Bill Oddie and Zoos. (1 Viewer)

[Deseo]

Ooooooo a hardened, veteran, petition signatory....how could I be so wrong??
I'll just go rethink my life now...

Owen

Lol what a lot to contribute to the thread.

 

[Debbie1905]

Thanks Deseo, for helping me think a bit more clearly about it. Now I just need to convince my daughter that the little darlings don't really need the zoo, and take them to the woods instead. (Actually, when we asked the baby which animal he liked best, he said 'the butterflies'. There were common butterflies everywhere!). We've also planned a trip to the local farm, and I think I'll leave that talk to them for a little while yet...

By the way, I think this has been a very interesting discussion, however as on other interesting threads, it does get spoiled by a lot of insults and rudeness. I'd just like to say, you all seem to be very knowledgeable about your subjects, even with divided opinions, so won't you please concentrate on imparting that knowledge to those of us who don't have much of a clue but would really like to learn. Thanks.

 

[Farnboro John]

You're entitled to your opinion mate. But I think you fall into the ever increasing category of "I demand my right to be offended" culture that is sweeping the the UK.
As for highlighting wildlife conservation you know nothing of all the emails petitions and gatherings I go on in the persuit of conservation.
You are totally wrong in everything you just wrote.

I'm interested now. Just what emails petitions and gatherings do you go on in the pursuit (note spelling) of conservation?

Any reserve working parties? Any sponsored events or other fund-raising? Any survey work?

You talk about stress in zoo animals and I am reminded of the immediate post-war cricketer who was asked about the pressure of playing for his country. His response was "Pressure? Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your a**e mate!"

An elephant with a snare on its trunk is stressed. A baby rhino whose mother has been slaughtered and had her horn hacked off in front of it is stressed (do you know how many rhinos have been poached in South Africa this year?) Zoo animals may have things to deal with but compared to lives in the wild, and the pressures exerted by genuinely ill-wishing humanity, stressed they are not.

John

 

[Andy1979]

Lol what a lot to contribute to the thread.

Kind of think Deseo might have a point here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this forum and just because someone has a different one, doesn't mean they should be ridiculed for it. It would be boring if we all agreed.

By the way, in contribution to the discussion, I am in support of zoos for their conservation work and their ability to excite us about animals. Out of the 1.2 million visitors to Cheshire zoo each year, if only 3 of those become passionate about animals as a result, then there is yet more benefit above and beyond the conservation results.

Andy M.

 

[Helsinki Birder]

Kind of think Deseo might have a point here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this forum and just because someone has a different one, doesn't mean they should be ridiculed for it. It would be boring if we all agreed.

By the way, in contribution to the discussion, I am in support of zoos for their conservation work and their ability to excite us about animals. Out of the 1.2 million visitors to Cheshire zoo each year, if only 3 of those become passionate about animals as a result, then there is yet more benefit above and beyond the conservation results.

Andy M.

Hang on. If you read back you will note that I did not criticize his opinion on zoos. I specifically stated the opinion on zoos was was inconsequential to my point, and that it was the dragging of a man's mental health into the issue which was unpalatable here.

Furthermore, this makes your statement ridiculously ironic, since the original poster is therefore essentially ridiculing, in an extremely distasteful fashion, Mr. Oddies opinion on zoos.

Owen

 

[sketchymatt]

Quite frankly I am totally astonished to find that I am either on my own in this way of thinking or the people who agree with me are too scared to post for fear of being picked on.
This is the 21st century. Zoos are from the victorian era. Surely we now need to start to move away from locking up animals and moving more toward good real HONEST conservation?

No, you're not on your own on this one. Worth looking at is the work being done by the Captive Animals Protection Society and their efforts to put an end to pinioning by the WWT. And if anyone on this thread hasn't seen Blackfish, the film about Seaworld, then it's worth watching. Most zoos are terrible around the world, and the animals that are there really don't like it. If you recognise stereotypical behavior in stressed animals, you see it in all zoos. They do give benefits to humans, as previous posts have alluded, but for me it's about animal welfare, and protection of ecosystems. Zoos are businesses.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I do love a good old-fashioned black and white view in a complex area.

I decided not to post on this thread again after the implication that 'zoos' including London Zoological Society and Gerald Durrell Foundation were dishonest but the additional comment that these charities are 'businesses' probably also needs to be pointed out as a pretty odd.

In the meantime, those with a more open mind might like to ponder on the story below and the role played by the 'zoo':-

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-28315555

http://www.aspinallfoundation.org/

I don't find it an easy topic but then again the only really easy indisputable point that I tend to reach on the environment, conservation, etc is that drastic human population reduction and subsequent control is the only solution.

All the best

 

[Idle Valley Birder]

I was uneasy at that comment, too, and I commend Chowchilla, who works in the mental health field, for his restraint in avoiding any comment in his considered on-topic response.
MJB

Don't think Deseo meant to be hurtful with his comments about the 'Oddie'. Not dissimilar to a tweet I just read from Bo Boelans. (aka Fatbirder) "Just read Bill Oddie's tweets... Maltese Hunters say he is mad! Bill, you may be mad as a rabbit, but they are selfish, fatherless and EVIL!"

 

[Gill Osborne]

I
I don't find it an easy topic but then again the only really easy indisputable point that I tend to reach on the environment, conservation, etc is that drastic human population reduction and subsequent control is the only solution.

THAT is the unmentionable thing folks refuse to face up to! If you truly CARE about the planet then stop breeding!!!!! We don't NEED more humans on the planet :smoke: I decided not to add to the problem when I was 10 years old and I'm 46 now and haven't regretted my choice at all.

Yes, it would be fabulous if all the rhinos and gorillas and tigers COULD live out their days in the wild but the sad truth is they'd be wiped out within months for their ivory and 'medicinal' parts :storm: Good zoos have an extremely important part to play in keeping species safe whilst at the same time working on saving the habitats needed and educating the locals in the relevant countries to help with the conservation. Without zoos we would have said goodbye to the Pink Pigeon, Mauritius Kestrel, Hawaiian Goose, Pere David's Deer and countless more many years ago :-C
I will admit a few zoos COULD do better as regards the enclosures and enrichment and stimulation they give certain species but the majority are doing the best they can against the tide of couldn't-care-less which the majority of the human race have. As long as most folks have the latest gadgets and handbags and celebrities to worship the natural world can go hang :storm:
I was last in a zoo, Edinburgh, in March 2002 and my husband Neil still talks about the awe and fear he felt at being so close to a tiger - that cat just blew him away and made one helluva lasting impression! And that's a guy in his 40's who's had his eyes opened to the natural world by his missus. Can you imagine how exciting and impressionable it must be to a child to see a creature up close...to experience the sheer size, the smell, the power and, as Neil said when faced with the closeness of that tiger, the feeling of being pretty insignificant and the helpless prey compared to that incredible awe-inspiring predator? Kids need to be dragged away from their computers and mobile phones and shown what REAL life and excitement is!!! They NEED to be inspired by the natural world around them but, unlike my own childhood in the 70's, they don't really have anyone like Attenborough, Cousteau, Durrell, Scott to fire them up :smoke:

 

[Sangahyando]

THAT is the unmentionable thing folks refuse to face up to! If you truly CARE about the planet then stop breeding!!!!! We don't NEED more humans on the planet :smoke:

That's not a sensible PoV at all. The true solution would be to limit breeding to having an average 2-3 children per mother/father. Globally. If that happened, it would curb the insane population growth that's still going on in some places (especially central Africa, where some countries have an average 6 children per woman), and stabilize the human population at some level. Of course to achieve that goal, there needs to be more education, especially of women, and a consequent elimination of cults like Boko Haram or the Taliban who want to return to a cultural stone age where people breed like rabbits.

I decided not to add to the problem when I was 10 years old and I'm 46 now and haven't regretted my choice at all.

So you've removed yourself from the human gene pool for the future. This may sound like a good idea to yourself, but for most people it isn't.
I can see the rationale behind China's one-child-policy, but wanting to prevent people from procreating altogether is perverse. Besides, Europeans at the moment already have negative population growth, and the Middle East/Iran/North Africa is soon to follow, what with sharply declining birth rates.

 

[Idle Valley Birder]

"Can you imagine how exciting and impressionable it must be to a child to see a creature up close.."
I can imagine how my 8 & 10 year old granchildren might feel watching this wild animal endlesly parading backwards & forward pointlesdly looking at 40 year olds through a chain link fence. Luckily I don't have to imagine, I know they think it's 'wrong'!

 

[Sangahyando]

"Can you imagine how exciting and impressionable it must be to a child to see a creature up close.."
I can imagine how my 8 & 10 year old granchildren might feel watching this wild animal endlesly parading backwards & forward pointlesdly looking at 40 year olds through a chain link fence. Luckily I don't have to imagine, I know they think it's 'wrong'!

Well yeah, but there are zoos with large enclosures, as has been mentioned a couple times in this thread. It sucks for a tiger to be cooped up, but it's better than getting shot so that some superstitious idiot may use its bodyparts for "medical" purposes. It is a sad irony that big cats, one of the groups of animals most in need of large territories, is also among those that need protection via zoos the most.

 

[Deseo]

I'm interested now. Just what emails petitions and gatherings do you go on in the pursuit (note spelling) of conservation?

Any reserve working parties? Any sponsored events or other fund-raising? Any survey work?

John

I don't have to give you any justifications. The people who come here and who know me know exactly how much I do in the name of conservation. All I will say is that the last part of your question all get a yes tick.

Other than that I get the impression that rather than debate this in an adult fashion you would rather just have a huge row and quite frankly I can't be bothered with it.
And if you want to shoot me for a typo then hey fill your boots. But personally I would have used [sic] than (note spelling)

 

[Deseo]

Thanks to all the people who have actually contributed to this thread and not simply posted in order to start a row.
I can sort of see it from the other side's point of view but I admit that I am a cynical person and can't help thinking that the whole world is corrupt at some level so why shouldn't zoo owners be the same?
I would like to have ALL of the information at my disposal so that I can make a totally informed decision on this. And saying that, then that is what I intend to do. I started this discussion with a certain view of zoos. That view has not really changed but I will look deeply into it and then I will make a decision as to my stance.
I doubt thouigh that I will be fully able to get all of the information I require but I'll give it a go.
[Edit]
Just saw another typo and was going to edit it but I think it will be more fun leaving it in.

 

[Farnboro John]

I don't have to give you any justifications. The people who come here and who know me know exactly how much I do in the name of conservation. All I will say is that the last part of your question all get a yes tick.

Other than that I get the impression that rather than debate this in an adult fashion you would rather just have a huge row and quite frankly I can't be bothered with it.
And if you want to shoot me for a typo then hey fill your boots. But personally I would have used [sic] than (note spelling)

No you don't. But most people have a short way with those who make assertions and then don't back them up: I'm sure you know what I mean.

As for just wanting a huge row, I suspect that is the objective of those who start a thread to suck in balanced individuals with honest conservation-minded opinions just so they can shoot at them with their carefully pre-prepared prejudices, rather than those who seek elucidation of bland broad claims.

Re the spelling comment: you have heard of the plain English campaign I suppose? Or perhaps spellcheck?

John

 

[mjh73]

An elephant with a snare on its trunk is stressed. A baby rhino whose mother has been slaughtered and had her horn hacked off in front of it is stressed (do you know how many rhinos have been poached in South Africa this year?) Zoo animals may have things to deal with but compared to lives in the wild, and the pressures exerted by genuinely ill-wishing humanity, stressed they are not.

John

Sorry John but you are wrong.

Even in the very best zoos the environment provided for the animals is so far from what they need to meet their physical and psychological requirement that stress is an everyday part of a captive animals life.

No zoo enclosure provides the space, environmental variety, social variety, foraging variety etc that animals would encounter in a natural environment and stereotypies as a result of the subsequent stress are common. The level of stress will of course be less than being poached, but it's a straw man argument. Watching your partner be slaughtered is more stressful than being locked in prison for life- does that mean you'd happily be locked in prison for life?

It's a huge area for animal husbandry - but a relatively recent one. And zoos are always compromising between what is practicable / cost effective and what is best for the animal.

I've recently been working on the husbandry manual for a particular species of bird. The zoo where it is kept is a very good one. I spent time with the keepers and they genuinely care about their animals. The enclosure meets (mostly exceeds) the associated legal requirements and documented standards for charadriiformes husbandry.... but reading 20 years worth of records for the keeping of the species was heartbreaking. These birds are small and largely terrestrial but keep a breeding territory of about 1km, and range much further, how big do you think the enclosure was?

My supervisor made the point that many of the animals being 'conserved' in zoos have no realistic prospect of being released into the wild, and end up being traded between zoos, or quietly put down. There have been some conservation successes, but many failures, and some of the successes depend on intensive in the wild intervention (supplementary feeding / specially fenced off areas). They have been captive breeding orange bellied parrots for years. Hundreds have been bred in captivity. It has made not one jot of difference to the species slide to extinction.

I take people's point about the value of introducing the next generation to wildlife, but I disagree. It's a totally artificial way to learn about the natural world and it misses the important connection between wild things and wild places! Take them to a salt marsh. Take them to a forest. Take them to Malta/Africa/Yellow Sea wherever you can afford. Let them watch as many Attenborough docos and series of Springwatch as possible. Let them see what we risk losing because if they don't care about the environment wildlife needs to live in then that will continue to be lost easily and no amount of zoos will make a difference.

My tuppence worth.

mjh

 

[Farnboro John]

Even in the very best zoos the environment provided for the animals is so far from what they need to meet their physical and psychological requirement that stress is an everyday part of a captive animals life.

No zoo enclosure provides the space, environmental variety, social variety, foraging variety etc that animals would encounter in a natural environment and stereotypies as a result of the subsequent stress are common. The level of stress will of course be less than being poached, but it's a straw man argument. Watching your partner be slaughtered is more stressful than being locked in prison for life- does that mean you'd happily be locked in prison for life?

It's a huge area for animal husbandry - but a relatively recent one. And zoos are always compromising between what is practicable / cost effective and what is best for the animal.

I've recently been working on the husbandry manual for a particular species of bird. The zoo where it is kept is a very good one. I spent time with the keepers and they genuinely care about their animals. The enclosure meets (mostly exceeds) the associated legal requirements and documented standards for charadriiformes husbandry.... but reading 20 years worth of records for the keeping of the species was heartbreaking. These birds are small and largely terrestrial but keep a breeding territory of about 1km, and range much further, how big do you think the enclosure was?

My supervisor made the point that many of the animals being 'conserved' in zoos have no realistic prospect of being released into the wild, and end up being traded between zoos, or quietly put down. There have been some conservation successes, but many failures, and some of the successes depend on intensive in the wild intervention (supplementary feeding / specially fenced off areas). They have been captive breeding orange bellied parrots for years. Hundreds have been bred in captivity. It has made not one jot of difference to the species slide to extinction.

It's a totally artificial way to learn about the natural world and it misses the important connection between wild things and wild places! Take them to a salt marsh. Take them to a forest. Take them to Malta/Africa/Yellow Sea wherever you can afford. Let them watch as many Attenborough docos and series of Springwatch as possible. Let them see what we risk losing because if they don't care about the environment wildlife needs to live in then that will continue to be lost easily and no amount of zoos will make a difference.

My tuppence worth.

mjh

I believe every word you say, but without the last-chance reservoirs that zoos provide, more species will be lost, and extinction is forever. That justifies the infliction of some stress on individuals (how else can you justify human society - we accept that for society to flourish, some people have to do stressful jobs.)

Also, it has been said on this thread that you cannot entirely create the sense of wonder that close viewing of an elephant brings through TV, and its true. It is that sense of wonder that brings people into conservation that would otherwise be ignorant, neutral or hostile, and you are surely right when you and others say not everyone can afford to visit Africa etc.

Finally, by depending on TV documentaries you remove any sense of immediacy. In TV Land Attenborough's gorillas are still showing. The Mzima Hippos are still prancing around their crystal waters. The black-and-white Thylacine still yawns on camera. Species will slip into extinction if you make people depend on TV for their wildlife experiences because they will be unable to realise all is not well. I've been watching documentaries for forty years or more and I can spot footage being re-used. Joe Public hasn't and can't.

For the sake of the world's future, we need zoos now. Nobody will be happier than me when we don't.

John

 

[chris butterworth]

An animal's territory is only as large as is needed to provide adequate food, shelter and the chance of finding a mate. Siberian Tigers, owing to the density of prey items need a huge territory , in the wild , those in the Sunderbans that have access to a greater density of prey have (proportionally) positively miniscule territories. The one thing zoos tend to lack, in regard to animal welfare, is the ability for species to interact with other members of their species in a 'natural' way. All the anthropomorphic hand wringing about letting the "poor animals run free "( to be poached, have their habitats destroyed, hunted by predators, run the risk of dying a long lingering death by disease / starvation / injury ) or refusing to acknowledge the seminal work done by zoos to bring species back from the very brink of extinction is the result of gullibility on the part of those who swallow the hype of a vociferous minority that refuses to see anything except in terms of 'black and white'.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Is there another aspect to this? In addition to captive breeding, what about the involvement of the zoos in the conservation projects on the ground. The links above in respect of the London Zoological Society and Gerald Durrell Foundation and the Aspinall Foundation involvement in the Scottish Wildcat work.

Isn't the reality that without these 'unholy alliances' (as I am sure that Deseo would see them) this work would simply not happen?

I'd love to live in a perfect world but we are so far from that it is clear that pursuing it is futile. Surely for those organisations if the choice is for them to exist and contribute their good works or for them not to exist and mankind not to support those good works, then closing them down will simply be to the detriment of the environment and conservation.

If you wish to achieve things, you must be pragmatic. It is as simple as that. Insufficient people would vote for a compulsory conservation tax or compulsory purchase of land to preserve biodiversity. We live in the real world and the cynics need to look at the projects on the links and decide if they outweigh those areas that cause concern.

You do see the conservation card used cynically and on occasion, it is a nonsense. We have that locally with land purchased by wildfowlers and then future access barred. But absolute views do not stand scrutiny.

All the best

 

[MJB]

Good post, Paul. The conflict between ideals and what is possible has long been an aspect of philosophy. This extract (attached) by Nicholas Rescher from a 1994 issue of Philosophy and Phenomenonological Research rather indicates that tensions cannot neatly be resolved.

But absolute views do not stand scrutiny.
All the best

...and you're absolutely sure of that?:eek!::t:
MJB