• gramathy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also zoos take in animals that are injured or otherwise unable to be rehabilitated to the wild, often as part of breeding programs, so it’s not like “we captured a wild X to breed it”.

      • Seraph@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is bizarre. Why do European zoos refuse to use contraception as population control rather than… Well I hope that giraffe was the exception.

        Odd but I think the US zoos are slightly more ethical on this one.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you look further at the article you’ll find it’s hardly an exception:

          but executive director Dr Lesley Dickie estimates that somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 animals are “management-euthanised” in European zoos in any given year.

          • Slowy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It depends on the species. It’s one thing to neuter a giraffe but if you have a flock of peacocks or a colony of 40 bats you are probably not going to do surgery on all of them, it’s also very hard on some of the smaller animals. Making an effort to keep only females or males would be an option for some species but not all, as they won’t always show their full range of behaviour.

            The article does point out a lot of it is small rodents, but also things like tadpoles or fish. It can be extremely difficult to control their breeding (or even identify their sex without cutting them open) yet detrimental to their welfare to allow them to be overstocked. The real solution here is probably not invasive birth control techniques (even restraining an animal to pill them can be very taxing), it is more effort to share surplus animals with other zoos, wildlife refuges, wild release etc with particular attention to those that are prone to being culled. But again, transport is a huge stressor for animals, so you have to consider that the potential benefit to them should be more than the risk of worse welfare.

      • x4740N@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This comment seems more like an inflammatory responses based on the wording used

        It doesn’t seem like a logical response at all