The other de-extinction: Should zoos handle proxy rewilding?

La Cucaracha said:
And I never said John Hume's rhinos will never ever find a forever home ever, but here I am having to defend myself from "my mistake".
Click to expand...

"World’s largest private rhino herd doesn’t have a buyer — or much of a future" - The headline of the article that you posted.

It really doesn't look good that you can't admit that you posted outdated information without getting all defensive about it, you know.
 
Wisp O' Mist said:
"World’s largest private rhino herd doesn’t have a buyer — or much of a future" - The headline of the article that you posted.

It really doesn't look good that you can't admit that you posted outdated information without getting all defensive about it, you know.
Click to expand...

The headline is not the point I was making. What do you need to be right about it?
 
So my apologies if I'm driving the topic into a tangent, but I was curious about the AZA's statement since I haven't heard about it before and why they may have an issue with it. And it seems they aren't completely opposed to bringing back extinct species*, just if the de-extinct individuals aren't genetically pure according to the species they are supposed to be**, the extinct species not being able to be reintroduced in the wild ecosystem.*** But they prefer to focus on using biotechnologies for living species.****
Also the link attached to the de-extinction of the northern white rhinoceros leads to the AZA statement again!

For why I came to this conclusion in case anyone is curious or didn't want to read all of it (though it's quite short):
* "AZA members should participate in those collaborative efforts that advance biotechnologies that will be applied to wildlife conservation and management of extant species, those on the edge of extinction, even if not viable in the short-term, and, as appropriate, extinct species that can be recovered but only with the engagement, endorsement, and authorization of relevant government agencies."
** "AZA does not support member development or application of biotechnologies, including providing biomaterials, or testing technologies and procedures, i.e., bio-objects1, for the specific purposes of “de-extinction” that are intended to result in hybrids or phenotypic proxies of species believed extinct." (Italics by me) And they name which techniques they completely oppose: "In practice, de-extinction is the creation of hybrids or phenotypic proxies of extinct species. Strategies to achieve de-extinction utilize similar techniques as those utilized for extant species, including “1) backbreeding to reassemble ancestral traits; 2) inter-species cloning using a surrogate, where there would be some inheritance of genetic material from the surrogate; and 3) genome engineering, to mix and match extinct genetic sequences within the scaffold of a suitable near relative”2."
*** "Separately, questions abound regarding political will and commitment to release populations to fulfill extinct ecological roles or re-create the environmental conditions of bygone eras. While extant species are frequently threatened by human behaviors, de-extinction without a comprehensive recovery plan does nothing to address the original cause(s) of extinction."
**** "These concerns, and the continuing inability to scale up action to address the needs of extant species, underscore what we believe is our moral imperative to dedicate our time, talent, and energy to the application of biotechnology for the management and conservation of extant species."
 
LaicaTheDino said:
So my apologies if I'm driving the topic into a tangent, but I was curious about the AZA's statement since I haven't heard about it before and why they may have an issue with it. And it seems they aren't completely opposed to bringing back extinct species*, just if the de-extinct individuals aren't genetically pure according to the species they are supposed to be**, the extinct species not being able to be reintroduced in the wild ecosystem.*** But they prefer to focus on using biotechnologies for living species.****
Also the link attached to the de-extinction of the northern white rhinoceros leads to the AZA statement again!

For why I came to this conclusion in case anyone is curious or didn't want to read all of it (though it's quite short):
* "AZA members should participate in those collaborative efforts that advance biotechnologies that will be applied to wildlife conservation and management of extant species, those on the edge of extinction, even if not viable in the short-term, and, as appropriate, extinct species that can be recovered but only with the engagement, endorsement, and authorization of relevant government agencies."
** "AZA does not support member development or application of biotechnologies, including providing biomaterials, or testing technologies and procedures, i.e., bio-objects1, for the specific purposes of “de-extinction” that are intended to result in hybrids or phenotypic proxies of species believed extinct." (Italics by me) And they name which techniques they completely oppose: "In practice, de-extinction is the creation of hybrids or phenotypic proxies of extinct species. Strategies to achieve de-extinction utilize similar techniques as those utilized for extant species, including “1) backbreeding to reassemble ancestral traits; 2) inter-species cloning using a surrogate, where there would be some inheritance of genetic material from the surrogate; and 3) genome engineering, to mix and match extinct genetic sequences within the scaffold of a suitable near relative”2."
*** "Separately, questions abound regarding political will and commitment to release populations to fulfill extinct ecological roles or re-create the environmental conditions of bygone eras. While extant species are frequently threatened by human behaviors, de-extinction without a comprehensive recovery plan does nothing to address the original cause(s) of extinction."
**** "These concerns, and the continuing inability to scale up action to address the needs of extant species, underscore what we believe is our moral imperative to dedicate our time, talent, and energy to the application of biotechnology for the management and conservation of extant species."
Click to expand...

They're saying that they don't support Colossal Biosciences without having to name them.
 
LaicaTheDino said:
So my apologies if I'm driving the topic into a tangent, but I was curious about the AZA's statement since I haven't heard about it before and why they may have an issue with it. And it seems they aren't completely opposed to bringing back extinct species*, just if the de-extinct individuals aren't genetically pure according to the species they are supposed to be**, the extinct species not being able to be reintroduced in the wild ecosystem.*** But they prefer to focus on using biotechnologies for living species.****
Also the link attached to the de-extinction of the northern white rhinoceros leads to the AZA statement again!

For why I came to this conclusion in case anyone is curious or didn't want to read all of it (though it's quite short):
* "AZA members should participate in those collaborative efforts that advance biotechnologies that will be applied to wildlife conservation and management of extant species, those on the edge of extinction, even if not viable in the short-term, and, as appropriate, extinct species that can be recovered but only with the engagement, endorsement, and authorization of relevant government agencies."
** "AZA does not support member development or application of biotechnologies, including providing biomaterials, or testing technologies and procedures, i.e., bio-objects1, for the specific purposes of “de-extinction” that are intended to result in hybrids or phenotypic proxies of species believed extinct." (Italics by me) And they name which techniques they completely oppose: "In practice, de-extinction is the creation of hybrids or phenotypic proxies of extinct species. Strategies to achieve de-extinction utilize similar techniques as those utilized for extant species, including “1) backbreeding to reassemble ancestral traits; 2) inter-species cloning using a surrogate, where there would be some inheritance of genetic material from the surrogate; and 3) genome engineering, to mix and match extinct genetic sequences within the scaffold of a suitable near relative”2."
*** "Separately, questions abound regarding political will and commitment to release populations to fulfill extinct ecological roles or re-create the environmental conditions of bygone eras. While extant species are frequently threatened by human behaviors, de-extinction without a comprehensive recovery plan does nothing to address the original cause(s) of extinction."
**** "These concerns, and the continuing inability to scale up action to address the needs of extant species, underscore what we believe is our moral imperative to dedicate our time, talent, and energy to the application of biotechnology for the management and conservation of extant species."
Click to expand...


Unfortunately the right links got lost reuploading the post, I posted them right after.
There does seem to be a gray area with the AZA's stance on using biotechnology in de-extinction. Kurt was cloned using a domestic horse egg cell. No one seemed to seriously take issue with it, but he has mitochondrial domestic horse DNA.
 
La Cucaracha said:
Kurt was cloned used a domestic horse egg cell.
Click to expand...

As was Ollie, presumably.

Of course, it may simply not be a big deal with the P-Horse clones because all living P-Horses already have domestic Horse mitochondrial DNA.

Elizabeth Ann was also cloned using a domestic Ferret egg cell. Not sure if that applies to Noreen and Antonia, though.

I also remember a press release being put out that stated that only male offspring of Elizabeth Ann would be used in the Black-footed ferret breeding program specifically because of the domestic Ferret mitochondrial DNA.

Obviously, that was before it was discovered that Elizabeth Ann couldn't actually be bred because of pre-existing health issues.

Both Antonia and Noreen have been bred, though. And Antonia's daughter Sibert is being used in the breeding program.

Maybe they decided that it wasn't a hill that they wanted to die on?
 
Last edited:
Wisp O' Mist said:
As was Trey, presumably.

Of course, it may simply not be a big deal with the P-Horse clones because all living P-Horses already have domestic Horse mitochondrial DNA.

Elizabeth Ann was also cloned using a domestic Ferret egg cell. Not sure if that applies to Noreen and Antonia, though.

I also remember a press release being put out that stated that only male offspring of Elizabeth Ann would be used in the Black-footed ferret breeding program specifically because of the domestic Ferret mitochondrial DNA.

Obviously, that was before it was discovered that Elizabeth Ann couldn't actually be bred because of pre-existing health issues.

Both Antonia and Noreen have been bred, though. And Antonia's daughter Sibert is being used in the breeding program.

Maybe they decided that it wasn't a hill that they wanted to die on?
Click to expand...

Some European conservationists are grieved about wisent being hybridized with American bison, but ultimately the results are better fertility and calf survival. But bison conservationists and purebred ranchers also work very hard to remove mitochondrial cattle genes from their bison herds above all else.
Are we really any better than the dire wolf people if we say, "Well... If it looks like a Przewalski's horse, and acts like one-"? While it is true the Przewalski's horse founder group included hybrids, ironically this is also often brushed under the rug by advocates that say it is the last true wild horse and not the Spanish colonial mustang.
 
Last edited:
No. I think proxy rewilding in general is a silly idea. For one, we don’t even know if humans were the main cause of the extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene. But also global ecosystems have changed since the extinctions. Equids have been gone from North America for over ten millennia. Nowadays, feral horses in North America are a damaging invasive species. If lions or elephants were introduced to North America or Australia, they would probably become bad invasive species as well. I think resources would be better spent protecting African and Asian megafauna in their natural habitats.
 
The_Leopard_Seal said:
No. I think proxy rewilding in general is a silly idea. For one, we don’t even know if humans were the main cause of the extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene. But also global ecosystems have changed since the extinctions. Equids have been gone from North America for over ten millennia. Nowadays, feral horses in North America are a damaging invasive species. If lions or elephants were introduced to North America or Australia, they would probably become bad invasive species as well. I think resources would be better spent protecting African and Asian megafauna in their natural habitats.
Click to expand...

I personslly would really like to see more effort into reintroducing jaguars to the United States over lions.
 
La Cucaracha said:
But bison conservationists and purebred ranchers also work very hard to remove mitochondrial cattle genes from their bison herds above all else.
Click to expand...

Outdated info, all bison have cattle DNA.

La Cucaracha said:
Are we really any better than the dire wolf people if we say, "Well... If it looks like a Przewalski's horse, and acts like one-"?
Click to expand...

Uh... the AZA, ZAA, and the EAZA admit that there's domestic horse blood in the Przewalski's horse.

Why else do you think that they all collectively decided to stop maintaining two breeding lines of Przewalski's once DNA testing made it clearly apparent that both lines had domestic horse DNA. Hell, the supposedly "purebred" line ended up having more domestic horse admixture than the "impure" line did!

Colossal Biosciences continues to lie to the public about what their GMO gray wolves actually are.

La Cucaracha said:
While it is true the Przewalski's horse founder group included hybrids, ironically this is also often brushed under the rug by advocates that say it is the last true wild horse and not the Spanish colonial mustang.
Click to expand...

Lol, there's significantly more domestic horse blood in the P-Horse than from just that one founder. There's the Mongolian foster mare and the Askania-Nova hybrids as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top