Subject: Captive Breeding Programs for Endangered Species
Date: Mar 22 08:36:03 2004
From: Guy McWethy - lguy_mcw at yahoo.com


Wayne and Tweeters,
you are correct. I am suggesting a little more effort
than just throwing massive numbers of naive
individuals out into the wild. A little more care and
study would go a long way towards making the releases
more effective. And less of a waste of time and
money.
But we must acknowledge those successful programs.
But as you pointed out, if the habitat is gone and
there is no place to release them, what is the best
solution? We are approaching the point where we will
probably be able to breed a species in captivity, but
what is the use if there is no place to release it
back into the wild? Is it still a viable species if
the only place it exists is in captivity? Is it's
sole purpose on the planet simply for human amusement?
Now THERE is a sticky ethical question?
No easy solutions here.
Guy
> You are probably correct when you say that animals
> released from
> captive breeding programs into the wild generally
> have lower survival
> rates than animals raised in the wild. However, what
> would you suggest
> that we do-- abandon all captive breeding programs,
> and allow these
> species to become extinct without any effort at
> restoration?


=====
Guy McWethy
Renton, WA
mailto: lguy_mcw at yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html