Damian Aspinall: You all know my views on zoos prove me wrong

[Jarne]

Bob Jacobs study Heading ..the neural cruelty of captivity is a great start.

Which brings me back to articles, not to peer-reviewed studies. And once again it's about a single orka and a single elephant, not really a representation of the majority of zoo animals in modern zoos.

that's great but i was referring to the research he did on zoo collections

What research? These studies are about wild (including reïntroduced) populations, not captive ones.

After going through most of the thread I can only conclude that there is clearly one person with a closed mindset, and definitively not a scientific mindset. You repeat that you find at least the vast majority of enclosures to be substandard and infringing on animal welfare. As I stated before, the zero-hypothesis would be that there is no difference between wild and captive animals. Both captivity and the wild life have their perks and downsides (Nature is no Disney movie, something some people tend to forget). This means that it's up to you to prove that zoos have a negative effect on animal welfare even in the better exhibits based on peer-reviewed studies. If you can prove that, it's up to us to prove you wrong with studies countering the other studies. That's how science works, and it's the most objective way of arguing about such a subject. You evade giving specific studies that prove your claims, and when people bring up studies that argue that animal-welfare isn't a problem in captivity in certain cases you avoid talking about them.

I'm not saying that every species can be kept in an ethical, practical and sustainable way in captivity. Scientific peer-reviewed studies clearly show that questions can be posed about certain species like painted dogs, cheetah and polar bears. Other species like orka display so much stereotypical behavior and are impossible to house a sustainable population of that it would be better to phase them out. For other species studies suggest that no apparent problem is present anymore in modern zoos.

And finally some studies that already disapprove with your opinions but bring forth a more nuanced way of thinking instead of the black-white thinking:

Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method (
doi:10.1016/j.tree. 2010.08.011)

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CORTISOL LEVELS IN WILD AND CAPTIVE ATLANTIC BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (Tursiops truncatus), KILLER WHALE, (Orcinus orca), AND BELUGA WHALE (Delphinapterus leucas).

Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How analysing species differences could help zoos improve enclosures

 

[Jarne]

Also when it comes to genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding, I suppose you have heard of the one-population method in which genetic flow is present between wild and captive populations (for example through A.I. with wild male sperm and rescued individuals).

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Which brings me back to articles, not to peer-reviewed studies. And once again it's about a single orka and a single elephant, not really a representation of the majority of zoo animals in modern zoos.


What research? These studies are about wild (including reïntroduced) populations, not captive ones.

After going through most of the thread I can only conclude that there is clearly one person with a closed mindset, and definitively not a scientific mindset. You repeat that you find at least the vast majority of enclosures to be substandard and infringing on animal welfare. As I stated before, the zero-hypothesis would be that there is no difference between wild and captive animals. Both captivity and the wild life have their perks and downsides (Nature is no Disney movie, something some people tend to forget). This means that it's up to you to prove that zoos have a negative effect on animal welfare even in the better exhibits based on peer-reviewed studies. If you can prove that, it's up to us to prove you wrong with studies countering the other studies. That's how science works, and it's the most objective way of arguing about such a subject. You evade giving specific studies that prove your claims, and when people bring up studies that argue that animal-welfare isn't a problem in captivity in certain cases you avoid talking about them.

I'm not saying that every species can be kept in an ethical, practical and sustainable way in captivity. Scientific peer-reviewed studies clearly show that questions can be posed about certain species like painted dogs, cheetah and polar bears. Other species like orka display so much stereotypical behavior and are impossible to house a sustainable population of that it would be better to phase them out. For other species studies suggest that no apparent problem is present anymore in modern zoos.

And finally some studies that already disapprove with your opinions but bring forth a more nuanced way of thinking instead of the black-white thinking:

Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method (
doi:10.1016/j.tree. 2010.08.011)

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CORTISOL LEVELS IN WILD AND CAPTIVE ATLANTIC BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (Tursiops truncatus), KILLER WHALE, (Orcinus orca), AND BELUGA WHALE (Delphinapterus leucas).

Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How analysing species differences could help zoos improve enclosures

As I have said if you wish to see his research on zoos please reach out to him. I suspect you will not do this as you know it will only dishearten you but please do as it back up everything have said and will continue to say.thank you for your comment.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Also when it comes to genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding, I suppose you have heard of the one-population method in which genetic flow is present between wild and captive populations (for example through A.I. with wild male sperm and rescued individuals).

not sure how you think that justifies all the genetically bottle necked animals in zoos ie it makes a mockery of the management and intent of zoos in the first place.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Also when it comes to genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding, I suppose you have heard of the one-population method in which genetic flow is present between wild and captive populations (for example through A.I. with wild male sperm and rescued individuals).

Good point but it is worth mentioning that this is a strategy that is logistically very difficult to implement.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Good point but it is worth mentioning that this is a strategy that is logistically very difficult to implement.

everything concerning conservation and wildlife is difficult to implement sadly. I can tell you that whatever we do re re wilding protection of areas of the wild or the husbandry of animals in our care is the hardest challenges i face in my life but also the most rewarding.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

everything concerning conservation and wildlife is difficult to implement sadly. I can tell you that whatever we do re re wilding protection of areas of the wild or the husbandry of animals in our care is the hardest challenges i face in my life but also the most rewarding.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree and I also agree that despite the challenges and struggles these type of conservation interventions are indeed the most rewarding to be involved in and to pursue.

 

[Jarne]

As I have said if you wish to see his research on zoos please reach out to him. I suspect you will not do this as you know it will only dishearten you but please do as it back up everything have said and will continue to say.thank you for your comment.

If it's not published, I presume it's not peer-reviewed by independent researchers. If you can only provide non peer-reviewed sources, forgive me to not take your claims seriously. If he's so sure about his work, sure he must be able to publish it? After all if studies aren't published it's also impossible to disprove them, one of the key components of the scientific method

Good point but it is worth mentioning that this is a strategy that is logistically very difficult to implement.

For some species this is easier then others but if you are able to have big enough populations (breeding individuals number at least 50, preferably over 100) you don't need to import new genetics that often. It's a case of creating populations that are sustainable for a couple dozen generations and bring in a few new genetics every few generations.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

For some species this is easier then others but if you are able to have big enough populations (breeding individuals number at least 50, preferably over 100) you don't need to import new genetics that often. It's a case of creating populations that are sustainable for a couple dozen generations and bring in a few new genetics every few generations.

This is what I mean by logistically and organizationally difficult to achieve in terms of securing big enough founder populations in captivity and importing new genetics to captive populations when and where necessary.

It sounds relatively easy but that impression is unfortunately very deceptive and it is actually not the easiest thing to do. It may be argued that this is best solved whenever possible by focus on in-situ conservation management.

The paper that Carl Jones posted earlier in the thread is interesting and does mention specifically some of these genetic issues with captive populations and the inherent challenges of maintaining genetically viable ex-situ populations.

 

[Jarne]

This is what I mean by logistically and organizationally difficult to achieve in terms of securing big enough founder populations in captivity and importing new genetics to captive populations when and where necessary.

It sounds relatively easy but that impression is unfortunately very deceptive and it is actually not the easiest thing to do. It may be argued that this is best solved whenever possible by focus on in-situ conservation management.

The paper that Carl Jones posted earlier in the thread is interesting and does mention specifically some of these genetic issues with captive populations and the inherent challenges of maintaining genetically viable ex-situ populations.

With A.I. becoming more widespread this is actually becoming more easy. You still need wild sperm, but with multiple frozen zoo projects this is becoming more and more available. It's also not only the founder population that's important, but rather the breeding population that's important in conserving genetics. It's mostly small populations and continued inbreeding of closely related individuals that leads to drastic decreases in genetic diversity. Zoos will have to greatly decrease the amount of species kept to increase the remaining species populations and make them more sustainable. This should avoid heavy inbreeding depressions for species that haven't gone through them yet, and make it possibly to slowly introduce new genetics.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

With A.I. becoming more widespread this is actually becoming more easy. You still need wild sperm, but with multiple frozen zoo projects this is becoming more and more available. It's also not only the founder population that's important, but even more the breeding population that's important in conserving genetics. It's mostly small populations and continued inbreeding of closely related individuals that leads to drastic decreases in genetic diversity. Zoos will have to greatly decrease the amount of species kept to increase the remaining species populations and make them more sustainable.

Yes, I know that A.I. is becoming more widespread and has become more available as a strategic bene banking management strategy.

It is actually becoming bigger here in Brazil and quite an extensive frozen zoo is currently being developed across several institutions. It is an important tool in the ex-situ toolkit , no mistake, however, there are still inherent logistical challenges to this approach.

Also there is the proverbial "elephant in the room" (pun intended) that isn't being addressed here: Does this actually deal with the root causes of tackling the stressors that are driving population declines and extinctions of many species in the wild ?

Is it not worth focusing more on in-situ conservation and preserving species in the wild rather than an over-reliance on ex-situ management in zoos ?

 

[Jarne]

Yes, I know that A.I. is becoming more widespread and has become more available as a strategic bene banking management strategy.

It is actually becoming bigger here in Brazil and quite an extensive frozen zoo is currently being developed across several institutions. It is an important tool in the ex-situ toolkit , no mistake, however, there are still inherent logistical challenges to this approach.

Also there is the proverbial "elephant in the room" (pun intended) that isn't being addressed here: Does this actually deal with the root causes of tackling the stressors that driving population declines and extinctions of many species in the wild ?

Is it not worth focusing more on in-situ conservation and preserving species in the wild rather than an over-reliance on ex-situ management in zoos ?

I don't think it's an in-situ or ex-situ question, but an in-situ and ex-situ situation. Ex-situ conservation is a way to educate people and gather funds for in-situ conservation whilst also being able to provide animals for reintroduction in certain cases. Ex-situ does not replace in-situ, it exists alongside it.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I don't think it's an in-situ or ex-situ question, but an in-situ and ex-situ situation. Ex-situ conservation is a way to educate people and gather funds for in-situ conservation whilst also being able to provide animals for reintroduction in certain cases. Ex-situ does not replace in-situ, it exists alongside it.

I agree that this is theoretically the balance that should be struck but if we are being really honest there is indeed an over-reliance on ex-situ conservation in zoos.

I am not decrying zoos by the way (I do share your sentiments about some zoos that they can and do play an active role in conservation) I'm just saying honestly that I do think that we need to question whether this is both effective and whether it is a bit of a band aid on a gaping war wound type scenario.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Thank you for your comment. I have given the name of Amos Courage at Port Lympne to quite a few people who have asked for this research and not one has bothered to reach out. We spent a lot of time researching these points of hybrids disease and genetically bottle necked species and anyone who needs to learn more has that contact info.

The point is that as it is you that has repeatedly and confidently made these claims here, stating explicitly that you were involved in the research yourself:

The above accounts for most mammal species in captivity. I know this as I have done the work on this ..have you ?

...it should not be difficult for you to answer the question yourself, rather than putting the onus on people asking your stepbrother for the information and hoping he does answer. The issue isn't so much the information, it is more that if you want the people replying to you here to provide specific and precise information to back up their claims/beliefs rather than expecting you to research the matter yourself, it is not fair play to turn around and tell people they have to seek out the evidence for your claims (or even, in this case, examples of the species subject to the claims) themselves.

 

[Jarne]

I agree that this is theoretically the balance that should be struck but if we are being really honest there is indeed an over-reliance on ex-situ conservation in zoos.

I am not decrying zoos by the way (I do share your sentiments about some zoos that they can and do play an active role in conservation) I'm just saying honestly that I do think that we need to question whether this is both effective and whether it is a bit of a band aid on a gaping war wound type scenario.

More money should go to in-situ conservation without doubt, but wether decreasing spendings on ex-situ would work is another story. Zoos themselves already acknowledge that ex-situ isn't some sort of magical solution, or at least not on it's own. The problem is that visitors don't really go to zoos for the conservation part, but rather as a form of recreation. That money would otherwise be spent in other ways to recreate, but zoos are able to take part of that budget and use it for conservation purposes. If zoos would start decreasing the money invested back into ex-situ, inflow might decrease and the part that could go to in-situ would follow along. It is true that some zoos could and should increase their in-situ conservation efforts, but there clearly are limits.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

The point is that as it is you that has repeatedly and confidently made these claims here, stating explicitly that you were involved in the research yourself:



...it should not be difficult for you to answer the question yourself, rather than putting the onus on people asking your stepbrother for the information and hoping he does answer. The issue isn't so much the information, it is more that if you want the people replying to you here to provide specific and precise information to back up their claims/beliefs rather than expecting you to research the matter yourself, it is not fair play to turn around and tell people they have to seek out the evidence for your claims (or even, in this case, examples of the species subject to the claims) themselves.

He has everything on file i do not if it is to difficult for people to be bothered to find the truth that says it all ...

 

[Damian Aspinall]

If it's not published, I presume it's not peer-reviewed by independent researchers. If you can only provide non peer-reviewed sources, forgive me to not take your claims seriously. If he's so sure about his work, sure he must be able to publish it? After all if studies aren't published it's also impossible to disprove them, one of the key components of the scientific method

For some species this is easier then others but if you are able to have big enough populations (breeding individuals number at least 50, preferably over 100) you don't need to import new genetics that often. It's a case of creating populations that are sustainable for a couple dozen generations and bring in a few new genetics every few generations.

Very happy for anyone here to peer review isn't that the point? we did not research it for scientific approval we researched the subject to deepen our knowledge.Absolutely agree it should be independently reviewed and happy for anyone on this thread to do that.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

He has everything on file i do not if it is to difficult for people to be bothered to find the truth that says it all ...

BTW who are you T loving Dave as you seem to know so much ? or will you hide behind anonymity

 

[Jarne]

You don't want it to be published as a scientific study, but you do want to convince people with it? And if you are unwilling to submit your research to that level of proof-reading, how can you know it's not full of faults? In general why is it impossible to find studies that fully confirm your claims, sure if they are completely right studies must have been published in journals right?

Feel free however to send me your research via mail. I can give you my mail-adress via pm.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

You don't want it to be published as a scientific study, but you do want to convince people with it? And if you are unwilling to submit your research to that level of proof-reading, how can you know it's not full of faults? In general why is it impossible to find studies that fully confirm your claims, sure if they are completely right studies must have been published in journals right?

Because we fact checked it carefully and by a scientist ... the study was done for our own learning on the subject and anyone who wants to learn or wants to question it is free to read and learn.
Just because it has not been submitted to the level of proof reading you suggest does not mean it is not accurate. it is accurate and if you are interested i suggest you read it and learn or correct us if we have made a mistake which i doubt.