My view on Zoos.

[Dawn B]

Howletts, by far.

Thats a place I hope to visit soon.

It is simple, and I agree. However nothing is that simple, and there is a lot of work behind running a proper breeding program. But I have a couple of problems with your attitude, which is extremely simplistic. Firstly you cast a wide net, without apparent thought. You claim "wallabies" shouldn't be kept, without recognising that "wallabies" encompasses a large Family of animals, including some of the most endangered species on earth.

But Wallabies themselves are not threatened at all. I believe only endangered animals should be bred, not common species, vital funds in my opinion are wasted on such animals.

Secondly why shouldn't zoos in Britain exhibit a common species of wallaby, if that is all that is available to them. Surely it is important for zoo visitors to gain some understanding of macropods and marsupials in general?

They are available because they breed so easily, which brings me back to mt point, not endangered, no need to breed them.

But not every zoo can be a Jersey, and there are other ways of furthering conservation. For instance I visited Drusillas(sp?) ten years ago. This is a small zoo that has no pretensions, aiming their marketing squarely at the child market. No great programs for endangered species here. But as I walked around there was a definite effort to educate me about conservation. Further there were several donation collection points for various conservation programs around the world. That zoo was doing a lot for conservation, without claiming any involvement in conservation breeding.

Have to say I visited Twycross again today, a HUGE effort to educate is currently operating there with massive expansion, looks great!

Once again you are wrong. Subordinate males frequently breed in social groups, in almost all species. In fact canines are particularly adapted to achieve this, with litters able to have multiple fathers.

Well I think many Wolf experts would disagree with that, and Wolf pack structure is not like Dingo structure at all. Wild "dogs" breed with eachother and everyone can mate when a female is in season, but Wolves do not do this at all, only the alpha male and female do. (and yes Im aware of the closeness of canine and lupine!)

But I am sorry you did not receive a reply. Maybe they are avoiding it. Or maybe they are tired of trying to reply to people with an agenda to pursue, who are unwilling to take reasonable answers at face value.

Yeah maybe, what a shame, if those questions are relevant eh?

Again you display your ignorance with an insult. GENETIC faults and diseases appear so often in pedigree dogs because the genetic pool from which they are bred is so limited. And the pool is constantly reduced by an insistence that the next generation only be bred from a small pool of "Champions" selected on a very limited set of artificial criteria.

No you are wrong, the genetic gene pool for dogs is not small at all, especially in recent years, animals are used from all over the world, AI, frozen sperm etc.. and now with the pet passport there has never been such a wide diversity in the canine world. In fact untill very recently, the kennel club wouldnt let you use sperm from certain breeds as they said there was a big enough gene pool and no "new" blood was necessary.

As for your wolf, it is entirely up to the managers of that captive group as to which animal breeds and which doesn't. I would hope if they are breeding from that wolf, there is a very good reason. Of course nobody would release an animal like that. But if it's progeny were released, any wild offspring that did express that fault would quickly die. That is natural selection at work.

If thats the case I feel VERY sorry for them, making such decisions in a pack structure is horrible, how on earth can they possibly expect them to behave in a near normal manner if they play god all the time, very sad indeed. Certainly cannot be good for their mental and social wellbeing.

As for my expertise with wolves, I have been managing a group of dingos for the last 10 years.

Great! But Dingos act like pet dogs in their pack structure, not like Wolves, Dingos like Dogs mate when a bitch comes in season, and who ever happens to be there can mate her! Doesnt happen with Wolves.

My opinion of white tigers and white wallabies is much the same as my opinion of white rabbits and white poodles. They have no place in the modern zoo. White tigers in western zoos in particular are highly inbred, and also are often hybrids between different subspecies.

I agree I wouldnt want to see a Rabbit or a Poodle in a Zoo!

Having said that I note a recent thread on a professional zoo list discussing this issue, in which it was claimed that white Bengal tigers are far more common in the wild in India that previously thought (much as black leopards are very common in South-east Asia) and that it is legitimate to include them in breeding programs in Indian zoos. I don't know enough about it to comment, but it does demonstrate the importance of keeping an open mind on these issues.

Michael

Thats interesting, Id like to know more about that too.

 

[redpanda]

Thats a place I hope to visit soon.

It is a great place and, from what I've read, you will like it very much. Also, if you're in the area visit Port Lympne, personally I consider it a better experience although many think it's the other way round.

But Wallabies themselves are not threatened at all. I believe only endangered animals should be bred, not common species, vital funds in my opinion are wasted on such animals.

The point of what you are quoting is that there are endangered species of wallabies, for example there are only 40 Victorian Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby left. Therefore, the exhibition of say Bennett's Walabies could be used to raise awareness and funds for their more endangered counterparts.

They are available because they breed so easily, which brings me back to mt point, not endangered, no need to breed them.

What is the point you are trying to make with this statement? Asian Lions breed easily - does that mean they should not be allowed to sire off-spring either? Many zoos focus on habitat protection and the majority of habitats cannot be accurately represented using only endangered species. This links back to the idea of conservation education - something you do not seem to have grasped.

Well I think many Wolf experts would disagree with that, and Wolf pack structure is not like Dingo structure at all. Wild "dogs" breed with eachother and everyone can mate when a female is in season, but Wolves do not do this at all, only the alpha male and female do. (and yes Im aware of the closeness of canine and lupine!)

I was under this impression as well, however, I don't pretend to be an expert so we shall see how MRJ replies.

No you are wrong, the genetic gene pool for dogs is not small at all, especially in recent years, animals are used from all over the world, AI, frozen sperm etc.. and now with the pet passport there has never been such a wide diversity in the canine world. In fact untill very recently, the kennel club wouldnt let you use sperm from certain breeds as they said there was a big enough gene pool and no "new" blood was necessary.

I'm not sure that this is strictly true. Yes, we can get sperm from all over the world - but I would imagine that the vast majority of dogs bred in Britain are fathered by animals born in this country. And, as MRJ has pointed out, the obsession for desirable characteristics has often lead to bitches having far more off-spring than they should be allowed to, whilst those of genetic importance, not enough. This irresponsible breeding has lead to many common ailments, such as heart disease in cavvys and spinal problems in ridgebacks and means that, for example, Britain's 10,000 pugs have the genetic value of just 50 pure individuals. We are certainly not out of the woods yet!

If thats the case I feel VERY sorry for them, making such decisions in a pack structure is horrible, how on earth can they possibly expect them to behave in a near normal manner if they play god all the time, very sad indeed. Certainly cannot be good for their mental and social wellbeing.

Controlling breeding does not have to affect pack structure, for example, if your male with the under-shot jaw was neutered, he could still be the dominant animal without siring any pups and passing on the defective gene.

Thats interesting, Id like to know more about that too.

Whether common in the wild or not, they are merely a colour variation and, therefore, if they are bred for conservation reasons, it should be with other pure tigers (white or orange) rather than for £££ which it is currently.

 

[Dawn B]

It is a great place and, from what I've read, you will like it very much. Also, if you're in the area visit Port Lympne, personally I consider it a better experience although many think it's the other way round.

Thanks, Ill do that.

The point of what you are quoting is that there are endangered species of wallabies, for example there are only 40 Victorian Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby left. Therefore, the exhibition of say Bennett's Walabies could be used to raise awareness and funds for their more endangered counterparts.

Id have no issues with breeding Rock Wallabies, but its like saying there are only a few German Shepherds left, lets breed more Labradors because they are the same species. Doesnt fit my way of thinking, however I appreciate many feel differently.

What is the point you are trying to make with this statement? Asian Lions breed easily - does that mean they should not be allowed to sire off-spring either? Many zoos focus on habitat protection and the majority of habitats cannot be accurately represented using only endangered species. This links back to the idea of conservation education - something you do not seem to have grasped.

I have "grasped" it just fine thanks, I just dont agree with your thinking, Im perfectly entitled to my opinion, as you are yours.

I was under this impression as well, however, I don't pretend to be an expert so we shall see how MRJ replies.

Yeah, Im pretty sure, been studying Wolf behaviour for some time now, with the introduction of Wolfdogs in this country, I felt the need to as in my job we have already come up against a few.

I'm not sure that this is strictly true. Yes, we can get sperm from all over the world - but I would imagine that the vast majority of dogs bred in Britain are fathered by animals born in this country. And, as MRJ has pointed out, the obsession for desirable characteristics has often lead to bitches having far more off-spring than they should be allowed to, whilst those of genetic importance, not enough. This irresponsible breeding has lead to many common ailments, such as heart disease in cavvys and spinal problems in ridgebacks and means that, for example, Britain's 10,000 pugs have the genetic value of just 50 pure individuals. We are certainly not out of the woods yet!

The desirable features has no bearing on the gene pool, its bad breeding. Irresponsible breeders will inbreed to exaggerate features, and those that also do not health test will make the situation worse. The gene pool is just fine, its some breeders that aren't.

Controlling breeding does not have to affect pack structure, for example, if your male with the under-shot jaw was neutered, he could still be the dominant animal without siring any pups and passing on the defective gene.

I dont think so, neutering a dog will render it more subservient and far less dominant. The lack of testosterone will cause other males to pick on and fight him for dominance, this is a regular occurance in pet dogs. I cant see the Wolf being any different, as many wolf behaviours are the same as the dog. A vasectomy may work though?

Whether common in the wild or not, they are merely a colour variation and, therefore, if they are bred for conservation reasons, it should be with other pure tigers (white or orange) rather than for £££ which it is currently.

Not according to some people, Zoos are breeding white to white just to produce white. If one in 4 cubs are born white, in a white to orange mating, then you have to question places that have more than one white in a litter, and apparently no other colours. Id love to be proved wrong though.

Thanks Redpanda.

 

[foz]

Its seems to me, Dawn B, that you do not agree with having 'common' species in zoos at all. To this I must object. Conservation sucess is not acheived just by breeding and re-introducing animals there has to be protection for the habitat and the whole ecosystem (including 'common species). Also is there is of course the educational aspect. often this ties in to a entertainment apsect, for example as a child i would not want to visit to zoo to see 'endangered animals' I would go to see the amazing weird and wonderful animals, be them common or rare. I bet many zoo enthusiats have been enthralled by the majestic african lion or started there conservation journey by being compelled, entertained or fascinated by the antics of funny meerkats.

It would kill me to think of future generation never seeing a wolf in the flesh because they aren't endangered enough.

I hope I've been clear in my points, this is a highly interesting thread concerning many topics.

 

[Dawn B]

Its seems to me, Dawn B, that you do not agree with having 'common' species in zoos at all. To this I must object. Conservation sucess is not acheived just by breeding and re-introducing animals there has to be protection for the habitat and the whole ecosystem (including 'common species). Also is there is of course the educational aspect. often this ties in to a entertainment apsect, for example as a child i would not want to visit to zoo to see 'endangered animals' I would go to see the amazing weird and wonderful animals, be them common or rare. I bet many zoo enthusiats have been enthralled by the majestic african lion or started there conservation journey by being compelled, entertained or fascinated by the antics of funny meerkats.

It would kill me to think of future generation never seeing a wolf in the flesh because they aren't endangered enough.

I hope I've been clear in my points, this is a highly interesting thread concerning many topics.

Hello Foz.

Im very fond of Wolves, and many species are very endangered, I too would hate never to see another. Im not being "speciesist" (is that a word??) I genuinely think they need help.

I guess you are right though, I do have a problem with common species being bred, it could be to do with the amount of fund raising you see Zoo's doing and telling you how much cash they need to help etc.. but then you see the common animals taking up space, time, effort and very much needed funds that could be put into those causes more needy.

I totally appreciate your opinion Foz.

 

[redpanda]

Id have no issues with breeding Rock Wallabies, but its like saying there are only a few German Shepherds left, lets breed more Labradors because they are the same species. Doesnt fit my way of thinking, however I appreciate many feel differently.

But if those labrador's were used to educate the public and raise awareness about their rarer cousins, surely that can only be a good thing? Agree to disagree?

I have "grasped" it just fine thanks, I just dont agree with your thinking, Im perfectly entitled to my opinion, as you are yours.

Re-reading this, I relize it sounds more patronising than I meant it to, so I apologize. Once again, I think we shall have to agree to disagree.

The desirable features has no bearing on the gene pool, its bad breeding. Irresponsible breeders will inbreed to exaggerate features, and those that also do not health test will make the situation worse. The gene pool is just fine, its some breeders that aren't.

I didn't mean to imply the desirable features affected the animals health (although, in a few cases they actually do) merely, as you have said, the selected breeding to bring out these features. You say this is only bad breeders, however, it is certainly not uncommon and once being bred, those animals are in the population and will often sire pups of their own. Thus, it affects the whole gene pool.

I dont think so, neutering a dog will render it more subservient and far less dominant. The lack of testosterone will cause other males to pick on and fight him for dominance, this is a regular occurance in pet dogs. I cant see the Wolf being any different, as many wolf behaviours are the same as the dog. A vasectomy may work though?

That was just a (bad) example of the top of my head, perhaps a vasectomy would be a better one.

Not according to some people, Zoos are breeding white to white just to produce white. If one in 4 cubs are born white, in a white to orange mating, then you have to question places that have more than one white in a litter, and apparently no other colours. Id love to be proved wrong though.

Of course this goes on, at present the breeding of white tigers is an entirely comercial excercise (and one which I don't really see the point in as "normal" tigers in themselves are a big draw). However, if we did have a captive population of, for example, 50 pure bengal tigers and 5 of them were white, I would have no problem with integrating the whites into the breeding programme. Whereas, I would have a problem with Busch Gardens exporting those individuals out to Tampa and starting up a breeding programme specifically targeting the white gene.

Thanks Redpanda.

Thank you.

 

[taun]

Not according to some people, Zoos are breeding white to white just to produce white. If one in 4 cubs are born white, in a white to orange mating, then you have to question places that have more than one white in a litter, and apparently no other colours. Id love to be proved wrong though.

Can I just point out the flaw here, what you have quoted is a ratio as in the general rule of thumb is if 4 cubs were produced in a "white" tiger and an "orange tiger (that carried the recessive gene, lets not forget that). Then it would be expected that one is white, however this is chance all could be white or none at all.

If it's easier I’ll say it a different way, there is a 25% chance of them producing a white cub!

This is why am having trouble even accepting what you say, as the basic's are not grasped by yourself.

 

[Dawn B]

But if those labrador's were used to educate the public and raise awareness about their rarer cousins, surely that can only be a good thing? Agree to disagree?

Of course, always happy to do that.

Re-reading this, I relize it sounds more patronising than I meant it to, so I apologize. Once again, I think we shall have to agree to disagree.

Absolutely no need to apologise, heated subjects provoke strong responses, Im as guilty of that as much as the next person.

I didn't mean to imply the desirable features affected the animals health (although, in a few cases they actually do) merely, as you have said, the selected breeding to bring out these features. You say this is only bad breeders, however, it is certainly not uncommon and once being bred, those animals are in the population and will often sire pups of their own. Thus, it affects the whole gene pool.

Yeah I appreciate what you are saying, but careful breeders will do everything possible to eradicate a problem, its the ones that breed for money and to supply the pet market that are usually responsible for breeding poor quality animals. Never going to stop them, they dont care.

That was just a (bad) example of the top of my head, perhaps a vasectomy would be a better one.

Vasectomies are becoming more common in pets now, Ferrets are commonly vasectomised so they can still mate the female to take her out of season, otherwise she often gets an infection that can quickly lead to her death.

Of course this goes on, at present the breeding of white tigers is an entirely comercial excercise (and one which I don't really see the point in as "normal" tigers in themselves are a big draw). However, if we did have a captive population of, for example, 50 pure bengal tigers and 5 of them were white, I would have no problem with integrating the whites into the breeding programme. Whereas, I would have a problem with Busch Gardens exporting those individuals out to Tampa and starting up a breeding programme specifically targeting the white gene.

Yes I see your point here.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

Youre welcome, and thank you.

 

[Hix]

If one in 4 cubs are born white, in a white to orange mating, then you have to question places that have more than one white in a litter, and apparently no other colours. Id love to be proved wrong though.

Can I just point out the flaw here, what you have quoted is a ratio as in the general rule of thumb is if 4 cubs were produced in a "white" tiger and an "orange tiger (that carried the recessive gene, lets not forget that). Then it would be expected that one is white, however this is chance all could be white or none at all.

If it's easier I’ll say it a different way, there is a 25% chance of them producing a white cub!

As taun correctly points out - it's a statistics thing. But the example - a white tiger to an orange - the probability of white 50% or 1 out of every two cubs.

The 1 in 4 ratio would be when two heterozygous orange tigers bred together. But, as mentioned by taun, you could get a litter of 4 white cubs from this mating, or none at all.



Hix

 

[taun]

As taun correctly points out - it's a statistics thing. But the example - a white tiger to an orange - the probability of white 50% or 1 out of every two cubs.

The 1 in 4 ratio would be when two heterozygous orange tigers bred together. But, as mentioned by taun, you could get a litter of 4 white cubs from this mating, or none at all.



Hix

Oooops! I can't believe I made such a school boy error

Thanks for pointing this out, I should of done myself a diagram before replying

 

[Dawn B]

As taun correctly points out - it's a statistics thing. But the example - a white tiger to an orange - the probability of white 50% or 1 out of every two cubs.

The 1 in 4 ratio would be when two heterozygous orange tigers bred together. But, as mentioned by taun, you could get a litter of 4 white cubs from this mating, or none at all.



Hix

I was taking my info from a site on breeding white Tigers:

Only 1 in 4 tiger cubs from a white tiger bred to an orange tiger carrying the white gene are born white, and 80% of those die from birth defects associated with the inbreeding necessary to cause a white coat.

and also:

If two such heterozygous tigers are mated, there is a 1 in 4 chance the offspring will be white. A white tiger only has white genes for its offspring to inherit; therefore two white tigers mated together produce only white cubs.

So its white to orange I did mean.

Do you know who the parents of the white tiger youngsters at West Mids are?

 

[Dawn B]

Dont worry, it seems this was an intentional white to white mating, how very sad, it does seem in this case at least, the welfare of the animals figured lower than gate entries!

 

[taun]

Right diagram time methinks

N = "orange" gene
w = "White" recessive gene

So if you had one "Orange" tiger with the genes NN (no white gene) and a "Orange tiger with Nw (recessive white gene)

you would get the follow


. N N

N NN NN

w Nw Nw

NN = “Orange” tiger
Nw = “Orange” tiger with recessive gene

As the "white" gene is recessive then all cubs would be “orange”


So if you had one “Orange” tiger with genes Nw (recessive white gene) and a “Orange” tiger Nw (recessive white gene)

you would get the following

. N w

N NN Nw

w Nw ww

NN = “Orange” tiger
Nw = “Orange” tiger with recessive gene
ww = “White” tiger

Therefore you have a 1 in 4 chance of producing a “white” cub


So if you had one “Orange” tiger with genes Nw (recessive white gene) and a “White” tiger ww (recessive white gene)

you would get the following

. N w

w Nw ww

w Nw ww

NN = “Orange” tiger
Nw = “Orange” tiger with recessive gene
ww = “White” tiger

Therefore you have a 2 in 4 chance of producing a “white” cub.

Do I need to do one for “white” tiger and ”white” tiger?

It's basic science really.

 

[Dawn B]

If white to white only breed white then no, we can manage thanks!!

Just kidding Taun.

 

[Hix]

I was taking my info from a site on breeding white Tigers

Just goes to show you can't beleive everything you read, especially on the net.



Hix

 

[Dawn B]

Just goes to show you can't beleive everything you read, especially on the net.



Hix

Some things certainly, however doesnt do much for my disappointment at West Mids now.

 

[MRJ]

But Wallabies themselves are not threatened at all. I believe only endangered animals should be bred, not common species, vital funds in my opinion are wasted on such animals....They are available because they breed so easily, which brings me back to mt point, not endangered, no need to breed them.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. You have a much more limited understanding as to the role of zoos than I do. Your attitude basically means that zoos outside Australia have no place holding Australian marsupials.

Well I think many Wolf experts would disagree with that, and Wolf pack structure is not like Dingo structure at all. Wild "dogs" breed with eachother and everyone can mate when a female is in season, but Wolves do not do this at all, only the alpha male and female do. (and yes Im aware of the closeness of canine and lupine!)

First "canine" and "lupine" are synonymous, in that it is generally accepted that domestic dogs are domesticated forms of European Wolves. Dingos are generally regarded as a separate sub-species. As for wolf pack structures, you may be right, I am not an expert, but I would certainly be surprised. But that is not the point.

The point is that the holders of the animal in question may have several legitimate reasons for maintaining that animal, but because you personally don't like the look of it you are happy to condemn that institution.

No you are wrong, the genetic gene pool for dogs is not small at all, especially in recent years, animals are used from all over the world, AI, frozen sperm etc.. and now with the pet passport there has never been such a wide diversity in the canine world. In fact untill very recently, the kennel club wouldnt let you use sperm from certain breeds as they said there was a big enough gene pool and no "new" blood was necessary.

Well that is a huge maybe. More likely everybody will now be after the sperm of Crufts Grand Champion, and instead of him impregnating maybe several dozen bitches a year, he can now impregnate thousands of bitches worldwide, further limiting the gene pool. That has been the experience in the cattle industry, were several sires have become unhealthily over-represented in world herds.

If thats the case I feel VERY sorry for them, making such decisions in a pack structure is horrible, how on earth can they possibly expect them to behave in a near normal manner if they play god all the time, very sad indeed. Certainly cannot be good for their mental and social wellbeing.

And that is not how you act with your dogs? At least the managers of zoo populations approach it in a scientific way, trying to maximise the genetic diversity in the population. And what has god to do with it? Certainly nothing to do with natural selection.

Great! But Dingos act like pet dogs in their pack structure, not like Wolves, Dingos like Dogs mate when a bitch comes in season, and who ever happens to be there can mate her! Doesnt happen with Wolves.

Actually pet dogs that go feral act just like wolves, because they are wolves, forming large packs of animals that roam the bush, while dingoes form small family groups with a high degree of fidelity between partners.

 

[Dawn B]

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. You have a much more limited understanding as to the role of zoos than I do. Your attitude basically means that zoos outside Australia have no place holding Australian marsupials.

Obviously! and you are wrong again, I simply said, none threatened and common species in my opinion shouldnt take up the space of those that NEED it more, I have no care which part of the world they came from.

First "canine" and "lupine" are synonymous, in that it is generally accepted that domestic dogs are domesticated forms of European Wolves. Dingos are generally regarded as a separate sub-species. As for wolf pack structures, you may be right, I am not an expert, but I would certainly be surprised. But that is not the point.

Yep, you'd be surprised, but Wolves certainly do not breed willy nilly, their pack structure is very very carefully managed in the wild.

The point is that the holders of the animal in question may have several legitimate reasons for maintaining that animal, but because you personally don't like the look of it you are happy to condemn that institution.

Cant argue with that, which is why I said "appears" or "could" rather than "IS," it was an example of a deformed animal in an apparent role which in my opinion it should lead none productive life.

Well that is a huge maybe. More likely everybody will now be after the sperm of Crufts Grand Champion, and instead of him impregnating maybe several dozen bitches a year, he can now impregnate thousands of bitches worldwide, further limiting the gene pool. That has been the experience in the cattle industry, were several sires have become unhealthily over-represented in world herds.

Noooo, not the case in dogs at all MRJ. There are people that will breed regardless for money and greed in all breeding circles, just like in Zoo's, but generally those that are at the top level do it properly. Like myself for example, my bitch won best bitch at Crufts this year, however when mated, it was to a dog I like the look of and his temperament, NOT his breeding, it was an outcross. Most breeders line breed then outcross to maintain diversity in their lines. I do agree however, that there are those that dont.

And that is not how you act with your dogs? At least the managers of zoo populations approach it in a scientific way, trying to maximise the genetic diversity in the population. And what has god to do with it? Certainly nothing to do with natural selection.

My dogs are PETS, not wild animals, kept in artificial surroundings. I agree God has no part, the keepers play god with the animals, much the same as we do with our pets.

Actually pet dogs that go feral act just like wolves, because they are wolves, forming large packs of animals that roam the bush, while dingoes form small family groups with a high degree of fidelity between partners.

Mmmm some maybe, but its common that here at least, a pet dog gone feral will not survive. I know of a Husky recently, was "lost" for two weeks, he survived on people feeding him. A primitive and high prey drive breed like that, you would imagine would have little problem adapting to a "natural" life, but in fact it almost killed him, he was unable to "revert." I do agree though that some may be able to cope ok.

Its been interesting MRJ and I totally respect your opinion and thank you for taking part in the thread.

 

[easytigger]

Obviously! and you are wrong again, I simply said, none threatened and common species in my opinion shouldnt take up the space of those that NEED it more, I have no care which part of the world they came from.

Yet you'll post a seperate thread fawning over cute white lion cubs at paradise wildlife park that have all the conservational value of a flip flop!!!

In South Africa the biggest market for white lions isn't conservation, its canned hunting!

 

[CiaranDUK]

WOW! This has stirred up some comments... Now it's my turn! Firstly, Air Travel is NOT cheap!! For example, the amount of people in Britain who want to go to Australia (partly or purely for the wildlife) is enormous! The cost of getting there is also enormous! Most British people simply cannot afford to go to Australia let alone outside Europe or even outside the UK! Another point I have always found odd is that generally speaking people who support the Green Party don't like the idea of Zoos... Now that says to me that they don't want to save the Earth's flora and fauna... I'm going to leave it there because I could argue all day about why Zoos are important however I have recently become a 'new person' and I don't 'do' arguing anymore.