[MENTION=28495]Firedrake[/MENTION]
You brought up exactly the issue I was going to bring to the table.
I love the idea of native mammals as 'pets'. But the definition is tricky. Experienced keepers breeding and maintaining captive populations of threatened species is something that I've long been an advocate for. However there is a difference between keeping a kowari (something Id love to keep) as a pet and keeping a captive population. I know many people have the opinion that there is little to no difference, in that when you keep an animal in a captive setting it is inherently different to a wild animal as a direct result. And indeed there is truth to this statement.
Extreme examples of captive rearing in species such as Condors and some species of endangered stork involve minimal (if any) contact with humans in order to preserve the wild nature of the species, with a view to releasing the animals in question. This is extremely time consuming and diverts a great deal of energy into a small number of animals.
If we take a step back and instead look at quantity over quality, then perhaps a large number of individuals keeping native mammals in a more recreational sense is still in some way beneficial. A lot of the time, for me anyway, it comes back to the sheer fact that by the time many of these species are stable in captivity and times have changed to a point where something can be gained from the whole exercise, most of the habitat that these animals could be released back into will be completely destroyed or damaged irreparably by introduced flora and fauna that have gained a foothold and reformed the ecosystem to suit themselves. Point being, there will be no where to release these animals anyway.
In my opinion this doesn't draw from the positives of an initiative such as this. I personally believe that even with no hope of a species ever being returned to its original habitat, because that habitat no longer exists, there is still merit in continuing its existence on this planet. Whether it be for personal enjoyment, scientific benefit or more simply the preservation of life equally as unique as our own, a multitude of flora and fauna on this planet will always be better than a stagnant, shallow pond of invariability.
But back to my original statement. I think a line has to be drawn in the sand even at the recreational level. I feel this should be the case for reptiles also, but that's another thread. Designer species are not my cup of tea. Lets just get that out in the open. Id rather any morelia sp. over an albino any day of the week, and a patternless 'anything' takes away from what makes the species beautiful to me in the first place. But that's ok, each to their own. If though, we want to be taken seriously when it comes to a public conservation initiative we need to put in a place a set of standards to maintain a species viability in captivity, as a representative of the wild species itself. Im not suggest that we outlaw selective breeding for morphs, merely separate it from the conservation effort. Put in place a series of guidelines and rules in order to (as best as possible) maintain reasonable and responsible actions regarding the treatment of these species in captivity. In short, keep them as natural as possible through selective and monitored breeding practices with other keepers.
If this seems too complicated for the average keeper, well, that's kind of the idea. Do I believe that just anybody can keep native mammals and have it benefit the species. No I don't. Do I believe that only those who can benefit the species should have the right to keep one. No I don't. But I do feel there's a difference there that would need to be addressed in order to gain maximum benefit from this concept.