Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I started out in the retail pet business in 1974 in and around Kansas City Mo. I ran 2 retail pet stores like they were my own and owned 2 durring those years. Before 1990 no reptile societies that i can recall existed in this area. I was a collector and semi-breeder in the early years of the retail stores and later became a full time breeder with many adverse species in the later years when i got to my own pet stores. Even though all of the stores were full line on supplies ( dry goods and animals/pets ) these stores specialized in herps. I had very few captive breeders ( none for years )approach me on selling captive herps. Like many other retail stores we were forced to buy from wholesellers. This very much included wild caught and imports. We had no other alternative in those days. I was well known among the herping community in the area and vice versa. So I knew if I wasn't being offered captive animals, other stores were not either. Then in 1990 ( or the interest was there and maybe right before 1990 )a reptile society was established in the greater KC area. It still took a few years for breeders to make that check on if retail stores would buy from them. It soon happened. Was it because of the society ? I think it helped. Was it because of the retailers got tired of c##p animals from wholesellers ( not all but a lot )? I think so . The society drew in some of the retail stores as to thinking the better of the situation as to buying and selling some captive bred animals and the enhancement of keeping, marketing, and wellness of the animal while in the store and relating the critera needed to the perspective customer. This was a big turn around for a lot of stores. It also promoated the society in verbal communications ( and some advertisment of the society ) between customers and store owners/employees. Out of a certain % of retail stores that sold imports and wild caught , now a lot more % are selling captive. I see that as a direct influence of a band.

Chambo

Chambo,

Excellent point regarding captive breeding.

With the ecological state of the world today (habitat loss, etc), captive breeding / propagation / distribution of reptiles is a win-win situation.

Captive-breeding supplies the demand for reptiles as pets, thereby eliminating the need to take them from the wild. It also ensures that certain endangered species will be around for future generations to enjoy.

Unfortunately, many laws in this country were written long before captive reptile breeding reached the level of professionalism it has today.

The end result is that the laws do not differentiate between captive-bred and wild-caught. Increased awareness of these differences (along with improvements in captive care and greater responsibility among reptile keepers) will protect and advance our hobby for years to come.

Brought to you by:
www.nosnakeban.org

Kevin did a fine job of illustrating my point. In the USA we have the luxury of being "Enlightened". In third world countries (or even some countries as advanced as Australia)native species are looked at as having no value unless there is a financial impact. A particular example is a variety of Beetle that the Aussie's dicovered attacked a crop pest. It is now protected. Yet they forbid the photography of herps in some areas to protect their mining interests. Well did the Australians learn the lesson of the Snail Darter (that stopped the building of a major Dam) and the other animals that "interfered" with developement here in the USA. They take the additude there of "out of sight out of mind". What you don't know about, you won't try to save.

It is not just a matter of food either. When people are poor and have families to feed, they look to the land to support them. If there is no native animal that they can harvest, then the alternative is farming or developement. They will nurture that which supports them; either the animals-or the land.

I am disgusted by the nightmare conditions I have seen in some importers establishments. We need first to police them, so that they do not mass import animals that have low survival rates (like Mandarin rats and 100 flower snakes). These need to be exclusively captive bred. Conditions for keeping newly imported snakes need to be upgraded so that they are humanely treated and cared for, Before they go into the general market. Since it is a busness, perhaps certain perks could be used to allow the importers/dealers that comply to have an advantage over those who don't.

We also need to give the people of countries where these animals come from an alternative to collecting them, that will insure that their habitat is not destroyed to make up the loss of income. Not an easy proposition, but the sanest approach to the problem.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Brandon,

I think we’re all on basically the same page here, but as they say, “the devil is in the details!” Habitat destruction is hands down the biggest problem for herp conservation. We all SHOULD agree that we must protect animals in their natural habitat because after all a species is but one small part of an ecosystem, so we protect the physical habitat in an effort to protect all species within that habitat, or to put it in catchy terms, we’re trying to preserve Biological Diversity. The real question is why do we want to protect the habitat if we can simply put the animals into captivity and breed them thus eliminating the physical habitat protection problem. The obvious answer is that we want to protect all the species in a given ecosystem not just the “charismatic megafauna” such as tigers and rhino or, from our perspective, the herps, but the real answer is a bit more complicated than that.

For arguments sake, lets say we only want to protect a particular species of lizard from an ecosystem and let the rest of the species from that ecosystem go the way of the Dodo. Your first question should be, “How many individual lizards do I need to take from the wild in order to maintain genetic diversity within the captive population?” You know that without genetic diversity your captive lizard population will be extremely susceptible to future diseases (e.g. the Black-footed ferret population that was almost completely whipped out by canine distemper), and you know that small captive populations can quickly fix deleterious (harmful or lethal) genes especially in the absence of natural selection (e.g. white tigers, which were founded from an extremely small number of inbred individuals, have very few cubs that survive past the age of one because of congenital blindness and various endocrine problems etc. The chance for white tiger survival for more than a couple more generations is virtually nil.), and you know that inbreeding depression in small populations is a real problem that requires an even larger founding population to avoid, but how many individuals do you need to avoid these problems? Theoretically, you would need a minimum of 1,000 breeding individuals in a 1:1 sex ratio, and all individuals will need to be able to freely interbreed. However, a captive population founded by 1,000 individuals that meets the freely interbreeding requirement will only survive for perhaps 50 to 100 years, so If you want a captive population to survive for 100 to 200 hundred years, you will need a founding population with much greater genetic diversity, so your founding population will need to be 10,000 individuals or perhaps more!

Now, if all of us herpers agree to take on 100 individuals each of perhaps 5 different species we might, and this is not likely, be able to save 10 or 15 species. If you add all the rest of the herpers around the world to this program, and add all the zoos (who would of course have to get rid of their tigers, chimps and rhino to make room for the herps) too, you might be able to save 30 or 40 species, but nothing else! Who is going to decide which species will live and which species will die? Then ask your self who is going to keep track of all these animals to make sure that each individual is contributing to the gene pool? Who is going to keep track of what animals come from which parents? Who is going to pay for all the food, housing and transport of animals between people to maintain the gene pool? Zoos, despite the nonsense they feed to the public, cannot manage to maintain viable populations of the endangered species they have now (e.g. California Condor, Black-footed ferret, Wyoming toad, etc. etc. etc…. they’re all doomed species within 100 years), so what makes you think that keeping and breeding a few pets is in any way going to save a species? The answer is, I’m sorry to say, you’re not. And to make matters worse, even if you could save one species in captivity, without the natural environment that species has adapted to, the selective forces that give that species its particular characteristics would be nonexistent, so genetic drift would take over, and the species you were trying to save would evolve into something entirely different from what you were trying to save in a relatively short period of time. And please don’t forget about all the 100’s of other species in the ecosystem that we already let die.
THE ONLY WAY TO TRULY CONSERVE SPECIES IS IN THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT!!! ZOOS CAN’T DO IT, AND NEITHER CAN YOU!

I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but people have been using this argument for years with out really stopping to think about what they are saying. The argument just doesn’t hold water. I have been keeping Giant Day Geckos for about 8 generations now. I started out with a founding population of 20 individuals, but only 18 participated in breeding. Over the years I introduced six more individuals into my population to increase genetic diversity, and I now have a population of genetically screwed-up geckos after only 8 generations. Captive breeding might let your grandchildren see SOME of these animals your breeding in captivity, but most will only survive for your children to see.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many “designer reptiles” out there these days? The answer is because people breed for particular colors or morphs by inbreeding thereby fixing certain genes in a breeding population, which should demonstrate how easy it is to produce animals from a captive breeding program that would never survive in the wild. The more important question is, “Where did the breeders get the mutation from in the first place?” The answer is mostly from inbred captive stocks with screwed-up gene pools, and a few are from freaks found in nature that never would have survived without the herper picking them up. In short, the “designer” herps are the result of a lack of genetic diversity and a lack of selective forces working on captive populations. Captive breeding does not conserve species directly. Yes, there is the public awareness and education benefit to zoos and even some herpers displaying rare and endangered animals for the public to see, and yes, captive production can reduce the need for wild collected animals for the pet trade, but captive breeding, especially at the hobbyist level does absolutely nothing to directly conserve species in their natural habitat! Captive breeding does, however, conserve the pet herp hobby. The truth ain’t pretty, but we’ve all got to accept it!
Enough said.

The second point I would like to make in response to your post is that the laws for import and export of exotic species do differentiate between wild collected and captively produced animals. Under CITES a wild collected Indian python is Appendix I, which means you cannot ship it between countries for commercial purposes, but if the animal is captively produced, it is automatically down graded to CITES Appendix II which means that you can transport them between countries for commercial purposes with a permit and subject to the restrictions of the exporting and importing countries. All other pythons, including ball pythons, are CITES Appendix II when wild collected, and thus require a CITES permit from the exporting country for the animal to be shipped between countries, but if captively produced they are down graded to Appendix III and no longer require and export permit (except to demonstrate that the animals were captively produced) in most cases. Thus, an endangered or threatened animal, such as a ball python, can enter the pet trade if “captively” produced, and as we have all seen in the case of ball pythons, they do in large quantities. Now, we all know that most of the ball pythons imported into the US are not really captively produced, which illustrates the question behind the laws protecting native species here in the US. “How can you tell the difference between a wild collected animal and a captively produced animal?” What is to stop a person from saying they bred an endangered animal they have in their possession when in fact the animal was wild collected? From an enforcement perspective it is impossible to tell the difference, so you make all animals of a particular species illegal to own, and then issue permits to individuals for specific animals and their off spring. Then you have proof that a particular endangered animal was not poached. This sounds ridiculous to herpers who don’t want people telling them what they can and can’t do, but if you look at it from the perspective of trying to conserve species in their natural habitat, it makes perfect sense. Another way to look at the same problem is to look at hunting in a National Park. We all know you can’t hunt in Yellowstone NP, so it is illegal to posses a gun in Yellowstone. That way when a poacher, who hasn’t shot anything yet, gets caught with a gun in Yellowstone the Ranger doesn’t have to get into an argument about what the person’s intent was. Possession of the gun is enough to bust someone without having to watch the poacher shoot an animal in the Park. In short, the law is in place to prevent the kind of abuse of the system people in law enforcement see all the time when it comes to enforcing the CITES regulations. The laws in the US were not written to make it hard for law abiding herpers, that is an unfortunate side effect, the laws were written to make it hard for poachers to get away with breaking the law, so the next time you have a visit from a game warden, and he/she asks to see your Indigo snake or desert tortoise permit, instead of cussing at him under your breath, thank him for trying to protect wild populations of endangered animals, which is the only realistic way these species will be around for your great grandchildren to see them.

Once again, I’m just trying to get folks to see the problem from a broader perspective. No offence intended.

Big Brother

BB That was a very "long" and informed post. A lot of what you said made sense. Unfortunatly, my answer is much shorter.

Captive breeding may not in it'self save a species, but It leaves us with live examples to pursue options with. No such maintained population means extinction with the habitat loss.

Years ago F&G responded to my question on Indigos that collecting and breeding Indigos for rerelease would mess up the gene pool. While this may be valid, you have to ask yourself which is more perminently damaging; altered genetics or Extinction?

Besides that when you speak of "Genetic Drift" it occurs in all species at all times...That is Evolution. Nothing stays quite the same.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Frank,
As I said, we basically agree, “but the Devil is in the details!”

What options are there to pursue for a captive species if it’s habitat is destroyed besides captivity? The answer, none but continued captivity until breeding depression sets in and the species goes extinct. An ultra-cold freezer full of DNA samples would be great for preserving genetic diversity and future options too once we are able to clone animals, but again, what options are available to an animal with no habitat left?

You pose the question, “which is more permanently damaging; altered genetics or extinction?” The answer is, there is really no difference, populations with altered genetics will more than likely go extinct in a relatively short period of time, but if you maintain a wild population in limited habitat, you have a reasonable chance of maintaining that species for a relatively long period of time (e.g. San Francisco garter snake), and if you can reclaim habitat, you will be able to expand the population with a gene pool that still somewhat represents the “natural” condition (e.g. timber wolf in Yellowstone).

Genetic Drift does act on all species at all times, but I should also say that it acts in a completely random pattern on all loci unless counteracted by selection. Selection, on the other hand, acts on a particular gene or loci to “weed out” bad genes. It acts in a nonrandom manor to increase the adaptation (which is not the same thing as selection) of a population of animals in a particular habitat. Evolution in the strictest since is the result of selection not genetic drift. When you remove a population from its natural habitat, you also remove the selective forces acting on that population, so random genetic drift takes over and you very quickly loose any “selective advantage” or adaptation they may have had for the particular environment they came from. Then, after several generations in captivity, you have an animal that is “less adapted” to its environment so it will have reduced ‘fitness’ (reduced chance of passing its genes on to the next generation) if it is reintroduced in to the natural environment due to selection acting to remove the “less adapted” animals from the population in the long run, but in the short run, when your dealing with small populations like the Indigo snake, introducing these “less adapted” individuals back into wild populations can severely increase the probability of extinction in these small populations due to “genetic swamping” with less adapted genes resulting in the entire population loosing its selective advantage. Further, captive animals in your collection are introduced to exotic diseases and parasites from the rest of the animals in your collection. In captivity these diseases may not be lethal, but in a wild situation they may very well be lethal, so introducing your captive animals back into the wild puts the entire species at risk for contracting some new kind of disease that they may not be able to fight (e.g. Cal desert tortoise and the upper respiratory infection or Black-footed ferret and canine distemper). In the end, the only real choice for conservation of existing populations is the protection of the habitat where they reside.

(Reintroduction of a species into habitat that the species was extirpated from is a whole different topic… but it relies on the preservation of habitat to be effective.)

Big Brother

I do not disagree with the eventuality of extinction as your statement projects. I do however suggest that the time frame for possible rescue of a species is increased by having stock to work with. As rapidly as advances in Genetics occur, I think it wise to have specimens to work with.

You have presented a valid (though incomplete) picture of the results of multiple generations of captive breeding. I refer you to the humble Hamster. I recall in school learning that all c/b Hamsters (unless more have been introduced recently) are the result of just over two dozen imported to England from India in the 19th century. The species is still intact. There are many other species that the same can be said for.

Basicly I am saying don't close the door to options. You don't know what tommorrow will make possible.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Frank,

I have heard the same story about Hamsters too (but then I don’t think Hamsters are good for much…including snake food=). Some day I’m going to take the time to check this story out to see if it is true, but in the mean time I am forced to wonder how long a Hamster would last if placed back into the wild? (Nope, I don’t like hamsters much; I even like Guinea pigs better than Hamsters!) You forgot about the Cheetah that went through such a severe genetic bottleneck during their evolution that all the Cheetah in Africa are virtually clones of one another. I saw it reported once that you can actually use skin grafts from any Cheetah on any other throughout their range and there will not be a rejection problem. Humans can’t even accept skin grafts from their siblings (twins even) without taking anti-rejection drugs, which just goes to show you how limited the Cheetah’s genetic diversity is. On the other hand, this limited genetic diversity also makes the species dangerously susceptible to extinction. For example, look at the California red-legged frog. This animal also went through a severe genetic bottleneck and thus has very limited genetic diversity also, which is probably why they rapidly declined when an exotic competitor was introduced (bullfrogs), and they are now listed as endangered. The point is, genetic diversity is always a good thing, but reduced genetic diversity is usually bad with a few notable exceptions where species survive for some period of time with limited diversity.

I get the feeling you and I could debate about this for years and never completely agree, so I’ll cut to the bottom line. Yes, we should keep as many options for conservation available to us as possible. Just make sure that you don’t throw out your best option, conserving animals and ecosystems in their natural environment, based on the false assumption that captive breeding all by it self will somehow save a species from extinction when all else is lost, because history and cold hard science tells us that it probably won’t. This concept, which has been reduced to the level of political sound bite by zoos, that captive breeding is the magical way to save species is just not supported by the facts, and it makes a lousy argument for continuing wild collection of animals when we are talking about conserving species whose population numbers are already depleted. If we really want to conserve herps, we need to keep our best options avaliable to us, and not limit them by a less than ideal solution.

Big Brother

BB you are right about this because, I think you have closed the door on an option based on the science of today only. I do not think of captive breeding as "a magical solution". I do know that Once the genetic material is lost then any option is lost.

Habitat protection is a "ideal" method of species preservation, but even in my home state of Florida it has not effectivly worked. We have a large third world population that sees herps as enemies-or food. The damage to Gopher tortise and Box turtle populations in S. Florida has been tremendus as these people ignore the "bag limits" and catch and eat all thry find.

The biggest proof that captive breeding works is all the species that exist allready in the pet trade. Our own Brooks (south Florida King) exists in greater numbers in the trade than in the wild. Indigos are now bred commonly. How many generations(?) and still intact. The San Francisco Garter which is endangered by habitat destruction is bred in Europe (it is illegal here even though it would be easy to produce them).

My closing here is just a reminder. When you close your mind to a posibility....you have thrown away that option.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Frank,

I have not closed my mind to all the options, what I said was, “Yes, we should keep as many options for conservation available to us as possible. Just make sure that you don’t throw out your best option, conserving animals and ecosystems in their natural habitat, based on the false assumption that captive breeding all by it self will somehow save a species from extinction when all else is lost, because history and cold hard science tells us that it probably won’t.”

I’m just saying in the real world we have to make tough choices about where we are going to put our efforts because funds and resources are limited, and herpers often think that their amateur captive breeding program is going to save species, so they use that as an excuse to continue to remove animals from the wild. The facts tell us that this is a false assumption, so we as a community need to stop using it as an excuse to continue to remove animals from the wild and start supporting programs that protect animals in their natural environment, and as you point out, we already have enough animals in captivity to continue breeding programs for many species, so why should we continue to remove Indigo snakes from the wild? Despite the fact it is illegal to do so, people poach them all the time, and yes many of those poached animals are providing new genes to the captive population, which is why they continue to do so well.

Yes, the number one problem most species face is habitat destruction, but the number two problem, as you point out, is over collection or out right poaching. I have been involved in three different major habitat conservation projects where we established nature preserves or parks in the face of all the political road blocks people always throw in the way of protecting the environment, and after all that effort these three reserves are being decimated by illegal poaching and the animals have mostly wound up in the pet trade! If we as a community stop supporting the wild collection of animals it is going to be a whole lot easer to bust poachers. Further, if we as a community put just a little bit more effort toward conserving habitat we could do a whole lot more toward conserving entire ecosystems and long term viability of herps than we ever could putting in ten times as much effort captivity breeding these animals.

Again, if you want to continue to breed the herps already in captivity, GREAT! I think that is a very noble effort; I do it myself, but don’t use captive breeding as an excuse to support the removal of animals from the wild where, in the long run, they will do more good to prolong the species.

I like your quote about the lifeboat leaving thereby forcing the skipper to get involved. Let me share one with you. “Its time to shape up or ship out, and there ain’t a boat leaving!” In 1930 there were about 2 billion people on this planet, currently there are over 6.3 billion and it is estimated that there will be 9.8 billion people on Earth by 2050! We as a species have some tough choices to make because folks at our present rate of growth we are going to be out of natural habitats within most of our lifetimes. If we don’t stand up now and say we want to preserve our natural heritage and our wildlife, it is going to be to late. There is much more at stake here than a handful of reptile species. The future survival of whole ecosystems, and yes even the planet and our own species, depend on the choices we make every day, “…paper or plastic? …drive the car or walk? …recycled paper or new paper? …recycle or throw away? …add another animal to the pet trade or help to protect an ecosystem?” It is really that simple and it is the responsibility of each and every one of us, cause “their ain’t a boat leaving!”

Big Brother

The key phrase in your post my friend is "...science tells us it probably won't". I read science-and the history of it is filled with probably won'ts and hard facts that have been forced to change by new knowledge. Science is not an absolute in itself. Knowledge grows and changes daily. Did you know it was once a "scientific fact" that if a man travelled faster than 20 mph he would be unable to draw a breath and would suffacate!

You express a certain lack of faith in the private sector, yet the bulk of advances in modern herpetaculture have come from the average herper/breeder making discoveries at home. Yet you speak with distain towards their possibilities of successfully saving a species thru captive breeding. I politely disagree with your analysis. Mendel who of course, invented modern genetic's was a monk. H.G.Wells envisioned tank warfare-decades before the tank was invented. The list goes on....Never rule out a fresh viewpoint from the private sector.

I am with you on the poaching issue, but not as a reason for genetic stability. The goldfish is so ancient we don't even know for sure what the orrigional fish was. Yet it remains. many species of snake, fish and Bird are hundreds of generations in captivity and are stable.

Personally I do take exception to the "excuse for collecting" being the reason for amatuer captive breeding programs. Well do I recall discussions with government types who were totaly opposed to the concept of captive breeding for release. Today they do the same thing we were suggesting. I too have worked on conservation projects and I have done animal rescue and relcation all my life.

I find fault in the goverments refusal to take advantage of the skills and knowledge in the private sector. many times our offers to help (under supervision) have been met with closed minds and propriatory attitudes. You speak of limited funds? Well there is the govrnment throwing away something many of us would do for free.

No insult intended, but in some ways I can see why people think you are government. while you try to be fair, you express very similar concepts that I have heard from government types before(especially the ones in research). In other words you state your facts as unchangeable absolutes. As stated above, this is not the way of science and in fact can be detrimental to the scientific process. A scientist should ask why and how....Not steadfastly rule concepts out by "absolutes".

Not that I am saying you are wrong in what you say..for now. Maybe you are right-today. I think that it is better to be open minded for tomorrow. Maybe it is because I am a sci-fi writer. I never close my mind to options.

The one hard fact that will not change is if we don't have the genetic material to try and save a species (when it's habitat goes belly up) it's over. We lose species daily that have never been discovered. Sad but true, the collecting trades have lead to many discoveries.

The only way to effectively save habitat, is to limit developement. The only way to limit developement is to reduce the human population to a sustaining level that balances to our resources. But if you mention "Zero Population growth" people scream you are Hitler and that ends that idea. So habitat protection is not a complete option in itself to save most species.

I am not a proponent of massive collecting. As I pointed out in earlier posts, some species recieve a limited protection as they are viewed as a "crop" to be harvested. When a people's survival depend in part on the animals around them,they will try to conserve their income. Not a happy situation, but that is why we still have cows and horses.

The bottom line is that we should explore all options and for now continue some that we may not like but leave the door open for opportunities.

I am enjoying this discussion!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Frank,

I’m enjoying this exchange too. It has been a little frustrating at times, but fun. I just hope that someone out there in cyber-land is getting something out of this discussion too!

If you have a barrel full of 100 marbles with 5 purple, 5 yellow, 10 pink, 10 red, 15 brown, 15 blue, 20 orange, 20 green marbles, what is the chance that you will have at least one marble of each of the 8 colors of marbles represented in a random sample of 5 marbles? What if you take 10 marbles at random from the barrel? How about if you take 20 marbles at random? It is obvious that as the number of marbles drawn from the barrel increases, so does your chances of having all 8 colors represented in your sample population of marbles. Now let’s expand this example to some snake species that has 300,000 individuals (marbles) left in habitat (barrel) and there are 35 different phenotypes (or colors, but 5 of the phenotypes are physiological, so you can’t directly see what color they are) represented within this species. How many individuals are you going to have to remove from the 300,000 to have all 35 different phenotypes represented in a captive population? Now, how many individuals are you going to have to remove from the 300,000 to have the same frequency of genes in your captive population as there is in the wild population? And no you don’t know what the variable genes are in the wild population, so you really have no idea what the frequencies of those genes are. Now ask your self who is going to take care of all those snakes? It should be obvious that the actual numbers needed to maintain genetic diversity are very large, but how large we don’t know. On the other hand, if we chop the habitat (barrel) in half so that it will only hold half the number of individuals, what is the probability that all 35 phenotypes will be represented in the remaining population? Pretty good, because it is a large sample of the original.

This is a discussion about maintaining future possibilities, and leaving the maximum number of individuals in natural habitat has the best chance of maintaining genetic diversity. A captive population is a sub-sample of a species. If you don’t happen to get lucky enough to get all the possible phenotypes in your random sample of the species then phenotypes are lost and you can’t get them back, and the chance of loosing more phenotypes to random chance over time increases exponentially as the size of your population decreases. Preserving a relatively large number of animals in their natural habitat preserves genetic diversity and thus future possibilities. Preserving a relatively small number of animals in a captive population preserves the phenotypes you happen to draw from the natural population, which limits genetic diversity and thus limits future possibilities. Neither option has a 100% guarantee, but I’ll go for the option that gives me the best chance for success every time.

OK, now let’s discuss the Scientific method. Science, by virtue of being malleable, can “almost” never state things as absolute. If I hold the preverbal apple out in front of me, and I let it go, what is going to happen? 99.9% of the time that apple is going to fall straight down and hit the ground, BUT there is a possibility that if I drop that same apple outside, a sudden wind might blow that apple into the next County, so I can’t say 100% of the time the apple will fall strait to the ground because there is a small possibility it won’t. Now, when you have a 99% probability that the apple will hit the ground we call that a Law (i.e. the Law of gravity). The next level down is a theory where we have extremely good evidence that a particular event will occur based on countless experimental tests of hypothesis proposed to explain the phenomena. With a theory, scientists have a very good grasp of how the overall phenomena works (e.g. Global Warming), but the actual mechanics of how that process functions is still being tested and studied to increase the level of certainty as to how that process works. A hypothesis is the next level down from a theory, and it is the level where most experimental scientists do their work.

The classic example of a hypothesis is, if I take a feather and an apple, and I drop them from the same height at the same time they will hit the ground at the same time. I’ve deduced this hypothesis because I know that gravity pulls or accelerates objects toward the Earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared, and that that rate of acceleration is independent of mass or weight. I then test my hypothesis by dropping the feather and apple 1,000 times and compare the results of my test. What I find is that the apple hit the ground before the feather 1,000 times out of 1,000 independent tests of my hypothesis. So much for Newton’s Law of Gravity! But wait, I wonder if air resistance might change my expected result? So I modify my original hypothesis to remove air from the experiment. My new hypothesis is, if I take a feather and an apple, and I drop them from the same height at the same time IN A VACUUM they will hit the ground at the same time. I then set up a vacuum chamber and drop the apple and feather 1,000 times, and look at my results. I find that the feather and apple hit the ground within 2 micro seconds of one another 995 times out of the 1,000 trials I conducted, but in two trials the feather hit the ground 3 micro seconds before the apple and in three trials the apple hit the ground 2.5, 3 and 3.2 micro seconds before the feather. Does this mean that my hypothesis is false and I have to throw it out and start all over again just because the feather and apple did not hit the ground at exactly the same time in every single trial? Most people would say no, and that I’ve made a pretty convincing case for my argument. A good scientist would then try and explain why there was some variability in his results (i.e. did a build up of static electricity in the chamber cause the feather to be attracted to the wall thus slowing the feather, etc). Thus, as a scientist one always has to leave open the possibility that events will occur outside a given boundary, which is why scientists often report their results in probabilities (e.g. there is a 95% probability that the feather and apple will hit the ground at the …).

The unfortunate result of this scientific honesty is that as the number of possible variables in the system being studied increase, so does the margin of possible outliers in experiments. Simple physics is used as the classic example because it is all based on physical parameters you can, for the most part, directly measure. However, when you enter the realm of biology the number of variables jumps through the roof, which makes it that much more difficult to show clear cut results from a particular hypothesis, particularly when you are dealing with phenomena that may take years to develop such as adaptation to a particular habitat patch.

OK, so how is all of this relevant to our discussion? It is simply this; science is not 100% by design because our understanding of the world around us changes largely because we increase our understanding of the fine details. Before Louis Pasteur people thought you could take a box, add a raw steak and after a week the steak would turn into flies! We now know this to be false because our understanding of how life functions is much greater today than it was a couple of centuries ago. The problem is, because science does not exclude all possibilities and it builds on its mistakes by refining the hypothesis, people take this as meaning science is filled with a bunch of half baked ideas with no real understanding because look at all the problems with science in the past. This is not really a fair criticism, because with out science we would not have airplanes, computers or even modern medicine. In other words, science has a track record of many more successes than failures, but public perception of science remains jaded.

Take for example global warming. Open any recent issue of Science, Nature, or any one of the hundreds of scientific journals dedicated to the study of the environment (including the journal “Climate Change”) and you are bound to find articles about how global warming will affect some aspect of human lives or how it will affect a particular ecosystem. Scientists, or I should say about 98% of scientists, accept global warming as fact. What scientists debate about is how quickly temperatures will rise, will all ecosystems experience the same shift in temperature, how will weather patterns be altered by a mean temperature increase and what is the predicted end point for the increase in temperature. One of the hot topics in climate research right now is how fast the polar ice caps are going to melt at the current rate of global temperature increase, and how fast will sea level rise as the water from the ice caps is added to the oceans. Why is this so important? Because Venice has already lost the first floor of many of it’s buildings and an increase in sea level of only a couple of feet when combined with a storm surge could wipe out the entire city! Further, something like 25% of the world’s population lives within 10 feet of sea level, so this is a big issue! However, open a news paper and your more likely to see an article about Joe Blow wana-be scientist who analyzed the mean annual temperatures of three major cities in the US and Canada for the past 10 years and did not find an increase in temperature, so therefore, global warming is a figment of hair brained scientists imagination. Oh yeah, the paper forgot to mention the 35 studies looking at changes in temperatures over the past 1,000 years at 100,000 locations throughout the globe, or the 75 or so major studies examining polar and glacial ice core samples representing the past 10,000 years that were all published, not in the local paper, but in peer reviewed journals. In other words, the discussion in the scientific community is about the mechanisms driving a given event, whereas the public seems to think this is an academic discussion of a hair brained idea, global warming, based on the opinions of a very few people who refuse to actually look at the data because headlines about whackos sell a whole lot more papers than head lines about why you should sell your beach front property while you still have something to sell. There is a group called the Flat Earth Society that claims to have scientific proof that the Earth is flat. People don’t put much credence to their views, but then they don’t have the oil and chemical companies pouring millions of dollars a year into programs aimed at poking holes in global warming studies to continue making money at the expense of the environment.

Once again, how does this relate? Science is based on probabilities of a particular event occurring, and yes, it acknowledges that exceptions to the general trends do occur, so you can draw conclusions from the 10,000 or so examples of local populations becoming extinct due to isolation and the resultant reduction in genetic diversity, or you can draw conclusions from the 20 or so examples of outlying populations that survived in isolation despite their reduced genetic diversity. The choice is yours, but science dictates that 95% of the time a population with limited genetic diversity will become extinct in 50 to 100 years. I would rather have a 95% chance of a particular species surviving for a 100 years in it’s natural environment than only a 5% chance it will survive 100 years in captivity, wouldn’t you?

Finally, I’m glad to hear you think that “Government Types” seem to go along with science most of the time! Unfortunately, from my experience, politicians only listen to scientists when the poll numbers agree with the science, and the rest of the time decisions are made based on the public perception of the issue rather than the cold hard facts. This “hypothesis” could be used to explain why there are so many laws restricting ownership of “dangerous” herps and so few laws restricting the ownership of “man’s best friend”. You have got to look at the big picture, not just the fine details.

Big Brother

WOW! I am (seriously) impressed! First; for such a long, informed and detailed post....Second; that you accomplished it without writers cramp(?)What do you have stubs left?

I readily admit my background in science is not quite up to this one. my wife is a toxinologist so methinks I am going to let her have a stab at this.

My comment though, was not accross the political spectrum. The goverment types I speak of were F&G researchers. Much narrower in perspective and more inclined to back their own views.

side bar:

I gotta tell you though...Beware of Rodmalm on the OPEN forum. He claims that the majority of scientists deny global warming exists.(poss new debate there?)

Will assimilate your data but will still press the point I have repeated. (No toys=no game. Or, no genetic material=no option once the habitat is gone). That is the one point you have not addressed. What do you suggest if the habitat is gone and you have nothing? I'm not ready to sit back and throw that option away. How many generations and how many animals would be needed before genetic meltdown sets in?

Do you know where I can find Mendel to translate the rest of this (lol)???

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Sorry Frank, I did not mean to get so carried away!

I agree, we need to keep captive breeding programs going to keep options open for the future. All I’m really asking is do we really need to continue to take truck loads of critters out of the environment to continue those programs, or do we have enough animals in captivity right now to keep these programs going? If we do, then why do we need to take more animals from the environment, and potentially further harm natural populations?

I’m an optimist by nature, and I keep hoping people will wake up before we loose all natural habitats, so I try and avoid the zoos being the only wildlife left scenario. It’s just too depressing!

And if Rodmalm doesn’t think Global Warming is a problem…I know lots of scientists who would love to sell him their beachfront homes! Not really, but I couldn’t refuse the joke =)

Finally, if you think F&G biology is bad, you ought to review some of the “science” coming out of the Executive Branch these days!

Take it easy! And If you need some help with your genetics homework…

Big Brother

I agree we need to achieve a lack of necessity to take truckloads out. The trick to this is to find a way to replace the lost income that "native collectors" would lose from not catching more animals-while still making it desirable to protect those habitats from farming and developement. I think you'll agree that is a real "catch 22" situation.

If you tune into OPEN forum that Global warming debate is going on.....

You did not answer the important question....After writing that post; How many fingers were still operational?? Personally I'm bracing for eye strain.....(lol)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

For those of you interested in the literature to back up my position in this thread, see the following papers for a much more complete picture of the evidence.
Enjoy!
Big Brother

Balmford, A., R. E. Green, et al. (2003). "Measuring the changing state of nature." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18(7): 326-330.

Balmford, A., G. M. Mace, et al. (1996). "Designing the ark: setting priorities for captive breeding." Conservation Biology 10(3): 719-727.

Bryant, E. and D. H. Reed (1999). "Fitness decline under relaxed selection in captive populations." Conservation Biology 13(3): 665-669.

Bryant, E. H., V. L. Backus, et al. (1999). "Experimental tests of captive breeding for endangered species." Conservation Biology 13(6): 1487-1496.

Ford, M. J. (2002). "Selection in captivity during supportive breeding may reduce fitness in the wild." Conservation Biology 16(3): 815-825.

Gippoliti, S. and G. M. Carpaneto (1997). "Captive breeding, zoos, and good sense." Conservation Biology 11(3): 806-807.

Hughes, A. L. (1991). "MHC polymorphism and the design of captive breeding programs." Conservation Biology 5.

Hutchins, M., R. J. Wiese, et al. (1997). "Captive breeding and conservation." Conservation Biology 11(1): 3-5.

Maxwell, J. M. and I. G. Jamieson (1997). "Survival and recruitment of captive-reared and wild-reared takahe in Fiordland, New Zealand." Conservation Biology 11(3): 683-691.

Ralls, K. and J. D. Ballou (1986). "Preface to the proceedings of the workshop on genetic management of captive populations." Zoo Biology 5: 81-86.

Snyder, N. F. R., S. R. Derrickson, et al. (1996). "Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery." Conservation Biology 10(2): 338-348.

Snyder, N. F. R., S. R. Derrickson, et al. (1997). "Limitations of captive breeding: reply to Gippoliti and Carpaneto." Conservation Biology 11(3): 808-810.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. (1989). Population Genetics and Conservation. Conservation For The Twenty First Century. D. Western and M. C. Pearl. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 89-98.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. (1994). Genetic diversity and fitness in small populations. Conservation Genetics. V. Loescheke, J. Tomiuk and S. K. Jain. Basel, Birkhauser: 37-53.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. and P. L. Leberg (1991). "Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater: a comment on management for MHC diversity in captive populations." Conservation Biology 5(2): 252-254.

BB -

It seems that your two objectives are:

1) Captive breeding is wrong and no one should be allowed to do it.

2) We must conserve habitat.

I don't think very many people will agree with you on issue number 1. If breeders produce "morphs" that are genetically inferior, who cares? These animals are for pets and people's personal enjoyment - not for release in the wild. The ODNR's recent "bust" of people keeping albino black rat snakes and red-ear sliders (obviously captive bred) shows just how idiotic some regulations have become and how little respect the law has for the private sector.

I do think you will get a lot of agreement on issue 2. While most people would agree that habitat destruction, fragmentation and alteration is occuring at an alarming rate, I don't see much being done to stop it. This issue is far bigger than trying to fine/jail recreational herp hobbyists - because even if you could throw all reptile keepers and importers in the slammer, you will still have animals go extinct. The desert tortiose (federally threatened) is a good example of my point.

Tim Spuckler

Tim,

1) I do not have a problem of any kind with breeding “morphs.” In fact, I think that is the way we should go. What I do have a problem with is continuing to remove animals from the wild under the heading of “conservation” because it is not. Our hobby does nothing to directly conserve wild populations of herps, which is basically the subject of the above discussion.

2) True, if we stopped all wild collection (legal and illegal) today, species would still go extinct, but we don’t have to help drive species to extinction by wild collection, and then claim we are collecting animals for the purposes of conservation.

Big Brother