1- Sarah Long, a coordinator of breeding at Lincoln Park Zoo, argues in Date Night at the Zoo that “Noah got it all
wrong.” What does she mean by this? What strategy are zoos taking to “get it right”? What are the pros and
cons of this strategy on the part of zoos? Discuss them in the context of animals like cheetahs, black-and-white
ruffed lemurs, and polar bears. Reference SSPs in your response.
The reason why Sarah Long says "Noah Got it all Wrong" in Date Night at the Zoo is because today, people have realized that it is better to preserve more of one species than few of many. This is because many zoos would then not have enough genetic variation with the animals they have pertaining to each particular species. The positives of exercising these measures are that the animals that do get bred in these facilities are generally healthier. One example of a negative would be that certain species will be more prevalent than others. Hence, some species that "need" to to preserved and populated could eventually go extinct. An example the article discusses how the population of Andean bears is shrinking because of zoos withdrawing from breeding them so now the population is much too old to reproduce.
2- If conservation is a key goal, then what is the tension between funding resources and the how zoos go about conservation? Wht are the alternatives – what do some other people should be done with such funds if conservation is the primary motive?
I suppose the issue with conservation and funding resources is that some zoos will capitalize more off of their funding than from taking actual proper care of their animals. People go to the zoo for entertainment. The popular animals are the ones who inherently make the most money for the zoos, so therefore they may get the most funding for themselves. Other animals that may need more funding, however, get less attention from visitors can sometimes be disadvantaged.
The reason why Sarah Long says "Noah Got it all Wrong" in Date Night at the Zoo is because today, people have realized that it is better to preserve more of one species than few of many. This is because many zoos would then not have enough genetic variation with the animals they have pertaining to each particular species. The positives of exercising these measures are that the animals that do get bred in these facilities are generally healthier. One example of a negative would be that certain species will be more prevalent than others. Hence, some species that "need" to to preserved and populated could eventually go extinct. An example the article discusses how the population of Andean bears is shrinking because of zoos withdrawing from breeding them so now the population is much too old to reproduce.
2- If conservation is a key goal, then what is the tension between funding resources and the how zoos go about conservation? Wht are the alternatives – what do some other people should be done with such funds if conservation is the primary motive?
I suppose the issue with conservation and funding resources is that some zoos will capitalize more off of their funding than from taking actual proper care of their animals. People go to the zoo for entertainment. The popular animals are the ones who inherently make the most money for the zoos, so therefore they may get the most funding for themselves. Other animals that may need more funding, however, get less attention from visitors can sometimes be disadvantaged.
3- Many zoos argue that the first hand experience with animals at zoos are crucial for helping people to form
bonds, and thus develop a care and sense of conservation ethic, for endangered animals. The Wild Thing piece
on the National Zoo especially makes this argument. What is your view?
The philosophy at the Smithsonian National Zoo seems to be effective that if people witness the lives of the animals in the zoo that there will be a greater chance of conservation input from the public. However, it seems as though the Smithsonian National Zoo provides such good facilities for the animals in their facility that people are more hyper-sensitive and aware about funding. It would almost seem that people don't want to help the "bad" zoos and instead want to promote the conservation of animals at the best conditions. When viewers see the animals enjoying their lives and their environment, it makes the effort for conservation all the more important.
4- What is a difference between American and European zoos in terms of ther philosophy of captive animals breeding if room does not exist for the adult population to grow given the size of the zoo habitats? Which approach makes more sense to you and why? How does the European approach relate to the logic of conservation and the issues of genetic diversity that underlie them?
Both contraception and euthanasia seem very unnatural and immoral to me, when I think about the dichotomy between North American and European zoos and how they populate. For me, I can sympathize with the North American zoos using artificial insemination to force the endangered species to breed. However, it must also be taken into account that if these species were in the wild their breeding methods would probably be much more successful. The only problem is the human forces that can obstruct life in the wild for these animals. Euthanasia seems like an extremely inappropriate and heinous crime to commit on these creatures. In general, I find it somewhat disgusting that these zoos take such great authority over the animals they house, but I also see that their intentions can be good.
The philosophy at the Smithsonian National Zoo seems to be effective that if people witness the lives of the animals in the zoo that there will be a greater chance of conservation input from the public. However, it seems as though the Smithsonian National Zoo provides such good facilities for the animals in their facility that people are more hyper-sensitive and aware about funding. It would almost seem that people don't want to help the "bad" zoos and instead want to promote the conservation of animals at the best conditions. When viewers see the animals enjoying their lives and their environment, it makes the effort for conservation all the more important.
4- What is a difference between American and European zoos in terms of ther philosophy of captive animals breeding if room does not exist for the adult population to grow given the size of the zoo habitats? Which approach makes more sense to you and why? How does the European approach relate to the logic of conservation and the issues of genetic diversity that underlie them?
Both contraception and euthanasia seem very unnatural and immoral to me, when I think about the dichotomy between North American and European zoos and how they populate. For me, I can sympathize with the North American zoos using artificial insemination to force the endangered species to breed. However, it must also be taken into account that if these species were in the wild their breeding methods would probably be much more successful. The only problem is the human forces that can obstruct life in the wild for these animals. Euthanasia seems like an extremely inappropriate and heinous crime to commit on these creatures. In general, I find it somewhat disgusting that these zoos take such great authority over the animals they house, but I also see that their intentions can be good.
An important point about the funding and conservation issue is whether it should go to zoo breeding programs, or rather to the conservation of wild habitat the animals are being driven from. Also there is a matter of drawing visitors to the zoo, but the animals which do this the most aren't necessarily the endangered ones. This sets up tensions and paradoxes in funding priorities as well.
ReplyDelete