This is fascinating. Daryl Richardson's tactics look a lot like Howard Voren's, something I would not have thought possible in this day and age. It looks like whereas Voren took advantage of the lax export laws of his day, Richardson takes advantage of connections with governments and conservation groups to do much the same thing: export large numbers of animals and figure out how to keep them alive and breed them in captivity. I suppose I should mention that I personally am fine with killing a few animals in the process of figuring out how to keep them, but I'm also fine with sport hunting, which most people I've met are strongly opposed to, and a strong supporter of keeping exotic pets legal, which on average people seem to be mildly opposed to. Richardson's tactics seem clearly to run counter to the spirit of the AZA's policies, yet as with most of their policies the actual wording gives them substantial wiggle room in this regard. I cannot say that this article has improved my view of the AZA, who nominally oppose Richardson's practices while taking advantage of both the animals and husbandry knowledge he's introduced as a result.
Yes, its like a sugar glider without wngs, and it resembles an aye aye with a long digit and expanded brain volume compared to ordinary marsupials. They're also very difficult as exotics, though they shoud be easy on paper as omnivore-insectivores related to sugar gliders.
They were never were imported in large numbers, making that we had less space to make mistakes. Their diet and enclosure needs are relatively straight-forward. Their social dynamics are a lot more challenging though and it is not sure we have a full understanding of it yet.
I have moved the bulk of the off-topic discussion into the following thread: Genetic diversity and zoo conservation
