Tigers About The House Episode 1

This week, BBC2 shows a three part documentary, Tigers About The House, which looks at a pair of Sumatran tiger cubs being hand reared at home by a zoo keeper in Australia.

Anything that brings publicity for this endangered species is good, but finding out about the programme, we were expecting a little controversy to be stirred up. None of the previews mentioned a reason for them being hand reared, meaning that we were expecting resistance, at the very least, from viewers of the Born Free mentality, and perhaps even more widespread if they had been taken from their mother and domesticated without a legitimate reason such as rejection at birth.

It was interesting to see Australia Zoo's approach to conservation awareness, allowing visitors to get up close and touch animals such as camels and wallabies in the hope that it would encourage the public to support conservation efforts. However, the issue of domesticating these wild animals to the point that the public can interact with them is something that has been phased out in the majority of zoos in recent years, and is not something that we necessarily agree with. The programme even showed the tigers performing in a tiger show, despite many people believing that captive animals should not be made to perform, no matter how endangered or in need of publicity their species is.

It was revealed in the first episode that the reason for the cubs being removed from their mother, was not to do with rejection, or danger, but mainly influenced by the zoo's desire to continue their practice of directly handling these animals into the next generation - they wanted to domesticate the cubs from birth so that their keepers could continue to enter their enclosures, rather than keeping their distance as is standard practice in most zoos,

That's not to say that Giles doesn't have the best intentions, and doesn't do an excellent job at raising the cubs - he does. But that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with their decision to handle the animals and remove two healthy cubs from their mother to satisfy human desires.

Let's see what the next episode brings tomorrow.

Why do we need zoos?

In this day and age, even the most modern of zoos can seem archaic. Many people, even avid zoo supporters, are in agreement than in an ideal world, we would not need zoos. Animals would be free to roam their natural habitats without threat of poaching or extinction, but sadly this is not the case, and therefore zoos are needed.

Of course, there are many individuals and organisations who contest this viewpoint, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have had an internal debate going for some time now regarding my  beliefs about zoos and the ethics that surround them. I believe that until the day comes when zoos are no longer required,  when animals can live in the wild without threats, they are necessary. Of course, it goes without saying that all zoos should be managed and monitored to ensure that animals receive the best treatment possible, in terms of living quarters, food, stimulation and protection from intrusion, a point made only more obvious in recent months by publicity from the likes of Copenhagen Zoo, Longleat, and Seaworld.

• Safeguarding an entire species.There are only around 300 Sumatran tigers left in a small pocket of Sumatra. Similarly, there are only around 400 Asiatic lions left, in the Gir Forest in India. If either of these areas were hit by a natural disaster, such as a forest fire, or a disease epidemic, the entire sub-species could be wiped out in a matter of hours, after centuries of living on this planet. At the moment it is very rare for a captive animal to be released back into the wild, however with more research in the future, it is likely to become more common, meaning that captive animals can act as a "back up" for some of the most endangered animals in the world.
• Raising funds. Sadly, as with everything in life, it all comes down to money. A good zoo will run, or at least contribute to, conservation or research projects in the wild - all of which require funds. Zoos which operate as charities usually generate funds from admission fees, and money spent inside the zoo, such as on souvenirs and food and drink.
• Raising awareness. How passionate are you about saving the pangolin? Not very, probably, as you have never heard of, or seen, one, and probably couldn't pick it out of a line-up. Lions or tigers however, you probably have more interest in protecting, because they are more familiar to you. Zoos give people a chance to see these animals close-up. It's one thing reading about them in the newspaper, but it's hard to appreciate the true majesty of a big cat, or the true prowess of an elephant until you've seen one in the flesh. And in seeing these animals, the public become more interested in trying to save them. They are no longer a distant creature on a far off continent that has no relevance to the public's day to day live. They become real.
• Research and observation. Zoos offer researchers and scientists a chance to observe animals in close quarters, in a way they would never be able to in the wild. Learning about behaviours can help to understand the species in the wild, and the threats it faces. And yes, when animals in captivity die, as all animals do sooner or later, their deaths can be used to further existing scientific knowledge. All zoos are required, as far as possible, to provide a cause of death for each animal that dies. This is how it was discovered that silverback gorillas are particularly susceptible to heart disease - patterns of death in captive animals were recorded, and traced back to the wild.