I'm really not sure. I suppose it's possible. I know blackbucks were first introduced to Kerr County on the Edwards Plateau in 1932. I don't know if the whole current population is descended from that one introduction, in which it is more likely they are all from one subspecies, or if there were subsequent importations, which would increase the likelihood of hybridization. It would be interesting to have Texas Parks and Wildlife Department do a genetic study to see, though if they are all descended from one importation, since it was going on 90 years ago now, I wonder if a founder effect and genetic drift might make the Texas population look genetically different from either subspecies.
Damian Aspinall: You all know my views on zoos prove me wrong
- Thread starter Damian Aspinall
- Start date
I'm really not sure. I suppose it's possible. I know blackbucks were first introduced to Kerr County on the Edwards Plateau in 1932. I don't know if the whole current population is descended from that one introduction, in which it is more likely they are all from one subspecies, or if there were subsequent importations, which would increase the likelihood of hybridization. It would be interesting to have Texas Parks and Wildlife Department do a genetic study to see, though if they are all descended from one importation, since it was going on 90 years ago now, I wonder if a founder effect and genetic drift might make the Texas population look genetically different from either subspecies.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
I am keen to learn what these species cannot be re introduced and cannot be allowed to remain in situ. Thank you ..i ask as we have been told the same thing with every introduction we have done however with hard work and commitment we have succeeded ...
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your comment my beliefs are based on living my entire life with captive animals and although we are the leading breeder in the world in a number of species i still think they are best not held in zoos. The argument which is a common one when people are asked why do you have animals that are not threatened the answer is always well these species are not rare today but they might be in the future. The problem with that argument is what's the process to make that decision?.ie who decides that a species is at a point where it might need to have some extra protection? the truth is no one ..and secondly if a species was at a point where we all agree that some form of captivity is needed surely it is better to try to do that in situ, again there is no process to that either.
The consequence of this that there are hundred maybe thousands of species that have absolutely no need to be in any zoo for any reason. I am afraid the point that animals are better off in zoos than the wild is lost on me .. for me nothing is more wonderful than nature itself with all its beauty and letting living beings alone to be free.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
For me the price you ask is too high. I am not comfortable with the idea that we enslave wild animals in mostly substandard cages because a few people are interested in nature. think of all the misery that causes to the animals.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
but the animals pay the price for this type of thinking ...hundreds of thousands of animals in sub standard cages because of this argument. For me i recoil at this idea and honestly just think it is the arrogance of homo sapiens that this is ok. It really isn't
I have seen the misery of so may animals in so many zoos including the good ones. I could not live with myself if i shared your view.Thank you for your comment
Although I don’t necessarily agree with Mr Aspinall, I can understand his point of view.
I think I’ve found the fundamental key point which is the definition of animals suffering in captivity, of which the definition varies from person to person. That’s the key point which shapes a persons entire opinion on this matter. Just some food for thought.
I actually agree with Mr Aspinall on this point, I think if the hard yards are done and lots of time, money, care are invested, reintroducing species such as Khansi Speay Toad might not be as out of reach as it seems.
Although, this where our opinions most likely change, I would still have a population of Khansi Spray Toads in captivity as a safeguard population as for species with only small populations a single natural disaster or disease outbreak can wipe out a species, whereas I guess Mr Aspinall would not want an insurance population due to the ‘suffering’ of these captive bred toads in captivity (I’m not attempting to belittle you).
Some species will be much harder than others though.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your comment
Sadly i think animals can suffer in all zoos and that includes our own and i think the husbandry of our animals is world class yet they can still suffer. The reasons are obvious enclosures are always to small diets are never good enough etc etc animals belong in the wild not in zoos.
clearly some zoos are better than others but the bad ones and the very bad ones outnumber the good 20-1 and yes i believe the bad and very bad the animals can suffer terrible traumas and develop sever mental disorders and even in the good ones. Much evidence of this sadly.
Yes there is a very real problem with the destruction of nature today and that makes protecting wildlife a real challenge BUT that does not mean the only answer is shove the animals in zoos.
It is possible to protect pockets of the wild even if its the last resort we again this has been done successfully and secondly if we were at the tipping point where an animals needs to be in some form of captivity then it is usually possible to have the animals in some type of semi captivity than ending in a zoo. Zoos have not done a great job over the years. The number of species that are hybrids or in bred or genetically unviable is shocking and that's why its important we have these communications so people understand the real issues here ...thank you
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Unlike some, I do not think that engaging in debate and discussion is necessarily a good thing. Mr Aspinall is not going to change his views, and I am not going to change mine. I have no real desire to understand where he is coming from. I doubt whether he is particularly interested in what I have to say.
Nonetheless, I wish to challenge an assumption that underpins much of what is being said here, both by Mr Aspinall, and by others. That assumption is that the only justification for keeping animals in captivity is that of conservation. If such conservation objectives are not being served, there can be no justification, the argument goes. I, and I suspect many others, would disagree with this assumption. There are many reasons to keep animals in captivity. Conservation, in its broadest sense is only one of them.
When Mr Aspinall argues, as he does, that zoos cause “misery”, and that the animals who live in such settings are “enslaved”, he shows the poverty of his argument. I find his use of the word “slave” deeply offensive in this context: to equate the treatment of of the Meerkats at Howletts, the Gorillas at Apenheul, the Spray Toads at the Bronx, or the Caracara at London Zoo with the suffering endured by millions of people over the centuries is, at best, thoughtless, and, at worst, crass in its disregard for the experience of many people. And if he does see captivity as a miserable enslavement, how on earth can he justify it at all, whether the animals thus “enslaved” are endangered or not? He writes, repeatedly, of the "suffering" of "hundreds of thousands" of animals in zoos, without really being able to back that up with specific evidence, beyond a suggestion that he knows more than others because he grew up in a zoo.
Nonetheless, I wish to challenge an assumption that underpins much of what is being said here, both by Mr Aspinall, and by others. That assumption is that the only justification for keeping animals in captivity is that of conservation. If such conservation objectives are not being served, there can be no justification, the argument goes. I, and I suspect many others, would disagree with this assumption. There are many reasons to keep animals in captivity. Conservation, in its broadest sense is only one of them.
When Mr Aspinall argues, as he does, that zoos cause “misery”, and that the animals who live in such settings are “enslaved”, he shows the poverty of his argument. I find his use of the word “slave” deeply offensive in this context: to equate the treatment of of the Meerkats at Howletts, the Gorillas at Apenheul, the Spray Toads at the Bronx, or the Caracara at London Zoo with the suffering endured by millions of people over the centuries is, at best, thoughtless, and, at worst, crass in its disregard for the experience of many people. And if he does see captivity as a miserable enslavement, how on earth can he justify it at all, whether the animals thus “enslaved” are endangered or not? He writes, repeatedly, of the "suffering" of "hundreds of thousands" of animals in zoos, without really being able to back that up with specific evidence, beyond a suggestion that he knows more than others because he grew up in a zoo.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
Asolutely agree if an insurance policy is needed however i believe in most cases that can be done in situ ..in special centres
I think you are being quite aggressive (don’t take it personally) although I wholeheartedly agree with these two paragraphs, I’m one of the people who stated education as a reason alongside conservation as a core principle of a zoo.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your comment and i think debate is much needed even if we disagree.
i mean no offence with my terminology however when you restrict any animals free movement in a cage whether its a tiger a gorilla or whatever it is a form of slavery.Especially as in most cases they are there to entertain the public. Secondly wildlife and nature has suffered just as much as human slavery to suggest anything else is quite frankly naive. Homo sapiens ability to destroy each other and along with it nature and wildlife is a crime against everything that is decent and good in the world. My knowledge comes from from a life time with animals in captivity and a life time of visiting zoos where i see with my own eyes the suffering. It is possible people who do not understand the animals don't see this misery but i do sadly which is why i hold my views.
I am very much trying to occupy a middle ground in this discussion, but I can’t say I agree at all that you are the only person here who can see and understand what animals in captive conditions are going through.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
With respect people who say education need to provide empirical evidence for this assumption
I have read many studies which are mostly written by zoo people so not independent and even then not read one study that confirms that zoos educate effectively especially enough to justify a zoos existence ..and if we can educate ourselves about any number of subjects why is is necessary to cage animals to educate. thank you for your comment
As wild areas around the world shrink day by day and lots of different species are pushed towards extinction good zoos have become an ark for some species with quite a few species today alive because they were taken into good zoos, perhaps in a perfect world I would agree wild species really belong in the wild but in the cold light of day many are losing the battle against logging, land clearing for farms and human housing, mining, poaching and the ever expanding human population pushing up to the 8 billion mark and I believe it will keep growing at the loss of all other species we share the planet with, while I believe the idea of returning species back to the wild in a noble one its a flawed one, Wildlife crime is a muti billion dollar business said to be even more than drugs, as animals are pushed into ever shrinking areas in time the poachers will pick them all off regardless of how they are protected, yes there have been some victories (for now) but in the long run they will fall as well like the African rhinos protected but still going to the wall sometimes even by the people who are paid to protect them. I have been to both Howletts zoos and even stood next to John one day as he fed his beloved Gorillas, I don my hat to him for being so far sighted and I believe he set the standard in captive breeding for a number of species, this is all I intend to say on the matter!
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
I don't think i implied that i was the only person i implied that most people would not understand the behaviour of animals so what they see as a happy animal others with a deep understanding of animals behaviour might see something different,
This is the key argument I can easily pick apart, keep in mind that a range of species in the wild free movement is restricted due to territory battles between members of the same kind and before you say it, not all those territory’s are as large as you may think, especially with habitat loss reducing the available amount of territory.
You are making an assumption about Mr Aspinall and are showing a reluctance to learn from others. If you are not prepared to change your views, why should you expect others to change theirs? I have learned various things from other Zoochatters and adapt my views when other people show that some of my views are wrong.
I did, in fact, give examples in the very post you quoted - the Kihanzi Spray Toad could not be allowed to remain in-situ (protected or otherwise) because their single locality of occurrence had become inhospitable to life and numbers had reached low single digits, and they cannot merely be translocated because they are native to a single waterfall and as such moving them would place them in an entirely new ecosystem. Therefore, they cannot be reintroduced at present and could not be allowed to remain where they were. If a suitable new habitat is located in future where they would be able to survive and would not cause further problems to their new ecosystem, this would allow reintroductions to occur.
Similarly, the great waves of amphibian extinctions and near-extinctions driven by chytridmycosis provide another example - species being actively wiped out which cannot be reintroduced until the problem which drove them to the brink in the first place is resolved, and where "semi-wild" situations are not safe in this regard - as do partula snails. In the case of the snails we have only reached the point where their original habitat is safe for reintroductions in the last 2-3 years, after portions of the Society Islands have been wiped of all trace of the invasive snails which caused the partula extinction crisis. Before this happened, the snails could not be reintroduced, and none of the species would have survived had they been left in-situ.
Anyhow, I'll return to staying out of this thread and keeping an eye on proceedings now that I've clarified what I meant in my post above, given I didn't really intend on getting involved in the first place and merely wanted to expand on the dichotomy Dassie Rat suggested.