Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I've been noticing what to me is a mildly alarming trend- species destruction of herps, combined with herpetocultural desires to produce the "prettiest" animal possible. Here's why- As a student of environmental science and zoology, i am painfully aware of what horrible odds reptiles in the wild manage to survive through, as well as the frighteningly large decreases in population. Even in upper michigan, which is fairly isolated, I have noticed a decline in herps within my own lifetime- animals that I found with little effort in my childhood now can take days of fruitless searching to catch a glimpse of. My beloved wood turtles have a century and a half left of wild existence up here (according to years of research by local scientists) and due to poor environmental quality and what not, this number becomes exponentially smaller every year. And this is only one species!! Frightening, very frightening. I want my grandchildren to grow up knowing what a turtle is!! It seems to me, what with our environmental standards going to hell, that someday it will be up to the herpetolculturalist to reintroduce these animals into the wild... species continuation through captive propagation, so to speak. What good would a flamboyantly colored animal be, one thats lost all of it's wild color and pattern characteristics through a desire for "perfection"? Perhaps I am a purist, but there is beauty in every reptile... regardless of how "clean" the pattern and wether or not it's striped. Don't get me wrong, some of those morphs put out by herpetoculturalists every year are breathtakingly gorgeous. I just worry that in the pursuit of color we'll forget the beauty created by nature itself, not through selective breeding. I'm not trying to spark arguments, I am well aware that different sides to this issue do exist, I simply wanted to plant an idea. Hopefully, I have done so...what is done with this idea is up to who ever choses to run with it. My idea? I'm working on raising animals for wild release... but thats just me.
-----
1.1 argentine b/w tegus
1.0 anery corn
0.1 western hog
0.1 leopard gecko
1.1 blue headed tree agama
0.0.1 ball python
0.0.1 western fox
And always looking for more!!

Very good points. I'm a fan of morphs and selctive breeding but I'm a much bigger fan of wild-type animals. Locality purity is becoming more popular but I'm worried people are still instilling their ideas of a "pretty" animal on the breeding selection. I like locality animals because they show what an animal looks like in that area. We should be breeding for typicality in my opinion.
As far as reintroduction. I just don't see how that is ever going to happen. Whatever caused them to die out in the first place is just going to cause the same thing again. We can't teintroduce wood turtles if there is no suitable habitat to realease them to. Which, if they do disappear, that will be why. Still it would be nice to keep these species somewhat representative of what they are/were in he wild in our captive populations. Look at the Audobon Field Guide. Those pictures do NOT represent what those animals typically look like. They represent some of the "prettiest" animals and are very misleading. The only picture they show for the Florida Kingsnake is an extremely attractive blotched king. The picture probably represents less than 1% of the subspecies (if that) but it was chosen to make a pretty book instead of a useful feild guide.
On another related note, I think our captive corn snakes should be given subspecific status. They are breeding in a different "range" and have chnaged extensively. This is an example of an animal "'evolving" to be suited for captivity. I think anyone would agree that the corn snakes sold in the hobby are NOT like corn snakes found in the wild. They have smaller heads proportionately and they are smaller period. They come out of the egg hand-tame and ready to eat a f/t mouse. (very unlike a wild specimen) The ones that don't, don't breed/aren't bred and don't pass on the trait. Our hobbyists corns are about as similar to their wild ancestors as a dog is to a wolf or whatever they evolved from. I'ts an interesting idea that as species are unable to survive in the wild they are evolving to live in an odd sort of symbiosis with humans. Who's keeping who?

-----
Martin Whalin
My Email

Quotes from guys named Carl:

"Science stops at the frontier of logic. Nature does not, she thrives on ground as yet untrodden by theory."
-Carl Jung

"It is foolish to let singleness of purpose deprive one of the joy and delectation of the many wonderful sights and sounds incidental to the quest."
-Carl Kauffeld

I agree, captive corns and leopard geckos as well should be given a different subspecific name, now--they are, in fact, domesticated animals.
Many other species of herps are following their footsteps, or are perhaps already there.

This is not a bad thing, mind you. A snake in the home can do a lot for causing people to respect snakes in the wild--and a domesticated snake will do very well in the home.
But they aren't "captive wildlife" any longer.