Captive-Bred is Not Wild

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.

Sources: 
news.nationalgeographic.com/ne…
news.nationalgeographic.com/ne…
ask.seaworldcares.com/?topic=b…



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.

www.google.com/search?site=&am…

www.google.com/search?site=&tb…

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.”