Topic 13.pdf

it Means to be Thought of as a Pest  Topic 13: Human Prejudice – What it Means to be Thought of as a Pest or Competitor animals in our next two topics that are less After completing this topic, you should:...

it Means to be Thought of as a Pest  Topic 13: Human Prejudice – What it Means to be Thought of as a Pest or Competitor animals in our next two topics that are less After completing this topic, you should: popular – those that we regard as pests and competitors in this topic and those that realise that all animals compete with potentially cause us great harm in the next. humans at some level for critical resources, and that the categorisation of Think carefully about how these animals differ animals as pests is context-dependent from those we have discussed previously. Are be able to describe in evolutionary they really all that different, or is the major terms why competition can be valuable, difference in our psychological perception of but why unequal competition can have them? Assuming they are just like all the other devastating effects on both winners and animals we considered previously, how might losers we manage them effectively? know what integrated pest management is, the steps involved in this process, and how it can be applied in a range of contexts understand why species conservation is so challenging and why keeping endangered animals in zoos or frozen in cryogenic tanks may not be a long-term solution What are pests and competitors? In previous topics we’ve considered what it means for an animal to be called a pet, and what To begin this topic, think about where pests and it means for an animal to be called a resource or competitors might be classified in our table of an educational tool. One of the messages from biological relationships. Do they have a positive these topics is that our perception of animals or negative or neutral effect on us? What effect and how we value them is influenced by our own do we have on them? needs and desires, and by how we are situated Pests and competitors are a little difficult to within our own cultural context. We also classify because we always tend to think in considered how animals are important to us and terms of our own interests and the words we to our societies in numerous different ways, but use are biased by this. Pests and competitors that they are also capable of having their own have a negative impact on our own species, at cognitive experiences. Some of them are much least in the short term. Some might best be more sophisticated than we might previously described as predators or parasites, but others have imagined. This has significant implications are not, and may be considered pests because for how we interact with animals, some of which they eat our crops or simply disrupt our lives. we will consider later in the subject. Before we Others compete with us for resources such as get to this, however, we are going to consider food, water, or space. Our effect on them might be positive, negative, or neutral, depending on the species and situation. Can you think of examples of pests that fit each of these situations? Note that pests and competitors may not harm us directly but might harm something else that we value. For example, in Australia we spend a fortune trying to get rid of introduced species like foxes and rabbits and even camels. We do this partially because they eat our crops and our agricultural animals, but also because they cause harm to our native species. In most people’s eyes, native animals are more valuable As might be anticipated, most pest animal than those that were introduced, although the species are small invaders like bugs, including rabbits and foxes probably would not agree with cockroaches, silverfish, ants, beetles, this assessment! Why do we get to decide which mosquitoes, and spiders. We would probably all animals are more valuable? agree that these are pests. On other websites, however, you might find lists of vertebrate pests, including many birds and mammals. In Victoria, the list includes rabbits, foxes, cats, and dogs. In other places, it’s not uncommon to see these list include animals like rats, tigers, elephants, hippos, wolves, birds, dogs, and pigs. What this shows is that pest species are defined not by anything intrinsic to the animal itself, but by context. This should come as no surprise to you, since we have previously seen how context determines which animals we keep as pets and What exactly is it that makes native animals use in agriculture and which ones we use as valuable and introduced animals pests? It scientific models. How we categorise and value cannot simply be the native versus introduced animals depends largely on our own needs and distinction, since there are some native animals our cultural background. As an example, these regarded as pests and we certainly value many are some of the pests you might worry about if introduced animals – think of our pets and you live in a place where you want to grow corn, production animals for easy examples. soybeans, or other small grains. These animals are unlikely to be considered pests in other For an unusual perspective on 'invasive' species, contexts and most of us would not even know if check out this short blog post belonging to we had dozens of them living in our yard. Nathan Winograd. He argues against what he calls 'Invasion Biology', the belief that certain If you lived in a place where tigers or lions were plants or animals should be valued more than likely to eat your children or your pets, and others just because they were at a particular where elephants trampled any corn that you location first. This is an interesting perspective happened to grow, then you might not worry so and well worth thinking about, although few much about a few bugs as you do about these people appear to take it very seriously. Do other animals. Yet the rest of the world is 'native' animals have more value than appalled by the fact that there are fewer than 'introduced' species? Does it matter when the 5000 wild tigers left. How might you manage species was first introduced and under what this situation? circumstances?  the domestic cat. Many people own cats as pets and would describe these animals as being extremely valuable. Some people spend many thousands of dollars on providing the very best care and veterinary treatment available for these animals. Many other people (up to 20% of people in some studies) semi-own cats, feeding or otherwise providing some level of care for cats that they do not technically own or take responsibility for. Many pet cat owners or semi- owners allow their pets to breed, either purposefully or accidentally. But then what Defining competitors is even more difficult than happens with the kittens? defining pests because there are now so many humans on the planet that all animal species compete with us on some level, even if it is only for space or air or water. One of the arguments used by Canadian seal hunters to defend the practice of culling baby harp seals is that the adult seals compete with humans for fish resources – already depleted by (human) fishing. Do you agree that this is a good enough reason to cull the seals? Here you can read a short news story about Canadian seal culling, written in 2006 when people were arguing about this issue. What would be arguments for and against killing baby harp seals? Does your answer depend on what you value – harp seals or Canadian seal hunters? Here is a longer article written more recently from the Canadian perspective. Imagine yourself This diagram shows what can happen (in theory) living with your family in utter poverty, right next if you start off with two pet cats that aren’t door to some very productive land, owned by a spayed or neutered (desexed). If they produce rich conservationist who reserved it for grazing about two litters per year, and that between two by elephants or giraffes. How would you feel and three kittens survive each time, then after about having to compete with these animals for eight years you would end up with over 2 million resources? Would you sneak into the reserve at cats. Of course, this never happens in practice night to ‘steal’ food for your children, even if it because very few kittens survive, but once meant poaching endangered animals? humans start valuing cats and providing food Do you think your attitude towards species and shelter for them, soon we end up with far conservation would be altered if you needed to more stray cats than anybody can manage. Are kill animals or clear forest to survive? How these cats pets or pests? What value do they valuable is the last lion on earth if it is have compared with our own pet cats? threatening to eat your baby daughter? This turns out to be an incredibly complex issue. Are cats pets or pests? Cat over-population is an enormous problem in many developed countries and dealing with it To emphasise how context-dependent the depends entirely on how cats are categorised. definition of pest or competitor can be, consider On one hand, unowned cats exhibit many characteristics that qualify them as pests. They killing thousands of unowned cats – a terrible make horrible noises at night, act as reservoirs outcome for the cats and for the shelter workers. for diseases that pet cats and possibly even Some shelters and welfare organisations try to people can catch, eat other wild animals, deal with the problem by running Trap-Neuter- including beautiful little birds and mammals, Release (TNR) programs, where cats are and otherwise create havoc in the community. If trapped, neutered (desexed), and then released you categorise unowned cats as pests with no back where they were captured. This sounds value, you are likely to agree that we can control good in theory, but it doesn’t make anybody them by simply calling in pest control experts or very happy except one-sided cat lovers. TNR government workers, who can cull the animals programs cost quite a bit of money and, once with poisons or traps or guns or whatever other the cats are released, they very often sustain methods they prefer. This is the approach taken injuries and illnesses – so there is an animal in some areas. welfare cost. Those who think of cats as pests also aren’t happy because the cats are still there in large numbers, still causing a nuisance and eating other animals that are considered to be more valuable. And, of course, the programs are not terribly successful because it is hard to trap all the animals, so the populations tend to regenerate (remember that you only have to miss two cats to potentially end up with 11 million in a few years). Who knows whether the cats are happy or not! TNR programs are illegal in Victoria and shelters are not permitted to release unowned cats into the community. In many other places, however, TNR programs are the only cat control programs that the community will accept. BECAUSE cats are perceived as ‘potential pets’, we may be stuck with TNR programs until someone can develop an alternative solution (maybe chemical contraception). One particularly interesting approach is to try to separate out pet cats from pest cats. In some parts of Australia there are laws requiring pet cats to be microchipped for identification and On the other hand, though, if you think of all registered with the local council. If council cats as being ‘potential pets’ with the same kind officers pick up a cat that is not identified, they of value and status as your own animals, you call it a pest and kill it immediately. If it has a might want to provide them with food, shelter, microchip, they call it a pet and take it to a and sometimes even veterinary care instead of shelter so that it can be looked after until it is killing them using poisons and guns. Perhaps reclaimed by its owner. What do you think of this well-meaning community members might collect strategy? It really highlights how much the these stray animals and take them to animal concept of ‘pest’ is human-centric. There may be welfare shelters, but there is no way they can all absolutely nothing different about two cats be rehomed or cared for. So, the people who except that one has been microchipped by its work in shelters because they love and value owner and the other has not – or it might have animals end up spending much of their time lost its chip. This somehow determines their value and justifies us treating them completely differently. The critical issue for you to understand here is that, as with the other animal categories we have considered, we get to decide which animals are classified as pests or competitors – these terms only make sense in relation to our own needs and desires. Just as a dog is only a pet if someone wants to own it, and a cow is only a source of food if someone wants to process it into beef burgers, so a pest is only a pest if it is annoying someone. The same goes for our competitors. In the natural world every species competes with other species for resources and might be considered a pest by these other species. This is not necessarily a bad thing. According to evolutionary theory, you might recall, it is competition between and within species that drives natural selection. Species or individuals less able to compete for resources either adapt or die out. Thus, competition ensures that only In a balanced ecosystem all species have a species and individuals best adapted to the valuable role to play, and natural selection environment survive. works to keep everything in check. Probably no such thing ever really existed and there has On the other hand, competition can have always been constant change in terms of which devastating effects. At present, planet Earth is animals and plants survive and which do not. experiencing a period of mass species Nonetheless, there is no question that, in the extinctions, primarily because one species, us, modern world, the idea of balance no longer has become so good at competing for basic exists. We have very clearly decided that some resources that we win practically every animals are valueless pests and that we are competition. For the losers, this means the loss entitled to do something about this. Natural of valuable resources and often either injury or forces may, of course, have something to say illness, followed by death. Competition can even about this in the long term – remember that the be bad for the winners, though, and we are last few hundred years are just a blip on the currently finding this out the hard way. As we geological time scale. How cool would it be to cause species to retreat from different areas or be able to time-travel into the future by about to become extinct, we are finding that they were 1000 years and look back to see how, and if, an important part of the overall ecosystem, and we manage our current crisis? that everything else, including us, suffers when they are gone. This website, which provides Since we can’t do this, let’s take another information on extinctions, is worth a look but, approach and explore what we can do to be warned, the statistics are grim. It is not manage pest animals effectively, preferably sensationalist, but should cause some concern. without destroying the planet at the same time. Managing pests and competitors we do not like increasing control costs, crop losses, or other pest damage. So, what do we do when an insect or a bird or a rodent or a cat becomes a nuisance to us? In This is all very scary but, to help get the risks in the past, of course, we’ve done everything in our perspective, Cooper and Dobson, back in 2007, power to immediately eradicate the nuisance. calculated some interesting statistics: We used to hunt and trap animals but now we Cars kill 40,000 people each year in the generally resort to chemical poisons that we call USA, contribute to greenhouse gases pesticides. This is not a perfect solution! and use energy inefficiently. Mains electricity causes 33% of greenhouse gases and accidentally causes over 400 deaths per year. Paracetamol kills thousands of people each year, yet we sell it over the counter in packets containing up to five lethal doses. Even though people tend to think that pesticides are nasty, if we rank 30 common hazards by number of deaths caused each year, According to the World Health Organization, pesticides come in at 28, behind food more than 3 million people worldwide are made preservatives (27), home appliances (15), severely ill by pesticides each year, with over swimming (7), alcohol (2) and smoking (1). 350,000 being killed. Most of these deaths occur in developing countries but, in the USA alone, the number of poisonings is thought to be over 100,000. Statistics for Australia are not currently available. Many thousands more are thought to develop long term effects such as cancer and respiratory problems. In addition, 60-70 million birds are killed accidentally, with fish, other wildlife, and pets also being affected. This is a significant animal welfare issue. In fact, over one third of calls to animal poison centres arise from pesticide exposure – it seems that the pesticides have just as much trouble as we do Also, balancing the obvious costs of pesticides separating out good animals from pest ones! to humanity and the environment are enormous And, of course, it is not only mammals and birds benefits. According to Lomborg and Bjorn that are affected. Lots of pesticides target pest (2001), if pesticides were abolished, the human insects. But what of ‘good’ insects like bees and lives saved would be outnumbered by a factor dung beetles, valuable because they are of around 1000 by the lives lost due to poorer required to keep our agricultural industries diets. Secondary penalties would also be functioning? These are just as sensitive to many massive. Less productive farming would mean pesticides as are the pest insects we are trying greater land needs, leading to devastating to control. Many natural enemies of pests are environmental damage and costs of about 20 also killed by pesticides, freeing pests from billion USA dollars per year. The costs in these natural controls. And, predictably, the developing countries, where malnutrition is a pests gradually become resistant to pesticides, constant threat, would be even greater. Because of these benefits, we are clearly going to keep using pesticides in spite of the risks. We can do so far more cleverly than has previously been the case, however, which is where something called Integrated Pest Management or IPM is relevant. This is something anyone interested in the ‘rational’ control of pest animals needs to know about. While early models of IPM were simplistic, newer models are very complex, focusing not just on ecological aspects of pest management, but also on the human factors that affect decision making. Step 1: Set an action threshold Integrated pest management (IPM) Because humans tend to get over-excited when IPM is all about trying to control pests in safer, confronted with a potential pest, it is always a more effective and longer lasting ways, while good idea to plan a strategy BEFORE it is retaining things that we think are valuable, like needed. Does one mouse in a house warrant the environment, biological diversity and our full-scale chemical warfare, or should the preferred animal species. To do this requires threshold for action be set higher? On a farm or that we think before we act, using a multi-step in a national park, what level of a certain pest is approach. The number of steps varies a bit likely to represent an economic or depending on where you look, but the following environmental threat? Is there a level at which are the most common: the pest can be tolerated without acting? Do we really want to hit our whole neighbourhood with First, we need to set some kind of poison if there are only a few mosquitoes threshold which will trigger a response. around? This used to happen when we were not Second, we need to accurately identify well informed about the risks associated with and then monitor the pest so that we can poison use. Now, we might decide that we are research what to do about it. better off controlling our own behaviour by Third, we need to do whatever we can to wearing long-sleeved shirts. prevent the pest from becoming a Step 2: Identify the pest and research how it serious threat. operates Fourth, if we do need to control it, we need to do so using the method that is To control any animal pest the first thing to do most effective, but least harmful to the is accurately identify it. Spraying an insecticide environment and other things living in it. over a crop is useless if what you have is a Fifth, we need to evaluate our results so fungal problem. Putting out rat bait is pointless that we can modify our strategy if if it is birds that are eating your grain. The best necessary. approach is to identify the pest before it becomes a pest, so that any intervention can take place at the most appropriate time. Unfortunately, by the time we can see a pest it may be too late to do anything except hit it with poison, but if we know that our pests are vulnerable during earlier stages of their life cycle, we can often do something to prevent us having to overreact in future.  in your walls or roof and put a suitable possum house in a nearby tree. Biological methods of pest control are also very popular. We can use predators, parasites or diseases to suppress pest populations, although we need to be careful when we use this approach as it can sometimes be really effective – but sometimes backfire horribly. The biological control organism we use may be more of a pest than the original pest animal and we may not be able to retrieve it from the environment. Step 3: Prevent the pest from becoming a serious threat Foxes were originally introduced into Australia from England partially to control the rabbits that Learning what a pest needs to survive had been introduced by earlier colonists as a sometimes means that we can control it simply potential food source and partly because fox by removing that resource. For example, hunting was considered a good sport. Now the mosquito larvae develop in water. If we simply foxes cause havoc by eating lambs and calves, reduce sources of still water in an environment, as well as millions of native animals, and they we can drastically cut mosquito numbers (and the rabbits) are so well adapted to the without needing poisons. Maybe we are making Australian landscape that we cannot effectively life easy for a pest by planting particular types control either species. of crops or grazing animals in areas that aren’t suited to this, so changing our activities might Also causing problems in Australia is a reduce the need for chemical pest control. particularly awful creature called the cane toad, introduced in the 1930’s to control beetles in sugar cane fields. The cane toad is huge, breeds Step 4: Target pest using least toxic method prolifically, and has infiltrated most of Australia, possible displacing many of our native species. It is also Once we know our pest well, we can make extremely poisonous, so animals that eat it, like informed decisions about how to manage it, the dogs and animals native to Australia like idea being to use less toxic methods before goannas, typically die. more toxic ones whenever this is possible. For These days we have many new methods of example, if you are trying to control pests inside biological control, including genetic homes and buildings, your first layer of defence technologies that remain very controversial. is design and maintenance. This includes Scientists have developed plant varieties that controlling the resources that pests need, such are resistant to some pests and poisons, for as water, shelter and food. After that, you might example, or sterile male insects that compete for think about physical or mechanical control. We mates and thus reduce the birth rate of pest can sometime prevent pests from accessing an species. Some of these techniques hold great area simply by building better fences or putting promise for the future, but we need to keep cane nets or roofs over our crops or patios. In toads in mind when we use them Australia, we have problems with possums; cute indiscriminately – great care needs to be taken little creatures that love to live in the roofs of to avoid future disasters. our houses. Some people kill possums and others try to relocate them, but this generally Only when all other approaches have been does not work very well, and they usually end considered should we resort to using chemicals. up dead. A simpler solution is to block any holes We still rely greatly on these for controlling plant and animal pests, but we know enough now to think of them as ‘last resorts’, only to be used methods. when non-toxic methods are unavailable. We also know that we should be careful when making choices about which chemicals to use. Biorational chemicals should be our first choice. These might be less universally toxic than other chemicals, targeting a specific aspect of pest biology, or they might biodegrade rapidly after release, or they might be a natural product that interferes somehow with the pest lifecycle rather than causing a particularly nasty death. We can distribute insect pheromones for example, that Managing pests and competitors we do like do not do anything (we think) except confuse the insects so that they do not get around to So, that’s a quick journey through IPM. You mating. might be wondering why someone studying the psychology of human-animal relationships needs to know about pest control, but of course many of the animals we have relationships with are pests and we need to find ways of controlling them while still protecting ourselves, the other animals that share the planet with us, and other things that we value. We all have a strong psychological tendency to destroy things that get in our way, which is exactly why we have been so successful as a species. But keeping poisons out of our society should be a priority and we can all play a role in this at the local level Alternatively, we still have conventional by thinking through what we do before we react. pesticides, synthetically produced compounds Most of us use toxic chemicals to control pests that act as direct toxins for many organisms and in our homes. Perhaps it is time to think of other that tend to accumulate in the soil, air, or food strategies. chain. These are only to be used as a last resort. Speaking of which, what do we do when we are Step 5: Evaluate the results confronted by pests and competitors that we do The final step in IPM is to evaluate the results. value in a psychological sense and that we do This is important because, even if you have done not really want to destroy? It is all very well to exactly what you planned to do, you need to poison millions of cockroaches, mosquitoes or know how effective it was and whether there mice, but nobody is going to sanction this were any unexpected side effects. That way you approach to cats and dogs, much less can keep learning from your experiences. Most endangered species like tigers, elephants, of us tend to just do the same old thing that we bears, or whales. If you use the internet to have done before, or that our family or teachers research endangered species in your area, you recommend. We assume that practice makes will probably find that many of these are perfect, but this is not helpful if we are endangered because they were considered practicing the wrong thing. We might just be pests at some point in the past – this includes getting better at doing it badly. To control pests animals like eagles, dingos and snakes. We once effectively, we need to constantly evaluate how thought it was perfectly appropriate to drive we do things and keep looking for better pest species to extinction – like our new friends the wolves that we considered in a previous topic. Now, however, we are less inclined to take For examples of how political pressure has been this approach to many animal species and need applied to Japan regarding whaling, check out to find ways of saving them without the following web sites: compromising our own interests. Brown Political Review That we are prepared to compromise at all The Diplomat clearly reflects quite a large psychological change in what we value. Species conservation is not something that the average person used to worry about, but the fact that most of the large mammals on earth that are not directly useful to us are disappearing is scaring many people into acting. Will future generations of humans forgive us for leaving them a world that is any less spectacular or diverse than the one we inherited? Or will the current generation become the global caretakers we so desperately Aside from political differences, we should never need? forget that millions of people in developing One of the big issues in conservation is how to countries need to kill animals just to survive. balance our desire to protect animal species These people do not have access to the cheap against our ever-growing need for more space sources of meat available in developed and resources. We will consider this further in a countries, and may well reject our demands to later topic but, obviously, one way to conserve conserve endangered animals. Differences in species is to stop competing with them. If what people value can lead to serious humans stopped reproducing and left large conservation problems but the current situation amounts of land and oceans alone then is such that, if we do not take positive steps to presumably the animals and plants living within improve existing habitats and maintain animal them would sort themselves out. There might be reproduction rates (while lowering our own), we some extinctions, but these would be natural will witness the extinction of many wild species ones due to normal evolutionary forces. Or in our lifetimes, particularly the charismatic would they? megafauna we have talked about before. Many people think that we have now gone past Given that we cannot control what other people the point at which we can save many animal do, or stop humans from expanding in numbers, species by simply leaving them alone. One species conservation often requires that we hold problem is that even if we do decide to leave animals captive or that we exterminate other some animals alone other people will not species that threaten or compete with them. necessarily agree with us. We see this in relation What do you think about this as an approach? to Japanese whaling. Most of the world has As part of our last topic, you were asked to read decided to leave whales be but if just one nation a paper written by philosopher Dale Jamieson in disagrees with this strategy there is little we can 1985, who argued that we can never justify do about it except apply political pressure. Of keeping animals in horrible barren little cages course, political pressure is only effective if for the sake of species conservation. Even if we other countries care what we think. Fortunately, make our zoos and sanctuaries as good as we in our new global economy, we do have some possibly can, he argues that there are many impact on the actions of most other countries, problems with keeping animals captive as an at least at a government level. alternative to preserving wild populations.  need to think about what is most important, preserving species in a captive environment or ensuring the last remaining members of an endangered species live out their lives in good health and a natural environment? What do you think about this dilemma? As an example of this, imagine that, at some point in the future, you decide to take your three children on a holiday to a remote planet to avoid the crush at your usual holiday destination. Imagine yourself, in your spaceship heading for your villa on mars. To your horror, you watch as earth explodes. All that is left of the human population is you and your three children. Later, the residents of your host planet insist that you live in captivity for your own safety and that you and your children must reproduce with each other in order to save the human race from extinction. It is true that captive breeding programs in zoos What do you think? Do you value saving the are expensive and consume resources that species, or would you rather just live peacefully might be better spent preserving natural with your children until you all die out naturally? habitats. In addition, they may create a lack of Do you think other animals might think genetic diversity and constraints on natural differently – assuming they are capable of selection may mean that individual animals are thinking at all? less robust genetically than they would be in the These days we can get around some of these wild, or even quite different in temperament and problems by preserving genetic material rather behaviour than the original population. Perhaps than living animals. Groups all over the world what we have in zoos are animals poorly are storing DNA and embryos from endangered adapted to captivity, forced to breed because species hoping that we will eventually find we do not want to see them become extinct, and somewhere for them to live. This is far from very stressed and unhappy. Alternatively, maybe ideal, however, and may be unlikely to be what we have are animals that are well adapted successful in the long term. Think what would to captivity but, because of selective breeding, happen if we lost every living polar bear but totally different from what they are like naturally. managed to preserve a thousand polar bear This means not only that we have changed the embryos. If we ever got to a situation where we species, but also that we cannot let them go felt ready to raise these animals and release back to their natural habitat, if it exists, because them into a wild habitat, who would teach them we have made them less likely to survive. how to be polar bears? We know that many If we accept Jamieson’s argument that there is a polar bear behaviours are instinctive, but most basic presumption against keeping wild animals birds and mammals also learn many of their in captivity, then we really must think about behaviours from attentive mums and sometimes whether compromising the welfare of individual dads and aunties and uncles. Without adult (captive) animals is ever justified by our efforts animals to learn from, our captive embryos are to save endangered species. Maybe there are probably doomed. They will either die soon after fewer issues when we can maintain animal birth or be kept alive as ‘pet’ animals, totally populations in large game re-serves, but we controlled by humans.  Summary This topic was a complex one that raised more questions than it was able to answer. Make sure you have mastered the main points, as follows: First, pests and competitors are a human invention, defined by context. No animal is born as a pet or a pest. We make them into these by reference to our own needs and desires. Second, humans have traditionally managed pests and competitors by eliminating them using whatever works, including incredibly toxic chemicals. This is not an appropriate strategy because of the adverse consequences for ourselves, as well as for other animals and the environment. We do still need to use pesticides to control animals that we do not value, but we should investigate alternative means of controlling pest species, using integrative pest management. Third, habitat destruction and direct competition with endangered animal species is unlikely to Because Jamieson’s paper is nearly 25 years cease while human populations continue to old, it is worthwhile considering whether increase, particularly in countries not blessed modern zoos are more successful in meeting with technological wealth, advanced health and their objectives than the ones he wrote about. education systems, and other resources. To find out, you should access a second paper Animals considered exotic and valuable to us about animal-visitor interactions in zoos, written can easily be seen as pests and competitors by by Eduardo Fernandez and his colleagues. This others. In the long term, human population paper is available on the LMS site. As you read control and a more equal distribution of it, make sure you can answer the following resources might be the only way to stop many questions: species from becoming extinct. In the meantime, 1. What are the 5 main goals of modern perhaps the only way to preserve wildlife is in zoos? public zoos or private collections. These are not 2. Which elements are generally required without problems, however, so we need to think for a zoo visitor to prefer a certain animal carefully about what we want to achieve and the exhibit over another? best way of doing this. 3. What 3 factors influence the length of Should we be telling people who are struggling time visitors spend at zoos? to survive that they cannot eat the last 4. Are there animal welfare issues humpback whale on the planet, and do we have associated with modern zoos? If so, give any business keeping wild animals in captivity an example. because we want to conserve the species, even 5. What recommendations you would give though doing so is often not in the best your local zoo to ensure the welfare of interests of the captive animals? Try to put the animals is protected and the visitors yourself in the place of the people or animals in both entertained and educated? question and think about what solution you would be happy with, if any.  References and/or supplementary resources Carr, N., & Cohen, S. (2011). The public face of zoos: Images of entertainment, education, and conservation. Anthrozoös, 24(2), 175-189. Cooper, J., & Dobson, H. (2007). The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment. Crop Protection, 26(9), 1337-1348. Dara, S. K. (2019). The new integrated pest management paradigm for the modern age. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 10(1), 1-9. Fernandez, E. J., Tamborski, M. A., Pickens, S. R. & Timberlake, W. (2009). Animal–visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 12,1-8.