People against wild caught Garters

[DavidD]

My current garters (easterns) are all rescues. They both hav ebaboes every year. Every year I love havign baby garters around. (I have 14 now)

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

can I ask... what are ebaboes????????

[jitami]

can I ask... what are ebaboes????????

LOL I think I can translate

They both hav ebaboes every year.

They both have babies every year

[wolfpacksved]

hav ebaboes = have babies

[jamromhem]

lol typos at it's worst :P

[snickersnake]

The reason I did it was because I had already relocated this snake twice (well, it looked and acted like the same snake). Each time we mow, I check the lawn for snakes and toads so that I can move them. We have a lot of garters in our clippings pile in the field and in our large garden.

This little garter kept going out to the middle of our patio and each time I picked her up, she was almost friendly (my vet was surprised, too). She was very little and when I caught her a 3rd time, I was really worried that she would get eaten by something, or mowed. Although I hadn't kept a garter in 10 years, I had had garters much of my life - gifts from friends and purchased from pet stores. I had most of the stuff to keep her.

I felt a little guilty - I still do - about keeping her but I was worried about her. I didn't know that there were people who were acting the way you describe. I guess I've just been lucky to have very helpful people answer my questions.

[FunkyRes]

So why do it? To get a snake for free? That it's not as damaging as habitat loss, is not really a justification.

I do it from time to time because I like locality animals produced by natural selection opposed to selectively inbred animals that do not represent the wild phenotype.

[FunkyRes]

No, that's true, it's not going to have the same impact, but a snake permanently removed from the wild is less useful than a relocated one with a 0.01% chance of survival, or even a dead one. The problem is that it still has a negative impact. From an animal welfare point of view, you might have a case, but not necessarily from a conservation perspective.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the vast majority of animals over produce.
The impact of small scale collection on the population is thus null. The limiting factor that determines population size is available resources. Over production means far more young are produced than the habitat can possibly sustain. Collecting a few specimens has no impact on the population.

For desirable species, collecting and captive breeding may actually have a positive impact. Poaching of Cal Kings is virtually non existent because captive bred Cal Kings are dirt cheap and usually more visually appealing than wild type.

[Stefan-A]

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the vast majority of animals over produce.

I am well aware of it. Are you aware that the reason for this, is the very high mortality rate, which by no means needs to be increased?

The impact of small scale collection on the population is thus null.

Whether small scale collection occurs, is impossible to determine by looking at the actions of one single person who only collects a couple. Or to give another similar example: The impact of one person throwing one can of solvents into a lake is null. You get the picture.

Now, why would anyone encourage either action on the grounds that the impact is null when it's done on a "small scale"?

The limiting factor that determines population size is available resources. Over production means far more young are produced than the habitat can possibly sustain.

Let's not forget that the population is also a part of the "available resources".

Collecting a few specimens has no impact on the population.

Agreed, but I hope you understand what the problems are with that way of reasoning.

[GarterGeek]

I don't know, but is it possible that this topic is too dependent on specific situations to be effectively argued?

In some situations keeping wild-caught animals may have little, no or a positive impact whereas in other situations it may have a negative impact. For example; because San Francisco Garters are so rare in the wild, removing one from it's habitat will probably have a negative outcome on the overall population. However, eastern common garters are fairly common in their range, thus removing one probably won't have much impact.

Does this make sense? The fishing and boating commission in my state has regulations for how many of each species you are allowed to harvest each day. The game commission follows a similar concept with much success.

On a more personal note, my garter snakes are wild-caught. I have two main reasons for this.
#1 In my state it is illegal to sell native reptiles. I coudn't buy one, even if I wanted to.
#2 It is an educational experience which I relish. I get to learn about the creatures that surround me in my habitat as they have not been tarnished through generations of captive breeding and their behavior and instincts are entirely natural. I can provide the snake with food from it's natural habitat (my backyard), which is also part of the learning experience. Also, in catching the snake myself I feel more attached and responsible for it.