Why captive breeding is bad

This means that the genetic makeup of the population shifts over time to increase their fitness in captivity. Fitness is a measure of how well an individual is suited to its environment. Unfortunately, some traits that are advantageous in one environment may be harmful or simply not needed in another. The same individuals that thrive in captivity tend to lack the traits necessary to flourish in the wild.

An adult whooping crane, one of the species studied in Willoughby and Christie NaturesFan, Wikimedia Commons. The research team created a complex mathematical model to simulate the effects that captive-bred individuals might have on wild populations. One simulation mimicked the progress of a population composed only of wild animals.

The other displayed how the same population would be affected if animals born in captivity were added to the wild population. The simulation showed that populations composed only of wild animals progressed normally. On the other hand, the simulations with supplementation consistently resulted in a rapid decrease in fitness, usually within 5 years.

These populations showed other negative effects, like a decrease in population size. Supplemented populations rarely returned to their initial numbers once the captive-born were introduced. Species with shorter lifespans the golden lion tamarin and Coho salmon had larger reductions in population size and genetic diversity relative to the species that lived longer.

This is because they mature and reproduce earlier, so they have more generations in a given time frame. It is important to note that species in need of a captive breeding program typically have small population sizes. Conservationists should first carefully consider whether there are options available that help increase population size without adding captive-born individuals If not, they should calculate the minimum number of captive-born individuals needed to reach conservation goals as the study showed that lessening the number and frequency of supplementation events minimized negative demographic and genetic effects.

In addition, it is very important that captive environments mimic wild ones as closely as possible in order to limit genetic adaptation to captivity occurring in the first place. Before we go on to the pros and cons of captive breeding, here are some success stories of captive breeding. The animals below are a few examples that have been bred successfully with rewarding results in captivity:. Once a large community, the species suffered a significant population decline followed by disease and loss of habitat.

Amazingly large vultures, these condors are scavengers , relying on dead animals like deers and cattle. The California condor, too, was near extinction after a DDT poisoning and habitat destruction before being saved by captive breeding.

The breeding program started with nine oryxes and proved to be a success, and later, a whole population of these oryxes was successfully released into the wild. The golden lion tamarins suffered majorly due to deforestation.

They lost their habitat and food, and as a consequence, the population declined to an alarming degree until conservation and restoration programs were set up. Classified as critically endangered canines, the red wolf is a species between the coyote and grey wolf.

The species is near extinction in the wild, but conservation efforts are in place across various habitats in the United States. While there are several advantages of captive breeding, many people still disagree with the concept. For instance, many animal rights groups consider it unethical and immoral to interfere in the lives of the animals and the natural environment. The captive breeding programs ensure that the animals are safe first and foremost, from other predators, diseases, dehabilitation, and other threats.

Much of our wildlife has been lost, and some have even been completely wiped out due to either disease or predation. Many others have suffered due to the destruction of their natural habitats, like deforestation.

So the zoos, aquariums, and other such centers provide a safe place for breeding the animals — with a high risk of extinction — in a protected, controlled environment. Another major advantage to the name is better medical facilities. The wildlife often suffers because of the lack of proper care and medical facilities. Enclosed space enables caretakers to assess the health of the primates regularly. They can, thus, be proactive in case of a spread of a disease or a general decline in health.

Hence these places provide a safe and closest natural environment for the animals to breed and grow. They ensure the animals get all their basic necessities in a controlled but natural setting. Everything from the temperature, climate, surroundings, etc. So captive breeding ensures the animals get a natural habitat of their own. The population hence produced and nurtured in these controlled settings is of good health. It also has not been shown whether full captive-breeding capacity has already been reached.

The study focused on mammals, and only followed species if they had a population of as a sum-total population of the years from The research found that there was a great expansion of breeding programs and populations in the s and s. However, over the last decade or so, rates of growth have slowed considerably, and, as documentation of studbooks has increased, this slow down in growth has become even more apparent.

For advocates, this study shows that current captive breeding programs in zoos have reached their limit. While zoos can and will continue to promote their breeding programs to the public as a way of generating interest, traffic, and revenue, we should be wary of how much they claim to accomplish, even within their limited framework. Astute advocates will also notice that this study only examined captive breeding programs, and there is no information in here as to whether these programs actually result in any meaningful positive outcomes for wild populations.

Considering the difficulty inherent in wild animal re-introductions, positive outcomes are not likely. Captive animal advocates can look to this study as evidence that captive breeding in zoos is ineffective. Alroy, J.