Zoos and conservation: from greenwashing to impact

[lintworm]

The world is changing and it is doing so faster than ever before. The whole world is now affected by human activity and this leads to a tremendous decline of biodiversity. At the same time, an increasing number of people live in cities and lose contact with nature. For many, feeding pigeons or squirrels in the park is as close as they get to the rest of the living world, if they have that luxury at all. While stories about threats to nature are hard to miss for many city dwellers, at least in the first world/global north, there isn’t much of an understanding of what is actually going on out there among the general public. Simultaneously we have never known as much about animals, plants and ecosystems as we do now and new insights are being added at an enormous pace. Not only do we know more about nature as a whole, we also have a much better appreciation of the capabilities of animals and their well-being. More importantly we are very much aware how humanity negatively impacts biodiversity. This is the first paradox, we continue to learn more about what is increasingly lost.

The second paradox is the position of zoos in this changing world. From a welfare perspective questions are asked about whether zoos are still fit for purpose as views on animal welfare have also evolved to the benefit of animals. This leads to the question whether zoos are bad and outdated? Zoos do however have the possibility to act as the first gateway for (city) people into the realm of nature. When zoos are increasingly questioned, they could become more important than ever. Currently zoos are reinventing themselves, to adapt to the 21st century and find a raison d’etre that is more than making money and entertainment. A modern zoo cannot be about entertainment alone, but is also increasingly about research, education and conservation. These are not new issues for zoos and this idea has been around for decades. But in recent years the focus is ever more about how zoos help save wildlife and are a place where people can connect with nature. It remains to be seen however how much of that is marketing and wishful thinking and how much impact zoos really have. The impact on inspiring people is hard to measure, but conservation impact can be quantified to some extent. The issue here is that if you do quantify the contribution of zoos towards conservation, the picture is not a very nice one.

In the following posts I will talk about the options zoos have to contribute to conservation, and how many fail, giving real life examples and give a list of which EAZA zoos have the largest contribution to in situ conservation. In addition there will be stories on wildlife on zoo grounds and I will share some of my personal thoughts on zoos and conservation. In total this amounts to a 10.000+ words essay which I hope will stir some debate, make you think and teach everyone not to believe all the nice words that zoos tell you on their conservation impact.

But first two pictures that illustrate the current level of zoo conservation in general:

@ketoflukes

@Therabu

 

[lintworm]

Why in situ conservation matters (and ex situ is overrated)

When focusing on conservation, most zoos tend to focus on ex situ conservation, that is conservation taking place outside of the native habitat, like captive breeding programs. But some zoos hardly mention conservation at all or only sparsely despite it being one of the four pillars of a zoo. When looking at zoo websites, even a number of EAZA members don’t even mention conservation at all on their website. And an even larger number, mostly in Southern and Eastern Europe only mentions ex situ conservation as what the zoos does for wildlife conservation. While a website is just one medium of communication, it often gives a good indication of the message that a zoo wants to send (regardless of whether it acts like it). So while some zoos are more and more focusing on conservation, some still seem stuck in the past.

At first sight, ex situ conservation is a fantastic selling point. Zoos are saving species from extinction by keeping insurance populations that are bred to ensure the highest genetic diversity as possible, with the eventual goal of re-introduction if circumstances allow. It sounds great and with e.g. the Arabian oryx, golden lion tamarin, Przewalski’s horse and Partula snails there are some more and some less cuddly stories that are worth telling. The only problem is that zoos tend to overrate ex situ conservation. A larger number of current captive breeding programs like EEP and SSP are for least concern species that will very likely never need any re-introduction such as aardvark and red river hog. Probably purposefully zoos fail to tell this to their visitors and rather promote that they help save wildlife by participating with an x amount of breeding programs. That the real story is more complicated and zoos can also choose to have breeding programs for species with for example a high educational value, is mostly ignored. In addition it is currently unlikely that most of the endangered species currently kept as parts of an SSP or EEP will ever be re-introduced. The AZA website lists 117 species for which there are or have been re-introduction programs, but in total AZA zoos keep close to 1000 endangered species, according to their website. Zoo professionals seem increasingly to acknowledge that most of those other species aren’t likely to be re-introduced in the future. Not only because there is just no space to do so, but also because of the very high costs and uncertainty involved. In addition the number of (critically) endangered species is a lot higher than all the zoos in the world could ever keep. It is true zoos are increasingly focusing on those endangered species with collection planning, as can now be seen with the popularity of Malagasy cichlids. But such initiatives are often not the most cost-effective way to achieve the conservation goals that modern zoos seem to aspire to. Ex situ conservation is however certainly not worthless and can bring very clear benefits, but generally speaking is not the optimal solution. Though in some cases it is the only (remaining) option. In the Malagasy cichlid case it is for example a very clear benefit to have captive breeding as one of multiple conservation strategies. But if you can’t protect/restore their natural habitat captive breeding is worth a lot less. Depending on one’s philosophy you could even say that extinct in the wild species for which no native habitat exists anymore are worthless. When a species has lost the ecosystem it was part of, what is the value of that species then?

Pin-striped menarambo, a critically endangered Malagasy cichlid now bred widely in zoos (picture by @gentle lemur)

Not only is The Zoo Ark far too small to accommodate everyone, it is also a very expensive hotel, whose guests will likely never check out. It is much more cost effective to invest in in situ conservation. Maintaining a group of gorillas in a zoo is an expensive business, which for any given zoo is only to the benefit of their group of gorillas (and visitors). If the same amount of money were invested in protecting a rainforest in Gabon, the conservation returns would be a lot higher. Apart from gorillas it helps protect a near infinite array of other species living in the same rainforest, most of whom will never be kept in a zoo. As 1000 dollars also go a lot further in Gabon than in the US, so you can also get a lot more work done there for the same investment. If it was purely a choice about where money towards conservation should go, it would be in the interest of nature to do so in situ. That is not to say that ex situ work is worthless and should be stopped. It is a niche worth having and especially if ex situ and in situ go hand in hand, there are some fantastic stories to tell. But this is something for the follow-up chapters. In situ conservation is also a better option than ex situ conservation as it is generally much easier and cheaper to keep something in a natural state, than having to bring it back to a similar state. So if zoos want to really achieve something, they should opt for in situ. Zoos can also function as a mouthpiece for conservation in a place where the link with nature is increasingly lost. City zoos are often highly valued by most of the community and they should use their power to educate. This means these gorillas do serve a goal, there is a small direct benefit in terms of conservation as they still are a reserve population. But more importantly they are there so people can get to know the species in person. Plenty of conservationists fell in love with animals through a zoo. This might be the biggest indirect benefit of zoos in general, as they get people to care about animals as it is the only option for most to get close to them. But for direct conservation benefits, zoo work in situ is more important.

Public watching gorillas in Givskud Zoo (Picture by @Kr0xxx )

The value of in situ conservation is indeed increasingly understood, at least by the marketing departments of zoos. While there is a good number of zoos that does incredible work with in situ conservation, an even larger number blares about how a visit to the zoo helps saving wildlife, without acting the part. Apart from some nice PR stories, you will find a number of zoos referring to the WAZA Conservation Strategy. This is a great document about what zoos could do. But it is a bit like the average UN report, it looks great and it would be great to work like that, but there isn’t a single enforcing mechanism. One of their recommendations is that zoos should commit at least 3% of their operating budget to conservation. While that doesn’t sound like a lot, the vast majority of zoos doesn’t even come close. It is nevertheless a good starting point to read about the subject of zoos and conservation:

https://www.waza.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/WAZA-Conservation-Strategy-2015_Portrait.pdf

In the next chapter we will first look at the general framing of the in situ conservation contribution of zoos. In a world full of influencers where framing seems more important than facts, it is clear that you can create very positive and very negative stories with the same data. The only question is: which cherries should I pick? As I am not an influencer, I will try to give a more nuanced view

 

[dillotest0]

Marwell Zoological Park in the UK is run by a charity which does some nice in-situ work in Africa and other continents - something I believe zoos, even in the UK could do more of, and something I believe could be nice to see more social media exposure of.

 

[Coelacanth18]

I'm looking forward to more of this - great read so far!

A lot of your points mirror things that I've come to believe myself, and have argued with others about at some point for instance:

The only problem is that zoos tend to overrate ex situ conservation.

In addition it is currently unlikely that most of the endangered species currently kept as parts of an SSP or EEP will ever be re-introduced.

Not only because there is just no space to do so, but also because of the very high costs and uncertainty involved.

All of this really reinforces how I think people should view ex situ: as only one tool, to be used in specific and targeted ways to supplement in situ. There is certainly value for a few species to be captive bred in large numbers and released into the wild, either for their own sake or for the benefit of their ecosystem - and zoos are well-equipped to do some of that work. But assuming that most captive populations are also assurance populations - even for endangered species - is a fallacy IMO. Few species in zoos will ever be demographically or genetically robust enough to keep in captivity indefinitely with no inputs, and believing they could be creates a false sense of security.

Ex situ conservation is however certainly not worthless and can bring very clear benefits, but generally speaking is not the optimal solution.

if you can’t protect/restore their natural habitat captive breeding is worth a lot less.

This really hits home something else that many people don't realize: it's extremely difficult - maybe impossible - to recreate entire ecosystems. If we save gorillas but their jungle plant foods disappear, what was the point? If we save polar bears but the polar ice caps melt off forever, what was the point? There are instances - like with the Kihansi Spray Toad - for which there was a timeline for keeping the species alive until the ecosystem could be replaced or retrofitted for their return. It's a lot harder to see the objective in keeping large extinct-in-the-wild populations indefinitely with the vague hope we may one day repair irreparable damage.

Zoos can also function as a mouthpiece for conservation in a place where the link with nature is increasingly lost.

Plenty of conservationists fell in love with animals through a zoo. This might be the biggest indirect benefit of zoos in general, as they get people to care about animals as it is the only option for most to get close to them.

This is the core of why I believe zoos can be a broadly positive force in the world, even if they aren't living up to the standard of conservation commitment I would like to see. A lot of people in the wildlife and conservation sphere get their hook early in life as a zoo visitor; I think (anecdotally) seeing animals up close in person has a bigger impact on outcomes of wildlife appreciation compared to just reading books or watching documentaries.

This is also a lot of why I'm not someone who thinks every zoo animal has to be endangered; if a rescued puma or a common dart frog can get someone invested in doing something good for the natural world, that's a thing of value and should be encouraged.

 

[Dassie rat]

This really hits home something else that many people don't realize: it's extremely difficult - maybe impossible - to recreate entire ecosystems. If we save gorillas but their jungle plant foods disappear, what was the point? If we save polar bears but the polar ice caps melt off forever, what was the point? There are instances - like with the Kihansi Spray Toad - for which there was a timeline for keeping the species alive until the ecosystem could be replaced or retrofitted for their return. It's a lot harder to see the objective in keeping large extinct-in-the-wild populations indefinitely with the vague hope we may one day repair irreparable damage..

I tend to agree with this. I think it is better for large animals to be conserved in situ, rather than keeping hundreds or thousands of individuals in zoos on the off-chance that they will be able to be returned to pristine natural environments that don't exist at present. It is more important to preserve natural environments so that large animals and other species can live there.

I would prefer zoos to keep many species of smaller animals in suitable exhibits, rather than a few large animals that will never be part of a reintroduction programme.

 

[15399]

This is also a lot of why I'm not someone who thinks every zoo animal has to be endangered; if a rescued puma or a common dart frog can get someone invested in doing something good for the natural world, that's a thing of value and should be encouraged.

I agree with this principle, and certainly in the case of the puma I think there is immense value in a zoo providing a permanent home for non-releasable native wildlife, but the dart frog example is one that I find very interesting. It's not that I dislike seeing dart frogs in zoos, and I have nothing against zoos keeping Dendrobates, however with how endangered amphibians as a class are, I think it's a real shame that most zoos are exhibiting the same few species, rather than having a much more diverse array of amphibian species (endangered and otherwise) available for visitors to see. Overall, I'd love to see zoos take on a much larger role in highlighting, both in terms of conservation and in terms of education, the true diversity of amphibians, as there are a number of remarkable species out there that would be great exhibit animals if given the chance to shine. However, except for at the largest amphibian zoos, it seems as though every facility has the same handful of species and that's it.

 

[twilighter]

You opened another intresting door @lintworm! I'm sure that taking the right position on this subject is going to be critical for survival of many zoos in the next decades. I was in a big corpoarative conference at Stockholm, where the "Greenwashing" was a main topic. Many companies have to realise that they need to seriously consider their environmental message AND actions, if they want to reach the future customers and public approval. Zoos perhaps more than anyone.
Looking forward to another fascinating reading from you !

 

[remar]

It is a pleasure to read your essay so far!

 

[Jurek7]

It is a pleasure to read your essay! I look forward to next parts.

Just to point the timeline. The word greenwashing suggests that zoos started reintroducing wild animals after external pressure. In fact, it is the opposite.

The first modern Western organized ex-situ breeding plan was saving the European bison in the 1920s. However, any broad public pressure for zoos to do something for animal conservation appeared only in the 1970s-1980s. The first formal law obliging zoos to reintroduce some animals was the EU legislation from the 1999. By that time, European Bison, Arabian Oryx, Przewalski Horse and many local populations of other animals have already been living reintroduced in the wild. Zoos outside Europe are still not legally obliged to contribute to conservation in any way, as far as I am aware.

 

[Nikola Chavkoski]

When focusing on conservation, most zoos tend to focus on ex situ conservation, that is conservation taking place,
The only problem is that zoos tend to overrate ex situ conservation.

What can zoos achieve with in situ conservation, is only a minor part of what can governments achieve, if they only want. Governments can afford a lot of more money for in situ conservation than zoos. So why zoos should owe money for in situ conservation or should take more responsibilities regarding in situ? Money earned by zoos, are needed for maintaining a liveable captive populations or call that ex situ conservation. It is of course nice, if they are willing to spent money for in situ conservation (for example, buying wild land in Africa or Asia, and protecting it with paying to people to be rangers and captive breeding of pray animals and releasing them as food source for endangered carnivores), if they have extra available cash, but I don't think so they must.

A lot of ways can be found, for collection of funds for in situ conservation. There can be special taxes for in situ conservation and imposed by governments, because we all live on this planet. Taxes from some non-essential things like the sport, from extra profitable companies, etc., and then those money transferred to countries where needed, for in situ conservation.

 

[Therabu]

So why zoos should owe money for in situ conservation or should take more responsibilities regarding in situ?

For the very good reason that we cannot rely on public institutions to save wildlife. Already in developed countries, funds dedicated to nature preservation are far from reaching goals. Public institutions might also follow conflicted interests. But in many countries, only private organizations actually have the power and finance to enact.

Fundraising from wealthy individuals is commoner in America and UK than in most other countries where it is not as cultural. I do not know how much this model could be more widely spread.

In the end, the biodiversity crisis is so big, that every effort is needed. Maybe the role of zoos is to act as a complementary second net, to help obscure species that have not received the attention from more general NGOs or public institutions.

 

[LARTIS]

Honestly I shied away from commenting because the issue is complex, and one would need to detail in depth to avoid misunderstandings, but to generalize hopefuly only to an acceptable extent, balance is key. I absolutely agree that there is a form of greenwashing and I feel like some zoos even north western europe do less than others around them (both research in captivity, ex situ management and participation in in situ projects. Also educational wise, I do think the experience style would automaticaly have to mean, lacking proper exhibitions on the animals and conservation. (Looking at gelsenkirchen)

One question I always had is what power do these different zoos have, because my impression of what some parks tried to state indirectly to prevent angering the cities councils financing the parks, is that they are simply not given resources for anything other than the local attraction.
What power do the people have, would they support parks that would do more for in situ projects. As of now all of this is rather too complex for me to know realy what my position would be.

 

[lintworm]

Marwell Zoological Park in the UK is run by a charity which does some nice in-situ work in Africa and other continents - something I believe zoos, even in the UK could do more of, and something I believe could be nice to see more social media exposure of.

Marwell certainly does some nice work, but also doesn't come close to the 3% target and certainly isn't a frontrunner in the UK. Though if you would believe their website and impact reports, they certainly seem to be doing a lot. As to contribution per zoo, we will get there

It's a lot harder to see the objective in keeping large extinct-in-the-wild populations indefinitely with the vague hope we may one day repair irreparable damage.

I am not sure what my personal position is on that. On the one hand there is the example of a pere davids deer which is now reintroduced whereas formerly all its habitat was lost.

But on the other hand, as an ecologist myself,I do wonder what the value of bringing back one single species is, when a whole ecosystem is destroyed and then "restored". We often have no clue about which invertebrates, fungi etc. occurred there before and how important they were to the ecosystem. By just bringing back a few vertebrates, which is currently the standard in rewilding, what do we restore? Is it just our image of a now extinct ecosystem, which might be completely different apart from the visible keystone species? Or is it actually possible to get to something that not only looks the part, but also acts it.

Just to point the timeline. The word greenwashing suggests that zoos started reintroducing wild animals after external pressure. In fact, it is the opposite.

My "from greenwashing to impact" isn't meant as a timeline, but to give an overview of what zoos are currently doing. You are correct in that there has been some real conservation action already >100 years ago.

What can zoos achieve with in situ conservation, is only a minor part of what can governments achieve, if they only want. Governments can afford a lot of more money for in situ conservation than zoos. So why zoos should owe money for in situ conservation or should take more responsibilities regarding in situ? Money earned by zoos, are needed for maintaining a liveable captive populations or call that ex situ conservation. It is of course nice, if they are willing to spent money for in situ conservation (for example, buying wild land in Africa or Asia, and protecting it with paying to people to be rangers and captive breeding of pray animals and releasing them as food source for endangered carnivores), if they have extra available cash, but I don't think so they must.

A lot of ways can be found, for collection of funds for in situ conservation. There can be special taxes for in situ conservation and imposed by governments, because we all live on this planet. Taxes from some non-essential things like the sport, from extra profitable companies, etc., and then those money transferred to countries where needed, for in situ conservation.

I don't have much to add as to what @Therabu already said, governments simply aren't enough. Even rich European countries don't manage to properly fund nature conservation in their own country so you can't expect them to also fund conservation abroad. That does happen a bit through aid/development money but it isn't much and certainly doesn't compensate our crazy consumption patterns.

I read somewhere that after WWF zoos are the second largest money source for conservation projects worldwide. That would in large part be because of the Wildlife Conservation Society (Bronx Zoo and the other New York institutions) counts as a zoo, which alone spent over 128 million USD on in situ conservation in 2022. That is far more than all European zoos combined spend....

Ex situ conservation also only makes sense if there is a link to in situ, as @Coelacanth18 above also mentioned, which means that if zoos want to contribute something, they should get involved in situ too. Finally it is also just the right thing to do for an institution staffed with people who care about animals and the environment whose goal it is to inspire people about wildlife.

(Looking at gelsenkirchen)

We will get to Gelsenkirchen in the next post....

One question I always had is what power do these different zoos have, because my impression of what some parks tried to state indirectly to prevent angering the cities councils financing the parks, is that they are simply not given resources for anything other than the local attraction.
What power do the people have, would they support parks that would do more for in situ projects. As of now all of this is rather too complex for me to know realy what my position would be.

There are actually quite a few options, even for city-owned zoos to meaningfully fund in situ conservation. It is very much a choice, I will show some good examples soon enough.

 

[Dassie rat]

But on the other hand, as an ecologist myself,I do wonder what the value of bringing back one single species is, when a whole ecosystem is destroyed and then "restored". We often have no clue about which invertebrates, fungi etc. occurred there before and how important they were to the ecosystem. By just bringing back a few vertebrates, which is currently the standard in rewilding, what do we restore? Is it just our image of a now extinct ecosystem, which might be completely different apart from the visible keystone species? Or is it actually possible to get to something that not only looks the part, but also acts it..

I agree. There is too much emphasis on conserving large popular animals and too little on endangered invertebrates and other small animals. It seems that many of these could become extinct with very few people caring, even if they had heard about some of the species. Fungi are also very important to ecosystems, but I see very little interest in conserving them.

 

[15399]

When it comes to conservation and endangered species, there are two big misconceptions that I think are important to acknowledge. When the general public thinks about endangered species, the species that come to mind tend to meet two criteria:
1. They are charismatic megafauna.
2. They live in far-off corners of the world.

While those are certainly true of elephants, tigers, and pandas, I'd love to see more zoos emphasize the fact there are plenty of endangered species, in need of in-situ and/or ex-situ support that are native to every region of the globe. Since I am from North America I'll use it as an example, I love to see it when zoos highlight head-start programs they participate in for native freshwater turtle species, many of whom are threatened in the wild and need the support. Likewise, there are some US Zoos doing great work with hellbenders, another threatened species that many aren't aware of. More zoos need to consider working with these, and other, local threatened species and saving our own ecosystems. With so much of the conservation focus abroad, it sometimes seems as though local conservation is an afterthought, when in reality zoos, as community institutions, would benefit from investing in their own ecosystems first.

That's not to say there aren't great work that zoos do abroad. Woodland Park Zoo's TK-CP is an incredible program that works with indigenous peoples to conserve the tree kangaroos of New Guinea, and Wildlife Conservation Society has does some incredible work in dozens of countries, including snow leopard conservation in Afghanistan. These are incredible programs, and there's value to investing in them, but investing in conservation abroad should not come at the expense of focusing on conservation in our own communities.

 

[Haliaeetus]

Hello,
I apologize for the delay.
I would highlight another important role of the zoos.
As well as the two paradoxes stated by @lintworm there's a third one. While there are growing concerns about the state of biodiversity in the world and in every single country, positive, concrete and inspiring impact stories are scarce in the public space. And zoos are among the rare actors that promote such experiences and that have a public audience (I don't talk about obscure experts or scientists, whose words never reach the common people).
French zoos (I mention this example because it's my country) are increasingly involved in conservation, for native species (e. g. charismatic species as large birds of prey, threatened species of bats, frogs... and also "common" wildlife) as well as "exotic" animals, most of them living in low-income countries (many nations of Africa, South Asia, South America...) where public budgets don't go to conservation because of more pressing problems, sometimes compounded by political unrest. In these contexte the zoos play a major role : I think to examples like the successful recovery of West African Giraffes in Niger, and to the efforts of forest protection in Madagascar. In current times nothing may replace the action of the zoos, in these cases.
In addition to the famous "ex situ" conservation, the zoos support more and more "in situ" programs. A zoo like Beauval (yeah it's one of the biggest European zoos) supports/runs tens of in situ conservation/research programs, but many other French zoos contribute to it more modestly.

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

Depending on one’s philosophy you could even say that extinct in the wild species for which no native habitat exists anymore are worthless. When a species has lost the ecosystem it was part of, what is the value of that species then?

This really hits home something else that many people don't realize: it's extremely difficult - maybe impossible - to recreate entire ecosystems. If we save gorillas but their jungle plant foods disappear, what was the point? If we save polar bears but the polar ice caps melt off forever, what was the point? There are instances - like with the Kihansi Spray Toad - for which there was a timeline for keeping the species alive until the ecosystem could be replaced or retrofitted for their return. It's a lot harder to see the objective in keeping large extinct-in-the-wild populations indefinitely with the vague hope we may one day repair irreparable damage.

This is a rather interesting topic, and one that I have a lot of thoughts about. In my mind, a captive population of a species inhabiting a completely lost ecosystem is not fully worthless. And that is assuming we are indeed knowledgeable enough to know this for certain, which I personally do not think we are. We could (and should perhaps!) argue about the inherent value of a species, but I want to take a slightly easier approach.

A painting by Rembrandt, a WWII airplane, or a set of tools from the stone age are all things we deem valuable, otherwise we would not take so much care to preserve them. They represent small relics from times gone by, to appreciate, to learn about, perhaps even to take lessons form in the future. If Montserrat sinks in the ocean tomorrow, or we blow it up with a bomb, cannot the Montserrat Oriole serve a similar function? To remind us about what once was, or to teach us lessons lest history repeats itself. And even then we are not talking about scientific, aesthetic or cultural values a species might bring. The Turtle Dove is embedded in our culture as a concept and a symbol. Would its loss from the world not also be a human loss, instead of only an ecological one? That is in part a value that can be retained even if the dove lives on in aviaries instead of free-flying.

There is, naturally, discussion to be had how much effort should be put into preserving such species - just as we have discussions about which parts of our collective history are most important to preserve, and how much it may cost. But my main point is simple: there is value in a species even if detached from a natural ecosystem.

 

[Coelacanth18]

A painting by Rembrandt, a WWII airplane, or a set of tools from the stone age are all things we deem valuable, otherwise we would not take so much care to preserve them. They represent small relics from times gone by, to appreciate, to learn about, perhaps even to take lessons form in the future. If Montserrat sinks in the ocean tomorrow, or we blow it up with a bomb, cannot the Montserrat Oriole serve a similar function? To remind us about what once was, or to teach us lessons lest history repeats itself.

You make an interesting case @Mr. Zootycoon.

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this - I do think you make a compelling argument - I also wonder if this can be argued the opposite way: that keeping a species alive after its habitat has disappeared forever might detract from the lesson of our mistakes. I can see there being a tendency to look at a Guam Kingfisher in a zoo and think "oh they're still alive, that's great" and feel assured - compared to looking at a taxidermy Thylacine or Great Auk, thinking "these will never walk the Earth again", and feeling regret... and hopefully determination to not let it happen again. I think ideologies on whether to resurrect extinct animals can tie into the same vein of debate.

Of course, all of this is dependent too on the ethics: whether one believes humans should get to decide whether a species survives or becomes extinct, or whether one believes humans have a moral obligation to prevent any extinction from occurring if it's in our power to do so. That's a whole philosophical debate that might be too much of a tangent for this thread, though.

Just to make sure nobody has the wrong idea about what I'm saying, this is a completely theoretical discussion to me. I'm in no way arguing that Guam Kingfishers or any other endangered species today is beyond saving or has no remaining habitat forever. Unfortunately though, there may be a point in the future where the discussion isn't so theoretical...

 

[birdsandbats]

Just to make sure nobody has the wrong idea about what I'm saying, this is a completely theoretical discussion to me. I'm in no way arguing that Guam Kingfishers or any other endangered species today is beyond saving or has no remaining habitat forever. Unfortunately though, there may be a point in the future where the discussion isn't so theoretical...

One could say that point has already been reached, especially regarding the Kihansi Spray Toad. I know there are efforts to try and recreate their habitat, but honestly I have a hard time imagining those going anywhere, unfortunately.

 

[Dassie rat]

Carl Jones has saved species that other conservationists thought were beyond saving