|
Post by Griffin on Jan 23, 2011 17:47:24 GMT
That was a good post CCM. I don't really know what large zoos think of us. I do know that my boss does business with them sometimes though. A few of our "larger" animals we obtained from larger zoos. " 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." I hope you were being sarcastic.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 23, 2011 21:38:26 GMT
Thanks for the link. I wonder if a similar situation is true with other herbivores? If elephants require special bacteria to help them digest plants, what about cows, rabbits, etc? I also wonder if the bacteria these elephants need is the same or similar for all other elephant species. With pet birds (pigeons, parrots, keets, and other crop feeders) they all do fine being fed the same bacteria, even though they are all different species from all over the world. I don't know if they all get the exact same bacteria in the wild, but in a captive situation it works out fine.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jan 23, 2011 23:32:47 GMT
That was a good post CCM. I don't really know what large zoos think of us. I do know that my boss does business with them sometimes though. A few of our "larger" animals we obtained from larger zoos. " 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." I hope you were being sarcastic. Yes of course i"m being sarcastic, I almost always am. The thing is if anyone is successful with Cloning a Mammoth they will get to play God with it. I think if your going to clone one you should clone a whole herd. Not from the same DNA but from different individuals. I know this is unlikely. Then you could put them in Pleistocene Park like CCM suggested.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 0:01:32 GMT
"I wonder if a similar situation is true with other herbivores?"
^ Absolutely.
Tortoise & Iguanas, among other herbivorous reptiles both can encounter "failure to thrive" syndrome if not able to eat the dung of the adults and get the right gut flora. When one hatches them in captivity its best to "inoculate" them by making sure one of their first meals is the parents droppings. (I breed Redfoot Tortoises and they practice coprophagia even as adults!) Animals deprived of this often grow very slowly and can fail and die for "no obvious reason".
"With pet birds (pigeons, parrots, keets, and other crop feeders) they all do fine being fed the same bacteria, even though they are all different species from all over the world. I don't know if they all get the exact same bacteria in the wild, but in a captive situation it works out fine."
Ehh, its better then nothing, but its probably not ideal. With birds, as long as the baby has been parent reared when its very small, especially in the case of doves/pigeons due to cropmilk, then the chicks have a much better chance. Day one chicks hatched in the incubator are much more difficult, and many remain "fragile" for life and much more prone to health problems then birds who received feeding from their parents.
Its best to keep bacteria species specific if possible, especially of poo-inoculation is how its done. (For the record, I feel 100% the poo route is not only the safest but the best for the animals - reptiles - if it can be done that way) Birds like fowl become "poo inoculated" the same way, once they are walking around and pecking after mom.
To keep this on track, IF I was given a mammoth calf and told to raise it I would probably do my best to obtain some Asian Elephant dung so that it could pick at it/consume it.
Many vets & animal keepers feel general probiotics are good to have on hand for just about any species, including us. That said there is a fair bit of controversy on how useful general probiotics that are used across species are, with a fair number of folks leaning towards none. I've seen an iguana who was really run over by a long treatment on baytril come around with just yogurt initially mixed into his food, so I would rather provide it then not. I have used pro biotic formulas on carnivores who are ailing or have had a nasty course of particularly strong antibiotics as well. My feelings are it really can't hurt, and the worst I am doing is wasting a few bucks on a product for my piece of mind. I do use a product called TNT with probiotics for my tortoises.
The same generic bacteria products like Bene-bac (Lactobacillus fermentum, dried L. casel (avian strain), dried Streptococcus faecium, L. planatarum and L. acidophilus fermentation products) that are fed to birds can and is also be used for reptiles to helpe prevent sterile gut syndrome - similar to "going light" in birds.
What sort of dove do you have seijun? I love columbiformes and keep a couple of doves myself.
|
|
|
Post by zopteryx on Jan 24, 2011 0:11:35 GMT
My guess is that this mammoth will live in a really big open enclosure, devoted to just it and its elephant family. There would/will be big viewing platforms set up all around the enclosure and you can pay extra to go on "safari" in a truck to get up close to it. And of course there will be tons of merchandise. The goal of any company is too make money, there's no getting around that.
I really hope though that after the initial shock wears off that the mammoth will be a model for conservation of some kind, and maybe save threatened species across the globe in a round-about way.
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 24, 2011 0:37:07 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 ) ccm - I am not debating if zoos or the others need to make money. Of course they do. There can and there is conflicts of interests though in the money vs other objectives the zoos may have. I will stick to elephants as it is closer to topic. Should a place like Canada even keep elephants? The elephants are confined in the winter inside which is a very small enclosure. Even with enrichment programs the elephants have a hard time of it as stated by their keepers and the zoos. People have proposed if conservation is the zoos main object then maybe Canada should relocate it's elephants southernly and use the money instead in Africa conservation projects for elephants which operate on a very small budget and could do a tons more with Canadian funding. As elephants are a big draw (money) it would hurt Canadian zoos to be more effective in elephant conservation by using this approach though. Zoo's need the draw and they realize this. That is an example of a conflict of interest and there is many more. I am not familiar with what you do. I will assume you do the "right" thing given the variables you face. I am not asking for an extreme of 100%, of course there needs to be a balance. One of my points has been intent. Intent decides which way to lean in regards of is this for human amusement, pure science, making money etc... There is research on "close encounter" programs. It is not as one sided as you present. Television (a BBC approach not a Discovery approach) is effective and gives a better understanding of true elephant behavior than riding one or watching them "perform" ever will. Not all children need to see the elephants in person to care or understand the plight of the natural world. Again I think your default position is zoo's are good and this may stop you from questioning other ways of skinning the cat (I love cats) or actually being more effective. Biologists have also seen stuffed animals or a replica in a museum and fallen in love their there subjects as well. Zoo are not the only means.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 24, 2011 0:49:10 GMT
"With pet birds (pigeons, parrots, keets, and other crop feeders) they all do fine being fed the same bacteria, even though they are all different species from all over the world. I don't know if they all get the exact same bacteria in the wild, but in a captive situation it works out fine." Ehh, its better then nothing, but its probably not ideal. With birds, as long as the baby has been parent reared when its very small, especially in the case of doves/pigeons due to cropmilk, then the chicks have a much better chance. Day one chicks hatched in the incubator are much more difficult, and many remain "fragile" for life and much more prone to health problems then birds who received feeding from their parents. Its best to keep bacteria species specific if possible, especially of poo-inoculation is how its done. (For the record, I feel 100% the poo route is not only the safest but the best for the animals - reptiles - if it can be done that way) Birds like fowl become "poo inoculated" the same way, once they are walking around and pecking after mom. To keep this on track, IF I was given a mammoth calf and told to raise it I would probably do my best to obtain some Asian Elephant dung so that it could pick at it/consume it. Many vets & animal keepers feel general probiotics are good to have on hand for just about any species, including us. That said there is a fair bit of controversy on how useful general probiotics that are used across species are, with a fair number of folks leaning towards none. I've seen an iguana who was really run over by a long treatment on baytril come around with just yogurt initially mixed into his food, so I would rather provide it then not. I have used pro biotic formulas on carnivores who are ailing or have had a nasty course of particularly strong antibiotics as well. My feelings are it really can't hurt, and the worst I am doing is wasting a few bucks on a product for my piece of mind. I do use a product called TNT with probiotics for my tortoises. The same generic bacteria products like Bene-bac (Lactobacillus fermentum, dried L. casel (avian strain), dried Streptococcus faecium, L. planatarum and L. acidophilus fermentation products) that are fed to birds can and is also be used for reptiles to helpe prevent sterile gut syndrome - similar to "going light" in birds. What sort of dove do you have seijun? I love columbiformes and keep a couple of doves myself. Yes, with birds it would be best to give them feces or crop milk from their own parents, but my point is that they can also survive on a general pb like benebac. My dove was raised by me from day one so she never got bacteria from her mom. I substituted with avian benebac, which supposedly has a more bird-specific pb strain than the small mammal benebac. Unlike the mom's feces or crop milk though, benebac cannot help strengthen the chick against disease. My understanding is that it just helps establish gut bacteria. Do different bird species have different strains of Lactobacillus et al or different bacteria entirely? My dove is a eurasian collared dove. She is about 8 or 9 months old now, I think. She is doing fine, aside from being a really picky eater. Her immune system is going to be weaker than a normal dove though for reasons we have already established.
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 24, 2011 0:51:05 GMT
Then you could put them in Pleistocene Park like CCM suggested. This is a better idea on where they should live. Would it be the african or asian elephants who get to live outside their temperature range if a herd of mammoths can't be established? Or does the mammoth get to live in a hotter temperature comfort zone? Something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 1:26:21 GMT
ccm - I am not debating if zoos or the others need to make money. Of course they do. There can and there is conflicts of interests though in the money vs other objectives the zoos may have. I will stick to elephants as it is closer to topic. Should a place like Canada even keep elephants? The elephants are confined in the winter inside which is a very small enclosure. Even with enrichment programs the elephants have a hard time of it as stated by their keepers and the zoos. People have proposed if conservation is the zoos main object then maybe Canada should relocate it's elephants southernly and use the money instead in Africa conservation projects for elephants which operate on a very small budget and could do a tons more with Canadian funding. As elephants are a big draw (money) it would hurt Canadian zoos to be more effective in elephant conservation by using this approach though. Zoo's need the draw and they realize this. That is an example of a conflict of interest and there is many more. As I said before, I do not feel conservation is a zoos main objective, especially large AZA zoos, despite some of what they tout. I don't think that makes zoos bad, or bad in anyway. I am not anti circus if the animals are treated well and provided with good husbandry, nor am I anti things like rodeo, again, as long as the animals are provided properly for and non mistreated.I am not anti dog show either. Though I love animals, and am passionate about them, I am a hunter, fisherman & omnivore for the record, so I am not one of the folks who cozies up to the "no use" mentality. I am VERY pro - animal welfare, and very ANTI animal "rights". Yes, I think Canada should keep an elephant of they can provide for it. If they are not suffering, and I don't believe they are, then so be it. Enclosure too small to provide proper husbandry? Well, then they should build a bigger one or part with the elephants, plain and simple. If they are concerned that they'd like more space but the elephants are OK where they are then they should try to figure out how to increase funds to put into that project, just like any business does. On the "conservation" level, I am one who feels even IF it came down to the "sacrifice" of that group of elephants, meaning they had to live a somewhat limited life to get even one person seriously involved with elephant conservation, then YES, I feel it was worth it, benefits to the zoo aside. Do I think that if that is the case, Canada should hedge its benefits on becoming a breeding arena for elephants, or start an elephant sanctuary? No way. Only if they pull off this mammoth clone, and they get their hands on a herd of them! I really think the only "conflict of interest" is from the people who don't like seeing elephants in captivity. I am not familiar with what you do. I will assume you do the "right" thing given the variables you face. I am not asking for an extreme of 100%, of course there needs to be a balance. One of my points has been intent. Intent decides which way to lean in regards of is this for human amusement, pure science, making money etc... The "right thing" is so variable person to person, its impossible to draw any kind of line there. I feel what I do is good for animals in my care, the people that I provide a service for, for various reasons, including teaching people about conservation and biodiversity, and for me. Intent really means nothing to the animals. Wither you intend to make life better for them, or you intend to see them suffer, they don't understand, nor do I think they care. They only "get it" if you do something, whatever that is. Intent also means very little to struggling businesses, and it certainly means nothing to villagers who live alongside animals in impoverished parts of the world. MANY a conservation initiative is started with the best "intent", but it ends there. They sound good, people like to tout them, but in practice, its all a bunch of garbage. I say this because, and to quote Alan Grant in JP 3- "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best of intentions." The short is its very easy for us to come up with all these grand plans about conservation and so on, as we type on our computers in our nice homes and live a way of life the people who are often affected most by these issues will never know. Then we go to their country, try to tell them what they can and can't do, and should or shouldn't do when we can't even keep from deforesting the places we live...(sorry, hot button issue) "Intent" and conservation, like emotion and science don't really make good bedfellows, and I'll leave it at that - believe me I could make 20 pages out of this in no time... There is research on "close encounter" programs. It is not as one sided as you present. Television (a BBC approach not a Discovery approach) is effective and gives a better understanding of true elephant behavior than riding one or watching them "perform" ever will. Not all children need to see the elephants in person to care or understand the plight of the natural world. Again I think your default position is zoo's are good and this may stop you from questioning other ways of skinning the cat (I love cats) or actually being more effective. Biologists have also seen stuffed animals or a replica in a museum and fallen in love their there subjects as well. Zoo are not the only means. I don't feel I presented it as "single sided", but whatever. I presented what I *feel* to be the case though. I never said outreach had any sort of paramount on learning about animals, conservation, or feeling connected, either. As I stated, I do feel it plays a part, and I do feel it is as viable as any of those other options. Research aside, I remember my first trip to sea world at a wee age, specifically for the first time I saw a Killer Whale. Now whales in captivity is a whole other kettle of fish, I am aware of that. I do know, and can say though, as a dino/lizard/bird obsessed little boy, I knew nothing about whales prior, and after that - I had to learn EVERYTHING I could about these amazing creatures. Seeing that animal in person, especially up close like I did made it very REAL to me. Sure, some people might go, ehh a wale, and others might be more affected by s good nature boor or the TV. Even more get "nature lessons" from the garbage that dinesy pumps out. I never said zoos are the only means at anything. I DID say, and I'll say it again, I feel zoos are both good & important to both people and to animals. Unless you are talking about ending zoos, I fail to see any other way to "skin this cat" being necessary...
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 2:02:51 GMT
seijun - "Unlike the mom's feces or crop milk though, benebac cannot help strengthen the chick against disease. My understanding is that it just helps establish gut bacteria." That is the case, yes. Very cool about having a Eurasian Collared Dove, espeially raising it right out of the egg like that, I have handfed doves from day one before, not a fun task! I have a Eurasian Collared Dove/ Ringneck Dove/Red Eyed Dove Trihybrid breeding project I have been working on for some time now. Some neat 1/3 sized offspring in both fawn & wild color have been the results so far. This is Icarus, one of the males. I think the generic "avian strain" (in Benebac derived from chickens I think?) of Lactobacillus is the same, but I don't know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 2:08:08 GMT
Would it be the african or asian elephants who get to live outside their temperature range if a herd of mammoths can't be established? Or does the mammoth get to live in a hotter temperature comfort zone? Something to think about. They should move in with (or better yet, eventually replace) the Canadian or Russian elephants in zoos.
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 24, 2011 3:31:44 GMT
As I said before, I do not feel conservation is a zoos main objective, especially large AZA zoos, despite some of what they tout. I don't think that makes zoos bad, or bad in anyway. I am not anti circus if the animals are treated well and provided with good husbandry, nor am I anti things like rodeo, again, as long as the animals are provided properly for and non mistreated.I am not anti dog show either. Though I love animals, and am passionate about them, I am a hunter, fisherman & omnivore for the record, so I am not one of the folks who cozies up to the "no use" mentality. I am VERY pro - animal welfare, and very ANTI animal "rights". I agree conversation is not a main objective as well. I didn't say that made them bad either, actually I was trying to point out balance and extremes. Not 100% good and not 100% bad can be achieved on any one point for the whole. I too hunt and fish and also volunteer with conservations projects and know people who work at museums (been in the back rooms many times) and know park staff (they come over for dinner)... but it's sort of irrelevant. Even today, charges are laid against animal handlers. Do you agree with this if proven? Yes, I think Canada should keep an elephant of they can provide for it. If they are not suffering, and I don't believe they are, then so be it. Enclosure too small to provide proper husbandry? Well, then they should build a bigger one or part with the elephants, plain and simple. If they are concerned that they'd like more space but the elephants are OK where they are then they should try to figure out how to increase funds to put into that project, just like any business does. On the "conservation" level, I am one who feels even IF it came down to the "sacrifice" of that group of elephants, meaning they had to live a somewhat limited life to get even one person seriously involved with elephant conservation, then YES, I feel it was worth it, benefits to the zoo aside. Do I think that if that is the case, Canada should hedge its benefits on becoming a breeding arena for elephants, or start an elephant sanctuary? No way. Only if they pull off this mammoth clone, and they get their hands on a herd of them! I really think the only "conflict of interest" is from the people who don't like seeing elephants in captivity.Canada cannot provide well for the elephants. It is costing to much money to do so and the animals are suffering which the major zoo's quietly acknowledge. Detroit zoo and others northern American zoo's have relocated their elephants. This was them acknowledging their limits (money, space, etc) and the animals needs (health problems, how much space a animal requires, how long it can be confined to a winter enclosure, geographical limits of the species etc). Money needs to go into the other animals was well, zoo staff need to get paid etc... Money isn't an unlimited resource and doesn't solve every problem like an Africa species in Canada. And there is a return on investment problem as well. Hopefully, they focus on another species that would be a better fit. They are better ways to get ONE person (your words) to save/care/work with elephants and elephants need not have an limited life to do so. Considering your plan, and that it will take millions of people to care and thousands to do actual work the elephants would be extinct from the wild. There are better and more effective ways to make to people care. I do not agree with this way of thinking. The major zoos in Canada do not plan to bred. The private ones have a whole different take on it though. And to be clear it is the a Japanese team trying to clone a mammoth. Intent really means nothing to the animals. Wither you intend to make life better for them, or you intend to see them suffer, they don't understand, nor do I think they care. They only "get it" if you do something, whatever that is. Intent also means very little to struggling businesses, and it certainly means nothing to villagers who live alongside animals in impoverished parts of the world. MANY a conservation initiative is started with the best "intent", but it ends there. They sound good, people like to tout them, but in practice, its all a bunch of garbage. I say this because, and to quote Alan Grant in JP 3- "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best of intentions."From science and research come the idea elephants remember, are self aware, know something of death etc... and I did make sure to specify elephants. You are very wrong and I doubt you could ever find a biologist to support your statement, regarding elephants. I disagree - lots of "good intent" projects make a HUGE difference in Africa and other places - I would not be so quick to lump as there is most certainly good conservation programs run by competent people who see a bigger picture. Not all workers and villagers are ignorant of the complex problems (social and conservation balance). I disagree with what you imply. Maybe you tried to narrow down the word intent, but I was using it to include other things and have been all along. The short is its very easy for us to come up with all these grand plans about conservation and so on, as we type on our computers in our nice homes and live a way of life the people who are often affected most by these issues will never know. Then we go to their country, try to tell them what they can and can't do, and should or shouldn't do when we can't even keep from deforesting the places we live...(sorry, hot button issue) "Intent" and conservation, like emotion and science don't really make good bedfellows, and I'll leave it at that - believe me I could make 20 pages out of this in no time...It has been stated earlier we are in charge of the outcome (habitat loss, if a species will go extinct or not) and our decisions matter. Therefore intent does matter, quite a bit. And conservation workers are aware of the social problems and how they play into conservation. They are not the ignorant people you claim them to be. As well as lots of the general public I might add. Not everyone is stupidly typing on their computer. I don't feel I presented it as "single sided", but whatever. I presented what I *feel* to be the case though. I never said outreach had any sort of paramount on learning about animals, conservation, or feeling connected, either. As I stated, I do feel it plays a part, and I do feel it is as viable as any of those other options. People can walk away with the wrong impression just as well. People can think animals sore purpose is for their entertainment. Certain types of outreach done in specific ways play a part - I agree - the hows and whys matter though. I thought my points were valid for a "fuller" picture. Sure, some people might go, ehh a wale, and others might be more affected by s good nature boor or the TV. Even more get "nature lessons" from the garbage that dinesy pumps out. I never said zoos are the only means at anything. I DID say, and I'll say it again, I feel zoos are both good & important to both people and to animals. Unless you are talking about ending zoos, I fail to see any other way to "skin this cat" being necessary...I was pointing out other ideas and ways or seeing things, that you hadn't pointed out. Obviously, more than zoos are required to solve these issues and can be done regardless of zoos just as well! (AND TO BE CLEAR FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME I AM NOT TRYING TO GET RID OF ZOOS _ QUIT BEING THEIR SPOKESPERSON). ***I don't think because "I wanna see a mammoth" or "why not" or "better than being extinct" is a good/valid reason. "Why not" shows no thought and ignorance of larger issues and how issues interconnect (using ccm's example - the rich kid going to Africa telling them what do and what they should be doing). "Better than being extinct" fads change, if the mammoth doesn't make as much money as it used to, or it costs to much, whatever... would it be better to live a life of minimum guideline requirements? A person could live a long time in prison... I wouldn't say it is living "life". And I am not implying zoo's are prisons. What if it is not meant to be present and it's time just came. Why should humans keep tinkering with nature based on a grasping at straws argument. There were other issues as well. A company with lots of money and intent to return fully on their investment and make a profit could own the rights to the clone. It also sets a dangerous precedence of the private ownership of a species not just the animal. Greed can make very odd things happen and not for the good, but for a bottom line. Look at politics. Look at Monstanto. They own the seeds of a GM plant that will mix with non GM plants. A farmer next door or miles away using his own saved seed will eventually have GM mixed in. By law Monstanto owns that and the farmer is in violation the law. It happens right now and big companies have big lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 24, 2011 4:01:13 GMT
seijun - "Unlike the mom's feces or crop milk though, benebac cannot help strengthen the chick against disease. My understanding is that it just helps establish gut bacteria." That is the case, yes. Very cool about having a Eurasian Collared Dove, espeially raising it right out of the egg like that, I have handfed doves from day one before, not a fun task! I have a Eurasian Collared Dove/ Ringneck Dove/Red Eyed Dove Trihybrid breeding project I have been working on for some time now. Some neat 1/3 sized offspring in both fawn & wild color have been the results so far. This is Icarus, one of the males. Pretty, pretty! What species is Icarus? When you say 1/3 size, about how big is that? At what age will a female eurasian dove start laying eggs? I still don't know the gender of mine for sure. I call her a her but I'm beginning to suspect she is male. A coworker found her mom outside with a hurt wing and brought her in to work. We put her in a cage to recoup and she laid an egg within a few hours. I took it home an incubated it not thinking I would get anything, but now I have this: She is really a lot of fun and has been totally worth it. And something else I have been wondering.. Even though I tried my best to expose her to many new objects as she was growing up, she is still very, very flighty and panicky around anything new. Is that normal for her species or is it age related (she is still under a year old). She loves people though, even if she has never seen them before!
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 5:38:10 GMT
I agree conversation is not a main objective as well. I didn't say that made them bad either, actually I was trying to point out balance and extremes. Not 100% good and not 100% bad can be achieved on any one point for the whole. I too hunt and fish and also volunteer with conservations projects and know people who work at museums (been in the back rooms many times) and know park staff (they come over for dinner)... but it's sort of irrelevant. Even today, charges are laid against animal handlers. Do you agree with this if proven?Charges are laid against animal handlers what? As in people who abuse animals? I never said those were not out there, and know perfectly well they can crop up anywhere, from the "simple" pet owner to the "fine, accredited and spotless" zoological or scientific facility. Some people suck. I clarified those things because I feel the "conversation" I am having with you is going the same route those that I do with the bulk of animal rights folks do...and its not something I really wanted to drag onto this board. For the record, I loathe "animal rights" - its an absurd notion that does no real good for animals, ever, and is usually the fodder for minds who know little to less about real natural history, ecology & related conservation, or animal husbandry. Canada cannot provide well for the elephants. It is costing to much money to do so and the animals are suffering which the major zoo's quietly acknowledge. Detroit zoo and others northern American zoo's have relocated their elephants. This was them acknowledging their limits (money, space, etc) and the animals needs (health problems, how much space a animal requires, how long it can be confined to a winter enclosure, geographical limits of the species etc). Money needs to go into the other animals was well, zoo staff need to get paid etc... Money isn't an unlimited resource and doesn't solve every problem like an Africa species in Canada. And there is a return on investment problem as well. Hopefully, they focus on another species that would be a better fit. They are better ways to get ONE person (your words) to save/care/work with elephants and elephants need not have an limited life to do so. Considering your plan, and that it will take millions of people to care and thousands to do actual work the elephants would be extinct from the wild. There are better and more effective ways to make to people care. I do not agree with this way of thinking. The major zoos in Canada do not plan to bred. The private ones have a whole different take on it though. And to be clear it is the a Japanese team trying to clone a mammoth..If the zoo can not provide for the elephants husbandry, I clearly said, they shouldn't have the elephants. I don't know how to me more clear then that. My "plan"? I don't get what you are saying about the line of thinking, but I feel we must not be communicating clearly or something. I know it was a Japanese team. The Canada mammoth thing was an attempt at humor. It appears it wasn't taken as such. From science and research come the idea elephants remember, are self aware, know something of death etc... and I did make sure to specify elephants. You are very wrong and I doubt you could ever find a biologist to support your statement, regarding elephants. I disagree - lots of "good intent" projects make a HUGE difference in Africa and other places - I would not be so quick to lump as there is most certainly good conservation programs run by competent people who see a bigger picture. Not all workers and villagers are ignorant of the complex problems (social and conservation balance). I disagree with what you imply. Maybe you tried to narrow down the word intent, but I was using it to include other things and have been all alongSo, let me get this right - You are suggesting that because elephants are aware (I never said they are not, as a matter of fact I have been around on this list for quite a while now, and if you'd really like to find one of my diatribes on animal intelligence/awareness, you can surely sort through old threads to see what I think) then they are going to somehow care about our intent? Find me a scientist to back that one. I was saying IF an elephant is in a crappy, tiny stall then it doesn't matter what intent was behind it being there - it just knows that its there, even if it is "for all the right reasons" and is not able to display proper behavior. Same goes for an elephant in a circus - it could be there for "all the wrong reasons" and as long as it can behave and act as an elephant, and fulfill its requirements successfully, then so be it. What in the world does the intent behind the situation have to do with that elephants state of being?! I didn't say there are not good conservation projects in Africa, or elsewhere for that matter NOR did I EVER call the villagers who live there ignorant. Hardly, and for you to suggest I did is insulting. Thats all garbage you tacked on. I did mean that I don't view "intent" as an independently valid reason to have such projects. I am pretty sure you think I am "implying" things I am not. It has been stated earlier we are in charge of the outcome (habitat loss, if a species will go extinct or not) and our decisions matter. Therefore intent does matter, quite a bit. And conservation workers are aware of the social problems and how they play into conservation. They are not the ignorant people you claim them to be. As well as lots of the general public I might add as well. Not everyone is stupidly typing on their computer..Personal decisions matter to an extent yes, the larger the scale, the more they matter. I don't doubt even on the small scale, decisions affect things, and affect the future. Does the intent behind them matter? Intent doesn't matter to an extinct species. I would say intent only matters to us, and most of the time, only matters in hindsight. The Tazzy Tiger is no less extinct because we feel bad about it. Same goes for the Passenger Pigeon. I never claimed all conservation workers to be ignorant. I never picked on conservation workers even. I am very critical about a great deal of conservation policy, which I think is often fueled by "intent". I'm thrilled you can complain that I make broad statements and yet you make similar ones about these workers not being ignorant. I am sure there are as many that are as aren't, and thats not with personal knowledge, just what I know about people in general. Hey, I think you are ignorant. You probably think the same of me. Once more intent falls short - I initially posted with regard to what griffin had said to, at least I felt clarify things, and clearly my attempt fell short...now I am just annoyed... I was pointing out other ideas and ways or seeing things, that you hadn't pointed out. Obviously, more than ZOOS are required to solve these issues??? What are you saying?I was saying exactly what I said. Maybe you should go re-read it, and not read into it.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 6:10:34 GMT
(I am responding, because the thread is here, but just in case this is too much of a topic derailer, could a forum moderator please make a new thread for this, or move it? I know its not really on the mammoth thread anymore, and I don't want to be "breaking rules" now that I have come back to posting after the new year - I know that was one of the negatives I had against me before for derailing threads over other points of interest/conversation, so I'd rather it not be a problem now)Pretty, pretty! What species is Icarus? When you say 1/3 size, about how big is that? Icarus is 25% Ringneck Dove (Streptopelia risoria), 50% Eurasian Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) & 25% Red Eyed dove (Streptopelia semitorquata). He is, like many streptopelia dove hybrids, fertile. The offspring he has produced when paired to a "normal" female Ringneck dove (believed caring a mini-gene) are small - they are 62.5% Ringneck Dove, 25% Eurasian Collared Dove (ECD) and 12.5 Red Eyed Dove (RED) They are 1/3 as in one third the size of him in length, and max out at about 110grams (Icarus is 208). They show some very interesting genetic markers from the parents related to calls & markings. At what age will a female eurasian dove start laying eggs? I still don't know the gender of mine for sure. I call her a her but I'm beginning to suspect she is male. A coworker found her mom outside with a hurt wing and brought her in to work. We put her in a cage to recoup and she laid an egg within a few hours. I took it home an incubated it not thinking I would get anything, but now I have this: Lovely! A single hen may or may not lay when kept alone. Both the male and female will call but only the male will sing (Bow-coo) Outside of an egg, thats probably the best way of sexing. Mature males tend to run a little larger in size then the hens, and are often a little brighter in color. It looks like she still has another molt or 2 to go through before she has her complete adult plumage in. And something else I have been wondering.. Even though I tried my best to expose her to many new objects as she was growing up, she is still very, very flighty and panicky around anything new. Is that normal for her species or is it age related (she is still under a year old). She loves people though, even if she has never seen them before! Neophobia, the fear of new things is very much a normal dove behavior. She should settle down some as she ages, but "wild doves" like the ECD are always a bit more flighty then the domesticated species. The hybrids mini doves I have produced, even at 62.5% Ringneck, a domesticated species, have kept the "wild behavior" of the ECD and RED. I'd keep exposing her to new things though, and keep getting her used to as much as you can while she is young. Its great that she likes people.
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 24, 2011 6:26:27 GMT
Sorry CCM. I was editing the post and doing other things as well.I didn't know you had replied as I was doing a few things at once. I will try to make sense of it. If you could reread my post.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 6:42:28 GMT
(using ccm's example - the rich kid going to Africa telling them what do and what they should be doing). Not just the "rich kid" -> anyone with running water, indoor toilets, air conditioning, dependable food resources, computer accsess, and so on from another country whos "experience" with megafauana comes from zoos and the discovery channel, and experience with poverty was eating lots of ramen noodle through collage. I am no human rights freak, and am more of a curmudgeon about our species then anything, but its amazing to me what some people think is "sound policy". I still can't believe the rhetoric touted by many CON-servation groups in this regard. Yes, some have it right, but they are few and far between. People can walk away with the wrong impression just as well. People can think animals sore purpose is for their entertainment. I'll tell you one thing, as unclear as I apparently come off on here sometimes, If ANYONE ever walks away from even a conversation with me about animals thinking that they either had their fingers in their ears or their head in their bum...
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 24, 2011 7:00:38 GMT
^^^ I'm not done yet!!!!! Slow down CCM!
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 24, 2011 7:08:09 GMT
" (I never said they are not, as a matter of fact I have been around on this list for quite a while now, and if you'd really like to find one of my diatribes on animal intelligence/awareness, you can surely sort through old threads to see what I think)" lol oh yes those are def around
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 24, 2011 7:37:17 GMT
CCM: She weighs between 175 and 200g depending on how much she has been eating. When I pet her back, sometimes she will open her wings and bend over in the classic female mating position. However, lately she has been doing a lot of crowing and bowing/bobbing at me also.
|
|