February 17, 2014
Suzy Freeman-Green
...Marius' death (click here) invites questions about the status of zoos. What exactly is their role?
According to Robert Young, a British professor of wildlife conservation, contraception and sterilisation is used in most zoos, but the Danes have a policy against it. Marius was classified as ''surplus offspring'' because his genes were overrepresented in the European giraffe breeding program. Zoos breed animals as a ''safety net'' for endangered species. Genetic diversity allows species to adapt to changes in their environment....
The reason zoos began breeding programs was to prevent any harvest in the wild. The same is witnessed with Sea World and their performers.
I understand how zoos CAN serve the purpose of assisting in THE RETURN of a species, many have successfully conducted programs to increase the numbers of species. But, in order to justify a breeding program within 'member zoos' there needs to be a clear understanding the program is needed in the first place.
Currently, there are two species of giraffe considered endangered. They are listed with the IUCN Red List. However, they are endangered, in many instances, for the same reason people are, they are losing habitat.
While southern populations are increasing in abundance, (click here) northern populations have been decreasing due to habitat degradation and poaching. For example, poaching and armed conflict across the range of the Reticulated Giraffe in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya has reduced numbers to perhaps fewer than 5,000 individuals ( Giraffe Conservation Foundation pers. obs., Fennessy 2007).
Zoos need to apply a breeding program when species are endangered in the wild while at the same time habitat is being restored. Zoos have no right to treat their animal populations without an emotional understanding of the zoos, their populations and how they relate to the public.
Zoos often have residents that live far longer lives than the same individuals in the wild. Often, the aged residents when they die are a real loss to the community that supports and visits the zoo. That is appropriate. An aged animal isn't always a breeding animal. So, what happens then? The aged animal without a fertile purpose is euthanized as well? That would be completely wrong.
Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. peralta
Suzy Freeman-Green
...Marius' death (click here) invites questions about the status of zoos. What exactly is their role?
According to Robert Young, a British professor of wildlife conservation, contraception and sterilisation is used in most zoos, but the Danes have a policy against it. Marius was classified as ''surplus offspring'' because his genes were overrepresented in the European giraffe breeding program. Zoos breed animals as a ''safety net'' for endangered species. Genetic diversity allows species to adapt to changes in their environment....
The reason zoos began breeding programs was to prevent any harvest in the wild. The same is witnessed with Sea World and their performers.
I understand how zoos CAN serve the purpose of assisting in THE RETURN of a species, many have successfully conducted programs to increase the numbers of species. But, in order to justify a breeding program within 'member zoos' there needs to be a clear understanding the program is needed in the first place.
Currently, there are two species of giraffe considered endangered. They are listed with the IUCN Red List. However, they are endangered, in many instances, for the same reason people are, they are losing habitat.
While southern populations are increasing in abundance, (click here) northern populations have been decreasing due to habitat degradation and poaching. For example, poaching and armed conflict across the range of the Reticulated Giraffe in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya has reduced numbers to perhaps fewer than 5,000 individuals ( Giraffe Conservation Foundation pers. obs., Fennessy 2007).
Zoos need to apply a breeding program when species are endangered in the wild while at the same time habitat is being restored. Zoos have no right to treat their animal populations without an emotional understanding of the zoos, their populations and how they relate to the public.
Zoos often have residents that live far longer lives than the same individuals in the wild. Often, the aged residents when they die are a real loss to the community that supports and visits the zoo. That is appropriate. An aged animal isn't always a breeding animal. So, what happens then? The aged animal without a fertile purpose is euthanized as well? That would be completely wrong.
Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. peralta
Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. rothschildi
These are the two endangered species. If zoos are suppose to COLLECT individuals to maintain a breeding program while habitat disappears, then the zoo is nothing more than Noah's Arch afloat without a rudder.
I do not endorse breeding programs of any animal for the sake of having a breeding program to 'nobleize' a zoos purpose. That isn't at all the role of a zoo. A zoo by it's nature is a valuable part of society. It also serves at the ready to assist in the rescue of species threatened or endangered. But, survival of a species is determined in their habitat in the wild, ie: the Polar Bear.
Collecting animals should never be legal. We have seen the worst of an animal collector in Ohio in the USA.
Perhaps the best example of a successful and necessary breeding program is that of the Panda Bear. But, it would be worthless if it's natural habitat was simply allowed to be overrun without returning them back to it's freedom. The habitat loss was the reason the Panda along with it's specialized diet became endangered in the first place. The bamboo forests had to be reclaimed and revitalized and the Panda allowed to wander them.
Zoo animals are not cattle. That practice is left to feedlots of cruel overcrowding as they WERE in Texas. But, those on the cattle ranches of the southern USA have finally learned what habitat loss actually feels like. Drought has robbed them of their way of life and along with in their incomes and economy. All this while they hate the idea that a Polar Bear has clout in the Arctic. Amazing the disconnect. Just because cattle in the USA are not an endangered species there is no connection between their habitat loss and that of the Polar Bear. Forbid, Polar Bears stand in the way of punching holes in the Earth, while Texas Longhorns have no water to drink.
And I'll take it one step further, there are those in Texas, and let me not forget Oklahoma, who don't care about a huge aquifer that is still viable on this Earth, while these same individuals have designs on the Great Lakes. I mean, where does the denial stop?
But, the fact remains food sources for big cats in zoos are NOT to come from a wayward breeding program that isn't even good enough to catch their genetic mistakes before they happened. I mean, why Marius at all?
This is a list the World Wildlife Fund (click here) has as CRITICALLY endangerd, endangered, vulnerable, etc. It is these precious animal species and those listed by individual countries and states within them that should be the focus of a breeding program. In an organized breeding program such factors as noted with Marius are important, but, I assure you if Marius was an individual of a critically endangered species he would not be dead today regardless of his genetic status. Critically endangered or otherwise called Near Extinction often have few individuals and demand genetic intervention.
A statesman that understands the principles involved with saving a critically endangered species is that of President Vladimir Putin and his tigers.
While the breeding program was vital, he also threw his clout behind reclaiming and protecting, even with wildlife rangers armed with weapons, the habitat being destroyed and pouched. He understands his place in returning tigers to Earth in numbers that matter. There are other nations carrying out the exact same practice for species endemic to their lands.
I don't know how the European Breeding Programs are rated in their effectiveness, but, in the case of Marius they completely failed.
When habitat is saved and returned to it's original purpose and viability throughout, Earth does better.
I think Europe has lessons to learn from the Russian President and he even might have some advice.
I do not endorse breeding programs of any animal for the sake of having a breeding program to 'nobleize' a zoos purpose. That isn't at all the role of a zoo. A zoo by it's nature is a valuable part of society. It also serves at the ready to assist in the rescue of species threatened or endangered. But, survival of a species is determined in their habitat in the wild, ie: the Polar Bear.
Collecting animals should never be legal. We have seen the worst of an animal collector in Ohio in the USA.
Perhaps the best example of a successful and necessary breeding program is that of the Panda Bear. But, it would be worthless if it's natural habitat was simply allowed to be overrun without returning them back to it's freedom. The habitat loss was the reason the Panda along with it's specialized diet became endangered in the first place. The bamboo forests had to be reclaimed and revitalized and the Panda allowed to wander them.
Zoo animals are not cattle. That practice is left to feedlots of cruel overcrowding as they WERE in Texas. But, those on the cattle ranches of the southern USA have finally learned what habitat loss actually feels like. Drought has robbed them of their way of life and along with in their incomes and economy. All this while they hate the idea that a Polar Bear has clout in the Arctic. Amazing the disconnect. Just because cattle in the USA are not an endangered species there is no connection between their habitat loss and that of the Polar Bear. Forbid, Polar Bears stand in the way of punching holes in the Earth, while Texas Longhorns have no water to drink.
And I'll take it one step further, there are those in Texas, and let me not forget Oklahoma, who don't care about a huge aquifer that is still viable on this Earth, while these same individuals have designs on the Great Lakes. I mean, where does the denial stop?
But, the fact remains food sources for big cats in zoos are NOT to come from a wayward breeding program that isn't even good enough to catch their genetic mistakes before they happened. I mean, why Marius at all?
This is a list the World Wildlife Fund (click here) has as CRITICALLY endangerd, endangered, vulnerable, etc. It is these precious animal species and those listed by individual countries and states within them that should be the focus of a breeding program. In an organized breeding program such factors as noted with Marius are important, but, I assure you if Marius was an individual of a critically endangered species he would not be dead today regardless of his genetic status. Critically endangered or otherwise called Near Extinction often have few individuals and demand genetic intervention.
A statesman that understands the principles involved with saving a critically endangered species is that of President Vladimir Putin and his tigers. While the breeding program was vital, he also threw his clout behind reclaiming and protecting, even with wildlife rangers armed with weapons, the habitat being destroyed and pouched. He understands his place in returning tigers to Earth in numbers that matter. There are other nations carrying out the exact same practice for species endemic to their lands. I don't know how the European Breeding Programs are rated in their effectiveness, but, in the case of Marius they completely failed.
When habitat is saved and returned to it's original purpose and viability throughout, Earth does better.
I think Europe has lessons to learn from the Russian President and he even might have some advice.
