Human Animal Conflict on Zoo
Human-wildlife conflict represents a daunting challenge to wildlife conservation globally. As human populace increases, the application of technology expands, and the universal climate varies, social as well as ecological factors put people and wildlife in the direct competition for a dwindling resource base. In the major cities, individuals relish the beauty of a zoo, where they can leisurely observe the behavior of animals. The zoos usually include various animals that are concentrated in the same enclosure. However, when humans approach such animals closer, a conflict is imminent. In fact, confrontation between people and wild animals is a common situation as they are representatives of different species with different temperament and perception. In many cases, people and the animals have lost their lives and on lucky occasions have managed to escape with injuries. The following paper examines the human-wildlife conflicts in zoos with the case studies of the same subject matter. Also, the report suggests a scenario involving a conflict and offers recommendations on its management what I know when I write my discussion board post.
The Conflict Issue
Human-wildlife conflict in many zoos globally is a commonplace. For this reason, there are stable regulations to govern interaction with the animals; however, they have proved to have laxity in implementation. Animals interpret human actions differently and thus respond differently. Most of the conflicting situations occur when people attempt to interact with the animals. The interaction may take the form of feeding the animals, holding them, waving, petting, and making a one on one encounter by penetrating into their enclosures. Most of the conflicts arise because zoo visitors are not appropriately and adequately educated on the basis of interaction, and, hence, they ignorantly presume the animals are conscious of their intentions. Therefore, the issue here lies in the unacceptable humans' actions towards the animals, which can trigger conflict in the long run. Competition for the resources also leads to conflict, since zoos mostly emerge in urban areas where they occupy large swaths of land. Also, it is necessary to feed and take care of such animals, which requires the considerable amount of resources. In a bid to make more profit, people in charge of the zoos may fail to adequately supply the animals forcing them into instances of conflict with human beings.
Types of Damages Documented for This Situation
Damages associated with human-wildlife conflicts in the zoos may relate to humans, animals themselves as well as their habitats, and also resources. In many instances, humans are likely to suffer from animal attacks. Nonetheless, actions of people put animals at risk of health issues as well s. In particular, humans attempted contacts with animals often lead to injuries and even fatal consequences. In many cases, animals interpret human’s gestures as an attack or provocation. As a result, the former become defensive, which is a natural response, and can even assault an individual exposing them to injuries.
The animals also experience adverse impacts of such conflicts. People respond fast to conflicts, and in the process, the animals may be harmed or even killed. However, such animals as lions, gorillas, and ostriches usually scare an offender and then attack by charging towards the victim. Humans often misinterpret the animal moves and in some cases respond with unnecessary force. As a result, such violent behavior can subject animals to injuries or life-threatening condition.
Resources also bear the worst of the human-wildlife conflict in the zoos. Zoo habitats are developed with expensive resources which aim to meet the needs of both parties, namely the animals and zoo visitors. Nevertheless, when a conflict occurs, methods that people apply to gain entry have always been crude considering the urgency of the situation.
A renowned case involving human-wildlife conflict in zoos concerns Harambee, the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo who was shot to death after a young boy managed to penetrate into his habitat. Apparently, judging by the videos from the scene, Harambee at first did not pose a threat to the boy, but due to the increased commotion outside, he became defensive. Consequently, it made people use a gun and fire at the gorilla. The Cincinnati situation affected three objects of the conflict, namely humans, wildlife, and resources. Harambee was a resource for the zoo and his death meant a decrease in profitability. However, the boy became a victim in this case as well, because he may have suffered from the ordeal of cruel behavior to animals, which was arguably traumatizing.
Regarding the Cincinnati incident, the report has several recommendations. First, the killing of Harambee was obviously a wrong move considering the damaging outcomes of the situation that happened in his habitat. Also, there have been cases when human-wildlife conflict has been neutralized with similar methods as observed in Cincinnati. For instance, people at a Wisconsin zoo had to euthanize Rebel, the wolf, who bit a young boy's finger. However, according to the witnesses’ accounts, the victim himself carelessly inserted the finger in the enclosure bars. Despite the prevalence of such conflicts, humans have never learned the lesson.. Nevertheless, people have to treat animals respectfully and use humane methods to tame their violence. They could have used a tranquilizer to calm the wolf and avert the need to fire respectively. Additionally, there are no clear rules that would define adequate human-wildlife engagement. In resolving the conflicts between animals and people, it is advisable to introduce a set of regulations defining the proper actions of the zoos. Such regulations include the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The AWA sets basic principles for the care, control, accommodation, and conveyance of zoo animals. The ESA relates to those registered as vulnerable or rare and, thus, they will never resort to abuse. The zoo budget should presuppose restoration and introduction of new facilities. Moreover, visitors of the zoo should receive proper education on animals and familiarize themselves with the instructions of proper behavior. Although securing the zoos necessitates a substantial part of the budget, it is likely to reduce damages and accidents related to the confrontation between animals and people.
The Conflict Issue
Human-wildlife conflict in many zoos globally is a commonplace. For this reason, there are stable regulations to govern interaction with the animals; however, they have proved to have laxity in implementation. Animals interpret human actions differently and thus respond differently. Most of the conflicting situations occur when people attempt to interact with the animals. The interaction may take the form of feeding the animals, holding them, waving, petting, and making a one on one encounter by penetrating into their enclosures. Most of the conflicts arise because zoo visitors are not appropriately and adequately educated on the basis of interaction, and, hence, they ignorantly presume the animals are conscious of their intentions. Therefore, the issue here lies in the unacceptable humans' actions towards the animals, which can trigger conflict in the long run. Competition for the resources also leads to conflict, since zoos mostly emerge in urban areas where they occupy large swaths of land. Also, it is necessary to feed and take care of such animals, which requires the considerable amount of resources. In a bid to make more profit, people in charge of the zoos may fail to adequately supply the animals forcing them into instances of conflict with human beings.
Types of Damages Documented for This Situation
Damages associated with human-wildlife conflicts in the zoos may relate to humans, animals themselves as well as their habitats, and also resources. In many instances, humans are likely to suffer from animal attacks. Nonetheless, actions of people put animals at risk of health issues as well s. In particular, humans attempted contacts with animals often lead to injuries and even fatal consequences. In many cases, animals interpret human’s gestures as an attack or provocation. As a result, the former become defensive, which is a natural response, and can even assault an individual exposing them to injuries.
The animals also experience adverse impacts of such conflicts. People respond fast to conflicts, and in the process, the animals may be harmed or even killed. However, such animals as lions, gorillas, and ostriches usually scare an offender and then attack by charging towards the victim. Humans often misinterpret the animal moves and in some cases respond with unnecessary force. As a result, such violent behavior can subject animals to injuries or life-threatening condition.
Resources also bear the worst of the human-wildlife conflict in the zoos. Zoo habitats are developed with expensive resources which aim to meet the needs of both parties, namely the animals and zoo visitors. Nevertheless, when a conflict occurs, methods that people apply to gain entry have always been crude considering the urgency of the situation.
A renowned case involving human-wildlife conflict in zoos concerns Harambee, the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo who was shot to death after a young boy managed to penetrate into his habitat. Apparently, judging by the videos from the scene, Harambee at first did not pose a threat to the boy, but due to the increased commotion outside, he became defensive. Consequently, it made people use a gun and fire at the gorilla. The Cincinnati situation affected three objects of the conflict, namely humans, wildlife, and resources. Harambee was a resource for the zoo and his death meant a decrease in profitability. However, the boy became a victim in this case as well, because he may have suffered from the ordeal of cruel behavior to animals, which was arguably traumatizing.
Regarding the Cincinnati incident, the report has several recommendations. First, the killing of Harambee was obviously a wrong move considering the damaging outcomes of the situation that happened in his habitat. Also, there have been cases when human-wildlife conflict has been neutralized with similar methods as observed in Cincinnati. For instance, people at a Wisconsin zoo had to euthanize Rebel, the wolf, who bit a young boy's finger. However, according to the witnesses’ accounts, the victim himself carelessly inserted the finger in the enclosure bars. Despite the prevalence of such conflicts, humans have never learned the lesson.. Nevertheless, people have to treat animals respectfully and use humane methods to tame their violence. They could have used a tranquilizer to calm the wolf and avert the need to fire respectively. Additionally, there are no clear rules that would define adequate human-wildlife engagement. In resolving the conflicts between animals and people, it is advisable to introduce a set of regulations defining the proper actions of the zoos. Such regulations include the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The AWA sets basic principles for the care, control, accommodation, and conveyance of zoo animals. The ESA relates to those registered as vulnerable or rare and, thus, they will never resort to abuse. The zoo budget should presuppose restoration and introduction of new facilities. Moreover, visitors of the zoo should receive proper education on animals and familiarize themselves with the instructions of proper behavior. Although securing the zoos necessitates a substantial part of the budget, it is likely to reduce damages and accidents related to the confrontation between animals and people.
Коментарі
Дописати коментар