As a child, I loved visiting zoos - as I live in Essex, not far from London, this included Colchester Zoo and,of course, London Zoo. At the risk of giving my age away, I remember Chi Chi the giant panda at London Zoo and the unsuccessful breeding attempts made with the Moscow Zoo's An An. As I grew up and gained more independence, I would visit zoos further afield. I think it is probably true to say that most children like to see animals and to see them in the flesh makes a good day out. It is doubtful young children would ponder on the ethics of keeping animals in captivity but are often mesmerised by the incredible variety of the natural world as shown by the various exhibits - after all, who would not be enthralled at seeing and hearing a majestic big cat or acrobatic gibbon at first hand? And who can resist zoo babies?
Those in favour of zoos often point to conservation as being a key function of zoos - both acting as metaphorical arks where the last of a species can be preserved for the future, and genetic reservoirs that can be used for breeding purposes, with zoos collaborating and stud books being maintained to minimise the effects of inbreeding.
I can see two main questions coming out of this idea - 1. should species be preserved at all costs? 2. does it work - that is, are zoo-bred animals returned to the wild?
Martha was the last of her kind, at least as far as we know, though there were a few sightings after her death in Cincinnati Zoo in 1914. We can, however, be fairly certain the passenger pigeon is no more and has passed into the history books as a species becoming extinct at the hands of one species - humans. Not long before her death, the flocks were described as being so great, they would darken the sky. More on the passenger pigeon. Clearly being in a zoo didn't help the passenger pigeon, though it could be argued we now live in more enlightened times and zoos were still mainly seen as spectacle in the lifetime of Martha - of course, she would have needed a mate to be able to produce the offspring needed to save the species!
While at university, about 20 years ago (I started in my 30s), I recall one activity we need that looked at the effectiveness of captive breeding in zoos. Though I have to admit to not recalling all the details now, we were given breeding data from a zoo and we had to use statistical methods to determine the effectiveness of the breeding programmes for various species. The bottom line was that the breeding efforts, though probably well-meaning, were not very effective at all, not if being effective is defined as increasing populations and maintaining genetic diversity (we didn't consider whether any would be released into the wild (doubtful any were)).
When I think of successful reintroduction projects, I think of red kites and while-tailed eagles in the UK, which I think mainly involved moving individuals from viable populations elsewhere and then using a management programme that involved keeping contact with humans to a minimum. I don't think these involved animals bred in zoos. That isn't to say zoo-bred animals can't, potentially, be used and you may know some examples. I remember Gerald Durrell relating an event in one of his books where a number of animals had either escaped or been released (have to say, I can't recall the details) and the reptiles and amphibians moved into the jungle to take advantage of their freedom but many of the birds and mammals just hung around the camp. This illustrates another issue with using captive-bred animals - not all can easily adapt to a life of freedom - the more learning that is involved in survival, the harder it can be to release an animal into the wild, such that it would be able to survive as well as a wild-borne individual. It is for this reason that the Great Crane Project had people dressed up as cranes (not a good likeness but good enough for the young birds) in order to teach the youngsters how to be cranes, just as their parent would in the wild.
Education is important in most things we do and zoos can be a great source of education about the natural world, the organisms we share the world with and the pressures placed upon them. Indeed, many zoos (perhaps those we might describe as good zoos) form partnerships with conservation organisations in various parts of the world in order to support environments and species. I am not sure the captive animals we have in the UK are then needed to do this, though it is the paying public that provide the funds to enable this to happen - so zoos can raise awareness and channel funds and expertise to areas of need - I would argue this is the most important role zoos play in the modern world. There are, however, some animals that, in my view, should never be kept in captivity - I have referred to cetaceans in a previous post and would add many large mammals, such as polar bears to the list. I think that the UK has quite strict regulations for zoos, but I suspect some other countries are not so strong in this respect, which may lead to some very poor conditions for the animals they are responsible for. I have only seen one zoo in another country, so I cannot really comment on this.
It is my view that zoos can play a part in education and I think it is visiting zoos as well as being outside as often as possible when I was young, that helped me develop my love for and interest in the natural world - I wouldn't necessarily want to take that away from future generations, though, of course, there is now so much information available now on TV and the internet that even this role is becoming less important. It is now possible, for example, to use a mobile device to watch films from Earth Touch and BBC Earth on YouTube, and there are many more! I would argue that captive breeding in zoos does not generally help conservation directly but that having a place where visitors can see the living animals they see in the media first hand can support the development of interest indirectly in those people. This should always be done with the interests of the animals in mind and if the needs cannot be met for any given species, that species must not be kept. As mentioned above, some zoos do support conservation directly by working with individuals and organisations around the world, providing funds and expertise and it is the visitors that enable this to happen.
Extinction is unpleasant, but is also a way of life and the evolutionary tree is full of the bodies of the species that did not make it, so there will be some battles we will not win. We also have to keep in mind the amount of funding available - who decides where it is spent? There is only so much that can be done with the resources available, so some will not, unfortunately, get on the boat and will end up in the pages of the species we have lost. We have to try to make the decisions that that are the best we can but when one species, namely Homo sapiens, is responsible for the destruction of so much habitat and reducing species to the brink of extinction, surely, it is the responsibility of that species to do what it can to preserve what we have, which may include zoos taking an active part in education generations now and in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment