>>
RESPONSE QUESTIONS 3
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.
In
order to avoid in breeding, a large population of animals must be held and bred
together in a manner designed to maintain genetic diversity. Two of each
animal, Noah’s Arch, just won’t cut it for repopulating a species. If zoo’s
want a chance to keep a healthy population of animals, one which could possibly
rejuvenate a depleted population in the wild, then they need to plan who breeds
with who very carefully.
Zoos
are doing a lot to meet this goal. In 2000 the association opened the
Population Management Control Center to analyze to genetics of zoo animals and
determine the best breeding plan for genetic diversity. Many zoo’s are giving
their animals contraceptives, to avoid unwanted pregnancies between animals
that are too closely related. Zoo’s outside America even euthanize animals in
order to avoid inbred offspring reproducing later down the road.
Because
such a large population of one species is necessary, then zoo’s are needing to
cut down on the amount of species they hold. Some species, sadly, are being
phased out of zoos in favor of species that can be maintained in captivity and
have a chance of returning to their natural habitat at a later date. Because of
this, some species will probably go extinct, because their population does not
supply enough genetic diversity, or their habitat is too far gone to return to.
2- If conservation is a key goal, then what is the tension between
funding resources and the how zoos go about conservation? What are the
alternatives – what do some other people should be done with such funds if
conservation is the primary motive?
Some
people think that the funds need to go to animals that have a chance of being
transplanted back into the wild if the wild population is driven to extremely
low levels. Therefore some animals, like the polar bear, no longer has a place
in the zoo. With melting ice caps polar bears are not likely to be able to
survive if populations from zoos are released into the wild at a future date.
Therefore, if conservation is the only motive, resources would be best spent
breeding other animals, and polar bears should be phased out of zoos.
This is
controversial, because animals like polar bears are the most popular residents
at zoos. People come to see them. They achieve other zoo goals, such as
inspiring people to care for the fate of animals, and they bring in zoo
revenue. Zoo directors are likely to spend money on things like new exhibits
for popular charismatic animals, such as polar bears, while conservationists
urge zoos to spend their money on species who have a higher chance of
benefiting from zoo breeding.
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?
I think
it is completely true. Seeing an animal in real life can instill a sense of
wonder that nothing else will do. It is argued that there is no way to support
that zoos inspire people to spend money on conservation. I argue that there is
no data because it cannot be measured. Not everyone who goes to a zoo will
immediately be able to spend huge sums of money on animals, but it could affect
society and individuals positively in less noticeable ways. Someone could be
inspired to be a conservationist, a scientist, an artist. You never know what a
child, in love with a polar bear at a zoo, will do as an adult. How has this
experience changed him? For the better I’m sure, even if he doesn’t immediately
start rallying to turn the entirety of Alaska into conservation land.
4-
What is a difference between
American and European zoos in terms of their 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?
European zoos tend to euthanize their animals much more
often than American Zoos. American zoos give their animal’s contraceptives in
order to avoid unwanted breeding when males an females are housed in the same
exhibits. European zoos don’t believe in
this, saying that keeping animals from reproducing is further alienating them
from their nature. Instead, these zoos opt to allow animals to reproduce, rear
their young to the age where they would naturally leave their parents, and then
euthanize and offspring that is too inbred to contribute to a genetically
diverse population in captivity. This view is actually more conservationist,
because it allows for funds to only be spent on animals that can be used to
replenish depleted groups in the wild. However, it also involves killing
innocent baby animals, which tends to go against the gut reaction of most
people trying to conserve animals.
-Isabella Rotman
No comments:
Post a Comment