Always a hot issue in zoos but euthanasia must be recognised as
an absolutely essential part of the long term and proper management of
species in captivity. There is nothing wrong in killing an animal if it
is done quickly and with forethought and kindness. When animals are
euthanized for the correct reasons then it is morally right and
justified. The uninformed will often level accusations of being
'heartless' and 'not caring' when precisely the opposite is true. Good
zoos with managed populations can see the bigger picture.
In the
wild, animals die in tragic, painful and stressful situations every day.
It is a very much a kill or be killed world and if you don't face those
two options you could face starvation or disease.
Within the good
modern zoo nature's cruel balance has been stalled. Animals survive.
They live longer. Equal numbers of males and females live. Man has to
manage, to properly govern. Indeed today man is having to manage the
wild as well. Culling of elephants, of deer and others has become a
necessity to ensure that the larger populations do not starve.
Euthanasia
in zoos is only part of species management and goes hand in hand with
contraception, breeding separation and bachelor groups.
People
seem more ready to accept the culling of huge numbers of cattle and
sheep to prevent disease outbreak. Thousands of unwanted dogs and cats
are killed worldwide and scarcely a murmur is raised. In zoos however it
is different. Here species are readily broken down into specimens. No
longer are animals faceless nameless numbers but creatures people can
and do relate to. The zoos often create the situation themselves with
publicity photos and 'name the baby' competitions and there is nothing
wrong in that. Part of a zoos role is to raise species awareness and
this is best done through specimens. The specimens are however part of
the species and it is the species which is being managed and not
individuals.
The modern zoo is about the long term management of
genetically viable healthy populations of various species. It is
important to recognise that this is long term. Nobody realistically
believes that animals are about to be returned to the wild any time
soon. Admittedly it does occur in certain limited instances but for the
most part the problems facing animals in the wild do not appear to be
going away anytime soon. With proper captive species management it may
be as far as a hundred years from now that animals can be returned.
Distant
though the prospect is the species need to be ready. They need to be
healthy and they need to be not too closely related. Animals can be
taught to hunt, to recognise danger and more. To be 're-wilded' if you
like. It is being done now in limited numbers today.
One vital
aspect of captive species management is breeding. It is important with
the limited number of captive species held that unrelated animals are
paired up. Within the modern zoo cooperative this is done by the Species
Coordinator using sophisticated computer programmes supplied by ISIS
the International Species Information System. This is no go it alone
project but good zoos banded together for the good of the species as a
whole. The specimens are important but only as part of the overall
species plan. The ISIS database holds the records of around two and a
half million animals. Specimens may be cared for and greatly loved but
their real value is as genetic contributors.
The proper management
of species in captivity requires that zoos that care, good zoos, sign
up to the species management plan. This can be for any species and there
are many such management plans already. The plan is put together by
Taxon Advisory Groups or TAG's which meet together periodically to
discuss progress, well being, husbandry and the overall status of the
species in the wild and captivity. The TAG's will approve and appoint a
studbook holder and coordinator to keep a very close watch on 'their'
species. Some studbooks may well be EEP's, or European Breeding
Programmes and so involve an even greater number of zoos. They will
produce an annual report and will advise on future breeding, moves,
contraception and animals surplus to the overall plan.
The TAGS in
their turn are watched over by recognised established and sensible zoo
authorities. Within the UK this would be BIAZA the British and Irish
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. BIAZA is a member of EAZA, the
European Association of ZOOS and Aquariums. EAZA works very closely with
other genuine zoo authorities around the world such as AZA, the
American Zoo and Aquarium Association. It may all sound a little bit
complicated but it needs to be if species are to be saved for future
generations. Zoos which fall outside the umbrella of these reputable and
concerned authorities have little or no understanding of species
management and care little about the future. They are more concerned
with lining their pockets today.
The importance of a specimen's
contribution to the species management plan needs to be constantly
assessed. It is important to know if the animal is capable of breeding
and of rearing young. It is important to know this even if the young are
not needed or found to be surplus to requirements later. There are
several benefits to allowing animals to breed. First and foremost is to
the animals themselves so they can experience the natural enrichment of
rearing young. The species coordinator can assess breeding potential and
if the young are needed then all well and good. The zoo benefits from
having baby animals on show which the public love. It can be a win win
situation.
When such breeding is allowed then parent rearing is
absolutely essential otherwise the object of the exercise is defeated
and there is no benefit to any of the animals. In the management of
species the decision on what happens to the young must rest with the
Species Coordinator and not with the zoo the animals are in or to the
decision of someone who cannot grasp the overall scheme of things.
If
the young are surplus to the overall population either in terms of
numbers or over represented genes then they should be euthanized.
Preferably this would be done at that time when the young would
naturally disperse in the wild.
It may well be that contraception
may be used over the next few breedings but the animal may well be
allowed to breed again, perhaps with a different mate. Long term
contraception can be positively harmful and may actually cause an animal
to become sterile. Ensuring the animal is capable of breeding is
important.
There are only a certain number of captive spaces
available to species. Not every zoo is in a position to hold or wants to
keep Tigers or Elephants or Condors. Space is at a premium.
Animals
in good zoos are cared for they are loved even. Zoo staff are kind and
considerate and genuinely concerned for their charges. Zoo staff can see
the bigger picture, above and beyond the blinkered vision of some of
their ill informed critics.
Euthanasia is only one part of Species
Management. Passing or selling surplus animals outside of the species
management programme is both dangerous and defeatist. Animals outside of
a breeding programme contribute nothing to conservation or the overall
welfare and well being of the species. In fact the opposite usually
applies. On more than one occasion new blood/new genes tigers have been
imported from outside of a breeding programme only to discover later
that they were sub-specific hybrids. In fact the vast majority of tigers
outside the managed 'good' zoo populations are 'generic' tigers of
uncertain parentage or origin. Worse still is that closely related or
sub specific hybrids are bred together. This is especially so with White
Tigers which some less reputable zoos like to breed and promote in the
name of conservation.
Sending unwanted surplus animals away to the
so called 'rescue centres' or 'sanctuaries' is quite simply, wrong. The
'out of sight, out of mind' attitude does nothing at all for species
conservation. It is a cowardly way out. The 'Rescue Centres' and
'Sanctuaries' are undoubtedly saving lives but they are NOT saving
species. The opposite is more true. They may even breed animals and so
compound the problem. They are not breeding for conservation however.
They
breed to line their pockets by having cubs on show to present to a
gullible public. It could be argued that far from saving lives that
these places are responsible for the absolutely pointless and
purposeless deaths of thousands of other animals. A surplus tiger could
easily be expected to live for around fifteen years. That tiger will
happily consume 7 Kg of beef for 6 days a week for 52 weeks of the year.
That is 2,184 Kg of beef a year. Within the so called 'Sanctuaries' and
'Rescue Centres' there are hundreds of surplus generic tigers eating
the same amount. That is an awful lot of cows being killed especially to
feed animals which are essentially valueless to conservation and
useless for long term species conservation. Is the life of one surplus
tiger worth more than that of a hundred or so cows?
No zoo likes
culling or euthanasia but good zoos face up to the fact. If we are to
maintain the species for our great grandchildren, for the world, for
posterity then harsh but sensible and logical decisions must be made.
Holding
surplus long term rather than deal with euthanasia not only takes up
spaces that could be utilised for other species programmes but it wastes
employees time and utilises money that could be spent on further
conservation projects.
Outside of Species Management zoos
sometimes need to cull the sick, the weak and the elderly. No-one likes
to do it. No-one like to choose but the choices have to be made. Quality
of life has to be considered along resources and money available.
Deciding to euthanize is not abstention from caring. It IS caring!
