Animals Animal Rights

[Reiku]

Mycernius, I tolerate Christians coming up to me. In fact, when I see a group of them circling about outside a Starbacks, I often place myself in their path so that they talk to me about their superstition. You should see it, after a few minutes they raise eyebrows to others that have not decended upon me yet and soon they are all in a frenzy around me. It is quite fun to see them in that state.

Hah, I guess we have something in common after all--I've been doing the same thing with the animal rights people on this forum, haven't I?

 

[No-name]

Just thought I would throw in another shameless plug for my brother's great novel: Atomik Aztex by Sesshu Foster. If you believe in animal rights you need to rush out and but the novel right away. (Check out the blog at: http://www.citylights.com/blog/) The protagonist in "his" reality is a high aztec priest who has nightmares of an alternate reality where he a slave who slaughters pigs for a living at the Farmer John Vernon plant. As such it can be viewed as an oblique criticism of the industrialized meat processing industry- which is graphically described in the "nightmares" Zenzotli has.

Questions from the blog site:
there's a bumpersticker that says, "meat is murder". do you feel that the industrial process of food is well-hidden from you? does food and your place in the industrial food process matter?

and
a reviewer for the san antonio mercury wrote: "The result is a clever psychodrama of false consciousness and misidentification, brought into stark relief by the visions that torment our Aztek protagonist: He dreams that he is a "slave" in a meat-packing plant in Southern California." what role does "false consciousness and misidentification" play in the novel? what role does "false consciousness and misidentification" play in life?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I posted the following earlier and wondered if anyone could address the bolded -- if they have information showing success:

>I am wondering if a zoo has ever been successful at saving an animal from extinction and then reintroducing it and that the recovery of that species was catagorically due to the zoo`s intervention and that agreed to by the majority of zoologists and biologists. I don`t think that has ever happened. I could be wrong. If that has happened many times then I think that zoos have demonstrated their worth as a kind of "ark" for animals. But, if that has not happened, I think they are using that as an excuse to justify their continued existance in the face of declining visitors and more harsh criticism of them in recent years.<

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I posted the following earlier and wondered if anyone could address the bolded -- if they have information showing success:
>I am wondering if a zoo has ever been successful at saving an animal from extinction and then reintroducing it and that the recovery of that species was catagorically due to the zoo`s intervention and that agreed to by the majority of zoologists and biologists. I don`t think that has ever happened. I could be wrong. If that has happened many times then I think that zoos have demonstrated their worth as a kind of "ark" for animals. But, if that has not happened, I think they are using that as an excuse to justify their continued existance in the face of declining visitors and more harsh criticism of them in recent years.<

Can you give any examples when an endangered animal at a zoo has a suitable habitat to go back to? Its well known that zoo's have helped save many animals from the brink of extinction, but it is pointless returning them back to the wild if their natural habitats cannot support them properly, which is why most endangered animals on breeding programs end up in zoo's being there in the first place. You seem to want to get rid of all zoo's, which is just ridiculous right now looking from many of the animals point of view in how they fair.

 

[Mycernius]

Can you give any examples when an endangered animal at a zoo has a suitable habitat to go back to? Its well known that zoo's have helped save many animals from the brink of extinction, but it is pointless returning them back to the wild if their natural habitats cannot support them properly, which is why most endangered animals on breeding programs end up in zoo's being there in the first place. You seem to want to get rid of all zoo's, which is just ridiculous right now looking from many of the animals point of view in how they fair.

The Mexican Grey wolf. They used ones in captivity to breed from and released them into the wild in areas where they were wiped out.
Here is a link:
http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mexicanwolf/
I saw a programme on the TV about it. I have just had to find it, as I couldn't quite remember the extact species

 

[Silverbackman]

Eating meat is most definitely okay. We are omnivores by definition and meat played a big role in the development of our species's brain. I think it is okay to eat most species except humans and other great apes (only in rare circumstances when they are dead and you are starving, is it okay to consume humans and great apes).

Dairy products from non-human animals are perfectly fine, don't see anything wrong with that.

Zoos and circuses are okay as long as the animals are kept in a healthy clean environment.

It depends on the animal when it comes to animal tests. Using great apes maybe unethical, I haven't decided on that. However using rats IMO are okay.

If by cosmetic you mean furs and skins, I am partially against it. Well, if you use the furs of mass-bred farm animals like sheep then it is okay I guess. Using wild animals for some of these is a definite no no . Poaching is immoral and cruel and is a major reason why many animals are becoming endangered.

I don't suggest people hitting their pets unless it is a last resort and the pet is being really bad. I doubt it will do much though. When doing it though people must do it in a non-abusive way.

 

[SortOf]

I think its ok to eat animals, as long as there not human like such as apes and monkeys. Cows, pigs, chickens, turkey, rabbits and things of that nature are all ok. I however don't think something like a dog, or cat should be eaten because it possesses a certain level of intelligence.

Its ok for animals to have rights, to an extent, as long as they don't impose on the rights of humans or cause inconvenience for them. But nothing is going to stop me from picking up a hamburger, eating bacon and eggs for breakfast, or having a steak on a night out.

 

[No-name]

In California: Big Horn Sheep, California Condor, Pronghorn, Musk Elk, Golden Trout...

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The Mexican Grey wolf. They used ones in captivity to breed from and released them into the wild in areas where they were wiped out.
Here is a link:
http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mexicanwolf/
I saw a programme on the TV about it. I have just had to find it, as I couldn't quite remember the extact species

Looked at the page. Didn`t see anywhere in there that a zoo was mentioned as being responsible for the program or for saving the Mexican Grey Wolf from extinction. Perhaps my eyes are bad and I missed it. If so, please point it out to me.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I still haven`t seen any animals, let alone many, that have been saved from the brink of extinction and reintroduced successfully and recovered because of zoos.

In most cases, as far as North American endangered animals are concerned, the US Fish and Wildlife Services is the leading org spearheading the efforts. Zoos seem to be tagging along here and there but that in no way allows them to claim responsibility.

Again, are there many animals that have been saved from extinction by zoos, successfully reintroduced and recovered because of their leading efforts? I still haven`t seen that in one case, let alone many. Can someone show me a case study where a zoo has lead the way at saving a species, reintroducing it, and then it being successfully recovered?

 

[bossel]

I still haven`t seen any animals, let alone many, that have been saved from the brink of extinction and reintroduced successfully and recovered because of zoos.

Really nice how you try to define the conditions in a way that they can't be met.

Of course I don't agree with your conditions. I just want to give some examples of animals which were successfully re-introduced:

Lammergeier in the Alps
European Lynx in Switzerland & in the Harz, Germany
Wisent in Eastern Europe
European Beaver in Bavaria

There are numerous other re-introduction projects ongoing.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Really nice how you try to define the conditions in a way that they can't be met.

Wrong.

They can be met. They are not defying any laws of physics.

They are not met because zoos do not take a leading role in saving animlas from extinction for recovery and reintroduction. If they have, have they ever been successful to where the animal has recovered?

Do you have any examples that show a zoo has been responsible in many cases of saving an animal from the brink of extinction, then reintroducing it and it has recovered?

 

[Mycernius]

Normally when something says breeding from captive animals, it usually infers a zoo or animal sanctuary. Not unless people are breeding them from animals that are kept away from the public eye. If you want to see the word zoo, click on captive management in the link I provided. This is part of the text:

Mexican wolves are routinely transferred among the zoos and other SSP holding facilities in order to facilitate genetic exchange, thus maintaining the health and genetic diversity of the captive population. The SSP maintains the goal of housing a minimum of 240 wolves in captivity at all times to ensure the security of the species in captivity, while still being able to produce surplus animals for reintroduction.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Is there a specific statement lauding zoos or any zoo in particular for being responsible for saving an endangered animal from extinction, reintroducing a species and then that species recovering -- and that statement recognized largely by by peers, conservationists, media, etc...? I am not talking about sanctuaries or official conservation orgs. I am asking about zoos and their leadership in this area. What species have zoos unequivicably been responsible for saving, reintroducing and causing them to recover?

I have yet to see a case study presented stating specifically that zoo so and so successfully saved species X from extinction, reintroduced that species, and that species recovered. If zoos are going to wrap themselves in this cloak of saving endangered species, then they should be honest that they serve merely as an ark, and as of yet, their ark has been on a one way trip where their animals will not be, or never will be allowed to disembark.

When zoos have been cited in case studies, for the most part they are relegated to support status and their mission in the recovery plan is not anything that could not be performed by sanctuaries or other non-zoo orgs.

In effect, zoos as they are now, are not essential for animal recovery. Sanctuaries without the spectacle of a festival/carnival like atmosphere of entertainment and cotton candy could perform the duties of protecting and mating animals for reintroducing.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I think its ok to eat animals, as long as there not human like such as apes and monkeys. Cows, pigs, chickens, turkey, rabbits and things of that nature are all ok. I however don't think something like a dog, or cat should be eaten because it possesses a certain level of intelligence.
Its ok for animals to have rights, to an extent, as long as they don't impose on the rights of humans or cause inconvenience for them. But nothing is going to stop me from picking up a hamburger, eating bacon and eggs for breakfast, or having a steak on a night out.

Actually pigs are more intelligent than both cats and dogs on average, with cats being pretty much at the botton of the IQ table with the animals you listed. To simply not eat certain animals due to their intelligence, well then, that would open up alot of animals for eating while stop other commonly consumed animals for eating.
I think part of it boils down to culture in your country(as all countrys will have certain animals that are more acceptable to eat than others, for example is quite acceptable to eat dogs in china, whale in japan, and horses in germany, but these sorts of animals are not really acceptable in places like england etc), and what animals are commonly kept as pets, as i do believe that when people keep a particular type of animal as a pet they appreiciate it alot more for it is and refrain from eating its species/type.
I think its fine to eat any animal though as long as it has been specifically raised for human consumption in a humane and morally correct enviroment/conditions and also killed in a humane mannor, and its species is not rare or endangered or anything- even better if its species itself was specifically bred for human consumption like the modern cow or sheep. Then you can apply intelligence if you want, although alot of farm animals are a heck of a lot more intelligent than people give them credit for like pigs, which is why i stopped eating pig as i just didn't like the thought of eating one of the most intelligent animals in the world that is so close to us in so many ways- but thats another story.

Animal rights is important, to say though animal rights is only worth upholding when it doesn't create inconvenience for people is such a vague thing to say it could be used to justify all mannor of bad things for example chickens should be battery farmed because it creates cheap chicken meat, and if it was stopped chicken meat prices would go through the roof and be inconvinient for people, which would be just wrong- theres nothing good about a battery chickens life whatsoever, and they have no basic needs attended to them for like enough space to turn around and take more than one step in front of them.

So no, i dont think that animal rights should just be applied when it is convinient enough for people. I think it just be applied logically with an awareness of morality involved. For example, unlike strongvoicesforward here, i do think people should have the right to farm animals for human consumption, but on the other hand i think if they are to be farmed for human consumption they should be done so in a humane and morally correct mannor with the animals in question basic need properly attended too(i.e. enough space, good diet, social requirements met, keep in good health etc).
True, we evolved to eat meat along with our veg, and to raise a human child on a diet of veg and meat plus associated foods once weaned off the breast is still by far the best way to raise a healthy child, but we should still do so in a morally correct and humane mannor as far as the animals are concerned because we are human beings and we know the we have the ability of such awareness over such things and thus i think we should use it, not just applied to when it is convinient for us, but when the animal chosen for consumption has its best interests at heart too for the length of its life too .

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Is there a specific statement lauding zoos or any zoo in particular for being responsible for saving an endangered animal from extinction, reintroducing a species and then that species recovering -- and that statement recognized largely by by peers, conservationists, media, etc...? I am not talking about sanctuaries or official conservation orgs. I am asking about zoos and their leadership in this area. What species have zoos unequivicably been responsible for saving, reintroducing and causing them to recover?
I have yet to see a case study presented stating specifically that zoo so and so successfully saved species X from extinction, reintroduced that species, and that species recovered. If zoos are going to wrap themselves in this cloak of saving endangered species, then they should be honest that they serve merely as an ark, and as of yet, their ark has been on a one way trip where their animals will not be, or never will be allowed to disembark.
When zoos have been cited in case studies, for the most part they are relegated to support status and their mission in the recovery plan is not anything that could not be performed by sanctuaries or other non-zoo orgs.
In effect, zoos as they are now, are not essential for animal recovery. Sanctuaries without the spectacle of a festival/carnival like atmosphere of entertainment and cotton candy could perform the duties of protecting and mating animals for reintroducing.

Actually your initial question was more like this;

Rika- shinya, could you tell me which animal species have been saved by zoos so that they did not die out? After they were saved, which 'saved species' has ever been reintroduced successfully after all wild populations of them had no longer existed?

Which is kinda different from question you just asked.
But anyways..
People here have given you plenty of examples of saving animals from extinction by zoo's, if the particular zoo's hadn't of existed many of those animals would or will have died out. And thats a fact.
To say or imply that zoo's have no place in wildlife conservation is very ignorant because they have shown plenty of examples of where they do have an important place in wildlife consservation. Or are you only interested when the species in question that has been saved once again thrives in its natural habitat?

When zoos have been cited in case studies, for the most part they are relegated to support status and their mission in the recovery plan is not anything that could not be performed by sanctuaries or other non-zoo orgs.
In effect, zoos as they are now, are not essential for animal recovery.

Plus, in my original post to the question you posed to rika, i gave you plenty of cases where zoo's can perform acts of wildlife conservation that the wildlife researves in question cannot- you should take this into note.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

A lot has been said, but a case study, let alone many, has still not been put forth that says a zoo saved an animal from extinction, reintroduced it, and then it has recovered.

The point is, zoos are not mainly about ecology, conservation, or even education. They are primarily entities centered on entertainment. Can anyone show me what percentage of a zoo`s profits are plowed into land purchases for maintaining environments for endangered species? Have zoos been investing heavily in this or just lightly, when looking at their total profits? What percentage is being allocated for species reintroduction?

Again, as for mating animals so that they don`t die out, sanctuaries nestled in large natural settings or other places without the festival like atmosphere can perform those duties without having to have animals on display for finger pointing, laughing kids and their high percentage of obese American parents drinking a beer, or lapping ice cream in a cone.

 

[bossel]

Have zoos been investing heavily in this or just lightly, when looking at their total profits?

Er..., which profits?
Well, I don't know about US zoos, but in Germany they rely heavily on grants & subsidies.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Er..., which profits?

lol. Yes, good point. A lot of zoos are struggling. I guess I mean their bottom line. At the end of the year when they tally everything up, are they ahead, behind, breaking even? If ahead, how much and what percent of that is put into saving species from extinction and reintroducing them?

Well, I don't know about US zoos, but in Germany they rely heavily on grants & subsidies.

Good point. The populace these days just do not feel like voting for keeping zoos around with their money through attendance.

Struggle struggle zoos,
Your education and conservation we know are a ruse.
It`s a prison in fact,
With flowery words that you try to wrap.

 

[SortOf]

I liked sea world, you got to see alot of things most zoos dont have.