In response to the animal killing in zoos

So Copenhagen Zoo was in the news these last couple of weeks. First for killing a giraffe and now for killing  four lions.  Although the zoo is under fire, they claim they did nothing wrong. What they did complies with EU regulations and zoo guidelines. In fact the zoo is praised for the high standard of animal welfare and educational values they have.  This raises a particularly interesting conflict among my ideals and I would like to discuss this. I am neither 100% pro-captivity nor 100% against it. My ideals are somewhere in the middle. Some animals can be kept in captivity and show no signs of stress. Some thrive under it. Some other animals don’t. Some zoos do a great job in conservation and educations while some don’t. I suppose my ideals are that it depends on the animal, the zoo and the welfare standards.

What the zoo did, makes absolute sense on their behalf. The male lions were killed to allow for the new male they brought in to be the breeding male. The female was killed because she would have prevented the younger females from mating and she would have had complications during pregnancy. So it makes sense for the zoo to put them down. They lived a happy life and their death was quick. Is it right? Well by me no. Since as a zoo you are breeding animals you should have a responsibility towards their welfare throughout their whole life and not cut their life short. It is a duty of care that should be part of the legislation according to me. 

Although zoos can be part of the conservation effort and part of educating the public, there are some zoos that misunderstand their responsibility. People everywhere are campaigning that there are not enough lions out there in the wild but yet zoos(who are meant to educate the general public) go and shoot four. I can see that the oldest ones couldn’t contribute to breeding, and I know that it’s hard to release the younger ones. However they could either give off the younger lions to another breeding program or send them to a sanctuary or a separate enclosure. By treating the animals as property and by strategically planning pregnancies, animal transfers and new animal acquisitions you are unfortunately sending the wrong message that animals are property and that the reason they are there is for money first and the rest come before that.

By not being able to euthanize healthy animals you send the message that wildlife is respected and hat these animals are more than just an item but an entity that should be respected. In my opinion captive animals can suffer captivity if it means the welfare and prosperity of wild animals(that is of course if captivity doesn’t have extreme detrimental effects on them). By keeping your excess breeding and treat animals in such a way, you teach the general public that they should respect animals. The materialistic and consumerist approach is what’s causing habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, illegal wildlife trade and so many other reasons that certain animal species are endangered. So by removing aspects of this approach and portraying animals as entities that should be respected, the public may gain a new perspective on what keeping animals means and how much influence they have over their life.

In the end of the day unfortunately zoos have to make money to continue surviving and it is logical that in some sense they would approach a matter in a more businesslike approach. When the general public opinion changes then perhaps so will zoo management and perhaps there may be a time where zoos are no longer necessary for conservation efforts. Until that time occurs then zoos are necessary and issues over the management of animals will always be present  but it is important to recognize the particular conservation value that some zoos hold.

Zoos

This is an issue that bothers me a lot. The cries from people to stop zoos and release the animals seems to be increasing and public outcry about the captive conditions of some animals seems to be forcing zoos to reconsider their policies. I should point out that this is only dealing with zoos as marine parks, such as SeaWorld will be covered another time.

Zoos have positive and negative aspects but I am not going to lie when I say I support some of the zoos out there. Don't get me wrong, I believe that animals should be born free and live free but zoos do have some benefit Firstly zoos can offer stock for genetic variation and can take part in vital conservation work as with the Mexican wolf, the Sumatran and south china tiger as well as the pandas. Several conservation efforts are in part funded through zoos and some of these efforts may have not even started if it wasn't for zoos as public are more likely to donate money when they have seen an animal close up.

What is more, zoos have what I like to call an "exposure effect". People get to see animals up close and in person. Although people will argue that you can see animals in documentaries and online I can guarantee to you that it's a lot different to see animals up close. It usually makes little difference in adults but any difference counts. Even if one of those adults decides to look up tiger conservation, Scottish wildcat conservation and so forth and donate money or time towards a species conservation, then that is a small victory for conservationists everywhere. However in my opinion children are the group which benefits most about zoos. Sure zoos might at points give misinformation and sure children may get upset if animal living conditions are poor, but children are the ones who are more influenced by zoos rather than anyone else. A lot of the people I tend to talk to in my degree and other wildlife related degrees all agree that they do it because they love the animals and the environment. Not all of us however were lucky enough to have an animal experience which actually took place in the wild. For me the first wild animal experience  that I remember wasn't until I was ten years old and saw humpbacks of the East coast of the United States. Until then I was content with the zoo we had in Cyprus(which featured animals in horrible conditions), the rare wild animals of Cyprus and the museums. It was only through documentaries and the zoo that I grew up to love animals. As most children are fascinated by animals in the first place, a visit to the zoo only enhances that fascination. If from a school trip, three or four children end up being fascinated with animals and support a cause then again some small victories are gained.

On the negative side, the demand to see these animals causes animal captures, captive breeding where it may not be necessary and in the end some animals ending up in poor conditions. Not all zoos have proper living conditions for their animals and even so some animals may not be suitable for captive conditions and just die. A lot of animals die every year because of poorly managed zoos, bad living conditions, transportations, vet operations and so forth and this is a sad truth.  Although a lot of zoos are beginning to clean up their acts, provide better habitats for the animals and started aiding conservation efforts there is still a long way to go.

In my opinion zoos are a necessary evil. There may be a time when traveling is cheap and easy and the chance to see a wild lion is only a weekend and a few dollars but for now with travelling still being expensive for some, animals being elusive and rare in the wild, and the demand to see animals up close then zoos will remain around. All we can hope for is that the captive animals live a decent life and the zoos aid conservation efforts.

Looks for sale

There is a certain controversy regarding white tigers. To bring everyone up to date, white tigers have genetically obtained a double recessive gene. A double recessive gene means that even if the mother and the father are orange but have the gene, there is 25% chance that a cub will turn out to be white. This has often resulted to zoos interbreeding white tigers to get white tiger cubs. Interbreeding means that relatives will couple. This often results to mutants which are cross-eyed and deformed. These tigers are often killed or kept away from public display and only those that look right are displayed.

Public outcry to stop breeding white tigers has forced a lot of zoos to stop white tiger inbreeding. However this practice still occurs on some zoos under the excuse that white tigers help gain awareness and help their orange coloured counterparts which are still in the wild. I agree on this particular aspect. White tigers tend to attract more attention as they are more exotic. With the correct and proper information, zoo audiences can find themselves carrying more for some animals they rarely get to see in the wild. Let's face it, even with the best circumstances it is hard to find tigers in the wild. Not to mention the travel expenses that for some of us are too steep.

Personally I believe that tigers and white tigers are both equally beautiful. My main argument however is that white tigers are not viable animals. Some genetic mutations have a reason that do not survive in the wild and white tigers are no different. A white tiger cannot camouflage itself in the wild and thus will have a much harder time surviving. By breeding an animal that most of the times will not be found in the wild you are cause a flow of misinformation to people not so educated about wild animals. Although white tigers will boost a zoos attendance and reputation they are no more than a marketing ploy most of the times. Claiming that the white tigers help boost tiger awareness is in my opinion is the wrong way to go about it. Should a white tiger cub occur at your zoo through no planned means apart from two none related tigers carrying the gene which is okay with me.

Can we do anything about it? I believe so. Proper zoo education should tell the audience that these tigers do not appear in the wild unless under rare circumstances. Encouraging zoos to display their regular tigers instead of their white counterparts and raising tiger awareness. One of the main problems that I find in some zoos is the fact that they market the white tiger as a rare subspecies instead of a genetic variation of the regular tiger which hampers conservation efforts for the actual tigers in the wild. Education will encourage people to love tigers for what they look like and not just the white ones.

In my own opinion is up to the public to make a statement for zoos to stop breeding white tigers. Boycotting zoos however is not exactly the right answer as zoos will suffer and will lead to further problems. One proper approach in my opinion is to let the zoo know that you do not agree with the inbreeding for white tigers, donate to wild tigers and sanctuaries that do not support white tiger inbreeding. Educate people and let them know about the situation.

In conclusion white tigers although they have their uses through education and public attraction they are unnecessary as people are already interested in regular tigers. The being said white tigers would attract more attention if they are actually bred naturally in zoos and occur more rarely. Support the sanctuaries that provide help and aid to inbreed tigers and educate and spread proper awareness.