Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
animal that much more valuable, and careless releases and escapes have been kept
remarkably low. In short, via regulation, Australia has managed to impose a suffi-
ciently elevated cost to exotic pet ownership that animals are valued highly enough
to largely prevent their release to the wild. As a result, it doesn't matter that preven-
tion of smuggling isn't perfect - it's good enough to ensure that captive herpeto-
fauna largely remain captive. And such a structural adjustment to the pet-value
system is all that is needed to effectively protect against an introduction pathway
run rampant elsewhere.
Such a result might be achieved alternatively by a quota system that makes
abundant, cheap animals unavailable (L.D. Wilson and Porras, 1983). In any event,
the point is to impose a cost to pet keeping that removes the incentive for careless
release or escape. Enforced maintenance standards for wholesale and retail stock -
especially in areas, like Florida, subject to hurricanes - could also prevent some
unintentional pet-trade releases. Escape by means of such activities has long
plagued Florida in particular but has been a contributing factor in several other
jurisdictions as well. Revocation of business licenses for wholesale and retail deal-
ers that release animals or allow them to escape could also be considered. Florida
has recently adopted stricter regulations for the keeping of venomous reptiles, a
handful of large constrictors, and the Nile monitor,
Varanus niloticus
(Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2007). These regulations include age,
experience, caging, disaster-planning, record-keeping, and escape-notification
requirements, as well as the requirement to have each animal permanently identi-
fied with a surgically implanted passive integrated transponder. These regulations
may go some way toward stemming the release of the more dangerous reptile
species held in captivity in Florida, but of course, they are silent on the wider
phenomenon of reptile and amphibian release in that state.
Despite any such regulatory efforts that might be made, the importance of the
pet trade and aesthetic-release nexus in modern herpetofaunal introductions is so
large that, for many countries, government cannot be solely responsible for pre-
venting additional herpetofaunal invasions. The problem is too widespread for
such an approach to always be viable, and responsibility for its creation is too dif-
fuse. In particular, it is long past due for industry and private individuals to accept
responsibility for preventing the ecological damages caused by pet releases and
intentional releases for aesthetic gratification. And improved, focused public
awareness of the consequences of pet release will be highly important in meeting
this goal. Currently, awareness that pet releases pose an ecological problem (as
well as typically being inhumane to the released animals) does not appear wide-
spread among the pet-keeping public. One would hope that it should not be too
difficult to develop a new ethos by capitalizing on the love that herpetoculturists
feel for reptiles and amphibians. In particular, wider appreciation of the impacts
that released pets can have on native herpetofauna, coupled with the fact that
released pets often soon die from starvation or exposure, should allow for develop-
ment of a guilt-free and responsible means of disposing of unwanted or burden-
some pets. The pet-keeping publics of few, if any, countries attain that reasonable
standard of behavior.
