The possible exception to that might be in areas like anime and manga (which keep high school kids occupied for hours in class) and of course the comic industry itself is seriously competitive.

If you can find your own little area though it can provide a stable income. The trick is you do have to know your genre and all of the details that go with it. For me that tends to be wildlife in various forms, although I do dabble in other areas as business requires.

I have been asked how to get started, and well there is only one answer and that is to draw and study. I specifically say draw as without the drawing skills you can forget about painting. This is not some magical thing, just simply practice and a bit of reading, oh and more practice and a pencil and paper.

Once you are comfortable with that bit then you can start experimenting with other materials. The extra good news is an awful lot can be done with only a tin of student pencils. In fact that was what I started with, so I am not just making that up. From there I slowly built up my collection of gear over the years. (Now a whole studio’s worth.)

Regarding materials, I won’t comment on the digital side of creating art, I have tried it now and again, but still have the urge for a real pen/pencil/brush in my hand. Illustrator and photoshop are standards for production work, but even for logos and things I will get out the trusty copics first and go from there.

Anyway moving on from my sidelines, the two things I use most are pencils and watercolours and ink. Often in various combinations. If you are serious you need to start viewing these things as simply tools to get the job done. Using the wrong one just makes life difficult. To be more specific in my case a lot of wildlife (fur n feathers) is so much easier with pencil, and personally nothing beats watercolour for plants. For larger work pastel is useful but does have repo problems – yeah you need to think about the final use of the illustration.

As more time comes up I will try and get more into the nitty gritty of how things get done, from concept into the final book, magazine website and so on. For now though here is a bit of a taster of what can be done…the good and the bad!

Journals are useful to try out ideas and make notes

A journal is a great way of keeping track of ideas and making notes, it doesn’t even have to be anything fancy. These days I tend to use printer paper and staple it into bundles occasionally.

Sometimes it is messy

Rainbow Bee-eater in progress, coloured pencil

With practice preparation and planning you can end up with illustrations like the following Hyacinth Macaw.

Hyacinth-macaw, coloured pencil

In future posts I will go into detail on achieving specific results, but that should give you a small sample to keep your interest up for now.

In the same conversations I can hear things move onto (exaggerated), “they worry about leaf litter but what about Pandas  or **insert cute cuddly animal **. Sometimes I hear arguments along the lines of, ”…well there are lots of resources out there we don’t even know yet…”

I can’t say economic arguments appeal to me, while undoubtably true, the reality tends to mean no great benefit for the local environment or people. These days it is a general matter of taking samples back to the lab and patenting it.

Aesthetic arguments do work, afterall our world is an amazing place, and in my case I have been thrilled to see what I have. However the emphasis as above tends to go towards the cute and cuddly. I can understand the marketing reasons for that. Reaching out to the mainstream is not that easy these days, so it has to be something that appeals. Still it does tend to give mixed messages. Perceptions that one animal is more important than another.

(Plants barely rate a mention.)

So I am going to come at it from another angle, I haven’t yet met anyone who does not like birds. Oddly I have come across people with Butterfly phobias for some reason. Anyway in terms of biodiversity I hear things like “well we need birds to eat the insects…” Which again in some ways is true ecologically , but if I ask people, even fanatical bird watchers if they like termites or spiders, most tend to just give me a blank stare. Mentioning wasps hardly helps matters.

If I mention that without the above we would lose most bird species I can think of within a few years, people are suddenly more interested. Of course we know things are linked in ecology, but what do spiders, wasps termites and aardvarks have to do with birds? Thought I would throw in the aardvark just to make it more interesting.

Dark-necked Tailorbird

To get to the point with a practical example, many birds depend on a protist (single celled animal) that lives in the gut of termites. Termites can’t actually break down cellulose, so these single celled animals do. (Just like we depend on bacteria in our own gut for different reasons.) Anyway Termites need these organisms and they can then do what termites often do, build a big colony. These are amazing pieces of bioengineering which makes them very stable temperature wise. About 30C from memory, which incidentally is perfect for many birds to nest in. Golden shouldered parrots are just one example, but there are many many more.

Golden Shouldered Parrot

We can find even more complex arrangements, some birds nest in the tunnels of aarvarks, in the actual ceiling of their tunnel. In this case without the termites, no aardvarks, no birds. The South African Shell duck is just one example, but there are lots of others such as Bee-eaters that depend on these tunnels to greater or lesser degrees.

There are also equivalents in South America, alongside other burrow creators such as porcupines. So what I am trying to do is show why often obscure or “ugly” animals matter. Rather than sunbirds or humming birds with their own unique flowers – which are outright gorgeous.

Wasps are important also, although most people either try and avoid them or kill them. Though they are amazing and often spectacular animals. In this case mud daubing wasps – the ones that try and build nests on our exterior walls and often window sills. In this case the interesting thing is to do with the 5% of birds who build mud nests, for example Barn Swallows, but there are many others.

The thing is – if you have ever tried to do it – is that sticking mud to a smooth wall is not that easy. And I imagine much much harder while trying to fly and only using a beak. The birds are smart though, all you really need is a good start to build on, and that is what the wasps provide. If you have ever tried to remove them, you notice how embedded the wasps nests are into the substrate. So birds will generally start there nests over old wasp nests. Once the first bit is stuck on the rest becomes relatively easy…and if your a smart bird you can just tack your nest on alongside and so on.

So even the wasps matter.

The spiders are even more important, crucially important in fact. I don’t know any birds that really concentrate on eating spiders, not even spider hunters, although I am sure plenty of birds will take what they can when they can. The real issue is nests.

In a huge number of cases, what actually holds a nest together is spiderweb. In many ways it is a perfect building material, and birds will fly around collecting it to “glue” their nest together. Others take it to even further extremes, such as the Tailorbirds, where they sew the leaves together with spider web. Still without spiders the fact remains that a huge number of birds would be unable to build their nests without spiders. And of course ultimately the spiders depend on what they eat and so on.

We could go on with thousands of examples, many parrots need to nest in tree cavities again created by insects such as termites and others. Some birds and other animals nest behind curtain or sheet spider web builders. Those enormous thick webs common in forests. In this case most likely to be hidden rather than protected as such.

The thing is we focus on the pretty plants and animals with maybe a vague inkling that they might depend on other things, but all too often the less pleasing plants and animals are seen as more expendable. The truth though is that the connections are hugely complex and removing only one piece can remove an entire segment of life. In that way extinction is not a linear event. We never simply lose one plant or animal but whole chains.

We tend to focus on biodiversity from the top down, whereas it generally is a bottom up system. Fundamentally planton are more important than whales. Leaf litter is more important than a tiger and so on. Losing any of these creatures is a disaster, but as we start to knock out lower levels, we take out whole ranges of species directly and those connected in a less direct way.

So hopefully this short piece gives a more practical example of why some of the more obscure plants and animals matter greatly.

Right now I am fortunate to live in Singapore, with roughly 400 species within an hour or so of me, there is plenty to keep me occupied. The thing is though if I told people I have been watching sparrows, pigeons and mynahs lately everyone would think I am nuts.

Of course there is a huge thrill at coming across something new or unusual but there is a lot to be learnt from watching the very common also. Sure it doesn’t help life lists but it can benefit you in many ways, intellectually and practically. Pigeons and mynahs – in this case Indian and Java – also what I have heard termed “flying rats” are actually interesting. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Mynahs in particular are very intelligent.

I was watching a pair catch a gecko – Java Mynahs that is. Interestingly they seemed to be working together, or maybe that was assumed on my part. Anyway just watching them get the lizard was interesting. It is also interesting to see just how close you can get to them, and how they respond to different clicks, chirps and whistles I make.

Pigeons are also interesting, I was watching them near the train station, sex is obviously a big issue with pigeons – why there are so many. But just through some “light” watching you start to get a grip with what is going on, dominance and submission becoming quickly apparent. Incidently watching and studying pigeons in particular is a great way to learn about birds. Columbiformes (pigeons and doves), are unique in their own right. They can actually suck water for example, and once you understand why a pigeon bobs it’s head you have already learn alot about bird physiology.

This then means that when I come across fruit doves in the forest I feel I have a greater understanding of what is going on. The fundamental principles don’t change, but my knowledge and experience does. There are differences of course with each species - and I would argue with each individual - but more knowledge is a good thing. But understanding pigeons does help with peaceful doves, orange breasted and so on.

Even sparrows which are everywhere, if Mynahs are flying rats, then sparrows must by flying mice. Still there is very interesting behaviour going on when you start paying attention to them. Again dominance is a huge issue, and you can identify quite easily the seniority when you start to look.

Sparrows at play

My real point is that it is too easy to go chasing after unusual species and never look at what is in front of us. We go travelling the world to see birds and never pay attention to the bird calls we hear around our homes each day. Birds are amazing creatures and there is much to learn from even the “boring” ones.

Incidentally, I can’t say I am a huge fan of introduced birds anywhere, again though by actually paying attention you can start to see the problems and how introduced birds compete with native birds. So again, understanding and knowledge should be taken wherever you can get it.

Spending a day watching Barn Swallows or similar is amazing in itself and you will be suprised just what you can see!

The following image shows that there is nowhere for our eyes to rest, when we look at an image our eyes do not follow through smoothly but instead flicker between fixation points. The image below if anything presents our brains with confusion as our eyes cannot find somewhere to rest. The central large dot is noticed first and then we scan back and forth from one dot to another.

Asymetrical Dots

With an understanding of what is happening we can start to control what we want the viewer to see – and how we want them to see it. In the next image we deliberately guide the viewer to the right. With the eye tending to rest on the largest dot. What happens now is almost a looping, our brains scan from left to right in an almost circular motion. This is in part due to the symmetry of the ascending sizes of the dots.

Symetrical Dots

By removing the symmetry we can again deliberately lead the eye to exactly where we want to go, and also take advantage of innate left right scanning in the next image. Keep in mind that there is a cultural aspect to this, for example a design aimed at an Arabic market would be better served by flipping the image horizontally. Why? In western cultures especially we are taught through reading to scan from left to right.

Off center Dots

This final sequence of dots being assymetrical has led our eye to the largest dot at the right by getting your attention with a mid sized dot and through the small dot pointing you in the direction – and dot – we wanted you to be looking at.

Note there is a lot of psychology in this, it will not apply to everyone (we are all different) but we can aim at a majority of viewers. Once we understand the general idea we can expand on it and start deliberately leading the viewer to exactly those parts of the scene we want them to go.

Some of the great artists and designers seem to have been able to achieve this intuitively, although like most things, a sound understanding of the underlying principles cannot be avoided.

And whoever thought three dots could be so interesting?

A good example of this is in the Sydney region of Australia, where visitors are often amazed at the sheer quantity of birds in peoples back gardens. The Noisy Miner is a great example of this.

Noisy Miners are are actually a type of honeyeater. Even though they are native the issue is complex. Like most honeyeaters they are very territorial, essentially trying to keep a monopoly on their patch of nectar.

The problem is that they prefer open woodland, which just happens to coincide with typical park management. That is lots of tall trees with virtually no undergrowth. So in a sense their ideal habitat has expanded. Also unlike a lot of honeyeaters they can eat a variety of foods. So they have become more prolific. That means larger “gangs” in ideal surrounds.

The problem isnt really the Noisy Miners, but the way we manage the lands. Especially in light of fire concerns, and in inner suburbs, personal safety concerns. So what would typically be a very mixed habitat, with heath and grasses on the ground, then shrubs and mid sized trees like banksias followed by a typical overstory of large trees has been replaced by effectively lawn and tall trees, normally eucalypt types.

So the typical avian biodiversity of the southeast of Australia has been replaced, with noisy miners, currawongs and similar, sulphur crested cockatoos and corellas. Rainbow lorikeets proliferate on backyard feeding and the planting of ornamental flowering trees. They are all large birds that can easily fend for themselves and fit into our man made habits almost perfectly. Some species such as crested pigeons have increased their range purely due to that effect. Others have simply increased their populations.

So a visitor to Sydney might be amazed at all the parrots and similar abundance of birds, in reality though the biodiversity is slowly being lost. Rather then wrens and australian robins, pardolotes, butcherbirds and all of those things, 200 different species are being replaced by 20 species that suit our own man made habit requirements.

The Rainbow Lorikeet of Southeastern Australia

As said the issue is very complex, since we are talking about native birds here it can get emotional. There have been proposals for culling come up at various times, though i dont think anything has come of that. And even if it was done, it would not be solving the real issue anyway.

It also has to be remembered that especially up until recently dead wood etc was removed as part of management strategies. Also in logged forests, nesting sites are virtually non existant so competition for nesting sites is extremely competitive. Another factor is Australia doesnt have birds such as woodpeckers which will make new hollows, much of the work being done by fire and insects like termites.

This is partcularly an issue in National Parks and wilderness areas. Obviously fire control is important, the problem is we don\’t always understand the complexities of in this case the Australian bushlands. Too little burning is just as bad as too much burning.

These simple factors contribute to a very real loss of biodiversity even in areas which we think are doing well.

Social Structure

Superb Fairy-wrens have attracted much attention among researchers in recent years due to the intricate social systems they have in place. It is actually hard to separate out breeding behaviours from general social behaviour, as in the Superb Fairy-wren the whole social dynamic is governed by breeding structures.

Superb Fairy-wrens are territorial, and resident throughout the year with a group of from 2 to 7 occupying an area from 0.8 to 2.5 hectares, depending on its suitability. A more habitat rich environment obviously needing less land area, although as always there are exceptions and much depends on the unique environmental factors of the location.

During the breeding season a socially monogamous pair will assume control of the territory, reserving up to half of that area for themselves. The dominant pair can be recognised by such actions as counter-singing, close association and territorial defence. This territory will also contain up to approximately four sub-dominant males who assist the pair in raising young. This is in addition to any fledglings during the breeding season.

Juvenile females are forced to leave the territory to an adjacent one, the dominant female reacts aggressively to sub-dominant females forcing them out of the territory as young females mature, leaving them to find a new breeding territory. In fact as is so far known a female will never breed on the territory on which she is born, even if the dominant female dies.

The social structures of the Superb Fairy-wren while fairly well understood are extremely complex and often leave more questions than answers. The dominant pair will tolerate subordinate males on the territory and these subdominant males will essentially wait in line to become the next dominant male in the following season. This queuing for dominance seems to be based on age. During this period they will assist in the raising of the dominant pairs young.

A male can rise to dominance if the dominant male dies, in which case the senior of the sub-dominant males will become the dominant male, essentially the next in line in the hierarchy of males. A sub-dominant male can disperse to a neighbouring territory or found a new one. Or as is often the case towards the end of the breeding season females expelled from other territories will join the group for the winter and pair with a sub-dominant male in the group, essentially splitting the group in two with the next breeding season. This process of splitting the territory is termed fission.

Most males whether they have achieved dominance or not, will also die on their territory, if they do move to a new territory it will be in the majority of cases to a neighbouring territory. Females will on the whole range further from the original natal territory – the one in which they were born. Although in general males and females will not range to far from the territory in which they were born.

It is important to realise with the Superb Fairy-wren, not just the importance of the natal territory, but the interrelationships between territories. It could almost be pictured like a chess board with females moving between territories and sometimes forming new ones through fission as mentioned. This aspect is important in regards to conservation and preservation measures which may be undertaken.

This interrelationship of territories and transfers between them results in a high rate of promiscuity, the male often raising young that are not his, assisted by his own “sons” that at least in a high percentage of cases are not his either.

On the converse side the males in adjacent territories will be raising his genetic young. In fact with this flux between territories combined with a queue based social structure. That is with males essentially waiting in line to become the next dominant male, incestuous relationships are not unheard of.

Sub-dominant male feeding on leaf litter. Note the black bill. Ourimbah NSW.

The pressure on males in particular to achieve dominance, and for females to gain a territory, will mean if given the opportunity, a sub-dominant male that has left his natal territory may return to his birth territory if the chance arises to become the dominant male there. In which case, he may mate with his mother, who is still the original dominant female of that territory.

Although these cases are minimal, they are not unheard of, however the general promiscuity combined with the high turnover and gene flow between territories seems to make this approach one of minimal risk, compared to the benefits of a male gaining dominance or a female losing a territory.

The females for their part will mate not only with the dominant male, but with dominant or sub-dominant males from their own or adjacent territories. Indeed there seems to be a short period every morning during which mating seems to occur. The dominant males suffering from the classic male problem of being unable to mate with the females of adjacent territories, and at the same time guard his own female from suitors.

On other occasions sometimes territories will be fused, for example if a dominant male or female in adjacent territories lose a mate. In some cases females will “divorce” a mate, but will very rarely move more than a few territories away. Rarely a dominant male can be evicted from his territory.

Sub-adult males will assist in defending the territory; this actually makes perfect sense, since an intruding male is effectively queue jumping. With most sub-dominant males eventually taking over the natal territory – or at least aspiring to this, they have as much to lose as the dominant male in terms of maintaining the territory.

Group size within a territory seems to be influenced by a number of factors. A more fertile territory allows for a greater number of young to be raised, and a larger resident population to be maintained. Although in the Superb Fairy-wren habitat saturation seems to play a large part in determining a territories population size.

For a sub-dominant male, if there are no suitable nearby habitats to which he can move and become dominant, then it makes sense for the bird to stay in the current territory and effectively wait his turn to become the dominant male. If however there are either suitable nearby habitats in which he can form a new territory with a female, or he has the opportunity to gain dominance in an adjacent territory then he will leave his natal territory.

So there are many factors at work in determining the population size of a territory. In short though it seems that population sizes of a territory tend to be larger when suitable habitat nearby is unavailable for colonisation.

The interesting aspect, is that the territoriality and social hierarchy is combined with explicit promiscuity. Over half of the females young are sired from males outside of the female’s social group. That is the young are fathered by males from adjacent territories, with approximately 25% of young being fathered by sub-dominant males. Some of these issues are what attracts researchers to these little birds, since the questions are applicable across broad areas of biology.

It was taken at a place called Pearl Beach, but it is interesting in that it does show that size definitely does not matter. Although Noisy Miners are well known for their aggression.

There is also a temporal aspect in that taxonomy is essentially a current “snapshot”, based on what we know at this moment. No account is made for the future, and if it was it would be pure speculation.

In fields such as ornithology and mammology etc it is often hard to see the need for subspecies, often the complaints are based on increased complexity. Again this is a human issue though, I doubt anyone would seriously argue that there are different populations of species of birds. Dialects are now well known, and there are often very real morphological differences among populations.

Although I have not seen it mentioned, an interesting – hypothetical question would be – how ethical would it be to start mixing populations of birds? For example the Superb Fairy-wren, Malurus cyaneus, of southeastern Australia. There are distinct populations on the mainland, then populations on Tasmania and then the Bass Strait Islands.

So while we might argue that subspecies are a hassle, I am sure there would be an outcry if I proposed to start mixing the island “subspecies”. Since intuitively we recognise that there – may be – important implications in that idea. Afterall we may be watching speciation in progress.

In reality though ornithology is not as complex as other fields, botany and ichthyology and entomology come to mind. Not only is the diversity much much greater but often the reproductive cycles are much shorter.

For example in Killifish, the actual puddle specimens come from is important. In botany the whole concept of species sometimes seems pointless with numerous variations just in one locality.

So at least to me, subspecies is important in that it probably reflects a closer truth about the natural world, even though it is not ideal.

In the end though taxonomically we are trying to fit everything into neat little boxes, when the real world just isnt like that.

Often that means putting yourself in some strange positions and places. It also means carrying a lot of what in survival terms would be non essential kit. And worse it is easy to get caught up in what you are photographing and not always being as alert to what is going on behind, beside or above you.

Different environments obviously require different approaches, but somethings are just basic. (Although easy to forget and mess up).

-Phone, satellite if need be, or radio. The idea is that if you get into problems you can call for help. It sounds like common sense, but again it is easy to mess up the basics. Not so long ago a young British back packer was lost for 2 weeks in the Sydney bush, he thought he would take a little stroll…and didnt bring his phone. It is easier to do than you think.

-Basic survival kit. Alot of people tend to think of this as something for boys, and not something they will need. The whole point though is you shouldn\’t need it – but it is there if you do. What you put in there very much depends on preference and the enviroment etc. In general though a space blanket is not going to take up too much room. A couple of bandages, pen knife, matches, water purifying tablets. Make it up to suit what you are doing.

-Water. Again basic stuff but it is easy to skimp. And carrying camera gear is thirsty work!

-Clothing. If your not comfortable it is horrible. Worse it could turn dangerous, so make sure you have the right clothes for what you are doing.

Often people can get into the biggest messes because they think “oh I am not going far from home”. The Blue Mountains and surrounds of Sydney are a good example as mentioned above.  Dartmoor is only 30min from the major city of Plymouth in England, and it can be treacherous. As an example 200m from the road doesn’t sound like much, but when someone breaks an ankle it may as well be miles. Throw in the sun setting and temperature dropping below zero and suddenly that afternoon stroll has turned very serious.

The point is not to be complacent if you are just going nearby, or somewhere you know well.

Dealing with animals presents a whole new set of challenges. For large mammals such as Big cats, you need to stand your ground. (Probably peeing your pants at the same time). But running is the worst thing you can do. Firstly you wont outrun whatever it is, and secondly you bring out the chase instinct in the animal.

Instead stand your ground, make lots of noise and raise your arms above your head to make yourself look bigger. Your camera can come in handy here. Admittedly most people are not going to ever come into contact with a Tiger in the Thai jungles, perhaps sadly. However feral dogs for example are common problems to deal with.

Again it depends very much what you are dealing with. Standing your ground with a Bull Elephant probably wont work. So you have to do your homework first. Know your environment and know your animals.

Even if your not interested in snakes and spiders and things, get a rough idea of what is out there. It helps if you know what to look out for. Oh and again commonsense here, but if you don’t know what it is, don’t touch it. Like the guy here in Singapore who decided to remove a “python” from the fairway of his golf course.

So some can be lucky, but generally it’s a better idea not to try your luck. In tropical regions the amount of things that can sting and bite is amazing (and thats just the plants). So just follow the simple advice and don’t touch.

One other thing that is easy to do, don’t get over confident. It is easy to think, for example from personal experience…oh I have seen lots of snakes, no problem. The thing is not all snakes are the same, and they can be very different in temperament. More specifically the snakes of Australia I nearly always see the tail as they are scurrying off. However the snakes here in Southeast Asia are much more used to people and large animals, and generally are nastier.

In this case it is irrelevant which is technically more venomous. Another example regarding the snakes is that I was used to watching in front of me for snakes. However in the tropical jungles you need to watch your head, since many are in the branches around you. And often brilliantly disguised.

Sometimes the more everyday can also be a bit of a problem for the unwary. Many birds can become very nasty if they are nesting, shorebirds such as Lapwings, and many Corvids come to mind. Raptors in general can be very dangerous if you are too close when nesting. (Although as a matter of ethics you should\’nt be).

Again it all comes down to doing your homework. Not only will it make it safer for you, but if you know what you are doing and your wildlife then you will be able to get much closer to the animals.

For many animals getting close is a matter of trust. Still you can use deceptive tricks that work. For birds if you are on the move, act indifferent, don’t look directly at them. Birds are a lot smatter than we give them credit for. Although really eye contact is a huge giveaway with most animals. It is one of those deep responses. Try making eye contact with that huge guy in the pub next time if you want to try it out.

Animals will view eye contact the same way. Essentially if your staring at an animal, the logical question it (sort of asks) is why? For birds it will come across like your a predator, in higher animals it will be seen as part of a dominance move on your part. Which will either frighten them off, or bring you into confrontation. Monkeys are a good example of this effect.

In short most animals will know your looking at them. The trick is to make them think you don\’t care. Look away and walk slowly closer. Raise your camera – very slowly – especially in regions where hunting takes place. Again the animals are not stupid. Sometimes even deliberately being noisy will work. Study a domestic cat in a garden to see how this works. A cat with it’s eye on a bird is a completely different animal to one strolling about, resting or playing…and the other animals know it too.

Try and be upwind and with the sun behind you. Not only will you get better pictures, but all the animal will often see is your siloheute if that. Exactly the same idea as the fighter pilots use. Although this is often easier said than done, if you have the option it’s the best place to be.

Oh one last tip, sometimes you might have to cross shallow streams or similar. Take your socks off and put your boots back on. Even in clear waters bare foot is generally not a good idea. And if it is flowing water – forget it. Come up with another plan. At best you might just wreck all your gear. At worst drown. Again use some commonsense.

In general like everything there are risks with being outdoors, however if you know your environment and wildlife first, and use some commonsense, you will get to see some amazing and incredible things. Even as is often the case, you don’t get good photographs, you will see some things that make you feel priviledged.

Stay safe and have fun!

The simple fact is that the majority of snakes are completely harmless, the additional simple fact is that most people get bitten by doing stupid things. Often trying to kill them for no other reason – than it’s a snake. I have been around snakes all of my life, so that means I do find them fascinating, and I have a very healthy respect for them.

In fact my younger brother owns and operates a venom zoo, keeping and breeding some of the worlds deadliest snakes. Inland Taipan etc. (I taught him everything he knows! haha). The point is I like to think of myself as comfortable with snakes. Relaxed – never. Only a fool is relaxed around any wild animals.

Therefore, unless I have a reason to touch a snake, I dont. Or any animal for that matter. I passed the (show off) stage when I was about 14 and a small-eyed snake in Australia “tapped me” for being stupid. No harm done, but enough to make me realise it is not a joke. I have also had a couple of frightening moments, such as once when I was watching a bird and turned to see a Popes Pit Viper about 2 feet from my face on the branch.

So I am very cautious and respectful of snakes. I can even understand why people are scared of them. My father was terrified of them, even with his great love of nature, still he was smart enough to not go near them – and to not try and hurt them. Provoking a snake, is about as sensible as tapping old bombs with a hammer.

Which brings me to my big dissapointment, finding a little Bronze-back killed on a forest path. Absolutely uncalled for. About the most this snake could have hurt would have been a frog. And it was obviously a gorgeous looking little snake. To make it worse, this was in a reserve, where even the insects are supposed to be protected.

In simple terms, leave snakes alone. They are an essential piece of the ecosystem puzzle. At best you simply kill something harmless, at worst you get yourself bitten for playing with something you shouldnt.

There is the story here in Singapore of a “large” snake on one of the golf courses. Impatient, someone who thought they knew what they were doing assumed “large” snake equals python. So in a well meaning way, they grabbed it’s tail and yanked it off the fairway. Only after did someone who knew better, point out that the snake wasn’t a python, but a King Cobra. In that case the guy was lucky, although it could easily have turned out bad.

Of all the snakes I have seen 95% will get out of the way very fast, so there is no need to do anything other than back off and let the snake move to cover. There is no need to kill things you don’t understand, or to touch things when you don’t have any need to. Was a game of golf serious enough to risk getting bitten by a King Cobra?

So just leave them alone, and they will leave you alone. If there is one around your house, then get a professional, who will probably remove it for free. Otherwise let them be, and show some respect and commonsense.