Re: Is Extinction better than Captive Propagation?

From: Demetrio Lamzaki (Dee_Lamzaki@msn.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 1997 - 18:54:05 PST


Date: Sat, 4 Jan 97 02:54:05 UT
From: "Demetrio Lamzaki" <Dee_Lamzaki@msn.com>
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg60$foo@default>
Subject: Re: Is Extinction better than Captive Propagation?


>> This fact doesn't conflict with my support of the preservation
>> of natural biodiversity. The two tactics complement each other,
>> they are not exclusive paths that one must decide between as
>> they've been depicted by some here.

>Keeping plants as backups to wild populations doesn't
>mechanically conflict with preservation, but it does when
>you have money to spend on one or the other. I'd always
>pick the land and the environment on it over building lots
>of greenhouses (where should we put the greenhouses?).

Dave, I've never known it to be the case where the choice
was "either" "or", in other words EITHER you can have a
preserved natural site OR have seed and plants in captivity
BUT NOT BOTH, unless the site is already extinct. And I don't
think it would be a matter of money either, all you need for
a seedbank is some empty envelopes and I'm sure you could
find a spare bench in an existing greenhouse somewhere
without having to build a new one over the natural site. All I'm
saying is it helps to have some seed and plants in captivity
from that site as a living insurance policy that guarantees
that particular gene pool never becomes extinct. Of course
keeping the site in existence is the top priority.

But, let's say for the sake of argument we must make the
choice. I would choose keeping the natural site. But I hope
you realize this is an artificial choice, land preservation
societies are not lacking funds because all the money is going
into collecting seeds! They lack funds because most people
don't give a damn whether the plant species exists in captivity
or the wild which is the sad truth. And all the preserved habitat
in the world is worthless if there aren't enough officers patrolling
it to prevent poaching and other destruction, and that also costs
money which the natural parks don't have. The poachers probably
have a better shot at being hit by lightning than they do being
arrested in some areas. Hopefully someday this will change, but
until it does it's up to us to do all we can to keep the species
alive by preserving natural sites and maintaining living material in
captivity.

Regards,

Demetrios



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST