for the poor animal involved.

There's also no such thing as "complete control"...

 

[Scuffling]

hmm Ill keep that in mind. I think I have to look into this alot more. Alot of points are being made that I knew nothing about.

 

[Monitor_Keeper]

Mate why edit in " posses all permits", you say "wildlife" which does not mean captive bred so therefore the only permits you would have is a licence to take animals ( which I am assured you do not have / will get seeing as they are only given out for special reasons to say the least ) and or wild animals that need to be helped back to health as a 'carer'. other then that there is no need to touch wild animals. Too many people think they are qualified to handle wild animals...well that is easy any moron can go up and pick up fauna even venom's...it really isn't that hard but the effect that is has on the animals is so much more then what you would think.

 

[Scuffling]

I was asked nicely to by one of the Moderators. Without it it is against one of the rules/regulations.

 

[eipper]

This seems loaded. Depending on your definition of education it is either worthwhile or not. At this point without knowing the who and why I would be disagree with it

 

[harlemrain]

I think the only time you should ever interfere would be in the event that the animal was in danger, right next to/on a busy road for example but other than that there is no real need, it wouldn't benefit the animal and with the amount of access we have to animals in captivity I don't see why it's necessary. Just my opinion

 

[longqi]

What are your opinions on catching wildlife? With these circumstances kept in mind

• The person catching knows how to handle the animal
• They are completely responsible for damage that may be caused to themselves or others around
• They are completely aware of the dangers of handling the animal
• They have proper first aid and know how to correctly apply it
• They do not hurt the animal and release it exactly where it was found
• Basically they are in complete control
• Possesses all necessary permits in order to do so

Wildlife is called Wildlife because it is Wild
Being wild means that it should be left alone unless posing imminent danger to others, eg crocs or vens
turning up too close to people and requiring relocation
It means its habitat should be left alone
It means that posing it for photos should never be done
It means knowing that handling any wild animal may potentially kill it. This is especially true for reptiles and amphibians

ps
Please never use anyone on TV as an excuse to interfere with wildlife
Every one of the modern showmen are exactly that
They are showmen who need tv ratings
To do this they interfere with the natural cycle of life without any care of what will happen afterwards

To see the results of what they have done visit any national park
Logs and rocks turned over destroying ecosystems
Scared native animals etc etc etc

Enjoy our country
Love our wildlife
Go to visit them
Take nothing but photos
Leave nothing but footprints

 

[Monitor_Keeper]

Wildlife is called Wildlife because it is Wild
Being wild means that it should be left alone unless posing imminent danger to others, eg crocs or vens
turning up too close to people and requiring relocation
It means its habitat should be left alone
It means that posing it for photos should never be done
It means knowing that handling any wild animal may potentially kill it. This is especially true for reptiles and amphibians

ps
Please never use anyone on TV as an excuse to interfere with wildlife
Every one of the modern showmen are exactly that
They are showmen who need tv ratings
To do this they interfere with the natural cycle of life without any care of what will happen afterwards

To see the results of what they have done visit any national park
Logs and rocks turned over destroying ecosystems
Scared native animals etc etc etc

Enjoy our country
Love our wildlife
Go to visit them
Take nothing but photos
Leave nothing but footprints

Well said.

 

[Tsubakai]

Educational purposes sort of like what Steve Irwin did

In complete control like Steve was too? How did that go again?

 

[sharky]

Well personally if an animal is in criticaly bad condition and the person has the right qualifications and training to help rehabilitate the animal I say why not! These peope are helping the animal and not hurting him/her. I see no problem in rehabilitating animals from the wild, I mean some people dedicate their lives to re-habilitating native animals and releasing them to help maintain a stable population and to help the animlal's welfare.

But capturing to hold and take a photo as in "look at me! Look what I found! Aren't I a reckless bloke for picking up a WILD animal! Like my photo on Face Book!" Then this is just stupid. Wild animals are to be left alone. No need to stress them out by picking them up. If you want a photo, take one from a distance. Cameras do have a 'zoom' button and this way you aren't disturbing the animal.

Taking a healthy animal from the wild even with the training, qualifications, permits, etc for no reason but to add a 'free' animal to your collection is just wrong! It is stupid, unfair to the animal and shouldn't be done unless the animal is seriously hurt or has lost it's habitat; but even then there is a thing called re location!

I do though think positively about herpatologists who do take wild specimens but for one reason, science. Even then they will just record the body weight, length, record where he/she is found and maybe put a little tracker on them. I find that okay because this helps conserve species by knowing more information about the species. I also find that herpatologists take animals from the wild because they are an un-identified species and thishelps them to study their behaviour and opens more knowledge up to the world of reptiles. (I used herpatology as an example it it can be used to all fauna studies in general.)

That is just my opinion. whether or not others agree, that's their look on things. This is how I see this topic and everyone is entilted to their own.

 

[Elapidae1]

There's a lot of ifs and maybes'.

I think the showmen as Longqi calls them have probably done more good than harm. They have encouraged generations to pay more attention and raised awareness of the environment and the creatures that inhabit it, true some of the attention has been detrimental to the animals but for the most part I think it has made may young people step back and appreciate something that they may not have otherwise.
If people understand and appreciate something or develop an attitude of caring the more likely they are to take steps to protect it, whether thats just thinking twice before dropping litter or taking active steps into conservation and animal welfare.

Handling wild animals is not an interference of the natural cycle of life but a part of it, by that line of reasoning relocating and helping injured wildlife is interfering with the natural cycle of life and shouldn't be done.

Also I think that at an individual level reptiles generally have a very short memory for human interference. I have watched animals seemingly forget about their predicament of 5 minutes earlier and start about their normal lives as if nothing had happened.

My thoughts are that those who handle wild animals for an audience should take care and think of the message they are trying to put across.

 

[JasonL]

I dont have a problem with it as long as the animal isnt harmed, though I dont like animals caught just so someone can show off. For photos or educational, either personal or group, I have no problem with an animal being temporarily retained for closer inspection.

 

[longqi]

There's a lot of ifs and maybes'.

I think the showmen as Longqi calls them have probably done more good than harm. They have encouraged generations to pay more attention and raised awareness of the environment and the creatures that inhabit it, true some of the attention has been detrimental to the animals but for the most part I think it has made may young people step back and appreciate something that they may not have otherwise.
If people understand and appreciate something or develop an attitude of caring the more likely they are to take steps to protect it, whether thats just thinking twice before dropping litter or taking active steps into conservation and animal welfare.

Handling wild animals is not an interference of the natural cycle of life but a part of it, by that line of reasoning relocating and helping injured wildlife is interfering with the natural cycle of life and shouldn't be done.

Also I think that at an individual level reptiles generally have a very short memory for human interference. I have watched animals seemingly forget about their predicament of 5 minutes earlier and start about their normal lives as if nothing had happened.

My thoughts are that those who handle wild animals for an audience should take care and think of the message they are trying to put across.

Helping injured animals or relocating animals is very different to what is being suggested by the OP
Handling uninjured animals apart from relocations is most definitely interfering with the natural life cycle of that animal

In some ways the 'showmen' do raise awareness of native wildlife
But the vast majority of that awareness is based on tv ratings and totally different to the natural instincts of the animal

simple example
watch what happens when I grab this snake around the neck
see the venom and how hes trying to bite me
extremely dangerous animal etc etc etc

Anyone who has ever relocated or rescued snakes knows exactly how far from the truth that type of statement is

I agree completely that Steve Irwin did a tremendous amount of good in helping promote and save Aussie wildlife
But his shows and all the subsequent imitators promote careless handling of animals that have the potential to kill
but under normal circumstances will stay as far from humans as they can

Apart from on relocations, what can be educational in any way shape manner or form in restraining any wild animal??
I left relocation out because I often tail and hook vens to let the people from the house see them before I bag and remove them, and I think many other relocators would do the same thing

Wildlife Demonstrators dont use wild animals
Yet they appear to get the message across pretty well??

If we leave rescues and relocations out of it
think about the next few words

Observation has been thrown out the window
Interference is becoming too common
Observation damages nothing
But interference usually leads to dragging animals out of holes or turning over rocks etc etc
Observation can be extremely educational
Interference can never be educational

 

[Elapidae1]

Often observation first requires restraint. If this constitutes interference then it can most definitely be educational.
99% of the reptile pics in books and guides are posed/interfered with. These publications are educational

As human nature compels some people to handle and interact with wild life whether for self gratification, science, education, whatever the reason, it is driven by human nature and therefore part of the cycle and not an interference with the cycle.

You can't leave rescue and relocation out of it because that is interference in itself.

Think about this.

Observation alone leads to questions
Interference facilitates answers
Observation damages nothing but without action it also achieves nothing.
The people I associate with are very mindful of their environmental impact in the field. we all impact wildlife through our chosen activities in life and I firmly believe that the positive impact of the majority of people that choose to enjoy reptiles in the wild far out way the negative. (The keeping of reptiles as pets I'm not so sure)
Observation alone has a limited educational value.
Interference creates further educational opportunity.

 

[longqi]

Observation is the opposite of restraint so cannot require it
Observation of native wildlife without interference is the only way to understand the natural life of that wildlife

Knowledge sometimes requires restraint
That is when interference is necessary to gain information on physical aspects of the animal
But that interference should only be done by researchers, not by the general public

Observation achieves a lot more than nothing
It teaches us almost everything about the natural life of any animal
Remember David Attenborough etc etc
Even though there is no doubt many of those documentaries were staged the whole message was vastly different from the messages put out now
Virtually every show now promotes interference instead of observation


So observation is an incredibly powerful educational tool
While interference by the general public teaches nothing except what the animal will do when attacked

 

[Elapidae1]

My observation is that either side can put whatever spin on it that suits them.

LOL David Attenborough is one of the biggest wildlife tamperers of all time regardless of the message. Still a legend though. he was interfering with wildlife long before he appeared in doco's, hardly the sort of character to put on you pedestal.

I'd love to know how many of the researchers you deem qualified to restrain animals would be researching in their field had they not interfered with wildlife at an earlier stage.

Yes observation is a powerful tool but with many animals particularly cryptic reptiles etc, their comes a point when the fleeting glimpse as it flicks into the bush isn't enough of an opportunity to observe a behaviour or physical trait.

judging by your avatar you have the touch of the showman yourself? Got it out of you system and took the moral high ground hey?