Reptile & Amphibian Forums

just wondering when people think komodo's will be available to the public?

i am ready to buy 10 or 12 lol!!!!
-----

The New Redpython.net

Just my opinion, but I don't think there will ever be a big enough population to justify putting them on the market.

That being said, I've wanted one of those since about the age of ooooohhh 15 .

Quig
-----
Don't interupt me when I'm talkin' to myself

ive heard from a reliable source that zoos that have pairs of komodos destroy all eggs and try to discourage breeding. not many zoos that dont have them, have the resources to take one on. and zoos generally frown on the keeping of exotics in the private sector. it really is unfortunate. think about this, if zoos were able to sell say, fiji banded iguanas to the public they would be plentiful and although still endangered in the wild would be readily available to hobbyists. im of the OPINION that SOMETIMES a smuggler is a species best hope for a long existance. even if it is in captivity.
joe

Very few people would have the necessities to care for a komodo. It would just be more sad cases of hundreds of monitors dead from improper husbandry. Most people don't have the room for an albig or a water, let alone a komodo.

I couldnt agree with all these post more, its a shame there are so many bad/not experienced herp collecters that they ruin it for the rest of us. Prime example the fiji banded iguana would be a perfect herp to start a breeding program for but....non-sense laws and retictions prohibit this. stoopid government.

If a species is disappearing from the wild (usually due to habitat destruction), what difference does it make if some guy in the US has one or two as pets to the wild status? Is he going to fly his many offspring back to the destroyed habitat and let them go after paying $8,000 for the smuggled parents? Or is he going to try to sell the offspring to others "under teh radar". The long existance only matters in the wild, not in a private collection or zoo.

No, the point would be that it is inevitable many species will be lost due to several reasons (human activity being one of them).

Due to their geographic isolation it is inevitable that the komodo dragon will disappear. They are too biologically vulnerable. A small disaster from a global perspective (man made or not) centered within their range will mean the end of them. Don’t you think it makes sense to establish a strong captive breeding program to ensure their survival?

Hell give FR a half dozen Komodos and there will be so many in 10 years we won’t know what to do with them. There’d be so many we’d be ordering a McKomodo with cheese combo meal at McDonald’s hahha.

Plus keep in mind that human expansion is inevitable. It can’t be stopped nor should it be, unless of course you subscribe to the ‘I can have land, a house, a car and a shopping mall but you can’t’ mentality. Seems to me the responsible thing to do would be promote captive breeding programs of as many species as possible…unless of course you don’t care if they become extinct (nature is nature, and man is a part of it).

Personally I want to try a McKomodo with cheese, maybe wear some nice Nike Komodos haha.

Tom

hahahahahahahahaha. I aqree, endangered species, particularly like the species mentioned, Figi Iggies, must be allowed to be in private hands.

The reason is clear. Zoos are not conservation warehouses for species. They are no different then private hands. NO ONE ZOO keeps enough numbers of a species to do any good what so ever.

I will not change that opinion until an entire zoo specializes in one single species. For instance, Dallas zoo only kept and bred Greys monitors. But as long as they are restricted to VERY limited numbers. Again they are no different then private hands.

Also zoos are restricted by telling themselves they cannot make money. Hahahahahahahaha They may as well shoot themselves right in the head. Its going to take money to conserve a species. LOTS OF MONEY.

You see, its this weird concept that stops zoos from doing any good. Remember, no one said to make a profit, but make money to support more individuals on a single species, and more keepers, and more cages, and you get the pictures. ZOOS ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID IN THIS AREA.

Heres a simple reason why, reptiles produce in numbers that require culling(loss, predation) Culling is what keeps a local population pure, not JUST genes. In order to keep a captive population viable, it must be culled. JUST LIKE NATURE.

Lets make it a bit visual, a zoo will have, 2.2.4 of a particualr species. A zoo is 100 acres or so. Lets take 100 acres o prime breeding habitat of a medium sized reptile habitat. It may contain 85.65.650. With the 650 being very temporary. This 650 will be challanged(culled) down to 30 or so, considering a guess of a 30% loss in resident adults. of course if the loss is higher, that 650 will cover that as well.

These animals produce at a rate far above what needs to maintain the population. Zoos NEVER DO THIS. Because they cannot support that population. Just like a non suitable habitat.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yes, captives reptiles in order to become a conservation tool, must be kept in suitable numbers. And zoos are not doing that. Sorry for the rant, and cheers

Like the individual who died when he fell into his basement and broke a leg, his 3 illegally owned komodos ate him and were confiscated.
These were his $35,000-$50,000 each pets.
We could only hope that common sense would come into play if they were available, that people should realize that other than very few keepers, most cannot possibly safely or properly keep them, and should not consider it.
After all how many people sucessfully in captivity care for large crocodilians, let alone a giant monitor such as a komodo.
Maybe we should allow people to keep whatever they want, then there would be more room for the rest of us to live.

I agree with shvar, lets make everything availabe,lol. Even if komodos were available they would have a hefty price tag that would only pull in the rich or those that are really serious about the monitors (enough experience to know they wouldn't kill their high dollar animal)

You guys are not all that good at remembering stuff. IT WAS FRIGGIN NILES. NOT KDS. What a bunch of toad brains. Cheers

isnt it true that most zoos get federal funding, and if they were to sell any animals or offspring the govt would cut off or stop all of its funding to said zoo. this is the reason they dont sell offspring.

No thats not true. Cheers

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on when a private breeder or zoo has EVER produced lots of offspring that were repopulated to the wild successfully. The idea is noble on paper, but in reality it means little. Because to me, the issue of too many people ---> habitat loss and poor wild population management is the issue. It doesn't mean squat to keep a few measily odd individuals in a zoo or private collection to "preserve" a species. If they are down to that - we have failed to conserve them. For example, Florida panthers are essentially extinct. Those few suffering zoo collection panther/cougar hybrids don't help me sleep at night. That was an ecology/conservation failure back 40 years ago.

Sorry if others don't agree with me (you don't need to), but there's too many people for this earth to support and we are going to face this in the coming century. That's just reality. No, i don't need another Walmart or shopping mall nearby Tpalopali. I'm very against so much expansion, but it's not in my hands and the ever-expanding population has to have their conveniences, don't they?

The American alligator and the Bald Eagle come to mind as success stories of captive breeding to replenish wild populations. It can work, but it takes lots of money, space, people and time. It also comes down to what is popular. People will raise lots of money to save the spotted owl, but won't lift a finger for a toad. Fortunately for the Komodos, they have become popular enough around the world (great P.R.) that people would probably work hard to save them.....but that poor toad...he's toast.
Rob.

Hey rob...

I thought as a zoo person I would add my 2 cents. Captive breeding is not conservation, but one possible tool. I am not hear to defend zoos or their conservation efforts but many facilities partipate in different ways, be it finnacially supporting field work via indivial researchers, conservation organizations like CI, FFI, & WWF, other NGO's, education programs, etc..., conducting research themselves, developing education programs and perhaps most successfully working with in country organization to capacity build (i.e. for ex a US zoo works with a zoo in central america to help them design, build, construct, manage a species for release back into native habitat instead of breeding them in the US and exporting them back). Captive breeding and release of animals back into the wild is only one tool.

As for successfully examples of zoo captive breeding I know of several programs from small mammals to herps (all be it larger predators are not some simple).

Damn I really need to use spell check or double check my post - that was pretty bad! :@

I do agree with what you are saying Rob, but I would have to say those two species were saved more for economical purposes then keeping the species alive in nature. One, the Bald Eagle is the country's national symbol and I can't see the country letting it's symbol go extinct. Two, the American Alligator has a huge economical value behind saving them. The farming of their skins for the skin trade produces money for the economy. Owls, are pretty. People are usually in favor of saving what is pretty and non threatening to people. Toads in the eyes of most people are probably ugly slimey little creatures.

If people can make some sort of profit off saving a toad then you would see more effort taken into preserving the species. For instance, if the legs were edible we could most likely sell them for food. Farmers would do the same as they do with the alligators. Release a certain percentage back into the wild every year. I know its easier said then done, but its a thought.

Depends on the species and the particular situation.

For example, the Puerto rican Crested Toad SSP is relatively successfull. Numerous zoos hold founder toads, reproduce them annually and thousands of tadpoles are reintroduced into protected areas in their native range. Many health protocols are establish to keep the toads, to make sure animal are healthy and pathogen free, etc...

Artifical ponds have been constructed, a PR campaign exists for the toads, etc...It appears some re-intro toads are now growing up and reproducing on their own.

So, I guess, because you see no way to succeed, then judy give up? Don't even try!

I agree, unless man practices birth control, there will be no where for animals particularly large species, to live. But if man does learn birth control and slows the distruction of natural lands. There could be a need for stocks of species, particularly the smaller species.

Again if man stops expanding, there will be many other reasons for die offs. This may allow re-establishment of mid level species. I am sure top predators will have no where to go. But there are very few top predators and lots of small species that do not need thousands of arces to live. In fact, there are far more species that require small areas of land, then the few(left) that require large tracks of land. These smaller species can be managed. I think your post forgot about these.

So yea, there may be no place for the Fla. Panther, but what about torts, and turtles, and corn snakes, and all other such smaller species? Cheers

Predators can be sucessfully returned from extinction, the wolf in northern US. They were basically extinct for 60-70 years. A few packs were brought from Canada and released with vaccinations, etc to protect them. Without anything but our federal protection they came back with a vengence on their own (over 1000 in a matter of less than 10 years). Now a few "commie" state governors want to kill them all off by any means all over again.
If we give these animals suitable places to live, and stop trying to blot out the world by having kids by the zillions, they dont need any help from us but to watch them go on their own.
Its a shame that the cougar is almost extinct in most of its former range, we need to learn to live with what belongs there, and not try to remove it because its not convenient to some people.
Just think, I read somewhere that in a few locations even the nile monitor is now extinct in its range because of collection for the pet trade, habitat loss, collection for skins, and the usual superstitious locals killing and eating som all combined.
Hunt people not animals, they are more of a challenge anyways, LOL.

When a wolf attacks and kills someones horse or whatever it just learned how to get a really easy meal and they repeat that behavior. Those animals do need to be shot. The wolves were comming back just fine on their own... they didn't need to be reintroduced that was a bad thing. If I'm out bird hunting and a wolf attacks my dog I can get in trouble for protecting my dog and killing it. But do you what I would do anyway???? That dog is my kid and almost more important than my wife. The wolves are a problem.
-----
"Relax, Don't Worry, Have a Homebrew!" Charlie Papazian

Anyone who thinks that a naturally occuring predator (that was here millions of years before us, and did great without us) is a problem, and wants to kill it for their own laziness is the REAL PROBLEM.
Anyone with any common sense knows that. It was the same paranoid lies that caused them to almost become extinct before. Without them for so long we as people in our environment, and their prey have become lazy, and expect to not have to adapt to them, only the prey animals adapted right away, some of our stubborn, lazy, cheap, and uneducated still are stuck in the same frame of mind.
Its been a well known fact since the time Native Americans were the only humans here, if you want your dog to stay safe, you train it to stay near you, not to be lazy and let it become prey to any predators.
I understand your feelings about your dog, I have a few "kids" of my own, but I train them for their own safety and restrain them for the environment we live in because I care about them.
No one who frequents on any forum that the subject is an animal of any kind (except maybe lazy cattle ranchers) would agree with those ignorant lies about wolves being a problem in their own environment.
The majority of Americans are getting educated now, its not so easy to spread that ignorance that almost killed them off years ago.
Now back to monitor lizards.

I agree with you to a certain extent, and I was kinda playing devils advocate with you, but I don't think that its so black and white with the issue. The opinion that you despise is definately still there especially with coyotes. But the government regulated one is just as scary.
-----
"Relax, Don't Worry, Have a Homebrew!" Charlie Papazian

Coyotes, they are possibly the most numerous large mammal predator in the US, they are found in almost every environment, woods, deserts, plains, cities, suburban, beaches, you name it. They are and have adapted to fill the niche as apex predator everywhere we killed off their only predators, wolves and cougars. Because we created that problem, we have to balance it, in the areas wolves have returned the coyotes population has plummeted to numbers of 1/2 or a fraction of what they were. In fact its a proven fact that most livestock depredations are free roaming pet dogs, and about 1/3 are coyotes. Even in areas where wolves are strong in numbers, its a proven fact that so few livestock kills are actually from wolves, those few are almost exclusively single young inexperienced males, and females that do not belong to any pack. In fact many game commisions have a published guide that tells you by simply looking at the dead animals, what killed it.
The federal program now includes a release of smaller numbers in northern New York area, once the exact subspecies is determined to release.
I have no problem with managing coyotes within reason, but wolves and cougars are still way too few, far too few to consider allowing anyone to hunt them.
I think the idea of hunting one animal to satisfy some local for a pet, or human kill is rediculous. Its sad that all those years a shark was killed everytime a shark bit a human. It was proven more recently that a shark would attack, then travel hundreds of miles away and not return to the area for sometimes a year, so some innocent shark died for the actions of another, what does that teach anyone, nothing.
This same method teaches nothing to any predator, why because its like training your dog, if you dont catch it in the act, the punishment means nothing, only teaches them to fear you unnecesarily. Besides most wolves shot are probably the wrong ones also.
There is plenty of country out there for our large predators, we just need to adapt ourselves to living with them.

First did your dog BUY YOU A FLAVI??? your wife did. So don't give me this dog thing hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Second, as an itelligent species and individual. You should know better then to let your dog run around where they are re-introducing wolves. Or where there is mountain lions. You should know better then that. You have a responsibility to allow and protect native wildlife. In our national forests, the law states you must keep a dog leashed. Yet, folks go out and let their dogs run and when a mountain lion stalks one(not even kill it) They go out with lion hunters and kill a grip of lions, hoping they got the one. The lion did not break the law, the people did, but the lion pays for it. Hmmmmmmmmm humans.

I wonder how you would feel if I went up to your snake dens and blew them away. They could bite my dog or kids you know! They could, its possible.

I have to say, this wolve thing is funny, I was at the Wicker ranch(durango mex) where the mexican wolves were trapped and brought back here to help re-establish them. The wolves were being killed off.

Lets see, they are being killed without thought in their last remaining ranges. I actually destroyed a number of the wolve traps(clamp traps) And you think so much of your dog, that you would kill them off, for only trying to stay in exsistance. How odd for a biologist. Cheers

Hi Frank...
My wife is awesome, and really I don't worry about my dog either. He knows. I think that my statement came off a little wrong. And the attitude that many have to shoot coyotes, cougars and wolves for sport or because they are a nuisance are wrong....but when they reintroduced the wolves they did all kinds of things wrong. To start with introducing parvo and other diseases. There is only so much room out here, and while it is vast we already had wolves coming down from Canada and they were already reestablishing territory. I have been to seminars with the leading biologists on this study describing the management procedures for the wolves in this area, and they are quite reasonable. But to call them commies or whatever because some "problem" wolves are being culled from the few hundred or so packs; I don't see that as reverting to the practices that previously caused large local extinctions. The wolves are coming back just fine... and so are the cougars

About the monitors I will be posting pics soon. I have been really busy moving and all. I'm now living at a sweet farmhouse out of town and no internet yet.
-----
"Relax, Don't Worry, Have a Homebrew!" Charlie Papazian

but this guy got suprised....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20212558/from/ET/
The rattlesnakes got a lot farther to go then the wolves do before anyone will care about them
-----
"Relax, Don't Worry, Have a Homebrew!" Charlie Papazian

SHvar, I've been saying that to myself for years, ha ha ha. Man (not discluding myself) is the most insidious vermin on earth. Charles Manson's fire was fueled by the same ideology. Look where he ended up.

Apex predators are always fewer and require more land/resources. It has to be that way for the ecosystem to function and replenish in balance. They are more sensative than the "smaller species" you speak of Frank because of this.

I think stopping DDT spraying had much more to do with the rebound of bald eagles vs. captive restock efforts. That is subjective, of course.

American alligators needed to not be hunted for skin by us humans. I think their numbers skyrocketed from protective efforts and enforcement along with the restock efforts. Much the same as redfish (aka red drum) not being netted offshore of LA and gill netting bans in FL aided their huge comeback numbers. Yes, there were restock efforts by Mote Marine Lab and such, but the stopping of what humans were doing to breeding pops was the main success IMO. I sometimes question how honest the media is telling (or is being fed) the stopping of killing practices or habitat loss practices over the restock efforts that need $ to continue. I still say prophylacticly stopping the problem is better than the late bandaid efforts in reality.

I said 15 yrs ago that gag grouper (fish) size limits need to be upped if females become males at 24-25" or so. Up until a few years ago the slot started at 22" (gulf side 2005). Every cracker keeps one that is close per my observations. And there is very little checking of catch/enforcement going on here. That was robbing the pop's of a large # of males if you've ever seen how many grouper are taken off of the FL coasts. Commercially I hope there are more strict regulations/enforcement. A no-brainer to up the minimum catch, but politics and concern for commercial fisherman's livelihoods kept the slot the same for over a decade past knowing this science. It will be interesting to see if the fish #s improve at the current minimum

Yup on the toads/frogs -look at the endangered amphib's in CA and how little attention those get despite being in a critical time. Now a cute owl species or any mammal....heck, lets throw 10s of thousands of dollars to save them. They're cute!

My point was particularly geared towards the talk of the Fiji banded iguana. If common US folk were allowed to have these I feel that would open the doors to potential poaching from native pops to the US as the money potential would be there. That risk, I believe, is more destructive than the remote possibility Jo Shmo rich guy in US gets some and maybe breeds them - then they somehow get surplus animals that are somehow going to miraculously be flown back to Fiji to restock. I just have a very hard time believing that would ever happen.

From your posts, you have a hard time with a lot of things. Simply put, you can believe what you like. But what you believe is also not going to do anything. Which is really the problem.

About Figi island iggies. Once they are bred in numbers, there is no need to poach them. The penalty outweights the benefit. Like all other reptiles, once bred regularly, their value drops and there is no reason to poach them.

Again about them, they are bred in the private world, just not in the U.S.. They could be legally imported as appendix 2, except our country won't go by the legal rules. They make their own. All of which has nothing at all to do with conservation.

Rules and other stuff often takes on a vail of conservation, when in fact it's not. As Ruston said, zoos do participate in education, but education does not create conservation, birth control does. You can protect and buy all the land you want, but as soon as its "needed" by local people, its gone.

So yes, captive populations held by whomever may never have the ability to be applied. They may be only in humans hands.

If you want to be negative, there is always one last hope(for the animals) As Eric P. really got is bum in a ringer for saying, humans WILL kill themselves off. No ifs ands or buts. When the happens, whatever species still exsist will have a chance to continue exsistance. Unhindered by humans and his destruction. But very much the opposite, they will be able to take advantage of all human made habitat. There will be dam fish(evolved to only live in dams) Air conditioning duct geckos, brick building kingsnakes, sewer blind and noseless fish, etc etc.

It will be very interesting to see humans in a million years, and the earth they left behind. Not a long time for natures animals, but a very long time for humans. Cheers

I'm not trying to be negative, but I also have a more 'real world' and less idealistic look on things and how they ACTUALLY work. On paper, yes, captive breeding and such sounds good. It sounded so glorious when Steve Irwin had captive breeding success with the Fiji iggies he had at his facility. But I equate that to 'bandaid' or 'last ditch efforts' much like UVB lighting with poor heat and diet in a captive lizard. You can eliminate the need with proper and prompt conservation measures instead of trying to put back a tiny gene pool of captives (again, if they ever get back there to Fiji instead of loaned to other zoos).

Frank: what do you believe the 'agenda' of the US government is in keeping them CITES I and off limits? I fail to see the benefit in any capacity to the US on this. I personally believe the poaching risk and discerning illegally poached vs. legally imported w/ papers (and tax $$ revenue they could acquire) is the issue as these iggies are quite sensative at this point. You have an interesting take on it - now make me understand it in your eyes.

Krusty

Its very simple Krusty, Fish and Wildlife, is directly concerned with NATIVE species, they are hired by us to maintain our natural genetic diverity. Its actually not their job to control other countries animals, thats the task of each country. In that, there is CITIES, that is the organizational center of international wildlife.

So actually its none of their business. By CITIES rules, each government is not suppose to judge other signature countries classifications. But CITIES has no rules of enforcement. So each country can play any silly games they like. And they do.

Now consider, F@W cannot actually practice conservation for the vast majority of species. So they mess with a couple. The rest will eventually go away.

Now to your question, F&W must show they are doing something. So these giant busts you see are only an effort to show congress they are saving the world(which is not their job, but what does congress know?) So they can inflate their value to the committees that be, when budjet time arrives.

With Figi iggies, there were agreements made with various zoos(SDZ) Its of interest to zoos to keep animals only in zoos or folks will have no need to PAY GATE, which is where zoos get their funding. If Figi iggies replaced green iggies(which by all rights they should)they would be in every pet shop. That is not of benefit to zoos.

Now I can understand you and many others do not understand this. But as an ex zoo builder, I got to sit in on lots and lots of zoo design meetings. And I have to say, conservation and education took a backseat to GATE. The design of zoos is to get people from place to place and put them in a profit center(shops and food courts) Sorry, but I was there. Zoo keepers are not part of that. And in most cases neither are curators. They are kept thinking they are doing a service to nature or conservation. Cheers

(((They are kept thinking they are doing a service to nature or conservation)))

hahaha how true!
This is exactly how SPCA and all animal control agencies operate, pepoles working there belive they are saving animals while owners fill their pockets, sorry I was there too!

Just because you worked at a zoo does mean you have some great insight...

Knowing the owners on a personal level allowed me to know how these business operates, don’t fool yourself they are businesses.

Iv seen more then I care to remember about the business end of these commerce, from old ladies $200,000 donation to there favourite animal control agency ( money mysteriously vanishing from the financial department) to 45 foot trailers full donated by quality dog or cat food companies, these products end up on shelves to be sold at regular price while the animals they where intended for where fed crap. These donations are taxes deductibles and therefore profitable.

This is not even a drop in the bucket of the things iv witnessed in the industry, so pleas don’t think I am being naïve in my statements, if I was have as crooked as some of these peoples id kindly ask for a very big amnesia compensation that would make my retirement easy.
Oh and FR is right, peoples working in those places are doing it for the love of animals, they are fed BS by administration.
but what do I care!

Sorry your bad exp doesn't make it a common reality among reputable institutions.

Frank you are right that first THE GATE is the issue. It keeps the doors open but I wouldn't agree that is why zoo's or at least not all folks in zoos keep or prefer animals only be available in a zoo setting not at a pet shop. But I understand your line of reasoning and some truth does exist in it...I mean you don't see allot of leopard geckos on display at zoos for example.

Your line about keeping us thinking we are doing something for conservation is a little off. Yeah in some cases but I personally am proud of the numerous things zoos have and continue to do for conservation and/or research. It's not all BS, all be it some is. Some and Mirrors as winston used to say!

Do zoos have along way to go? YES, but have they made some significant strides? That answer is also YES.

"Do zoos have along way to go? YES, but have they made some significant strides? That answer is also YES."

The same goes for the private sector. The big difference is the PS has far more funds available then the zoos ever will.

agreed...

The private sector has done allot and has lots to offer, I never said differently.

Hi Ruston, Of course what I said is partically true and not totally true, as very few things in life are 100% true or right or wrong.

All I can talk about is my experience. I have always promoted animals welfare. And I was shut down more times then you can imagine. Over such things as people flow. hahahahahahahaha.

Anyway, after all is said and done. Its not conservation is people occupy the land "intended" for conservational purposes. Which is what happens in the end.

I am a generation ahead of you. Many of the lands I saw set aside for conservation are now shopping and auto malls. I worked with nature conservecy in the old days, they recieved lands conservation purposes(donations or very cheap) only to trade off those lands for other land. Hmmmmmmmmmm Those folks who donated that land are flipping over in their graves.

The point is, no government has stopped people from taking land to live on. Until they do, there IS NO CONSERVATION. So all the talk, all the teaching, all the education classes to docents and the public are for nothing. UNTIL you get serious enough to cost people their lifes and keep them off lands intended for natures creatures and plants. Cheers

Agreed but as I think it was Murphy who said in his new herp history book, something like it it a lossing battle but one well worth the fight...

Yes, of course thats it in a nutshell. And the answer to the Toms negative opinion. Yes, it looks bad, and it may well end up worse then we can imagine. But you cannot stop fighting.

That is why I do what I do. And of course, you do what you do. The sad part is, why do you(zoos) think your different.

In my humble opinion, its all about education, but zoos only reach so much and for so little of a time. This is where captive produced reptiles take over and help your effort. If you make people aware something exsists and that something is not bad(in the case of reptiles) They may contribute what is important and that is MONEY. Because in the end, only money will effect conservation. The more people that know about(awareness) these animals, the more will contribute.

So seemingly poor approaches like the mass production of captive kingsnakes(petco approach) may indeed be a best conservation tool. It does reach millions of people. And the cost does not come from nature(wild caught)

The more people that know about monitors, the better chance they will stay in exsistance. You know this.

Unfortunately, our government agencies take another approach, to protect and hide species. that way, when they disappear, no one cares. And this effects zoos as well. As these agencies make it very difficult for zoos to keep and educate with some protected species. At least over the long period as the work load is too high.

This is some of the reasons why I say, ZOOS are not(the only) conservation tool. They're too few of you, and your easy targets for the government regulation. You cannot save a species, you do not have the numbers, not for one species, muchless the tens of thousands of species. Its going to take everyone interested and that includes zoos and private folks. SO stop the bickering and include the private folks. If you(zoos) do not, you will fail.

You Ruston commonly say, us zoos, we, etc. as if your different. Your not. Your only another person. Your fairly broadminded for a zoo guy. But your only one. Where are the rest of the zoo guys, there are many hundreds of them, yet, they do not seem to have a strong interest in these forums. Or a strong interest in keeping(successfully) reptiles. Where are the guys/gals, who dream about reptiles, work with them all day, and go home and take care of the ones at home, then when on vacation, go see some more??? Unfortunately, the majority of zoo folks, clock out at the end of the day. As you know, my generation was chock o block with those folks. Don't lose your passion, cheers

IN SOME CASES MASSIVE CAPTIVE BREEDING WOULD BE A GREAT SOLUTION, JUST LOOK AT FARMED SPECIES IT CAN WORK.

”Where are the rest of the zoo guys, there are many hundreds of them, yet, they do not seem to have a strong interest in these forums. Or a strong interest in keeping(successfully) reptiles. Where are the guys/gals, who dream about reptiles, work with them all day, and go home and take care of the ones at home, then when on vacation, go see some more??? “

THAT IS PERHAPS ONE OF MOST INTERESTING THINGS I’VE READ ON THIS FORUM. I TOO WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER WHERE ARE ALL THE ZOO HERP GUYS? I PERSONALLY KNOW A NUMBER OF REALLY DEDICATED PASIONATE FOLKS IN THE FIELD WHO LIVE AND BREATH HERPS BUT OVER THE 12 YEARS OR SO I HAVE BEEN IN THE ZOO FIELD IT IS GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO FIND THOSE FOLKS. A NUMBER OF REALLY GOOD FOLKS HAVE ALSO LEFT T HE FIELD, GOT BURNED OUT ON THE POLITICS, ETC… I HAVE ALSO WITNESSED IN VARIOUS MEETINGS, ALLOT OF WELL MEANING PEOPLE SITTING AROUND A ROOM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY HELL THEY CAN DO TO HELP BUT HONESTLY JUST OVERWHELMED WITH THE ISSUES AT HAND. I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I WILL KEEP FIGHTING TO FIND THEM AND LEARNING AS I GO…

I see the main problem being AZA, it has taken control away from the individuals. Thus putting it in the hands of a group(board, committee, etc). While that does not sound all that bad, its very bad.

It puts the decision making process in the hands of those that are good at "boards, committees and such, and out of the hands of the folks with expertise in the subject, the animals themselves. Again, I am partly right as there are some really good individuals on these boards. But the problem is, they become deluted by the rest that are not up to their ability.

So, those with ability, leave to seek other areas where they are not controlled by those with less ability. This system(AZA) is one of averages. IT will make a good average, but oppress the exceptional. So sadly, the good ones leave. You and I have both seen that.

The above is a big problem and you know it. You attend all manner of meetings, most are dominated by folks whos expertise is out of context to the subject. Which is very normal and normal on this forum.

Most come here thinking they are smart(proved in other areas) and should be smart here, whoops they slipped and fell in the feces.

My arguements with academics is very much like this, those academics are extremely educated and may be smart(academically speaking) But sadly, the keeping and breeding of varanids, is not an academic field. Its an applied knowledge field, Its success is determined by results, not chapters read.

Sadly conservation is a applied field. Cheers

They hatched, to another supposed zoo, at the same time a very rich Japanese reptile collector made some large donations, and obtained 2 young perenties that looked exactly the same for his private collection.
In fact the pictures of them in their astroturf lined cages were posted on the internet.
A good friend was looking at these pictures of this collection back then, he pointed out that almost all of this guys collection were rare CITES 1 and internationally protected animals kept in tiny petstore reptile cages.

perenties are not CITES 1. There are not endangered in any. They are just not common HERE in the states. They are in other countries(aside from OZ) Again, just not here. Cheers

Most of the others were. And if they were not CITES 1 they were very rare animals in captivity, if not protected by their home countries from export.
Its amazing what money can get you and hoe quickly when you have lots of it to throw around.

hahahahahahahaha Its the world we live in, and its across the board. Hmmmmmmmm supermodel, perentie, supermodel, perenty. I GOT A PERENTY, but I don't got a supermodel. hahahahahahahaha

First, we are speaking about Komodo dragons. One large brush fire could essentially wipe out their wild population. Personally I would rather there were thousands and thousands in private hands as insurance for their survival.

Second, yes the ever-expanding population has to have their conveniences. You have yours, they need theirs, that was my point - I know you dont need another Walmart, but other people do.

Last - your assumption that there are too many people for the earth to support is false (not even close) and your declaration we are going to 'face this' in the coming century is common, linear thinking - and false. Our exponential technological advances will curb any such issues within the next 25-40 years. That is the nature of exponential growth and yours (linear thinking) is a common mistake among alarmists.

Of course you don't agree, just so long as you do not push more legislation upon anyone else - you can be wrong all day and brood on the sad state of Mother Earth battling the evil humans. It would be less hypocritical if you did this brooding from a mud hut somewhere by the way.

I always find it interesting that generally those against human expansion have no problem living in developed areas. Again, it is the 'I can but no one else can' mentality. Try drawing the line behind you and see how you like it haha

Tom

Again i reiterate - you do NOT have to agree w/ me and we'll both live our lives and see. But i will not hold back my opinions on this subject as your 'exponential' outlook is very common as well. I think you overestimate man's ability to preserve/conserve despite our extreme resource use in developed countries and the data the environment is giving us these days. Will humans go extinct? Very unlikely. Will we have extreme disease/resource depletion/habitat depletion to deal with if we don't get more conservative and live within sustainable resources? You better believe it. That data is there, plain and simple.

You see two sides of this type of argument in medicine as well w/ newer and more virulent/resistant pathogen strains (bacteria and viruses) and the 'watch out and use antibiotics judiciously' people vs. the 'let the researchers/doctors figure it out' sides. I don't care to see human suffering and pandemics, but they are inevitable in the near future and some we are dealing with as we speak.

Telling me to live in a mud hut and such is hypocritical. I do not throw comments like that towards you (crap argument/inflammatory comments vs. educated debating). I challenge you to try looking into this stuff a little deeper and make your impressions then. This stuff is not 'scare tactic' (although i agree some politicians do use this as a tactic)and i have no agenda other than seeing the facts and making assumptions. I really don't want to debate this on a pet lizard keeping forum, so lets agree to disagree as adults. Peace.

Hi Tom, your using that same linear thinking your talking about, just a different line. History has made it clear, all species have a limited timeline. Cheers

hahaha touché...

Tom

I don’t agree or perhaps don’t understand your statement?

History have shown all species to be highly adaptable (evolution)
Think about introduced or island morphs, many of witch have undergone major morphological changes and now have little in common with there ancestral lineage.

Evolution is never ending, one specie branches out into several and so on. They evolve with there environment not without.

Isn’t your husbandry based on there environment?
Your base is about proper environmental choices, then you mastered a feeding system to match (proper support).

Back in the old days when we started keeping monitors, iv lost quit a few because I didn’t understand the role of support, high metabolising monitors un-sustained by the wrong type of food would die in a short period of time, or take months if not years to die when under metabolised.
The later is a reflection of how adaptable these lizards are.
Why would they have a time limited timeline?

Hi Jobi,

I believe you answered your own question about the limited timeline with the following:

"History have shown all species to be highly adaptable (evolution)
Think about introduced or island morphs, many of witch have undergone major morphological changes and now have little in common with there ancestral lineage.

Evolution is never ending, one specie branches out into several and so on. They evolve with there environment not without."

Kind of like people saying new species emerge (evolve) everyday and species go extinct everyday. Overtime these animals evolve into a new species wiping out the old (hence the limited timeline) or they end up competing a long side the old. The dinosaurs come to mind when I think about a large number of species going extinct...

Hey thanks!
I guess I was a little slow on this one.

Actually I was referring to humans what will have a limited timeline.

Yes all animals have a period of time. Some species are shown to be very well designed. Sharks for instance. Or hydra, both have been around for a very long time. Hydra since before vertabrates and sharks since long before bony fish. So both have seen the coming and going of many species, including all the dinos.

Have I told you the story of the timeline exhibit I build. I build it right here in Tucson, at the Ariz Sonora desert museum.

Its something like 58 feet long(just a guess at this) All but the last 15 feet there was no life on land. The last 15 feet had life on land. Man has only been here the last 1/4 inch(at best)

From the impact man has had in such a short time. He surely will not be here long. Cheers

np

Tigers, lions, large crocs, elephants, hippos, etc in their house, by all means, go for it.
The rest of us can already make plans for the future use of your properties.
Let natural selection take its course among exotics keepers lol....

zoos do not choose what endangered species they attempt to breed. there is an endangered species coordinator that chooses what endangered species a particular zoo can breed and how many can be produced.

yes, their conservation efforts seem kinda fruitless.

i garuntee you that there are private individuals that have komodos...it's just the way things work man.
-----

The New Redpython.net

zoos do not choose what endangered species they attempt to breed. there is an endangered species coordinator that chooses what endangered species a particular zoo can breed and how many can be produced.

- YES AND NO. IF YOUR TALKING AN AZA ZOO, CERTAIN TAXA HAVE MEMBERS OF AN SSP PROGRAM (IE. SPECIES SURVIVAL PLAN). THESE PROGRAM HAVE SSP AN COORDINATOR AND COMMITTEE WHO AS A GROUP MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR MANAGEMENT FOR PARTICPATING AZA MEMEBERS. NOT ALL ENDANGERED SPECIES OR ENDANGERED SPECIES IN ZOO COLLECTIONS ARE PART OF AN SSP PROGRAM. AND SOME SSP'S ARE RUN BETTER THAN OTHERS.

yes, their conservation efforts seem kinda fruitless.

- AS A ZOO PERSON I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY WEAK STATEMENT. FIRST FIND OUT WHAT ZOO'S ARE DOING BEFORE YOU TRY TO JUDGE THEIR CONSERVATION EFFORTS. IF YOUR TALKING ABOUT THE NOTION OF CAPTIVE BREEDING AS CONSERVATION ITSELF, YOUR RIGHT, CAPTIVE BREEDING IS NOT CONSERVATION - IT CAN BE A TOOL IF USED PROPERLY.

i garuntee you that there are private individuals that have komodos...it's just the way things work man.