Join our zoo community

Platypuses! Must be some chance?!

Discussion in 'General Zoo Discussion' started by Caesar, 7 Oct 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,395
    Location:
    New Zealand
    see, this is part of your problem. You don't know - you read one thing and assume that is all there is. You don't bother to look at anything else to even try and verify what you are saying.

    no, it does nothing of the sort. It is an article specifically about the issues with captive-breeding giant pandas in China. That is all.

    that... how shall I put this? ... is one of the stupidest things I have read this week. Seriously, that was the nicest way I could think of.
     
  2. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,395
    Location:
    New Zealand
    no it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but saying that isn't the same as what you just said earlier ("Either you accept allowing people to breed natives in captivity and own them in the pet trade or you confide them to extinction in the wild").

    well, closer than anything else except, you know, actual Bengal tigers. You're really all over the place with this. On the one hand you are saying pet owners will save species from extinction, but then in the next breath saying something like hybrids are better than nothing and you don't think they should be released anyway. So... just pets then?

    er, yes, that is the whole philosophy of captive-breeding for conservation. Protect the habitat, deal with other issues, conserve the species in captivity until such time as it can be reintroduced or as an insurance population.
     
  3. wildzoo

    wildzoo Active Member

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2015
    Posts:
    34
    Location:
    Silenced By Mentally Unstable Mods
    What can I say to that haha.
     
    Last edited: 18 Oct 2015
  4. temp

    temp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2014
    Posts:
    372
    Location:
    DM
    The veiled chameleon is not "delicate" in any way. Rather, it is one of the few chameleons that has proven itself capable of living in highly modified habitats, almost to the extent where it can called a synanthrope. In most of its range it is found at high densities. Gardens, plantations, etc, are just as suitable as its "original" habitat. There are however plenty of other chameleon species that are extremely vulnerable: mostly species restricted to East/Central African highlands+species from Madagascar. The problem is that these threatened chameleons usually have proven rather delicate in captivity; little or no breeding despite attempts by specialists.

    Overall the platypus can hardly be defined as particularly susceptible. At least unless you want to classify something like 50% of the worlds species as susceptible! Sure there are subpopulations that have declined (some drastically so), but quite large populations remain and there are no indications that anything like a species-wide crash could happen. Its distribution also spans over a fairly wide latitude, which itself works as a security against e.g. climate change.

    Together, the centers at Chengdu and Wolong have bred more than 200, far outdoing everywhere else. The giant pandas outside China are essentially "ambassadors" of the species. Fine if they breed too, but not all that important to its captive population by now – even if zoos outside China always hail it as a massive step in conservation whenever one of their pandas give birth. While I have my reservations about the Chinese "panda farms" (as some spitefully have called them), they're the only reason we have giant pandas in captivity today*. The captive population is now at a level where it actually can function as a security buffer should the wild population disappear, which however is unlikely. Releasing captive animals to the wild has never been easy. Regardless of species only a fool without any knowledge of reintroductions would expect the first attempt to be an unconditional success (interestingly, the people that want orcas released often seem to forget this, but that's another discussion). The dailymail article keeps the standard I expect from them.

    * With the exception of the Mexican (etc), but that's clearly not enough to base a population on.
     
  5. wildzoo

    wildzoo Active Member

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2015
    Posts:
    34
    Location:
    Silenced By Mentally Unstable Mods
    Well if the Platypus is in no danger why can't people own it?

    I think a lot of people overseas and within Australia are sick of the elitist way conversationalists act. When normal people are excluded from the process it's easy to question what the point of it all is.
     
    Last edited: 18 Oct 2015
  6. TeaLovingDave

    TeaLovingDave Moderator Staff Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    16 May 2010
    Posts:
    14,735
    Location:
    Wilds of Northumberland
    You missed Chli's point here I suspect; there are plenty of pure Bengal Tigers in captivity, just few-to-none outside India.

    Basically, all "Bengal" tigers in captivity outside India are hybrids - many of which are pretty distant from any Bengal descent, at that - but pretty much all the captive tigers in India are a) pure and b) Bengal.
     
  7. wildzoo

    wildzoo Active Member

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2015
    Posts:
    34
    Location:
    Silenced By Mentally Unstable Mods
    No I didn't miss the point. My point is we don't live in a perfect world. If tigers became extinct in the wild overnight I would be content with seeing a captive mongrel tiger over nothing. I don't see how it's realistic trying to save the Bengal or Panda when it's clear the societies they come from have no intention of saving the animals.

    The great irony with tigers is amateurs in the US may have saved them- even if they are not in their original form. Would we be richer or poorer if we lost the mongrels in captivity along with those in the wild.

    Regarding Australian natives I think we would benefit from allowing people overseas to own some of our animals. Although yes I admit I prefer to see animals in the wild and say there is nothing like it- but for many seeing them in the wild is not an option.

    But what can I say- this issue is too complex for me to understand. I'm all for conservation and personally have no interest in owning natives and think they should remain in the wild. But unless we as a society are going to deal with the real causes of extinction in Australia- feral animals and pet dogs and cats- then I would prefer we allow natives to be kept in captivity here and overseas rather than see animals disappear forever. Even if that means they exist in captivity in a form that is different from the wild- isn't it better than not having that animal at all.
     
  8. DDcorvus

    DDcorvus Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,303
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    That a species is plentiful in the wild doesn't make it suitable to keep it as a pet. It is still a species with very specific husbandry guidelines which is highly unsuitable for anyone without the right knowledge and budget. Most platypus would die very fast in private hands. We could have a debate if Australia should encourage some endemic species to be kept as a pet and ban keeping some of the non-natives (highest on that list would be cats), but that has nothing to do with the status of platypus'.

    And people in many countries can own Australian animals only very few do so. The most common species in private hands are sugargliders and red-necked wallabies and although both are common most wallabies are not kept in a true pet situation and even sugargliders are not as common as many other pets due to some significant disadvantages (they smell, they need specific diet and they are nocturnal). So you might be sick of the elitist view of conservationists, I do not think you could generalise that statement.
     
  9. Chlidonias

    Chlidonias Moderator Staff Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    23,395
    Location:
    New Zealand
    well I did write out a long response to your original post here, but your strange edit simply tells me you aren't actually interested in learning anything and would rather just stick with what you think you know.
     
  10. Zooplantman

    Zooplantman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    4,144
    Location:
    New York, USA
    It is fascinating to have someone make the case that is the exact opposite of PETA, who appear to prefer that endangered species die in the wild rather than live in captivity under any circumstances.

    Neither of these extremes makes sense to me. There is a middle way. It is not easy. It is not cheap. There will be some failures. But it is worth pursuing.
     
  11. ZooElephantMan

    ZooElephantMan Well-Known Member 5+ year member

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2015
    Posts:
    1,107
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I think that if it means they exist in a captive form that is different from the wild, it is better than not having the animal at all, BUT ONLY if the way they live that is different from how they live in the wild is still making the animals happy.
     
  12. TheMightyOrca

    TheMightyOrca Well-Known Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2014
    Posts:
    1,807
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    Yeah, I figure platypus would be difficult to own and there probably aren't a whole lot of people who would be well-suited to owning one.

    Encouraging Australians to pick native animals as pets? Interesting idea. Would make for an interesting discussion.
     
  13. wildzoo

    wildzoo Active Member

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2015
    Posts:
    34
    Location:
    Silenced By Mentally Unstable Mods
    Actually I edited my post because my original reply was highly critical of you. I see you respond in this antagonistic manner to everyone all over the forum. But I decided to stop myself as I didn't want to argue. I was trying to be nice to you.

    Yet, even with this latest reply you do so in the rudest way possible. I honestly don't know why people here put up with it.

    You talk about things as if we already have learned everything there is to know about animals. Why can't we try other ways of doing things? Yet your the type whose only interest is in doing it your way.

    For want of a better analogy. If I was keeping rainbow lorikeets you would say never feed them meat, without even trying to see if they eat meat. Yet here we find supposedly vegan lorikeets becoming carnivorous.

    Rainbow lorikeets eating meat leaves bird experts astonished - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
     
  14. DDcorvus

    DDcorvus Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,303
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere

    The evidence you used to back up your positions are based on very limited information or factual mistakes. Chlidonias has pointed that out and explained why. He nowhere claimed we know everything, but we have to base ourselves on the knowledge we do have. We cannot just ignore some facts because they are inconvenient and it would strengthen your position if you get more knowledge and not just start attacking someone who rightly pointed out that your arguments are based on incorrect and too few facts.

    Also here with Rainbow lorikeets you use a singly article to claim we do not know everything. Which would be great, but again you miss a big part of the picture. Firstly lorikeets are not vegan. Many species including rainbows do consume invertebrates. Many zoos and private breeders do feed these to them. I would not chose to feed them meat though based on this example. Firstly we do not know why these lorikeets started to eat meat, at the same time their digestive process is not adopted to it and even though this wild group eats it, it still might cause health problems.
     
  15. Arizona Docent

    Arizona Docent Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    7,702
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    This is a widely quoted statistic in the media, so it is not surprising that you or anyone else would be familiar with it. It is also a blatant lie perpetuated by animal rights extremists as a fear tactic to push ban laws. The actual number of tigers in Texas is just over 300 (not 3,000 or 5,000), according to a study by the Feline Conservation Federation.
    Feline Conservation Federation Ends Speculation about Texas Tigers
     
  16. wildzoo

    wildzoo Active Member

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2015
    Posts:
    34
    Location:
    Silenced By Mentally Unstable Mods
    Last time I checked lorikeets had a special adaptation on the tongue to feed solely on nectar.

    You constantly criticize me while in the same breath excuse someone who participates in calling others stupid and acting in such a toxic way.

    I am merely putting out ideas as they come to me. I am not writing a thesis. I am not claiming to have all the answers and just trying to help.

    Why I am being blamed for anything is beyond me. Do what you want- it seems to be working so well for the animals here.

    Nothing worse than a forum who thinks it's ok for established members to walk all over newbies.
     
  17. DDcorvus

    DDcorvus Well-Known Member 15+ year member

    Joined:
    18 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,303
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    The only that happened is that you were pointed out that the information was incorrect and that your response to that was not very constructive. And at any forum that will happen. Again in your post here that Trichoglossus lorikeets feed solely on nectar is incorrect. Fruits and invertebrates are a normal part of their diet as well.
     
  18. wildzoo

    wildzoo Active Member

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2015
    Posts:
    34
    Location:
    Silenced By Mentally Unstable Mods
    And again you only point out one aspect of my post that is 'wrong' and fail to focus on anything else.
     
  19. wildzoo

    wildzoo Active Member

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2015
    Posts:
    34
    Location:
    Silenced By Mentally Unstable Mods
    So I need a University degree with 3 years work experience around lorikeets to even make a comment about them. Great.

    Maybe if you have such a problem with people going around spreading misinformation you should take it up with the news media, professors and online encyclopaedias who are perpetuating this false information instead of whinging for the sake of whinging.

    If what you say is true and common, then there is no reason for anyone to be excited or amazed that they happen to eat meat. The leap from insects to meat is not that great.

    Anyway I have no interest talking to know it all's whose sole purpose in life is to belittle and correct others. If you want to correct someone you can do it in other ways; but you continue to do it in the most antagonizing way possible.

    Enjoy the game of intellectual one upmanship with your fellow zoochatters cause I am over this rubbish and won't be back to read any of your toxic replies.
     
  20. Batto

    Batto Well-Known Member 10+ year member

    Joined:
    3 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    3,459
    Location:
    Baltic Sea - no more
    Am I the only one who can't see anything antagonizing or toxic in DDcorvus' comments? Or is there any (well) hidden subtext?:confused:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.