Increasingly zoo experts are questioning the effectiveness of isolated ex situ breeding for conservation. Some have argued along these lines that “there are far too many endangered species and not nearly enough space to breed them all in captivity and, in many cases, far too little habitat remaining in which to reintroduce them. In addition, reintroduction programs are difficult and expensive, and they amount to treating the symptoms of species loss rather than the causes”. As a result of these realizations, many zoo experts have become wary of the “zoos as arks” metaphor, once again focusing on the sustainability of zoo populations within zoos. — Excerpt from The Ethics of Captivity by Lori Gruen (2014)
About the Author: Claire O'Neill ➔
Claire is a co-founder of Earthwise Aware (EwA), an environmental nonprofit that brings biodiversity knowledge and science, ecological ethics, and environmental leadership to the heart of communities. She is the director of EwA's Biodiversity & Climate Participatory Science program– an initiative that connects the public with its immediate natural systems and empowers communities. EwA focuses on place-based urban wildlife and natural history, and the conservation of species interactions. Its program runs regular continuous biodiversity and phenology studies in 8 cities. The program fosters a deeper understanding of ecological systems and provides tools to the public to make evidence-based environmental decisions. Locally, Claire is a co-organizer of the iNaturalist City Nature Challenge for the Greater Boston Area. She also serves as a board member of the Friends of the Fells, and is an advisor for the Green & Open Somerville group. [More...]
Claire strongly believes that individually and altogether we can be ethically & ecologically engaged–whoever we are, whatever we do, and wherever we are. Ethical Nature conservation is not circumstantial, it is a mindset that you acquire which then turns into a way of life. Once on that path, a great many rewards for us becomes obvious. And the satisfaction out of practicing good ethics is almost addictive. There is no looking back...
Her favorite motto: “Nature Conservation as A Way of Life”
Yes, captivity breeding is undoubtedly a complex and emotionally charged topic. It often elicits strong reactions from people, and rightly so. The reality is that discussions around it are seldom black or white; there’s a myriad of shades of gray that we must explore before endorsing any practice as unconditionally justifiable. Recently, there has been a troubling trend of silencing individuals who dare to ask questions or express concerns about captivity breeding—an attitude that should not prevail. In today’s world, it takes true courage to raise uncomfortable yet essential questions, especially when everyone feels entitled to an opinion, regardless of whether it’s well-informed or not.
Instead of shutting down dissenting voices, we should foster an environment of humility and compassion, welcoming legitimate concerns and inquiries. By delving into the nuances of captivity breeding programs and understanding their true outcomes, we can ensure that these programs genuinely benefit the species they aim to protect.
It’s true that there is a notable public affection for captive breeding, which may be partly fueled by media bias. Dramatic and successful programs often receive more attention from reporters, while failures are frequently overlooked. However, the harsh reality is that raising and breeding wild animals in captivity is an immensely challenging task, and releasing them successfully into the wild is even more so. Moreover, the costs associated with captivity breeding programs must be weighed against the effectiveness of in-situ conservation efforts—a comparison that often reveals discrepancies.
While some well-managed and thoroughly researched captive breeding programs have led to the recovery of endangered species, such as the black-footed ferrets and California condors, it’s essential to approach each program on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, captive breeding is sometimes used as a default strategy without considering its broader implications. From prohibitive costs to low success rates, welfare issues, and genetic loss, there are numerous factors to consider.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) itself advocates for captive breeding as a last resort, acknowledging that it cannot address the root causes of ecosystem destruction or remove threats facing species. For instance, despite extensive efforts to reintroduce captive-bred California condors into the wild, conservationists faced unforeseen challenges, such as lead poisoning from ingesting shot pellets. This highlights the complexities and limitations of captive breeding as a conservation tool, underscoring the importance of holistic approaches to conservation that address underlying environmental issues.
Now, here is a short insightful high-level article to get you started on the topic:
When you’re witnessing a disaster like the current extinction crisis unfold, doing something feels better than doing nothing. That’s one reason captive breeding programs are so common-it’s difficult to stand by and watch a species careen toward oblivion. But a new study says our interventionist urges often lack scientific support and, in some cases, do more harm than good.
There is a lot of evidence out there at our disposal, a lot for us to learn about this issue, then become aware and incite those programs to improve and generally move in the right direction. Sharing real information is really caring…
No Comments Yet