What are the limitations of trying to restore a population in captivity?

Abstract

This newspaper illuminates a diversity of issues that speak to the question of whether 'captivity for conservation' can exist an ethically acceptable goal of the modern zoo. Reflecting on both theoretical disagreements (animal protectionists vs. wildlife conservationists) and practical challenges (the minor per centum of endangered species really exhibited in zoos, disappointing success of reintroduction programs), the paper explains why the 'Noah's Ark' image is being replaced past an alternative 'integrated approach.' It explores the changes in the zoo's cadre tasks that the new paradigm implies. And information technology pays special attention to the changes that would have to be made in zoos' collection policies: connectedness with in situ projects, emphasizing local species and the local biogeographical region, exchange of animals among zoos and between zoos and wild animals, and a shift towards smaller species. Finally the question will be addressed whether the new paradigm volition achieve a morally acceptable balance between animal welfare costs and species conservation benefits.

Introduction

Today, the animal earth is nether severe assault as a event of two strongly interconnected global processes. On the 1 mitt, global ecology changes such equally climate change, land use and land cover change, deforestation and desertification have a disruptive impact on plant and animal life. Entire populations are beingness confronted with the culling to abandon their original habitat or to go extinct. On the other hand, globalization causes massive dislocations of unabridged populations. As trade, travel, ship and tourism boom, the globe is condign more and more borderless and, by the same token, information technology is becoming increasingly vulnerable to invasive species. Since globalization took off, more than plants and animals have become globetrotters than always before (Keulartz and Swart 2012).

Because animals are constantly on the move worldwide as a result of these global processes, traditional in situ (place-based) conservation methods seem no longer sufficient to save threatened species (Sandler 2012). The magnitude of anthropogenic environmental stress from bioinvasion, habitat fragmentation, nitrogen degradation, biodiversity loss, and, above all, climate modify, makes it unavoidable to supersede the hands-off approach that has guided mainstream species conservation until recently by a more proactive and interventionist strategy.

Withal, this new strategy has led to manifold conflicts between wild animals conservationists and brute protectionists (Minteer and Collins 2013). As Michael Soulé has remarked in his presidential address at the third annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology in 1989: "Conflicts between animal rights groups and management agencies are increasing in frequency and cost—the price being borne by endangered species and ecosystems also as by the public that pays for expensive rescue operations and fourth dimension-consuming court battles" (Soulé 1990, 235).

In his accost, Soulé claimed that among the many ecology challenges of the coming decades, 'the onslaught of alien species' would exist the most revolutionary. And he foresaw that attempts by conservationists to control destructive exotics would see resistance from 'well-meaning animal welfare enthusiasts', who oppose eradication programs that involve techniques such as hunting and trapping or make utilise of pesticides such every bit piscicides, chemical substances which are poisonous to fish (Keulartz and Van der Weele 2008). ^{Footnote 1}

Another potential area of conflict betwixt wildlife conservationists and animal activists concerns managed relocation (too known as assisted colonization or assisted migration). The human being-aided relocation of threatened species may exist required when their historical ranges have become inhospitable due to climate modify or habitat fragmentation and destruction, and when moving on their own to other regions where environmental conditions are more suitable is incommunicable. Relocated animals volition inevitable experience chronic stress at all stages of the process, from capture and captivity to transport and release to novel areas. Such relocation-induced chronic stress increases the overall vulnerability of the individuals and, as a result, decreases the probability that the population will become cocky-sustaining (Dickens et al. 2010).

Here, I will focus on notwithstanding some other major battlefield between wild fauna conservationists and animal activists: ex situ conservation through zoos and aquaria. As a response to the ongoing turn down in effectiveness of in situ conservation and the accompanying loss of biodiversity, zoos began to plow their attending to the conservation of endangered species and wildlife in the 1970s and 1980s. Captivity for Conservation became a crucial slogan for the mod zoo. A major milestone in this evolution was the Convention on Biodiversity which was signed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In the wake of the Globe Summit the beginning Earth Zoo Conservation Strategy was launched in 1993. Its conclusion explicitly stated that, at a time when species, habitats and ecosystems worldwide are threatened with extinction, modern zoos must commit to the conservation of species and wildlife.

Caring for our planet's biological systems is i of the greatest challenges to humankind. Consequently, conservation is existence seen as the key theme of zoos, and zoos should thus farther evolve into conservation centers (WAZA 1993, three).

In this scheme of things the zoo was envisaged as a kind of Noah'south Ark which owed its raison d'être primarily to its contribution to the conservation of species through breeding and reintroduction programs. Equally the main institution for ex situ conservation of wild animal species, the zoo was now confronted caput-on with the potential conflicts between animal protectionists and wild animals conservationists.

In this essay, I will clarify the moral issues at stake in these conflicts over the zoo with an centre to possibilities to bridge the differences betwixt the conflicting parties. I volition debate that both sides of the controversy may find common ground in the view that zoos will be morally justifiable simply if the costs in terms of animal welfare and freedom are conspicuously outweighed by the benefits to species preservation. Next, I will argue that the Noah's Ark paradigm does not run across this standard, that it therefore has lost brownie and has gradually given way to a new epitome: the 'integrated approach' in which the zoo is primarily seen as a conservation park or center. I will so ready out the implications of the new approach for the zoo'south core tasks and explore the collection policy options that are open to zoos in lodge to carry out these tasks in the best possible manner. Finally, I will address the question whether the new paradigm may achieve a morally adequate residual between animal welfare costs and species conservation benefits. Only in order to understand what is at stake in the boxing over the zoo's legitimacy and right to existence I will first take a closer look at the heated philosophical contend betwixt animal ethicists and environmental ethicists.

The Animal Ethics/Environmental Ethics Debate

The philosophical fence between animal ethicists and environmental ethicist erupted effectually 1980 (Hargrove 1992). Before that time it was expected that an adequate environmental ethics would develop equally a natural extension of animal ethics. Both Peter Vocalizer'due south animal liberation theory and Tom Regan's animal rights theory denounced traditional morality for its 'human chauvinism' and its 'speciesism'. The time seemed ripe for a moral rehabilitation of the rest of breathing nature, and animal ethicists and environmental ethicists were supposed to join forces in fighting for wild fauna preservation. Just, as Sagoff (1984) has remarked somewhat sarcastically, this was a 'bad union', followed by a 'quick divorce'.

In 1980, Baird Callicott published a highly polemical commodity to counter the widespread view that the existing animal ethics of Vocalizer en Regan were fully capable of answering all environmental ethical questions. In particular, Callicott opposed their view that only individual animals have intrinsic value and direct moral standing, non collective entities such as species or ecosystems. While Vocalist believes that we have no duties to species because as such they "are not conscious entities and so do not take interests above and beyond the interests of the individual animals that are members of the species" (Vocalizer 1979, 203), Regan holds that "the rights view does not recognize the moral rights of species to anything, including survival" (Regan 1983, 359).

According to Callicott, animal ethicists demonstrate their 'ecological illiteracy' past pleading for a responsibility to maintain individual animals irrespective of whether these are tame or wild, rare or common, indigenous or exotic. In line with Aldo Leopold's 'land ethic', he advocated a holistic approach in which private organisms are perceived every bit parts of the biotic community. Such an arroyo does not accordance equal moral worth to each and every member of the biotic community; "the moral worth of individuals is relative, to be assessed in accordance with the particular relation of each to the collective entity which Leopold called 'land'" (Callicott 1980, 327).

Holmes Rolston, one of the founding fathers of environmental ethics, based his holistic view on a neo-Darwinian account of the evolutionary history of life on earth. He writes: "In an evolutionary ecosystem information technology is not mere individuality that counts; species is also significant because it is a dynamic life form maintained over time by an informed genetic flow. The individual represents (re-presents) a species in each new generation. It is a token of a type, and the type is more than important than the token" (Rolston 1988, 143). Information technology follows that "the private is subordinate to the species, not the other manner around" (ibid. 149).

Tom Regan responded to these attacks against the animal ethicists' basic principle with the accusation that environmental ethicists were committing the criminal offence of 'ecology fascism' past subordinating the rights of individuals to the interests of the greater whole. "Ecology fascism and the rights view are like oil and water, they don't mix" (Regan 1983, 362).

Animal ethicists and environmental ethicists usually non only differ with regard to the locus of moral concern—individual organisms or greater wholes—they also tend to use different species concepts (Sandler 2012, four). Animal ethicists accept generally adopted a conventionalist species concept; they see a species but every bit a category or course with arbitrarily fatigued boundary lines that may serve equally a convenient mapping device for theoretical purposes only. ^{Footnote 2} Environmental ethicists, on the other paw, generally hold a realistic species concept. Rolston, for instance, argues that a species is a real historical entity, a 'dynamic historical lineage' that can persist as a discrete, vital pattern over time (Rolston 1988, 151). ^{Footnote 3}

While it is evident that conflicts between individualistic creature-centered and holistic species-centered ethicists and activists will increment as conservation strategies will inevitable become more and more interventionist and easily-on, the gap between these divergent views simply seems too wide to bridge, even in cases where advocates of both sides take common cause (Minteer and Collins 2013, 43). Such seemingly intractable controversies are frequently not resolvable past recourse to facts and unlikely to exist settled by compromise. They require what Donald Schön and Martin Rein, inspired by John Dewey's thought of 'reconstructive thinking', have called 'frame restructuring', i.e. the try to integrate alien frames.

As a necessary first step towards such an integration, both sides of the controversy regarding the moral acceptability of zoos take to develop a 'double vision', namely "the ability to human activity from a frame while cultivating awareness of culling frames" (Schön and Rein 1994, 207). They should learn to 'squint' so to speak in club to see things from both angels simultaneously. Only then will it exist possible to find a morally defensible balance between beast welfare concerns on the one paw and species conservation commitments on the other.

Balancing Fauna Welfare/Rights Against Species Conservation

Most animate being rights proponents volition resist any attempts at such value balancing. They consider infringing an individual'southward right to freedom for the sake of the preservation of the species as morally wrong. For Regan any type of captivity or manipulation of a sentient animal is morally unacceptable, irrespective of the perchance beneficial consequences for the protection of rare or endangered species. The rights view'due south answer to the question whether zoos are morally defensible, "not surprisingly, is No, they are not" (Regan 1995, 46).

Utilitarians like Singer, on the other mitt, exercise allow for value balancing and accept reductions in beast welfare when the survival of entire populations or species is at stake. A case in point is Singer'south approach to the problem of the South American cane toad that was introduced to Australia as a method of agricultural pest command, but became itself a serious pest for native wildlife. Whereas animal rights groups fiercely opposed the eradication of cane toads because they believe that killing an animal, unless to end suffering, is always bad, Vocaliser argued that "where killing can exist done humanely, and is necessary to preserve endangered species, it may be defensible." ^{Footnote 4}

When Vocaliser was recently asked whether zoos should exist for the sake of species preservation, he answered equally follows, "I think if a species is likely to become extinct in the wild and you can capture the animals humanely and recreate the physical and behavioral weather condition, so could release them or their progeny in the wild, then that office of zoos is defensible." ^{Footnote v} Vocaliser feels, however, that most zoos today fail to alive up to their conservation mission. They tend to confine animals for our amusement in ways that are contrary to their interests. Even if these zoos practice occasionally preserve an endangered species, "what is the point of preserving animals if they are having miserable lives?" ^{Footnote 6}

Dale Jamieson, another animal ethicist working in the utilitarian tradition, ^{Footnote vii} is even more skeptical about zoos than Peter Vocalist. As starting point for his assessment of the moral defensibility of the zoo, Jamieson claims that keeping animals in captivity is incorrect, unless a case can be made that the benefits outweigh the moral presumption against depriving animals of liberty. In his archetype essay 'Against Zoos' from 1985, Jamieson concludes that the supposed benefits of zoos—amusement, education, scientific inquiry and species preservation—are outweighed by the moral presumption against keeping animals. Ten years latter, he repeated his analysis with a strong focus on the mod zoo's most compelling reason for its existence, its contribution to species conservation. And again Jamieson'southward concluding judgment proved unfavorable for the zoo; he considered the benefit of preservation "non significant plenty to overcome the presumption against depriving an beast of its liberty" (Jamieson 1995, sixty).

Noah's Ark in Rough H2o

Jamieson's verdict was, to a considerable extent, shared by an increasing number of critiques within the zoo-community. The vision of the zoo as a Noah'due south Ark started to shipwreck as the breeding programs ran into some substantial problems. Many of the animals exhibited in zoos exercise not vest to groups designated for conservation. Because the infinite for all the zoo animals in the world could easily fit within New York'southward 212.7 km² borough of Brooklyn (Conway 2011, four), zoos can only maintain a express number of endangered species. This number will even subtract every bit exhibits increase in size to see beast welfare, while zoos are normally too very reluctant to requite up popular animals that are not threatened with extinction. But fifty-fifty if zoos were to dedicate half their space to breeding programs for the conservation of endangered species, they would nevertheless—according to the nigh optimistic estimates—exist unable to accommodate more than than around 800 of the 7.368 species of vertebrates that are threatened with extinction according to the 2013 IUCN Ruby-red List. ^{Footnote viii} Due to lack of space zoos are increasingly being pressed to carve up grain from crust and devote more resource to a chosen few. As Leslie Kaufman has strikingly remarked, convenance endangered animals "feels less like Noah building an ark and more than like Schindler making a list" (Kaufman 2012a).

Research has shown that zoos currently hold roughly one in 7 (xv %) threatened species of terrestrial vertebrates (Conde et al. 2011). ^{Footnote 9} Moreover, zoos even struggle to breed these few species because the populations are unremarkably also small. As Sarah Long, director of the Population Management Centre in Chicago, has remarked, "Noah got it all incorrect. One or two or even a dozen of each species is not enough" (Kaufman 2012b). Initially, the target of zoo breeding programs was to maintain 90 % of genetic variability of a species for a catamenia of 200 years (Soulé et al. 1986). Considering this time frame requires very large numbers of animals per species, it has been reduced from 200 to 100 years in the mid-1990s. Simply the majority of breeding programs practise not have sufficient infinite to meet fifty-fifty this objective.

Nonetheless, not only are the success rates of breeding programs disappointing, the prospects of reintroduction programs are too depression, largely because ecological, social, economic and political aspects were not taken into consideration. Reintroduction is a costly business which oftentimes diverts attention from other, more than cost-effective options. In captivity, animals risk losing the skills they need to survive in the wild. Lastly, the ecosystems into which they are eventually released are dynamic systems which have often undergone dramatic changes in the fourth dimension bridge between the breeding program and the reintroduction, sometimes as a result of anthropogenic disturbances such as CO₂ emissions and deforestation. A review by Brook (1995) estimated that only 16 out of 145 reintroduction projects using captive-born animals were successful. It also showed that nearly animals for reintroduction do non come from zoos simply from other specialized facilities. Although the situation improved subsequently the development of the Guidelines for the Placement of Confiscated Animals (IUCN 2000), the operation of zoos regarding the reintroduction of captive-bred animals still fell far short of expectations. Instead of a guiding calorie-free, reintroduction proved to be a falling star, "providing an eye-communicable attraction but not long-term illumination for conservation" (Price and Fa 2007, 173). ^{Footnote x}

By the plough of the century, Noah's Ark seemed to accept become irretrievably shipwrecked as the zoo community started to realize the limitations of ex situ (zoo-based) conservation every bit a prelude to in situ (field-based) conservation (Lees and Wilcken 2009). The vision of the zoo as a Noah's Ark has gradually given way to a new paradigm, the 'integrated approach'. This transition becomes apparent when the first World Zoo Conservation Strategy of 1993 is compared to the new Earth Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy of 2005. The kickoff document explicitly describes reintroduction equally the ultimate goal of ex situ conservation. The second document, on the other hand, recognizes the reintroduction of captive-bred animals equally a useful instrument for the conservation of wild fauna, but cautions against high expectations because of the complexities of returning these animals to the wild (Cost and Fa 2007, 156). It outlines a much broader conservationist role for zoos, including research, grooming, educational activity, awareness campaigns and direct support for in situ projects. In the latest strategy, the primary mission of zoos is to integrate all these elements with their efforts to protect endangered species and conserve healthy ecosystems (Mace et al. 2007; Bowkett 2008; Lees and Wilcken 2009). Insofar as captive-breeding for reintroduction is considered necessary and appropriate, information technology should exist accomplished as office of such a larger, integrated, holistic programme (Hutchins 2003, 18).

This paradigm shift in the zoo'due south mission raises the question whether Jamieson's verdict will remain valid that the supposed benefits of the zoo, in item its contribution to species conservation, are outweighed by the moral presumption confronting keeping animals. Volition the integrated approach brand it possible to strike a balance between animal welfare and rights on the one hand and species conservation on the other that leads to a morally more favorable evaluation of the zoo? To answer this question, I will proceed in ii steps: first I will spell out the implications of the new paradigm for the zoo's core tasks; and next I will explore the collection policy options that are open to zoos in club to perform these tasks optimally.

Implications of the Integrated Approach for the Zoo's Core Tasks

In this section, I volition successively hash out the impact of the integrated approach on teaching, awareness and advancement; financial support and fund-raising; research and training; and population management.

Education, Sensation and Advancement

Pedagogy in the context of the integrated arroyo must be fully geared to the conservation of species and wild fauna. With over 700 million visitors a year, zoos have a unique opportunity to provide for such an education to large numbers of people (Gusset and Dick 2011). Inquiry on the impact of education on zoo visitors is yet in its infancy (Davey 2006; Falk et al. 2007; Marino et al. 2010), but it seems that ii courses of activity are absolutely essential to achieve the desired upshot.

Beginning of all, the animals should be shown in an surround which resembles their natural environment every bit closely every bit possible—where they get the best chance to develop behavior typical of their own species. This will aid to prevent stereotypical behavior, which is a poor ad for a zoo and merely undermines the educational message. The much-desired 'naturalization' of zoos is well underway; nowadays, when zoos are designed, habitat takes precedence over taxonomic group. Just the process runs up against limits. True habitats encompass huge expanses of territory (wait at the area covered by tigers). Moreover, it is virtually impossible to create realistic simulations of some forms of predatory behavior, such as chasing and killing prey, in captivity. Likewise, in the absenteeism of predators, casualty behavior, such as vigilance, may non be adequately exhibited in captivity (Kreger et al. 1998). When Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo started feeding whole sheep and goats to the big felids and whole rabbits and chickens to the small felids in the 1970s, many members of the public were balked at the sight of flesh existence torn from recognizable carcasses (Hancocks 2001, 249). They are used to information technology at present, only feeding live animals to the cats is probably a pace likewise far.

Secondly, the visitor must not be overcome by a numbing sense of helplessness. Sensation alone will not change behavior and information technology might even prove counter-productive if visitors are not afforded an opportunity to act (Sterling et al. 2007; Gwynne 2007). In his 1999 book Beyond Ecophobia, David Sobel contends that we must permit people to connect with nature and dear the Globe earlier we ask them to save information technology. Almost people know by now that the natural globe is in trouble. When they hear that yet some other ten thousand acres of rainforest were being lost while they were spending fourth dimension at the zoo, they may distance themselves from, rather than connect to, the natural world which is and then painful, unless they get a chance to make a departure—no matter how small.

Congo Gorilla Wood, a project of 2.seven hectares in Bronx Zoo defended to wild fauna and habitats from fundamental Africa, offers such a chance. It provides visitors with an opportunity to make a direct contribution to the conservation of the African rainforest by allowing them to name the project that will benefit from the three-dollar supplement on their admission fee. The initiative raises one million dollars a year for fieldwork (Gwynne 2007). Some other good example is the They're Calling on Yous campaign at Melbourne Zoo. Visitors to the gorilla enclosure are asked to donate their former mobile phones, which are then sent off for recycling. The idea is to salve coltan, an ore that is mined at the expense of the gorillas' habitat, and to generate funding for their conservation. ^{Footnote 11}

Financial Support and Fundraising

This is the simplest way for zoos to assist in situ conservation. Recent research has shown that zoos do indeed make a financial contribution to this cause. But investment in conservation past zoos is generally nevertheless low. It has been suggested that zoos devote at to the lowest degree 10 % of their income to in situ conservation (Tribe and Booth 2003). Available data point to <five % of income beingness spent on conservation (Fa et al. 2011). This finding could reinforce the view that the mission of zoos is primarily 'window-dressing'.

Various fundraising ideas take recently been circulating. For case, visitors could exist asked to contribute 'on-the-spot' to a projection of their option (as in the instance of the Congo Gorilla Forest project); 'conservation-contribution' machines could be installed and so that visitors can donate greenbacks to conserve certain species; groups of schoolchildren could exist asked to adopt projects. In Australia, valued donors are taken on guided tours behind the scenes. Some experience that the time has come to set aside a percentage of the admission fee for in situ conservation projects (Conway 2003, 12).

Inquiry and Training

The basic principle of research and training in the context of conservation efforts is: "Export expertise rather than repatriate animals" (Cost and Fa 2007, 169). The tools and technologies developed past zoos are becoming increasingly relevant for in situ conservation as natural habitats keep to being damaged and destroyed at the current pace. Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation pb to an ongoing conversion of what were originally continuous populations to then-called 'metapopulations'. Metapopulations are collections of subpopulations, that are spread geographically over patches of habitat. Because these patches are normally small-scale and because the movement of the animals between these patches is restricted for lack of connectivity, local extinction of subpopulations is a common consequence. This situation asks for metapopulation direction, by which i may endeavor to artificially perform the office of dispersal and recolonization of patches of locally endangered or extinct species.

With metapopulation management the stardom between archetype in situ and ex situ conservation is gradually breaking down. Every bit the size and genetic variety of remaining wildlife populations is progressively declining, these populations are becoming more and more similar to ex situ populations. Appropriately, zoo-based expertise in genetic management of small populations of convict animals may exist useful to the conservation of small and declining populations in the wild, whereas zoo-based skills in animal treatment may be helpful in wild-to-wild translocations of animals from one site to another, to repopulate habitats where species have extirpated (Hutchins 2003; Hatchwell et al. 2007).

Population Management

Apart from research on management of modest populations and wild-to-wild translocation, zoos can also contribute to metapopulation management through what has been chosen 'integrated species conservation planning' (IUCN 2014). The new approach to conservation is increasingly replacing convict-breeding for reintroduction that has fallen out of favor due to the growing recognition of its limits (Price and Fa 2007, 173). Information technology refers to the exchange of animals between in situ populations (in the wild) and ex situ populations (in homo care) and has also been termed a 'hybrid' (Redford et al. 2012) or 'pan situ' approach (Minteer and Collins, in preparation). On the i manus, captive populations tin be used for restocking in areas with declining populations or for reintroduction in areas where populations have gone extinct; on the other paw, the demographic and genetic viability of ex situ populations can exist boosted past supplying genetic founders from wildlife populations (Byers et al. 2013).

Collection Policy Options

In the previous section, I take shown how the paradigm shift in the zoo'due south mission volition affect its core tasks. However, in order to fulfill these tasks in an optimal way some substantial changes have to be made with respect to the zoo's collection policy. In this section, I volition discuss some of the most important options that have been proposed and that accept oftentimes already been put into practice in ane combination or another: creating a link between the collection and in situ conservation projects; putting more accent on local species and the local biogeographical region; exchanging animals among ex situ populations and between ex situ and in situ populations; and replacing large charismatic mammals with smaller species.

Link Between Collection and In Situ Conservation Projects

The species in the collection should match the zoo's conservation goals. This tin be achieved by the creation of explicit connections betwixt the animals on display and the in situ projects that are being supported, so that visitors can acquire about the living weather of the exhibited animals in the wild. This argument returns in WAZA'southward global strategy Building a Time to come for Wild animals, which also presents a proficient example of a link betwixt ex situ and in situ conservation:

Pongoland in Leipzig Zoo has created a link between the ex situ conservation and breeding of chimpanzees and the attempts at in situ conservation of the Wild Chimpanzee Foundation (WCF) in Ivory Coast. The zoo is interim every bit guarantor for the long-term funding of projects in Tai National Park. Projects have been set specifically to raise local awareness of the plight of chimpanzees, currently an endangered species. Visitors to Leipzig Zoo are told about the collaborations with the WCF; meantime, the local population is told almost the activities at Leipzig Zoo and the inquiry in Pongoland for the conservation of the chimpanzee (WAZA 2005, 10).

Another example is the spectacular 11.000 m² rainforest at Zurich Zoo. This exhibition was developed in cooperation with Masoala National Park in Madagascar. Over the years, a whole cord of direct and indirect links were forged between the Swiss zoo and the Madagascan park. Zurich Zoo provides the funding for modest-scale evolution projects in communities effectually the park. These projects accept proven highly successful in winning the back up of the villagers and the local regime for the park. Two nurseries have been established nearby to help the local customs and to supply the zoo with seeds. Support was provided for field enquiry in Masoala. The park was promoted in Madagascar and in Europe as a place of international importance for the conservation of biodiversity (Hatchwell and Rübel 2007).

These kinds of alliances between zoos in adult countries and protected areas in developing countries are in anybody's interests: on the i hand, they assist zoos to strengthen the impact of their activities on in situ wildlife conservation; on the other, they secure long-term funding for protected areas.

Accent on Local Species and the Local Biogeographical Region

The link between the collection and in situ conservation projects is easier to brand when more accent is put on local species and the local biogeographical region. A shift in breeding programs for reintroduction from exotic to ethnic species is entirely in keeping with Commodity 9 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This commodity states that ex situ conservation should accept place preferably in the country of origin of the biological component. Besides, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has recommended that regional zoo associations work with threatened species in their ain biogeographical surface area (IUCN 2002; Dickie et al. 2007).

A stronger emphasis on local species and regional problems closer to abode is also important from an educational perspective, given that didactics should preferably address issues with direct relevance for the target group. Education can encourage local involvement and activeness. "If the Giant panda is going to exist saved, the most important audience for educational initiatives is undoubtedly in Mainland china" (Hutchins 2003, 23).

Exchange of Animals Among Zoos and Between Zoos and Wild fauna

Because of limits of space, zoos can only maintain a small fraction of currently threatened species. To accost this problem, zoos accept a number of options. They can reduce the number of species they maintain that are not threatened and specialize in species that are. "Specialization is central to every successful threatened species propagation programme" (Conway 2011, 5). In addition to specialization zoos can increase and meliorate regional and global cooperation. Merely very few convict populations managed in isolation are cocky-sustaining since population sizes generally need to be very large to retain 90 % of the genetic diversity over 100 years. Populations with less than 50 individuals "might have a loftier likelihood to exist managed inadvertently or implicitly for extinction" (Fa et al. 2011, 271). The problem of low numbers can be addressed by collaborative management and the exchange of animals among zoos.

To combat the problem of numbers the interactive exchange of animals between convict and wild populations in the context metapopulation management is likewise a very constructive strategy. The integration of in situ and ex situ programs opens the possibility to simultaneously improve the demographic stability and genetic diverseness of the wild and captive populations of endangered species.

A Shift Towards Smaller Species

But the most effective strategy to combat the problem of limited space is without any doubt a shift away from the big charismatic mammals towards smaller species, particularly amphibians, invertebrates and some species of fish, which occupy less space, are relatively cheap to keep, have a high nativity rate and are easy to reintroduce. ^{Footnote 12} Several initiatives have already been launched on this front end, not to the lowest degree the Amphibian Conservation Activeness Programme, a partnership involving the World Clan of Zoos and Aquariums (Gewin 2008).

The ever-nowadays collections of charismatic megafauna—lions, tigers, giraffes, elephants, zebras, bears, hippos, and rhinos—are a poor reflection of the rich variety of the animal kingdom. In that location are around 30 meg beast species on this planet, 1640 of which are mammals. The average American zoo drove features 53 well-known mammals, a ratio of 1:31. The ratio for birds, at i:98, is less than a third of this. The ratio for reptiles, at ane:104, is less even so. The asymmetry becomes even more alarming when information technology comes to very small creatures. Amphibians in the average United states zoo are represented in a ratio of only 1:2000. And the ratio for invertebrates is an incredible 1 to several million. Over 95 % of all fauna are small enough to hold in the palm of your hand, but in zoos, they are conspicuous by their absence (Hancocks 2001, 165). ^{Footnote 13}

Some fright that turning the spotlight on small species will weaken the attraction of zoos. Zoos need to balance conservation credibility with commercial viability; to reach the aim of species conservation they demand to attract visitors. The focus on charismatic mammals is considered to be appropriate because these animals are supposed to act as flagship species or ambassadors that raise public sensation and support for in situ conservation (Bakery 2007, 147; Leader-Williams et al. 2007, 237). However, the assumption that zoos will not attract enough visitors without large mega-vertebrates is far from uncontroversial. Recent findings even suggest that modest mammal displays yield a higher cost to benefit ratio, in terms of exhibit popularity per unit of measurement cost, than large mammal displays. They also suggest that imaginative displays of small-bodied species tin can substantially increase zoo attendance (Fa et al. 2011, 79).

A case in point is Micropia, the commencement museum of micro-organisms such equally moulds, yeasts, (micro)algae, bacteria, archaea, and viruses. Micropia, located in Artis Royal Zoo in the center of Amsterdam, holland, opened its gates in October 2014. The museum uses 3D viewers, assuasive visitors to run across how living microbes move around, eat and reproduce. It has become a pop venue that has plenty of interactive displays on offer, including a torso scanner which can show you what types of microbes live on your torso, and a Kiss-o-meter which can count the number of microbes transferred during a buss.

Towards a New Balance Betwixt Beast Welfare/Rights and Wild fauna Conservation?

Will the integrated arroyo, if rigorously practical, tip the balance between animal welfare and species conservation concerns in favor of the zoo? Nearly brute rights proponents will deny this possibility considering they are opposed to such value balancing. Still, this abolitionist position will lose normative force as the borderline between in situ and ex situ conservation volition more and more exist blurred, i.e. as zoos volition increasingly become more like national parks and wildlife reserves and, vice versa, parks and reserves will accept on some of the character of zoos, and hence be subject to zoo dilemmas. Like zoo populations, wild populations are increasingly becoming too pocket-sized to be demographically and genetically feasible and will inevitably go extinct without continuous monitoring and direction. In such a state of affairs abolitionism is tantamount to capitulation to species extinction (Minteer and Collins 2013).

On the other manus, a focus on smaller species such every bit reptiles, amphibians and fish might to some extent accost the concerns raised by adherents of the rights view. Later all, Tom Regan's rights theory does not extend to all animals, only only to those animals, notably mammals, that can be regarded equally subjects-of-a-life because they have capacities for emotion, memory, belief, desire, intentional activity, self-awareness, as well as conceptual abilities and a sense of the futurity, including their own future.

Unlike animal rights advocates, animal welfare proponents more often than not do allow for trade-offs between brute welfare and species conservation concerns. Merely most of them agree with Dale Jamieson'southward verdict that the zoo's contribution to species conservation is not significant enough to overcome the presumption against keeping animals in captivity. They usually too endorse Jamieson's view that we cannot save wild nature past bringing it indoors but only past setting bated big tracts of land and change our present environmentally unfriendly beliefs. ^{Footnote 14} "Should zoos breed fauna populations that have no home to return to?" (Hanson 2002, 171), these animal ethicists and activists ask.

But, on the other manus, one might enquire if it does make whatsoever sense to preserve or create wild lands when there are just few populations left to inhabit these places. Equally David Hancocks has remarked, simply setting aside wild lands will not always be sufficient. He illustrates this with the example of the management plan to save the Javan tiger that was published in 1980 by the Indonesian government, assisted by the WWF and the IUCN. "It overruled any efforts at captive propagation, relying solely upon habitat protection. Today the Javan tiger is extinct" (Hancocks 2001, 175). Moreover, radically altering our nowadays lifestyle might take too long for many endangered species to survive. All in all, an upstanding position that focuses solely on the preservation of habitat volition comport little normative forcefulness in a state of affairs where in situ conservation is no longer sufficient to slow downwards or stop the electric current species extinction rate. Preserving wild lands and saving endangered species demand not be exclusionary, just should exist pursued together to effectively see widespread threats such equally climate change, habitat loss, poaching, invasive species and disease.

Moreover, Jamieson's unfavorable judgment of the zoo might demand to be revised in light of the paradigm shift towards the integrated arroyo. Under this arroyo, the prospects for the zoo to attain a morally acceptable balance between animal welfare costs and species conservation benefits look rather skilful, provided that the zoo's core tasks are all geared to wild animals conservation and the species collection clearly reflects the zoo's conservation goals. A shift towards small species, which generally feel less welfare problems in captivity and fewer behavioral issues that make render to the wild difficult than large animals, would certainly tip the scales in favor of the zoo. This besides applies to the adoption of integrated metapopulation management. Interactive exchange of animals between convict and wild populations volition greatly enhance our chapters to sustain the genetic and demographic viability of both populations. Reductions of animal welfare due to capture, enquiry, convict breeding and reintroduction volition exist all the more ethically justified as the risk of extinction of pocket-size and fragmented populations in the wild volition be significantly minimized.

Pie in the sky, critics of the zoo will say—and not without reason. Today, the zoo is standing at a crossroads—and has to decide if information technology will fully commit to the new paradigm and develop into a conservation center or if it will degenerate (further) into a venue for amusement that will provoke increasing criticism, not merely from beast protectionist but also from wildlife conservationists.

Notes

1. A famous example of the clash over programs to eradicate invasive species is the controversy about the feral pigs in Hawaii, betwixt the Nature Conservancy and People for the Upstanding Treatment of Animals (PETA). While conservation biologists accept argued that the pigs should be killed and removed because they threaten Hawaii's biodiversity, creature activists argued that it is wrong to harm and kill the pigs because they are sentient animals (Wood and Moriarty 2001).

2. According to Dale Jamieson "the notion of a species is an abstraction; the thought of its welfare is a human construction. While there is something that it is like to be an animal there is nothing that it is similar to be a species" (Jamieson 1995, 61).

3. For a recent contribution to the animate being ideals/environmental ethics debate, see McShane (2014).

7. Jamieson calls his brand of utilitarianism 'progressive consequentialism' (Jamieson and Elliot 2009).

8. The list cites 1140 species of mammals, 1313 species of birds, 847 species of reptiles, 1948 species of amphibians, and 2110 species of fish.

10. Furthermore, many of the successful reintroductions have their own history of struggle and strife. Take, for example, the Black-footed ferret (McCarthy 2004, 196/vii). In 1986, the Black-footed ferret population had diminished to a mere xviii individuals, only thanks to a convict breeding plan, more than 220 at present roam the prairie of the US state of Wyoming. The program was not, however, entirely plain sailing. When the kits were released they were far too blasé to make themselves scarce when predators such as eagles, coyotes and badgers arrived on the scene. The researchers tried to resolve this trouble by building a mock predator. They attached wheels to a stuffed badger, which would win fame as RoboBadger. The but way the ferrets could escape RoboBadger was to find a couch. The researchers then tried to increase the ferrets' aversion to RoboBadger past firing rubber bands at them.

12. A recent and also very promising strategy to tackle the trouble of limited space concerns the creation of walkways between enclosures that permit animals greater liberty of movement. Edifice a network of trails, in particular acme tree trails, gives animals the opportunity to rotate between various interconnected display and off-brandish areas. Animals may spend mornings in one area and afternoons in some other. This design strategy was starting time applied in Philadelphia Zoo, with merely 42 acres a relatively small zoo.

    http://theconversation.com/zoos-of-the-time to come-break-downward-the-enclosure-walls-26605.

13. Edward O. Wilson once said that it cannot exist stressed enough "that, as a whole, invertebrates are more important than vertebrates for the conservation of ecosystems. If invertebrates were to die out, I fearfulness that the homo race would survive for just a few months" (Wilson 1987, 345).

14. Jamieson even blames zoos for being deeply implicated in causing the trouble that they purport to be addressing; they undermine the case for preserving wild nature by taking more and more animals out of the wild (Jamieson 1995, 62).

References

• Baker, A. (2007). Brute ambassadors: An analysis of the effectiveness and conservation touch on of ex situ convenance efforts. In A. Zimmermann, M. Hatchwell, 50. Dickie, & C. West (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 139–154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Beck, B. (1995). Reintroduction, zoos, conservation, and beast welfare. In B. Norton, Thousand. Hutchins, Due east. Stevens, & T. Maple (Eds.), Ethics on the Ark (pp. 155–163). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

  Google Scholar

• Bowkett, A. East. (2008). Contempo captive-breeding proposals and the render of the Ark concept to global species conservation. Conservation Biological science, 23(three), 773–776.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Byers, O., Lees, C., Wilcken, J., & Schwitzer, C. (2013). The 1 plan approach: The philosophy and implementation of CBSG's approach to integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Mag, 14, two–5.

  Google Scholar

• Callicott, J. B. (1980). Animal liberation: A triangular affair. Ecology Ideals, 2, 311–338.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Conde, D. A., Flesness, Due north., Colchero, F., Jones, O. R., & Scheuerlein, A. (2011). An emerging part of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science, 331(6023), 1390–1391.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Conway, W. (2003). The role of zoos in the 21st century. International Zoo Yearbook, 38, 7–xiii.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Conway, W. (2011). Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biology, 30, 1–eight.

  Google Scholar

• Davey, G. (2006). Visitor beliefs in zoo: A review. Anthrozoos, 19(2), 143–157.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Dickens, M. J., Delehanty, D. J., & Romero, Fifty. Thou. (2010). Stress: An inevitable component of creature translocation. Biological Conservation, 143, 1329–1341.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Dickie, L. A., Bonner, J. P., & West, C. (2007). In situ and ex situ conservation: Blurring the boundaries between zoos and the wild. In A. Zimmermann, One thousand. Hatchwell, Fifty. Dickie, & C. Due west (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 220–235). Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press.

  Google Scholar

• Fa, J. East., Funk, S. M., & O'Connell, D. (2011). Zoo conservation biology. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press.

  Book  Google Scholar

• Falk, J. H., et al. (2007). Why zoos & aquariums affair: Assessing the affect of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Bound, MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

  Google Scholar

• Gewin, V. (2008). Riders of a mod-day ark. PLoS Biological science, 6(1), 18–21.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Gusset, One thousand., & Dick, G. (2011). The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology, 30, 566–569.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Gwynne, J. A. (2007). Inspiration for chat: Moving audiences to care. In A. Zimmermann, M. Hatchwell, Fifty. Dickie, & C. W (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 52–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Hancocks, D. (2001). A different nature. The paradoxical world of zoos and their uncertain time to come. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  Google Scholar

• Hanson, E. (2002). Fauna attractions. Nature on display in American zoos. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Hargrove, E. C. (Ed.). (1992). The animal rights/environmental ethics debate. The ecology perspective. Albany: Land University of New York Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Hatchwell, G., & Rübel, A. (2007). The Masoala rainforest: A model partnership in support of in situ conservation in Madagascar. In A. Zimmermann, M. Hatchwell, 50. Dickie, & C. Westward (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 205–219). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Hatchwell, M., Rübel, A., Dickie, L. A., West, C., & Zimmermann, A. (2007). Conclusion: The hereafter of zoos. In A. Zimmermann, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, & C. W (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 343–360). Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press.

  Google Scholar

• Hutchins, M. (2003). Zoo and aquarium animal management and conservation: Electric current trends and time to come challenges. International Zoo Yearbook, 38, 14–28.

  Article  Google Scholar

• IUCN. (2000). Guidelines for the placement of confiscated animals. Gland, Switzerland.

• IUCN. (2002). Technical guidelines on the management of ex situ populations for conservation. Gland, Switzerland.

• IUCN. (2014). Guidelines on the utilize of ex situ management for species conservation. Version two.0. Gland, Switzerland.

• Jamieson, D. (1985). Against zoos. In P. Vocalizer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 108–117). New York: Basil Blackwell.

  Google Scholar

• Jamieson, D. (1995). Zoos revisited. In B. Norton, M. Hutchins, East. Stevens, & T. Maple (Eds.), Ideals on the Ark (pp. 52–66). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

  Google Scholar

• Jamieson, D., & Elliot, R. (2009). Progressive consequentialism. Philosophical Perspectives, 23, 241–255.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kaufman, L. (2012a). To save some species, zoos must allow others die. New York Times, May 27.

• Kaufman, Fifty. (2012b). Zoos struggle to brood endangered animals. New York Times, July 5.

• Keulartz, J., & Swart, J. (2012). Animal flourishing and capabilities in an era of global change. In A. Thompson & J. Bendik-Keymer (Eds.), Ethical adaptation to climate change (pp. 123–144). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  Google Scholar

• Keulartz, J., & Van der Weele, C. (2008). Framing and reframing in invasion biology. Configurations, sixteen(1), 93–115.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Kreger, M. D., Hutchins, M., & Fascione, N. (1998). Context, ethics, and environmental enrichment in zoos and aquariums. In D. Shepherdson, et al. (Eds.), Second nature. Environmental enrichment for convict animals (pp. 59–82). Washington and London: Smithsonian Establishment Press.

  Google Scholar

• Leader-Williams, Northward., Balmford, A., Linkie, M., Mace, G. G., Smith, R. J., Stevenson, M., et al. (2007). Across the ark: conservation biologists' views of the achievements of zoos in conservation. In A. Zimmermann, One thousand. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, & C. W (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 236–254). Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Lees, C. M., & Wilcken, J. (2009). Sustaining the Ark: The challenges faced by zoos in maintaining viable population. Zoo Yearbook, 43, vi–18.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Mace, One thousand. M., Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N., Manica, A., Walter, O., West, C., & Zimmermann, A. (2007). Measuring conservation success: Assessing zoos' contribution. In A. Zimmermann, 1000. Hatchwell, Fifty. Dickie, & C. Due west (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 322–342). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Marino, 50., Lilienfeld, S. O., Malamud, R., Nobis, N., & Brogliod, R. (2010). Do zoo and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Club and Animals, eighteen, 126–138.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• McCarthy, Southward. (2004). Condign a tiger. How baby animals learn to live in the wild. New York: Harper Perennial.

  Google Scholar

• McShane, One thousand. (2014). Individualist biocentrism vs. Holism revisited. Les Ateliers de l'Ethique/The Ethics Forum, 9(2), 130–148.

  Google Scholar

• Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. (2013). Ecological ethics in captivity: Balancing values and responsibilities in zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change. ILAR, 54(ane), 41–51.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. From the wild to the walled: Ethical aspects of "Pan Situ" conservation. In B. Hale, & A. Light (Eds.), Routledge companion to ecology ethics. London: Routledge. (in preparation).

• Toll, M. R. S., & Fa, J. E. (2007). Reintroductions from zoos: A conservation guiding calorie-free or a shooting star? In A. Zimmermann, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, & C. West (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 155–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Redford, Grand., Jensen, D., & Breheny, J. (2012). Integrating the captive and the wild. Science, 338, 1157–1158.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Regan, T. (1983). The case for fauna rights. Berkeley: Academy of California Press.

  Google Scholar

• Regan, T. (1995). Are zoos morally defensible. In B. Norton, M. Hutchins, Due east. Stevens, & T. Maple (Eds.), Ethics on the Ark (pp. 38–51). Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press.

  Google Scholar

• Rolston, H. (1988). Environmental ethics. Duties to and values in the natural world. Philadelphia: Temple Academy Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Sagoff, M. (1984). Creature liberation and environmental ethics: Bad marriage, quick divorce. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 22, 297–307.

  Google Scholar

• Sandler, R. 50. (2012). The ideals of species. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Book  Google Scholar

• Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection. New York: Bones Books.

  Google Scholar

• Singer, P. (1979). Non for humans only: The place of nonhumans in environmental issues. In K. Due east. Goodpaster & K. Yard. Sayre (Eds.), Ethics and bug of the 21st century (pp. 191–206). Notre Dame: University of Notre Matriarch Printing.

  Google Scholar

• Soulé, Thou. (1990). The onslaught of conflicting species, and other challenges in the coming decades. Conservation Biology, 4(3), 233–239.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Soulé, M., Gilpin, M., Conway, W., & Foose, T. (1986). The millenium ark: How long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers. Zoo Biology, 5, 101–113.

  Article  Google Scholar

• Sterling, East., Lee, J., & Wood, T. (2007). Conservation didactics in zoos: An accent on behavioral change. In A. Zimmermann, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, & C. W (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation (pp. 37–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Google Scholar

• Tribe, A., & Berth, R. (2003). Assessing the role of zoos in wildlife conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, eight, 65–74.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Wilson, E. O. (1987). The little things that run the earth (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conservation Biological science, 1, 344–346.

  Commodity  Google Scholar

• Woods, 1000., & Moriarty, Five. (2001). Strangers in a foreign state: The problem of exotic species. Environmental Values, 10, 163–191.

  Article  Google Scholar

• World Clan of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). (1993). Executive summary of the globe zoo conservation strategy—The office of the zoos and aquaria of the earth in global conservation. Gland: WAZA.

  Google Scholar

• World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). (2005). Building a futurity for wildlife—The earth zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. Gland: WAZA.

  Google Scholar

Download references

Author data

Affiliations

1. Emeritus Professor of Environmental Philosophy, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The netherlands

   Jozef Keulartz

2. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The netherlands

   Jozef Keulartz

Respective author

Correspondence to Jozef Keulartz.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

Well-nigh this commodity

Cite this article

Keulartz, J. Captivity for Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 335–351 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9537-z

Download citation

• Accepted: 22 February 2015

• Published: 13 March 2015

• Issue Date: Apr 2015

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9537-z

Keywords

• Future zoo
• Fauna welfare
• Species conservation
• Metapopulation management

williamssommor.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-015-9537-z

Share this post