Well...you pissed off fluxlizard for sure! Here's my point of view:
There are not many species that have been repopulated in captivity and then rereleased if you look at the animal population of the world, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any successes with reintroduction! To the contrary actually.
Here's a few to get you started. And just because reintroduction is not the current goal does not mean it can't be in the future. And the preservation of genetic diversity is even more important than just saving animals themselves. Without genetic diversity the species is doomed no matter how many there are.
Irresponsible collection and lack of education in whatever species you're keeping captive is no boon to the species either however. If we are collecting something for the good of the species in an area that's quickly depleting, but don't know enough about them to keep them alive or propagate, then we've only done a disservice by disrupting natural breeding. But with proper education and husbandry, which has come a long way in the last 10 years or so for many, many exotic pet species, we can build up captive populations to discourage illegal and sometimes even legal collection. If done right, there's nothing for you to argue against! Macaws and parrots were imported by the millions not that long ago, with the majority of them dying during the capture process, at import stations, or quickly in the care of the pet collectors receiving them. Realizing that we were doing no service to the species the US and most of Europe 100% banned any importation of macaws and parrots only a decade or two ago. Now we have more responsible pet ownership of these birds with significantly longer lifespans and fewer health issues from better education. We don't need importation anymore (although it would be nice to get new blood and better breed characterisitcs in our population for sure).
While it would be great to be able to leave all the animals in their natural habitat, even us pet enthusiasts will hardly argue that's not the best thing for them, the problem is that habitat disappears faster and faster each day. I'd love to see all my exotic pets out in the real world they were meant to be in. But if it's not there, or the people now living in their space are only going to poach them, can that really be the best thing for the species? Did you know that many indigenous people of Madagascar think of chameleons as bad omens or manifestations of demons and kids kill them for fun? You have to look at it from a species perspective rather than individuals. There's some absurd statistic is that 3 species go extinct every day (don't quote me on that, can't remember if that was the right number). Considering that the habitats of the world are being destroyed, if we were to ban all legal trade altogether you would see a much faster extinction rate because you'd be leaving all of the population to its own fate, one that man has already stacked against them. They can't play the game anymore because we've changed all the rules. By allowing captive collections we are prolonging the life of a species, perhaps the only part of that species that will remain.
It's not just people around the world don't care about animals, in many places they are only doing what they can to survive. If you look outside the plush borders of our very, very wealthy nations where the impoverished would be kings in third world countries, you'd see people literally making dollars in a week for salary. In places like that where your family is starving you're going to do things you wouldn't in normal circumstances. It's easy to go cut down an old growth forest and not consider the consequences when your children are crying from hunger pains all the time. And even animals you may love are worth killing if some idiot on the black market will pay for it's hide and you can live another day. You can't simply go out into the world and tell people animals and habitats are worth people dying for. As much as I'd like it to be a harmonious world where that's not an issue that would be naive and ignorant to assume. Until you provide these people with alternate sources of income, better living standards, and stable governments you're not going to see any major improvement in conservation because people come first. Argue for that.
I encourage you, in any argument you make, to do your research before trying to promote broad sweeping generalizations that don't take into account any of the world considerations that you should since they are what's going to decide the fate of a species, not a few collectors like us trying to learn as much as possible to do better for them. If you want something to argue against, argue against
illegal collection and if you want something to argue for then argue for conservation of wild habitats and better conditions for the people that are trying to live off them, because without those any efforts on our part are wasted. And argue for better education for everyone. Fix the source of the problem instead of the symptoms. Otherwise you are just narrow-minded and arrogant, as flux said and will do no good for anyone involved. And I do not believe that the kind of change you're talking about would be in the best interest of almost any species involved. Endangered animal trade is already prohibited from a legal standpoint so you wouldn't be helping them anyway.
