Posted by:
dustyrhoads
at Tue Jul 6 11:24:36 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by dustyrhoads ]
>>I'm not sure if I read the original poster correctly but I don't believe the question was, 'could hobbyists head up a reintroduction program'. I believe the question was pertaining to could hobbyists' animals ever be used in such a program?
>>
>>As you just implied, if hobbyists' were allowed to assit they probably could. Last year I had the pleasure to donate a couple of my own wild caught 'pet' AZ Mtn. King's shed skins to a taxonomic study. Locality data was important and obviously if it had been illegal for me to collect those pyros I would not have been able to participate in the capacity I did. Not that donating sheds is a particularly great capacity, I just used that as an example.
Okay, seems we're going in circles. I'm not sure you read the original poster correctly either. As I said (not implied) and provided an example with the Boelen's study, yes, hobbyists can, do, and SHOULD participate in science. The original poster said what I often hear from a LOT of breeders...basically that, "Hey, my breeding of exotic snakes, lizards, frogs, is saving them from extinction in the wild, especially if I breed some wild types."
Here is what he or she said verbatim:
"...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.
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. 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.
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?"
And so, the actual original question/argument the original poster made is not whether hobbyists' animals could simply be in reintroduction programs, as you said above. Rather, it was whether 'breeding normal Ball Pythons as opposed to morphs would someday preserve their extinction in the wild.'
And in summary, my original response was that (a) the science of reintroduction programs is a lot more involved than just 'breeding normals', and (b) though hobbyists often say that they're breeding their animals for these noble reasons, they have practically ZERO results to show for it, and later I added/reiterated what you quoted above that (c) it's not something hobbyists could do successfully withOUT the direction of scientists (i.e. once again, which Ball Pythons get bred to which Ball Pythons should be guided and directed by the scientist's research on evolutionary genetics AND by the scientists themselves -- once again, it's not as simple as hobbyist people breeding "normal" Ball Pythons, especially when you're considering an exotic species with such a HUGE range and a species whose locality genetics we know nothing about).
Again, here is what I said verbatim:
>>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.
>>
>>But is this really what we are doing?
Yes, that is an excuse we often hear for take from the wild and breeding. But as much as we like to tell ourselves that we're doing this, no breeder who I know of has done a single thing to prevent extinction in the wild (other than vowing to sell captive-bred only). Telling ourselves that captive breeding for the pet trade is beneficial to that end is just kidding ourselves.
>>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?
Here's why breeding "normals" will do nothing to help conservation biologists: because it is MUCH more complicated than just producing 'normals'. Successful headstarting programs for snakes is non-existent. It's barely in its infancy as a research field. It is something that only scientists with a higher education in population genetics, evolutionary biology, and ecology can pursue with any degree of hope for success. Even then, it would take some incredible amounts of work from skilled reptile veterinary pathologists to ensure that captive stock aren't introducing foreign microorganisms to the wild stock.
Case in point: Producing mere normals would not be enough, not by a long shot -- you have to produce specimens that are phenotypically AND genetically similar to the population they are released into. For instance, Panther Canyon Trans-Pecos Ratsnakes look different than Trans-Pecos from just a couple of miles' walking distance to the east. In order to ensure even the slightest chance of survival for snakes released, you have to make sure that the Panther Canyon locality receives an actual Panther Canyon suboc. Otherwise, all of your hard work will be in vain -- natural selection will weed out each of the snakes you worked so hard to prepare for reintroduction, and this holds true even if their progenitors evolved in a canyon only a mile or two away from where you are releasing them.
You also have to find out approximately how many wild Trans-Pecos Rats are in the immediate area. With organisms that are as elusive as snakes, assessing this amount can be very hard to do with any accuracy. You also have to mathematically find out how much habitat, food, water, and other resources are available. Releasing a single animal in an area that already has six snakes and can only support six does no good.
It's hard enough to do with native species -- organisms whose locality types we often can learn by taking drives through their habitats with fellow herpers, a very few of whom may actually breed those specific locality types. And you have to know the locality types down to exact geographic spots, say within a quarter-mile or less, depending on the species. Some species, like Xantusia, never leave their Yucca log they live underneath their entire lives. Getting this kind of knowledge about exotic species of herps is practically impossible!
No one, to my knowledge, is breeding exotic species of ANY herps down to the locality of the exact creek, wash, or canyon. And this is exactly what would be needed -- just the TIP of the enormous efforts it would take to conserve species in the wild.
This is why, as so many ecologists and evolutionary biologists have told us before, that preserving and/or restoring habitat in the first place is the MUCH cheaper, MUCH more effective method of conservation. As EO Wilson said, the so-called 'ark method of conservation' will never work. It is far too expensive, far too complicated, and far too ineffective to do any good.
Thanks for posting this. It's an important topic that interests me, and one that many herpetoculturists are unfortunately mistaken about.
*For those who are interested, below is a link to one of the only researchers I know of who is tackling this issue of reintroducing herps into the wild for conservation.
DR"
This person posted the same thing in EVERY forum. (And I wonder where they went? lol) Others have said some of the same things that I have, like here http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=1830197,1830235.
DR
*p.s. I think what you did with the shed skins is GREAT. I wish more breeders and herpers would participate in studies like that.
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: the Noah's Ark method of conservatio - dustyrhoads, Tue Jul 6 11:24:36 2010
