Nah. On the one hand, I think we should count zoo animals...but they should have a maximum percentage of the entire population to be considered non-endangered. (For instance, 5%). And I'm ok with them counting hatchery fishes under the same guidelines, *especially* those that are going to be released into the wild (which the article *seemed* to infer). But those that were born in a hatchery, live for six months and then become store fodder...yeah, those should never count.
On the other hand, if you don't count animals in captivity, then you get animals like the cow/pig/chicken that would have to be considered endangered, yes? Not many of them still living wild.
Domesticated animals fall under an entirely different policy than those that are supposed to be wild. Hatchery fishes are different than those born wild, even those with very similar genetic makeups... nurture has some role to play there. As for the zoo animals... zoo animals will never be released into the wild again. The entire point of conservation efforts is so animals have a wild habitat to live in; zoo animals don't need that, nor could they use it in most cases (they're usually imprints or permanently disabled). They fall under the same kind of idea you talk about with the fingerlings that become store fodder.
Comments 2
On the other hand, if you don't count animals in captivity, then you get animals like the cow/pig/chicken that would have to be considered endangered, yes? Not many of them still living wild.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment