Dying Senegal, NEED HELP!

[TheRoachRanch]

What a stunningly ignorant, arrogant and blaze' statement. Im left speechless!

Please let me explain a little more indepth as to the nature of my statement. Believe me, I'm w/ everyone here when it comes to conservation of wildlife. Yet, I'm just stating the obvious facts. The only way that groups and organizations can seem to protect tropical wildlife is by setting up a reserve or sanctuary. At THAT point if someone goes onto that piece of property, snags a Chameleon and exports it, it is considered a form of poaching and I am not down w/ that one bit.

But to export animals from forests that ARE not protected AND being cut down. I have no problem w/. It's either export them for the pet trade, move them to a safe haven, or have a bulldozer flatten them. I'd be cool w/ either of the first two choices. The thought of a helpless defenseless living creature getting run down by a piece of machinery sorta makes my stomach turn.

The problem being is that the native people still have that option to export wildlife and for poor 3rd world economies it's a profitable trade. I would hope that some of these people bring the animals to a reserve instead, but they don't and those are the cold hard facts. At this point I may sound a little hypocritical but check this out. I would be also behind a bill that bans importation of wildlife, IF they could find someway to save the majority of it from destruction. Basically what I'm trying to say is that exportation is almost a necessary evil if you think about it and sometimes the ONLY way these creatures have any shot at continuing to live. DO NOT confuse this last statement w/ banning ownership of any animals such as stated in HR669. I AM NOT behind that one bit have been a member of the USARK since it's inception, and will continue to fight these ridiculous bills along side all of you to protect our rights to own our reptiles.

That being said. Yes, I do stand behind my statement in the context of my above thoughts, as long as strict guidelines are followed as to not put a species in danger. Sorta like fishing. I'll reiterate the above message. Either move the animals to a reserve, or export them, but don't let their lives go to waste by the forest being cut down on top of them and doing nothing. It's sad to even be having this conversation because I think ALL of us, not "many" of us, ALL of us would rather just see the tropical rainforests of the world left alone so that our kids kids can have the same opportunity as our generation has to explore these natural treasures.

I'm sorry to have offended you "JoJackson" w/ my previous statement but I'm just calling them like I see them. I also am 200% against poaching in any form and if they ever shut down exportation and legally make the term "exportation" synonymous w/ poaching and illegal.... at that point I would be 200% against exportation as well. Does any of that makes sense? I feel that we both have similar views on this subject and are each very passionate when it comes to wildlife. It's just hard to convey exactly what my thoughts are to you over a computer w/o speaking face to face. Unfortunately though the computer is all we have to accomplish this

 

[TheRoachRanch]

Oh and I apologize for hijacking this thread. I too would like to know how your little buddy is making out. I'm digging the idea of feeding him the baby food to re-hydrate him. That seems to work for many many different kinds of animals when they are hurting from dehydration. Good call on that guys!

 

[jojackson]

Understood clearly now, thanks for the clarification, makes alot of difference. My apology for my equally abrupt response.
For the most part im agreed, however the crucially important point I will make is that sentimentality aside, saving them from bulldozers is great, likewise producing numbers in captivity, however it is vain to imagine that preventing their extinction by producing multigen captives is enough alone.
I think you might agree that saving the habitat should be priority one, since without that habitat there is no possibility of future releases to re-establish wild populations.

Indirectly, with this in mind, perhaps retaining some numbers in wild habitat gives organisations like cites, some leverage to fight the destruction of the forest and work on creating alternate livelihoods for locals. Conversly if the remaining wild numbers are depleted to zero by unchecked importation, legal or otherwise, then local industry dosent have much reason not to burn it.

Personally, its the fatality rates of so many of these imports for commercial trade, which equates to very little success in breeding captive numbers anyway, that concerns me.
If numbers could be imported in such a way as to ensure the best health and survival, and used for captive breeding programs by established zoos, wildlife parks etc, whilst at the same time something was done on a higher level to conserve their native habitat, then a limited importation for commerce would have less impact.

Well done USARK, I think it will acheive much and it has my full support. Id love to see a similar organisation become reality here in Australia.
cheers

 

[TheRoachRanch]

I knew we were talking in unison! Yes, I agree w/ you and understand everything you have written. Conservation is #1 and I think this point was hammered down to the masses by one of your countrymen (god rest his soul) Steve Irwin. He is sorely missed by us in America as well and the wildlife community worldwide as a whole.

And no need to apologize, I don't get offended easily! Especially when it's only expressing a thought that's written down. A lot can be misinterpreted that way. I understood where you were coming from

 

[kinyonga]

Returning to the topic of this thread....how's the chameleon doing clayanddougssenegal???

 

[TheRoachRanch]

Returning to the topic of this thread....how's the chameleon doing clayanddougssenegal???

We've been trying to find this out for a couple days now. Not sure where he went.