# Take wild turtles out of their environments for pets/collection-yes or no



## dichj13 (Jun 10, 2014)

I m not one to ever remove a wild turtle from the wild,for a pet nor for a turtle collection,etc. I do have sliders,box turtles,that were brought to me because they were hit by cars and injured...I personally,my own opinion,is that no turtle should ever be taken from the wild for pet purposes nor for turtle collections. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes here,but to me it seems wrong.I feel if you really love turtles,you do what is best for them,not you.Leave them be.(UNLESS they NEED to be moved from the wild because of some danger ,like buildings going up,etc,just example,but they too may be able to be relocated close to there).I don't mean to offend anyone..I would just like an honest answer.


----------



## Kathy Coles (Jun 10, 2014)

Agree. There of course will be exceptions. like you already stated. I feel quilty about the boxies that died under my care as a child. The excuse, I didn't know any better just falls flat. I wish I had let them be back then.


----------



## Tom (Jun 10, 2014)

If the world followed your philosophy we would have no pets at all. Even the people who have CB animals are still responsible for animals being taken from the wild since they have directly or indirectly financially rewarded everyone along the whole chain of people who are responsible for the collection of wild tortoises.

I have no problem with a limited, sustainable number of animals being taken from the wild and humanely transported to other continents for humans to enjoys as pets. I think most people will have a better experience if they buy CB stock, but we still need the foundation animals. Captive breeding has saved, and is saving, many species from the brink of extinction.

Because you were given your turtles and they needed some TLC does not mean you don't enjoy them. Others should also have the opportunity to enjoy them, no?

And besides that, captivity is not and should not be the living hell that some folks seem to think it is. I think most turtles and tortoises are pretty well loved and cared for. Sure there are exceptions, and we should all work to improve those exceptions, but most pets have a pretty good life compared to their wild counterparts. Most species live at least twice as long in captivity as they do the wild, and thats not even counting all the babies that get eaten and don't make it to maturity.

Ask yourself what you base your opinion on. Is it "feelings"? Or is it facts?


----------



## dmmj (Jun 10, 2014)

Before this continues, remember everyone needs to follow the rules of the forum : that being said let the debate continue civilly.


----------



## naturalman91 (Jun 10, 2014)

i say no they shouldn't be removed only because in some area's the population is endanger from people taking them, But as tom stated if no one had ever taken from the wild we'd have no pets, that being said the pet trade of turtles and tortoises is pretty strong now so i see no reason for anyone to take them from the wild


----------



## dichj13 (Jun 10, 2014)

Tom,maybe I should have narrowed this down a bit. I have no problem breeding to save a species from extinction,etc. I merely meant going out into the woods,to the river,etc,in your own area,and collecting whatever you want,whenever you want.To go out and just find a box turtle in the woods,bring it home because you might want one,is that ok?Or do you feel you should find/buy a captive bred ? There are people around here that will pickup every box turtle they find,because they want it,for their collection.There is no research etc, involved either,just their collection.....I also don't believe all captivity is hell by any means..and yes there are many great turtle/tortoise homes,but then there are several not so good as well. I don't think we will ever know if there are more good homes,or bad homes.I would like to "feel" there are more good. I still believe,and I am going to say it is my "feelings", that to go collect what you want,whenever you want,in your neck of the woods is wrong.Buy them,rescue them,I respect your opinion.Thank you.


----------



## wellington (Jun 11, 2014)

I feel leave it in the wild. There are enough to purchase if you want one. Yes, they had to be taken out in the past, but for most species, that isn't the case anymore. Do I want the endangered taken out of the wild, so they can hopefully be saved, yes. Chances are humans is what caused them to be endangered, so yes, we should help them. But to just pic one out for no reason other then ones own want, I don't think it should be done.


----------



## wellington (Jun 11, 2014)

dmmj said:


> Before this continues, remember everyone needs to follow the rules of the forum : that being said let the debate continue civilly.




Yes, and will repeat this often if needed.


----------



## Yvonne G (Jun 11, 2014)

I think it is totally wrong for Susie Cream Cheese to bring home a box turtle that she 'found' while walking in the woods. Most wild box turtles don't take to being captive and die a lingering death.

As to mass collecting for sale, if its legal, I'm not against it, however it would be interesting to know how many of the mass collected turtles and tortoise die before reaching their target purchaser.


----------



## bouaboua (Jun 11, 2014)

I'm not sure what I would do if I face the situation......Really not sure.


----------



## Turtlepete (Jun 11, 2014)

dichj13 said:


> I m not one to ever remove a wild turtle from the wild,for a pet nor for a turtle collection,etc. I do have sliders,box turtles,that were brought to me because they were hit by cars and injured...I personally,my own opinion,is that no turtle should ever be taken from the wild for pet purposes nor for turtle collections. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes here,but to me it seems wrong.I feel if you really love turtles,you do what is best for them,not you.Leave them be.(UNLESS they NEED to be moved from the wild because of some danger ,like buildings going up,etc,just example,but they too may be able to be relocated close to there).I don't mean to offend anyone..I would just like an honest answer.



This depends; are you speaking from a sense of solely taking for pets, or taking in general? If you mean in general, then doing what is best for them is often taking them from the wild. So many captive conservation projects (turtle collections) would not happen if it weren't for wild caught specimens. Most wild _Cuora _(asian box turtles) are pretty much exterminated from their native range. There is zero way to protect them in their native habitat. At this rate, in a couple decades they're gone. Forever. EXCEPT, they will still be in captivity, assuming wild specimens were collected before extinction. In that sense, taking them from the wild ensures they will still exist in the future.

As far as walking out your door and picking up a random wild turtle or tortoise, never should this ever be done, unless perhaps it's an invasive species. Assuming the animal wasn't in danger, of course. We already have a plentiful captive population to choose from if you want a "pet", and the phrase "sustainable harvest" that gets tossed around when talking about WC pets is bogus. As far as the argument that if we didn't then we wouldn't have chelonia as pets today doesn't hold water, as back then, when first introduced to the hobby, their numbers were plentiful in the wild, in comparison to today.


----------



## dichj13 (Jun 11, 2014)

Turtlepete said:


> This depends; are you speaking from a sense of solely taking for pets, or taking in general? If you mean in general, then doing what is best for them is often taking them from the wild. So many captive conservation projects (turtle collections) would not happen if it weren't for wild caught specimens. Most wild _Cuora _(asian box turtles) are pretty much exterminated from their native range. There is zero way to protect them in their native habitat. At this rate, in a couple decades they're gone. Forever. EXCEPT, they will still be in captivity, assuming wild specimens were collected before extinction. In that sense, taking them from the wild ensures they will still exist in the future.
> 
> As far as walking out your door and picking up a random wild turtle or tortoise, never should this ever be done, unless perhaps it's an invasive species. Assuming the animal wasn't in danger, of course. We already have a plentiful captive population to choose from if you want a "pet", and the phrase "sustainable harvest" that gets tossed around when talking about WC pets is bogus. As far as the argument that if we didn't then we wouldn't have chelonia as pets today doesn't hold water, as back then, when first introduced to the hobby, their numbers were plentiful in the wild, in comparison to today.



I was talking about taking them for pets.(and those that capture them and put them on craigslist,etc to make a fast buck-I see this frequently) I would never have a problem taking them from the wild to save a species from extinction.Thank you for your opinion .I am just trying to see how people feel about this subject.


----------



## IntenseCookie (Jun 14, 2014)

dichj13 said:


> I m not one to ever remove a wild turtle from the wild,for a pet nor for a turtle collection,etc. I do have sliders,box turtles,that were brought to me because they were hit by cars and injured...I personally,my own opinion,is that no turtle should ever be taken from the wild for pet purposes nor for turtle collections. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes here,but to me it seems wrong.I feel if you really love turtles,you do what is best for them,not you.Leave them be.(UNLESS they NEED to be moved from the wild because of some danger ,like buildings going up,etc,just example,but they too may be able to be relocated close to there).I don't mean to offend anyone..I would just like an honest answer.


It's not a good idea. A lot of people get bored of their tortoises and/or turtles which they took from the wild, and then released them back outside. This inevitably kills the tortoise, for the obvious; inability to survive in the wild. I will admit that my tortoise was taken from the wild, but this is just because he was found in the middle of a bust city, where it is next to impossible for him to survive. I wasn't sure if he was lost from his original owner, and I didn't want to ditch him if he wasn't going to live.. so I took him in. He does live outside though, in a large pen.


----------



## Tom (Jun 14, 2014)

IntenseCookie said:


> It's not a good idea. A lot of people get bored of their tortoises and/or turtles which they took from the wild, and then released them back outside. This inevitably kills the tortoise, for the obvious; inability to survive in the wild.



Why would a WC tortoise not be able to survive in the wild if it was released in the same area where it was found? Sorry. This is not obvious to me. Can you explain why you think this and are telling people.


----------



## IntenseCookie (Jun 14, 2014)

Tom said:


> Why would a WC tortoise not be able to survive in the wild if it was released in the same area where it was found? Sorry. This is not obvious to me. Can you explain why you think this and are telling people.


It's a busy city without vegetation, like the stereotypical New York. I should have mentioned that I found him in December, and tortoises hibernate. I've never seen a tortoise walking down the side walk in winter, unless they get out of their home somehow, like through a dog door or open window.


----------



## Tom (Jun 14, 2014)

IntenseCookie said:


> It's a busy city without vegetation, like the stereotypical New York. I should have mentioned that I found him in December, and tortoises hibernate. I've never seen a tortoise walking down the side walk in winter, unless they get out of their home somehow, like through a dog door or open window.




What? What city in AZ is anything like NY? I'm sorry. I think we are taking about two different things here.


----------



## IntenseCookie (Jun 14, 2014)

Tom said:


> What? What city in AZ is anything like NY? I'm sorry. I think we are taking about two different things here.


I guess we are.. I didn't get any sleep last night and I already lack common sense ^.^" My answer though is no, never take a tortoise from the wild without reason. And if you do take it, the tortoise must live in a proper home with care.


----------



## littleginsu (Jun 14, 2014)

Tom said:


> What? What city in AZ is anything like NY? I'm sorry. I think we are taking about two different things here.



The one we keep secret and hidden from the other 49 states... I kid.


----------



## ascott (Jun 16, 2014)

http://www.tortoiseforum.org/thread...pet-stores-that-sell-wild-caught-torts.89008/

This is a topic that can become very heated...here are some past members feeling on wild caught for pet industry topic....have fun.


----------



## zaroba (Jul 11, 2014)

Removing for rehab or relocation due to construction (or local 'evil' kids) is perfectly fine imo.

But as for keeping as a pet, there are many factors to take into consideration when it comes to taking *any* reptile out of the wild
A. Is that species even available in captivity? If the species isn't available in captivity, then there would be no choice but to take it from the wild if you wanted to get one.
B. What are the local laws regarding that species? Many areas do have laws regarding how many of a reptile can be caught legally. Many areas have laws about what can be sold in that area. It may not be possible to buy a reptile even if it is available in captivity.
C. What is the species population like in that area and surrounding areas? Abundant everywhere? Localized to a small area? Scarce?
D. What is the landscape like? Park? Farmland? Stream that often dries up in hot weather and is prone to poisoning in spring due to a local golf coarse spraying it's land with fert and pesticides?

Even if a species IS available in captivity, it may be hard to obtain due to local state/city laws regarding the sale of native species. For Example, here in PA, it is illegal to sell native PA species, so I would have to drive outside of the state to try and buy a Ring Neck Snake. But, the PA Fish and Game laws say that if I have a fishing license, I am allowed to catch one per a year and am allowed to be in possession of no more then 1 snake at any given time. IUCN has them listed as least concern and they are said to be abundant in PA. So, in this example, I cannot legally buy a Ring Neck Snake unless I leave the state, or I could legally remove 1 snake from an abundant population in the wild.

If a non-native reptile is found, then I say remove it regardless of it's population or IUCN status.
It shouldn't be there at all and might not even survive long.


----------



## smarch (Jul 15, 2014)

I agree taking wild animals as pets is wrong, with the exceptions of emergency cases like car hits. 
But also, and I know its quite a sensitive point I take, so bear with me a little here. Yes as said technically every pet came from a wild animal, and in fact people even own wild animals. But for the most part people who have wild animals treat them differently than someone who had a domesticated through generations animal (although I think of a show where this woman had a buffalo that lived in her house..) But what i'm saying is that animals that are already in the pet trade but have wild "brothers and sisters" like turtles and tortoises, the wild ones should be left be and the captive ones can be pets. This is personally something I am connected to, since I got Franklin without realizing he was wild caught, and the fear in his face everytime I picked him up or even came near his house in the beginning was something that's just not right for wild animals to go through, I mean sure he's adjusted now, but I can't help but think if he was left alone that he may be happier than in captivity. 
In cases of not as popular pets that are wild animals I feel like it can be ok, since for the most part with bigger animals you need specific permits therefore know what you're doing, and as long as they're acquired through someone who goes and collects them as a job, since they usually know what to look for in animals and also *generally* know how to catch them and transport them with the least stress possible (definitely doesn't include torts!)
Is this not how the zoos got animals before breeding programs? Also theres entire rehabilitation programs that often the animals lives are saved but they can't be wild ever again because they know to expect food, which isn't just served on a dish in the wild. 
Long story short someone like me shouldn't be able to just go for a walk and take home a turtle or squirrel, but if I found one injured (and say I knew how to treat them and care for them) It would be less bad. Pretty much everything is circumstantial.


----------



## Yellow Turtle01 (Sep 2, 2014)

How do you guys feel ab0out it? I am against it, for the most part...
The small other part being my first and original painted turtle (I still have him too) was from the wild. He got very badly injured somehow on his back three scutes just above his tail. I'm guessing he was very fortunate that his tail/organs did not get damaged!  It was still raw and bloody when I found him 5 years ago in the back yard, so I thought... hmm... don't want him to die, but... I had very little idea of how to care for this new turtle. I quickly educated myself, and moved him into a 40 gallon tank with UVB and heat. I fed him fish and meat with his pellets every day. I treated his ingury with a pet-safe antiseptic gel. A new layer grew over the exposed underneath, and I had to think about to do next. I was wholly planning on releasing him into the wild. He wasn't supposed to be a pet, I was just taking care of him until he healed. However, it took a year for just that first layer of bone to grow back, and I become very attached! 
I didn't think he would survive out there all over again, and I hated the thought of this adorable little turtle I had grown very fond of dying in the wild!  So I kept him, and I couldn't imagine a better pet! He is very clam, and enjoys eating his chicken and pellet,s but has lost his wild interest in fish. I don't know what would have happened if I hadn't kept him, because he sparked my interest in other turtles and torts... and I thank him for that.
Of course, taking a perfectly healthy animal from the wild would be different right? Like a wild tortoise or turtle that is fine? Would you ever take one from the wild? (permitting endangered and protected animals!)
Criticize my (bad....?) decision!


----------



## wellington (Sep 2, 2014)

Against unless they are badly injured where they would not survive if left. Otherwise, leave them in the wild. There are enough being bred for sale.


----------



## stojanovski92113 (Sep 2, 2014)

Yellow Tutlle 01- I probably would have done the same thing as you in that situation!! But, I would not actively seek out a turtle or tortoise from the wild to keep as a pet. I love seeing animals in their natural habitat. The only thing I have done, more than once, is to move turtles out of the road ! That's when I actively seek out turtles, which I should keep my eyes on the road! My husband ALWAYS yells at me about this !


----------



## russian/sulcata/tortoise (Sep 2, 2014)

I think the only real reason to take a turtle out of the wild is to help with an injury it may have. When I was 10 I would go down to the pond catch turtles with nets and take fishing hooks out there mouths and keep them for a couple days then put them back in the pond.


----------



## Turtlepete (Sep 2, 2014)

This is to much of a broad topic, with to many things to take into consideration to just have an "answer" to it. Do I feel asian chelonia (the majority of asian species, at least) shouldn't be taken from the wild? Definitely not. They will all be wiped off the map in less then 20 years, (and thats probably a generous estimate). Whats the point of leaving them in the wild so they can die, when we could have them in captivity and at least ensure some kind of existence for them?
This, of course, is oriented towards wild turtles/tortoises being used in conservation breeding programs/"assurance colonies"….Much different then removing a wild box turtle, when there are plenty of CB animals available, because you "fell in love with it". As I said, to many things to take into consideration to just say yes or no to WC animals/importing.


----------



## ascott (Sep 2, 2014)

No, I would not remove a turtle nor tortoise from its wild land.


----------



## Alaskamike (Sep 3, 2014)

My first turtles were all from the wild ; Painted turtles, snappers , pancake, even a box turtle. Indiana had so many interesting ones. 
As a kid seemed I was fascinated by them. And would try and find a small one so I could take it home and raise it for a little bit , feed them , and study them. 
I always put them back in a month or so. The only one that stayed awhile was the boxy who lived in our backyard and hibernated under the shed for several years. 
Now as an adult I feel it is best to leave em in the wild and have only captive raised animals , but had I not done that , so much learning would have been lost to me. 
There are times when habitat destruction is so severe that the only way to save the turtle. - or even a species is by taking them into a captive program. There are certainly many large tortoises in Zoos that were collected as adults and sold- especially the Gelops and Aldabras. 

It's great to be a purest , but like most issues , few things are perfectly black or white.


----------



## Yellow Turtle01 (Sep 3, 2014)

I understand a lot (not all!) of turtles and tortoises is today's pet trade are probably WC, and I hope that soon the wild animal pet trade will be able to be 'dismissed' and that enough breeders will be producing enough CB babies so that wild animals can remain wild 
I felt (and sometimes  feel) very bad about forcing my turtle to accept a captive life... He belonged and belongs in the wild. It would be very different if he was a CB turtle. 
I do feel differently to some degree, because he was an 'impaired' wild animal instead of being perfectly fine, which I think allows it not to be so awful? 
I agree with taking a healthy, thriving tort from the wild is a really bad nono, but it's okay if they end up getting released anyway. Keeping a wild tortoises turtle from the (that was fine when you found him) is sad for the animal, and sad for everyone else too, because he belongs in the wild.


----------



## ascott (Sep 3, 2014)

> It's great to be a purest , but like most issues , few things are perfectly black or white.



The problem with this type of statement "to me", is that it actually comes across as

I do the right thing, mostly, but when I don't oh well....

Again, just how "I" read the words here.



> Purest; _"_ free from moral fault or guilt "



I have not ever figured a way to achieve "Purest" status as there are so many things in this life as this species that force me to carry great fault and guilt.....I have never met a Purist either....if I ever do, man do I have alot of questions....

I too did the same when I was a child....learned this from a couple of Uncles who would spend any opportunity to run through Griffith Park and Fern Dell (in the days when deer, birds, animals, arachnids and reptiles actually lived on the mountain) and observe, collect and then release back later to where they were....so I understand that aspect....I also understand now that doing so can create great stress and lead to illness and death to the creature being "studied"...but hell, as a child I knew no better and my uncles apparently did not either....but now, I can bridge that gap, and have done so, with my son and other folks....so when you are out in the wild and get blessed with actually seeing a critter in their wild land....to stop, appreciate and take it all in ---and in some cases don't get eaten by the wildlife and other times to not be the one harming or disturbing the wild life....but to not take it with you.

I also believe that if there is an animal in the wild that is injured help it then return it as quickly as possible.....but if you stumble across survival of the fittest....we are in no way qualified to decide that moment.....and those moments can be gut wrenching....

I pose this question, if there are species of tortoise/turtle--actually any other animal or critter could be entered here, that has had their entire wild land raped and pillaged, usually at the hand of our species, and there is nothing left to survive on or in....then what good will come for that species by taking that species and making it a "pet"....I mean, I hear all this fluff about "saving the species" ...saving it for what---for display in zoos-- for profit? for display in someones private collection--ego? If we are not going to respect the wild lands...then how dare us preach about protecting the inhabitants, when in all actuality we are simply collecting for our own desires-- and using the other fluff as the excuse....all to often we humans feel like it is our "right" to take what we want because we can? (Just because we can does not mean should) I am now a grown up and see the way things work...by simple observation and I have determined that "in my opinion"...this passive aggressive nature we humans seem to be evolving to is crazy.....say what you mean and mean what you say....pretty black and white to me......

Back to the initial question, No, I would not remove a turtle nor tortoise from the wild.


----------



## Yellow Turtle01 (Sep 3, 2014)

I agree with most of what you say, ascott. I believe there are people in the world who actually care about the fluffy stuff, and saving the 'species'. I also think that humans as a WHOLE, aren't all out to get tortoises and turtles in the wild. Take a rare and endangered turtle at a zoo. It is one of the few still alive in the world. The best biologists fro all over the world are doing their best to save this turtle. It dies anyway, and they can't risk bring in of of the other wild turtles in to try again. It goes extinct in 20 years. SOME people tried hard and CARED about those last turtles. They bothered to give a flapping fish about saving the species. Other people DON"T CARE. There is a distinctive line between the two. I have to disagree with the 'survival of the fittest'. This works in nature, to some degree, but I have left my turtle to 'survive' and make way for the better, 'smarter' and able animals, that's not fair to him, or his species as whole. Bye-bye, turtle, who died becuase of something that wasn't his fault... which is where people come in... 
I also agree with TurtlePete.


----------



## Yellow Turtle01 (Sep 3, 2014)

Sorry, posted too early.
Who has the right to, to, condone a species to death because it's too _hard_ to try and save it? No one but i_tself_ and nit even itself if we were to blame!
One turtle of this near extinct species is in a lab somewhere, with people who actually CARE trying to get eggs to hatch, or trying to get eggs to be fertile, trying to get this species to exist is a lesser form somehow, so that, in 20 years, the lesser form turtles can become as close to the original animal as _possible_. But once that animal is gone, it's GONE. What if no one ever cared, and said 'Too bad, it'll just die anyway'? To some degree we are responsible for saving this animal, even if we aren't to blame, because it can't SAVE ITSELF.

I think the general point here is the fact that there are right and wrong things to say what happens to the turtle, and when it is and isn't okay to 'take them away'...


----------



## Yvonne G (Sep 3, 2014)

It depends upon the turtle and if it's endangered or threatened. Of course we (humans) tend to go overboard, and if we were allowed to collect a certain species of turtle we would more than likely take it until it was gone.


----------



## Alaskamike (Sep 3, 2014)

ascott said:


> The problem with this type of statement "to me", is that it actually comes across as
> 
> I do the right thing, mostly, but when I don't oh well....
> 
> ...


----------



## Yellow Turtle01 (Sep 3, 2014)

Yvonne G said:


> It depends upon the turtle and if it's endangered or threatened. Of course we (humans) tend to go overboard, and if we were allowed to collect a certain species of turtle we would more than likely take it until it was gone.


I think that humans are 'blameable' to some degree for the falling number of wild turtles/torts. This plays a big part in the WC pet trade...


----------



## Alaskamike (Sep 3, 2014)

Sorry, didn't get the reply in , but this is for "ascott"
I disagree with your idea that we (humans) should just allow a species to fade into extinction if the habitat is ruined, or we are to blame for its demise. There is a great deal of good that comes from preservation of a species. If Darwin had not become involved in the Galapagos Island tortoise problems, that tortoise may have gone the way of the DoDo bird. The repopulating of several Indian Ocean islands with the Aldabra and Seychelles giant tortoises is insuring their survival into the future, many others we not so lucky. You may ask "why" save them if we've ruined their habitat, but I would argue that it is possible to restore habitat, or even develop another that is suitable for the species. As to the bigger 'why' of saving them in a broader sense, well that may actually be a more difficult philosophical question to answer. 

It took millions of years of evolution for many species individuation to develop. Once gone, it will never be replaced - ever. For me, that is enough of a reason to save them if I can.


----------



## Jabuticaba (Sep 3, 2014)

Only if they're injured and I know I can rehab it. If I can't or can't find a proper rehab place, then I let nature take its course. 


May, Aussies, & Hermannis
IG: @AUSSOMEAUSSIES


----------



## ascott (Sep 3, 2014)

> If Darwin had not become involved in the Galapagos Island tortoise problems,


The problem created by man....



> we (humans) should just allow a species to fade into extinction if the habitat is ruined, or we are to blame for its demise.


I don't promote extinction of any species of animal....most habitat is disturbed and destroyed as a result of man...yes, that destruction is the fault of man...



> The repopulating of several Indian Ocean islands with the Aldabra and Seychelles giant tortoises is insuring their survival into the future, many others we not so lucky


Another egotistical human idea....again, this would not have been needed if not for the careless behavior and dismissive nature of man...not luck, there is no luck for the tortoise that faded as a result of mans behavior...none.



> I would argue that it is possible to restore habitat, or even develop another that is suitable for the species.



A prime example of our awesome efforts is the California Desert Tortoise Translocation fiasco...slaughter...disaster...awesome display of humans doing things they are simply not qualified to do....



> As to the bigger 'why' of saving them in a broader sense


Again, a fluff statement...we humans should not think that after we do damage....we are so awesome and fabulous because we then "save" something....especially since we are at fault for the initial damage and irreversible destruction....we did not save something that was in natural distress....not natural distress at all.....

There are numerous living creatures that go extinct every year....there are some that go unnoticed, never mentioned in a news article, never receiving a flashy news blurb....so many. So when I hear, yet again, about how lucky dying species are to have humans intervene...I just don't get it.....

No, I would not remove a tortoise nor turtle from the wild.


----------



## Alaskamike (Sep 4, 2014)

Wow ascott.... Such a defeatist attitude. I agree humans are without a doubt causing much destruction of wild habitat. But there are also many who are fighting this. We have the capacity for the greatest destruction as well as the ability to interveiene with each other and at least partially repair the harm done. 

Your argument seems to say what the heck .... Let them go, species go into extinction every day so it's not worth the effort to try and save them. As if man is so evil and uncaring there is no point in trying to rectify the damage he does. 

In this we will just have to disagree. I was and still am the saver of birds with broken wings. And no matter how many didn't make it , the occasional success mattered and inspired me. Still does. 

If the hope and effort to save an animal - wether a single tort with a broken shell, or an entire species with breeding and intervention programs is "fluff". Then I will endeavor to stay fluffy. It's the only way I know how to relate to this fascinating world.


----------



## kathyth (Sep 4, 2014)

I agree with everything Angela ( ascott) has said.
We humans are so darn arrogant to think we can help ourselves to anything and everything in nature and justify our behavior on top of that.
I also believe, based on what I see that many animal owners bite!


----------



## ascott (Sep 4, 2014)

> Such a defeatist attitude.



I believe you my friend are reading my message in a light different than my meaning.....I am fully aware that the damage done is by humans....I am fully aware that there is damage we have done that can not be fixed....I am an advocate for humans to knock this crap off and to come down off of the proverbial high horse and stop trying to hide the source of the damage behind some fluff of how awesome we are by "helping"...we need to slap our own hands each time we reach out into this world to do damage....



> Your argument seems to say what the heck .... Let them go



This is your eyes reading it this way....I am completely against the dismissive destruction of so much of this world. I find it disgusting the plight we force onto other living creatures. However, I believe the part that may be throwing you is....I fully place blame where it belongs, I fully understand that as long as we fluff the story to make ourselves look and feel good, then nothing will ever change...



> breeding and intervention programs



People destroy things, people feel kinda crappy after they destroy things, people need to figure a way to "feel" good about feeling crappy, they rally around other people who feel crappy as well, they come up with a plan to "save" a species from destruction, when in all actuality....if we as a species would realign our beliefs of how awesome we think we are....and realize that we are just a single species in the entire mix and how we don't know the impact one holds on another...therefore each is just as important as the other and each should be valuable....what if we were meant to "tend the garden" so to speak and not to claim it....? "Programs" are just another way people try to make themselves feel good for the damage they have already done...how about we just stop it and there would not be such a need for damage control....

Don't get me wrong, I too have dropped to my knees holding an injured Great Blue Herron, intwined in clear fishing line, so tight it nearly cut the legs off--snip by snip removing without doing further damage....I have swam out into lakes where ducklings are tethered by debris to cat tails, drowning...I have driven full grown Pelicans to a wildlife way/rehab station-- where it's life was saved but was forced to remain at, captive for the rest of its life--due to the damage of humans...I could go on and on....my point is this, there is no where in my post where I advocate not helping an injured tortoise/turtle or other animal....this is the opportunity that is given man to show that side of us that is fully compassionate, fully willing to do what has to-- to help a helpless animal....but there in lies my greatest angst....we have the ability to be great keepers of this awesome planet but instead we find the destruction and the dismissal of other living creatures as some perverse right....and this is where the damage starts and this is where the damage can be prevented....and when we fail and when we falter then the damage has occurred ...and this is where the fluff comes into play...why can we not just say we did it, we are responsible, it is our fault...but rather we have to deny, by saying the planet is so lucky to have us and we are going to "help" "save" a species before it is too late...this my friend is where I am coming from....so by all means, save the helpless or injured but in doing so...evaluate what was the cause of that helpless or inured animals damages or death--and that, THAT, is what we need to rally together to stop....

I hope that I have articulated a bit better here, so as to thwart the train of miscommunication.....


----------



## Yvonne G (Sep 4, 2014)

Well, I think it's wonderful that there are some people in this world who try to help the tortoises. Groups like TSA, Turtle Conservancy, etc. are trying to change the world by example. They are in the minority, but at least they're trying. I support them $$-wise because that's all I can do. I think the Asian Scholarship Program was a wonderful effort at trying to educate individuals who then took their knowledge back to their country and applied it. The person who sits back and says we're all bad and shame on us, and does nothing to try to change the problem is just as bad (in my opinion) as the person who takes protected turtles from the wild.

But one can't paint all mankind with the same paint brush. There are those who destroy the habitats/animals without a backward glance, there are those apathetic individuals who put their head in the sand and there are those who try to do something about it. I say, good job. Keep up the good work. I support your efforts.


----------



## Alaskamike (Sep 4, 2014)

Okay ascott, I understand your position. It hurts to realize and fully accept that being part of the human race, we (the corporate 'we') are responsible for the greatest destructions and evil on this planet for certain. I get that, accept that. 

I think you also misunderstood my original post. In no way do I believe that conservation efforts make up for the destruction and wanton abuse of animals. Only that conservation efforts are STILL worth the effort , no matter what. We probably agree on much more than we see in these words. It is easy to be misunderstood in a few paragraphs.


----------



## Turtlepete (Sep 4, 2014)

@ascott

Please, stop trying to refer to mankind as a collective "we". You seem to have created an idea for yourself that everyone on this earth is equally at fault for the destruction, that we are all one "we". You also are implying that because we did the damage, we shouldn't be trying to fix it?! Are you seriously saying that we broke it so we shouldn't attempt to fix it? Did that make more sense when you wrote it? Please tell me I'm mis-understanding you here.

*"People destroy things, people feel kinda crappy after they destroy things, people need to figure a way to "feel" good about feeling crappy, they rally around other people who feel crappy as well, they come up with a plan to "save" a species from destruction, when in all actuality....if we as a species would realign our beliefs of how awesome we thinkwe are....and realize that we are just a single species in the entire mix and how we don't know the impact one holds on another...therefore each is just as important as the other and each should be valuable....what if we were meant to "tend the garden" so to speak and not to claim it....? "Programs" are just another way people try to make themselves feel good for the damage they have already done...how about we just stop it and there would not be such a need for damage control…."*

Please, explain to me. Who on earth thinks we're all so awesome? Again, you have this idea of a collective "we", that we are all equally at fault, that everyone on earth must have the same ideas of how awesome we are.
You seem to have absolutely no understanding of the fact that the "we" that starts plans to "save a species from destruction" _can have no effect what-so-ever on the destruction of natural habitat. We are not politicians. _And that, my friend, is politics. What that "we" can do, is try to ensure that one day, these species will still exist. See, what the "we" that is interested in saving the species does, is try to ensure that one day, these species still exist, regardless if thats just in captivity. If you had your way, they would just entirely disappear, because this collective "we" of the human race was at fault for the destruction. What the "we" that is interested in conservation does is _try to do something about it_. They aren't just stereotyping the entire human race into one collective "we" and whining about the damage done.
The "we" that is interested in conservation doesn't have the power to change the entire mindset of everyone on planet earth, to make them "realign their beliefs of how awesome we think we are". They can't do that. The idea that, because they can't, they shouldn't do anything about the problem, they shouldn't attempt to save the species, is "fluff" indeed.
So please, quit it with the "we". Everyone on earth is not a collective "we". Terrorists and hippies and land developers (oh my!) aren't all at equal fault for the destruction of the planet.

Hope I didn't "bite" with my post.


----------



## ascott (Sep 4, 2014)

@Turtlepete 



> Hope I didn't "bite" with my post.



No concern...nothing you said here carries any weight with me, so no---no need to worry


----------



## Yellow Turtle01 (Sep 5, 2014)

Alright, I agree with Yvonne and TurtlePete. There is a fine line between the we's of the human race. 
One side is the we I believe ascott is mostly referring too. That side hunts, poaches, kills, does some other stuff _without caring_. That couldn't give a fluff about doing so.
That other side (which I hope is the majority of poulation)_ does care_. They recognize the damage done and try their very best to fix the wrong the other side has caused. 
Of course, there is a neutral ground between of people who don't care either way, and aren't involved in the war between the 'bad' side and 'good' side. It is awful to think that those people on the 'bad' side has so little feeling or care about the animals and habitats they destroy, but see, that's where the other 'good' side is trying to fix it! I'm not sure I understand, ascott, your take on the 'sit back and let it burn' outlook on 'bad' side of the war. If WE (the collective WE on the GOOD and NEUTRAL sides) don't do anything about the fire, than we might as well just throw up our hands and join the bad side. I think that as long as there are _distinctive_ sides on which their point someone may choose to take, than there is a reason to care about all the fluff, and to try and help everything that 'we've' done wrong.


----------



## Louise C (Sep 7, 2014)

The argument becomes pretty simple here in the UK....there's no native tortoise species and regards other types of wild animals it not legal to take and make into a pet (say fox cubs etc). When it comes to tortoises some business' will have a licence to import wild caught animals but I would not buy one of these on principle as it's a money making business and they tend not to care about the welfare too much. Also....lots of captive bred torts to sale and for rehoming so there's no shortage for pet owners like me.


----------

