I agree, that hobbyist do contribute to the knowledge base and also to the support of conservation, and certainly the market has a negative impact as well. I recently engaged in a debate here on what is a positive way to contribute to the market and was met with resistance. I feel that breeding wild types, and locality specific only contributes to the wild caught market. If a particular locale becomes popular there will always be people who will go for the wild caught which are cheaper. Breeding color variants like albinos and such that are not readily available in the wild competes with wild collected animals and is in my opinion the most responsible thing a hobbyist can do to support conservation short of supporting environmental protection.
So breeding breeding forms that do not occur naturally and presenting that as the only option to potential keepers is the correct route? Please, do explain how this could possibly be true. I suspect that this a a gut reaction that you haven't fully thought out. "People" (the public at large) only preserve what they're familiar with and what they care about. Many experienced reptile and amphibian keepers, including the vast majority on this site, are certainly not in your corner on this. Breeding morphs can have a terrible, lasting effect on wild populations. Look what the blown-out morph market has done to ball pythons in West Africa if you want a prime example...
I won't get too deep into this for a variety of reasons, and this will likely be my only post on the subject unless I can wrangle some free time later on. This has been hashed out over and over on various keeper forums over the years. In short, though, this is a MUCH more complicated situation than you're supposing it to be. Valuing the animals' natural history and wild forms is the core, and dare I say "purist", reason for keeping wild-type and locality-specific animals.
Many advanced hobbyists (including some professional herpetologists, zoo-keepers, private breeders, ardent conservationists, etc.) from all sectors of herp-keeping are continuing to maintain locality-specific lines or are converting their captive collections into locality-specific ones. I known this because I'm in daily contact with these people. An
Ambystoma tigrinum from New Jersey and one from northern Florida have very different natural histories, potentially including their breeding strategy, etc. That's cool. It's also fascinating and valuable information to have when trying to successfully keep and breed a "challenging" form (such as Ambystomatid salamanders). Look at what the keepers of dart frogs, tree frogs,
Atelopus are doing if you're looking for a close-to-home example using amphibians only. Are there "bad" people who will over collect a locality because the animals are in demand? Of course, but that is where captive breeding
can come into play and reduce the
disproportionality of supply and demand, thereby driving the price, and subsequently the incentive for wild collection, down. Obviously, this isn't witout fault, either.
Do morphs have a place? Sure! They're especially popular with beginning and less-invested (in several ways) hobbyists, and possibly an essential tool for bringing certain demographics into the hobby and promoting herp conservation and awareness. However, to tout their value OVER the natural forms, which should be appreciated for their inherent beauty and value, is a bit misguided. There's a place for both, but breeding eye candy which people (correctly?) fail to associate with nature shouldn't take primacy. People have different values. I value nature, its processes, and products. If I'm going to keep something captive, it is becuase I want to observe its wild, natural attributes up-close and regularly. Other people might be seeking "living art" or something to impress their friends or a slippery, non-traditional companion animal.
Anyway, just some thoughts to consider.
-Cole