Author Topic: In captivity or in the Wild??  (Read 6672 times)

nid404

  • Guest
In captivity or in the Wild??
« on: February 22, 2010, 10:24:39 am »
As we all know, most of our animals are in the brink of extinction...

The Indian Cheetah is no more and the leopard and tigers have reduced in number in past few decades
Considering that they are no more safe in the wild, is it ok to keep them in captivity???

I believe animals have their right to freedom but with excessive poaching, their freedom is their greatest nemesis, as they end up losing their lives to poachers and farmers/tribes who encroach and make their homes well within their habitat.

For their safety, I think they should be bred in captivity.

What r your views??

Offline astarmathsandphysics

  • SF Overlord
  • *********
  • Posts: 11271
  • Reputation: 65534
  • Gender: Male
  • Free the exam papers!
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2010, 10:43:29 am »
It is awful to red what we have done. We should if only so we can learn more about them.

nid404

  • Guest
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2010, 04:58:27 pm »
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.

Offline astarmathsandphysics

  • SF Overlord
  • *********
  • Posts: 11271
  • Reputation: 65534
  • Gender: Male
  • Free the exam papers!
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2010, 05:44:14 pm »
Species come and go. We ware killing them wholesale now though. We are vandals.

Offline $tyli$h Executive

  • Honorary Member
  • SF V.I.P
  • *****
  • Posts: 5070
  • Reputation: 65403
  • Gender: Male
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2010, 04:18:40 pm »
neither. Should be kept in specially protected (in terms of the no. of tourist allowed and activities) nature parks.

Offline astarmathsandphysics

  • SF Overlord
  • *********
  • Posts: 11271
  • Reputation: 65534
  • Gender: Male
  • Free the exam papers!
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2010, 09:42:09 pm »
If you sanitize nature you will destory the food chain and then we will all suffer. Poor people the most, cos countires like china are buying up lots of farmland to grow food to feed their own people, not the locals. Rich countires can afford to destroy their environment if there are poor people around who can be pushed off their land.

The animals were puxhed off by people, now those people are being pushed off by more powerful people.

Offline O.T.13.

  • SF V.I.P
  • ********
  • Posts: 6630
  • Reputation: 20760
  • Gender: Male
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2010, 12:48:06 am »
neither. Should be kept in specially protected (in terms of the no. of tourist allowed and activities) nature parks.

Safaris*
and yes thats  what i think too
Nothing is worse than being surrounded by people and yet you still feel lonely

Offline astarmathsandphysics

  • SF Overlord
  • *********
  • Posts: 11271
  • Reputation: 65534
  • Gender: Male
  • Free the exam papers!
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2010, 09:32:18 am »
To have safaris you need wide open spaces, and pressure on land is such that at some point all land will be either desert  or famland or paved or used to build on. There wont be much grssland left for animals

Alpha

  • Guest
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2010, 02:27:59 pm »
If we can force animals in captivity, then why not humans?

Offline $tyli$h Executive

  • Honorary Member
  • SF V.I.P
  • *****
  • Posts: 5070
  • Reputation: 65403
  • Gender: Male
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2010, 03:05:56 pm »
The wild is comparatively a better option. Some animals should be kept in captivity (zoos) because it allows the government to earn money and spend them on better projects, especially if the country is naturally gifted with beautiful animals. Private zoos can also be established just like theme parks.

Offline $tyli$h Executive

  • Honorary Member
  • SF V.I.P
  • *****
  • Posts: 5070
  • Reputation: 65403
  • Gender: Male
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2010, 03:08:11 pm »
If we can force animals in captivity, then why not humans?

Humans are superior. We are the movers and the shakers of the world, not the animals.

I am not saying that all animals should be kept in captivity. That is ridiculous. Only some in state owned and private zoos and nature parks.

Offline astarmathsandphysics

  • SF Overlord
  • *********
  • Posts: 11271
  • Reputation: 65534
  • Gender: Male
  • Free the exam papers!
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2010, 03:12:59 pm »
You never know what you've lost til it's gone.
In London we are nostalgic about clean air.

Offline $tyli$h Executive

  • Honorary Member
  • SF V.I.P
  • *****
  • Posts: 5070
  • Reputation: 65403
  • Gender: Male
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2010, 03:20:35 pm »
I meant that only SOME (a very small percentage of a species population) animals should be kept in captivity (zoos) because it allows the government and those of us who own private zoos to earn money. This will not cause any negative impact in the whole animal population. The majority of them will still be leading a life full of freedom in the wild. The natural ecosystem will continue over there, enabling us to earn money over here.

Offline astarmathsandphysics

  • SF Overlord
  • *********
  • Posts: 11271
  • Reputation: 65534
  • Gender: Male
  • Free the exam papers!
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2010, 03:42:01 pm »
Zoos will exist anyway.
Did you know there is a seedbank being built to contain seeds from every type of vegetation? Just in case.
We might need to do something like that for anymals and insects.

Offline $tyli$h Executive

  • Honorary Member
  • SF V.I.P
  • *****
  • Posts: 5070
  • Reputation: 65403
  • Gender: Male
Re: In captivity or in the Wild??
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2010, 03:53:48 pm »
Zoos will exist anyway.
Did you know there is a seedbank being built to contain seeds from every type of vegetation? Just in case.
We might need to do something like that for anymals and insects.

I did not know that. Thank you.  :)

But I cannot understand how can animals become extinct if we keep only a small portion of them in zoos. I know that already quite some animals are on the verge of extinction like the panda. But that is the result of deforestation and dumping of toxic wastes here and there. Not zoos or nature parks.

Of course, deforestation and dumping toxic waste like that is never justified.