But if all the preexisting zoos want to breed their animals, what will make these new, separate zoos not want to breed them?
~Thylo
Euthanasia of healthy animals in zoos, and "Breed to Cull"
- Thread starter TeaLovingDave
- Start date
- Status
But if all the preexisting zoos want to breed their animals, what will make these new, separate zoos not want to breed them?
~Thylo
But if all the preexisting zoos want to breed their animals, what will make these new, separate zoos not want to breed them?
~Thylo
My thought was that these kinds of zoos would be places for non-breeding animals. Maybe a temporary home for some. Is it required by the AZA for animals to be kept for breeding purposes?
Not sure how many people would want to open and run a zoo where they can't breed any of their species. And for some species, yes, you have to be under either a breeding or bachelor/bachelorette situation to keep them.
~Thylo
Some numbers from Europe..... :
BBC News - How many healthy animals do zoos put down?
BBC News - How many healthy animals do zoos put down?
I think more accredited safari parks could solve the problem. You are right that there is only so much money available. When I win the lottery I will build one.
I hope you do win & do this when you do. There is nothing like walking a mile in someone else's shoes to gain some insight into their real world decisions.
How long do you think it will be before you have to reach for a gun or a syringe of green dream once you have your park?
Cheers Khakibob
Most responsible zoos use contraception, vasectomy and separating sexes and it works.
The problem are some long-established but irresponsible zoos which extended the policy of occassional killing into "we don't bother with contraception at all".
I would like to see detailed explanation for every case when standard contraception was not tried, and why. There are animal species where contraceptives or vasectomy don't work, but for most species, especially not destined to reintroduction (eg. giraffe) it is not the case.
EAZA and other zoo organizations have an obligation to research better methods of chemical contraception and species-appropriate ways to stop breeding.
And yes, one responsibility of zoo organizations is to find space for non-breeding groups and buffer space for surprise births. In practice, many smaller zoos are happy to keep non-breeding animals.
And, yes, another responsibility of EAZA and other zoo organizations is to reinforce no breeding policy. It is now accepted that not every zoo can keep elephants or polar bears. Similarily, not every zoo with gorillas or giraffes can have a breeding group.
EAZA, allowing the easy way "let's breed young animals for public and kill the surplus" reversed decades of progress of captive animal welfare.
And internal policies of zoo organizations about of not sending animals to outside zoos are subordinate to general animal welfare rules. Many non-EAZA zoos are equally good and many EAZA zoos have poor exhibits, In fact, Copenhagen Zoo has especially small animal spaces, around the bare minimum acceptable. If EAZA cannot sort their problems, it should eg. give animals under the condition of not breeding. Otherwise it is just "you are not in our club, so we rather kill our animals than give you".
@Jurek
I disagree with some parts of your comment.
Full stop to any breeding in whole Europe when you reach the carring capacity can easily lead to heavy losses. Take hippos as a hypothetical example - they breed easily, live long, but they need expensive exhibits. Many zoos can´t afford to improve their facilities so they phase them out. The total amount of hippo spaces within EAZA zoos slowly decreases. There are many surplus animals at any given moment, especially bulls. If all zoos would stop breeding and wait +20 years before free spaces emerge due to natural deaths, what will be left from the european hippo population? Most females will be non-breeding then. And these few fertile ones will have much poorer genetical structure then the current population. It will be near non-viable. Hippos are still only ESB so that many zoos export their surplus to Indonesia and similar countries, some sell them to circuses etc. and the number of culls is minimal. But can you imagine what would happen if it would be changed into EEP?
Animals are not machines where you can easily swith on and off between breeding and non-breeding. A female without an offspring for many years will have difficulty to get pregnant again, and the percentage of miscarriages and health problems for the female increases several times.
Contraceptives are not all-healing method either. For most captive species, they are just in testing phase, with many ugly side effects. How you can 95% recognize a lioness on contraceptives? - really overweigt, reduced longevity and many carcinoms. Castration is more humane option for me in such cases.
I think that Czech zoos go a way I can accept. They try to breed most species only when there is a good hope the offspring can be placed (acceptable non-EAZA zoos and responsible private holders included). This includes castration, same-sex groups, a little contraceptives, separation, hunderts of destroyed bird and lizard eggs annually. But they also cull sometimes and some more open zoos (Dvur Kralove, Ostrava...) list their culled animals in their on-line annual reports. Male deer, male antelopes, zebras, peccari, lone monkeys... Not in big amount and as rather last resort when other options would seriously compromise its welfare. The free beed and cull policy of Danish and Swiss zoos woudn´t be accepted here. But reasonably explained culls of a few animals, if the PR is handled properly by the zoo, are not big problem.
Same sex groups have one unconvenient side - EAZA always tries to push all-male groups to new members, smaller, less experienced zoos and new facilities. And large big traditional zoos, often with cramped outdated pens, are really unwilling to switch from breeding group to same-sex group.
The policy of - rather to kill an animal than hand it to outsider - can be done in a reasonable way, by eliminating circuses, dubious holders and traders. And sometimes it is overbearing when EAZA tries to keep a monopol on some species. An example, Bali starlings are easy to keep and large captive population in private hands could theoretically eliminate the main threat to the wild population - catching for pet market. But EEP rather destroys eggs then to sell surplus to private breeders. I never understood why.
I disagree with some parts of your comment.
Full stop to any breeding in whole Europe when you reach the carring capacity can easily lead to heavy losses. Take hippos as a hypothetical example - they breed easily, live long, but they need expensive exhibits. Many zoos can´t afford to improve their facilities so they phase them out. The total amount of hippo spaces within EAZA zoos slowly decreases. There are many surplus animals at any given moment, especially bulls. If all zoos would stop breeding and wait +20 years before free spaces emerge due to natural deaths, what will be left from the european hippo population? Most females will be non-breeding then. And these few fertile ones will have much poorer genetical structure then the current population. It will be near non-viable. Hippos are still only ESB so that many zoos export their surplus to Indonesia and similar countries, some sell them to circuses etc. and the number of culls is minimal. But can you imagine what would happen if it would be changed into EEP?
Animals are not machines where you can easily swith on and off between breeding and non-breeding. A female without an offspring for many years will have difficulty to get pregnant again, and the percentage of miscarriages and health problems for the female increases several times.
Contraceptives are not all-healing method either. For most captive species, they are just in testing phase, with many ugly side effects. How you can 95% recognize a lioness on contraceptives? - really overweigt, reduced longevity and many carcinoms. Castration is more humane option for me in such cases.
I think that Czech zoos go a way I can accept. They try to breed most species only when there is a good hope the offspring can be placed (acceptable non-EAZA zoos and responsible private holders included). This includes castration, same-sex groups, a little contraceptives, separation, hunderts of destroyed bird and lizard eggs annually. But they also cull sometimes and some more open zoos (Dvur Kralove, Ostrava...) list their culled animals in their on-line annual reports. Male deer, male antelopes, zebras, peccari, lone monkeys... Not in big amount and as rather last resort when other options would seriously compromise its welfare. The free beed and cull policy of Danish and Swiss zoos woudn´t be accepted here. But reasonably explained culls of a few animals, if the PR is handled properly by the zoo, are not big problem.
Same sex groups have one unconvenient side - EAZA always tries to push all-male groups to new members, smaller, less experienced zoos and new facilities. And large big traditional zoos, often with cramped outdated pens, are really unwilling to switch from breeding group to same-sex group.
The policy of - rather to kill an animal than hand it to outsider - can be done in a reasonable way, by eliminating circuses, dubious holders and traders. And sometimes it is overbearing when EAZA tries to keep a monopol on some species. An example, Bali starlings are easy to keep and large captive population in private hands could theoretically eliminate the main threat to the wild population - catching for pet market. But EEP rather destroys eggs then to sell surplus to private breeders. I never understood why.
Hi Jana,
I think we both agree that free "breed and cull" policy of Scandinavian zoos is unacceptable.
I understand that for some species, there is no good methods of contraception. However this does not justify culling those species where contraception works. The same way, problems of keeping some species in zoos do not justify generalization into banning all zoos.
About hippos in particular - this is possibly most difficult species to manage population, because it is very long-lived, potentially breeds quickly and requires expensive exhibit. However, it is still possible to slow breeding, to include animals from North America and Asia to prevent inbreeding, and hippos are possible to source from game parks in future, too.
This also illustrates, that allowing "breed and cull" means that some zoos are lazy to look for other options, even if they exist.
I agree with you about the somewhat double-faced policy of EAZA towards old but cramped zoos versus newcomers and non-EAZA zoos. I understand concerns of letting animals to very bad zoos. However, from the point of animal welfare and animal protection laws, it is better to send animal to somewhat poorer conditions outside EAZA (I don't mean very bad zoos) than to kill it. EAZA internal policies have second importance here.
EAZA managed to persuade eg. city zoos that it is not acceptable to keep solitary elephants or polar bears on concrete, even if it was very popular, with old tradition etc. Surely it can succeed in persuading single-sex groups, vasectomy etc. I don't see eg. why keeping single-sex group of hippos would be difficult. Or how castrating gorillas is better than keeping adolescent males solitarily for several years to slow breeding, as wild gorillas do before finding a group.
I think we both agree that free "breed and cull" policy of Scandinavian zoos is unacceptable.
I understand that for some species, there is no good methods of contraception. However this does not justify culling those species where contraception works. The same way, problems of keeping some species in zoos do not justify generalization into banning all zoos.
About hippos in particular - this is possibly most difficult species to manage population, because it is very long-lived, potentially breeds quickly and requires expensive exhibit. However, it is still possible to slow breeding, to include animals from North America and Asia to prevent inbreeding, and hippos are possible to source from game parks in future, too.
This also illustrates, that allowing "breed and cull" means that some zoos are lazy to look for other options, even if they exist.
I agree with you about the somewhat double-faced policy of EAZA towards old but cramped zoos versus newcomers and non-EAZA zoos. I understand concerns of letting animals to very bad zoos. However, from the point of animal welfare and animal protection laws, it is better to send animal to somewhat poorer conditions outside EAZA (I don't mean very bad zoos) than to kill it. EAZA internal policies have second importance here.
EAZA managed to persuade eg. city zoos that it is not acceptable to keep solitary elephants or polar bears on concrete, even if it was very popular, with old tradition etc. Surely it can succeed in persuading single-sex groups, vasectomy etc. I don't see eg. why keeping single-sex group of hippos would be difficult. Or how castrating gorillas is better than keeping adolescent males solitarily for several years to slow breeding, as wild gorillas do before finding a group.
No, I think I expressed myself unclearly. Big portion of general public in my country would have a problem to accept "breed and cull" zoo policy in big extend right now because they don´t know the reasons behind it. I myself can accept such policy if there is good reason behind it. I made my opinion at least 15 years ago, after reading long discussions pro and against, and I am pro.
There are captive species where it is by far the best way how to solve current population problems. Species that are temporally out of fashion in zoos, where there is no demand for youngs for years, can either be prevented to breed and then they die out. Or a few dedicated zoos can breed and cull a limited but viable group and so preserve the species in captivity till it will get interest again. Syrian bears has been lost for european zoos. White-tailed gnus coud be preserved. The first subspecies had no-breeding policy, just prevention of unwanted offspring. The second species has been managed by several zoos as breed and cull.
Breed and cull is not about laziness of a zoo. It is an important tool in management of small populations. For some species, there are other better, viable options. For others, this is the best way. The problem is to prepaire general public and to have good reasons why other options were rejected. It is necessary to explain and explain and explain, it takes decades to change the attitude. A spectacle a la Copenhagen is on the other hand totaly wrong, it will just harm zoos in other countries right now.
Just example - Czech zoos changed their policy on hand-rearing of rejected mammal youngsters. 20 years ago, hand reared youngs were pride of a zoo director and keepers, highlighing their skills and dedication. Today, they are openly euthanised or let die, with exception of really genetically important individuals. It took long years of explanations for general public to calmly accept the death of such fluffy, innocent, helpless creatures as day-old lions, chimpansees or even an elephant. Zoos still get some critic after such announcement, but people are ok with the explanation given by a zoo in a press release. Zoos are open, the public is realistic and understands. No iniciatives to close zoos, no death threats for directors.
Remark to hippos - adult males would probably kill each other, if they are not castrated. And some haven´t survived the castration operation. Several other species can´t be managed as all male herds either, given the space of an average zoo enclosure. Most deer species, waterbucks, orangs... Most unrelated adult male gorilla groups break due to fights sooner or later anyway. For surplus gorilla males, castration as subadults seems to be the best option for me.
There are captive species where it is by far the best way how to solve current population problems. Species that are temporally out of fashion in zoos, where there is no demand for youngs for years, can either be prevented to breed and then they die out. Or a few dedicated zoos can breed and cull a limited but viable group and so preserve the species in captivity till it will get interest again. Syrian bears has been lost for european zoos. White-tailed gnus coud be preserved. The first subspecies had no-breeding policy, just prevention of unwanted offspring. The second species has been managed by several zoos as breed and cull.
Breed and cull is not about laziness of a zoo. It is an important tool in management of small populations. For some species, there are other better, viable options. For others, this is the best way. The problem is to prepaire general public and to have good reasons why other options were rejected. It is necessary to explain and explain and explain, it takes decades to change the attitude. A spectacle a la Copenhagen is on the other hand totaly wrong, it will just harm zoos in other countries right now.
Just example - Czech zoos changed their policy on hand-rearing of rejected mammal youngsters. 20 years ago, hand reared youngs were pride of a zoo director and keepers, highlighing their skills and dedication. Today, they are openly euthanised or let die, with exception of really genetically important individuals. It took long years of explanations for general public to calmly accept the death of such fluffy, innocent, helpless creatures as day-old lions, chimpansees or even an elephant. Zoos still get some critic after such announcement, but people are ok with the explanation given by a zoo in a press release. Zoos are open, the public is realistic and understands. No iniciatives to close zoos, no death threats for directors.
Remark to hippos - adult males would probably kill each other, if they are not castrated. And some haven´t survived the castration operation. Several other species can´t be managed as all male herds either, given the space of an average zoo enclosure. Most deer species, waterbucks, orangs... Most unrelated adult male gorilla groups break due to fights sooner or later anyway. For surplus gorilla males, castration as subadults seems to be the best option for me.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Danish zoo that culled giraffe kills family of lions
And the latest:
BBC News - Danish zoo that culled giraffe kills family of lions
And the latest:
BBC News - Danish zoo that culled giraffe kills family of lions
SmallestGiraffe
Well-Known Member
Does this zoo do this more than any other OR is it just majorly broadcast from this zoo?
Is this new male being brought in simply to breed more babies which will become surplus to requirements soon enough?
Is this new male being brought in simply to breed more babies which will become surplus to requirements soon enough?
The latter, I rather suspect - the press will probably be keeping a close eye on whenever it happens at Copenhagen, knowing now that it will be a big story due to the location.
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
Yet again the BBC showing its anti zoo bias!!
Toddy
Well-Known Member
This happens in zoos ALL OVER THE WORLD. Probably more so in some countries than others. The difference here is the the Danish zoos see it as a virtue to be completely honest about what happens at the zoo.
The old group was nearing the nearing the natural life expectancy of lions. The new male was brought in to form a new group with two young females born at the zoo in 2012. The new lion group will (hopefully) function as a healthy lion group and therefore produce cubs. If no other zoos wish to take them then yes, they will become surplus.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
I normally bridle at anti-zoo sentiment with all the paranoia of a North Korean president but I think in this case the accusation is unfair. The reporting of this story is pretty unsensational, and in recent years the BBC has broadcast a string of gloriously uncritical 'behind-the-scenes' shows. And the recent radio documentary, following the giraffe fiasco, was balanced and even-handed.
Certainly NOT and please don't extend Danish strange interpretation of ethics to other countries.
Certainly it is NOT normal to generally deny any value to the life of animal and pretend that killing animals is perfectly OK if it is painless.
Certainly, it is NOT normal to kill elderly large mammals just to make place to the new ones. Many or most zoos in Germany let elderly animals live until their natural death, unless they develop severe painful or debilitating ailments. It is common and accepted that this delays zoo plans.
Certainly it is NOT normal to breed young animals knowing that no place will be available for them.
Certainly it is NOT commonly accepted that contraception of well-breeding animals like lions or giraffe is less preferable than killing the young.
Cetainly it is NOT normal to treat zoo animals simply as "bags of genes" when majority of the public sees quality of care as an offset justifying the concept of public zoos, plus develops emotional attachment to individual animals.
And certainly it is NOT normal how some Zoochatters do, trying to shift the problem from "is it wrong to do something" to "is it wrong to let the public know rather than keep it secret".
Besides, Copenhagen Zoo is not somehow super-transparent or super- honest. It would in any case be obliged to give information about the fate of its animals to the public on demand. There is a law especially to force public institutions in the EU not to act double-faced.
So if I understand correctly the pride/litter of 2013 is surplus to requirements but the litter of 2012 is to form the basis of the new pride.
I'm just a bit confused as to who the parents of the 2012 litter were..... was it the same ones as for the 2013 litter or did the zoo have two prides/males etc .
I'm just a bit confused as to who the parents of the 2012 litter were..... was it the same ones as for the 2013 litter or did the zoo have two prides/males etc .
Janus
I was always led to believe that the reason same sex groups, usually males are passed to new zoos is for the zoo to become familiar with keeping that species before they are allowed t keep mixed or breeding groups. I don't know if that is true or not.
As for your example of the Bali starling I too have no idea why zoo's don't use responsible private keepers more often other than a possible in breeding, which could be easily overcome with set rules for the new keepers. I would happily get involved with small non breeding/ elderly animals if i was asked.
Dean
Pretty much correct. Also, a Zoo which wants to 'go into' a new species is more likely to take whatever is on offer i.e. a male-only group, in order to obtain some. Quite often, (not always though) it is done with the aim of 'females to follow when available.' In those cases holding some males first puts them on the map with e.g. the EEP/studbook of the species as holders.
Many Zoo's in the AZA are making strides with bachelor herds of elephant, giraffe, lion, great ape, and other hoofstock which somewhat mimic their natural behavior in the wild. It seems the idea of Europe being progressive seems to fall short when it comes to Zoo management. I wonder if the differing federal arrangements have anything to do with it? I know their is a pan European Zoo organization but many of the articles mentioned that no "Danish zoo" wanted Marius. I know being a political science major, when you have a hammer everything is a nail but still. How much of these problems are the unrealized problems of European factionalism/resistance to Federalism in the EU? AZA regularly distributes animals across member institutions across even national borders with Mexico and Canada. What is the problem with Europe?
- Status