Did they ever succeed?

[Vayu Son]

><

Thats true. Its why I think a database should be made where the frequenters of this board can track/trace specific breeding projects and see who has what, what its source was etc. Being that it is an industry, it is overly optimistic to think that would happen.

If Rick had persisted and not relented, I would have ceased questioning for another time and another place, I just got a general feeling of animosity from him. I felt that by stating pessimistic generalizations we are missing the point of how we can save and preserve what we have.

-V

 

[Ultimate Instar]

If you go back to my question concerning the pokies... I doubt that it is rational for hobbyists to try to maintain captive-bred populations for all the Poecilotheria ssp. Some will become extinct. BUT which ones could be maintained? There has to be some demand for them, otherwise it will be financially impossible. P. regalis was mentioned as an established species in the hobby. Are there any other candidates?

Karen N.

 

[AlbinoDragon829]

Originally posted by Ultimate Instar Are there any other candidates?

Karen N.

P. Subfusca
P. Fasciata
P. Formosa
P. Striata

P. Pederseni is on its way.

 

[Vayu Son]

><

Also:

P.ornata
P.rufilata
P.smithi

-V

 

[Vys]

Partly what you've already said :
Unless some serious breeding projects aiming at preserving say for instance Pokies were established, I don't think we can blame India that much. Pokies are still being exported for the pet trade, substantial amounts as well I think? , and even though it isn't more than those who die at the hands of Indian people, it still is some. Exporting Pokies would have to justify itself before we could actually spit at India for not talking care of their country and growing like locusts. Although..from another perspective, do all people have the right to make the same mistakes again and again? They should have, but would the earth survive it? Will the earth survive it ?
When it comes to deforestation,..well, all countries, more or less, are guilty. And it's madness. People's memories are shorter than their lifespans.

 

[Code Monkey]

Well, Rick West has expressed not just cynical views of captive breeding, but outright biased and unfounded views on captive breeding - I paraphrase here: "Captive breeding will never work because every generation in captivity is inferior to the one that came before it." Uh, yeah, and as such a good scientist you've got the proof for this absolute statement where? I respect his knowledge of Ts, but I think he's definitely got some misplaced issues with the hobby. Which would be why I don't bring those points up with him, no sense in pissing off a sleeping tiger when there are so many actually constructive things you can do with it.

There are going to be two thing that save tarantula species whose native habitats are being encroached upon.
One, adaption - some Ts, like pinktoes, aren't going anywhere. The avics have adapted to living under roof edges and storm drains, and in plants and trees right next to a sidewalk. A lot of species will adapt and thrive so long as they can find a square foot of non-paved land. Others won't, that's the fact of the world we live in, but short of putting birth control in the water for the next 15 years, there isn't much that's going to get rid of large numbers of us that isn't going to get rid of large numbers of Ts while we're at it.
Two, captive breeding - it can and will guarantee survival for many species. But, as was pointed out, the only species that will survive in captivity indefinitely are those that are popular enough that there's a robust breeding population maintained in the business and the hobby. Whether we're talking Poecilotheria or Brachypelma, there simply are not enough hobbyists to maintain several hundred threatened species at a sustainable breeding population. I'm keeping a little less than 20 different species and I'm pretty much out of space (and of these ~20, how many am I enthusiastic enough to try and breed?). Captive breeding programs are just a different form of survival of the fittest.

 

[Wade]

I think it's important to be honest with ourselves about what motivates us and be realistic about what our hobby can contribute to the long term survival of any given species.

Are we keeping them to save them from extiction? Most of us here (including myself), must answer "NO" if we're being honest. We keep them because we like them, it brings us pleasure. There's nothing wrong with that, either. No need to make apologies.

Can we help save them from extiction by breeding them in captivity? I guess that depends on what you mean by "save them". If we're talking about breeding them in order to possibly release them back into the wild, then the answer has to be a resounding "NO" again because chances are there'll be no wild left to release them into. To answer "yes" to that question, you must accept the premise that the pet trade is a major threat to the survival of a species, which I don't, at least not for invertebrates. If you mean simply preserving them in captivity, then maybe than can be preserved, but it will depend on us having a good gene pool represented to begin with. Most breeding projects are aimed at species where there isn't that much of a gene pool in captivity, unfortunately. The widley imported species are't bred that often, simply because most hobbyist don't consider it worth the effort.

On the subject of the impact of collecting: Having collected many Aphonpelma sp.s in the wild, I've always found burrows less than 20 feet from the road, somtimes even in median strips of highways and parking lots. If they're doing that well close to humans, the many areas that aren't so accessable surly have even better populations. In the southwest, huge areas are fenced off for cattle ranching. Plenty of prime T habitate, inaccessable to all but the most wreckless collectors (crossing those fences is a great way to get shot or gored). Of course, not all species will have these advantages, Poecilotheria may be much more vunerable, but still, in a healthy forest ecosystem, I can't imagine people could get them all. I also question wether or not the demand is really there to justify the level of exploitation that it would take to seriously impact any tarantula species. Yes, the hundreds of dollars that P. metallica would be worth if it made it into the hobby is a heafty sum FOR A TARANTULA. Compared with what goes on in the herp scene, the price of even the most expensive species is chump change. I used to work for a reptile breeder, and there were breeder animals there that were worth in excess of ten thousand dollars and up EACH. The average priced animal we sold was between 600 and a 1000 dollars. I once took a single box to the airport to be shipped that had a declared value of $27,000! My point here is that the tarantula hobby is mostly a minor offshoot of the reptile hobby. The tarantulas are unlikley to be collected in massive numbers unless their also collecting herps from the same area. The price of tarantulas would have to go alot higher for the incentive to collect them all to really be there. Many animal collectors simply follow the logging trucks and catch the animals as they're flushed out. Most of such creatures are doomed anyway. A sad situation to be sure, but the logging will continue wether anyone collects the animals or not.

Simply banning the trade does little to protect the species and nothing to protect the habitat. I feel that the ideal solution would be for the country of origin to start treating the animals as a renewable resources. For example, permit native breeder to raise and sell animals (not just T's, whatever there was a demand for) for the international market, or allow limted collecting. This way the country benefits, and the forest becomes a asset rather than a liability. If they're not allowed to sell animals or products from the forest, the may as well cut it down and turn it into farms. In the end, the needs of humans are going to come first. This isn't a statement of philosphical belief, but simple fact. People are going to do what they have to to survive. It's easy for us in the developed countries of North America and Europe to sit back and judge what poorer nations do, but do we have the right?

Much is made about how foolish and destructive humans are, but humans do exactly what every other species on the planet does: exploit the other organisms to our best advantage in order to pass our genes on to the next generation. We humans are extremely good at that. We're not the first species to rise to dominance, only to use up our resources. The only thing that sets us apart is that we're the first creatures to actually recognize the process and predict the eventual outcome. But can we do anything about it? Time will tell.

Anyway, sorry for the book. It's a subject I think alot about.

Wade

 

[AlbinoDragon829]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
I respect his knowledge of Ts, but I think he's definitely got some misplaced issues with the hobby.

no sense in pissing off a sleeping tiger when there are so many actually constructive things you can do with it.

I agree with both statements, especially the second one.

 

[Vys]

Originally posted by Wade


..but the logging will continue wether anyone collects the animals or not.

Yes it will. Humans are humans. Only time we're ever gonna learn that we CAN'T actually treat the earth like a washbin and still expect it to nurture us is when it blows up.(note: I doubt it'll actually blow up)

Deforestation is one of the saddest things out there. On a larger timescale, it brings nothing good. Even 'civilized' countries like the U.S and Europe are dumb-headed muttonbones

 

[AlbinoDragon829]

Originally posted by Vys
Yes it will. Humans are humans. Only time we're ever gonna learn that we CAN'T actually treat the earth like a washbin and still expect it to nurture us is when it blows up.(note: I doubt it'll actually blow up)

To tell you the truth, I think it will eventually "blow up"... The earth won't survive long enough for the sun to die and become a supernova and wipe out our end of the universe... Someone will detonate one nuke on another power hungry country and everyone will probably send nukes everywhere across the globe.

 

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by AlbinoDragon829
To tell you the truth, I think it will eventually "blow up"... The earth won't survive long enough for the sun to die and become a supernova and wipe out our end of the universe... Someone will detonate one nuke on another power hungry country and everyone will probably send nukes everywhere across the globe.

Do you really think that matters? I know I'm unpopular with certain "damn hippies" on this board for the following view, but the only thing we're saving the Earth for is ourselves. Anyone who kids themselves that we're doing anything for the biome in an altruistic and important sense by saving species X and preventing Y amount of ozone depletion needs to have a headectomy performed on their rectum. I haven't read what the latest estimates at when our sun should go supernova, but if I remember correctly it's at least in tens of billions, possibly as long as 50 billion years. That's up to 10X as long as the whole history of the Earth, and no matter how many nukes and chemical bombs we drop, the hard part of evolution is already taken care of because multicellular life will survive. You can carpet bomb the whole damn planet tomorrow and in a hundred million years, the whole planet will be populated by life of varieties we can't even imagine and we'll be nothing more than curious fossils for the next sentient forms.

We save the pokies because we like the pokies.

Now, if we eventually develop planet crackers like they've got in sci-fi, I may have to re-evaluate my long term optimistic cynical views, but as things stand, we don't hold the destructive power of a slingshot in the grand scheme of things...

 

[Vys]

'I thought we were a big rich rock-band....we should have a whole bunch of extra guitars.'

Seriously..I though the earth was more than halfway through its expected life span?

Second; if you wish to seek info on the matter, don't go to http://www.earth-history.com/

Third: yes, well, first info I found put the estimated time of earth going red giant ~ 5 billion years in the future.
Anyway, arguing about that seems kind of like a moot point

Anyway, I don't think we have the right to reduce the earth to a primitive sludge just because we can

 

[AlbinoDragon829]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
multicellular life will survive. You can carpet bomb the whole damn planet tomorrow and in a hundred million years, the whole planet will be populated by life of varieties we can't even imagine and we'll be nothing more than curious fossils for the next sentient forms.

We save the pokies because we like the pokies.

Now, if we eventually develop planet crackers like they've got in sci-fi, I may have to re-evaluate my long term optimistic cynical views, but as things stand, we don't hold the destructive power of a slingshot in the grand scheme of things...

If we don't figure out how to blow up the whole planet, then yes, life in other forms will begin again so to speak. However, look at the progression of applied sciences (physics, biochemistry, etc.) over the last century. We've progressed and learned new concepts EXPONENTIALLY of this past century. Weapons of serious mass desctruction will most likely one day exist.

 

[Code Monkey]

Vys was correct: I rechecked the latest estimates and it's 5.7 billion years until the Earth goes to a red giant and burns the oceans and atmosphere right off the globe (I hadn't read anything on this since grade school - the books out then were throwing around some much broader figures )

Although I still stand by my basic postulate: That is still long enough for the entirety of the Earth's history of multicellular evolution to repeat itself several times over.

As for rights to wipe out everything, that's why you're on ignore unless I choose to read your posts. You mistake the reality of the way the world, which is separate from the human world, works. There are no rights in nature - a species lives or a species dies, that goes for us as well. If *we* care about saving species, yippee, do it. But don't try and tell me that the Earth gives a crap or that it's wrong in any absolute sense. Every species alive today must pass the crucible of natural selection or it's not capable of survival. We're not outside of nature and we just happen to be the biggest pressure right now on species. The species that adapt to living side by side with man, or those that are interesting enough that we set asided land for them and potentially take them off planet (assuming we ever realise that goal) are the ones that will have passed natural selections tests. Those that can't manage to survive with a particularly successful multi-niche critter around weren't going to pass the final exam anyhow. It's not about right, it's not about wrong, it just is.

 

[AlbinoDragon829]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
As for rights to wipe out everything, that's why you're on ignore unless I choose to read your posts. You mistake the reality of the way the world, which is separate from the human world, works. There are no rights in nature - a species lives or a species dies, that goes for us as well. If *we* care about saving species, yippee, do it. But don't try and tell me that the Earth gives a crap or that it's wrong in any absolute sense. Every species alive today must pass the crucible of natural selection or it's not capable of survival. We're not outside of nature and we just happen to be the biggest pressure right now on species. The species that adapt to living side by side with man, or those that are interesting enough that we set asided land for them and potentially take them off planet (assuming we ever realise that goal) are the ones that will have passed natural selections tests. Those that can't manage to survive with a particularly successful multi-niche critter around weren't going to pass the final exam anyhow. It's not about right, it's not about wrong, it just is.

I certainly hope none of the above is in reference to me. I didn't say anything like that, especially the "us having the right to wipe out everything". I wouldn't even joke around about that.

 

[Alonso99]

How about the newly transformed end of the world thread goes to the watering hole.
LOL =D

 

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by AlbinoDragon829
I certainly hope none of the above is in reference to me. I didn't say anything like that, especially the "us having the right to wipe out everything". I wouldn't even joke around about that.

No, it was targetted at Vys's standard reply to an objective view of the world. I keep him on ignore because his socialist, tree-hugging hippie crap riles me up more than most. Every time I point out that it doesn't matter what we do or don't do as far as the Earth or nature is concerned he comes back with some b.s. reply that we don't have the right to wipe out species. Since no one mentioned this subject, it's further evidence why I don't bother reading his posts except when I see they're in direct response to something I said.

 

[AlbinoDragon829]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
No, it was targetted at Vys's standard reply to an objective view of the world. I keep him on ignore because his socialist, tree-hugging hippie crap riles me up more than most. Every time I point out that it doesn't matter what we do or don't do as far as the Earth or nature is concerned he comes back with some b.s. reply that we don't have the right to wipe out species. Since no one mentioned this subject, it's further evidence why I don't bother reading his posts except when I see they're in direct response to something I said.

Ah, ok, just making sure. I see what you mean about his posts.

 

[Vys]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
No, it was targetted at Vys's standard reply to an objective view of the world. I keep him on ignore because his socialist, tree-hugging hippie crap riles me up more than most. Every time I point out that it doesn't matter what we do or don't do as far as the Earth or nature is concerned he comes back with some b.s. reply that we don't have the right to wipe out species. Since no one mentioned this subject, it's further evidence why I don't bother reading his posts except when I see they're in direct response to something I said.

Em, we all have the right to our own opinions still, I hope?

You KNOW you're right, and won't listen to anything else, eventhough you are VERY good at making most of your posts incentives for arguments, and mostly more irrelevant than my post about the deforestation in this thread (which I guess you are referring to? it was a sad-toned statement, not something for people to chew spittle over, but hey, you're the only one, and furthermore, if pokies die primarily due to deforestation, how the hell is it irrelevant?).

According to you, paving the entire planet would be 'all right' (natural selection) because we can do it. You don't see anything caring about what we do, so why should we?

You probably would 'not think it's a great idea' but you wouldn't go out of your way to prevent it, correct?

And whatever we take with us to another planet [when we've ruined this one] is what will pass the final examination? And somehow this justifies not caring about the world today? ..Some might call that...arrogant? You're not nostradamus [you catch my drift], and you yourself is saying nature will continue on if we kill ourselves, so that would indicate there is the possibility that nothing or something completely different is what would pass the final exam, or?
All I think (granted, I think alot more) is that we CAN behave differently than other species because we ARE different, and because we have a conscious mind, we can make choices.
Perhaps we only think we can, but just that we think we do tells us something..or?

ALbino : What have I done to deserve your hatred??? WHat? Whaaaaat? ?? heh nm

 

[Code Monkey]

Since someone, who shall remain nameless has been PM'ing me all day to beat them to the 1000th post so they don't look like the biggest time waster, I'll broach this subject with you one more time...

Originally posted by Vys
Em, we all have the right to our own opinions still, I hope?

Sure, but this isn't about opinion, this is about your never ending need to insert morality into an objective view of the subject. I don't make comments about whether it's good or bad that species X & Y went extinct any more than I make comments about whether it's good or bad that the cute little bunny got eaten by the eagle.

You KNOW you're right, and won't listen to anything else, eventhough you are VERY good at making most of your posts incentives for arguments, and mostly more irrelevant than my post about the deforestation in this thread (which I guess you are referring to? it was a sad-toned statement, not something for people to chew spittle over, but hey, you're the only one, and furthermore, if pokies die primarily due to deforestation, how the hell is it irrelevant?).

According to you, paving the entire planet would be 'all right' (natural selection) because we can do it. You don't see anything caring about what we do, so why should we?

Did I ever say is was "right" to pave things? No, never did, never will, I just don't consider it wrong either. Further, I never saw your comments about deforestation and pokies, I don't read your posts as a rule because they just piss me off, I made the mistake of seeing what you said to a couple of posts this morning and now look at where we are

This is why I don't argue with you, you're quite an idiot when it comes to interpreting what I've written. I've never in my life said anything like the words you continually put in my mouth. I simply don't get all boohooey about the way the world works. We've been here for a few hundred thousand years, we've stirred up some crap. If we manage to crap where we eat long enough, we'll be extinct too.

You give me the power and I'd find a way to reduce the human population down to about 2 billion and turn more than half the world into a wild life reserve where unregulated poaching got you summarily shot. I don't like what people do with many of the animals on the planet, but I don't believe in the concepts of right and wrong when it comes to nature, it's purely a human construct that exists between our ears. So, want to argue it's wrong for me to knock over a liquor store, go right ahead, that's a human matter. Want to argue that it's wrong for an Indian, who's clearing the forest for firewood so his family can cook dinner, chases down some Pokies while he's at it and I'll tell you you've got your head in your rear. When you're ready to go take over India, put half their population to the sword, and declare chopping down a tree a capital offense, then you can say it's wrong because you will have made it a human matter by legislating it into "wrongness". Until that point, people are just being people and doing just what every other animal does.

And whatever we take with us to another planet [when we've ruined this one] is what will pass the final examination? And somehow this justifies not caring about the world today? ..Some might call that...arrogant? You're not nostradamus [you catch my drift], and you yourself is saying nature will continue on if we kill ourselves, so that would indicate there is the possibility that nothing or something completely different is what would pass the final exam, or?
All I think (granted, I think alot more) is that we CAN behave differently than other species because we ARE different, and because we have a conscious mind, we can make choices.
Perhaps we only think we can, but just that we think we do tells us something..or?

And this is why you're an idiot in my eyes. You just can't seem to separate human morality from the pure neutrality of the universe, nor grasp how amazing what consideration we do show animals is. We're already so advanced beyond any other species on this planet for considering the welfare of our competition that you should be having conniption fits of joy, but, no, nothing is ever good enough for people like you. Until we seal ourselves in a monastery and eat nothing but fruit that falls from the trees and wheat fallen by wind, and everyone only has one child and teaches them that all life is sacred except for human life, nothing is good enough.