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
no subject
Some zoos are admittedly better then others. The zoo in Lucknow India is way past it's prime. The vast Toronto Zoo has 5000 animals of 450 species, over 287 hectares (710 acres). Amazing. In the old zoo they stuck Winnie the Pooh, a black bear from Winnipeg in the sparse steel bar cage of the London Zoo. Now-a-days the public expects a more natural environment. So now bears in the SanDiego Zoo have bears on display with greenery. But what's the difference?
Zoos havn't changed all that much. The same two things are always still listed on the signage of every zoo enclosure. The name of the animal and where it comes from. Hippopotamus amphibius, Africa There might be some interesting trivia about the beast hippopotamus is responsible for more deaths in the wild than lions, tigers or crocodiles and that's the extent of the general public's education. You read that, stare at it for a while then throw it a peanut and move on. Yeah, it's real educational. Occasionally there will be a zoo keeper with a little speech, then answering questions with a friendly smile as they feed the fruit bats dangling from a well positioned au natural branch.
But where's the conservation aspect? Raising money for stopping the seat hunt in Tulattavik? Or is it the aquarium display of Arowana fish saved from extinction? Maybe it's the toys they throw in with the red pandas to keep them stimulated?
I don't understand your question. I guess it be kinda fun to throw all the animals in one giant 5000 acre lot and see which ones remain after a few years. But that would see a lot of the animals get eaten, probably most of them. Firstly half of the public would be outraged. The other half would love the spectacle of all the action but then I suppose the populations would dwindle like throwing in all sorts of aquarium fish in one aquarium without any regard to compatibility. But the fact that zoos don't do that doesn't make them conservation parks. It just makes their business model more successful.
http://www.lionsafari.com/ has been around since I was a kid. I havn't been there since I was a kid. There are lions and giraffes and monkeys and you can drive through it all in your own car and get to "meet" all the different animals. Not sure how all the animals are separated or why they don't all get eaten.
no subject
OK...
An ecosystem does not work that way.
no subject
http://www.lionsafari.com/ is not an ecosystem, it's a 40+yr old interactive zoo in southwestern Ontario, Canada which features African Savannah big game. It's quite different then the regular zoo model where visitors walk past enclosures, but instead visitors drive through enclosures.
no subject
I'm glad for the Ontario ecosystem. It is not a typical zoo, though, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up in the context of typical zoos.