Generic mammals in zoos

[Dassie rat]

I believe, if possible sub species should be kept seperate where possible as one can never rule out that one day some of these species might well be use for reintroduction as has happened with many species over the years, With the world population now spilling over the 8 billion mark many species are under pressure because of this, however rewilding is taking place worldwide including reintroducing the European bison from zoo bred stock back into the UK, as there was with the red wolf in Mexico so yes lets keep them pure in case in the future they need to go back to the native habitats.

I think that it is more important to prioritise species rather than subspecies in zoos, especially in the case where it is unlikely that the captive animals are unlikely to be part of a rewilding project.

Mark Carwardine wrote an interesting article in the November 2022 issue of BBC Wildlife. "We're paranoid about dangerous animals. We've already rid the country of all its large predators and the mere intention of bringing any back is inevitably met with howls of protest. Yet we blithely expect people in Africa and Asia to live alongside lions, tigers, Komodo dragons and a host of other potentially dangerous animals, without question." I agree with the sentiments here.

Yesterday, the BBC invited comments on the UN biodiversity summit (COP15: Five key takeaways from the UN biodiversity summit - BBC News). Somebody suggested that a virus should wipe out 7 billion people. Would that person be happy if 86% of his/her friends and relatives suddenly died? There is a link to rewilding dangerous captive animals that associate people with food. It is very easy for people in North America and Europe to suggest this, as they are not the people at risk of potentially being killed by the animals or of having the animals wiping out their livestock etc.

A lot of natural habitat will be destroyed while the world population increases. I agree with zoos breeding relatively harmless animals for rewilding and many zoos do so, without gaining the credit they deserve. Carl Jones has saved a few species from extinction and says a lot of valuable things on Zoochat.

There is a different issue about releasing dangerous animals into the wild, especially if there are at least decades between now and the time that the world human population has decreased to the time when these animals can be released safely.

During this time, many species that could have been saved and involved in rewilding
programmes will have become extinct.

 

[Grant Rhino]

I think that it is more important to prioritise species rather than subspecies in zoos

I completely agree with this. I actually can't understand why so many people (on Zoochat) are obsessed with sub-species.

Does it really matter if an African leopard is bred with a Sri Lankan leopard? They are both still leopards - ie both are still the same species. They can interbreed with one another and produce fertile offspring.

Even on the very minute chance that we release tigers back into the wild, does it really matter if they are 'cross-bred' Sumatran/Malayan tigers? They are still going to hunt deer, still going to cool off in water, still going to mark their territory - as all tigers do. Is it really going to wreck the eco-system of Sumatra if Malayan tigers are introduced? Is it really going to ruin the area around the Caspian Sea if Siberian tigers are introduced? African cheetahs in Iran will still serve the same purpose as Iranian cheetahs in that eco-system.

I would much rather see 1000 'generic' tigers/leopards/red pandas/zebra etc per year bred in zoos than 100 'pure' specimens from any particular sub-species.

I'm not a biologist or expert in any way, but I'd like to think that I'm at least a little bit educated on these matters. Is there something that I'm simply not understanding here???

 

[Zoofan15]

I completely agree with this. I actually can't understand why so many people (on Zoochat) are obsessed with sub-species.

Does it really matter if an African leopard is bred with a Sri Lankan leopard? They are both still leopards - ie both are still the same species. They can interbreed with one another and produce fertile offspring.

Even on the very minute chance that we release tigers back into the wild, does it really matter if they are 'cross-bred' Sumatran/Malayan tigers? They are still going to hunt deer, still going to cool off in water, still going to mark their territory - as all tigers do. Is it really going to wreck the eco-system of Sumatra if Malayan tigers are introduced? Is it really going to ruin the area around the Caspian Sea if Siberian tigers are introduced? African cheetahs in Iran will still serve the same purpose as Iranian cheetahs in that eco-system.

I would much rather see 1000 'generic' tigers/leopards/red pandas/zebra etc per year bred in zoos than 100 'pure' specimens from any particular sub-species.

I'm not a biologist or expert in any way, but I'd like to think that I'm at least a little bit educated on these matters. Is there something that I'm simply not understanding here???

From my perspective, I don’t think we should be introducing subspecies that wouldn’t naturally encounter each other. A Malayan tiger doesn’t overlap in range with the Sumatran tiger for example.

A typical male Malayan tiger is larger than a typical male Sumatran tiger and it’s not hard to imagine it would have advantages that would enhance it’s breeding success - dominating the gene pool and decreasing genetic diversity in which is otherwise a genetically healthy population of wild Sumatran tigers.

It could potentially affect the eco-system in ways we can’t foresee with regards to predation of ungulates. It’s a fine balance and conservationists are keen not to expose wild ecosystems to further disruption beyond what the human race has already caused them.

 

[steveroberts]

@Zoofan15

Agree with you wholeheartedly about subspecies not being deliberately crossbred that would not encounter each-other in the wild.