Today I was sitting on the bus trying to get home and was thinking about animals natural instinct to breed and (in many cases) as many times as possible. I then moved onto why some humans choose not to have children and the effects of this (seeming how it would go against their natural instinct). Then I thought about wether this could apply to animals. What are the effects of animals not being allowed to breed? In some animals (particularly the great apes) I think non breeders can be envious of breeding females culminating in agression towards the mother and their young. How important for a quality of life and psychological health is it that animals should be allowed to breed?
You ask some great questions Foz, Am looking forward to the replies and will have to consider my answer before replying.
Breeding and the rearing of young is, as been surmised, undoubtedly of extreme importance to all animals. It is a basic instinct and probably one of the greatest of natural enrichments as well as contributing to physical as well as psychological health of the dam, and in some cases the sire and siblings too. In an ideal zoological setting all animals should be allowed to breed or at least be part of a breeding group. Space limitations within the overall captive population often makes this impossible. Ideally then breeding should be allowed for the benefit of the animals but done in conjunction with euthanasia. At the time the young would naturally disperse in the wild they should be kindly put to sleep. The remaining animals will all have benefited and learnt from the breeding and rearing. The surplus animals will have passed on. The zoo will have benefited by having popular baby animals and they will have learnt too as to the true breeding and rearing potential of the adults. In the future the process could be repeated when spaces for the surplus become available (under studbook/species management plans) in other managed collections. Such plans come unstuck when zoos are called to task over euthanasia by people who refuse to even think about such a procedure. This sometimes includes zoo staff. Zoos too are worried that they may be accused for breeding just so they have baby animals for exhibit. It may true in some cases I know but not in properly managed collections with studbook registered animals. Euthanasia is an important tool in long term species management.
Whilst I agree that breeding can be of high value in terms of an animals psychological and physical health I think that euthanasia should be an absolute last resort. This would be too much like playng god, allowing animals to be born just to kill them pretty quick. You could argue that the same happens with farm animals, but these animals have a purpose behind their deaths and at least get to live a little before facing the chop. Zoo's are not the wild and i dont think we should go to the extreme of replicating wild conditions by killing a few as they would die in the wild anyway...or use this a reason to support the euthanasia of the young. Not to mention the potential harm done by taking away the young from the mother. To summarise i think allwoing breeding only to then kill the young is totally unethical and the egative far outwigh the wellbeing created from breeding. Euthanasia should be a last resort.
I expected no less a reply from some. Euthanasia is a recognised tool with the professional zoological world. Euthanasia does not hurt. It is not cruel or unkind. Life and death go hand in hand in nature. Breeding separation is probably more unkind than euthanasia. Not allowing animals to breed or interact with young is unkind and cruel. Long term contraception can do irreparable damage. I don't believe in God as such so I don't believe she comes into it but yes I do think the ethics of such an issue does and every case should be considered on its merits. The public need to recognise the value of euthanasia along with other factors. It certainly should not be the last resort.
Interesting question. In my opinion, the worst effect is that in many cases, the reproductive systems of females(in particular) shut down because of prolonged lack of activity. This can then render them incapable of breeding longterm.
It is well known that women who don't experiance pregnancy at all or only experiance the first pregnancy later (e.g., in the 30s) than humans are biologically programmed to have an overall higher risk of certain diseases, for example breast cancer. These things are still almost unstudied in animals but there's no reason to think humans are unique in this.
I believe that euthanasia is practiced widely , but not publicly , in some UK collections , particularly in relation to newborn male antelope calves . I have no problem with this , there are only so many batchelor herds that can usefully be set up and any needed female calves can be reared .
I do recognise euthanasia as a useful tool, and i agree it is not cruel or anything like that, but I dont think we should breed just to kill the products. By playing god I meant getting above our status as humans; who are we to decide something must die meerley for health benefits of others? Ideally I would like to have different options or approaches bfore resorting to euthanasia.
Non breeding groups have some behaviour problems, principally in primates, to much agression. Contraception some times also result in agression and some times are irreversible. Euthanasia is fairlly accepted and necessary in the zoos world since that for some species there are no place in other institutions and after a period they need to be removed from his family for avoid unnecessary disputs leading to the colapse of a breeding group. Callitrichids are a good example: at a age of 12 months to 24 months all new born females and even males need to be removed otherwise they will start to disput for be the dominant female/ male in the group, and this disputs normally lead to the death of one or two animals. Several zoos practice euthanisia of the youngs in this situation giving the group the experience of deal with a death member in his group, like it would happend in nature. There are several zoos that feed surplus hoofstock to his carnivores. Some think that euthanasia is not acceptable and we have to let the nature take its course, but why we accept euthanasia for old animals or with health problemms without sings of recovery? If we would let the nature take its course we would let the animal suffering untill his death!
This morning I recieved a private email from someone who had watched this discussion and along with apologising to Foz I thought I would include my reply here by way of clarification. Dear......... For the interesting email and your honesty. One minor correction. I did not say that zoos should breed simply to benefit from exhibiting young and then euthanasing...I just thought that there was nothing wrong with the zoo benefiting from it. I would detest and attack and condemn any zoo which bred simply to do this....and I have! I will continue to do so. As to why I made the post, and my reply.....It was deliberately to provoke discussion on a very sensitive subject. I estimate from reading through Zoo Chat postings that this is something that warrants discussion. Previous responses to other posts I have made on a similar subject made it clear to me that euthanasia is something that people really need to think about. I apologise to 'Foz' and anyone else who took offence at my reply as it was not intended to be scathing or denigratory. I have been in this business a long time. You say you are involved in falconry. I must have personally killed a million day old chicks, mice and rats. Believe me when I say that I cared for every single one of them. Standard fare in the world of falconry. Some people don't give them a second thought. I do. I thought about each and every one and its place and was sorry. I felt no less for them than the larger animals I have unfortunately had to help on their journey. Every life does matter. In terms of the breeding and euthanasing in zoos I am considering species and not individuals. Harsh as it may sound if we want to keep healthy viable populations we really need to manage our populations to the best of our ability. I don't divorce myself from contraception, breeding separation, bachelor herds etc as they have their place but in some cases these are being used rather than face public or staff flak. This does does not help the long term maintenance of a Species! Wishing you the best of luck for the future. I hope you realise your dreams.
Honestly, I think the ramifications are dependent on the blocking mechanism. For example, if the zoo is using birth control for female animals, it is not as suppressive as keeping males and females apart. While in an ideal world, this wouldn't matter to zoos, it's just another element of good zoo management. Understand your limitations. No matter how much space you have, you probably don't have space for 100 of any animal short of poison dart frogs.
peter some years back i had exactly the same debate with another veteran of the zoo profession. he argued the same points as you. very much entwined in the ethics of euthanasia as a population management tool is the value of zoos, what they stand for primarily, and realistically, how good they are at actually doing their jobs. most zoos say that they are there primarily for preserving insurance populations of wild animals. but the fact is - zoos are a very poor location for breeding animals. because zoos are not primarily there to preserve animals at all - they are there to display them. whats best for the animals, both individually and as a species - is frequently compromised by the necessity to display them to the public. tens of millions of dollars are now poured into every new exhibit - the majority of that money going into improved experience for the human visitor, not saying the animals facilities aren't improved also, just that the lions share of the money goes on things that don't directly benefit the animals at all. now if the priority was really, preserving the species - wouldn't the zoo have just built more simple, but sufficient enclosures for more specimens of the same species? would we really think it appropriate to breed sunbears in freezing scotland? no. we would probably keep them someplace warmer. scotland can keep polar bears and brown bears and other species that are more relevant to people in the northern hemisphere. no. lets not kid ourselves here about the primary reason we keep zoos the way they are. its for us. we simply use breeding programs to justify us keeping the animals and to preserve animals for display purposes. sure, some of these animal populations might one day come in handy if the given species goes extinct. but when it comes to ordering priorities - displaying the animals comes before what's best for the species. so. what are zoos animals? well since zoos don't really take their roles at preserving species seriously, then effectively they are pets. there are exceptions, peter. some zoos do good things for certain species. but on the whole - the tigers, the brazilian tapir, the lone bear. they are all pets. if zoos want to start justifying euthanasia as a population management tool - then they better first start properly managing their populations. they better first start actually contributing a bit more actively to conservation (and pleeease spare me the education argument - i don't see any value in it and please don't pretend that zoos spent one cent on conservation compared to what the spend on mock-rock). at the end of the day peter. i just don't think zoos can have it both ways. are they pets or are they here for their species? because its wrong to euthanase pets that you chose to breed. but if they are here for the species, then why does my local zoo frequently let its entire population of a given species die out? only to reimport when a new director comes along and decides he likes ocelots after all?
Phoenix - Whilst recognising that there are 'zoos' and zoos I actually agree with much of what you have to say as would many people working within the field of captive conservation. The thread though deals with 'The effect of no breeding on animals' to which I have brought in the 'euthanasia' subject because I believe it to be relevant here. The dangers of not breeding have already been pointed out. If people can get over the concept of euthanasia as cruel, pointless, unkind or bad management then we will be in a better position to maintain species long term. Lets not forget that we are planning for a hundred years from now and not next year or the next ten. If, and I really don't want to get into the pedantics here we want to keep species 'pure' then there are captive populations of some 'species' that need to be allowed to "die out". The limited captive space we have would then become available for the animals which needed it. Recognition and acceptance of euthanasia would mean that we could do this in a morning rather than waiting years for nature to take its course. To quote just one theoretical example. A well meaning gentleman imports two 'Sumatran Tigers' directly from Indonesia to help with the captive gene pool. Subsequent checks find that they were hybrids. What to do? He cannot really send them back. So they remain as ambassador animals for the next 15 years. Space wasted? A matter of opinion...which is just why this discussion is taking place.
Good day, all, The E-mail Peter refers to above was likely from me. What had happened was, after reading this thread (and being duly unimpressed with Peter's most unprofessional opening line of "I expected no less a reply from some"), I chose to unsubscribe from the Yahoo group he runs to propagate his zoo news blog. I received an immediate acknowledgment of the unsub, along with a boilerplate message saying 'Sorry to see you go' and asking if it was 'something I said or did?' The text also mentioned being open to constructive criticism. I posted a reply which was, I felt, diplomatic but brutally honest. This obviously prompted a reply from Peter via E-mail, one which I did not receive due to our spam filters being overzealous (Side note to Peter -- apologies for that). I'm glad he posted the body of the message here, as I welcome the chance to respond as follows. Peter, with respect, I believe you're being self-contradictory, as well as missing the point of why I dropped out of receiving your blog. I'd like to present an example of that by quoting from your initial post in this thread. "...Ideally then breeding should be allowed for the benefit of the animals but done in conjunction with euthanasia. At the time the young would naturally disperse in the wild they should be kindly put to sleep. The remaining animals will all have benefited and learnt from the breeding and rearing. The surplus animals will have passed on." You claim to (rightly so) be against any zoo which would perform the practice of breeding just to have baby animals to show off to the public, and then euthanizing them when they no longer served that purpose. How can you possibly reconcile that position with what you wrote above? You cannot have it both ways. Which is it? I would also point out another contradictory quote in which you put forth the idea that breeding separation is "probably" unkind, and then you turn around and say, definitively, it is. "...Breeding separation is probably more unkind than euthanasia. Not allowing animals to breed or interact with young is unkind and cruel." OK... So, is it "probably," or is it "yes?" I'm not asking for proof either way, just that you be more clear in your own position. As to "provoking" discussion on the forum -- I have trouble understanding why you would think you have to "provoke" anything here. Simply posting your ideas and philosophies about this (or nearly any other) topic will get you loads of discussion. Essence knows it's happened to me on multiple occasions! On the subject of species vs. individuals, this is an area which I think we are definitely going to be in disagreement. Every animal, to me, is an individual, with their own unique characteristics. I believe few here would disagree. With that said, I think Phoenix makes some excellent points in terms of how euthanasia, as a management tool, is tied to what a zoo's true purpose is. That's not to say I agree with everything Phoenix wrote (I don't think he's right in completely dismissing the 'education' angle, but again that's a whole other topic), but the questioning of a zoo's true purpose is very much appropriate, and it is one which I will attempt to address in a different thread (I need time to compose my thoughts on that topic). I do have one other question for you, perhaps relevant and perhaps not: Why are you no longer working in the zoo field? It seems to me, with your background, you would have little trouble being part of it and, thus, being able to push towards your ideal for whatever zoo you ended up at. Happy travels.
Yes. I did email you back three times. Got two bounces and the last one I assumed to have got through. There are zoos which breed purely and simply to produce baby animals for public appeal. For photographs. For people to pet. Most of these are taken cruelly from the parents, hand reared and at the end of the day the owners do not give damn what happens to them. Two places which immediately spring to mind are the Tiger Temple and Sri Racha Tiger Zoo. There are others. I posted a link to one in the US just a couple of weeks ago and another today on a zoo in China. I believe this is completely and utterly wrong. On the other hand managed species responsibly bred and the young parent reared is a good thing. The parents and siblings benefit. We have to face the fact that there are only a limited number of spaces in captivity. I would not like the young passed on to an irresponsible zoo or private owner or sell to the highest bidder. No, much as many might not like it Euthanasia is one of the options open to the responsible holder. It can be preferable to other choices in some cases. I know of instances where holders could not accept it and so pass the problem on. It really isn’t fair. So I am not contradicting myself really. There are two different scenarios. It is as I say, there are ‘zoos’ and zoos. ‘Zoos’ as in the first example…very bad. Zoos in the second example good. But both are benefiting from young being on show. In the good example though it is the zoo considering the animals, the species, the long term maintenance before the pocket. The bad ‘zoo’ is thinking about pocket and nothing else. As to ‘proof’ I am glad you do not ask for it for I am sorry I cannot give you any. It would be cruel to experiment. I believe that euthanasia does not hurt. It is death, final, finish, all over. I believe that separation to prevent breeding, to prevent a natural process taking place is stressful. There are those that would argue that stress was enriching but I believe the mating, breeding and rearing of young is better. I would not argue that all animals are individuals. They are. I agree with you but it does not change how I think about species management. If you think that I came to my point of view easily, I didn’t. It took me years and a lot of thought. Like so many subjects within the zoo world this appears to be one on which we will have to agree to disagree. As to why I am not working in zoo field any longer. No secret. I chose to see more of the world. I have no home, very little money and all I own I carry on my back. I have no interest in possessions. I am not especially looking for work but if something interesting came along I may consider it. Working on ZooNews Digest takes up a good bit of my time. A hobby of around 15 years is now almost a full time job these days. My working day is never less than ten hours and frequently twelve to fourteen. Which reminds me…I better get back to work. Best Wishes
What would the effect of limiting breeding, so that animals do not breed as regularly as normal. For example only breeding orangutan females every 2 or 3 years rather than every year? (orangutans might be a bad example) would their be any social or health problems that could result from spacing out breeding?
Sounds fair enough, it is done already of course as part of species mangement planning. Each species would be different. Even in the best of plans there is natural abortion, false pregnancy and more. Spacing out breeding would be ideal. Not like that unfortunate Tigress in China with 60 cubs in eight years.
To me, this is probably one of the most interesting threads at ZooChat ever. I probably haven´t got much to contribute, except to admit that euthanasia at zoos was a very sensitive subject to me when I joined ZooChat about one and a half year ago. Since then, however, I have learnt so much and I might by now be ready to take the arguments put forward here by Peter D very serious indeed - perhaps even accept them. I take it that the phenomenon as such is an everyday reality and common in any zoo, is that right? Comments from Peter D or any other pro here at the site? My question: should zoos begin to talk openly about this? Or should it remain a "secret" to the general public? In fact, quite a few Danish and Swedish zoos have already been pretty open on the subject, at least when journalists have put pressure on them. But I also noted that the director of Copenhagen Zoo spoke openly about it at a conference for zoo pros held in Copenhagen last year, though his angle in particular was that zoos should use the culled animals to feed the carnivores - open to the public in order to educate it. If zoos in general did open up on this subject, what would be the implications?
