• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Slimbridge WWT- why the wildfowl collections? (2 Viewers)

I'm not making judgement on the rights or wrongs of zoos. Although I'm not at my most comfortable visiting them, I realise they have a value in conservation as well as the 'entertainment' aspect. Peter Scott was a childhood hero of mine and his 'Look' TV series was instrumental in helping develop both my interest in birds and in art, with a mixture thereof. I remember his programmes concerning the setting up of Slimbridge and I recall its value for overwintering Bewick's swans, which I'd not heard of until then. I think it was also that programme that described how the individual bill markings, the 'fingerprints' were catalogued by resident artists to build up a record of how often they returned on migration and how the population was faring.

I do wonder about this 'happiness' aspect and other anthropomorphisms when applied to wildlife, especially birds.

I've often wondered whether happiness even exists in their lives as it does in ours. We as a species may be almost unique in how we view our lives and happiness, and this must be largely down to the safety we enjoy on a day to day basis.

From my observations of birds I gain the view that their lives alternate for the most part between great worry and abject terror.

I was watching a large flock of waders at close range recently, feeding busily on the mud of a Spanish estuary. Dunlins, ringed plovers, curlew sandpipers, sanderling, a couple of knot, the odd ruff, etc, all feeding busily and with ample reward. Apart from just watching them I was also photographing them and it was clear from both watching and photos, that although there was plenty of food for all and they quickly gulped down the invertebrates as they found them, happiness wasn't something I would suggest they were feeling. As they fed their heads kept tilting, so that between looking down for food, they always had an eye on the sky, on the lookout for any marauding peregrine, harrier, or other predator that may pass by and notice the unwary or straggling ones.

If an avian raptor did come by, that extreme wariness was replaced in an instant by abject fear as they rose in a mass. If they had any feeling beyond fear, I'm sure that they would be hoping that if a bird was taken it might be the one they had been feeding or flying with, rather than themselves, so they could get back to filling their crops before the tide flooded.

Such is the life of birds. They are all on the lookout for what is going to end their lives, always, every second of the day, even when roosting. They never have that happy feeling of just relaxing.

This applies to predators as well as the smaller birds such as waders. Photographing booted eagles and other raptors migrating, I am struck by the close eye they keep on the sky above them, occasionally tilting their heads on the lookout as they go. I remember being shown a photo, taken I believe on the Strait of Gibraltar, of a booted eagle that wasn't quite wary enough. It was being plucked from the sky by a golden eagle at the time the photo was taken.

It's a bird eat bird world out there and wild birds are too busy staying alive to be happily putting their feet up and relaxing. The ones who do that tend to end up dead very quickly.

If happiness or any other human emotion does exist in the bird world, may I dare suggest it might be being felt more by the ones with pinioned wings that are tucked away safely at night, that are fed regularly without any extra effort, that also don't have to keep one eye constantly on the sky for the eagle in the sun.
 
Last edited:
There is a wildlife collection at Martin Mere too. I can see why some would find it expensive to enter a WWT site as a non-member and even as a member some may feel there aren't enough reserves nationally especially for a birdwatcher who travels a lot. In the North West the WWT only have Martin Mere yet the RSPB has Leighton Moss, Marshside, Burton Mere and 2 reserves over the border in West Yorkshire. Anyway it isn't the biggest drain on my income being a WWT member and Martin Mere was the first official nature reserve I visited.
 
If happiness or any other human emotion does exist in the bird world, may I dare suggest it might be being felt more by the ones with pinioned wings that are tucked away safely at night, that are fed regularly without any extra effort, that also don't have to keep one eye constantly on the sky for the eagle in the sun.
That's a pretty big anthropomorphism if you ask me 😉

I will say, it's pretty tragic to hear that even those who spend so much of their time observing birds cannot afford them the decency of recognising their emotional capacity. I wonder if animals ever look at us and wonder if we can feel emotion? It's human arrogance at the end of the day, the presumption that we are superior.

Birds may express and perceive and engage in a completely different way to us, but even disregarding ethological reasoning, biological reality is clear, birds posses the necessary receptors and brain chemicals to experience emotion, and those chemical reactions and regulations have been observed scientifically.
 
That's a pretty big anthropomorphism if you ask me 😉

I will say, it's pretty tragic to hear that even those who spend so much of their time observing birds cannot afford them the decency of recognising their emotional capacity. I wonder if animals ever look at us and wonder if we can feel emotion? It's human arrogance at the end of the day, the presumption that we are superior.

Birds may express and perceive and engage in a completely different way to us, but even disregarding ethological reasoning, biological reality is clear, birds posses the necessary receptors and brain chemicals to experience emotion, and those chemical reactions and regulations have been observed scientifically.
I don't 'presume we are superior' at all. We are just a different species of animal to the others, all evolved to the same degree, but in different directions.

I also don't think that other species are simply small people dressed in feathers or fur, but who otherwise share our emotions. Walt Disney cartoons have a lot to answer for.
 
I suspect the contrast is probably between those who consider that the WWT has the expert knowledge to care for their collection without causing suffering as an adjunct or alternative to their exceptional conservation work and an individual with the "arrogance" to describe their activities in a defamatory and inaccurate way.

I accept that you may believe your hyperbole, exaggeration, strident language and analogy is adding to your argument but it is relatively clear that it is detracting from an underlying point that has some weight amongst this audience.

All the best

Paul
 
Last edited:
I suspect the contrast is probably between those who consider that the WWT has the expert knowledge to care for their collection without causing suffering as an adjunct or alternative to their exceptional conservation work and an individual with the arrogance to describe their activities in a defamatory and inaccurate way.
To me, it's arrogant to impose human will upon animals in this way, especially on such a grand scale and utilising such methods as mutilation and physical entrapment. I wouldn't expect to find agreement in this forum if I had made the same arguments about domesticated animals and factory farming, but these are non-domesticated wild species we're talking about, animals with a real home in the natural world, so I am surprised that their plight does not evoke sympathy in those who spend so much of their time appreciating the natural world, and who gain great enjoyment from it.

I accept that you may believe your hyperbole, exaggeration and analogy is adding to your argument but it is relatively clear that it is detracting from an underlying point that has some weight.
Don't necessarily think it adds anything, I would just call it imaginative communication, aka, I like to have a bit of a laugh. What I really find funny though is how much it offends some, but yet I'm the snowflake for caring about animals! 😉

Either way, I'm glad that some people on here at the very least have been exposed to some alternative modes of thought during this discussion. I do think the roots of this argument are evocative of a deep generational divide of values. I'm glad to see more and more every year that animal welfare and rights is becoming more important to our society, and I hope we continue to move forward in this trajectory!
 
If you find it funny that your communication style alienates those who you are seeking to persuade with whom you share some of your values, then that illustrates that you do not really care enough about your outcomes. Within these type of discussions that is not unusual but it usually highlights the difference between individuals that have been in positions of influence in respect of outcomes & those that have not. Enjoy.

All the best

Paul
 
What was that about arrogance? 😉

Thanks for your input anyway! (I do genuinely really appreciate it)

The qualification of the language ("usually") suggested that the observation was a trend rather than an absolute which is the opposite of arrogance. It is also reflective of a personal journey from absolutism/fundamentalism to pragmatism.

None of the anonymised 360 degree reviews that I have had throughout my life - some of which have been brutal - have found arrogance as one of my many failings. They may have missed it. :)

All the best

Paul
 
Last edited:
Don't necessarily think it adds anything, I would just call it imaginative communication, aka, I like to have a bit of a laugh. What I really find funny though is how much it offends some, but yet I'm the snowflake for caring about animals! 😉
Not entirely sure what your point was for starting this thread - you asked for other person's views, but have since widely criticized those views, suggesting anyone that doesn't share your rather emotive and extreme view as not caring about birds, being somewhat arrogant, it being tragic that we don't see it as you do. At the same time, you admit that you like to have a bit of a laugh by posting hyperbole and find it funny that it offends folk?

I think it safe to say everyone on this forum does care about birds and further I think it absolutely certain that those working to protect birds at Slimbridge and the other WWF centres do deeply care about birds. That collection birds are used to further interest in birds and therefore funding and support for conservation is not a sign that they don't care, but quite the opposite.

You may disagree, your choice, but your emotive language is hardly likely to change many opinions in my view.
 
Not entirely sure what your point was for starting this thread - you asked for other person's views, but have since widely criticized those views, suggesting anyone that doesn't share your rather emotive and extreme view as not caring about birds, being somewhat arrogant, it being tragic that we don't see it as you do. At the same time, you admit that you like to have a bit of a laugh by posting hyperbole and find it funny that it offends folk?

I think it safe to say everyone on this forum does care about birds and further I think it absolutely certain that those working to protect birds at Slimbridge and the other WWF centres deeply care about birds. That collection birds are used to further interest in birds and therefore funding and support for conservation is not a sign that they don't care, but quite the opposite.

You may disagree, your choice, but your emotive language is hardly likely to change many opinions in my view.
I never implied that anyone else on this forum didn't care about birds? I'm sure you all do, we just think about animals in very different ways. There's a huge distinction between "birds" as a group of species that we all have a great interest in, and animals as individuals, with sentience, consciousness, and lived experiences that matter to them, just as our own lives matter to us. I have no doubt that the people at slimbridge, Peter Scott, yourself, Paul, and other commenters all care about birds immensely, but ecology, conservation, and naturistic passions don't always correlate with a strong interest in and passion for animals rights. The only motivation for me to start this thread is because I believe it's a conversation (and an argument) that needs to be had. I never professed to trying to change your minds, thats on you to decide. I will always want to hear differing views to my own, and I'll always argue with them too!
 
Last edited:
Besides the big picture of conservation.

In every zoo or bird park, lots of wild birds come for a free meal. You must have seen wild ducks and geese on the ponds of exotic collection in Slimbridge, too.

Which basically blows up any Western ideas of 'birds want freedom'. Sometimes it is quite shocking, like these enclosures of lions and tigers in zoos which have water moats, and wild Mallards bring their ducklings right under noses of big carnivores. About a year ago, a wild Buzzard squeezed into a, rather small, aviary for Griffon Vultures in Stuttgart Zoo. It was caught and released several times and every time squeezes thought the mesh back into the cage. Sometimes it goes out but comes back.


Birds are extreme materialists who follow their stomach first, and are generally happy in zoos. And life of a wild bird is not a happy existence but a short and brutal one. It is the same as the life of a primitive man or a homeless dog, which are neither happy nor glorious.

Whatever are mine or your personal beliefs, ultimately, the final argument is the attitude of real birds.

So Western cultural association of a bird or wilderness with 'freedom' and zoo with 'prison' or similar negative connotations are human projections, not real. I love to look at wild birds, but would not trade life with them.

And, frankly, people who visit zoos and think that animals are 'captive' or similar negative connotations are a bit lost in their own dreaming, because they don't notice what is in front of them.
 
Western ideas of 'birds want freedom'
Is that "Western" consensus? Then why is it so culturally acceptable to keep birds in zoos and collections? Seems the "western" idea of human domination over all other life on Earth wins, outright.
the final argument is the attitude of real birds.
Problem is, unlike the mallards, moorhens, and buzzards of Europe, these exotic wildfowl have no choice. That choice has been forcibly taken away from them. It's true that many generalist species develop a dependency on human environs, or are at the very least attracted to them and take advantage of the various opportunities that a human habitat presents. However, a huge proportion of species, specialists etc, would never go near human habitation, even when given the choice. You're making a massive sweeping generalisation here that holds no basis in reality.
people who visit zoos and think that animals are 'captive' or similar negative connotations are a bit lost in their own dreaming
You may be shocked to hear that wwt refer to their own collection at Slimbridge as captive... extensively. Check this simple google search "wwt.org.uk" "captive" - Google Search

It's amazing what you can learn when you notice what's right in front of you 👍
 
Is that "Western" consensus?

Yes, other cultures, for example China, have different symbolism associated with animals. Plus they place different priorities in freedom, safety etc.

Problem is, unlike the mallards, moorhens, and buzzards of Europe, these exotic wildfowl have no choice.

You can travel to other parts of the world, where you will see these wildfowl in city lakes and zoo ponds, too. There was even a thread about finding birds worldwide on Google Maps. I remember Coscoroba Swans and Chilean Flamingos on a city lake in Argentina.

That choice has been forcibly taken away from them.
Waterfowl in Slimbridge have been born in collection, probably at some tens of generations.

Actually, there is no indication that birds, or any other animals, even chimpanzees, understand or value the concept of choice or freedom. Even if some animals understand some abstract concepts, like 'equal treatment' , 'X being mother of Y' or the number zero.
 
Also worth noting that the range of disagreeing replies I've received on this thread includes both extremes of "birds do not have the ability to feel happiness" and "birds are extremely happy in captivity". So which is it?

Interesting to say the least. All I'm saying is that the choice should be with the bird, but apparently that's too far out. 🙂
 
Waterfowl in Slimbridge have been born in collection, probably at some tens of generations.
The choice was taken from them when their ancestors were taken from their natural habitat, and that control is reinforced by the robbing of their ability of flight. If all those birds want to stay there so much, why in hell do they need to clip their wings? 😆 don't make me get out my analogies again 😉

Actually, there is no indication that birds, or any other animals, even chimpanzees, understand or value the concept of choice or freedom.
Not familiar with the research on this one, but if I presume you are correct, I see no reason why anything would need to understand the concept of choice in order to make one. Animals make choices all the time, whether they understand the concept or not.
 
It may be easier for you if you visit zoos with monkeys, wolves or big cats. These animals are sufficiently similar to us, dogs and cats, that people intuitively know what they feel.

Some people faced with animals with no facial mimic, like birds, dolphins or bears, get strange ideas what they feel. But faced with monkeys, wolves or tigers, people are in quite familiar territory. So there are whole campaigns to free dolphins from zoos, but not about freeing monkeys from zoos.
 
It may be easier for you if you visit zoos with monkeys, wolves or big cats. These animals are sufficiently similar to us, dogs and cats, that people intuitively know what they feel.

Some people faced with animals with no facial mimic, like birds, dolphins or bears, get strange ideas what they feel. But faced with monkeys, wolves or tigers, people are in quite familiar territory. So there are whole campaigns to free dolphins from zoos, but not about freeing monkeys from zoos.
I don't know how to tell you this, but I'm not a big fan of zoos.

Not sure what your point is, but just so you know, there are many campaigns to free monkeys, wolves, tigers, and all other animals from zoos.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top