CHAPTER 14 - REPTILES, AMPHIBIANS
AND INSECTS
Reptiles
14.1 With the exception of the specialised industry based on the extraction of venom (discussed below),
the commercialisation of reptiles in Australia is largely restricted to the pet and amateur herpetology
trade. [1] The magnitude of this trade varies between states in Australia, largely in accordance with
legislation in the various jurisdictions relating to the keeping of retiles as pets and the difficulty with which
prospective reptile owners can obtain licences.
14.2 In Victoria, for example, where the hobby of reptile keeping was deregulated almost a decade ago,
there are some 10,000 licensed reptile hobbyists and the Victorian herpetological Society has a
membership of 800 people (500 in Victoria and 300 elsewhere). [2] As an indication of the market in
that state, captive-bred black-headed pythons, woma pythons and diamond pythons sell for about
$3000 each. [3] The income derived from licencing fees by the Victorian Government is somewhere in
the order of $500,000 annually and the annual market turnover arising from the sale of accessories may
be in the order of millions. [4]
14.3 In New South Wales, where until recently there was a ban on the licensing of new reptile keepers,
there were only 80 licensed keepers. However, as noted by Sydney herpetologist Mr David Millar: '…
there is almost certainly an even larger number of amateur herpetologists than in Victoria and South
Australia but … the trade in live specimens is 'underground' and thus 'unquantifiable'. [5] Although a new
licensing system has been introduced, it is totally dependent on captive-bred animals and commercial
trade remains prohibited.
14.4 Expansion in reptile keeping in Australia over the last few years has, however, been small
compared to other western countries. In America, the hobby has increased dramatically over the last
decade and there is a strong demand for Australian species there. According to Mr Lyall Naylor:
The wildlife industry overseas is enormous, with some individuals developing profitable businesses
supplying not only captive bred animals, but also the products (enclosures, climate control devices,
incubators, etc) to ensure that professional husbandry standards are met. Some long established
businesses simply provide all the food items (rodents, invertebrates etc) to satisfy the nutritional
requirements of captive wildlife held by enthusiasts and zoos. [6]
14.5 For example, the Florida business Glades Herps Inc, lists several hundred species of snakes,
turtles, amphibians, lizards, goannas, spiders (especially tarantulas) and scorpions for sale, gathered from
all over the world. Despite the ban on export of live fauna from Australia, the Glades Herps' list includes
a number of Australian species - the blue tongue skink (Tiliqua scincoides), White's treefrog (Litoria
caerulea), the red-eyed treefrog (Agalychnis callidryas) and spiny-tailed monitors (Varanus
acanthurus), which sell for $595 each. [7]
14.6 The value of Australian reptiles, in Australia and overseas, was considered by RIRDC in its report
on Sustainable Economic Use of Native Australian Birds and Reptiles: Can controlled trade
improve conservation of species? and a selection of prices given in that report is listed below in Table
14.1. In contrast to bird prices which are consistently higher in overseas markets, prices for some
reptiles (pythons particularly) are lower in America than they are in Australia.
| Reptile | Australian Price ($AUS) | Overseas Price ($AUS) |
|---|
| Green tree python | 2,300 | 1,760 |
| Spiny-tailed monitor | 550 | 1,400 |
| Goulds monitor | 450 | 490 |
| Blue tongue lizard | 40 | 350 |
| Cunninghams skink | 80 | 210 |
| Long necked tortoise | 40 | 180 |
| Carpet python | 200 | 180 |
| Bearded dragon | 35 | 120 |
Table 14.1 - The value of Australian reptiles, in Australia and overseas (Source: 1997 Sustainable
Economic Use of Native Australian Birds and Reptiles – Can controlled trade improve
conservation of species? A Summary Report RIRDC Research Paper Series No. 97/26a, p. 4).
Impact of Collecting
14.7 The collection of live reptiles by amateur herpetologists in Australia is highly restricted and, where
allowed, obtaining licences to collect breeding stock is difficult and time consuming. A number of
witnesses pointed out to the Committee that restrictions on collecting were for the most part unnecessary
and in fact worked against conservation objectives. [8]
14.8 In support of limited collection of reptiles to provide initial breeding stock, Mr Bradley Oliver
pointed out that the Action Plan for Reptiles listed the various threats to the survival of wildlife in order of
severity. These include habitat clearance (16%), overgrazing by stock (11%), cropping (11%),
predation (7%) and so on down to rock removal (2%). Nowhere in the list does the 'collection of
animals' appear as a threat to the existence of any reptile species. Yet, according to Mr Oliver, 'we
spend an estimated $120 million a year funding wildlife authorities which regulate this area of so-called
wildlife protection'. [9]
14.9 Herpetologist, Mr David Millar, commented that while there was considerable negative comment
about the impact of collecting reptiles and amphibians, there has in fact been 'little scholarly examination
of the impact of collecting reptiles from the wild and such statements have been founded solely on
dogma'. [10] Mr Millar concluded: 'The bottom line is that so long as we don't change the various
components of the habitat, including microhabitat, we can harvest animals to the extent that their
recruitment ability is able to compensate. Animals breed to levels beyond the capacity of the ecosystem
to support and natural attrition trims the population back to what can be supported at the time'. [11] As
an example, Mr Millar noted that in the case of crocodiles, given that only a very low percentage of
hatchlings survived to maturity in the wild, the removal of crocodile eggs for incubation and
captive-rearing was probably at 'no significant environmental cost'. [12]
14.10 Mr Naylor commented that while restrictions on take from the wild had had positive outcomes in
that it had forced interest groups to develop techniques for housing and captive breeding, regulations had
been introduced before there were adequate numbers of all species in captivity and limited gene pools
now limited the viability of some breeding programs. In addition, Mr Naylor noted that there were some
anomolies in the regulations, the logic of which was difficult to understand:
Applications for permits to take from the wild for the purposes of behavioural observations and breeding
have little or no chance of success. However, should an undergraduate wish to take some samples of
wildlife, even from National Parks, for the purpose of euthanasia and examination of DNA profiles in a
bid to establish taxonomic relationships, the permits will in all liklihood be granted. These research
projects could be conducted without ongoing disturbance to wild populations if adequate captive stock
of known geographic origin existed, and samples could be taken without the need to destroy animals.
[13]
14.11 In arguing the case for increased availability of live herpetofauna for collectors in Australia to
breed and subsequently supply internal and export markets, Mr Millar noted that a study of the overall
factors that caused mortality in frogs and reptiles, had found that road kills accounted for most deaths
while collecting accounted for about 0.0005 per cent of the total. He concluded that there may be a
small cost to the wild population in establishing breeding stock but the numbers needed to be taken
would not be significant, relative to the size of the population. [14] In claiming that the detrimental impact
of collecting herpetofauna would be 'close to cost neutral', Mr Millar noted that there was one very
important benefit that would probably outweigh the negative impact. This was the education of young
people about Australian wildlife and the fostering of empathy for animals which comes only from close
contact with them (see also Paragraph 6.54). [15]
Export of Live Reptiles
14.12 A number of submissions to the Committee advocated the removal of the ban on export of live
reptiles. [16] In particular, Mr Millar supported this idea but suggested that should it happen, strict
criteria would need to be put in place first. He also noted that any commercial program should not only
be self funding, but that it should make allowance to put back into the community some benefit, most
likely in the form of royalties. [17]
14.13 Mr John Weigal of the Australian Reptile Park, situated in Gosford north of Sydney, suggested
that there was no serious argument against the legalising of the export of captive bred reptiles (and frogs
and birds). Mr Weigal argued that taxation revenue from such activities could be used to fund the Reptile
Action Plan for endangered Australian reptile species, and he estimated that export income could reach
$30 million annually from America alone. [18]
14.14 The RIRDC/ACIL Report Sustainable Economic Use of Native Australian Birds and
Reptiles also supported the concept of live export of reptiles and noted that regulation prohibiting export
had not prevented Australia's herpetofauna from finding its way to other countries:
Australian trade in reptiles and amphibians is still negligible compared to the levels of commerce in
Europe and the United States. This is in stark contrast to Australian trade in mostly all other commodities
which parallels economic activity worldwide.
The commercial herpetological industry believes that current policies are stifling Australian freedom to
supply global wants and needs. Reptile breeders in the rest of the world are profiting from Australia's
policies of preventing propagation. Not that the policies have prevented Australian species from finding
their way out. The forbidden fruit syndrome applies creating a high value for these animals, which has
only added to the enthusiasm to propagate them. [19]
14.15 The RIRDC/ACIL Report proposed that, as with captive-bred birds, exports be permitted on a
trial basis, initially from a limited range of species such as long-necked tortoises and blue tongued lizards,
followed by other species such as other tortoises, pythons, geckos and frogs. [20]
Commercial Industries
14.16 There are very few commercial industries based on reptiles in Australia. Because the various state
regulations on keeping herpetofauna vary, the magnitude of the industry both in commercial terms and in
terms of the number of animals collected is difficult to quantify. However, Mr Millar noted that there
were potentially viable industries in husbanding reptiles for the production of meat and skins, biological
and medical products and a small but growing trade in live animals catering to the needs of
herpetoculturalists or fanciers, and that each of these areas involved almost no impact on natural
populations. [21]
14.17 Mr Lee Bolger of oZSnake in Victoria sent details of a business proposal which would utilise
Tigersnakes (Notechis scutatus) and Capet pythons (Morelia spilota). The long-term aim of the
business was to produce meat, skin, blood, bones and whole snakes, but until a captive breeding
population was well established (three years later), the business would rely on producing venom and
tourist trade for income. The submission noted that 'markets exist and are presently undersupplied for all
these products', but that the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment was waiting
until the outcome of this inquiry before it proceeded with considering his request to take a select number
of snakes from the wild for breeding stock. [22]
14.18 Interest has also been expressed in South Australia in farming eastern brown and red-bellied
black snakes, [23] and tiger snakes in Victoria. [24] Black tiger snakes have been bred for skin, meat
and traditional 'medicine' products at a farm in Tasmania. [25] A report published by RIRDC in 1995
assessed the feasibility of establishing goanna farming operations in Australia and concluded that such an
operation may be technically feasible, and that markets may exist for goanna products, but that it may
not be a profitable operation. [26]
14.19 Mr Harald Ehmann also made the recommendation that where nuisance snakes had to be
removed, commercial use of them should be allowed, perhaps to service a niche market in tourist curios
and skins. There was a precedent for the commercial use of such animals in the removal of nuisance
crocodiles in the Northern Territory and Queensland. [27]
Amphibians
14.20 There is currently no commercial use of native amphibians in Australia, with the exception of
limited dealing in frogs through the pet trade in South Australia, [28] the most common species being the
green tree frog (see Paragraph 17.23). However, trade in amphibians could expand significantly if
commercial use of non-endangered frogs and other amphibians became legal in all states of Australia and
live export of some species was allowed. [29]
14.21 There is an expanding business based on the use of cane toads, mainly through the manufacture of
tourist souvenirs from tanned skins (including heads), but this species is not native, having been imported
deliberately in 1935 to control the grey-backed cane beetle in Queensland canefields. It is now a
rampant pest which consumes native species and, through a remarkable ability to adapt to different
habitats, is expanding its range to drier and colder regions each year.
Insects
14.22 Although the commercial use of insects has occurred for many hundreds of years (for example,
the keeping of bees to harvest honey), it has only been in recent years that the commercial importance of
a whole range of other insect species has been understood. The submission from the Queensland Insect
Breeders Association provided a considerable amount of information about the potential
commercialisation of insects and the important role that amateur entomologists can play in research on
various insect species. [30]
14.23 Many amateur entomologists are involved in the collection and breeding of insects. To do this
successfully a considerable knowledge of the life cycle of each species is required. The needs at each
developmental stage (egg, larva, pupa and adult) must be understood and appropriate resources
provided. Some insects have relatively simple needs and can be easily kept in artificial environments but
others, such as the flower scarab beetle, require more complicated resources and take up to a year to
complete their life cycle.
14.24 In the wild, most insects have a very high level of fecundity but also a very high level of mortality
prior to reaching reproductive age. In successful captive breeding programs, survival can be greatly
increased and many insects brought through to adult stage. Based on a 70 per cent survival rate, it is
possible to produce about 2450 specimens from one adult female birdwing butterfly. [31]
14.25 Large scale commercial breeding of insects requires a considerable amount infrastructure, food
resources and labour. This may include the construction of breeding facilities and flight houses, plus the
collection or, more economically, propagation of food resources in plant nurseries and shade houses.
Large facilities may devote many acres to this type of infrastructure. Vehicles for transporting insects and
materials and industrial machinery such as mulchers are also required. In addition, most large scale
commercial enterprises require a scientific laboratory to conduct research under aseptic conditions.
14.26 Commercial ventures which are open to the public generally require the greatest input of capital
expenditure, but in turn they may also have the greatest return, especially if tourist facilities are included.
The Australian Butterfly Sanctuary in Kuranda, for example, which the Committee visited, was built at a
cost of $1.3 million. It is one of the biggest facilities of its type in the world and, situated near the north
Queensland tropical resorts of Cairns and Port Douglas, is a major tourist attraction.
14.27 Some commercial insect breeding facilities are not open to the general public but instead play an
important role in education, as well as providing insect material commercially to domestic and export
markets. There is a steady demand in Australia for insect material for school education and public
display purposes. The vast majority of specimens used from this purpose are bred in captivity, mainly
because of the higher quality of captive-bred material than wild caught specimens.
14.28 Commercial insect breeding may also have a direct conservation value, as illustrated by the
following information provided by the Queensland Insect Breeders' Association.
One example of [environmental benefits deriving from commercial insect breeding] is a property
harbouring 80 acres of lowland rainforest. The owners have been able to retain the forest through the
establishment of a commercial insect breeding facility in an area otherwise devoted to cane production.
Other examples involve properties formerly cleared for mining and grazing. Subsequently, being devoted
to commercial insect breeding their original monsoon vine forest is being restored. [32]
14.29 The Queensland Insect Breeders' Association noted in its submission and in verbal evidence to
the Committee, that while a very large amount of scientific research was carried out by non-professional
entomologists, amateurs were hampered in their activities by Queensland Government regulations, some
of which were unnecessarily restrictive. In particular, increasing problems were being encountered by
non-professional entomologists with the permit system and with access to insect material. Although
theoretically available to all suitable people, the Association argued that under the present permit system
it was much easier for government employees to gain permits than private individuals. National Parks
have for the most part been closed to individuals seeking to carry out private research. In addition, some
long-term Queensland Forest Service permit holders were recently told that permits would no longer be
available for individuals to work in state forests and that they would need to become affiliated with bona
fide scientific research organisations. However, the Association noted that affiliation with state museums
was often difficult to achieve for individuals. Affiliation with CSIRO was restricted to former employees.
[33]
14.30 At the moment, regulations allow the export of captive-bred specimens only; it is illegal to export
wild caught or ranched insect material. This system is extremely limiting in the variety of insects available
for export. The Queensland Insect Breeders' Association believes that there is no valid reason why
ranching should not be allowed. Many other countries, such as Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Peru,
New Mexico and Cost Rica, have ranching programs in place which, according to the Association, are
very effective. Ironically, Australian Government funding allowed the establishment of an insect ranching
program in Papua New Guinea which is now operating successfully. And, as with commercial breeding
on private land, ranching provides an incentive for the preservation of natural habitat. [34]
14.31 Finally, it should be noted that Animal Liberation (Victoria) opposes both the wild capture and
captive breeding of insects, claiming that as well as ethical and moral issues, there are 'issues of cruelty,
stress and maltreatment to the individual animals concerned'. [35]
Venom Supplies
14.32 The production and supply of venom from toxic animals is a small but important commercial
industry in Australia. It includes the production of venom, purified toxins, antibodies to toxins, and blood
snake serums. Venom is sourced from a number of snakes, bees, the blue ringed octopus and several
spiders. Crude venom is used for antivenom production, pure medical research and diagnostic
production, while purified toxins are used for pure research and antibody production. Toxins and
antibodies are used as markers and probes in research. Snake blood serum is used in biochemical
research.
14.33 Venom Supplies Pty Ltd is Australia's largest venom producing facility. Venom is produced
mainly from snakes and two spiders - the redback spider (Latrodectus hasselti) and the white-tailed
spider (Lampona cylindrata). Venoms from bees and the blue ringed octopus are sourced from
another company.
14.34 Snakes are either bred, obtained from other keepers, or taken from the wild (mostly in urban
areas where they have been identified as a nuisance). Venom Supplies Pty Ltd keeps about 300 snakes
at any one time and while some species are economic to breed, others and in particular brown snakes
(Pseudonja spp.) are impractical to breed but are easily sourced from the wild. An incidental benefit
arising from the work carried out by Venom Supplies is the contribution made to the advancement of
scientific knowledge about reptiles, including biology, life history, conservation and snakebite
management. [36]
14.35 The expansion of venom and related biochemical industries in Australia is limited by a number of
factors, the most important of which are the excessively high costs of research and the high-risk nature of
investment. According to Venom Supplies Pty Ltd, Australia is limited in its profits from venom-related
research because of its 'poor research and development culture, low government spending, high wages
and infrastructure costs and complicated and costly animal ethics legislation'. Expansion of the industry,
through export of venom and venom products, is also limited by government regulations which are
considered by the company to be costly, unnecessarily restrictive and repeated between state and
federal jurisdictions. [37]
14.36 Venom Supplies Pty Ltd believes that Australia's future in therapeutic products lies in being able
to supply raw materials, and possibly the initial stages of drug development so that intellectual patents
can be established to sell on to large corporate drug companies. Any attempt to place a tax or
conditions on Australian venoms would simply result in research companies using venom from other
countries.
14.37 The Australian Reptile Park is the sole supplier of snake and funnel web spider venom to the
Commonwealth Serum Laboratory for the production of anti-venom in Australia (which saves 300 lives
annually). While the Park receives many requests from researchers overseas to supply venom, the
difficulty of obtaining export permits under current Federal legislation makes it uneconomic to respond.
According to the Reptile Park, if permits were more readily available, a large export industry could
result. [38]
Summary and Conclusions
14.38 There is a small commercial industry in Australia based on the keeping of reptiles by amateur
biologists and hobbyists. While reptile keeping in Australia has expanded considerably over the last few
years this has been small compared to other western countries where many Australian species, smuggled
out of the country, are kept and bred.
14.39 State regulations vary considerably in relation to the keeping of reptiles, but are generally very
restrictive in policy. Amateur herpetologists make an important contribution to scientific knowledge but
their efforts are seriously hampered by administrative arrangements. They believe that regulations on
collecting could be relaxed without a significant impact on wild populations occurring.
14.40 There is considerable support among herpetologists and others for a change to the Wildlife
Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 to allow the export of live reptiles. This
would result in an undermining of illegal activities and would allow private enterprise to engage in
overseas commercial activities.
14.41 As with reptiles, scientific and conservation activities related to amphibians and insects are
hampered by unduly restrictive state legislations. In addition, commercial activities which would provide
an incentive to preserve habitat are limited by law. Commercial insect breeding facilities contribute to
tourism, play an important role in education and provide insect material to domestic and export markets.
14.42 The production and supply of venom from toxic animals is a small but important commercial
industry. Its expansion, however, is limited by a number of factors the most significant of which is
government regulations which are considered by the company to be costly, unnecessarily restrictive and
repeated between state and Federal jurisdictions.
Footnotes
[1] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 7.
[2] Submission No. 190, p. 1.
[3] Submission No. 116, p. 1.
[4] Evidence, p. RRA&T 743, Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 11.
[5] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 11.
[6] Submission No. 1, p. 1.
[7] Glades Herp Inc PO Box 50911 Ft Myers Florida USA; http://www.tntonline.com/gherp/gherp.htm;
E-mail gherp@tntonline.com; July 1996 and July 1997 list.
[8] See for example, Submission No.s 1, 40, 69, 91, 116, 119, 175 & 308.
[9] Submission No. 119, p. 5.
[10] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 5.
[11] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 6.
[12] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 9.
[13] Submission No. 1, p. 2.
[14] Evidence, p. RRA&T 741, Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 11; see also Submission No. 1.
[15] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 11.
[16] Evidence, p. RRA&T 741, Supplementary Submission No. 175.
[17] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 13.
[18] Submission No. 116, p. 1; Evidence, p. RRA&T 833.
[19] RIRDC Sustainable Economic use of Native Australian Birds and Reptiles: Can controlled
trade improve conservation of species? Summary of a report of the same name for the Rural
Industries Research and Development Corporation by ACIL Economics Pty Ltd (ACN 058 284 521)
in conjunction with Agriculture Western Australia February 1997 RIRDC Research Paper Series no
97/26, p. 79.
[20] RIRDC 1997, op cit, Executive Summary pp. 16-17.
[21] Submission No. 175, p. 7.
[22] Submission No. 152.
[23] Submission No. 318, p. 16.
[24] Submission No. 343.
[25] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 10.
[26] 1995 Pre-feasibility Study of the Potential for Goanna Farming in Australia. A Report for
RIRDC by Peter Chudleigh, Katrina Bond, Tracy Bramwell Agtrans Research in conjunction with
Graham Gilmore Hygra Research And Development Enterprises and Andrew McLeod and Craig
Whitley Armac Enterprises, RIRDC Research paper Series No 95/15, ISBN 0642205159.
[27] Evidence, p. RRA&T 602.
[28] Submission No. 318, p. 129, See also Tyler, Michael 1997 The exploitation of frogs: past,
present and future. Australian Biologist 10(1):65-69.
[29] Submission No. 318.
[30] Information for the following section has been taken from Submission No. 41.
[31] Submission No. 41, p. 7.
[32] Submission No. 41, p. 11.
[33] Submission No. 41, p. 15; Evidence, p. RRA&T 216.
[34] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 212, 217.
[35] Submission No. 87, p. 10.
[36] Submission No. 69.
[37] Submission No. 69, p. 4.
[38] Submission No. 116, p. 2.