Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Zoologischer Garten Magdeburg Magdeburg Zoo director defends tiger killing
- Thread starter Peter Dickinson
- Start date
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Orangutan Hybrid, Bred to Save Species, Now Seen as Pollutant - NYTimes.com
Orangutan Hybrid, Bred to Save Species, Now Seen as Pollutant - NYTimes.com
Orangutan Hybrid, Bred to Save Species, Now Seen as Pollutant - NYTimes.com
Orangutan Hybrid, Bred to Save Species, Now Seen as Pollutant
By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: February 28, 1995
Orangutan Hybrid, Bred to Save Species, Now Seen as Pollutant - NYTimes.com
Orangutan Hybrid, Bred to Save Species, Now Seen as Pollutant - NYTimes.com
Orangutan Hybrid, Bred to Save Species, Now Seen as Pollutant
By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: February 28, 1995
Last edited by a moderator:
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
An American zoo researcher says this about the incident :
"It's morally repugnant. It's the height of an immature kind of arrogance to think you can cause life to be born and not also undertake a concomitant responsibility to that life, especially if you are doing so as part of an institution (zoo) that arguably exists for the purpose of cultivating respect for life ."
"It's morally repugnant. It's the height of an immature kind of arrogance to think you can cause life to be born and not also undertake a concomitant responsibility to that life, especially if you are doing so as part of an institution (zoo) that arguably exists for the purpose of cultivating respect for life ."
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Zoo Euthanasia
The Steve Graham legacy
Detroit Zoo director saw surplus crunch coming
(From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 1994.)
--
Merritt Clifton
Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE
The Steve Graham legacy
Detroit Zoo director saw surplus crunch coming
(From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 1994.)
--
Merritt Clifton
Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE
Last edited by a moderator:
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
ANIMAL PEOPLE is likely to cover this incident shortly, when they do, I could share the item with you. Needless to say, the editors do not share the dogma of preserving the purity of subspecies. If they write about it, 30,000 people will get to know more about this prejudice that has led to the killings. My WCS friend has told me the sentence is lousy, not because it proclaims the zoo guilty but because it is too light. A poacher killing tigers goes to prison. A zoo director doing so ought to face the same punishment. Magdeburg Zoo has got away lightly. If this kind of thing happened in India, the consequences would have been much more severe. Rightly so.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
A little piece of advice: Better post just the links rather than the whole article. This will stop this thread from becoming bloated and unreadable. Thank you.
Who should "believe" in the ex-situ breeding of tigers? "Believe" is imo limited to religion. You can advocate it or not; inform, and help yourself.
Some groups advocate it, other not. I stated my personal view on this. Let's be glad that there is still an in-situ alternative available. Yet there is still the not too slim chance that one day there won't be any in-situ tiger protection possible. Having an alternative then might be better than having none.
"it does not mean the whole world should stand up and applaud the act." It didn't; the Magdeburg Zoo staff acted after long consideration and in accordance with other authorities, and WAZA etc. stated their support.
Why didn't said Panthera specialists and other critics state their opinion more loudly back then, one might also ask.
"I am in agreement that naked celebrities on advertisements do not do much for saving animals." Actually, they do nothing at all. It's just PR for PETA to get more money for their agenda and for the celebrities to portray themselves as animal lovers...No in- or ex-situ conservation program has ever benefited from such campaigns.
"(...)the job of watchdog groups is to blow the whistle and point out the mistakes." You forget one major aspect: so-called "watchdog groups" should also bring in the apt factual professional knowledge into the discussion collaborate and employ constructive critique, i.e. offering and supporting alternatives financially & practically on the long run. Most often, they do neither. And: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Zoos do admit making mistakes-but they do not scourge themselves as some animal right activists want them to. Why should they?
If one can talk of a "zoo industry", one should also talk of the animal right/animal protection industry. Funny enough, these people are also not very willing to admit mistakes, although they commit plenty. Must be human nature...
"They ought to help if they can for relocating animals but that is not their primary role." Why not?
"An American zoo researcher "
Who?
"Graham never liked euthanasia. He just liked the alternatives less."
If you don't want zoo animals put to death for being surplus, then improve the alternatives.
Who should "believe" in the ex-situ breeding of tigers? "Believe" is imo limited to religion. You can advocate it or not; inform, and help yourself.
Some groups advocate it, other not. I stated my personal view on this. Let's be glad that there is still an in-situ alternative available. Yet there is still the not too slim chance that one day there won't be any in-situ tiger protection possible. Having an alternative then might be better than having none.
"it does not mean the whole world should stand up and applaud the act." It didn't; the Magdeburg Zoo staff acted after long consideration and in accordance with other authorities, and WAZA etc. stated their support.
Why didn't said Panthera specialists and other critics state their opinion more loudly back then, one might also ask.
"I am in agreement that naked celebrities on advertisements do not do much for saving animals." Actually, they do nothing at all. It's just PR for PETA to get more money for their agenda and for the celebrities to portray themselves as animal lovers...No in- or ex-situ conservation program has ever benefited from such campaigns.
"(...)the job of watchdog groups is to blow the whistle and point out the mistakes." You forget one major aspect: so-called "watchdog groups" should also bring in the apt factual professional knowledge into the discussion collaborate and employ constructive critique, i.e. offering and supporting alternatives financially & practically on the long run. Most often, they do neither. And: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Zoos do admit making mistakes-but they do not scourge themselves as some animal right activists want them to. Why should they?
If one can talk of a "zoo industry", one should also talk of the animal right/animal protection industry. Funny enough, these people are also not very willing to admit mistakes, although they commit plenty. Must be human nature...
"They ought to help if they can for relocating animals but that is not their primary role." Why not?
"An American zoo researcher "
Who?
"Graham never liked euthanasia. He just liked the alternatives less."
If you don't want zoo animals put to death for being surplus, then improve the alternatives.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
"WCS friend"-any concrete names?
Once again, you're provocantly comparing apples to oranges.
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Hello Sun Wukong,
Thanks for responding. I think we have reached a stage in the debate where we have both stated our views and I respect the fact you are talking logically and reasonably.
May I request you to be a little more patient till the ANIMAL PEOPLE article comes out and I will ask my colleagues also if they want to go public with their views. But please rest assured, the critics are genuine people, they are not figments of my imagination.
so-called "watchdog groups" should also bring in the apt factual professional knowledge into the discussion collaborate and employ constructive critique, i.e. offering and supporting alternatives financially & practically on the long run.
Born Free Foundation has rehabilitated several animals kept in bad zoos. Some of their tigers came to India in 2001, there was one tiger rescued from Limburgse Zoo. CAPS also has one one occasion, I will have to check. Animal Aid has. PETA has in India too. I will see if there are others.
You ask why did not the critics object when this happened. I honestly did not know about this incident till the latest judgment so am not in a position to say what transpired when the killing took place. One argument may be that most field conservation groups do not want to bother with captive situations at all. I can try and find out what the welfare groups thought about the incident when this happened. The group that filed the court case is named Animal Public.
As a reference, I am sending you their press release, it is a translation sent by a friend of mine in Germany. Please see what you think of it.
Allow me to tell you this. Many zoo keepers and workers may not come out openly in criticism of euthanasia and culling. I remember talking to Anthony Allchurch, the Jersey Zoo vet(by the way, Jersey have dropped the word 'zoo' from their institution, they call themselves Durrell Wildlife Park now) on euthanasia in 1999. I remember he told me, "If you do not agree with something, do not go along with it." I really did appreciate that. I have also met keepers in Howletts Zoo who have told me the same thing. John Aspinall had reservations about culling 'surplus' animals, especially young ones.
One of the most trenchant critics of the zoo industry is my friend and colleague, David Hancocks, former director of Woodland Park Zoo, Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and Werribee Zoo. I assume you have read his book 'A DIFFERENT NATURE : THE PARADOXICAL WORLD OF ZOOS AND THEIR UNCERTAIN FUTURE"? David has just recently been interviewed by the Captive Animals Protection Society and I am very willing to share the item that is in PDF format. How do I get it across to you? You may want to see what he thinks of the failings of the zoo community.
The Indian comment. You know about the Nandankanan Zoo tiger deaths ten years ago?
See here : www.outlookindia.com | Meowwwwwwwwwwww So may be the comparison is less provocative than you suggest.
I am interested to explore the surplus animal and hybridisation issue further and have a lot of material to share. Many of them are in PDF format. If I wanted to send them to you outside this forum personally, how do I do it?
Also, if you want to get your views across to Jeremy or Merritt, please feel free to. I will send your opinions across and put you in touch with them.
Another point. Jeremy wanted all the zoo groups to give comments in addition to the published statements and did not get any. I have read all the statements and am not satisfied with what they say and therefore can understand why someone would seek more information. So if he has written that the groups contacted declined, it is a legitimate statement.
Just to let you know, the Indian government is tightening animal cruelty laws. Please see here : Govt plans new law to prevent cruelty against animals - India - The Times of India In this respect killing or euthanasia of surplus animals would likely be treated with greater severity although we have not had this problem in India till date.(At least not in the sense of killing healthy animals because they are hybrid.)
Let us continue the discussion without rancour or malice. I also must admit I respect your approach to the issue. As Dale Carnegie commented, "A person who takes time to disagree with you is interested in the same things as you are." Trust me, I am interested in zoos and want to see zoo animals well treated and I am sure you do too. It would be good if our views can arrive at some kind of proximity even if there is no unanimity. Thank you and have a good day.
Thanks for responding. I think we have reached a stage in the debate where we have both stated our views and I respect the fact you are talking logically and reasonably.
May I request you to be a little more patient till the ANIMAL PEOPLE article comes out and I will ask my colleagues also if they want to go public with their views. But please rest assured, the critics are genuine people, they are not figments of my imagination.
so-called "watchdog groups" should also bring in the apt factual professional knowledge into the discussion collaborate and employ constructive critique, i.e. offering and supporting alternatives financially & practically on the long run.
Born Free Foundation has rehabilitated several animals kept in bad zoos. Some of their tigers came to India in 2001, there was one tiger rescued from Limburgse Zoo. CAPS also has one one occasion, I will have to check. Animal Aid has. PETA has in India too. I will see if there are others.
You ask why did not the critics object when this happened. I honestly did not know about this incident till the latest judgment so am not in a position to say what transpired when the killing took place. One argument may be that most field conservation groups do not want to bother with captive situations at all. I can try and find out what the welfare groups thought about the incident when this happened. The group that filed the court case is named Animal Public.
As a reference, I am sending you their press release, it is a translation sent by a friend of mine in Germany. Please see what you think of it.
Allow me to tell you this. Many zoo keepers and workers may not come out openly in criticism of euthanasia and culling. I remember talking to Anthony Allchurch, the Jersey Zoo vet(by the way, Jersey have dropped the word 'zoo' from their institution, they call themselves Durrell Wildlife Park now) on euthanasia in 1999. I remember he told me, "If you do not agree with something, do not go along with it." I really did appreciate that. I have also met keepers in Howletts Zoo who have told me the same thing. John Aspinall had reservations about culling 'surplus' animals, especially young ones.
One of the most trenchant critics of the zoo industry is my friend and colleague, David Hancocks, former director of Woodland Park Zoo, Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and Werribee Zoo. I assume you have read his book 'A DIFFERENT NATURE : THE PARADOXICAL WORLD OF ZOOS AND THEIR UNCERTAIN FUTURE"? David has just recently been interviewed by the Captive Animals Protection Society and I am very willing to share the item that is in PDF format. How do I get it across to you? You may want to see what he thinks of the failings of the zoo community.
The Indian comment. You know about the Nandankanan Zoo tiger deaths ten years ago?
See here : www.outlookindia.com | Meowwwwwwwwwwww So may be the comparison is less provocative than you suggest.
I am interested to explore the surplus animal and hybridisation issue further and have a lot of material to share. Many of them are in PDF format. If I wanted to send them to you outside this forum personally, how do I do it?
Also, if you want to get your views across to Jeremy or Merritt, please feel free to. I will send your opinions across and put you in touch with them.
Another point. Jeremy wanted all the zoo groups to give comments in addition to the published statements and did not get any. I have read all the statements and am not satisfied with what they say and therefore can understand why someone would seek more information. So if he has written that the groups contacted declined, it is a legitimate statement.
Just to let you know, the Indian government is tightening animal cruelty laws. Please see here : Govt plans new law to prevent cruelty against animals - India - The Times of India In this respect killing or euthanasia of surplus animals would likely be treated with greater severity although we have not had this problem in India till date.(At least not in the sense of killing healthy animals because they are hybrid.)
Let us continue the discussion without rancour or malice. I also must admit I respect your approach to the issue. As Dale Carnegie commented, "A person who takes time to disagree with you is interested in the same things as you are." Trust me, I am interested in zoos and want to see zoo animals well treated and I am sure you do too. It would be good if our views can arrive at some kind of proximity even if there is no unanimity. Thank you and have a good day.
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Hi,
As stated earlier I am posting the feature that has appeared today in ANIMAL PEOPLE. You will also know that two Liger kittens have been born in Taiwan recently. Thankfully, they have not been killed and been sent to a sanctuary. Only one person, the man who started this thread has asked for killing(Typical of him). But the point remains the same : the cubs did not choose to be born, caution should have been exercised before the mating and once the wrong has been committed the people responsible ought to own up to the mistake and provide lifetime care for the cubs. This applies to human babies also born out of accidental or unwarranted sexual acts. Nobody suggests killing them and using language like "What a waste of space and resources to provide for illegitimate children." And again the comparison, though provocative, is valid. Thankfully in India, we do not have this philosophy of killing willy nilly because of the Hindu Buddhist Jain religious tradition. Anyone doing this kind of act in India publicly will face serious consequences, more so in the face of the fact that the animal rights/animal welfare movement is calling the shots on zoo issues today and not the zoos themselves. They are in a position of advantage and the government is on their side. It is a battle of the wills, if zoos do not change willingly, they will be forced to. Thank you.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2010:
As stated earlier I am posting the feature that has appeared today in ANIMAL PEOPLE. You will also know that two Liger kittens have been born in Taiwan recently. Thankfully, they have not been killed and been sent to a sanctuary. Only one person, the man who started this thread has asked for killing(Typical of him). But the point remains the same : the cubs did not choose to be born, caution should have been exercised before the mating and once the wrong has been committed the people responsible ought to own up to the mistake and provide lifetime care for the cubs. This applies to human babies also born out of accidental or unwarranted sexual acts. Nobody suggests killing them and using language like "What a waste of space and resources to provide for illegitimate children." And again the comparison, though provocative, is valid. Thankfully in India, we do not have this philosophy of killing willy nilly because of the Hindu Buddhist Jain religious tradition. Anyone doing this kind of act in India publicly will face serious consequences, more so in the face of the fact that the animal rights/animal welfare movement is calling the shots on zoo issues today and not the zoos themselves. They are in a position of advantage and the government is on their side. It is a battle of the wills, if zoos do not change willingly, they will be forced to. Thank you.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2010:
Last edited by a moderator:
I find the accusations -anonymously - levelled at the Magdeburg management distasteful and baseless.
Plainly, hybrid tigers should not be maintained nor do the belong in serious conservation breeding themed zoos. That includes Bengal/Siberians, Sumatran/Bengals or the infamous white tigers. And the thought of these ending up in some rescue center fills me with equal dismay ...
But as usual, the opponents of tiger euthanasia here will see it differently. Let us just say we have professional reasons do disagree with you lot.
Plainly, hybrid tigers should not be maintained nor do the belong in serious conservation breeding themed zoos. That includes Bengal/Siberians, Sumatran/Bengals or the infamous white tigers. And the thought of these ending up in some rescue center fills me with equal dismay ...
But as usual, the opponents of tiger euthanasia here will see it differently. Let us just say we have professional reasons do disagree with you lot.
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
It is not anonymous, the article has been written by Merritt Clifton, editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE. Fair enough, we agree to disagree on this issue on the reasons outlined throughout this thread.
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Just to add, a lot of input for the article was provided by me, based on what has been shared here from public documents questioning the killing of hybrid animals. Thank you.
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Published in New York Times yesterday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/science/14creatures.html
Remarkable Creatures
Hybrids May Thrive Where Parents Fear to Tread
Bernd Thissen/European Pressphoto Agency, via Corbis
NEW BREEDS Hybridization examples include a zorse (zebra-horse) named Eclyse.
By SEAN B. CARROLL
Published: September 13, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/science/14creatures.html
Remarkable Creatures
Hybrids May Thrive Where Parents Fear to Tread
Bernd Thissen/European Pressphoto Agency, via Corbis
NEW BREEDS Hybridization examples include a zorse (zebra-horse) named Eclyse.
By SEAN B. CARROLL
Published: September 13, 2010
Last edited by a moderator:
Occassional interbreeding and hybridisation in nature cannot be a free-for-all legitimisation for (un-)programmed interbreeding of separate conservation units -be they spp. or ssp. - in captivity. The guidelines set by IUCN are quite clear on that.
The paper and the above notion you refer to is put out of context in the Zoo Magdeburg saga and merely masquerading for science a known phenomenon that only happens occassionally in nature. The dolphin - false killer whale hybrid is a contrived and unnatural pairing affair and the accidental unexpected breeding was brought on by maintaining these 2 species in close proximity where normally - in nature - these species will not associate together (other examples that may be cited are those ill-fated lionxtiger and tigerxlion pairings in captivity in one exhibit or whatever other contrived ghost creatures this may create).
To get back on topic of Magdeburg Zoo: one can argue whether for animal welfare's sake the hybrid individual might have been neutered (sterilised / vasectomised whatever the sex of any given individual animal part of a conservation breeding programme) and transferred out to a facility willing to take in an individual that has lost any value to the conservation breeding programme.
Well the above is irrelevant to the past, perhaps more relevant from now on and for EAZA to consider devising a new policy in line with IUCN/WWF guidelines on ....
As for current affairs: Zoo Magdeburg's female Siberian tiger has been sent out on short-term breeding loan to Tierpark Berlin to breed and will return to Magdeburg once confirmed pregnant.
The hybrid Siberian/Sumatran male continues to reside at Zoo Magdeburg occupying space deemed more needed for a pure-bred individual Siberian.
Tentative question: any facilities outside the conservation breedig programme willing to take a male hybrid tiger? I would not have a clue whom could (I am sure Zoo Magdeburg put him up on the exchange/surplus list circulating within EAZA).
The paper and the above notion you refer to is put out of context in the Zoo Magdeburg saga and merely masquerading for science a known phenomenon that only happens occassionally in nature. The dolphin - false killer whale hybrid is a contrived and unnatural pairing affair and the accidental unexpected breeding was brought on by maintaining these 2 species in close proximity where normally - in nature - these species will not associate together (other examples that may be cited are those ill-fated lionxtiger and tigerxlion pairings in captivity in one exhibit or whatever other contrived ghost creatures this may create).
To get back on topic of Magdeburg Zoo: one can argue whether for animal welfare's sake the hybrid individual might have been neutered (sterilised / vasectomised whatever the sex of any given individual animal part of a conservation breeding programme) and transferred out to a facility willing to take in an individual that has lost any value to the conservation breeding programme.
Well the above is irrelevant to the past, perhaps more relevant from now on and for EAZA to consider devising a new policy in line with IUCN/WWF guidelines on ....
As for current affairs: Zoo Magdeburg's female Siberian tiger has been sent out on short-term breeding loan to Tierpark Berlin to breed and will return to Magdeburg once confirmed pregnant.
The hybrid Siberian/Sumatran male continues to reside at Zoo Magdeburg occupying space deemed more needed for a pure-bred individual Siberian.
Tentative question: any facilities outside the conservation breedig programme willing to take a male hybrid tiger? I would not have a clue whom could (I am sure Zoo Magdeburg put him up on the exchange/surplus list circulating within EAZA).
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Hi Kifaru,
Thank you for responding.
You say : "The paper and the above notion you refer to is put out of context in the Zoo Magdeburg saga and merely masquerading for science a known phenomenon that only happens occassionally in nature."
As I said, hybridisation is very common in wild birds, it is a regular phenomenon and the article has put the whole phenomenon into context.(The Magdeburg Tiger case is well within the ambit of the discourse on hybridisation in my view).
I agree with you that irresponsible cross breeding of hybrid animals like Wholphins, Ligers, Tigons should be avoided in cases where the two species of animals do not meet in the wild and such liaisons do not occur in the wild. In fact such forced breeding can be construed as cruel and unethical. Can you tell me which zoo hybridised the Tiger which gave birth to the hybrid kittens?
But I differ with you on the concept of subspecies for Tigers because the differences are minor. I subscribe to the view outlined by Ulhas Karanth and Billy Arjan Singh that we ought to place less focus on subspecies and highlight more attention on the species.
There has been a recent news report that I can share with you which says that geneticists have stated that Siberian Tigers are almost the same as Caspian Tigers to defend the Russian transfer of Siberian Tigers to Iran in exchange of Persian Leopards. So there we enter a murky area again.
My fundamental question remains the same : do the geneticists know for certain at what exact point a species gives rise to a subspecies, or a race or a breed? Going by the definition that a species is a group of individuals capable of breeding amongst themselves, then if Siberian Tigers could interbreed with other subspecies then they can rightly be said to be members of the same species as other populations and the differences are evidently minor to give rise to subspecies segregation.
Our difference in thinking lies in the following : you think that the purported subspecific denominations of Tigers are important to merit segregation, I don't. I also am of the firm opinion that taxonomy as a science is not an exact and reductionist science and is often utilised for convenience. The maintenance of different subspecies of Tigers is one clear example.
In my view, which was shared by Billy Arjan Singh, the integration or mixing of different subspecies of tigers can enhance the gene pool of the animals. This is an irreconciliable difference between our viewpoints.
Some more food for thought. How many subspecies exist for leopards? For Pumas? Has the Florida Panther not been hybridised? How many subspecies can be segregated for captive maintenance and what is the basis behind such decisions for segragation in captivity?
How about Cheetahs? Only recently, taxonomists were saying that Asiatic Cheetahs are distinctly different from African Cheetahs. This was the core of the Cheetah reintroduction project in India. Then Iran refused to give Cheetahs to India and last year taxonomists said India could get Cheetahs from Africa because the differences are minor.
I am asking you and everyone else, is this science or is this politics and a game of convenience? Taxonomy is very often a self serving exercise.
I have another question and would be grateful if you could address it. Dogs. Take a Chihuahua and a Great Dane and apply the species definition of a group of individuals capable of breeding with each other. Is it feasible that a Chihuahua breeds with a Great Dane or a Wolfhound? Compare the physical difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane and take into account the physical difference between a Siberian Tiger and a Sumatran Tiger. If physical attributes contribute towards designation of species, can it not be logically said, that dogs have different subspecies or even species? Why do taxonomists insist that dogs have only breeds and not subspecies or separate species?
Please read this paper by geneticist Nicky Xavier proposing the hybridization of lions in Gir National Park and see the arguments he makes. You may disagree with him, but I can tell you that this very same argument was made by Michael Buford when he taught us in Jersey. He said, “The Asiatic Lion is genetically crippled and maybe the only way it will survive is by hybridization.” Link : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep252008/720.pdf
I was told that the human example was not relevant. Not relevant because it makes people uncomfortable or because it is unscientific?
I contradict you on the following counts :
1) Subspecies designations of Tigers are uncertain and ought to be treated as such and mixing of subspecies is an option to strengthen the gene pool
2) Captive Tigers have no conservation value and it is completely dishonest for zoos to claim otherwise.
3) Individual Tigers like the ones in Magdeburg should be maintained throughout their lives for ethical reasons. It is very relevant to probe if there are institutions that could house the so called surplus animals.
4) Guidelines on conservation are not mantras set in stone and demand careful scrutiny as discussed in the recent ‘Compassionate Conservation’ conference held in Oxford University. No matter who sets them. WWF does not recommend captive breeding of Tigers as I stated earlier.
5) Sentience is as important a factor in conservation as numerical status.
6) If the majority of zoos drop their captive breeding schemes for tigers and make efforts to fund field conservation efforts that would help control the surplus problem and also help wild tigers.
7) The zoo community’s contribution to Tiger conservation is nothing major and breeding captive Tigers diverts attention and resources from wild conservation efforts.
I know you will not agree on the points raised but it is good to state these views. I am preparing a document on hybrid animals that will be shared very widely so that we know how to deal with these issues if they rise in India. I don’t envisage it will, because if an Indian zoo euthanised a healthy hybrid Tiger, it will be shut down in a month, or more likely a week.
The law is on the side of the animal welfare/rights agencies, not the zoos.
Thank you for responding.
You say : "The paper and the above notion you refer to is put out of context in the Zoo Magdeburg saga and merely masquerading for science a known phenomenon that only happens occassionally in nature."
As I said, hybridisation is very common in wild birds, it is a regular phenomenon and the article has put the whole phenomenon into context.(The Magdeburg Tiger case is well within the ambit of the discourse on hybridisation in my view).
I agree with you that irresponsible cross breeding of hybrid animals like Wholphins, Ligers, Tigons should be avoided in cases where the two species of animals do not meet in the wild and such liaisons do not occur in the wild. In fact such forced breeding can be construed as cruel and unethical. Can you tell me which zoo hybridised the Tiger which gave birth to the hybrid kittens?
But I differ with you on the concept of subspecies for Tigers because the differences are minor. I subscribe to the view outlined by Ulhas Karanth and Billy Arjan Singh that we ought to place less focus on subspecies and highlight more attention on the species.
There has been a recent news report that I can share with you which says that geneticists have stated that Siberian Tigers are almost the same as Caspian Tigers to defend the Russian transfer of Siberian Tigers to Iran in exchange of Persian Leopards. So there we enter a murky area again.
My fundamental question remains the same : do the geneticists know for certain at what exact point a species gives rise to a subspecies, or a race or a breed? Going by the definition that a species is a group of individuals capable of breeding amongst themselves, then if Siberian Tigers could interbreed with other subspecies then they can rightly be said to be members of the same species as other populations and the differences are evidently minor to give rise to subspecies segregation.
Our difference in thinking lies in the following : you think that the purported subspecific denominations of Tigers are important to merit segregation, I don't. I also am of the firm opinion that taxonomy as a science is not an exact and reductionist science and is often utilised for convenience. The maintenance of different subspecies of Tigers is one clear example.
In my view, which was shared by Billy Arjan Singh, the integration or mixing of different subspecies of tigers can enhance the gene pool of the animals. This is an irreconciliable difference between our viewpoints.
Some more food for thought. How many subspecies exist for leopards? For Pumas? Has the Florida Panther not been hybridised? How many subspecies can be segregated for captive maintenance and what is the basis behind such decisions for segragation in captivity?
How about Cheetahs? Only recently, taxonomists were saying that Asiatic Cheetahs are distinctly different from African Cheetahs. This was the core of the Cheetah reintroduction project in India. Then Iran refused to give Cheetahs to India and last year taxonomists said India could get Cheetahs from Africa because the differences are minor.
I am asking you and everyone else, is this science or is this politics and a game of convenience? Taxonomy is very often a self serving exercise.
I have another question and would be grateful if you could address it. Dogs. Take a Chihuahua and a Great Dane and apply the species definition of a group of individuals capable of breeding with each other. Is it feasible that a Chihuahua breeds with a Great Dane or a Wolfhound? Compare the physical difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane and take into account the physical difference between a Siberian Tiger and a Sumatran Tiger. If physical attributes contribute towards designation of species, can it not be logically said, that dogs have different subspecies or even species? Why do taxonomists insist that dogs have only breeds and not subspecies or separate species?
Please read this paper by geneticist Nicky Xavier proposing the hybridization of lions in Gir National Park and see the arguments he makes. You may disagree with him, but I can tell you that this very same argument was made by Michael Buford when he taught us in Jersey. He said, “The Asiatic Lion is genetically crippled and maybe the only way it will survive is by hybridization.” Link : http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep252008/720.pdf
I was told that the human example was not relevant. Not relevant because it makes people uncomfortable or because it is unscientific?
I contradict you on the following counts :
1) Subspecies designations of Tigers are uncertain and ought to be treated as such and mixing of subspecies is an option to strengthen the gene pool
2) Captive Tigers have no conservation value and it is completely dishonest for zoos to claim otherwise.
3) Individual Tigers like the ones in Magdeburg should be maintained throughout their lives for ethical reasons. It is very relevant to probe if there are institutions that could house the so called surplus animals.
4) Guidelines on conservation are not mantras set in stone and demand careful scrutiny as discussed in the recent ‘Compassionate Conservation’ conference held in Oxford University. No matter who sets them. WWF does not recommend captive breeding of Tigers as I stated earlier.
5) Sentience is as important a factor in conservation as numerical status.
6) If the majority of zoos drop their captive breeding schemes for tigers and make efforts to fund field conservation efforts that would help control the surplus problem and also help wild tigers.
7) The zoo community’s contribution to Tiger conservation is nothing major and breeding captive Tigers diverts attention and resources from wild conservation efforts.
I know you will not agree on the points raised but it is good to state these views. I am preparing a document on hybrid animals that will be shared very widely so that we know how to deal with these issues if they rise in India. I don’t envisage it will, because if an Indian zoo euthanised a healthy hybrid Tiger, it will be shut down in a month, or more likely a week.
The law is on the side of the animal welfare/rights agencies, not the zoos.
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Caspian Tiger and Siberian Tigers one and the same?
Extinct Tiger Lives On in Close Relative
by Elizabeth Pennisi on 14 January 2009, 12:00 AM | Permanent Link | 0 Comments
Email Print | More
Previous Article Next Article
Enlarge Image
Picture of tigers
Ditto. Caspian (top) and Siberian tigers are one and the same.
Credit: (top, Caspian tiger) Source: Berlin Zoo; (bottom, Siberian tiger) Jochen Ackermann
Extinct Tiger Lives On in Close Relative - ScienceNOW
Extinct Tiger Lives On in Close Relative
by Elizabeth Pennisi on 14 January 2009, 12:00 AM | Permanent Link | 0 Comments
Email Print | More
Previous Article Next Article
Enlarge Image
Picture of tigers
Ditto. Caspian (top) and Siberian tigers are one and the same.
Credit: (top, Caspian tiger) Source: Berlin Zoo; (bottom, Siberian tiger) Jochen Ackermann
Extinct Tiger Lives On in Close Relative - ScienceNOW
Last edited by a moderator:
Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
Russia, Iran Big Cat Swap Raises Questions
By Sam Khosravifard
{This article was originally published May 19, 2010 by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting}
Russia, Iran Big Cat Swap Raises Questions
By Sam Khosravifard
{This article was originally published May 19, 2010 by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting}
Russia, Iran Big Cat Swap Raises Questions
Last edited by a moderator: