Only 600 of these RARE predators believed to be in existence

[viper69]

This was really cool to see.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/01/23/pkg-orig-group-spots-rare-black-jaguar.wwf

Of the estimated 10,000 jags left in the wild, only 600 are estimated to be black.

 

[Spidergurl24]

Thanks to poachers the entire animal work is at risk and private breeders make the world think baby lions are ok to have. The combination will kill everything.

 

[viper69]

Thanks to poachers the entire animal work is at risk and private breeders make the world think baby lions are ok to have. The combination will kill everything.

So true, right now the country driving the largest amount of poaching, at least in Africa, is China. I wonder how the Chinese are going to "cure" the world of all ailments once they have killed off all the rhino's and elephants.

 

[pitbulllady]

Thanks to poachers the entire animal work is at risk and private breeders make the world think baby lions are ok to have. The combination will kill everything.

Spidergurl24, would you mind explaining how "private breeders" are killing off lions and other large cats in the wild? That is a bit like saying that dog breeders are driving down the wild wolf populations. If it weren't for those despised private breeders, many of these cats would already be extinct. Zoos do not actually own the majority of rare cat species in captivity.

pitbulllady

 

[viper69]

If it weren't for those despised private breeders, many of these cats would already be extinct. Zoos do not actually own the majority of rare cat species in captivity.

Now those are both interesting statements, do you have websites where I could read about those statements?

 

[pitbulllady]

Now those are both interesting statements, do you have websites where I could read about those statements?

Take some time to watch the first video on this site: http://www.felineconservation.org/organization/video-media.htm . It covers the importance of privately-owned animals, vs. zoos, in keeping these species from becoming extinct. It deals primarily with cats, but that same logic can be applied to many other animals. It also covers the fact that the "political incorrectness" of owning "exotic" cats and other animals is entirely due to the push by the Animal Rights groups, and explains WHY zoos have far fewer of these cats than you think. It is totally illogical to make the statement that private ownership and captive breeding of ANY animal is responsible for destroying the wild populations, especially when there is less and less of "the wild" in which these animals can live. Here is another link, by the same conservation group, which explains in greater detail why private ownership and breeding of wild cats is vital to their continued existence, as opposed to the role of zoos, and again, this can be applied to other animals besides felids: http://www.felineconservation.org/programs_services/feline_species.htm

pitbulllady

 

[The Snark]

Before we get too lost in the wash... We need to define private ownership. On one end of the spectrum the average individual couldn't possibly afford a breeding operation that would be significant. On the other end of the spectrum, governments in general have proven themselves to be particularly inept at implementing and sustaining breeding programs. That leaves a vast area in between which are nearly all funded by private individuals. Some that shouldn't exist, some that do contribute to preservation and some that are sterling examples of preserving our biological heritage. At the very top of the list of the latter find places like the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust funded entirely by donations, most of which are from individuals. That trust not only operates breeding programs but also offers a vast amount of information as to what individuals can do. From creating their own breeding programs to education programs to conservation efforts and on out.
Please consider visiting: http://www.durrell.org/

It should also be mentioned. Breeding programs of any flavor shape or form are a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY if the cause of the animal to become endangered is not addressed as well.

We cannot possibly breed a fraction of 1% of the animals threatened with extinction. Even if we could, as the saying goes, life does not and can not exist in a vacuum. It is a ridiculous farce of the most extreme degree to think mankind can replicate or replace the works of mother nature.


Our own extinction will be written in the blood of the animals that have died by our hands, either through neglect, indifference, or deliberate destruction of them and their habitats, if we fail to learn the lessons of stewardship and conservation.

 

[pitbulllady]

"Private ownership" of so-called "exotic" animals in the US is defined in a very simple term: any animal that does not belong to a facility which is a member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums(AZA). The AZA itself is not monitored by any quality control agency, but it merely a club, if you will. Members pay dues, members get in. The only other "acceptable" ownership of "exotic" animals that is not considered "private" ownership is animals which are part of a government or university-sponsored research facility. Any other is considered "private" ownership, including animals owned by universities as mascots, like "Mike" the tiger at LSU, animals owned by companies or businesses which have a business license, as well as animals owned by a family or an individual person. The exception to that is animals that are owned by a tax-exempt "rescue" in most states, Ohio being a current exception which does not even acknowledge those as legitimate.

It is a sad, but very likely scenario, that many animals will soon exist only in captivity, as the reason(s) that they became extinct in the first place, as you said, Snark, aren't being addressed, or were addressed too late. We genuinely have to ask ourselves if we would rather have tigers in captivity, for instance, or no tigers at all. Anywhere. Ever again. Now I am well aware that there are many people who would rather see ALL animals become extinct, see them disappear forever, than to bear the thought of those animals having to live in close proximity to humans, under human control and care. I'm not one of those people. On the chance, however slim, that the world will wake up and realize that what we have deemed "progress" has become anything but, even if it means survival in a controlled facsimile of what once was, I don't accept that belief that animals are better off dead than living in a world inhabited by humans.

pitbulllady

 

[The Snark]

Extinct or captivity. At this juncture, moment in time, this is purely academic. A symptom of the prevailing attitude of the dominant species on the planet. Corporate greed and personal luxuries and entertainment is the first and foremost goal of this species with no other priority even coming close. Not even food, shelter or clothing.

Most of the food eaten today is borderline poison. More is produced each day than at any time previously in the planets history yet there is also more hunger and deaths by starvation at the same time. The same goes for shelter. More homeless and refugees than ever before. As for clothing, the entire industry is rigidly ruled over by corporate greed at the expense of our fellow humans.

So where do the animals stand in this narcissist maelstrom? Save this animal, or that one. Ignore the fact the entire ecosystem is completely out of balance and few of the larger animals are going to survive if priorities don't shift very drastically.

We don't need these animals to sustain our lives is the bottom line right now. We can synthesize anything we want! No, we can't. With all our fabulous technology, it takes the assistance of mother nature and 50 years to create healthy self sustaining bioactive top soil. We can't even make dirt!

Allow me to paraphrase Kerouac: Whither goest thou, first world, in thy shiny car in the night?

[YOUTUBE]7wJj58aLvdQ[/YOUTUBE]