"Working independently, these people have accomplished one of the greatest conservation goals in history. They have found reasons to maintain viable self-sustaining captive populations of species in captivity. And they have done it independently and without taking a penny from the government."
Where, in the United States of America, would you expect to find a tiger? If you ask 100 people on the street that question, I'm sure that 95% of them would say "a zoo", the rest maybe saying a circus. The fact is, however, that the vast majority of tigers in this country aren't in public zoos, but are in private hands. The later category includes private zoos, circuses and showmen, and folks who just... own a tiger. And it's not just tigers, nor is it just America - across the world, an amazing variety of animals are kept in sustainable breeding populations spread across thousands of owners, many of whom never give the others a moment of thought.
Now, I've talked to many of folks over the years who are ambivalent about captive wild animals - a few fire-breathing anti-zoo folks, but the vast majority seem to accept the role of animals in captivity, especially if it contributes to the conservation of the species. The Bakers, however, swing in an extreme direction I'd never seen before - anything that results in a breeding population in captivity is desirable. Take cows - if you like cows, it argues, you should eat lots of steak and wear lots of leather. Why? Because if we didn't utilize cows, then we wouldn't breed them, and cows would vanish from the face of the earth. The Bakers repeatedly invoke what they call the unwritten rule of nature: what is good for the species might not be good for the individual. No individual prey animal wants to be killed by a predator, but the well-being of the species depends on it for population control.
Much of the book deals with a subject that many private keepers struggle with - regulation. The authors are snake keepers by practice, so for their case study they focus on the Burmese python, a species which has recently been declared an invasive species in the Florida Everglades. This has resulted in increased restrictions not only the Burmese python itself, but on many large constrictors. The authors call into question much of the science and logic behind this ban, and challenge the assumption that the good supposedly done by these regulations outweighs the conservation contributions of private owners.
The Bakers also describe their zoo of the future, and it differs considerably from what we have now. There wouldn't be a giraffe exhibit, or instance - there would be a row of giraffe pens, each smaller and simpler than the exhibits we have now. That's because the purpose won't be to display animals, it will be to mass-produce them, breeding a surplus which will then go into private hands. If some of those giraffes end up in unfortunate situations, then "see the unwritten role."
Some of the positions advocated by the Bakers seem a little extreme to me. They do, however, raise a very valid point. The zoos and aquariums of the world simply cannot save more than the most miniscule fraction of species through captive breeding. They need help, a support network, if you will. The "Invisible Ark" already exists, and it is supporting the genetic diversity of a tremendous array of species. By insulating themselves, zoos will eventually lose many of the animals that they work with to attrition and loss of genetic diversity. By working together (with reputable, responsible, and ethical partners), zoos can achieve so much more in saving species.
The Invisible Ark: In Defense of Captivity at Amazon.com
No comments:
Post a Comment