Wild Caught Vs Captive Bred

W

Weather Man

New Member
I was wondering everyone's opinion on the two? What are pros and cons any, huge disadvantages to wild caught? I can imagine the obvious problems and advantages like health and age. but looking for the out of the ordinary.

Thank you
Weather Man
 
WC- parasites, issues with acclimating, other health issues from shipping, unknown age.

WC- new blood lines for breeding projects.
 
Ditto the above. Often wildcaught animals are neither fed nor watered (watering being the more important of the two) prior to arriving in this country, or at least not fed and watered sufficiently. From collection to importation into this country you're looking at a few days to a few weeks, typically. Additional stressors include overcrowding, poor handling, etc. These in combination with internal parasites can lead to otherwise tolerable parasite loads becoming seriously problematic. Depending on all these, especially the length of the chain of custody, animals can arrive in this country in anywhere from reasonably good condition to knocking on death's door. Most are somewhere in between--not in the best of shape, but recoverable given immediate, appropriate care (namely water, food, appropriate caging, and eventually treatment for internal parasites). There's a lot of variation depending on the particular facility and along species lines as well. For instance, Panther's often arrive in this country in good condition and are highly viable in captivity. In contrast, Senegals usually arrive in poor condition.

CBB animals are usually substantially easier to deal with, assuming they are in good condition of course. Establishing WC animals is feasible though, if they are relatively healthy.

cj
 
I had CB veiled chams some time ago, and they were fine. All of my stuff now is WC , like the previous post, parasites can be an issue and getting used to captivity. However if you stay on top of it, go to a vet for fecal analysis and if needed treat them. I have had good luck with WC, I have one female that would get a little agro if you tried to handle her, open mouth and hiss, but after a few days she turned into a sweetheart and will walk right on my hand and not turn dark.
 
I've had 3 WC, 2 cristatus, one Senegal. They all died within a month, despite good 'intensive care' husbandry and treatment by an expert reptile vet. I'll never get WC animals again. Though mine were all rescues because I decided to learn the hard way how difficult it is to get neglected chameleons back to good health.
 
camimom said:
WC- parasites, issues with acclimating, other health issues from shipping, unknown age.

WC- new blood lines for breeding projects.
Click to expand...

That and I'll add to it.


The simple truth of these animals is anything but simple.

Not only do you have varying factors between species but you also have to consider individual animals are all different. What I'm getting at is what may stress and kill one of a species may not affect another of the same species. This is important since really with Chameleons it is a tangible factor in terms of long term success.

WC animals may not adapt to their captive status, nor us humans. Some species despite the best care available will kick off while others are more hardy. All in all, I will say that there is a considerable difference between a WC and a CB animal.

In some cases you can visibly see the difference quickly, other times it may take the form of longevity, interaction with you as the owner, ease of feeding, a less stressed animal, a number of factors.

I have been keeping Chams for 30+ years. Personally I've seen big differences in the survivability of CB over WC. The only good thing I can say about a WC animal is the chance for new bloodlines. If a person is looking for a pet, buy a CB animal. It's your best chance for a healthy animal. If you are more experienced, looking for a new breeding project, or something so rare nobody is actually breeding them with any kind of regularity, then a WC is what you are going to buy.


Hope that helps
 
Maybe you don't want to think about this stuff, but here goes:

There are other reasons to choose a cbb animal over a wc one. They are environmental and (to many people) moral or ethical. Taking wild chams into captivity causes them fear, suffering and risk of mistreatment and death. Removing them from their wild populations could eventually doom that population if it is done without regard for the future or if the population is declining or small. Most countries with native chams don't have much of a clue about their health or ability to handle collection pressure. Chams are regarded as a commodity; a source of money. The fact is, almost no captive breeding program is going to replace those animals taken from the wild even though we'd like to think it could. I doubt we could realistically produce viable captive chams that could be used to reestablish a lost wild population (parsoni for example).

I feel cham keepers need to be very clear and honest with themselves about this. Do you justify buying wc chams because you want the rare, the unusual, the thing no one else has? Do you intend on creating a population of chams that WILL be returned to the wild once they are established? Is the cost of those globally transported animals acceptable for a hobby? For pets? for human amusement? How many of these desires do cbb chams fill as well? Is it more humane to fill human needs for chams with captive produced animals who are born and raised in safe conditions and used to human activity? Is the "cost" to these chams lower and more justifiable than the costs to a free ranging wild animal?

Now I'm sure some wild collectors, exporters, importers, dealers are ethical, stick to the regulations, and care for their stock humanely. Others don't and we as cham buyers can't always tease out the legal and ethical suppliers. How hard do we try really? How hard SHOULD we try? What ethics can we as hobbyists effect and uphold?
 
Last edited:
I am a firm believer that WC should only go towards breeders and those who have enough experience to minimize the likelihood of death.

I agree with everything you have said but I think that small numbers of wild caught if regulated appropriately can and should be allowed to keep captive populations going.

I think it is silly to believe that captive populations can resurrect a lost wild population in most instances.

What they CAN do is reduce pressure for wild caught and take the value of illegal exporting away.

A pet population also increases people's awareness of the animal and it's habitat increasing the chances of human support for conservation of said species.

I can go almost anywhere and buy a healthy CB veiled for under 100 bucks. What incentive does someone have to import WC? Legally it is too expensive illegally it is too much a of a risk with little reward.

I think we can do the same with many of the Chamaelo species and likely with many of the Furcifer and others...

Carlton said:
Maybe you don't want to think about this stuff, but here goes:

There are other reasons to choose a cbb animal over a wc one. They are environmental and (to many people) moral or ethical. Taking wild chams into captivity causes them fear, suffering and risk of mistreatment and death. Removing them from their wild populations could eventually doom that population if it is done without regard for the future or if the population is declining or small. Most countries with native chams don't have much of a clue about their health or ability to handle collection pressure. Chams are regarded as a commodity; a source of money. The fact is, almost no captive breeding program is going to replace those animals taken from the wild even though we'd like to think it could. I doubt we could realistically produce viable captive chams that could be used to reestablish a lost wild population (parsoni for example).

I feel cham keepers need to be very clear and honest with themselves about this. Do you justify buying wc chams because you want the rare, the unusual, the thing no one else has? Do you intend on creating a population of chams that WILL be returned to the wild once they are established? Is the cost of those globally transported animals acceptable for a hobby? For pets? for human amusement? How many of these desires do cbb chams fill as well? Is it more humane to fill human needs for chams with captive produced animals who are born and raised in safe conditions and used to human activity? Is the "cost" to these chams lower and more justifiable than the costs to a free ranging wild animal?

Now I'm sure some wild collectors, exporters, importers, dealers are ethical, stick to the regulations, and care for their stock humanely. Others don't and we as cham buyers can't always tease out the legal and ethical suppliers. How hard do we try really? How hard SHOULD we try? What ethics can we as hobbyists effect and uphold?
Click to expand...
 
Dont know if its been mentioned but, if you are looking for something besides a veiled or panther then more than likely you will have to get a WC. There just arent as many people breeding anything else besides those two. Though, you can find CB of some species here and there. If what you want is one of the more regularly bred species then get CB no doubt.
 
DanSB said:
I am a firm believer that WC should only go towards breeders and those who have enough experience to minimize the likelihood of death.

I agree with everything you have said but I think that small numbers of wild caught if regulated appropriately can and should be allowed to keep captive populations going.

I think it is silly to believe that captive populations can resurrect a lost wild population in most instances.

What they CAN do is reduce pressure for wild caught and take the value of illegal exporting away.

A pet population also increases people's awareness of the animal and it's habitat increasing the chances of human support for conservation of said species.

I can go almost anywhere and buy a healthy CB veiled for under 100 bucks. What incentive does someone have to import WC? Legally it is too expensive illegally it is too much a of a risk with little reward.

I think we can do the same with many of the Chamaelo species and likely with many of the Furcifer and others...
Click to expand...

I do not feel we should ban all wild collecting for the reasons you listed Dan. It's a struggle to make this decision, but it SHOULD never be taken lightly. Sure, there are situations where wc is the better or only option. I firmly believe in the value of a wc animal to educate the more ignorant humans and to try to establish captive populations of other species when we can. A complete ban on wild collecting often just increases the black market value and supports smuggling for those people who refuse to honor law. If we are going to subject a wc animal to captive life there is a responsibility to treasure it, use it, and spread appreciation for it as much as we can. Collection, done carefully with solid population status info and humane controls, isn't always bad. And, don't forget, it keeps discussions like this alive and well. Who knows how many lurkers benefit from listening? Even some sneaky AR lurkers should be able to hear that this community does not take trade, import, collection etc. lightly! I want them to know how responsible we are trying to be.
 
To this day i do not know if reptmart was true in telling me my male veiled in my avatar is wc or cbb but either way he is just as friendly and healthy, he eats well and loves his cage and i think if you work with them and make sure like stated above parasites and stress isn't a issue that you will be ok. My female veiled is cbb and she is just as healthy as the male and handles just as well. So its really hard to tell in some situations. My male is beautiful, so those are the advantages of some wc, you get different breeds and different genetics and with different species of chameleons you have a HUGE opportunity to expand the different families of chams. i dont mind wc chams. I do see where people think its bad to take them from their environment but at the same time if you know what you're doing, they can be just as happy in captivity, sometimes even healthier :)
 
Carlton said:
I do not feel we should ban all wild collecting for the reasons you listed Dan. It's a struggle to make this decision, but it SHOULD never be taken lightly. Sure, there are situations where wc is the better or only option. I firmly believe in the value of a wc animal to educate the more ignorant humans and to try to establish captive populations of other species when we can. A complete ban on wild collecting often just increases the black market value and supports smuggling for those people who refuse to honor law. If we are going to subject a wc animal to captive life there is a responsibility to treasure it, use it, and spread appreciation for it as much as we can. Collection, done carefully with solid population status info and humane controls, isn't always bad. And, don't forget, it keeps discussions like this alive and well. Who knows how many lurkers benefit from listening? Even some sneaky AR lurkers should be able to hear that this community does not take trade, import, collection etc. lightly! I want them to know how responsible we are trying to be.
Click to expand...

I do really struggle with the dynamics here regularly and agree with everything you've said.

As an example I have a wild caught Senegal. Very healthy and is doing well. He was brought in as a Juvenile and has grown about an inch or two since I got him. I now feel an obligation to find a suitable female or two to ensure his genetics can pass on and know that his importation and the loss of so many of his kind would not be for nothing.

If I can successfully hatch and raise any number of babies that many less will be demanded from the importers. A pipe dream? probably; but a small difference is better than none at all.
 
All of you have stated legitimate points. For me wild collected animals should be imported if collecting in species habitats is sustainable and we the importers can justify privilege of working with these animals with accomplished conservation in the species in their native range. If the species is not being conserved in the wild and overly threatened we should not see that species in captivity until the conservation status of that animals changes (to a conserved species).

I however think it is extremely important to have some species available as they provide a good first had experience of biology for children, youth and adults and make all parties that work with the species more aware about these (animals) and conservation efforts where these animals come from. However without most people would not even have a clue about.

There is one point that most captive species require occasional new blood lines/genetic to be sustained long term with the only exception I'm aware of as C. calyptratus. This meaning keepers who have got breeding programs should occasionally have access to wild chameleons. As well stated above if someone is looking for a pet they should look for captive bred animals.
 
Just a note as I've seen the point brought up several times here as well as before: wildcaught animals used to bring in new bloodlines and enhance genetic diversity are NOT inherently required to maintain perfectly viable captive populations.

Genetic diversity is determined primarily by the diversity in the initial population and the "effective population" size over time. The population size is simply the number of individuals present (in captivity, in this case). The effective population is a calculated parameter related to the number of individuals that actually contribute to the next generation. For example, we might have 10,000 Panther chameleons in captivity in the US (wild guess based on almost nothing). However, if all of these animals are the offspring of 100 male:female pairs, the effective population size is much smaller than 10,000. If all these animals are the offspring of 100 females and 10 males we have a much smaller effective population size still.

The smaller the effective population size over time the lower the genetic diversity will become. Genetic bottlenecks, where the effective population size is reduced to a small number at some point (say dozens to a few thousand individuals) have an especially severe effect on genetic diversity.

In general, we don't need high genetic diversity in captive animals in order to have healthy animals, we simply need enough diversity to keep deleterious, recessive alleles relatively rare. For instance, it doesn't matter much to us if our captive population has low capacity to adapt to increased water stress--we can just water them at the issue becomes moot. We can also preferentially avoid inbreeding and prevent less vigorous individuals from reproducing.

Adding unrelated, WC animals to a breeding program can immediately increase genetic diversity, but captive populations can reproduce successfully for a long time without it. An effective population size as small as a few dozens or better yet a few hundred individuals could, if managed in a sensible way (i.e., preferentially avoiding inbreeding, breeding the most robust individuals), provide for a viable captive population for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years.

I'm all for increasing genetic diversity with WC animals where feasible, but the idea that captive populations would inherently collapse in a few generations without them is simply wrong.

cj
 
Chris Jury said:
Just a note as I've seen the point brought up several times here as well as before: wildcaught animals used to bring in new bloodlines and enhance genetic diversity are NOT inherently required to maintain perfectly viable captive populations.

Genetic diversity is determined primarily by the diversity in the initial population and the "effective population" size over time. The population size is simply the number of individuals present (in captivity, in this case). The effective population is a calculated parameter related to the number of individuals that actually contribute to the next generation. For example, we might have 10,000 Panther chameleons in captivity in the US (wild guess based on almost nothing). However, if all of these animals are the offspring of 100 male:female pairs, the effective population size is much smaller than 10,000. If all these animals are the offspring of 100 females and 10 males we have a much smaller effective population size still.

The smaller the effective population size over time the lower the genetic diversity will become. Genetic bottlenecks, where the effective population size is reduced to a small number at some point (say dozens to a few thousand individuals) have an especially severe effect on genetic diversity.

In general, we don't need high genetic diversity in captive animals in order to have healthy animals, we simply need enough diversity to keep deleterious, recessive alleles relatively rare. For instance, it doesn't matter much to us if our captive population has low capacity to adapt to increased water stress--we can just water them at the issue becomes moot. We can also preferentially avoid inbreeding and prevent less vigorous individuals from reproducing.

Adding unrelated, WC animals to a breeding program can immediately increase genetic diversity, but captive populations can reproduce successfully for a long time without it. An effective population size as small as a few dozens or better yet a few hundred individuals could, if managed in a sensible way (i.e., preferentially avoiding inbreeding, breeding the most robust individuals), provide for a viable captive population for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years.

I'm all for increasing genetic diversity with WC animals where feasible, but the idea that captive populations would inherently collapse in a few generations without them is simply wrong.

cj
Click to expand...

Good statements and you are correct about genetics, thanks for posting. The bringing in of occasional WC animals seems important. With Furcifer pardalis to the best of my knowledge there is an anomaly, that has been documented somewhat, that after F6 generation in captivity all captive bred animals start to stop reproducing effectively in captivity. The WC animals are brought in and these animals start breeding with good breeding vigor again. To my knowledge, as most of this information has been somewhat documented as well comes from conversation with breeders, that situation has been shown in most species in captivity with the exceptions of Chamaeleo calyptratus. However there has been importation of WC C. calypatratus to prevent captive populations bottle necking even though the species seems to be reproducing stably in captivity. Loss of breeding vigor I have seen documented somewhat however if this information is outdated please correct me on what is going on. It may not necessarily be genetics however breeding vigor does seem to diaper the further generations your chameleons are in captivity and bringing in wild caught animals does seem to be a solution and does seem to be necessary for productive captive populations. I could not exactly say what causes the loss in breeding vigor whether it is genetics related or it is the animals behavior reacting to being removed to long from a natural setting. It would make a good study though.
 
Last edited:
Motherlode Chameleon said:
Interesting statements and you are correct about genetics, thanks for posting. The bringing in of occasional WC animals seems important. With Furcifer pardalis to the best of my knowledge there is an anomaly, that has been documented somewhat, that after F6 generation in captivity all captive bred animals start to stop reproducing effectively in captivity. The WC animals are brought in and these animals start breeding with good breeding vigor again. To my knowledge, as most of this information has been somewhat documented as well comes from conversation with breeders, that situation has been shown in most species in captivity with the exceptions of Chamaeleo calyptratus. However there has been importation of WC C. calypatratus to prevent captive populations bottle necking even though the species seems to be reproducing stably in captivity. Loss of breeding vigor I have seen documented somewhat however if this information is outdated please correct me on what is going on. It may not necessarily be genetics however breeding vigor does seem to diaper the further generations your chameleons are in captivity and bringing in wild caught animals does seem to be a solution and does seem to be necessary for productive captive populations. I could not exactly say what causes the loss in breeding vigor whether it is genetics related or it is the animals behavior reacting to being removed from a natural setting. It would make a good study.
Click to expand...

I've heard multiple people say that F6 seems to be where they decline and nobody has gotten past F8 outside of C. calypatratus. I wonder if this is because the C. calypataratus has reached it's minimum population for continual reproduction while others have not due to the selective breeding for coloration?

I personally think that no matter what is possible it is not responsible to the species to not introduce new blood into a breeding population whenever possible. We think it is possible to continue breeding a small population, we KNOW it is good to introduce new blood. Why not responsibly do what we know is good?
 
DanSB said:
I've heard multiple people say that F6 seems to be where they decline and nobody has gotten past F8 outside of C. calypatratus. I wonder if this is because the C. calypataratus has reached it's minimum population for continual reproduction while others have not due to the selective breeding for coloration?

I personally think that no matter what is possible it is not responsible to the species to not introduce new blood into a breeding population whenever possible. We think it is possible to continue breeding a small population, we KNOW it is good to introduce new blood. Why not responsibly do what we know is good?
Click to expand...

It could turn out to be a genetic phenotype that emerges without certain environmental triggers. In agriculture which are part of my major and my studies at UC Davis we see situation similar to F6 lack of productivity in Panthers. Whether it is a lack of productivity in lactating cows or certain breeds of sheep after a certain age stop producing twins. These are considered genetic traits of the livestock. These are very similar to whats going on with captive breeding chameleons and could turn out to be officially breeding phenotypes of chameleons when they are in captivity.

Zen Reptiles said:
Great discussion, a lot of things I never knew!
Click to expand...

Yeah this conversation got a bit off point however a study of this subject should be done.
 
Motherlode Chameleon said:
It could turn out to be a genetic phenotype that emerges without certain environmental triggers. In agriculture which are part of my major and my studies at UC Davis we see situation similar to F6 lack of productivity in Panthers. Whether it is a lack of productivity in lactating cows or certain breeds of sheep after a certain age stop producing twins. These are considered genetic traits of the livestock. These are very similar to whats going on with captive breeding chameleons and could turn out to be officially breeding phenotypes of chameleons when they are in captivity.
Click to expand...

I have a few theories but I doubt it is that complicated. If we had 20 years and funding I'm sure we cold get closer to the answer. I just don't think that is going to happen for now.

Back on topic: Which is why I say that for now it is important to continue introducing WC blood in the captive populations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

natzberg
Pros vs Cons of Spaying a Female Chameleon
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
elizaann2
elizaann2
javadi
Some thoughts on fog/mist/rain + observations from Madagascar. Fog droplet size and fog dynamics
2
Replies
22
Views
995
kinyonga
K
C
Captive Bred Jackson’s Chameleon
Replies
3
Views
1K
Cactusncreatures
C
L
T. Ellioti wild caughts what to expect?
Replies
10
Views
981
javadi
javadi
chelizard
New WC adult veiled male from FL
Replies
8
Views
808
jannb
jannb
Back
Top Bottom