The inbreeding is a large contributing factor. Before the 70’s animal breeding in the US was a fucking nightmare. All of it was done like a puppy mill, pretty much. Records were not good.
This results in an animal populace that had been unscientifically bred for commercial purposes being the primary available breeding stock to begin actual scientific breeding. Do you get it? We started out with almost uniformly defective breeding stock full of bad traits we have been breeding out for 40 years. These animals like past 60, we’re only a few generations into a complete overhaul of a biome.
Now, at the same time people became more “woke” about captive breeding we also became more “woke” about importing endangered animals. The very good moral awakening that started the change in how we bred these animals also retarded our ability to get fresh genetic material to make our efforts work better.
The other factor is that the high infant mortality rate is basically made up and unsupported by actual scientific field reports. Why on Earth would you be willing to believe that animals bred in captivity have a higher mortality rate than wild bred animals? There is a higher specific mortality rate due to some genetic abnormalities. Not a higher overall mortality rate.
Your one source is an animal rights org and not a scientific org. You accuse me of not presenting fact, that’s because anyone with google can find this on their own from peer review sources easily and I can’t be accused of cherrypicking.
I validate the truth of how you feel. But that’s what it is, feelings. The scientists running the breeding program have a specific agenda: “preserve the species”. It is clear and they can show you a charted path that they are on towards that end.
You have no agenda beyond “that’s bad, it’s mean, and I have no practical means to do anything about preserving animals but I have a lot of complaints” You’re the Republican Congress wanting to abolish the ACA with no idea how to replace it.
OF THE 28 ELEPHANTS BORN AT THE OREGON ZOO SINCE 1962:
7 DIED AT BIRTH 25%
5 DIED BEFORE AGE 20 18%
4 DIED BEFORE AGE 35 14%
3 SICK 11%
1 STATUS UNKNOWN 3%
8 ALIVE 29%
SOURCE: Absolute Elephant Information Encyclopedia Database www.elephant.se
That’s a lot of dead elephants at a young age.
Much of what you say may be true, but uses a circular logic that begins with the assumption that breeding elephants for captivity is producing results that strengthen wild populations. I would be interested in seeing the charted path you refer to. As far as I know the breeding program is not designed to feed into wild populations at all.
Objecting to inhumane treatment of animals and programs that perpetuate that treatment is not incompatible or inconsistent with supporting actual conservation efforts. Supporting those efforts is something I do. What do you know about my ‘agenda?’ Fuck off with your half-assed ACA comparison.
Again, you’re dealing with a genetically diseased breeding populace and you’re not actually contrasting the mortality rates with any comparable wild stock.
Moneys raised by zoos working within the AVA and other international networks, including the OZ, go to fund habitat preservation/restoration which directly help wild herds in all regards. You’re seemingly operating under the notion that the genes and animals themselves should be going back to the wild. This is really crazy. Once again: our stock is less biodiverse than theirs. They would get no benefit from receiving our genetic material*. As I have stated repeatedly, and as supported by the AZA and every international pachyderm breeding agency we actually need their wild genetic stock to increase the health of our own animals.
The breeding programs exist to give zoos an animal that generates money to “send back home” so to speak. Nothing to show the public and there is no money to do actual wild preservation.
How is this not making sense?
Also the medical study of captive animals helps with the diagnosis of parasite and other disease vectors that can impact threatened herds.
*some research which could lead to us implanting genes in wild animals is ongoing. It’s for things like making animals not grow tusks or horns, though. Not to improve the regular gene of the herd in the wild.
//This all comes down to your belief that they are suffering in captivity while their wild brethren are not. There is no philosophically objective way to prove that this is so or not so. It comes down to more “feelings”.
Some animals live in captivity to pay the way for the freedom and lives of other animals. Those captive animals live much longer and healthier lives than those in the wild and very rarely die in the jaws of another animal. That’s the reality of it, that’s basically what every actual scientist has agreed on.
I guarantee that unless you’re some crazy billionaire then you have not done as much to save elephants or any other kind of animal in your entire life than the OZ has in just on 1/4 of 2016.
The reason people think you’re unreasonable is because you are. It’s ok to be unreasonable, but you have to be right too. That’s where you fall down. you need a less logical audience or to modify your argument.
Who thinks I’m unreasonable? A cheerleader for elephant exhibition?
What supports your conclusion that the only effective way to raise money for elephant conservation is to exhibit elephants? Is that your “feeling”? Your conceit about ‘paving the way’ is utterly self-serving. How is it not making sense? I don’t buy into your fantasy that this is the most effective way to conserve elephants. That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
It’s not about feelings, but about the cruelty and stupidity of confining very large animals adapted for migratory lifestyles in very small areas, where they are prone to disease and behavioral problems. Shipping them around in trucks and trains, using brutal control methods to train and discipline them (surely you know about the abuse some of the OZ elephants took with bullhooks, that’s well documented).
I never thought that these breeding programs did or should feed into wild stocks, I thought you were making that claim.
For someone who provides no evidence for his assertions, you are awfully prone to oozing condescension about someone else’s arguments. For instance, what is your evidence that captive elephants are healthier and live longer than their wild counterparts? Just the opposite, from what I have read. I get it if you’re getting paid by the OZ, but your embedded assumptions don’t fly outside of that bubble.
I’m not making any crazy claims. You’re the one trying to imply that infant mortality is higher in the OZ than it is in the wild. You’re the one implying that funds earned in this way don’t contribute to preservation/conservation/restoration.
I have somewhat-patiently stated and restated the obvious, like zoos raise money by displaying animals and you don’t have an alternative to raise money.
The fact that you have made it to this age and the obvious still eludes you is society’s problem in general, not mine here tonight.
As for who thinks you’re unreasonable: The general consensus across nearly the entire world is that the current system of animal ownership and conservation is the way to go. If it was the other way around you would be getting your way. You’re not. There’s some evidence citation for you. Reality is my citation.
Because Portland is cold in the winter, and the Zoo is up on a mountain next to the city, the reptiles are all in a temperature-controlled building instead of out in the open.
