As well as the Berlin Zoo Aquarium and Chester Zoo.
Platypuses! Must be some chance?!
- Thread starter Caesar
- Start date
- Status
As well as the Berlin Zoo Aquarium and Chester Zoo.
Tuatara are actually one of the easier native species to see, relatively speaking - there are a half-dozen American collections holding tuatara, and two over in Europe. Through a bit of patience and spending time looking carefully at the respective enclosures in Berlin and Chester, I've actually seen all the individuals (legally) in Europe.
I'd neglected to consider invertebrates or fish! As far as the native reptiles go, I believe the last to legally come into Europe were the second batch of Tuatara which came to Chester - the exact date escapes me, but I think it was 1994. Unfortunately I do know of a few cases of illegal imports beyond that date.
I'm quite surprised (albeit pleasantly so) that a Kiwi export occurred as recently as 2010; of course, this makes the continued refusal to send more Kaka to Stuttgart a bit more disappointing.
Huh, I didn't know there were tuatara outside of NZ. Guess I misread my source on the subject. Thanks for letting me know!
Looks like the Dallas Zoo has some. Better start looking up bus ticket prices, ha ha.
I don't have a car, otherwise I'd totally drive places just to visit zoos, among other things. Megabus tickets are pretty cheap, at least.
yes, that was 1994. But as said earlier, four species of endemic lizards were being legally exported to Europe (especially Germany) up until 1996 - these last four species received full protection that year because the exports were being used to mask smuggling of other lizard species.
The OP should find another animal that is legal to own. Platypus are not even that interesting and spend most of their time hiding, especially during the day. I saw an exhibit for them somewhere here in Australia once but never actually saw one; they were all hiding.
No point ruining your life over an animal, just find a legal exotic to own.
No point ruining your life over an animal, just find a legal exotic to own.
However, the up-to-1996 legal species weren't and aren't all that popular among reptile keepers. The Naultinus geckos are an entirely separate discussion (probably the most expensive geckos on the private market outside NZ) and if I remember right they've been fully protected in 30+ years. Sadly, quite a bit of smuggling, even in recent years. Their very slow breeding rate doesn't exactly help.
As far as I can understand there is a dedicated group of people in New Zealand keeping native geckos entirely legally. They do get breeding with some regularity; not in large quantities, but more than the tiny and scattered populations kept elsewhere. I do think it might be a good idea to allow some of the captive bred to be exported to zoos or others abroad (perhaps counteracting some of the smuggling where specimens are taken from the wild). That's obviously something New Zealand has to decide.
Last edited:
yes, the last four species were really amongst the most boring of native lizards (common skink, copper skink, common gecko, forest gecko - although the latter two actually proved to be species complexes). But it was easy to include other species amongst them when shipping.
there are quite a few native lizard keepers in NZ and it is relatively easy to get a permit, but no species can be bought or sold. Some captive populations are essentially worthless for conservation purposes because they are hybrid mixes (especially in the common gecko complex). Exporting captive-bred geckos would do nothing to combat smuggling because they breed so slowly (just two babies after a year-long gestation period) - it is unfortunately far quicker and cheaper and more profitable to smuggle them, and the punishments if caught are pathetic. Legal exports would also make it even easier to "launder" smuggled animals. I'm all for letting some overseas zoos have small stocks for breeding and display, but certainly not private breeders.temp said:
I guess I feel the frustration of people who live overseas. I don't know if I am talking about selling all the wildlife. But if you look at for example the Veiled Chameleon, who lives a very delicate existence in small pockets of forest in Saudi Arabia and Yemen; and see how the captive population in the US and Europe has ensured it's survival in the wild- then I can't help but think if we implemented similar programs with animals here such as Tasmanian Devils or Bilbys etc, that it would not only allow tax payer dollars to be better spent on helping people with real practical things, it would allow others the chance to contribute to conserving our wildlife.
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...-save-our-devils/story-fnj4f7k1-1226808066660
How much money did tax payers spend on these captive bred Tasmanian Devils, only to have them released back into the wild and to have them killed by cars- it just seems to me we need to wake up as a nation. And I daresay more will die.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...led-on-road-days-after-being-released/6816966
The whole reason we don't keep our natives in captivity is because conversationalists subscribe to the notion that once in captivity the animal no longer becomes a viable representation of the wild species. Because it's behavior is different in captivity to what it is in the wild. Yet here we see captive raised Tasmanian Devils being released into the wild and being unable to tell if cars are dangerous, something all wild devils know already. So I find myself asking if it's ok to raise devils in captivity and then release them like this-and have them still be seen as viable examples of their species- then why can't the layperson keep them in captivity also.
90% of the devils have been wiped out- so these deaths of females are a serious issue. Imagine if laypeople around the world were allowed to own devils- it might die out in the wild but captive populations would ensure it's survival. To me this whole thing proves the viability of allowing natives to be kept as pets and in captivity.
I just find it frustrating our government is happy to spend millions on fences to nowhere to fence off habitat to save a marsupial nobody has ever heard of before or millions each year on saving Tasmanian devils despite captive breeding contradicting the notion that captive animals are different to wild animals behaviorally; while there are homeless and struggling people in Australia. It seems crazy to me.
Last edited:
My apologies if this is a stupid question,but what makes platypi (?) considered "impossible" as opposed to Tasmanian devils,which are just now being exported for display American zoos.
The government is only allowing Tasmanian devils to be exported because 90% of their population in the wild has been wiped out by devil facial tumor disease.
They are trying to establish tumor free populations in the hopes of the geographic isolation will allow healthy devils to survive somewhere.
Problem is it's too little too late.
The platypus is also endangered and could suffer a similar fate. Platypus can breed in captivity. I think they are more difficult to breed though and probably explains why they don't ship them overseas.
But if you don't try something you never find out. A zoo in the US has had more success at breeding Giant Pandas then some of the breeding facilities in China- so you see new things can be learned by allowing others the chance to have a opportunity to contribute to Australian native conservation.
They are trying to establish tumor free populations in the hopes of the geographic isolation will allow healthy devils to survive somewhere.
Problem is it's too little too late.
The platypus is also endangered and could suffer a similar fate. Platypus can breed in captivity. I think they are more difficult to breed though and probably explains why they don't ship them overseas.
But if you don't try something you never find out. A zoo in the US has had more success at breeding Giant Pandas then some of the breeding facilities in China- so you see new things can be learned by allowing others the chance to have a opportunity to contribute to Australian native conservation.
Tasmanian devils have short life-spans, so in simple terms the breeding programme in Australia needs to free up space by removing older and genetically-surplus individuals. These can be sent to overseas zoos as advocacy animals.
The difference with platypus is that there is no equivalent programme for platypus. There are relatively few platypus in captivity and the breeding results are sparce. There are no captive-bred populations from which animals may be sent overseas, and no reason to do so anyway.
Just found out the Platypus population in Tasmania is suffering from Platypus Mucormycosis disease. So perhaps someone could make a good case for allowing Platypus to also be kept in captivity.
Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease - FAQs
Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease - FAQs
you're going to have to explain your link between veiled chameleons and Australian wildlife. Veiled chameleons are not living a "very delicate existence in small pockets of forest" - they are listed by the IUCN as Least Concern and are very versatile in their habitat requirements. How do you think the captive population "has ensured it's survival in the wild"? - is it because they are now so widely bred that wild animals no longer need to be traded? That isn't ensuring their survival in the wild, it just means the wild is no longer being pillaged for them (there's a huge difference between those two things!). And it has no comparison to Australian wildlife at all, because Australian animals are not traded internationally for the pet trade.
do you have any clue what you are talking about at all? Two individuals were killed by cars out of twenty released. Wild devils are also killed by cars all the time! Tasmania is renowned for its road-kill. Animals released to the wild die, yes; animals born in the wild die too. It is expected as part of the conservation programmes.wildzoo said:
And this bit - "the whole reason we don't keep our natives in captivity is because conversationalists subscribe to the notion that once in captivity the animal no longer becomes a viable representation of the wild species." - where do you get this from? You do realise there are countless captive-breeding programmes in Australia and overseas for the purpose of releasing animals into the wild?
yes... you are entitled to that opinion of course, but just because you haven't heard of an animal doesn't mean it isn't worth saving. Money spent on conservation would likely not be available for homeless people anyway, so your point is kind of moot. Personally I think saving devils and other wildlife is more important, but each to their own.wildzoo said:
Last edited:
platypus are not endangered.
which American zoo "has had more success at breeding Giant Pandas then some of the breeding facilities in China"?wildzoo said:
I'll never see animals as being more important than people, but that is just me.
I used that Chameleon due to the reality that climate changes could easily wipe it out, considering Saudi Arabia and Yemen are both mostly deserts.
By stopping the need to take from the wild don't you also help their survival in the wild in some way? Maybe if a percentage of every sale of the animal in question went to a conservation program geared towards the wild population that would be a benefit to allowing these types of animals to be kept in captivity.
To me wildlife should be seen from an economic standpoint also. By allowing a captive trade in native wildlife we not only generate micro-economies based around certain species here and overseas.
All I am saying is I don't understand why we are so apprehensive about keeping native wildlife as pets and allowing people overseas to keep them.
Maybe using the Indian Bengal Tiger is a better example. It is classified as endangered by the IUCN. There are more Bengals in Texas than India. Sure it may not help the species in the wild as the breeding of 'white tigers' pollutes the gene pool in captivity. But to me having captive Bengals is better than having no Bengals at all. Just my two cents.
I used that Chameleon due to the reality that climate changes could easily wipe it out, considering Saudi Arabia and Yemen are both mostly deserts.
By stopping the need to take from the wild don't you also help their survival in the wild in some way? Maybe if a percentage of every sale of the animal in question went to a conservation program geared towards the wild population that would be a benefit to allowing these types of animals to be kept in captivity.
To me wildlife should be seen from an economic standpoint also. By allowing a captive trade in native wildlife we not only generate micro-economies based around certain species here and overseas.
All I am saying is I don't understand why we are so apprehensive about keeping native wildlife as pets and allowing people overseas to keep them.
Maybe using the Indian Bengal Tiger is a better example. It is classified as endangered by the IUCN. There are more Bengals in Texas than India. Sure it may not help the species in the wild as the breeding of 'white tigers' pollutes the gene pool in captivity. But to me having captive Bengals is better than having no Bengals at all. Just my two cents.
Platypus are not endangered now, but that's what they said about the Devil. And look at it now.
Platypus are susceptible to changes that could mean they become endangered in a relatively small time frame if something similar to what is happening in Tasmania ever made it's way to the mainland.
The San Diego Zoo has bred 6 babies in captivity; who were born to Bai Yun since 1996. I have never heard of a Chinese zoo being as successful; but admit I have never researched if that is that case or not. By mere fact San Diego Zoo is mentioned as running one of the most successful Panda Breeding programs I just assumed China was not seeing the same levels of success- or else we would hear more about it.
Anyway this article discredits the whole notion of saving endangered animals using captive breeding. Either you accept allowing people to breed natives in captivity and own them in the pet trade or you confide them to extinction in the wild. That is how I see it.
The cruel truth of China's panda factories | Daily Mail Online
even if that were the case - and leaving aside the irrelevence to Australia - how do the two parts of your argument relate to one another? You first said keeping the chameleons in captivity has ensured their survival in the wild. Now you are saying something about "the reality" that climate change could wipe it out in the wild? I really don't understand your thought process there.wildzoo said:
but this has nothing to do with keeping Australian animals overseas.wildzoo said:
and do you think that private keepers would a) agree to this, and b) stick to this? I think not.wildzoo said:
the best way to protect wildlife is to give it an economic value to local communities. But that does not mean selling it all to be kept as pets overseas.....wildzoo said:
you could count the numbers of Bengal tigers outside India on one hand, probably with fingers to spare. All the "Bengal" tigers in the USA are hybrids.wildzoo said:
Last edited:
I'm not talking about selling all the wild animals to be kept as pets. I am saying if we established viable captive populations of wild animals and kept them in the pet trade it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
The only point I am making is responsible captive breeding programs and responsible pet owners who own such animals could complement wild populations as seen with the Chameleon.
They may not save wild animals, but I can't see the harm in them either if they are not impacting wild animals. Sure there may only be a handful of Bengals left, but the captive ones are closer than anything else we are going to get to Bengals. As we do not live in an ideal world all I am saying is they are better than nothing. Although I don't believe in releasing captive Bengals into the wild for obvious reasons- they are genetically unsound.
I used to think protecting native habitat was the key to saving animals in the wild, but we see now that environmental changes such as droughts and now diseases also have to be factored in when working out a strategy to save wildlife. It's within this context that I think captive animals, while not conserving wild populations, can at least preserve a species in captivity; which in some instances may be the only choice we have.
The only point I am making is responsible captive breeding programs and responsible pet owners who own such animals could complement wild populations as seen with the Chameleon.
They may not save wild animals, but I can't see the harm in them either if they are not impacting wild animals. Sure there may only be a handful of Bengals left, but the captive ones are closer than anything else we are going to get to Bengals. As we do not live in an ideal world all I am saying is they are better than nothing. Although I don't believe in releasing captive Bengals into the wild for obvious reasons- they are genetically unsound.
I used to think protecting native habitat was the key to saving animals in the wild, but we see now that environmental changes such as droughts and now diseases also have to be factored in when working out a strategy to save wildlife. It's within this context that I think captive animals, while not conserving wild populations, can at least preserve a species in captivity; which in some instances may be the only choice we have.
- Status