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

Here is my answer again!

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

>>Here is my answer again!
>>
>>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

Yes, exactly.

Also, if there was a species which needed help being re-established to the wild, etc., it would be very easy to outcross even heavily bred morphs to unrelated morph animals, and produce phenotypically "normal" offspring.

Also, morphs do occur in the wild, and there are even some localities of certain species where morphs / mutations are even common. I am thinking of anerythristic corns in Florida and a population of albino Japanese Ratsnakes in Japan.
-----
-Toby Brock
Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research

No need to reply to each post -- I posted this in multiple forums because people with different interests might have different views on this.

Thank you for your responses, as I wanted to better understand this issue. I thought that maybe genetic mutation isn't such a good idea when people (not breeders but average pet buyers) might lose their appreciation for the wild animals.

Best regards,
pinstripe

>>No need to reply to each post -- I posted this in multiple forums because people with different interests might have different views on this.
>>
>>Thank you for your responses, as I wanted to better understand this issue. I thought that maybe genetic mutation isn't such a good idea when people (not breeders but average pet buyers) might lose their appreciation for the wild animals.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>pinstripe

As mentioned, morphs / mutations occur in nature all the time - some survive and some don't. Not all are harmful to the survival of the animals. There are also plenty of people who keep and breed locality, normal animals.

All of this captive breeding is helpful to conservation because, as others have said, it takes pressure off of wild populations by making wild caught animals less appealing to the buyer, and thus less profitable.
-----
-Toby Brock
Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research

I get a funny gut feeling about this whole post of yours. My spider senses are tingly! If I posted in several forums it's because there are a different group of readers. My reason for posting in each one is obviously not so you can read it many times but for the benefit of the different individuals in each forum. You have not adressed my point in any of the forums yet. We decrease demand for the supply of wild snakes which in turn helps diminish their exploitation!
-----
King Snakes! Who can make a better mouse trap?
J Sierra

>>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
Prof. Richard B. King - Faculty - Ecology/Evo Bio

To add to what Dusty said...

In my opinion, what we do with captive breeding only affects conservation of species indirectly. We can learn more about a species, but the numbers we produce has little to do with the numbers in the wild. We can supply hobbyists, zoos, or academics to reduce demand on wild caught, but that likely does little to protect wild animals. The concept which leads my thinking is that without key habitat the wild animals won't exist, and if they have the habitat they need, they won't likely be in danger of extinction.

I work with green ratsnakes, Senticolis triaspis intermedia. This species was up for protection in AZ a number of years ago. My argument was the same. They live in the Sky Island mountain ranges of AZ and N.M. and Mexico. Even though it seems their ranges are small, their habitat is almost impenitrable. The only snakes collected are on the fringes of their range, near the few roads in these areas. Collecting may reduce numbers along the roads, temporarily, but it does not threaten the overall populations. Think about some of the devastating forest fires these mountains have seen and how many animals perished. Think about the mining operations and how many animals open pit mines claim. Think about development and what a new housing project will do along with the infrastructure they create. Then compare that to what collecting does.

Destruction of habitat is always going to be the biggest nemesis of conservation, in my humble opinion. What we do with keeping reptiles has little to do with real conservation and more to do with politics and human nature. Someone once said, "We only will keep what we really cherish." Does society really cherish reptiles? In the end will there be reptiles left in what's left of the natural habitat?

Regards...Terry

>>>>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
>>Prof. Richard B. King - Faculty - Ecology/Evo Bio

-----
Conserving reptiles by helping to protect habitat...
www.ratsnakehaven.com
www.scenicsantaritas.org

Of course habitat destruction is the real problem. Take the Eastern Indigo. Have they been over collected? I think not. There habitat is being destroyed to make way for money making developments. But the original post was asking how our captive breeding is helping to conserve populations. The answer is NONE. If the land they live in no longer exists. But this is all based on the assumtion that Reptiles are in fact disapearing all over the globe. I don't think we can really determine that, other than habitat destruction. I believe populations of animals and plants fluctuate. One year harsh weather may reduce populations of a particular species and then they can easily recover when conditions improve. Remember most snakes can double and triple clutch when conditions are optimum. Fluctuation is how nature works in almost every area. Cycles everything is cycles!
-----
King Snakes! Who can make a better mouse trap?
J Sierra

>>Of course habitat destruction is the real problem.

Another biggie is anthropogenic climate change.

>>But this is all based on the assumtion that Reptiles are in fact disapearing all over the globe. I don't think we can really determine that, other than habitat destruction.

Sure we can. Off the top of my head, here's something hot off the press. news.byu.edu/archive10-may-lizardextinction.aspx

>>Remember most snakes can double and triple clutch when conditions are optimum. Fluctuation is how nature works in almost every area. Cycles everything is cycles!

The problem is that nothing is presently cycling back up. It's all downward.

Scientists estimate, conservatively, that the modern extinction rate is 36 to 78 times the normal background rate of extinction. Check out Regan, H. M., R. Lupia, A. N. Drinnan, and M. A. Burgman. 2001. The currency and tempo of extinction. The American Naturalist 157:1-10. www.bio.sdsu.edu/pub/regan/Currencyandtempo.pdf. Reptiles are not excluded from the results of that data.

DR
Suboc.com

Dustyroads wrote, "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 really think that subocs from only one mile away would not survive if relocated? I seriously doubt that. I don't think we would have to preserve each of the tiniest variations of each species for them to be successful. They can adapt and suvive with good habitat and food supply.
-----
King Snakes! Who can make a better mouse trap?
J Sierra

>>
>>You really think that subocs from only one mile away would not survive if relocated? I seriously doubt that. I don't think we would have to preserve each of the tiniest variations of each species for them to be successful. They can adapt and suvive with good habitat and food supply.
>>-----
>>King Snakes! Who can make a better mouse trap?
>> J Sierra

Research shows otherwise, my friend. It has nothing to do with my opinions or what I or you or anybody else thinks. For species like Yellowstone Gray Wolves, sea turtles, and birds that have enormous ranges, a mile won't make a difference, but this is not the case with terrestrial herps with tiny home ranges.

For highly variable species like Subocs and Desert Horned Lizards, for instance, populations vary from canyon to canyon, or from outcrop to outcrop. Yes, even from much less than a mile away, in many cases. A population among a volcanic outcrop will typically match that outcrop in color, often black or very dark. Now visit a population adjacent to that one with a limestone outcrop, and the specimens will be light-colored again. You see this in nature just about everywhere you look. For an example of some original research in this arena, check out this page at the University of Idaho --> people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/research.html, and read the section called "Ecological Divergence in Reptiles". You can't ignore selection. Taking population genetics into account is a major part of what is called assessing the competence of a reintroduction program group or augmentation program group prior to release.

From Daniel Fairbanks' book Relics of Eden, he was referring to some of Darwin's postulates when he said that, "Varieties in nature usually occupy specific geographic regions, and members of the same variety preferentially mate with one another. Geographic barriers (such as rivers, canyons, mountain ranges, etc.) typically isolate then from other varieties of the same species." This is what is going on in the research I linked to above.

Not only do those geographic barriers exist, but there are reproductive barriers to boot, called sexual selection. Females will often only choose males that have the best genes -- genes that are adapted to the environment in which they live, NOT a genetically isolated canyon one or two miles away. This is also going on in the Rosenblum research above.

Are there distinct canyons in Trans-Pecos habitat from one mile to another that isolate gene flow and drive selection? Yes. How do we know? The snakes from those canyons match the substrate found in each canyon. Are these traits selected for? Certainly. Does that play a role in survival and selection? You betcha.

Here's some more resources for the role of genetics in reintroduction programs:

Vergeer, P., E. Sonderen, and N. Joop Ouborg. 2004. Introduction strategies put to the test: local adaptation versus heterosis. Conserv. Biol. 18:812–821.

Sawyer, M. W., and J. T. Baccus. 1996. Movement ecology and thermal biology of Bogertophis subocularis (Brown) from Texas (Serpentes: Colubridae). Southwestern Nat. 41: 182-186.

There was also an interesting study looking at the fate of relocated rattlesnakes here --> Nowak, E.M. (1998) Implications of nuisance rattlesnake relocation at Montezuma Castle National Monument. Sonoran Herpetologist, 11(1). Pp. 1-4.
*This page addresses the rattlesnake study some: webspinners.com/coloherp/cb-news/Vol-28/cbn-0110/RamblingReptiles.html.

Also, individuals do not adapt. Populations adapt. Adaptation, in the biological meaning of the word, is passing on genes that are beneficial to the next generation. A genetically incompetent group reintroduced or augmented to a wild population will not survive, will not reproduce, and thus, no adaptation will take place.

DR
Suboc.com

There may be some species which have refined their adaptations to a specific habitat. But there are so many examples that show the opposite. Contrary to what many Alterna collectors believe there have been examples of most of the pattern types found sometimes side by side. They have found Blairs and Alterna types, light and dark, all within the same areas. Why don't the dark ones that are easier to see die out? There are many variables in these studies and many times the studies are conducted with the ideah of proving a certain theory to be correct. I'm just going by what we see everyday. Pythons living thousands of miles from their home in the Everglades! There is always more than we want to admit.
-----
King Snakes! Who can make a better mouse trap?
J Sierra

>>There may be some species which have refined their adaptations to a specific habitat. But there are so many examples that show the opposite.

Hence, my examples of the gray wolves, migratory birds, etc.

>>Contrary to what many Alterna collectors believe there have been examples of most of the pattern types found sometimes side by side. They have found Blairs and Alterna types, light and dark, all within the same areas. Why don't the dark ones that are easier to see die out?

Probably because they are under the ground about 99.999999% of their entire lives. There's very little selective pressure for cryptic coloration. Even then, there's enough of an evolutionary reason for them being called "Gray-Banded" Kingsnakes. These snakes live in limestone subterranean habitat, which is gray. Evolution by natural selection theory would predict them to be more gray than other Lampropeltis species that aren't so closely connected with limestone habitat.

>>There are many variables in these studies and many times the studies are conducted with the ideah of proving a certain theory to be correct.

Give me a break. It's called peer-reviewed literature for a reason. The peers are there to make sure there are no biases. Trust me, as a biologist, I can tell you that that kind of stuff would be way too obvious to "slip through the nets" of the rigors of getting published in these journals. And further, how are the undisciplined, random assumptions of a lay hobbyist just as likely to be correct? They're not.

>>I'm just going by what we see everyday. Pythons living thousands of miles from their home in the Everglades! There is always more than we want to admit.

Invasive species sweeping through a naive ecosystem is COMPLETELY different than adaptation. This is why epidemics like Swine Flu and the Black Death spread so fast. The naive populations had not evolved immune responses quick enough. Just like alligators and woodrats had not evolved to evade 15-foot pythonids! Equivalent to an evolutionary arms race.

Despite their advantages (plenty of naive food species available, etc.), the pythons did not adapt to their new area and most were frozen last year during the cold snaps.

Dusty I am surprised that you seem able to speak in such absolutes. Species are going to vary greatly in their abilities to repopulate and the techniques for successful repopulation would vary just as greatly. I will adress just one point, the notion that exact locality would be required. How do you know this? Subocs do not simply match their surroundings, it's not that simple. I have seen hundreds of subocs in the wild and there is a great amount of crossover in appearance between localities. The notion that you would need Panther Cyn. subocs and only Panther Cyn. subocs would do if you wanted to repopulate Panther Cyn is not an absolute fact. The more reasonable assumption is that nearby localities and even far away localities probably contain very similar genetic material, enough so that some of them would survive.

The question was not what is better, captive breeding or habitat preservation? Obviously habitat preservation is better. Yes there was a false impression in the hobby that our pets could be more useful than it turns out they could be but don't say it's absolutly impossible and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Hey, Aaron. Thanks for your response. Very appreciated. I'll respond to your individual points below.

>>Species are going to vary greatly in their abilities to repopulate and the techniques for successful repopulation would vary just as greatly. I will adress just one point, the notion that exact locality would be required. How do you know this?

From research. Look at Richard King's work with Nerodia sipedon (see the link I posted earlier). Mainland watersnakes are banded, while only patternless Nerodia survive to reproduce on the Lake Erie islands. (The bandeds that immigrate to the islands are markedly predated upon by birds more than the native patternless, and a significant percentage of bandeds do not survive there, while a significant percentage of patternless DO survive on the islands. This is due to camouflage.) If you were a conservation biologist with the responsibility to save the species by repopulating the islands, which locality would you choose, based on the science? Island "patternless", of course. There's a genotype, phenotype, and a locality involved. And all three of those components are obviously important.

My main points are that (1) reintroduction programs should be based in science, (2) lay hobbyists aren't scientists and have nothing to show for the claims that producing "normals" will one day "save the species from extinction", and (3) even if it were left up to hobbyists to save species, it's not as simple as producing "wild types". As someone who has studied conservation biology, there is a component of reintroduction programs that involves assessing the competence of the stock you plan to reintroduce. You can't just blindly release any phenotype or genotype anywhere in the species' range and hope for the best. It's not a layman's work.

For mammalian species, assessing the competence would include training on how to find food, how to become part of a herd or pride, etc. Of course, snakes are born precocious -- knowing how to take care of themselves without parental help, so assessing the competence of a snake involves genetic competence, almost entirely.

Subocs do not simply match their surroundings, it's not that simple. I have seen hundreds of subocs in the wild and there is a great amount of crossover in appearance between localities. The notion that you would need Panther Cyn. subocs and only Panther Cyn. subocs would do if you wanted to repopulate Panther Cyn is not an absolute fact. The more reasonable assumption is that nearby localities and even far away localities probably contain very similar genetic material, enough so that some of them would survive.

Yes, again, some probably would survive; snakes do migrate, habitat environments do change (usually slowly), and in sexual species there is always genetic variation even in a single clutch of Panther Canyon babies, for instance. But you're talking about something that's analogous to the signal-to-noise problem in broadcast television and radio. The bigger the size of the tv antenna (in our case, the bigger the sample size looked at), the more you will see that random fluctuations in reception are averaged out (i.e. crossover in appearance between localities are shown to be the exception to the rule, not the norm), and the signal becomes quite clear (i.e. there is a general pattern of evolutionary lineages that pertain to a population). For this reason, large studies on a genomic scale, would be more indicative of predicting survival than a shot in the dark, simply because there is some anecdotal observation of crossover between locality types.

>>The question was not what is better, captive breeding or habitat preservation. Obviously habitat preservation is better. Yes there was a false impression in the hobby that our pets could be more useful than it turns out they could be but don't say it's absolutly impossible and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Show me just one single instance of non-scientist hobbyists successfully reintroducing an endangered or threatened species back into the wild to save them from extinction, and I'll save the baby.

Thanks for your comments, Aaron. I'm glad you chimed in.

DR

"Show me just one single instance of non-scientist hobbyists successfully reintroducing an endangered or threatened species back into the wild to save them from extinction, and I'll save the baby."

Whether it's been done doesn't matter when it hasn't even been attempted. Hobbyists have been successful in all other areas pertaining to the science of herps. Hobbyists have achieved notable, often exceptional success in everything from captive maintainance and breeding, natural history studies, taxonomic studies and have been allowed to assist on many levels in other conservation projects. There is no reason whatsoever to think hobbyists could not be an assest to a successful reintroduction program. The simple fact is we are not allowed to be involved.

Going back to what I said before about habitat, in order to reintroduce a species, you have to have the habitat for it. Normally, there isn't any pressure to reintroduce species if there is already habitat which is occupied by said species.

There are times when we might want to recreate some habitat..restore habitat to as close to the original as we can. Normally this isn't done by lay people, but rather by conservation biologists. I know several places here in AZ where riparian habitat has been restored by planting of trees, renewing the flow of water, clearing the debris left by civilization, etc. There are places in Michigan along the Great Lakes where lakeside marshes and prairies are being repaired and restored as much as possible. In these places it might be possible to add some species of herps. I would say any release of animals to inhabit a restored area would probably be done by donations from the nearest possible locale of that species though, and not likely from hobbyists.

I do think it might be possible for a hobbyist to help a conservation project, just never heard of it ever happening. I don't think what we do in the hobby has anything to do with adding individuals to the wild. As a matter of fact, I believe most states have regulations stating that returning animals to the wild after a short time is not a good idea and not permitted.

Most folks know that releasing captive specimens into the wild is not good, because the specimens won't likely survive. A fireman who released a gila monster on my property here told me he knew that releasing them in the desert wasn't a good idea, and that it would have a lot better chance surviving on my property. I also know that rattlers don't relocate well. It doesn't help to relocate them, as they spend all their time trying to get back to their original habiat.

PS: I once helped in a conservation effort where a Dept of Natural Resources officer along with two hobbyists, including myself, rounded up as many Kirtland's water snakes as possible from a location about to be developed and introduced them to an area in which they had been extirpated in another state. The habitat had been restored and was considered prime for the species. None of the thirty-plus specimens were ever seen again and were assumed to have died the first winter.

TC

>>"Show me just one single instance of non-scientist hobbyists
successfully reintroducing an endangered or threatened species back into the wild to save them from extinction, and I'll save the baby."
>>

>>Whether it's been done doesn't matter when it hasn't even been attempted. Hobbyists have been successful in all other areas pertaining to the science of herps. Hobbyists have achieved notable, often exceptional success in everything from captive maintainance and breeding, natural history studies, taxonomic studies and have been allowed to assist on many levels in other conservation projects. There is no reason whatsoever to think hobbyists could not be an assest to a successful reintroduction program. The simple fact is we are not allowed to be involved.

-----
Conserving reptiles by helping to protect habitat...
www.ratsnakehaven.com
www.scenicsantaritas.org

"I do think it might be possible for a hobbyist to help a conservation project, just never heard of it ever happening."

Hobbyist can go on tours where they help count sea turtle eggs. Simple example but this shows that they can follow instructions. Also shows that there are functions that can be performed where one doesn't need years of schooling. I am not envisioning hobbyist doing everything on their own. The scientists and biologists themselves are not doing reintroductions on their own. They do it under an agency, in many cases the cooperation of more than one agency is involved. I am not talking about hobbyists doing it all, from begining to end, by themselves. Not even the scientists are doing it by themselves. All I am talking about is, could a hobbyist's animals be used in a reintroduction. I think the answer is yes. As long as the hobbyist was allowed access to the same sources other scientists and biologists were, I believe one could provide specimens that would meet the standards dictated by the purpose of the reintroduction. Remember, when hobbyists first started talking about reintroducing their captives, it was highly noteworthy just to have bred them. I believe hobbyists assisted greatly in figuring out how to breed alot of herps and I don't see any reason why hobbyists couldn't help take it to the next level. We're just not invited to that party, lol. That's fine but when I hear someone say in absolute terms that they don't believe hobbyists could do it(breed a species for reintroduction) I just get a chuckle out of it.

Aaron, you are welcome to write a paper on why an understanding of population genetics is NOT needed in a successful reintroduction program, and you are welcome to try to present that paper at a scientific symposium. If your paper gets accepted (which it might not), then good luck with the crushing questions you are going to get after your presentation.

DR

Suboc.com

I'm not sure if you got the full intent of my post because nowhere did I say or imply that an understanding of population genetics would not be needed in a reintroduction program.

You can reread the post but I will try to make it a little clearer and condensed so you can understand what I meant.

Here goes. Interested hobbyists could breed the herps under the oversight of scientists, biologists and wildlife agencies. That is all.

I will add, scientists, biologists and wildlife agencies may have many reasons why they do not wish to include hobbyists in such projects but a lack of ability on the part of hobbyists to breed herps is probably not one of them.

I know we can help with conservation efforts. I just meant I'd never heard of anyone using captive raised herps to reintroduce. I'm not saying it's impossible either. I don't know that a hobbyist might not be the last person to have a certain species someday. I do think there wouldn't be any habitat for reintroduction if that happens though.

PS: Certainly there's hobbyists who release specimens into the wild, but that probably isn't a good idea. Populations have been started by people releasing specimens into the wild, but that probably isn't what we're talking about here.

TC

>>"I do think it might be possible for a hobbyist to help a conservation project, just never heard of it ever happening."
>>
>>Hobbyist can go on tours where they help count sea turtle eggs. Simple example but this shows that they can follow instructions. Also shows that there are functions that can be performed where one doesn't need years of schooling. I am not envisioning hobbyist doing everything on their own. The scientists and biologists themselves are not doing reintroductions on their own. They do it under an agency, in many cases the cooperation of more than one agency is involved. I am not talking about hobbyists doing it all, from begining to end, by themselves. Not even the scientists are doing it by themselves. All I am talking about is, could a hobbyist's animals be used in a reintroduction. I think the answer is yes. As long as the hobbyist was allowed access to the same sources other scientists and biologists were, I believe one could provide specimens that would meet the standards dictated by the purpose of the reintroduction. Remember, when hobbyists first started talking about reintroducing their captives, it was highly noteworthy just to have bred them. I believe hobbyists assisted greatly in figuring out how to breed alot of herps and I don't see any reason why hobbyists couldn't help take it to the next level. We're just not invited to that party, lol. That's fine but when I hear someone say in absolute terms that they don't believe hobbyists could do it(breed a species for reintroduction) I just get a chuckle out of it.
-----
Conserving reptiles by helping to protect habitat...
www.ratsnakehaven.com
www.scenicsantaritas.org

I'll admit that I've never heard of hobbyists' herps being used in that way either. Not to say it couldn't be done was all I was saying.

About the closest I've heard of is Tom Crutchfield, who was in Costa Rica many years ago and could have brought back some Golden Toads. He didn't though because of course nobody knew chytrid would come along and wipe them out.

>>Whether it's been done doesn't matter when it hasn't even been attempted.

It's not even a question of whether it will ever be attempted; hobbyist breeders first of all, aren't in the business of conserving species. Second of all, they don't use and are not trained to use multi-million dollar gene sequencing machines, which are employed in most sophisticated population genetics studies re conservation.

>>Hobbyists have been successful in all other areas pertaining to the science of herps. Hobbyists have achieved notable, often exceptional success in everything from captive maintainance and breeding, natural history studies, taxonomic studies and have been allowed to assist on many levels in other conservation projects.

Keyword there is "assist". They're not doing science. And without the help from professional and academic scientists, I would argue that assisting is all they could do in a reintroduction program. They wouldn't be heading up the effort; they wouldn't have the training. Also, I think I would define "all other areas pertaining to the science of herps" differently. Captive maintenance and breeding isn't science. That's in the pet books section of a library; not the science part. Evolution, phylogeography, molecular biology, and ecology is science.

>>There is no reason whatsoever to think hobbyists could not be an assest to a successful reintroduction program. The simple fact is we are not allowed to be involved.

I agree that hobbyists can be assets in MANY ways to science. There is indeed MUCH that they can and could do. See how hobbyists submitted shed skins to participate in this recent conservation genetics study on Boelen's Pythons (see link below). I know of no ban that would keep hobbyists out of assisting in similar studies where they would use this type of information in a reintroduction program.
Conservation genetics of Boelen’s python (Morelia

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.

>>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.

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?

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.

They changed the link. Here's the actual Boelen's Python paper pdf from Chris Austin's web site:

Conservation genetics of Boelen’s python (Morelia boeleni) from New Guinea

I agree with Dusty that keeping shed skins is a worthwhile endeavor.

I've kept shed skins for years, because of my interest in the integumentary system of snakes, the use of the skins to study the scalation, and also to help identify individuals.

I learned a few years ago that freezing skins isn't good for the DNA, so I don't keep skins in the freezer anymore, but in the crisper of my refrigerator. That keeps them fresh and keeps any bugs from getting to them.

A couple years ago I started writing folks, because of my interest in the Emory ratsnake group and it's taxonomy. I learned that some labs can use shed skins in DNA studies and hopefully I'll be able to contribute to some of those studies one of these days.

Good strand. Thanks to all for the input...

TC

>>*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.
-----
Conserving reptiles by helping to protect habitat...
www.ratsnakehaven.com
www.scenicsantaritas.org

Excellent, Terry!