People against wild caught Garters

[drache]

I would like to add that I would be a lot less condoning of even the most well-intentioned hobbyist taking snakes from the wild, if snakes were on everybody's favourite pet list; but the fact is that even with all this increased open-mindedness toward "unusual" pets, there's still hardly any danger that everybody's going to run out to pluck their own from the wild, so I'm not that concerned yet

[charles parenteau]

Collecting snake and habitat destruction are two different thing!!
I will talk about collecting wild snake.
When someone is collecting snake de question is what he gonna do with it???what the purpose??
Make money,sell to someone? I don't know how many on our forum buy adult wild caught specimen gravid .that pissed me off .Adult snake should never be collected .IN some case its ok for exemple I cant release my big mama There is house and building where she was found.
Usuall y I release each adult female after she gave birth. after few meal.
I see those female year after year.

If people want to collect wild snake its year born babies or from preceding year.Or as I do collecting gravid female for the babies and release her after.Adult are so important !babies are less important .
2/100 of babies reach maturity .98/100 die.YOu probably save babie life when collecting or on 40 born babies from those gravid female probably one wild reach maturity.
Population depend on adult snake!ITs so hard to get adult if they are its because they are the strongest they have viable hibernaculum ,less predator than babies ,few factor that make theme irreplaeable.
If you want wild snake for pet ,take baby or juvenil.NOt adult that my point.I was talking about garter snake only (sirtalis sirtalis).
MY english is to bad tonight hope you all understand.

Collecting is not good anyway but its worst when its for living!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[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?

[Stefan-A]

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.

How about if the snake you caught needs medical attention? Will you take it to the vet, or will you turn it loose and just catch a new one?

I guess you have never found a snake and kept it huh?

That guess would be correct. I've never kept a wild snake longer than it has taken me to get it out of immediate danger.

[wolfpacksved]

Yes, i have taken snakes to the vet. I also quarantine animals & treat for parasites before introducing to main collection. But no need for that these days-- I am not a compulsive snake collector. Photograph animals, bout it.

[Didymus20X6]

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

Not really. It demonstrates two points:

1. Because some wild specimens have been caught of certain species under certain conditions without impact to either the populations or the environment, then it shows that, with careful consideration, it can still be done. The exception, of course, being when a particular species is endangered, or of being overly collected.

2. It still holds true that, if it is inherently wrong to collect a wild specimen, then having collected them at all is inherently wrong, which, in turn, makes keeping them, even captive bred, hypocritical at best. In other words, someone has already taken that gamble, and now we're being told we shouldn't gamble at all?

In addition, several other considerations have already been put forward in this thread in which, not only is catching them wild acceptable, but in fact preferable. For example:

1. a scenario, like Millinex's construction site, or even my neighborhood, where the snakes are likely to be killed by other people anyway. If I were to keep a snake, it would be one from my own neighborhood.

2. even a scenario you alluded to, where certain lines of captive-bred snakes are heavily inbred and in need of fresh genes.

3. and yes, even a case where a person can't afford to shell out the bucks for a top of the line thoroughbred snake.

And even relocation isn't always a great option. What if it causes a sudden boom to the population in that area, killing off potential prey, or causing other natural predators to starve? There is just as much risk in releasing a wild-caught snake as in keeping it. And as many of the other members have pointed out, whatever course of action - to catch, to buy, to release - it must be done with the risks carefully weighted.

And yes, there's even risk to buying captive-bred animals, too. Let's not even try to deny that.

[Stefan-A]

Not really. It demonstrates two points:

1. Because some wild specimens have been caught of certain species under certain conditions without impact to either the populations or the environment, then it shows that, with careful consideration, it can still be done. The exception, of course, being when a particular species is endangered, or of being overly collected.

That is a very dangerous assumption to make. There are plenty of examples of the removal wild specimens, either through collecting or killing, having a devastating effect on the populations.

2. It still holds true that, if it is inherently wrong to collect a wild specimen, then having collected them at all is inherently wrong, which, in turn, makes keeping them, even captive bred, hypocritical at best. In other words, someone has already taken that gamble, and now we're being told we shouldn't gamble at all?

I'm not arguing the point that it's inherently wrong, but as a side note, it seemed like that was the argument that the OP was talking about.

In addition, several other considerations have already been put forward in this thread in which, not only is catching them wild acceptable, but in fact preferable. For example:

1. a scenario, like Millinex's construction site, or even my neighborhood, where the snakes are likely to be killed by other people anyway.

Relocation is an option.

2. even a scenario you alluded to, where certain lines of captive-bred snakes are heavily inbred and in need of fresh genes.

Ultimately, few snakes have reached that point and those that have, don't need "fresh genes" specifically from wildcaught specimens. In the case of the SanFran, the benefits don't outweigh the drawbacks.

3. and yes, even a case where a person can't afford to shell out the bucks for a top of the line thoroughbred snake.

Nobody's getting a thoroughbred top of the line snake by catching one and there are alternatives to them. Sure, you might get your hands on an exceptionally nice snake that way, but you're not going to find anything comparable to a snake that's been selectively bred for a certain trait.

How would such a person afford to keep an animal, if he couldn't even afford to purchase a captive bred one? It's something we see with cats all the time, the cheaper the animal, the worse it's cared for. I'm not saying it's a rule, it definitely isn't, but it is a trend. A few years ago, I had a run-in on Kingsnake with a person who did explicitly say that he would never take a sick wildcaught snake to a vet, because he'd get away cheaper by just discarding it and catching a new one.

And even relocation isn't always a great option. What if it causes a sudden boom to the population in that area, killing off potential prey, or causing other natural predators to starve?

That's a risk, but compared to breeding and releasing dozens or hundreds at a time, it's a minor risk.

There is just as much risk in releasing a wild-caught snake as in keeping it. And as many of the other members have pointed out, whatever course of action - to catch, to buy, to release - it must be done with the risks carefully weighted.

I agree with the latter statement.

And yes, there's even risk to buying captive-bred animals, too. Let's not even try to deny that.

That depends on the risk you are referring to. I can indeed think of several risks involved with buying captive-bred animals, ranging from diseases to accidental release of the animals, but the risks specifically to the populations their ancestors were collected from, are minimal.

[charles parenteau]

Stephan and didymus you both have very good point and I should read to post again to a better understanding.


Didymus I agree when you say that certain lines of captive bred snake are heavily inbreed and new gene are needed .
That what happen with eastern flame.All came from the same place and over 15 years flame are not what they supposed to be .Poor red or orange ,flame become dull as adult .ect.I want to restore the standard.

Its not for money or glory I think Its selfishness .Its a personal goal its not for the market or for sell.
I obey to the fundamental rules and I think I don't have negative effect on wild population.But someone told me even if im well intentionned I can have negative effect .Its absolutely right.
Every action I made is well calculated .
REstore the flame standard and produce 3 strippes flame are the 2 main reasons why I collect wild snake.I just want to clarify what I'M doing that make me feel better.

[Millinex]

Stefan relocation isn't exactly a viable option in my case. The area is crawling with them and I would probably hurt both the new snake and the population of wherever I relocate it to, not to mention the survival chances for a large female garter is slim compared to some of the smaller/slender snakes who can manage to run/hide.

I actually managed to capture another one from the site today, to rehome to a family and teach them about garters, all parties win.. Except the rattler I had no way to bring home/mother who would kill me.

[Didymus20X6]

You found a rattler, and you're more worried about your mom killing you?