Missed Assignment week 4

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.

What Sarah Long mean by “Noah having is all wrong” is that to breed an entire generation of animals from two individuals makes for very weak genetic diversity. Without genetic diversity, a single disease, weakness, or predator might take full advantage, which would mean extinction for the future decedents. Zoos are taking steps to get it right by cross breeding with other animals from other zoos, thereby expanding the genetic variability of the animals’ offspring.  Furthermore this equates to ensuring survival. If animals in captivity are not allowed a natural means to act, how will they thrive outside of the institution? Cheetahs in captivity are often kept in groups as pointed out in the Wild Things piece. This suppresses ovulation and reproductive activity. Simply putting two animals together does not mean copulation. Zoos are structuring exhibits to better mimic territorial paths in which isolated individuals can cross paths and reproduce. They are also banking sperm samples to artificially inseminate fertile females whom they do hormone treatment and study on. Sperm is also kept for breeding animals overseas.

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?

Zoos operate on two means, capital and education. To generate capital and attract visitors, zoos need to be entertaining. This is a fact that has not ceased to exist, however the ethical means of providing that entertainment have changed.  Consequently, in the mode of entertainment, the wellbeing and natural preservation of that animal in an accurate ecological climate are often overlooked in favor of display. Zoos do not have the space often times to replicate an environment in which animals act naturally, short of in nature. I  believe if conservation is the key goal, money should be first implemented into the accuracy of habitat/climate display and care of animals within the zoo, so as to provide the best visual information for onlookers. By creating this environment, animals will have a more natural place to live and behave. In the mode of breeding for conservation, these environments will make more sense for animals to have privacy to breed – and by using the methods of cross breeding to germinate stronger offspring, the animals can be better sustained, but within reason of the space. This will protect both the animals within captivity as well as the zoo as an institution, while also entertaining. Proper signage and information would be the next step to providing an educational background on why the animal is important, and what is interesting about it. By doing so, it informs the public into going beyond the spectacle of viewing animals. Thirdly, money should go to organizations paired with conservation of animals within the natural world, so that animals can exist outside of the institution of their own volition. The few kept captive should only serve as placeholders within urban environments, windows into the world at large, and not a place of trying to repopulate through clinical means. If it is possible to elevate the “natural” environment of the zoo, reintroduction may be possible.

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?

In my experience, first hand engagement with anything helps to create a bond i.e. Starving children in Africa, a parent, even a pet. It is a physical and empathetic encounter with the “other” in the post-mirror stage of psychological development that forces an engagement, and realizes a relationship. The Wild Thing piece has great ideas for reintroduction and engaging public interest, especially among children. This is crucial to introduce information when people are most receptive. It is however a double edged blade which may incur “pet” like associations with the animal and cause a sort of ignorance of its danger or needs. Some information may not sink in as much as a simple enamored engagement. It has its benefits, which are its saving grace in lieu of its shortcomings.

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?

American and European zoos differ in their philosophies on euthanasia of animals that they cannot support. Europe allows for the raising of offspring to a certain age of the separation stage before they mercy kill it.  By doing so they allow for parents to have a natural grace time before killing a cub that would end up dying anyway. But this presumption negates any chance for a cub to participate in naturally selective processes and denies its genetics of expanding further. United States uses contraceptive means and birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies between populations that live within the same space. It reduces the need to keep animals apart and saves on resources used to care, treat, birth, and feed the pregnant mother and her offspring. However it comes with its own risk of health problems that may develop towards infertility.