My question though phil is, what does seeing an animal in the flesh actually achieve in respect to conservation. A lot of my friends and family go to zoos regularly but I can say that not one of the visits by them has resulted in them appreciating nature any more than they did. Going to the zoo for them is like going to the pictures. They go, they enjoy it, then they forget it. I truly believe that education about nature and conservation would be a much more important part of school curriculum than some of the subjects they take these days. In fact I think that one day it will be essential.
-
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.
Bill Oddie and Zoos. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Deseo
- Start date
My question though phil is, what does seeing an animal in the flesh actually achieve in respect to conservation. A lot of my friends and family go to zoos regularly but I can say that not one of the visits by them has resulted in them appreciating nature any more than they did. Going to the zoo for them is like going to the pictures. They go, they enjoy it, then they forget it. I truly believe that education about nature and conservation would be a much more important part of school curriculum than some of the subjects they take these days. In fact I think that one day it will be essential.
jurek
Well-known member
Not. First known zoos are from Assyria, 4000 years ago. Assyrian king kept his lions in tigers in walled gardens with grass and bushes (so, what is naturalistic exhibit for now), and specifically said that they are for education of general people. Zoos are older than British kingdom.
What I am unhappy and afraid is self-righteous and dominating attitude of anti-zoo organizations: self-usurped right to force other people how to entertain themselves and allow/not allow to see zoos. If such a simple pastime is to be regulated, I am afraid next will be banning going to nature reserves (wild animals also get stressed) and lots of other things.
Actually, seeing wild animals in the wild softened my attitude towards zoos. Some cages may be too small, but they are still incomparably better than wild with predators, parasites, hunger etc. I saw a colony of gulls - hundreds of chicks - dying needlessly simply because rain raised the water level. No benefit. No zoo would treat its animals so badly as nature. And animals, unsurprisingly, agree - most wild animals stay more-the-less voluntary in zoos (watch how low are many fences and narrow moats!) and wild pigeons, ducks, sparrows etc. sneak inside aviaries for free meal.
Larry Lade
Moderator
Please remember to keep your posts civil (polite, courteous)!
jurek
Well-known member
You remember zoos from many years ago and quote NGOs which are very anti-zoo and have very bad record of propaganda. Don't you think you may be a little out of touch with facts?
If I am then please furnish me with them.
With respect I think that all you have just said is hogwash. You seem to be trying to make zoos appear to be more wonderful for animals than to be left alone in nature in order for your love of them to be valid. It also seems as though you are afraid you may lose something that you simply use to "entertain" yourself. That statement alone is what is totally wrong with zoos. And to try to compare a zoo with a nature reserve is just plain silly. You are entitled to your opinion but I have to say that it is opinions like yours which are going to be the hardest nut to crack when it comes to change.
Mike Richardson
Formerly known as Skink1978
From an animal welfare point of view I can understand why some people are against zoos. Undoubtedly certain species such as Orcas have no place in captivity and many zoological collections are outdated and house animals in extremely poor conditions. Having said that, many modern zoos have made vast improvements over the last couple of decades, and a number of small/medium sized species (e.g. rodents, small primates and the smaller ungulates) must have a much longer and less stressful existence in captivity than they would otherwise have in the wild.
As a conservationist I think zoos are invaluable in the work they do, often out of the public eye. Of course zoos are businesses and operate to make a profit, but a whole list of species would simply not exist if it wasn’t for successful captive breeding projects primarily carried out by zoos. California Condor and Black-footed Ferret are examples off the top of my head.
Another point to consider is that many captive breeding projects carried out by other organisations (NGOs, government bodies and charities) often work in partnership with zoos, sharing resources and no doubt benefiting from years of experience gained from keeping and breeding animals in captivity.
Personally I don’t visit zoos, preferring to see animals in the wild. However, as several people on this thread have pointed out, the original question (Are zoos good or bad?) is far from black and white.
As a conservationist I think zoos are invaluable in the work they do, often out of the public eye. Of course zoos are businesses and operate to make a profit, but a whole list of species would simply not exist if it wasn’t for successful captive breeding projects primarily carried out by zoos. California Condor and Black-footed Ferret are examples off the top of my head.
Another point to consider is that many captive breeding projects carried out by other organisations (NGOs, government bodies and charities) often work in partnership with zoos, sharing resources and no doubt benefiting from years of experience gained from keeping and breeding animals in captivity.
Personally I don’t visit zoos, preferring to see animals in the wild. However, as several people on this thread have pointed out, the original question (Are zoos good or bad?) is far from black and white.
Thanks for your reasoned input Mike. I agree with a lot of what you say. I do believe that zoos could be made good and I know that certain captive breeding programmes do work. I just wish I could square it with my conscience that all of the other animals on show are being kept in conditions which will cause them the least amount of stress as possible.
I would like to see (eventually) a total shift away from zoos (even the word zoo) and see more "Conservation And Ecological Centres" (yes I just made that up as a replacement for zoos.) where the emphasis is less on just looking at animals but also finding out and contributing toward their betterment in the natural world. I don't feel we have a right just to gawk at animals just because they live too far away for us to see naturally, but I welcome places where we as a race can share in helping them and making sure their species continue in the wild.
I would like to see (eventually) a total shift away from zoos (even the word zoo) and see more "Conservation And Ecological Centres" (yes I just made that up as a replacement for zoos.) where the emphasis is less on just looking at animals but also finding out and contributing toward their betterment in the natural world. I don't feel we have a right just to gawk at animals just because they live too far away for us to see naturally, but I welcome places where we as a race can share in helping them and making sure their species continue in the wild.
ovenbird43
Well-known member
How is looking at animals in zoos, in an of itself and as a separate issue from whether animals should be in captivity in the first place, any worse than what everyone on this forum does- "gawk" at birds in their natural habitats? It's still looking at animals for pleasure. Yes, many birders are also very interested and involved in conservation issues, but certainly not all of them. How about tourists who go on an African safari to gawk at the animals from a jeep? While I agree that certain animals should not be kept in captivity at all, I disagree that there is anything morally wrong with enjoying watching animals in captivity, so long as they are well cared for.
chris butterworth
aka The Person Named Above
There is a genus of South Pacific snails, Partula , that was endangered ( severely so in the case of some individual species ). Captive breeding, and cooperation between many zoological societies, has increased the global population, worked with local people to preserve and improve habitat and successfully reintroduced species to islands and atolls on which the snails had become extinct. Without Meerkats and other species the public considers 'cute' enough to cough up the entrance fee in order to see there is no way finance could have been raised to accomplish something like this. Admit it, would you donate towards saving a Snail? The zoo workers that carried out the captive breeding and much of the ground work in Polynesia, have accumulated a wealth of knowledge they wouldn't have had and a whole genera has been brought back from the brink. As has been said before, it's not a case of good or bad. Anyone who is really concerned about animal welfare should be putting their energies towards improving the conditions in zoos, and supporting the expansion of scientifically based conservation strategies based on captive breeding and reintroduction of endangered species. Calling for the abolition of all zoos is throwing the baby out with the bath water and, in many cases, detrimental to the very existence of some species.
As for replacing the word "zoo" with some more 'customer friendly' / 'touchy-feely' euphemism? I won't give my thoughts on that as the mods will do a bit more than shout at me.
As for replacing the word "zoo" with some more 'customer friendly' / 'touchy-feely' euphemism? I won't give my thoughts on that as the mods will do a bit more than shout at me.
Last edited:
Phil Andrews
It's only Rock and Roller but I like it
I can only use my own experience of taking my 5 and 7 year old nephews round local zoos and see their interest fired by the sight, sounds and smells of some of these wonderful creatures but also their questions as to why there are only xxx of them remaining in the wild. If its put into context zoos can be a catalyst for such questioning of society's priorities. How we then implement our disquiet from such questions and uncomfortable truths in our day-to-day lives is up to us as individuals.
And there lies the crux of the whole topic.
There is a genus of South Pacific snails, Partula , that was endangered ( severely so in the case of some individual species ). Captive breeding, and cooperation between many zoological societies, has increased the global population, worked with local people to preserve and improve habitat and successfully reintroduced species to islands and atolls on which the snails had become extinct. Without Meerkats and other species the public considers 'cute' enough to cough up the entrance fee in order to see there is no way finance could have been raised to accomplish something like this. Admit it, would you donate towards saving a Snail? The zoo workers that carried out the captive breeding and much of the ground work in Polynesia, have accumulated a wealth of knowledge they wouldn't have had and a whole genera has been brought back from the brink. As has been said before, it's not a case of good or bad. Anyone who is really concerned about animal welfare should be putting their energies towards improving the conditions in zoos, and supporting the expansion of scientifically based conservation strategies based on captive breeding and reintroduction of endangered species. Calling for the abolition of all zoos is throwing the baby out with the bath water and, in many cases, detrimental to the very existence of some species.
As for replacing the word "zoo" with some more 'customer friendly' / 'touchy-feely' euphemism? I won't give my thoughts on that as the mods will do a bit more than shout at me.
But from what I can glean from the internet, the moneys paid as entrance fees are nothing to do with the conservation side. The sites I looked at suggested that the money was raised in another fashion.
Also I didn't simply want to exchange the word ZOO. Read it again, I actually said that we need to change the whole place from what it is into something dedicated wholly to conservation. (again, over a long period obviously)
jurek
Well-known member
Geez, exactly how long did you not go to any zoo? Such ideas are half a century old, and are implemented or are being implemented in many places.
Just go and learn some facts online about modern zoos. And there is lots of info about animal welfare in zoos. There are several whole journals and organizations about zoo science. I am not going to do homework for lazy students.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
I can have a very vigorous argument with myself about zoos. The bottom line for me is that I'd rather not see any animals in captivity, however because we've done such a great job of messing up the planet,there is a need for captive breeding programmes.
Captive breeding programmes are expensive,so pragmatically it makes sense to find away encourage the general public to pay for them. Obscure snails, reptiles,amphibians and even Hawaiian Geese, White-headed Ducks and Black Rhinos are not the biggest crowd drawers, so once you've accepted the need for captive breeding programmes and public funding, then making you collections more attractive makes some sort of sense and taking the opportunity to educate and inspire visitors is a opportunity that should not be spurned.
That said, unless a Zoo can demonstrate a track record of breeding endangered species and maintains the species it holds in conditions, both environmental but especially social, that are shown to be close as possible to natural, I'd advocate closing them.
Captive breeding programmes are expensive,so pragmatically it makes sense to find away encourage the general public to pay for them. Obscure snails, reptiles,amphibians and even Hawaiian Geese, White-headed Ducks and Black Rhinos are not the biggest crowd drawers, so once you've accepted the need for captive breeding programmes and public funding, then making you collections more attractive makes some sort of sense and taking the opportunity to educate and inspire visitors is a opportunity that should not be spurned.
That said, unless a Zoo can demonstrate a track record of breeding endangered species and maintains the species it holds in conditions, both environmental but especially social, that are shown to be close as possible to natural, I'd advocate closing them.
Simon Wates
Well-known member
Ditto: "And there lies the crux of the whole topic."
Jane has summed up my thoughts very efficiently.
Well said, I wholeheartedly encourage breeding programmes and agree with all of the above.
My one nagging doubt is that some of these places are doing the very minimum in conservation so as to continue their main business of taking money for showing animals in cages, whilst trying to look like they are big into conservation.
I don't recall asking you to.
martin kitching
Obsessed seawatcher
Hard to know where to start with this complete and utter nonsense...however, if you could provide evidence to support the part of your comment that I've emboldened that might help
martin
martin
