






































Iguana b&w text


IGUANA  •  VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1  •  MARCH 2007 47COMMENTARY

The deleterious effects of wholesale destruction of popula-
tions and habitats as a consequence of development have

been amply documented (e.g., Tilman et al., 2002), as have
those of uncontrolled collection (e.g., COSAEWIC, 2004).
Here I focus on efforts to govern personal, educational, and sci-
entific collection. My discussion is based on personal experi-
ences, exchanges with colleagues, postings over the past several
years on the PARC (Partners in Amphibian and Reptile
Conservation: www.parcplace.org) listserver, and comments by
responsible hobbyists. Individuals in each of those categories will
see comments below that reflect their input and sometimes their
very words.

Personal Collection
Young people love to collect. Although an early enthusiasm for
reptiles may be responsible for the development of many profes-
sional herpetologists, many others become hobbyists or merely
pass through such a stage. Nearly every coveted salamander, frog,
turtle, lizard, or snake they encounter makes its way into a cage.
This can be a learning experience leading to an increased aware-
ness of nature and the myriad interactions that keep it going.
However, the mortality of captured animals, many of them not

well suited to captivity, is almost invariably high, especially dur-
ing early attempts at husbandry.

C O M M E N T A R Y

Collecting Animals from Nature
Robert Powell

Department of Biology, Avila University, Kansas City, Missouri

“Could we be going in the direction that eventually zoos and researchers will be denied access to wildlife?”

Al Winstel
Naturalist and Environmental Educator, 

Cincinnati, Ohio

Despite better and more frequently enforced regulations and a burgeoning captive-breeding industry, the sale of wild-caught animals persists. Locals
in the Dominican Republic offering for sale wild-caught male and female Rhinoceros Iguanas (Cyclura cornuta) to a tourist in 1975. The snouts
of the Iguanas were tied with wire or rope to prevent biting. International and domestic laws now help protect iguanas in the Dominican Republic
and many other nations. Large expos offer for sale both captive-bred and some wild-caught animals. Sellers are required to have permits, a regula-
tion that is strictly enforced by responsible organizers of reputable expos and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (vendor names are intentionally
blurred in this photograph).

JO
H

N
 B

IN
N

S

TH
O

M
A

S 
W

IE
W

A
N

D
T,

 W
IL

D
 H

O
R

IZ
O

N
S

Iguana 14.1 b&w text.QX6  2/25/07  10:46 PM  Page 47



Such losses might be accepted as the price that must be
paid to attract the next generation of herpetologists, except that
the number of people engaged in personal collection has
increased dramatically in recent years. For evidence, one need
only to look at the phenomenally profitable business that pro-
vides housing, lighting, food, supplements, and more for cap-
tive reptiles and amphibians. Some of that increase has been met
by captive breeding, but the sale of wild-caught animals persists.
Even if only a tiny fraction of enthusiasts buy or collect wild ani-
mals, some populations, especially in and around dense human
concentrations, will inevitably become depleted. As the numbers
of people engaged in such activities increase, even casual collect-
ing can become significant.

On the other hand, discouraging children from collecting
animals may alienate them from the natural world. Richard Louv,
in his recent book (Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children
From Nature-Deficit Disorder), argued that sensationalist media
coverage and paranoid parents have “scared children straight out
of the woods and fields,” while promoting a litigious culture of
fear that favors “safe,” regimented sports over imaginative play
and exploration. Well-meaning elementary school curricula may

teach students everything they need to know about the
Amazonian rainforest and DNA, but do little to encourage per-
sonal relationships with the world outside their own doors.

Educational Collection
A dearth of knowledge on the part of most people about
amphibians and reptiles is a considerable deficiency in promot-
ing reasonable and effective herpetological conservation. Those
of us with experience, especially we who bill ourselves as “pro-
fessionals,” have a vested responsibility to teach others — and
that requires access to live animals.

Scientific Collection
Scientific collection has not been implicated directly in the
extinction of any species. Although historically common meth-

48 IGUANA  •  VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1  •  MARCH 2007 POWELL

Catching and keeping wild-caught animals has been responsible for the
development of many budding herpetologists.

B
R

IA
N

 S
. E

D
M

O
N

D

Educating the public about amphibians and reptiles is most effective
when live animals are used. Here, a Cuban Iguana is featured in a pro-
gram for military and civilian personnel and their families at the U.S.
Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.

A
LL

IS
O

N
 C

. A
LB

ER
TS

, Z
O

O
LO

G
IC

A
L 

SO
C

IE
TY

 O
F 

SA
N

 D
IE

G
O

.

Although scientists historically used “markets,” in which locals catch
and offer animals for a small fee, the number of specimens taken are
invariably limited to those needed to address specific questions. This
stands in stark contrast to actions of indiscriminate commercial collec-
tors, who often take every animal hoping that enough survive to ensure
a profit. Here, children bring lizards caught with grass nooses to a
researcher studying inter-island evolution in the Lesser Antilles.

PH
O

TO
G

R
A

PH
 C

O
U

R
TE

SY
 O

F 
G

EO
R

G
E 

C
. G

O
R

M
A

N
.

Researchers today rarely collect large numbers of animals from any one
population. More and more studies involve mark-and-release methods.
Here, a scientist weighs an animal in the field prior to releasing it at
the original site of capture.

PH
O

TO
G

R
A

PH
 C

O
U

R
TE

SY
 O

F 
EL

LE
N

 J
. C

EN
SK

Y
.

Iguana 14.1 b&w text.QX6  2/25/07  10:46 PM  Page 48



IGUANA  •  VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1  •  MARCH 2007 49COMMENTARY

ods (e.g., “markets) may well have caused declines of some pop-
ulations, most scientists now seek to minimize the numbers of
individuals taken. Unfortunately, attitudes of agencies and cur-
rent regulations frequently reflect abuses of the past instead of
today’s reality. Instances of “scientific imperialism” (e.g., removal
of important materials from the nation of origin, failure to share
results with local agencies, and a lack of willingness to collabo-
rate with resident scientists or students) by North Americans or
Europeans may be cited by governmental agencies in develop-
ing nations to deny or restrict collection of specimens by scien-
tists from those regions. Although the events are real, very few
are recent. Almost all cases of exploitative collection within the
past 50 years are attributable to collectors feeding the ever-grow-
ing commercial trade in amphibians and reptiles.

Regulatory issues
The acquisition of animals from the wild for personal, educa-
tional, and scientific purposes is subject to a plethora of regula-
tions governing collection. Attempts to abide by these rules are
frequently rendered difficult by fees or procedures that appear
to exist primarily in order to discourage such activities. In sharp
contrast, few regulations effectively address wholesale destruc-
tion of entire populations or even habitats as a consequence of
economic development, which is responsible for the decline or
disappearance of most populations. Often further complicating
this issue is the lack of regulatory distinction between commer-
cial collectors, whose activities are often driven solely by a desire
for short-term profits, and those who are motivated by a sincere
interest in animals, such as hobbyists, educators, and scientists.

Regulations prohibiting personal collection of native
wildlife often exclude “game” animals (e.g., Bullfrogs, Snapping
Turtles, Green Iguanas) that are covered by hunting or fishing
permits. This inevitably leads to situations in which possession
of an animal as a pet is illegal, yet thousands can be legally “har-
vested,” kept in inhumane conditions, killed, and sold as food
when “in season.” Complicating matters even more is the fact
that “snake hunting” can create revenue. Local businesses in west
Texas for example, love snake hunters, who stay in their motels,
buy their gas, eat at their restaurants, and pay Texas taxes.

Educational collecting in some states requires a permit to
keep and display native wildlife, often imposing additional
restrictions on dangerous species such as venomous snakes or
large constrictors. Some governmental agencies limit animals
used in education to non-releasable, rehabbed individuals or
those confiscated from illegal keepers. Such constraints would,
for example, preclude individual teachers from collecting tad-
poles for their classrooms, forcing them to rely instead on scien-
tific supply houses that provide such resources by collecting and
shipping large numbers of animals — with inevitably high lev-
els of mortality. Similarly impacted are individuals, often associ-
ated with local or regional herpetological societies, who are
knowledgeable and willing to conduct educational programs for
the public, but are discouraged from using native species that
might be most effective in developing an environmental ethic in
their audience.

Restricting scientific collections of animals that are threat-
ened or potentially threatened in the wild can lead to lack of suf-
ficient knowledge to develop effective management programs or
develop appropriate protocols for rearing them in captivity. The
latter may make the difference between extinction and survival.
For example, isolation and captive propagation of frogs with pop-
ulations in nature that are vulnerable to the chytrid fungus may
be the only way to salvage a species and the sole means of reestab-
lishing a wild population should the risk ever be remediated.
Without captive animals, refining husbandry and breeding tech-
niques is impossible, and methods based on experiences with pre-
sumably similar species may or may not apply. Ironically, lack of
information is frequently cited as justification for restricting col-
lection. At the same time, some individuals have suggested that
gaps in knowledge should not exist, considering the number of
educational institutions and individuals who have been studying
amphibians and reptiles for many years. Unfortunately, those
who hold these views often rely on anecdotal observations, as
opposed to reliable research, to support their contentions. In real-
ity, we know far less than we should about most species and pop-
ulations. The only way to address this deficiency is to encourage
more research, even if this entails the collection of some animals.
Restrictions that preclude accurate scientific assessments are
shortsighted and ultimately place more populations and commu-
nities at risk of extirpation or extinction.

Common Themes
Three issues are relevant to all forms of collecting: (1) Collecting
animals in the wild can and does affect the viability of popula-
tions and their habitats; (2) little or no information is available
on the status of most populations; and (3) prohibition (or severe
restriction) of all forms of collection is easier than regulating
case-specific situations.

That all forms of collecting arguably cause less harm to ani-
mal populations than development is an unpleasant reality. I was
once questioned about the number of several common species I
sought to collect until the point was made that a 100-m exten-
sion of a planned road into the area would kill far more individ-
uals than I sought to remove from the population. However,
using the “bulldozer” justification for unregulated collecting is
disingenuous. Developmental pressures on habitats and their
inhabitants do not absolve commercial and casual or even scien-
tific collectors from their collective share of the responsibility for

Snake hunting can create revenue. Local businesses in west Texas, for
example, love snake hunters, who stay in their motels, buy their gas,
eat at their restaurants, and pay Texas taxes. Photograph courtesy of
APNM.org

Iguana 14.1 b&w text.QX6  2/25/07  10:46 PM  Page 49



the many thousands of specimens that they remove purposefully
from the wild gene pool. Even if such activities are legal, that
does not mean that they should be.

Private collectors often argue that they are doing more good
for species than bad. Once animals are bred in captivity in suf-
ficient numbers, prices will drop until buying them from breed-
ers or pet shops is cheaper than collecting them from the wild.
Some breeders have also argued that occasional collection is nec-
essary to get “new” blood into captive populations, needed as a
safety net against extirpations and extinctions in the wild. Many
are not convinced by these arguments. Does anyone really need
20 snakes of a single species from a single locality? Of course not
— but too many individuals, especially those engaged in com-

mercial operations, cannot seem to stop collecting. A recent arti-
cle in the Kansas City Star (3 July 2006) featured Rodney
Wittenberg, a graduate student studying Timber Rattlesnakes in
an old quarry where efforts are in place to clean up discarded
tires that had accumulated over many years. He is trying to keep
workers and snakes from harming one another. The article did
not reveal the actual site. Wittenberg said: “I don’t want to alert
rattlesnake poachers or even thrill-seekers. Next thing you know,
you can kiss [the snakes] good-bye,” noting that they could end
up as somebody’s hatband or in a rattlesnake roundup. As for
captive breeding, private individuals allowed to breed endan-
gered and threatened species should have to submit to regula-
tion and inspection to assure compliance with the need to main-
tain breeding lines and proper use of husbandry techniques.
Collection should be strictly regulated to conform to detailed
breeding plans, not individual whim.

Contentious Issues
One really important point divides those who engage in collec-
tion of animals from the wild. Many conservation biologists
would favor bans on collection until hard data show that collect-
ing causes “no real threat” for a given species, but many others
would favor collection until data show that collecting poses a
“real threat.” Such extreme positions typically preclude compro-
mise. Decisions based on data that are fragmentary or inconclu-
sive might be acceptable in situations during which populations
are being affected by other factors. For example, because devel-
opment is ongoing and often inevitable, building permits should
include provisions that require collection for scientific assess-
ments, or even allow personal collection of species from the area
destined to be altered. On the other hand, bans on all but
responsible — and limited — scientific collection may be appro-
priate for species about which essentially nothing is known (on
the presumption that lack of knowledge may be indicative of
few opportunities to study the relevant species) or under circum-
stances involving fragile ecosystems (or even habitats) that
deserve complete protection.

Because a deficiency of information is often responsible for
conservative measures (e.g., protect until we have data that
assures us that some collection is reasonable), investigations into
the natural history of as many species (populations or even com-
munities) as possible should be encouraged and funded. That
would presumably lead to regulations based on reliable (rather
than anecdotal) data and applicable specifically to targeted
species and populations. Because the drawback to this approach
is frequently fiscal, designated funds might be made available by
charging substantial fees for collecting permits other than for sci-
entific investigations. Individuals seeking to harvest animals for
personal pleasure or profit would ultimately benefit if more data
suggest that more species could be managed on a basis of sus-
tained yields.

However, research capable of determining the effects of col-
lection is inevitably difficult due to the many confounding fac-
tors (e.g., complexity of interactions and local effects that may
or may not apply to other populations of even the same species).
The implications of that reality have profound effects on man-
agement decisions. In the interim, then, until more and better
data slowly accrue, such decisions must and undoubtedly should
be made on the basis of factors that may merely reflect the sub-

50 IGUANA  •  VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1  •  MARCH 2007 POWELL

A graduate student is studying Timber Rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus)
in an old quarry where efforts are in place to clean up discarded tires
that had accumulated over many years. He is trying to keep workers
and snakes from harming one another. He will not reveal the actual
site, noting: “I don’t want to alert rattlesnake poachers or even thrill-
seekers. Next thing you know, you can kiss [the snakes] good-bye.”
Portrayed here is a rarely seen but apparently not particularly rare
instance of arboreal activity in Timber Rattlesnakes.

R
O

D
N

EY
 D

. W
IT

TE
N

B
ER

G

Isolation and captive propagation of frogs with populations in nature
that are vulnerable to the chytrid fungus may be the only way to sal-
vage a species and the sole means of reestablishing a wild population
should the risk ever be remediated. Here, an Eleutherodactylus
euphronides sits on eggs in the breeding facility of the Milwaukee
County Zoo. One recent estimate of this endangered species’ restricted
distribution in the highlands of Grenada was only 18 km2.

C
R

A
IG

 P
EL

K
E

Iguana 14.1 b&w text.QX6  2/25/07  10:46 PM  Page 50



IGUANA  •  VOLUME 14, NUMBER 1  •  MARCH 2007 51COMMENTARY

jective judgment of “designated experts.” I would have to think
that anyone sincerely interested in amphibians and reptiles
would prefer that over decisions made by uninformed bureau-
crats and based largely on the financial interests of a few fiscally
influential citizens.

Recommendations
Collection for personal use, whether by individual or commer-
cial collectors, almost invariably diminishes population health
or habitats. Private collectors should be restricted to small num-
bers of common species — those for which we have enough
information to safely conclude that removal of a few individu-
als will not be deleterious. Although individuals enamored with
rarities will object and may on occasion circumvent regulations,
no justification exists for allowing unconstrained collection of
any species for which we lack definitive information. Captive
breeding should compensate for the imposition of restrictions
on collecting. Taxon-specific caresheets and books are available
for many species, often via the internet.

Collection for educational purposes should be similarly
restricted. Developing a conservation ethic does not require the
use of rare and threatened species. However, reason should pre-
vail. Restrictions on the possession of wild-caught animals
should not preclude the use of common native species (e.g., the
afore-mentioned tadpoles) in classrooms or in presentations by
conscientious educators, be they professionals or hobbyists.

In stark contrast, restrictions on scientific collection should
be streamlined and limited to steps necessary to confirm the
legitimacy and identities of scientists seeking to remove any ani-
mals from the wild. Numbers to be collected should be deter-
mined by circumstances unique to each situation and the needs
of the investigation rather than any arbitrary limit established by
bureaucrats, even those with the best of intentions. The appar-
ent health of a population frequently is based on counts of
organisms, which do not necessarily indicate whether a popula-
tion is healthy. For example, do we know how many individu-
als are required to make the population viable? What is the level
of mortality? Recruitment? Is this adequate for maintaining

numbers? How vulnerable is the habitat to destructive effects of
collection? Only by studying animals will we ever learn enough
about natural populations to manage them effectively, much less
relieve restrictions on collecting animals from nature for pur-
poses other than research and conservation.

Finally, the loopholes that allow massive losses to habitat
destruction must be closed. The fiction that natural areas can be
“developed” without the loss of the animals dwelling there must
be abandoned. Because development is ongoing and often
inevitable, building permits should include provisions that
require and fund collection for scientific assessments, or even
allow personal collection.

Ultimately, any decision to restrict collection should be
determined by considering all possible effects on populations of
species affected. When data are insufficient for reasonable con-
sideration, short-term bans should be implemented, but are to
be accompanied by efforts to promote acquisition of necessary
data by qualified individuals. In today’s world, changes are
occurring at such a rapid pace that laissez faire management of
wild populations cannot be justified, lest we lose them forever.

Acknowledgements
Robert W. Henderson and Gad Perry commented on earlier
drafts of this manuscript. S. Blair Hedges has voiced and pub-
lished concerns about undue constraints on scientific collection,
many of which I have incorporated into this commentary. A
number of individuals posted relevant comments on the PARC
listserver, including many whose views differ considerably from
those expressed herein. I have shamelessly exploited their insights
and expertise.

References
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada).

2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Spotted
Turtle Clemmys guttata in Canada. COSEWIC, Ottawa (www.sarareg-
istry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

Hansen, E. 2000. Orchid Fever: A Horticultural Tale of Love, Lust, and Lunacy.
Pantheon Books, New York. Note: Although this book does not address
the collection of amphibians and reptiles, its coverage of orchid collect-
ing and breeding documents many of the same problems.

Hedges, S.B. and R. Thomas. 1991. The importance of systematic research in
the conservation of amphibian and reptile populations, pp. 56–61. In: J.A.
Moreno (ed.), Status y Distribución de los Reptiles and Anfibios de la Región
de Puerto Rico. Publicación Científica Miscelánea No. 1. Departamento
de Recursos Naturales de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Tilman, D., R. M. May, C. L. Lehman, and M. A. Nowak1. 2002. Habitat
destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66.

1 Abstract of Tilman et al. (2002): Habitat destruction is the major
cause of species extinctions. Dominant species often are considered to
be free of this threat because they are abundant in the undisturbed
fragments that remain after destruction. Here we describe a model
that explains multispecies coexistence in patchy habitats and which
predicts that their abundance may be fleeting. Even moderate habitat
destruction is predicted to cause time-delayed but deterministic
extinction of the dominant competitor in remnant patches. Further
species are predicted to become extinct, in order from the best to the
poorest competitors, as habitat destruction increases. Moreover, the
more fragmented a habitat already is, the greater is the number of
extinctions caused by added destruction. Because such extinctions
occur generations after fragmentation, they represent a debt — a
future ecological cost of current habitat destruction.

Because development is ongoing and often inevitable, building permits
should include provisions that require collection for scientific assess-
ments, or even allow personal collection of species from the area des-
tined to be altered.

ST
ES

H
A

 P
A

SA
C

H
N

IK

Iguana 14.1 b&w text.QX6  2/25/07  10:46 PM  Page 51


