week 4 response

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 statement that “Noah got it wrong” means that breeding an entire species from a single lineage of a male and a female is problematic and makes way for very little genetic variation. Zoos have attempted pairings of animals in isolates scenarios when they are in heat, which yields low success rates. Keeping the cheetah females apart helps maintain the hierarchical/ matriarchal structure to encourage fertile females. However these structures of purely genealogical pairings and controlled breeding does not account for natural selection, and thus genetically diverse, yet weaker/less dominant animals are building the next generation. Moreover, pairing isn’t simply a matter of pressing Ken to Barbie, males and females that prove themselves naturally superior in their environment decide the genetic power play. Animals raised in captivity also have few natural models for partnerships because of these failed pairings and thus do not learn about the birds and the bees.

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?

Often times, the animals that require the most intimate attention and funding are not the ones that people pay to see. There is a dilemma of recourses vs. sustenance of those resources. Animals that don’t exactly need the high funding usually take precedence because of their ability to self sustain their own funding, whereas the ones that need the most help, because of lack of “showmanship” usually get the shaft.  Nature doesn’t fit into a commodity/capital market because they are based on completely different factors. If a zoo makes the investment to house an endangered species, their motive should be for conservation, and come with an understanding of the immense financial responsibility involved. I think if zoos spent resources to market education as showmanship, increasing awareness would do the job of entertainment, and that’s what people would come to see. It may also help to put aside money from the showy animals like the Sea Lions to help create more natural habitats, thus creating room for more natural and more interesting behavioral diversity. It’s not always a good idea to create availability for things that are popular in ways of adding more seats, more space for people. If there is more intimate interaction with a smaller number of people at a time, then people would absolutely wait in line to see them and be more competitive about buying. i.e. the express lane for the Shedd Aquarium.

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?

Interaction is key to any natural system, to learn why animals are valuable, and to build a connection to them. This is an interaction that is often deprived of because of growing urbanization, and less nature to interact with. It also presents it in a way that is unthreatening, educational, and exciting. It also opens it up to people on a wealthier economic scale that can have a hand in impeding the capitalistic mode of natural destruction. On the other end, those that have animals in the wild, perhaps not on a largely well off economic scale, prone to the natural predatory world at large, can make their living based on money by poaching these animals with no education on their importance ecologically. It is a double-edged sword in lieu of the problems within zoos and their lack of nature. However because of the progressive nature of zoos and the inherent educational value they present, I feel that they are necessary to bridge that gap of understanding, to see nature in the flesh, and not as an image in a book or a skeleton in a museum.

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?

The difference is in the ethics of European euthanasia vs. American natural death. The approach for natural death seems more rationally sane to me as euthanasia is a direct killing. Suffering and death occur anyways, especially in the wild. The only difference is the spectacle of the zoo. Just because of human “sensitivities” does not mean that suffering should be thwarted by some clinical control or god complex. Death is inevitable, and so what if little Jane grows up a bit when he goes to the zoo. In the scheme of conservation, yes it is understandable to want to preserve human resources and money, but the greater conservation would be that of the natural world.