Letting people buy endangered reptiles?

Alright. not sure if this is the right place or not.

Ive been thinking about something for awhile now and id like to know what everyone thinks. So why do they not let people buy endangered species (reptiles)? They really should.

For example the Tuatara from New Zealand. I know they have different government groups working on breeding project to repopulate; but why dont they let the public have access? They could easily permit it out. The same as they did with the American Alligator. They gave permits to anyone who had enough land and wanted to have them breed them. All that was required was that they release a certain percent back into the wild. They were once Endangered and now its populations are higher than ever.

Theres a lot of other species that could benefit from this and it would help government save and make some money. Most importantly help boost wild population of brink of extinct animals.


This is just my .02 but what do ya think?

I honestly couldn't agree with you more.

If there was enough regulation to make sure the animals went to people who would truly act in the best interest of the species, then yes. I hate government regulation, but there is a place for it. I would not want endangered animals (or any animals...but what can you do...) going to the kind of "collectors" who go into a pet shop and pick something out without the slightest bit of research.

I also would not like the pet trade's name to become involved in more reasons why an animal is becoming extinct. I think it would be useful to get breeders (zoos and hobbyists) involved specifically for breeding purposes to propagate the species first, then when a successful captive born population is established, the animal would become more easily obtained. We'd need to make sure we were helping the animals, not further hurting them. But I agree, we have done so much to help establish knowledge and care of so many species through dedicated hobbyists and loving pet owners.

The SF garter snake is a prime example of how the reluctance of the federal government to allow hobbyists to revive a species may ultimately result in extinction.

The historical range of the snake is forever gone - over developed, paved over and landscaped. What's left is small, criss-crossed by roads and inundated by both native and non-native predators that are being crammed in to smaller and smaller areas.

We all know how easy it is to breed garters in captivity.............

The issue here is not that the hobby has resulted in the endangerment of the species, so why not let hobbyists resurrect the breed in captivity?

Keep the fines on collecting wild tetrataenia, but also allow breeders under permit to begin breeding the snake in captivity. The initial animals can come from the DFG. Any animals sold under captive breeding can be handled much the way they handle transactions with indigos.

I couldn't agree more. Hobbyists can save many of these species, and do so while profiting, rather than spending, which makes the project more than self-sustaining. Allowing folks to buy and sell endangered species that can be proven to be captive bred is the way to go. Microchipping is getting cheaper, and will work for most species (may need to come up with an alternative for some of the tiniest).

I agree that the San Francisco garter snake is a prime example, I've always thought it's a tragedy that we can't propagate that species, and it's just not doing very well in the wild. It would be so easy to save.
It's true of many other species, too. I've personally been keeping my eyes peeled for species coming in from endangered habitats, because I know if we establish them in the hobby firmly now, it will be more difficult for them to take them away when they become endangered in the wild, which means we can propagate huge and genetically diverse reservoir populations. (The little Lygodactylus williamsi are an example of this--they come from a relatively small rainforest valley region in Tanzania, and are showing up in the reptile trade now due to increased activity there. It's more than possible that they'll lose their habitat).

I actually have a story about how 1 person can save a species that very few people know.

I was researching a family [genealogy] that had a small town named after them in North-Western NJ. In the 19th century the family ran a ferry between PA & NJ along the Delaware River, eventually a town sprung up on both sides of this ferry & the NJ side was named after the ferryman.

At the end of the century an industrial baron who liked hunting bought, seriously, the entire town & surrounding area on both sides of the river. He used the PA side as his own private resort/summer home, and used the NJ side as a hunting preserve and turned the town into a ghost town.

By this point in time deer were extinct in NJ, and pheasant were on their way. This guy wanted to hunt both. So he had dozens of them captured & shipped in from W. Virginia and started breeding them on the NJ side in massive livestock pens. Eventually he had a lot of them and kicked down the fencing and escape into the woods and that [hundred & change years ago] is why there are deer in New Jersey [something to think of the next time you hit one with a car while driving through that state]. The state forest is named after him [Worthington], but because of the land not the deer story. The ghost town was destroyed in a flood fifty or sixty years ago, and no one who lives around there even knows there was a ferry there [and the rangers seem to be pretty secretive about the area's history: try asking them about privately owned cemeteries inside the park system and its like trying to get someone to admit what happens on Area 51, even though I have been in some of these cemeteries and know there are more around there].

Ok so it's not a reptile story, but my point is there are a lot of these success stories out there it's just that people don't know about them. Individuals have been succeeding at species re-population efforts since before the government even got involved with stuff like this.

this is one of those "I agree, but" problems. I am probably just cynical but some jerk will try to squirm there way in to sell some animals on the side. Lying about clutch size and due to the massive cost of trying to have oversight on a large scale breeding operation with hundreds of sites rather than a dozen would be a massive expense. The blind optimist side of me, that has been beaten and shoved into a small dark corner of my phyche, says "Yay I wanna help!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragoon

this is one of those "I agree, but" problems. I am probably just cynical but some jerk will try to squirm there way in to sell some animals on the side. Lying about clutch size and due to the massive cost of trying to have oversight on a large scale breeding operation with hundreds of sites rather than a dozen would be a massive expense. The blind optimist side of me, that has been beaten and shoved into a small dark corner of my phyche, says "Yay I wanna help!!!"

---

Based on what?

Are people doing that with indigos? I was not aware of any issues with the current indigo permit system set up............

What the Feds are trying to do is punish people who take SF garters from the wild. They are a lifer in the wild - meaning they are hard to find even in their home range. The penalties for poaching one are steep.

Make a cheap, captive bred pool for hobbyists, and watch the market for any poached snakes dry up. Why risk a fine in the thousands when you can buy a snake for $85?

If anything, there is more harm to be had by making them so scarce - both for the future of the species and for the proliferation of illegal trade. Make them available to the hobby legally and in five years, the market will be flooded with cheap SF garters.

Dragoon, the question is, whether or not that would wind up doing more harm than good in the long run.

Since most folks would be legitimately breeding the animals, and the only ones doing so now (if anyone) are a few zoos and conservation programs, I would say that even if some animals were poached, their numbers would more than be made up for by the hundreds or even thousands that would be produced in captivity as a result of allowing this.

For MOST of these species, the primary pressure isn't overcollection, it's habitat loss.

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...