ext_345502 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
airiefairie.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2014-04-08 03:07 pm
airiefairie.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2014-04-08 03:07 pm
Entry tags:
Lessons from America: the proper zoo policy
We have probably all heard by now about the controversial decisions at the Copenhagen zoo to put down a giraffe and feed it to the lions in front of the visiting children, and to subsequently put down a few lion cubs because they were planning to introduce a new adult male lion to the zoo, and they were concerned that he would have killed the cubs anyway. People were naturally appalled. There were lots of discussions about animal rights, the treatment of animals in the zoos, etc. Even some satire.
Now there is a new story that I am sure is about to cause all hell breaking loose once more,
Bern zoo faces flak over second bear cub death
...And there is of course a pre-story to that:
Bern zoo under fire after bear eats baby cub
Another act of inhumane treatment of animals, I am sure many would argue. And they would be right, to a point. However, if we are to look at the problem a bit closer, we may begin to realise that there is more to those two stories than just that. Indeed, it seems the problem runs much deeper than most of the audience is probably suspecting. Because one or two cases like these could be possibly interpreted as incidental acts of cruelty and poor judgment/management - but when there is a wide-spread tendency, there must be a systematic flaw in the, well, system. And as it turns out, there really is:
How many healthy animals do zoos put down?
Apart from the side point that is being made in the article, namely that, while this problem tends to affect animals of almost all species, but only the "large and charismatic" ones tend to make the headlines, there is also the central part of the problem:
""We do it when it's necessary," [Copenhagen Zoo's Scientific Director] says. "If I should take an average over 10 years - it could be probably something like 20, 30 [per year]."
"That figure includes some smaller animals, not just the big "charismatic megafauna" that have the potential to make headline news. At the larger end of the scale, Copenhagen Zoo has put down leopards, tigers, lions, bears, antelopes and hippos in recent years, as well as the young giraffe, Marius."
And this is obviously not just in Denmark. The various breeding programmes around Europe include such necessary actions like the so called "management euthanisation", and not just of ill animals. The overall number is really staggering: 3-5 thousand annually. But why? What is causing this? Is it rampant mismanagement? Or something else?
Well, turns out the European zoo association (EAZA) has adopted a "breed and cull" policy, at least for a number of species, which often results in huge surpluses of animals that cannot be possibly accommodated by the international zoo system, no matter how much the exchange of animals is intensified between zoos.
In the meantime, most American zoos extensively use the practice of contraception to prevent such a surplus, and have thus been able to control their populations for the most part. The conclusion is inescapable: the two zoo systems (Europe and America) have adopted two very different approaches to population management, and the most reasonable way to decrease the probability of healthy animals being killed due to overpopulation or under controversial pretexts like in these recent cases, is to adopt the American approach. Otherwise the problem will not only stay, it will be getting more serious with time.
There is probably at least one positive effect from this recent stream of unpleasant news coming from around the European zoos. It is that these cases may have finally triggered a debate about the proper treatment of animals in an artificial environment that the European public should have probably had a very long time ago.
Now there is a new story that I am sure is about to cause all hell breaking loose once more,
Bern zoo faces flak over second bear cub death
...And there is of course a pre-story to that:
Bern zoo under fire after bear eats baby cub
Another act of inhumane treatment of animals, I am sure many would argue. And they would be right, to a point. However, if we are to look at the problem a bit closer, we may begin to realise that there is more to those two stories than just that. Indeed, it seems the problem runs much deeper than most of the audience is probably suspecting. Because one or two cases like these could be possibly interpreted as incidental acts of cruelty and poor judgment/management - but when there is a wide-spread tendency, there must be a systematic flaw in the, well, system. And as it turns out, there really is:
How many healthy animals do zoos put down?
Apart from the side point that is being made in the article, namely that, while this problem tends to affect animals of almost all species, but only the "large and charismatic" ones tend to make the headlines, there is also the central part of the problem:
""We do it when it's necessary," [Copenhagen Zoo's Scientific Director] says. "If I should take an average over 10 years - it could be probably something like 20, 30 [per year]."
"That figure includes some smaller animals, not just the big "charismatic megafauna" that have the potential to make headline news. At the larger end of the scale, Copenhagen Zoo has put down leopards, tigers, lions, bears, antelopes and hippos in recent years, as well as the young giraffe, Marius."
And this is obviously not just in Denmark. The various breeding programmes around Europe include such necessary actions like the so called "management euthanisation", and not just of ill animals. The overall number is really staggering: 3-5 thousand annually. But why? What is causing this? Is it rampant mismanagement? Or something else?
Well, turns out the European zoo association (EAZA) has adopted a "breed and cull" policy, at least for a number of species, which often results in huge surpluses of animals that cannot be possibly accommodated by the international zoo system, no matter how much the exchange of animals is intensified between zoos.
In the meantime, most American zoos extensively use the practice of contraception to prevent such a surplus, and have thus been able to control their populations for the most part. The conclusion is inescapable: the two zoo systems (Europe and America) have adopted two very different approaches to population management, and the most reasonable way to decrease the probability of healthy animals being killed due to overpopulation or under controversial pretexts like in these recent cases, is to adopt the American approach. Otherwise the problem will not only stay, it will be getting more serious with time.
There is probably at least one positive effect from this recent stream of unpleasant news coming from around the European zoos. It is that these cases may have finally triggered a debate about the proper treatment of animals in an artificial environment that the European public should have probably had a very long time ago.
no subject
Children should know where meat comes from. And they should understand that life on the African savanna is most certainly not like the Lion King, nor is life in the woods like Bambi, nor life in the sea like Finding Nemo. My children have watched me butcher fish, deer, pheasants, ducks and geese. When they get older I hope to take them with me and increase their knowledge. Indeed, I hope someday to be there when they take their first bird, if it is something they want to do. There is nothing about it that should be shameful.
no subject
Is the zoo "the wild", pray tell?
Is the zoo the "African savanna"?
Where does this sudden passion for false dichotomies emerge from? Either show the kids how a lion eats a giraffe, or you'll have to show them how a lion starves to death? Is that it? The dichotomy that you're so desperate to craft here?
Your children can watch whatever the bloody hell you want them to watch. The zoo is not the place for that.
Who's talking about shame here? Dude, you sound helplessly confused.
no subject
Parents who want to avoid being uncomfortable should avoid going to the zoo with kids. Unlike the very safe and sterilized environment we create for children, zoos are "au natural".
It seems like some parents would prefer if the kids see the animals in zoos, but could avoid seeing their animal private parts.If these private parts are being used for any reason it can provoke children to ask questions that parents find very uncomfortable answering.
It's rather boring to watch zoo animals sleeping stoic. Better when animals are active. Better when they are playing, or peeing, or pooping, or eating or breeding or fighting or... but most of those activities can make parents squeal to avoid children's questions. Yet still they come to see the funny monkeys.
While zoos offer their contribution to science of conservation and zoology, they are providing this spectacle. In zoology there are reasoned arguments for and against sterilization, hormones and other means of birth control. I would not be surprised if providing spectacle weighed in the decision not to sterilize. Blood always sells tickets.
But just because it makes people uncomfortable doesn't make it wrong. There isn't a reasonable argument against the cull, the educational dissection in front of school kids, or the feeding lions meat from their own native ecology.
no subject
If people wanted "au natural" in zoos, they'd be putting prey into the cages of predators all the time. They aren't.
This isn't about comfortable and uncomfortable. This is about doing the proper thing in the appropriate place.
no subject
Yes people do want "au natural" in zoos. The Bronx zoo, the London zoo, etc have all replaced traditional steel bar cages with replica environments with fauna, flora and trees in the landscaped animal enclosures.
"Au natural" is achieved by instead of the traditional full on tranquillized tigers and bears in cages, now the sedation is much more subtle, subduing undesirable behaviours.
Yes this is all about the public's comfort. The proper thing can't happen in a zoo environment, it's a conflict of interest.
no subject
Creating replica environments does not equal replicating the circumstances that exist in nature, and zoos refrain from doing that for a reason that seems to be escaping you.