Posted by:
webwheeler
at Sun Jun 27 17:25:00 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by webwheeler ]
>>I have a point I would like to make regarding herpetoculture. In defending against the arguments of anti-exotic politicians, we often say that breeding reptiles in captivity is one way to prevent the extinction of these animals. Since reptiles are disappearing across the planet, this is a very penetrating statement for someone who wants to conserve nature.
Yes, this is often said, but if you really want to conserve nature, start with ending habitat destruction by buying land (e.g. debt-for-nature swaps) and putting conservation easements on it or donate to organizations that do this.
What large scale captive breeding does is to reduce demand for wild caught animals as pets, in addition to providing better quality pets. Captive breeding also increases our understanding of the natural world and raises our awareness of and identification with these same animals in the wild.
>>But is this really what we are doing? Let's look at the ball python, for example. Python regius has been bred en masse for decades, and this popularity has been fueled by the "production" of some very striking morphs, including albinos and leucistics.
This has indeed reduced demand for wild caught Ball Pythons. Here's another thought - in today's world the evolutionary winners (survival of the fittest) are those whose value is greatest to man!
>>However, any biologist will tell you that such creatures cannot survive in the wild. Albinos can hardly be exposed to sunlight, or their health is threatened. Other morphs create problems as well; how on earth could a lavender ball python avoid detection by predators if its camouflage has been stripped away? Since many of these traits are recessive, the pythons' offspring wouldn't be any better off, though whether such an animal would live long enough to breed is debatable.
Focus on habitat destruction. That is the GREATEST threat to animals in the wild. Otherwise, this point is moot because you can't reintroduce an animal to a Walmart parking lot, and you don't get much biological diversity in a Palm Oil plantation.
>>What I am saying is, if ball pythons were to become critically endangered in the wild, how could captive-bred individuals serve the wild populations if the vast majority of them were unable to survive in the wild? A reintroducing program would certainly be a dramatic failure if all of the captive pythons were genetically anomalous.
>>So is the captive breeding of such species as the ball python, corn snake, king snake, bearded dragon, and leopard gecko really giving us a reservoir of specimens in case wild populations were to become endangered? It would appear not. My point is this: perhaps it is unwise to continually be trying to "engineer" oddball reptiles simply because they are more visually pleasing to someone who cannot appreciate reptiles otherwise. Instead, why not concentrate on exploring "normal" animals for all their ordinary glory? Is a normal ball python really all that bad? And when the wolves come knocking at our doors with things like HR 669, can we really say that professional breeders are aiding conservation?
Breeding for morphs and breeding to preserve genetic integrity are not mutually exclusive. They just need to be kept separate and identified as such. That said, IMO, DNA repositories are probably a better way to ensure genetic integrity of wild animals.
And, let's not loose sight of the fact that many people keep and breed exotic animals because they enjoy doing it. And, when done properly, both animals and humans benefit from it. Why should more justification be necessary?
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: a point I would like to make ... - webwheeler, Sun Jun 27 17:25:00 2010