Letting people buy endangered reptiles?

Skiploader, the point I was referring to was not that someone would do damage by selling off the reptiles but a government run program would demand oversight to ensure this wouldn't happen, no matter how unlikely, and right now no agency would front money for that. This hobby isn't exactly held in the highest regard no matter how wrong perceptions are most of the time

Then we need to do more to change that, don't we?

The Federal GOvernment has a department of Endangered Species(there's a program for indigos, right? Just add more species).

Also, you can find Galapogos tortoises for sale IF you have a permit to own them. Captive breedings have all but ensured that almost ALL of the species(subspecies) of Galapagos Tortoise will not be extinct. If you are offering only captive bred specimans, then it should result in MORE animals overall, rather than decreasing the number of animals.

Plus, remember that of all animals, reptiles have the tendancy to have large clutches of eggs at a time, rather than many mammals that might have only one or two young at a time. Reptiles should be easier to save from extinction by far, given proper husbandry over the species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragoon

Skiploader, the point I was referring to was not that someone would do damage by selling off the reptiles but a government run program would demand oversight to ensure this wouldn't happen, no matter how unlikely, and right now no agency would front money for that. This hobby isn't exactly held in the highest regard no matter how wrong perceptions are most of the time

---

They already deal with it - again, I bring up Indigos.

Let me tell you a little story about how the DFG works.

Four years ago, one of the main salmon streams at the County where I work was becoming silted in by a natural flow of decomposed granite from the surrounding hills.

For decades, this creek had been re-established yearly during the dry season with dozers and a siltation basin was maintained and cleaned.

Four years ago, the Feds said that we couldn't clear out the creek anymore - even in the dry season when there were no salmon or steelheads in it. They said they were worried about us hurting the fishies. Even though we knew there were no fish here in the summer, we offered to hire a fish wrangler and move them to another part of the creek if found. Our offer was rejected.

So after four years, the creek became completely silted up. We applied for a permit to clean it out so that the salmon could use it. After all, it was now dry and no fish could inhabit it.

The permit was denied. Why? Because now that it was silted it up, it was prime red-legged frog habitat.

Let's recap - the Feds, in a misguided effort to protect the salmon ultimately caused a salmonid waterway to become non-supportive and devoid of salmon. When attempts were made to re-establish the waterway, because of the DFG's mismanagement of the creek, it had become prime habitat for another endangered species.

The moral of the story: the Federal government rarely acts in the most effective way. A captive colony of SF garters has been established outside of the US, but not here because the DFG has no plan other than to make a feeble attempt to maintain an unmaintainable habitat for them. This is not an instance where they are even thinking about money or oversight logistics.

This is an instance where they are not thinking at all. There is a greater need for the enforcement of SF garter protection as long as there is no captive program. Once the program is under way, the need for enforcement will dwindle.

By keeping them rare, enforcement is mandatory. By establishing a captive program, the result will be less of a need for enforcement.

I'd be very much in favor of this with certain provisos/oversights. In this world, with however many billion two-legged goofballs we're up to at this point, animals are going to lose out each and every time unless the two-legged goofs have a reason to protect/maintain them. Not trying to start an argument, just stating the obvious. Furthermore, with the price of EVERYTHING going through the roof, animals/reptiles/birds/fill in the blanks have to be able to pay their way. Take for instance the county of Kenya, in Africa: in 1977 that country elected to outlaw any and all sport hunting of game. With the stroke of a pen, what have previously been one of the premier safari destinations in the world became a poachers paradise. Why? Because the safari hunting industry (and the collection of permit fees, taxes, import/export fees, etc. for the taking of game) had been wiped out and with them the ability to pay for game rangers and/or personnel to "protect" the wildlife.

My point is that, regardless of your thoughts on hunting game, if an animal or animals can't pay their own way, they're going to lose out each and every time. I'm not trying to start an argument or provoke an emotional reaction, I'm simply stating facts, sad though they are. It's been proven time and again the world over. So why not this: in South Africa and several other countries, there are so called "green" hunts. You can bow "hunt" a rhino. You dart them, the conservation agencies collect vital information on the health and well-being of the animal, a massive fee is collected by the government and in the end those monies are put back to keep the rhino population in good health through enforcement of applicable game laws, conservation of habitat, population growth, etc.

Why not do the same with reptiles? Hold a lottery in which a group of pre-selected/pre-screened individuals pay a fee to have the opportunity to be chosen in a lottery system to collect and breed any number of rare or endangered species? Or another tenet of that same process could be hosting "green" hunts for rare and endangered animals. Same thing: a pre-screened group of individuals who pay a fee to "hunt" for and/or collect any number of rare and exotic animals. The data is then collected by on-site specialists who record the capture location, the sex of the animal, overall health, collect tissue for DNA collection, etc. Then the person or persons are allowed to retain the animal for captive breeding purposes and are required to compile meticulous records about clutch size, sex ratio in a clutch, overall health, etc., etc. Win-win. The monies generated could be put back into buying up tracts of land for conservation purposes for the native populations and/or captive bred animals that are released to further the genetic diversity of a given population, oversight and management of the respective agencies that would conserve the animals, research grants for the preservation of the species, etc.

It sucks that things are how they are, but unless changes are made, the animals are the ones that lose out each and every time. Why not allow the people with a passion for the respective species do their part to conserve and propagate the population(s) rather than just impose a blanket clause on any and all matters pertaining to the collection, interaction, conservation, keeping, breeding, etc. of any number of species? Take away the demand for illegally caught wildlife by making it attainable and in doing so it pays for itself. Just my nickel's worth of diatribe on the subject, lol!

Youbeyouibei is made of smart.

Hahahahaha, wolfy-hound! Thanks! My wife and employer would absolutely argue that statement with you but anyway... My "argument" isn't necessarily my own, just one that I know works, has been proven multiple times over all over the world and if the powers-that-be would get out of the way and let the the rational folks give it a shot, it would work and keep any other species from going extinct or otherwise being poached/plundered from their native habitats. Like the saying goes: the opposite of progress is Congress, lol!, so here's to getting anything changed...