West Midland Safari and Leisure Park West midland safari park
- Thread starter James27
- Start date
- Status
I agree that breeding the white tigers is pretty pointless. Correct me if i'm wrong though but while the white tigers are pretty much genetic freaks and a result of inbreeding (the first white male with his sisters) the white lions are more pure (I think)in terms of genetics. At the end of the day there are a few white lions that are completely wild while the white tigers are the result of a one off pretty much. Any offspring born is not going to supplement wild populations of white tigers because as far as we know all white tigers are in captivity. I think no real damage can be done by breeding the white lions in my opinion.
I do think that white lions and tigers should be kept in safari parks only due to the fact that zoos are more restricted in terms of exhibit size in comparison to safari parks. Especially in the case of the single white male at Colchester who it can be claimed is taking up space that could be used for other more endangered species.
Yeah such as on ISIS there is no seperate section for the white lions they are just African Lions really which happen to have a gene that gives them a white coat. A pet hate i have about WMSP is the fact every year they have the same picture of 3 tawny coloured lion cubs recently born and being hand reared, the fact is though once they're no longer these little cute cubs what do they do with them?? If they are having 5 or 6 cubs a year (mother reared and hand reared) surely the pride at the park should be huge. With the fact that most collections are focusing on the Asiatic lion I doubt there is much call for African lions other than to other safari parks and thats usually just new pride males. The programme they did about the park on ITV Central showed 2 cubs joining a private zoo and i think 4 cubs went to South Lakes but i have no idea where the others must have gone.
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
Sure, it is sort of gross and weird but if their numbers were down before, and now they are up, that has to be a good thing, right? I agree that if there are welfare implications with overbreeding, but then this is a central argument to safari parks breeding any common animal. Plus the adjustment that animal must then make in terms of the enclosure size. How many times have you seen 'animal park' cheerily report on the boom in sealion pups that year on half-mile lake, only for them to be caught up less than a year later and sent off to some horrible concrete chlorinated show pool elsewhere in the UK? Surely it would be better not to breed from common species in safari parks if the offspring can only go to collections where they will live in an exhibit a fraction of the size?
It's not hugely different from other collections boasting about the conservation value of the birth of hybrid giraffes, or the 'barbary' lion breeding programme that shows no sign of stopping despite the tests quietly revealing that these are not pure animals.
Hopefully one day all that amazing space in safari parks will be used properly, and we as a country can increase our capacity for asiatic lions, sumatran and amur tigers without the need for albinos, whites, tabbies or melanistic animals as some kind of draw. But for now, I don't see it as any worse than breeding african lions or sealions at longleat, only it's helping WMSP improve visitor numbers, while they clearly are interested in housing rare or under-represented species in their collection.
I'd normally be scathing about this kind of collection, certainly when they got their aye aye I was like 'what?', but you can literally count the number of UK collections that have successfully raised litters of hunting dogs on one hand.
It's not hugely different from other collections boasting about the conservation value of the birth of hybrid giraffes, or the 'barbary' lion breeding programme that shows no sign of stopping despite the tests quietly revealing that these are not pure animals.
Hopefully one day all that amazing space in safari parks will be used properly, and we as a country can increase our capacity for asiatic lions, sumatran and amur tigers without the need for albinos, whites, tabbies or melanistic animals as some kind of draw. But for now, I don't see it as any worse than breeding african lions or sealions at longleat, only it's helping WMSP improve visitor numbers, while they clearly are interested in housing rare or under-represented species in their collection.
I'd normally be scathing about this kind of collection, certainly when they got their aye aye I was like 'what?', but you can literally count the number of UK collections that have successfully raised litters of hunting dogs on one hand.
Haven't they stopped breeding the hunting dogs due to lack of space in their exhibit? I think they had one litter where i think 3 had to be hand reared then they had one large litter that was successfully mother reared of about 8. I just remember one of the keepers saving on their tv programme that the breeding female was on birth control to stop them breeding anymore. I suppose if they manage to rehome some, which shouldn't be that hard, they may begin breeding again. Have they managed to breed any of the Phillipine Spotted deer (if thats the right species)?
johnstoni
Well-Known Member
Successful litters of hunting dog pups tend to be large, so it would make sense, especially if they were fairly well-represented. Did they come from Port Lympne? Maybe it will be the case that a number of wildlife parks are required to be no good at breeding them just as they are right now in order to hold surplus groups....
I pray that ... one day ... that zoos will free up individuals of endangered taxa surplus to requirements in the breeding programme for in-situ release efforts. Several projects exist in southern Africa to rehabilitate African hunting dogs in parks where the species had been extirpated.
Sure, zoos need to look at space constraints, but can we also look at the bigger good for the species. More in-situ action is called for I think! Are any zoos within the EEP actually involved with funding in situ conservation of African hunting dogs?
Is there a distinction between southern African wild dogs and those from eastern Africa? What has played into the hands of only exhibiting southerners (availability, better contacts)?
Breeding Hunting Dogs in captivity still seems rather a hit or miss affair. Port Lympne have had success in recent years, while others have none. Maybe its due to complex dynamics between the individuals within a pair or larger group. In the wild I believe only one female(the dominant one) breeds in a pack at any time. Port Lympne tend to keep the adults in pairs, rather than larger groups, so there are no 'subordinate' females in these pairs and each pair can potentially be a breeding one..
Some years ago Port Lympne sent 2.1 dogs to Cricket St Thomas, which still has them. These have never bred, perhaps because they are siblings and have always lived together? I think if they changed one of the sexes for a new individual or two, things might be different, but its probably too much effort....
Last edited:
Another fascinating subject, my friends.
Group dynamics in hunting dog packs are just the one aspect to this equation. If packs get to be too large they eventually break up into new alliances with former subordinates becoming dominant in new settings (the infamous 1+1+1+1 = 2 packs). F.i. if a pack has say 15-20 members and when they meet up with another pack of say 8-12 members surely altercations will occur.
But it is exactly at that moment that opportunities for genetic exchange do and will happen. With territorial boundaries re-instated during altercations subordinate males or females from pack X seize the opportunity and produce new alliances with subordinate females or males from pack Y. The net end result may be the original packs X and Y plus 1 or even 2 further packs all made up of related males/females and unrelated females/males. The hunting dogs will simply seek each other out and determine whether they are compatible mates there and then.
The very basics of hunting dog group structure is that by definition all male pack members are related to oneanother, same goes for the female composition of the pack (viz the above).
Another important aspect is that there is just one dominant pair that will breed and sire offspring in any given pack. All its individual members are involved in the rearing of any new pups. If another subordinate female in the pack is mated successfully - which occasionally does happen in the wild - the dominant female will kill the subordinate's new pups and/or prevent the other pack members from assisting in their rearing. The relevance of this is that all resources are geared towards rearing just the one set of pups, thereby increasing the chances of rearing success.
Even in captive environments - whether you set up just a pair or a group setting - all these factors come into play.
A) Setting up a pair means really challenging the nature of hunting dog troupes and these only work when the pair is compatible in the first place. If not compatible they will not breed.
B) Setting up a group formation with 2.1 related individuals will not succeed as their very - and even perceived by all group members - relationship as brothers with sister prevent them from breeding. It is a natural mechanism to prevent inbreeding depression and a major aspect in maintaining fitness in hunting dog packs.
C) Group formation with unrelated individuals on either side of the sex divide will only succeed if the proposed group formation members work out to be compatible with oneanother.
Thus the challenge to form compatible breeding groups in captivity is borne and ... no it is not a simple one. As you all know: in captivity we decide what individuals are paired up and if the chemistry just is not there (the compatibility complex) a working hunting dog troupe is out the window. It is therefore a matter of try, re-try and re-try.
1. I think Port Lympne operate on the basis of setting up breeding pairs initially and then hoping these(or some of them) will breed. In captivity the dynamics of the pack become rather meaningless since there is no coperative hunting to do and all food is provided to the parents, they don't need subordinate dogs to assist in catching prey and feeding the young (I'm sure they would still assist in the rearing if present though) I think Port Lympne do have one quite large pack which is in the African experience area- consisting of a breeding pair plus a number of grown up young.
2. the 2.1 that went to Cricket St Thomas park do exhibit the inbreeding taboo. If Cricket exchanged one sex with another park's, breeding might result- however I think they only want an exhibit here.
1. For a stable EEP to be build up all holders should most closely replicate the natural structure of hunting dog packs. By not having subordinates in their pack the young pups will not grow up with the experience of their subordinate peers assisting in their rearing. This may well implicate the potential of the reared pups later on life when they themselves move on to establish new packs elsewhere.
2. If Cricket St Thomas just wants "exhibit" hunting dogs, why not have a single sex group (that is as relevant for the hunting dog EEP as bulls only facilities for elephants f.i.)?
I don't think I've ever seen Hunting Dogs exhibited anywhere in a pack containing a good number of adults. Its either(usually) pairs, or occasionally a larger number when there are pups or larger young still with the parents. Maybe the Safari Parks keeping this wonderful animal will now be able to improve husbandry by keeping more natural groupings and preserving pack dynamics a little better?
Cricket St Thomas- keeping 2.1. nonbreeding siblings over many years and not changing the situation is simply slack management.
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
Not sure how this has been missed but they now have 2 Amur Leopards insted of the supposed PURE West African Leopard.
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
Not sure when they arrived but look to be 2 males,but they were their when i visited on 4/5/08 and they were clearly labeled as Amur.
Were they out in the enclosure together or was one out and the other locked inside? If they were together then the only ones i can think it could be would be the 2 male cubs born at Twycross but i'm sure someone wrote that they were keeping one cub and getting rid of the father and the other cub
- Status