overread
Well-Known Member
So a subject I thought would be good to discuss and be interesting to hear thoughts on.
In the UK its not allowed to feed captive prey to predators; at least in so far as mammalian and avian life is concerned; insects it seems are except from this to some degree.
However with reintroduction programs and zoos shifting from purely entertainment and into conservation I wonder if we need to consider allowing predators to hunt and deal with actual real prey if we are to reintroduce them back into the wild. Indeed whilst there is a huge amount of work done on this with stuffed toys and the like one has to wonder if a real prey animal is the really only way for an animal to learn even the most fundamental lessons.
Of course this comes with many problems;
1) The prey animal is going to die; but its also going to likely suffer, possibly significantly at the claws/jaws of an inexperienced predator. This is a great concern as such a scheme would be putting predators above prey in a "rights" form; it also introduces suffering of animals into a sector of the world that has taken huge strides to avoid it and even campaigned against stresses and suffering to the point where we even have most major zoos now closed to the capacity to keep animals for entertainment.
2) Any hunt that deals with live prey is a risk to a predator; be it captive or in the wild. Thus reintroduction animals would be at significant risk during these "hunts". This poses a risky question as to the value of the lessons learned in actual hunting. Is the potential lessons learned greater in worth than the risk to harm or death of the reintroduction species; measured against the assumed potential of reduced risk when hunting in the wild by the same predator.
Whilst risk of death in captivity through such a scheme would be a known risk there is no denying that reintroduction of captive stock into wild environments can meet with a high failure rate if the individuals lack awareness and skills in the wild to survive.
It's what I feel is an interesting question, though one where I'm sadly lacking in researched fact as to the various numbers behind many reintroduction programs. I'm aware that early schemes were met with high failure and that a lot of work has gone on to improve teaching of captive stock to allow them to increase the survival rate (at least when considering non-man-made interactions in the wild).
So should we consider sacrifice of some prey to allow endangered predators to have an increased chance of survival? Would even a few rabbits or hares - of low injury risk (and debateable reduced value in peoples eyes compared to say a zebra or wilderbeast) be enough to give a few choice real lessons.
In the UK its not allowed to feed captive prey to predators; at least in so far as mammalian and avian life is concerned; insects it seems are except from this to some degree.
However with reintroduction programs and zoos shifting from purely entertainment and into conservation I wonder if we need to consider allowing predators to hunt and deal with actual real prey if we are to reintroduce them back into the wild. Indeed whilst there is a huge amount of work done on this with stuffed toys and the like one has to wonder if a real prey animal is the really only way for an animal to learn even the most fundamental lessons.
Of course this comes with many problems;
1) The prey animal is going to die; but its also going to likely suffer, possibly significantly at the claws/jaws of an inexperienced predator. This is a great concern as such a scheme would be putting predators above prey in a "rights" form; it also introduces suffering of animals into a sector of the world that has taken huge strides to avoid it and even campaigned against stresses and suffering to the point where we even have most major zoos now closed to the capacity to keep animals for entertainment.
2) Any hunt that deals with live prey is a risk to a predator; be it captive or in the wild. Thus reintroduction animals would be at significant risk during these "hunts". This poses a risky question as to the value of the lessons learned in actual hunting. Is the potential lessons learned greater in worth than the risk to harm or death of the reintroduction species; measured against the assumed potential of reduced risk when hunting in the wild by the same predator.
Whilst risk of death in captivity through such a scheme would be a known risk there is no denying that reintroduction of captive stock into wild environments can meet with a high failure rate if the individuals lack awareness and skills in the wild to survive.
It's what I feel is an interesting question, though one where I'm sadly lacking in researched fact as to the various numbers behind many reintroduction programs. I'm aware that early schemes were met with high failure and that a lot of work has gone on to improve teaching of captive stock to allow them to increase the survival rate (at least when considering non-man-made interactions in the wild).
So should we consider sacrifice of some prey to allow endangered predators to have an increased chance of survival? Would even a few rabbits or hares - of low injury risk (and debateable reduced value in peoples eyes compared to say a zebra or wilderbeast) be enough to give a few choice real lessons.