Lartis' perspective

[LARTIS]

After I had created the thread
establishing a future for zoos
I realized I had a different expectation of where the conversation d go and also that there was more than I used to think before
Since my perspective on the perspective of zoos I choose to create a new thread

Because I have neither laptop nor computer and just an old smart phone I want to split the different chapter into different posts so please wait a bit before you react

First of all my approach to the matter us a bit more philosophical and not that economical

Pretty much the entire world was shaped by man by now and so ethics do mean an impact and are not just theory
but shape our action

This was the introduction
so now I list every issue I see

 

[LARTIS]

1. Finances
There are two main types of a financial plan that are either support by goverment and entry fees
both additionaly recieve donations

This world is big and there are a lot of problems but I believe at least partialy that professional zoological institution might have failed a bit to define a bit more efficent their state
what they stand for and why they are important
since public awarenes probably defined their fund more or less direct
The governet d give more if that d be a matter to their crowd
Same d apply for visitors that d relate to a specific price

This might just be my opion but I believe animals deserve rights that protect them frpm exploition and some institutions like crappy road side zoos
I think only professional at least scientific oriented institutions d be allowed to keep animals and other species

I find it unprofessional for zoos to included rides wirh the only exception some smaller ones for children but not roller coasters and other stuff
A zoo should be an educational instituions

Hotels do not support that either
Not just do they bring up potential discrimination like mentioned by several on the other thread but are also off key for me.

Third and last for finances
I do not like the impact donators have on zoological gardens
I do neither want to read any brand name on a zoo map nor do I want people that obviously are not familiar with zoology to decide what and how d be built
This is an ethical opion and tho I full heartly believe in this do understand and might if I was to act pragmatic too

Until the rebuilt of blijdorps oceanarium they managed to show one of the best tracks thru different landscapes of the americas I had ever aeen and heard of
But the friends of blijdorp destroyed the educational concept for me
I do not want a what is cute programme
I want a scientific professional driven plan

 

[LARTIS]

2. Education
Zoological gardens in my opion are a sort of museum and so I expect them to offer proper abilites to inform oneself
A single sign is the must have
but alone is not that much if even enough
interactive exhibitions seem to be percieved best
yes they expensive but one has to start somewhere
I think the design of a zoo sign said a lot about the park
and I have seen a lot of concepts that seemed like they d not care

Since the trend was more space for less species and human grew against their nature less fond of walking I see the perfecr set up for more exhibitions along the path

I d like to see the evolutional history of the species
the history of specific adaptions
exhibitons about their habitat
I want to now more about the relationship of them with other species their general enviorment and potentialy cultural influenced they sparked



A huge gap in the representation of nature are invertebrates and other micro organisms that along fungi create the enviorment the bigger species lived in

I honestly do not believe the phrase the public wants this and that and so we could not
In my opion they are the institutions to create the awareness they refer to
The people might not come for grasshopper but I think if properly done they could at least remember them and built an association that might take off to am extend that they start to care about more than just abc big and cute.

 

[LARTIS]

3. Accuracy

This was sort of a subgroup of education

I expect a better representation

this does not apply to what I d call traditional zoos of the menangerie style

but for all the geographical landscape zoos

The themes are more off than theie possibilites allowed them to use them to excuse what was probably rather lack of professionality or Idk


I do not want to see any australian species an asian theme enclousure

further asia like every other continet is neither a country nor is a country even the concept

nature does not stick to man made boundaries

so we d rather talk specific ecosystems


I am fine when a species was choosen because they looked like another actual native species but everything else just caused false associations within the visitors


I do not want to see too much if any cultural influence built into the recreation of am ecosystem

Sure it is not easy to mimic the original ans at time a bit of adaption was needed

but some zoos just straight for kitsch


Zoos should not instrumentalize animals. They can not speak for themself. Professional institutions can not allow any human perception or association shaping their treatment and presentation

speak neither religious nor political comment please in a special exhibit ok but the wntire set up no

visitors have to aknowledge that their man made constructs do not apply what meant they might see genitalia sexual behaviour even between same sex individuals they might see a birth or death and dead

 

[LARTIS]

4. Enclosure

I think some steps that were taken quiet recently did not go far enough
Some zoos' renewed and enlarged were still smaller and less enricht thru elements than those of other institutions

Every animal should be able to find a save place away from the visitors and even individuals of their species or other animals incase they share an enclosure

The zoos should further plan ahead and concider a complex with different species that could either share or at least switch their enclosures with one another

No coinhabitance should even be planned without a building complex that allowed the zoo to keep them seperate if needed

I also believe that it is not professional to keep just a small number of a species
At least a certain part of institutions should keep several couples with the only exceptions I can think of harems that often do allready include several females and males at time too
This way a shortage or pause d prevented
If two specimens did npt get along with one another the zoo d not have to organize an entire new exchange


I think shows with wild animals are a no go

 

[LARTIS]

5. Management
Like mentioned above I have experienced several times now that there seemed to be a lack of management ans communication at the zoos themself and between the institutions

I uses to believe that all zoos d be aware of the status of the species they keep because in my opion zoos promoted it that way

Lile mentioned on the gaur thread
Some zoos seemed to have single handed choose to phase out a species while others continued to breed and even import new blood

I also had the impression that the succes of a species d heavily depend on the person that managed the stood book

I mean I might be misinformed but I d prefer more transparence both at the zoo and online

I think with a better management we d not have to loose some species to the change of time defined by more space for less species

How zoos managed the topic of wild caught individuals confused me
Instead of educating the public they seemed to have given in to the wild caught equals bad

Some individuals seem to be able to adapt to the captive enviorment some do not
tho we do can draw connectionsbetween species and their needs obviously
there can be exceptions
any way I hoped to see more studies that evaluated how different species reacted to captivity

 

[LARTIS]

6. Conservation
Not just for the reputation bust also the actual need I expect zoos from the western world since not all are able to afford this to work closer with insitu programms and local sanctuaries

I even think succefull finacial support could be rewarded with some specimen of the species kept and breed localy to be send as representive, so the shown species would automaticaly embody the effiency of the program

What I also had in mind when I mentioned geographical accuracy was that the public wozld be enabled to relate more to conservation programms and why a cerrain amount of money was needed to pay of each programm and nost just one for the false portrajed non existent land they had built

Taxonomy is a topic on its own
but even if a population was just a subspecies or some chose to call them local population I think they still needed protection

I do not know how one wants to argue when a specific population showed both a distinct behaviour and physical characteristics but I would support to create a proper general care system management plan
that tried to avoid hybridization as far as possible
interbreeding is not bad per se to cerrain extent even essential to the survival of a species, but some zoos are just unprofessional.
There is not just one tiger species. this way too obvious, why did not they change that allready, politics. A highly fractioned and seprated population does help either even if theoretically enough specimen were left.
And also specis subspecies and population can not be defined like that. Three distinct lines might not make a new sub or full species yet but they were about to when theie enviorment had set the path to.

 

[LARTIS]

7. critical
A while ago I creates a thread to ask other members on zoochat for their opinion on the political aspect of conservation and I wanted to note my opion here too.

The entire topic is complex and I do not like to speak on such critical issues but these are a part of the zoological and conservational conversation that I think we more or less have to

Like mentioned there was not realy one rule that could be applied to every scenario but ai personaly found what seemed to be summary that it is complex not accurate
such a phrase left too many opportunities for excuses in my opion

My opinion is that neither the landscape nor the species could be property of a state
I do accept their official claim to manage their country in a diplomatic way
but obly to the extend that they do not abuse their responsebilities
animal should not be use like an instrument
I ethicaly did not found the claim of a country valid to hold a monopoly on a species
especialy when they fail to properly protect them
this also applied to populations not threatened

At time I had the impressions that the status of a species was manipulated to avoid their habitat to be declared necessary for survival and a need for an official globaly recognized and demanded action plan

 

[LARTIS]

This should be what I had on my mind originaly at least for now.
I mean all of this is complex and I believe it is difficult to do this topic justice and probably might have compromise too much or expressed myself in a different way tham I actualy meant it, but enough for now

 

[Westcoastperson]

Ok I have some notes and questions if that's ok

I think only professional at least scientific oriented institutions d be allowed to keep animals and other species

What is the basis? Actual scientists, or the requirement for a zookeeper to just have a degree in some form of life science? And I assume this sort of thing would be implemented through exotic animal permits? So would it be more of a crackdown on acquiring exotic animals for zoos?

I find it unprofessional for zoos to included rides wirh the only exception some smaller ones for children but not roller coasters and other stuff

What about boat and safari rides? Or any ride that adds to the animal exhibits? I do agree large scale rollercoasters have no place in a zoo.

I do not like the impact donators have on zoological gardens
I do neither want to read any brand name on a zoo map nor do I want people that obviously are not familiar with zoology to decide what and how d be built
This is an ethical opion and tho I full heartly believe in this do understand and might if I was to act pragmatic too

I would like to remind you Africa Rocks at the San Diego zoo costed 66 million dollars and was funded by Conrad Prebys who was an eccentric philanthropist. He donated to many Universities and Institutes across the United States. While he shouldn't have control over the design of the area his contribution was crucial in making such an amazing group of exhibits. Zoos just can't make the kind of money to fund a project like that, and the government would never contribute that much money for a zoo exhibit. While the name Conrad Prebys Africa Rocks is weird it is meaningless when you look at what his money built.

I do not want to see any australian species an asian theme enclousure

further asia like every other continet is neither a country nor is a country even the concept

Well by those standards the entire Malay archipelago must be disconnected from "Asian" sections because everything on the right side of the Wallace line is stereotypically Australian.
So if a zoo wants to do a Malaysian Archipelago exhibit it cannot be counted as "Asia" but instead it's own separate section.

Every animal should be able to find a save place away from the visitors and even individuals of their species or other animals incase they share an enclosure

From the ones I have read this is actually a requirement in the AZA

I also believe that it is not professional to keep just a small number of a species

Solitary species? Bachelor Troops? Brothers or Sisters? Also that cuts off zoos with less space from holding many species.

 

[WalkingAgnatha]

Well by those standards the entire Malay archipelago must be disconnected from "Asian" sections because everything on the right side of the Wallace line is stereotypically Australian.
So if a zoo wants to do a Malaysian Archipelago exhibit it cannot be counted as "Asia" but instead it's own separate section.

No? the Wallace Line separates the Malay Archipelago in half, with the side with Asian species/(the ones that would be typically counted as Asia in zoos) count as Asia. If you're arguing about an exhibit that displays creatures from all across the Malay Archipelago (such as from New Guinea, etc).Then I'd argue those should go in their own section.

 

[Westcoastperson]

No? the Wallace Line separates the Malay Archipelago in half, with the side with Asian species/(the ones that would be typically counted as Asia in zoos) count as Asia. If you're arguing about an exhibit that displays creatures from all across the Malay Archipelago (such as from New Guinea, etc).Then I'd argue those should go in their own section.

I would say Asia is it's own section and everything in the Malay Archipelago should be separate, including New Guinea, in the Indonesia section instead. So instead of having Asia and Australia with weird overlap, you have Asia, Indonesia, and Australia. Then you can have Australian animals in those typically "Asian" exhibits.

 

[LARTIS]

Ok I have some notes and questions if that's ok

What is the basis? Actual scientists, or the requirement for a zookeeper to just have a degree in some form of life science? And I assume this sort of thing would be implemented through exotic animal permits? So would it be more of a crackdown on acquiring exotic animals for zoos?

What about boat and safari rides? Or any ride that adds to the animal exhibits? I do agree large scale rollercoasters have no place in a zoo.

I would like to remind you Africa Rocks at the San Diego zoo costed 66 million dollars and was funded by Conrad Prebys who was an eccentric philanthropist. He donated to many Universities and Institutes across the United States. While he shouldn't have control over the design of the area his contribution was crucial in making such an amazing group of exhibits. Zoos just can't make the kind of money to fund a project like that, and the government would never contribute that much money for a zoo exhibit. While the name Conrad Prebys Africa Rocks is weird it is meaningless when you look at what his money built.

Well by those standards the entire Malay archipelago must be disconnected from "Asian" sections because everything on the right side of the Wallace line is stereotypically Australian.
So if a zoo wants to do a Malaysian Archipelago exhibit it cannot be counted as "Asia" but instead it's own separate section.

From the ones I have read this is actually a requirement in the AZA

Solitary species? Bachelor Troops? Brothers or Sisters? Also that cuts off zoos with less space from holding many species.

Sorry, I d like to quotw properly like you did but my old phone some how does not get that.
Any way
I concider an instutions and therefore their keepers professional when they at least aknowledge the science of zoology in the sense to live up to the responsibility it meant to keep and present the shown species. So the husbrandy should look like a when they it it must be good feeding schedule. That the design of the enclosure and exhibitions are educational and not made for the amusement of the visitor or themself.
In my opion a degree is not necessarily needed to study scienftific paper.

I do not see that much of an issue with a boat or other transport ride, if not overly present.
But once again I exected that the aninals are given a place to hide from noise pollution.

For a system must be broken when an institution relied on a fund that had such a condition tied to donation.

I think a project called malay archipelo should even keep the species from each island in different parts of the structure.

Europe has a quiet high density in parks and could easily create a cluster where each park near the other could choose a different island or area.

More less the zoological gardens in nrw a german state arranged at least partially such a concept. No idea if true but they claim to have the highest density of zoological gardens worldwide.

Just because they keep several specimen does not mean all of them must share an enclosure. Like I tried to express, the creation of a bachelor group could be easier when some parks would keep more than just a couple.

 

[LARTIS]

I also wanted to mention that all people have a right to experience and educate themself and therefor the entry fee should included possibilites for those that are not able to buy a ticket.

Another related argument was that I opoaed monopolies for certain species because all people around the world should be able to see a broader range of the animal kingdom, not just stuffed.

I think large eco climate halls might become more common, or at least I hoped so, amd think one sort rarely done the arctic and alpine house might join the collection

 

[LARTIS]

I wanted to mention one institutions that managed to represent if not even embody what I had on my mind when I talked about transparency

Tho I d prefer they would have had a site themself Zoo Dortmund shared all informations about births arrivals but also deaths

They do ot shy away to speak the truth potentialy provoke a converation and critic

 

[15399]

There are two main types of a financial plan that are either support by goverment and entry fees
both additionaly recieve donations

This is not true- all zoos, even ones owned by local governments, rely on admissions/gift shop/concessions stand/other fees for the majority of their revenue. Smithsonian National Zoo is the only possible exception I can think of. The part about donations is true though.

 

[15399]

I also believe that it is not professional to keep just a small number of a species

What about species that are solitary? Do you support a zoo keeping a single, say, argentine black and white tegu? Or a single blood python?

 

[LARTIS]

This is not true- all zoos, even ones owned by local governments, rely on admissions/gift shop/concessions stand/other fees for the majority of their revenue. Smithsonian National Zoo is the only possible exception I can think of. The part about donations is true though.

I can not speak for zoos outside europe if not rather even just germany, but the consensus that I am quiet confident to got away from documentaries on the importance of these institutions also communicated that there are in general either goverment funded zoos and private zoos.
I do not deny that the entry fees and souvenir purchases d not have an impact, but the fund was often named the enabling power to keep the zoo running and paying for new enclosures. That was the reason I refered to the impact of an public opion in relation to the govement.

 

[LARTIS]

What about species that are solitary? Do you support a zoo keeping a single, say, argentine black and white tegu? Or a single blood python?

First and foremost i refered to species that are not that common to prevent a negative impact caused thru the time the paper work and organization along the lack of oversight d mean

Like mentioned before not every instituion has to but more than the current numbers.

If a species was neither rare nor needed any companionship a single individual for sure should be allright.