Top 6 myths about zoos

external, foto Sin comentarios »
Source: https://zoospensefull.com/2017/06/20/top-5-myths-zoos/

We all meet these myths almost every day. Lets just bust them once and for all, ok? Feel free to share and use, as you please.

Are You Letting Yourself Be Manipulated By Animal Activisits

external Sin comentarios »

Source: http://awesomeocean.com/2016/03/01/are-you-letting-yourself-be-manipulated-by-animal-activisits/

Animal activists have turned the plea of sick and injured animals into big business.

In 2015, PETA raised over $48 million dollars, HSUS raised over $178 million and the ASPCA raised over $138 million. This big business relies on exploiting the plight of animals to get people to open their wallets.

Most of us have found ourselves late at night watching TV when we hear the Sarah McLachlan music. You see videos of animals desperately in need of help, and like millions of other people, you reach for your wallet and donate.

Recently someone on YouTube took the audio from an ASPCA and mashed it up with video of robots.

The result is a video that pulls at your heart strings and demonstrates the brutal art of manipulating people with videos without context.

This is how this big business works.

The reality is that after hundreds of millions of dollars are donated to these organizations, very little animals are helped, and in PETA’s case, your money actually funds the killing of animals.

When you look at how easily the robot video can be edited to pull at your heart strings, you can see how BlackFish manipulated viewers into thinking that SeaWorld needs to be shut down.

The result of this manipulation is that people are condemning one of the world’s best zoological organizations – an organization that is actively engaged in protecting and saving wildlife around the world. While a donation to PETA will help kill animals, a day at SeaWorld or your local accredited zoological facility has a global impact that benefits animals worldwide.

Next time you see a sad animal video, take a moment ask yourself if you are being manipulated.

Richard Branson’s airlines have emitted 7.1 million metric tons of CO2

external Sin comentarios »
Source: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/10/richard-bransons-airlines-have-emitted-7-1-million-metric-tons-of-co2/ Virgin CEO Richard Branson may be championing green business investments, but his airline empire has emitted more than 7.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the years. Branson recently took to his blog to decry global warming denialism, saying that those who are skeptical of mankind’s effect on the planet should “get out of our way.” But Branson’s own airline companies have emitted millions of metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Branson’s flagship airline company Virgin Atlantic emitted about 4.8 million metric tons of carbon in 2006 and 2007 from aircraft operations and other operations “including staff travel to and from work, business travel by car and plane, plus energy consumed at [their] UK offices and hangars.” Virgin America has also thrown up its fair share of carbon emissions — about 2.3 million between 2008 and 2010, according to the company. The company started shuttling passengers across the U.S. in 2007 and had a carbon footprint of 573,296 metric ton in 2008, making it the lowest emitting U.S. carrier. But as Virgin America’s operations and airplane fleet grew so did their carbon footprint. In 2010, the company’s carbon footprint was 971,180 metric tons, making them the third lowest emitting U.S. carrier. Branson, however, has made an effort to make his airlines less carbon-intensive. Virgin Atlantic, for example, aims to improve the fuel efficiency of its airline fleet by 30 percent by 2020 and reduce energy consumption from its ground operations by 20 percent during that time. Virgin Australia allows its customers to purchase carbon offsets for their flights. According to the company, they sold carbon offsets equivalent to 65,491 metric tons in 2010 and 2011. The company also keeps a relatively young and fuel efficient aircraft fleet. Branson became the latest major CEO to lash out against skeptics of man-made global warming after Apple CEO Tim Cook lambasted a free-market activist for caring more about profitable investments than fighting global warming. “Tim [Cook] took a crucial stand: he told shareholders who oppose Apple’s commitment to sustainability to ‘get out of the stock’,” Branson wrote on his blog. “He also commented on how doing business sustainably can actually improve the bottom line. This is something we strongly believe in at The B Team, which is working hard to encourage better ways of doing business for the wellbeing of people and the planet. We wholeheartedly support him.” “More businesses should be following Apple’s stance in encouraging more investment in sustainability,” Branson said. “While Tim told sustainability sceptics to ‘get out of our stock’, I would urge climate change deniers to get out of our way.”

Dolphins’ immune systems are failing due to polluted oceans

external Sin comentarios »

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dolphin-immune-systems-polluted-oceans-sea-water-bottlenose-georgia-aquarium-florida-south-carolina-a7717591.html

Wild dolphins have weaker immune systems than captive dolphins because of polluted sea water, a study has found.

Researcher`s compared the immune health of four groups of bottlenose dolphins living in aquariums and off the coast of America.

Pollutants in the oceans around Florida and South Carolina were found to be putting a strain on the wild dolphins’ immune systems, making it more difficult for the animals to fight off bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites.

Wild dolphins’ immune systems appeared to be “chronically activated” as a result of the unhealthy environments they were living in, said the study’s lead author Patricia Fair, a research professor at the Medical University of South Carolina.

“This is likely a result of encountering and fighting off illness caused by pathogens, parasites and anthropogenic pollutants in the ocean that do not exist in closely managed zoological habitats,” she explained.

“The key to a healthy immune system is a balance between being able to recognise harmful organisms and over-stimulation and this study demonstrates the importance of the environment in these responses.”

Dolphins living in the ocean near Charleston, South Carolina were exposed to the highest levels of industrial pollution, and suffered more disease as a result.

Because dolphins are high on the food chain, they accumulate any toxins ingested by their prey, the researchers said. Industrial pollutants released into the water accumulate in micro-organisms, these are eaten by fish, which are in turn eaten by dolphins. At each step up the food chain the toxins become more concentrated.

The researchers suggested the findings of the dolphin study could have implications for human health in the area too, as local fishermen and residents are exposed to and consume the same toxins

Meanwhile, large amounts of toxic mercury were found in dolphins living in the Indian River Lagoon in Florida.

Tilikum vs J34 A Tale of two Killer Whales

external Sin comentarios »

Original article: Tilikum vs J34 A Tale of two Killer Whales

The Southern Resident Killer Whales are dying. It is happening now, it is happening quickly, and it is happening before our eyes.

Deceased J34 – image via CBC

In 2016, the number of Southern Residents plummeted from 83 to 78, one of the smallest populations since record keeping on the whales began in the early 1970s. One of these whales, J-34, or “Doublestuf,” a well known member of the J-22 matriline, washed ashore in British Columbia on December 20th, 2016. A breeding age male of 18, the BC Ministry of Agriculture’s initial examination revealed blunt force trauma and a hematoma as the cause of death. There is a high probability, though unconfirmed, that J-34’s injuries were caused through a vessel strike.

People examine J34’s corpse – image via CBC

In other words, J-34 was struck violently on the head, and continued to live for up to a few days, before succumbing to his injuries and dying, most likely alone, in the waters of the Pacific Northwest.

Photo by Erin McKinney

In another part of the country, 3 weeks after J-34’s body washed ashore, another well known male killer whale died. At age 36, after years of veterinary and behavioral support for a complicated chronic infection, SeaWorld Orlando’s Tilikum passed away quietly, in the early hours of January 6th, 2017. He was in the company of the trainers and killer whales he’d known for much of his life since his move to SeaWorld in 1992.

Photo by Erin McKinney

Tilikum was well past the average life expectancy (30) listed by the NOAA for a male killer whale. He had been ill, and supported medically, for years, with an infection found in both free-ranging and zoological animals. His death was not violent or shocking, yet it garnered exponentially more news coverage and discussion then the fate of J-34.

Why? Where were the so-called “animal rights” crusaders, so abundant on Twitter and Facebook, when J-34 was suffering? Why is the death of a geriatric, professionally cared for animal a national ignition point, but the slow and steady destruction of a group of wild whales a special interest story?

Tourist disrupting the natural habitat of Killer Whales – image via NOAA

By all logic it should be reversed: J-34 was the 4th death (out of 6 adults and 3 neonate calves) for the embattled Southern Residents this year. His passing was violent, likely caused by human interference and marked the removal of another breeding animal from a population where the survival rate to 1 year for a calf is less than 50%. But animal rights activism, from PETA to The DoDo and beyond, is big business, and it’s a lot easier to sell ethics if you have a shiny corporation like SeaWorld to demonize.

While leveraging Tilikum’s death might do a lot for Ingrid Newkirk’s bottom line, addressing the death of J-34 means confronting a complicated and uncomfortable fact: humanity is failing the Southern Resident Killer whales. Their numbers are dropping. They’re listed as an endangered species. Over 50% of pregnancies are miscarried, and 43% of calves are lost in the first 6 months of life. They are some of the most contaminated animals on the planet, with nauseating levels of toxins building up in their blubber supply. Their supply of Chinook salmon, their primary food source, is being rapidly depleted. The negative impact of vessels, including whale watching boats, is becoming more and more apparent. All of these factors have been confirmed again and again by federal and NGOs seeking to help the whales recover.

And yet, with the overwhelming information that the Southern Residents are crying out for help, it is Tilikum who makes the headline, SeaWorld who catches the outrage and moral grandstanding, all while Justin Trudeau’s federal Canadian government approves a tar sand pipline project through the primary habitat of the Southern Residents that may turn out to be the death warrant for one of the most well known and well studied killer whale populations on the planet.

Tourists disrupting natural killer whale behaviors in the wild. – Image via WhaleResearch.com

There is no time left for British Columbia’s whales. They are dying, and every time the public is told that attacking SeaWorld is how to help orcas, their chances of recovery grow even slimmer. On December 31st, 2016, “Granny,” the J-pod matriarch, was announced missing, and presumed dead, the most recent in 2016’s alarming Southern Resident fatalities. Even that wasn’t enough to draw the spotlight toward the silently vanishing whales.

There is no true “wild.” Everywhere is marred by humanity’s impact. We must make a decision as a society to turn the tables for the wild whales. We must decide what dies with J-34: either a romanticized and outdated vision of the ocean, or the Southern Resident whales themselves.

Works Cited:

James Borrell: Eight reasons why zoos are good for conservation

external, foto Sin comentarios »

Original article: James Borrell: Eight reasons why zoos are good for conservation

The shooting of a gorilla earlier this year reignited the debate about whether animals should be kept in captivity, but we must remember the essential work that good zoos do.

The Biologist 63(5) p9

This summer, a child fell into an enclosure at Cincinnati Zoo with a western lowland gorilla named Harambe, and to protect the child the gorilla was shot. This tragic and much-discussed event rekindled the debate over the role of zoos and aquaria – and much of the coverage was negative.

One would hope that zoos themselves would be proudly showcasing their work, but as I discovered while contributing to an Al Jazeera report on the incident, many are reluctant to speak up due to the barrage of attacks that Cincinnati experienced.

Zoos are not perfect. Should they continue to keep large predators or intelligent primates? Over the next few decades, probably not. Should large new animals be collected from the wild? No, unless there is a compelling case to develop a captive breeding programme.

But are zoos changing and developing? Yes. More than ever, good zoos are aware of their evolving role in conservation and responding to it.

Would I rather have a species in captivity, than not at all? One hundred times, yes.

Here are my eight reasons why zoos are critical to conservation:

  1. There are 39 animal species currently listed by the IUCN as Extinct in the Wild. These are species that would have vanished totally were it not for captive populations around the world, many of which reside in zoos (or, for plants, botanic gardens).
  2. For species whose survival in the wild looks in doubt, zoos often set up ‘insurance’ populations, captive groups of animals that could in a worst-case scenario assist in reintroduction to the wild should the original population become extinct. The Zoological Society of London, as an example, participates in more than 160 of these programmes.
  3. Reintroductions. It is often argued that zoos are bad because so few reintroductions actually happen. I would argue that it’s not the zoos that are at fault – a reintroduction can’t occur if the reason a species was driven to extinction in the first place hasn’t been resolved.
  4. In 2014, 700 million people visited zoos worldwide. Not all zoos are good at engagement, and indeed not all zoos are good full stop. However, surely that number of visits created some sort of connection with the natural world that might not have occurred otherwise.
  5. Zoos are a living museum. What we learn about wild animals in captivity can help us manage and conserve them in the wild – from animal behaviour, to reproductive rates, to dietary requirements.
  6. Zoos raise money for conservation efforts. It’s difficult to engage people with conservation taking place half a world away. But by enabling people to experience wildlife first hand, we can increase participation in international conservation activities.
  7. Helping respond to emergencies. Chytrid fungus has emerged as a deadly threat to amphibian populations worldwide, and 168 species have become extinct in 20 years. Responding to threats such as this is surely one of the greatest uses of zoos around the world. Many have set up specialist amphibian centres and are pioneering treatment and breeding programmes.
  8. They remind us that we can succeed. Conservation is full of bad news stories, yet on many occasions I have peered through glass or mesh at a species that shouldn’t exist. For me at least, zoos remind us that conservation does work – we just need more of it.

A new hope for the Blue-throated Macaw

external, foto, fundación Sin comentarios »
Original article: A new hope for the Blue-throated Macaw

alternative_feathers_blog

The discovery of a new roosting site for Blue-throated Macaw Ara glaucogularis coupled with an innovative and successful programme geared towards promoting the use of artificial feathers in ceremonial headdresses, gives renewed hope for the survival of this charismatic parrot.

The Blue-throated Macaw is one of South America’s rarest parrots, with a population estimated at around 250 individuals. In the last decade, Asociación Armonía (BirdLife Partner in Bolivia) has been tackling the main threats affecting it: habitat loss, the lack of breeding sites and ending illegal poaching. But their approach to ending the latter has been especially unique and very successful: to give locals an alternative to using real macaw feathers for their headdresses.

During their traditional celebrations, the inhabitants of the Moxeño plains in Bolivia’s Beni department perform with colourful headdresses as they move to the rhythm of bongos and flutes. The dancers, so-called macheteros, dedicate their movements and attire to the colours of nature. Unfortunately, those headdresses are made of macaw tail feathers from four different species, including the Blue-throated Macaw.

492_img_8352-2_myles_lamont_new_blog

This is where Armonía’s Alternative Feather Programme comes in; it consists of an educational campaign promoting the use of artificial feathers made of organic materials among the macheteros through workshops held in local schools. Those workshops could only be made possible thanks to the financial support of National Geographic’s Conservation Trust and the Loro Parque Foundation.

Since the Moxeños consider themselves to be the guardians of nature and all of its creatures, they were quick to understand the importance of using substitutes.

“Each headdress is made of an average of 30 central tail feathers; that means that one headdress of artificial feathers saves at least 15 macaws,” explained Gustavo Sánchez Avila, Armonía’s Conservation Programme coordinator for the Blue-throated Macaw in Trinidad.

The programme, which started in 2010 with the support of Loro Parque Foundation, not only protects this critically endangered Macaw, but also empowers local craftsmen and women to preserve their natural heritage and their culture.

Furthermore, after seeing the mesmerising dances, many tourists buy the alternative headdresses as souvenirs, providing locals with much needed additional income.

Since 2010, the Moxeño people and Armonía have saved over 6000 individuals of four macaw species and engaged thousands of local people in the conservation of Bolivian nature. Most big Moxeño towns already host alternative feather training workshops, but rural areas still use real feathers. If you wish to help, you can support Armonía so that they can organise additional training workshops this year and save even more macaws.

New rosting site

While conserving the already established populations of the Blue-throated Macaw is essential to their survival, further research remains vital to make sure none of its habitat is left unprotected.

However, entering the Bolivian northern Department of Beni during the rainy season is a huge adventure. As seasonal rainfall merges with melt water from the Andes, the grasslands become extensively flooded, making it impossible for cars to travel around the area for three to five months every year.

The situation forces locals to revert to their old ways, using horses to get across a savannah that is speckled with pools of water, knee-deep mud and head-high grasses. As a result, conservation research becomes complicated and expensive.

But this was not going to stop our team of conservationists at Asociación Armonía, supported by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the Loro Parque Foundation, when they set off last summer to search for more roosting grounds of the macaw in this remote region.

The truth is that the team had had many rough failed trips in the region to verify sites where owners swore they had seen the parrot, only to find they got the wrong bird. So, when they got a call from a local ranch owner who claimed to have seen the Blue-throated Macaw in his fields, the team reacted with some disbelief.

They had seen this happen a few times already: while many ranch owners proudly believe that they have seen the Blue-throated Macaw, to the untrained eye it is often confused with a more generalist species, the Blue-and-yellow Macaw Ara ararauna.

Surprisingly, when they arrived on site, it turned out that at least 15 Blue-throated Macaws had made a small forest island their home. This new roosting site was confirmed only forty kilometres north of the Barba Azul Nature Reserve: the largest concentration of macaws in the world live here, with yearly counts of over 100 individuals.

At one of Beni’s most important events of the year, the Chope Piesta, the macheteros are getting ready to start their traditional dance. Today, headdresses with alternative feathers outnumber natural ones nearly five to one. In the meantime, conservationists rejoice about the new discovery of a roosting site. Developments worth dancing about.

Tilikum vs J34 a tale of two killer whales

external Sin comentarios »

Source: Tilikum vs J34 a tale of two killer whales

Deceased J34 – image via CBC

Deceased J34 – image via CBC

In 2016, the number of Southern Residents plummeted from 83 to 78, one of the smallest populations since record keeping on the whales began in the early 1970s. One of these whales, J-34, or “Doublestuf,” a well known member of the J-22 matriline, washed ashore in British Columbia on December 20th, 2016. A breeding age male of 18, the BC Ministry of Agriculture’s initial examination revealed blunt force trauma and a hematoma as the cause of death. There is a high probability, though unconfirmed, that J-34’s injuries were caused through a vessel strike

People examine J34’s corpse – image via CBC

People examine J34’s corpse – image via CBC

In other words, J-34 was struck violently on the head, and continued to live for up to a few days, before succumbing to his injuries and dying, most likely alone, in the waters of the Pacific Northwest.

Photo by Erin McKinney

Photo by Erin McKinney

In another part of the country, 3 weeks after J-34’s body washed ashore, another well known male killer whale died. At age 36, after years of veterinary and behavioral support for a complicated chronic infection, SeaWorld Orlando’s Tilikum passed away quietly, in the early hours of January 6th, 2017. He was in the company of the trainers and killer whales he’d known for much of his life since his move to SeaWorld in 1992.

15934368_613399602177076_1321792893_n_blog

Tilikum was well past the average life expectancy (30) listed by the NOAA for a male killer whale. He had been ill, and supported medically, for years, with an infection found in both free-ranging and zoological animals. His death was not violent or shocking, yet it garnered exponentially more news coverage and discussion then the fate of J-34.

Why? Where were the so-called “animal rights” crusaders, so abundant on Twitter and Facebook, when J-34 was suffering? Why is the death of a geriatric, professionally cared for animal a national ignition point, but the slow and steady destruction of a group of wild whales a special interest story?

Tourist disrupting the natural habitat of Killer Whales – image via NOAA

Tourist disrupting the natural habitat of Killer Whales – image via NOAA

By all logic it should be reversed: J-34 was the 4th death (out of 6 adults and 3 neonate calves) for the embattled Southern Residents this year. His passing was violent, likely caused by human interference and marked the removal of another breeding animal from a population where the survival rate to 1 year for a calf is less than 50%. But animal rights activism, from PETA to The DoDo and beyond, is big business, and it’s a lot easier to sell ethics if you have a shiny corporation like SeaWorld to demonize.

While leveraging Tilikum’s death might do a lot for Ingrid Newkirk’s bottom line, addressing the death of J-34 means confronting a complicated and uncomfortable fact: humanity is failing the Southern Resident Killer whales. Their numbers are dropping. They’re listed as an endangered species. Over 50% of pregnancies are miscarried, and 43% of calves are lost in the first 6 months of life. They are some of the most contaminated animals on the planet, with nauseating levels of toxins building up in their blubber supply. Their supply of Chinook salmon, their primary food source, is being rapidly depleted. The negative impact of vessels, including whale watching boats, is becoming more and more apparent. All of these factors have been confirmed again and again by federal and NGOs seeking to help the whales recover.

And yet, with the overwhelming information that the Southern Residents are crying out for help, it is Tilikum who makes the headline, SeaWorld who catches the outrage and moral grandstanding, all while Justin Trudeau’s federal Canadian government approves a tar sand pipline project through the primary habitat of the Southern Residents that may turn out to be the death warrant for one of the most well known and well studied killer whale populations on the planet.

Tourists disrupting natural killer whale behaviors in the wild. – Image via WhaleResearch.com

Tourists disrupting natural killer whale behaviors in the wild. – Image via WhaleResearch.com

There is no time left for British Columbia’s whales. They are dying, and every time the public is told that attacking SeaWorld is how to help orcas, their chances of recovery grow even slimmer. On December 31st, 2016, “Granny,” the J-pod matriarch, was announced missing, and presumed dead, the most recent in 2016’s alarming Southern Resident fatalities. Even that wasn’t enough to draw the spotlight toward the silently vanishing whales.

There is no true “wild.” Everywhere is marred by humanity’s impact. We must make a decision as a society to turn the tables for the wild whales. We must decide what dies with J-34: either a romanticized and outdated vision of the ocean, or the Southern Resident whales themselves.

Works Cited:

  • http://crosscut.com/2017/01/brutal-year-sets-back-orca-recovery/
  • http://www.whaleresearch.com/single-post/2017/01/05/Goodbye-Granny
  • http://whalemuseum.org/collections/meet-the-whales
  • http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/srkw-eprs-j34-eng.html
  • http://www.whaleresearch.com/j2
  • https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/killer_whale_report/pdfs/bigreport62514.pdf
  • http://www.whaleresearch.com/j28
  • http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/killer-whale.html
  • https://seaworldcares.com/tilikum

Dr. Grey Stafford: The Last Generation of Killer Whales at SeaWorld

external Sin comentarios »

Original article: Dr. Grey Stafford: The Last Generation of Killer Whales at SeaWorld

dr-grey-stafford-e1482985363102-860x280_blog

Last week, we discussed advancements in animal training with Dr. Grey Stafford. In this interview, I asked Dr. Stafford about SeaWorld’s decision to end the Orca breeding program.

You may remember when I gave you my thoughts when I first heard that Governor Brown signed a bill into law that would ban Orca breeding in California and make killer whale shows for entertainment purposes illegal. You can watch that video here:

Watch the video below to learn what the current President of IMATA, Dr. Grey Stafford, thought about all this and what he encourages the animal care community to do in order to better the lives of future animals in the face of such destructive legislation and SeaWorld’s inability to correct public misconception.

What do you think? Leave me your comments below.

Kyle: Hi my name is Kyle Kittleson and welcome back to our conversation with Dr. Grey Stafford. Thank you for being here. You’ve been in the animal welfare space for 27 years and no question that the biggest announcement of 2016 was SeaWorld’s decision to have the last generation of killer whales. What are your thoughts about that?

Stafford: Well, on a personal level I take it – I’m very affected by it because I started my career with killer whales, back in Ohio, and I know a lot of great trainers have dedicated their lives to that species, so I think like many people I was shocked by the decision. It’s not unusual for zoos, in genera,l to manage certain species to extinction, in our collection, because of resources…

Kyle: And when you say extinction, we don’t mean the whole population…

Stafford: Not the worldwide species, but the animals that live at a facility. And a lot of reasons that is done is because maybe there are enough animals to to maintain the population going forward. And and it’s it’s a question of resources. Where do you devote your time, your energy, your space, and your staffing, to preserve as many species as possible. And that’s a difficult choice. I think in this case with Orcas, the choice was made for all the wrong reasons – primarily politics and pressure from activist groups. Because the fact the matter is Orcas and human care are thriving today. We learn so much more about what’s happening, not only with the ones living in human care, but the ones in the wild. You know Orcas in British Columbia and elsewhere are in huge trouble. And I just saw a study done at SeaWorld, right now, where they’re actually trying to correlate drone data, photographic data, using captive killer whales SeaWorld to correlate those measurements, so they can then use that same process out in the wild to measure the body composition and condition of wild orcas to see if they’re starving or not which we know that they probably are right now.

Kyle: And guess who’s not doing this type of research that can save the wild populations of killer whales? Almost every other organization out there. All of the “activist” organizations. I put “activists” in quotes because they are working in their best interest, rather than the animal’s best interests. In my opinion.

What, if anything, did you do in 2016 to try and get this, you know, decision to stop or to keep from happening?

Stafford: Well, prior to SeaWorld’s decision, which was a corporate business decision, a friend of ours, Carolyn Hennesy, actor, animal advocate, author – she and I went to her Congressman, Congressman Schiff, Democrat based in Burbank California. And Congressman Schiff has proposed a national ban on Orcas in human care – similar to the Bloom bill which did finally pass in California. And Carolyn and I went there last Thanksgiving weekend and pleaded with him and tried to understand how he arrived at this decision. Why he would put so much effort behind this bill which sets a very dangerous precedent for all species, not just Orcas. We have agencies, we have federal laws that deal with the display, the transfer, etc of exotic endangered species. It’s called the Endangered Species Act, it’s called the Marine Mammal Protection Act and so forth. There is a process, a federal process, that goes through, and there’s a lot of oversight done with it. So, for Congressman Schiff to insert a bill that singles out a particular species to me is a very dangerous precedent. And we were talking with them trying to understand why he had arrived at decision and to try to get him to back away from it. Unfortunately our efforts were in vain because the very next morning he set up his office set up an e-mail blast of fellow members of Congress inviting him to join him on his shift bill which still sits in Congress.

Unfortunately, our efforts were in vain because the very next morning he set up his office set up an e-mail blast of fellow members of Congress inviting him to join him on his Schiff bill which still sits in Congress.

I suspect that given the recent election, that bill is not going to go anywhere, but is still out there and it is troubling that a that Congress would take up this issue for one species when we have those mechanisms already in place and well establish for 50 years.

Kyle: No surprise though, that a politician would make a decision based on his own or her own best interests – rather than the best interest of the people or the animals. But what is surprising to me is that, and I can’t speak for Schiff, but I can’t imagine that this decision did not come without the influence from the movie Blackfish, which has been proven to be inaccurate, not factual. And so in some ways that’s like me making a decision about heart surgery because I watched an episode of Grey’s Anatomy. It doesn’t mean that I am educated in, you know, surgical procedures it just means I watched a movie.

Stafford: Well and that’s why those of us who work with these species, you know, we have a job ahead of us to promote that education – whether it’s someone in a political office, or regulators, are critics, or detractor,s and especially our support of public. You know, the good news is that far more people support zoos and aquariums and support places like SeaWorld, because of the great work that they do. And we have to push back on some of the misinformation and that’s a that’s a tall order but you know what else what other choice do you have?

Kyle: My my biggest critique, and I’ve been very vocal about this, with SeaWorld is that they have never and still don’t put the truth out there of what they do for wild animals. I remember last summer I think they donated $10 million to wild killer whale research. I called five of my friends who worked at SeaWorld and Discovery Cove. And I said, “how great that SeaWorld did this.” And they said, “did what?” And I said, “donated $10 million.” “Oh, we didn’t know about that.” SeaWorld never thought to e-mail their own staff to tell them what they were doing. And I get why they don’t because they really care about the animals. They don’t think about how we should use this for positive press. They just do the right thing. But if you’re going to do the right thing, you also need to make sure that people understand when you buy a ticket to an accredited zoo or aquarium you’re helping those animals and those animal’s wild counterparts

Stafford: Couldn’t say it any better.

And unfortunately, with today’s instantaneous media and 24-hour news cycles, we have to do a better job of promoting the positive things, the successful things, that zoos and aquariums are doing. We can’t rest on our laurels. We can’t, you know, be satisfied with the status quo. And you have to also remember there are entire industries dedicated to shutting zoos and aquariums down. There’s big business in complaining. There’s big business in activism. PETA’s coffers went up 30 percent over the last few years precisely because of their attacks on places like SeaWorld. So, while they’re out there making their money putting others down and trying to put them out of business, we’re busy trying to save species and protecting ourselves and promoting the great work that organizations do. That’s not our focus, that’s not our business plan, but it is something that we have to do a better job of making it a part of the business. And I think unfortunately we have to go that way.

Kyle: You said this and I don’t want to go unnoticed. It’s big business for activism. Yes it is. Remember that. I want people to understand that the name people for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a great name. It’s a great want that I want that. But when you look at the business of activism rather than the outcome of being an activist you may make different decisions and I don’t encourage anybody to take my word for it. I don’t you encourage you or take your word more at all. I encourage people to go out there and do their own research independently as possible and make their own conclusions but be educated with your decision. What do you think this means for SeaWorld to not have killer whales in the next 20 or 30 years.

Stafford: Yes it is.

Kyle: Remember that. I want people to understand that the name People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a great name. I want that. I want that. But when you look at the business of activism rather than the outcome of being an activist you may make different decisions and I don’t encourage anybody to take my word for it. I don’t encourage you to take your word for it. I encourage people to go out there and do their own research independently as possible and make their own conclusions but be educated with your decision. What do you think this means for SeaWorld to not have killer whales in the next 20 or 30 years?

Stafford: Well, SeaWorld is a business and SeaWorld will sink or swim based on its decisions. I worry more for the species and the great people that work there. Those people who get up at 3 a.m. to rescue a sea lion underneath someone’s car in La Jolla. Those stories need to be told. You know, we’re still under a UME, which is an “unusual mortality event” a designation by the federal government, for Sea Lions along the California coastline. Sea lions are starving to death and many of them are not even showing up on our shores anymore because they’re too emaciated even to leave the rookeries where they’re born. And this past year I think NOAA counted the fewest number of new births ever in the last 40 years of studying these rookery islands in the last 40 or 50 years. The lowest number of birth rates. And the reason for that is something is going on in our environment and it’s places like SeaWorld that help us understand what’s going on and hopefully mitigate whatever impact is happening to our oceans because eventually it’s all going to affect the rest of us, right?

Kyle: Absolutely. And I only know of SeaWorld and the Marine Mammal Care Center in California that actively go out and rescue, rehab, and release those animals.

Stafford: No other zoo or aquarium has rescued anywhere near the number of animals that SeaWorld has in its 50 years.

Kyle: That’s right. If you compare those numbers to other organizations and how much they have rescued, rehabbed, and released, there be no question who I would want to support. And by the way, because I know someone will comment on this. SeaWorld pays me this (NOTHING) much money. OK, I do not get paid by SeaWorld.

Stafford: I don’t either. I haven’t worked for SeaWorld and 21 years.

Kyle: I barely got paid when I worked there. I have no vested interest in SeaWorld success. I only have an interest in animals having amazing lives. But those are the animals that live in the ocean. And those are the animals that live under the care of man. So, as long as those animals are happy, I’m happy.

Stafford: Well said.

Kyle: Dr. Stafford, thank you so much. In our final video series which will be coming out next week, we’re going to be talking about what IMATA members can do and what the organization of IMATA can do to really help spread the true message of accredited zoos and aquariums and all the amazing things that they do for animals all over the world. So be on the lookout for that.

Six reasons why most mammals live longer in zoos than in the wild

external Sin comentarios »
Original article: Six reasons why most mammals live longer in zoos than in the wild

Zoos are often the best hope or even last hope for the survival of a species, especially if they are threatened or endangered. Recently, a study conducted by University of Lyon and University of Zurich researchers found that 80% of the mammals studied lived longer in a zoological setting than their wild counterparts. The study analyzed zoological databases and included over 50 different mammal species. Here are six reasons why these animals live longer in zoos.

  1. Life in the wild is not exactly paradise. Animals deal with wild stressors such as competition, social challenges, and the habitat’s carrying capacity (the maximum population size of the species that the environment can be sustain, given the availability of food, habitat space, water, and other necessities available in the environment needed to survive).
  2. Many smaller species live longer in zoos compared to their wild counterparts because lifespans in the wild are shorter due to predation or intraspecific competition. Animals in zoological facilities have no immediate threats or competitors.
  3. Animals have to deal with a decaying word. From pollution to habitat encroachment, humans have a great impact on the planet.
  4. Zoological medicine has allowed animals to live longer in zoological facilities. Animals are under constant disease surveillance. With regular health checks, diseases that may be fatal in the wild are detected early and treated.
  5. Years of research have improved all aspects of managing animals in human care. Most zoos believe in managing animals scientifically based on what has been learned about their biology, behavior, social structures, health, and nutrition.
  6. Animal husbandry practices have greatly improved over the past few decades and continue to improve as we learn more about an animal’s biology. Husbandry programs are animal centered and mimic their natural environment, diet, biological patterns including breeding, and incorporate various types of enrichment to keep the animals active both physically and mentally.

While zoos get a bad reputation from antagonistic animal rights groups, they actually ensure the survival of animals so that they will be around for generations to come. While there are anti-zoo groups, there are actually more open-minded individuals willing to learn about zoos and make decisions for themselves. Unlike animals, humans abuse their environment and it is the animals that suffer. Zoos may be the single most important insurance policy against extinction, not to mention their contribution to conservation and education.