In captivity or in the Wild??

[[Ash]]

I got this from a site....supports my idea

 Length of life: Generallly speaking, animals live longer in captivity than in the wild, because keepers and veterinarians are available to look after their health and diet. If an animal sickens, there are people available to help it and, if the animal dies, post-mortems can be used to help other members of the animal's group. The disadvantage of living in a zoo is that zoos may not have enough space to keep increased numbers of animals, so may have to choose which animals to put down. I have heard of zoos promoting baby animals for the summer season, before having them put down in the winter, because of insufficient space and the popularity of an elderly zoo favourite.

The advantage of living in the wild is that the animal can 'rise through the ranks' and play an important role within a group, if it belongs to a social species. When it no longer has a useful role, it may go to live on its own and may die soon afterwards. This avoids it competing for with other members of its species for limited resources. The disadvantages of living in the wild are due to animals dying before they can reproduce, sometimes due to human activities. For example, overfishing, where nets catch immature animals, as well as mature ones. Also, hunters may prefer to hunt large, impressive individuals, which may play dominant roles in their groups. This can lead to great turmoil within the animals' society.

2. Food: Good zoos provide a balanced diet, including necessary medicines. This helps the animal to be as healthy as possible. Unfortunately, it is often a far from natural diet and it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to train an animal to find food by itself before being released into the wild. Also, some animals become habituated to feeding times and are inactive between feeding times, so may become overweight. Some zoos overcome this by hiding food or placing it in containers, where the animal has to expend energy to obtain it. European zoos are not allowed to feed live vertebrates to zoo animals, so it is very difficult to release a predator into the wild, especially if the animal is more likely to attack people and livestock due to a shortage of natural prey. Animals in the wild have a potentially more varied diet and develop feeding strategies to obtain food. The downside is that solitary species have to feed themselves. If they cannot find food, they must do without and may starve. For example, cheetahs have a low success rate when hunting. The vast majority of their sprinting runs are unsuccessful. Even when they catch a gazelle, or other prey, another predator may steal the food from the cheetah, so the cheetah must hunt again. Compare this to the situation at zoos, where keepers can ensure that all the animals receive food. Due to decreasing wild habitats, animals may come into competition with people by feeding on crops, livestock or people. This leads to people hunting the species, decreasing their populations.

3. Safety: Generally speaking, animals are safer in zoos than in the wild. Vulnerable animals are brought in at night to protect them from predators. The down side is that people know where zoos are and can break in and capture or kill some species. Some zoo animals, such as macaws, are very valuable, so a person can make a lot of money by breaking into a zoo and stealing animals from enclosures. Also, during times of poverty and warfare, zoos may be desecrated for food or fun - you may remmeber what happened at zoos in Kuwait and Kabul. In the wild, animals find various places for shelter and may be protected by dominant animals, but predators may still capture individuals.

4. Health: Good zoos have veterinarians who can help injured or sick animals, which would die in the wild. Recent research indicates that chimpanzees and other animals know about 'healing' plants and other medicants, which help them survive injuries. These medicants are often unavailable in zoos, where animals may die until appropriate cures are found.

5. Reproduction: Many species are represented in several zoos around the world. A zoo with an animal old enough to reproduce can contact other zoos, so that the animal has access to an unrelated mate. This will help prevent potential offspring from inheriting harmful genes from both parents. The disadvantage concerns animals poorly represented in zoos, especially when the only other examples of the species are close relatives. Several years ago, I visited Kilverstone Zoo. The zoo had four olingos, relatives of raccoons. These were a mated pair and their son and daughter. Few zoos keep olingos, so the zoo kept the adult male with his daughter and the adult female with her son. Definitely not an ideal situation for breeding, but if potential mates are in short supply, what can a zoo do? Also, even if unrelated mates are found, there is no guarantee that the animals will mate. This is often true for giant pandas, which are popular zoo animals, but have a poor breeding record in many zoos. Colin Tudge, in 'Last Animals at the Zoo' stated that females are more likely to mate if there is male competition, but with the Chinese government charging $1 million dollars a year to hire out each panda, how many zoos can afford $3 million a year for two male pandas and a female?

I should also mention that zoos may send sampls of sperm to other zoos, so that females can be artifically inseminated. This has helped raise populations of some species, while removing the stress associated with moving animals between zoos. Another way zoos can help increase reproduction is by removing eggs from birds, so that the birds lay another batch, while the first batch is incubated by bantams or in special incubators. Zoos can also help preserve endangered species by placing embryos of one species into the bodies of a more abundant species. For example, domestic cattle have 'given birth' to rare species. Zoos are also looking at cloning techniques to increase populations of endangered species. Zoos also use various techniques to look after abandoned babies. These include glove puppets, resembling the animal's parents, for feeding the infant, or keepers looking after the animals at home. Many keepers are very dedicated people, often on relatively low wages, and really do care about the welfare of their animals.

Obviously, wild animals have more scope in the wild and may travel great distances to find a mate, but fragmentation of habitats prevents migration of small animals. This means that they are more likely to mate with relativs, leading to the problems associated with inbreeding.

6. Mental well-being: This is a relatively recent field of interest. Some animals adapt well to captivity and can show the same kinds of behaviour, which they would show in the wild. For example, London Zoo won an award for their dwarf mongoose enclosure. Unfortunately, some animals do not adapt well to captivity. They show stereotyped behaviour, for example by rocking from side to side, and may suffer great stress. Polar bears and some other species seem to be prone to these problems. There are far fewer polar bears in British zoos than there were 20 years ago. I have seen stressed animals, including a stump-tailed macaque, picking at a wound in its face. Such behaviours are obviously distressing to the animals and should not be seen by visitors.

Some people think that animals do not suffer stress in the wild. This is not true - animals are hunted, they compete with other group members for food, territory or mates and have to adapt to changing environments. They are also at risk from hunters and habitat destruction. As I stated at the start, it is better for animals to live in a natural environment, but this does not mean they have an idyllic life.
           
7. Interaction with humans: Zoo visitors vary greatly. Some are interested in animals, while others may make fun of animals or try and injure them. Despite regulations in many zoos, some visitors still try to feed animals, sometimes with batteries and other inappropriate food, or pester animals by copying their alarm calls or by prdding them. This impairs the mental health of the animals. Zoos can help people become interested in animals, which can lead to studing animals in the wild or promoting conservation. It is better to study animals in the wild, as the animals are more likely to show natural behaviour than most show in captivity, but some 'safaris' are very expensive, well outside the price range of poor people. 'Wild animals' in safari parks may also be put under stress. I have heard of cases where one cheetah has been surrounded by several landrovers. This can create problems for the cheetah escaping from the landrovers, never minding catching prey. Also, due to habitat destruction and hunting, many species are becoming harder to find. It should be noted that it takes time to study an animal's behaviour. Jane Goodall has been studying chimpanzees for 40 years, but it took her a lot of time to be accepted by chimpanzee groups and she had to be extremely patient, gradually leaving hiding places to spend more time near the chimpanzees. A zoologist cannot expect to find out much about a species from a week's holiday. 

8. Biodiversity: Traditonally zoos have kept animals in single species enclosures, often near related species. This means that an African lion may be kept near an Asiatic tiger and a South American jaguar. This helps vistors to compare related species, but does not help people understand how animals interact with other species in the wild. Some zoos, such as Munich, keep animals in areas connected with zoogeography, so that African or European animals are kept nar each other. Some zoos keep a range of unrelated species in the same enclosure. This is a more natural situation, but care is taken to avoid prey animals coming into contact with potential predators. There is far greater biodiversity in the wild and this is a far better situation to promote natural behaviour. Unfortunately, hunting of predators, or of 'bushmeat' species may lead to an increase of some species over others, leading to an imbalance or to competition between various species for resources. Unsuccessful species may become far scarcer, unless conservation strategies come into force.

Nice topic! who ever started it :lol: I did not saw the author of the thread! 

Difficult to type your name. so i will call you Mr. X. i to some extent agree with all you have written. But tell me one thing, 50-40 years ago.. there was not a scene of extinction of animals like we have today. this is because we human did not interfere in their atmosphere and they were happy in their eco-environment. there was not any proper plan or program of capturing these animals just to save their lives.! Concept of "in-captivity or in wild" is in just now.. because we are interfering in their lives. What i think is that they should be in wild. No capturing so that they nurture their generation in a wild and natural atmosphere. Only duty of us is then just to take care of extinct creatures where ever they, who ever they are i mean plants or animals!

[nid404]

I'm the one who strtd the topic and you can call me nid

Well, 40-50 years ago,we weren't as many as we are now. With increasing population and increasing demand for houses, furnishing, etc, deforestation is the trend, I condemn that completely, cause we encroaching upon their land, which is just not tolerable.
But with the kind of population, you won't expect anything. They are least concerned about environment. So, we, as global citizens who wish to see these splendid animals and forests proliferate , should provide them with homes where they do not have to fear for their lives, like in the wild.

Practically speaking,today, we may all fight for their freedom, for them to be in the wild, but the fact is, their freedom lies in captivity, very sad but true.

[[Ash]]

Hmm.. Agreed.. with the increasing population and their demands we have to clear off the forests and their habitat. Not even considering the fact that they also have a right to live but we humans are so "_______" that we started snatching peace form their lives :lol:

And if this continues, then today we are losing these creatures, tomorrow then we will be going from the same situation, from which they are going!

Strong point there, Nid!

[$tyli$h Executive]

They are animals after all. We should not care about their 'feelings' or 'pain' because it does not make any difference to us. They were created for serving us humans.

A SMALL number of animals should be captivated by means of nature parks and zoos. They will provide us with a good income source by means of possible private zoos and parks. It shouldn't cause extinction or whatsoever. It will be of benifit to both them and us. They will be benifitted too because they receive greater protection when they are in captivity.

This is not to say that deforestation is justified.

[[Ash]]

This was kinda selfish

Sorry to say,  agree that they were made to serve humans, if that's true then whats the point of saving them. they served us as long as they live. now they have totally served us, their role is over. we don't need them. simple

[$tyli$h Executive]

Saving them is of our benefit, at least, to some extent. Zoos make money. So does safari parks. Animals are used for numerous other purposes. They entertain us, like pets and circuses. As their supply becomes limited in the future due to the gradual destruction of their habitat, their price will increase, dramatically. If there were 50 dodos in the world now, each one would cost $100m. Think of the benefit if someone had secretly captivated dodos back in 1690s in Mauritius. Good business.

[nid404]

They were made to serve us
No dear no!!! Who told you??

[[Ash]]

i quote Stylish's comment and reply on what he said Nid.


Stylish Sir, Other than business we have to admit the fact that We have to save them for any reason what so ever! For business, for our eco system, for you Safari Parks, for our Entertainment. For sometime we have to keep them in our control and in the mean time, have to alarm the people, so that they can go back to their natural habitat then. we cant keep them for long. they have a right to live! You are right, its a business.. but for the extinct features we have to do so that we can make sure that they are reproducing new ones! Its not that easier to do but at least we can spread this, we can educate the world. we humans are very selfish!

[nid404]

Yes we are very selfish and we have good examples here to prove that.....
It's the fact, all people think about is how to make profit

[$tyli$h Executive]

Yes we are very selfish and we have good examples here to prove that.....
It's the fact, all people think about is how to make profit

Is it me? You make nice compliments indirectly! 

[nid404]

Is it me? You make nice compliments indirectly! 

     

it's human tendency, I can be selfish at times too....

[$tyli$h Executive]

     

it's human tendency, I can be selfish at times too....

Good.

[$tyli$h Executive]

i quote Stylish's comment and reply on what he said Nid.


Stylish Sir, Other than business we have to admit the fact that We have to save them for any reason what so ever! For business, for our eco system, for you Safari Parks, for our Entertainment. For sometime we have to keep them in our control and in the mean time, have to alarm the people, so that they can go back to their natural habitat then. we cant keep them for long. they have a right to live! You are right, its a business.. but for the extinct features we have to do so that we can make sure that they are reproducing new ones! Its not that easier to do but at least we can spread this, we can educate the world. we humans are very selfish!

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Not all animals of a species should be captivated. This is ridiculous. Only some of them should be captivated - to serve us.

They have a right to live. But we are superior to them. We control them. We should not kill them - but use them for our benefit - whatever it may be. If it means we have to captivate them and restrict their movements - we should do it without any hesitation.

[[Ash]]

what about their benefit?

[$tyli$h Executive]

Their benefit or loss does not matter to us. What we care is whether something is of our benefit, directly or indirectly.