Quote:
Originally Posted by infernalis
That whole point is pointless in itself. Zoological specimens are genetically documented, once they hit the private sector, all bets are off as to genetic quality of stock.
They key is to stop taking away the animal's natural habitats, and stop removing the animals from their habitats.
Stand up and protect the world heritage lands, don't steal her fauna.
It does us all no good to buy exotic animals when Australia is in conflict over dredging and dumping on the barrier reef, Africa is in a mercury smog from gold mining, Fukushima is still spewing radioactive water into the ocean, there is still BP sludge on the ocean floor in the gulf of Mexico, poachers are taking elephant tusks, rhino horns and shark fins at a sickening rate....
I'm sorry but the animals of the world deserve a fate greater than life in a box.......
 |
Not necessarily. There is nothing stopping people from keeping track of the genetics of their animals. Regardless, even if every zoo was keeping Perenties, we don't have enough zoos to keep a sustainable population in captivity. On top of that, look at how few zoos are successful when it comes to monitors at all, let alone with Perenties. We could maintain only a few in zoos alone. We need the private sector. At the moment who is more successful when it comes to monitor husbandry? The small (but growing) group of private keepers that know what they're doing, or zoos? Just look at big cats in captivity, zoos depend on the private sector to maintain a large enough captive population. Just like reptile owners, the majority of large cat keepers keep them well. There are bad eggs, sure, but there are some pretty deplorable zoos out there too. I'm not saying that everyone should have a Perentie, but good, knowledgeable keepers should be able to get them. Do they belong in the wild? Absolutely. But since the wild is increasingly being polluted and consumed by mankind's "progress" as you pointed out, what future remains for animals in the wild? We must by all means necessary end the destruction of the natural world, but until we can achieve that, should we leave wild populations alone until it's too late?
Let's use a hypothetical example. Let's say V. olivaceus are still plentiful, but they will be in trouble soon. Would you establish a captive population, or do nothing while their habitat was destroyed, hoping you could stop it eventually?
I'm sorry Wayne. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and everything you do, but on this we must agree to disagree.
Threaded Mode