Australis
Almost Legendary
Maybe im misunderstanding you..but..
There is considerable research (peer reviewed and published) showing that ex-situ conservation/captive breeding creates a level of weakness to survive in the wild.
The hobby & conservation
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
Maybe im misunderstanding you..but..
There is considerable research (peer reviewed and published) showing that ex-situ conservation/captive breeding creates a level of weakness to survive in the wild.
cement
Very Well-Known Member
It depends on how the captive population are kept, and the genetic diversity of the founding animals.
Large areas like the Calga Wildlife sanctuary provides adequate free range for most animals to be wild yet protected.
For example, if the right landscaping was done there is no reason why a good colony of Bungaroides wouldn't do allright.
This is how I see "insurance populations" being kept.
Large areas like the Calga Wildlife sanctuary provides adequate free range for most animals to be wild yet protected.
For example, if the right landscaping was done there is no reason why a good colony of Bungaroides wouldn't do allright.
This is how I see "insurance populations" being kept.
P
-Peter
Guest
This debate is philosophical and therefore subjective.
From a geological viewpoint whatever we do is inconsequential as it will have little or no effect a couple of million years down the track.
From that we can discount it as it has no effect on our descisions in regards to longevity of a species.
Evolutionary considerations would dictate that if the species disappeared it did so because it was unsuitable fro the changing environment and its place will be taken by another organism more suitable. To this end we have played a major part and as such it would seem logical that we will continue to do so.
Museums as retainers of dead evidence is not considered the way to go these days and interaction between the past, present and future is always attempted. The introduction of live genetic material isn't new but would draw the conclusion that zoos and museums would need to intergrate to make the keeping and ongoing maintenance of living species viable.
Reintroduction into the wild so to speak is a misnomer as the "wild" would be a fabricated, converted and monitored reality. A facsimile if you will.
To that end, I see no reason why animals kept and bred by hobbyists could not play a part.
I do not though see it as some noble crusade, merely a selfish ideal to retain something that is or will be lost. This isn't a critism and not necessarily a negative.
The effects of nature should never be a justification as thats how they got there in the first place. In a fact your intervention may be responsible for a species not appearing.
I dont think poaching (the illegal removal of plants and/or animals from private and/or public land) plays any role unless carried out in an organised, ongoing and systematic way.
From a geological viewpoint whatever we do is inconsequential as it will have little or no effect a couple of million years down the track.
From that we can discount it as it has no effect on our descisions in regards to longevity of a species.
Evolutionary considerations would dictate that if the species disappeared it did so because it was unsuitable fro the changing environment and its place will be taken by another organism more suitable. To this end we have played a major part and as such it would seem logical that we will continue to do so.
Museums as retainers of dead evidence is not considered the way to go these days and interaction between the past, present and future is always attempted. The introduction of live genetic material isn't new but would draw the conclusion that zoos and museums would need to intergrate to make the keeping and ongoing maintenance of living species viable.
Reintroduction into the wild so to speak is a misnomer as the "wild" would be a fabricated, converted and monitored reality. A facsimile if you will.
To that end, I see no reason why animals kept and bred by hobbyists could not play a part.
I do not though see it as some noble crusade, merely a selfish ideal to retain something that is or will be lost. This isn't a critism and not necessarily a negative.
The effects of nature should never be a justification as thats how they got there in the first place. In a fact your intervention may be responsible for a species not appearing.
I dont think poaching (the illegal removal of plants and/or animals from private and/or public land) plays any role unless carried out in an organised, ongoing and systematic way.
P
Pythoninfinite
Guest
Your last sentence hits the nail on the head Peter. The 'damage' wrought by casual removal of a few animals or plants from the landscape is, in most cases, greatly overstated. But you are generally on target with my thoughts on the whole subject as well. What humans are doing is what all rising dominant species do - they expand dramatically and therefore reduce the space for other organisms to occupy. The only difference between us and the dominant species which have gone before us, is that we are conscious of the changes we bring, and we feel the need, for some reason, to lock things up so they remain as we think they should.
For me, at this point in time, that's not a bad thing though...
Jamie
For me, at this point in time, that's not a bad thing though...
Jamie
P
-Peter
Guest
Not that it adds anything substantial to the debate, but...
Asian House Geckos were first recorded in and around the Brisbane wharves in the early '80s
It was very lax around there in the 70s, we used to get gifts from the merchant seaman(family of friends) coming down from PNG that often included foodstuff and plants. Happy plants were a common one, a Dracaena species.
I never thought to ask for reptiles.
This article is not entirely unrelated to this topic. Talks about relocating species into environmental arks to save species threatened by climate change...
Relocating species to ensure survival ? News in Science (ABC Science)
S
Relocating species to ensure survival ? News in Science (ABC Science)
S
Great article Adderboy. As the article suggests this approach is far from an easy solution and in my opinion there will probably be many failures for each individual success, and there is a very real chance of compounding environmental problems in the relocation zone. Saying that it may well be the only hope for survival in some species.
murrayanddig
Not so new Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
really interesting read, with a lot of thought put into the responses. i have a couple of thoughts that may not have been fully covered though.
my local area at the moment is western Eyre Peninsula. we would be pretty close to the eastern limit of M. s. imbricata. i have been keeping an eye out for local carpets and they are pretty hard to find. plenty of anecdotal stories about big ones in the old days. i have personally sent two road kill individuals to the SA museum, both from west of ceduna. and maybe two other confirmed sittings between yalata and whyalla (one me and one from a friend). now there are some big new parks in this area and some good and recovering veg on private land. there also appears to be a big increase in veg extent and condition when comparing aerial photos from the 80's to the most recent in the mid 00's. i would love to be involved in the restocking of areas that are isolated from current populations (broad acre agriculture and massive clearing), but have historically had carpets and look like good habitat. this area is very different from areas on the east coast that would allow easy recolonisation from natural populations.
there has been a lot of discussion from a species conservation viewpoint, but not so much from a ecological role perspective. again using my own backyard as an example. we are south east of the dog fence in a big sheep grazing area. so no dingos here, carpets and maybe wedge tailed eagles would be the top order predators here. so the almost total removal of carpets would be a pretty significant impact. personally if i carry out fox control, i create a rabbit problem, which in turn impacts on my reveg attempts. a trailer load of 8 foot imbricatas to pop down all the rabbit warrens may be an interesting control method.
i also dont think there has been any known extinctions from the odd jungle escaping in sydney or a bredli running loose in a brisbane park. so why the hell do keepers of native animals have to put up with all the bureaucratic bollocks when anyone can have a cat, or rabbit or rat or any other thing with well documented massive ecological impacts?
my local area at the moment is western Eyre Peninsula. we would be pretty close to the eastern limit of M. s. imbricata. i have been keeping an eye out for local carpets and they are pretty hard to find. plenty of anecdotal stories about big ones in the old days. i have personally sent two road kill individuals to the SA museum, both from west of ceduna. and maybe two other confirmed sittings between yalata and whyalla (one me and one from a friend). now there are some big new parks in this area and some good and recovering veg on private land. there also appears to be a big increase in veg extent and condition when comparing aerial photos from the 80's to the most recent in the mid 00's. i would love to be involved in the restocking of areas that are isolated from current populations (broad acre agriculture and massive clearing), but have historically had carpets and look like good habitat. this area is very different from areas on the east coast that would allow easy recolonisation from natural populations.
there has been a lot of discussion from a species conservation viewpoint, but not so much from a ecological role perspective. again using my own backyard as an example. we are south east of the dog fence in a big sheep grazing area. so no dingos here, carpets and maybe wedge tailed eagles would be the top order predators here. so the almost total removal of carpets would be a pretty significant impact. personally if i carry out fox control, i create a rabbit problem, which in turn impacts on my reveg attempts. a trailer load of 8 foot imbricatas to pop down all the rabbit warrens may be an interesting control method.
i also dont think there has been any known extinctions from the odd jungle escaping in sydney or a bredli running loose in a brisbane park. so why the hell do keepers of native animals have to put up with all the bureaucratic bollocks when anyone can have a cat, or rabbit or rat or any other thing with well documented massive ecological impacts?
An interesting thread, i agree with the idea that if something has no place in an ecosystem its a waste of time trying to prop it up for some sort or imaginary benifit. That said its far better having live animals in captive collections rather than having extinct species IMO. Sure many species will have no ecological relevance in the future but that doesnt mean we shouldnt keep koalas alive so we can keep the japanese tourists coming while spitting on their culture of sustainable whaling.
For those who are being extremely negative, get a grip or go rev your car in the garage everything dies eventually :lol:
For those who are being extremely negative, get a grip or go rev your car in the garage everything dies eventually :lol:
longqi
Very Well-Known Member
That comment about "if something has no place in an ecosystem its a waste of time trying to prop it up for some sort or imaginary benifit." is only valid if we understand the reason why it has no place in that ecosystem any longer
If the reason is one that can be controlled [cats foxes over-development etc etc] then we have a moral obligation to try to sustain that species however possible
Often it is not until species have been eradicated from an area that we finally understand how valuable they were
In Java they removed most of the snakes from near rice fields
Rice crops quickly diminished in size because the rats went crazy
Now they have snake farms whose only purpose is to provide free snakes to farmers
Rice production is improving
Yes everything does die eventually
The problem is it is usually our fault
..
If the reason is one that can be controlled [cats foxes over-development etc etc] then we have a moral obligation to try to sustain that species however possible
Often it is not until species have been eradicated from an area that we finally understand how valuable they were
In Java they removed most of the snakes from near rice fields
Rice crops quickly diminished in size because the rats went crazy
Now they have snake farms whose only purpose is to provide free snakes to farmers
Rice production is improving
Yes everything does die eventually
The problem is it is usually our fault
..
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
