Conservation and Our Hobby

[Dry Desert]

@Gogyeng, I agree that would be awesome in order to maintain gene pool diversity.
However, not all of the hobbyists out there are on Arachnoboards (where most of these conversations take place I assume), and aside from a select few breeders and hobbyists, I don't think most of the invertebrate community is disturbed by this enough to even care. We can see even in this thread, the users discussing this issue in here are semi-regularly to regularly discussing these issues, even though we make up less then a percentage point of the total Arachnoboards users.
On top of that, this would put the hobby on the level of dog breeding, where every dog is marked and tracked in some way in order to assure siblings don't breed (at least that is what I understand, whether or not that is true in practice I leave for someone more knowledgable then me to clarify). With dogs you have a smaller number of individuals per litter to keep track of, where with tarantulas and other invertebrates you can have literally hundreds to thousands of spiderlings/nymphs/babies of some sort to keep track of. In short, it would be near impossible to keep records of every animal that passes through your hands.
See what I'm saying?

Thanks,

Arthroverts

I have read all the above comments, all very interesting, however to reiterate CITIES and A10 certificates control the import of endangered species - on a varied scale - for the pet trades/ research, and A10 monitors the movement and captive breeding of CITIES species for commercial purposes - well it does here in the UK.!!

 

[Salmonsaladsandwich]

Thanks for this. I would have been extremely surprised if arthropods didn't show inbreeding, but didn't have anything to back up my hunch with.

Didn't know about saturniid moths. That's depressing. It seems like people should be able to organize interbreeding.

It can be done, but only slows the inevitable. Most people who raise moths (typically for pinning purposes) would rather throw out their broods and buy new wild eggs.

I only raise native saturniid species, because I can put my females outside and allow them to attract and mate with wild males.

 

[schmiggle]

I have read all the above comments, all very interesting, however to reiterate CITIES and A10 certificates control the import of endangered species - on a varied scale - for the pet trades/ research, and A10 monitors the movement and captive breeding of CITIES species for commercial purposes - well it does here in the UK.!!

I don't really trust CITES to know and track every single threatened species, not because they wouldn't like to, but because they cannot. All Nepenthes sp (Southeast Asian pitcher plants) are CITES listed, for example, yet many are endangered by poaching.

 

[Arthroverts]

I agree with @schmiggle. We are still getting WC Nepenthes sp. into the market. Also, CITES doesn't manage all of the non-endangered or obscure invertebrates that could quite easily become threatened in their natural habitat. As @Hisserdude was saying, Simandoa conserfariam became extinct in the wild before CITES could even get involved. The same goes for one species of Cubaris from what I've heard.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

 

[The Snark]

This thread is reminiscent of the ongoing discussions I overheard while working as a lab assistant at Life Sciences - Cal Tech back around 1970. I think it would be quite safe to assume that discussion is still ongoing. The two camps, in situ vs captive breeding, evolutionary dead ends, sporting, die offs, random genetics that defy the most sophisticated computer programs to encompass and so on.
Essentially, all opinions regarding evolution are correct, yet wrong in that they cannot encompass the inevitable random elements. Two fluid variables, genes and environment, interacting ad infinitum.

 

[Liquifin]

I don't know why I didn't read this thread earlier, but here's my opinion and it's not to offend or hurt anybody, but it's a hard truth (I'm talking for all exotic pets):

It's impossible to conserve a majority of species in the hobby or in captivity. WC populations are needed and lineage of new genetics are also needed. This is an infinite loop that'll never be solved by us hobbyist or breeders. This whole thread is a world wide issue that will destroy itself in the process. What I mean by this is that WC aren't good to the hobby, but are needed for genetic diversity. That's just the tip of the issue. If anyone wants to actually make a real change then CB is not the right answer by itself for all exotic pets in the trade/hobby. Hate this post if you want, but at some point, wild population numbers are going to drop by humans deforesting and expanding. There's only so much in the wild which can be applied to CB specimens. If anyone wants to truly save animal populations, then it's something this generation/century cannot do. If you can convince a nation to stop deforesting permanently for human expansion, then I'll believe something is possible. Until then, all this thread is trying to convey is a loophole in itself.

CITES is not reliable IMO, because wild populations are still dropping and it's ridiculous. Look at the Sri Lankan Pokies that are protected by CITES but not the Sri Lankan government which equals to more deforestation by the government. This loophole problem cannot be solve by just some hobbyist or breeder. And if it is possible, then there wouldn't be any more dwindling numbers or genetic issues at fault.

Just to end on a joke: Remove the human population and a huge percentage of animal populations are saved.

 

[SonsofArachne]

I somehow missed this thread. I should say that this discussion originated in this thread, so head over there if you want to know my take on things.
Unfortunately, I did not find the time to collect my thoughts on the matter. There is a lot to say about this topic. Due to time constraints, my reply here is brief.

The statement that made me a bit uneasy was that keeping animals in captivity may be the only way to keep them alive or ensure their survival. My opinion on this is controversial and most likely will not win me any friends here. That's ok. To reiterate what I wrote in the original thread -

It is a harsh thing to say, and I apologize if this comes off as a slap in the face. My intention is never to hurt anyone. That being said, consider that quote and realize that it is true.
Now, I completely agree that having a species established in captive breeding does help to reduce its collection from the wild (ONLY after the species is established well as captive bred. Until then it is still being wild collected), however this is where the help ends. Keeping it in captivity does not ensure its overall survival because these animals will stay forever in captivity. They turn into pet hobby populations.

Moreover, the animals that are kept in captivity for many generations become very different from their wild counterparts over time because of inbreeding (members mentioned saturniid moths, and I can also tell you from my own experience working in an insectarium that orthopterans and some beetles are also very sensitive and become weaker over time), but also because they are not exposed to the same environmental conditions that trigger various behaviors or favor selected phenotypes needed for the species' survival. Such environmental conditions can be "hobby trivial" (the classic temperature/humidity/substrate type), but sometimes they can be more complex (photoperiod/air pressure/microclimate/food diversity/microbial fauna), or downright impossible to replicate (natural disturbances/predation selection/interspecies competition etc').

But you don't have to take it from me. Here's a new study that shows exactly that in hand-reared monarch butterflies. Published today:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...ared-monarch-butterflies-dont-migrate/592423/

* Edited for silly typos. Should be readable right now.

It may surprise you, considering our last discussion on this topic, but I agree with almost everything in this post. But many people seem to miss my point, that captive breeding for pet trade alleviates the pressure on wild stocks - period. I do not mean it's the only thing that needs to be done or that the captive population should be a substitute for the wild population. I've just seen time and again where countries have banned animals from being taken and it either did nothing to help or actually increased the number of animals taken. Whereas captive breeding for the pet trade helps remove the incentive to poach by decreasing the value of wild caught animals. Beyond this though I doubt if cb for the pet trade really does much to help.

 

[wizentrop]

As @Hisserdude was saying, Simandoa conserfariam became extinct in the wild before CITES could even get involved.

Here we go again... For the sake of accuracy, please - stop saying Simandoa conserfariam IS extinct.
The roaches were discovered and described from a system of caves that was damaged (or destroyed) by mining. However, by definition they are not declared extinct yet. That is because 50 years must pass since the last record of a species for it to become extinct, in order to give scientists time to explore and maybe find existing populations of the species elsewhere. Fun fact: The Hula Painted Frog (Latonia nigriventer) was declared in 1996 as "extinct in the wild" after the last specimen was found in 1950's. And then in 2011 it was found again. And not just one specimen, but a large population at a restricted area. It proves that we just didn't know anything about them.
For those who are keeping Simandoa, I ask you - after you have witnessed what this species is capable of in terms of hardiness and reproduction, do you really think it is not sitting somewhere hidden from sight, laughing at us? Keep in mind many caverns are small, isolated, and largely inaccessible to humans.

But again, don't take it from me, hear it from the person who discovered the roaches, Piotr Naskrecki, in his own words:
"It is a large, cave-dwelling insect, restricted, as far as we know, to a single cave in the Simandoa Mts of the West African country of Guinea. It is possible that it may already be extinct in the wild because the area is now a part of a large bauxite mining concession." (quoted from one of his public posts about the species)
Notice something interesting about the language? ...as far as we know... it is possible that it may already be extinct...
These are carefully chosen words. And we should all adopt that approach, because you never know.

 

[The Snark]

For those who are keeping Simandoa, I ask you - after you have witnessed what this species is capable of in terms of hardiness and reproduction, do you really think it is not sitting somewhere hidden from sight, laughing at us?

More likely it is cringing in abject terror as homo erectu$ gets ever closer to it's primal source.

 

[MasterOogway]

These are carefully chosen words. And we should all adopt that approach, because you never know.

No, you can never know anything with certainty. But from a policy standpoint, at some point you have to make 'decisions' regarding species standpoints. Even if remote populations exist, they can often be functionally extinct due to lack of diversity or habitat loss or any number of other factors. 50 years is a silly arbitrary number of years to wait. If the people studying the organisms in question cannot locate any, then it's a reasonable idea to consider the population functionally extinct until data shows otherwise. Not that it matters, it's not pertinent to this particular discussion; captive populations, especially captive populations in 'hobby' hands stand a 0% chance of being released back into the wild.

 

[wizentrop]

@MasterOogway I agree with everything you wrote. Sorry, that was a pet peeve of mine, and I got distracted.

 

[MasterOogway]

@MasterOogway I agree with everything you wrote. Sorry, that was a pet peeve of mine, and I got distracted.

Hah, no worries. I'm not one to take offence on an online forum I just enjoy the discussion; I think the invertebrate hobby in general really needs a robust discussion of where we stand on things as a hobby. My other main passion, dart frogs, has taken a pretty robust stance against smuggling and is very pro-conservation, and I'd like to see the invertebrate hobby trend in that direction as well. This discussion is a small stepping stone in that way.

 

[Arthroverts]

@wizentrop, notice I said "extinct in the wild", and what I mean is saying that we currently don't know if there are wild populations out there. I agree, maybe (hopefully) we will find a wild population of Simandoa conserfariam somewhere out there.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

 

[The Snark]

There is a simple solution to the species survival issue. I emulated it on this computer last night. Just revert to the System Restore Point before Lucy and friends came down out of the trees.
Then get back in your space ship, take a few pictures, not selfies, and fly off into the sun.

 

[wizentrop]

@SonsofArachne I forgot to respond to your post. I agree with you.
It would be helpful to wild populations if a small subset of specimens are collected with the intention of establishing a captive breeding program, done legally and under permits from the appropriate authorities. But in most of the cases that doesn't happen. One example that I like to use is that of jewelled geckos, Naultinus gemmeus. A beautiful isolated species that is also a slow breeder - each female gives birth to only two babies once a year or two. They are threatened by habitat loss, introduced predators, and over-collecting. I was very fortunate to see them in the wild in one of my research trips. Are they really that uncommon? Yes. Do I think they should enter captive breeding and later to the pet hobby?... Yes. New Zealand could have avoided decades of poaching and smuggling, if they had allowed for a single organized export of jewelled geckos for captive breeding purposes, in zoos or similar institutions. In the meantime, wild populations are dwindling.

 

[SonsofArachne]

@SonsofArachne I forgot to respond to your post. I agree with you.
It would be helpful to wild populations if a small subset of specimens are collected with the intention of establishing a captive breeding program, done legally and under permits from the appropriate authorities. But in most of the cases that doesn't happen. One example that I like to use is that of jewelled geckos, Naultinus gemmeus. A beautiful isolated species that is also a slow breeder - each female gives birth to only two babies once a year or two. They are threatened by habitat loss, introduced predators, and over-collecting. I was very fortunate to see them in the wild in one of my research trips. Are they really that uncommon? Yes. Do I think they should enter captive breeding and later to the pet hobby?... Yes. New Zealand could have avoided decades of poaching and smuggling, if they had allowed for a single organized export of jewelled geckos for captive breeding purposes, in zoos or similar institutions. In the meantime, wild populations are dwindling.

Exactly. Australia and Brazil - two countries with very strict laws, i.e no export - have some of the biggest poaching problems. I've read that herpetologists in Australia no longer give localities when they discover a new reptile species because in the past poachers have used the locality data to find and plunder these species. Clearly just making laws banning export will not work. A better approach would be to establish captive breeding in their own countries, training the local people preferably, thus giving them a stake in preserving these species. I realize it wouldn't work in every case, some animals breed too slow, need very specialized care, or won't breed in captivity at all. But with other species being captive bred, law enforcement could concentrate more on the ones that weren't suitable for captive breeding. And I'm sure other problems would arise as well, but continuing to do things as they are is clearly not working.

 

[Gogyeng]

Second establish captive breeding in their own countries, like Brachypelma smithi in Mexico.
DarkDen for the ones that follow, mentioned this very concept on his last feed on Monday