Wildlife Question: Wild or Captive?

If there is a fence around a very large reserve are the animals in fact captive?

Should the size of the reserve matter?

Does anyone know if there is a fence around Nakuru?

Two examples of how the term "captive wildlife" is used in the US:

1. From the Arizona Game and Fish Department:

"Captive live wildlife" means live wildlife that is held in captivity, physically restrained, confined, impaired, or deterred to prevent it from escaping to the wild or moving freely in the wild.

2. From the Wisconsin state statutes, Chapter 169 (Captive Wildlife):

"Captive" means any of the following:

(a) Restrained by a cage, pen, fence, or other enclosure.
(b) Restrained by physical alterations that limit movement or facilitate capture.
(c) Restrained by a leash or a tether or otherwise tied.
(d) Held in a controlled environment that is designed to prevent the departure from the controlled environment.

In other words, if there is a non-natural barrier that prevents wildlife from moving to wherever they want to go, they're captive.

John

I'm not sure the definition is that simple. Many of the National Parks and Reserves in Africa have fences in places or are entirely fenced including the Greater Kruger National Park Area, Madikwe, Etosha and yes, Nakuru is also fenced. I understand that some of the National Parks in India are also fenced to prevent human/animal conflict. Most people would consider the wildlife in these places wild. They may be habituated to people or vehicles but does that make them less wild?

I do think that the size of the fenced area matters and the ability of all animals to freely roam within the Park/Reserve, meaning that there are no further pens or separation of predators from prey. If predators and prey are separated that would be an indication of captivity for me. Another factor I would consider is whether the animals are fed regularly by the people running the park/reserve. If yes, then that would be another indicator of a captivity for me.

Just my $.02.

Rachel

Thanks John and Rache.

It was a question about about the Rhino & Lion Nature Reserve in South Africa that got me thinking about this question. I have subsequently learned that this reserve is about 3000 acres and that the predators are kept away from the plains animals. In addition you can pet and have your picture taken with lion, tiger, or cheetah cubs for only Rand 30/person/species....

To me it is absolutely clear that photographs of any animal that were created at the Rhino & Lion Nature Reserve should be labeled as captive.

Lake Nakuru National Park in Kenya on the other hand is somewhere about 11,116.8 acres, 46720 acres, or 61,776.3 acres depending on which internet source you consulted. Whichever is correct it is huge. And the predators are inside the fences. They dine on various plains animals on a daily basis. My understanding is that the fences at Nakuru were erected to keep out poachers rather than to restrict the movement of wildlife. I for one have have not problem with making a distinction by calling the animals at Lake Nakuru wild.

Yes Arthur I think so. For example ...Bayerishe where lynx and and wolves are inside not very larges place are captive. Lake Kerkini where bird are flying where they want to and where they take fish from Tomas are, for me, free...

I agree with you on bo2th counts. In the same vein, in places like the two great alligator wading bird rookeries in FL the gators are obviously captive but the nesting bird are free to come and do as they please must be considered wild even though they are nesting "inside the fences." The fences are to keep the gators in but have the positive effect of keeping ground predators like opossum and raccoon out.

Heck if you can pet a lion or any other animal it's more then just captive in my mind.

Slightly off you but how about an animal that might have been captive (ex raised by people) then returned to the wild but has lost all fear of man? Is it just conditioned,captive or wild?

Agree on the lion thing. At the place I mentioned they are only petting cubs :e3el...

For the latter I would have to say free and wild but conditioned. Fortunately that does not happen too often.

Hi Artie

I live close to a cemetery where the lush grass and surrounding bush make a nice haven for kangaroo. The animals are technically wild and will retreat to the bush if they feel threatened but some are now so use to humans they can be hand fed... It's frowned upon (and potentially dangerous..) but some will do it anyway. I have posted images from this location and while I did not use the (C) disclosure required in the wildlife forum I made it quite clear that these are not 'wild' animals in the true sense and explain the circumstance... I think disclosure like this is incumbent upon any photographer expecting respect for his work..

DON

Hey Don. I agree. And you done good. I always advocated truth in posting....

I agree with Rachel's overview.
What about reserves that have very little in the way of predators but have large range without internal fencing and no feeding intervention?

I'd add FYI: Many of the reserves in South Africa that offer "cub petting" (actually, I'd wager that most of those) are in fact raising cubs for the "Canned Hunting" industry (go and Google that, I dare you) so I personally prefer not to give them my patronage. Lions that are raised by humans and used to human handling end up being shot by foreign hunters who think they are wild and then their bones are sold to China as substitute for tiger bones used in traditional medicine.

Us humans sometimes really suck! :bugeyed:

Thanks Mork-man. We do have a pretty good track record of trying to seriously mess up a pretty good planet....

I go with a couple of criteria. Is the habitat self-sustaining, providing natural feed without human intervention or supplementation? That get's you around one specific minimum size. Is the balance of predator/prey natural and self regulating without requiring major culling or herd size management? If there is a boundary, does the wildlife regularly disregard it to get to other habitat areas or to take advantage of nearby delicacies, such as golf courses and back yard gardens?

My definition works well for the nearby sanctuaries that I frequent and I feel no guilt or need to label wild animals shot in there as "captive." I've actually seen herd of deer vacate the area when flooding made one habitat less desirable than another not far away. I'm not so sure that if the state culled the deer or coyote population that I'd be too troubled, but I might need to rethink my definition. Generally, such culling will be due to complaints from neighbors, with coyote's eating too many nearby cats or deer wandering onto the interstate. Right now, the natural balance is very good and I don't see it getting out of hand soon.