|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jan 22, 2011 4:15:06 GMT
In either case there HAS to be either a profit motive or a further use to benefit the public down the road because otherwise there would be NO funding for any research (military R & D backing is out because we no longer need battle mammoths.) " Battle Mammoths " ;D I wonder how many Lord of the Rings fans would see one and think that...." they can use real " war mammoths " in the next film ! " lol ..and who knows..we might need mammoths when the next Ice Age comes. See there's two perfectly good reasons to clone em'.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jan 22, 2011 5:47:15 GMT
Your last statement is not true. Mammoths lived in Canada where deer are now. That species of deer did not live with mammoths. Deer and moose are a good example of a virus that kills one species (moose) but doesn't kill the other (deer). Deer expansion is increasing because of that and the fact that humans have altered the landscape. Deer are doing well as an unintended consequence of human actions, NOT because of them. The problem is you don't know how virus' will react. What are you talking about? Where I live, right now, there are moose and deer (white-tail and mule) plus pronghorns; go a little west, and there are elk too. Even bison have been reintroduced. And if you know where to look, there are mammoth fossils to be found. White-tails were a little less common here, but they were here. There is no deer-specific virus that I am aware of. White-tails flourish because humans create a more open habitat (mules like the partially treed areas) and moose generally like the low areas (or, the local campground). There are some diseases out there, but they are not species specific--all cervids are affected. It's just that white-tails are the deer equivalent of rats (our town is almost over run with the stupid things) whereas mules and moose (to various extents) stay more to themselves (although oddly, a small mix-gender herd of moose has formed up near here). But more to the point--a virus is a specific, DNA transmitting entity (I hesitate to say 'organism'). Unless it is part of the genetic code of the mammoth--patently ridiculous--a cloned species cannot 'bring it back'. Or they would have to isolate the virus from...somewhere...and choose to clone it instead. More than likely, since viruses evolve lockstep with their hosts, a cloned mammoth would have no way of dealing with current viruses. And most important--this is the real world; the odds of any success are still astronomical.
|
|
|
Post by Radman on Jan 22, 2011 5:58:56 GMT
This whole ethics argument is irrelevant, of course. The project has the funding, materials and scientists. They are going to proceed, and they will do their best to accomplish this feat. Regardless of whether or not they succeed, useful knowledge will surely be gleaned from their efforts.
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Jan 22, 2011 6:10:56 GMT
I don't see the big deal about cloning a mammoth, from a Jurassic Parck-ish stand point. They will most likely only get one perfect strand of DNA (& if they get more it'll probably be from the same animal, rendering the extras pointless). They could make a herd of hundreds, but being all clones would make their breeding success virtually zero.
From my point of view, cloning a mammoth would yield much more knowledge (& much of it potentially beneficial) than what we've learned from going to the moon.
And besides, even if a few mammoths started rampaging around San Diego; this isn't like the movies were machine guns are strangely inaffective.
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 22, 2011 6:47:33 GMT
Your last statement is not true. Mammoths lived in Canada where deer are now. That species of deer did not live with mammoths. Deer and moose are a good example of a virus that kills one species (moose) but doesn't kill the other (deer). Deer expansion is increasing because of that and the fact that humans have altered the landscape. Deer are doing well as an unintended consequence of human actions, NOT because of them. The problem is you don't know how virus' will react. What are you talking about? Where I live, right now, there are moose and deer (white-tail and mule) plus pronghorns; go a little west, and there are elk too. Even bison have been reintroduced. And if you know where to look, there are mammoth fossils to be found. White-tails were a little less common here, but they were here. There is no deer-specific virus that I am aware of. White-tails flourish because humans create a more open habitat (mules like the partially treed areas) and moose generally like the low areas (or, the local campground). There are some diseases out there, but they are not species specific--all cervids are affected. It's just that white-tails are the deer equivalent of rats (our town is almost over run with the stupid things) whereas mules and moose (to various extents) stay more to themselves (although oddly, a small mix-gender herd of moose has formed up near here). But more to the point--a virus is a specific, DNA transmitting entity (I hesitate to say 'organism'). Unless it is part of the genetic code of the mammoth--patently ridiculous--a cloned species cannot 'bring it back'. Or they would have to isolate the virus from...somewhere...and choose to clone it instead. More than likely, since viruses evolve lockstep with their hosts, a cloned mammoth would have no way of dealing with current viruses. And most important--this is the real world; the odds of any success are still astronomical. Sorry it is a parasite. "Moose deer parasite" google will get anyone interested more info. I am not saying it could happen by the way. I am saying there can be unintended consequences to actions in response to the pro assumption everything will be grand with this idea. It started out as a hypothetical. I was originally looking for better pro arguments than because "I wanna see one". I believe ethics does play a role and questioning intent is healthy and a plan does hurt either. Questioning if a mammoth only belongs in a zoo is valid. Questioning if killing/culling elephants is valid - especially that science has shown that they might be affect by death. (though the last point isn't related directly to cloning - just to be clear to everyone). I understand the chances are unlikely as I have already stated a few times now. Asking questions and doubting intent/being skeptical is valid. Piltdown Man taught us that right? The point was to bring up other valid issues and question more longer term issues or even current ones. The "researchers" don't even know if they can find a good specimen and their hope is that if they don't, maybe the Russians will have/find one as reported by other papers (and to be clear yes those newspapers could be full of it). The researchers plans are "hopeful" to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 22, 2011 7:00:14 GMT
Didn't they discover a few years back that baby mammoths needed bacteria from their mother's dung? I wonder how they'll work that one out. How would they have known that?
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 22, 2011 7:23:59 GMT
Didn't they discover a few years back that baby mammoths needed bacteria from their mother's dung? I wonder how they'll work that one out. How would they have known that? sciencefocus.com/qa/what-did-woolly-mammoth-eator look for the research article.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 22, 2011 8:32:34 GMT
I meant how did they know the baby *needed* it (as in, would die without). I am not a pachyderm expert. Do modern day elephants require the bacteria from their parents dung? I can certainly see how it would be helpful either way.
I know that with baby birds who are fed regurgitated food, they get special bacteria from that. When I was raising my dove, I was told to feed her a little bit of her moms droppings. Her mom was in the wild though so that was not an option. Instead I fed her a little yogurt and benebac to help establish the proper bacteria in her gut..
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 22, 2011 9:51:43 GMT
seijun - wn.com/baby_elephants_eating_dung__bbc_wildlife ------ Some zoo articles (and to be clear I am not anti-zoo, clear enough?). This article touches on the issue of who holds the purse stings, long term peoples "fads" change can change, zoo's might not be ideal for wild animals. All points I was trying to make. v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20091214.escenic_1400151/BNStory/Other/margaretWenteHere questioning a zoo turned for the better. So the assumption that zoos know it all and can do no wrong isn't quite true. www.wfaa.com/news/local/64566407.htm-the idea that elephants/mammoths are a "show species" and zoos would never do anything that isn't is their best interest is a BIG assumption. There are many issues that will arise from cloning a mammoth (if possible). There will be issues of species ownership, the list will go on and on and be seemly unrelated to the mammoth. If a comprehensive, well laid out plan was presented I might feel differently. If it is because the guy who cloned a 16 (or whatever it was) year old rat needs a bigger "exploit" for his career path - I have a problem with it. Maybe under a different team and a different plan I might feel differently. I don't think at any cost is the right thing in regards to a living animal (and I am not an animal extremist, just to be clear).
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 22, 2011 15:52:01 GMT
"Some zoo articles (and to be clear I am not anti-zoo, clear enough?)." Then why are you debating this with me when I tell you most zoos are not horrible places that exploit animals for money? "This article touches on the issue of who holds the purse stings, long term peoples "fads" change can change, zoo's might not be ideal for wild animals. All points I was trying to make. v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/st....r/margaretWenteHere questioning a zoo turned for the better. So the assumption that zoos know it all and can do no wrong isn't quite true. www.wfaa.com/news/local/64566407.htm-the idea that elephants/mammoths are a "show species" and zoos would never do anything that isn't is their best interest is a BIG assumption." Not as big of an assumption that you have making considering this whole debate is all about a hypothetical future mammoth clown that if you ask me is probably not going to happen considering the fact that we have a hard enough time cloning already existing animals. All I have been saying is that zoos are supposed to be following a legal standard for the sakes of their animals. This does not always happen unfortunately but at least its not like mistreating the animals is accepted (like it used to be years ago when the only purpose was for human amusement pretty much). Most of the time they do folow regulations and most of the time zoos do much more good than harm. Its not like they aren't moving forward. I have worked at a zoo for almost 9 years now. I have several friends who also work in other zoos. Some zoos out there aren't that great and need to be fixed up but the majority are big helps to the conservation cause. A mammoth being thrown into the equation wouldn't change any of that.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 22, 2011 15:54:44 GMT
a hypothetical future mammoth clown Quick! To Photoshop!
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 22, 2011 16:21:01 GMT
I have a great deal of experience with zoos, both those that are "private" & those that are "accredited". I am not here to voice an opinion or initiate controversy, simply to add to what Griffin said above... Zoos, everything else aside, are businesses, and they are run as such. Any AZA standing, and all that aside, they are not conservation warehouses. Sure they contribute to conservation, and many captive breed animals, but they generally have financial incentives to do so. They are not federally funded, and like any other business, the bottom line tend to be the bottom dollar. Feel however you want about that, Its how things are. If something is not making enough money, or has lost its appeal, its sold, given away or very often, "retired" -> put to sleep. Mammoths in zoos would certainly have appeal, but I could see them being much like white tigers - a "novelty animal" with no significant conservation value. There are those that would be upset by this saying they would be taking the space of other "legitimate" species who should be receiving more attention via captive propagation. In my personal opinion, I'd much prefer if they were cloned to be released into Pleistocene Park. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_Park
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 22, 2011 23:41:40 GMT
griffin - I am not debating this solely for YOU. Some others on the forum seem to think zoos are just as good as a natural habitat or who cares animals will have a enjoyable life just the same if they were in a natural habitat. I think it is a mistaken position and am pointing out why I think this. I have talked to other people (outside the forum) who who think as long as there is zoos why worry about preserving natural habitats. I think this is a mistaken position and (even without my zoo employee card) I will point out why I think this.
If this is a non-issue or you have better things to do the answer is simple... don't post in this forum. I think we are allowed to discuss this issue even if it is a hypothetical.
There is debates about zoos with pros and negatives. Some of the pro points are valid and some of the negatives are valid or there would not be a debate. Lots of people think zoo's are all good and others think zoos are totally bad. By discussing people understand the true facts (both good and bad) better and the other issues outside of zoo's ect...
crazycrowman - This is more what I was hoping for. Some people are not aware that the issues you brought up in paragraphs two and three are even a factor in a hypothetical mammoth or an issue that effect the natural world right now.
I think you are right about paragraph four - it would be an issue and a valid one.
I still maintain other issues will be raised (maybe not about the mammoth, but cloning the last of any species) like the private ownership of a species and a whole host of other issues. There is more to the issue than "I wanna see a mammoth".
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 23, 2011 0:10:57 GMT
" I am not debating this solely for YOU."
Well I brought up a point that nobody else on here did. You responded to it. I don't think anybody on here said zoos are the same as natural habitats.
" I have talked to other people (outside the forum) who who think as long as there is zoos why worry about preserving natural habitats."
Nobody said that on here either (correct me if I'm wrong). So why bring it up as if someone did?
"I think this is a mistaken position and (even without my zoo employee card) I will point out why I think this."
Sorry you look at it like I "pulled a card". I'm telling you what I know is from first hand knowledge not an article. Thats all.
CCM is right. Of course its a business first. But let me explain that at least the facility that I work at its not like we sit and rub our hands together pondering which animals to get so we rake in the most cash and which we can ditch because they don't make us enough cash. We get what we know we can afford to safely and properly house that is also cool and fun to observe for the public. I said it before if I wanted a gigantic paycheck I wouldn't have chosen a zoo for my place of employment. Myself and the people I work with choose this job because we love the animals.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 23, 2011 0:36:28 GMT
"Nobody said that either on here either. So why bring it up as if someone did?"
No one did, but I think its a very common misconception people have. I know I constantly have to preach it when I teach and participate in outreach, that no matter how many of X species we maintain in captivity, it does not hold a shadow to X species living in and benefiting from intact habitat & natural behaviors. On the flipside of that blastoidea is I think some of the people were saying ANY mammoth alive is better then NO mammoths at all. I tend to agree with this for living species, I'd rather they be captives then extinct if that is really the only option - but that said, having it as an only option, especially with some of the species who are getting closer and closer to that point every day (say, tigers for example) is more then sad.
Griffin, the "zoo" you work at is basically a private collection that is run as a business that does outreach & parties correct? Or did you work/volunteer at a zoo I am not familiar with?
If its your bosses collection, I am sure it has state creds and all, but no real standing in the world of "zoos", what most "accredited zoos" "stand for", and so on. I like zoos, both small and "roadside" & large and "commercial" (usually under the guard-dog of the AZA) and I support people who have established private collections as well. I know thats what my business is though, merely a private collection. That puts "us" (your boss, his employees including you & people like me) in an even different subset from the zoo crowd. I know if I were to call my collection a zoo in-front of many zoo people I'd be chased out of town. I'd never call our collection a zoo, really. Sure the Zoo label is great in some regards but it also has an incredible amount of baggage tied to it. AZA is great and all, but with real zoo politics, you get a lot of perfectly healthy animals made dead animals sometimes because they don't fit the current "business model" for one reason or another.
I have been involved with "REAL" Zoo politics and they are a MESS compared to private collections gone commercial. The bigger an operation gets compared to a small one. the further the people who control the money &make the decisions tend to get from the "knitty gritty". I am glad every day that I am the one making the decisions based on the health and welfare of the animals I work with, and I don't have to run it through 3 or more people before ANYTHING can be done.
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 23, 2011 0:48:38 GMT
" I have talked to other people (outside the forum) who who think as long as there is zoos why worry about preserving natural habitats." -blastoidea "Nobody said that on here either (correct me if I'm wrong). So why bring it up as if someone did?" -griffin
"(outside the forum) " that is exactly what that means. *clasps* It was to show that there are other issues that relate to the hypothetical question of cloning a mammoth - that there is a bigger picture than "i wanna see a mammoth".
----
"Zoo's goals are to educate and stir up concern/interest in wildlife conservation more than anything else." - Griffin and "Of course its a business first." (referring to zoo's) - Griffin --- So which is it? (And I don't care to hear your answer, you think about it).
Griffin, I am done talking to you about this. I will discuss it with others though.
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 23, 2011 4:55:44 GMT
"Griffin, I am done talking to you about this. I will discuss it with others though." I think you are taking this little discussion too personally and getting upset about it.
"So which is it? (And I don't care to hear your answer, you think about it)"
Haha if you didn't care to hear my answer you would not have bothered typing that. Its a business. But one of their most important goals has become to stir up concern/educate the public. I knew what I was saying both times. Dude, if you don't trust them or science or whatever you think is going to mess things up if a mammoth is somehow cloned then oh well.
"Griffin, the "zoo" you work at is basically a private collection that is run as a business that does outreach & parties correct? Or did you work/volunteer at a zoo I am not familiar with?"
The facility I have been with longest is pretty much that. I have also worked with the Bergen County Zoo though. Two co-workers/friends of mine have volunteered at the Bronx Zoo. Another works at the Turtleback Zoo.
"you get a lot of perfectly healthy animals made dead animals sometimes because they don't fit the current "business model" for one reason or another."
I have heard horror stories like this. Its really sad. But in the grand scheme of things I think zoos still do more good than harm when run according to regulations.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 23, 2011 16:09:23 GMT
I think if a mammoth was cloned it would probably be put in something equivalent to a circus rather then just a zoo. It would travel around doing shows, like Walking With Dinosaurs, doing tricks ect. That would the way to maximize profits. The mammoths life would be secondary.
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Jan 23, 2011 16:17:36 GMT
People like to watch dogs rip one an-others faces off in dog fights for entertainment as well. You're being generous referring to them as 'people' As for cloning a mammoth, hey, why not....
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 23, 2011 16:33:05 GMT
blastoidea -> "Zoo's goals are to educate and stir up concern/interest in wildlife conservation more than anything else."
I will say I think in the case of Griffins facility this might well tie with making money. He is working at a small operation that gives the person who built the facility from the ground up (His boss, please correct me if I am wrong here griff) and this being the case, that person has more control over what goes on, and his "vision" of what his facility is meant to be. I imagine the collections owner is passionate about his animals & wildlife, so making sure to educate about conservation might be a real highlight for him. I know from reading other things griffin has added, many of their animals were given to them or came from rescue situations, so already they are doing something most "accredited zoos" will not by accepting animals from the public. (which I think is a good thing if they have space so that the animal ends up in a suitable home, no waiting for unnecessary euthanasia)
I can tell you teaching people about conservation, the environment, and animals is one of my main goals, and to me comes up to where it is hand in hand with making money. The only way it could be more is if I started providing "free shows" to get the message out. (I do do shows for free sometimes depending on the venue, but at the same time, its also a place to advertise, so its not like its 100% altruistic) If I was all about making money I know I would be better off in another line of work though, thats for sure. The same goes for breeding species that are threatened or endangered, especially if involved with a studbook or conservation program. Many of the people involved in various programs are private individuals, and they can have more funds & a different mindset about production if its a "hobby" as opposed to a "project" at a zoo.
Griffin -> "I have heard horror stories like this. Its really sad. But in the grand scheme of things I think zoos still do more good than harm when run according to regulations."
I completely agree that zoos are good things Griffin, (and everyone else reading this!) and I think both people AND animals would be worse out without them. I think they benefit many people (mostly children) by providing a "close encounter" with an organism that previously was not "real" to them, rather something they saw in a book, on the television, and so on. For some this is merely a thrill, but for certain individuals, its much more then that. I also feel people having contact with animals of all kinds is incredibly important to the wild, and habitats as well, as once a chord of connection is struck, some people will become impassioned. Impassioned people, particularly those who are educated, informed, impassioned people, can be great for animals (and people depending on how important you feel the preservation of biodiversity to our species is). Emotion and science may not be good bedfellows, but show me a single researcher who has devoted their life to protect or save a species who is not also emotionally connected to the organisms they are working with.
My point about the big zoos-vrs little zoos, vrs private collections was not that I feel any zoos are bad (except those who treat animals poorly). Just that experiences with what is basically a private collection is very different from experiences with a "zoo" facility. Sometimes those "regulations", depending on who is spouting them out are exactly what hurts the animals at bigger zoos.
The big zoos (and the AZA) generally have a very poor opinion of folks like me and your boss for a couple of reasons - I know one is that we are generally considered "untrained competition" and sometimes known generally as "animal pimps" - we keep "zoo type" exotics and provide a service that allows people to have such animals at their home, party or event. They often have the same negative views about private (aka "roadside") zoos. That term has been so overused in a negative fashion that even the mention of "roadside zoo" to many conjures up images of animals in tiny cages in deplorable conditions. (and don't get me wrong, some roadside zoos are just that and should be shut down, but that should be a matter for animal control and humane standards NOT in the hands of the bulldog of the AZA) I have to say though, I have been to MANY zoos over the years, as a visitor or as a guest, and seen many a private collection, and can say that the level of care the animals receive and the level of professionalism varies so greatly that its simply imposable to say one entity (massive commercial collections versus private collections) is better then the others. I've been to outstanding "rinky dink" operations run on a shoe string budget, where the animals were treated like kings & queens, and at the same time major zoos who had plenty of money to solve problems not even following minimum care standards for a number of their charges. It absolutely does depend on the individuals involved as well as the money involved.
The animals in your bosses collection are lucky. I was just adding the above because had you worked at a zoo facility that was a large operation your feelings might be entirely different, and I know your experiences would be. (I'll end it at that as I don't want to make this one of those "4 pager" responses by going on and on and on ;P )
|
|