Yvonne Kim
According to the IUCN Red List, there are approximately 41,415 species that are classified as endangered and about 16,306 of them have a high risk of extinction. As the various species continue to decline in number, many assume that saving a species is an easy process by simply allowing organisms to breed in captivity, away from potential threats. I know this, because prior to researching about this topic, I assumed the same thing. Why can’t endangered species just be bred in a protected environment under human control? What many don’t realize is that captive breeding has more harmful consequences compared to benefits.
To begin, many organizations claim to be “conservationists”, however their intentions say otherwise. A majority of these organizations have profit-driven ambitions and exploit their animals for the sake of making money. Specifically, organizations such as zoos, Tiger Temple (a supposed tiger sanctuary in Thailand), and other popular tourist attractions such as Sea World make profit through their display of wild animals. And in contrast to their conservative demeanor, these facilities have little to no success in captive breeding and the animals participating in these programs are rarely introduced to their natural habitats in the wild. This is due to the fact that the animals caged within these organizations are bred over a number of generations without any exposure to their natural habitats. A majority of animals caged in zoos are not being prepared to be released into the wild because they are denied the opportunity to learn and develop their survival skills. Additionally, even if the captive animals were given the opportunity to return to the wild, it would be impossible for them to survive without the basic knowledge of reproduction, territory defense, and the ability to obtain food and water. This is a problem for dwindling populations because animals raised in captivity won’t be able to interbreed with their wild counterparts, which hurts genetic diversity within the species.
Furthermore, fondness for captive breeding may be influenced by social media bias due to the fact that reporters are inclined to write about captive breeding programs that are both dramatic and successful. The media tends to filter out captive breeding failures despite the fact that raising and breeding a wild animal within an enclosed space is extremely challenging. Although this may be the case, there have actually been a couple successful captive breeding attempts. For example, in 1986, only 18 black-footed ferrets were alive in the entire world. Ever since then, there has been a successful captive breeding program that brought the numbers for this species up to about 500 in the wild with 300 more in zoos and other sanctuaries. Although this is true, other species such as the Asiatic Lion haven’t been as lucky. The captive breeding program in India began in 2002 in an effort to rebuild the small population of about 175 wild individuals. However, this program was abandoned after a mysterious disease killed 30 of the lions with dozens more showing symptoms of the same affliction. This disease most likely originated from genetic weaknesses in the Asiatic breeding stock, and all the zookeepers could do was isolate the sick lions to die.
Because this so-called solution to decreasing populations have been proven ineffective, you may ask, “So what should be done instead?” An alternative solution would be to focus on preserving natural habitats so that these species may thrive. Habitat conservation efforts should address threatening issues such as social, environmental, and economic factors that contribute to habitat destruction, disease, and invasive species. Habitat conservation would also allow more success for captive breeding programs by making sure a species has a suitable habitat to return to. No matter how much effort is put into preserving an endangered species, the job won’t be fully done if the animals only
have bulldozed rubble to return to.
What do you think? Should we continue captive breeding? What other solutions could humans use to help endangered species? Should media bring awareness to this issue? What could you do to help with this issue?
26 comments:
I believe that we should continue captive breeding. It has been extremely successful in many cases such as the California Condor. It all depends on how it is done. In the case of the condors, the zoo keepers used puppets to simulate a mother and father condor and taught the birds necessary survival skills before releasing them. I also believe that we should preserve more wild ecosystems and preserves to allow the species to propagate on their own, but there are definitely circumstances where captive breeding is necessary to reverse the damage. The media should bring awareness to both responsible and successful organizations as well as the failures and scams. This would show people where they should donate their money to have a positive effect on conservation efforts. The individual can contribute to these efforts by researching ethical organizations to donate their money to, and avoiding spending any money at places that exploit animals, like Sea World. Donating the money that is needed to keep these efforts going is the best thing that the average person can contribute.
Personally, I don’t like zoos. Capturing animals from their natural habitats and forcing them to live in an uncomfortable area with children pointing and screaming at them isn’t exactly ideal. I can see how some people find benefits in zoos and places like seaworld, but there are also huge disadvantages. Seaworld has been exposed numerous times for treating dolphins poorly and even abusing them to an extent. I do think habitat conservation would be good because it allows the animals to live in a place which caters to them and makes sure they are living the right life. The life of a zoo animal is too far from their true homes, and an increase in habitat conservation will allow for many animals to return to their normal lives. I believe social media should bring awareness to this issue and make habitat conservation the solution, not zoos.
I have never personally been against the idea of captive breeding or humane zoos because of the success stories that they have resulted in; however, after reading this I’m swayed to lean against mass captive breeding. I think while it can be extremely successful, these ventures should remain private and unpublicised, so that they exist purely for conservation of the species rather than profit and public entertainment. I think that if these sort of captive breeding ventures were to continue, they need to be government regulated, and ensure that there is enough genetic diversity within a captive group to avoid another mass wipeout from disease like occurred with the Asiatic lions. I also think that inhumane groups like Seaworld claiming to promote animal health that merely end up exploiting and treating their animals unethically should be shut down or forced by tight regulations to begin making their areas a safe haven for animals where they can prosper rather than be manipulated for an audience’s puerile joy.
I don’t believe that captive breeding should take place unless there is truly no other option. And even so, strict regulations and protections must be placed on these facilities to ensure they are breeding the animals safely and carefully. Furthermore, I don’t think any of these should be able to make a profit; they may educate others or perhaps showcase these animals if done so correctly, but any money made should go back into caring for these animals. The damage humanity has done to their habitats is appalling. We owe it to them to help in any way we can and work to provide and rebuild sufficient habitats. I hope that someday more people will realize the faults with zoos and some wildlife centers and perhaps, eventually, we will do away with them. It’s very disheartening to see the many animals there pacing back and forth in their obviously-too-small cage. I believe it is our duty to be the voices for these animals and demand better.
Before reading this, I thought that captive breeding was quite beneficial to endangered species. Although I had heard a couple of stories regarding Sea World, I did not think too much of it. However, after reading this article, I believe that captive breeding should be done very minimally. Scientists should attempt to try to conserve animals in the wild itself. Although this would prove to be more difficult than simply breeding in a zoo, it would be much more beneficial to the animals themselves. One way to bring awareness to this issue is through social media. Social media reporters need to expose the detrimental cases of captivated breeding as much as they need to publish the success stories in order for the public to get the full understanding of what comes out of captivated breeding. However, I do feel that captivated breeding should continue (within reason) as it does help species overcome extinction.
I was previously aware of the scrutiny that institutions that SeaWorld faced and have never been in favor of zoos. I don't like the idea of animals being put in small, tight conditions that are completely different from their natural habitat. Though it may sound appealing on paper, these reasons have prevented me from being supportive of captive breeding. Reading this blog post only cemented my feelings on captive breeding. However, I am in favor of the conservation of an endangered species' habitat. I think that if a species is allowed to live in its own natural habitat, it will flourish far more than it will in secluded conditions.
I believe that the best ways to help out endangered species is to use the form of captive breeding. Although this process does have its setback, I believe that the benefits outweigh it. For example, we cant control the wild and nature. If we let an endangered species into the wild, they may even be eaten or hunted to extinction. To protect our endanger species from reaching to a bad circumstance, we need captive breeding. Captive breeding will make sure that all the endangered species put in there will be safe and not hunted. They will also be cared for and tended to, which will raise their life span by a huge amount. Another act that we need to make possible is to start persevering the habitats of those species. If we were to do this, they would be preserved and they can live in the wild.
Although the conversation regarding the future captive breeding programs, I think it is important for us to focus on the existing forms of captive breeding. I have always detested one particular form of captive breeding: zoos. In my opinion, zoos are rarely serve the purpose that they convey, rather there is cooperative interest in the profitability of the animals in the zoos. Most environmentally aware people could reason how zoos can also be detrimental to the animals survival. One of these concerns, as mentioned in the blog, is the animals loss of survival skills and the decrease in genetic diversity. These effects could potentially serve to further decrease the population of the endangered animal. That is why I believe it is important for the captive breeding programs to introduce the animals to their natural environment and foster their survival skills at a young age. This could effectively scratch the animal off of the endangered species list.
I personally do not like zoos. The idea of holding animals captive, depriving them from their natural habitat is horrible. Animals are confined in a small space and unable to have a good social structure and companionship with other animals. I agree that there are some benefits that conservation may give to animals who need protection to avoid extinction, but I believe that should be the last option we resort to. I think we need to educate people on how our actions are hurting species around us. Hence, decreasing our carbon footprint can conserve species. Relinquishing the energy we use can resolve conflicts with animals and resources. I think the media is a great way to encourage people to learn more about what they can do to help.
Okay, I guess it’s my turn to be annoying: I think captive breeding can be beneficial, and zoos aren’t all bad. Hear me out. Captive breeding programs can do wonders on endangered animal populations. For example, the Great Panda, which was endangered, is now only listed as vulnerable due to lots of zoo-based breeding programs all around the world. You bring up a great point that living in human enclosures does nothing to help individual animals live in the wild, and you’re right: the aforementioned pandas are having a hard time when they are released. However, lots of humane breeding programs include mental and physical training for the animals to prepare them for their new environment. Also, it is true that places like SeaWorld use wildlife in shows for the public, but most zoos use money raised to support habitat conservation around the world. Check the next zoo you visit for donation boxes - they’re very common. One final word - we picture a fulfilling life for animals as one with abundant food, high activity, and lots of space to move around, and this is true - for mammals. For most cold-blooded animals, life is very uneventful: time is spent sleeping and digesting thier meal from a month ago. Zoos allow these animals to excersise and play at least once a day for small snacks. Therefore, while life in a zoo would be wholly unsatisfying for humans, for most other species of animalia, a zoo has a much higher quality of life.
There’s a reason animals live longer in captivity.
A little note: I think your post was very good and had excellent points, this is just an alternate perspective. Good job!
I did know that captive breeding decreases an organism’s ability to thrive in the wild, but I didn’t realize that so many conservationist organizations don’t have the best intentions and how this method may do more harm than good (such as in the case of the Asiatic Lions). Therefore, I think that we should not continue captive breeding to such a far extent. We could minimally assist critically endangered species while they still remain in their natural habitat, instead of resorting to full on captivity. Of course, this would require many specific regulations to ensure an adequate level of human interference to prevent the costs than come with captive breeding. Additionally, as described in this blog, we could also pursue more environmentally sustainable lifestyles to reduce the consequences that cause species to become endangered. We can use the media to bring awareness to the issue. This is because when more people know about the negative effects of captive breeding, they would be less likely to visit attractions such as zoos, Sea World, Tiger Temple, etc.
In my opinion, zoos claim to be solely for the purpose of preserving endangered animals and keeping them safe. Yet as the corporate world has increased, zoos are more publicized and use their animals as captive species from which to make a profit out of. I'm not saying that zoos aren't good and misuse their animals, its just that their intentions and motivations may be misplaced and shifted from soley in the best interest of the animals. As a child I loved going to Seaworld and seeing the dolphins and whales perform their tricks and interacting with the trainers was the best experience ever. But a few years back I heard the first instance of animal abuse and it shook me. This childhood dream vacation was now plagued with the memory of harsh and inhumane conditions of the animals. I think its very important to put the needs of the animals before our own in order to sustain life for all ecosystems. Everything is connected and just one offset can unbalance an entire biome and ecosystem.
I have always loved going to the zoo and seeing different animals that are being placed there, and they always have the little hut that acts as the hospital that takes in injured or sick animals and their displays show the process of how they nurse them back to health. I believe that these are safe and they really do fix the animals, however what they do afterwards is what I question. Some keep the animals as they claim to be unable to go back into the wild and others they do release into the wild. Ive also as a child was a huge fan of the SeaWorld Shamu shows they have with the orcas, I still have the little stuffed animal I bought from their gift shop, however after being introduced to the BLackfish documentary, I see the horrors of the abuse animals experience and the psychological abuse they experience as well. Many humans see it as an abomination when abuse of children takes place however, when it comes to animals there is often a blind eye or people are simply misinformed on the issue. For instance, I once heard that many “zoologists” claim that the animals under their care live longer than they would in the environment when it is simply a white lie. The psychological abuse and the lack of a free environment hurts their spirits and livelihood and eventually they end up dying from sadness too. I really hope that if we can expose more corrupt systems and markets for these shows and abuse on animals we can decrease the demand for this.
Though I do agree that there are negative effects of captive breeding, such as disease or animals potentially not being successfully reintroduced in the wild, captive breeding is important to help keep endangered species alive. Media should not only bring awareness to the effects of captive breeding, but what is causing so many species to be endangered and how people can help prevent further damage. Personally, I do not support zoos, because I believe that the habitats that the animals are subject to aren’t humane. However, I do support captive breeding programs, but only if it’s a last resort to save a species.
As much as I love visiting the zoo and seeing a variety of animals, I alway feel a bit guilty for allowing the captivity of these wild animals. Animals are meant to roam the natural world in their respective habitats and not be stuck behind bars in such small spaces. The animals remind me of a prisoner, but one in jail for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Even though zoos breed animals, especially those that are endangered, I believe that they do it in a counter-productive way. Zoo-bred animals for best fit for just that, living in a zoo. Species that have been reintroduced into an environment always tend to struggle and therefore become more vulnerable to threats, essentially reseting the cycle of endangerment. Like I mentioned before, these animals are prisoners and therefore probably suffer psychologically as prisoners do. The mental effects of captivity and the lack of genetic diversity from selective breeding could possibly endanger the species even further. I think the best solution would be to restore the habitats these speices live in, as you mentioned. Once the environements are restored, humans should try to interfer in it as little as possible. Although zoos save some animals and encourage environmental education, I don't think they are the best way to protect endangered species and save the planet.
Captive breeding is something we need to start doing less of. Sure, we increase the population of the endangered species, but we aren't solving the problem that is making the species endangered in the first place. Instead, we need to focus on habitat conservation, giving animals huge spaces to roam and live as if they were in the wild, but the area would be semi monitored by humans. The areas would be protected, and breeding would be encouraged. Thus, new animals born in these habitats are able to learn how to survive in the wild, while still being able to help increase the population of their species. If animals are born in captivity and then held there their entire lives, those animals are not doing anything for the environment. They are merely a number added to an amount so humans can pat themselves on the back for increasing a value, without solving the underlying problem. This world is not just for us. It is for animals too. We need to learn to acknowledge that.
Captive breeding is an idea that works well in theory. However zoos in general probably are not equipped to properly care for animals. In the end, zoos are exhibitions used to make profit, and this means that the endangered species raised there are bred for showcasing and not survival. SeaWorld specifically has been exposed for mistreatment of their animals, namely psychological abuse. I did not realize that captive breeding might lead to loss of genetic diversity, but it makes sense that breeding the same six or so animals would lead to less allelic frequencies. I read this article about how a potential solution to the zoo-conservation-profit question could be to create more of a learning program about the animals rather than just displaying them. This was, the animals are raised to be released and humans can enjoy watching these animals prepare to leave. I’m sure that there are many organizations dedicated to preserving endangered species so it would be good to donate to them.
I think captive breeding should be avoided but should remain an option in certain cases. For instance, when captive breeding helps animals exercise their survival skills and/or when the endangered species population is drastically low, I believe captive breeding is an okay alternative to turn to. However, I greatly prefer your proposal of investing more effort in protecting the habitats rather than captive breeding in preventing the extinction of species. Although you mentioned in your article how media has wrongly portrayed captive breeding, I think that media could be helpful if used to bring awareness to the cons of captive breeding. Through media, people could become more knowledgeable on the need to preserve habitats and insightfully realize the dangers of captive breeding. On a smaller scale though, I could help this captive breeding issue by donating money to organizations that work to help maintain the habitats of these endangered species.
I think captive breeding and zoos themselves are only as good as we make them out to be. For example, zoos can be very beneficial for not only raising awareness on disappearing/endangered animals but also the funds may help in the preservation of these animals. Zoos can also save animals from extinction through raising money and awareness. However, commercial organizations whose main job is utilizing animals to raise monetary funds for their own company i.e organizations that exploit animals for their own gain should be regulated and if their conditions are unethical, stopped.
I enjoy going to zoos, but every time I go, I feel guilty because I don’t like how zoos treat animals. However, I do recognize the environmental benefits that zoos can provide. In certain extreme cases, when species are endangered, zoos can help repopulate a species. I feel like zoos need to be improved if they are going to continue being part of our lives. I believe that the media needs to bring more attention to the problem with our zoos, if the issue is going to be fixed.
In my opinion, captive breeding should be used as a last resort, when no other options remain and extinction is eminent. I did not know the consequences of captive breeding on animals before this post. Knowing the effect it has on species, I believe it should only be used when no other option is available. For example, the American bison were nearly hunted to extinction in the late 19th century. However, once strict laws were set in place, and Yellowstone was created to preserve the bison, their population eventually rebounded. In this case, no captive breeding was necessary, and the issue was handled through laws and enforcement. Thus, I believe it is crucial to tackle the myriad of issues that cause a species to reach endangerment or extinction. Urban sprawl is one that must be limited to protect rare species, many of which may die before they are even discovered. One solution could be through more national parks and lands that prohibit human disruption, protecting species on the brink of extinction.
I believe that animals should be able to thrive within their habitat without any human disturbance in any sort of way. Even though zoos seem to preserve the animals and keep them in an area where they feel at home, they’re really not. Captive breeding just seems artificial to me and not 100% natural. I feel that the only purpose of it is to show it to the humans, in which we do appreciate, but I don’t think it’s the most affective method of displaying our wildlife. I like how you mentioned the idea of switching over to putting environmental reserves to thriving habitats, and I feel that it’s a much better alternative to zoos.
Your article was very insightful. I never expected that captive breeding was bad for animals . Usually, when someone thinks of captive breeding to save an endangered species, they would expect it to be helpful to the species because the animals are offered a safe place to repopulate. If repopulation isn’t happening at these captive breeding sites, the species’ life will only be shortly prolonged and it will end up going extinct anyways.
I also thought that captive breeding was one of the best ways to revitalize species, and had no idea it was this challenging or potentially ineffective. Although I do think that in some cases captive breeding is necessary to preserve the last of a species, the focus should be on preserving habitats. If the animals' habitats are never destroyed, there may not even be a need for captive breeding. Alternatively, more research could be used to determine what the best captive breeding practices are to be able to release animals into the wild, as this might make captivity much more effective.
I thought captive breeding was successful in every case, but it makes sense that there are challenges given the human greed for money and the breeding environment. However, some cases of captive breeding have proven successful so they should be continued, just not motivated by profit. Conservatories are a solution to helping endangered species as they can mimic their natural environment. However, this area would need to be rather large and not like a zoo’s habitat. Similarly, a national park could assist in the recovery of endangered species. The media should cover the problems with captive breeding as that will expose the organizations that are profit-driven.
I have always looked at zoos with skepticism. The idea of keeping animals in cages, away from their natural habitats, seems simply unnatural. Especially looking at tourist attractions like Sea World, the idea of captive breeding seems unethical. After reading this new information, it is apparent that captive breeding really doesn’t work. With the lack of genetic diversity and inability to survive in the wild, captive breeding is more harmful for the environment rather than helpful.
Post a Comment