Damian Aspinall: You all know my views on zoos prove me wrong

Come back with empirical facts that justify the existence of the thousands of zoos in europe please.
Education to the European people about why they should care about animals, breeding animals that are about to become or are already extinct in the wild to release them, to learn about the animal's health breeding patterns and overall information to help grow our knowledge on them and protect them, and to have back up populations of animals in case the seventh mass extinction gets as bad as we think. And don't say those aren't worth the animals living in cages because not all animals are depressed and live in cages. If you can somehow prove EVERY animal in captivity is depressed and slowly dying because of being in captivity with zoological, biological, and psychological evidence then your argument makes sense. But the problem is that isn't true, it's the opposite, we have found that most animals live longer in captivity and have better lives than they would in the wild.
 
Zoos are prisons there is simply no getting away from that and as for safe haven 95% of mammals in zoos are not even threatened there are only 45 critically endangered mammals in zoos so the safe haven argument has no merit.Plus of those 45 species only 3-4 are actually viable the others are hybrids inbred or genetically not viable.
A few zoos release some smaller species and even fewer release larger mammals but how does this justify zoos especially when they could of been protected in the wild in the first place.
May I ask which 3 to 4 species are "actually viable" and which are hybird?
 
well that's not necessarily true as the money people waste going to zoos if these people truly care about conservation which is the zoos argument then they will support conservation projects regardless. And more importantly the money that zoos raise is a pittance and really has no real measured benefit and no proof that these projects would not of found the money elsewhere .
This is exactly the radical language everyone's talking about!
 
yes i agree it is not easy but look if we can save the mountain gorilla without having them in zoos in a place with civil war rabid poaching and de forestation then honestly we can do it in most places and we must at least try everything possible before any type of captivity.

I don't like to move from numbers to one-off examples. But mountain gorillas are highly unusual because they generate luxury tourism which is a large part of Rwanda's income. Not even other great apes do that. Lowland gorillas? Nope. Tapanuli oragnutans? No. Bonobos? No. Javan gibbons? No. Hainan gibbons? No.

Opposite would be Javan tigers or northern white rhinos. Breeding them ex-situ was called but was turned down. Both went extinct in the wild.

Another case is wisent or european bison.There are releases from zoos to the wild, but many of these groups survived for several years and decades but were killed by poachers. Everybody is aware, that if a civil unrest or a war happens, wisent population in the area goes into a free-fall and in few years is extinct. Mind you, Europe in the late 20-21 century.

You still ignore the role of zoos in raising general public interest in wildlife and, indirectly, creating donations and sponsorships in the West which you suggest are alternative financing. Note that you yourself became interested in zoo animals in England, not wild animals in Rwanda. And you are on a forum of enthusiasts of zoos, but there was not enough enthusiasts to make a forum of enthusiasts of wild African national parks.
 
I am keen to learn what these species cannot be re introduced and cannot be allowed to remain in situ. Thank you ..i ask as we have been told the same thing with every introduction we have done however with hard work and commitment we have succeeded ...

I'm a fish nerd, so that's what's going to come to mind for me, and one that leaps right out is the Yangtze sturgeon (Acipenser dabryanus). Due to pollution and damming of the Yangtze, it cannot breed in the wild, and the only thing keeping it from going extinct is captive breeding.

Also several species of pupfishes endemic to springs of the American Southwest, extinct in the wild because their springs have degraded or dried up completely. Some are even around now because dedicated aquarium hobbyists started breeding them in the 70s through an American Killifish Association breeding program.
 
Last edited:
Well this is where we differ considerably which is fine..in my mind the idea that we can keep animals in cages just so people can see them in the flesh fills me with utter dread. It makes homo sapiens a horror species that it could be so arrogant to deprive animals from there natural environment for this reason. I literally feel this is barbaric. As to the amount of money you think zoos contribute to conservation on average the amount of money given by every eaza zoo in 35k pa. is that acceptable to you? Has anyone ever measures the effectiveness of that money every year to see if it justifies the animals being kept in cages ..no sadly...

I agree keeping animals in captivity purely for the purpose of exhibition and entertainment is wrong, but I honestly believe zoos are so much more.

In New Zealand, we have breeding programmes for kiwi, where eggs are taken from the wild (where their chance of survival are 5%); reared in captivity until they weigh enough to fend of a stoat attack and then released. It’s sad that due to the existence of introduced pest species, we have to resort to this; but while we work on eradication, it’s the most practical thing we can do to help the species.

New Zealander’s are immensely proud of their national bird and by visiting their local zoo, not only contribute towards the conservation of this species; but gain an appreciation for how they can help it’s survival.
 
Mr. Aspinall,

First let me say that I would not consider myself a zoo enthusiast. I like them just fine, but don’t have the attachment to them that most people here are going to have, so I’m not going to feel the same need to defend them that others here will. I’m more an aquarium guy, and even so I’ve been happy to see the phaseout of cetacean shows and the keeping of cetaceans in captivity. Unless injured and unable to survive in the wild, such wide-ranging species as orcas, belugas, dolphins, etc. do not belong in captivity.

From what I’ve learned in googling you since yesterday, I do have to say you try harder to make the world a better place than a certain other real estate mogul we all know, whose “charitable activities” have turned out to be fraudulent. But your zeal to advocate for animals which inspires you to call for the closing of zoos, it is the zeal of the passionate amateur I as an environmental scientist have often seen from environmental activists – big on passion, but lacking in knowledge and objectivity. It leads you down the road to extremism. Your belief that zoo animals are “enslaved” and “exploited” is the same rhetoric of the vegan, of people who push for the abolition of keeping fish in both public and private hobbyist aquariums. It’s the same type of overblown rhetoric that leads to some so-called “ethicists” to say that it is unethical to keep pets at all, even dogs and cats. This last example shows how impoverished in knowledge and reason this kind of rhetoric is; we did not “enslave” dogs and cats, they are two species that evolved to domesticate themselves to humans because it was advantageous to them to do so, and in the case of dogs there is good evidence that dogs “domesticated” humans as much as they domesticated themselves to us.

All this handwringing over humans exploiting animals, whether for food, for companionship, for entertainment, as if it is “unnatural” or wrong – allow me to let you in on the open secret pretty much anyone who as objectively studied the natural world is already aware of: animals exploit other animals, that’s the way of nature. Predators exploit their prey. Parasites exploit their hosts (you call humans a “horror species” for putting animals in zoos, take a university-level course in parasitology and you’ll see some species that will give you nightmares). Dogs exploited us for our trash heaps, cats for the rodents our granaries attracted, and then both manipulated our behavior to get us to care for them. You see an animal being “exploited” by being cared for in a large modern naturalistic enclosure with regular feedings instead of the intermittent starvation many wild animals deal with, protected from the predators that would exploit them in the wild, treated to live healthy and free of the parasites that routinely exploit wild animals. And in the meantime their species is being saved from extinction, with the tradeoff for this comfort and security for them and their species being kids get to come and see them and enjoy their beauty, learn a little about wildlife up close in the way that a picture in a book can’t inspire them to do, and some, as a result, may go on to university to study the environment and biology in the desire to continue the work of keeping these animals and their natural habitats from disappearing.
 
Mr. Aspinall,

First let me say that I would not consider myself a zoo enthusiast. I like them just fine, but don’t have the attachment to them that most people here are going to have, so I’m not going to feel the same need to defend them that others here will. I’m more an aquarium guy, and even so I’ve been happy to see the phaseout of cetacean shows and the keeping of cetaceans in captivity. Unless injured and unable to survive in the wild, such wide-ranging species as orcas, belugas, dolphins, etc. do not belong in captivity.

From what I’ve learned in googling you since yesterday, I do have to say you try harder to make the world a better place than a certain other real estate mogul we all know, whose “charitable activities” have turned out to be fraudulent. But your zeal to advocate for animals which inspires you to call for the closing of zoos, it is the zeal of the passionate amateur I as an environmental scientist have often seen from environmental activists – big on passion, but lacking in knowledge and objectivity. It leads you down the road to extremism. Your belief that zoo animals are “enslaved” and “exploited” is the same rhetoric of the vegan, of people who push for the abolition of keeping fish in both public and private hobbyist aquariums. It’s the same type of overblown rhetoric that leads to some so-called “ethicists” to say that it is unethical to keep pets at all, even dogs and cats. This last example shows how impoverished in knowledge and reason this kind of rhetoric is; we did not “enslave” dogs and cats, they are two species that evolved to domesticate themselves to humans because it was advantageous to them to do so, and in the case of dogs there is good evidence that dogs “domesticated” humans as much as they domesticated themselves to us.

All this handwringing over humans exploiting animals, whether for food, for companionship, for entertainment, as if it is “unnatural” or wrong – allow me to let you in on the open secret pretty much anyone who as objectively studied the natural world is already aware of: animals exploit other animals, that’s the way of nature. Predators exploit their prey. Parasites exploit their hosts (you call humans a “horror species” for putting animals in zoos, take a university-level course in parasitology and you’ll see some species that will give you nightmares). Dogs exploited us for our trash heaps, cats for the rodents our granaries attracted, and then both manipulated our behavior to get us to care for them. You see an animal being “exploited” by being cared for in a large modern naturalistic enclosure with regular feedings instead of the intermittent starvation many wild animals deal with, protected from the predators that would exploit them in the wild, treated to live healthy and free of the parasites that routinely exploit wild animals. And in the meantime their species is being saved from extinction, with the tradeoff for this comfort and security for them and their species being kids get to come and see them and enjoy their beauty, learn a little about wildlife up close in the way that a picture in a book can’t inspire them to do, and some, as a result, may go on to university to study the environment and biology in the desire to continue the work of keeping these animals and their natural habitats from disappearing.

Very interesting read, thank you
 
Hey, something very important I just realized. Jane Goodall the mother of chimpanzees, a woman who knows chimpanzees the best out of any zoologist. She approved of a Chimpanzee exhibit built by the Los Angeles Zoo. If zoos were truly prisons for animals why would Jane Goodall approve of what you would call a cage? Chimpanzees are some of the most intelligent and social animals on this planet and arguably one of the hardest animals to keep in captivity so if we can care for them so well that Jane Goodall approves it, who says we can't correctly take care of any other species of animal.
 
Hey, something very important I just realized. Jane Goodall the mother of chimpanzees, a woman who knows chimpanzees the best out of any zoologist. She approved of a Chimpanzee exhibit built by the Los Angeles Zoo. If zoos were truly prisons for animals why would Jane Goodall approve of what you would call a cage? Chimpanzees are some of the most intelligent and social animals on this planet and arguably one of the hardest animals to keep in captivity so if we can care for them so well that Jane Goodall approves it, who says we can't correctly take care of any other species of animal.
How did Jane Goodall get involved with the chimp exhibit in LA?
 
My personal view: captive animal keeping is an innate characteristic of modern human race. It´s natural behaviour of Homo sapiens since at least few ten thousand years ago, long before we invented cities or wheel. It´s hard wired into our genetic code now, the same as usage of fire or tools. It´s as natural to our species as is brachiation to gibbons or infanticide to gorilas. Maybe such behaviour got selected due to its comparative advantage to our survival, maybe it´s just "collateral damage" of some other advantageous mutation during our evolution, don´t really know. All extant cultures all over the world practise animal keeping of domesticated and/or wild species. Many ancient civilisations (including precolombian America) came up with institutions that even today would fall under the term "a zoo".

In this time and age, we can AND SHOULD of course discuss the quality and reason behind animals and species kept and bred at zoos. How can we improve their husbandry. How can we make zoos better institutions. How to generate more help towards wild cousins of zoo inmates. How to sensitise zoo visitors to engage in wildlife potection. How to utilise all the knowledge gained during last few centuries. What reintroduction to undertake et cetera. But to discuss the very existence of zoos is a moot point. They exist because we are humans, it´s part of us, our heritage.
 
Back
Top