Family of Gorillas to go back to the wild
- Thread starter Hix
- Start date
I didn't like this idea to start with but that's devastating news. 
Presumably Djala survived, but if five were killed and one is missing, the 'family' can now only consist of three or four members.
Last edited:
This is a sad story, but things like this happen in the wild. I know several people who are anti-zoo and feel that zoo animals should be released into the wild, but for many species there is not enough space and the animals can be far more vulnerable than they are in zoos.
I know that Damian Aspinall has received a lot of criticism via Zoo Chat, but at least he has tried to release large, captive animals into the wild, while many other zoos preach conservation, but breed animals to attract future visitors, rather than returning any to the wild. There are three times as many captive western lowland gorillas than are needed to save the animal. Meanwhile, there are only 2 captive eastern gorillas, both female and both at Antwerp, and no captive Cross River gorillas, as far as I know. Several smaller primates lack enough captives to preserve the species.
I know that Damian Aspinall has received a lot of criticism via Zoo Chat, but at least he has tried to release large, captive animals into the wild, while many other zoos preach conservation, but breed animals to attract future visitors, rather than returning any to the wild. There are three times as many captive western lowland gorillas than are needed to save the animal. Meanwhile, there are only 2 captive eastern gorillas, both female and both at Antwerp, and no captive Cross River gorillas, as far as I know. Several smaller primates lack enough captives to preserve the species.
How terrible. I was very sceptic about the whole project, but this is worse then my fears.
See, returning captive animals to the wild does not equal conservation. Damian Aspinall doesn`t seem to get that. Releasing captive animals only helps the wild population if a) there is enough space, food ect. for all and b) the wild population is compromised so much, either in numbers or genetic variety, that adding more animals helps. And then, it is usally much better to translocate wild animals from other populations. Animals that have always lived in the wild have a MUCH better chance at sucessfully reproducing and they need far fewer human support to do so. That does not only saves money, but is also much better when it comes to the welfare of the individuals. Better sucess means less DEAD animals, after all. Only if that is not possible, then the release of captive-bred animals makes sense.
From what I know, western lowland gorillas are definately not a species that benefits from the release of captive animals into existing populations. They are endangered, but there are still as many as 100.000 gorillas left in the wild, many in big populations. All resources should be used to secure these populations. That is useful conservation work, not the release of single captive gorillas that may or may not survive. I agree that release may be the only option for the many bushmeat orphans, but please, let`s keep zoo gorillas out of this, at least at this point.
I totally disagree with Aspinall`s strategy to release as many animals of as many species as possible. That`s not conservation, and it is detrimental to the welfare of the individuals.
See, returning captive animals to the wild does not equal conservation. Damian Aspinall doesn`t seem to get that. Releasing captive animals only helps the wild population if a) there is enough space, food ect. for all and b) the wild population is compromised so much, either in numbers or genetic variety, that adding more animals helps. And then, it is usally much better to translocate wild animals from other populations. Animals that have always lived in the wild have a MUCH better chance at sucessfully reproducing and they need far fewer human support to do so. That does not only saves money, but is also much better when it comes to the welfare of the individuals. Better sucess means less DEAD animals, after all. Only if that is not possible, then the release of captive-bred animals makes sense.
From what I know, western lowland gorillas are definately not a species that benefits from the release of captive animals into existing populations. They are endangered, but there are still as many as 100.000 gorillas left in the wild, many in big populations. All resources should be used to secure these populations. That is useful conservation work, not the release of single captive gorillas that may or may not survive. I agree that release may be the only option for the many bushmeat orphans, but please, let`s keep zoo gorillas out of this, at least at this point.
I totally disagree with Aspinall`s strategy to release as many animals of as many species as possible. That`s not conservation, and it is detrimental to the welfare of the individuals.
One of my friends went to Borneo and saw the attempts to release orang-utans into the wild. One of the main problems is that the released orangs kept associating people with food and would return in the evening. Generally speaking, there have been relatively few successes in releasing captive animals into the wild. Luckily, one group of golden lion tamarins were tested for an illness, just before being released. If they hadn't been tested, their diseases could have severely affected wild tamarins.
I don't know how much effort Damian Aspinall put into his research, but he couldn't have foreseen what was going to happen to the released gorillas. If there is no intention to release captive gorillas into the wild, why are over 700 kept in zoos? The reason tends to be financial, rather than conservation.
I agree with Yassa that released captive animals need enough space, food etc and must not compromise the wild population. I also agree that it is better to translocate wild animals, rather than spending money trying to train captive animals to live in the wild.
I also agree that western lowland gorillas probably do benefit from the release of captive animals into existing populations. As there may be 100.000 gorillas left in the wild, it would be better to spend money on protecting the gorillas and their natural habitat, rather than building another expensive enclosure to attract visitors, while also leading to other animals no longer being kept in the collection. That is one reason why I joined the RSPB, as it had paid for an area of rainforest in Sumatra, which will benefit Sumatran rhinos, tigers, orang-utans and other species far more than an expensive new enclosure in a zoo.
I don't know how much effort Damian Aspinall put into his research, but he couldn't have foreseen what was going to happen to the released gorillas. If there is no intention to release captive gorillas into the wild, why are over 700 kept in zoos? The reason tends to be financial, rather than conservation.
I agree with Yassa that released captive animals need enough space, food etc and must not compromise the wild population. I also agree that it is better to translocate wild animals, rather than spending money trying to train captive animals to live in the wild.
I also agree that western lowland gorillas probably do benefit from the release of captive animals into existing populations. As there may be 100.000 gorillas left in the wild, it would be better to spend money on protecting the gorillas and their natural habitat, rather than building another expensive enclosure to attract visitors, while also leading to other animals no longer being kept in the collection. That is one reason why I joined the RSPB, as it had paid for an area of rainforest in Sumatra, which will benefit Sumatran rhinos, tigers, orang-utans and other species far more than an expensive new enclosure in a zoo.
I still don`t know what exactly happened and it may have been unforeseeable, but what Damian Aspinall did know is that releasing zoo animals into the wild puts the individuals at an extremely high risk of death. Life in the wild is hard, and it`s extra-hard for animals born and raised in zoos. It was very likely that some from Djala`s group would not survive this experiement. I wonder if the brown hyena born in Port Lympne and apparently released in South Africa is still alive, or if maybe he wasn`t really released, but lives captive on a farm over there?
However, I don`t agree that gorillas (and other species) shouldn`t be kept in zoos because there are no current plans to release them back into the wild. The reasons to keep and breed captive populations of wild animals are a *bit* more complex then that. True conservation work and keeping animals in zoos does not exclude each other!
It's very, very sad but I believe that the money should have been spent preserving the habitat of the existing gorillas there.
I do fear what the chances of the orphan mountain gorillas at Senkwekwe are of successful release. Would they be better with or without a male and would a male have a hope of holding onto the females, or indeed even surviving, if they were to be released eventually. With so few mountain gorillas I can see why they'd want to save every one.
I do fear what the chances of the orphan mountain gorillas at Senkwekwe are of successful release. Would they be better with or without a male and would a male have a hope of holding onto the females, or indeed even surviving, if they were to be released eventually. With so few mountain gorillas I can see why they'd want to save every one.
I agree with David Attenborough that people could save wild habitats if they wanted to, but they won't. The proposed HS2 rail link between London and Birmingham threatens 24 ancient woodlands and there is a big clamour for more housing in the UK. Elsewhere in the world, human populations are rising and wild habitats are being destroyed. As others have said, the reintroduction programmes for various species have had mixed success and some have been very expensive. In some cases, more money has been spent on individual species than on maintaining suitable habitat for them.
A basic question is why many zoos are choosing to spend vast sums of money on new enclosures for certain species, which they have already saved from extinction. Many of these zoos are cutting their collections, meaning that some species are represented by few, or no, captive individuals and could become extinct if they died out in the wild. Books such as 'A Gap in Nature' and 'Lost Animals' show species that zoos could have saved. Unfortunately, many other species are in danger of extinction and won't be saved.
If captive animals of some species are not destined to be released into the wild, what is the validity of having hundreds of captive individuals of some species, while other species are not being saved?
A basic question is why many zoos are choosing to spend vast sums of money on new enclosures for certain species, which they have already saved from extinction. Many of these zoos are cutting their collections, meaning that some species are represented by few, or no, captive individuals and could become extinct if they died out in the wild. Books such as 'A Gap in Nature' and 'Lost Animals' show species that zoos could have saved. Unfortunately, many other species are in danger of extinction and won't be saved.
If captive animals of some species are not destined to be released into the wild, what is the validity of having hundreds of captive individuals of some species, while other species are not being saved?
I think they might be better trying to inflitrate them back into an existing group as just females without a male. It would prevent(or at least reduce) aggression and an inexperienced male possibly being killed or driven away, and more stress for the females. Or alternatively if they could be teamed up with a wild lone male.
Gorillas( and most other species) in Zoos generally are kept for exhibition purposes, rather than with any view to release.
The Aspinall Foundation is an exception to that. The Gorilla groups there were formed with just that in mind-breeding and subsequent release, rather than for exhibition. DA is simply following his father's ideaology. Rightly or wrongly depends on how you feel about it.
Last edited:
Gigit
Well-Known Member
An interview with Damian Aspinall about the recent deaths of the released gorillas:
Damian Aspinall raised gorillas in Kent zoo but they were killed when returned to jungle | Mail Online
Damian Aspinall raised gorillas in Kent zoo but they were killed when returned to jungle | Mail Online
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that the issue is that the Aspinall Foundation released Djala's group into an area were they sincerely believed gorillas were extinct. They got it wrong.
I find it hard to criticise them for an honest error. Their intention to repatriate individuals of other, far more endangered species, such as Moloch Gibbon and Eastern Black Rhino, strikes me as being far more dubious.
As always, and probably inevitably, different standards come into play for great apes. If similar events had befallen (say) released lions, wolves or zebra, to pick three aggressive group animals, I doubt if the same furore would have arisen.
I find it hard to criticise them for an honest error. Their intention to repatriate individuals of other, far more endangered species, such as Moloch Gibbon and Eastern Black Rhino, strikes me as being far more dubious.
As always, and probably inevitably, different standards come into play for great apes. If similar events had befallen (say) released lions, wolves or zebra, to pick three aggressive group animals, I doubt if the same furore would have arisen.
Last edited:
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
Have just read about the incident - the only gorillas there were those released by Aspinall. It all seems very odd.
Finally a few more details about the killings, but nothing definite. I had not realised they happened on the Island, to which the group must have returned. The wild male 'Boumanga' seems to have made a second attack on the group- following a similar one a few weeks previously. Who knows exactly what happened but I very much doubt Djala killed his own females, for whatever reason.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
That seems a rather narrow set of possibilities. Can you envision no other reasons?
That aside, this serves as a tragic response to those anti-zoo crusaders who insist it would be better for the dear animals to simply be set free.
Hello Zooplantman
I really do think that many zoos should treat conservation seriously, rather than cutting the number of species in their collections and continuing to breed animals that have already been saved from extinction. If there is no intention to reintroduce western gorillas into the wild, why are zoos breeding them when there are about 3 times as many captive western gorillas as are needed to save the species? The reason is financial - gorillas are popular zoo animals and many people expect to see them in zoos. A recent thread had zoochatters recommending that Chester Zoo has gorillas - why? I can think of many species I used to see in British zoos and I don't expect to see some of them again. Another thread talked about species that are being phased out in North American zoos, while several Australian zoos have common zoo animals, such as meerkats, but do not hold relatively rare native species, which the government also does not allow to be exported. I think that too much emphasis is being placed on 'popular species' and that relatively unpopular species are being removed from zoos and are facing an increased risk of extinction. Fortunately, some zoochatters are bothered about unpopular species and I am pleased that places like the RSCC exist and that there are threads devoted to small carnivores and the like.
I really do think that many zoos should treat conservation seriously, rather than cutting the number of species in their collections and continuing to breed animals that have already been saved from extinction. If there is no intention to reintroduce western gorillas into the wild, why are zoos breeding them when there are about 3 times as many captive western gorillas as are needed to save the species? The reason is financial - gorillas are popular zoo animals and many people expect to see them in zoos. A recent thread had zoochatters recommending that Chester Zoo has gorillas - why? I can think of many species I used to see in British zoos and I don't expect to see some of them again. Another thread talked about species that are being phased out in North American zoos, while several Australian zoos have common zoo animals, such as meerkats, but do not hold relatively rare native species, which the government also does not allow to be exported. I think that too much emphasis is being placed on 'popular species' and that relatively unpopular species are being removed from zoos and are facing an increased risk of extinction. Fortunately, some zoochatters are bothered about unpopular species and I am pleased that places like the RSCC exist and that there are threads devoted to small carnivores and the like.