The following have been bothering me quite a bit lately. Please enlighten me.
What is the point of breeding endangered animals at the zoo if they are not rehabilitated into the wild? How can you call this conservation? If you are breeding to increase the captive population for later releasing how long would it take to get a large enough captive population to start releasing? Will it be too late by then? Also, why not have this captive breeding program at a big sanctuary instead of a zoo where animals have less space and privacy? And there are endangered animals that we have large captive populations of, for example tigers and elephants. Why are they not being rehabilitated by zoos? Why are animals for whom specific sanctuaries/protected lands are available kept in zoos rather than the larger more comfortable sanctuary?
Why breed non-endangered animals in captivity? There are many exotic animal rescues that would love to give up their big cats or monkeys, why does the zoo breed even more captive wildlife instead of adopting more often? How does a little room at a zoo justify bringing more animals to the world who will have to endure captivity (frustration of instincts, boredom, confusing social structure, etc)?
No matter how enriched the enclosure is it will not accurately represent the animal’s actual habitat nor will the animal’s behavior be like that of animals in the wild. Unless it’s like a snail. What is the education value of seeing an animal in a small (relative to it’s natural range) enclosure at the zoo, bored and possibly with zoochosis? How is this better than reading books and watching videos or even doing a “safari” tour of a large, well kept sanctuary? Under what circumstances do zoos give up animals to sanctuaries? Why is it necessary to keep them at the zoo vs. a sanctuary?
Are concrete/glass tanks are a beneficial and natural environment for marine mammals?
Where do the cute babies go after they grow up? Do zoos sell to circuses? Canned hunts? Research labs?
This is a false dichotomy - many of them are released.
Even if they’re not, maybe it helps to raise an appreciation for the plight of other endangered animals in the wild.
They can also help raise money for their wild brethren.
If that species become extinct in the wild, there is a safe breeding population of a few hundred animals in various zoos and nature reserves.
Well, zoos don’t put in as much effort into breeding non-endangered animals, obviously. And is it just me, or does this argument contradict your argument above? That more space should be made for endangered animals?
That aside, what’s the harm? If they’re properly cared for, they should be at least as safe and well as they were in the wild. And we get to go look at animals.
As you surely know, many of the endangered animals are released into the wild. Others stay at the zoo, or are sent to other zoos where they can help in breeding programs. Sales to circuses, hunts and research labs are out of the question for most Western zoos.
Do you have a contention for this debate? That all animals should be freed from the oppressive tyranny of the zookeeping conspiracy perhaps?
Your overall question can seem to be summed up in - Why zoos?
Because we like to look at animals. Why art galleries? Why museums? We are admiring the art of nature. Not everyone in the US can afford to spend weeks camping every year, and even if they do, they damn well won’t see even a tenth of the animals they see in the zoo (even on safari to Africa :-p). It is a place to admire nature’s beauty. Seeing something alive is very different than seeing pictures.
Further, zoos serve as research institutes for animal medicine and behavior, including that regarding endangered species (as you hilight). Most universities do not have their own zoo facilities, so make use of local institutes.
As to the animals’ health, well, that is an ongoing struggle. It is also part of the research - in how we can care and provide for them best. Modern zoos aren’t terribly barbaric, and most animals are happy enough to plod around (though many do suffer from being caged, modern zoos are constantly working on expanding their facilities). Frankly, most of the species are hunted in the wild. Question: Better off sad and alive, or dead?
As to where the baby critters go, frequently to other displays or other zoos. As I understand it, they aren’t bred terribly often, unless it can be helped.
Is it worth keeping these animals in small zoo enclosures so that we can look at them and have them serve as ambassadors for their species?
As far as I know, black footed ferrets are one of the very few endangered species ever released from a zoo breeding program. Do you have a source that could prove otherwise?
I think it’s more important to keep endagered species in captive breeding programs than other species but that does not mean I’m in favor of having the programs at a zoo (rather than a sanctuary).
A wild animal at a zoo is not as well off as a free-ranging animal in most cases. Carnivores suffer from not being able to hunt. Animals who normally cover a lot of ground daily may get depressed from confinement. Marine mammals get bored in glass tanks. Some animals are lonely or they can’t form a natural society. Others are just bored and depressed. Some animals are fine in zoos, but from what I’ve seen and read, many or most are not.
I don’t think we should free all the animals in captivity. I don’t even know enough about the zoo to come to a solid conclusion about it and that’s why I’m asking these questions. It just seems to me as if there are better alternatives (books, movies, sanctuary tours/safaris for education and wildlife corridors, protected lands, sanctuaries, and artificial insemination for breeding).
Considering the alternatives available and the suffering or many zoo animals from confinement.
Research is great but yet again, is it worth keeping these animals locked up? Can we do it another way like field studies or sanctuaries or rescues?
I think most large zoos (rather than menageries) care for their animals a lot and try to do the best they can for them but is this good enough?
As to Question: Better off sad and alive, or dead?, that’s something everybody has a different take on. It’s a question all to itself, a philosophical dillema. And yet it doesn’t quite apply here because not in zoo does not equal dead.
By the way I’d rather be dead. But that’s just me, it doesn’t matter.
Zoos act as a sort of ‘Noahs Ark’. Captive breeding programs take genetic diveristy into account, and ensure that even if the critters native habitat is wiped out, a ‘breedable supply’ exists.
Granted, why that is a good thing, I am not sure. But then again, it would be easier to just kill off everything we have in the zoos if we decide we don’t want them, than it would be to wish some animal back into existance once they go extinct in the wild. Sort of a naturalists insurance policy.
Who knows, once we terraform mars, we could send a bunch of red-butted baboons up there. If they all die, we terrarform a bit more. Science is a marvelous thing.
Haha, poor funny-butted baboonies, they have feelings too.
I have nothing against breeding already captive animals so that we can have a population to release into say a new nature reserve. It just seems as if very little releasing is being done and more “Look at that weird critter in a cage because it might go extinct soon”. And I also don’t see why breeding has to happen at a zoo where it’s probably more stressful with all those people (staring, making noise or weird smells) and not a lot of room to satisfy wild animal instincts (roaming, hunting, being in a group/herd, foraging, etc.).
Are you crazy? Zoos release animals back into the wild all the time, including those they’ve rehabilitated and those bred in the zoo. Try here, it’s the website of the zoos in my state. They have a pretty healthy conservation program.
And the difference between a zoo and a sanctuary? That people get to look at the animals? Take a look at the three zoos featured in my first link. One’s a traditional zoo in the middle of parkland near the CBD. One’s a safari-park style zoo, with enclosures many kilometres across. One calls itself a sanctuary and specialises in native wildlife. Are any of these acceptable to you?
They’re all fine options, I’m sure. But a zoo can do all of these at once - fundraising, education, breeding. Plus they’re fun. I don’t see anything wrong with a well-maintained zoo, where the wellbeing of the animals is a primary concern.
(NB - it’s a good idea to break someone’s posts down into sections when you are replying, rather than reposting the lot. It helps show what you are responding to.)
People who run zoos tend to be fervent conservationists who are looking out for the best interests of the animals. They’re not just breeding animals in zoos for kicks, it’s the only way to do it properly.
Say you want to breed more gorillas. You want to ensure that males and females are in close proximity, to ensure that they have sufficient food and so on, to protect the juvenile gorillas that result and so on. You’re going to have to capture them for a while, at least. I’m sure artificial insemination is next to impossible in the wild. Ever tried to inseminate a wild lion, without the benefits of cages, sedatives and so on? Never thought I’d be writing THAT.
That is a pretty impressive conservation program. I wish my local zoo (National Zoo in US) was as good. However, how come I didn’t notice any releasing of zebras or big cats? They don’t breed those animals? At the National Zoo we often have tiger cubs but they are never released. Also, is the breeding done at the zoo in your state because there is no room for it to happen elsewhere or because the zoo wants the animals on display?
When I say sanctuary I mean a place with very large and stimulating environments where animals are less stressed and live more natural lives than they would in a traditional zoo like the National Zoo. I’ve always wanted to visit the San Diego Zoo because I’ve heard it’s like a sanctuary.
I don’t see the education value of traditional zoos. When I was little all I got out of it was “Pretty animals, according to the signs they have excting lives in the wild, how come they look so sad or frustrated? Oh,look at the dolphins and elephants do tricks and get rides, I guess that’s what they’re good for”.
If they aren’t breeding for kicks why do they breed non-endangered species and why do they keep animals in small cages?
You don’t have to capture wild animals to ensure that they mate. To bring males and females together you can make wildlife corridors or release captive breeding offspring or even sedate and relocate animals, although I’m not sure if the latter is feasable. Artificial insemination has been done before and there have been successes. They do it a lot in zoos too. And yea, of course you probably have to sedate them before you do it.
As mentioned above, they don’t usually breed non-endangered animals. If they naturally breed, OK. But they’re not putting effort into it. At the zoos here in Australia, they’re pretty generous with the space the animals are kept in.
I think a great deal of modern breeding is done from current stocks of animals. I don’t think they go out and get more animals to breed very often.
Well, for many endangered foreign animals, you or I or our governments find it difficult to preserve a few thousand square kilometres of rainforest in another country. There are probably a lot of poor people who are trying to use that very same piece of land for logging, slash-and-burn agriculture, hunting and so on. Heck, even in Australia I’m sure there’s people who want the land for farming etc.
Like I said, they do release captive breeding offspring, though to do that or a large scale, you need to do some captive breeding, which you seem to be against. And you can sedate and relocate animals, but you need a couple of thousand square kms of rainforest or whatever to take them to, so we run into the same problems.
Still, letting some animals breed in captivity is letting animals that may not be able to lead happy, healthy lives be born. It’s like not spaying/neutering your pets.
There’s definately a shortage of land, especially rainforest. It’s sad. But I’ve read cases where sanctuaries beg to take in sickly or aging zoo animals and the zoo refuses. So it’s not always a question of space.
You misunderstood, I’m all for captive breeding. What I’m questioning is keeping the animals at traditional zoos rather than sanctuaries.
Also, there are cases where there is land but few animals because of poaching or an epidemic or something. The animals rarely meet and rarely breed. This happens with pandas. And yet, are we releasing pandas?
And, shouldn’t we get land for the animals before we breed captive populatons of them?
Well, where’s the border between a zoo and a sanctuary, in your opinion? Is it merely the size of the enclosures and the realism of the amenities (for want of a better word)? In that case, why aren’t you just complaining about crappy zoo conditions?
Take a look at the three zoos I mention above, a traditional zoo, a safari-park-style zoo and a sanctuary (or at least that’s what they call themselves). Are any of these OK with you?
Well, where are they supposed to release them, Arlington?
Seriously, at the moment what would the point be to releasing tiger cubs? Even in the protected regions in southern Asia they’re still being hunted. So if they’re released there’s a shot they just end up on some floor somewhere as a rug.
Until poaching is brought under control I don’t see the point to release programs.
Take a look at the three zoos I mention above, a traditional zoo, a safari-park-style zoo and a sanctuary (or at least that’s what they call themselves). Are any of these OK with you?
[/QUOTE]
Yea, you’re right, the term zoo is very stretchy because it could be the San Diego Zoo or it could be Catskill Game Farm (cheap roadside menagerie in my area).
I guess when I say zoo I think of the National Zoo in DC as the traditional example. It’s pretty fancy, the enclosures aren’t tiny, and animals sometimes get enrichment like the bear has a little pool and every morning you can go watch the keepers throw fish into it and he fishes them out (I forgot if they’re live fish) and there are lines strung up for the orangutans to climb on. Still it’s a depressing place to go because there isn’t much room for some animals and they look pretty bored and pathetic.
When I think of a sanctuary I think of large enclosures, animals living on grass/the ground rather than concrete floors, more room for privacy, and more interesting environments like with trees and big pools and maybe even small prey (fish, rodents) for bored carnivores.
I guess I am but it seems like most people don’t view the conditions of traditional zoos as crappy and that’s one of thet hings I’m questioning. But even a great zoo shouldn’t keep animals unless it’s really needed (the animal is a rescue, it is being bred for future release, etc.).
I went to the link but I didn’t find individual sections for each facility, am I missing something?
So I’m not sure what each of these places do or look like.
That’s an interesting point. So maybe there should be more funds going to protecting tiger lands instead of breeding animals that we can’t release until we establish those lands for them?
Lambchops: I looked at the Melbourne Zoo and it looks pretty nice and yet the photos showed mostly animals and the full exhibit so I’m not sure what I think about it.
The free-range zoo and sanctuary seemed very similar but I definately liked the pictures of people walking through the huge environments and animals wandering freely.
Do you know if there is anything similar to that in my area (DC)?
EDIT: Should read “I looked at the Melbourne Zoo and it looks pretty nice and yet the photos showed mostly animals and NOT the full exhibit so I’m not sure what I think about it.”