Sadly only the future of the captive Tamarin is 100% assured. The poverty of those people living in its habitat has meant that the illegal pet trade has profited, but just as much harm has been done to the local populations of the species by deforestation as anything else. Plus, the good old plastic bag, strewn with abandon by settlers in those areas, has killed many – imagine, it only weighs a pound. A lot of projects have been started (including one which collects the plastic bags from the forest and makes them in to long lasting and durable shopping bags by combining hundreds in to a single bag structure then to be sold on)but many beliee it to be too little too late.

We have to be pragmatic. Captive Tamarins may one day be used to revitalize and reinvigorate a stock in the wild with declining genetic viability. However if they do not have a ‘wild’ in which to live (another issue but inextricably bound to the fate of this species) then where do they go?

Sorry folks, this has raised as many questions as it does answers…

What was this about, again?

While the ownership argument is a valid point, it won’t matter much to own a creature for the sake of preserving it if there are none left in the wild. That species’ place in its ecosystem will still be void and the repercussions will still be there.

From a conservationist’s perspective it’s like saying the best way to end world hunger is to kill all the hungry people (or better, kill half the hungry people, and feed them to the other half). It works, but the logic is inherently flawed.

The kind of people that domesticate these animals are usually doing more harm than good. These are wild animals and need to cared for in very specific ways. It is selfish to just think “Oh cool, I can own a monkey!” and purchase one. If we want to do anything to save them, they need to be in the right hands. Wild animals should NOT be pets.

Not to mention that the blurb written about this article sounds more like an advertisement for a pet than anything. This is not the kind of content that should make it to the front page.

I hate zoos. Every time I have gone I get so much attention from the animals.
I have worked with Bengal Tigers. An attempt of a prior loved one to get me out of my shell after a disabling accident.

My point is every time I get around captive animals it’s as if they can sense my apathy. I leave in tears every time.

Again, no son of a bitch or bastard should ever consider themselves “owners” of any animal.

I have cats, (see the “I have” shit, so I’m guilty as well) and I try so hard to be just there for them. Never have I expected anything from them and only scold when they try to destroy something of value to me.

I’m going to pay closer attention to que’d articles from now on.

Laws used to protect exotic and rare animals frequently contribute to a species decline. A legal robust pet trade provides incentives for collectors to keep a wild population healthy and protected. Strict laws, otoh, encourage smuggling and habitat destruction.

It may be that in the future, if human population growth can be controlled, it is these pets that are used to try and restore a verisimilitude of what once was.

While this may protect the species as a whole, it does not achieve the aim that anyone would recognize as protection of the species, and that is to protect wild animals in their habitats.

Owning them as pets or livestock might be able to save a species from total extinction, but it may even accelerate the demise of the wild population.

Do not buy these as pets.

I dont know how this made it through the queue. Im guessing a little gaming of the system because, knowing Neatorama readers, this is not the kind of thing that would get up voted. Maybe people think this is neat and Im just out of touch.