The Dark Side of New Species Discovery

[Ed]

Originally Posted by mantisdragon91

And I think Ed missed the point of my original post. It never said anything about allowing collection of the newts for the pet trade. It merely pointed out the hypocrisy of the author who discovered the species in what for all practical purposes amounted to a "fancy native cocktail", exclusively blaming the pet trade for the species slide towards extinction while at no time mentioning the much more damaging affects of the "Medicinal" trade which has driven many more species towards extinction in that part of the world than the pet trade ever will.

I didn't miss your interpretation of what you thought was hypocrisy.. The actual hypocrisy is that you think it is better to have them extinct in the wild regardless of the cause as long as they can be housed in a hobbyists cage.... You have emphasized that point several times now in this thread yet do not make the connection about the disjunction in that position..

The fact that once the population is extinct in the wild, means that there are no more of that animal unless there is a managed breeding program to ensure the genetics and to ensure no exposure to novel pathogens. As we have seen in multiple taxa ranging from mammals to insects, unmanaged genetics can rapidly result in adaptation to captivity that prevents the captive population from being able to be released, exposure to foriegn pathogens due to non-sympatric species during the chain towards the hobbyist and further exposure in hobbyists mixed species collections further put the nail in the coffin of the species in captivity. We have seen this mentality cause multiple extinctions (both local and of a species) for quite a long time. One can look at the end of the great auk which was pushed into extinction at the end by collectors... and see the same trend with the desire to stick species into a cage today...

Ed

[mantisdragon91]

Originally Posted by Ed

I didn't miss your interpretation of what you thought was hypocrisy.. The actual hypocrisy is that you think it is better to have them extinct in the wild regardless of the cause as long as they can be housed in a hobbyists cage.... You have emphasized that point several times now in this thread yet do not make the connection about the disjunction in that position..
The fact that once the population is extinct in the wild, means that there are no more of that animal unless there is a managed breeding program to ensure the genetics and to ensure no exposure to novel pathogens. As we have seen in multiple taxa ranging from mammals to insects, unmanaged genetics can rapidly result in adaptation to captivity that prevents the captive population from being able to be released, exposure to foriegn pathogens due to non-sympatric species during the chain towards the hobbyist and further exposure in hobbyists mixed species collections further put the nail in the coffin of the species in captivity. We have seen this mentality cause multiple extinctions (both local and of a species) for quite a long time. One can look at the end of the great auk which was pushed into extinction at the end by collectors... and see the same trend with the desire to stick species into a cage today...

Ed

Sorry but I call Bull Shit on that. Can you point out once where I said I would be okay with a species becoming extinct in the wild for the benefit of the pet trade?

[Brotherly Monkey]

Originally Posted by mantisdragon91

This may well be true Donn. However now that this species is discovered and known about you don't see a scenario where the same people in China and other parts of the Far East who pay crazy money for bear paws tiger livers and rhino horn, not wanting to try a genuine "Laos Newt Wedding Cocktail"?

Hippopotamus on menu at Beijing zoo | Environment | guardian.co.uk

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/wo...smuggling.html

So instead of admitting you were wrong you invent some scenario to justify your earlier baseless criticism?

Also, regardless if it was under pressure from other forces, it would not change the fact that it was also put under pressure from the pet trade.

One set of pressure doesn't justify, or excuse, the other.

[jkooiman]

Laotriton article - Caudata.org Newt and Salamander Forum

Laotriton laoensis - Caudata.org Newt and Salamander Forum

Laotriton laoensis F2 - after 4 years! - Page 2 - Caudata.org Newt and Salamander Forum

Just some reading material for those not familiar with the animal etc. A lot more can be found on caudata.org JVK

[mantisdragon91]

Originally Posted by Brotherly Monkey

So instead of admitting you were wrong you invent some scenario to justify your earlier baseless criticism?

Also, regardless if it was under pressure from other forces, it would not change the fact that it was also put under pressure from the pet trade.

One set of pressure doesn't justify, or excuse, the other.

Wrong how? That I pointed out that in SE Asia it's not the pet trade that is the primary culprit when it comes to species extinction? Or that I mentioned that now that the species has come to public attention how long before people with more money than sense pay to sample the cocktail in question?

[Ed]

Originally Posted by mantisdragon91

Sorry but I call Bull Shit on that. Can you point out once where I said I would be okay with a species becoming extinct in the wild for the benefit of the pet trade?

Call BS all you want, I stated what I took from your position , you took that position and put it out here as shown here,

Originally Posted by mantisdragon91

Not all. But in SE Asia, collection for the pet trade is the least of most species worries and stating otherwise is hypocritical at best and being an apologist at worst. Don't know about you but I would rather see live specimens brought out and perhaps bred in public and private collections as opposed to the local soaking them in alcohol and drinking the alcohol at weddings and other parties.

You mean where you stated above that it is better to see them alive in someone's tank than being used as a folkmedicine? You made it quite clear that you thought removal from the wild regardless of impact on the wild population was just fine, and equated the demand for folkmedicine with the pet trade. Nothing in your responses to me have indicated any interest in them remaining in the wild. In the following quote

Originally Posted by mantisdragon91

No. But I call bullshit when I see it. The only way the species was discovered was because it was found preserved in alcohol for some native wedding drink concoction. Who knows how much of the species native range was wiped out by native collectors... However all the blame is only placed on the pet trade. If this had occured in Iran( Kaiser Newts) I would have agreed with the assesment 100 %, but in SE Asia if it flies, crawls or swims it is either eaten or used for medicinal purposes, so I have no reason to believe that its only the collectors that are driving this species to extinction as the author strongly alleges. Hence my original post responce.

You start off by saying no, and then move towards the position that collection for the pet trade is acceptable.
You claim that the impact of the pet trade is negligble for this species while claiming the greatest risk for this species is from the folkmedicine usages without any supporting data. On what basis do you have proof that it had a wider range that has been wiped out by locals' collecting the newts?
And you again, refuse to accept any of the data that demonstrates extinctions by collectors even though there is a history documenting it for more than 200 years while wildly speculating on the impact of the locals......

I think you have provided abundent proof that
1) you don't have a problem with collecting rare species for the pet trade even if it means local extinctions
2) you are ignoring the large amount of data on the risk posed to small populations by collectors for the pet trade...

Ed

[mantisdragon91]

Don't hurt yourself jumping to conclusions Ed. Nowhere in the thread do I say the newts should be collected for the pet trade. I simply took offense at the fact that the author focused on the "evils" of the pet trade while seemingly giving the medicinal market a clear pass. I did say that I would rather see the newts collected for the pet trade than killed to make "Wedding Cocktails" and don't see that as an unreasonable statement. And I am still waiting for you to point out the example I requested below:

Can you point out once where I said I would be okay with a species becoming extinct in the wild for the benefit of the pet trade.

Just because you choose to interpet things in a certain way doesn't mean that they are

[mattolsen]

I just want to shed light on one aspect of this conversation. In spite of all of the negative effects that the pet trade and exotic animal hobbyists have caused, either directly or indirectly, their is a positive action that results from all of this. So, the newly discovered, or highly prized specimen in question will end up in some hobbyists hand's at some point. If this specimen is not legally being exported then it drives up both the price and the desire for it. Being that these specimens are generally endemic to poor countries, the indigenous people that live on very little will be sanctioned by smugglers to help find and collect the animals. They will make their way to the U.S. or Europe and be sold. They may not completely decimate a population, but they still take and do not replenish. On the other hand, if you allow the countries government to regulate the exportation of the animals, within reason, or allow groups to sustainably breed/export these animals then the government is happy, a captive population is established in the hobby, and the desire/value of the animals goes down with time. Thus, there is little reason for smugglers to smuggle. Because who would rather have a wild caught frog over a captive bred one? Their rates of survival are better, their probability of having parasites is lower, and you did the right thing by buying captive.

Not saying it's all good but I think that since the demand is inevitable then it's better to regulate it than the alternative. I hope not to get jumped on as this is just my opinion, and I'm open minded.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by mantisdragon91

Don't hurt yourself jumping to conclusions Ed. Nowhere in the thread do I say the newts should be collected for the pet trade. I simply took offense at the fact that the author focused on the "evils" of the pet trade while seemingly giving the medicinal market a clear pass. I did say that I would rather see the newts collected for the pet trade than killed to make "Wedding Cocktails" and don't see that as an unreasonable statement. And I am still waiting for you to point out the example I requested below:

Can you point out once where I said I would be okay with a species becoming extinct in the wild for the benefit of the pet trade.

Just because you choose to interpet things in a certain way doesn't mean that they are

No hurdles.. So your going with the Bill Clinton it isn't perjury defense??... I easily and clearly demonstrated what you said and meant regardless if you explicity said it or not.. Right Bill?

Ed

[Ed]

Originally Posted by mattolsen

I just want to shed light on one aspect of this conversation. In spite of all of the negative effects that the pet trade and exotic animal hobbyists have caused, either directly or indirectly, their is a positive action that results from all of this. So, the newly discovered, or highly prized specimen in question will end up in some hobbyists hand's at some point. If this specimen is not legally being exported then it drives up both the price and the desire for it. Being that these specimens are generally endemic to poor countries, the indigenous people that live on very little will be sanctioned by smugglers to help find and collect the animals. They will make their way to the U.S. or Europe and be sold. They may not completely decimate a population, but they still take and do not replenish. On the other hand, if you allow the countries government to regulate the exportation of the animals, within reason, or allow groups to sustainably breed/export these animals then the government is happy, a captive population is established in the hobby, and the desire/value of the animals goes down with time. Thus, there is little reason for smugglers to smuggle. Because who would rather have a wild caught frog over a captive bred one? Their rates of survival are better, their probability of having parasites is lower, and you did the right thing by buying captive.

Not saying it's all good but I think that since the demand is inevitable then it's better to regulate it than the alternative. I hope not to get jumped on as this is just my opinion, and I'm open minded.

Getting the locals involved and letting them earn a living from the animals generally is one of the ways to get a sustainable harvesting of the animals and protection of the ecosystem. I broke a lot of this down in this thread (I had to make three posts to cover all of the important points) Wild Caught vs Captive Bred and Conservation Efforts

Ed