Rehabilitation centers and Wildlife sanctuaries

Is this not the evolutionary pathway of a Circus?

from Circus to Zoo to Sanctuary to Rehabilitation center?

Cream Striped Owl Moth (Cyligramma latona)

Was the original purpose of a circus not to make money? Making money requires innovation and  strategies need to be adapted to changing times as people become progressively more informed. A circus makes money, a zoo makes money, and so do most wildlife sanctuaries and wildlife rehabilitation centers. There is almost always money asked from the visitors. If the owners need money to look after the animals, why do they have animals in the first place? Asking people to pay for their visit to keep some animal alive while the wild ones of their own species are killing each other out there in the wilds is not saving the species. It is completely natural for animals to get killed by other animals without human intervention, in other words, keeping them alive whilst they should be dead is unnatural. To support this hypothesis take some time and study the owners of these commercial enterprises over a long period of time and determine whether the keeping of animals in cages was in the best interest of the animals or the owners.

How can certain captive animals in small enclosures be justified and linked to conservation anyway? Let us take Lions as an example. Lions in the Wilds kill other Lions since they are one of their own worst enemies. Adult male lions kill other adult male lions to reduce competition on their territories. Male lions kill lion cubs during pride take-overs and sometimes even kill female lions. Female lions kill other female lions trespassing onto their territories. Lions also occasionally get killed by non-predator species like Elephants and Buffalo. Leopards and Hiena’s elevate the number by killing lion-cubs when found unattended. When lions get killed in the wilds, without Human cause, it becomes clear that a considerable number of lions die every year in complete natural ways. Let us count all the lions dying naturally or dying at the claws of their own species in South Africa and then in the other African countries and come up with a number. It would be hundreds or more. People owning and playing with their captive lions are not contributing to the survival of lions in the bigger picture, they are simply owning them for their own pleasure.

The same principle applies to many other wild species but sadly animals in cages appeal to the uninformed public due to the thrill of getting way closer than in the wilds. People are also indoctrinated into thinking that they are contributing towards wildlife conservation when “paying” a visit.

Why are there so many animals in the cages that could have been released? Here is a sad sad factual account of a male Bateleur eagle with a broken leg was brought to a certain rehabilitation center. The Bateleur was a breeding adult with a female and had a nest which it used for multiple years. The GPS co-ordinates of the nest was given to the rehab-center and kindly requested to release the eagle at the exact place after recovery. Bateleur eagles mate for life and are territorial and experts in navigating their habitat. The rehab center kept the eagle in a cage for years, saying that the eagle would never survive in the wilds again. Really?! Would the eagle forget its nest and female and ability to survive within 4-6 weeks? We suggest to study each animal case individually to determine whether they should really be in “rehab”.

It seems that reasons are cleverly devised to justify why animals in captivity can never be released back into the wilds and should remain in cages.

“The animals will never survive in the wilds after being in captivity”

Really?! There have been many success stories of people who successfully released Lions, Leopards, Cheetahs, and other species into the wilds even after they were hand-raised. It requires a particular method which is unpleasant and requires money.  The feeding should be done in such a way that the animal cannot see the food coming from humans etc. More to follow…

“The animals lost their fear of humans; therefore, they would be too dangerous to release”

Really?! How did the animals “lose” the fear of humans? If the owners who kept them in cages did it correctly from the start, the animals would certainly not have lost the fear of humans. But the owners did not build the correct enclosures because it is expensive, and if they did then visitors could not “see” the animals and then there would be no merit in charging money.

But now that the owners caused the animals to lose the fear of humans there are still solutions. How about they take a whip and beat that animal whenever it gets too close to humans after release? What does a mother Leopard do when the day arrives for her cubs to leave home? It is a process where the mother gets increasingly aggressive towards the youngsters which ultimately results in physical clawing, biting, and fighting but achieves the end goal for them to leave and fend for themselves. I guess the same person who raised the wild animals does not know enough about wild animal behavior or perhaps only want to enjoy the pleasant part of having wild animals.

“The animals serve as ambassadors for education”

Really?! We have the internet now which allows people to view incredible wildlife documentaries in extremely high definition on massive screens. Traveling is easier and cheaper than ever. There is no real meaning to visit a so-called wildlife sanctuary right next to a National Park with the exact same species which occur inside the park. If people want to see and learn about animals they can visit a national park or reputable private reserve. If people did not see the animal they wanted to see in the wilds, tough luck, that’s how Nature works, it is not instant gratification on demand simply because someone wanted to see something and paid for it. Game reserves do not bill people per species; people are fortunate when they see what they wanted to see.

Count the number of visitors to a zoo, animal sanctuary or rehabilitation center and see how many of those people ended up working in the conservation industry or did anything substantial for wild animals. Where is the so-called educational value? How many of those paid visits were purely an activity to do for the day like parents taking their kids to treat them etc.

Is it fair to have a particular type of animal in a cage so that people who cannot afford to go and see it in its natural environment have the opportunity to view them for much less money close to home? Have a look at the finances of those people who went to see animals in cages due to a lack of money for travel and see whether they still have no money today. If people are serious about seeing certain animals they can save up until they can afford to travel. Is it not ridiculous to keep animals in cages for the financial convenience of people.

More to follow…