The effect of no breeding on animals
- Thread starter foz
- Start date
Have there been any noted effects on the use of contraceptives on animals (pills and implants)? Some women have some serious side effects to the common contraceptive pill and is this applicable to zoo animals???
should contraception be reserved and used as a last resort in captivity or used more widely by the zoo community, as opposed to more permanent procedures?
I would love to hear people's opinions.
should contraception be reserved and used as a last resort in captivity or used more widely by the zoo community, as opposed to more permanent procedures?
I would love to hear people's opinions.
easytigger
Well-Known Member
While not done along these lines I have had to work with animals euthanised at dispersal age, it wasn't a pleasent experience, but then again it never is (this was done for medical grounds and timing was just growth related) but then I have also gone into work knowing that an animal is going to be euthanised due to cancer or arthritus or other painful or terminal illness.
Before I go any further I must state I am anti those collections that continue to breed cute ickle babies suspiciously at peak times like easter and whitsun, but mysteriously lose them. Sometimes while a near by collection purerly by chance might acquire some cubs to hand rear and display for a period of time.
That said I am PRO euthanasia as a management tool, despite its issues with staff opinion and emotional fall out it IS use full, I worked with Devika the hand reared Asiatic lioness at Chessington, she produced 2 litter of cubs in her time at chessington, the first the lost after failing to lactate properly and the 2nd due to skull deformaties in the cubs (Cerebal herniations) but those cubs at the time were destined for studbook usage and gave Devika and Ashok over 18 months of 'enrichment' they dedicated most of their time to the cubs from the moment Ashok was introduced, which by most collections standards was at an early time, just over 2 weeks, they bonded, groomed and played with the cubs, either inside or outside, they provided 24/7 enrichment to Ashok and Devika for 18+ months, until tragedy struck, and their deformaties started to show.
Working on the assumption that lots of studbooks are running short of space lets just say that a zoo in England was keeping a potential breeding pair of Asiatic lions and was given the option of
a) not breeding and either giving the female a contraceptive implant or keeping her seperate from the male during her oestrus cycle or
b) letting them go hell for leather when the time is right and IF conception is successful dealing with it when it happens then if happens agree with the studbook an action plan, at worst its 'practise' for the animals (a significant amount of new mums loose their babies for various reasons) and those that continue to rear their young well it can go either way, when no one least expects it a zoo can loose a prized animal potentially freeing up the space for at least one of the offspring bred in the afformentioned litter and sometimes all of them for a short while, at best it could be upto 3 years off added guest entertainment and continues to enrich the visitors day out
Then if during an agreed time period (dependant on the lifecycle of the animal) no suitable home can be found or is planned for the animal it is euthanised after approprate options are exhausted, is it better an animal is not kept at all then kept in sub-standard behind the scenes, just in case that call comes?
Before I go any further I must state I am anti those collections that continue to breed cute ickle babies suspiciously at peak times like easter and whitsun, but mysteriously lose them. Sometimes while a near by collection purerly by chance might acquire some cubs to hand rear and display for a period of time.
That said I am PRO euthanasia as a management tool, despite its issues with staff opinion and emotional fall out it IS use full, I worked with Devika the hand reared Asiatic lioness at Chessington, she produced 2 litter of cubs in her time at chessington, the first the lost after failing to lactate properly and the 2nd due to skull deformaties in the cubs (Cerebal herniations) but those cubs at the time were destined for studbook usage and gave Devika and Ashok over 18 months of 'enrichment' they dedicated most of their time to the cubs from the moment Ashok was introduced, which by most collections standards was at an early time, just over 2 weeks, they bonded, groomed and played with the cubs, either inside or outside, they provided 24/7 enrichment to Ashok and Devika for 18+ months, until tragedy struck, and their deformaties started to show.
Working on the assumption that lots of studbooks are running short of space lets just say that a zoo in England was keeping a potential breeding pair of Asiatic lions and was given the option of
a) not breeding and either giving the female a contraceptive implant or keeping her seperate from the male during her oestrus cycle or
b) letting them go hell for leather when the time is right and IF conception is successful dealing with it when it happens then if happens agree with the studbook an action plan, at worst its 'practise' for the animals (a significant amount of new mums loose their babies for various reasons) and those that continue to rear their young well it can go either way, when no one least expects it a zoo can loose a prized animal potentially freeing up the space for at least one of the offspring bred in the afformentioned litter and sometimes all of them for a short while, at best it could be upto 3 years off added guest entertainment and continues to enrich the visitors day out
Then if during an agreed time period (dependant on the lifecycle of the animal) no suitable home can be found or is planned for the animal it is euthanised after approprate options are exhausted, is it better an animal is not kept at all then kept in sub-standard behind the scenes, just in case that call comes?
easytigger
Well-Known Member
I have experienced mammory tumors in a non breeding jaguar that was on an implant and ovarian cancer in a female jaguar that had produced a litter of cubs (although a few years after!) Most zoo vets I know will use implants as a last resort and then only if all else fails of husbandry requires it (i.e. these animals are shut in 12-14 hours each per day or are given an imp,ant / pill and can go together 24/7)
Dan
Well-Known Member
I only have time to post a quick reply but, to echo Dans earlier comments this is a really interesting thread. I'd like to start by saying that I really appreciate the extremely honest viewpoints put forward both by Peter and easytigger. As an ex zoo worker myself, I view euthanasia as a management tool, not one to be implemented without good reason I should add, but a management tool none the less. If zoos are going to be in any way influential in maintaining viable captive populations over the long term then we need to be realistic and accept that there simply is not enough space to maintain every baby animal that is produced. I assume that for most people the objection to culling is based on a bias towards mammalian species. Certainly in the world of aviculture, herpetoculture and aquaculture, eggs/spawn/larvae whathaveyou are routinely destroyed or 'thinned out' to ensure that 'uneccessary' offspring are not reared simply to live in inadequate conditions because they have a right to live. Conservation breeding involves making some very hard decisions and although i completely agree that every individual is important, there does come a time when the long term viability of a population must take precdence over the survivalof an individual animal. With regards zoos being honest and open, thats a tough one. Look at the flak that Newquay Zoo received a while back for euthanising surplus male Sulawesi Macaques. With regards playing god. Well zoos already do that don't they? Animals in zoos are not free to do what they want. They are moved around on the recomendation of a studbook keeper or the whims of the current curator. Why should a management decision to euthanase a surplus animal for which no suitable home exists be any different? As Peter has said several times, there are 'zoos' and there are zoos. Consequently there are several shades of grey in this debate. When time allows, i'll try and comment further as i appreciate that this has been both brief and somewhat disjointed. I look forward to further comments from fellow zoochatters
Peter Dickinson
Well-Known Member
This:
Working under false pretences may be better than working under the glaring light of persecution and outrage. I think the saying is "what they dont know wont hurt them"
is only partly the answer to the lack of response you are getting. Do not assume that it means that animals are being put down right left and centre because this is not the case.
I started my Zoo Biology discussion group more than eleven years ago (membership only open to professional zoo staff). Every major zoo in the world has members there along with hundreds of smaller collections. Right back at the beginning there were staff dismissed and others reprimanded for answering or posing questions to the group. In general terms it works very well but certain subjects touch a raw nerve and whereas keepers and other staff are quite happy to say things over a pint or two in the local pub they are not inclined to commit them to print, even anonymously. Although there are a lot of anonymous zoo people on ZooChat, most zoo people know who the zoo people are.
It is then dangerous to comment about certain things. They don't want to lose their jobs or promotion prospects or whatever. Did you know that BIAZA members are not allowed to criticise other BIAZA zoos? Certain zoos most certainly do not like certain subjects to become common knowledge. I have been even offered bribes as well as threats not to cover certain stories on my ZooNews Digest e-zine. Needless to say I did not take them. I do however carry more secrets than a Catholic priest. If someone tells me something in confidence, then I keep it. The tales I could tell ;-) Some even directly relevant to current news. But I will remain silent until it hits the fan by some other route. I am lucky. I work for no-one and so can say things without losing my job...and I do.
As to asking questions about diet, husbandry and management. Quite relevant I believe but some curators and head keepers take offence if someone poses a question on line as they feel it suggests they do not 'know their stuff'.
Other zoos have a policy of not discussing certain things. It is as ever dangerous to put all zoos into one basket. There are 'zoos' and zoos. Each has a different way of looking and going about things.
I do hope you get further answers to your query as I can only reply generally and for nobody but myself. I remain pro zoo...pro GOOD zoo.
Working under false pretences may be better than working under the glaring light of persecution and outrage. I think the saying is "what they dont know wont hurt them"
is only partly the answer to the lack of response you are getting. Do not assume that it means that animals are being put down right left and centre because this is not the case.
I started my Zoo Biology discussion group more than eleven years ago (membership only open to professional zoo staff). Every major zoo in the world has members there along with hundreds of smaller collections. Right back at the beginning there were staff dismissed and others reprimanded for answering or posing questions to the group. In general terms it works very well but certain subjects touch a raw nerve and whereas keepers and other staff are quite happy to say things over a pint or two in the local pub they are not inclined to commit them to print, even anonymously. Although there are a lot of anonymous zoo people on ZooChat, most zoo people know who the zoo people are.
It is then dangerous to comment about certain things. They don't want to lose their jobs or promotion prospects or whatever. Did you know that BIAZA members are not allowed to criticise other BIAZA zoos? Certain zoos most certainly do not like certain subjects to become common knowledge. I have been even offered bribes as well as threats not to cover certain stories on my ZooNews Digest e-zine. Needless to say I did not take them. I do however carry more secrets than a Catholic priest. If someone tells me something in confidence, then I keep it. The tales I could tell ;-) Some even directly relevant to current news. But I will remain silent until it hits the fan by some other route. I am lucky. I work for no-one and so can say things without losing my job...and I do.
As to asking questions about diet, husbandry and management. Quite relevant I believe but some curators and head keepers take offence if someone poses a question on line as they feel it suggests they do not 'know their stuff'.
Other zoos have a policy of not discussing certain things. It is as ever dangerous to put all zoos into one basket. There are 'zoos' and zoos. Each has a different way of looking and going about things.
I do hope you get further answers to your query as I can only reply generally and for nobody but myself. I remain pro zoo...pro GOOD zoo.
Dan
Well-Known Member
Thanks so much, Peter!
Glad to receive a detailed answer from a professional, when asking a sensitive question like this.
I fully appreciate the dilemmas involved for everybody, I most certainly do! And you illustrate them very well.
Still, this remains an intriguing subject to me, from a moral and philosophic point of view, now that I have started to think about it. There remains an element of "false pretences", as I put it, so long as these practises are hidden from the public paying the entrance fees.
More thoughts, anyone?
Glad to receive a detailed answer from a professional, when asking a sensitive question like this.
I fully appreciate the dilemmas involved for everybody, I most certainly do! And you illustrate them very well.
Still, this remains an intriguing subject to me, from a moral and philosophic point of view, now that I have started to think about it. There remains an element of "false pretences", as I put it, so long as these practises are hidden from the public paying the entrance fees.
More thoughts, anyone?
taun
Well-Known Member
Hi Dan! I said I may reply to this and well here it is! (sorry if am stepping on what other have already said)
Breeding programs as far as I can tell are carefully managed (please correct me if am wrong and my whole thinking will be out if it is).
Therefore they breed the animals to ensure genetic material and that population is sustainable i.e. there is not too many animals being born and that this not enough animals being born.
However there are problems with this usually outside of their control;
1 - Collections may breed animals that they are told not too, thus potential creating more animals than the population can handle
2 - Collections may have taken measure to stop breeding but nature finds a way (failed contraception usually the most common!
)3 - No this is complete outside of our control, the sex ratio of animals born, if a species like elephants, gorillas bred too many males there is potential not enough room for the extra males.
Taking these factors into account I can see the point of euthanasia as a management tool in the last two situations (even if I don't quite agree with it which I shall explain).
What do you do with these surplus males? Many which won’t ever enter into a breeding situation. Is it not better to potential dispose of these animals creating room for the population to grow to a sustainable number?
I would prefer these animals going to new collection to gain experience of holding them, thus when a breeding group became available we would have a better chance important animals not being lost.
And back to this original question about this being rife in zoos, can someone actually confirm this? As this would change my mind on this matter and am not talking about evidence of irresponsible collections as expect such things from such places.
Regards
Taun
Dan
Well-Known Member
Thanks Taun!
Yes, as I have mentioned, I have in principle began to come to terms with this practise. I can see a point and you add further arguments to it.
As I also have mentioned, the Danish zoos seem to pretty open and frank about this, at least whenever they are asked by journalists - it is not that they discuss it on their web sites.
How is this perceived in North America? Are there newspaper articles on the subject, is it publicly discussed/reported?
Yes, as I have mentioned, I have in principle began to come to terms with this practise. I can see a point and you add further arguments to it.
As I also have mentioned, the Danish zoos seem to pretty open and frank about this, at least whenever they are asked by journalists - it is not that they discuss it on their web sites.
How is this perceived in North America? Are there newspaper articles on the subject, is it publicly discussed/reported?
easytigger
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily, one of the roles of a good zoo is conservation of species, not individuals, as long as the long term aim of a breeding program is a sustainable gene pool for the studbook co-ordinators to work from then we are reaching our aim.
I'm not sure if euthanasia as a management tool will ever be accepted by your average zoo goer that has only come to roar at the lions and laugh at the monkeys but those with a better understanding of the mechanisms will understand.
As has already been touched on its a cultral thing as well, some people will understand it, others that have been brought up on cartoons where predator and prey skip along paw in paw singing songs together won't.
Lets face it some collections don't / can't even feed their carnivores recognisable meat for fear of upsetting people, opting for biscuits / kibble instead, so what chance have we got of explaining / justifying euthanasia to those visitors?
Dan
Well-Known Member
easytigger wrote:
"I'm not sure if euthanasia as a management tool will ever be accepted by your average zoo goer that has only come to roar at the lions and laugh at the monkeys but those with a better understanding of the mechanisms will understand."
Extremely well put!
But then again the zoo industry advertises itself to the entrance paying public in "Disney terms", hence my problem with "false pretenses".
"I'm not sure if euthanasia as a management tool will ever be accepted by your average zoo goer that has only come to roar at the lions and laugh at the monkeys but those with a better understanding of the mechanisms will understand."
Extremely well put!
But then again the zoo industry advertises itself to the entrance paying public in "Disney terms", hence my problem with "false pretenses".
Dan
Well-Known Member
I think we have to face that zoos are businesses and are there as attractions (often tourist attraction), not spiritual centres of idealism.
That is probably right on spot, at least in most cases.
Zoos may still serve a good purpose, of course. I may not be that 100% sure of that, unlike the absolute majority of forumsters at ZooChat, but I do like going to a "good zoo" - that I do.
easytigger
Well-Known Member
I think we have to face that zoos are businesses and are there as attractions (often tourist attraction), not spiritual centres of idealism.
but I love them anyway
I'm sure any zoo manager / director would quite happily close their gates tomorrow if they could. Zoo's need revenue to keep going, its a case of sleeping with the enemy, zoo's need the money from the visitors so try to offer a good value day out in order to gain that revenue.
Which is then in turn put into paying the bills, new exhibits, renovating exhibits, conservation etc
I disagree and think that is contradictory to a zoos role. The message of conservation needs to be spread to as many people as possible in order to be sucessful. Zoos wouldn't close their gates because...
1) some of zoos are just businesses (not all of them mind)
2) that conservation needs to be in the minds of as many people as possible.
I think it would be more correct to say that most zoo directors would have no entry charge to a zoo. But obviosuly there is the costs stated above that forces them to charge.
easytigger
Well-Known Member
The role of a modern day 'good' zoo should be
C - Conservation
E - Education
R - Resource
R - Recreation
The fee paying public are a necessary evil, and concessions should be made for that, I'm not against the imerrsion exhibits that feature so heavily in some zoos, but the enclosures are first and formost the animals homes, so that should be the priority, in an ideal world aspinall and durrell would collide with disney and busch gardens and then everyone would be happy.
What I mean when I said most zoo managers / directors would like to be close the gates is that they can operate as required, keeping not just the A,B,C,'s of zoo's but the P,Q,R and S's as well and can breed stock and either move it on or euthanise it without joe public knowing its name and getting attatached to it.
I've been in this business long enough to know the score, I've worked in serious zoo's and wannabe zoo's and zoo's tacked onto the side of popular tourist attractions, I do understand what you say about some zoo's just being businesses.
I also agree 100% about conservation, thats the beauty of a good zoo, while you can watch countless scores of excellent wildlife documentaries on the tv, its not until your face to face with the animal, can see it, hear it, smell it can you then understand, appreciate and repect, and then maybe just maybe people will care and learn and help