Category: Animals

Due to many tragedies happening in zoos, wildlife sanctuaries number of questions arises about the safety of animals and humans and whether zoo is the place for animals (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-narrative-of-my-love-foranimals-and-how-they-have-strengthened-my-compassion-for-all-living-things/) to live. Many tragedies like Drunk women sneaks into zoo, bitten by tiger, Omaha’s Henry Dorrly Zoo and killing of the gorilla in the Cincinnati Zoo, Tourist gets his jacket ripped off by a panda inside Chinese Zoo. These situations raised a question whether the zoo officials are providing, doing enough for the wild animals. Zoos have changed animals’ natural way of living which affected their physical health and have developed fear in them. Zoo officials claim that animals living in their facilities are provided with number of facilities than they would get in wildlife and it’s beneficial for animals and humans as well. However, the benefits we get can be received by other ways where no animal will be in cage for their life time. Many people are in favor of keeping animals in cages whereas there are many people opposing them with valid proofs. It’s not fair to take freedom from any animal by putting them in cages. As a result, it’s unjustified whether to keep animals in zoos or not.

Zoo is the name given to the facility in which all the animals live, breed and perform their life activities and it is a place of tourist interest and local visitors. Zoos were first opened in 18th century and we still have many zoos in the world. They have been modified along the time. The Ancient Zoos were small, less developed and the cages for the animals were really tiny and had no space for animals’ movements. People taking care didn’t knew much about the biology, about their diet, about the reproduction, were inviting many diseases for animals and humans as well. Whereas, Modern Zoos are comparably bigger and have larger cages, separate and cages are cleanable and are sterile, some of zoos are cageless and are open fields. Zoo officials taking care are more educated and have more knowledge about animals’ habitats and behaviors. Scientists and various organizations are working on making zoos a better place for animals. But still cannot provide natural habitat to animals.

Zoos are playing an important role in educational and awareness fields. Zoos provide us with the closer look to the animals which we would not be able to see in our life time otherwise. It is completely different to see animals in real life then to read about them in documentaries. We are able to touch them, feel them whereas, others said that we have never seen dinosaurs and still kids are crazier to know about their lifestyle, physical appearance. The incident of jacket ripped by a polar bear proves that animals are afraid of humans and want to live away and out of their sight if their habitat allows them. Zoos provide a number of job opportunities to number of people like animal care, service workers, animals control workers, making an average of $ 40,000 annually. It is the main reason why Zoo officials do not want zoos to go away. As these animals attracts the tourists toward zoos. But on other side the people working are not completely aware of animal habitats and are not trained properly and are the one to get attacked by these animals. A trainer was dragged to death by a whale in Florida, Sea world.

Some people argued that zoos give easy access to animals to study about different diseases. In 1995 unknown disease was killing elephants in large number, Smithsonian’s National Zoo was the first to discover the EEHV (Elephant Endotheliotropic Herpesviruses) virus after the death of 16-month-old Asian elephant. This EEHV virus was proven to be the cause of elephant death. New York Zoo in 1999 was first to find the reason behind the death of American crows (Corves brachyrhynchos) which was due to an African flavivirus named WNV (West Nile Virus). Before this elephant and Crows were dying because of unknown causes. However, other people are asking what about the animals suffering from stress, loneliness, which is inviting many diseases towards these animals. While visiting a zoo everyone one of us must have seen an animal in its cage sitting on a corner, is attacked by stress and lack of freedom. Zoo officials are calming that these animals are well taken care of, plenty of space in their cages to move and are open so they can see movements around them and are trying to provide natural surroundings. Whereas, the food animals are given is not what they eat in their natural habitat and is full of chemicals and artificial flavors, animal bodies are not completely adapted for these yet and because of this some animals do not eat properly. Animals like tigers, lions eat fresh meat where as they are given stored meat, which is not what they like, In Berlin Zoo a woman had nearly become dinner for the hungry polar bears.

This process of captive breeding is very expensive and but unfortunately enough funding to perform this process leads to offspring with problems or inborn diseases. Other said its better than spending money on captive breeding we should spend on finding the reason behind these animals being endangered and extinct.

Modern Zoos are bigger than the Ancient Zoos but still doesn’t have enough space for animals as they have in natural habitat. Their claim about proving open atmosphere is not true. These wild animals walk miles in search of their food and these zoos have taken all that from them. They are provided food within the cage and they are not allowed to interact with same species or others. Zoological institutions are collecting serums of this animals which is easy to do in zoos, however if we really want to save animal species all this is also possible in their natural habitats. It is also experienced that animals in the zoos are more dangerous than in their natural habitats, which is due to the fact that their freedom is taken away and they are controlled by humans. The tragedy of killing a gorilla to save a visitor who feel in the cage shows how save animals are in cages and this would have never happened if they were in their natural habitat. We are disturbing their habitats, putting them in cages away from freedom and still killing them to save humans is it fair?

Animals should not be kept zoos. These animals (who cannot speak for their well beings) should not be used for our benefits. We can express our feeling, stress but these animals have to live with that. Channels like National Geography show us animals living in their natural habitat which is more beautiful and informative as they can perform different actions which are restricted in zoos. There is a lot of improvement to be made in these modern zoos to even compare them to animals’ natural habitats. The concept of keeping animals in cages is needed to change, they should be left free in their habitat, all animals in one surrounding so, that animals have enough space to move and interact and zoological institutes have easy access to these animals.

In this presentation I will be talking about how plastic effects the animals in the oceans and why they are the worst form of pollution.

Plastic pollution is when there is loads of plastic in one place or area eg; plastic bottles

We are killing “tens of thousands of animals every year!” said by the AFC, animal friends Croatia, by mistaking things like plastic bags as jellyfish. We are just being lazy and not caring. “conservationists have been warning about the deadly impact of ocean plastic for years” and we haven’t done anything to stop it from happening that will stop it from happening at all.

The “plastics in the oceans are set to treble within the next 10 years” said by the Independent magazine there is going to be a rubbish heap that is said to be as big as France and this is going to destroy many marine animals’ home.

Science has proven that plastic degrades over many, many years which tells us that these animals are going to suffer for several years to come until we do something.

Here are some pictures of some poor marine life that have been affected by our foolishness:

Image result for pictures of sea animals that have been affected by plasticImage result for pictures of sea animals that have been affected by plastic

But how do we get rid of plastic?

For the last half-century, plastic has become an integral part of our daily life. From furniture to grocery bags, from vehicle parts to toys, plastic is an unavoidable element of our lives in a variety of forms.

But there is a way and we are slowly but surely trying to get rid of plastic from our everyday lives for example: Evian said it would produce all its plastic bottles from 100 percent recycled plastic by 2025 and Starbucks has laid out plans to get rid of single-use plastic straws from all its stores by 2020.

Image result for plastic in ocean graph

This diagram shows that china is the main offender in this crisis as it is a MIC and it is the most populated. “estimated five million tons of the eight million tons of plastic entering the sea each year comes via China”. So, it would make sense that china is one of the main counties that are going to pick all of it up.

The Machine

Scientists set to release a new device to clean up 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic, (the same size as France). This will help all the wildlife around the area by giving them a chance to move around freely in the area. This gives more space for different wildlife to be born and expand the population of the fish. This helps us because we eat fish and there will be enough fish to eat and fisherman wont’ have to overfish anymore.

“If successful, Ocean Cleanup, the brainchild of Dutch inventor Boyan Slat, wants to launch a fleet of similar systems to remove around half of plastic trapped in the vortex over the next five years.” this means that we could get rid of thousands of tons of plastic just sitting there in the ocean. After this the plastic and rubbish can then be recycled and reused in the future.

Acidification

Acidification is the process of ocean acidification it’s simple. Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels accumulates in the atmosphere, where it causes global warming which melts the polar ice caps. But it also affects our oceans. As carbon dioxide enters the ocean, it reacts with sea water to form carbonic acid. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution about 150 years ago, approximately one-quarter to one-third of all CO2 from fossil fuels or 500 billion tons have been absorbed by the seas, increasing the average acidity by 30 percent.

Oil spills

Oil spills penetrate into the structure of the plumage of birds and the fur of mammals, reducing its insulating ability, and making them more vulnerable to temperature fluctuations and much less buoyant in the water. Cleanup and recovery from an oil spill is difficult and depends upon many factors, including the type of oil spilled, the temperature of the water (affecting evaporation and biodegradation), and the types of shorelines and beaches involved. Spills may take days, weeks, months or even years to clear up.

Conclusion

In conclusion we need to be more aware of what we are doing and how it effects animals, and even other people. It might be not buying the food that comes with see through plastic and black in the same packaging or it could be not throwing plastic in the ocean; because we don’t want to destroy our planet, it’s the only home we have.

The article “The Detective of Northern Oddities” by Christopher Solomon was published on the fourth of January, 2017 in the Outside magazine. The author brings up the discussion of the effects of climate change on the wildlife. He is trying to show that the environment needs to be changed or the wildlife will be affected and we will have nothing left.

The author’s target audience is adults who are interested in the outdoors, hence the name of the magazine. The article is focused on the wildlife that should concern the audience, and the author is trying to get them to notice the effects that are happening to animals. For example, “Working on wild animals, often in situ, routinely presents her with job hazards that simply aren’t found in the lower 48. Anchorage sits at the confluence of two long inlets. When Burek performs necropsies on whales on Turnagain Arm, she has to keep a sentry’s eye on the horizon for its infamous bore tide, when tidal flow comes in as a standing wave, fast enough that it has outrun a galloping moose” (Solomon, para. 35). This shows that the scientists in the article also enjoy the outdoors, and that can create a connection between the reader and the article.

The purpose of the article is to show how the environment has been affected by humans. For example, “As human-generated greenhouse gases continue to trap heat in the world’s oceans, air, and ice at the rate of four Hiroshima bomb explosions every second, and carbon dioxide reaches its greatest atmospheric concentration in 800,000 years, the highest latitudes are warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe… With these shifts in climate and vegetation, birds, rodents, and other animals are on the march. Parasites and pathogens are hitching rides with these newcomers” (Solomon, para. 16). The author is attempting to show that humans are causing those affects to go faster. The author makes a point that viruses and pathogens are traveling in the water and affecting the animals that have never been exposed to these viruses before.

The article is organized in a certain way to captivate the audience into reading the article. In the beginning of the article, the author introduces the sea otter like it is a beautiful creature by describing its body. “she weighed 58 pounds and was the size of a collie. The growth rings in a tooth they pulled revealed her age—eight years, a mature female sea otter. They anesthetized her and placed tags on her flippers. They assigned her a number: LCI013, or 13 for short. They installed a transmitter in her belly and gave her a VHF radio frequency: 165.155 megahertz” (Solomon, para. 1). After he gives the background information on the sea otter, he just bluntly states that the sea otter is dead and the scientists take it away for autopsy. The author then concluded his introduction with a statement that the scientists made, ““They’re one of the few animals that are cute even when they’re dead” (Solomon, para. 4). He did this to show the shock of such a beautiful creature, even in death. Unfortunately, the scientist see this kind of sadness every day.

The author concludes the paper in the same way by using the same type of shock he used with the otters in the opening paragraph. The moose was put in the article to show that the disease is also affecting the land animals in the area. The scientists then make a sad statement about having animal parts in their fridges, and they conclude by pretending nothing happened and they go home for the night.

One of the claims that the author makes in the article is that global warming is causing viruses to spread through animals due to their homes melting away. As stated by the author, “Some species are finding that their traditional homes are disappearing, even while the north becomes more hospitable to new arrivals… With these shifts in climate and vegetation, birds, rodents, and other animals are on the march. Parasites and pathogens are hitching rides with these newcomers” (Solomon, para. 17). The organization of this evidence is done to show that the people are the reason that animals are losing their homes. It is effective if the author is trying to show us that we need to change. It is also great evidence that shows that animals are dying in the areas that we tend to neglect.

Global warming is also causing the atmosphere to warm up as the author states, ““The north isn’t just warming. It has a fever… what happens in the north won’t stay there. Birds migrate. Disease spreads” (Solomon, para. 22). Animals are also relocating due to the weather getting to warm in their natural habitat. The animals move to the colder regions and they carry viruses with them. The author’s evidence is great but he used this example already. All he did was elaborate the evidence further for the audience to understand a great deal about why global warming is the main reason disease is spreading.

The author also states that viruses are interacting with each other and cause new viruses to be created out of it. “Many of the otters that died of strep also had low levels of toxins from the Blob’s massive algal bloom, a clue that the animals possibly had even more of the quick-moving poison in their systems ­before researchers got to them. They must be somehow interacting” (Solomon, para. 9). This shows that viruses that have been forgotten are coming back because they interacting with another disease. The author states that the sea otters died from getting strep and that caused mold to go into their body. The mold was poisoning them but they could not do anything about it, and animals that eat them will get the mold in them as well. This will cause everything to spread. The author used good organization when using this as his evidence by providing what the scientists said during the autopsy.

The author is just trying to make us see that the animals are dying at an alarming rate, and we need to do something about it. The author provides great evidence that supports his claim. The author also organizes his paper in a way that his audience can understand him.

Are animals being saved from extinction by living in zoos or homes? Well, not exactly many incidents show that zoos and homes cause animals to have health and adaptation problems. Additionally, having animals in captivity not only makes it harder for the animals to survive and adapt to the wild but also causes animals to make bad habits. Having animals as pets may also disturb the ecosystem it lives in and ultimately cause more animals to go extinct. Saving wild animals does not justify keeping them in zoos or as pets.

Many reports show that captivity causes many health issues. For instance, passage 1 states, “captive whales often chew on the concrete edges of their pools or the steel bars that separate different areas. As a result, most of their teeth are broken, missing, ground down, or drilled out” (Kathryn Hulick, Par.10). This evidence highlights that captivity does indeed cause health problems to the animals. Furthermore, in passage 3 it states, “animals may even hurt themselves by pulling out feathers or chewing their tails.” (Galadriel Watson, Par.4). As one can see, putting animals in an enclosure can and will make bad habits for the animals that can affect their health if not treated correctly. To sum it up, putting animals in captivity can cause problems to the animals’ health.

Another piece of evidence to why animals should not be kept in Zoos or Homes is because keeping them can cause the ecosystems to fall apart. To further explain, a piece of evidence stated in passage 4 states, “Removing animals from the wild may disrupt ecosystems and drive species toward extinction.”(Mary Bates, Par.2) From this, we can infer that taking animals from the wild and putting them in captivity would not only cause the animals to get health problems but would also cause other animals in the wild to go extinct as well. An additional example, Mary Bates writes, “These pets can also carry diseases that can be passed on to native wildlife, livestock, or even people.” (Mary Bates, Par.2). This piece of evidence suggests that keeping animals as pets would not be a good idea since it could cause living things to be affected by diseases. To put it briefly, keeping animals in zoos and homes would not only affect their health-wise but also affect the ecosystems.

Some opponents frequently proclaim that keeping animals in Zoos and homes keeps animals from going extinct. The Minnesota Zoo reports that they have saved Siberian tigers from being extinct by breeding them from 20 tigers to 500 tigers. Therefore, the animal population rises and extinction becomes less likely. However, breeding animals will not ultimately save animals from extinction. According to the passages, animals are killed and harmed in many different ways canceling each other out. This means the breeding did not do anything to save the animals from extinction. On the other hand, not keeping animals would not only save ecosystems but will also save their health. This clearly shows that the benefits of not keeping animals are better than keeping them. In the end, not keeping animals will improve the lives and health of animals by allowing them to live how they’re supposed to.

Conclusion

With this in mind, we should not keep animals in Zoos or homes. Keeping animals out of Zoos and homes will not only improve the animals’ health but also the ecosystem as a whole. Not to mention, but there have been many reports on health issues regarding animals that live in Zoos or captivity. Additionally, removing animals from the wild would disrupt the ecosystem’s cycles and causing diseases to spread. This shows that animals are not only harmed by extinction but also many other components in Zoos and Homes. It’s easy to see, that keeping and taking wild animals and putting them in Zoos and homes is not a great idea and that letting them free in the wild is the best idea.

Do you want animals to die out quicker? If not, I positively believe that animals should not be kept in zoos because animals suffer in captivity and many zoos fail to provide even a minimum standard care lastly healthy animals are killed.

Firstly, Animals suffer in captivity because Captivity is living hell for animals, who are meant to be free. Enclosures in many zoos and safari parks are on average 100 times smaller than the minimum home range for animals in their natural habitats.

In zoos, animals’ every decision – including what to eat, when to sleep, and whom they choose as a mate – is controlled by humans. They can’t roam vast distances or do many of the other things that are natural and important to them. Often, they aren’t even allowed stay with their families, as young animals are commonly transferred to other zoos.

The daily stress and lack of stimulation often leads to abnormal and self-destructive behaviour – for example, pacing, walking in tight circles, rocking, swaying, or self-mutilation – a condition known as “zoochosis”. This type of behaviour is almost unheard of in their wild counterparts. Zookeepers sometimes give the animals antidepressants, tranquilisers, or antipsychotic drugs to try to conceal their distress.

Secondly, many zoos provide minimum standard care because Even in the best circumstances, it’s impossible for zoos to meet all the unique environmental, nutritional, climate, and social needs of the various species they hold captive – and some fail to provide even basic care. South Lakes Safari Zoo in Cumbria made headlines in 2017 when it was discovered that nearly 500 animals died there in under three years from causes ranging from malnourishment, hypothermia, and lack of veterinary care to outright neglect. A tortoise was electrocuted by the zoo’s wire fencing while lemurs and birds were run over by a toy train that went around the premise.

According to research conducted by Bristol University, more than three-quarters of British zoos failed to meet all the minimum animal-welfare standards.

Conclusion

Finally, they kill healthy animals because Zoos choose to breed animals because the public loves seeing babies. The breeding programmes serve no true conservation purpose, and under the guise of “species preservation”, many zoos get rid of “surplus” animals – either by killing them or selling them to unethical exotic-animal dealers. A giraffe named Marius was killed by Copenhagen Zoo and fed to lions, as he was considered useless for breeding. In one British zoo, the carcasses of slaughtered animals, including baboons and endangered deer, were left to rot beside bins.

A zoo is a place where animals live in captivity and are put on display for people to view. The word “zoo” is short for “zoological park.” Zoos contain wide varieties of animals that are native to all parts of the Earth.

Though people have kept wild animals for thousands of years, those collections have not always resembled modern zoos. The first zoos were created as private collections by the wealthy to show their power. These private collections were called menageries.

Wall carvings found in Egypt and Mesopotamia are evidence that rulers and aristocrats created menageries as early as 2500 BCE. They left records of expeditions to distant places to bring back exotic animals such as giraffes, elephants, bears, dolphins, and birds. There is evidence that ancient zoo owners hired animal handlers to make sure their animals thrived and reproduced.

Zoos also existed in later civilizations, including China, Greece, and Rome. The Aztec emperor Montezuma II, in what is today Mexico, maintained one of the earliest animal collections in the Western Hemisphere. It was destroyed by Hernan Cortes during the Spanish conquest in 1520.

The model of the modern, public zoo became popular in 18th century, during the Age of Enlightenment. The Age of Enlightenment was a period in European history when science, reason, and logic were promoted as ideals of society and government. The scientific focus of the Age of Enlightenment extended to zoology.

During this time, people started wanting to study animals for scientific reasons. Scientists wanted to research animal behavior and anatomy. To do this, scientists and zookeepers had to keep animals in places that were close to, or resembled, the animals’ natural habitats.

The first modern zoo, built in 1793, opened in Paris, France. The menageries of French aristrocrats, including the king and queen, were taken by leaders of the French Revolution and relocated to the Ménagerie du Jardin des Plantes. The facility is still a busy and popular zoo in downtown Paris.

Early zoos like the Menagerie du Jardin des Plantes were more like museums of living animals than natural habitats. Animals were kept in small display areas, with as many species as space would allow.

Today, zoos are meant to entertain and educate the public but have a strong emphasis on scientific research and species conservation. There is a trend toward giving animals more space and recreating natural habitats. Zoos are usually regulated and inspected by the government.

Urban zoos, located in large cities, still resemble the smaller zoos that were popular 200 years ago. Often, these zoos sit in the middle of cities, making expansion difficult. There is little room for urban zoos to grow, and many of the zoo’s buildings are historic landmarks that cannot be destroyed or redesigned.

In many urban zoos, animals are kept in relatively small enclosures. Some animal activists argue that keeping animals in urban settings is cruel because of cramped conditions, noise, and pollution.

Urban zoos are common in Europe, while many zoos in the United States developed as sprawling parks in suburbs outside cities. These open-range zoos give animals more territory to roam and provide more natural habitats. This popular technique of building realistic habitats is called landscape immersion.

The San Diego Zoo, in southern California, is the largest zoo in the United States. It is a suburban zoo that houses more than 4,000 animals (800 different species) in its 0.4 square kilometers (100 acres). Landscape immersion divides animals into their natural habitats, such as the tundra (with reindeer and polar bears) or bamboo forest (featuring pandas.) The San Diego Zoo also includes a wild animal park, which is even more expansive (almost 8 square kilometers or 2,000 acres.)

Larger than urban and open-range zoos, safari parks are areas where tourists can drive their own cars to see non-native wildlife living in large, enclosed areas. These attractions allow the animals more space than the small enclosures of traditional zoos.

Fuji Safari Park, in Susono, Japan, offers a traditional zoo as well as a drive-through safari park. Visitors can take their own cars or one of the park’s buses. Fuji Safari Park offers night tours, so visitors can see nocturnal animals, or animals that are active at night. At the park, visitors can also feed some animals, such as lions, from bus windows. Not all parks encourage or even allow visitors to feed animals.

Safari parks, especially in Europe, are often part of larger theme parks or resorts. They include golf courses and fairground attractions, such as games and rides.

Game reserves are large swaths of land whose ecosystems and native species are protected. The protections allow animals to live and reproduce at natural rates. Animals are allowed to roam free.

In the 1800s, a trip to hunt “big game” (large animals such as elephants or lions) was called a safari. While some game reserves allow traditional hunting safaris today, others limit visitors to a “photo safari,” where visitors can shoot photographs, not animals.

Animals in all game reserves are protected from illegal hunting, which is a threat to many endangered species. Legal hunts are regulated by the government. Hunters must purchase licenses and are strictly limited to the type and number of animals they can hunt. Poachers, or hunters without licenses, kill animals for valuable body parts. Elephants, for example, are killed by poachers for their ivory tusks.

There are game reserves in Asia, the Americas, and Australia. However, most game reserves are in Africa. Millions of visitors flock to sites across Africa to see the same animals that captivated audiences thousands of years ago. The biggest attractions are Africa’s “Big Five” species—lions, leopards, rhinoceroses, elephants, and water buffalo. The Big Five are not Africa’s largest species (although the elephant is): They are the most difficult to find and, when legal, to hunt.

Only recently has a single zoo, Gondwana Game Reserve in South Africa, offered all Big Five animals in one place. Gondwana sits on 10,000 hectares (24,710 acres) near the center of South Africa’s southern coast. Like many large game reserves, Gondwana has diverse ecosystems that occur naturally and has no need for landscape immersion. In Gondwana, grasslands coexist with shrubland called fynbos. Visitors to Gondwana, like many game reserves, can stay in hotels right in the park.

Petting zoos feature domesticated animals that are gentle enough for children to pet and feed. Sheep, goats, donkeys, and rabbits are common petting zoo animals.

These types of zoos are found at parks and inside of larger zoos. Sometimes mobile petting zoos travel with fairs or carnivals from city to city.

Most zoos have specialized enclosures and habitats for specific animals. Zoos in cold climates, such as Novosibirsk, Russia, must recreate warm ecosystems for animals like lemurs. Lemurs are a type of primate native to the island of Madagascar, off Africa’s east coast. The summer temperatures of both Siberia and Madagascar are about the same—around 21 degrees Celsius (70 degrees Fahrenheit)

However, Madagascar receives about 200 to 250 millimeters (8 to 10 inches) of rain each summer, making it a humid jungle environment. Novosibirsk gets just 60 to 65 millimeters (2 to 3 inches) of rain and snow. The difference in winter temperatures is even more drastic: Madagascar is about 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit). Lemurs’ fur can keep them warm at this temperature. Winter in Novosibirsk is -10 degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit). The Novosibirsk Zoo has two species of lemur with a specialized heated enclosure with high humidity.

Some zoos are dedicated entirely to certain species. Aquariums are types of zoos that exclusively house aquatic animals. The Sydney Aquarium in Australia has exhibits of all of Australia’s major water systems and is home to more than 650 native Australian species.

Aviaries and bird parks are another type of specialized zoo. The Jurong Bird Park in Singapore has more than 8,000 birds of 600 species from around the world. Jurong has more than 1,000 flamingoes in an African wetlands exhibit that features a daily simulated thunderstorm.

The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the international organization for zoos, is concerned with the health of animals in zoos. The focus of environmental efforts takes the form of research, captive breeding of rare animals, and conservation.

Researchers at zoos can study animals up-close. They can observe behavior such as mating and nutrition choices. Biologists and veterinarians are also available to treat sick or injured animals.

Captive breeding of endangered species makes zoos valuable places for animal survival. Animals such as the black soft-shelled turtle, native to India and Bangladesh, are extinct in the wild. But they survive in several zoos around the world, with their health looked after by biologists.

The goal of many captive breeding programs at zoos is the re-introduction of animals into the wild. The California condor, a very large bird native to the west coast of the United States, has been re-introduced to its native habitat after breeding in zoos and wildlife parks. There are several breeding pairs of California condors in the wild today.

Critics of captive breeding programs say that releasing a few animals into the wild does little to help the species population. Animals are extinct in the wild largely due to loss of habitat. The re-introduction of animals, especially large mammals that require vast territory for survival, does nothing to recover lost habitat. People continue to develop land for homes and businesses.

Zoos often have conservation projects in the native habitats of the animals they keep in captivity. For instance, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums established a partnership with people in rural Papua New Guinea to save tree kangaroos. These rare species are threatened by loss of habitat and the growing population of Papua New Guinea: Villagers hunt the tree kangaroo for meat. A zoo program introduced a rabbit-farming program to address the nutritional needs of the villagers. Zoos also set up conservation sites where the hunting of tree kangaroos was outlawed.

While zoos have put more importance on conservation and humane animal treatment in recent decades, some critics say it is cruel to keep animals in captivity. Critics argue that living in captivity takes away wild animals’ natural behavior and instincts. Supporters of zoos say they play an important role in protecting endangered species.

Clones are living organisms that are genetically identical to another organism. Although cloning can be seen in nature (e.g. twins and organisms that reproduce asexually), it is possible for scientists to clone animals. The personality of the clones, however, is not the same as the original animal’s due to the environment and random mutations occurring during development in the womb. Scientists have cloned a number of animals including domestic pets, livestock and more.

Cloning can be used by livestock breeders and farmers to preserve desired traits from elite animals. These cloned livestock are used for conventional breeding, and their sexually reproduced offspring are used as food. By sexually reproducing the best animals in the herd, it allows farmers to raise the collective quality of the herd in a shorter amount of time than conventional breeding. It is important to note that cloning is very expensive, with prices ranging from at least $35k-100k (depending on the animal).

Animal cloning today uses a process called SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer). The process starts with the scientists collecting somatic cells from an animal to be cloned (the “genetic donor”). Then from a female animal (known as the “egg donor”), scientists collect oocytes (egg cells), and remove the nucleus. The nucleus is transferred from the genetic donor’s cell and into the oocyte. An electro cell manipulator then sends a series of short electrical shocks fusing the cell and egg membranes. If no complications occur, the cell will divide, thus resulting in a fertilised embryo. The embryo is then inserted into the uterus of the surrogate mother, where the egg will continue to develop. The surrogate mother will then deliver the clone as normal after a full-term pregnancy (unless c-section is required). The final product is a genetically identical animal to the donor.

(Figure 1: Cloning Fact Sheet, 2017)

The most famous clone around is Dolly the Sheep. Dolly was cloned in July 1996, as part of a series of experiments conducted by The Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland. Dolly is arguably the most important clone created, the reason being that she was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell. Dolly’s creation showed scientists that specialised cells have the ability to be used to create a genetically identical copy of the donor animal. This information unlocked a world of possibilities in the medicinal and biology fields – including the development of iPS cells that have the ability to model human diseases. Along with the successful creation of Dolly, it suggested that it may be possible to clone humans someday.

In May 2013, scientists in Oregon Health and Science University used the Dolly cloning method to produce stem cells from a cloned human embryo. This led to Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka who in 2006, transformed an ordinary adult cell into a stem cell in mice, and then was able to replicate this finding in humans. This breakthrough was significant as it provided an alternative to using human embryos and a more ethical one.

The ethics of animal cloning comes into question and there are many perspectives on the morals of it. These varying ethical opinions come from a variety of sources including different countries, religious groups, officials and concerned members of the public. It is interesting to find the reasons and motives for some countries permitting and the research and use of animal cloning. To be discussed are also some of the more controversial topics of cloning such as using cloning to bring back extinct species.

In 2008, the European Commission requested that the European Group on Ethics give their position on the topic of cloning animals for food. There was concern about the effects of cloning on the animal’s health and welfare. This was based on the low success rate of cloning (6% for pigs, and 6-15% for livestock). Complications are also more prone to clones than to conventionally bred offspring. Some risks include a higher chance for cloned embryos to be lost during pregnancy and LOS (Large Offspring Syndrome). LOS has adverse effects on the offspring and surrogate as it results in the fetus growing too large in the uterus and causing growth defects in the clone. The conclusion was drawn that cloning shouldn’t occur because of the animals suffering and there was no moral justification for its use. More recently in 2015, the European Parliament took action in voting for the ban of animal cloning. This legislation states that all-clone derived products are to be banned from the European markets – including offspring that descend from a clone.

Among many countries, the United States is on board with the use of cloning in livestock. In 2008, the U.S. Food & Drugs Administration approved of it and stated that consuming meat and dairy originating from clones are safe. The FDA addresses their considerations on the ethics of cloning by stating, “The relevant issues in this context for the agency are limited to the animal health and food safety issues. The agency is not charged with addressing moral, religious, or ethical issues related to animal cloning for agricultural purposes.” (FDA, 2018).

The FDA is criticised by some that they allowed clones into the food supply without different panels’ research and advice on the adverse effects of cloning – like in Europe. Non profit organisations (including the Center for Food Safety and AAVS) along with other groups concerned about cloned animal’s welfare petitioned for the establishment of an Advisory Committee for the FDA discussing ethics. The purpose of the council was to give the public an opportunity to be involved in the ethical debate on animal cloning and for transparency on the topic. The FDA however decided to reject the petition. Surveys conducted by AAVS on the American public shows that 66% disapprove of animal cloning for food and furthermore, after people learn that animals suffer for cloning, 88% disapprove of its use for food (AAVS, 2006). This shows how unaware the public is of the processes of animal cloning. It is hard for consumers to differentiate cloned produce from not as food derived from clones aren’t required to be labelled according to the FDA.

The religious argument of “playing god” is a major ethical consideration. Playing god refers to when we: “make choices concerning abortion, genetic engineering, the basic conditions of future life on the planet, interference with evolutionary processes, or any radical tampering with the allegedly ‘natural’ development of human beings and their environment” (Cohen, 2014). By cloning, we are playing with the building blocks of life, creating ‘unnatural’ genetically manipulated organisms and attempting to revive the dead. By using this logic, it is easy to see how we are overstepping our moral boundaries by interfering with matters that humans have no authority over. Some may counter this and argue that the ‘unnaturalness’ only applies to the process before the birth of the clone, but not the end product.

A type of wild goat known as Pyrenean ibex, or commonly bucardo, was hunted down to a few dozen in 1989. The last one (a female they named Celia) was crushed by a tree in January 2000. However, Celia’s cells were preserved in labs after her death. The following years found a team of scientists coming together to try and bring the bucardo back, using Celia’s cells. However the last mother carried Celia’s clone for a full-term pregnancy. On July 30, 2003, the clone was delivered through c-section. At delivery, the clone was in bad shape. As veterinarian Fernández-Arias held the ibex he said “he could see that she was struggling to take in air, her tongue jutting grotesquely out of her mouth” (Zimmer, 2013). The clone died after 10 minutes of suffering and it was later revealed that 1 lung had grown a large and solid extra lobe, and there was nothing that could have been done to save it. The ethics of de-extinction comes into question. What are the reasons we are doing this in the first place, and, is all the suffering worth the final outcome? Some may believe we have a moral obligation to bring extinct species back because we were the cause of their extinction. Michael Archer says, “If we’re talking about species we drove extinct, then I think we have an obligation to try to do this” (Zimmer, 2013). However some of the negative consequences of resurrecting extinct animals include losing genetic diversity and possibly introducing species that pose fatal risks to other species. By cloning – although it may increase the number of animals – it could result in the loss of genetic diversity due to them all being genetically identical. This is bad because the population could effectively become inbred and leave them vulnerable to diseases or genetic diseases. This means that if 1 fatal mutation was to occur, the following generations would probably die out. By reintroducing animals back into the eco-systems, they could negatively impact the surrounding flora and fauna by becoming an invasive species themselves. And with the drastic changes to Earth’s environment, we wouldn’t know how the animal would adapt to these changes or just become extinct.

After careful consideration of all the research and experiments that have been done in the area of animal cloning, I have drawn my own conclusions as to what I believe are beneficial or harmful to society. A benefit of animal cloning is that it allows for scientific breakthroughs. An example of this are the discoveries made from the creation of Dolly the Sheep, including Shinya’s nobel prize award winning discovery. His finding created an alternative for embryos and perhaps the unethical cloning of Dolly was worth it as it broadened the horizon for medical research. Through further research we could apply cloning techniques to create organs for human transplant and find cures to genetic diseases. Another positive is that it could help aid struggling species by breeding the ones with more desirable traits and possibly introducing beneficial mutations to the species which will increase survival through natural selection.

There are also a number of harmful things that come with animal cloning. This includes giving unfair disadvantages to farmers that don’t use it within livestock – and if used in livestock, it isn’t labelled in the final product. Another reason is that we may use the possibility of being able to clone extinct animals as an excuse to take no action to prevent extinction in the first place. Regarding pet cloning, I believe there isn’t enough transparency to customers on the procedures taken place before receiving the clone.

My stance is that research into animal cloning should not be done. Starting with cloning in livestock and markets, we must take into account the perspective of someone who may not be benefited by the advancement. If the best meat and dairy producers are using cloning to raise the overall quality of their herd, then there will be an expectation for other farmers to reach their standard. If other farmers can’t afford cloning the best animals in the herd and using their offspring, then consumers may not reach for their produce as it isn’t of higher quality. This then directly affects the farmer’s earning. Therefore, the implication of animal cloning would give an unfair advantage to farmers who can afford it and will yield more profits compared to a farming not using the method. Furthermore, I think that the FDA should take the responsibility of labelling products that derived from animal clones. This is because buyers have a right to know such information so they can make informed decisions on whether or not they want to consume cloned derived produce.

I do not think that we should use cloning to revive the extinct species. This is because there are too many risks and unknown variables for us to continue without extensive research on possible flow on effects of releasing them into ecosystems. Even then, if scientists get it wrong, you have a new overpopulating or invasive animal on our hand that wasn’t predicted. A prime example of this was the introduction of Kane Toads to Australia as a means to handle pest populations. However, plans backfired as the toads started putting species at risk that weren’t pests like lizards, crocodiles, snakes. We are now reaping the consequences of that ill-thought out decision and trying to reverse the damage done.

This is because cloning usually calls for many trials for a successful birth during which unnecessary suffering occurs. Relating back to Dolly the Sheep’s case, it took 277 embryos for the birth of the animal. That’s 29 early embryos that were developed and implanted into 13 different surrogate sheep. And as mentioned before, the surrogate mother’s lives are at risk because of complications in pregnancy. The same suffering stemming from unsuccess occured when scientists attempted cloning Celia. They used the SCNT method and after a total of 57 inserted fertilised eggs, 7 females became pregnant and 6/7 pregnancies ended in complications and therefore miscarriages. This is also why pet cloning should not be allowed. Sooam – a korean company that clones dogs – says that there’s only a 40% success rate. So after all the invasive surgeries done on the surrogate(s) and egg donor, it is unjustifiable for us to put animals through that much pain and suffering for our selfish desires.

The European red fox is a keystone species that reduces biodiversity and impacts on the survival of native prey over large areas of entire ecosystems. The red fox is most commonly referred to as the European red fox however, its scientific name is Vulpes vulpes.

Background Information

It was purposely introduced to Australia for recreational hunting and in the early 1870s, fox populations became acknowledged in the wild. They survive in numerous habitats, ranging from urban areas to alpine and dry areas. On the off chance that red foxes are not situated in an urban domain, they can be found in lightly, wooded areas that are typically found in rural landscapes, offering a wide variety of shelter and food. Within 100 years, the fox had spread across most of mainland Australia, although some areas such as places towards the tropical north region and off-shore islands are fox free. In 2011, Tasmania decided to start fox eradication programs in response to the developing numbers.

Reproduction

The red fox mates from the months January through to March. The female will make at least one lair subsequently after mating. The extra dens are used if the original den is disturbed. A little less than two months after mating, the female gives birth to a litter of between one and ten kits.

Diet

As it is an omnivore, the red fox’s diet consists of organic foods like fruits, berries, and grasses but it also eats birds and small mammals like squirrels, rabbits, and mice. A large part of the red fox’s diet is additionally compromised of invertebrates like crickets, caterpillars, grasshoppers, beetles, and crayfish.

Impacts on the Ecosystem

The fox has played a significant role in the decline of ground-nesting birds, small to medium-sized mammals such as the greater bilby, and reptiles such as the green turtle. While the changes to the land is cited as one of the key reasons for the decline in many native species, predation by foxes has also been a significant contributor to native animal decline and continues to undermine recovery efforts for threatened species as the malleefowl, the bridled nail-tail wallaby, and the night parrot. The fox causes major economic losses to farmers by preying on newborn lambs, kid goats, and poultry. The European red fox could also act as a carrier of rabies, should the disease accidentally be introduced into Australia. This can have a significant impact on members of the dog family and it can also be passed on to humans.

Management

In the past, bounties have been paid and people have been hunting to eliminate the European foxes but it did not have much effect on them. In south-west Western Australia, fencing and broad-scale fox control with 1080-poison baits have been used successfully, however, the use of poison baits for fox control must consider possible effects of the baits on other animals. A way to prevent the baits from harming our native animals, is to bury them. This way, foxes can still find the bait but native animals are less likely to be affected by them. Scientists are exploring more approaches to improve regular fox control strategies by making them more humane, and less likely to harm non-target animals. It is known that foxes are less common where dingoes are present, which be another form of biological control. Researches are actively looking at their interactions, and their findings could help to integrate fox control.

Conclusion

Overall, the European red fox may be one of the most destructive species ever introduced to Queensland, and all of Australia. However, scientists are looking for ways to reduce their impacts in the future and this will be momentous in helping us move forward. It’s time that we took responsibility in managing this species, before it becomes irreversible.

Most loves animals; at least the ones attending veterinary technician school. But they do have their place. Some people like them for a while, and then get tired of them and don’t get rid of them the proper way. A lot of them are just dropped off in cemeteries or fields. Many are not even fixed. When these animals are set back to the wild, they do what animals naturally do: procreate. We need to better educate the public about animal care and responsibilities, and the effects that happen when they dispose of them improperly. Pet overpopulation is out of control and there’s only so much the animal lovers can do.

Analyzing the numbers associated with animal overpopulation is staggering. One estimate said there are 10 million cats and dogs that are euthanized each year by shelters and veterinary offices because they are unwanted. The number of unwanted animals is even higher than that. There are animals that owners personally dispose of and animals that are dumped in fields, cemeteries and such. Most of the animals that are dumped somewhere are not fixed. They do what animals naturally do: procreate. One model showed how these numbers create the overpopulation that is currently faced. “A fertile unsprayed cat produces an average of three litters a year. In a seven-year span, one cat and her offspring can produce an overwhelming 420,000 cats… An average unsprayed dog can produce two litters a year, leading to 67,000 births over six years.” (Spears, 1995) As hard as they may try and with the best intentions, animal lovers just can’t keep up with these staggering numbers of both in the shelter and dumped animals.

Dr. Stephen Zawistowski of the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy says: “I see it as a commitment issue… There just aren’t enough homes willing to commit to the lifetime of an animal.” He also says that “…overpopulation problem as part of the ‘throwaway’ mentality that pervades our society.” The pet population needs to equal the demand. Right now, population way out numbers the demand. Some of it is because of irresponsibility on the part of the pet owner. Some is from a lack of education informing prospective owners what all is needed to care for a pet, and how long they will need to commit to this acquisition.

There are a couple of suggestions on how to deal with this overpopulation. Frequently, one shelter is filled to beyond capacity while another has space because they have a lot of adoptions being done. One thought is to move the animals from the overpopulated shelter to the shelter that has a high rate of adoptions. The problem faced with this is the transmission of diseases and over stressing the animal. It could be accomplished. It would just take a detailed plan of disease prevention to work effectively. Another thought was to capture feral animals, spay or neuter them, and then release them back out. That wouldn’t completely solve the problem, but it would slow down the increasing numbers. Robert Weedon, DVM, MPH has offered another suggestion. When animals are captured, inject them with rabies vaccine and a sterility. He says that this would help the animal population, and save human lives. Researchers published their findings from a study done in the September 2006 issue of The Veterinary Record that tested this theory. The study was carried out in Jaipur, India on almost 25,000 unowned dogs over an eight-year period. They found that “the number of unowned dogs in the community decreased by almost one-third.” An estimation done by the Association for the Prevention and Control of Rabies in India said that more than 20,000 people die of rabies each year; most of them being children. With the study that was done, they not only saw a decrease in unowned dogs, but the number of people infected by dogs that had rabies decreased to zero. That is a win-win for dogs and humans.

The animal overpopulation problem is far from over. It is going to take education and hard work to make any significant difference. Animal owners need to be more responsible and try to be more educated regarding the care for their animal. Veterinaries need to help new pet owners completely understand all that is going to be involved in caring for their animal: for the lifetime of the animal. There are both traditional ways and new ideas on how to physically treat the issue. No matter the way, something needs to be done. It is not the sole responsibility of the animal lover to remedy the issue of animal overpopulation.

References

1. Boone, et al. (2019, July). A Long-Term Lens: Cumulative Impacts of Free-Roaming Cat Management Strategy and Intensity on Preventable Cat Mortalities. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6:238, 1-9. doi:10.3389/fvets.2019.00238
2. Spears, B. E. (1995, Sep). Pet Overpopulation: The Problem Multiplies. the Environmental Magazine, 6(5), 32. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/229069055?accountid=144845
3. Weedon, G. R. (2010, Jan). The Potential to Control Pet Overpopulation – and Save Human Lives. Veterinary Medicine, 105(1), 8.
4. Whitcomb, R. (2010). Understanding Pet Overpopulation. DVM Newsmagazine, 30.

A biome is a community of flora and fauna that have common characteristics for the environment they exist in. Biomes are very large ecological areas on the Earth’s surface and are often defined by abiotic factors such as climate, temperature, relief, geology, soils and vegetation. Biomes have a crucial role in sustaining life on Earth.

Grasslands are large terrains consisting of grasses, flowers and herbs, this biome includes; savannas, prairie, scrub, plains, pampas and steppe. Grasslands cover nearly 35% of the Earth’s surface and are the main source for many of the world’s crops. Not only do they provide crops, but grasslands are also particularly important for raising animals that provide milk, meat, wool and hides. Grasslands also provide the habitat for many flora and fauna. Flora can consist of; wild oats, purple needlegrass, ryegrass, foxtail and buffalo grass. Zebras, antelopes, lions, elephants, kangaroos and species of birds, reptiles and insects are just some of the animals that live in the wide range of grasslands around the world.

Grasslands suffer from many natural impacts, some of which have a major impact on the ecosystem. Climate change is an influential factor to these impacts as it can lead to naturally occurring wildfires, which are normally followed by floods, then by more natural impacts, creating a ‘domino effect’ (a chain reaction of similar events). Just wildfires and floods alone significantly affect the species and ecosystems of the biome. These impacts can decrease the population of flora, fauna and humans/housing in the area.

Humans utilise grassland biomes for both agriculture and development, and doing this greatly affects both the biomes and the people. Grasslands are now slowly being exploited due to human needs for housing and food. Several animal species have been hunted to a point of nearing extinction, with their population decreasing at this time, these animals include; buffalo/bison, elephants, tigers, giraffes, etc. Grasslands have been ploughed up and overgrazed, making these areas useless for agriculture until they regenerate. The land in grasslands has such fertile soil that it is a place that is well sought after, many grasslands throughout the world suffer from this which causes deterioration of this biome.

From these threats; poor agriculture practices, overgrazing, climate change, and urban development etc., come strategies to protect the grasslands. One solution to these threats is to continue education on how to protect and restore the soil and wetlands in this biome to prevent soil erosion. Planting trees in the area to act as windbreaks and to give animals food and shelter is also helpful to the environment. Another solution is to conduct controlled burning as this stimulates plant growth and prevents dangerous fires. Australian Rural Fire Service (RFS) does this to grasslands to help limit wildfires, which in the past summer have been catastrophic. Especially in Australia, the majority of the native plant species need occasional fire to properly thrive and it can also assist in the removal of invasive species. Attempting to regularly follow through with these solutions could save this incredible biome from perishing.