One of the hazards of breeding wild animals in captivity is that the forces of natural selection no longer act upon them. Specimens that thrive well enough of captivity are very often fundamentally quite different from those that would thrive in the wild. Those individuals who thrive well enough to reproduce may pass on traits that are entirely detrimental to living in the wild.
If the goal is to produce domesticated animals, as was the case in Belyaev’s fox farm experiment, one should rigorously select animals for tameness, docility, and general ease of handling. Of course, when one does that, the animal fundamentally changes.
We have been doing that for thousands of years. We have become experts at selectively breeding domestic animals for any number of traits. We do not care that our Yorkshire pigs are nothing like Eurasian wild boars. We do not care that our Herefords and Holsteins are nothing like the extinct wild Aurochsen. We are glad that our golden retrievers, Scottish deerhounds, and Pekingeses are not exactly like wild wolves.
These domesticated animals fit their place in our society. They have a utility that is fundamentally different from their wild ancestors, and most of that utility comes from our skills at selecting desirable traits.
However, when our goal is to produce captive populations of wild animals that can be reintroduced into the wild, we often have problems. Simply put, we cannot create the conditions in captivity that imitate natural selection.
Try as we might, we simply cannot make it so that prey species evolve under predation. We cannot allow predators to hunt prey in captivity. If we are dealing with endangered animals, those activities are simply too risky to even try. Further, they most likely would violate animal cruelty laws and could even violate conservation statutes. Endangered and threatened species are also too valuable for their genomes to ever experience possible risks of damaging or killing them. They must be treated as carefully as any museum artifact.
It is difficult to deny the reasoning behind such care. After all, every individual in a limited gene pool has importance, and we really shouldn’t be involved in what amount to canned hunts with endangered predators hunting endangered prey.
As noted earlier, once animals are removed from the pressures of natural selection, the animals themselves can evolve to fit captivity.
Take the case of one line of the endangered Mexican wolf.
Mexican wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) are the smallest subspecies of wolf in North America. If the red wolf is a different species, it is generally believed to be the oldest extant subspecies in North America. It has unique markers in its mtDNA sequence that make it stand out from wolves from other populations on this continent. It was native to the Southwestern US and northern Mexico. It was extinct in the wild until 1998, when 11 individuals were released into the Blue Range in Arizona. Currently, about 50 Mexican wolves live wild in Arizona and adjacent New Mexico.
However, as a subspecies, it does have issues with compromised genetic diversity. Mexican and US ranchers nearly wiped the subspecies out. The last of wild ones were all capture and then bred in captivity in hopes of preserving the subspecies.
One particular line of Mexican wolf was the Ghost Ranch colony. It was captured in New Mexico, and one of the founders of the line looked a bit like a wolf-dog. However, the rest all resembled wild Mexican wolves.
But as they bred over the generations, certain features began to pop up. Their heads got smaller. Their jaws got weaker. They were turning into dogs.
This line was bred at Carlsbad Caverns, and when it was decided to start breeding Mexican wolves with the possibility of releasing them into the wild, the status of the Ghost Ranch wolves fell into contention.
It is well-known that dogs and wolves will hybridize. In fact, it is probably not even correct to call wolf and dog crosses hybrids. They are now recognized to be part of the same species, Canis lupus. It was suggested that Ghost Ranch wolves were derived from hybrid stock.
If that were true, then it meant that releasing wolves derived from that line could be contentious. The Endangered Species Act and state conservation laws were designed to protect Mexican wolves, not Mexican wolf and dog crosses. It would mean that a wolf haters could kill them and then claim that they were shooting a wolf hybrid, which is not a protected species at all.
Of course, that is not a trivial concern.
However, it was also suggested that the Ghost Ranch wolves were actually the result of a kind Belyaev experiment. Generations of being bred in captivity and being fed a less rigorous diet had changed these wolves in the same way the foxes were.
Because of the potential problems, the Ghost Ranch wolves were euthanized. However, there are still a few individual wolves that are of the Ghost Ranch line. These animals are of great value.
You see, a later study of the DNA of Mexican wolves, including those of the Ghost Ranch line, found that there was no evidence of hybridization with dogs or coyotes. Not only were they free of that “contamination,” they were clearly genetically distinct from any wolf population in North America.
If only this sort of analysis had been performed before the majority of the Ghost Ranch wolves were euthanized, the Mexican wolf population would still have an important source of genetic diversity. Granted, they would probably would have those maladaptive doggish traits, but these possibly could have been bred out over time.
Also, there were some concerns that the McBride line, which is the main line that was used for reintroduction purposes, might have some issues with an inbreeding depression, and while there was no evidence of an inbreeding depression, it is known that it does have compromised genetic diversity. The Ghost Ranch and Aragon lines are also somewhat inbred, but it would make sense that allowing blood from these previously believed “unpure” lines would end some of these possible concerns.
However, there are very few Ghost Ranch wolves left. Twenty were found in the hands of a private owner, and these wolves were then added to the gene pool.
But because of the unintentional domestication of the Ghost Ranch wolves, it was decided to get rid of this part of the gene pool.
Of course, when one is already dealing with a very rare subspecies, breeding practices can be loosened. Texas cougars were released to augment the Florida panther’s genetic diversity. It is something that can be done, but it is generally frowned upon.
Releasing a wild animal that has possible domestic ancestry would always be a legal cheval-de-frise that wolf haters could use, so maybe euthanasia was a good idea at the time.
But all of this confusion could have been avoided if the wolves had been kept and bred to preserve as many wild characteristics as possible. This is not as easy as it sounds.
Although we are experts at selecting for tameness and docility in domestic animals, we are not so good at selecting for the traits that make animals survive well in the wild.
The best we can do is leave the animals alone in their enclosures and try not to put too many selective pressures for tameness on them.
However, the result of doing such a thing means that one is potentially producing dangerous animals that zoo staff cannot handle. In the clip about the foxes, the “wild” group that had been bred to retain those characteristics was far more aggressive. The “dragon” fox would probably have traits that would be good to have in the wild.
But those are just red foxes.
What if we are talking about Amur (Siberian) tigers?
Remember the San Francisco Zoo tiger that killed one person and maimed two others on Christmas Day in 2007?
That tiger had traits that would have made her survive well in the wild. Her aggressive behavior was strong enough that she could escape an enclosure that easily held other tigers.
Such an animal would be a liability in any facility, but her offspring might be well-adapted to eventually live in the wild. That is, if we ever figure out how to rewild captive tigers.
So in the end, we are left with a balancing act. The animals must be bred so they retain at least some of their instincts and physical traits. However, they cannot experience natural selection as their wild ancestors did. They have to be treated with care. They also have to be able to be contained in an enclosure, and they have to be tractable enough to be safe for staff to handle.
They also have to be able to breed in captivity, which is itself an important selective pressure. Not all individuals can reproduce in captivity. Male clouded leopards are often so aggressive that they kill their mates. To get clouded leopards to breed, males that are less aggressive toward their mates have to be used. That certainly will have an effect upon the behavior of their offspring. They may be less aggressive than typical wild male clouded leopards.
All of these things must be balanced in the light of maintaining a dynamic and diverse gene pool. Breeding animals that could eventually live in the wild is a much harder undertaking than breeding domesticated animals. We must balance lots of things with domestic animals, but with these wild animals, we also have to think as if we are imitating natural selection.
Not an easy task.
doesn’t this refute, at least somewhat, the argument that wolves “can’t” be domesticated? Even if not released, these wolves would present a priceless chance to study how dog domestication might have occured.
This also points out the problem with “purity”. It is almost “dog breeds” as applied to wild species. In order to avoid any “impurity” and “mixing species” these wolves were killed. But I don’t believe species are that clear cut. It’s highly unlikely that before populations were fragmented that “mexican” wolves never ever crossed with “California” wolves and that no “plains wolf” blood ever managed to be introduced. For that matter, it’s unlikely that no Amerindian dog ever crossed.
Are we preserving Mexican wolves as what we THINK they “should be” and missing what they really were? seems so. And are we so focused on preserving a “snapshot in time” animal that we are throwing out the “baby with the bathwater”?
As for inadvertant domestication in zoos/wild animal parks — yes, we often don’t allow “reality” to intrude because of political correctness. Frankly it would be better if we DID allow lions to hunt at places like San Diego Wild animal park. There’s enough of them to take a risk of allowing them to hunt, and there’s probably enough zebra to allow them to do that. Unfortunately it is true — most people want to see “the lion king” not the real thing.
Peggy Richter
Peggy I think it actually reinforces that wolves in their natural state can’t be tamed. That wolf pups taken from litters in the natural environment will always turn into the nasty adults they need to be in order to survive in the environments they come from. If natural selection was somehow allowed to continue in a captive environment and the survival of the fittest scenario applied its very possible you would never see a tame wolf beyond adolescence.
If preserving the Mexican wolf indeed keeps the ecosystem in balance then it is worth preserving. And even allowing the tame variant back into the wild will see the wilder untamable dominate version become more prevalent when the natural selection process along with survival of the fittest kicks in again.
The tame variant will surely be killed off leaving the more wary untrusting wilder version to continue on, only this time with a shuffle of the genetic mix thrown in for good measure.
Reminds me of Charles Darwin in the first chapter of the Origin of Species (1859), page 34-35.
“At the present time, eminent breeders try by methodical selection, with a distinct object in view, to make a new strain or sub-breed, superior to anything existing in the country. But, for our purpose, a kind of Selection, which may be called Unconscious, and which results from every one trying to possess and breed from the best individual animals, is more important. Thus, a man who intends keeping pointers naturally tries to get as good dogs as he can, and afterwards breeds from his own best dogs, but he has no wish or expectation of permanently altering the breed. Nevertheless I cannot
doubt that this process, continued during centuries, would improve and modify any breed, in the same way as Bakewell, Collins, &c., by this very same process, only carried on more methodically, did greatly modify, even during their own lifetimes, the forms and qualities of their cattle. Slow and insensible changes of this kind could never be recognised unless actual measurements or careful drawings of the breeds in question had been made long ago, which might serve for comparison. In some cases, however, unchanged or but little changed individuals of the same breed may be found in less civilised districts, where the breed has been less improved. There is reason to believe that King Charles’s spaniel has been unconsciously modified to a large extent since the time of that monarch. Some highly competent authorities are convinced that the setter is directly derived from the spaniel, and has probably been slowly altered from it. It is known that the English pointer has been greatly changed within the last century, and in this case the change has, it is believed, been chiefly effected by crosses with the fox-hound; but what concerns us is, that the change has been effected unconsciously and gradually, and yet so effectually, that, though the old Spanish pointer certainly came from Spain, Mr. Borrow has not seen, as I am informed by him, any native dog in Spain like our pointer.
It is hard to dispute that a wild species will be at least somewhat changed after several generations of breeding in captivity. But there is also the likelihood that that same species can revert to the more efficient wild type when released from man’s strictures.
Some domesticated dogs, even with centuries of domestication behind them, have been able to survive on their own in the wild. A century or so ago, a famous collie imported from England escaped before reaching his destination. The dog lived wild for a year or more before being recaptured, and eventually going on to win at shows. And there have been other examples.
As to a high degree of “aggression” being needed in wild predators, the term would need to be defined. Most wild predators are highly suspicious, and if able, prefer to leave the vicinity of a threat rather than to confront it. Discretion being the better part of survival, in most cases.
Its also easy to say that the fact that it looked like a dog and was accustomed to humans also may have saved it from being picked off buy a farmer’s rifle. Perhaps it learned where to hunt, what to hunt and how to behave in the vicinity of humans. Explaining why it was able to come back into a captive situation so easily.
Maybe, if it was allowed to proliferate in the wild and produce offspring, if it didn’t get killed off by other predators first just for being so different, then those offspring would likely be less inclined to trust humans over time. Or perhaps just just live on the outer fringes of humanity to their own advantage. Like many natural breeds do today.
Robably so…but the fact that the collie was originally socialized and accustomed to humans was probably the primary factor in his being fairly quickly re-adjusted upon return to civilization.
No doubt any wild-born offspring would be truly wild, since they would never have been socialized to humans and domestic life.
Sengimage, I was actually not asserting taming wolves in “natural” conditions but that taking wolves from nature and “keeping them”, even if not even deliberately selecting for “tameness” could, as with the Russian foxes, result in a “tame wolf”. It’s certainly possible that a captured/injured pregnant wolf bitch kept as “trophy” could end up being the basis for domestication. However dangerous, people still keep “tame” bears, lions, tigers, etc. Our modern adversion to risk is unlikely to have been shared by ancestors less insulated from nature. I can well see such an animal kept as a shaman’s tool or symbol of power.
As for all “domestic” characteristics being entirely negative in the wild, I’m not so sure. A wolf that can be photographed by tourists is more likely to be used as a reason to keep wolves than a wild animal no tourists get to see. It’s simply a case that more photogenic animals that people get to SEE are more likely to get funding to be saved or have preserves set aside for them. I’ll agree that the combination of “tolerant of people” / not into killing domestic animals is a toughie. The coyote has managed the former & has invaded our cities. Some coyotes are into eating cats, small dogs, even (rarely) going after people – but the individual doing so gets eliminated pretty fast. The rest manage quite well. In CA, the cougar and black bear that can’t deal with freeways and some proximity to people are unlikely to survive — but so are those that are “too comfortable” around people. “some” domestic characteritics might actually be beneficial for the Mexican wolf.
Vr, Peggy Richter
Peggy,
We live in a world where if you can shoot it with a camera you can also shoot it with a gun. And for all the nature lovers out there , you’ll find just as many haters or ignorant elitists with a sense of entitlement about them that will drive them to pull that trigger. So in the long run, because of the society we live in….. The wary, cautious, fearful and nasty variety of wolf is better suited for the wild.
If we wish to own A member of Canis Lupus we can just get a dog and live life vicariously though that companion. Otherwise, a wolf is just as nutty of a pet as a Tiger or Lion etc etc. The best thing about them is the honor of seeing one in the flesh. The worst thing about them is the unpredictability, even if “you” trust it. I’d can say that for any example given of a good relationship with a wild predator. There are many more of horror stories that started off well enough but ended when something not predicted turned that bond sour.
I’d say the most beneficial thing for the Mexican wolf that humans can contribute is potentially increasing the numbers. Anything else is about as significant as a grain of salt.
Senimage, please excuse me, but I MUST beg to differ with your idea that wild wolves need to be “nasty” in temperment to survive in the wild, and tame wolves(habituated to humans) would get selected out by natural means–they’d get shot by humans, but this would have nothing to do with “natural” selection! It is obvious you haven’t had any close association with a wolf–IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES(which primitive hunter-gatherers were certainly living in), there is hardly any more loving, friendly, devoted and faithful animal around–that’s where our wonderful dogs get those traits. Unfortunetely, in modern times, kept chained in a backyard or otherwise closely confined and expected to fit in with civilized suburbia, a wolf is extremely frustrated, usually miserable, misunderstood and repressed, and this is what makes them “nasty”–they ARE NOT normally! Within their pack in the wild, they are extremely supportive(normally) and devoted to pack members–even if they are deadly to interlopers of their own kind. But wild animals kept in conditions that do not suppress their natural instincts and desires, can often form amazing bonds with humans that last their entire lives(remember Elsa the lioness????)–way more dependable and trustworthy than many human relationships I have been the unfortunate witness of! This is a nit-picking point I will drag up again and again(sorry!)–it ain’t the critters that are “treacherous” and “nasty”, but the circumstances they are kept under, and the extreme ignorance and selfishness exhibited by their human “owners”. NO, MOST PEOPLE have no business getting such animals for “pets”, because they have NO IDEA what a commitment is necessary, nor do they live in a place that allows for such, but don’t blame the critter’s temperment!…..And as for captive zoo animals(predators specifically) not getting to hunt–welllll, that depends on how and where they are captive! Lots of zoo predators regularly nail and devour critters that get into their enclosures! But of course, this still isn’t anything like really being in the wild–just that those instincts and abilities can remain intact to an amazing degree in captivity! Although very controversial, you should check out John Varty’s captive tiger “experiment”–I think it is amazing what he has done, and I know if I were a tiger in captivity, I’d want to be one of HIS tigers!!!!! In the right place(no human interference), HIS tigers COULD survive in the wild again……
I am tempted to go into an anti-John Varty rant.
I wasn’t going to go there.
LOL.
But “rewilding” junk tigers in Africa is a very stupid thing to do.
Especially if some of those tigers are white.
Especially if they aren’t actually wild– they just live in big cages.
Especially if you defrauded your investors who wanted you to “rewild” Chinese tigers.
Especially if you let your tigers hunt prey inside those big cages and call it natural.
Okay.
Rant over.
Well, nasty only applies when the flight or fight response kicks in. So, don’t get me wrong. The reason Wolves have survived in the current state they are in is not due to them being kind and gentle. Its because they are wary and cautious. And when cornered….nasty. If given a choice they will flee. They are not going to cautau and become submissive. In that respect … yes eventually I still lean towards the adaptations made by manmade intervention…regressing to a point that is more suitable for that wolves’ survival. At least in our culture this applies. I can’t say much for cultures where there is some unwritten relationship between two different species of predators. Where the succes of one also benefits another. Like Cheetah to Lions or Hyenas to Vultures or Tribal Hunter Humans to Wolves.
If you even consider that….Wolves still don’t assume a submissive behavior with those humans. Its more wary. And possibly more observant as they are gathering more real world data about how to best take advantage of the situation unfolding before them. Again not driven to befriend the humans, But, how not to find conflict with them and still benefit from the end result of what they are taking in before their eyes.
I’m certain wolves can be very friendly and affectionate (or manipulative?), loyal (or strategically parasitic?), and caring (or mutually self-serving?)–just like dogs.
They are also predators. (Just like dogs).
Seems to me it’s a matter of degree.
I suspect the great majority of the tiny number of people AND INSTITUTIONS that have wolves, whether to keep them or to reintroduce them, are in way over their heads.
And of the millions of people who have dogs, the great majority are probably in way over their heads. Luckily, domestication mitigates the consequences.
Dogs can be predators. I think they are more inclined to fit the role of scavenger. There are always exceptions.
Wolves are predators but will gladly scavenge if the opportunity presents itself. Again, there are always exceptions.
When humans get involved, things always tend to get screwed up. Even with the best of intentions.
Imagine if those millions of people in over their heads didn’t have puppy mills and pet stores to get them in over their heads.
Well-intentioned and even experienced people can end up in over their heads with dogs from shelters and from excellent breeders as well as from puppy mills and pet stores. (Excellent breeders stay in touch and take a dog back or rehome no matter the age of the dog–a huge responsibility and of great importance, IMO).
I didn’t mean to go down the where-the-dog-comes-from route. I personally agree that the odds are stacked in one’s favor if they do their research and acquire a dog in the most responsible way possible for their situation.
Anyway, I agree/believe that dogs are canis lupus. A domesticated variety, but still worthy of respect. That’s all I was saying.
“We live in a world where if you can shoot it with a camera you can also shoot it with a gun. And for all the nature lovers out there , you’ll find just as many haters or ignorant elitists with a sense of entitlement about them that will drive them to pull that trigger.”
Hmm. Hunters are arguably the most effective and responsible conservationists, environmentalists, and protectors of wildlife and habitat there are in this country. I would hardly paint with such a broad brush as to call those who hunt legally using firearms “haters” or “ignorant elitists.”
There are plenty of Hillbilly’s and Rednecks that call themselves hunters too. There are plenty of elitist gun collector’s that call themselves hunters also. And plenty of people with more money than brains that think they can hunt.
Add to that the number of farmers and livestock owners who also own guns and have no patience to determine whether a tame wolf is going to be a danger to their livelihood.
The variables are numerous. Take your pick.
If protectors of wildlife were good at what they do, we wouldn’t see so many creatures on the endangered category.
If a way of thinking justifies one’s feeling of righteousness one way or the other, even in the face of endangered status game. Then they can fall into any walk of life and still have the same agenda.
The ones who can afford to collect high powered rifles, also tend to see these toys as an extension of their egos. And if they hate wolves…they are what? lovers of wolves??? If they don’t understand the benefit to the ecosystem to maintain a population of wolves, then what? They are killing them because they aren’t ignorant???
Sorry I can’t see it as gradients or levels … For me, either you are for it or against it. So the only people who IMO who would pull that trigger and kill a wild wolf other than a game warden maintaining population that the area can support… is either a hater or an elitist. Either way they are both ignorant.
First, I said “legally.” Second, there are laws regarding shooting wolves; I’m not schooled in them, but there are laws, and one can’t grab a gun and shoot a wolf randomly at any time under any circumstance and have it be legal. Third, even so, if I’m recalling past reading and discussion correctly, this would not be “hunting”–it would be protecting livestock or oneself, I think.
Well, maybe there’s Alaska… but that’s true wilderness and I try to withhold judgment on how they do things there (although shooting out of a helicopter seems rather unsporting, I suppose).
I was merely pointing out that I believed you were painting all hunters with a rather broad brush.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, and you were only speaking of shooting wolves. In which case, see above.
Anyway, if you think so little of those who hunt all game legally (deer, birds, etc.), there’s no point in arguing, so nevermind, I guess.
Nope, I only labeled the haters and the ignorant killing them. And adding that those categories have members from all walks of life within it. The ones more empowered to do something so dumb, are the ones who can afford the gun. The ones who tend to be the most ignorant are of course self centered and “have more money than brains”. And usually see a firearm as an extension of their ….. penis.
And laws don’t prevent these things from the above. They may provide some monetary refund to keepers of livestock, maybe even enough to pay for a replacement. I doubt it.
I’m painting the ignorant and the haters into that group. I admit it. Let me know if thats still too broad. It sounds pretty specific though. Even if it does overlap many class demographic and cultural boundaries. I think its pretty accurate on who’s pulling the trigger.
I think I’m confused.
It seemed to me you were talking about all hunters. In which case, my comments stand.
Perhaps you are talking about those who shoot wolves. That’s a more complicated argument.
But really, I’m just lost as to what we’re discussing, and sorry I even commented.
Dropping it.
The subject here is Mexican Wolves.
But now that you mention it…. It can apply to “endangered predator”.
I don’t think many bears, foxes or OMG deer fit that criteria.
In John Varty’s defense, Retrieverman, what he was trying to do( and definetetly DID, in my opinion) is see if zoo-bred(i. e. your “junk” tigers) tigers could be taught to survive in the wild. It was a huge and very controversial thing to do, no doubt. His “cages” are ACRES of wild land, with plenty of room for the prey animals he stocks it with to get away from all but the most determined and skilled stalking efforts of the tigers–true, not exactly the wild, but this was necessary to teach the tigers to actually hone their skills and learn to hunt–not that much different from a mother tiger crippling an animal to let her half-grown cubs “practice” on it(yes, nature can be quite cruel, too, and if you’re going to keep predators, you better get over human sentimentality to do right by them). Have you seen any of his documentaries on the subject? I think there is no question his tigers have become incredibly skilled hunters, who could most definetely survive on their own, IF there was a secure place for them in Asia to do so. He did not intend to release them in Africa; that was simply where he lived(he is from South Africa) and was able to construct his compounds and do this “experiment”. Just like the ultra light aircraft experiments that have led to helping Whooping Cranes establish new and safer migratory routes(originally done with common-as-dirt Canada geese), such efforts and knowledge using “junk” zoo tigers could help reestablish rare subspecies of wild tigers eventually, if any places safe enough and secure enough can be established for them in their former Asian homelands. I don’t doubt he has to do all manner of juggling to keep this project going, and provide a continuing home for his tigers, but I think the original motivation was a great project, and I’m glad(so far) he has remained faithful to caring for his animals as best he can, and not just dumped them when the project was done, as so many “scientists” would have done! When the white tiger cub was born, he actually asked the opinions of his blog/newsletter readers if he should allow it to grow up naturally(since, of course, white tigers are more a genetic product of captivity than the true wild), and the overwhelming response was to let it be, which I agree with–this IS a form of captivity, after all, and the white cub can’t help it that it came out white! He was not purposefully breeding for that, in other words. And again, these tigers have acres and acres to roam in a wild, natural area, prey to hunt, mates to mate with naturally, territories to patrol and defend, with no gawking crowds of tormenting humans constantly harassing them(remember the incident recently in San Francisco with their wretched tiger?)–I know what tiger I’d rather be if I had to be in captivity! They may be “junk” tigers, but they are lucky as heck junk tigers!
Lane, The documentaries I’ve seen on this only show that they proved the tigers haven’t lost the ability to kill. In fact the killing of the wild game in the documentary was so senseless it was just not convincing of anything except they can certainly kill a lot of game. More game than they can consume and really senseless.
I do agree they are lucky. They certainly have the ability to free roam their enormous enclosures. continuously stocked with plenty of game animals to kill, sort of like a feral cat roaming the neighborhood does, only they don’t have a gamekeeper throwing more and more little creatures into its territory. And how could a Big cat not feel happy to kill as many of the toys let loose in its playground. That is until it gets bored.
And we as the onlookers have the privilege of seeing a Tiger stalk and kill. And call it hunting. ;-)
I read your blog for post like these.
Senimage, if YOU wanted to try and see if captive bred tigers could learn to hunt, stalk, and kill effectively, in order to prove that tigers could one day be rereleased in the wild to re-establish wild populations where they had been driven to extinction, how would YOU do it????? This is what John Varty was doing(and is still doing), and I can’t imagine any better way to do it! Yes, it’s sad for the animals they kill, but that’s part of rehabilitating predators–no way around it! The successful Red Wolf introductions in N. C. did the same thing–released live caught prey animals typical of the area the wolves were going to be released in, to get them used to killing and eating such prey–and in a lot smaller enclosures! Those critters had zero chance of escaping the wolves, even for awhile! This is where human sentimentality gets in the way of properly releasing captive bred predators to the wild–it is an unfortunate FACT(killing, and the skills and practice necessary to do so)–but it is absolutely vital to guarantee success. And I guarantee you that though Varty’s tigers would sometimes kill multiple animals at once given the opportunity(as almost any predator in the wild will do also–they just rarely get that opportunity!)–that meat was NOT wasted!!!! Think of the money spent to stock those compounds with game animals–those animals are not exactly free! Many exotics like that are raised for human “hunters” to shoot on canned hunts–I’d much rather see them utilized in an effort to help preserve and understand tigers, than for fake human “hunts”–and you can bet Mr. Varty saves every scrap he can for future feeds! It was believed before this “experiment” that captive bred tigers could NOT be trained to successfully hunt, and I think this project has quite blatantly proved that notion wrong, because someone was dedicated enough and committed enough to put the time(perhaps several tiger generations’ worth) and money into such a project, which no one had done before(although the Adamsons certainly did something similar with lions, and then Joy continued with cheetahs and finally a leopard before she got murdered). If tigers like Siberians or Sumatrans are ever ready to be rereleased in the wild again, THIS project is going to be the blueprint for how to do it! Now as for Varty’s former associate(what’s-his-name?–Dave Salmoni?) grandstanding and risking animals’ lives just to do T. V. programs, with no other goals in mind than to make an interesting T. V. show, I don’t have anything positive or supportive to say to that–in fact, I don’t much like it at all…….
The biggest difference here…. between the tiger situation and the wolf situation in captive enclosures. The wolves actually aren’t a hybrid. They are what they are in the wild and therefore that is a worthwhile project. The hybrids Varty is working with…. Are a complete waste of time and only line his pockets with funding that he either represents truthfully or in some cases falsely. He is a charlatan and the project is a wasted effort. If he wants my respect he should use real tigers.
Not the inbred hybrids. They are only a last resort. And being so inbred themselves are a poor option.
Cheetahs may be too far gone to save. The sub variants like the King Cheetah are nowhere to be seen anymore.
At least those wolves have a real chance.
….And Senimage, it DOES seem contradictory, and it IS quite ironic, but responsible hunters(very different from slob hunters, of which, alas, there ARE all too many) tend to have the greatest respect and yea, even love of the animals they hunt, and dollar-wise and effort wise are much more effective in preserving/reintroducing/increasing animal populations than any “animal rights” types–the major reason the deer and bear(that you mentioned above, as well as a kuhzillion other species) numbers are so high now is because of hunter efforts to preserve habitat and control indiscriminate hunting. It does seem crazy, but as soon as an animal becomes a valuable “game” animal in human eyes, it receives more protection and respect, and the species(if not certain individuals) benefits enormously from that, in our complicated, anally nit-picky, contradictory, civilized society riddled with laws. Wolves, once they become game animals for sport hunters, will greatly benefit from their change as just “varmits”. Check any species this has happened to(I can’t think of any exceptions at the moment…) and you will see they benefited in numbers and range. Yup, hard to believe, but white-tailed deer used to be fairly RARE–hunters and hunting laws brought them back……
Lane….You really need to research just who is behind all those canned hunts. Then get back to me. ;-)
Senimage, I DO NOT consider those that participate in canned hunts as responsible hunters. In fact, I do not consider them hunters at all, just killers. There is a difference. It sounds to me as if YOU need to do some research/get some real experience, because you seem to lump ALL hunting in one big, negative category! There is as much variety in ethics and practice in hunting as there is in any other “sport” or activity, and it sounds to me(from your comments) that you have zero experience with ethical hunters that respect their game animals, nature, and do a lot to preserve both(unlike those that just sit around grousing about how terrible all hunters are!). If you cannot find any information about how legal hunting has saved numerous species, and continues to protect and preserve habitats for wildlife, then you CANNOT be looking very hard! I AM NOT talking about canned hunts for lazy, fat, rich city people, nor illegal poaching, nor market hunting, or the ivory trade, nor black market demand for tiger and bear parts in Asia–lumping responsible hunters in with these activities is like saying all Muslims are evil terrorists, or all Christians are money-grubbing dishonest T. V. evangalists(and the religious comparison is not far-fetched; many hunters do indeed look upon their activity in the field as sacred in nature!). It is CRAZY that I get drawn into these anti-hunting/pro-hunting discussions, because I do not hunt for “sport”(in a way that ends in killing), and have never enjoyed killing anything, even of necessity, but I am also not BLIND to the benefits legal hunting delivers, year in and year out, to wildlife and the environment, in a real, functional way that all the spouting of philosophy by overly urbanized sentimentalists-without-a-clue never accomplish, for all their high ideals. Those are just the facts for anyone who DOES really research it. I ain’t saying its right; I ain’t saying its wrong–them’s just the facts! And as an aside, before condemning John Varty and his efforts with his tigers, I suggest doing a bit of research and checking out his great website, chock full of all kinds of interesting information on tigers(a lot of which he has discovered with his project), which will also dispell all these inaccurate views people have of what he is doing, which is the impression I’ve got from comments made above…….
I do not argue whether hunting is detrimental to wildlife or if hunters can’t be beneficial. The topic here is about Mexican Wolves and My opinions have been made based on this topic. My argument is also not lumping in all hunters into one category. Clearly, the terms I’ve used only point a finger of blame towards irresponsible ones. And, being irresponsible, transcends, race, religion or wealth. Being irresponsible has just as many representatives and poster children from every walk of life as being responsible. My labeling things black and white is just simplifying it, but if there are grey areas and gradients then somewhere there is still a line between acceptable and disgusting.
And as for the asides that where raised with other species…I stated my opinion. Not throwing stones or slinging mud. That’s just my stance and just like I respect your’s and still can play in this sandbox with you and like to read what you have to say. I suppose all I ask is you do the same for me. I don’t expect you to change my opinions on Varity, hybrid tigers and what in my opinion are no better than canned tiger hunting for a rich slob. But at least I am open to listen to other perspectives. There’s always a little give an take.
“I AM NOT talking about canned hunts for lazy, fat, rich city people, nor illegal poaching, nor market hunting, or the ivory trade, nor black market demand for tiger and bear parts in Asia–lumping responsible hunters”
The funny thing is…these same people are also the ones who claim they are hunters just like the rest. And these are the ones very much responsible for the world of crap many species now see themselves in. So I am talking about them. If you don’t fit that description then you certainly should take no offense. I deal with hunters and I certainly don’t hate them. But, the ones that fit that description and smile proudly when they pull the trigger and still call it hunting, I think we all have a bone to pick with them.
I respect what you do Lane. And without the sanctuaries like the one you work in….my children and I may never be able to see many species in the near future since the only remains of what they once were….will only be in a zoo. Even if it is a hybrid that we’re calling the real thing.
since i own sheep and geese and have had predators on my property that I had to deal with, I thought I’d provide a few comments regarding farmers/ranchers and yep, wolves.
1. Not EVERY farmer/rancher wants to kill a predator or “troublesome” animals. If you research it, you’ll find that several have provided refuges for animals like the prairie dog and black-footed ferret (in fact the ferrets probably owe their continued existance to a dog named “shep” owned by the rancher).
2. Not every hunter is an exterminator of wildlife. As others have stated, many conservation projects are funded or backed by hunter organizations. Things like “ducks unlimited”.
3. If mexican wolves (who are no doubt closely related to the extinct California wolf) were more easily dealt with, one might make a case for them being released in the horse /burro wildlife refuges or places like China Lake. There have been a few who have suggested this as a means to deal with the excess feral horses — the wolves would have to be tolerant enough not to disappear every time someone came within 40 miles but wild enough to not want to be “near”. Given that the Navy lands there are larger than the state of Delaware, it might be sufficent area — but not if wolves would be spooked by aircraft overhead, etc. The local coyotes manage pretty well in this regard. It’s only rarely that a coyote becomes a nuisance.
Unfortunately when one has a black/white view of for me/against me, it closes the door for unusual solutions or innovative ones. It also precludes those who might agree with SOME things but not everything regarding a particular position from ever providing any assistance or support.
I would not suggest domesticating wolves for pets. I think it is sad that the one line was destroyed because someone THOUGHT they were crosses when they weren’t. Ignorance never helped anything. Having decided that the zoo line wasn’t releasable, using it for other legitimate research frankly seems better than their solution of destroying it.
vr, Peggy Richter
Well said Peggy.
I completely agree with you on every detail.
Weeding out the muck is really where I stand. I’m really not as hard-lined as you may think on this topic.