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

[smarch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Alaskamike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 itself 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]

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]

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.



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!