Week four reponses- MRF

Week 4 Responses- 

1. Long explains that having one of each species is just not sufficient because there is a decrease in genetic variation to obtain long lasting survival in zoos. This is fundamental in order to prevent inbreeding. By mentioning that it is the reverse of natural selection, it does go back to the theory of the Species Survival Plan, in that one of the main objectives zoos have to focus on today is to maintain a system to choose who breeds with whom. American zoos thus have to select the species they feel are most threatened in the wild, and put their money and sources in trying to improve their exhibits and habitats, even if it means exiling another species entirely. Sometimes, it even comes down to two species that are equally in danger of extinction, but one is more plausible to be reintroduced to their natural habitat, and thus they most likely go with this choice. Such was the example of the Mhorr gazelles and the polar bears.

Starting in the late 1970s, contraceptives were being used to control overpopulation, and to manage species that were too similar in their gene pool from reproducing. However, there are other extreme measures that other zoos go to, by using euthanasia.

What struck me the most was reading the article “ When Babies Don’t t Fit Plan” at the mention of the zoo in Germany that euthanized three newborn cubs, after realizing that the father was a male tiger that was a hybrid of two tiger subspecies. The reasoning behind it was because they would be “genetically useless”.

Although I am aware that zoos have to take measures in controlling their animals to maintain the best species, this still seems quite an extreme to me- they are still exotic animals after all. 

2.  From reading the articles and listening to the podcast, it really seems to me that even to this day, although zoos claim to put conservation at the center of their attention, entertainment is what makes it thrive. This mentality of keeping the popular animals, such as the elephant, is controversial for many who argue that an institution such as a zoo just is not right for such a large creature to live in. Not only do they have small enclosed spaces to roam in, but they just feasibly do not have the right habitat for them to sustain certain animals. This is why Detroit zoo was the first AZA accredited zoo who decided to return the elephant to a more natural reserve then to force it within its confines- dealing with cold harsh winters that they did not think was healthy for the elephant.

Many times, zoos contain much smaller spaces for animals than what they can live in comfortably, collecting more varied species, rather than focusing on one particular kind.

But perhaps the most ironic is when they obtain animals that are doing very well in the wild, but insist on keeping them for the audience’s sake. One example is the sea lion in St. Louis zoo, who just received a nicely built $18 million dollar renovated pool, but does not need the dire attention that others do, because they are not endangered, or on a warning list.

I believe there should be less emphasis on popular animals in the wild and instead focus in on the ones that need desperate help. If not, then really, what are zoos trying to conserve? I also think that the AZA zoos should have higher standards in the allocated spaces and be checked upon regularly. If they do not meet these requirements, they should not be able to maintain these animals in their zoo. What seems most logical is to put more money on in nature reserves in the wild, rather than on displays at the zoo, as Hancocks states, “ It’s all about conserving zoos, not wildlife”. 

3. Honestly, I do agree with this statement to a certain agree- there is something magical that you do get to experience in zoos, that you would otherwise never get to experience in real life, unless you were a world traveler going to the Sahara one week, and the Amazon the next. It is very special when you do get to glance at a tiger, or make eye contact with a tropical bird, however, if this just brings satisfaction to our aesthetic indulgence, I do not think it is worth it.

As Holst stated, “We’d rather they have as natural behavior as possible. We have already taken away their predatory and antipredatory behaviors. If we take away their parenting behavior, they have not much left.”

 I agree with this, however, I do not agree with the repetitive use of euthanasia to control their populations.

One point that I believe was in the audio component, when talking about this need for conservation, throwing the example of the whale. Although most of us have never seen, or been near to a whale, this did not prevent the enormous effort and funding contributed by society, to protect them. Thus, the point was that we really do not have to be in the presence of an animal in an institution of a zoo, to acknowledge the importance of its existence, or feel compelled to help contribute an effort to keep it alive.

One way that I do believe is a great (and enticing to the younger audience) is to sell toys at the gift shops, that will then use some of the proceeds to protect that species. Even more, the “adopt an animal” plan is a great way to sponsor a pet and provide funds for conserving it. 

4. Euthanasia is used in European zoos to maintain a certain amount of species in one exhibit, while American zoos tend to use contraceptives. I believe that the use of contraceptives is reasonable and more humane, because it then allows for zookeepers to allow males and females to be in the same living area, without the fear of them reproducing. It also regulates inbreeding.

The logic behind the European model, is to allow the animals to raise their young until an age at which they would naturally separate from their parents. Then, the zoos determine which animals to euthanize that do not have a stable breeding plan, or whose genes are overpopulated in their own collection. The only benefit I would say, to using euthanasia, is that it “mimics what would have occurred in the wild” which Holst states. However, putting down 20 to 30 healthy exotic animals including hippos, and gazelles seems cruel and a bit extreme. The fact that they manage their populations by euthanasia, rather than donating a certain species to another zoo, seems selfish and childish to me. Why can’t the animals be spread to other zoo institutions, if the species in their own exhibit is overpopulated? As a vegan, I am just not a fan of killing animals, unless they were suffering from a condition or disease, and see euthanasia as an easy way out of trying to justify conservation.

 -Michelle