"a zoo in my luggage" smuggling attempt

I assume he is referring to Mr. Schultz a former Curator at San Diego and transactions with a certain Florida based dealer. This all went down in the mid 90’s and the Zoo has long since had very strict vetting policies. The current curator who I have met on numerous occasions (and was kind enough to let me handle many incredible animals in the collection including a Brothers Island Tuatara!!) is very conscientious when it comes to acquisitions and you certainly should specify you were not talking about him or any of the current management (giving you the benefit of the doubt).
 
peacockpheasant said:
Do you care to elaborate what you think you know? Or are you just going to disseminate nonsense?
Click to expand...

A fair enough comment there I think. It's not fair to make statements suggesting organisations are operating illegally without providing any evidence.

After reading what Chilonidas has written it sounds as though those events are in the past and San Diego operate within the rules.
 
Mr T said:
A fair enough comment there I think. It's not fair to make statements suggesting organisations are operating illegally without providing any evidence.

After reading what Chilonidas has written it sounds as though those events are in the past and San Diego operate within the rules.
Click to expand...
my San Diego comment was (to be fair) in reply to zoogiraffe's comment, and I honestly thought the past dealings of San Diego (etc) would be well-known to a lot of the members on the forum, as everyone here is a zoo enthusiast so in general knows more about the happenings in zoos than the average person. If reptile smuggling and zoo staff in high positions are mentioned in connection with one another (as zoogiraffe did), then I immediately think of San Diego. Hence my post. My second post made it clear I was speaking in the past tense, at least in this case.
 
You wrote the second post in reply to peacockpheasant who was right to point out you were, intentionally or not, implying San Diego Zoo engage in smuggling.
 
Last edited:
Dicerorhinus said:
You wrote the second post in reply to peacockpheasant who was right to point out you were, intentionally or not, implying San Diego Zoo engage in smuggling.
Click to expand...

From the Fiji Banded Iguana wikipedia article:

"Since 1982 the Fijian government has maintained that the entire zoo population of Fiji banded iguanas was obtained illegally or descended from smuggled animals: "Virtually all of the estimated 50–100 banded iguanas in American zoos have been obtained without the knowledge or consent of the Government of Fiji".[8][9] The husbandry of Fiji banded iguanas at the San Diego Zoo has been documented as the most successful breeding colony of Fiji banded iguanas in the world.[3]"

[3] Kinkaid, John (1997). "Iguanas of the South Pacific". Reptiles 5 (8): 54–57.
[8] Burghardt, Gordon M.; Rand, A. Stanley (1982). Iguanas of the World: Their Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation (Noyes Series in Animal Behavior, Ecology, Conservation, and Management). Noyes Publications. p. 472. ISBN 0815509170.
[9] Robert George Sprackland (1992). Giant lizards. Neptune, NJ: T.F.H. Publications. ISBN 0866226346.

I think that is one example of what Chlidonias implied. The ";)" underlined the not too serious nature of his remark.

At least to me, it does appear that peacockpheasant is indeed more interested in tussling with Chlidonias, than to correct him for the sake of SDZ's integrity.
 
Sun Wukong said:
From the Fiji Banded Iguana wikipedia article:

"Since 1982 the Fijian government has maintained that the entire zoo population of Fiji banded iguanas was obtained illegally or descended from smuggled animals: "Virtually all of the estimated 50–100 banded iguanas in American zoos have been obtained without the knowledge or consent of the Government of Fiji".[8][9] The husbandry of Fiji banded iguanas at the San Diego Zoo has been documented as the most successful breeding colony of Fiji banded iguanas in the world.[3]"

[3] Kinkaid, John (1997). "Iguanas of the South Pacific". Reptiles 5 (8): 54–57.
[8] Burghardt, Gordon M.; Rand, A. Stanley (1982). Iguanas of the World: Their Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation (Noyes Series in Animal Behavior, Ecology, Conservation, and Management). Noyes Publications. p. 472. ISBN 0815509170.
[9] Robert George Sprackland (1992). Giant lizards. Neptune, NJ: T.F.H. Publications. ISBN 0866226346.

I think that is one example of what Chlidonias implied. The ";)" underlined the not too serious nature of his remark.

At least to me, it does appear that peacockpheasant is indeed more interested in tussling with Chlidonias, than to correct him for the sake of SDZ's integrity.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on his intentions!
I have copies of all of the studbooks (I acquired 2.3 animals last year) 8 of the 10 founder animals were acquired from the Orchard Island Cultural Centre , Fiji in 1987. Which is long after Fiji began to proclaim "the entire zoo population of Fiji banded iguanas was obtained illegally or descended from smuggled animals"?

Also the Fiji Government do not have any say if Tonga export their (Fiji banded) Iguanas! Good old wikipedia...
 
Last edited:
AgileGibbon said:
With animal trade in general, wild-caught is offered cheaper than captive-bred, this doesn't exactly do much to stop this sort of trade going on, it just perpetuates it.

I'm not claiming that a pricing review would stop it, it might just give it less encouragement with the species which are common in captivity but in trouble in the wild (such as horsfields tortoises)
Click to expand...

That's because captive bred animals tend to have no parasites, be easier to handle and you can get much more info about history of that individual (feeding habits, health issues/sensitivity, exact age). When in comparison wild caught one is a lottery how it will or won't recover from stress, how it was treated since capture till it gets to you, it's almost certain it will have parasites, could never used to your hand nearby, you don't know how old it is, simply many question marks. So it is logical such an animal would be cheaper. If the species is not easy or cheap to keep and there is little success with breeding in captivity, there is market for wild caught ones till captive population is formed in sufficient numbers to let the difference between prices of CB and SC ones be too minimal for importers to continue delivering that species.

Of course whole captive populations of each species including traditional domesticated once origin in once wild caught animals.
 
@docend24:
I understand the reasons for wild-caught being cheaper. What I don't understand is why the less-understood animals are being sold to the general public; it would be interesting to know just how many captive animals die from the trial-and-error approach to their husbandry.

It would be better for animals to be witheld from the public market until their requirements are better understood. But again, just wishful thinking when money is involved
 
AgileGibbon said:
@docend24:
I understand the reasons for wild-caught being cheaper. What I don't understand is why the less-understood animals are being sold to the general public; it would be interesting to know just how many captive animals die from the trial-and-error approach to their husbandry.

It would be better for animals to be witheld from the public market until their requirements are better understood. But again, just wishful thinking when money is involved
Click to expand...


Are Zoos in that sense different then the general public? That there are clear husbandry guidelines for many species is because of trial and error (and yes a lot of animals died in zoos in the past). And many ill understood species are still in this process even in Zoos. B.e. we can keep echidnas alive but breeding is still nearly impossible. Another example the husbandry needs of BoP we re just beginning to understand at the moment. And yes we still lose BoP's in Zoo. And then we do not even talk about reptiles or fishes. But to the defense of Zoos they do have more experience in husbandry so they should be able to go to the process faster then the general public although practise learns that it's often committed individuals that crack the code and in this light there is no difference between a commited zoo employee or a specialist private breeder.
 
This is sort of what I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. I was trying to say that ownership should get restricted to one or 2 people who are extremely experienced in that field, and not extend ownership permission to anyone else until the first one or two have made some progress.

It won't be quite as clear-cut as that in practise, but I hope I am now understandable. I sometimes phrase things in an odd fashion
 
@AgileGibbon: And what happens if that one or two "extremely experienced" owners die, lose interest, have an outbreak of a contagious disease within their small colony that wipes out the breeding females/males etc. etc.? The same that has happened to many species in captivity before: the species in question disappears.
A very limited founding base isn't optimal, either.
 
It seems I have not been understood, again.
I know what I mean, so I'm going to leave it at that, I can't explain my personal opinion any clearer than I already have done.
 
I think what's trying to be said is that if a new species enters captivity, then they should only be owned by people with a good deal of education and/or experience in reptiles, rather than just any member of the public with the money. Maybe some sort of licencing level for owning exotics (something I believe should be brought in for any pet) - your usual could be level 1 (goldfish, hamsters, budgies etc), but new to captivity species and such would be a top level. With licencing, nobody with no reptile knowledge what-so-ever wouldn't get it, but there would be more than enough private breeders to maintain the population across more than 2 people.

ie. if a Thorny devil entered captivity, then ownership should be restricted to those who have proven experience in keeping very tricky species, and somebody who might just have a chance of getting them to feed on crickets or some other more available species and breed them, rather than somebody that has a fortune to spend but doesn't know that it may just need a heatbulb and a UV light.
 
docend24 said:
And who would chose those 2 breeders and why do you think they would be chosen wisely? Aha!
Click to expand...

Well obviously if it was to be 2 breeders as you state then they would obviously be chosen by an educated panel or similar. It is the same if I left my job, my company would choose someone suitabley qualified to replace me. Quite simple and straight forward.

I think agilegibbon was clear enough in the postings myself.

Back to the best practised ways of stopping the illegal trade of species is in the long term education globally - Remember 100 years ago the British thought it generally good fun to go shooting Lions and bring back a rug. Through education over time newer generations now are disgusted by this behaviour.
The short term cure is to increase the punishment for those caught, although this will not stop the trade it will no doubt put some people off from doing it.
 
Pootle said:
Well obviously if it was to be 2 breeders as you state then they would obviously be chosen by an educated panel or similar.
Click to expand...

And who should that be?

Being incomprehensible is one thing; not answering the questions AgileGibbon's post created is another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top