I agree with the original post. If you are collecting snakes with the goal of breeding and selling offspring you are a commercial collector. And if you are buying captive born offspring from these people, you are supporting the trade. All of us are guilty of this collusion.

I agree that both ways are "commercialy collecting" but i think it is justified one way. it is one thing to collect an animal to in turn captive breed it, wich lowers the number of W/c animals in the future.

This sentiment is good in theory, but it doesn't work out that way in many cases. I remember reading similar sentiments described in some of the early captive breeding books/papers.

The problem is one of greed. If a breeder sells his captive born offspring for more money than a wild caught animal costs, he is encouraging others to collect more from the wild, not discouraging it.

If people see that someone is selling (and getting) $500 for captive born ________snakes from a certain locality, then people aren't going to shell out $500 for their own captive pair. Many herpers will head out to the locality and try to get a pair of their own to breed and make money.

If the original seller had charged less money than it would cost to collect your own, then he will make a profit (in numbers) and discourage more collecting. But most breeders try to maximize their profit without thought to the impact it has on wild populations.

Look at cornsnakes. They are a dime a dozen, both in captivity and in the wild. And they are dirt cheap from breeders. Yet I could contact the major herp dealers in Florida and buy 50 wild caught corns this morning. The captive breeding of these animals hasn't stopped the wild collection. I don't know of any species where captive breeding has reduced the pressure on wild populations (except maybe in Burmese Pythons).
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

[ Show Entire Thread ]