Last edited by Napoleon; 02-11-14 at 02:09 AM.
1) The post I responded to claimed the ACA was against culling animals for genetic management. This is a lie"based on" doesn't mean he was required to do it? You have tried to argue that there was some unavoidable compulsion -- you even claimed a fellow board member's sister was a liar for saying there was no compulsion -- and now you are trying to weasel out of it.
2) If you want to interpret as adherence to professional guidelines as "unavoidable compulsion" I can't do much for you. But I know AZA members come under review every couple of years and not adhering to AZA guidelines will risk losing them their accreditation, which is a significant risk to any such institution. And something they are unlikely to look at as one of no consequence
While space and resources could be better used to further aid the captive breeding program? No, because it would seem like mindless sentimentality. And in a scientific institution such as a zoo, the intent should be the long term management of the captive species, not ewwy good feelingsSo? Would they have agreed with him had he sent Marius to the UK zoo?
because I was involved in a few amateur projects to manage genetic diversity in captive animal species?How would you know?
based on what, your outrage? Yeah, I'm not buying what you are selling, captainAnd I am rejecting the idiotic rationale to exclude the non-lethal alternatives.
<<<Brush-tail rock wallabies are currently being raised in species recovery programs and restored to the wild to bolster populations of this endangered species. Here, researchers found that nearly half of fecal samples from wallabies raised in these programs contained bacterial genes that encode resistance to streptomycin, spectinomycin and trimethoprim. None of these genes were detected in samples from five wild populations of wallabies. The authors add, "How these genes made their way into the wallaby microbes is unknown, but it seems likely that water or feed may have acted as a conduit for bacteria carrying these genes."
Previous research shows that proximity to humans can increase animals' exposure to antibiotic resistance genes and the organisms that carry them. Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been reported in the wild from chimpanzees in Uganda, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and a wide range of fish, birds and mammals. According to the researchers, their findings highlight the potential for genes and pathogens from human sources to be spread. Power says, "We found that antibiotic resistance genes from human pathogens have been picked up by endangered rock wallabies in a breeding program, and may spread into the wild when the wallabies are released.">>>
Read more at: Captive-bred wallabies may carry antibiotic resistant bacteria into wild populations
<<<Appropriate health checks should be carried out prior to release. A careful assessment (risk analysis) must be made as to the risks of released animals introducing novel pathogens (disease agents) into the wild population/environment.
These pathogens may have been acquired from domestic animals, other wildlife casualties or humans whilst the animal was in captivity.
The health checks should be designed to minimise the risk that pathogens posing a threat to wild populations of this or other species will be introduced into the environment when the animal is released.>>>
Release of Casualty Dormice (Techniques)
Pro-tip, research any of the various control protocols used when establishing new wild populations in captivity. One of the main things they try to do is manage the animal in it's home environment as to reduce the risk from geographically foreign diseases and limit it's exposure to animals outside it's immediate environment. Naturally, a zoo, in a foreign country, is the last place such breeding programs ideally take place, especially in open exhibits.(Pro-tip: The giraffe was found to he perfectly healthy before it was killed and animals are released safely to the wild all the time.)
Last edited by Dr. Chuckles; 02-11-14 at 04:41 AM.
management of the captive populationSecond, what exactly does that mean for a zoo which has no wildlife release program?
How much money do you think it costs to properly house and feed a giraffe for 5-6 years? Those resources could be better used towards productive managementThis particular giraffe wouldn't have even started mating for another 5-6 years. The fact that they chose to kill it now, before there's even a risk of mating, shows a callous disregard for life IMO.
Look, these lions have to eat some kind of meat everyday. If I had to guess they probably get lots of beef-- and maybe even horse meat, but I haven't heard anyone crying over the cows and horses.
It sounds like there was a good reason why this giraffe needed to be destroyed, so why not feed it to the lions. It's not like they can just take a dead giraffe and put it into the trash can out by the curb. And if it didn't get fed to some of the resident carnivores, it probably would have ended up as dog food, or some by product that they put in shampoo.
Seems like the only ones who haven't complained about this are the lions. Yum!
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)
So many clueless hippies...
Ok, that does it! I waste Professor Plum with the lead pipe.
Oh yeah? Well say hello to my little friend, Colonel Mustard! Candlestick to the face!
This is the last time I'm playing Clue with you guys...