|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 24, 2011 8:51:03 GMT
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.People assume zoos can do no wrong (probably more easily, than there could be something wrong) and that the zoo will always look out for the animal. You were the first to admit, fads can change. Sometimes animals are no longer required, for whatever reason. One of my points if you read some of my first posts on this thread was on this fact, maybe not in those words. My concern was - is this just a fad? A cute baby animal everyone has to see then after it gets older it gets "pushed aside" and the care and expense start to lessen for the animal from it's peak. I think you will think this is a shame. I think this is a shame. I don't think you want to see this happen. I don't want to see this happen. I think you have seen it happen. I have seen it happen. It could be a possibility - life is like that - time changes things  . I think, just like before you buy a really expense toy only to find out after a while it doesn't bring you the happiness you thought it would, that it is ok to think about why you want it so badly beforehand. I actually think we agree. I think you think I am something I am not. I actually know a lot about natural history and I think you might as well. I f 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.We both agree then!!!  The zoos could not meet the requirements of the elephants and relocated them. They didn't hold on at any cost! Maybe I stated it too factually. Maybe I should have said "we should all cheer that they did the right thing - pat them on the back". Sometimes though zoo's do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. "Private" zoos do not agree with the major zoos philosophies on the subject of elephants (locally) and I'm sure you could guess why. It is a fact - life is like that. I think North America is better regulated than other counties. We do not know where this hypothetical mammoth could go though. We do not know if the investment in this mammoth will make money and how the owners will treat it if it does poorly. Things to think about. If it is bad to assume everything will be bad - it is just as bad to assume everything will be good, because life is not like that. Read my first bunch of posts to see where I was trying to go with this. I do not think anything should suffer/shorten lifespan/ lessen quality of life so others can learn in general or because it is the easiest route when the other methods may take more work but may be more effective long term (it is not a purpose for life). I am going to do something that will shorten your mothers lifespan so you will learn a lesson, it a poor way to teach a lesson. I will make your mother do something that is very unnatural and bothersome for her so you can learn a lesson. I do not agree with the philosophy. Medical research is different. Entertainment, which I think this mostly is does not qualify. No joking about mammoths - we only laugh at beaver jokes. So, 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.
No. I have been talking about a lot of issues. Go back and read my posts. Somehow they have been compressed into one word. I was trying to broaden this discussion. Get people talking about other issues that relate to this and the natural world right now. Go back and read my posts and you many find we share the idea that elephants are self aware (so maybe money shouldn't be the only issue when it comes to them). And maybe sometimes money can get in the way of doing something that is harmful to a self aware creature that if we knew it was self aware we would never say "i wanna see a mammoth - other animals are in a zoo - case closed". Maybe we agree? Exploring the true reasons for doing something is better than hoping everything just turns out right. When things go wrong (life  everyone loves to say "how were we suppose to know, everyone wanted it, it is not our fault, we were suppose to have a plan etc..." 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...
Intent again... see above. Anyways... I feel if you read my posts from the beginning in this thread you might find out we agree more than you think. Maybe you think I have an agenda and if you don't read it that way, you might find we agree and look at somethings the same way. Maybe? But if a zoo does something wrong or for a bad reason or if human knowledge has increase and zoo's can't keep up - i will not default to - "in general they are good" or "they are doing the best they can copout" or "it is too bad, but hey look over there they are doing good forget the other problem." 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.Trying to expand an idea and show there might be more to it than the surface, are we CCM?  Though I will bust you for the word anyone (gently, for now). As a generalization, sure, I would agree though. Some people who have indoor plumbing are quite aware of complex issues and have empathy for others and how both side of the coin effect plans. Some people try to figure out the best workable solution for all involved without giving one issue to much weight ie. the politics, agenda's, money as much as possible. Those planners have a hard time of it though as there is lots of pressures to make things "not so balanced".
|
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 24, 2011 8:54:05 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! The birds are both beautiful. They should have a separate topic though so people can concentrate on them and hopefully get more information/learn about them without it being cluttered in here. |
|
|
|
Post by Seijun on Jan 24, 2011 16:58:50 GMT
Sorry--CCW, do you think you could answer my last dove question in the community forum when you get the chance?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 18:14:58 GMT
People assume zoos can do no wrong (probably more easily, than there could be something wrong) and that the zoo will always look out for the animal.
You were the first to admit, fads can change. Sometimes animals are no longer required, for whatever reason. One of my points if you read some of my first posts on this thread was on this fact, maybe not in those words. My concern was - is this just a fad? A cute baby animal everyone has to see then after it gets older it gets "pushed aside" and the care and expense start to lessen for the animal from it's peak. I think you will think this is a shame. I think this is a shame. I don't think you want to see this happen. I don't want to see this happen. I think you have seen it happen. I have seen it happen. It could be a possibility - life is like that - time changes things . I think, just like before you buy a really expense toy only to find out after a while it doesn't bring you the happiness you thought it would, that it is ok to think about why you want it so badly beforehand. I actually think we agree. I think you think I am something I am not. I actually know a lot about natural history and I think you might as well.I think it sucks when animals are treated like that, after they have lost their appeal. Its a very common White Tiger problem in zoos. Its even more a problem when it comes to private pet owners - and in that case the "toy" analogy is quite appropriate - puppies, kittens, baby reptiles & baby birds, whatever, once it matures, is not longer "cuddly & cute like a baby" and the novelty of tending to it wears off, many people choose to dump them. People like to do it to their own human offspring as well. Do I think this sort of thing could happen to the mammoth? Sure, someplace, yes, not only that I think its almost a guarantee that IF we clone the mammoth, and have a number of them, at some point, somewhere, some human will abuse one animals in some way. Do I think because we worry this could happen to the mammoth, its a valid reason to not want the mammoth brought back? I don't think so. As I said, people do that same sort of thing to animals all the time, from private people to zoos. We could always farm & eat the mammoths if there were too many, or no one wanted them anymore. MMM, Fresh, free range mammoth steak. But could it be called organic? I am going to be the unpopular one here and say as long as humane parameters were followed, and the animals provided with suitable husbandry, I would be OK with farming mammoths for meat. I think my complaints about zoo policy and how major zoos euth animals was not fully hashed out. The AZA won't let many major zoos let animals they breed or produce into the private or non AZA zoo circuit - (There are exceptions to this) Basically, if they have 4 White Tigers, and 2 are cubs, and they have room for adult 2 White Tigers, they do not look outside of AZA facilities - they kill the animals instead, and incinerate the bodies. They go completely to waste. (Again, I'd have less of a problem with it if they were in some way utilized as food, or something) White Tigers are just an example, all different sorts of species are subject to this, depending on policy, but white tigers are considered particularly expendable due to them being a captive morph, and at the same time wanted because they draw crowds & people love them. Even in private zoo X would love to have a White Tiger or 2, even fixed, to exhibit, it doesn't matter. They'll have to go find their cats elsewhere. The SanFrancisco Garter is one that sticks in my craw - they are being bred in huge numbers by zoos, (they are easy to reproduce) but laws an policy dictate that they are not ever funneled into non AZA facilities - so, even though these are very rare animals in the wild, that many private keepers & captive breeding operations & private zoos would want - they are killing the excess because of regulation. I have sold animals to AZA zoos on multiple occasions. They can buy and exhibit animal purchased & produced by private individuals, thats for sure. I I do not think anything should suffer/shorten lifespan/ lessen quality of life so others can learn in general or because it is the easiest route when the other methods may take more work but may be more effective long term (it is not a purpose for life). I am going to do something that will shorten your mothers lifespan so you will learn a lesson, it a poor way to teach a lesson. I will make your mother do something that is very unnatural and bothersome for her so you can learn a lesson. I do not agree with the philosophy. Medical research is different. Entertainment, which I think this mostly is does not qualify.
Shorten my mothers lifespan? Sometimes I think "conversing" with people on here will shorten mine. I didn't say anything about shortening lifespans...If I recall, (I am not an expert on captive elephants) elephants live just as long in captivity, if not longer then they do in the wild (often due to tooth erosion & eventual starvation). Quality of life is again so very variable as to opinion outside of the basics of husbandry, that its imposable to make a stand on that one. I am not one of those people who thinks "life in the "wild" is all a bowl of cherries for any organism. Life in the wild IS what shaped (and continues to shape) the organism yes. Its what they evolved to deal with, but the challenges of the wild VS captivity are simply different ones. I do agree the larger an organism is, like an elephant or a whale, the more challenges are faced in providing it a suitable life in captivity, and some animals might simply be unsuitable to keeping in a captive situation - you seem to think that the case with elephants - I'd certainly make the case there is no way we are going to come up with a suitable Blue Whale enclosure that isn't the ocean. I am not sure about all the facts regarding Canada's Elephants - I don't know much about that situation. I am interested where you are getting your facts... A quick google search showed me that there are plenty of ANTI sites (Care to provide one that is not PETA, HSUS, Born Free, ZooCheck or some other animal rights group based garbage?) about Canadian elephants, but it also showed me that "Baby Jake" was born in Canada last year. www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/836526--baby-jake-is-canada-s-first-elephant-conceived-through-artificial-inseminationAnd this park, the African Lion Safari in Cambridge Ontario appears to be "the most successful at breeding the Asian Elephant in North America" lankareporter.com/lr/2009/11/14/new-generation-of-canadian-elephants/No. I have been talking about a lot of issues. Go back and read my posts. Somehow they have been compressed into one word. I was trying to broaden this discussion. Get people talking about other issues that relate to this and the natural world right now
Yeahhh.. OK. I don't think I am following where it was "meant to go", so I'll just leave it at that. Maybe this isn't the place to "Get people talking about other issues that relate to this and the natural world right now". Go back and read my posts and you many find we share the idea that elephants are self aware (so maybe money shouldn't be the only issue when it comes to them). And maybe sometimes money can get in the way of doing something that is harmful to a self aware creature that if we knew it was self aware we would never say "i wanna see a mammoth - other animals are in a zoo - case closed". Maybe we agree? Exploring the true reasons for doing something is better than hoping everything just turns out right. When things go wrong (life everyone loves to say "how were we suppose to know, everyone wanted it, it is not our fault, we were suppose to have a plan etc..." Really the fact that Elephants are self aware is really no overly riding concern for me in this issue. Chimps and a number of other Primates are self aware, Dolphins, Corvids, some Parrots, and many other animals are self aware. Pigs appear self aware, and look how they get treated sometimes. I am not saying "we treat pigs crappy, so "its OK to treat other self aware animals crappy" before you go and try to spin that one. I'd say there is more of a likelihood that even more animals then are currently recognized as such. I have NO PROBLEM seeing self aware animals kept, housed, and bred in captivity if their needs are provided for. It goes back to that "proving suffering thing". Just because one feels that they shouldn't be in a cage, it doesn't really mean much to the animal. Alex the African Grey Parrot was self aware - and he spoke English, and he had plenty of opinions. Do you know what he asked to do when nervous or anxious? He was wild caught and never said "take me back to the jungle" - he said "I want to go back to my cage" - Does that mean every parrot in his situation would do that? NO. But it does mean that he did. The mentality that we can think FOR animals is as bad when used in that manner as when it is used to say that they are mindless automaton. (*Just a note* Outside of conservation plans & programs, and founder stock for captive populations & "exceptional circumstances" I do not like seeing animals taken from the wild for captivity, and generally do not agree with much of the trade in wild caught animals - captive bred animals are much more suited to captivity then their wild counterparts for many reasons) Trying to expand an idea and show there might be more to it than the surface, are we CCM? More like trying to clarify something I said that I felt you altered the context of. I never said "rich kid - you corrupted "my example". I'd put a smiley here if I thought that was in any way "curt" or "cute". I don't. Though I will bust you for the word anyone (gently, for now). As a generalization, sure, I would agree though. Some people who have indoor plumbing are quite aware of complex issues and have empathy for others and how both side of the coin effect plans. Some people try to figure out the best workable solution for all involved without giving one issue to much weight ie. the politics, agenda's, money as much as possible. Those planners have a hard time of it though as there is lots of pressures to make things "not so balanced".. Yeah, back to that speaking for something that can't speak for itself mentality - the whole "I know better because" THAT is what I was complaining about, and that is what gets in the way of those "planners" - empathy is great and all, and just as biased & sloppy as "intent". Making a workable solution for the people who are in and live in these "developing nations" HAS to start with making living alongside wildlife & the habitat those animals live in, often dangerous, deadly, family & livestock killing wildlife, valuable to them. Without that, (something those "planners" and other CON-servation initiatives all to often fail at) no matter what good intent was behind it, its doomed to fail. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 24, 2011 18:20:01 GMT
Sorry--CCW, do you think you could answer my last dove question in the community forum when you get the chance? Yep, I'll post it over in the "our pets" along with a photo just for fun ;D |
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 25, 2011 4:41:39 GMT
CCM - I will try to keep it brief. I think your first block of points is a more realistic outlook and shows more of the future possibilities of a hypothetical mammoth. Initially, the mammoth could very well be treated "like a king", but it might not always be so as you have pointed out. And I am not making a judgement statement. Also, I believe ownership of a species (not animal) would be played out, and could set a dangerous precedence. "People do it with their own human offspring as well" some people would use that as a justification. I am not saying you are implying that at all, just pointing out how it can be misused. Anyways, in relation to the original topic. I was trying to negate the pro argument of it will given the best. I was trying to show it could very well just end up being dinner (and if it ever happens maybe we can enjoy one together) or that the fad could fade and it would be treated instead just like another of the animals. Therefore, maybe it isn't a pro but could also be a con - depending on your personal point of view of course. Second block of points: In regards to elephant lifespan in captivity. Elephants lifespan were shown to be considerably reduced.You can find the actual journal study online. You did say "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", by the way. www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/article727578.ece It is odd though that captive born elephants do worse than wild caught ones in zoos. Depending on the species, life in the wild would be considered harsh by our standards. Sometimes though, it works the other way around. African Lion Safari is not a "public" zoo, both articles refer to it. It is a "private" zoo. All "public/major" zoos do not breed and I believe are not going to replace stock and some are looking into relocation. I believe there are less than 40 elephants in Canada. Edmonton zoo has one elephant and it is mired in politics currently. Toronto zoo is in a discussion phase with it's 3 remaining elephants. To point out, the political ideologies of a group (I do not belong to any of them) doesn't not make a fact or concern invalid. The AZA has it's own agenda/problems just as well (which you do belong to). That does not mean we should ignore everything it says just as well. It is poor of you to imply I belong to a group or have it's agenda's when I do not. Point 4: You are entitled to your opinion on your level of concern. Others may not have been aware of the fact that elephants are self aware. Now they are aware. Others took this attitude - this was not about you (so who might really have the agenda here?). I was not spinning anything, and do not think the implication is fair. I was talking in general about the mammoth and exploring cons. You have made this about zoo's and it's politics. Last point: Many conservation projects work well and are fully aware of these issues. A lot of them are run without any foreigners involved. You try to paint them all the same. You, assuming they are all ignorant, or others concerned for animal welfare, shows bias. So back to topic. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 25, 2011 6:06:50 GMT
In regards to elephant lifespan in captivity. Elephants lifespan were shown to be considerably reduced. I believe the research was done in by workers in Ontario, you could find the journal study online. I did indeed read your link, and the study (By Georgia Mason, of the University of Guelph in Canada) that indicated that elephants in captivity live significantly shorter lives then their wild counterparts. UNFORTUNATELY, though, when searching for more information, I found many a link saying the same thing, the only information provided was the same study, over and over, and over. No other studies were ever provided. The study has MANY people (Including Pete Boyle from, yes, you guessed it, the AZA) concerned about its bias, and a number of "legitimate elephant people" have called its to question. From what I have read, this is not without good reason. The study is using records of captive elephants from back to 1960, (This is important - If we looked at say, reptile lifespans in captivity then versus now things would be alarmingly different as well! - Advances in technology & science have really made the difference!) and it is indicated that the numbers are from Elephants lifespans in European Zoos. ANYWAY, this study did not count Elephants in US or Canadian Zoos. Anyone who reads the link can see that the study indicates that the zoo elephants in the study die at 17, 18 years of age, and wild elephants live longer then that, somewhere in the early 40's. Using extreme maximum lifespans as a benchmark is flawed because such ages are rare both in captivity and in the wild, and this study did not seem to do that (You hear elephants quoted living to their 60's and 70's - sure some do, just as some people live into their 100's. I couldn't find much in depth good info in the study to read, too much hoo hah with it pasted all over as clear proof of elephant suffering...soo... Those numbers seemed funny to me, so I checked into that a little. I know it takes a good 10 years for a female Asian Elephant to be sexually mature. Thankfully, because of the US studbooks & zoo records, its not hard to find the ages of the elephants in the current zoos. For example, the Seven Asian elephants at the San Diego Zoo are all in their late 40s and 50's. Judy, the Indian Elephant of Lincoln Park Zoo fame died at 51. Taj, of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom died quite recently at 71 years of age, and was the oldest in the USA. She lived with 4 other Elephants -> 2 Asians - Liz, who is 46-year-old Liz and and Berie Mae who is 30, and 2 Africans - Tava, who is 33, and Valerie who is 29, who are all still going strong. Hmm...suspicious, These are not 17 or 18 year olds... If you need more ages, I am sure we can go zoo by zoo, and get an idea of the ages on the Elephants in US zoos, anyway. Interestingly, on top of everything else I was reading, I bumped into this in "Science" about the elephant lifespan study in question, and thought it should be included, you know, for fun... "But others, including elephant conservationist Iain Douglas-Hamilton of the environmental group Save the Elephants in Kenya, worry that the paper presents an unrealistic image of elephants in the wild. "In most wild populations, human predation is the predominant form of mortality," he notes. Further, zoos "play a significant role in conservation by stimulating the interest of children and adults."" What a strange thing for an Save the Elephants group conservationist to say... You said did say "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", by the way. I did not mean limited lifespan. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, and I did not. I was using "zoospeak" I meant limited life experiences, and mostly limited living space. These things affect ALL captive creatures (and many humans as well). ANY elephant in captivity is going to live a "limited life" compared to a wild elephant, especially if it was taken from the wild, and knew of the wild. Really almost all species, outside of those rooted to the ground in some way will live a "limited life" in captivity. I still do not believe a "limited life" is always detrimental to an animal. Some species definitely seem to handle the limitations of captivity much better then others, a good example using reptiles (I like reptiles, as you can tell) would be a Forest Tortoise versus a Green Sea Turtle - The Forest Tortoise may spend all of its life in the wild in a space no larger then a football field, while the Green Sea Turtle can cross entire oceans. Obviously, one is going to be much easier to provide for simply based on its already "limited" lifestyle dictated by its natural history. An Elephant is certainly more like a Sea Turtle in this regard. A limited lifespan, not meeting or exceeding the wild lifespan on average of a captive animal IS a valid husbandry concern. One of the "benefits" of captivity is that an animal's death via parasites, predators, risk of starvation & dehydration, exposure and various other natural factors is limited or in some cases removed entirely. Some animals will still die via accidents, "health failures" and so on, sure. Cetaceans in captivity ARE a group where some species do not seem to live as long on average as their wild counterparts, though some debate that as well. We know Orcas do not fare as well in captivity as Bottlenose Dolphins, for example, who often live to old age in captivity without problems. (Obviously the different sizes and natures of these two animal play a large part of that - its clearly easier to provide for a Bottlenose then for an Orca) Depending on the species life in the wild would be considered harsh by our standards. Sometimes though, it works the other way around. I agree with this. African Lion Safari is not a "public" zoo, both articles refer to it. It is a "private" zoo. All "public/major" zoos do not breed and I believe are not going to replace stock and some are looking into relocation. OK, so African Lion Safari is a private zoo. It still seems to me to be strange that if these animals are fairing so poorly in Canada that they can boast one of the highest reproductive successes of the species in all of North America. "Public zoos" (Are Canadian Zoos subsidized, or something?) do not breed Indian Elephants? I know both private zoos & AZA zoos do here in the States. In 2001 I went to see the brand new Asian Elephant Calf, Kandula, at the National Zoo (Not only an AZA park but a nationally funded park!), one produced via artificial insemination. For the record, the 2 female Asian elephants at the National Zoo, Shanthi & Ambika are 35 and 63 respectively. Hey...I am feeling some outrage here! Why aren't they dead yet, right?! For the record, the Nat Zoo is expanding their Elephant exhibit and planning to add more animals to their current group of three, so they have a "proper herd". I believe there are less than 40 elephants in Canada. Edmonton zoo has one elephant and it is mired in politics currently. Toronto zoo is in a discussion phase with it's 3 remaining elephants. To point out, the political ideologies of a group (I do not belong to any of them) doesn't not make a fact or concern invalid. The AZA has it's own agenda/problems just as well (which you do belong to). That does not mean we should ignore everything it says just as well. It is poor of you to imply I belong to a group or have it's agenda's when I do not. No, simply being concerned does not make those groups invalid, but the history of the sort of group that they are does make ANY "information" they provide on the subject, suspect of falsification. I did not suggest you belong to these groups. I was curious where you were getting your information on the status of Canada's Elephants, though, as a fair bit of what you have posted sounded quite similar to what I was reading on the ZooCheck site. As I said before, some of your argument seemed to me to have a very "animal rights" flavor to it. It is WELL documented that groups like PETA & the HSUS both falsify or misrepresent information, stage videos, and outright lie to "further their agendas". I'd still love if you could provide me some good sites with "neutral" information based on the welfare of the Canadian Elephants, particularly those, that for all intensive purposes, seem to be thriving & reproducing at the African Lion Safari Park. For the record, I do NOT belong to the AZA, never said I do. (I am glad of this because of the AZA's agenda problems) I think the AZA does many good things, but at the same time am disappointed that its policies are often not beneficial towards the animals it claims to be "protecting". Last point: Many conservation projects work well and are fully aware of these issues. A lot of them are run without any foreigners involved. You try to paint them all the same. You are assuming they are all ignorant, or others concerned for animal welfare, shows YOUR bias. If you actually READ back, you will see I said I am very PRO animal welfare. Where did I say anything about animal welfare concerns being ignorant? I never painted all conservation efforts with a broad brush - I used the word MANY, and that many was in regards to conservation efforts that were based on good intent, not just conservation efforts in general. Many, last time I checked, does not equal all. I clearly said some were on track. I could post definitions of "many" versus "all" if that is required.... Real, serious conservation needs (and uses) hard science. (Though again, in this day and age, especially here in the USA, politics is messing with that as well) Overall is it a good idea or not? Will the mammoth be the new poster child, but this time finally make us more aware? Does it matter if we are aware even? Would it give us a false sense of everything is ok with habitat loss or species becoming extinct from their natural ranges or not? Does the mammoth even belong in the natural world or should it only be confined to a zoo or reserve? Should we do it because we can or it's cool or not? Should we be focusing on what we have or does that not matter and we might as well add back what we can? The only thing you really said there that I am going to address is "Would it give us a false sense of everything is ok with habitat loss or species becoming extinct from their natural ranges or not?" - I DO think that is a concern with cloning species, because people think oh, its "not really lost, we can always reconstitute it some time if we want one" - I think that is already a problem though - one I know I regularly teach people about. People do not seem to think of the world as a limited place. That is a very important concept to get through to them. You'd be surprised how many people do not know things like urban sprawl, overpopulation & serious habitat destruction are a problem for wild animals & people in places like Africa, (I might not be an "elephant expert", but I know a lot about Africa) and that the enigmatic megafauna there is more and more living parcel to parcel in a spread of isolated pieces of protected land (park systems) and game-parks which are basically fenced in zoos. We are going to start seeing island isolation problems in populations, (we already are, especially if you look at the African Buffalo health problems/herd crashes facing many non controlled herds in Africa) I think that stuff is both sad and scary. |
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 25, 2011 6:15:07 GMT
Sorry still editing. Not used to the board and busy with other things in between. First paragraph changed for clarification mostly.
|
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 25, 2011 7:44:34 GMT
Point one:
I used a journal, I didn't take facts from PETA. Give some credit. Twisting facts can happen both ways, and I think you are trying to making this too political and about you and your business. I present lots of arguments against on the topic, this was one minor element and you have raised it to the whole. You and an other seemed to take this one fact that could have been a negative personally, maybe because it relates to your livelihood. You were more worried about YOU and your politics then having a discussion and totally ignored any other things I have said relating to the topic or what I was trying to. I also said the researchers were full of themselves... and a whole host of other things... nothing from you about it though. You aren't interested in learning from others or why they think things... you are worried about your POLITICS!
Doesn't matter if it includes North American elephants it was a study on elephant lifespan from Europe, I believe. You are using minor facts and cherry picking to refute a mutli year study. Great science! For fun, he doesn't question the validity of the study though at all. He simply only pointed out some other fact (twist, twist).
Again I feel you are making this about you. I keep fish. I do not want the extremists to take away my right to have fish. I do though think I should know as much about my fish as possible as they rely on me to provide everything for them. I should understand completely the nitrogen cycle and why a water change is critical. What size of tank they require and how many. Fish are not disposable. People who think this should be informed of what a slob they are. Maybe we have the same goals towards animals or conservation. But, politics seems to blind you to discussion. I feel it fair to ask and question others motives on the forum for why the mammoth is cool and what their desires for wanting it are. When someone gives a smart ass answer, I give them the opportunity to explain it more or clarify by questioning them.
Point 4:
Cherry picking again. Maybe temperature range is a valid concern and being housed indoors for a long winter is a problem. Maybe just like whales, elephants shouldn't live here, as I said public zoo people in Canada are asking this themselves. Phone the Toronto Zoo and ask them about it. Right now Pandas are the focus to the Toronto zoo. And a business has different interests (breeding = money). Funny that you don't like PETA though. You like to use the same disinformation tactics/twist the facts. Would you like me to use a PETA tactic? Want me to find the most abused elephant picture I can from a zoo? I didn't. The things you hate about others you do yourself.
African Lion Safari is private. They do not disclose information nor do they have to by law. Sorry I won't break into their business to get it for you.
Point 5:
You imply it and it can be easily misconstrued. PETA anyone?
Point 6:
I removed it from my original post. We should let others talk about the Jurassic Park aspect of this and how cool it would be or whatever. I do agree with what you are saying and am aware of those issues. Hopefully others who weren't aware, now are. I will let you have the last word, if you choose to respond.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 25, 2011 8:14:47 GMT
Point one: I used a journal, I didn't take facts from PETA. Give some credit. Twisting facts can happen both ways, and I think you are trying to making this too political and about you and your business. I present lots of arguments against on the topic, this was one minor element and you have raised it to the whole. You and an other seemed to take this one fact that could have been a negative personally, maybe because it relates to your livelihood. You were more worried about YOU and your politics then having a discussion and totally ignored any other things I have said relating to the topic or what I was trying to. I also said the researchers were full of themselves... and a whole host of other things... nothing from you about it though. You aren't interested in learning from others or why they think things... you are worried about your POLITICS! What journal did your facts come from? If its the same place as the link you provided, I did, as I said, read that. I went as far as to track it down, and read more about the issue. I was both addressing the "holes" in the information you have provided about zoos, and informing both you and griffin about what I know about zoos & zoo policy. I did not address the other views simply because I felt I had no "expertise" in that area to add. Doesn't matter if it includes North American elephants it was a study on elephant lifespan from Europe, I believe. You are using minor facts and cherry picking to refute a mutli year study. Great science! For fun, he doesn't question the validity of the study though at all. He simply only pointed out some other fact (twist, twist). What "minor facts", and how am I "twisting" anything? The "minor facts" that many people with "elephant credentials" don't agree with the study ?, The "minor facts" that there are plenty of older elephants out there, at least in US zoos ? The "minor" facts that things have changes for ALL captive animals since the 1960's ? You've given me nothing to back your argument...except more of the exact same argument. Please check into the information about elephants that I provided, I assure you, you will find it to be factual. Again I feel you are making this about you. I keep fish. I do not want the extremists to take away my right to have fish. I do though think I should know as much about my fish as possible as they rely on me to provide everything for them. I should understand completely the nitrogen cycle and why a water change is critical. What size of tank they require and how many. Fish are not disposable. People who think this should be informed of what a slob they are. Maybe we have the same goals towards animals or conservation. But, politics seems to blind you to discussion. I feel it fair to ask and question others motives on the forum for why the mammoth is cool and their desires are all that matter on the subject. I am not "making this about me" - I am making it about facts. You are touting the "Canadian elephants are suffering" card as if its a fact, and how that related to the mammoth clone. I didn't know if this was true or not, SO, I read into it, and have voiced my concerns. I still don't really stand one way or another on Canada's Elephants, but I do know that the info that was provided to me as "proof" that elephants shouldn't be captives is clearly insufficient, and the one bit of "proof" s hotly contested. You have failed to provide facts. I fail to see how "politics" has blinded me to anything. Point 4: Cherry picking again. Maybe temperature range is a valid concern and being housed indoors for a long winter is a problem. Maybe just like whales, elephants shouldn't live here, as I said public zoo people in Canada are asking this themselves. Phone the Toronto Zoo and ask them about it. Right Panda's is the focus to the Toronto zoo. And a business has different interests (breeding = money). Funny that you don't like PETA though. You like to use the same disinformation tactics/twist the facts. Would you like me to use a PETA tactic? Want me to find the most abused elephant picture I can from a zoo? I didn't. The things you hate about others you do yourself. Yes, those things (cold weather, indoor keeping) could indeed be problems for an animal like an Elephant. I am pretty sure I asked you to provide me some info regarding those practices, AND how they are negatively affecting the elephants in question from a "neutral" (preferably scientific or veterinary) source. It's OK, can you provide them now? I'd be more then happy to read them. Please, explain how am I "twisting facts"? How am I using "disinformation tactics" ? Feel free to post miserable elephant photos, as I said, I know they exist, as some people are rotten and do vile things to animals. It still doesn't change anything I have said, nor the things I have asked. Point 5: You imply it and it can be easily misconstrued. PETA anyone? I think you are really grasping at straws... |
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 25, 2011 10:12:33 GMT
"What journal did your facts come from? If its the same place as the link you provided, I did, as I said, read that. I went as far as to track it down, and read more about the issue. I was both addressing the "holes" in the information you have provided about zoos, and informing both you and griffin about what I know about zoos & zoo policy. I did not address the other views simply because I felt I had no "expertise" in that area to add."It is in Science. (In the UK a new study is currently underway, don't remember where I saw it). You have changed your post though while I was replying. What "minor facts", and how am I "twisting" anything? The "minor facts" that many people with "elephant credentials" don't agree with the study ?, The "minor facts" that there are plenty of older elephants out there, at least in US zoos ? The "minor" facts that things have changes for ALL captive animals since the 1960's ? You've given me nothing to back your argument...except more of the exact same argument. Please check into the information about elephants that I provided, I assure you, you will find it to be factual.You edited your post and changed things, while I was replying. We are both "guilty" of this. You have changed things though, my reply was valid at the time. 6:06 vs 7:45 time. Obviously some with credentials do though. And you know you were spinning. Show me a real paper that says the paper is not true or valid. We can spin forever. Political spin games, you play them. Don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I am not "making this about me" - I am making it about facts. You are touting the "Canadian elephants are suffering" card as if its a fact, and how that related to the mammoth clone. I didn't know if this was true or not, SO, I read into it, and have voiced my concerns. I still don't really stand one way or another on Canada's Elephants, but I do know that the info that was provided to me as "proof" that elephants shouldn't be captives is clearly insufficient, and the one bit of "proof" s hotly contested. You have failed to provide facts. I fail to see how "politics" has blinded me to anything.I said it was being questioned in Canada and that is one of the questions. And it is combination of problems like I said earlier. The idea comes from Detroit and other US zoo thinking. Do not put words in my mouth and cards in my hands and quit trying to label me. You are clearly political and play cheap games. See here for Detroit. www.clickondetroit.com/community/3326668/detail.htmlYes, those things (cold weather, indoor keeping) could indeed be problems for an animal like an Elephant. I am pretty sure I asked you to provide me some info regarding those practices, AND how they are negatively affecting the elephants in question from a "neutral" (preferably scientific or veterinary) source. It's OK, can you provide them now? I'd be more then happy to read them. Please, explain how am I "twisting facts"? How am I using "disinformation tactics" ? Feel free to post miserable elephant photos, as I said, I know they exist, as some people are rotten and do vile things to animals. It still doesn't change anything I have said, nor the things I have asked.See above link it may lead to you official Detroit zoo reports and others who you would find "acceptable". I said I would not post those picture, and I stay away from those BS tactics. I was letting you know I was aware of them - is all. I think you are really grasping at straws...You have left that impression about conservation workers and people who question what is acceptable for animals. Questioning draws you quickly to extremes about them. You are very political about it. Edit: When you have last word. Make statements. Do not ask questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 25, 2011 10:34:57 GMT
It is in Science. (In the UK a new study is currently underway, don't remember where I saw it). Here perhaps? You edited your post and changed things, while I was replying. We are both "guilty" of this. You have changed things though, my reply was valid at the time. 6:06 vs 7:45 time. Your reply was never valid in that regard. I didn't change anything about this, and I STILL did not twist anything...I added to it during that edit - that is the section about captivity and lifespan and cetaceans, but thats about all. Please, if you are going to make the claim that I am "twisting things", you can at least back it up... I said it was being questioned in Canada and that is one of the questions. And it is combination of problems like I said earlier. The idea comes from Detroit and other US zoo thinking. Do not put words in my mouth and cards in my hands and quit trying to label me. You are clearly political. See here for Detroit. www.clickondetroit.com/community/3326668/detail.htmlThanks for providing that. Zoo officials in this case clearly decided the elephants were better off elsewhere. That doesn't mean other zoos would not have suitable indoor facilities for wintering their animals. It does appear that in this situation the zoo made a good decision for the elephants because they did not have the funding to provide for them. Maybe thats what the Lion Park has ? What is also interesting is that Wanda and Winky are 46 & 61. A couple more "minor facts" to think about with that nice "they die at 17 in captivity" study. See above link it may lead to you official Detroit zoo reports and others who you would find "acceptable". I said I would not post those picture, and I stay away from those BS tactics. I was letting you know I was aware of them - is all. Aware of them ? OK. Whoop-de-do. *spins finger* I am not trying to enrage emotion from people with anything I have added on here. Thats what those "BS tactics" are. I think you are really grasping at straws...I think you have left that impression about conservation workers.[/quote]  Edit: When you have last word. Make statements. Do not ask questions. OH, I am sorry, you posted that after I had already initially replied to you. You then edited i to say "You have the final word". Its nice to end with "you can have the last word" in a conversation when you have run yourself into a nice deep rut you are having a problem digging out of. |
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 25, 2011 10:41:11 GMT
news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/12/11-02.html
Here perhaps?No the actual paper. Its nice to end with "you can have the last word" in a conversation when you have run yourself into a nice deep rut you are having a problem digging out of.Read my posts again. Rut I disagree. I have other things to do, life is like that. People can make their own minds up. I was being polite, and it is actually nice to have last word. I think most people know you have issues and that comment provides nice proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 25, 2011 11:15:05 GMT
"And you know you were spinning. Show me a real paper that says the paper is not true or valid. We can spin forever. Political spin games, you play them. Don't talk to me like I'm stupid." See, thats the neat thing about science. IF you make claim like that, (That that paper supports that elephants in captivity do not live as long as elephants in the wild in zoos) you have to be able to support it. The paper, as I SAID has many flaws, (which I addressed a number of) and no matter how you want to look at it it does not represent the Elephants in North American zoos - It represents a sample of animals in European zoos & circuses from 1960 and 2005. Yes, I don't doubt that. I clearly see that it does that. I carefully explained why some of those reasons would not represent the conditions & keeping of elephants in todays zoos. For example - ALSO from Masons paper - "So far," says Mason, one of the authors of the new study, published in the journal Science, "we've got 300 African elephants in zoos in Europe, and no one's yet reached 50."And, from her paper, and regarding wild elephants - A few superannuated wild elephants have actually reached their 70s
So clearly, the state of things is different here in the states, or other countries aren't they? Other places did have African Elephants who were 50 years of age or older (The "oldest" I found was Rutha, who died at 59 from Switzerland, and there is Hogle Zoo’s Dari who is is 51). I provided some other old zoo elephants, (Asians at 50, 60, even 70) and from the looks of it could pretty easily provide more at least in their 50's. The paper also goes on to say - "In the past 10 years, zoos have spent or committed to spend about $500 million to build or upgrade enclosures designed to improve the lives of 250 animals — but nothing so far suggests that does much to improve captive elephants' health or longevity"Again this does not appear to be the case in US zoos. Its pretty clear the paper has been "spun" by those using it as an anti measure when it is used to represent the state of elephants on a worldwide basis and include all zoos & zoo elephants. I will add this, the only information I could find on average lifespan of Asian Elephants in US zoos - Via Paul Boyle - "the average life expectancy for Asian elephants in U.S. zoos is 44.8 years, and the average life expectancy for Asian elephants in the wild is 45 years,". I can not find any information to back that up in the form of a study, but there is no study to the contrary either. I am not the one "playing games" You are the one who keeps going back and RE-RE editing your old posts - just look at the timestamps - they are after mine have been posted or edited, sometimes significantly. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jan 25, 2011 11:17:24 GMT
I think most people know you have issues and that comment provides nice proof. I do. I'll admit it. Admitting it is the first step to recovery, right? I have horrible issues with people misrepresenting information and even bigger issues with ignorance. *bad me* |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 25, 2011 11:51:36 GMT
This is an engaging conversation but please keep your heads. No need to get angry or incite others.
Thank you - Admin.
|
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 25, 2011 13:57:05 GMT
This is an engaging conversation but please keep your heads. No need to get angry or incite others. Thank you - Admin. I don't think I can post the actual Science article, due to copyright. But, this is a good fair balanced article from Scientific American on it. Everyone should read it. www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-zoos-kill-elephantsMason seems quite fair if you read her comments. She seems to be a good fair scientist and she did get peer-reviewed published. "You can play numbers different ways just to make your point." this is a good quote - for the Mod! Overall I think the papers data is good. I think it is a good historical perspective and a start. It may have some flaws, but it is not trying to tell a lie. Using a median is fair. (Europe is not a backwater place at all.) I would love to know the answer of the average life span under today's standards, but that will obvious take another 40-50 years to know how we are doing now. How zoos "know" how well there are doing now is then a mystery to me... but they leave the impression everything is peachy. Why not publish the data and shut the scientist/critics up with proof!!! Something they always demand? There is a lot of taking sides, but if you read both, you learn to see the bias and what the good questions are. In general housing elephants seems to come with lots of challenges to do it well. Some places do a good job and some places do a bad one - right now today - considering all the variables and measures of success. I think if you read my comments that is what I was getting at. I feel some here try TOO hard in the zoos are only good and lets minimize any problems approach. I think it is bad "science" and bad for real debate. I am done Mr. Mod! No worries. But that does not mean I was wrong or have been defeated. Only a really big * would say something like that! |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jan 25, 2011 17:26:07 GMT
"I am done Mr. Mod! No worries. But that does not mean I was wrong or have been defeated."  |
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 25, 2011 17:54:35 GMT
CCM is a fraud and I can prove it now. He talked to much. So is Griffin, they team up together. Mods: I can't believe you let them get away with this!!!!
He has not read the peer reviewed paper as he claims. He read a newspaper article instead. That is right!!!! he doesn't even know that there is a difference between the two. He knows nothing of science and how it works. He doesn't even understand what a peer reviewed paper is. He has an agenda. He claims PETA has an agenda but he is the same - an extremist!!! His quotes follow as proof of this.
For example - ALSO from Masons paper -
"So far," says Mason, one of the authors of the new study, published in the journal Science, "we've got 300 African elephants in zoos in Europe, and no one's yet reached 50."
And, from her paper, and regarding wild elephants - A few superannuated wild elephants have actually reached their 70s
The paper also goes on to say -
"In the past 10 years, zoos have spent or committed to spend about $500 million to build or upgrade enclosures designed to improve the lives of 250 animals — but nothing so far suggests that does much to improve captive elephants' health or longevity"
The above words do not appear in the peer reviewed paper. If you know ANYTHING about science you know they would never talk in these terms in a formal paper. I was trying to stop wasting my time with him so I didn't pick up on it right away and just wanted to end the conversation - because I knew he was full of it.
To CCM
You are a fraud... claiming to understand science, you don't even know it's most basic methods. How dare you claim I am ignorant of science. How dare you preach to everyone letting them think you know more than you do. You are an agenda. Go back a read his and my last few comments and it will be clear. A SCIENTIFIC METHOD ALWAYS WINS! How dare you mislead people who might not know better.
|
|
|
|
Post by blastoidea on Jan 25, 2011 17:55:00 GMT
"I am done Mr. Mod! No worries. But that does not mean I was wrong or have been defeated." Exactly!!!! Go play games somewhere else! |
|
. I think, just like before you buy a really expense toy only to find out after a while it doesn't bring you the happiness you thought it would, that it is ok to think about why you want it so badly beforehand. I actually think we agree. I think you think I am something I am not. I actually know a lot about natural history and I think you might as well.
The zoos could not meet the requirements of the elephants and relocated them. They didn't hold on at any cost! Maybe I stated it too factually. Maybe I should have said "we should all cheer that they did the right thing - pat them on the back". Sometimes though zoo's do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. "Private" zoos do not agree with the major zoos philosophies on the subject of elephants (locally) and I'm sure you could guess why. It is a fact - life is like that. I think North America is better regulated than other counties. We do not know where this hypothetical mammoth could go though. We do not know if the investment in this mammoth will make money and how the owners will treat it if it does poorly. Things to think about. If it is bad to assume everything will be bad - it is just as bad to assume everything will be good, because life is not like that. Read my first bunch of posts to see where I was trying to go with this.
everyone loves to say "how were we suppose to know, everyone wanted it, it is not our fault, we were suppose to have a plan etc..." 
Though I will bust you for the word anyone (gently, for now). 
