Zoologischer Garten Magdeburg Magdeburg Zoo director defends tiger killing

Sorry mate i don't know if i'm thick or if you're speaking in old english here, but i barely understood a word of that. If the reply was aimed at me i'll try & reply as best i can. The point i was making which i think you're replying to, was that if it were not for humans tigers would have more than likely being the dominant species of our planet, a predator being second in size only to the polar bear & far more adaptable. So it's not ridiculous to assume as they spread throughout the rest of the East that sub species may have overlapped & maybe even created new sub species. How do you think we got 5 (or is it 6 now) separated sub species in the first place?
To be quite honest i'd happily rather see hybrid tigers thriving than no tigers at all. & lets face it, that outcome is becoming a real possibility every year as this species moves closer to extinction.

I agree with you a hundred percent that it is ridiculous in the year of the tiger to be so close to losing them. But to be fair, i think zoo's should concentrate more on releasing the pure stock they have now instead of wasting time panicking over 30 or so tigers who aren't a hundred percent pure. How much money has been wasted shipping them backwards & forwards to prevent cross breeding? Money that could have gone into wild tiger conservation. Preferably when zoo's do begin to return their pure tigers to the wild, the only tigers we'll have in captivity will & SHOULD be hybrids. Sorry again if i've mis-interpreted what you were saying, it is probably me just being thick.

 

To make myself clear. I meant to show that zoos are not over-crazy about genetic purity. In leopards, zoos allowed descendands of one north chinese leopard to stay in amur leopard population, because ranges of Amur and north chinese forms bordered each other and gene flow would occur in the wild. In tigers, this is not the case.

 

Not a hundred percent pure

Hi,

You say " i think zoo's should concentrate more on releasing the pure stock they have now instead of wasting time panicking over 30 or so tigers who aren't a hundred percent pure. How "
If only this were true but in fact the vast majority of captive tigers are not pure subspecies. Thousands of them!
The only way we can effectively manage a captive population of any animal is to work together as a group and abide by the guidance of the studbook holder and species coordinator....who in turn are answerable to the TAG. This is cooperation of expertise. There really is no room for the go it alone. Sadly most zoos are go it alone and governed by ignorance and commercial greed.
Within the UK it is not possible for a zoo to open to the public if it holds a managed species and it is failing to abide by the guidance of the studbook holder and coordinator (I wish this were the same worldwide). Managed species are managed. Zoos are told when to breed and when not to breed. Genetic input is weighed and measured.
There are a few extracts on various bodies on generic tigers in my hub White Tiger Breeding is Not Conservation. I hope this helps.
It is absolutely pointless to consider the release of tigers at the present time. Whilst problems remain it would be tantamount to signing a death warrant. We should strive as far as possible to maintain genetically viable captive populations for a magical day in the future. Okay, I admit it. It may never happen, but at least we will have tried. If we do not manage these populations we will end up with 'breeds' and not subspecies... something akin to the Dalmation and the Daschund.

 

I agree. Facilities that deliberately and CONTINUOUSLY cross breed tigers, aren't doing anything for conservation as they are just breeding more and more unwanted animals, usually just to get 'cute' cubs to attract the public. Just the only point i was making is how, drastic zoos under the studbook holder are about tigers with a slight 'hint' of genetic impurity. Like these three cubs for example. Although not much info is given on their parents, as this is a zoo that abides by the studbook it's unlikely the parents are as genetically cross-bred as privately owned tigers. There's probably just a hint of foreign genetics, & it's more than likely one of the parents is pure siberian/amur. Of course even having a slight hint still makes them unwanted, which to me is a bit drastic, but i guess those who are in charge of the species survival plan etc obviously know what they're doing. Was just my own personal opinion.

 

IUCN & WAZA statement:
http://www.zoodirektoren.de/pics/medien/1_1277816077/WAZA_tiger_statement_REV2.pdf
http://www.zoodirektoren.de/pics/medien/1_1277199487/SSC_Tiger_Statement_21.06.10.pdf

 

Mostly, the animal rights activists are shunning the zoos and not the other way around. By the way, how is it conservation for organisations like PETA to spend huge amounts of money on ricidoulous anti-fur campaings instead of preserving thousands of acres of natural habitat for the animals to live? And where is the conservation message in releasing hundreds of minks from mink farms into habitats where they do not belong and cause serious havoc on the native populations of animals?

 

Dear Chlidonias,
Your reply is a typical ignorant and arrogant zoo defender reply(Which is basically how the industry sustains itself). Since taxonomists are divided about species/subspecies classification, your reply shows that you will not understand my position either just like most zoo people will not. See item below. You are unlikely to understand any position based on ethics either, in fact I just wonder if that word exists in the vocabulary of zoo people and their defenders. I do not expect you to understand the taxonomy paper I have posted either. A criminal adjudged guilty by the court will naturally rave and rant. They always do and always did.
Regards.
'DNA tests have reportedly proven that the tigers are hybrids and of little conservation value.'

"Because physical traits such as size and color vary greatly among individual tigers even within a region, the early subspecies classifications based on small samples of data were not dependable. However, due to widespread promotion of this 'eight subspecies' concept by conservation agencies and the international zoo community, it has taken deep root in the public mind and significantly influenced conservation decisions. Recent evidence indicates that these putative subspecies may not be real at all. The genetic evidence suggests that about 20,000 years ago, tiger populations were interconnected, at least across mainland Asia.

These findings imply that conservationists should worry less about the so-called subspecies, and think more about preserving representative samples of the wonderful variation in tiger ecology we can still observe across the range of the big cat. Understanding tigers of the past helps us to know how tigers came to be where they are now ; understanding the tigers of the present will help us realize how and where tigers can live in the future."

---------Ulhas Karanth, winner of the John Paul Getty Award for Conservation, writing in his book, 'The Way of The Tiger', pages 34 and 35.

 

That is just ******** man... "Deep root in the public mind"? How big a percentage of the zoo-going crowds do you honestly think would be able to name the eight subspecies?

Now who is being arrogant? I agree with Chlidonias. You seem pretty intent on your opinions. However, there is no reason to insult others for not sharing the same views and ideas. And there is certainly no reason to continue this debate if you cannot stick to simple forum ethics, which doesn't seem to exist in your vocabulary here.

Why are you even on a zoo-enthusiast forum anyway?

 

1) [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species]Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Ernst Mayr's definition was a start, but is not, like pretty much most of current biological systematics, 100% foolproof. It's usually pretty useful, though, and often supported by current findings.

2) Interspecific hybrids do occur ocassionally in some species of animals (not just birds) and plants in the wild. However, they usually tend to be less assertive on a longer run in the natural habitat, especially in comparison to the original species. In several of such hybrids, decreased fertility or even infertility can be observed, possibly a result of too vast karyotypic differences.
Subspecific hybrids are also known from the wild if their habitats interfere with each other. This isn't, however, very often the case, also due to geographical seperation and biological differences.

4) What is the difference between a subspecies and a race?
Subspecies =
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies]Subspecies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Race =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

5)When the population of the original (sub)species is too small to sustain itself, and the hybrid population is assertive and able to fill in their role in the habitat.

6) Why should birds be excluded?

7) To answer the only reasonable bit "(...) what purpose does killing hybrid animals in zoos serve?":
To keep the zoo population as close to the original status as possible; to prevent the creation of offspring that would not be fit for potential future reintroduction in the natural habitat.

8) I wouldn't exclude the possibility to reintroduce zoo-born tigers into their natural habitats one day all too prematurely. The current tigers in zoos also play an important role as ambassadors of their species and, as a popular keystone species, of their original habitat.

9) Because animal rights activists and animal welfarists all too often display a nonprofessional, impractical and overemotional approach to animals (or rather, individual members of the charismatic megafauna) that, also due to a lack of understanding even the most basic aspects of biology and husbandry, causes often more harm than good to serious conservation plans and projects.
A zoo biologist, a zoo veterinarian, a zoo keeper etc. is a specialist in his/her field for which he/she has spent a lot of time, effort and money to gather the needed knowledge and experience, and to establish a solid network of similar specialists.
A mere layman onlooker usually cannot compete with that, even though there are a few noteworthy exceptions.

10) Personally, I'm not having wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; neither is the country I'm living in.
The average person in the street of modern societies usually does not consider professionals working on the field of wildlife conservation as "bunch of loonies", quite the contrary; he/she usually preserves this consideration for escapist animal right activists...

And I'm sure that there are still humans who would suggest stoning other people for their deviant opinions, sexual orientations, religion, eating habits etc. for the "conservation" of their society. So what does that prove-that antediluvians still exist? What a surprise.

My personal view on animal right "conservation", after long years of examination, can be summed up as:
All hat(e) and (as a result of being against the husbandry of animals) no cattle.

I hope that this answered all your questions.

In case you didn't know: the concept of human races is considered to be outdated.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf
All modern humans are considered to be members of the same subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15507998

The only ones using the term "races" in this regard are forensic anthropologists, some law enforcement groups, some biomedical researchers and the usual ignorant racist.
Thank you.

 

If you weren't so openly confrontational, bringing in provocative topics and saying zoos serve no purpose on a pro-zoo forum, I would actually agree with many of your points.

It is a sad fact (which, as you say, many zoo people wil not admit) that the vast majority of institutions do very little for conservation whilst saying that it is one of their primary objectives. With zoos like Edinburgh apparently giving only around five percent of the money they generate to in-situ causes and hardly any breeding animals for release into the wild, it does make you wonder what is the point. But then zoos retort that their animals are ambassadors and they engender respect for their wild counterparts, encouraging awareness of conservation issues in their visitors. This is all well and good until one considers how many visitors actually bother to read the signs, I doubt anyone here will disagree that it is very few. As such, how will visitors be in any position to help conservation causes if they don't even know what the species it effects was called, let alone the threats to its existence. In short, it is time for the zoo world to sit up and take its own aims more seriously, because as an ever-increasing proportion of the population are pulled to the "animal rights" movement, they are far from watertight.

Like I said, perhaps if you presented your ideas in a more civil manner, you wld meet with less resistance.

 

Thanks Red Panda. A sensible response. Thanks to Sun Wukong. A sensible response too. My fundamental question remains unanswered :is the zoo not responsible for hybridising the animals in the first place? If yes, is the punishment not justified?
Regarding the role of zoos, I ought to tell you and others, I am on several animal rights/animal welfare fora where I have gone out of my way to highlight the case of zoos, the latest being Calcutta Zoo's defence in front of 700 people that was conveyed to me by the director himself. I am a former journalist, it goes against the grain to stifle opinion but I hope you understand the cause of my anger, this is a life and death decision and I am quite astonished at the cavalier tone in which some people(certainly not all) are going about this. Regarding my membership here as a person who is in essence against zoos, I leave it to the moderator to decide. But kicking me out will not solve your problem(And will not stop me from accessing ZooChat material because I have friends subscribed here who can pass the material to me, and willingly so). Neither will the debate disappear. In December 2009, the Central Zoo Authority of India called several consultants for a meeting on zoos and I was invited. There were two other people in a group of nine who were against zoos. So that possibly tells you a bit about the zoo situation in India in the sense that anti zoo people have an influence in zoo fora. I am all for civil discussion but it is very difficult not to be emotional when a case involves killing of healthy animals for what I am convinced is a frivolous reason. I totally reject the idea that zoo tigers have a stake in re introduction in the future.
Two of my colleagues, a former zoo director of USA and an employee of Wildlife Conservation Society have both said that Magdeburg Zoo's decision was wrong. I am sure, there are many more people in the conservation world, who think likewise. The bottomline is simple : If you can't look after them, why breed them, especially when releasing tigers in the wild is so problematic?

Red Panda is right, I am provocative and some may find it uncomfortable, a fact I do not deny. So I am tempering my views(although I am not taking back my position that discriminating against hybrids is a kind of racism.

I asked a question about the feasibility of killing hybrid birds in the wild? Can someone enlighten me on that? This issue had arisen in the case of the last Spix's Macaw as written by Tony Juniper.

Also, if hybrid tigers should be killed, ought we to kill the hybrid tigers in Dudhwa descended from Tara(BengalXSiberian)? Also, why not simply kill ALL the hybrid tigers in zoos everywhere, including adults?

Please have a look here at this article written by my colleague Jeremy Hance, published yesterday.
Guilty verdict over euthanizing tigers in Germany touches off debate about role of zoos

SHARE:


print



Guilty verdict over euthanizing tigers in Germany touches off debate about role of zoos
Analysis by: Jeremy Hance
mongabay.com
August 11, 2010

 

Personally, I'm not having wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; neither is the country I'm living in.
The average person in the street of modern societies usually does not consider professionals working on the field of wildlife conservation as "bunch of loonies", quite the contrary; he/she usually preserves this consideration for escapist animal right activists...

That may indeed be the case in the West, because as I said, some animal rights groups, do indulge in actions that can rightly be termed as outrageous but in India wildlife conservation and animal rights activists are all clumped together. I had to fight heaven and hell to get animal stories published because the ditor thought, "All these animal people are all the same."!

 

The subspecies issue has arisen again over the effort to bring back Cheetahs to India. Two days ago(metaphorically) taxonomists said, India should get back Iranian Cheetahs because that is the subspecies that was found in India. Now after Iran refused to give cheetahs to India, We have to Namibia. There was a conference on this last year and an opinion was voiced by a scientist to this effect : If India does bring back Cheetahs, the difference between Asian Cheetahs and African Cheetahs is so little that it does not matter. Reminds me iof this comment by the ornithologist Salim Ali:
"My head reels at all these nomenclatural metaphysics! I feel strongly like retiring from ornithology, if this is the stuff, and spending the rest of my days in the peace of the wilderness with birds, and away from the dust and frenzy of taxonomical warfare. I somehow feel complete detachment from all this, and am thoroughly unmoved by what name one ornithologist chooses to dub a bird that is familiar to me, and care even less in regard to one that is unfamiliar ----- The more I see of these subspecific tangles and inanities, the more I can understand the people who silently raise their eyebrows and put a finger to their temples when they contemplate the modem ornithologist in action."
—Salim Ali to Sidney Dillon Ripley, 5 January 1956
Comments, criticism, observations invited on this aspect of taxonomy.

 

"(...)is the zoo not responsible for hybridising the animals in the first place?"
No. Magdeburg Zoo assumed that their tigers were Amurs, just like any other participants of the breeding program.
If you want to hold someone responsible, then start with the people who introduced the original tiger into the breeding population. But even they didn't know any better back then.

"they were seen by the Magdeburg Zoo as not worth the expense, care, and space required to keep alive three of the world's biggest cats." Wrongful allegation. The zoo staff acted according to the guidelines, not for personal gain.

"To Kutscher zoos serve little real purpose in society and should be phased out with breeding of captive animals ended." Typical PETA hogwash. If asked for precise and realistic alternatives, they always come up with the same set phrases.

""Breeding animals in zoos inevitably leads to a 'surplus' in captivity as animals are rarely released into their natural habitats." Surplus animals are a result of one of biology's most fundamental rules: that animals usually produce more offspring "than needed" as most of the youngs do not survive in the wild.

"Yet animal rights groups could also be criticized for focusing on the 'charismatic' species over others. With so many animals being sold or killed worldwide by zoos, it's interesting to note that the one incident that attracts both media and legal attention is the death of three tiger cubs, not, say, the death of boa constrictors or bats or tarantulas." Correct.

"Note: Mongabay.com contacted several zoological organizations for comment on this piece, including WAZA, but all declined." WAZA already published a statement.

"but in India wildlife conservation and animal rights activists are all clumped together. " Another reason to work more professional and steer away from any animal right group.

 

This post has nothing to do with this thread - the euthanasia of tiger cubs and the implications for the zoo staff concerned.

If you want to discuss taxonomy I suggest you start your own thread in the General Discussion Forum.

Hix

 

"but in India wildlife conservation and animal rights activists are all clumped together. " Another reason to work more professional and steer away from any animal right group.

Maybe the same professional why respectable big cat groups like Panthera categorically say that among schemes they WILL NOT support is 'captive breeding of big cats."

"To Kutscher zoos serve little real purpose in society and should be phased out with breeding of captive animals ended." Typical PETA hogwash. If asked for precise and realistic alternatives, they always come up with the same set phrases.

This not an exclusively PETA argument. It is shared by many conservationists. Many, many conservationists have expressed doubts over feasibility of zoos.

 

I don't agree Hix. The Tiger subspecies issue has everything to with taxonomy. As I said, taxonomists are not in agreement over what constitutes a species and a subspecies as written by Jeremy yesterday. Even London Zoo recognises the problems involved in tiger taxonomy. The same issues involved in tiger taxonomy are applicable for other species. But a separate discussion may also be welcome.

 

Just because some people at "Panthera Corporation" think so, not everyone has to follow suit and agree. And it doesn't change the fact that animal right activists usually do more harm than good for the common cause, i.e. the protection and "preservation" of wild animals and their habitats.

The "In-situ only!" attitude is shared only by a minority-just like only a minority thinks that mere ex-situ breeding has to be the one and only solution. Most (>"many, many, many") agree that a program individually tailored to the situation and species involved is usually best. In the ideal scenario, the in-situ protection is apt and fitting; in other cases, an ex-situ program is appropriate, if possible in combination with local habitat protection. And especially in regard to larger animals, zoos are usually the only reasonable alternative with the needed professional know-how and ressources. If PETA and other animal right groups were able to offer a realistic alternative: why don't they? Putting naked wannabe celebrities on glossy blatant ads surely isn't one.

 

Panthera's position can be seriously taken since there are many other large international groups and noted tiger conservationists that have expressed similar scepticism over captive breeding tigers, that includes Friends of The Earth. In fact, I have not come across any conservationist who says ex situ breeding of tigers has any conservation value.(Apart from people with obvious zoo links). If you know a major conservation group independent of zoo links that believes in captive breeding tigers , please let me know. And just because Magdeburg Zoo has acted irresponsibly by letting a hybrid tiger breed under their custody, it does not mean the whole world should stand up and applaud the act. The guys at Panthera include some of the most distinguished names in cat conservation and know what they are talking about(As much as any zoo breeeding defender). They are not animal rights/animal welfare people or so called "bunny huggers". I am sending you three items that may make you rethink your position on euthanasia and purity of subspecies.

I am in agreement that naked celebrities on advertisements do not do much for saving animals. But neither does creation of meaningless acronyms to justify animal captivity as science. This mess has been created by zoos and the ultimate responsibility for zoo animals lies with the zoo industry , the job of watchdog groups is to blow the whistle and point out the mistakes. They ought to help if they can for relocating animals but that is not their primary role. The main issue is that the zoo guys need to acknowledge and admit mistakes, something they have difficulty doing.