On Difficulty Breeding in Captivity
NPR’s "Snake Births Ring in New Year at Boston Aquarium" is only 28 seconds long, and at first I thought nothing of it other than: Aquarium . . . ewwww.
The story is that anaconda mommy Ashley gave birth to 14 babies, which is rare "because it is difficult for anacondas to breed in captivity."
Fine. Onward.
But then I couldn’t stop thinking about the idea that it’s difficult for many animals to breed in captivity for a reason (or a combination of reasons, none of which speak well of the captors). And then I couldn’t stop wondering why humans don’t pay more attention to the message they’re being sent about their actions. It’s as if nothing is a sign that you shouldn’t be doing what you’re doing. Every bit of resistance the universe gives you isn’t actually feedback that you should listen to, it’s a challenge to persist and overcome an obstacle (e.g., an animal’s natural reaction to being in captivity).
Another idea constantly swirling in my head was: I know that captive breeding programs are often used to replenish zoo and aquarium populations, because you know there’s nothing ethically questionable about creating new animals to hold captive. But the other reason, for me, is just as atrocious: "conservation." I’ve written about this before, regarding orangutans, and here’s my question: When it is our fault (i.e., frequently) that a species has dwindled so much in numbers as to be near extinction, is it our responsibility to save it? Or did we in fact get what we deserved, at the expense of innocent animal lives, with our No Species Left Untouched approach to the rest of the animal world?
We say that TNR and spaying and neutering pets and ceasing breeding of any kinds are important to us because we created the cat and dog overpopulation crisis, so we’re obligated to do something about it, right? But does it/should it work the other way around? Are we morally obligated to intervene and dominate and control a species, for what we have decided is its own good, and to assuage our conscience?
When I look at something like the red wolf project where they breed and release animals and teach humans in the area to live with wolves that are supposed to be there, I think it is an overall good thing. But that is not to gloss over that this did, and to some extent still does, require some red wolves to live in captivity because they were extinct and are still rare in the wild–some people would not ask that of them and fair enough.
We are making the judgement for them but I personally feel that a future with red wolves living in the wild is better for the red wolves and the world, as well as outselves.
This is amazingly ironic. I just got back from volunteering at a Nature Center ( http://www.chattanature.org/ ) that is part of the red wolf breeding program. I've been volunteering there for years and the place is wonderful, the people there are compassionate and really care about the animals. The wolves there seem content but they were born in captivity and have never known anything else.
At one point, there were only 17 red wolves left in the world. Today there are around 300 – one third of which are in the wild in eastern North Carolina (there are also a few on an island in Florida).
Yes, the wolves have payed (and are still paying) a price for what we did to them. And, at times, it is heart-breaking. Yet the wild wolves in Florida and North Carolina owe their freedom to captive breeding. I am not an animal rightist, I don't share the philosophies and beliefs that some of you have, so you may not agree with what I say. Yet I truly believe that there should be wild wolves and that, if we can keep the captive wolves happy and content, that captive breeding has its place.
Thank you so much for raising this topic.
I find human intervention in the reproduction of other animals deeply disturbing. No justification I have ever heard overrides my belief that each animal owns her or his body and sexuality. I find no argument compelling enough to convince me that humans have the right to interfere with the very life force of other animals.
What evidence do we have that humans have ever been wise enough to know what is good for other animals?
I have mixed feelings about this. Trying to save species as we cause their extinction is kind of like keeping a finger in a dyke as a solution to an inevitable flood – how do we stop the destruction of the environment and direct killing of wildlife to begin with? Is it a fruitless endeavor if we're doomed to destroy the planet?
Or is there a chance that eventually we'll stop the destruction, and these animals will have a chance to proliferate on their own. And does the action of forcing them to breed in captivity reinforce their importance to humanity, and serve as a reminder that we need to change our ways?
If efforts aren't being made to preserve the environment, it just seems like an exercise in futility. Otherwise, I can see some benefits, but I'm not optimistic at this point.