You're right... little common ground here
(snippage)
I would agree up to a point, and with certain animals (raptors, for one -- you really don't want to do a "social imprint" with them).
However, I cannot argue with the evidence of my eyes and other senses. The Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo's tigers are among the healthiest and liveliest I've seen in ANY facility, in all the years I've been visiting such.
I may not have been clear enough when I said "hand raised" or "hand reared." I suspect what may be happening is the cubs, once born, are initially reared by their natural parents for a few weeks or months to avoid imprinting on humans. That's when they begin acclimation to human presence. I will contact the zoo to get the full story, and report back.
Now I know I've been misunderstood. I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly.
I don't like to see any animal (outside, perhaps, of a domestic pet) utterly focused on any human. What I do like to see is an animal choosing to spend time with a human, if human and animal are both willing.
Practices such as hand rearing can help with that, if done properly, and not at all to the detriment of the animal's health. This is why I object to AZA's blanket prohibition against any form of it.
I'm actually more familiar with that sensation than you may realize. As an apprentice falconer, I find that whatever bird I have on my glove is (usually) far more curious about what's going on around them than they are in what I'm doing. And yes, it feels exceedingly "real" as you so accurately put it.
However, there has to exist some initial trust. Being a part of an animal's life as they're growing up is a good way to start that bond growing as well.
What if the animal in question is an orphan? Or what if the animal's parents have, for whatever reason, rejected them? Would you rather see the critter involved die, or be permanently alone, than have at least some chance at a reasonably good life? I know which way I'd go, faced with a decision like that.
Again, I need to get the full story from the zoo of how they're doing this. I will say the cubs my wife and I encountered did not act at all like they were human-imprinted, despite being hand-reared for part of their lives. They were just as rowdy and playful with each other as they were with their human attendants. We were just another part of their environment, albeit a temporary one.
You're right -- I think we are going to agree to disagree, but not quite in the way you may have expected.
Happy travels.
(snippage)
I would agree up to a point, and with certain animals (raptors, for one -- you really don't want to do a "social imprint" with them).
However, I cannot argue with the evidence of my eyes and other senses. The Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo's tigers are among the healthiest and liveliest I've seen in ANY facility, in all the years I've been visiting such.
I may not have been clear enough when I said "hand raised" or "hand reared." I suspect what may be happening is the cubs, once born, are initially reared by their natural parents for a few weeks or months to avoid imprinting on humans. That's when they begin acclimation to human presence. I will contact the zoo to get the full story, and report back.
Now I know I've been misunderstood. I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly.
I don't like to see any animal (outside, perhaps, of a domestic pet) utterly focused on any human. What I do like to see is an animal choosing to spend time with a human, if human and animal are both willing.
Practices such as hand rearing can help with that, if done properly, and not at all to the detriment of the animal's health. This is why I object to AZA's blanket prohibition against any form of it.
I'm actually more familiar with that sensation than you may realize. As an apprentice falconer, I find that whatever bird I have on my glove is (usually) far more curious about what's going on around them than they are in what I'm doing. And yes, it feels exceedingly "real" as you so accurately put it.
However, there has to exist some initial trust. Being a part of an animal's life as they're growing up is a good way to start that bond growing as well.
What if the animal in question is an orphan? Or what if the animal's parents have, for whatever reason, rejected them? Would you rather see the critter involved die, or be permanently alone, than have at least some chance at a reasonably good life? I know which way I'd go, faced with a decision like that.
Again, I need to get the full story from the zoo of how they're doing this. I will say the cubs my wife and I encountered did not act at all like they were human-imprinted, despite being hand-reared for part of their lives. They were just as rowdy and playful with each other as they were with their human attendants. We were just another part of their environment, albeit a temporary one.
You're right -- I think we are going to agree to disagree, but not quite in the way you may have expected.
Happy travels.
