Farnboro John
Well-known member
I find that when my wife realises she has been particularly offensive she tends to try to claim she was joking.... it's not a get-out that works. Just saying.
John
-
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.
Slimbridge WWT- why the wildfowl collections? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter payaminotom
- Start date
John
payaminotom
Well-known member
Well then let's be glad for the rest of the birdforum community, at least they're not married to me! 😉
All joking aside, you can take my comments any way you wish, and if you think it detracts from my argument, fair enough. I suppose it's clear, atleast in this situation, that writing anything but the queen's English gives others the excuse to draw the argument away from the point at hand and onto my communication style. Ah well! I don't wish to offend anyone, but I also don't fault anyone for being offended. I'm very aware that im not one for mincing words.
rosbifs
PutAin STOP
You may consider Slimbridge et al to be easy targets because it eases your conscience and makes you feel like you're doing your part, however, the real issues doesn't surround WWT or zoos (not really anymore*) but why there is a need to try and 'help' these species in the first place.
Aside from the fact that these birds may have been an historic collection which cannot be released back into the wild in the UK - so would you destroy them instead?
The overriding benefits provided by the WWT have a global impact and also raise awareness locally, nationally and globally regarding the plight of these species. Some may not be as threatened as they once were because of it.
*Zoos on the whole are no longer the miserable places they once were. Our local zoo does far more to raise awareness and excite the next generation about wildlife whilst providing ecological support to local and international protection schemes. Kids don't watch wildlife programmes anymore or tv at all, don't watch the news and if they didn't see it on Tiktok it doesn't exist!
Aside from the fact that these birds may have been an historic collection which cannot be released back into the wild in the UK - so would you destroy them instead?
The overriding benefits provided by the WWT have a global impact and also raise awareness locally, nationally and globally regarding the plight of these species. Some may not be as threatened as they once were because of it.
*Zoos on the whole are no longer the miserable places they once were. Our local zoo does far more to raise awareness and excite the next generation about wildlife whilst providing ecological support to local and international protection schemes. Kids don't watch wildlife programmes anymore or tv at all, don't watch the news and if they didn't see it on Tiktok it doesn't exist!
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
For me this reflects a core point as to why I am so pessimistic regarding overall outcomes for nature. We all exist within our own echo chambers through choices of friends or increasingly computer algorithms. I am delighted about the percentage of the world from my Twitter feed that is interested in birds and even diptera, bryophytes, moths, etc. But that is a conscious effort not to dwell on certain content or heaven forbid like it even when it holds a mirror to my own views.
However, the reality is that most people would not even pause for thought whilst an organism becomes extinct to build a new hospital and probably even a new road.
So payaminotom may convince himself that he is fighting the good fight but in reality, he is arming the forces of darkness by scrapping with individuals that share the same underlying values.... 😦
WWT should be supported. There will be voices within the organisation that feel as uncomfortable about captive birds and animals as many of us but they will be balancing that against their broader outcomes and aims.
Damn - dragged in again. 😀
All the best
Paul
I may be wrong on this but I thought species brought in from outwith their natural range had to be stopped from escaping into the wider countryside? Thus trying to avoid the distress re Ruddy Duck and White-headed Duck occurring again.
It's too late with the damage that's been caused by introducing all those species to other countries by the Victorians. More recently the cane toads into Australia. Grey Squirrels to the UK. And many many more.
The only answer to this would be to create captive populations in the region where they are so endangered... but the cause hasn't been resolved and may not be for many years, so where do you put them. How do you keep hunters/poachers out.
It's too late with the damage that's been caused by introducing all those species to other countries by the Victorians. More recently the cane toads into Australia. Grey Squirrels to the UK. And many many more.
The only answer to this would be to create captive populations in the region where they are so endangered... but the cause hasn't been resolved and may not be for many years, so where do you put them. How do you keep hunters/poachers out.
I always felt a little uncomfortable visiting WWT reserves for the same reason - you have the actual reserve, with wildlife roaming free, with the intention for them to live as natural lives as possible, and this then comes effectively attached to a zoo. I am not a great fan of animals being held in captivity and I think we should be slow to assume that animals living in captivity aren't harmed in some way as a result. That said, you can imagine the sort of traffic that WWT reserves would get if the zoo areas were removed - not just in terms of the numbers (which would clearly be reduced) but also in terms of the type of people who come. There are people who come because of the zoo, or who have a much more enjoyable experience because of the zoo (especially families), and who would really get little out of the reserve if there was simply a visitor centre and a marsh. I think it does a lot of good to expose people to nature, even if the real draw is animals in captivity and the real nature is adjacent to it, and it is probably worth putting up with the zoo element.
seawatcher
Well-known member
Exactly - the non-native waterfowl are pinioned so that they cannot fly away precisely to prevent any escaping into the countryside. The first Ruddy Ducks that turned up in the UK escaped from Slimbridge, and established a free-flying population in the UK. The Ruddies then appeared in Spain, to the detriment of the native and threatened White-headed Ducks. Ruddies and White-headeds produced hybrid offspring.
Ever since the formation of Slimbridge, non-native wildfowl have been pinioned, although some birds, such as the ruddies, obviously amanged to escape.
The educational value of the collections at Slimbridge is enormous. The centre is reknowned worldwide, and Sir Peter Scott woke many of us (myself included) to the wonders of the natural world and to the many plights they faced. Slimbridge is synonomous with Sir Peter, and is a legacy to a very great and wise man. His books are worth reading, from his early wildfowling days (when he was sadly a hunter), to the enormous work he did as a conseravtionist.
SW
jurek
Well-known member
I think you don't understand a more basic thing. You have a set of values and priorities (here: freedom). You think everybody else (here: ducks) has similar values and priorities. The world is different. Everybody has different priorities.
If you want to make a bird happy, don't give it freedom, give it food.
Phil Andrews
It's only Rock and Roller but I like it
Greed is good (albeit that was said by a lizard rather than a bird)
dantheman
Bah humbug
Not seen that (google is your friend though), but yes, probably.
Was in Mevagissey aquarium 2 days ago - been a good few years since been in an aquarium (the path bit between, not in the actual tanks) definitely a bit sad, but interesting nonetheless. Apparently at the end of the season most of the exhibits/inhabitants/captives/fishy folk get released back into the sea to take their chances there (since they were locally caught definitely an upturn there imo as otherwise most of them would have long ago been relinquished in one of the local eateries). Fish have feelings too ...
payaminotom
Well-known member
Just to quick summary reply to the most recent messages:
Absolutely not, I have worked in both conservation and science communication, and so seeing progressive change in the fields that I work in is very important to me, and ofcourse the standard is set by the biggest and most influential organisations (in the UK wwt, wt, rspb, etc).
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, I'm aware why pinioning occurs. My point is that pinioning should not occur, as it is mutilation and an obvious form of animal cruelty.
They can be released into their own habitats in their own natural ranges (expensive, but rectifying mistakes costs money), or they can be sterilised.
I knew you'd come round to the hyperbole! 😅 I do love a bit of a scrap, but good things can come of hashing it out! I think we've achieved a good thing with this thread, like you say, we're all individuals who share the same underlying values. Concerning animal rights, a majority hold one opinion, upheld by the status quo, while a minority hold a contrasting opinion. For me, campaigns for conservation and for animal rights share so much in common in terms of base values, that these campaigns must intertwine in the future to ensure their mutual success. Me bringing this up to you lot, even in my own argumentative way, has at the least put it in your heads. So don't be pessimistic Paul, even allies argue sometimes! 😉
Just curious, how far do you think i got caring about animal rights before I realised that the majority in the world couldn't give a flying ____? 😆 in case it wasn't clear, I'm very aware of the existence of other people with different opinions, how else would I have learnt to be so argumentative?😇
Props to @Birdister for the most sensible comment of the whole thread !!! 👏 really nice read thankyou very much for replying, just thought I'd swing back a lil with your closing line though. For you, for humans in general, it is probably worth putting up with the zoo element. But the animals don't see it that way. You can justify it any way you want, you can shut your eyes and pretend they are happy, or pretend they can't feel emotion, or whatever other brilliant ideas were floated earlier in the thread. The fact is, the animals perspective is what should matter in this situation, not humans.
And with that the trolls have arrived! Thanks for the discussion everyone, I hope it has been memorable at the least!
Last edited by a moderator:
That's often the reason they're here... there's no habitat left for them!
Leave off with the personal attacks!
payaminotom
Well-known member
That is not true for the vast majority of cases. As previously said, I'm not against captive breeding for reintroduction, but that's not happening with 99% of captive species at Slimbridge.
payaminotom
Well-known member
Well if you ask me statements like that certainly belong under a bridge
payaminotom
Well-known member
Here you go again attributing human thoughts and feelings to non-human animals.
Original PaulE
Well-known member
The problem with your argument and I speak as a person who dislikes zoos and am not a member of the WWT or visit their reserves, is you are assuming what the animals perspective is, you are assuming that the birds in captivity, know what they are missing and are unhappy about it. Certainly animals feel pain and have emotions, but that doesn't mean if treated well, being fed correctly, given shelter, stimulation etc that they are unhappy. I personally don't like seeing animals in captivity, because I know the life they could/should be living. But they don't know what they are missing and given a rational choice might well choose to stay where they are, especially the ones born in captivity, which I imagine would be 99% of them if not all.
Zoos have had a bad press in the past and rightly so, but most in the west anyway, treat there animals very well and do a lot of good conservation work, although in the long run with the destruction wrought by humanity on the natural world it may be in vain anyway. Certainly bad practice should be called out. But I think most zoos care about their animals and do their best for them. It is highly unlikely any animal born in zoos would have much chance in the wild, unless they have been reared specifically to be released back into the wild, a costly and difficult business. Opening the doors and letting them out would just leave them at the mercy of predators or starving to death!!
I must admit, I'm in a few Facebook groups with people who are big on Animal Rights and a lot of them seem to have a very rudimentary knowledge of wildlife and ecosystems (although reading through the thread I don't think that applies to you) and have had on several occasions found myself arguing with both Shooters and Animal Rights people at the same time!! Which is a bit weird!
,
Similar threads
