[willbenn]

what about some species with an extremely small range? some of the newly described aussie leaf tails are said to only occur in one small mountain area. fortunately for them, i can't imagine they could be over collected due to australias restrictions. what about species from countries that don't have serious restrictions?

sebastian - you mentioned that l. williamsi has a small range. do you think collecting is more harmful to their population than the deforestation that is happening within their range?

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by willbenn

sebastian - you mentioned that l. williamsi has a small range. do you think collecting is more harmful to their population than the deforestation that is happening within their range?

I know ppl who have been there to study the situation of L.williamsi and I definately think that collecting is much more harmful to them than any other issue.

[willbenn]

sebastian - thanks for the info! they are an incredible colored species so the huge interest in them does not suprise me one bit. it would be a shame if they dropped to critical numbers because of their popularity so let's hope captive breeding efforts can take some pressure off

[DJreptile]

So after a brief search of a couple of databases I could not come up with any papers addressing the situation you're putting forth.

I honestly think the idea of a population of any organism only being influenced by collecting for the pet trade is purely hypothetical. You're not going to find anywhere with collecting being the sole pressure on a population. Even with Corucias and Shinisauri at the very least you're looking at animals which are used by the local populace for food. In China there's also the rampant pollution and population growth everywhere so I don't see how a solid argument for collecting as the primary pressure on Shinisaurus populations can be made, and the Solomon Islands are so small and host to invasive rats, cats, and dogs all of which are animals I can see exerting a strong competitive/predatory pressure on Corucia populations, and if Fire Ants have made it there in their journey across the South Pacific then they're definitely going to be a problem for all the native wildlife.

It seems to me collecting really becomes an issue when it is an additional pressure on top of things like habitat destruction and invasive species. You see a similar pattern in fishery management where species can endure large harvests with little/no discernable impact but the second a developer fills up the one salt marsh where a species goes to spawn, or pollution fouls the food chain causing massive plankton die offs then all of a sudden previously sustainable levels of harvesting have a dramatic impact on population numbers.

Of course one could argue collectors are what save species. All it takes is a handful of dedicated hobbyists to create a self sustaining captive population while the wild ones are having there habitat brought down around their ears. For most of the smaller, more obscure species hobbyists are the only ones who will even bother with them. Zoos have limited budgets and thus have to focus on what will bring people through their doors and hope they make a little extra money to support work with some of the other species while academic institutes are concerned primarily with expanding their collections of pickled animals and publishing papers. You're not going to find many researchers out in the field bringing home breeding groups random little geckos or little brown frogs to start breeding because the forest where they were found is being bulldozed as we speak. It's the random collector who happens to see that little geckos or little brown frog and falls in love with it that will spend the time and money necessary to see a viable captive breeding population started.

So, while I'm willing to accept collecting for the pet trade as one pressure on wild populations of herps I've noticed a dearth of good scientific research into the matter and analagous situations, like fishery management, seem to suggest habitat/environmental maintenance is the key to preserving species and it is only after the habitat has been compromised that a species becomes susceptible to additional pressures. Which is why it irritates me to no end when I see people bashing the pet trade. There's no science behind it, just a host of assumptions and an unwillingness to examine the real issues of habitat loss, and how our chosen lifestyles are the driving force behind said problem.

*steps down off soapbox*

[willbenn]

DJ - i couldn't agree with you more. these reptile species have been around for many, many years because they have adapted to natural pressures like predation and temporary habitat change. if a fire burns down a wooded area, that habitat eventually grows back, but if its cleared for agriculture/farming, or human population expanse, its gone for good. with collecting, the collectors only see a very small percentage of a population and are thus limited in the numbers they can collect. its all part of the natural predation model, the geckos that are less wary and make themselves more vulnerable to predators (both animals and humans in this case) will be the ones that are eaten, or caught. the ones that are more wary and cautious are the ones that will pass on their genes and better the chances for survival of the species. the problem is when humans alter habitat and make it no longer viable to its inhabitants. whether its by habitat destruction, landscape alteration (i.e. builing dams or rerouting water flow), pollution, introduction of non-native/invasive species, etc etc, it generally causes major problems for the species that have evolved/survived in that area for thousands and thousands of years.

bottom line, reptile species don't become threatened/endangered solely by collecting/poaching for the pet trade. now if you're a black rhino or an animal that stands out like the las vegas skyline, then poaching is certainly an issue.