NY Times Takes Another Shot at Zoos

Gomphothere

Gomphothere

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
Opinion | The Case Against Zoos

The piece, by Emma Marris, has not yet appeared in the paper's print version. From experience, I suspect it's destined for this Sunday's Week in Review section. This appears to be condensed version of a part of the author's new book coming out at the end of this month-the part that takes its aim at zoos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its clearly labelled an opinion piece. It has nothing to with the paper, its just a guest who has an opinion linked to an upcoming book they are promoting. Someone could clearly write an opinion in opposition to this opinion piece. I may disagree with them completely but I am happy we have mechanisms for this type of debate.
 
While I do disagree with most of this article (although they do make some good points about focusing on species with real conservation needs and better education programs), it is really unfair to blame the New York Times for this piece, which as @nczoofan said, is an opinion piece. It seems really misleading to label the thread, "New York Times Takes Another Shot At Zoos", as this isn't the opinion of a newspaper, it is the opinion of a well-respected and unbiased newspaper who regularly publishes opinion pieces expressing a plethora of different, opposing opinions. In response to this one, perhaps there will be a pro-zoo OP-ed in the NY Times in the coming days or weeks.
 
I've been reading the NYTimes daily for forty years and defending its news coverage from my conservative friends and acquaintances for that entire time, but let's be real. Long, single subject opinion pieces like this only make it into the Times after a selection process, part of which is the paper's own opinion bias. They make no claim to have an objective, balanced op-ed section, and never have. However objective their straight news coverage might usually be, their selection of op-ed pieces--while it does contain some variety--is not balanced or unbiased and has never been, any more than the WSJ's op-ed page is. You can bet your last retirement fund dollar that the case for zoos will never get the same lengthy treatment, and it is perfectly fair to attribute that imbalance to the paper.
 
I read the article and I didn't really get the impression that it was exactly "anti-zoo" or a case of "taking another shot at zoos" and compared to some articles I've read that have an explicit and definitive anti-zoo stance this was a far more balanced article that presented both sides of the argument.

Maybe its just me but personally I got the impression that the author is giving a constructive critique of zoos and asking whether these institutions can deliver more than platitudes when it comes to claims about conservation and education.

IMO she does raise some very valid points and particularly when questioning zoos contributions to conservation of biodiversity, for example this point I find quite intresting:

"What if zoos stopped breeding all their animals, with the possible exception of any endangered species with a real chance of being released back into the wild? What if they sent all the animals that need really large areas or lots of freedom and socialization to refuges? With their apes, elephants, big cats, and other large and smart species gone, they could expand enclosures for the rest of the animals, concentrating on keeping them lavishly happy until their natural deaths. Eventually, the only animals on display would be a few ancient holdovers from the old menageries, animals in active conservation breeding programs and perhaps a few rescues."

Sadly I have to say these are pretty much the same doubts that I have about zoos and zoo visitors / fans and conservation:

"I remember well the awe and joy on their faces, 15 years later. I’d like to think these kids, now in their early 20s, are working for a conservation organization somewhere. But there’s no unambiguous evidence that zoos are making visitors care more about conservation or take any action to support it. After all, more than 700 million people visit zoos and aquariums worldwide every year, and biodiversity is still in decline."

"A 2008 study of 206 zoo visitors by some members of the same team showed that while 42 percent said that the “main purpose” of the zoo was “to teach visitors about animals and conservation,” 66 percent said that their primary reason for going was “to have an outing with friends or family,” and just 12 percent said their intention was “to learn about animals.”

The conclusion of the article with the author stating that she would like to see zoos turned into botanical gardens or rescue centres / sanctuaries was probably the thing that I thought was most crappy about the piece.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
"A 2008 study of 206 zoo visitors by some members of the same team showed that while 42 percent said that the “main purpose” of the zoo was “to teach visitors about animals and conservation,” 66 percent said that their primary reason for going was “to have an outing with friends or family,” and just 12 percent said their intention was “to learn about animals.”
Click to expand...
A sample of only 206 in a study from 2008 hardly shows any relevance to today. Plus it only mentions the "main purpose" for the visitors not the possibility that all these visitors came for this main reason but also didn't learn something about the animals or conservation efforts.
 
Echobeast said:
A sample of only 206 in a study from 2008 hardly shows any relevance to today. Plus it only mentions the "main purpose" for the visitors not the possibility that all these visitors came for this main reason but also didn't learn something about the animals or conservation efforts.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that a more up to date study would have been better for her to have quoted from and fair point about conservation education through recreation.
 
I’m tired of having to hedge my enjoyment of zoos as a by-product of some necessary evil.

I’m just done having the conversation. This author isn’t engaging in discourse, she is selling a book. Her target audience already agrees with her. I don’t care what she says.
 
CGSwans said:
I’m tired of having to hedge my enjoyment of zoos as a by-product of some necessary evil.

I’m just done having the conversation. This author isn’t engaging in discourse, she is selling a book. Her target audience already agrees with her. I don’t care what she says.
Click to expand...

So I take it you are no fan of Aspinall ?
 
The are are lots of decades-old misconceptions about zoos in this book, for example, that main conservation purpose of zoos is breeding endangered species for release (gathering funds, expertise and support for wild conservation are more important) or that some nebulous sanctuaries could take over the role of zoos (few exist and lack dependable income). I don't know where the author saw animals 'from ancient menageries'. The menageries don't exist since decades and the generation of animals which lived there is long dead.

The claim there is 'there’s no unambiguous evidence that zoos are making visitors care more about conservation or take any action to support it' is untrue. There are tens of peer-reviewed articles which quantify attitudes of zoo visitors, and thousands of reserves worldwide supported by funds and visits from zoo visitors in particular.

Anyway, if someone feels to write a letter to NY Times how he likes zoos, even (or especially) an emotional one, it would be good.

CGSwans said:
she is selling a book.
Click to expand...

Then she picked her target wrong. :] It is like writing a book why football and other spectator games are bad for health and should be phased out. It is well known that more people in America visit zoos than spectator sport matches combined, even before the pandemics.

She should have written a guide where to see wild animals in the U.S., a guide to zoos, safari parks, reserves and national parks.
 
CGSwans said:
I’m tired of having to hedge my enjoyment of zoos as a by-product of some necessary evil.

I’m just done having the conversation. This author isn’t engaging in discourse, she is selling a book. Her target audience already agrees with her. I don’t care what she says.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t have said it better myself.

No really I can’t.
 
As I expected, it's the front page article of today's Week in Review section. And the Times didn't entitle it "The Pros and Cons of Zoos". The Times entitled it "The Case Against Zoos". The placement and the title make it clear that the paper is taking a shot.
 
Jurek7 said:
...It is like writing a book...
She should have written a guide where to see wild animals in the U.S., a guide to zoos, safari parks, reserves and national parks.
Click to expand...
If you think guidebooks to zoos sell well, the three of us on ZooChat who have written such guides will tell you otherwise.
 
It won't let me read the article unless I create an account (which I am not going to do - I have too many online accounts already).
 
Gomphothere said:
As I expected, it's the front page article of today's Week in Review section. And the Times didn't entitle it "The Pros and Cons of Zoos". The Times entitled it "The Case Against Zoos". The placement and the title make it clear that the paper is taking a shot.
Click to expand...

Gomphothere said:
The online version is headlined: "Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost"
Click to expand...

The title could have reflected the nuanced nature of the debate on zoos and the article itself but I guess the editor (or the author ?) decided otherwise and went for the more sensationalist approach.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
The title could have reflected the nuanced nature of the debate on zoos and the article itself but I guess the editor (or the author ?) decided otherwise and went for the more sensationalist approach.
Click to expand...
I honestly think the online title rather accurately describes the article, despite disagreeing with it. Had they put that title on both, it would have been their best decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top