Hasn't this thread gone off into a strawman's argument?
Who on this list advocates propagating a species solely using
captive individuals? Who even prefers captive propagation
over keeping a wild site preserved when maintaining a wild
population is still possible? It's not an "either" "or" situation
unless the species, site, gene pool etc. is already extinct
in the wild, then the choice is EITHER maintain it in captivity
until it can be reintroduced OR it becomes extinct period.
We'd all prefer to maintain sites in the wild untouched, however,
we'd be very foolish if we didn't learn the lessons of history
and have at least one, if not several, actually as many as
is humanly possible, backup populations in captivity. A natural disaster,
war, or famine, not to mention the countless other
human activities such as poaching, construction, changing the
natural flow of water, can all wipe out a species at any moment.
Endlessly debating the genetic merits of captively produced
plants is a deadly waste of time if it discourages continued propagation of a
species on the brink.
If just one individual, whether they worked for an institution or
they were a private enthusiast, had simply bothered to breed
the Passenger pigeon in captivity they'd still be alive today.
So what if they'd be genetically less diverse than their wild
ancestors were three centuries ago, it certainly beats the
actual outcome of events! Even if the entire stock were the
descendants of just a few pairs the world today would be a
richer place.
Regards,
Demetrios