What are your opinions?

[Bluetongue1]

To return to the OP’s question…
I assume that by “opinion” you want a judgement as to whether the sort of activity you are discussing should or should not be allowed. There are two major problems with your question. Firstly, you have not delineated the method or methods of capture. Secondly, stating “education” as a purpose is far too general and you need to be much more specific.

As you should know now (via the mod) any interaction with wildlife in nature, beyond that of looking, is illegal under state laws. For a permit to be approved, it requires that the method of capture and handling of any wildlife is stated, along with relevant experience and all equipment to be utilised. It also requires a very specific purpose to be stated, along with any academic supporting citations, so that the Department may make an informed judgement. Studies emanating from an academic institution will have had go through their Ethics Committee first and receive official approval. Commercial filming often requires payment of royalties and a departmental officer to accompany the film crew to ensure whatever regulations have been stipulated are adhered to. Education can be anything from collecting vouchered specimens for a museum, to taking photos for a field guide, to radio-tracking eco studies, doing stomach contents on road kills (yes, it does require a permit) to making a doco on a given animal etc etc.

Bottom line… your question as asked, cannot be answered. For example, many people may agree with photographing animals for a field guide but may not agree with killing animals to then be pickled in museum jars.


Lonqgi and Steve1, definitions of the terms used clearly differ between you. The government definition of wildlife is any animal naturally occurring in a given state or country. So maybe it would be better to talk wild native animals. The definition of interference is a bit more problematic. Any interaction with a human that alters the pattern of behaviour of a wild animal is surely interference e.g. when a lizard runs off because you got too close.

I personally believe the term “interference” is a problem in itself. It carries connotations of deliberate interactions that have long term negative effects. Yet there are so many instances of “interference” that are short term and no different in effect with humans than other everyday interactions with other wild animals. It is common to put humans out there as something special. A human captures a lizard – not natural. Ten or twenty thousand years ago, that would have been a lunch snack. Not so unnatural. A snake manages to wriggle free from the talons of a hawk. It has wounds to heal yet many survive. A snake released from the grasp of a human. No wounds but because it was an “unnatural” we condemn the perpetrator as the snake is likely doomed in its efforts to recover. I know which one I’d be putting my money on to survive.

Blue

 

[longqi]

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?

Ive done educational reptile demonstrations in more than 7 countries
including Aus, Canada. Norway, Germany, USA, England China Indonesia Thailand
But not one of those involved interfering with wild animals as all of the animals were captive animals
So I am most definitely not taking any moral high ground

I used David Attenborough only because his message was always
look but dont touch
although most of the tv was staged the message remained the same

But the modern showmen say Dont do this.... Now watch me do xxxxxx

Of course a fleeting glimpse is not enough to observe a behaviour or trait
But knowing where the reptile lives and returning day after day until you silently get to watch it hunting, drinking etc etc
will give an accurate record of its natural behaviour
Catching it can never do that

Most of us. myself definitely included have caught and played with wild animals
But the OPs question was more along the lines of
Lets make this legal and open slather on catching wildlife

In my opinion that is wrong and I dont think that opinion will ever change
It has zero educational benefit to anyone except the catcher and even that would be debatable
It has zero benefit to the animal
It often results in habitat destruction

 

[PilbaraPythons]

Talk about a mole made into a mountain lol.
The odd person who picks a lizard admires it etc, who gives a toss in the big picture.
Today’s politically and ethically correct ideals are taken too seriously and killing the traditional Aussie character.

 

[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 [unquote]

Pilbara
The scenario painted here is very different to little johnny taking a blue tongue home to show his sister

 

[Serpent_Gazeux]

.

 

[PilbaraPythons]

Serpent Gazeux
Call it Bogan if you like, but don't change my quote, thats clearly out of line.

 

[Serpent_Gazeux]

Serpent Gazeux
Call it Bogan if you like, but don't change my quote, thats clearly out of line.

I've dotted the post.

Apologies

 

[PilbaraPythons]

Remember that people who physically interact with wildlife seem to care more about them in the long term. See a picture of a Koala and you think, that’s nice, hold one and suddenly you care and think about their value. This is well known.

 

[Monitor_Keeper]

Biggest thing about handling wild animals for the better phrase "shiz and giggled" and yes that does is anything but relocation, rescue or documented scientific research is not so much it is illegal or what not but because of the harm it can do on so many minor levels. An example would be the obvious of animals going off food but also the scent left on them. Say for such a hosmers skink young. If handled by our hands will lose their scent and the mum will abandon leaving it to die. Scents off our hand can be very strong ( obviously hygiene and such come into it ) so I do not see any other reason to handle wild animals except for the above 3 mentioned. Big difference between captive and non captive.

 

[Elapidae1]

I love the my animals are captive so I'm not interfering argument, it's so contradictory. The very fact that you are in possession of a captive animal constitutes acceptance and to some degree facilitation of wildlife interference in it's most extreme form, Complete removal from nature.

Longqi. I have deliberately been argumentative and I do understand your concerns I'm just not sure the consequences are as far reaching as you say.
While I have to admit that amateur field herping will have some negative impact on the environment I believe that the individuals involved will for the most part develop attitudes, behaviours and understanding that will easily compensate for the negative.
On the other hand I have seen first hand the habitat destruction caused by indiscriminate illegal taking for the pet trade.

Monitor Keeper. Does a Hosmers skink rely on it's mother for survival?

As for documented scientific research. I think many would be amazed just how much of todays available knowledge was garnered from the activities of people interfering with wildlife and technically breaking the law. Not saying it's always right but looking back at the contributions some amateur herpetologists have made over the decades I would say their actions have been justified.