>>First, don’t make the mistake of comparing reptiles to mammals,



OK, I won't. I didn't think I WAS!



Breeding an animal in captivity (under different selective forces than those that are found in the wild) will alter the gene frequencies after one generation even if you started with the exact same gene frequencies as the wild population (this is where Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and Mendelian genetics that you love so much comes in Chris and yes, it has been proven experimentally), so if you re-release individuals into the wild from captive breeding individuals from the exact same population as the parent stock came from, you will still alter the naturally occurring gene frequencies.



No argument from me.



Your best chance of success with such a program would be to re-introduce individuals into reclaimed habitat where the original populations were extirpated, for whatever reason, but the habitat remains or can be reclaimed. This also helps to eliminate the potential introduction of exotic diseases to the natural population, assuming the new population is a great distance away and thus isolated by distance and unsuitable habitat



OK, let's make this part of the "deal" then.



(this is what worked out so well with the wolf reintroduction, for example).



I thought we weren't comparing reptiles to mammals!



>>And just because I can’t keep my mouth shut… commercial breeders will offer the greatest risk of exotic disease and parasite spread due to the variety of animals they are exposed to.



This is why facilities inspections would be important. A "commercial breeder" may be a breeder of only one species, not necessarily a "breeder/importer." I don't want to turn off the whole idea on that one point. Perhaps the proposal could be changed to allow the repatriation of animals from "single-species breeders" to help reduce the risk of disease.



Ideally, the best breeder would be the person that only breeds the endangered species, which would minimize the potential disease/parasite transition.



Ah, but there's the problem. Isn't possession of endangered species (in general terms) prohibited? On the other hand, what a great incentive for experienced breeders--to be permitted to try their hand at captive-breeding these species for repopulating historic range areas. If you want to take "exploitation" out of the loop for this one, fine--I think many people would be willing to take on such a project for the challenge and prestige it would represent. In addition, it'd be a "force multiplier" from the government's perspective--you could spread the risk out over many locations (reducing the chance of disease wiping out the entire captive stock) without requiring the government to fund the breeding facilities, utilities, food, maintenance, etc. The only thing for them to do would be the administration (managing the program and performing inspections of facilities and practices, which I would hope they'd be doing with their own operations anyway).



Further, the non-commercial breeder is your best bet for eliminating the perception of commercial exploitation, and it would make the permit/inspection process much easer to deal with.



I won't totally exclude this idea--but in this case, I'd make the permit free. There are lots of hobbyist breeders who like to breed animals for the sheer challenge/enjoyment of it; they're not looking to make money, but then again what do they do with surplus animals? Being LEGALLY authorized to release them under controlled conditions would be win-win.



Of course the biggest hurdle is trying to convince the Gov’t people with all the veto power that you herpers



YOU herpers? I thought you were one of US!
-----
Chris McMartin

www.mcmartinville.com

I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

[ Show Entire Thread ]