Help would be much appreciated :D

[calloom]

Hey guys

I’m doing a discursive project on zoos (if they are right or wrong)
I’ve to discuss both sides of the argument, I’ve done most of it but honestly I’m stumped. So I’ve been looking about for help and here seems the best place
So far I’ve fully discussed the for; conservation breeding programmes, education purposes and a wee bit stuck on the research side of things.
I’ve decided on 2 reasons against but I cant think of anymore and what to say about them, my reasons are ‘because the reinhabitation process has a low success rate.’ and ‘separating and isolating pack animals’
If any of you have any idea what I could say or in anyway could help I would be so DD

Much love C

 

[calloom]

anyone ?

 

[jwer]

You log onto an international forum, which means that half the people are either working or gone to bed, and you expect an answer within 15 minutes?

There are so many aspects to it that I have no clue what you already thought of and what not...

The pro's that you mentioned are multifaceted;
- Conservation
There's in-situ and ex-situ conservation. Many zoos raise money for projects abroad, and also raise awarenes for those projects in their zoos. Same animals are ambassadors for their species, and some species are just used to save the habitat of an impopular species. Many zoo's have breeding programmes set up for endangered species and there have been releases back into the wild in a few specific cases (Bongo and arabian Oryx spring to mind). There have even been species saved, just by keeping them in zoos (like some of the partula snail species ZSL hold).
- Education means learning that the animal exists in the first place, but also tries to teach people how their status is in the wild, what habitat they live in and how their habitat is doing. Usually they also show some of it's peculiar habits or weird foods.

The cons;
Keeping animals in confined spaces is animal cruelty. Many aspects have been covered; - Some social animals are not allowed to be kept in their normal social structure
- Some solitairy animals are kept together in a confined space.
- They are not usually not allowed their normal diet,
- given their normal roaming space (territory)
- and given their normal day pattern.
- They are sometimes held with other species or in close proximity to predators giving them stress.

Many breeding programmes are useless;
- Many times subspecies are mixed together, making it unwise to put them back into the wild because they are not pure-bred.
- Many programs are run for species who are not threatened and are not likely to be in the near future.
- When you reïntroduce them they might bring in a disease to an otherwise healthy population.
- The main reason species are in decline is because of habitat destruction, where are you ever going to release animals?
- Many programs are set up on a VERY small genetic base, making the captive-raised animals prone to genetic disease or vulnerable to other infections.
- For many species there isn't enough space in zoos to keep a genetically healthy population

Many animals, specifically reptiles and fish but also some birds are still bought by zoos keeping the trade in them alive.

ISIS restricts the movement of animals, UNLESS they are captive-born. That means that any zoo could sell their own bred animals to anyone that has a permit (which is not necessary in some countries/states) and many more shabby zoos have no hesitation to sell a lion or two, keeping that trade alive as well.

There's so much more i have forgotten, but theres a start...

 

[jwer]

Your 15 minutes are long due

 

[reduakari]

You log onto an international forum, which means that half the people are either working or gone to bed, and you expect an answer within 15 minutes?

There are so many aspects to it that I have no clue what you already thought of and what not...

The pro's that you mentioned are multifaceted;
- Conservation
There's in-situ and ex-situ conservation. Many zoos raise money for projects abroad, and also raise awarenes for those projects in their zoos. Same animals are ambassadors for their species, and some species are just used to save the habitat of an impopular species. Many zoo's have breeding programmes set up for endangered species and there have been releases back into the wild in a few specific cases (Bongo and arabian Oryx spring to mind). There have even been species saved, just by keeping them in zoos (like some of the partula snail species ZSL hold).
- Education means learning that the animal exists in the first place, but also tries to teach people how their status is in the wild, what habitat they live in and how their habitat is doing. Usually they also show some of it's peculiar habits or weird foods.

The cons;
Keeping animals in confined spaces is animal cruelty. Many aspects have been covered; - Some social animals are not allowed to be kept in their normal social structure
- Some solitairy animals are kept together in a confined space.
- They are not usually not allowed their normal diet,
- given their normal roaming space (territory)
- and given their normal day pattern.
- They are sometimes held with other species or in close proximity to predators giving them stress.

Many breeding programmes are useless;
- Many times subspecies are mixed together, making it unwise to put them back into the wild because they are not pure-bred.
- Many programs are run for species who are not threatened and are not likely to be in the near future.
- When you reïntroduce them they might bring in a disease to an otherwise healthy population.
- The main reason species are in decline is because of habitat destruction, where are you ever going to release animals?
- Many programs are set up on a VERY small genetic base, making the captive-raised animals prone to genetic disease or vulnerable to other infections.
- For many species there isn't enough space in zoos to keep a genetically healthy population

Many animals, specifically reptiles and fish but also some birds are still bought by zoos keeping the trade in them alive.

ISIS restricts the movement of animals, UNLESS they are captive-born. That means that any zoo could sell their own bred animals to anyone that has a permit (which is not necessary in some countries/states) and many more shabby zoos have no hesitation to sell a lion or two, keeping that trade alive as well.

There's so much more i have forgotten, but theres a start...

Um, ISIS is a database. It has no authority to "restrict movement" or otherwise mandate anything. It simply attempts to keep track of animals and provide a record of their genealogy and health history. Very important stuff, but it is not a "police force."

 

[gentle lemur]

Um, ISIS is a database. It has no authority to "restrict movement" or otherwise mandate anything. It simply attempts to keep track of animals and provide a record of their genealogy and health history. Very important stuff, but it is not a "police force."

I think jwer meant CITES rather than ISIS.

Alan

 

[jwer]

oops, CITES indeed

 

[Hix]

ISIS restricts the movement of animals, UNLESS they are captive-born.

Well then, if ISIS should be CITES, this statement is still incorrect.

CITES only restricts the international movement of species that are listed on the three appendices. Animals not listed are not restricted by CITES. And the animals that are listed are species threatened by trade.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you bred them or not, all listed species and their products are affected (including offspring).



Hix

 

[jwer]

I have always understood that captive born individuals were free to trade... I've seen so many examples come past the last couple of years. The red-backed saki's that recently went to England were said to be "bred in captivity" and therefore relatively easy to import. The six wombats that arrived in germany were specifically bred in Australia to make them captive born and thus easier to transfer to Europe. A few years ago there was a huge riot about a south african organisation breeding african wild dogs to be able to sell them to Europe. I also thought it was said during a Dutch documentary about zoos selling ring-tailed lemurs to dubious zoos. And if you give me a few minutes more i could come up with many more examples.

I dídn't make the statement solely out of thin air, but admittedly i'm no expert on CITES so if anyone cares to enlighten me, please do...

Taken from the US Fish and Wildlife Service folder, here: http://library.fws.gov/IA_Pubs/export_bredincaptiv03.pdf

Bred for non-commercial purposes:
If the Service finds that the specimen was bred for non-commercial purposes and meets the bred-incaptivity criteria outlined above, it issues a bred-in-captivity certificate. This document authorizes the export of the specimen. In addition, the importer does not need a CITES import permit.

For me, the folder states that IF you can get the animal registered as "Bred in Captivity", the CITES permit is no longer required. Technically, the animal is still affected by CITES rules, but as soon as the "bred in captivity" stamp is gained the animal can be traded freely? Perhaps i'm overlooking something?

 

[Hix]

Article VII, paragraph 5 of the Convention.

You still need certification from the government of the exporting country, so CITES still affects them as I said. You are not "free to trade" them, you still need documentation but its just easier to get.

The wombats mentioned above are not listed on CITES, so there would be no CITES restrictions on them.



Hix