Why does it seem like so many baby animals in zoos get rejected by their mothers, in supposed comparison to baby animals in the wild? Is it just a captivity thing, or does it just appear to be more common than in the wild because we can keep a closer tab on captive births than wild births?
I'm not aware of any studies that have documented it, but you definitely don't hear about it that often.
Any rejected young in the wild are liable to have even shorter lifespans than they would in captivity, and unless the mothers are already under observation the initial birth isn't going to be noticed, so it's going to be VASTLY under-reported.
TLD makes a good point, when they are rejected we really have no way of knowing. Either way, wild vs captive rejection will be likely greatly disproportionate numbers simply because there are so many more wild animals than captive ones. Then too, some species give relatively little care as the young can fend for themselves pretty well.
Plenty of domestic dogs and cats abandon their young, or improperly care for them, or intentionally and accidently kill them. And its often the same as zoo moms- first timers.
Its probably likely rejected young in situ versus rejected young ex situ are basically 1:1 or 1:2. We can't observe them in the wild every time, obviously.
As others said, a rejected young animal in the wild usually dies unseen. Another factor may be that in the wild, less healthy animals don't live or don't reproduce. Better care in zoos can mean that, paradoxically, animals are less healthy on average - the weaker ones survive.
