I can't fathom to understand how you would defend, the first thing to do to a possible new species, is to kill it and stick it in a jar.

Saying it's been done and it's the rules, really falls into the same trap of wc is ok because at one point they all were wc. Just because those are the rules or the way it has been done for hundreds of years does not make them good. I for one would have alot more respect for you if you would say, the rules suck, but it takes time to change them, or there are problems, but they are not simple to address. I think very few people think the pet trade is good in any sense of the word, everyone seems to have ideas on how to fix it, but it is not a simple matter, but at least hobbyists (at least most of them) admit that.

I like to think of this as more potential than waste (glass half full). I think a live monitor has a whole lot more potential than a dead one.

I do not think anyone claimed that populations are endangered by crazy scientists running around sticking animals in jars. It's more of a point of disgust that the first glimpse of a new species, is a dead specimen, that was killed for no other reason than to fit it in a jar (that money thing sucks doesn't it, academics are by no means free of that evil).

Can you tell me why a dead animal in a jar is better than a live one in a cage for species description, that isn't based on money? Sure it will eventually die, then you can preserve it, but killing it outright is repulsive to alot here.

--Robert

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]