Surplus Animals in Captive Facilities
“Surplus Animals: Stewardship on the Ark”- A. Lewandowski
Liz O’Brien
I had never given much thought to the idea of surplus animals, and let’s face it, most people wouldn’t. They aren’t the animals you normally see “on display” in a zoo or in other captive facilities. They are the understudies. This idea came to me from a previous class I had taken, where the issue was brought up for a single lecture and never mentioned again. I began thinking that surplus animals are a class of animals grossly underappreciated, not given much time for thought, just as they had been in my class. While it may not seem to be a huge issue in the overall picture of natural resources, I believe that it does require much deserved attention.
Since zoos have shifted their focus as sources of entertainment to centers endeavoring to foster conservation awareness, surplus animals have resulted from this paradigm shift. Unfortunately, the amount of literature available on surplus animals is dismal, and that’s putting it lightly. I find this to be quite sad, actually. Most topics discuss what defines a surplus animal (those that are no longer reproductively viable, sick or injured animals), prevention methodologies (contraception, separation of the sexes) as well as decreasing surplus (zoo transfers, releasing back into the wild). Ethics and the welfare of surplus animals were also mentioned. I believe this emphasizes the need to acknowledge the issue of captive surplus animals.
Probably the most controversial and delicate strategy to employ when trying to decrease surplus animals is the idea of euthanasia or culling of animals. There are arguments both for and against it. It can be an enticing option when transfers between zoos are not possible due to spatial limitations or there are no available habitats in which to release an animal. It can become even more of a controversial problem when a zoo is attempting to help a severely endangered species recover to a stable population or when there is public opposition to the killing of healthy and fit animals.
However effective and necessary euthanasia may be when it’s needed, it’s usually avoided mainly because of the negative connotations and anthropocentric view the public associates with it. In this way, zoos are providing a disservice to patrons of their facilities. Part of the role of a zoo as a steward of conservation is also to educate. And part of that education should make clear that life and death occur in a cyclic pattern; that one cannot occur without the other.
3 comments:
Liz,
I think this is another example of the disconnect we have with the environment. People care about animals living in the zoo, but they are ok with the destruction of their habitat for resources. I agree with you using the word anthropocentric. If you look at the main purpose of zoos, it is used for entertainment. Humans care about something only if it directly impacts them. I think it would be an interesting survey question to ask people what percentage of animals they think have gone extinct.
What a potentially controversial subject, thanks for posting it. I'm a big supporter of our local animal shelter, which is periodically over-full. I never really thought much about what would happen in a zoo setting when that happens.
Aaron- I completely agree about it being another fault of ours. We look to utilize anything that will benefit us, and unfortunately we often fail to recognize the implications until it's too late.
Dr. D- I never gave it much thought either, but the more I read further into what little I could, the more strongly I felt about it, probably more from an emotional response than it should have been. It's amazing how we think solutions to problems are so simple but later realize the logisitcs of solving them are just as complex as the cause.
Post a Comment