Reptile & Amphibian Forums

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? 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

>>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?

"natural" forms better when they discuss corn snakes. But what they REALLY mean (usually) is that they want the brightest, most beautiful selectively bred okeetee corn that is almost as foreign to Mother Nature as an albino, lol!

Once humans have bred any animal in captivity for a few generations, we have usually been selecting for different traits than Mother Nature would choose. We may choose unusual colors and patterns, tamer, calmer animals, or the babies that quickly start eating the kind of food that we like to provide. So just because a snake LOOKS more or less normal, does not mean it hasn't been changed genetically from the average wild population.

I don't pretend to be breeding to release animals in the wild. BUT - by breeding jillions of whatever species we breeders are working with, we do accomplish some things that I think are important. For example, we learn a lot about HOW to breed a particular species. I remember many years ago showing a PhD herpetologist how to sex snakes. He had been keeping a bunch for breeding projects - and it turned out that most were the wrong sex! With all of our accumulated knowledge, those who ARE breeding for release programs will hopefully be more successful. But I don't feel that we all have to have that as our goal in order to be doing something worthwhile.

And - not only do we take the pressure off of wild populations with our c.b. babies, but the increased ranks of pet reptile keepers are more likely to approve conservation programs instead of saying "who cares about snake conservation?"

Many academics and humaniacs hate the idea of reptiles or other exotics in captivity. But it is my belief that the big grassroots push for dolphin safe tuna many years ago was fueled by the public growing up with Flipper on TV, and having enjoyed dolphins in Sea World type settings. Without that "useless entertainment" (of dolphins, or also, of us "old timers" going out to schools by the thousands for the last few decades to show off and explain about our reptile "pets", then I don't think that nearly as many of the general public would care about dolphins, or snakes, as do now. The general public would not have been willing to take on the dolphin killing fishing nets without Flipper and Sea World's influence. And I think fewer of the younger, non-herpers are likely to kill snakes than older people. I think our combined efforts over the years are at least partially responsible.

Those, to me, seem like laudable conservation goals attained while we are just providing fun and entertainment with our colorful "pet" reptiles. I personally don't think we HAVE to be breeding for release in order to be doing something useful to society and even to conservation efforts. All just my own opinion, but I have been observing such things for quite a long time.

Breeding "stock" looking animals to return to the "wild" is nice, IF the "wild" is still there.

Kathy, that is a very eloquent and correct response to a somewhat complicated post....Thank you
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

Kathy nailed it. We have the experence because we bred the morphs. None of us would ever think to use them for head starting. And as mentioned morphs have made "legitimate" pets because they would not live in nature. And of cource the pressure off the wild collection. The private sector IS READY, able and willing, but show me a government program that is ready to take us up on it. We do it without grant money. WE DO NOT FREEZE our surplus. And we do not support "protecting" animals that are going to be burned with the land, eaten and not replaced, making laws to put people in jail, or animals made into worthless trinkets. Vic Morgan. ps everyones answers were very good and THE TRUTH.

Without reading all the replies so far I've got to say:

1) Education of/for/by the general public, raising awareness of animals' plight. Loss of fear and better understanding come with familiarity. Public gradually looses irrational fear and misconception due to past mystique of folklore, wives' tales and ignorance. Better understanding of animals' behavior and environmental requirements by the public. Understanding the true nature of the beast, not some folklore. More compassion for their plight.

2) Eco-Economics 101 - When indigenous peoples realize the value of a renewable natural resource, they then have economic incentive to ensure survival and provide habitat. Provides foreign balance of trade export capital, as well as Eco-tourism dollars.

3) As mentioned, a knowledge reservoir on husbandry and best practices is gained, just in case the need to propagate for repatriation should arise.

4) Nobody has EVER said that Man-made captive born morphological creations are to be returned to the wild. Their probable lack of survivability in the wild is most likely for the best.

jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Thank you all for your responses -- I've just been trying to get a better hold on this issue as it's been bothering me for a while. I just think that maybe it isn't such a good idea to make so many genetic mutations that people (not breeders, but average customers) lose their appreciation for the wild animals. Since many people argue that captive breeding for commercial purposes helps conservation, I wanted to clarify.

Thanks again and best regards,
pinstripe

there was a time only a couple of decades ago that wildlife officials doubted our ability to breed consistently at all (seems like it was just yesterday!). They thought that claims of breeding were thinly veiled attempts to "launder" illegally caught reptiles so that we could sell them as c.b. Now that we are obviously producing huge quantities, the fact that some are changed considerably from the wild type gives us some claim to domestication.

If we get to the point that we can get zoning and wildlife officials in some areas to accept some species as domestic animals, it will give us a different standing in the ongoing argument against exotics. Although there is certainly room for those who wish to enjoy natural looking herps, I think the fact that some have been manipulated much as domestic animals have been may be a benefit to our hobby / industry in the long term.

I see room for all tastes, and am happy that all can be accommodated. As long as breeders don't change herps in ways that are detrimental to health (such as dogs and cats with extremely shortened or elongated bodies or faces that can cause health problems), then I say variety is the spice of life!

As an extremely broad generalization both the private individuals and the Zoos have followed the same general track with keeping animals

Stage 1. Simply keeping the animal alive

Stage 2. Keeping the animal alive long enough to get it to reproduce

Stage 3. Breeding the animal frequently enough to sustain the captive population (in other words at a rate equal to or greater than the rate of loss by the breeder)

Stage 4. keeping the animal alive long enough that the average maximal lifespan begins to get close to the maximal lifespan of the animal while meeting the requirements of stage 3 above

For some animals there is a stage 5..
Which is meeting all of the above requirements while keeping all of the natural behaviors of the wild populations (like tadpole transport in non-obligate egg feeding dendrobatids).

The stages don't have to occur in that exact order but it gives a decent (in my opinion) snap shot of much of herpetoculture.

If one thinks about all of the changes that have occured in knowledge, supplies and equipment (not to mention availability of species) since the 1970s, it is nothing short of amazing.

Ed

If more people understand the true nature of the animals and learn to respect and appreciate the animals' individual place in Nature's Web through ubiqity, then that's a good thing. The enlightened citizen is the better citizen.

If Third World Countries realize a renewable economic value though "farming" and "ranching" for export, that's a good thing.

If individuals derive personal satisfaction from participating in the Hobby, that's a good thing. It's all about using the Gray Matter.

If there is a reservoir of husbandry knowledge through firsthand experience, should the need arise, that's a good thing. It should be noted most of the breakthroughs in husbandry were accomplished in the private sector, not by academia or institutions.

jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

You do realize don't you that almost everything you eat is a bizarre mutation of it's wild form don't you?
In addition to reptiles and amphibians I am a serious plant geek.
Wild apples are very small and not very appetizing and the original domestic apples are actually a hybrid between 2 other species in the malus genus.
Almost all citrus trees are the result of crossbreeding and in fact all varieties are grafted onto rootstock from a type of citrus that is too sour ( I LOVE sour things and yes it is TOO sour.) to eat. About the only type of citrus you can grow true from seed are pomelos, some lemons and key limes other than that all are grafted varieties.
You most likely never recognize wild lettuce if you saw it growing unless you knew what it was. Wild strawberries are smaller than blackberries although they are much sweeter than commercially grown ones.
I could go on with this game all night btw but we seem to limited on space in our posts now so I'd end up with about 50 posts and I do need to sleep soon.
The same thing goes for food animals as well which you would find out if you ever decided to hunt for your thanksgiving turkey rather than buy one. fyi if you do make sure you kill 2 or 3 or else buy an extra one from the store you'll need it.

quote "
4) Nobody has EVER said that Man-made captive born morphological creations are to be returned to the wild. Their probable lack of survivability in the wild is most likely for the best"endquote

A little more information on this subject... there is a lot of good information that is appliciable to this topic using the problems with hatchery raised/bred fish as an example.

As Kathy noted above, the populations in captivity are for the most part not being managed in a way to sustain the maximal genetic variation for the longest period of time. This means that even without active selection for color variations, the genetics are going to diverge fairly quickly from the wild population as those animals most tolerant (adapted) to captivity are going to do better and produce a greater variety of offspring. If these animals are then released to boost a population then if the released animals are able to breed, they can actually reduce the viability of the surviving wild populations.
For those interested check out some of the following (there is actually a wide variety of animals showing these effects...)
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/56/4/459.pdf

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/54/6/1051.pdf

http://www.life.illinois.edu/kahughes/Jimenez_et_al1994.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2385902

Ed

Ed, it sounds like a random derelict captive bred animal isn't going to effect the natural population much, by what I read.

I know state wildlife agencies are the big perpetrators of artificially captive engineered and reared hybrids being placed into natural ecosystems. Primarily for sport hunting and fishing, thereby benefiting the the sport fishing and game related economies at the expense of naturally occurring populations. Of course those introductions have been undertaken on a rather grand scale in order to be successful.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Hi John,

In general, a occasional animal is fine but there can also be other effects such as outbreeding depression if the animal is from a seperate enough population. Outbreeding depression can take as much as three generations to show the effects and depending on the amount of difference it can actually render a local population non-viable. There were some interesting studies done with anurans and these effects.

Ed

"And when the wolves come knocking at our doors with things like HR 669, can we really say that professional breeders are aiding conservation?"

Interesting that you should choose a wolf analogy. Wild wolves are endangered in fact until recently they were basically extirpated from the lower 48 states here in the USA.
It would be interesting if earlier civilizations had a similar attitude to yours and not bothered to domesticate wolves we might not have man's best friend.
Horses also come to mind in this scenario. There is debate as to whether or not prezwalski's horses are a full species or a subspecies of Equis ferrus (the modern horse.) either way the actual horse we have today does not exist in the wild with the exception of feral populations(ie no true wild ancestors anymore.) this can be said of several other domestic animals that serve useful purposes, if they did not exist in domestic forms they would be extinct. I kind of like having lots of these animals around myself I think it is much preferrable to be able to look at an actual animal and be able to touch it and experience what it is really like rather than wonder what they were like as we do with dinosaurs or wolly mammoths .
We are coming to a time in this world where if we do not decide whether or not to keep animals in captivity they are going to be gone. It is beyond worrying about their habitat, like it or not habitat is going away. 2 excellent examples of this mammal wise are tigers and orangutans, there are many others as well and space will not allow me to get into places like Madagascar in this post where currently only about 10% of their original rainforests still exist. bottom line is if I had a choice of seeing an actual live t-rex that was a color morph or not seeing one at all I would definitely opt for the former choice.

...ive wondered about that myself...but you (and me) have been given some excellent answers by some of the most knowledgeable people in the industry...

Locality, locality, locality

Many folks only breed local specific normal herps. Many people do normal locality specifics including alterna, pyro, zonata, klaub, suboc, baird, pic, lep, mitchelli and rosy boa folks. True these are not exotics but not all folks are doing the recessive morphs or exotics. And these species are exotics to the rest of the world. If Mexico would open again I am sure many here would love to get in some new species, locales and blood.

This is why we need a legal pathway to conduct our business locally, nationally and globally. This includes wild harvest and commerce (the life blood of the world economy). Some folks chose to say that their animals are non-locality because of laws prohibting the sale of wild caught or to avoid the negativity some throw about. Some prefer to do just captive born stuff but with all the current and future habitat destruction around existing cities and with the negligable effects to populations from rural collecting, sustainable harvest should be encouraged and legal pathways established. This is why all herps that are not endangered or threatened should be allowed to be sustainably harvested in some numbers and sold, kept or whatever. Most herp species are not bred in captivity just the popular, easy and financially viable ones. This needs improvement, encouragement and legal pathways. The hobbyist assumes the financial burden of maintaining these species in captivity and commerce insures they are able to be bred and sold to expand and spread the captive population globally. Gene pools are preserved in captivity long after the habitat turns into a Walmart or a sub-division. That is conservation and it costs the tax payers as a whole nothing!

Welkerii