Albinos and releasing into the wild

[DarthQuell]

As I mentioned in @Bearcat9948's update 1.7 changes thread, I believe that albinism and leucistic animals should NOT be released into the wild, much like sick/old/juvenile animals can't be.

The point of PZ is conservation, and in real-life zoos would never release an albino into the wild; they'd do the opposite, they'd actually try to keep them in captivity to ensure their survival. Whenever an albino is found in thw wild, people try to capture it to take it to a zoo or responsible private collection (there's a story somewhere about an albino otter in NE Texas, near where I visit, and the locals tried to catch it to take it to a zoo. But seems like they could never find it)

Now, melanistic animals can easily survive, because they have the advantage to survive by hiding in the shadows, like jaguars. But, for simplicity of game mechanics, all color mutants cannot have the "release to wild" option available, as it goes against the message of the game.

I'm not against breeding an albino line or trading them (zoos trade albinos. Houston Zoo once had a leucistic alligator that they donated many years later to a crocodile park).

Anyways, this is my opinion on the matter (I don't mind having these color mutants myself; in fact I get excited when I have one in my zoo). Frontier, this isn't a message to not include albinos in any future update; in fact, I'd love to see them, like king penguins, but I believe that they should come with a price, and that could be that maybe they're slightly more popular but you can't release them.

What are y'alls opinions?

 

[iloveyourzoos]

It's an interesting idea. Not being able to release to wild would indeed be an extra layer of welfare concerns to manage (like not being able to release juveniles, sick animals, or animals that are too old to reproduce), which might be quite interesting. Especially since some of us are often saying that we want more in-depth ways to manage and think about our animals as individuals. Especially when you get a litter of babies, some of whom are albino and some aren't.

Would also be an interesting realism aspect. I know that when I unexpectedly have an albino born, my reaction is usually "cool!". But if they updated it, it might be a more realistic "oh no!". It might even bring some players to explore the genealogy and genetics aspects more -- only instead of using it to increase your chances of an albino, you'd have some players trying to increase and others trying to decrease those chances.

I suspect the devs would want to think a little more about how this interacts with game mechanics and playability in the different modes. From an in-game perspective, releasing to the wild is different than either trading with other players or trading on the open market (at least in franchise). Yes, it's called "release to the wild", but it functions as "release for conservation credits", which are quite important (depending on what mode you're playing in, of course).

I'm presuming that you could still quick trade (for cash), or maybe rehome at any age (instead of just when old), so that there would be some way clear out animals. And it sounds like you're okay with selling them for cc to other zoos on the franchise market too (although the prices might drop quite a bit, once players knew that they couldn't do as many things with them).

Is your idea that there would there also still be an option to get conservation credits automatically too, but just have the text say "send to conservation center" instead of "release to wild"? (In essence, just be a text change, rather than a playability change). Or is it the idea that this gameplay option itself would be removed, and it would either by quick trade for cash, or trying to exchange them with other online players for cc?

If it's actually a change in a way that effects our ability to get cc from them (rather than a text change), I'd hope they gave us a heads up before implementing, so that players have the option to release to the wild before the update came. (Sort of like how players clean out their mods before an update). It would be a real bummer to people who have albinos all over their zoos to suddenly find that the rules have changed and they can't get cc for them that they may have been planning on. Especially in franchise where cc is the one of the main things that carry over between zoos.

I have less idea what this might mean in the different sandbox realities, and imagine that it might be different depending on which settings are enabled/disabled for different players. (For example, are there players who play with money off, but cc on? or vice versa?).

 

[DarthQuell]

It's an interesting idea. Not being able to release to wild would indeed be an extra layer of welfare concerns to manage (like not being able to release juveniles, sick animals, or animals that are too old to reproduce), which might be quite interesting. Especially since some of us are often saying that we want more in-depth ways to manage and think about our animals as individuals. Especially when you get a litter of babies, some of whom are albino and some aren't.

Yes. Exactly

Would also be an interesting realism aspect. I know that when I unexpectedly have an albino born, my reaction is usually "cool!". But if they updated it, it might be a more realistic "oh no!". It might even bring some players to explore the genealogy and genetics aspects more -- only instead of using it to increase your chances of an albino, you'd have some players trying to increase and others trying to decrease those chances.

Maybe it can come with a genetics overhaul? Not sure. But yes, people would get mixed feelings about albinos, which is why i suggested that they can be more popular and generate more of an income since people love to see them

I suspect the devs would want to think a little more about how this interacts with game mechanics and playability in the different modes. From an in-game perspective, releasing to the wild is different than either trading with other players or trading on the open market (at least in franchise). Yes, it's called "release to the wild", but it functions as "release for conservation credits", which are quite important (depending on what mode you're playing in, of course).

I'm presuming that you could still quick trade (for cash), or maybe rehome at any age (instead of just when old), so that there would be some way clear out animals. And it sounds like you're okay with selling them for cc to other zoos on the franchise market too (although the prices might drop quite a bit, once players knew that they couldn't do as many things with them).

Is your idea that there would there also still be an option to get conservation credits automatically too, but just have the text say "send to conservation center" instead of "release to wild"? (In essence, just be a text change, rather than a playability change). Or is it the idea that this gameplay option itself would be removed, and it would either by quick trade for cash, or trying to exchange them with other online players for cc?

If it's actually a change in a way that effects our ability to get cc from them (rather than a text change), I'd hope they gave us a heads up before implementing, so that players have the option to release to the wild before the update came. (Sort of like how players clean out their mods before an update). It would be a real bummer to people who have albinos all over their zoos to suddenly find that the rules have changed and they can't get cc for them that they may have been planning on. Especially in franchise where cc is the one of the main things that carry over between zoos.

A text change is easier, as it'll be the same type of action but different goal. That's an excellent point. Originally it was just "don't release to wild", but this text change would work better. We should still get CCs, as it's far better that way, so this idea would be these best. I just don't think releasing them into the wild is realistic (or caring, even, since they can barely survive)

 

[DrBurrito]

A game centered around animal welfare and conservation letting players release albino and leucistic animals into the wild (in the thousands) always bothered me. I hope it isn't too hard to implement such a feature from a programming stand point, because it is definitely something they need to look into.

 

[DarthQuell]

A game centered around animal welfare and conservation letting players release albino and leucistic animals into the wild (in the thousands) always bothered me. I hope it isn't too hard to implement such a feature from a programming stand point, because it is definitely something they need to look into.

Exactly. I can see melanistic animals, specifically jaguars (and leopards if we get them), because they can hunt successfully in the shadows. But, it doesn't make sense to release an albino/leucistic animal. But we'll have to see what ideas other players may have (or the devs themselves)

 

[-LUCA-]

The notion of releasing albinos is very wrong, melanistic is ok. Wonder if the game can separate the two in the code.

 

[NL_Mutso]

A game centered around animal welfare and conservation letting players release albino and leucistic animals into the wild (in the thousands) always bothered me. I hope it isn't too hard to implement such a feature from a programming stand point, because it is definitely something they need to look into.

We seen a lot of comments like: It's just a game. I think the same would apply here.
If welfare/conservation is the problem, breeding albinos is something to consider as well.

You already have the choice of not releasing your albinos to the wild -> simply don't do it.

 

[shirandhak]

We seen a lot of comments like: It's just a game. I think the same would apply here.
If welfare/conservation is the problem, breeding albinos is something to consider as well.

You already have the choice of not releasing your albinos to the wild -> simply don't do it.

Yep.

If one has to have a feature to ensure that nobody releases an albino to the wild: I'm ok with it, though I doubt, Frontier will do this (because I think, it rarely happens)

In Franchise you'll be far better off, selling any albino (mostly you can sell them at a very good price) and in Sandbox you rarely get the chance of seeing an albino at all.
So I really think it would be rather unnecessary.

 

[Ursidae]

We seen a lot of comments like: It's just a game. I think the same would apply here.
If welfare/conservation is the problem, breeding albinos is something to consider as well.

You already have the choice of not releasing your albinos to the wild -> simply don't do it.

There is a difference between "unethical" and "not allowed". This isn't really something that should be left to player discretion. Albinos are indeed bred in captivity, which is not ethical, not because of their chance of survival in the wild but the inbreeding involved in the process, as well as health issues, but releasing them is beyond the question of ethics.

Well-being of domestic or captive animals is a question of animal welfare, but releasing them into the wild also has conservation concerns, which is why there are a bunch of rules and laws out there that prohibit people from releasing domestic or non-native species into the wild. Sometimes that even involves rules and limitations to keeping certain species with invasive potential in captivity, for the mere possibility of them finding their way into the wild. Releasing albino and leucistic animals is no different. If you release a ton of unfit animals into the wild, you are going to put the already existing wild population at risk. On top of that, the survival rate of albinos in the wild is extremely low, so there's also the welfare concern for the particular animal released.

Personally I don't know if any laws exist that prohibit the releasing of captive bred albino or leucistic animals into the wild. If there isn't, that's simply because no one has or ever will attempt to do such a thing. If a group of people try to fund such a program, I'm sure laws in that country will instantly follow the release of the first few specimens. I suspect the already released ones will also be caught and transferred to a facility.

 

[NL_Mutso]

There is a difference between "unethical" and "not allowed". This isn't really something that should be left to player discretion. Albinos are indeed bred in captivity, which is not ethical, not because of their chance of survival in the wild but the inbreeding involved in the process, as well as health issues, but releasing them is beyond the question of ethics.

Again, it's just a game. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be left to player discretion.
I think the rest of your argument won't hold up that well, when you look at other aspects of the game as well.
Also the whole idea of releasing animals to the wild when born in captivity, is very questionable as well - especially for carnivores.

 

[macronecu]

Looks like our forum knights are busy at work again. What are you going to defend next? Releasing of invasive species?

If it's just a game, let's just ignore animal welfare and conservation altogether. Frontier did it wrong there then. Frontier why did you care so much about animal welfare, conservation and education when it really doesn't matter in games?

 

[ReptoMin]

Releasing of albinos is a much bigger no-no than releasing older animals or juveniles of species that don't require paternal care, yet the game doesn't even let us release those. So the albino category is indeed the most obvious category that the game should not allow players to release to the wild.

An example. For several decades, rivers in India were stocked with thousands of juvenile gharials, and they are rebounding thanks to those breeding programs. However the game doesn't even want to approach that method because it is a grey zone for many other animals, especially mammals and birds. Older animals are also ok to release, as long as they are able to fend for themselves. The reason why the game doesn't let the releasing of animals past the age of fertility is there is no point if they can't even breed. If such small nuances in grey areas define game mechanics, the two of the most rigid rules in releasing animals: Releasing of albinos and leucistics and releasing of nonnative animals, which are both black and white matters, should have a stronger effect on game mechanics. Therefore I support the idea of greyed out release buttons for albinos and leucistics. Melanistics on the other hand or ok to release under most circumstances. They also have a much higher rate of occurrence in wild populations for the same reasons.

 

[shirandhak]

You are perfectly right - in theory (and for reality of cause).

But as I wrote before, regarding the game "practice": releasing leucistic animals to the wild will rarely happen ingame. I won't say, it will never happen at all, but if you have the choice to earn a lot more CC by selling an albino-animal on the market than releasing it, then why would you go and release it? (Ok, maybe you've got a point regarding oystriches and peafowl, I don't know to be honest, because I never have them and so I don't know about the price for them). Franchise is the only mode with a real chance of having albinos. In sandbox, you'll be lucky to see any albino at all, so you won't have so much albinos as to even get an opportunity to release one to the wild. Don't know about challenge mode, because I never play it, but I think the "commoness" of albinos will be somewhere similar to sandbox. And without being able to buy a leucistic parent-animal, you'll never be able to breed one, what will be the gaming-reality for most of us. So why should Frontier change their game code just for a very rare occasion? Plus I doubt that anybody would "learn" something just because the are forced to press another button to get rid of an unwanted animal.

 

[Ursidae]

Franchise is the only mode with a real chance of having albinos.

Albinos will be relatively less common in franchise mode if this suggestion goes through, but I doubt they will be rare. Right now albinos sometimes account for half the listings in some species, so a slight decrease wouldn't be that bad. In fact it would make sense if regular skins somewhat dominated the market more. Even then there'd be enough albinos on the market to let players easily find, purchase and breed albinos.

So why should Frontier change their game code just for a very rare occasion?

I think it's not that rare actually. Frontier does have access to all these stats and did share interesting figures before, so I would be very much interested in knowing how many albino and leucistic animals have been released since launch. A breakdown of each species would also be nice. I suspect the number of released albinos or leucistics of some species will surpass their current wild populations.

Plus I doubt that anybody would "learn" something just because the are forced to press another button to get rid of an unwanted animal.

I think it would be the exact opposite. People tend to learn better in circumstances where a piece of information affects them in practice, rather than theory. You can find a lot of real life examples to this by comparing how lifestyles and our look on life change every decade. Things that are perfectly acceptable suddenly become topics that are frowned upon. Actually, I think the reason why there isn't enough comments supporting the original post is because of this very reason. If people were not allowed to release albino animals in the first place, then they would have been much more aware of the situation. The fact that the game technically let's you release albinos even encourages some people to defend the idea, with a subconscious drive probably telling them "if the game allows it, it can't be that bad". The truth is, however, releasing of albino animals into the wild is a much bigger crime than keeping cetaceans or breeding albinos in captivity. Those two issues are unethical, but still practiced, so not yet illegal in many places, but the releasing of animals that have an impact on conservation, let it be the releasing of non-native species or genetically inferior inbred specimens that will eventually affect the overall gene pool of a population, is a criminal act. The only reason why threads on cetaceans receive bigger attention is its a hot topic since that one film. Sadly people cannot come to the same conclusions without some sort of push or guidance, will even defend the very ideas they are against without it. For this reason, I believe, a game mechanic as simple as not being able to click the release button will have a huge impact on how people think about the situation.

 

[Tobs]

At the end of the day, how many animals can be realistically released into the wild?

Amphibians, reptiles and insects, sure.

But everything else?

I mean, sure you can release them. But if they don´t survive in the wild, what´s the point in releasing them anyway?

 

[NL_Mutso]

I mean, sure you can release them. But if they don´t survive in the wild, what´s the point in releasing them anyway?

During/after beta there were a few threads about the idea of releasing animals from zoos in the first place or the many threads about puppyfarming or increasing the amount of albinos in sandbox. But we also got people asking to sell or release baby animals to the wild.
If you extend the welfare argument: maybe even sandbox options should be removed as well. (they shouldn't do that )
But like I said: It's just a game. People are able to distinguish RL and game, that has never been an issue.

The only reason why threads on cetaceans receive bigger attention is its a hot topic since that one film. Sadly people cannot come to the same conclusions without some sort of push or guidance, will even defend the very ideas they are against without it.

It's a unknown film/documentary, which has never been shown in many countries. Sadly only on this forum this counter-argument is used all the time but almost everyone has made up their mind without it. Also barely seen anyone defend their opinion with that (even outside of this forum). There are only 2 or 3 users on this forum who, on a frequent basis, keep saying: "You only have that opinion because of that documentary" without any evidence to back that claim.

 

[shirandhak]

Right now albinos sometimes account for half the listings in some species

Not at times, when I am playing though. I think, maybe it is like that for some few species like the mentioned ostriches and peafowl, but most species you have to be lucky to see an albino even in franchise.

Frontier does have access to all these stats and did share interesting figures before, so I would be very much interested in knowing how many albino and leucistic animals have been released since launch. A breakdown of each species would also be nice.

Yes.

People tend to learn better in circumstances where a piece of information affects them in practice, rather than theory. You can find a lot of real life examples to this by comparing how lifestyles and our look on life change every decade. Things that are perfectly acceptable suddenly become topics that are frowned upon. Actually, I think the reason why there isn't enough comments supporting the original post is because of this very reason. If people were not allowed to release albino animals in the first place, then they would have been much more aware of the situation.

Yes, that's true, but the change takes time and is seldom induced by just pressing another button. I would even suspect, not everyone reads the text on the button. If one button is grey, you just take the other one, which works. In case of the old animals I even think, people may feel very cute, if they release old animals to the wild just some months before they reach the "old age" status, because of "Hey, it's just a game and I know how to play that game!". Changing our look on nature is a slow process, sadly. It has to do much with growing knowledge on how things happen and how these things are linked up and connected to each other - and on compassion. Things you seldom learn by just pressing different buttons.

The only reason why threads on cetaceans receive bigger attention is its a hot topic since that one film.

Don't even know this film. But I am glad, we don't have cetaceans, because I have seen some of these poor creatures in shows in my childhood, and even as I was a child, I could see how wrong that was and how these poor creatures were suffering. Now, that I am old and have some decades of experience in keeping fish and invertebrates in tanks, I know for sure, that I don't want to see any cetaceans ingame.

For this reason, I believe, a game mechanic as simple as not being able to click the release button will have a huge impact on how people think about the situation.

Of cause you are free to do so, but I am not so sure about it. My opinion is, that people don't like to think much about ethics in games. (And that might also be a reason for some people wishing for cetaceans in PZ.)

Edit: But in the end it really doesn't matter to me, if this button gets greyed out. If Frontier does so, they are welcome, because ethically it is the correct decision. Just wanted to say, that I doubt it has any impact at all and I further doubt, Frontier will take that effort.

 

[DarthQuell]

Not at times, when I am playing though. I think, maybe it is like that for some few species like the mentioned ostriches and peafowl, but most species you have to be lucky to see an albino even in franchise

True, I can see that. Like yesterday I saw 10 leucistic Nile monitors. What???

Yes, that's true, but the change takes time and is seldom induced by just pressing another button. I would even suspect, not everyone reads the text on the button. If one button is grey, you just take the other one, which works. In case of the old animals I even think, people may feel very cute, if they release old animals to the wild just some months before they reach the "old age" status, because of "Hey, it's just a game and I know how to play that game!". Changing our look on nature is a slow process, sadly. It has to do much with growing knowledge on how things happen and how these things are linked up and connected to each other - and on compassion. Things you seldom learn by just pressing different buttons.

Of cause you are free to do so, but I am not so sure about it. My opinion is, that people don't like to think much about ethics in games. (And that might also be a reason for some people wishing for cetaceans in PZ.)

Yeah. It's disappointing how some say: "It's just a game. It's not like I'd do it in real-life". I have seen (and experienced) how some games can actually change people. But that's a long story I don't want to get into.

Don't even know this film. But I am glad, we don't have cetaceans, because I have seen some of these poor creatures in shows in my childhood, and even as I was a child, I could see how wrong that was and how these poor creatures were suffering. Now, that I am old and have some decades of experience in keeping fish and invertebrates in tanks, I know for sure, that I don't want to see any cetaceans ingame.

Yes. I mean, to have a black ghost knifefish (which I've wanted for a long time) I need 100 gallons. My tank is barely 20. Plus, to see the Siamese fighting fish in those small cups is not healthy, and how people put fish in a bowl with no circulation, no water. C'mon, man, the fish is suffering. I've never been to SeaWorld or any marine park, so I can't say for sure, although I've heard rumors. I just wish people in general would give a little thought about how their actions not only harm nature but also themselves, at least in certain cases. Which is why I suggested this topic, because I'm hoping that casual players learn that an albino animal cannot easily survive in the wild (I'm sure there are cases when it can, but I don't know). It's just to raise an awareness on the subject, whether they take action or not

 

[shirandhak]

Your sarcasm is kind of wasted on me
I never said, I keep big fish in small tanks (I won't and I would strongly advise not to do it). To keep fish in a bowl is even forbidden where I live. And for a siamese fighting fish the law says min. 54 l (don't know how much this is in gallons). (although I doubt, there is anyone controlling that)

You can teach children, but you can't teach evil despised casuals. They mostly don't want to get educated, but entertained. And most of them can distinuish between game and reality (because they are casuals and no pro-gamers with 24/7 gameplay on 7 days per week)

But I think, we are now quite off-topic, but I acknowledge that you are ethically right.

Edit:

Like yesterday I saw 10 leucistic Nile monitors. What???

Ok, you saw 10 leucistic Nile monitors in the market- and how many normal coloured? 60? And how long those 10 were for sale? 10 minutes? If not, there might have been no resellers awake. Because you can bet on them buying those animals and selling them for a horrend price when no other leucistic nile monitor is for sale.

 

[DarthQuell]

Your sarcasm is kind of wasted on me
I never said, I keep big fish in small tanks (I won't and I would strongly advise not to do it). To keep fish in a bowl is even forbidden where I live. And for a siamese fighting fish the law says min. 54 l (don't know how much this is in gallons). (although I doubt, there is anyone controlling that)

No, I wasn't being sarcastic towards you at all, and I apologize if that's what it sounded like. I was stating what I observe in big pet stores all over (notably PetSmart and Petco). I agree with what you're saying, though. I wouldn't keep fish in anything less than the minimum amount (typically 20 gallons is good for a small community)