As veterinarian Dr. Albert H. Lewandowski noted at the Animal Welfare Forum, there is a price for being successful in zoos. When animal production exceeds our expectations, we are left with a problem, and its name is surplus. A surplus animal is an animal that can no longer contribute to the population. This could be for many reasons- perhaps the animal has a genetic disorder or is too old to reproduce properly. Some animals are labeled surplus because stud books have determined that breeding those animals would lead to inbreeding. And sometimes there are simply too many animals being born too quickly for the resources we have. Whatever the cause, surplus animals are becoming an increasingly common phenomena in zoos worldwide and with only so much space, time, and money, zoos simply cannot afford to house surplus animals adequately. So what is to be done with these “extra” animals?
Several options exist for dealing with surplus and not all of them are popular or practical. Surplus animals can be sent to other zoos, held off-display, released into the wild, or killed. Obviously sending animals to other zoos is only a band-aid solution- there few spaces for extra animals in AZA or other accredited zoos, and non-accredited zoos present a problem all their own. By policy most AZA zoos face a moral dilemma in sending animals to non-accredited zoos. Even if the animal can be relocated, the problem has only been re-distributed, not solved. Holding animals off-display presents a similar problem. Additionally off-display housing is very limited and conditions are generally much poorer. Some animals are able to be released into the wild, but we must keep in mind that animals who meet the criteria for release are very limited. For example, how many of the tigers at your local zoo not only have safe and plentiful natural habitat available to them in the wild, but also have the survival skills necessary to compete with their wild-raised peers? After decades of possible inbreeding and captive raising, the answer to that question is likely very few. That leaves the last and most unpopular option- euthanasia. Though many people, particularly animal rights groups such as veganpeace.com, feel that killing surplus animals is cruel, we need to take a step back and look at the whole situation. As stewards of these animals it is our job to protect them from exploitation, miserable conditions, and situations they are not equipped to survive. This means that we need to pick the solution that not only does the individual animal the least amount of harm, but also the one that protects and serves the good of the population and even the whole species. We cannot simply choose the option that makes us feel good. Would we really feel so smug about saving an animal from being “cruelly” euthanized if we were forced to watch the same animal die slowly and painfully of starvation because it does not have the skills to survive in the wild? Even worse, should we send these animals to any home that will take them- even a reserve that holds no qualms about sending young to the black market and roadside circuses? Perhaps we need to open our minds and consider that although euthanizing an animal does not bring anyone happiness, a dignified and painless death may be better than a life of pain.
References:
https://email.uwsp.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=189f5dd320b64b7ab086b0832d720873&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.avma.org%2fonlnews%2fjavma%2fdec02%2f021201f.asp
https://email.uwsp.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=189f5dd320b64b7ab086b0832d720873&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.veganpeace.com%2fanimal_cruelty%2fzoos.htm
5 comments:
I completely agree with your thoughts on this subject.Since we as humans have taken animals in zoos for our enjoyment, we must deal with other factors that play in. If there is a surplus on animals, they cannot just be released into the wild again. I think this would cause problems in nature. Either the animal will die because it cannot survive without help, or breeding with a wild animal may carry some disease out in nature.
The animals need to breed to keep a population in zoos, but there can be a surplus at times...and sending the animal elsewhere does not necessarily solve the problem, especially if the animal is sent to an unaccredited zoo.
I guess the way I look at it, putting these surplus animals to sleep can be sad, but they could be used as taxidermy mounts and used in museums or educational centers and so forth, the animal doesn't exactly have to go to waste.
That is true- taxidermy and education are a great way to prevent surplus from being wasteful. It is unfortunate that it has to happen, but keepers and managers also need to look out for the welfare of the whole population.
I also agree with your stance on this subject. It is a shame that we take animals and use them for what we want, but then it is not thought through to handle this situation. I have been giving it some thought, and I really cannot come up with a perfect solution. As terrible as it sounds, I think some animals could be used to feed some starving and dying rare animals in the wild, but the logistics of getting a "surplus" animal to be sacrificed to a hungry one seems unrealistic. Its too bad that better inventory regulations are not in place to monitor breeding populations in zoos to maintain a better "carrying capacity". Or, it would be nice to have some sort of "graduation" system in which animals used for captive breeding purposes could be slowly introduced into a more "wild" captive area. They can learn survival techniques and feeding strategies to be more independent. That way there is a possibility to release them into the wild.
Euthanasia is preferable to allowing these sentient creatures to end up in circuses or road side zoos. Those outcomes are horrifying.
However, I do think that zoos should be responsible for taking care of the animals that they used for so long as money makers. This means they should provide a sanctuary for them or create new regulations that put a stop to over breeding and holding. Culling is not acceptable.
Most zoos do not have ethical practices. Some zoos will purchase animals for show, even though they may not be threatened in the wild. I don't feel zoos should have animals at all, yet alone ones that do not need captive breeding. Other zoos let animals go before they are even old, or breach their contracts by doing invasive research on them.
I don't support any use of animals for human entertainment, so I don't visit zoos. I have seen too much corruption and suffering to be able to enjoy myself at one.
Some zoos do use surplus animals as "food enrichment" during after hours, but it generally receives negative reactions from the public because some perceive it as inhumane. Although, when you think about it, it is exactly what would happen in the wild.
Post a Comment