People against wild caught Garters

[Didymus20X6]

You make some good points. However, there is a bit of inherent hypocrisy: every single captive-bred garter snake on the planet - in fact, ever single domesticated animal - at some point in history was a wild-caught. Whether the snake's mother, grandmother, or distant ancestor, at some point in their family history there is a wild-caught animal. So unless we're supposing that all trade in snakes cease and desist, we're still right back where we started from: someone had to collect those wild-caught specimens in order to breed them.

In some cases, this might turn out to be a good thing. Take for example the San Fran: due to habitat loss, the snake is nearly extinct. But because someone captured a few, bred them, and shipped them overseas, at least there are some still remaining. Who knows? If California enacts procedures that might help restore the SF's habitat, there might be opportunity for some of these captive snakes to be allowed to reinhabit their once-lost environ. Does this make it okay for someone to take them now? Not if it will severely impact the local breeding population, which, with an endangered animal like the SF, it almost certainly will. But what about with a T. s. sirtalis, whose habitat ranges all the way from Florida up into Canada? These guys aren't going extinct anytime soon.

Captive-bred animals: at some point, they had to be taken from the wild.

[Quibble]

You make some good points. However, there is a bit of inherent hypocrisy: every single captive-bred garter snake on the planet - in fact, ever single domesticated animal - at some point in history was a wild-caught. Whether the snake's mother, grandmother, or distant ancestor, at some point in their family history there is a wild-caught animal. So unless we're supposing that all trade in snakes cease and desist, we're still right back where we started from: someone had to collect those wild-caught specimens in order to breed them.

In some cases, this might turn out to be a good thing. Take for example the San Fran: due to habitat loss, the snake is nearly extinct. But because someone captured a few, bred them, and shipped them overseas, at least there are some still remaining. Who knows? If California enacts procedures that might help restore the SF's habitat, there might be opportunity for some of these captive snakes to be allowed to reinhabit their once-lost environ. Does this make it okay for someone to take them now? Not if it will severely impact the local breeding population, which, with an endangered animal like the SF, it almost certainly will. But what about with a T. s. sirtalis, whose habitat ranges all the way from Florida up into Canada? These guys aren't going extinct anytime soon.

Captive-bred animals: at some point, they had to be taken from the wild.

Kudos, I feel the same way.

[PitGirl89]

You make some good points. However, there is a bit of inherent hypocrisy: every single captive-bred garter snake on the planet - in fact, ever single domesticated animal - at some point in history was a wild-caught. Whether the snake's mother, grandmother, or distant ancestor, at some point in their family history there is a wild-caught animal. So unless we're supposing that all trade in snakes cease and desist, we're still right back where we started from: someone had to collect those wild-caught specimens in order to breed them.

In some cases, this might turn out to be a good thing. Take for example the San Fran: due to habitat loss, the snake is nearly extinct. But because someone captured a few, bred them, and shipped them overseas, at least there are some still remaining. Who knows? If California enacts procedures that might help restore the SF's habitat, there might be opportunity for some of these captive snakes to be allowed to reinhabit their once-lost environ. Does this make it okay for someone to take them now? Not if it will severely impact the local breeding population, which, with an endangered animal like the SF, it almost certainly will. But what about with a T. s. sirtalis, whose habitat ranges all the way from Florida up into Canada? These guys aren't going extinct anytime soon.

Captive-bred animals: at some point, they had to be taken from the wild.

Well said.

I do agree that taking them from the wild could have a negative impact on something or other, (the bird that missed its meal, the earth worm that lived, etc.) but I think if its done in moderation, its okay. I wouldn't condone just anyone who has no will to learn about them, or some random kid who doesn't know what they're doing with a garter to take them... But I think if someone who is genuinely interested in caring for them takes one from the wild and properly attends to it, it would be okay.

[Stefan-A]

You make some good points. However, there is a bit of inherent hypocrisy: every single captive-bred garter snake on the planet - in fact, ever single domesticated animal - at some point in history was a wild-caught. Whether the snake's mother, grandmother, or distant ancestor, at some point in their family history there is a wild-caught animal. So unless we're supposing that all trade in snakes cease and desist, we're still right back where we started from: someone had to collect those wild-caught specimens in order to breed them.

Considering that those wild snake have already been collected, there's a tremendous difference in impact between catching an animal and buying a descendant of a wild caught specimen, for the simple reason that only one or two animals removed from the wild can be enough to answer the needs of dozens or hundreds of people and by buying captive bred animals, you are in fact supporting captive breeding, as opposed to capturing wild ones.

In some cases, this might turn out to be a good thing. Take for example the San Fran: due to habitat loss, the snake is nearly extinct. But because someone captured a few, bred them, and shipped them overseas, at least there are some still remaining. Who knows? If California enacts procedures that might help restore the SF's habitat, there might be opportunity for some of these captive snakes to be allowed to reinhabit their once-lost environ. Does this make it okay for someone to take them now? Not if it will severely impact the local breeding population, which, with an endangered animal like the SF, it almost certainly will. But what about with a T. s. sirtalis, whose habitat ranges all the way from Florida up into Canada? These guys aren't going extinct anytime soon.

It's not as simple as going by scientific names. Reducing the size of the population also reduces the gene pool and gene flow between populations. The consequence of that is reduced viability and resilience.

Speaking of the SanFran, I still doubt that a thousand inbred specimens would be of much use in any reintroduction work. If you pardon the slight exaggeration, it would be like using pugs for reintroducing Canis lupus. The best solution would be to work with the extant wild population.

Captive-bred animals: at some point, they had to be taken from the wild.

That's a bit of a red herring, don't you think?