Wild population assistance?

[REEFSPIDER]

@magicmed you get the land, an rent the skid steer, and I'll come dig you a pond as deep as you want. Lol

 

[REEFSPIDER]

You gotta let me examine the dig site.

 

[magicmed]

You don't actually need much in terms of aeration, just something to keep the water moving a little.

Small species of cats would be channels, or perhaps bullheads, both of which have the capabilities of almost taking over...I'd just drop in a couple smaller 8-12lb flatheads...theyre efficient cleaners (as well as predators) and they get big, which is always a nice surprise hook up in a small pond.

Gar don't "eat everything", theyre actually a sign of a healthy fishery and typically don't directly compete with the fish we target as fishermen.....no reason to not add a few along with bowfin.

Lots of issues with walleye in a pond....without a lot of depth and rocky areas, they'd suffer and never be able to reproduce as they require rocky areas with current for spawning (windblown rocks work in lakes).

With a good food base, you shouldn't worry about any game fish eating all the food, they're all part of a natural balance that will present its self provided you put in the best fish for the pond. I wouldn't put in plecos...just one or two flatheads will literally do the job of cleaning up any dead or dying fish.

Start it with panfish (bluegills, pumpkinseeds and crappie) and consider shad as well...a good healthy shad population will sustain a lot of fish, but you need some size with your pond as well....and they can have die offs, which can be a smelly drawback. I know several people that have ponds with just panfish as a forage base (and that's typical), and once or twice a year they pour in large amounts of fatheads or shiners as an added feeder for the fish. Getting a crawfish population is also another great part of a forage base.

Surround the pond with a nicely planted riparian zone, this protects the shoreline and makes the pond look very natural.

Great info as always, so then you think this setup would be good?

Crayfish
Blue Gil
Pond frogs
Bass
Flathead
Couple garr

 

[Estein]

I'm not attacking you, but rather pointing out some things.
I think we can both agree you are making a lot of assumptions here to arrive at your conclusion of a moot point. There are no scientific studies on whether or not the habitat is capable of supporting the established population of hentzi in MO. I'd like to also bring up the idea that wild spiderling attrition is terrible. It's very likely that 95 percent or more of the slings produced by a female die before their first winter. They're just so small and everything is happy to eat them. Shine a flashlight across your lawn at night and you'll see the astounding number of wolf spiders everywhere you look. A fifth or sixth instar hentzi might have a chance against an army of Hogna, but a 2i sling is basically food for everything else. If bug populations can support 10,000 wolf spiders in any average-sized grassy field, they can support some tarantulas too. The small populations in MO are probably small because it's just that difficult for such a slow-growing species to survive amid all those predators.
I'd like to concede that I'm also making a lot of assumptions here too.

Sure, I don't know what the wild population in MO is like (which is why I said "if"). But, allowing that the population is in equilibrium, the study of populating dynamics tells us that a boom will eventually result in a return to same. I think the high mortality rate of slings is irrelevant--while the percentage of slings surviving won't change, the actually quantity will, which will still result in an increased population. I do agree that there would be enough food; I think the most likely limiting factor would be space.

As you say, it's difficult to predict what will happen, which is why state and government agencies spend big bucks researching possible outcomes. These are my thoughts as someone who teaches environmental science.

 

[REEFSPIDER]

the number of T's actually observed in any given habitat have little relevance to actual population density, considering I have some T's in captivity I never see, and the open wilderness is a much bigger habitat.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

I've studied Aphonopelma hentzi populations here in my area for years and here are my thoughts on this.

Tarantula populations are extremely difficult to determine because they are so secretive. Population numbers can appear to change week to week, month to month, year to year, and even day to day. Tarantulas periodically plug their burrows throughout the summer months and plug them for the duration of the winter months. One week you can see many females and males while the next it's like they never existed. Just because you don't see a lot of them doesn't mean they are not there. Add to it that Aphonopelma hentzi females and immatures have a tendency to abandon their burrows and move makes it even more of a challenge to get an accurate number.

If you don't find any tarantulas in an area after years of looking, not just one or two field trips due to the above situation, that must mean the area is not able to sustain a population. Putting more in such an area won't have any positive outcome. There is one spot I have only been able to find just one adult female tarantula. After two years of looking in the same spot, I was unable to find more. My conclusion is that the area can not support a breeding population of tarantulas so I would never think to captive breed the species and put them there based on a single sighting.

These ideas of captive breeding tarantulas and releasing them into the wild for the purpose of someone being able to see more of them is selfish and has nothing to do with conservation. If you want to see tarantulas in the wild, go to them, don't bring them to you. Tarantulas don't need your help to survive. If you happen see an established population on the decline, it's the land/ area they are in that is changing and needs conservation. Habitat destruction IS a contributing factor to decline of tarantula populations. I have seen it myself.

Also, what does building a pond on a plot of land or fencing an area in have to do with supporting A. hentzi populations? Tarantulas live in the ground and that could destroy or impact a population if you start digging and changing the landscape. One thing I have noticed over the years that will "do-in" an A. henzti population is when the ground is destroyed. Usually it comes in the form of urbanization. Sometimes the population bounces back, sometimes it doesn't.

My advice, don't mess with fragile ecosystems just because you want to see more tarantulas in the wild. If you want to observe wild tarantulas, go to where they are and don't try to bring them to you.

 

[Crone Returns]

I was actually wondering where the distinction was, appreciate the clarification

Yeah I agree with REEFSPIDER. I thought you meant they were in your state. There's probably a good reason they're not in your area, and releasing them might kill them. Not a good thing. ...sigh...

 

[Crone Returns]

You don't actually need much in terms of aeration, just something to keep the water moving a little.

Small species of cats would be channels, or perhaps bullheads, both of which have the capabilities of almost taking over...I'd just drop in a couple smaller 8-12lb flatheads...theyre efficient cleaners (as well as predators) and they get big, which is always a nice surprise hook up in a small pond.

Gar don't "eat everything", theyre actually a sign of a healthy fishery and typically don't directly compete with the fish we target as fishermen.....no reason to not add a few along with bowfin.

Lots of issues with walleye in a pond....without a lot of depth and rocky areas, they'd suffer and never be able to reproduce as they require rocky areas with current for spawning (windblown rocks work in lakes).

With a good food base, you shouldn't worry about any game fish eating all the food, they're all part of a natural balance that will present its self provided you put in the best fish for the pond. I wouldn't put in plecos...just one or two flatheads will literally do the job of cleaning up any dead or dying fish.

Start it with panfish (bluegills, pumpkinseeds and crappie) and consider shad as well...a good healthy shad population will sustain a lot of fish, but you need some size with your pond as well....and they can have die offs, which can be a smelly drawback. I know several people that have ponds with just panfish as a forage base (and that's typical), and once or twice a year they pour in large amounts of fatheads or shiners as an added feeder for the fish. Getting a crawfish population is also another great part of a forage base.

Surround the pond with a nicely planted riparian zone, this protects the shoreline and makes the pond look very natural.

God cb you're making me hungry. Walleye, bluegill, pumpkinseeds...add some lake perch and I'll be over for dinner.

 

[viper69]

Ok, might be a stupid idea. May not even be legal, but I just thought it would be cool.

Say someone bred a native species of T, like here in MO Aphonopelma hentzi. And we're to raise them up a little and release into wooded area? Am I just stupid for thinking this would be kind of cool? I'd like to see more of a native T population, at least it would be cool in the woods around my house lol.

To further the idea just a tad, say you did have a little patch of woods to do this, would it be ok or considered invasive to release another Aphonopelma species, maybe start seeing diversity of T's in our native woods?


Like I said I'm not planning on this or anything, I just thought it would be a nifty idea, I may be alone in that though, I guess I could ask the conservation dep. Here

Your idea is being conducted by a woman out in Texas or Arkansas I believe. @advan seems to know the link, as I know he's commented on this, as I have others when your idea gets suggested in a post.

However well intentioned your idea is, it's a bad one, fraught with so many problems Some of which you have already learned, others you don't even know of.

You don't even need land the size of a state for speciation to occur. In Mexico, 2 species of Brachypelma are only separated by a river, they are within human eyesight of each other.

If this was done under the strict supervision of the USFW and state officials, because they have the knowledge of the area, the population stats etc etc, then sure.

But to breed on your own, and just release, bad idea IMO.

 

[viper69]

I'll propose another thought though, just for kicks and a little fun, let's say one were to screen off an acre or so of their own land, made a small fishing pond and released multiple species with proper husbandry taken into account into said area. Would this be considered altering the native area? Or is it just a massive enclosure? Food for thought?

This is a bad idea as well IMO. Something always escapes, the "law" of unintended consequences always happens.

If you haven't done so already, I strongly suggest you read about the many instances where man has introduced a species, and the havoc it has caused on a massive scale to the local ecosystem.

 

[Tim Benzedrine]

Not sure if this is germane to the original topic, but in some, if not all, places it is illegal to release something even if it originally came from the place you intend to release it. As an example, when I decided to check to see what the laws here were in regard to collecting and keeping native snakes, I found this in part of the regulations:

" It is illegal to:
• release any reptile or amphibian back into the wild
that was held in captivity for more than 30 days.
Reptiles or amphibians that have been held in the
same enclosure with other species of reptiles or
amphibians may not be released at any time. Reptiles
or amphibians that are released must be released at
the location of the capture."

So, if you catch a native specimen and keep it a couple weeks to observe it, you must release it where you caught it. Not too sure how that would be enforced, but that's besides the point. If you have kept it for a month, you are stuck with it, legally speaking. Again, probably difficult to enforce.
I've had my WC Pantherophis obsoletus (or whatever they are calling black ratsnakes these days)for over three years now. If circumstances dictated that I could no longer keep it or did not want it, I'm legally bound to re-home it, not release it. The important thing to note is to check your regulations. Is your idea advisable? Probably not. But it may also be illegal. If it isn't illegal, it sort of becomes more of a question of ethics, I guess.

 

[Estein]

This is a bad idea as well IMO. Something always escapes, the "law" of unintended consequences always happens.

If you haven't done so already, I strongly suggest you read about the many instances where man has introduced a species, and the havoc it has caused on a massive scale to the local ecosystem.

@magicmed I think that cane toad documentary is on Netflix. That thing is nuts.

 

[The Snark]

More great points! So realistically as far as the thought could be taken would be helping a truely native species population IF there were a need to, established by conservation.

Not necessarily. As the saying goes, mom nature gets the final say. Conducive habitat is a series of variables. You may get a series of die offs or, more rarely, an unhealthy population explosion altering the ecosystem.
For example, here. 20+ T holes in about a 5 acre area in 2006. 1 hole, 2010 through 2015. At present, about 15 holes in a small 1/2 acre pocket of that area and nowhere else.

For the pond I was actually thinking of a couple 55 gallon drum filtration system, like you said definitely still want a lot of aeration.

Depends entirely on the animals. As examples, some catfish don't mind non aerated mud at 90F. Trout quit gaining weight in the water temp is above 51F and die off if the dissolved nitrogen goes 1/10th above a certain amount.

I think we can both agree you are making a lot of assumptions here to arrive at your conclusion of a moot point. There are no scientific studies on whether or not the habitat is capable of supporting the established population of hentzi in MO. I'd like to also bring up the idea that wild spiderling attrition is terrible. It's very likely that 95 percent or more of the slings produced by a female die before their first winter.

Expect extreme attrition. Massive die offs and seeing no animals of a certain type for several years are common. Ranging predators are even less predictable.

" It is illegal to:
• release any reptile or amphibian back into the wild
that was held in captivity for more than 30 days.
Reptiles or amphibians that have been held in the
same enclosure with other species of reptiles or
amphibians may not be released at any time. Reptiles
or amphibians that are released must be released at
the location of the capture."

That has to be local laws. Where? Any Federal equivalents?

 

[viper69]

@magicmed I think that cane toad documentary is on Netflix. That thing is nuts.

Google up the issue of zebra muscles, and you will find an ecological disaster according to some, and the cost of those maybe in billions.

 

[magicmed]

I've studied Aphonopelma hentzi populations here in my area for years and here are my thoughts on this.

Tarantula populations are extremely difficult to determine because they are so secretive. Population numbers can appear to change week to week, month to month, year to year, and even day to day. Tarantulas periodically plug their burrows throughout the summer months and plug them for the duration of the winter months. One week you can see many females and males while the next it's like they never existed. Just because you don't see a lot of them doesn't mean they are not there. Add to it that Aphonopelma hentzi females and immatures have a tendency to abandon their burrows and move makes it even more of a challenge to get an accurate number.

If you don't find any tarantulas in an area after years of looking, not just one or two field trips due to the above situation, that must mean the area is not able to sustain a population. Putting more in such an area won't have any positive outcome. There is one spot I have only been able to find just one adult female tarantula. After two years of looking in the same spot, I was unable to find more. My conclusion is that the area can not support a breeding population of tarantulas so I would never think to captive breed the species and put them there based on a single sighting.

These ideas of captive breeding tarantulas and releasing them into the wild for the purpose of someone being able to see more of them is selfish and has nothing to do with conservation. If you want to see tarantulas in the wild, go to them, don't bring them to you. Tarantulas don't need your help to survive. If you happen see an established population on the decline, it's the land/ area they are in that is changing and needs conservation. Habitat destruction IS a contributing factor to decline of tarantula populations. I have seen it myself.

Also, what does building a pond on a plot of land or fencing an area in have to do with supporting A. hentzi populations? Tarantulas live in the ground and that could destroy or impact a population if you start digging and changing the landscape. One thing I have noticed over the years that will "do-in" an A. henzti population is when the ground is destroyed. Usually it comes in the form of urbanization. Sometimes the population bounces back, sometimes it doesn't.

My advice, don't mess with fragile ecosystems just because you want to see more tarantulas in the wild. If you want to observe wild tarantulas, go to where they are and don't try to bring them to you.

Woah easy there buddy, like I said a few times I've no intention on doing it, it was meant to be a discussion.

And as far as what does the pond have to do with tarantula conservation? Nothing, never said it did. I said I was planning on making a pond at some point, and thought once again for discussion purposes only that it would be a nifty talk about having your own little nature sanctuary. Sorry if you misunderstood, but very good points overall and I agree with a lot of what you've said.

 

[EulersK]

Eh... fine, here goes.

So far, we've been talking about a relatively common species - one that doesn't need help in the wild. We've brought up mother nature, we've brought up the natural flow of things. But what of other species that are struggling because of human intervention? The infamous P. metallica comes to mind, but frankly, most pokies fall into this category. Deforestation has lead to their decline in numbers, so one could argue that releasing captive bred specimens would be beneficial. Of course, the argument to that would root itself int he fact that introducing additional populations to an already struggling ecosystem would be a bad idea due to unforeseen consequences. But then the argument to that could lie in excessive spiders dying off of predation (already discussed), cannibalism, and prey availability.

My vote? Leave things alone. We've mucked things up enough as it is, and nature as a whole always finds a way.

 

[14pokies]

IMO...your going about this all wrong..

Build a pond throw in about 1,000 H. gigas and then invite all the bratty kids in the neighborhood to go swimming..
You might want to stock the pond with crayfish.. Your going to need something to clean up the mess..

 

[magicmed]

IMO...your going about this all wrong..

Build a pond throw in about 1,000 H. gigas and then invite all the bratty kids in the neighborhood to go swimming..
You might want to stock the pond with crayfish.. Your going to need something to clean up the mess..

I now need an h. Gigas filled mote surrounding my house, thanks

 

[14pokies]

I now need an h. Gigas filled mote surrounding my house, thanks

No no no no no... If you build a mote they will know something is up!

 

[magicmed]

No no no no no... If you build a mote they will know something is up!

True...we gotta get those little buggers before they realize what's going on.

Stupid humanlings