Debate: What is your opinion on breeding programs for zoo's and conservation centres

[pamziaw]

Before i start i'd like to point out this is NOT a debate about the breeding of domesticated animals, that is not the purpose and so any breeders about to jump on this thread and say i am supporting showing and breeding of guinea pigs, do not post your comments, they shall not be recieved glady.

I'm posting this because i wondered the opinion of people on breeding programs in places such as wildlife conservation centres and such, for example tiger breeding programs to stop the species becoming extinct and other breeding programs in zoo's. This came up as i was watching an episode of 'Animal farm' the other day which is a british show about a stately home in which the owner has given over the entire land outside the house to a variety of animals, such as wolfs, giraffes, elephants and a park nearby which is a miniture zoo. They were trying to breed their wolfs but were having problems as the alpha male was injured that year and the younger wolfs are challenging him. It made me wonder for what purpose is this breeding going ahead. I came to the concluesion that animals bread in captivity is only ethical if it is being done for the preservation of the species as the majority of these animals are meant to have thousands of square miles to roam. Moreso by keeping them in captivity we are only causing more problems for them in the future if they are realsed back into the wild. This is because by having them fed and watered they are loosing their natural insticts of foraging and hunting. More deeply we are slowly domesticating them until they are dependant on us. What are your opinions on this matter?

 

[daftscotslass]

Personally while I think it's necessary to prevent extinction, I don't think there's enough being done to preserve the natural habitats of the animals that are critically endangered. It's a bit like putting a band aid on a broken leg - we're going to end up with a situation where some of the world's most beautiful and intelligent species only exist in captivity and not where they're supposed to.

Take chimpanzees for example. There is no captive breeding programme because there is an overpopulation of captive chimps - so much so that the majority of females are implanted or injected with contraceptives. However, there are less than 25,000 chimps left in the wild. You hear about the happy, bouncy, captive chimps and not the efforts being made to prevent destruction of the habitat of their wild counterparts.

Another problem is the illegal trade in primates and protected species across the world. Again, we can breed all we want in captivity but the trade of young primates goes on across West Africa and other critically endangered species in the likes of South East Asia (orangs, gibbons to name a couple) still goes on. The governments of those countries involved need to be lobbied to prevent this from happening.

It's a subject close to my heart having worked with one of the most endangered species of gibbon in my final year of university.

 

[John4216]

Nice post Daft. I finished reading your post and went to check my e-mail and ran into this article about a third of all primates face extinction:

A Third of All Primates Face Extinction - AOL News

Sad.

 

[krittercrazy]

To be sure many are endangered and should be protected. But why are they endangered to begin with? Because we as humans are destroying their habitats. In doing that we are destroying the reason the animal was there in the first place.
I believe that once we put animals in a cage and start deciding which ones will breed together, take their offspring away at birth to raise ourselves, and serve up their food on a "silver platter" we are changing that animal forever. There are reasons why males fight for the right to mate. There are reasons why sometimes the females will kill or abandon their young. In captivity the natural order of things is disrupted and we end up with "domesticated" wild animals that have difficulty or find it impossible to survive in the wild.

 

[Maisiepaisie]

I totally agree with the above post. I strongly believe that humans should stop interfering with nature and let animals live their own lives and be free. It is our fault that animals become endangered and then we have these breeding programmes in the name of conservation but it's just another way to make profit from animals in my opinion. The first thing we need to do is protect their habit. There's no point breeding animals who have nowhere to live and I would rather these animal became extinct than only exist in captivity. Captive breeding programmes are impractical and cause much suffering The conservation con

 

[daftscotslass]

I totally agree with the above post. I strongly believe that humans should stop interfering with nature and let animals live their own lives and be free. It is our fault that animals become endangered and then we have these breeding programmes in the name of conservation but it's just another way to make profit from animals in my opinion. The first thing we need to do is protect their habit. There's no point breeding animals who have nowhere to live and I would rather these animal became extinct than only exist in captivity. Captive breeding programmes are impractical and cause much suffering The conservation con

Personally I would hate to see species like the orang-utan, chimpanzee and mountain gorilla die out just because we didn't want them to only exist in captivity. For these species it really is just too late to say "humans should stop interfering" - this is something it's very easy for us consumerists to say. It's the likes of the US and the UK that are creating the demand for specialist hardwoods, cheap tropical fruits, teas, coffees, cheap meats and drugs (illegal ones as well as controlled substances like opiates). Not to mention the tourists coming from our countries that still love to have their pictures taken with animals that have been pulled from their dead mother's arms shortly after birth to live a life of servitude, abuse and death when they're too large to handle. As long as there is demand for the above, the regions involved will supply the goods and the animals, and strip habitats to create the space for it.

I do agree that the vast majority of release schemes are unrealistic which means that more areas need to be protected either from poaching or deforestation occurring in the first place OR there needs to be areas set aside for the controlled and protected release of such animals. Even though it sounds like it in the media, it's not as simple as breed it in a zoo, let it go in the wild. Efforts are far more in-depth than you read about in your average newspaper.

To say it's as simple as humans stopping interfering is naive at best. Humans made the mess, humans need to pick up the pieces. Spread the word - let people know where these products come from. Write to the governments of the countries involved and let them know that the trade in these protected species needs to stop NOW.

 

[Alusdra]

Even if all habitat destruction and human encroachment were to end today, it would still be a good idea to have animals being bred in zoos. Most species are at very low numbers in the wild. Zoo populations represent reservoirs for genetic diversity. The greater the genetic diversity the more likely that the animals will survive an extinction event like a deadly disease or a climate shift.

Besides which- zoo animals aren't/shouldn't be bred haphazardly (like the wildlife pet trade). Most zoos are part of a program like the Species Survival Plan wherin lots of zoos network together to make appropriate matches so that nobody is being inbred and so that genetic diseases are not passed on. Of course the animals are not being challenged by natural stimuli like hunting or finding shelter, etc- but it really is remarkable how much they know just from instinct.

The goal of any decent zoo and/or conservation society is to keep the genetic pool of the animal diverse enough to still be evolutionarily viable and maintain it until such a time as we (as a species) are responsible enough to leave the animals in peace in their natural habitats. It used to be about money and novelty, it's true, but the roll of zoos has been changing drastically over the last few decades. Just check out the old caging (iron and concrete) versus the new large, naturalistic enclosures. Zoos certainly don't make much money. Ask a zookeeper or even the admin staff if they do it for the money and they'll probably cackle insanely at you and walk away shaking their heads... I'm pretty sure that the average gas station clerk earns more than a zoo employee (or a vet tech, or anyone that works with animals, for that matter...)

 

[crazywiggy]

My views on captive breeding for conservation are pretty much in line with my views on breeding pets.

I'm against breeding of any pet animal that is suffering from overpopulation. I have no problem with breeding species that are underpopulated, with the intention of preventing them becoming extinct.

Of course, even where the breeding is for conservation, I think it is vital to do it properly. This means things like being part of a wider programme in order to prevent inbreeding etc. It also means taking exceptional care of the animals while they are in captivity. Most importantly is that the process of reintroduction needs to be done extremely carefully. I did an assignment of Thakis at uni, and they did it step by step. Initially many of the horses were in concrete cells. They then moved them into proper paddocks, reduced their interaction with humans etc. Then eventually, they moved them to their country of origin and kept them there (albeit it in captivity) so they could acclimatise to the weather conditions, new food sources etc before fully releasing them.

Check out the website for more info...
Foundation for the Preservation and Protection of the Przewalski Horse (FPPPH)

Anyway, I think it can work, and can be really good in certain situations.

Of course, the most important thing is to protect the animals in their natural habitat. Another point that was made to me at uni is that sometimes the time scale isn't in the animals interest. For example, a number of species (such as the orang utan) live in areas ravaged by civil wars where it is unsafe for people to go. Until the fighting stops, there is very little we can do to protect the habitat or the animals in it. If we continue high quality captive breeding now, we may be able to reintroduce these species later, when it is safe to do so, and thus prevent their extinction.

 

[HowietheGreat]

I am very anti zoo for the sole reason that they are more about human enjoyment then for the well being of the animal. The last time I visted the Baltimore Zoo I was horrified-the conditions for the large cats and bears are still deplorable. While I believe the caretakers generally care about the animals, the state funding has been decreased and they were at risk of closing not too long ago. Conservations are far more expansive and are better equiped to try and replicate the creatures natural surroundings. It isn't about what "guests/people will enjoy" but more about restoration and maintaining the species that we have displaced. I have heard of zoos closing and animals being sold to individuals that do "big game hunting." Areas of Texas are notorious for this. Paying big dollars to shoot lions in their back yards and then "donating" the bodies to museaums as a tax write off. Sick. I have not heard about this occurring with animals being maintained in a conservation.

 

[kathrynj]

I agree Howie, the zoos near us are terrible, except for Australia Zoo. I think it stands alone, and I like the fact that they are about conserving the land, to support the animals. I heard that Steve Irwin wanted to buy as much property as possible, to have huge conservation corridors for the native animals here in Australia.

I admit though I don't know as much about this issue as I should.

 

[Jennicat]

I think it really depends on the zoo facility. According to a recent article that I read on our local zoo, it's got the biggest land area of any zoo in the country. They go out of their way to provide huge expanses for their animals to live in, and try to reproduce as natural an environment as possible. (For example, the African herbivores which would naturally share land together without fighting live on a 37 acre tract of land. They provide binoculars for guests to view the animals from a balcony above the exhibit.)

They were also having to deal with many of the animals in the zoo becoming seniors, and having to install different types of flooring into the stables which they've got for night time/cold weather habitation, as well as the medical techniques they're pioneering because of it. Many of the animals at this zoo were also rescued from people who wanted fancy pets but realized too late that it was a bad idea to own a wild animal.

 

[Prickle]

Hey Parmizaw! I will try to explain my answer unconfusingly

I am one of said wildlife officers at a park and yes the purpose at all times is only to breed for the sake of getting numbers of those particular animals up in the wild. If you read between the lines - The hard truth i couldn't believe for a while.......

Does It Ever Really Happen? NO.

Only 1% of the animals bred in captivity are shipped out to actual forrests, conserves, parks, wild. 49% of what we breed gets shipped to other captive parks to do the 'same thing'.
Because of animal welfare laws we cannot breed for captivity so use 'wild popluation increase' as a save so people are happy.

Atm the in thing is shipping overseas so that 'other cultures can help the animals plight and teach about our animals'.

We recently sent 1M 1F wombat to Asia for 'breeding'. The two picked out Cannot be housed together let alone bred. The female is older and hasn't given us a bub for years. They are there for the Advertisment of Australian animals and tourism. I call it False Advertising of Animal Conservation!

I HATE IT!>(