30 replies to this topic

[TheMicroPlanet]

First of all, I know the dangers of releasing non-native queens/colonies into the wild, so this thread isn't about them. I've heard some people discourage the release of native ants previously kept captive into the wild because of "bad genes". I honestly don't fully understand that logic. I mean, if you hadn't captured them, the ants would've likely had a colony in the wild, so I don't see why "bad genes" are much of a problem, because they'd crop up anyway and capture/release doesn't have a huge impact on the local population's gene pool (except for rarer species, I'd imagine). I guess releasing whole colonies might be a bit of a shock for the local ecosystem (and when I say local, I mean, like, a backyard), but it wouldn't displace too many wild species, right? Anyway, I'd just like to know if it's a good practice or not. Thanks in advance.

[Ants4fun]

I think there was a fear of disease brought into wild colonies, as if somehow bringing them into captivity can expose them to different diseases. Not sure how much truth there is to that though.

[SuperFrank]

It is never a good idea. Captive raised/bred organisms are exposed to a literal infinite number of variables that can affect them in ways we currently do not know about. We have no idea how releasing captive specimens would affect both the native ecology and even the genetic makeup of local populations. However we can look at examples of other organisms that have been released into the wild, even in areas where they are native, that has resulted in devastating effects on the local ecology

Edited by SuperFrank, February 16 2020 - 1:34 PM.

[SuperFrank]

Also the vast majority of queens do not make it successfully to the founding stage. A queen you happen to collect was more than likely destined to die a few hours/days later.

[RushmoreAnts]

First of all, I know the dangers of releasing non-native queens/colonies into the wild, so this thread isn't about them. I've heard some people discourage the release of native ants previously kept captive into the wild because of "bad genes". I honestly don't fully understand that logic. I mean, if you hadn't captured them, the ants would've likely had a colony in the wild, so I don't see why "bad genes" are much of a problem, because they'd crop up anyway and capture/release doesn't have a huge impact on the local population's gene pool (except for rarer species, I'd imagine). I guess releasing whole colonies might be a bit of a shock for the local ecosystem (and when I say local, I mean, like, a backyard), but it wouldn't displace too many wild species, right? Anyway, I'd just like to know if it's a good practice or not. Thanks in advance.

Just wondering- why would you want to release any colonies unless you no longer wanted to keep them? Couldn't you just sell them off? That would be more beneficial to your bank account..... 

Edited by AntsDakota, February 16 2020 - 3:19 PM.

[Vendayn]

Keep in mind, what is native in one area might not actually be native to another. For example, Dorymyrmex bicolor is a species complex that needs re-work but is many species considered the same species. They can be multiple species even relatively same area, but look exactly the same. 

Edited by Vendayn, February 16 2020 - 7:15 PM.

[TheMicroPlanet]

 

First of all, I know the dangers of releasing non-native queens/colonies into the wild, so this thread isn't about them. I've heard some people discourage the release of native ants previously kept captive into the wild because of "bad genes". I honestly don't fully understand that logic. I mean, if you hadn't captured them, the ants would've likely had a colony in the wild, so I don't see why "bad genes" are much of a problem, because they'd crop up anyway and capture/release doesn't have a huge impact on the local population's gene pool (except for rarer species, I'd imagine). I guess releasing whole colonies might be a bit of a shock for the local ecosystem (and when I say local, I mean, like, a backyard), but it wouldn't displace too many wild species, right? Anyway, I'd just like to know if it's a good practice or not. Thanks in advance.

Just wondering- why would you want to release any colonies unless you no longer wanted to keep them? Couldn't you just sell them off? That would be more beneficial to your bank account..... 

 

I'm not in any position to sell them if I had any.

[OhNoNotAgain]

I think this is a valid question, though in this hobby it tends to get one flamed into the ground.

I personally think it could be okay in some situations, BUT it's true there are a host of factors we don't always know about or understand.

For example, I remembered recent studies show that Monarch butterflies that are even held in captivity for a short but critical time (I think around the time of eclosing from chrysalis) lose their ability to migrate. That's not something that was known even a few years ago. So I get it, we shouldn't promote this thing in general or at least we should be seeking to research it further. I also get that this hobby does not want to get negative press and does not want to get into trouble with authorities.

 

THAT said, we humans routinely mess around with our environments, introducing non-native species from soil nematodes to ladybugs to all sorts of invasive plants to allowing pet cats to run around wreaking havoc, so it seems to me this is a perfectly valid topic for discussion. Even experts disagree when it comes to releasing, say, GMO mosquitoes (or even GMO crops - now there's something that impacts lots of stuff and we still don't understand it). It NEEDS discussion - if not in the hobby, then in general society. Because let's face it, humans are modifying the environment, knowingly or not.

Edited by OhNoNotAgain, February 20 2020 - 3:08 PM.

[RushmoreAnts]

I believe that not releasing captive ants is simply a good procedure to follow. However, I don't think we should make a huge deal if this code of conduct is broken; if it happens once it's not like THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM IS GOING TO BE DECIMATED IN A MATTER OF WEEKS. (most of the time)

[OhNoNotAgain]

I mean I get it, people are policing the ant keeping hobby internally, and some people in the hobby only care about the hobby, but I do find it a little hypocritical to get super upset about really LOCAL/truly native ant stuff when the gardening industry, general pet industry, agriculture, import/export, travel, construction/development, pollution and manufacturing, water usage policy, and environmental policy have a TON more impact on our world and ants in general. Not to mention my car (most cars probably) accidentally transports inverts around all the time. Kids catch and release bugs. People trading plants and cuttings ... etc.

 

That said I also would really like to hear more about actual (not theoretical) disasters from releasing LOCAL, NATIVE creatures back into the environment. There are tons of stories of RESTORING animals to their native habitats that are positive (mostly among charismatic vertebrates), so I'd like to hear the NEGATIVE. (Like with the Monarch butterfly example of cases where brief captivity can harm the native population.) I know there must be a lot of examples. Discussion can bring about more education and better public policy in the long run. Like maybe butterfly kits shouldn't promote releasing the butterflies afterward (to use a very minor example). Maybe keeping feeder crickets should be better regulated? I mean, who hasn't had occasional cricket escapes?

 

P.S. I'm not saying we OUGHT to release captive ants. It probably is a bad idea in general terms. Just that discussion shouldn't simply be smacked down like it usually seems to be.

Edited by OhNoNotAgain, February 20 2020 - 8:16 PM.

[SuperFrank]

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2781957/

https://www.nature.c...598-017-02273-3

https://scholar.goog...#p=4PmrNlYF75wJ

https://scholar.goog...#p=rFwdOl1d1pcJ


It is an absolute fact that captivity has demonstrable effects on many different organisms and it is a fact that these effects can have negative results when they intermingle with unaffected populations. These articles are from a ~5 minute Google search. Ants are a super diverse and relatively understudied family whose members are also almost always a disproportionately important part of the local ecology due to their success/dominance. It is not irrational to worry about the effects captivity may have on them and how those effects may in turn affect the local populations if they are reintroduced.

While it is true that the general population is not concerned with the accidental transport of ants/other organisms. Scientific circles are concerned enough that it is against federal law to knowingly transport them across state lines, that in and of itself should speak to both their importantance and the potential damage they represent. As hobbyists we should be responsible and concerned even if others are not.

Edited by SuperFrank, February 20 2020 - 8:35 PM.

[OhNoNotAgain]

It's obviously not irrational to worry about it. OTOH most of the articles you link to are about multiple generations in captivity, as far as I can see. Granted even one generation can skew local populations to some extent, but I could argue that general human development in a locale skews things far more, plus no one is talking about doing this on a large scale or even on the scale of accidental salmon escapees from salmon hatcheries. (EDIT: and salmon are HUGELY influential in their habitats, too. I'm not a fan of the effects of salmon farming either.)

 

Again, not saying it's a good idea. Just saying the typical dismissive response (this tone of "obviously you are an immature and irresponsible person who doesn't belong in the hobby and shame on you for asking") is not necessarily helpful, either.

 

EDIT2: I like the discussion in one of those articles, about the balancing act in deciding what to do and whether captive-bred is okay or not, and sometimes the answer is that it's better than nothing, but limiting number of captive generations might be best. Obviously almost no one is captive BREEDING ants in any case, but it's the TYPE of the discussion that I think is valid. Like as per the other thread: rescuing colonies from development and relocating nearby: okay or not, under what circumstances?

Edited by OhNoNotAgain, February 20 2020 - 11:03 PM.

[SuperFrank]

The very crux of the issue is the uncertainty regarding the effects of captive release or relocation. We cannot possibly know every single effect that captivity has, just like we cannot know every single repercussion that comes with relocating a species, even a native one. It is well known that the ecology of an area is an incredibly delicate and complex thing where almost all of the elements within it are dependent on others.
To put it simply: no, it is not okay to disrupt an ecosystem by direct and purposeful interference without even fully knowing the current state of said ecosystem or how your actions will affect it.

[SuperFrank]

For example. You wish to relocate species(x), before you do so have you: studied the area a single colony of (x) requires? The resources needed to support a single colony of (x). The average density of (x) nests already present in your area? The size/strength of the colony you plan to release in relation to the colonies already present? How species (x) interacts with species (y.) and (Z)?
Have you studied how the physiology/genome of species (x) is affected by captivity?


And those are the most generlized, basic variables that could come into play, they don't even begin to address the countless amount of factors involved with even a minor disruption in a particular ecosystem.

Edited by SuperFrank, February 21 2020 - 9:18 AM.

[TheMicroPlanet]

Oh great this is going to be another one of those threads...

 

Thanks for the input though 

[ANTdrew]

Oh great this is going to be another one of those threads...

Thanks for the input though

Everyone is respectfully sharing opinions, articles, and observations. What’s wrong with a thread like that?

[Da_NewAntOnTheBlock]

yeah? No one has gotten into an argument and everyone is peacefully coexisting. I see no problems whatsoever with that

[OhNoNotAgain]

Well it's just sounding like people aren't really going to budge either way or discuss any kind of common ground or ... I dunno.

I'm of the opinion it's okay to save colonies from a bulldozer and relocate them nearby, esp. if the area they are relocated to is full of non-native invasive species.

That's on one end of the spectrum and in my book it's fine. I also get the argument that it's not ideal without a full study, but likewise NO homeowner I know out there does a full scientific study before planting a bunch of plants shipped from across the country and then releasing a bunch of non-native "predatory" insects while also bringing in cartloads of manure from some random farm 15 miles away. They water the crap out of land that might not usually get water. Then they hire a pest control service to spray poisons all around the house to control bugs. That's the reality of things. People already change the environment without thinking and no one out there is demanding they do environmental assays first.

On the other end of the spectrum is someone keeping a colony for 10 years in a vivarium with all sorts of random species of organisms and then dumping it out one day. That is clearly not okay.

If there's no discussion on the middle ground possible, then ... whatever. People's minds are apparently completely made up so there's no point in talking.

Edited by OhNoNotAgain, February 21 2020 - 5:51 PM.

[TheMicroPlanet]

Again, thanks for the input. I'll definitely put all this into consideration.

[RushmoreAnts]

My point is, those of us who know would be better off not releasing captive colonies, but it just isn't doomsday if some noob does.