>>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 some like to tell themselves that we're doing this, no hobbyist or commercial breeder who I know of has done a single thing to prevent extinction in the wild (other than vowing to sell captive-bred only and instilling a love for the animals in others). 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 practically 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. Can you imagine the logistics involved in such an endeavor?
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 and well-hidden 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 in our cars 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 and their home range with respect to the immediate geography. Some species, like Xantusia, never leave their Yucca log they live underneath their entire lives. Getting this kind of exact locality 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, canyon, or mile. And this is exactly what would be needed -- just the TIP of the iceberg of the enormous efforts it would take to conserve species in the wild via reintroduction.
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 simpler, 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 more than a few 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 of NIU - Ecology/E
