People against wild caught Garters

[Didymus20X6]

Depends, Stefan. In some of the cases described, what is taking place is loss of habitat, in which case the collected specimens might be doomed anyway. For example, collecting snakes from a construction site. Once the building goes up, the snakes have already lost their habitat, and apart from finding a new one quick (where they would still be subject to predation and competition with other predators in that area), they will die anyway. At least catching them would prevent their immediate demise, even if the end result for the immediate environ is the same.

I look at it the same way I looked at my own attempts to rescue snakes: in my neighborhood, the snakes have already lost much of their habitat to humans, and the more they encounter humans, the more likely they will die. But at least by catching them and moving them, I hope I'm giving the individual specimens a chance at survival. Granted, I don't know how much of one (they still have to compete with other species), and the problem with loss of habitat is still an issue, but it's better than seeing their headless corpses lined up along the street for the garbage collectors, IMHO.

Bottom line: if they are already losing their habitat, and relocation cannot guarantee their survival, then collecting the animals that are going to be killed anyway isn't going to have the same impact as collecting wild specimens haphazardly with no regard for the local population.

[Stefan-A]

Bottom line: if they are already losing their habitat, and relocation cannot guarantee their survival, then collecting the animals that are going to be killed anyway isn't going to have the same impact as collecting wild specimens haphazardly with no regard for the local population.

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.

[adamanteus]

If there were only a couple of guys going in to any given area and collecting a snake, the damage would be minimal. But who knows how many were collected from there yesterday, and tomorrow.... and next week....
It's a cumulative effect, you're not the only one collecting.

[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.

[wolfpacksved]

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

The snakes I have are all wild caught. I prefer local snakes because if they don't adjust to captivity I can turn them loose where I found them. And, no, I am not going to pay for a snake if I can find one on my own. I guess you have never found a snake and kept it huh?

[PitGirl89]

I don't think that the comment you've quoted was meant to be insulting, I think Stefan was just exploring all of the issues at hand when taking a snake from its natural habitat. All arguments are fair I'd think.

[Quibble]

Oppinion diversity is good, I think.
If everyone felt the same way It would be one extreme or another. Either wild populations or trade availability would suffer.

[Millinex]

Hell I'll probably be collecting a few from a construction site tomorrow morning, along with any other animal I can find there.