BBC Wildlife magazine published an article about the captivity of tigers, after the arrival of three tiger cubs at ZSL’s (London Zoo) Tiger Territory
attraction.
The enclosure and facilities cost £3.6 million and is five times
larger than the previous 2,500 m² enclosure. The article – and in light
of recent culls of ‘surplus’ or ‘genetically defective’ animals – questions (albeit
very on the fence) the ethics and conservation need of zoos.
The article
highlights points from Will Travers (Born Free), Susan Bass (Big Cat Rescue) and
Mark Jones (Humane Society International UK), which I will discuss; however, it
divulges the opinions of Kirsten Pullen of BIAZA (British and Irish Associationof Zoos and Aquariums).
Before I discuss
what she said and her distinct idiocy, I will point out that I am
biased in my opinion (I will also use emotive language but I'll do more 'sciency' posts later), though I do try to
validate my argument with fact, just so they’re not washy blabbering’s.
Pullen States:
“It is not just about breeding numbers. It
is about making sure we have a good genetic biodiversity so that the genes left
are robust enough to deal with challenges like natural disasters or disease”
We’ll start with defining conserve and preserve:
- To conserve, you are allowing something to alter, evolve and change over time as it would do naturally.
- To preserve, you are keeping something in its original form, without allowing change.
In the wild,
when we conserve a species, it must be fit enough to adapt to a changing
environment, develop resistance to disease (red squirrels are showing a
resistance to the introduced greys’ pox virus), pass on genetics through natural
means (sexual selection) and pass on learnt behaviours to the next generation (an
innate –genetically coded for- instinct for a big cat might be to hunt, but it needs to
develop those skills through learning from an adult, for example - just look at your cats and their gifts of still slightly alive birds).
Within a captive
setting –particularly a captive setting outside the species native country or
range- you are merely preserving the species and its genetic makeup. Why? Well...
- It does not have the climate it has evolved to live in - it cannot adapt to any changes (such as climate change) in that environment
- It does not have a choice of kin (there is no competition between rival males to fight for a breeding female) as it is completed, in captivity, through studbooks and artificial insemination (AI) in cases where a pair would not breed (as we know, humans do not always know best!),
- It is not exposed to disease or has the opportunity to develop that immunity; wild counterparts deal with parasite burdens - that individual will either be able to cope, survive and then pass on its successful genes to the next generation, or the parasite burden can be too much (or too little) that the animal actually has a change in its scent that a female (the choosy female hypothesis) would not want to mate with him (parasites can alter the size of antlers on rutting bucks, which in turn, alter their attractiveness to females!),
- In the case of big cat species, it is suppressed of its natural instincts to hunt (as meat on a tractor chain doesn't quite cut it) thus is deprived of the ability to learn these skills; therefore, they are not suitable for any type of reintroduction programme (as it simply would not survive). I do also wonder if certain traits are bred for, such as dealing with captivity - a truly wild tiger would not survive within a captive setting, for any length of time.
They might have
a good variety of genetics in captivity, but how much do they differ from wild
counterparts?
What if there
are wild individuals that carry those adaptable genes for a changing environment, that captives simply do not have; what conservation value do they have then?
These are all points I will develop further scientific arguments for, at a later date.
Pullen States:
“In addition, seeing animals in the flesh
can have an enormous impact on visitors” she argues. “It can inspire them to donate money or train to become the next
generation of zoologists. People have even been known to change their brand of
soap after finding out how palm oil is everyday products is destroying
rainforests in places such as Sumatra”
Natural history
documentaries cannot play this role as effectively. “Seeing tigers in a zoo is about getting an idea of the three-dimensional
animals – how big they are, the sounds they make and what it feels like to be
close to a carnivore like that…even the smell” she says.
This statement irritates
me.
The impact of seeing an animal in a zoo is normally held by a child visiting the zoo for the first time; the second time they might be slightly
impressed or prefer to spend time at their favourite animals exhibit. If the
family is a member of that particular zoo, those animals essentially become
white noise, the zoo becomes an adventure playground - somewhere mum or dad can
release their children to knacker them out for the day (I've seen it!).
I have briefly worked at a zoo and safari park
(not in a keeper role, but working with the public); I asked one child what
his favourite animals were and he replied “the dinosaurs”.
Great! The extinct ones!
I do, of course, expect young boys to be fascinated by
dinosaurs (as stereotypical as that might sound) but the Natural History Museum
has an incredible dinosaur display (NHM is one of my most favourite places in the world!!).
 |
| A family of elephants in Wasgamuwa, Sri Lanka, where I did my research into human-elephant conflict mitigation |
I'm not denying the sight of an animal can be amazing - but I prefer the excitement of waiting quietly in a hide or tree hut, wondering when they will meander past, or checking my camera traps at the end of the day to see if anything was caught!
I know, understand and appreciate that not everyone has the opportunity to travel and see these incredible animals in their natural habitat - and neither do I think everyone should have that opportunity - seeing them is not a right, its a privilege. Plus, we wouldn't want undisturbed natural habitat trampled by a load of tourists.
Why should humans have this damned right to see any animal they want?
For me, it wasn't my local zoo that inspired me to want to study elephants ... it was through volunteering abroad. Before that, it was Babar, The Really Wild Show, Challenge Anneka and David Attenborough (who hasn't been inspired by him??) that spiked my interest. I know everyone is different, and for some, yes, maybe zoos did play a role - maybe zoos played such a role that it angered them as to why animals were kept in captivity.
David Attenborough documentaries have always attracted millions of viewers and are still one of the most popular programmes on British television. I have yet to meet someone involved in conservation who actually hates Sir Attenborough's documentaries (I'm not saying they don't exist, just I've never met one- like a unicorn).
The article also reveals that recent campaigning at ZSL helped to raise £400,000 for in-situ tiger conservation (conservation of tigers in their natural habitat).
I'll stop you there...
£400,000 for in-situ tiger conservation....
sorry, let me just scroll up, and then come back down...
Was that £3.6 million spent on the tiger enclosure at ZSL for 5 whole tigers?
yes...yes it was...
Is it just me or does anyone else see something totally and inexcusably wrong with this?
If zoos could flip those numbers - then they will have an argument for conservation!
Just like the Natural History Museum preserves their taxidermy and the history of nature, zoos preserve wild animals in a Living Museum.
Just like the Natural History Museum preserves their taxidermy and the history of nature, zoos preserve wild animals in a Living Museum.
If you want to see animals in 3D - go to NHM (and go on the earthquake simulator too!).
As controversial as it may seem - you don't visit a cancer ward before you give money to a cancer charity.
You don't visit Africa's starving children before giving to a Feed the World charity.
Therefore, you do not visit a zoo to give money to conservation.
I'll continue with further explanation of some of these points and the valid arguments from the others mentioned in the article at a later date; for now, just let those figures swim around in your head for a while and start developing your own conclusions.
