holdmytail wrote:
Have you actually checked National Zoo’s website? Especially here? As part of the Smithsonian Institute they’re actually pretty big into the conservation thing. For example, they’re one of the major institutions involved in captive-breeding and reintroduction of golden lion tamarins. National Zoo certainly has much better funding than a lot of other institutions in the US and a good chunk of that funding goes to things other than the basic running of the zoo.
In re: your general questions about breeding of endangered/threatened or not endangered/threatened animals, I have a few general comments. Most major zoological institutions in the US are members of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) which also sponsors programs/groups that oversee the breeding and transferring of multiple species of interest, known as Taxon Advisory Groups. Most TAGs have also set up Species Survival Plans, Population Management Plans, and Studbooks that outline the ultimate goals of breeding of a particular species and keep track of who is related to whom. The studbook keeper for those species has say over who should be bred and which animals should go where. Their goals include maintaining the genetic diversity of the captive populations and making sure no additional animals need be collected from the wild to meet the needs of zoos.
Of course, your next question would probably be “who cares what the zoos need”? Keep in mind that most zoos and aquariums are also major economic contributors to their locales because, as Zagadka said, we like to look at animals. And seeing them on the TV just is not the same. People will pay to come see animals (though I know admission National Zoo itself is free, people who are there still spend $$ on other things). I work at the National Aquarium in Baltimore, which is the largest tourist attraction in Maryland. The institution was built to help bring in tourism $$, which is a big deal in Baltimore since the city is generally economically-depressed. Better that people who want to see animals come to an AZA-accredited institution than to a random, non-accredited zoo that only has to worry about USDA guidelines (which are no where near as strict as the requirements for AZA-accreditation and only apply to mammals). And actually seeing an animal in real life has a huge impact on people, especially children. It is hoped that this will lead people to a greater appreciation of the animals which, in turn, will motivate them to do what they can outside of going to the zoo or aquarium to improve conditions for other animals in the wild. Our dolphin show has a major conservation education component to it to try and help folks make the connection between, among other things, “cool animals we should protect” and “I should not throw my trash in the street/ocean”.
Zoos and aquariums can also take some of the $$ they bring in to fund or support conservation and education programs locally. Our conservation department hosts a number of programs geared to restoring local wetlands. We also raise money to buy and preserve rain forest and support Project Piaba.
:rolleyes: Have you actually ever watched a nature show? Do you know how most animals live and die?? While there are certainly problems with some species and individuals in zoos/aquariums due to husbandry or medical problems, many animals (especially prey species) will live longer and die with less suffering in captivity than in the wild. Let’s get rid of this over-emotional anthropomorphizing of animals and look at things rationally. For one thing, they have access to veterinary care for disease outbreaks or injuries (a solid program of veterinary care is essential for USDA permits and AZA accreditation). In the wild, injured animals get infections and may either become easy prey for predators or, if they’re predators themselves, starve because they can no longer hunt effectively. If an animal in a zoo or aquarium does have a problem too serious to treat they will be humanely euthanized instead of being allowed to suffer until they die. Animals also are fed regularly and often don’t have to worry about predators (I say “often” because we do occasionally have predation in our mixed-species enclosures, but this is rarely true in the case of anything other than fish and invertebrates). And, of course, they aren’t being poached or hunted by people.
Most zoos and aquariums work very hard to meet the social needs of their animals and are careful when new animals are introduced into an existing social group. Environmental enrichment is also very important, though some places have been slower than others to pick up on this. EE works to give animals ways to express their natural behaviors (hunting, foraging, hiding, etc) within their enclosures and is the focus of groups such as this one. Enrichment is required by the USDA for all captive primates and by the AZA for many other mammal and bird species. Our manager of animal programs also oversees enrichment and training with reptiles, fish (including sharks), and some invertebrates (particularly the octopus). I helped co-author a research paper done here regarding the ability of enrichment to decrease stereotypic behavior in our seal collection. So the whole “boredom” issue is being addressed because it’s better both for the animals and for the public who want to see them doing natural things.
I think other posters have already pointed out that many modern zoos and aquariums focus on habitat design that are more natural than the old concrete cages and iron bars. I’ve been to the Columbus Zoo, the Cincinnatti Zoo, the North Carolina Zoo, Salisbury Zoo (in Maryland’s Eastern Shore), Audubon Zoo (New Orleans), New England Aquarium, North Carolina Aquarium, Aquarium of the Americas (New Orleans), and Mystic Aquarium to name a few, and that old motif is now the exception, at least among AZA-member institutions. Keep in mind that your perception of enclosure size (being “too small”) may not match what the animals really need/prefer. Some animals like it cozy and are stressed by habitats that are too open. And, of course, there’s always the balance between animal needs and visitor’s ability to see animals. But not everything in a zoo or aquarium’s collection is out on display (we have one of the largest collection of poison dart frogs in the world; the vast majority are behind-the-scenes) and animals in the back-up are free to have as complicated or as bare an enclosure as they need. Older zoos, like National Zoo and the Baltimore Zoo, update their facilities gradually as money and time permit.
So, in summary: while it’s ultimately better for species to maintain their presence in their natural habitats (because that’s what they’re adapted to and all play a vital role in the ecosystem), it’s not true that captive populations in zoos are all in the animal equivalent of the gulag, pining away for their lost freedom. Zoos and aquariums exist because a) people want to see animals, especially exotic ones, b)they provide economic stimulus (see a), c) they serve as hubs for animal and habitat conservation programs by providing expertise and resources, d) they hold populations of species that may be threatened or endangered in the wild so that these animals do not disappear forever. Even if they ultimately exist only in captivity, it’s better than them not existing at all.