Time Article on The Future of zoos
- Thread starter Batto
- Start date
I believe that the problem with modern zoos (and by that I'm also talking about Aquariums, Safari Parks, etc.), those that work for animal conservation, is that while they have evolved, the common people have not, still seeing zoos as a mere spectacle. And while the conciousness of animal welfare has risen in the general population, their knowledge and empathy are still extremely low. A huge threat to zoos is "Animal Rights Defenders" who hound down modern, scientific zoos with bad press, while forcing their cats and dogs into veganism (THAT is animal abuse!). If it were a vocal minority, that wouldn't be a problem, but they easily contaminate social networks and, therefore, popular consciousness. Many times I've seen zoo patrons banging at the glass to make an animal move and, should that fail, they acccuse the zoo of boring and drugging them, and leave nasty reviews on Google Maps.
My dear Barcelona Zoo has been pretty much destroyed in the public eye thanks to viral rumors and lies that people believe due to their lack of knowledge and their tendency to regard anything horrible as true. It's come to the point that there's an imminent threat that these liars, who have political connections, could close down the zoo. The current mayor, for example, cut the funding for the new dolphin lagoon plan, and insists on the dolphins being moved out, not an objectively bad idea, but it takes away from a plan that could have actually worked. She criticizes the captivity of dolphins of being a mere spectacle, even though Barcelona Zoo has cancelled yhe shows for about a year, and the dolphins are being moved to Valencia, where they do shows! Makes a lot of sense to me! For zoos to "clean their name" in the public eye, the public eye should stop looking at gossip magazines, sports and online mendacity, and instead take more interest and actually LEARN about animals, what they are and what they need.
Also, on a different note, I believe that many smaller zoos, such as urban collections, will have to optimize their space. London Zoo is a good example of this practice, and I believe that places like Barcelona Zoo would benefit from having less animals and more space for each.
I hope my two cents don't feel like two tons.
My dear Barcelona Zoo has been pretty much destroyed in the public eye thanks to viral rumors and lies that people believe due to their lack of knowledge and their tendency to regard anything horrible as true. It's come to the point that there's an imminent threat that these liars, who have political connections, could close down the zoo. The current mayor, for example, cut the funding for the new dolphin lagoon plan, and insists on the dolphins being moved out, not an objectively bad idea, but it takes away from a plan that could have actually worked. She criticizes the captivity of dolphins of being a mere spectacle, even though Barcelona Zoo has cancelled yhe shows for about a year, and the dolphins are being moved to Valencia, where they do shows! Makes a lot of sense to me! For zoos to "clean their name" in the public eye, the public eye should stop looking at gossip magazines, sports and online mendacity, and instead take more interest and actually LEARN about animals, what they are and what they need.
Also, on a different note, I believe that many smaller zoos, such as urban collections, will have to optimize their space. London Zoo is a good example of this practice, and I believe that places like Barcelona Zoo would benefit from having less animals and more space for each.
I hope my two cents don't feel like two tons.
Falanouc
Well-Known Member
Agree with this, especially with animals such as big cats, apes, and sea lions. I'm often appalled by how tiny pinniped enclosures are, and I also think that although they're often already big, enclosures for other creatures could be better and bigger too. Although size isn't everything. Keeping the animals occuipied and interested is important, too, and putting that into the enclosure design.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
We've been reading this sort of thing for decades. This line particularly caught my eye: "That's what GLMV has tried to do in Wichita, Kans., where visitors to the Sedgwick County Zoo can now ride in a boat to see the elephants in a 5-acre exhibit. The boat ride breaks down the barrier between animals and people while giving the elephants room to roam freely." It would be too easy to point out the absurdity (and the vacuity) of this statement!
Thanks for the article, @Batto. This debate over the modern purpose of zoos and the ethical dilemmas over keeping animals in captivity are inevitable and will likely continue far into the future. I think this is positive: it is important that we as a society are constantly assessing and evaluating our institutions and practices, and zoos are certainly not exempt from that process.
Personally, I would like to see far more research into the physical, emotional, and psychological effects of keeping animals in captivity; also, more research into the true extent that zoos make positive direct or indirect contributions to conservation. Obviously there are many who don't and won't base their arguments on facts or statistics, but that is to be acknowledged and accepted; in the meantime, we should be analyzing the system as a whole so that we can both justify its existence and improve on its flaws and deficiencies (or, alternatively, decide that it does more harm than good and change our stance).
Personally, I would like to see far more research into the physical, emotional, and psychological effects of keeping animals in captivity; also, more research into the true extent that zoos make positive direct or indirect contributions to conservation. Obviously there are many who don't and won't base their arguments on facts or statistics, but that is to be acknowledged and accepted; in the meantime, we should be analyzing the system as a whole so that we can both justify its existence and improve on its flaws and deficiencies (or, alternatively, decide that it does more harm than good and change our stance).
Interestingly enough, I recently visited Whipsnade Zoo, one of the best in the UK, and the sea lion enclosures were tiny...
"The top zoos, Coe believes, will evolve into something he calls the "unzoo"--turning upside down the traditional approach of bringing animals to humans for their edification. The unzoo will reverse the setup, giving animals space to roam and bringing the humans into their environment. Think Wichita's elephant boat ride, but on a grander scale."
This reminds me of Burgers' Zoo's approach (as well as parts of Zurich, Kerzers, Apenheul...). If those "ecodisplays" are indeed what they meant, then it isn't something that will happen in the future, it has started decades ago and it is still going on.
One great thing about the article is that it mentions the strange situation where there seems to be a raising number of of anti-zoo people (and they screem louder), while at the same time many zoos experience record breaking visitor numbers.
The last part is nothing but speculation. A shame it is included in an otherwise quite good article.
This reminds me of Burgers' Zoo's approach (as well as parts of Zurich, Kerzers, Apenheul...). If those "ecodisplays" are indeed what they meant, then it isn't something that will happen in the future, it has started decades ago and it is still going on.
One great thing about the article is that it mentions the strange situation where there seems to be a raising number of of anti-zoo people (and they screem louder), while at the same time many zoos experience record breaking visitor numbers.
The last part is nothing but speculation. A shame it is included in an otherwise quite good article.
As Sooty noted, this is simply the latest retread of every 'zoos have to keep up with the times' piece written since the 1970s. It ignores the fact that zoos receive over 700 million visitors a year. There isn't a groundswell of opposition to them at all, there is simply a well-resourced, highly motivated campaign against them by a very small but very loud movement.
And fundamentally dishonest, too. I took one NSW Greens MP to task for writing an op-ed against the approval for the new Sydney Zoo that cited the extinction of the thylacine as evidence that zoos do nothing for conservation. The thylacine went extinct in 1936.
Here's another article that was released today that ties into the one that Batto posted. It's about what the zoos would look like (as if we don't already): This is What Zoos of the Future Could Look Like
Very well-said. It is important to note that not all people to criticize zoos are nuts, some are smart people who have done their research and have good intentions. Zoos should always be looking for ways to improve, maybe in a 100 years people will look back on modern zoos and talk about how terrible they are compared to their awesome future zoos, ha ha.
Personally I think it might help to encourage more people to see zoos and aquariums as places learn. I think a lot of anti-zoo people get turned off by all of the folks who go into zoos and walk out not learning anything, or worse, walk out with the wrong message. (it drives me totally nuts the way so many people think "The environment is doomed, zoos are gonna be the only place to see animals in 10 years!" THAT. ATTITUDE. IS. NOT. HELPING!) It also might help to show the different ways zoos promote conservation, most people are only familiar with conservation breeding, (which those of us here at ZooChat know is complicated) but lots of zoos support environmentalist legislation, work with and/or fund in-situ conservation programs in other places, and try to bring awareness to some of the more obscure issues. "Don't litter" is common sense (though sadly, doesn't always seem to be common practice) to anyone over a certain age, and it's no secret that poaching is a big problem, but zoos will also talk about the problems with palm oil, how noise pollution harms cetaceans
But just as well, zoos ain't going anywhere anytime soon. Attendance is still plenty high, (aren't some places even breaking records?) it's just the internet makes it easy for small groups to be loud. (how funny would it be for a news report to use ZooChat as evidence that people today are obsessed with zoos?) Also worth noting that people who are opposed to the mainstream are usually more outspoken than people who are for it. People who are converts to a group tend to be much louder than those raised in it. Supporting zoos is mainstream, if it wasn't, anti-zoo people wouldn't be so aggressive.
The article starts with praise for the animal overhead tunnels. Hopefully it makes more people come to see this thing. For me it is interesting as a reversal of the trend to present animals at a distance behind water moats.
The article makes some good points, but also misses some. For example, ignores that animals are not happy in the wild. Their life is hard, and invariably short. No mention that behavioral enrichment is common nowadays, but often not spectacular or noticed by visitors, and abnormal behavior of animals like stereotypies became very rare in zoos during the last decade. No mention that computer generated effects mean that TV and film can present fake animals and habitats when the wildlife goes extinct. No mention that spacious exhibits mean that many species go extinct in zoos. I even thought of a catchy phrase about it: if you want to re-build the Noah's Ark to give everybody a queen-sized apartment cabin, then most of passengers must be pushed overboard.
The article makes some good points, but also misses some. For example, ignores that animals are not happy in the wild. Their life is hard, and invariably short. No mention that behavioral enrichment is common nowadays, but often not spectacular or noticed by visitors, and abnormal behavior of animals like stereotypies became very rare in zoos during the last decade. No mention that computer generated effects mean that TV and film can present fake animals and habitats when the wildlife goes extinct. No mention that spacious exhibits mean that many species go extinct in zoos. I even thought of a catchy phrase about it: if you want to re-build the Noah's Ark to give everybody a queen-sized apartment cabin, then most of passengers must be pushed overboard.
Because nobody wants to think that far into the future.
The end of the article, Imagining the Future of Zoos, is just bizarre. First of all, it is only Jon Coe's opinion, so I don't know why they give it such weight. Second of all, it seems to have no basis in reality. High rise zoos? Most mid sized city zoos having only a few large animals? I don't think so.
Yeah... A high-rise Zoo sounds kinda weird, TBH. Though it has worked for various aquariums, like Austria's Aqua Terra Zoo and the Berlin Aquarium (TBH, I've only visited the second...)
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
Although it's obviously not the future of zoos, the vertical zoo is a concept that I expect to see in new urban developments looking to differentiate themselves. Imagine a few tropical houses stacked on top of each other, with additional floors where the sides open to the elements. It would have to be executed extremely well but I think it could work.
I'd definitely like to see something like that 
something like a cross between the Zoo Berlin Aquarium and the various pavilions, greenhouses and terraces of Wilhelma.
something like a cross between the Zoo Berlin Aquarium and the various pavilions, greenhouses and terraces of Wilhelma.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
The landmark book Animals and Architecture, by David Hancocks (written in 1971, before he went over to the dark side), includes plans for just such a vertical zoo, drawn up by Cambridge Seven Associates, for the city of Boston. Hancock writes, "the vertical zoo is one of the first original zoological concepts of any scale since Hagenbeck pioneered the use of moats in Hamburg". Plus ça change....
wensleydale
Well-Known Member
Who was David Hancocks? Just wondering.