Too many deaths at the Toronto Zoo?

A Sumatran Tiger
photo via: Wikipedia

It sure seems like there are have been a lot of animal deaths at the Toronto Zoo lately.

A few days ago Brytne, a 13 year old Sumatran tiger, was mauled to death by a breeding partner, in an incident that zoo handlers were careful to stress as ‘really bad luck’.

Look at this list of recent animal deaths at the Zoo, compiled by the Toronto Star:

• October 2011: 10-year-old polar bear Aurora gave birth to three cubs and “rejected” them. Two died. (She killed two previous cubs the prior year as well)
• Oct. 21, 2011: Rowdy, the zoo’s oldest male African lion, was euthanized, just a few months after his mate, Nokanda, died of cancer. The lions had been companions since Nokanda moved to the zoo from Philadelphia in 1997. 
• July 2011: 15-year-old Nokanda, a white lioness, was euthanized after vets discovered she had cancer.
• February 2010: Tongua, a Siberian tiger, died after surgery. The 17-year-old animal did not recover from sedation.
• August 2010: Samantha, a 37-year-old Western Lowland gorilla was euthanized after a stroke caused her to lose control of her limbs and experience seizures.
• June 2010: 32-year-old orangutan Molek was euthanized after blood tests revealed his kidneys had stopped working.

Plus, there are all the elephant deaths -- four in four years. We had a herd; attrition reduced this to a lonely troika, providing the impetus for city council’s contentious vote to finally move the pachyderms to a wildlife sanctuary.

What is a normal animal mortality rate for zoos?
Deaths are inevitable when you manage a sizable population of wild animals. Animals get older. They interact. Accidents, illness, and injuries occur. The looming question is, what’s ‘normal’? What are the comparative metrics for zoo animal mortality rates? Is the Toronto Zoo doing better, or worse than we should expect, for a facility of its size and population?

[A cynical person might comment that the mortality rate for every zoo is always 100%]

I wonder if this is, in a certain sense, a foreboding turning point for the Zoo -- when key members of its animal stock have disappeared. Its management, ongoing existence and funding are openly being questioned. There have been numerous controversial discussions about selling or leasing it to a third party for operation.

Is a municipally-operated zoo no longer part of our shared future vision for this city?

I think that zoos are an important mechanism for urbanites to stay connected to nature. Does the educational value of the zoo outweigh the potential loss of that connection? Whenever I visit the zoo, I am filled with a sense of wonder at the myriad forms of life on this planet. Yet zoos are inherently artificial creations -- an imposition of structure on natural life.

I’d love to hear what you think in the comments.

See also
Council votes to send elephants away
No more elephants at the Toronto Zoo

City Council Votes to Send Elephants Away

Following on the heels of an earlier Zoo Board decision to shut down the elephant exhibit at the Toronto Zoo, Toronto’s City Council voted last night 31-4 to move the three remaining elephants to the PAWS Sanctuary in California (rather than another zoo).

Will you remember us?

Following the original Zoo Board decision, it was thought that the process of moving the magnificent beasts might take as long as a few years, but evidently it has been deemed a priority.

As I’ve previously written, I support this decision reluctantly.

Seeing wild animals directly, in the flesh, is a captivating, pleasurable, informative experience that pulls us out of our narrow urban awareness. It has the potential to awake our wonder at the natural world.

At the same time it’s almost certainly a positive decision for the future health of the elephants, as they will be moved to a location with a better climate and infrastructure. It was evident that the animals were suffering here (a consideration that has historically not always been viewed as important).

The loss of the elephants also raises broader questions regarding the future of the Zoo in Toronto. The elephants were a signature exhibition at the facility and always immensely popular, for obvious reasons. Do zoos still have a place in a modern world? Has their mission of conservancy and education been made obsolete?

Given our Zoo’s recent past of troubling management and fundraising issues, will this prove to be the first step towards the eventual shutting down or selling off the entire zoo? (Council has already voted to explore searching for third parties that might “purchase, lease or operate” the zoo.)

We shall see in years to come.

Goodbye Thika, Toka and Iringa! Thank you for your time with us. We’ll miss you.


Further reading
No More Elephants at the Toronto Zoo
What the Elephants Know (Toronto Life)

Update
Apparently the decision to select PAWS hasn’t been received well by the current zookeepers: Toronto Star-- Zoo Keepers Fuming over Vote
Dec: The issue still hasn’t been resolved: Councillors Blast Zoo over Elephant Move
April 2012: Toronto Zoo loses its accreditation over this decision
May 2012: Elephants here to stay for now
Oct 2012: Council could make a new elephant decision in next month
Nov 2012: Toronto Council votes to send elephants to California -- again
Jan 2013: Elephant Tug of War: The Story of the Toronto Zoo transfer

The Loneliest Plant In The World : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

And I thought I was lonely...

The Loneliest Plant In The World : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR:

'via Blog this'

Nature: Beautiful and Disgusting

Nature can be simultaneously inspiring and... horrifying.

[Warning: gruesome scenes follow]

Does this not look positively Lovecraftian? There’s more than a hint of Cthulhu about it.



Yeesh. That's what a snail eating a worm looks like. Visceral, repulsive -- and fascinating.

Let’s even the score with a bit of slow motion terror at the mouth of a carnivorous pitcher plant...



Don't do it... get off the edge... stop... oh nevermind. Being consumed in a vat of digestive juices probably isn’t what that fella intended at the start of his journey.

Commercial honeybee colonies continue to die off

A recent Globe and Mail article outlines how honeybee colonies used for farming continue to experience significant mortality rates -- 43% in Ontario in 2010-11.

“These kind of ... results are unsustainable. If any other livestock was suffering this sort of annual mortality, there would be a national outcry.” - Ontario Beekeepers’ Association president John Van Alten

Colony collapse disorder has ravaged North American commercial honeybee populations over the last few years. It is a worrisome trend. Possible interrelated causes for the spike in collapse rates include: pesticides, varroa mites, funguses, insect viruses, genetic deficiencies, pollution, and excessive transportation (which stresses out the hives).

I wonder what opinion Buzz
has on this issue...

I'm fascinated by this particular topic, because it touches on an aspect of our industrial food production chain that most people don't think much about. Namely, that we extensively -- and systematically -- use honeybees to pollinate a huge swathe of our crops.

Large-scale crop pollination isn't accomplished by natural populations of bees and insects anymore -- rather, we actively transport and distribute honeybees to different geographic areas as needed to perform the task. Hives are moved around and worked over a number of different locations during the growing season.

It's an intriguing example of man marshalling the forces of nature for his own uses -- and also of the risks we take when those forces fall out of our control. It's not just honey production that is at stake here; it is the productive capacity of our agricultural system.

It speaks to an overall process which -- on the surface at least -- seems almost unnatural -- where queen bees are a valuable commodity, not just the organic output of a hive's reproductive function.

Some apiarists charge that numerous elements of industrialized beekeeping tend to have problematic side effects, and result in unsustainable systems that ultimately collapse.

The charges deserve consideration:

• Commercial bee populations tend to have a shallow gene pool, because it's more efficient to produce and breed a uniform, docile type of bee. When diseases emerge, the deleterious impact is much greater, due to the monocultural population.
• Pesticides and antibiotics are overused to control mite infestations. We therefore inadvertently propagate bees that would otherwise be vulnerable to mites and other parasites. 
• With deliberate use of artificially large cell foundation sizes, bees are hyperbred for greater size and productivity (larger cell sizes tend to result in physically larger bees) 
• Other speculation involves the possible negative role of GMO and genetically engineered plants in the food chain 

The combination of these different factors produces commercial colonies at greater risk of collapse than 'natural' colonies, according to this particular perspective.

How can we reconcile this criticism with our ongoing need to reliably produce massive quantities of agricultural crops to feed our cities? Whether you find the arguments valid or not, the mounting death tolls in our commercial honeybee colonies is a matter for serious concern.

Are honeybees the proverbial canary in the coal mine? Do their deaths presage something more ominous? Is our food supply chain at risk? Is our current approach to beekeeping fundamentally flawed?

In our globalized world, the answers are not so clear.


ps. On a lighter note, I did send a quick note to Buzz, the Honeynut Cheerios mascot who is ostensibly 'Defender of the Honey', asking for his* position -- but unfortunately beyond an auto-form reply, I have not yet received any comment...

Update: I did get a response after all this morning, from Corporate.Response@genmills.com:

"Thank you for contacting our company with your inquiry. The website www.honeydefender.com is a website with games for children to play. It has nothing to do with protecting honey bees. We hope you find this information helpful. Please let us know if we can help you again. 

Sincerely,
P. Gordon
Consumer Services"

Zing! Poor P. Gordon. Trapped in a dreary cube somewhere inside General Mills, being forced to solemnly reply to rubbish queries like mine. 1 point awarded for being a good sport.


* technically, shouldn't Buzz be female?

No more elephants at the Toronto Zoo

After a lengthy debate, the Toronto Zoo board has voted to shut down the zoo's elephant exhibit.

I have mixed feelings about the decision. The kid in me says, 'This sucks!', but every time I have gone to the zoo and seen that exhibit, my conscience has nagged at me -- the elephant space has always struck me as being far too small for such massive creatures. It seemed obvious that we were keeping them in an enclosure that was inappropriate and likely debilitating.

Will we forget the elephants? Will they forget us?

I'm torn, because viewing these magnificent creatures in the flesh is immensely valuable for broadening the experience of stay-at-home urbanites like myself -- it is a profound reminder of the wider, greater natural world that exists beyond the artificiality of our cities. Without exposure to these wild animals we risk losing an appreciation for our place in the ecosystem, and becoming distanced from nature and the environment.

There was mounting evidence that the elephant exhibit, in its present form, was unsustainable and harmful. There are only three elephants left -- our 'herd' isn't large enough to be called such anymore -- and in the last five years, four elephants have died. Pretty damning numbers.The elephants have also shown signs of psychological distress and aberrant behaviours.

Does the welfare of the elephants outweigh the educational value of their presence? In our western culture, zoos were initially influenced and inspired by the pervasive idea of man's 'dominion [...] over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' (Gen. 1-26). Man's role in this Christian perspective is to subdue nature, not submit to it. Animals are our subjects, not our peers. Zoos were created for our entertainment and titillation. The health of the animals was never a concern, except as an operational issue. Over time, concerns about animal welfare and growing ecological awareness has shifted the emphasis of zoos towards conservancy and education, but the essential tension remains -- is it ethically acceptable to take an animal from its natural place, and exhibit it for our pleasure and edification?

In the end, I have to reluctantly support the decision as being the best thing. The elephants -- and I'd argue some of the larger primates as well -- fall into that grey area where sufficient intelligence is present such that suffering is a result of our keeping them captive. They are 'conscious' of their surroundings and seem resigned to their fate. It is our responsibility to mitigate that suffering as best we can and not exacerbate their condition.

There is still plenty of time to see the pachyderms at the zoo -- determining the ultimate destination for the elephants is expected to take up to a couple of years. It's a sad decision for the zoo, but one that reflects the gradual change in our philosophical outlook on animals.

UPDATE -- October 26, 2011 
City Council Votes to Send Elephants Away

Update 2—October 17, 2013 (!)
A Pair of Wistful Farewells

Climbing in Catalunya - Best trip photos

My friend Damian asked me to go on a climbing trip to Spain with him and two others. Neither his girlfriend nor his regular outdoor partner could go, so I was asked as a substitute. It wasn't the best timing for me -- but the rule of thumb is that when someone says 'Let's go climbing in Spain' -- you must reply, 'Hell yes!'

So I did.

Esglesia de Santa Maria de Siurana

We had a spectacular trip. We wound up climbing around the Siurana and Lleida regions in Catalonia. The climbing was world-class and highly varied, on all kinds of different rock types and surfaces. The sheer natural beauty of the geography and landscapes was at times overwhelming (although I got eaten by bugs in the latter, warmer part of the trip).

Like any modern traveller, I brought along a camera, and I took hundreds and hundreds of photographs. It was a new camera whose controls I didn't really have the chance to learn before the voyage began. I discovered that I have to do some work on understanding basic photography principles. I need to take a course or do some reading. And practise!

Nevertheless, I had many opportunities to capture a few intriguing moments along the way. I've extracted what I think are the photos which have a certain level of quality, competence or interest, and I'm happy to share them with you.



I've also posted an annotated album, for those who prefer to scrutinize individual photos (or who don't like music in their slideshows) -- best viewed on a decent monitor and full screen:

On the trail to adventure! - link to photo album

Honey laundering: The sour side of nature’s golden sweetener - The Globe and Mail

In the last few years, global food supply distribution chains and systems have begun to interest me considerably. Often the implementation of these systems has far-reaching, not-necessarily-obvious economic consequences and side effects.

I also have a passing interest in bees and apiary. Linked is an excellent article about a 'lucrative contraband' smuggling scheme involving honey. You don't often stop to consider the source of it, but honeybees are a critical linchpin for our food production environment. Crops would be devastated without their pollination work.

Bottom line on this article: be wary of cheap imported Chinese honey.

Honey laundering: The sour side of nature’s golden sweetener - The Globe and Mail

See Also
Commercial honeybee colonies continue to die off (aka that time the Cheerios Honeynut bee told me to buzz off).

Staggering honey bee colony losses last year

35% of honey bee colonies in the U.S. were reported totally lost last year. Don't you think that's frightening?


A new overview survey was recently published outlining the scale of honeybee colony losses in the U.S. from Fall 2007 to Spring 2008.

The authors estimate that between 750 thousand and one million honey bee colonies in the U.S. died in that time period, many from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). They speculate about numerous factors such as varroa mites, stress from constant colony relocation (use of bees for agricultural pollination is heavily industrialized, more than the layperson might expect), weather, starvation, and poor quality queens. Some kind of contagious element is hypothesized as the key factor behind CCD.

The rate of death appears to be significantly higher than in previous recorded years. It will be interesting to see whether this has an impact on food commodity prices.

Photo by autan on flickr.

Ants are awesome.

Yay ants.

the coldest place in the universe?

That this might actually be a product of human agency is kind of thrilling.