Conservation: Future Directions

[Pythoninfinite]

Yep, as slick says, the problem of species facing extinction is far more urgent than that of the world's energy requirements at the moment. The human planet is not going to change it sources of energy anytime soon, in any significant way, but we lose species daily, so let the thread remain focussed on what WE can do NOW, whilst looking longer term at energy issues perhaps in another thread...

Jamie.

 

[Bushfire]

Of course there will be a "reduced" interest in breeding some of the less charismatic species that have no market value whatsoever. In such cases there should be some incentive from the government (if they were serious about such scheme). Not necessarily a financial assistance, perhaps a permit to collect from the wild and breed one other commercially viable species that would offset the costs of keeping / breeding the less attractive species.
However, there is always going to be an issue of genetic diversity in any captive population.

Very true and I totally agree. Even today we have species that although on an allowable keeping list none are present in captivity. Such a scheme would require some incentive to keep the 'reduced' interest species. Although what incentives I'm not sure, I wouldn't be a fan of your suggestion but can see that being an incentive and for me if thats what it takes then so be it.

The issue of genetic diversity in any captive population would be a big issue and have to be managed properly much so like how zoos manage it. Although you would have to think that these would not be viable for release as the threats still remain. When we look at the Eastern Quoll, they are trying to release animals from a Tasmania heritage on the mainland (most have accepted that the mainland population is gone but cant rule out that there could very well be mainland populations); the Bilby populations in WA are from QLD heritage, same as many small mammal species being attempted at releasing. It seems that already the government has taken the view that any genetic population they can get is better than nothing. It seems we wouldn't/couldn't save all the unqiue gentetic diversity of populations of a particular species. Such an undertaking would be impossible. Maybe those species that do seem less attractive to the public or extremely difficult to keep the zoos and animal parks focus on keeping them going than the other endangered species that do attract enough interest. Sadly the public would probably become more interested in them once they are extinct in the wild.

It would seem logical for such a scheme to work that there would have to be one controlling body (the feds) as oppose to every state having their own unique twist / rules to the scheme. The problem with this is that the states wont want to give such powers to the fed government. Look how hard it was to get them to accept the health reforms. Then there is the issue of time frame. Such a scheme would need to be implemented ASAP to have the maximium effect, not in 10 years time. Also the scheme would need the flexible to change with the circumstances and respond to issues that would pop up quickly and appriorately; the current system is too rigid taking years and years to change. These would be just some of the hurdles to be faced.

 

[Waterrat]

It would seem logical for such a scheme to work that there would have to be one controlling body

Definitely! The scheme would have to be well designed, not just started by few enthusiasts and grow, specimens would have to be sourced from as many different population as practical and dispersed to several breeders. Just like the Zoos, individual breeders would have to be prepared and willing to exchange animals somewhere along the line and I can see certain problems with that (emotional, political and perhaps even commercial). I can just see that as soon as some authority starts to telling us what to do and how to do it, there will be rejections / objections leading to a possible chaos.
There would be no second chance, this would have to be done right from the very beginning and all the way because rare, threatened and critically threatened species would be also involved, in fact they would be the priority.

 

[Slickturtle]

Of course there will be a "reduced" interest in breeding some of the less charismatic species that have no market value whatsoever. In such cases there should be some incentive from the government (if they were serious about such scheme). Not necessarily a financial assistance, perhaps a permit to collect from the wild and breed one other commercially viable species that would offset the costs of keeping / breeding the less attractive species.
However, there is always going to be an issue of genetic diversity in any captive population.

Thanks for that Hydromys

An interesting idea - rewarding those keepers who put in non profit "conservation" effort with a (maybe) second tier valuable animals permit at no cost. Not a bad idea at all.

All this is hypothetical thinking (out loud) of course. But a worthwhile exercise I think. I reckon that things must and will change in the foreseeable future and it is a good thing to toss ideas around in anticipation of that.

Mind you - I must be a wierdo 'cause I reckon the Genus Simoselaps are more charismatic than Aspidites or most of the Morelia - (oenpelliensis being the exception of course)!

As for genetic viability - it is my view that national parks need to open their borders (in a regulated way) to allow fresh specimens to be infused into the captive network from time to time as part of an ongoing "off-park" conservation strategy. "Yeah - right" I can hear you say! "Fat chance of that". But I say; - let's wait and see what happens over the next ten years. We might all be surprised.

Cheers

Slickturtle

 

[cris]

Hi Matt Mc

Good words there. You are right about everything being connected in a general way. But I don't know anything about the coal industry vs nuclear. i am too busy writing an essay on the specifics of conservation of Australia's threatened wildlife because this is something I know a little bit about. But I need a hand. Can you help with some of these topics that I have yet to sort out? : -

1. Demonstrating that captive breeding IS a conservation strategy – if extinction is the alternative.

Well its as simple as if something is still alive in captivity vs being exctinct it has been conserved. Such animals may have no ecological value or realistc chance of reintroducion but just having a species preserved is valuable to science, conservation and many of the general public who may like the species. Obviously if they are able to be reintroduced that is much better.


2. Participation by children and schools as part of a broader conservation education strategy?
As far as i know this sort of stuff already happens, but more couldnt hurt.

3. The issue of genetic diversity in captivity?
Enough animals need to be collected to start with and in some cases on an on going basis, records should be kept of linage etc.

4. The issue of incompetent or non-committed pet owners and resultant cruelty?
Hard to say what should be done, its a tricky subject as many have differant approaches to husbandry and differant values. For example i think the way many treat their feeder rats is bad, but that is JMO and others look at it differantly.

5. How do we recruit thousands of new high quality Wildlife Keepers?
This is already happening, its become fairly common knowledge that you can keep reptiles. Recruiting keepers of other animals is much harder and is illegal in many states eg. mamals in Qld.

6. The issue of defining a “pet”? E.G., Is a Death Adder a “pet”?
Look in dictionaries, some wouldnt include a Death Adder as a pet but others would.

7. The need to demonstrate that keeping and breeding native animals is a legitimate end unto itself and need not be a means to an end, (e.g. need not be a conservation or preservation tool.)
I think this is very important for conservation, as one tends towards domestication and the other seeks to avoid it.

8. The need to develop the lists of animals which may or may not be the subject of captive breeding priorities. There will be 4 categories each within the groupings of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fishes.
Good idea
9. There would be a rush to pick up the high value and popular spp. but nobody will want to take on the more obscure animals. How will this be dealt with?
I dont agree, there are plenty around who keep animals without considering profits.
10. Pet Shops. What is their future role in all of this?
I dont have a problem with petshops selling any animals, provided they look after them well and ensure the buyer is able to look after the animals. Having animals in pet shops is one way of raising awareness. That said i dont think the majority of petshops are very good, but thats a qhole new issue
11. The problem of hybridising in a conservation context?
I think the risks of hybridisation are over rated, but isnt desirable in a conservation program.
12. Loss of ecological fitness in captive animals?
This can be reduced by putting more focus on breeding the fittest animals rather than breed the ones that look the wierdest. Introduction of fresh blood from wild populations would also help.Ect., Etc., Etc.

Anything you can write on these topics and send to me would be good - even though it is all a bit specific. I don't mind if you want to stick to generalities, but who are you working on? Also, we need to build up an argument against people who will try to stop us from conserving Australia's wildlife. Can you help to counter these: -

o Animal rights extremists Tell them that any type of food production causes animal suffering, they will all starve to death
o Wildlife carers I know many of these are simply bleeding heart idiots, but many would actually support conservation through keeping wildlife
o RSPCA and PETA Tell them that goats are suffering on the border between Pakistan and Aghanistan, then spread propaganda in the region that the letters have some anti islamic meaning.
o Environmental law enforcement agencies
o People who argue that wildlife should never be bought and sold.
o People who fear disease transmission from animals to humans.
o People who insist that wildlife should only live in national parks and conservation reserves and argue that it is fundamentally cruel to put a wild animal in a cage.
o People who argue that the Government must spend more on parks and reserves so that this proposal is not necessary.
o Etc., Etc., Etc.

Any help gratefully received

Cheers

Slickturtle

Sorry for ranting about nuclear power and stuff.

 

[Snakeluvver2]

Hello Jannico

That is an interesting observation. If you were suddenly told that you could, - would you be interested in maintaining a breeding colony of a snake species such as Simoselaps bertholdi or any other of its Genera? I ask this (more or less at random) to gauge how interested Australian reptile keepers are in the idea of keeping reptiles as an anti-extinction strategy.


Cheers

Slickturtle

Slick if i could i would.

 

[Slickturtle]

Sorry for ranting about nuclear power and stuff.

Thanks for that Cris

Your thoughtful comments have been noted. I enjoyed you sense of humor as well.

Cheers

Slickturtle