Available for free use and quotations! Just please don't claim it as your own, obviously. Please note that I reserve the right to reply to any comments posted here regardless of who they were originally addressing and when they were originally posted.
The survival rate for released captive-bred animals is only 25% - 33%. That means only roughly 1 out of 4 captive-bred animals, no matter if they are of a wild species, will survive if released into the wild.
My argument is that not all animals (especially captive-bred ones) belong in the wild, even if they are a species of "wild" animal, that is, a species that is not officially domesticated by humans. In order to “rehabilitate” a captive-bred zoo animal to be released into the wild, you must first teach it to fear humans, the creatures who raised it. That alone can be extremely traumatizing for the animal. On top of that, you must condition it to develop survival skills that are completely new to it and hope it retains those skills once released. As news.nationalgeographic.com/ne… has shown, there is only around a 33% chance that a captive-bred zoo animal will survive even if given the best conditioning and environment. To quote Sarah Christie, a carnivore conservation program manager for the Zoological Society of London, "We wouldn't dream of taking an animal that had grown up in a zoo surrounded by humans and then put it out in the wild.” I believe that it is inhumane to force captive-bred zoo animals into rehabilitation programs and then to make them fend for themselves, seeing as there is only a 25% - 33% chance that they will survive.
On top of all that, saying that all zoo animals should be rehabilitated isn't even accurate, much less humane. The word “rehabilitate” implies that the animal is going back to something, hence the “re.” Captive-bred animals have never been in the wild, so they can't go back to it. They can be introduced, yes, but they can't go back.
I recently had a discussion with an individual here on dA who claimed that all zoos are evil because they house animals with wild relatives. This individual on dA claims that because zoo animals are members of “wild” species, then zoo animals belong in the wild. To quote her exactly: "The real world is life, freedom... What you want is prison...they suffer in ways you refuse to acknowledge...even children know better let alone every scientific facts proves you wrong...hyper emotional animals...those statistics are wrong, like apparently most everything else you are saying, to my frustration and considering those are wrong, with proper training and conditioning captive bred animals do just as well as wild born and re-released animals do because they ARE THE SAME. Being born in captivity doesn't domesticate them one bit...You'd put a dog in a cage, throw some food and water in there and say anything more is animal rights...Im saying a captive bred tiger and a wild tiger in captivity ARE NOT DOMESTIC, and are basically the same, one is not more or less developed or capable than the other. They are both tigers. And YES wild life is still the best thing for them...Unless you can do any amount of research or even common sense, Im not continuing this I will not read anything you reply, because that was just ridiculous. get your facts straight...I am not an animal rights activist."
Well, now, thank you for your opinion, Unnamed Individual. First, I must mention that your entire argument is a logical fallacy: the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is an argument used in reliance on people's ignorance. If I didn’t happen to know that captive-bred animals will most likely die if released into the wild, your argument might appear extremely convincing. It is also an excluded middle logical fallacy. You believe that all zoos are small and inhumane, which they aren’t. Some zoos are more like sanctuaries, the only differences being that they keep the carnivores separate from the herbivores.
Before I begin, you’ll be interested to know the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights has an extremely varied definition due to the many radical organizations that claim its title, but the basis of animal rights is this: “All animals have innate rights close or equal to those of humans and should be treated as such. Animal rights are believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans. All animals within a species have the same needs and wants and should be treated as such.” Again, there is no solid definition of animal rights, unfortunately, but we see this definition played out by animal rights activists.
Animal welfare is defined as this: “Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment. Protecting an animal's welfare means providing for its physical and mental needs.”
Now, because your main points are the main points of most animal rights activists out there when it comes to the subject of zoos and the like, I will address them each in detail:
1. “The real [wild] world is real life, freedom.”
Que the Disney fanfare. The real world is not daisies and chocolate. Look up the definitions of “carnivore,” “predator,” “prey,” and “disease.” Surviving long enough until you can find your next meal (if you’re lucky) is not dreamy. It’s a dog-eat-dog world.
2. “What you want is prison.”
This is an Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy. This statement has no logic and is merely hoping to play on the readers’ emotions. Zoos are not necessarily prisons. Prison would be if the animals were kept there against their will. If the animal is bred in captivity, their psychology is that of a domestic animal, whether or not the species of animal itself is domestic. (For example, a dog bred in the wild will have the psychology of a Wild Dog even though its species is domestic.) I don’t support zoos with animals from the wild, but if an animal is bred in captivity and treated well, it will want to stay. On top of that, it’s dishonest to bring up only worst-case scenarios as if they are the only scenarios. There is an increasing movement among zoos to simulate animals’ natural habitats in order to make the animals feel comfortable. Small zoos and roadside zoos are not humane, but many zoos are becoming more like sanctuaries, except that the carnivores are kept separate from the herbivores. And to drive the point home, saying I want it is stretching things. I would much rather see an animal in its natural habitat than in a zoo, even a humane zoo. Correcting your misunderstandings is different from wanting animals to be born into zoos.
3. “They suffer in ways you refuse to acknowledge.”
I do not refuse to acknowledge animals’ suffering. If you will take a scroll through my gallery, my journals, and the groups that I’m a part of, you’ll see that I’m very passionate about preventing animal cruelty. I am part of the Humane Society of the United States. I love animals. My home is filled with pictures and figurines of animals. I have a blind goldfish whom I have to hand-feed twice a day. My dog was a shelter dog.
However, the “suffering” that you refer to in all zoos just simply doesn't exist in all zoos, so there is nothing to acknowledge. Yes, animals suffer in small, roadside, or other inhumane zoos, and I acknowledge those and seek to shut them down or improve them, but not all zoos are like that. It’s a gross over-generalization to assume all zoos are like that. Saying that all zoos are bad is what’s known as the Observational Selection logical fallacy.
Besides, even if I did refuse to acknowledge that animals can suffer, how does that make my main argument (that not all zoo animals should be released into the wild) any less valid? By claiming that because I do not acknowledge animals’ suffering it means that all zoo animals belong in the wild you are using the ad hominem logical fallacy. Ad hominem is when someone tries to discredit or invalidate their opponent's argument(s) by bringing up an unrelated or irrelevant flaw, usually a character flaw. "You don't acknowledge that animals can suffer so that means that all zoos animals should be released," is using your claim that I don't care about animals (which is entirely false) in an attempt to discredit all my arguments, even the unrelated ones.
4. "Even children know better let alone every scientific fact proves you wrong.
Children do not know better. Children are often the cruelest to animals because they don’t know that animals can suffer.
Science has not proven me wrong. (Science cannot prove anything; that is part of the definition of science.) However, if you want to play the science game, I’ll play. Check out what National Geographic has to say on the issue of zoo animals being released into the wild: news.nationalgeographic.com/ne… . To quote them exactly: "We wouldn't dream of taking an animal that had grown up in a zoo surrounded by humans and then put it out in the wild.” Your "scientific fact" argument is a logical fallacy: the argument from omniscience fallacy. Saying that every scientific fact proves me wrong is a huge assumption, not to mention that it's just plain false for the reasons I have just shown.
5. “[They are] hyper emotional animals…”
This is a logical fallacy: the appeal to faith fallacy. Claiming that animals are “hyper emotional” is your personal belief and is not grounded in fact or logic. It may be true that animals are emotional, but as it hasn’t been proven, it is your faith.
Saying that animals are emotional is once again asserting your opinion as fact. It’s not a fact that animals are emotional. I believe that animals are much more complicated than most people think, but where does instinct end and emotion begin? Scientists haven’t determined that. If all animals only want to look natural, why do some enjoy dressing up and looking different? I take care of a horse who undeniably enjoys getting covered in glitter before a ride (we put horse-safe spray glitter on him if it’s his rider’s birthday). He arches his neck, holds his tail high, pricks his ears, picks up his feet, and moves with much more energy in general. And you expect me to believe that that’s only because his ancestors were domestic and that if an animal has relatives in the wild then it means he automatically thinks it’s humiliating? Where is your scientific evidence for that?
6. “Those statistics are wrong, like apparently most everything else you are saying, to my frustration, and considering those are wrong, with proper training and conditioning captive bred animals do just as well as wild born and re-released animals do because they ARE THE SAME. Being born in captivity doesn't domesticate them one bit.”
My statistics are not wrong just because you don’t agree with them. This is where those statistics are from: news.nationalgeographic.com/ne… . Your claim that captive-bred animals do just as well as wild-born ones is false, as this study has found.
“They are the same.” You just said it yourself. That is the number one mark of an animal rights activist. You claim that because they are of the same species, that their needs and wants are exactly the same. As for “being born in captivity not domesticating them one bit,” well, first off, read the article I linked to. Second, visit a humane zoo or a captive-bred sanctuary. You will see that the animals there are very tame, often running up to greet, play with, and take food from humans. Yes, you're right, being born in captivity doesn't make them a domesticated species, but it certainly tames the individual animal(s) to a point. Is it what's best for them? Well, that depends on the individual animal.
7. “You'd put a dog in a cage, throw some food and water in there and say anything more is animal rights."
No, I wouldn't. I've already provided a broad definition of animal rights. On top of that, did you know that name-calling, labeling, assumptions, and other such emotional language are all signs that someone feels they are outmatched in a debate?
This is also a No True Scotsman logical fallacy, as you have assumed that I abuse, support the abuse of animals, dislike animals , or something along those lines, thus creating the argument that no true animal lover could support zoos.
8. “Im saying a captive bred tiger and a wild tiger in captivity ARE NOT DOMESTIC, and are basically the same, one is not more or less developed or capable than the other. They are both tigers. And YES wild life is still the best thing for them.”
I never claimed that tigers were a domestic species; I merely claimed that a captive-bred tiger has the psychology of a domestic animal. Yes, you're right, being born in captivity doesn't make tigers a domesticated species, but it certainly tames that tiger to a point. Is it what's best for tigers? That depends on the individual tiger.
Once again, you prove yourself to be an animal rights supporter. You said that a wild-bred tiger and a captive-bred tiger are the same and the wild life is best for both of them. That is the number one mark of an animal rights activist. You claim that because they are of the same species, that their needs and wants are exactly the same. You do not take into account the individual needs of the animal in question. If that captive-bred tiger were conditioned to live in the wild, it would most likely die. How is death better?
Besides, that animal(s) being domestic or not is beside the point of whether or not it’s humane to release captive-bred animals into the wild.
9. “Unless you can do any amount of research or even common sense, Im not continuing this I will not read anything you reply, because that was just ridiculous. get your facts straight.”
You’ll be proud to know that I did my research and yes, I did provide you with links, studies, facts, and statistics to support my claims. One interesting study is this: news.nationalgeographic.com/ne… .
10. “I am not an animal rights activist.”Indeed, now? And you proved yourself to be one on, how many, at least two occasions?
But if they where not born in captivity, i do see where people will get mad
On a rabbit trail, it's frustrating how it seems non-native animals often fair better when released than native ones do (i.e. feral cats.) I guess that's just life, though.
No?? They dont know you?? They see you as food,not as the people keeping care of them!
And this person is extremely dumb. While some animals, such as cetaceans and great white sharks, often don't do good in captivity, a lot of animals actually have it better in zoos then in the wild. Take lions for example. In a zoo, it doesn't need to hunt. It doesn't need to defend its territory. It doesn't need to fight for its pride. And if it does get wounded, it will be treated. Give it a large enough enclosure and some other stuff, and its happy. Same goes for many prey animals, such as horses and wildebeests. They don't travel across the plains because they love running so much, they travel across the plains because they are searching for food. But back to the lion example. In a zoo, walls and fences prevent it from leaving its territory. In the wild, scent marks of another pride of natural obstacles would take care of that. As long as you know the needs of an animal, can afford it and are willing to provide them with everthing they need, nearly every animal can be kept in captivity.
And of course, simply releasing all zoo animals would be one of the dumbest things ever done. There are tons of people who 'free' pets from stores, cattle from farms, animals from fur farms and sometimes even animals from zoos and release them into the wild...Yeah? And then what? You placed an animal that has been spoiled and taken care off its entire life in an envirement where pretty much everything is hostile towards it. Sure, some would adapt and survive. But the vast majority will die because they don't know how to survive in the wild.
Of course, you shouldn't take an animal out of the wild to put it in a zoo. But taking an animal out of a zoo and placing it into the wild without proper preparations isn't the wisest thing to do.
And of course, zoos benefit animals. I'm not talking about illigal, private or road-side zoos, but licensed one's that take good are of their animals. They educate people about animals and the lives of their wild counterparts, the dangers they face in the wild and how you can help them survive and there are of course many examples of zoos saving species that were extinct or near extinct in the wild thanks to breeding programms. Take the Arabian oryx, Przewalski's horse and Mexican wolf for example.
Anyway, I completely agree that animals don't necessarily need the same amount of space as they would in the wild. They do need more space than a lot of zoos provide, but they don't need it to hunt, forage, find mates, etc. Enclosures need to be stimulating, but they don't need to be miles wide.
And also, if you release an animal from a zoo, there's a very good chance it will be killed by people. I mean, I'm no hunter, but if I saw a pack of wolves, bears, lions, etc. coming at me, I'd probably shoot them. How am I supposed to know they're tame? Do ARAs expect people to wait and see if it chews their face off?
First of all: Forgive me, but I haven't heard the term ARA before DX In my language, an 'ara' is a macaw, but I assume this isn't that. I assume its another or at least similiar term for PETArd? If so, by all means, let them see it! It would be most amusing ;D
Exactly. Stimulation is the most important thing for a captive animal. I work in a zoo, (In case your interested, look up Artisklas. Its the smallest official zoo of my country and we don't have lions and elephants and such. Instead, we've got raccoons, skunks, arctic foxes, porcupines and other animals of a similiar size.) and we always make sure that the animal lives in an envirement that is stimulating. For example, our banded mongoose enclosure has a large collection of underground pipes that the mongoose can use as tunnels. The porcupines, being rodents, get stuff to gnaw on. And the raccoons have several poles in their enclosure that they can use for climbing. Sure, our enclosures aren't as big as a safari zone or some of the larger zoos. But they're big enough, and we do try to give the animal everything it needs to be happy and healthy. What I said in my previous post is actually some stuff my boss told me once.
Exactly! While the death of the animal is of course not something to gloat about you, no one can blame you for self-defense. Then again, many people think of you as the bad guy when you kill an animal anyway, no matter what the reason is. What you described actually happens a lot in Britten with tamed foxes, from what I've heard. The fox is released into the wild, but has the mindset of a domestic animal. It approaches humans and the result often isn't good...Then again, I do slightly blame the public and media for it. Stuff like videos on YouTube and bringing wild animals into talkshows and such pretty much promotes the idea of taking in wild animals, even if it isn't wise. In London, this is very clear with foxes. People see that kind of stuff, and start feeding foxes. As a result, the animals become bolder and may even lose their fear of humans. There was a case where a fox was bold enough to try and kill a baby. It failed, but people were outraged and confused, demanding a cull. Like I said, nearly animal can be kept if you know what you are doing and I am by no means against RESPONSIBLE people who own wild and exotic animals. But what I described is stupid and hypocritical, at least in my opinion. Sorry if that's reall off-topic! DX
Anyway, yes, that sounds like a good zoo! It's good that you don't have the bigger animals seeing as there isn't enough space for them. That makes sense. People should only own what they can care for.
Foxes are very popular in England. They're cute and fluffy and can make good pets if they're bred in captivity, but like I said above, people shouldn't have pets they can't care for. Foxes aren't dogs or cats, they're foxes. Releasing tame animals is never a good idea.
We wouldn't be able to handle them anyway XD We run entirely on volunteers, and we are located in a park in the middle of a big city. The enclosure of an elephant or lion or similiar sized animal in a regular zoo would roughly be the size of our entire zoo XD So yeah, we limit ourselves to animals we can actually keep. And if there is room for a new animal, we do our research quite well before we even start looking for one. As my boss once said, if we can't keep an animal here, its not coming. End of story. Only if all of its requirements can be taken care of, only then we even start thinking of searching for it. We get our animals from other zoos sometimes, but more often from individual owners who couldn't take care of their animals anymore. It wasn't like they abused them or anything, but thanks to things that they had no control over, they had to give them up. Many of them actually still visit the animals they gave to our zoo, and while they miss them, don't regret it. There was, for example, a woman who couldn't take care of her skunk anymore because she was to sick to care for it. And it just happened to be that we also have skunks and had room for one...We aren't an animal shelter or sanctuary though. If, for example, we are offered an animal that the owner cannot take care of, but we don't have the right requirements, we usually reject the offer. Accepting the animal without the resources to give it proper care wouldn't help it.
Exactly. People often have the romantic idea that they become best friends with a wild animal, as is often seen in movies and books. And while I won't deny there are stories of people forming a bond with those animals, the stories where it goes bad outweight them. For example, I heard about a case where a man tried to raise a spotted hyena cub in his city appartement...The hyena, before it was even fully grown, managed to break his arm. The animal wasn't even trying to be aggresive. It was just playing and showing him affection. But people often underestimate just how strong they are...And sensing his 'clan mate's' distress and pain, the hyena also panicked.
You know, the [unnamed people] I told you about who have been harassing me have some very PETA-like views.
I know it isn't very relevant but I have two what you might call 'pet' long eared mice, now these aren't optional for me and were brought in by my cats and I managed to catch them on time. One has one eye and the other has one ear and one eye, if they were released they would have about 5% of survival, yesterday I got someone attacking (verbally) for keeping wild mice as pets.... some people.
That said, I do not think that every cetacean will do well in captivity, nor do I think every aquarium should be allowed to keep them. They are very large, very social animals and their demands are immense. I think they can be bred in captivity well, but it must be done extremely carefully.
Either way, simply chucking a captive-bred cetacean out into the open ocean is not the answer. There would be only a 1 in 4 chance that it would survive.
First off, I do not believe any cetacean should be bred in captivity. Saying that it can be bred in captivity is very different from saying that it should.
I personally believe that orcas are too big to be kept as well as we'd like, but, depending on the individual orca, some of them can be content, but it's not my first choice. However, once they are bred, it would be foolish to release them.
On the other hand, dolphins that are bred in captivity can be very content if given enough room and if given lots of attention and activities. Dolphins are quite small on the cetacean scale. Whether or not we should breed them in captivity is debatable, but it can't be denied that many captive-bred dolphins love their jobs.
Having small teeth (which is normal for orcas, actually) is not the problem. The problem is that if an animal has been bred in captivity, regardless of its species, it has the psychology of a domestic animal. It won't know how to survive in the wild and it will be too comfortable around humans. In order to "rehabilitate" it, (which only gives it a 33% chance of survival at best,) its owners must terrorize it to make it fear humans. That is the farthest thing from humane.
What part of I personally believe that orcas are too big to be kept as well as we'd like did you not understand?
While I don't believe it's a good idea to keep orcas in captivity because they are so big, to answer your question, yes, plenty of wild orcas have worn-down teeth. Among other reasons, they can get it from eating sharks, which have dentin in their skins: www.nature.com/news/2011/11012… .
Also the shark eating orca population is very small, an it seems MOST wild orcas are not wearing their teeth down this much, it is much much more common in captivity than in the wild
Not really. The truth is it can happen in both places. Most captive orcas don't have nubs for teeth. Some do, some don't, just like in the wild.
I'm more worried about the drooping dorsal fin in captive male orcas. That's never seen in the wild and 100% of catpive male orcas' dorsal fins are drooped. That tells me that those particular orcas are not getting something that they need. My guess is that they need more space, because orcas are such large animals. It all goes back to my original argument: I believe that any species of animal can be kept in captivity if given what it needs, but orcas apparently aren't being given what they need, or at least the males aren't. It's easier to keep land animals in captivity because you just have to buy suitable land for them, whereas an aquatic animal must have a tank, water, a filtration system, water changes, etc. all made for them. Instead of saying "orcas should never be bred in captivity," I'd want to find out what it is that's causing the males' fins to droop, and then see if it's possible to fix that. If it's not possible, then of course, no, orcas should not be bred in captivity.
Not bad. ^^
Yeah, removing that cougar from the wild was probably not a bad idea. It kept people and animals safe, and cougars aren't an endangered species anyway. That's cool if they were able to release it, though! I always prefer to see wild animals in their natural habitats!
And who know who create it ..? A trapper. That's right. A dude who killed animals for their fur. And his trophy are still exposed in the zoo.
What I wanted to say by that ... Is that zoo aren't bad. I'm sure a lot of them are actually like this one. You cannot judge zoos by saying it's sad for the animals to be in cage. Sometimes they have no choices or they will die.
For the trapper thing ... I just find it very ironic that an animal-killer has actually done more for them then a lot of pro-peta vegans.
It's a bid out of subject, I'm aware of that, but eh xD