Unless something miraculous occurs in the soul of every
living human that prevents them from ever taking any
action again that might lead to the extinction of a species in
the wild then the answer is yes, the only absolute way
to guarantee a threatened species doesn't become extinct is
to have captive populations of it. Utopia on Earth does not
presently exist unfortunately. This fact doesn't conflict with
my support of the preservation of natural biodiversity. The
two tactics complement each other, they are not exclusive
paths that one must decide between as they've been
depicted by some here.
I'm still curious as to why there is a "one side thinks this, the
other side thinks that" tone in this dialogue. Like the past
"scientists vs. hobbyists" thread the artificial barriers some
are trying to erect are quite inaccurate. My guess is the
overwhelming majority of readers of this list, who have not
yet written on this topic, favor both strategies for preservation
as I do.
>and some from that side use this attitude to rationalize
>or justify illegal activity.
Digging up endangered plants from a healthy, protected site,
of course that is illegal activity that should be condemned
and punished. What about removing let's say Nepenthes
plants from a lot that in two weeks will be bulldozed to make
way for a hotel complex? (The builder has all the required
permits and there is no way to stop it. He also refuses to
give anyone his permission to remove the plants.) How about
just collecting seed from the condemned plants? Are these
illegal acts equal to the first on your personal moral scale?
How does letting the site go extinct without attempting
to preserve the plants in captivity favor genetic diversity?
>> 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.
>In fact, the passenger pigeon was bred in captivity (snip) but little
>interest was expressed because the bird was so abundant
Yes I know, the sky would darken for hours as a flock went
overhead and with a single rifle shot you could down 20 birds.
Accurate, exaggerated? Who knows. I actually wasn't
referring to them at the height of their numbers, more towards
the last few decades of existence when their decline was
evident. They realized the American bison was in trouble
before it was too late (barely), it's sad the same can't be
said for the Passenger pigeon.
>(should we be concentrating our captive breeding efforts on
>Drosera rotundifolia instead of Sarracenia oreophila?).
On that we agree Sean, there are already more individual
S. oreophila plants in the Bay Area alone than probably
exist in Alabama (would we be circled on the proposed
CP location map? :-) , yet I've noticed fewer people
growing D. rotundifolia, probably because our winters
are too mild for some varieties and they tend to rot after
a single season. Other varieties do well here. Many
cultivation methods are required even within a single
species, which is a good sign the "captive uniformity"
some worry about hasn't happened.
>This may be heresy, but I feel that the presence in zoos
>of the only remaining birds would be hardly more enriching
>than the presence in museums of those same specimens
>as properly-executed study skins.
Ah, now however we come to a major area of disagreement.
I take it your position is that whenever a species comes to
the point that it only exists in captivity, say the California
Condor, Pink pigeon, Ne-Ne goose, European Bison,
Pe're David's deer, forget about continued breeding efforts
or future reintroductions (some of which have already taken
place), as far as you're concerned the animals are equal to
stuffed ones found in museums?! Have you ever seen a live
individual of any of these species? I can't believe you truly
mean that.
>and to attempt to convince the public and the politicians of the
>urgent necessity for population control.
God save us from politicians attempting to enforce
population control! The usual solution they come up
with is genocide or global war, both quite effective
but not exactly my cup of tea. Then again China's
politicians have some interesting methods as well...
Regards,
Demetrios