Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have a point I would like to make regarding modern 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? 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?

Best regards,
Pinstripe

Ball pythons??REALLY?? I mean, just about every hearted milkhead rails AGAINST ball pythons and all they stand for. Maybe you should read this forum istead of posting on it for a while. What we do in captivity, thats where you are, is immaterial. J

I don't think this has ever been the goal. I believe the Ideah is that with Ball Pythons for example, in such large quantities and in much higher quality than fresh imports, then this would releive pressure to import wild animals. Why would you buy a freshly imported Ball with all the problems associated with them, when you can buy a super nice captive bred one? This is how we help the situation hopefully. Prices come down drastically for wild imports and thus they become less lucrative for the people catching and selling them.
-----
King Snakes! Who can make a better mouse trap?
J Sierra

........and to think all this time, I was under the false impression that normal phenotype Ball pythons were quite rare!

But seriously though, there are plenty of breeding programs being done out there for rare wild-type species and subspecies of snakes, as well as many other animals for that matter, which is of course, a great idea in my opinion.

Ball python? = HORRIBLE example however..LOL!.

When a normal phenotype Ball python becomes a rare item, I don't think man will be on the planet anymore either.

Also, there are plenty of adult oddball mutations in the wild, the real reason there aren't more seen is the fact that they would have to be paired-up with more snakes of the same mutant gene, and the odds of this happening just isn't all that likely. I also think people assume a little too often that all these different morphs are always eaten by a predators due to them being more visible. Now, while this certainly DOES more than likely happen often enough (depending on what type of mutation it is), this probably doesn't happen quite as often as people assume it does.

Most of the snakes we commonly see in the hobby are quite common anyway, regardless of the fact that tons of morphs of that particular type are often propagated and available too.

In any case, I understand the point you are trying to convey here, but I also think there are TONS of normal types that will always assure the planet doesn't run out anytime real soon.

I will say however, that it is too bad more people do not think it is a good idea to only breed snakes of the same species/subspecies together. THAT is what is creating all the havoc with everyone always questioning what they have in their collections. Because if this wasn't continually done in the first place by so many, it wouldn't be an issue. That problem will only grow more and more every single breeding season.

BTW, just the other day, a guy found this one-of-a-kind awesome adult T-positive "lavender" splendida crossing a highway. Another prime example of a morph that made it to adulthood in the wild. Nocturnal types would logically of course be far less conspicuous to predation anyway. A leucistic Black Racer would be far more likely to be seen than many other types would, this splendida would be a great example of this.

~regards, ~Doug

-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

my website -serpentinespecialties.webs.com

Go back to your PETA forums.
-----
Please don't talk about snake prices when my wife is around!!

balls....we breed for morphs....we also get alot of normals as side items...they can be left go....

balls....we are already setup to produce millions in a year IF the need arises....no sweat....we'd just use wild type males and not morph males....and create normals....if the need arises...and the price was right or the cause...

...releasing into the wild....not legal untill the species is proven and accepted to be extinct....which takes years,decades....maybe never happen...as long as Joe Schmoo Scientist still finds a wild one or believes they can still find a wild one.....then they would have to be quarantined beyond belief untill release was possible....
-----
.......
.......
......JY

Thank you all for your responses. I have been trying to get a better grasp on this issue that has been bothering me. I just thought that maybe a lot of genetically "mutated" animals might not be such a good thing if people lose appreciation for the wild animals.

I'm not saying ball pythons are likely to become extinct soon, just using them as an example. And I didn't know about the release regulations for conservation efforts. I'm pretty sure that's just if an animal is extinct in a certain region, which occurs frequently, even with common animals like P. regius.

Again, thanks for all the responses,

Best regards,
pinstripe

I see you have met our Welcome Committee

Any thoughts you have are always welcome here and don't mind those guys.They spend too much time in the basement staring at their snakes
and have grown antisocial.
.
.
BTW...Whats a Ball Python?

-----
"He's down in the basement staring at his snakes " My Wife

--< : < > < > < > < > < >~~~

Doug L

..I really have to fire my typist
-----
"He's down in the basement staring at his snakes " My Wife

--< : < > < > < > < > < >~~~

Doug L

Never mind it, I'm glad to hear peoples' responses.

pinstripe

0.1 eastern king
1.0 leopard gecko

The classical "conservation through commercialization" argument does not rest on the presupposition that the private sector is establishing "reservoirs" for later re-release. The idea is simply that when species disappear due to habitat destruction and other ecosystem-level factors, these species will continue to thrive in captivity rather than simply going the way of Titanoboa, Tyrannosaurus, and others I wish I'd had the chance to breed.

You raise the good point that the selective process we use is an imperfect system. On the one hand, deliberately breeding for deeply repressed recessive traits does nothing to help maintain the "natural" beauty of the animals we've taken from the wild. However, even those who breed for high quality "wild-types" still introduce their own personal element of selection over a series of generations. We choose to breed those specimens which are most pleasing to use because of their pattern, temperament, food choice, etc. Nothing several generations captive bred from wild stock -- even "normal" patterned animals -- are truly ideal for re-release. Studies in other animal groups have corroborated this idea.

As someone else mentioned, this is one (of many) reasons why hybridizing species should be so universally frowned upon. The elements of selection that breeders introduce are practically unavoidable, but they stand to do little to drastically change the overall morphology in a captive lineage over time. Deliberately crossing species, on the other hand, deals an irreversible blow to the gene pool and, as I've written elsewhere, violates an implicit ecological responsibility we assume in bringing wildlife into captivity.
-----
http://www.waffahousereptiles.com

Thanks, you named the problem a lot better than I did.