What was the biggest lie that you ever heard from anti-zoo people?

That if an animal is even slightly smaller than the average size of its species, it is because it is in captivity.
 
TheChukaulorian said:
With genetic domestication do you refer to the perpetuation (selection?) of traits and behaviors that make an individual animal fitter to a captive setting?
Click to expand...

Yes but in essence not just behavioural but anything that reduces fitness of individuals and results in lower survivorship in wild conditions.

It's been noted in some cases to occur within a single generation so it is a big problem when it comes to reintroduction.
 
OkapiFan said:
That if an animal is even slightly smaller than the average size of its species, it is because it is in captivity.
Click to expand...
I remeber the story with a women threating to sue the Naturzoo Rheine for letting their tigers starve since they were so smal compeared to the Allwetter Zoo Münster next door........... it was a female Sumatran Tiger, while Münster keeps sibiran tigers.
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
I remeber the story with a women threating to sue the Naturzoo Rheine for letting their tigers starve since they were so smal compeared to the Allwetter Zoo Münster next door........... it was a female Sumatran Tiger, while Münster keeps sibiran tigers.
Click to expand...

Was this in the news or can you share a link about this ?
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Yes but in essence not just behavioural but anything that reduces fitness of individuals and results in lower survivorship in wild conditions.

It's been noted in some cases to occur within a single generation so it is a big problem when it comes to reintroduction.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it. Are there any ways to mitigate these effects in captive populations set for reintroduction?
 
TheChukaulorian said:
Oh I get it. Are there any ways to mitigate these effects in captive populations set for reintroduction?
Click to expand...
I think the issue is that in the wild natural selection knocks off animals that are not adapted to the wild pretty quickly, and they never get to breed. In captivity we have to breed from every animal available, to maximize the genetic diversity. We can't select for "wild adaptability" because for every adaption we can see there are probably half a dozen we can't see, and we could end up deleting them. The answer is to release more animals in the knowledge that many won't make it. But that only duplicates the situation in the wild, only a very small minority of wild animals born ever make it to reproduce.

There is also the possibility that some of the papers that describe this are just describing a random event. For instance I believe one paper describes decreased skull cavity volume in a captive population (can't remember what species). An attempt to replicate this study in Australia by examining skulls of Tasmanian devils failed, as even animals that had multiple generations in captivity showed no difference in cavity size compared to wild animals.
 
TheChukaulorian said:
Oh I get it. Are there any ways to mitigate these effects in captive populations set for reintroduction?
Click to expand...

Yes definitely there is.

There has to be wherever possible a management strategy which facilitates a more fluid interchange of genes between the wild and captive population so really this requires viewing the management of captive and wild meta-populations as integrated.

With maintaining fitness in captivity I only really know about callitrichids in detail but it is imperative to keep these primates in top mental and physical condition for years if not their entire lives if reintroduction is on the cards at some point in the future.

What has been done in many zoos to improve the odds of successful reintroduction and namely at Jersey zoo is to allow callitrichids access to woodlands as free roaming / ranging groups.

These groups are provisioned with food and shelter but encouraged to otherwise live in "semi-captivity".

This keeps fine motor skills honed and to develop skills in foraging / "gleaning" prey and physical and mental ability and sharpness in response to threats and would be enemies which improves odds of survivorship.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MRJ
MRJ said:
I think the issue is that in the wild natural selection knocks off animals that are not adapted to the wild pretty quickly, and they never get to breed. In captivity we have to breed from every animal available, to maximize the genetic diversity. We can't select for "wild adaptability" because for every adaption we can see there are probably half a dozen we can't see, and we could end up deleting them. The answer is to release more animals in the knowledge that many won't make it. But that only duplicates the situation in the wild, only a very small minority of wild animals born ever make it to reproduce.

There is also the possibility that some of the papers that describe this are just describing a random event. For instance I believe one paper describes decreased skull cavity volume in a captive population (can't remember what species). An attempt to replicate this study in Australia by examining skulls of Tasmanian devils failed, as even animals that had multiple generations in captivity showed no difference in cavity size compared to wild animals.
Click to expand...

Totally agree and well said.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Yes definitely there is.

There has to be wherever possible a management strategy which facilitates a more fluid interchange of genes between the wild and captive population so really this requires viewing the management of captive and wild meta-populations as integrated.

With maintaining fitness in captivity I only really know about callitrichids in detail but it is imperative to keep these primates in top mental and physical condition for years if not their entire lives if reintroduction is on the cards at some point in the future.

What has been done in many zoos to improve the odds of successful reintroduction and namely at Jersey zoo is to allow callitrichids access to woodlands as free roaming / ranging groups.

These groups are provisioned with food and shelter but encouraged to otherwise live in "semi-captivity".

This keeps fine motor skills honed and to develop skills in foraging / "gleaning" prey and physical and mental ability and sharpness in response to threats and would be enemies which improves odds of survivorship.
Click to expand...
This brings to mind a story relating to early releases of golden-lion tamarins. An American zoo supplying animals had all the the branches in their enclosures fixed so they would not bend or wobble when the animals landed on them When released tamarins from this zoo could not cope with a world where branches bent and swayed.

Logic would suggest that younger animals may also adapt better to release than older animals. This is born out by our experience with orange-bellied parrots. One of the measures of success is whether animals complete the winter migration. Traditionally birds were always released in the breeding grounds in Tasmania in spring, so were at least 9 months old at time of release, and often one or two years older than that. These birds always showed a significantly lower percentage returning than did wild-born birds. Over the last four years newly fledged birds have been released in autumn. These birds show a similar return rate to wild-bred birds suggesting that their young brains are better able to learn how to survive the wild.
 
MRJ said:
This brings to mind a story relating to early releases of golden-lion tamarins. An American zoo supplying animals had all the the branches in their enclosures fixed so they would not bend or wobble when the animals landed on them When released tamarins from this zoo could not cope with a world where branches bent and swayed.

Logic would suggest that younger animals may also adapt better to release than older animals. This is born out by our experience with orange-bellied parrots. One of the measures of success is whether animals complete the winter migration. Traditionally birds were always released in the breeding grounds in Tasmania in spring, so were at least 9 months old at time of release, and often one or two years older than that. These birds always showed a significantly lower percentage returning than did wild-born birds. Over the last four years newly fledged birds have been released in autumn. These birds show a similar return rate to wild-bred birds suggesting that their young brains are better able to learn how to survive the wild.
Click to expand...


Yes I think I remember reading about that in a paper which was probably written by Mittermier or at least co-authored by him.

The early golden lion tamarin reintroductions faced a lot of problems from the outset due to these animals not having been primed for release in the appropriate way.

Survivorship was extremely low and many of the animals ended up as easy prey for tayra and ocelot and I believe there were also mortality issues with animals consuming toxic plants or falling from trees too.

Interesting with what you mention regarding older orange bellied parrots not being as resilient post-release as younger animals as this was another issue encountered with golden lion tamarins too.

I'm curious about these parrots as I don't know too much about the species or it's ecology.

What are the most typical predators of this species in Tasmania ?
 
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Yes definitely there is.

There has to be wherever possible a management strategy which facilitates a more fluid interchange of genes between the wild and captive population so really this requires viewing the management of captive and wild meta-populations as integrated.

With maintaining fitness in captivity I only really know about callitrichids in detail but it is imperative to keep these primates in top mental and physical condition for years if not their entire lives if reintroduction is on the cards at some point in the future.

What has been done in many zoos to improve the odds of successful reintroduction and namely at Jersey zoo is to allow callitrichids access to woodlands as free roaming / ranging groups.

These groups are provisioned with food and shelter but encouraged to otherwise live in "semi-captivity".

This keeps fine motor skills honed and to develop skills in foraging / "gleaning" prey and physical and mental ability and sharpness in response to threats and would be enemies which improves odds of survivorship.
Click to expand...
Another good example of a combined wild and captive meta population is how Mexican Gray Wolves are managed in captivity in American zoos. Captive pups and wild pups are exchanged between captive and wild dens in a way that the mother wolves can’t tell the difference when new pups are introduced. This helps increase genetic diversity in both captivity and the wild which is important for an animal that was reduced to just a few founder individuals.
 
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
Another good example of a combined wild and captive meta population is how Mexican Gray Wolves are managed in captivity in American zoos. Captive pups and wild pups are exchanged between captive and wild dens in a way that the mother wolves can’t tell the difference when new pups are introduced. This helps increase genetic diversity in both captivity and the wild which is important for an animal that was reduced to just a few founder individuals.
Click to expand...

Definitely and that is a great example.

Even with this kind of strategy though there are still some serious genetic issues with the species sadly.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Definitely and that is a great example.

Even with this kind of strategy though there are still some serious genetic issues with the species sadly.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’d know more about this than me so I thought I’d ask. When I first heard about how the Mexican Gray Wolves were managed, I was told it was possible because mother wolves couldn’t count their pups or tell them apart at a certain age. Is that something only characteristic of wolves? I feel like that would be a great characteristic to take advantage of with reintroduction programs. Certainly seems easier and maybe less expensive than other options.
 
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
Maybe you’d know more about this than me so I thought I’d ask. When I first heard about how the Mexican Gray Wolves were managed, I was told it was possible because mother wolves couldn’t count their pups or tell them apart at a certain age. Is that something only characteristic of wolves? I feel like that would be a great characteristic to take advantage of with reintroduction programs. Certainly seems easier and maybe less expensive than other options.
Click to expand...

I can't claim to know much about Mexican wolf management in captivity at all actually.

But the thing that I am reminded the most with this animal and it's captive management is that they have a big susceptibility to disease due to the genetic issues.

I actually didn't know that about mother wolves and would have thought it was the opposite because of their incredible olfactory abilities and their social intelligence.

So I learned something new from your comment / example.

I think the kind of strategy you mention has been used mainly in bird Conservation in taking eggs to be artificially incubated and replacing them with dummy eggs.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
I can't claim to know much about Mexican wolf management in captivity at all actually.

But the thing that I am reminded the most with this animal and it's captive management is that they have a big susceptibility to disease due to the genetic issues.

I actually didn't know that about mother wolves and would have thought it was the opposite because of their incredible olfactory abilities and their social intelligence.

So I learned something new from your comment / example.

I think the kind of strategy you mention has been used mainly in bird Conservation in taking eggs to be artificially incubated and replacing them with dummy eggs.
Click to expand...
I tried to look for some evidence for my statement about Wolf mothers and came up short so perhaps take it with a grain of salt though I could’ve sworn I heard it from a keeper a few years ago. I did find this article on a cross fostering attempt though: Chicago Zoological Society - Brookfield Zoo & The Chicago Zoological Society
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
No, I once talked with the fromer Director of the Naturzoo Rheine (a chance meeting) and he told me he meet a women in the zoo who said this.
Click to expand...

Oh right It sounds like a typically uninformed comment from the general public.

Actually isn't it healthier to "underfeed" big cats by providing carcasses every other or two days rather than every day to mimic feeding / predation patterns in the wild ?
 
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
I tried to look for some evidence for my statement about Wolf mothers and came up short so perhaps take it with a grain of salt though I could’ve sworn I heard it from a keeper a few years ago. I did find this article on a cross fostering attempt though: Chicago Zoological Society - Brookfield Zoo & The Chicago Zoological Society
Click to expand...

Really interesting concept this cross fostering practice and especially that the pups born in captivity were accepted by the wild pair and vice versa too.

From reading the link you shared it seems like scent did still play a factor in the pups being accepted though.
 
Azamat Shackleford said:
Though we do, sometimes the law doesn't always work in our favor here. Law enforcement probably wouldn't care if someone went out and decided to kill a bunch of reptiles unless they were protected by the law.
Click to expand...

You’re right on that one, but they certainly would care if a dog attacked a human. The owner then will be questioned, with the case possibly resulting in a free blind date with a judge or the dog being destroyed. But if a human attacked a dog? You’ve got the animal protection services and the police involved. It’s as if domestic animals are far more important to the police than wild animals. That’s the joy and beauty of the law enforcement’s stance on wild animals - they’re just there and killing them probably wouldn’t wipe it out even if it’s the last of its kind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top