ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
Domestic reindeer certainly do.
A little problem I have with the "migratory animal" anti-captivity argument
And unfortunately, it is almost impossible to avoid this to some degree. Since zoos are not "nature", the same selective pressures will not exist. Take, for example, antipredator behavior. In the wild, an animal that doesn't have correct antipredator behavior would be eaten before it's able to reproduce. In a zoo, that animal without antipredator behavior may very well be one of the top breeding animals and become over-represented in the population. It's why so few zoo populations could even be used for reintroduction programs, especially since something like antipredator behavior is much more subtle and unlikely to be noticed than something like a missing limb or color mutation.
Although just because there isn't direct conservation value, that doesn't mean there isn't educational value or research value to having those animals in zoos. Education can also directly contribute to conservation too- for example educating about a local species that is often the source of human-wildlife conflict could contribute to necessary behavior changes in the local environment. The roles of zoos are not solely ex-situ conservation and display. Education and research are also really important roles that zoos have.
Tapirus Lar
Well-Known Member
I just wanted to know, if an individual of a species whose ancestors have been born in captivity, extending even over a few generations, is released back in the wild, will it be able to regain some of its natural characteristics and behaviors that have disappeared from the zoo population or are rarely exhibited?
let me use your own example-antipredator behavior
IF, say, some species of deer is born and captivity, and its ancestors, i.e. parents grandparents etc. have all lived and have been born in captivity, lets say, its ancestors for 3 or 4 generations have been born and bred in captivity, if that deer is marked for a reintroduction program and released, will it naturally again start to show antipredator behavior it had rarely/never shown in a captive situation, i.e. alertness, effectiveness in spotting possible threats etc.?
will the conditions of the wild and of mother nature naturally cause some type of antipredatory behavior by instinct, or will it have to learn by trial and error?
Also what is the effectiveness of providing certain enrichment [like keeping animals near their predators, putting stimuli from the predators exhibit into the preys and vice versa, like feces, scented wood, rocks, etc.]?
Tapirus Lar
Well-Known Member
I agree. Many animals, even domesticated forms and non-threatened species are used as stand-ins for their threatened relatives. The original animal may not be available in captivity for a plethora of reasons, and these stand-ins can be effective at presenting to the public an animal which closely resembles its threatened counterpart, becoming an important educational element for the zoo. One example I can give is,
Bactrian camels are displayed in zoos to educate the public about the critically endangered wild Bactrian camel, Camelus Ferus.
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
Przewalski's horses had been in captivity for at least thirteen generations prior to them being reintroduced to Mongolia in the early 1990's.
Tapirus Lar
Well-Known Member
True, but there are fewer predators in that region. Snow leopards in Mongolia are found mainly in the western parts of the country, while bears prefer the northern part which has forests. Przewalski's horses were reintroduced into the Hustai National Park, and Great Gobi B Strictly Protected Area in mongolia, located in the central region and southwest, respectively, and Mountain Kalamaili Ungulate Nature Reserve in china. In the 2 locations in Mongolia, bears are absent, snow leopards are absent or very rare. The only predator that is *commonly* found is the grey wolf, but considering prey animals like wild boar, mongolian gazelle, wapiti, roe deer, wild sheep and ibex are also found in the same regions, predation by grey wolves on przewalskis horses seems rare
Tapirus Lar
Well-Known Member
At least, thats what several articles ive found seem to tell
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
Friend, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about.
In Hustai National Park at least, wolves kill 20-25% of all foals born annually. That is a major degree of predation! The park literally has to employ extra rangers during the months of May and June to conduct patrols around the clock so that more foals aren't killed.
You asked for an example, I gave you one. Don't cherrypick it just because it goes against your expectations.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
Do you have a link for these articles?
Lafone
Well-Known Member
White storks in the white stork project and Eurasian cranes - both released from captive parents and beyond, both establishing a breeding population. The white storks released each year from CWP for example are bred in captivity, on exhibit in an aviary where they can be seen as chicks and juveniles and are then wild released with chicks born in the wild as a result.
The reintroduction of the Red Kite to the U.K. which has established a thriving population is another good example of captive born birds going on to form effective wild populations.
Scottish wild cat reintroduction is another good example.
You can’t really argue behaviours fundamentally disappear in captivity in my view they are either adapted or just not necessary.
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
Behaviours are either innate (genetic) or learned. A behaviour can be lost by genetic drift if it is coded in the genome. Small populations - as those of zoo populations - are very prone to genetic drift.
A behaviour can be lost (or in other words never adquired) if it requires learning but the conditions to do so are not present.
Northern bald Ibises had to be taught their migratory route with a small airplane - this behaviour never developed in zoo born birds but existed in wild ones. Wild birds learn by following their parents when they migrate.
As some of your examples, several species can survive when captive born and released into the wild. But they have lower chances of survival than their wild born counterparts. There are tons of scientific literature describing this. Captive born animals are less fitter to live in the wild.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
The data and evidence of the white stork project suggests survival rates are good and if your statement was true there would be no rewilding from captivity, but there is and it is demonstrably successful in some cases. Does that mean every animal could benefit from the same conditions? No. But the black and white views in evidence here don't seem helpful to anything but an anti zoo / anti captivity agenda.
In the case of Red kites there would be none now in the UK if they had not been reintroduced.
OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
My statement is not mine. There is plenty of literature with data supporting that statement. Captive animals can be used in rewilding if things are done properly from day one. I never said the opposite.
Those Red Kites were from wild nests elsewhere, not captive bred.
With at least some species, release needs to be at the time they would naturally become independent of their parents, as that’s when they learn best. This has been proved with Echo Parrakeets and Pink Pigeons
Or as shown with Mexican grey wolves: released as infants and reared in surrogate dens. 2023 Mexican Wolf Fostering | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
It depends. What I am discussing is some of what *can* happen in captivity over generations, not what *always* happens. In a perfect world, every individual in a captive population will have equal reproductive success, which would mean evolution essentially doesn't occur. That said, equal reproductive success is near-impossible to achieve in real-life. There's also some degree of luck involved as to which individual animals become prolific founders, and whether or not those individuals have any genetic abnormalities.
Or more accurately- almost all behaviors are a combination of genetic and learned influences. It's almost never one or the other, with most well-studied examples (e.g., birdsong is the most famous one) having both genetic influences as well as learned influences.
Tapirus Lar
Well-Known Member
Sorry my friend, that was a dumb post. I apologize for it. You are obviously way more knowleadgeable o this topic than me
Tapirus Lar
Well-Known Member
Is that a natural number, or is it because years in captivity has reduced the antipredatory instincts and behavior in some way[ if such a thing is not possible, then i aplogize, i dont know much about this subject]thus making the horses somewhat easier to prey on than they otherwise would?
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
P-Horses have been in Hustai National Park since 1992, this, after spending two generations (1980) living semi-wild in large nature reserves in the Netherlands and Germany.
Yes, it's natural predation. The majority of Mongolia is used as one giant pasture for various species of domestic livestock: sheep, goats, cattle, horses, and camels.
Since 1990, wild animal numbers have plummeted countrywide. Meanwhile, livestock numbers have ballooned well past the country's carrying capacity.
Wolves in Mongolia are heavily prosecuted outside of protected areas because the lack of wild prey means that they're incentivized to kill livestock. So the wolves retreat to national parks like Hustai, where they find ample prey - Like the Przewalski's horse.
This article from The Guardian explains the whole thing quite well.
Mongolia dragged its wild horses back from extinction – can it save the rest of its wildlife?
Plus, here's the website for the organization that reintroduced the P-Horse to Hustai. They explain how they did it, why they did it, all of the great nitty-gritty stuff.
Foundation for the preservation and protection of the Przewalski Horse