Conservation Or "Preservation"?

[Sun Wukong]

This thread is based on a remark by Steve Robinson during the white tiger discussion in the "New Zealand" part of the forum.

Quoting his initial post:

"However, I'm not as optimistic as some of you about this in-situ conservation deal for some species. For a number of species I think the emphasis now is going to have to be more on preservation than conservation. For example, all the money in the world is not going to save the Luzon Bleeding-Heart Pigeon from going extinct in the wild while ever humans keep procreating on that island. As humans seem to find procreating pleasurable I guess that the human population will continue to increase. Good-bye pigeons in the wild. They will, however, always be preserved in zoos."

Indeed, there are several species that are extinct in the wild and just exist in captivity. Among them are the Père David's Deer, the Socorro Dove or the Butterfly Splitfin.
And there are species whose numbers in captivity exceed those in the wild, with the tiger as probably the most popular example. So far, so unfortunately true.

Steve indicated that the preservation of captive populations is a valuable and sometimes even more preferrable option to the conservation of the natural habitat and wild populations.
Well, honestly, I think this opinion is a little bit irrealistic-and actually rather naive.

To name just a few reasons why I think so:

-Selection: Captivity pretty much excludes natural selection. Specimens that would never be able to survive or reproduce in the wild are kept alive and reproduce; thus the "runts of the litters" negatively influence the "fitness" status of the whole captive population. Unwanted traits might establish themselves (deformation of horns, decrease in size, decreased fertility...), while desirable characteristics disappear.
More or less deliberately, the humans in charge create a selection of their own-which might rather lead to domestication. And I'm not just talking about fancy colour morphs like white tigers or blue-eyed scarlet ibises.
Let's envision the following scenario as an example: 15 antelopes are caught to establish a captive population. 5, probably the ones most easily stressed but also most wary ones, die during capture and transport. 5 die in the zoo, being not able to adopt to captivity or due to freak accidents. So 5 are left-probably the ones best suited to captivity; less easily stressed, calm around humans, eating everything...Sounds lovely for a pet, but not for an animal that has to be always on its guard in the wild. And with 5 animals, you might end up with...
-Inbreeding: Contrary to popular belief, inbreeding itself doesn't have to result in negative consequences, and it also occurs in the wild (especially in restricted populations). Yet in a small captive population where said "runts" contribute to the breeding stock and no positive selection occurs, inbreeding depression can hit hard.
-Capacity: Zoos don't have that much room to offer for preservation. First of all, they are businesses in the family-friendly entertainment industry, and as such they have to be profitable. Thus, they tend to keep species that are easy to keep, not endangered and thus easier to acquire, and most of all, real crowd-pleasers (meerkats, coatis, African Bush elephants...). Due to that and the lack of selection (as the public is usually very touchy and emotional when surplus "zoo babies" are killed), space and ressources are limited. One could include private owners in the preservation, but some of them are a) not reliable and sell the animals off for personal gain, b) are rather interested in creating colour morphs and fancy hybrids, c) don't have the means or knowledge to offer sound husbandry or d) are not allowed to do so due to legislation. The ark is thus already overcrowded...
-"Social skills": especially among higher mammals, such as primates or big cats, important behaviour patterns have to be acquired (may it be hunting, rearing youngs, avoiding predators etc) by learning and experience. Animals in captivity are usually unable to display the full extent of their natural behaviour-may it due to lack of adequate compensation, confined space or ethical reasons (live feeding...).
-Disease control: The interaction with humans and other species in captivity increases the chance of spreading diseases. Bumblefoot in birds in prey might, among other reasons, be a result of staphylocci infection spread from humans to birds. Several collections have lost rare captive anurians due to chytridiomycosis spread by the staff. And there are diseases and health problems that just exist in captivity, but not in the wild-as we can't recreate certain parameters in captivity.
-"I don't belong here": Some species, may it be pelagic sharks, Indri or several Microchiroptera, don't do well in captivity. They either die soon, or never reproduce. For them, an ex-situ program won't do the trick.
-"Forever"? Captivity is no guarantee for an eternal safe "ark" situation. What happens if the humans in charge can't afford the preservation any longer? When wars or any other crisis strike? Remember how the last Père David's Deer in China ended up as lunch during the Boxer Rebellion...or how the probably last Schomburgk' deer was allegedly killed by a drunk...
-Legislation: More and more of the so-called Second or Third World countries sporting endangered wildlife are self-reliant and don't want strange nations to acquire "their" animals-unless they are compensated for it in one way or another. Together with international wildlife trade legislatation and national red tape, this makes sure that getting certain animals isn't all that easy as some might imagine. This has doomed several preservation programs right from the start, and results in more and more breeding programs given up over the last years (may it be Mountain tapirs, Klipspringers, bald crows etc.).
-The Human factor: One would think that such a noble cause as preserving a species would connect people and let them forget all their petty little personal indifferences. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Alas, the quality and success of such a program is heavily influenced by the capacity of the ones in charge. So if the guy responsible is an asocial, ignorant and incapable prick, then so long, poor species...Ideally, the perfect man (or woman) in charge should be immortal, too; as in zoos, when the person in charge disappears into nonexistence, so does the program...

...

All in all, I think that the conservation of the species in its natural habitat should come in first. Establishing and maintaining ex-situ captive populations can be an option, if possible, well-done and planned, but should only be considered as the last straw in a worst case scenario.

 

[foz]

Well the post illustrates some of the many problems with zoos and preservation. But I wish to add that often oreservation eads to the conservation. If the Przewalski's wild horse were not preserved I would be unable to see these animals at all and may not be inspired into conservation. The keeping of popular animals like meerkats and coati whislt isn't ideal are often the first animals people connect with and learn about and so again can lead to future conservationists and naturalists.

While preservation in zoo conditions may have its faults and cannot save every animals it is imperative to preserve as many species as possile for future generations, I can not imagine my grand children not being able to see an orangutan.

Really I think conservation and preservation are both key, both should play an important part in zoos and both can support each other

 

[Jurek7]

All in all, I think that the conservation of the species in its natural habitat should come in first. Establishing and maintaining ex-situ captive populations can be an option, if possible, well-done and planned, but should only be considered as the last straw in a worst case scenario.

It is long topic and lots of points.

I want to remember that there is a long list of species which became extinct because attempts of protecting them in the wild failed. And most national parks in the world are 'paper parks' which exist only on paper.

Even the best conservationist is powerless against war and political unrests (wisent, northern white rhino), introduced predators and parasites (guam monarch, rail and kingfisher, new zealand fauna), already high population density (south chinese tiger).

Currently, I think there is a little too much ideological belief in 'leaving nature intact' and 'keeping wildlife wild'. 'Leaving nature intact' means usually stopping conservation, but not stopping pollution, timber cutting, poaching etc - non-conservationists are left free to do it. And tools of breeding ex-situ and other active conservation improved enormously within last decades.

In my opinion, it is case-by-case situation. Some animals are better preserved in the wild, orthers in captivity or in combination. Bad is putting all species into one bucket - all wild or all captive.

 

[Sun Wukong]

foz: The Takhi is one of the very, very few "lucky" species that is again and again dragged to the front as an example. Yet it is still debated a) whether or not the current Takhi population has at least some domestic horses as ancestors, b) how much the Hecks and other early breeders changed the appearance according to their own liking and c) how the takhi would do when the humans are gone. And last but not least: the takhi was especially in the 60s and 70s a good example of inbreeding depression...One should not be tempted to always cite the exception of the rule as a prime example.
What do you think is better: keep living peach trees outside, or just store as many peaches as possible preserved in tins in your cellar?
And what is the herd of future potential "conservationists", inspired by the sight of an obese meerkat at the local zoo, going to do when there is nothing left to conserve?

@Jurek7: Of course it is a long post-after all, it's a complex topic.
-Which species became extinct because of conservation attempts? Rothschild and his hunters, as another case, were not so much interested in conservation, but rather in the "preservation" of stuffed specimens.
-Even the best "preservationist" is powerless when the same disasters and problems strike his or her collection-or if the animals refuse to breed in the artificial environment (see Northern White Rhinos).
-I rather think that the "ark" ideology is still a bit too dominant among some zoochat members-even when keeping all its prominent flaws mentioned above in mind. Just to put things right: I'm not a tree-hugging 'Leaving nature intact' idealist, but rather interested in practical conservation. And in regard to the latter, the conservation of the habitat is key.

I do not think that it's a case-by-case situation. The ideal, long-term solution is in all cases the protection and conservation of the habitat-no matter how grim the local situation is. This does not just benefit the prominent, but also less popular, but nevertheless equally important species, and is much cheaper and more useful on the long run. An ex-situ captive population can be useful as sort of a "back-up" Plan B and a good way of studying the animals in question, but solely relying on that should only be the very, very last option.

 

[okapikpr]

That is why there is no single solution for the conservation of any species. Each approach should be multi-faceted using several conservation techniques (habitat preservation, government protection, involving local econimies, ex-situ conservation, etc) as applicable to the situtation of the species involved.

 

[foz]

I agree that it is a combined effort of conservation and preservation (sometimes not in equal parts) that would ultimatley save as many species as possible. whilst conservation is more ideal sometimes it is just unrealistic...as previously stated there may be political issues as not everyone acts in the interest of wildlife (war etc).

We can not rely soley on either.

 

[Hix]

A good post, Sun Wukong (your first one) and I agree wholeheartedly - conservation (or preservation) of the wild should take priority.

BUT - ex situ populations of endangered species are essential, because it's pointless saving the habitat if you let the inhabitants become extinct. When numbers become low or are continuing to decline, captive colonies of (preferably) known provenance are an insurance against wild extinction (eg. Californian Condor, Laysan Teal, Guam Rail). Especially in cases where saving an ecosystem may take some time, like removing an introduced predator.

However, you have covered most of the concerns with keeping small gene pool populations in captivity, including the Genetic Selection For Captivity aspect which many people don't know about.



Hix

 

[Sun Wukong]

In the worst of cases, the capture, confinement, relocation and further on captive husbandry and (hopefully) successful breeding of the last specimens of a species/population might be a valuable or even the last option-as long as the species can be maintained in captivity.

However, and that is the repetious bottom line message of this thread, one should not think that by keeping a population of wild animals in captivity, their future as a species is from now on till eternity secured. Once again: NOT TRUE. Zoos are and can NOT be arks, at least not for the majority of species.

Captivity does not mean that the animals kept remain in "suspended animation"; due to mentioned population dynamics, they change, making it questionable in some cases whether these animals are comparable to the original wild-living ancestors-and whether they are fit for a potential reintroduction in the more or less far future.
Last but not least: don't overestimate the money, ressources and space capacities available for realistic conservation. As mentioned before, @foz, preservation is neither immune from the retrenchments you mentioned.

We might not be able to save all species, but neither should we just focus on the popular ones.
Instead, we should try to save as many as possible, for as long as possible. And that is rather likely by saving the local ecosystems and habitats, than by "saving" just some bits and pieces...

 

[CiaranDUK]

Preservation and Conservation are strongly linked. I agree with foz. If there weren't collections out there preserving species (albeit planning of conserving*) so that I can actually see the animals in the flesh, as opposed to on the television, then I probably won't be inspired to help conservation. However I believe Zoos can only provide 50% of the inspiration. Wildlife Documentaries (and holidays), in my opinion, provide the other half. This way you can see the environment in which these species live. One can see the habitats in which these species are adapted to live, the same habitats which are decreasing in size, the habitats which us Humans are killing. These Wildlife Documentaries guilt trip us (quite rightly) into thinking that it is the viewer's fault for what's happening to the World. That is why I support the WWF, the RSPB and put money into collection boxes at Zoos (even though I'm skint and have no job!). Habitats NEED saving more than the Wildlife!! Sorry, emotions draining...

*We all know how some Zoos find it very difficult to breed some species. Take Africa Alive! for example, they have kept Somali Wild Asses for some good years now and they have only bred, for the first time, this year.

 

[Pertinax]

*We all know how some Zoos find it very difficult to breed some species. Take Africa Alive! for example, they have kept Somali Wild Asses for some good years now and they have only bred, for the first time, this year.

Not sure how good an example this is- AA didn't bred Somali Ass for a long time because they had two males. When they acquired a female they bred quite rapidly.

 

[CiaranDUK]

Not sure how good an example this is- AA didn't bred Somali Ass for a long time because they had two males. When they acquired a female they bred quite rapidly.

Oh really? I didn't know that. Still, they have only had one Somali Ass foal born at the park.

 

[Monty]

It all depends on your definition of conservation. I have not just looked it up, but remember it to be "sustainable use". Much of what is called conservation I believe is preservation.

Lions in Africa are an example.

Many countries in Africa have controlled hunting as part of their conservation program for Lions. In those countries where sustainable managed hunting takes place lions are seen as an asset not a liability and the loss of a few stock is tolerated. In areas where local people can not receive an income from Lions they are a liability and are often poisoned and killed illegally. Countries with these different managements can be compared and the conservation through management of hunting means there are better populations in those countries compared with the preservation management.