(This post could as well go under Philosophy, but I've chosen to make it here, as it is specifically nature-related.)
The thing I've been wondering about, is whether the - relatively new - idea of animal preservation through breeding in imprisonment, creates more victims from the animals, than it actually salvates - which I'd suppose would be the goal.
This is definitely a question of angle, but taking a creature away from its natural environments, and putting it into breeding programs (of which it probably have no idea) for saving the population in the long run, seems to me to be a little far fetched in fact.
Surely I think we would never do anything which was not intended to have positive effects for ourselves (no altruism here). But still, to do something that in some sense can be viewed as directly opposed to the optimal action for the single animal, seems peculiar.
The question here, is whether the utilitarian view really triumphs over the concern for the single animal, being confined. What is your view?
It depends on the conditions that they are kept in, of course, but it is quite admirable that people would actually try to do something about the many species on the verge of extinction. Often, a captive breeding program is the only thing that could help and is within the means of an individual or small organization. And it is conceivable that releasing them into the wild can help save that kind of animal. I don't know if it has ever been done with a species that only existed in captivity, but I know there are examples of animals going extinct in a particular region, then being reintroduced by bringing ones from another region in, and then recovering to a healthy population. The wolves of Yellowstone are a good example of that.
Yes, I'm aware that it probably can yield fine results doing things this way, but what I'm actually concerned about, is what concept that is really the saved one here; is it the animal population or rather the romantic thought we ourselves have created? Because as I see it, it cannot be for the actual animal that is taken out of its natural environment at least...
| Melacos wrote: |
| Yes, I'm aware that it probably can yield fine results doing things this way, but what I'm actually concerned about, is what concept that is really the saved one here; is it the animal population or rather the romantic thought we ourselves have created? Because as I see it, it cannot be for the actual animal that is taken out of its natural environment at least... |
These programs are not set up for individual animals; they're population centered. The idea is to increase numbers and reestablish populations, it's not to save an individual, or make an individual's life better, but to preserve a species. They're different concepts.
That said, I do question the effectiveness of many such programs. There have been several examples of successful programs helping to reestablish wild populations, there are many examples of failures as well (probably more than successes). Part of this is due to our lack of knowledge...
All in all, yeah, I think it's more of a romantic notion than a truly effective effort, much like cleaning oiled seabirds. We do these programs to make an effort, making us feel better about trying to fix some of the problems we've caused; but is the result actually worth while? For example, most oiled birds that are cleaned/rescued still die, but damn it makes us feel warm and fuzzy.
Am I saying it's best not to bother? No of course not. Low success rates are still success rates. We have a responsibility to fix what we've broken, even if we don't necessarily know how to.I am of the opinion that a captive breeding program is a last ditch, 11th hour effort. For many species, that is where they are. I also believe that any attempts to save a species approaching extinction will benefit it and any other species, including homosapiens, on earth. The web of life and ecology is to complex and has too many variables to believe that we will ever grasp it in all of its various aspects. We really have no idea how an extinction might affect the future of any other species whether directly or with a subtle chain of events that we may never be aware of. I, for one, would rather try to prevent them than not. Prevention may be futile or it may not even make any difference, but I vote for trying anyway.
I think that an effective captive breeding program should include as little human intervention as possible, keeping an eye on a possible future reintroduction program. I watched a program years ago on the reintroduction of the bald eagle into the quabbin reservoir region in Massachusetts. This was after the decimation of the species from DDT in the environment when they were still endangered. The eaglets had been rescued after their parents were killed in some way. They were situated in a large nesting platform above the quabbin, and they were fed foods that they would eventually find in the wild. The way they were fed was unusual. The caregivers fed them using sort of hand puppets made to look like adult eagles so that the nestlings rarely, if ever, actually saw their human captors. This is the type of minimal intervention that I believe should be used in any captive breeding program that is looking toward a future reintroduction.
Great topic,
Jamie
"The ancestor of every action is a thought."
Emerson
If the goal of any captive breeding program is to reintroduce the progeny of the captive breeding pairs back into the wild, then those animals MUST be kept in as natural an environment as possible. The simple reason being that young animals are taught how to survive by their parents. If their parents are raised in a zoo-type environment, then the young animals will not be equipped to survive in the wild. They will have no clue how to find food, what kind of food is edible for them, how to stalk and kill prey if they are carnivores, how to escape predators if they are prey animals.
In my opinion many of the captive breeding programs are setting youngsters up to fail, and die, once they are released into the wild.
Some do succeed, but only if the human handlers are very careful and take into consideration how those young animals need to be educated before being dumped out in the woods on their own.
How many humans would survive on our own under those circumstances? And we're supposed to have all the brains to figure things out. And it's not all instinct either. I've seen documentaries where mother lions will lick the blood from a kill and then lick their cubs' faces to introduce them to the idea that "Hey meat is good to eat."
Just my 2 cents,
Chad 
| Wolf1918 wrote: |
Some do succeed, but only if the human handlers are very careful and take into consideration how those young animals need to be educated before being dumped out in the woods on their own.
|
True for many animals, but not all...
The first feral horses in the US certainly did well for themselves despite being completely domesticated, for example. | Ankhanu wrote: |
That said, I do question the effectiveness of many such programs. There have been several examples of successful programs helping to reestablish wild populations, there are many examples of failures as well (probably more than successes). Part of this is due to our lack of knowledge...
All in all, yeah, I think it's more of a romantic notion than a truly effective effort, much like cleaning oiled seabirds. We do these programs to make an effort, making us feel better about trying to fix some of the problems we've caused; but is the result actually worth while? For example, most oiled birds that are cleaned/rescued still die, but damn it makes us feel warm and fuzzy.
Am I saying it's best not to bother? No of course not. Low success rates are still success rates. We have a responsibility to fix what we've broken, even if we don't necessarily know how to. |
I heard a population biologist say at a talk that the success to failure rate for reintroductions and captive breeding programs is better than 10:1. It's apparently a misconception that there is a low probability of success.Oh yeah? Was he talking about a specific type of program, or programs in general?
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| Oh yeah? Was he talking about a specific type of program, or programs in general? |
Well actually, reintroduction programs tend to be successful most of the time. I'm not sure about the exact statistics, though. The reason why reintroduction programs tend to be highly successful is because they are almost always not starting from scratch. Most of the time, the animals being reintroduced exist in very small numbers in the area and people are just trying to get numbers back up. But, many times, though, the animals don't exist at all in the area but exist in nearby areas. So what will happen is that huge families of these animals are relocated from other areas. So the animals already know how to survive and they're just being moved to somewhere of a similar environment. What you're referring to (I think) is reintroducing an animal that is completely extinct in the wild to the wild, which is nearly impossible. | Ankhanu wrote: |
| Oh yeah? Was he talking about a specific type of program, or programs in general? |
I wish I remembered better. I honestly can't even remember who it was. It was someone who was invited by the wildlife department at my school, and I think he was a population geneticist who specialized in captive breeding. I just have this recollection of him saying the success rate was about 90%, but that there was a public image problem with reintroductions that stemmed from media bias. At the time he made the comment he was talking specifically about some ungulate population in Arabia, but I don't think he worked specifically on that species. I remember the talk as a whole very poorly, unfortunately. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| reintroducing an animal that is completely extinct in the wild to the wild, which is nearly impossible. |
Again, the example of the horses, which had been extinct on the American continents for an extremely long time, despite having originally evolved there.^^That's why I said that it's nearly impossible. Some animals do well at it - most do not.
