NPWS Amphibian Keepers Species List Proposed Changes for NSW

Do you have a question about anatomy, life cycle, taxonomy, or anything else that isn't covered by the other frogs.org.au projects? Ask them here (or provide an answer to other people's questions).

Moderators: Chris Key, Gerry Marantelli, Mod Squad

User avatar
GrantW
Community Elder
Community Elder
Posts: 2150
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Sydney, New South Wales
Contact:

NPWS Amphibian Keepers Species List Proposed Changes for NSW

Postby GrantW » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:10 pm

Hi all,

I have reviewed the species list of NSW and I would like to propose some changes to it. People please feel free to comment and add your own ideas/proposed changes to this list, please include a reason as national parks will not change it without a good one. Once we have finished discussing this here I will talk with FATS and submit a letter to national parks.

Moves:

Mixophyes fasciolatus-move from Class 2 to Class 1
reason: kept in Victoria under class 1, a relatively common frog and not difficult to keep when provided with the right type of enclosure.

Litoria revelata-move from Class 2 to Class 1
reason: a locally adbundant frog related to Litoria verreauxii and Litoria jervisiensis (both class 1 species). Very similar in behaviour/requirments to the verreauxii and jervisiensis, so if they are class 1 then there is no reason revelata should be class 2.

Litoria aurea-move from Class 2 to Class 1
reason: although it is not a common species, it is kept commonly outside of NSW. It is a easy species to care for with similar requirements to Litoria mooreii (class 1). With proper care sheets, there is no reason why a class 1 person wouldn't be able to to care for this species.

Litoria xanthomera-move from Class 2 to Class 1
reason: not threatened and very similar in appearence/behavious/requirements to Litoria chloris which is a class 1 species

Pseudophryne coriacea-move from Class 2 to Class 1
reason: a very common frog, although it has unique requirments in the wild the frog could be kept in captivity in an enclosure similar to one housing Crinia signifera or Uperoleia laevigata (both class 1 species) as it si similar to these frogs in size and feeding/shelter requirements

Additions:

Neobatrachus pictus-add to class 1
reason: although endangered in NSW the speices is common in SA and Vic, similar in requirements to Neobatrachus sudelli which is a class 1 species

Litoria wilcoxii-add to class 1
reasons: recently split from Litoria lesueurii (class 1 species) a common frog with no reason not to be included in the licensing system. Is possibly already kept in captivity by some people who had them when still classed as Litoria lesueurii

Litoria nudidigitus-add to class 1
reason: recently split from Litoria phyllochroa (class 1 species) also a common frog with similar requirements to phyllochroa, no reason for it not to be kept in captivity

Litoria gilleni-add to class 1
reason: kept outside of NSW, similar requirments to Litoria caerulea, is not a threatened species

Limnodynastes convexiusculus:a common frog, related to Lim. tasmaniensis (class 1) no reason not to be included

Removals:

Litoria booroolongensis-remove from system
reason: a critically endangered frog with specific requirments, is not kept in captivity at all and should not be kept without a scientific license

Litoria brevipalmata-remove from system
reason: an endangered species with a restricted range and spefici requirements, currently not kept in captivity and it is unliekly that any would come into captive care

Please feel free to comment/leave your opinion.

Cheers,
Grant

User avatar
GrantW
Community Elder
Community Elder
Posts: 2150
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Sydney, New South Wales
Contact:

Postby GrantW » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:25 pm

The present list can be found here: http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/pdf ... e_info.pdf

User avatar
Aaron
frog
frog
Posts: 967
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:09 am
Location: Sydney, New South Wales

Postby Aaron » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:30 pm

Yeah I think the NPWS Licencing Class system needs an overhaul. Most of the list is pretty redundant actually because I'm pretty sure a vast majority of species in class one or two are not actually widely kept or even kept at all in NSW.

I agree that Mixophyes fasciolatus and Litoria aurea should be moved to class one. Both are available interstate and are large robust species and the average keeper should not have too much difficulty in keeping them.

P. coriacea I think is fine in class two unless it suddenly enters the captive frog market and there is a good understanding of it's biology and requirements. But I think Pseudophrynes would be difficult to keep in captivity especially for novices.

I would suggest moving Paracrinia haswelli from Class 2 to Class 1. They are a fairly common species in NSW and I would think they would be easier to keep than some of the species currently on class one such as U. laevigata and C. signifera!

Some of the species in Class 1 seem random, as though one person has lobbied for their inclusion i.e. Crinia sloanei in Class 1 but Crinia deserticola in Class 2. Cyclorana brevipes in Class 1 and Cyclorana verrucosa in Class 2.

I think wilcoxi should be added to schedule because there are probably people keeping it in captivity but under the current system they can only be recorded as lesueuri. Same perhaps for nudidigitus.

I remember when I first started keeping frogs it was a three tier system and I think there was also a list of prohibited species? Does anyone think this system made more sense?

Aaron

User avatar
Evan
Community Elder
Community Elder
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Contact:

Postby Evan » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:22 pm

I would like to hear from someone with experience of keeping P. coriacea. Considering the difficulty of keeping P. corroboree in captivity, I don't think it is fair to compare it to Crinia. However, I have also heard P. semimarmorata is easy to keep, so I really have no idea what the difficulty of P. coriacea is. For the moment, I am happy leaving it at class 2.

I think we should consider difficulty of raising tadpoles, as I consider it cruel to have breeders not knowing what they are doing, and killing all their tadpoles. Having said that, I disagree with moving Paracrinia haswelli to class 1, as their tadpoles have a very specific dietary requirement. I don't imagine P. coriacea are very easy either.

I don't see a point in adding Lim. convexiusculus. I don't think it is very common on the pet trade.

Agree with adding the recently described species.

Don't have a problem with the suggested moves/additions/removals of: L. revelata, aurea, xanthomera, gilleni, booroolongensis and brevipalmata.

Evan

kismetgecko
metamorphling
metamorphling
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Armidale, NSW

Postby kismetgecko » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:32 pm

I agree with almost all of grant's suggestions, all things I was thinking anyway. but...

I was wondering what people thought about dropping Pseudophryne semimarmorata to a level 1, given the ARC's great care sheet and their legal availability (at the ARC occasionally according to the site).

I'd actually like to see the addition of Heleioporus albopunctatus to the species list as category 2. It's available in WA on license and should, therefore be legally available (despite the expense). Any proposal for the addition of this species would require keeping requirements to be outlined which I can't do... yet.

I do have reservations about removing frogs from the list completely, although Grant's arguments on the subject were sound. I favour the use of a third tier of the system (with even greater restrictions) for animals like those. Even if it's not actually atainable by most people, it does leave a legal avenue open for owning the frogs and doesn't make people think that the only way that they can keep them is by taking them illegally from the wild.

For the rest I agree completely with Grant except revelata, xanthomera, coriacea and convexiusculus, which I have not fully considered myself so I'm not going to comment on them.

Good luck.

Jamie.

User avatar
Evan
Community Elder
Community Elder
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Contact:

Postby Evan » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:42 pm

Jamie, there is no way that Litoria booroolongensis should be on the keeper's list. It is a critically endangered species, and is in pretty much as bad a shape as the Corroboree Frog.

The only reason I think it is there is because someone asked for it to be added when they misIDed their L. lesueurii.

I don't believe removing a species from the list will make it more likely that people take them illegally from the wild. Having them on there only creates an escape hatch for people who are caught with a critically endangered species.

Evan

kismetgecko
metamorphling
metamorphling
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Armidale, NSW

Postby kismetgecko » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:54 pm

So what's wrong with having a 3rd level? In that case each aquisition can only be allowed after personal consultation. It's very naive to assume that the absence of a legal avenue doen't drive people to do things illegally. Do you know anyone who kept reptiles in NSW before the licensing system? ...apparently they got a lot of people who registered for a license during the amnesty...

My argument is simply that if people are doing something illegal under a license it's much easier to find them and enforce the law. When they start getting the urge to act outside the license, they're untraceable. Or at least, much harder to find. If a VERY rare species appears on a license... the alarm bells are ringing and it can be checked.

I do get your point but I don't really agree.

jamie.

User avatar
Evan
Community Elder
Community Elder
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:45 pm
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Contact:

Postby Evan » Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:03 pm

I get your point, but that would mean you have to add every species in Australia to the list. Adding them to the list gives the impression that the NPWS endorses the keeping of that species.

Do you think that people who are poaching these animals (and L. booroolongensis is extremely rare, I very much doubt a poacher will find them) are going to spend whatever ridiculous price the NPWS put on a third tier licence?

Knowing how understaffed, and underskilled, the NPWS are, I think the best way to pick up an illegal trade of an endangered species would be to keep it off the list. A good example is the L. flavipunctata that Ann recently posted. If it was on the list, then she would never have drawn our attention to the fact that something dodgey was going on.

Under the current laws, if a legitimate buyer was offered a poached L. booroolongensis, they would see it on the list, and undergo the trade. It would then be up to NPWS to realise it is a critically endangered species, and not many NPWS staff are well versed in frogs. If it isn't on the list, it rings alarm bells.

Evan

User avatar
GrantW
Community Elder
Community Elder
Posts: 2150
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:28 pm
Location: Sydney, New South Wales
Contact:

Postby GrantW » Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:13 pm

Yes what I was saying is that those species shouldn't be allowed under the Amphibian Keepers system, however they would still be allowed to be kept if someone was studying them under a scientific license, Litoria booroolongensis is so rare that they should only be kept under these circumstances having them in care of normal amphibian keepers is too risky, not that I doubt the ability of the keepers, just such a rare animal should not be made available to everyday people.

I agree about Heleioporus albopunctatus-add to Class 2
reason: Kept in other states (WA) and is similar in requirments/behaviour to Heleioporus australiacus (a class 2 species) and is a more common species than australiacus.

Cheers,
Grant


Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests