Platypuses! Must be some chance?!

As well as the Berlin Zoo Aquarium and Chester Zoo.

 

Huh, I didn't know there were tuatara outside of NZ. Guess I misread my source on the subject. Thanks for letting me know!

Looks like the Dallas Zoo has some. Better start looking up bus ticket prices, ha ha.

 

It's only a 4 hour drive from Houston. You can do that in an afternoon.

 

I don't have a car, otherwise I'd totally drive places just to visit zoos, among other things. Megabus tickets are pretty cheap, at least.

 

The OP should find another animal that is legal to own. Platypus are not even that interesting and spend most of their time hiding, especially during the day. I saw an exhibit for them somewhere here in Australia once but never actually saw one; they were all hiding.

No point ruining your life over an animal, just find a legal exotic to own.

 

However, the up-to-1996 legal species weren't and aren't all that popular among reptile keepers. The Naultinus geckos are an entirely separate discussion (probably the most expensive geckos on the private market outside NZ) and if I remember right they've been fully protected in 30+ years. Sadly, quite a bit of smuggling, even in recent years. Their very slow breeding rate doesn't exactly help.

As far as I can understand there is a dedicated group of people in New Zealand keeping native geckos entirely legally. They do get breeding with some regularity; not in large quantities, but more than the tiny and scattered populations kept elsewhere. I do think it might be a good idea to allow some of the captive bred to be exported to zoos or others abroad (perhaps counteracting some of the smuggling where specimens are taken from the wild). That's obviously something New Zealand has to decide.

 

I guess I feel the frustration of people who live overseas. I don't know if I am talking about selling all the wildlife. But if you look at for example the Veiled Chameleon, who lives a very delicate existence in small pockets of forest in Saudi Arabia and Yemen; and see how the captive population in the US and Europe has ensured it's survival in the wild- then I can't help but think if we implemented similar programs with animals here such as Tasmanian Devils or Bilbys etc, that it would not only allow tax payer dollars to be better spent on helping people with real practical things, it would allow others the chance to contribute to conserving our wildlife.

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/t...-save-our-devils/story-fnj4f7k1-1226808066660

How much money did tax payers spend on these captive bred Tasmanian Devils, only to have them released back into the wild and to have them killed by cars- it just seems to me we need to wake up as a nation. And I daresay more will die.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-...led-on-road-days-after-being-released/6816966

The whole reason we don't keep our natives in captivity is because conversationalists subscribe to the notion that once in captivity the animal no longer becomes a viable representation of the wild species. Because it's behavior is different in captivity to what it is in the wild. Yet here we see captive raised Tasmanian Devils being released into the wild and being unable to tell if cars are dangerous, something all wild devils know already. So I find myself asking if it's ok to raise devils in captivity and then release them like this-and have them still be seen as viable examples of their species- then why can't the layperson keep them in captivity also.

90% of the devils have been wiped out- so these deaths of females are a serious issue. Imagine if laypeople around the world were allowed to own devils- it might die out in the wild but captive populations would ensure it's survival. To me this whole thing proves the viability of allowing natives to be kept as pets and in captivity.

I just find it frustrating our government is happy to spend millions on fences to nowhere to fence off habitat to save a marsupial nobody has ever heard of before or millions each year on saving Tasmanian devils despite captive breeding contradicting the notion that captive animals are different to wild animals behaviorally; while there are homeless and struggling people in Australia. It seems crazy to me.

 

My apologies if this is a stupid question,but what makes platypi (?) considered "impossible" as opposed to Tasmanian devils,which are just now being exported for display American zoos.

 

The government is only allowing Tasmanian devils to be exported because 90% of their population in the wild has been wiped out by devil facial tumor disease.

They are trying to establish tumor free populations in the hopes of the geographic isolation will allow healthy devils to survive somewhere.

Problem is it's too little too late.

The platypus is also endangered and could suffer a similar fate. Platypus can breed in captivity. I think they are more difficult to breed though and probably explains why they don't ship them overseas.

But if you don't try something you never find out. A zoo in the US has had more success at breeding Giant Pandas then some of the breeding facilities in China- so you see new things can be learned by allowing others the chance to have a opportunity to contribute to Australian native conservation.

 

Just found out the Platypus population in Tasmania is suffering from Platypus Mucormycosis disease. So perhaps someone could make a good case for allowing Platypus to also be kept in captivity.

Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease - FAQs

 

I'll never see animals as being more important than people, but that is just me.

I used that Chameleon due to the reality that climate changes could easily wipe it out, considering Saudi Arabia and Yemen are both mostly deserts.

By stopping the need to take from the wild don't you also help their survival in the wild in some way? Maybe if a percentage of every sale of the animal in question went to a conservation program geared towards the wild population that would be a benefit to allowing these types of animals to be kept in captivity.

To me wildlife should be seen from an economic standpoint also. By allowing a captive trade in native wildlife we not only generate micro-economies based around certain species here and overseas.

All I am saying is I don't understand why we are so apprehensive about keeping native wildlife as pets and allowing people overseas to keep them.

Maybe using the Indian Bengal Tiger is a better example. It is classified as endangered by the IUCN. There are more Bengals in Texas than India. Sure it may not help the species in the wild as the breeding of 'white tigers' pollutes the gene pool in captivity. But to me having captive Bengals is better than having no Bengals at all. Just my two cents.

 

Platypus are not endangered now, but that's what they said about the Devil. And look at it now.

Platypus are susceptible to changes that could mean they become endangered in a relatively small time frame if something similar to what is happening in Tasmania ever made it's way to the mainland.

The San Diego Zoo has bred 6 babies in captivity; who were born to Bai Yun since 1996. I have never heard of a Chinese zoo being as successful; but admit I have never researched if that is that case or not. By mere fact San Diego Zoo is mentioned as running one of the most successful Panda Breeding programs I just assumed China was not seeing the same levels of success- or else we would hear more about it.

Anyway this article discredits the whole notion of saving endangered animals using captive breeding. Either you accept allowing people to breed natives in captivity and own them in the pet trade or you confide them to extinction in the wild. That is how I see it.

The cruel truth of China's panda factories | Daily Mail Online

 

I'm not talking about selling all the wild animals to be kept as pets. I am saying if we established viable captive populations of wild animals and kept them in the pet trade it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

The only point I am making is responsible captive breeding programs and responsible pet owners who own such animals could complement wild populations as seen with the Chameleon.

They may not save wild animals, but I can't see the harm in them either if they are not impacting wild animals. Sure there may only be a handful of Bengals left, but the captive ones are closer than anything else we are going to get to Bengals. As we do not live in an ideal world all I am saying is they are better than nothing. Although I don't believe in releasing captive Bengals into the wild for obvious reasons- they are genetically unsound.

I used to think protecting native habitat was the key to saving animals in the wild, but we see now that environmental changes such as droughts and now diseases also have to be factored in when working out a strategy to save wildlife. It's within this context that I think captive animals, while not conserving wild populations, can at least preserve a species in captivity; which in some instances may be the only choice we have.