Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Pet Board => Topic started by: Pete Dimano on November 04, 2007, 08:44:14 AM
-
Which animal is happier?
The one who lives at the zoo, is given 4 animals to play with, is fed well on a regular basis, has great health care, and never worries about anything?
Or the animal who lives in the wild, wandering across the continent seeing the world. They miss meals, they risk being killed on a daily basis. But they are free.
Which animal is happier? Which would you rather be?
-
I would rather be the free animal and people stay off my land!! >:(
-
Which animal is happier?
The one who lives at the zoo, is given 4 animals to play with, is fed well on a regular basis, has great health care, and never worries about anything?
Or the animal who lives in the wild, wandering across the continent seeing the world. They miss meals, they risk being killed on a daily basis. But they are free.
Which animal is happier? Which would you rather be?
last time I was at the zoo (about 6 years ago) I could'nt help but noticed how depressed all the animals looked (with the exception of some of the bears)......animals wer'nt made to be caged,I'm ok with animals that were recued from abusive situations though,,
-
It's an interesting question and one I've wondered about. Seems as though if they're in a fly zoo w/a huge acreage as their habitat that may be desirable. But if they're in some small caged in area it seems like it'd be better to be completely free and probably live a shorter (but happier) life.
-
There should be no zoo's.
-
There should be no zoo's.
Why?
-
Why?
Why should there be? Most of the animals in zoo's are there for the entertainment of people. Elephants were never meant to be trained. I am sure all the cats at the new "Big Cat Falls" they built in my city's zoo would really prefer that to living in the wild. Come on now, they are tigers not fucking cocker spaniels.
-
Which animal is happier?
The one who lives at the zoo, is given 4 animals to play with, is fed well on a regular basis, has great health care, and never worries about anything?
Or the animal who lives in the wild, wandering across the continent seeing the world. They miss meals, they risk being killed on a daily basis. But they are free.
Which animal is happier? Which would you rather be?
Is "happiness" an emotion that is exclusively human or do animals experience happiness and sadness?
-
Why should there be? Most of the animals in zoo's are there for the entertainment of people. Elephants were never meant to be trained. I am sure all the cats at the new "Big Cat Falls" they built in my city's zoo would really prefer that to living in the wild. Come on now, they are tigers not fucking cocker spaniels.
Lets see.... The mission of zoos has changed from "display" of the 1930s to a much broader one. Most of the larger zoos (AZA or ZAOA accredited ---not some roadside shithole as an example) in North America have the goal of education---create an awareness of the world and the animals the live in that world. Its that awareness that will hopefully lead to people making a conscious decision to take care of the world around them. The second mission is research---to better understand wild populations by keeping detailed records on captive ones. There has been tremendous amounts of information about animals that have come from zoos---from understanding progesterone cycles in elephants to dietary choices of chimpanzees. This all applies to wild populations. The third mission is conservation. This comes from the first two. Its an unfortunate trait of human nature that they don't give a shit about things that aren't right under their nose. And its that trait that leads to the "display" aspect of zoos. Some of the best information and understanding comes from the "nonpublic" areas of most zoos. Unfortunately, in order to have those, there has to be "public" areas also.
-
Is "happiness" an emotion that is exclusively human or do animals experience happiness and sadness?
I personally think animals are capable of feeling that emotion--think of a dog chewing their bone or a tiger at a zoo chasing down and eating a mallard duck that got into its enclosure (I witnessed this at a zoo this spring) or an Asian rhino rolling in a mudhole or a warthog digging for tubers. The problem with it is how humans interpret it. Humans, in their own self appointed, self serving egotism tend to forgo every aspect of the animal they are looking at and anthropomorphising it based on their own personal thoughts and perceptions---humans don't like to forage for their food, animals shouldn't. Humans don't like to be caged, animals shouldn't. Humans don't like competition for reproduction, animals shouldn't. Those types of thoughts are all a HUGE mistake in my opinion.
-
Lets see.... The mission of zoos has changed from "display" of the 1930s to a much broader one. Most of the larger zoos (AZA or ZOAA accredidated---not some roadside shithole as an example) in North America have the goal of education---create an awareness of the world and the animals the live in that world. Its that awareness that will hopefully lead to people making a conscious decision to take care of the world around them. The second mission is research---to better understand wild populations by keeping detailed records on captive ones. There has been tremendous amounts of information about animals that have come from zoos---from understanding progesterone cycles in elephants to dietary choices of chimpanzees. This all applies to wild populations. The third mission is conservation. This comes from the first two. Its an unfortunate trait of human nature that they don't give a shit about things that aren't right under their nose. And its that trait that leads to the "display" aspect of zoos. Some of the best information and understanding comes from the "nonpublic" areas of most zoos. Unfortunately, in order to have those, there has to be "public" areas also.
Sanctuaries are one thing, the Philadelphia Zoo is another.
-
I personally think animals are capable of feeling that emotion--think of a dog chewing their bone or a tiger at a zoo chasing down and eating a mallard duck that got into its enclosure (I witnessed this at a zoo this spring) or an Asian rhino rolling in a mudhole or a warthog digging for tubers. The problem with it is how humans interpret it. Humans, in their own self appointed, self serving egotism tend to forgo every aspect of the animal they are looking at and anthropomorphising it based on their own personal thoughts and perceptions---humans don't like to forage for their food, animals shouldn't. Humans don't like to be caged, animals shouldn't. Humans don't like competition for reproduction, animals shouldn't. Those types of thoughts are all a HUGE mistake in my opinion.
I am not one of those humans. If you've ever read a post of mine regarding dog behavior it is extremely clear that I know dogs need to be treated like dogs and not humans. But yes, this is the problem with 80-95% of dog owners, and peoples view in general towards any animals. There is no nurture in the animal world, it is a human behavior that we cannot seem to let go when it comes to our pets.
-
Sanctuaries are one thing, the Philadelphia Zoo is another.
You know, this push for "sanctuaries" really pisses me off. The people who are pushing them are by and large self serving and following an ideal that they've done very little research on. I know for a fact that there are some sanctuaries that are doing a very good job--they animals are well fed, well cared for including veterinary care, husbandry, and enrichment, and have the "room" that the sanctuary promises. There are others that I think need to be severely questioned. They have very little if any veterinary care, the animals are not monitored in any way---meaning they may go for days without care, and are basically hiding behind the term "sanctuary" to serve a holier than thou attitude. A sanctuary isn't that much different than a zoo if you break things down to basic terms. The difference is a sanctuary can hide and not reveal what they do, while many zoo's in the US as a result of FOIA, have to make all records public. The sanctuary nuts love to abuse this fact, yet get by doing whatever they want because its a "private" institution---this includes exemptions from animal control laws, exemptions from standards of care and otherthings that most zoos with accreditation HAVE to abide by. That hypocrisy also pisses me off.
I'm not a fan of the old school "cages" at all. Enclosures can be designed with a "natural" layout that allows the animal to move about and interact with its environment without being in the old school "bird cage" type holdings. The Philadelphia Zoo is a good example of a zoo that is in need of and has made an attempt to change with the animals best interest in mind. I know the veterinary staff and some of the keepers there (at least I think they are there, they used to be). They live their lives for those animals. Unfortunately, they are often forgotten.......
-
I dunno. I am not "pushing" for anything, lol. But I know what you mean.
I just overall do not see the purpose of a zoo other than entertainment.
-
I dunno. I am not "pushing" for anything, lol. But I know what you mean.
I just overall do not see the purpose of a zoo other than entertainment.
Which is fine.
I'll be the first to admit I'm biased because of what my job is. I really do think there is a midpoint that facilitates an environment that doesn't "exploit" the animals and still allows people to see them and learn about them.
-
I just overall do not see the purpose of a zoo other than entertainment.
::)
wtf's wrong w entertainment? wtf are you doing on a bb board?
and even if animals don't have a choice in the matter, the animals in most major zoos are better off than they would be in the wild . . . probably getting poisoned, or having their horns hacked off, or starving b/c you like hamburgers.
oh, and the plural of zoo is zoos, not zoo's.
-
Humans don't like to be caged, animals shouldn't.
I don't think ANY living thing likes to be caged.
-
::)
wtf's wrong w entertainment? wtf are you doing on a bb board?
and even if animals don't have a choice in the matter, the animals in most major zoos are better off than they would be in the wild . . . probably getting poisoned, or having their horns hacked off, or starving b/c you like hamburgers.
oh, and the plural of zoo is zoos, not zoo's.
Oh yeah, taking animals away from the way nature intended them to be and putting them in cages while hundreds of people gawk at them and bang on the glass and take pictures is a good way to live. Not to mention animals such as gorillas being in a cage or a large square room.
Animals SURELY are better off in "zoos". Smart.
This all goes back to what Vet said, which is so true, about us humanizing animals. Humans are born to live in a family structure and live in houses. Wild animals from halfway across the world are not born intended to be born into the zoo. They are intended to live where they are even if it means "probably getting poisoned, or having their horns hacked off" and they are fine with this. This is life to them, posting on getbig is life to us.
They do not choose to go into the zoo, they are forced. It is diff if the animal is endangered and they are breeding it, so therefore there is a purpose behind it. But caging a fucking brown bear and charging 15 bucks to enter the zoo is not in any way necessary.
I am sure POLAR BEARS are really fucking happy about living in 100 degree weather with a pool next to them, while they lay and get seared by the sun. Are you kidding me?
-
Oh yeah, taking animals away from the way nature intended them to be and putting them in cages while hundreds of people gawk at them and bang on the glass and take pictures is a good way to live. Not to mention animals such as gorillas being in a cage or a large square room.
Animals SURELY are better off in "zoos". Smart.
This all goes back to what Vet said, which is so true, about us humanizing animals. Humans are born to live in a family structure and live in houses. Wild animals from halfway across the world are not born intended to be born into the zoo. They are intended to live where they are even if it means "probably getting poisoned, or having their horns hacked off" and they are fine with this. This is life to them, posting on getbig is life to us.
They do not choose to go into the zoo, they are forced. It is diff if the animal is endangered and they are breeding it, so therefore there is a purpose behind it. But caging a fucking brown bear and charging 15 bucks to enter the zoo is not in any way necessary.
I am sure POLAR BEARS are really fucking happy about living in 100 degree weather with a pool next to them, while they lay and get seared by the sun. Are you kidding me?
One thing that is often forgotten is that in Europe and North America with some species we are talking generations in captivity. Sure, they are still a wild animal, but come 5 pm they expect the door to their indoor area to open and there to be a food bowl there. They don't run from predators because there isn't a predator in their display. As a matter of fact, I doubt it seriously if they could run because they don't have to so they dont'. This is one of the reasons I always try to go to a zoo towards the end of the day--the animals are expecting to get inside so you get to see them much better. Show up at 1 pm on a hot day and they will be bedded down, you aren't going to see crap. Show up at 4 pm and you stand a real good chance of seeing most of the animals. This behavior is a product of captivity--and I wholeheartedly think that some of the animals---the brown bear example you used is a good one---i can think of several who I think really couldn't survive in the wild if you turned them lose. I've worked with some "reintroduction" programs with various species, and believe me, they are much, much harder than they appear to be. This presents a problem of responsibility to the animal. And its real easy to say "don't breed them" but contraception in wild populations is not without risk and potential danger to the animal. You can't just castrate everything.
I personally would much much rather see a tiger or a zebra or a lion or a lynx or a bear in an accredited zoo in a naturalistic display than in someones back yard. I've worked with too many of those disasters and am really glad I don't have to do that anymore.
-
One thing that is often forgotten is that in Europe and North America with some species we are talking generations in captivity. Sure, they are still a wild animal, but come 5 pm they expect the door to their indoor area to open and there to be a food bowl there. They don't run from predators because there isn't a predator in their display. As a matter of fact, I doubt it seriously if they could run because they don't have to so they dont'. This is one of the reasons I always try to go to a zoo towards the end of the day--the animals are expecting to get inside so you get to see them much better. Show up at 1 pm on a hot day and they will be bedded down, you aren't going to see crap. Show up at 4 pm and you stand a real good chance of seeing most of the animals. This behavior is a product of captivity--and I wholeheartedly think that some of the animals---the brown bear example you used is a good one---i can think of several who I think really couldn't survive in the wild if you turned them lose. I've worked with some "reintroduction" programs with various species, and believe me, they are much, much harder than they appear to be. This presents a problem of responsibility to the animal. And its real easy to say "don't breed them" but contraception in wild populations is not without risk and potential danger to the animal. You can't just castrate everything.
I personally would much much rather see a tiger or a zebra or a lion or a lynx or a bear in an accredited zoo in a naturalistic display than in someones back yard. I've worked with too many of those disasters and am really glad I don't have to do that anymore.
Anything raised in captivity can't survive in the wild more than likely, this is not abnormal. No one is arguing this.
They are wild animals for a reason, because that is where nature intended them to be. They are not dogs. I once again say that there is no need for any tiger/bear/lion to be raised in a zoo, and most of them that are were born there and raised in captivity. Wild animals are not supposed to be born in zoos they are supposed to be born in their natural habitat.
No polar bear should have to live in my city's zoo when I can go there in July and they are out in the crazy hot sun.
The cheetah's are in a MAYBE 100yards x 100 yards enclosure. Cheetah's. Are you serious? That is absurd.
They are there for entertainment. They wouldn't charge admission if they weren't. No one is saving these animals and putting them in the Philadelphia Zoo because they are doing them a favor. They are doing it for money. Zoo's are not needed. These animals aren't asking to be "Saved".
-
Anything raised in captivity can't survive in the wild more than likely, this is not abnormal. No one is arguing this.
They are wild animals for a reason, because that is where nature intended them to be. They are not dogs. I once again say that there is no need for any tiger/bear/lion to be raised in a zoo, and most of them that are were born there and raised in captivity. Wild animals are not supposed to be born in zoos they are supposed to be born in their natural habitat.
No polar bear should have to live in my city's zoo when I can go there in July and they are out in the crazy hot sun.
The cheetah's are in a MAYBE 100yards x 100 yards enclosure. Cheetah's. Are you serious? That is absurd.
They are there for entertainment. They wouldn't charge admission if they weren't. No one is saving these animals and putting them in the Philadelphia Zoo because they are doing them a favor. They are doing it for money. Zoo's are not needed. These animals aren't asking to be "Saved".
shut it. who made you the authority on what animals are "asking" for, ms/mr dog whisperer?
-
shut it. who made you the authority on what animals are "asking" for, ms/mr dog whisperer?
Al-Gebra busting out the intelligent posts. O snap.
-
shut it. who made you the authority on what animals are "asking" for, ms/mr dog whisperer?
LOL. He's putting some serious human emotions on them isn't he? ;D
One thing that isn't mentioned often is the off display areas. I know of a couple of zoos with significantly larger off display areas than the on display--the Columbus Zoo is a great example when they had breeding cheetahs, they had an on display area that was relatively small and very large, football sized fields off display in a secluded part of the zoo. The reason is people would bitch about not being able to see the animals if the display is too large.
100 yards by 100 yards isn't necessarily bad for 1 to two captive born cheetahs. Thats equal to a reasonable sprint distance for those cats to catch prey. Its not like they run 2 miles to catch prey. Its a hard sprint over relatively short distance---if I remember right, their top speeds were measured at a sustained maximum of no more than 500 yards and much of their prey is caught at much much shorter distances of 40-120 feet. 100 yards is a relatively big area considering that. The problem is the average person who "hates" zoos doesn't know those facts or they choose to ignore them based on their own agenda (nothing against you Temper, I'm making a general statement).
-
LOL. He's putting some serious human emotions on them isn't he? ;D
One thing that isn't mentioned often is the off display areas. I know of a couple of zoos with significantly larger off display areas than the on display--the Columbus Zoo is a great example when they had breeding cheetahs, they had an on display area that was relatively small and very large, football sized fields off display in a secluded part of the zoo. The reason is people would bitch about not being able to see the animals if the display is too large.
100 yards by 100 yards isn't necessarily bad for 1 to two captive born cheetahs. Thats equal to a reasonable sprint distance for those cats to catch prey. Its not like they run 2 miles to catch prey. Its a hard sprint over relatively short distance---if I remember right, their top speeds were measured at a sustained maximum of no more than 500 yards and much of their prey is caught at much much shorter distances of 40-120 feet. 100 yards is a relatively big area considering that. The problem is the average person who "hates" zoos doesn't know those facts or they choose to ignore them based on their own agenda (nothing against you Temper, I'm making a general statement).
Haha, yes he is.
But the thing that's even more annoying is the attitude that animals can be left alone. I hope it's not a popular one. It's too late to leave them alone now, after we've "interfered" tons of them to the brink of extinction or beyond. The bottom line is if we don't actively work to conserve in multiple ways (including zoos), we're going to be the losers. The time for a "hands off" approach has long passed.
If conservationists (including zoos) stop doing what they do, it's not like the people who interfere w habitat/animals are going to stop.
-
LOL. He's putting some serious human emotions on them isn't he? ;D
One thing that isn't mentioned often is the off display areas. I know of a couple of zoos with significantly larger off display areas than the on display--the Columbus Zoo is a great example when they had breeding cheetahs, they had an on display area that was relatively small and very large, football sized fields off display in a secluded part of the zoo. The reason is people would bitch about not being able to see the animals if the display is too large.
100 yards by 100 yards isn't necessarily bad for 1 to two captive born cheetahs. Thats equal to a reasonable sprint distance for those cats to catch prey. Its not like they run 2 miles to catch prey. Its a hard sprint over relatively short distance---if I remember right, their top speeds were measured at a sustained maximum of no more than 500 yards and much of their prey is caught at much much shorter distances of 40-120 feet. 100 yards is a relatively big area considering that. The problem is the average person who "hates" zoos doesn't know those facts or they choose to ignore them based on their own agenda (nothing against you Temper, I'm making a general statement).
I don't see how I am putting human emotions on anything. Putting human emotions on animals is bringing them into zoos. If people didn't care about animal's in the case of some zoos having that is their purpose, then there WOULDN'T be zoos. Lmao. If Joe Vet didn't care about the fact that they just found an orphaned tiger cub and it will die unless they take it in, that would be nature running its course. Bringing it into a zoo is HUMAN EMOTION. Don't you get what I am saying? They don't make the decision, we do.
Since I am so off my rocker Vet, explain to me how having a polar bear in an outdoor enclosure in a city that reaches temps of 95 degrees + for weeks on end, is smart/humane?
-
Haha, yes he is.
But the thing that's even more annoying is the attitude that animals can be left alone. I hope it's not a popular one. It's too late to leave them alone now, after we've "interfered" tons of them to the brink of extinction or beyond. The bottom line is if we don't actively work to conserve in multiple ways (including zoos), we're going to be the losers. The time for a "hands off" approach has long passed.
If conservationists (including zoos) stop doing what they do, it's not like the people who interfere w habitat/animals are going to stop.
Yes, I agree with that. Mankind, by its very nature will fuck up nature. We've got 2000+ years of history of fucking up nature, and as many years of keeping "wild" animals in captivity. The problem is the definition of "wild". Is it one that is born in captivity? Is it one that's live since it was a juvenile in captivity? Is it only "domestic" pets---remember, EVERY domestic animal has "wild" roots. There is a big argument in the zoo community now days with certian species, like chimpanzees as an example. Some people think that the animals should be animals---they should have their social structure and work out their issues amongst themselves with the only human intervention being in absolute extreme emergencies. For those of you who don't know, chimps can be a brutal, brutal species. I've seen them literally rip a male from limb to limb. They can be extremely violent with each other. That said, they also can be very loving family units. The adults still slap the shit out of the offspring, but they interact in an obvious caring family unit. Others think that operant condition (capturing of behaviors) should be done with all chimps so that medical care can be provided. The thing is to "capture" a behavior by using operant conditioning, you inherently change the behavior of the animal because you introduce a "rewards" system. The simple fact is that in the wild, chimpanzees are severely threatened as a result of bushmeat, human disease, habitat destruction, and loggging/mining. There is also the fact that there are more captive chimpanzees in North America than in Africa in the wild. Its something that is really, really open for debate.
-
Yes, I agree with that. Mankind, by its very nature will fuck up nature. We've got 2000+ years of history of fucking up nature, and as many years of keeping "wild" animals in captivity. The problem is the definition of "wild". Is it one that is born in captivity? Is it one that's live since it was a juvenile in captivity? Is it only "domestic" pets---remember, EVERY domestic animal has "wild" roots. There is a big argument in the zoo community now days with certian species, like chimpanzees as an example. Some people think that the animals should be animals---they should have their social structure and work out their issues amongst themselves with the only human intervention being in absolute extreme emergencies. For those of you who don't know, chimps can be a brutal, brutal species. I've seen them literally rip a male from limb to limb. They can be extremely violent with each other. That said, they also can be very loving family units. The adults still slap the shit out of the offspring, but they interact in an obvious caring family unit. Others think that operant condition (capturing of behaviors) should be done with all chimps so that medical care can be provided. The thing is to "capture" a behavior by using operant conditioning, you inherently change the behavior of the animal because you introduce a "rewards" system. The simple fact is that in the wild, chimpanzees are severely threatened as a result of bushmeat, human disease, habitat destruction, and loggging/mining. There is also the fact that there are more captive chimpanzees in North America than in Africa in the wild. Its something that is really, really open for debate.
It is absolutely up for debate, and certain things like you described with the chimpanzee's are what I mean by I do not see any possible reason for putting polar bears in a zoo. It is clearly not their natural habitat and it would be near impossible to replicate their natural setting. I think that, based on climate issues alone, is inhumane in my eyes. I know they are dying cause of global warming and yada yada yada, but...I want to go to the zoo and take a pic of what I am talking about so you can see. In fact I do have pics of the last time I was there.
I hate to play cause and effect but we would not be having this discussion if human emotion did not interfere in those situations like you described with the chimps. We cannot directly communicate with animals the way they can communicate with each other, and yes, unless it is an extreme circumstance, they should be given the privilege of living their life and doing things as close to normal as they would, as if they were in their natural habitat.
-
I don't see how I am putting human emotions on anything. Putting human emotions on animals is bringing them into zoos. If people didn't care about animal's in the case of some zoos having that is their purpose, then there WOULDN'T be zoos. Lmao. If Joe Vet didn't care about the fact that they just found an orphaned tiger cub and it will die unless they take it in, that would be nature running its course. Bringing it into a zoo is HUMAN EMOTION. Don't you get what I am saying? They don't make the decision, we do.
Since I am so off my rocker Vet, explain to me how having a polar bear in an outdoor enclosure in a city that reaches temps of 95 degrees + for weeks on end, is smart/humane?
Joe Vet? LOL.
I never said you were off your rocker. I'm discussing your opinions with you because I'm curious where you are coming from.
As far as the polar bear goes.... I will be the first to say that there are zoos keeping animals in inappropriate climates. A good example are elephants in northern zoos where they have to be inside on concrete through months of the year because of harsh weather. Polar bears are another example....to a point.
You need to consider adaptability of the species. I've got photos and video somewhere of cockatoos from an aviary I worked with in Ohio playing in the snow. The birds were given free access to the outside, they would go out and play and play and play and when they got chilled, go back in through their access hole into the warm inside and warm up. Then they'd go back out and play. Umbrella cockatoos are NOT a cold weather avian species, yet they did this year after year without problems.
The thing you need to consider with your bear example---which by the way, polar bears were NOT a hot topic at all until the whole global warming bandwagon started, the morning news reported over and over again that the species would be extinct, and the animal rights nuts went apeshit at the baby in Europe. I gaurantee you that the majority of the people who go to zoos wouldn't have made even the slightest polar bear argument without this media coverage. Think about it, Brown Bears share an overlapping habitat (northern most range of Brown, southern most of Polar----average temperatures very, very similar) No one says anything about those bears.
Now with the bear example you need to consider is the water moving and is it chilled? Is there access to an indoor chilled area? Are the bears times limited outside in that "extreme' (for a human) heat? Is the bear showing signs of heat stress? How is the zoo dealing with that heat stress? Is it effective? Those questions all need to be answered in my opinion before you can make the blanket statement that "polar bears shouldn't be in that climate".
Now, if the answer is the exhibit has mimimal water access, that isn't chilled, the sun shines down on it 2/3 of the day, and the bear shows signs of heat stress anytime the weather gets over 90F, the keepers hose the bear off without any cooling fans or ice misters to facilitate evaporative cooling, then yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that that zoo shouldn't have polar bears.
Does that make sense? Basically I'm saying human nature is to change the environemnt. We've already done a great job of fucking things up. Its our responsibility to deal with those fuckups.
-
It is absolutely up for debate, and certain things like you described with the chimpanzee's are what I mean by I do not see any possible reason for putting polar bears in a zoo. It is clearly not their natural habitat and it would be near impossible to replicate their natural setting. I think that, based on climate issues alone, is inhumane in my eyes. I know they are dying cause of global warming and yada yada yada, but...I want to go to the zoo and take a pic of what I am talking about so you can see. In fact I do have pics of the last time I was there.
I hate to play cause and effect but we would not be having this discussion if human emotion did not interfere in those situations like you described with the chimps. We cannot directly communicate with animals the way they can communicate with each other, and yes, unless it is an extreme circumstance, they should be given the privilege of living their life and doing things as close to normal as they would, as if they were in their natural habitat.
The problem with your logic is humans. Saying the animals should be able to live their lives undisturbed means that humans shouldn't be fucking up the animals planet. if you can get humans to quit doing that, then lead the way. I'll follow more than willingly.
-
The problem with your logic is humans. Saying the animals should be able to live their lives undisturbed means that humans shouldn't be fucking up the animals planet. if you can get humans to quit doing that, then lead the way. I'll follow more than willingly.
I know what you mean. I am doing a mid term paper at the moment, when I finish I'll post the pictures I have of the polar bears, and the cheetah enclosure at my zoo. I know you prolly don't give a shit but youll see what I mean.
-
I know what you mean. I am doing a mid term paper at the moment, when I finish I'll post the pictures I have of the polar bears, and the cheetah enclosure at my zoo. I know you prolly don't give a shit but youll see what I mean.
Nah, post them or PM them to me. Whichever you prefer. Its been a long, long time since I was at that zoo. My memory of things is fuzzy.
Also, consider the questions I posted about the bear exhibit. You need to consider those type of things with all zoo exhibits.
-
Here are the polar bear pics. This was not this past summer, but the summer before that. It was prolly low 90's that day cause I remember being hot as shit
-
Some more pics, two cool pics of a tiger from Big Cat Falls which apparently they import the trees/wood/foliage and all from the tigers natural habitat. It is kind of well done though not as big as I expected, at all. Another pic of where they had the elephants, that are no longer at the zoo. They have no elephants now to my knowledge. And a pic of a gorilla, sitting on steps and holding onto a cargo net. Ya know, like the steps/cargo net that you'd see in a natural setting =P
-
Another decent shot of the tiger enclosure at Big Cat Falls
-
If it wasn't for zoos keeping animals in captivity, I would never have had the opportunity to see a gibbon jerk off IRL.
-
If it wasn't for zoos keeping animals in captivity, I would never have had the opportunity to see a gibbon jerk off IRL.
I've seen turtles bang.
-
Which animal is happier?
The one who lives at the zoo, is given 4 animals to play with, is fed well on a regular basis, has great health care, and never worries about anything?
Or the animal who lives in the wild, wandering across the continent seeing the world. They miss meals, they risk being killed on a daily basis. But they are free.
Which animal is happier? Which would you rather be?
Animals don't look at 'happiness' like we do
otherwise they would be watching tv...drinking beer....& smoking cigarettes
-
Here are the polar bear pics. This was not this past summer, but the summer before that. It was prolly low 90's that day cause I remember being hot as shit
Ok, well.....
To consider those pictures and the bear, you have to consider what I posted earlier. The fact that YOU felt hot as shit doesn't mean anything in relation to that bear. I see a bear in those pictures that is not showing ANY signs of heat stress--now obviously, you'd need live video to be certian, but based on the snapshot you've provided, there isn't much evidence to support your idea of the bear not being able to tolerate a day that YOU thought was hot as shit. There is no panting, no foaming of the mouth, its lounging comfortably infront of readily available clean water---had that bear been too hot you would have seen it clearly panting to cool itself. That panting would have led to foaming of the mouth. As a marine mammal (which polar bears are frequently classified as because of their interaction with water), it would have gotten into the water to try to cool off. You absolutely have to consider the adaptabilty of the species before making statements like what I think you are thinking. Does that make sense? Just because you felt hot doesn't mean the animal did. As a matter of fact by posting what you have, you have done exactly what you said you didn't do. You were uncomfortable, the animal obviously had to be too. You have to objectively look at the animal. Does that make sense?
Polar bears aren't going to potentially go extinct because of the ice melting and their not being able to keep cool. They are going to go extinct because they aren't going to be able to get food. The ice melting destroys their hunting grounds and they are going to starve.
Moose are a real good example of an artic species that cannot adapt--and probably a better example of what you are trying to say than a Polar Bear (although Polar Bears are a media favorite right now). I know of a southern US zoo that has been trying to get moose for several months. This zoo has elk, white tailed deer, big horned sheep and bison on a relatively large "North American hoofstock exhibit". A large moose bull would really complete the exhibit as an example of native species in a part of the country where people don't encounter those animals. Unfortunately moose in their winter coats will heat stroke with temperatures above 55-60F. If it gets to 65, they will be dead. This has been proven. Its not uncommon to have winter temperatures in the 70's at that particular zoo and at the same time have cold spells wtih lows in the teens. The question is will the moose develop a winter coat or stay in a summer coat with the cooler temperatures. The zoo has chosen NOT to get moose because of the risk of the temperatures been too extreme for the animals ability to cope---especially temperatures like the 100+ for two weeks straight and 90's for over 2 months this last summer. That, to me is a responsible decision with the animals best interest at heart. An irresponsible zoo with the desire to just exploit the animals would get a moose anyway and worry about cooling it later.
-
Some more pics, two cool pics of a tiger from Big Cat Falls which apparently they import the trees/wood/foliage and all from the tigers natural habitat. It is kind of well done though not as big as I expected, at all. Another pic of where they had the elephants, that are no longer at the zoo. They have no elephants now to my knowledge. And a pic of a gorilla, sitting on steps and holding onto a cargo net. Ya know, like the steps/cargo net that you'd see in a natural setting =P
The gorilla exhibit is the kind I really don't like. Just like you said, that cargo net isn't "natural". But more so, the environment has little to no stimulation for the animal. A bare wall and cargo net doesn't challenge the animals brain, which leads to stereotypical behaviors and other problems. If that room is one of many where the gorilla can move between and interact with other gorillas, its very different than the bare room the picture shows. Not only that a cargonet like that is not necessarily an appropriate climbing surface for a 200+ lb gorilla. You can simulate trees indoors---St. Louis is a reasonable example of that, even though their great ape house has been around for a while now. Its not empty walls.
-
Animals don't look at 'happiness' like we do
otherwise they would be watching tv...drinking beer....& smoking cigarettes
Yup. Do they have that emotion? Yes I think they do. But happiness for a zebra is eating fresh grass---humans (well most non granola humans) don't eat grass. Happiness for an elephant is wallowing in a mud hole and throwing dirt on their back. Humans make fun of other humans that do the same thing. Humans want to put human emotions on animals. Its sometimes very hard not to do that, but it has to be considered.
-
Yup. Do they have that emotion? Yes I think they do. But happiness for a zebra is eating fresh grass---humans (well most non granola humans) don't eat grass. Happiness for an elephant is wallowing in a mud hole and throwing dirt on their back. Humans make fun of other humans that do the same thing. Humans want to put human emotions on animals. Its sometimes very hard not to do that, but it has to be considered.
Male Dogs like humping....
Human males like humping....
where was I going with this?
-
Ok, well.....
To consider those pictures and the bear, you have to consider what I posted earlier. The fact that YOU felt hot as shit doesn't mean anything in relation to that bear. I see a bear in those pictures that is not showing ANY signs of heat stress--now obviously, you'd need live video to be certian, but based on the snapshot you've provided, there isn't much evidence to support your idea of the bear not being able to tolerate a day that YOU thought was hot as shit. There is no panting, no foaming of the mouth, its lounging comfortably infront of readily available clean water---had that bear been too hot you would have seen it clearly panting to cool itself. That panting would have led to foaming of the mouth. As a marine mammal (which polar bears are frequently classified as because of their interaction with water), it would have gotten into the water to try to cool off. You absolutely have to consider the adaptabilty of the species before making statements like what I think you are thinking. Does that make sense? Just because you felt hot doesn't mean the animal did. As a matter of fact by posting what you have, you have done exactly what you said you didn't do. You were uncomfortable, the animal obviously had to be too. You have to objectively look at the animal. Does that make sense?
Polar bears aren't going to potentially go extinct because of the ice melting and their not being able to keep cool. They are going to go extinct because they aren't going to be able to get food. The ice melting destroys their hunting grounds and they are going to starve.
Moose are a real good example of an artic species that cannot adapt--and probably a better example of what you are trying to say than a Polar Bear (although Polar Bears are a media favorite right now). I know of a southern US zoo that has been trying to get moose for several months. This zoo has elk, white tailed deer, big horned sheep and bison on a relatively large "North American hoofstock exhibit". A large moose bull would really complete the exhibit as an example of native species in a part of the country where people don't encounter those animals. Unfortunately moose in their winter coats will heat stroke with temperatures above 55-60F. If it gets to 65, they will be dead. This has been proven. Its not uncommon to have winter temperatures in the 70's at that particular zoo and at the same time have cold spells wtih lows in the teens. The question is will the moose develop a winter coat or stay in a summer coat with the cooler temperatures. The zoo has chosen NOT to get moose because of the risk of the temperatures been too extreme for the animals ability to cope---especially temperatures like the 100+ for two weeks straight and 90's for over 2 months this last summer. That, to me is a responsible decision with the animals best interest at heart. An irresponsible zoo with the desire to just exploit the animals would get a moose anyway and worry about cooling it later.
I don't remember foaming, but it was panting. Supposedly when we walked away it jumped in the water but when we came back 30min or so, it was just standing there again. Because you know everyone waits until they jump in the water, and we did too, for a while then got bored.
I am no vet, but it just "looked" uncomfortable. Just because it could survive in a climate like Philadelphia doesn't mean it should be here.
As far as the elephants go, for whatever reason they were listed as 1000-2000lbs less than what the same type of elephant would be in their natural habitat. As I said they eventually took the elephants out of the zoo.
-
I don't remember foaming, but it was panting. Supposedly when we walked away it jumped in the water but when we came back 30min or so, it was just standing there again. Because you know everyone waits until they jump in the water, and we did too, for a while then got bored.
I am no vet, but it just "looked" uncomfortable. Just because it could survive in a climate like Philadelphia doesn't mean it should be here.
That is your opinion.
As far as the elephants go, for whatever reason they were listed as 1000-2000lbs less than what the same type of elephant would be in their natural habitat. As I said they eventually took the elephants out of the zoo.
What reference are you using for the "natural habitat weight"? The reason I'm asking is that weights by itself don't tell much in most species in zoos. Many zoos have problems with obesity (just like most domestic cats and dogs are too fat) and those that don't seem to get almost never ending flack about starving their animals from uninformed, un educated, and way over opinionated people who love the animals they are bitching about (I'm being sarcastic). I've worked with African elephants that weighed only 6800 lbs and with others that weighed over 13000 lbs. Thats nearly a 100% difference in weights, but the elephants I'm thinking of were without a doubt not too thin or too fat. That variation depends on age, sex, and species. You have to look at body condition, not the absolute weight.
I guess really the thing I wish people would do is think when they go to a zoo. If its thinking about conservation, thats great. if its thinking about the animals and what they saw them do, thats great. If its thinking about what they think the zoo is doing wrong---thats also great as long as they present those thoughts in a constructive manner that allows for improvement. The reason I want that is when people think, they learn. And after having lived in New York City, I don't think the average person works hard enough trying to learn about the world around them and their interactions with that world. Its that simple.
-
That is your opinion.
What reference are you using for the "natural habitat weight"? The reason I'm asking is that weights by itself don't tell much in most species in zoos. Many zoos have problems with obesity (just like most domestic cats and dogs are too fat) and those that don't seem to get almost never ending flack about starving their animals from uninformed, un educated, and way over opinionated people who love the animals they are bitching about (I'm being sarcastic). I've worked with African elephants that weighed only 6800 lbs and with others that weighed over 13000 lbs. Thats nearly a 100% difference in weights, but the elephants I'm thinking of were without a doubt not too thin or too fat. That variation depends on age, sex, and species. You have to look at body condition, not the absolute weight.
I guess really the thing I wish people would do is think when they go to a zoo. If its thinking about conservation, thats great. if its thinking about the animals and what they saw them do, thats great. If its thinking about what they think the zoo is doing wrong---thats also great as long as they present those thoughts in a constructive manner that allows for improvement. The reason I want that is when people think, they learn. And after having lived in New York City, I don't think the average person works hard enough trying to learn about the world around them and their interactions with that world. Its that simple.
The elephants were listed on a sign as 4000lbs, and on the same sign it said that in the wild they are 6000+.
As far as my "opinion" on the polar bears. Didn't you talk on another thread about how keeping a gator in a tank that was too small to restrict its growth was cruel and ridiculous?
"Which is pure bullshit. What will happen is you'll have an animal with severe metabolic bone disease and other health issues. I've seen too many reptiles with serious health problems because of that approach. It doesn't work and give you a healthy reptile. If you can't house it as an adult, then you shouldn't have it. Its that simple. "
How is this any different from taking a polar bear and putting it in a city that is absolutely nothing close to its natural climate, just because it can "get by"?
-
The elephants were listed on a sign as 4000lbs, and on the same sign it said that in the wild they are 6000+.
As far as my "opinion" on the polar bears. Didn't you talk on another thread about how keeping a gator in a tank that was too small to restrict its growth was cruel and ridiculous?
"Which is pure bullshit. What will happen is you'll have an animal with severe metabolic bone disease and other health issues. I've seen too many reptiles with serious health problems because of that approach. It doesn't work and give you a healthy reptile. If you can't house it as an adult, then you shouldn't have it. Its that simple. "
How is this any different from taking a polar bear and putting it in a city that is absolutely nothing close to its natural climate, just because it can "get by"?
If I remember correctly I was referring to severely limiting a reptiles diet to prevent it from growing so that it wouldn't need a larger enclosure or cage. Don't warp what I posted. There is a big difference between starving an animal and keeping it in a climate that is warm for a few days out of a few months of the year IF you provide a means for the animal to not heat stress. Considering Philly, the summers can get warm (I've been in Philly on 90F days), but the average temperature throughout the year is 54F and even in the warm months, the average is 76F. Thats not the extremes of heat you are trying to make it seem. (heres a reasonable reference if you want to look at it: http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia (http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia). If anything, the majority of the years could possibly be considered "polar bear friendly" ("Cold" temps <50F on average) more than half of the year with 3 months having average lows below freezing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, just becaue you as a human were "hot as hell" doesn't mean its inappropriate for the animals. It really seems to me that you are are taking your discomfort and projecting it on animals you saw because it doesn't fit in your mental idea of an arctic species.
-
If I remember correctly I was referring to severely limiting a reptiles diet to prevent it from growing so that it wouldn't need a larger enclosure or cage. Don't warp what I posted. There is a big difference between starving an animal and keeping it in a climate that is warm for a few days out of a few months of the year IF you provide a means for the animal to not heat stress. Considering Philly, the summers can get warm (I've been in Philly on 90F days), but the average temperature throughout the year is 54F and even in the warm months, the average is 76F. Thats not the extremes of heat you are trying to make it seem. (heres a reasonable reference if you want to look at it: http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia (http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia). If anything, the majority of the years could possibly be considered "polar bear friendly" ("Cold" temps <50F on average) more than half of the year with 3 months having average lows below freezing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, just becaue you as a human were "hot as hell" doesn't mean its inappropriate for the animals. It really seems to me that you are are taking your discomfort and projecting it on animals you saw because it doesn't fit in your mental idea of an arctic species.
Lol, nevermind.
-
If I remember correctly I was referring to severely limiting a reptiles diet to prevent it from growing so that it wouldn't need a larger enclosure or cage. Don't warp what I posted. There is a big difference between starving an animal and keeping it in a climate that is warm for a few days out of a few months of the year IF you provide a means for the animal to not heat stress. Considering Philly, the summers can get warm (I've been in Philly on 90F days), but the average temperature throughout the year is 54F and even in the warm months, the average is 76F. Thats not the extremes of heat you are trying to make it seem. (heres a reasonable reference if you want to look at it: http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia (http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia). If anything, the majority of the years could possibly be considered "polar bear friendly" ("Cold" temps <50F on average) more than half of the year with 3 months having average lows below freezing. I've said it before and I'll say it again, just becaue you as a human were "hot as hell" doesn't mean its inappropriate for the animals. It really seems to me that you are are taking your discomfort and projecting it on animals you saw because it doesn't fit in your mental idea of an arctic species.
Damn
VET-1
Temper :-X
-
Damn
VET-1
Temper :-X
Yes, he owns me. They should move all the polar bears in the world to the San Diego zoo. THE WATER IS COOLED!
-
Damn
VET-1
Temper :-X
Nah. Heres how I see it: temper and I differ on opinion. I will freely admit I have a vested interest in the zoo world because of my job. Temper is opinionated, but not irrational. The two of us have had an open discussion on where our opinions are coming from without it deteriorating into a stupid insult war, like so much shit does on the internet. The thing I want is for people to think about the animals and not just spout random crap based on their opinions or perceptions. Thats the most important thing. If they are thinkign about the animals, then hopefully they are learning. And if they are learning then hopefully they will take steps to not destroy the world around them.
-
Yes, he owns me. They should move all the polar bears in the world to the San Diego zoo. THE WATER IS COOLED!
Dude, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one. See my above post please.
-
Dude, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one. See my above post please.
I am not attacking you.
I relate most animals, and I shouldn't do this because it isn't applicable to dogs. I do not know if those polar bears or suffering or if they are "unhappy", but you can always make a guess. This is how I look at it. A dog can adapt to almost anything. How many dogs do you see chained up in yards that live for 10 years? Alot. Animals also don't complain so they'll deal with whatever you give them. But just because an animal can live outside in someones yard with a heavy chain around its neck for years, and he eats leftover table scrabs and drinks water from a dirty bucket...it doesn't mean that it is right.
All I was saying all along is just because they can survive in a zoo in a city like mine does not mean it is the best possible scenario.
Every animal should have the opportunity to live their life in their natural habitat. We don't take animals from zoos and put them into the wild, it happens the other way around.
-
. . .Every animal should have the opportunity to live their life in their natural habitat. We don't take animals from zoos and put them into the wild, it happens the other way around.
Just wondering, do zoos still capture wild animals and place them in zoos? Or are they from zoo breeding stock? Maybe vet could shine a little light on this.
-
Just wondering, do zoos still capture wild animals and place them in zoos? Or are they from zoo breeding stock? Maybe vet could shine a little light on this.
It really depends on the species.... some are, some are rereleased, others arent. A couple of examples---African Elephants--the push now is to only remove those from the wild that would serve for breeding stock to maintain a captive population. For example, a young bull would be taken from the wild in an area like Kruger, where there is an overpopulation of wild elephants and the bull stands a chance of eventually needing to be culled or becoming a nusance animal. From there it would breed with captive bred females thereby keeping their genetic lines "fresh" and preventing inbreeding.
A second example: sumatran rhinos---there was a male rereleased for breeding purposes from the Cincinati Zoo not too long ago. This is a critically endangered animal, so all genes are considered "valuable" to the species. heres a couple of links with what Cincinnati is doing:
http://cincinnatizoo.org/Conservation/GlobalConservation/SumatranRhino/BirthAnnouncement/announcement.html (http://cincinnatizoo.org/Conservation/GlobalConservation/SumatranRhino/BirthAnnouncement/announcement.html)
http://www.cincyzoo.org/visitorguide/pressroom/CurrentReleases/AndalasArrives.pdf (http://www.cincyzoo.org/visitorguide/pressroom/CurrentReleases/AndalasArrives.pdf)
This is really a flagship effort that I think reflects the science and biology research side of zoos that so much of the public overlook.
A final example: there is a certian wild animal park I'm aware of in North America (I can't say the name because I'm not sure what their press release status is) that is in the process of moving several captive bred Asian One-Horned (Indian) rhinos back to India in exchange for 2 or 3 young females. The idea is to rerelease the captive bred animals into the wild and use the younger females for captive breeding to keep the genepool from stagnating . So in this case its a trade of one for the other. This is a species that was on the brink of extinction not too long ago with a wild population of less than 100 animals. Now there are over 2000 world wide. They are still in trouble, but because of conservation efforts, captive breeding, and zoos like White Oak, the Bronx Zoo, The Wilds, Cincinnati, and the San Diego Zoo, captive breeding is being largely successful.
Are animals still taken from the wild? Yes, but typically its much less commen now than it was when I was a kid and rerelease efforts are becoming more common (depending on the species).
-
I want to open a Zoo like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_Zone
-
Yes, he owns me. They should move all the polar bears in the world to the San Diego zoo. THE WATER IS COOLED!
No both of you I wasn't saying either of you got owned or did owning. I was just saying that Vet had some very good points on that one as well did Temper I just felt that Vet had a few better ones. Who really cares about ownings on the internet.. Forget all that childish shit... :o
-
It really depends on the species.... some are, some are rereleased, others arent. A couple of examples---African Elephants--the push now is to only remove those from the wild that would serve for breeding stock to maintain a captive population. For example, a young bull would be taken from the wild in an area like Kruger, where there is an overpopulation of wild elephants and the bull stands a chance of eventually needing to be culled or becoming a nusance animal. From there it would breed with captive bred females thereby keeping their genetic lines "fresh" and preventing inbreeding.
A second example: sumatran rhinos---there was a male rereleased for breeding purposes from the Cincinati Zoo not too long ago. This is a critically endangered animal, so all genes are considered "valuable" to the species. heres a couple of links with what Cincinnati is doing:
http://cincinnatizoo.org/Conservation/GlobalConservation/SumatranRhino/BirthAnnouncement/announcement.html (http://cincinnatizoo.org/Conservation/GlobalConservation/SumatranRhino/BirthAnnouncement/announcement.html)
http://www.cincyzoo.org/visitorguide/pressroom/CurrentReleases/AndalasArrives.pdf (http://www.cincyzoo.org/visitorguide/pressroom/CurrentReleases/AndalasArrives.pdf)
This is really a flagship effort that I think reflects the science and biology research side of zoos that so much of the public overlook.
A final example: there is a certian wild animal park I'm aware of in North America (I can't say the name because I'm not sure what their press release status is) that is in the process of moving several captive bred Asian One-Horned (Indian) rhinos back to India in exchange for 2 or 3 young females. The idea is to rerelease the captive bred animals into the wild and use the younger females for captive breeding to keep the genepool from stagnating . So in this case its a trade of one for the other. This is a species that was on the brink of extinction not too long ago with a wild population of less than 100 animals. Now there are over 2000 world wide. They are still in trouble, but because of conservation efforts, captive breeding, and zoos like White Oak, the Bronx Zoo, The Wilds, Cincinnati, and the San Diego Zoo, captive breeding is being largely successful.
Are animals still taken from the wild? Yes, but typically its much less commen now than it was when I was a kid and rerelease efforts are becoming more common (depending on the species).
Most animals that are raised in captivity probably couldn't be transferred back to the wild, right? Curious. I know dogs, not rhinos and shit =P
-
It really depends on the species.... some are, some are rereleased, others arent. A couple of examples---African Elephants--the push now is to only remove those from the wild that would serve for breeding stock to maintain a captive population. For example, a young bull would be taken from the wild in an area like Kruger, where there is an overpopulation of wild elephants and the bull stands a chance of eventually needing to be culled or becoming a nusance animal. From there it would breed with captive bred females thereby keeping their genetic lines "fresh" and preventing inbreeding.
A second example: sumatran rhinos---there was a male rereleased for breeding purposes from the Cincinati Zoo not too long ago. This is a critically endangered animal, so all genes are considered "valuable" to the species. heres a couple of links with what Cincinnati is doing:
http://cincinnatizoo.org/Conservation/GlobalConservation/SumatranRhino/BirthAnnouncement/announcement.html (http://cincinnatizoo.org/Conservation/GlobalConservation/SumatranRhino/BirthAnnouncement/announcement.html)
http://www.cincyzoo.org/visitorguide/pressroom/CurrentReleases/AndalasArrives.pdf (http://www.cincyzoo.org/visitorguide/pressroom/CurrentReleases/AndalasArrives.pdf)
This is really a flagship effort that I think reflects the science and biology research side of zoos that so much of the public overlook.
A final example: there is a certian wild animal park I'm aware of in North America (I can't say the name because I'm not sure what their press release status is) that is in the process of moving several captive bred Asian One-Horned (Indian) rhinos back to India in exchange for 2 or 3 young females. The idea is to rerelease the captive bred animals into the wild and use the younger females for captive breeding to keep the genepool from stagnating . So in this case its a trade of one for the other. This is a species that was on the brink of extinction not too long ago with a wild population of less than 100 animals. Now there are over 2000 world wide. They are still in trouble, but because of conservation efforts, captive breeding, and zoos like White Oak, the Bronx Zoo, The Wilds, Cincinnati, and the San Diego Zoo, captive breeding is being largely successful.
Are animals still taken from the wild? Yes, but typically its much less commen now than it was when I was a kid and rerelease efforts are becoming more common (depending on the species).
Thanks Vet. Very interesting information. The genetic diversity of captive bred zoo animals is one of the things I always wondered about. Sort of like inbreeding with dogs and propigating a genetic disorder like blindness or deafness or what have you.
-
Most animals that are raised in captivity probably couldn't be transferred back to the wild, right? Curious. I know dogs, not rhinos and shit =P
Again, it depends on the species.....
Raptors are a great example. If the baby birds are allowed to imprint on humans, they stand a very good chance of not being able to survive in the wild statistically. Steps are taken while raising eggs of these types of birds to prevent imprinting on humans. And even with that said, I know of more than one Harris hawk that was hand raised that has escaped from captivity (one from a raptor education program, two from private falconers) who lived for months in the wild before being recaptured. All of the birds had lost about 10% of their bodyweight (you could argue they were "fat" before they escaped) and were hungry when they were recaptured, but none of them were worse for wear.
I know of several reptiles that have escaped after generations in captivity and lived with no ill effects. One of the best I can think of off the top of my head was a juvenile cream colored California kingsnake (obviously a mutation that was the product of human breeding) that a client of mine in New York City had escape when they let a friend watch it during spring break. This friend lived over a popular resteraunt in that part of the city. The snake was recaptured in October, literally almost twice the size it was when it escaped. We identified the snake based on pictures (all California kingsnakes have a unique color pattern that stays the same throughout their life). It had doubled in weight and was several inches longer. I had a really hard time convincing those owners that their snake had an obvious large food source readily available (ie that resteraunt had a rat/mouse problem ;). They couldn't understand that.
I've successfully released white tailed deer, rabbits, squirrels, coyotes, raccoons, opossums and other animals that I've personally bottlefed and raised from newborn to adulthood through the wildlife center and other places I've worked. There are also "training" programs done for alot of these animals---some of which seem to work very well, others which don't. Basically once the animal is weaned, they are forced to forage for food under supervision. I have seen some animals (raccoons and possums) that seem to become nuisances after being released because they've lost their fear of humans. The bottom line is it really, really depends on the individual animal and the species involved. There are no cut and dry rules that fit all animals across the board.
-
Thanks Vet. Very interesting information. The genetic diversity of captive bred zoo animals is one of the things I always wondered about. Sort of like inbreeding with dogs and propigating a genetic disorder like blindness or deafness or what have you.
Yes, there is an extensive program for preserving genetic diversity in both wild and captive populations. The days of inbreeding are gone. The Species Survival Plan/Taxon Advisory Group/Population Managment Programs (SSP/TAG/PMP) for different species in AZA (and ZAOA) zoos are a good example http://www.aza.org/ConScience/ConScienceSSPFact/ (http://www.aza.org/ConScience/ConScienceSSPFact/). The days of brother-sister breedings are gone in accredited zoos. Those practices are why a large portion of the captive lion population in North America is related to each other. It doesn't happen anymore. The development of the Wildlife Contraceptive Center means that inbreedings can be prevented. Genetic disorders are monitored (Like hip dysplasia in snow leopards) and animals that have a high genetic predisposition for those disorders may be contracepted. Or animals where there is a high risk of brother/sister/mother/father offspring occuring. Accredited zoos that do not follow those recommendations can be severely penalized---to the point of loosing the ability to display SSP species.
The lack of breeding management is a big problem I have with some of the "wildlife sanctuaries" and its something that needs to be considered when evaluating either a zoo or some other place. I don't consider it benificial to the species if a group of them are allowed to randomly inbreed, further limiting their gene pool.
-
It'd be awesome to play with a baby tiger or lion. Seriously, I think that'd be awesome. How could I make that happen Vet, haha.
-
It'd be awesome to play with a baby tiger or lion. Seriously, I think that'd be awesome. How could I make that happen Vet, haha.
Its all in who you know..... ;)
-
Marsupials that stay in the pouch till full grown, where does all the pee and poop go?
-
Marsupials that stay in the pouch till full grown, where does all the pee and poop go?
The mother eats it.
-
Its all in who you know..... ;)
A family member of mine belongs to a very big law firm that represents the zoo here, and donates to it. They have cubs currently, but they aren't open to the public, even to sponsors. My gf always wanted to do that and I think it'd be a cool thing to do too. I will have to look into it!
-
The mother eats it.
She sticks her head in the pouch and cleans it out? blech!! :P