Obsessive Anti-Zoos Are A Headache

One thing I thought I would add of my own - 'the oystercatcher effect'
For years I had been reading books and consuming other reference material that presented to me the concept and being of the oystercatcher. Pictures of oystercatchers doing whatever they usually do. And so I have the general idea of what an oystercatcher is meant to be - a small black and white thing with a reddish beak; but simply because I had never seen one in person [until this year at Farlington], and mudflats - typical oystercatcher habitat; which I had glanced at, lacked them, I didn't really entirely think of the oystercatcher as a tangible object.

And I think this same effect is one that can be applied to many other things. You can have the WWF sell its 'spiritual adoption' packets on the television with visuals of snow leopards, describing what state they are in in the wild. You can show scenes of the snow leopards running around, jumping, playing ... but the thing is that in lieu of zoos not many people really think about or see snow leopards. And certainly not many people see them in their natural habitat! So their idea of a snow leopard is not one of a tangible object or living thing; but merely a beautiful thing they saw on their television set. Without seeing a snow leopard for themselves, they may never comprehend the real thickness of the snow leopard's fur, the large feet, or what muscle power they have. Just like in my 'oystercatcher virginity' I was never able to appreciate the plover-like sensibilities of the oystercatcher, their general size and proportions, or the curious way they go about toiling an area of grass. And I feel there are many things that are still this way with most people myself included - I could vaguely imagine a contrabassoon, one of the largest musical instruments, if it were standing within my range in a room - but since I have never seen one my understanding of it is inevitably limited.

And I think the future that many AR groups want is one where such first-hand experiences are nigh impossible to come by. Where animals, aside those most often kept on private holdings, are mere distant ideas or suggestions. Things that are sold in the form of toys, seen on television or cast onto a piece of paper once in a while - but not thought of as real tangible things. And I am very skeptical they would truly champion animal welfare as they claim they would - even more so after seeing how 'Friends of Toki' left her to die essentially.
 
dillotest0 said:
And I think the future that many AR groups want is one where such first-hand experiences are nigh impossible to come by. Where animals, aside those most often kept on private holdings, are mere distant ideas or suggestions.
Click to expand...

That’s assuming that they won’t go after those species as well, which is a pretty bold or naive thought.
 
PossumRoach said:
That’s assuming that they won’t go after those species as well, which is a pretty bold or naive thought.
Click to expand...
The radical animal rights activists like PETA are definitely going for that - some more obviously than others, yet still not so obvious that you don't have to be "bold or naive" to fall for their rhetorical smoke bombs...;)
 
dillotest0 said:
And I think the future that many AR groups want is one where such first-hand experiences are nigh impossible to come by.
Click to expand...
Oh 100%. And the future they want to happen now isn't even tangible.
Take the case of orcas and elephants for example (them being at the head of the animal rights debate). These groups campaign for the transfer of animals to """Sanctuaries""" which are supposedly leugues better than any and all zoos. Completly ignoring the reality that not only do these Sanctuaries simply not exist, but also the fact that several Sanctuaries have very few regulations and are potentially more likely to have animal welfare issues.
They act like there's dozens of spacious facilities (some of those sea pens might I add) at the ready to accept dozens of animals. They're not only spewing lies, they're also straight up fantasizing.
 
Frankie_number_1_fan said:
Take the case of orcas and elephants for example (them being at the head of the animal rights debate). These groups campaign for the transfer of animals to """Sanctuaries""" which are supposedly leugues better than any and all zoos. Completly ignoring the reality that not only do these Sanctuaries simply not exist, but also the fact that several Sanctuaries have very few regulations and are potentially more likely to have animal welfare issues.
They act like there's dozens of spacious facilities (some of those sea pens might I add) at the ready to accept dozens of animals. They're not only spewing lies, they're also straight up fantasizing.
Click to expand...
What particularly disturbed me was how 'Friends of Toki' did things.
So The Dolphin Company joins forces with this activist-run group to assist in Tokitae's eventual release to the wild. Or to speak more specifically, into a sea-pen where Toki could do natural orca things. And whether there ever was a sea-pen is another story. Some people; who I am inclined somewhat to believe; say there never was one, and permits had not even been admitted because they knew that there wouldn't be acceptance of such a permit.
But anyways, what does this group do now? They have been telling for decades how poor of a condition Toki was in and what great of a situation things would be if they just put her in a sea pen. Surely they would try to motivate something in the direction of rehabilitating Toki; perhaps at another facility - where not unlike Keiko her health could be monitored and managed more effectively than at the Seaquarium's whale bowl.
No. Instead much of what the group does - she remains in the whale bowl - whilst the activists merely cheer on as she shows good signs. And all the while don't do anything to try to improve her conditions, or consult nearby aquariums on rehabilitation development. A few months later, all going as grudgingly as normal - Toki dies. Nigh anything was done to maintain her welfare. Nigh anything was done to rehabilitate her. Nigh anything was done to prepare her for the presumed release. And money was put into this. It was put in trust in a certain goal - one that many people had been waiting for for years - and one that would be a big headliner for Animal Rights groups - one that had failed to be met.
But the group was immune in that they knew that in the event this would happen, they would not be associated with the happenstance. Much blame would go to the Miami Seaquarium and the Dolphin Company. And I think that's fair - the Seaquarium as an institution and the Dolphin Company did little to improve Toki's health in her later years - but I think you can make a point that the activist group did about as little. And I think both are responsible.
 
i hate Anti Zoo Groups. Here in Germany Robert Marc Lehman manipulates 100s of People with his Anti Zoo Videos. He has formerly worked at Oceaneum Stralsund and is now against every captive Animals and every Time i am on Youtube his Channel gets more and more Subscribers. Very dangerous is also the V Partei which is against Zoos. They even want to close the Augsburg Zoo and if this Partei gets more Votes i am really worried here in Germany. More and more young People are influenced and i have Fears that Zoos are soon a Thing of the Past.

Lets hope they do not close any of our great Zoos as this would be my largest Horror.
 
German Zoo World said:
i hate Anti Zoo Groups. Here in Germany Robert Marc Lehman manipulates 100s of People with his Anti Zoo Videos. He has formerly worked at Oceaneum Stralsund and is now against every captive Animals and every Time i am on Youtube his Channel gets more and more Subscribers. Very dangerous is also the V Partei which is against Zoos. They even want to close the Augsburg Zoo and if this Partei gets more Votes i am really worried here in Germany. More and more young People are influenced and i have Fears that Zoos are soon a Thing of the Past.

Lets hope they do not close any of our great Zoos as this would be my largest Horror.
Click to expand...
I'm actually not worried at all. The online anti-zoo lobbyists only appear to be prevalent in social media; in real life, they are just a small, self-centered minority, compared to the millions of people actually visiting zoos every year. Many of these young "I hate zoos because it's kool" kids change their tune once they have children on their own and desperately need a nice place, aka zoo, to take them to.
Lehmann can play the self-elected anti-zoo Saulus as much as he wants; outside his national fanbase, he's just a hipster nobody. Just as that obscure vegan V-Party. The majority of Germans have more prompting things on their mind than closing popular zoos and supporting radical vegans.
 
Batto said:
I'm actually not worried at all. The online anti-zoo lobbyists only appear to be prevalent in social media; in real life, they are just a small, self-centered minority, compared to the millions of people actually visiting zoos every year. Many of these young "I hate zoos because it's kool" kids change their tune once they have children on their own and desperately need a nice place, aka zoo, to take them to.
Click to expand...
The way I see it - it's a movement largely born out of ignorance.
The truth is - aside from real enthusiasts, scientists and the like - most people don't think about exotic animals on a daily basis unprompted.
Most or many people don't know much about exotic animals aside from social media 'fun-facts' and out of context clips on social media. And many people don't think of these animals as part of ecosystems, or conservation status. I find it something of a failure of the organisations who work extensively in conservation - but something that can be fixed in time.
And it is these people - the uninformed - who are the main audience of these groups. And the groups are often run by people who know similarly as little about animal welfare or conservation. Not a zoologist in sight.
I think we are in the midst of a 'war on knowledge'. As lacklustre content on the internet gives rise to AI systems which will be as flashy and even less reliable. I think it will be up to those who really know a thing or two about wild animals - the zoologists, the zoos, those who maintain databases and the like - to govern how this will be navigated into the future. Not just for zoology but for every subject.
 
German Zoo World said:
Lets hope they do not close any of our great Zoos as this would be my largest Horror.
Click to expand...

There's not really a real risk for AR groups to actually push any genuine big name zoos to close. They can spur some bad publicity, sure, but ultimately the good zoos do overshadows what slander gets thrown at them because AR groups are simply not backed by enough fact to change the general public's view.

They sure can be a deterrent for zoos to pursue certian projects though, which is the real frustrating thing imo. Taking SeaWorld's Blue World project as an example, the bad publicity surrounding the program pushed its cancelation. And I genuinely do think that, if done right of course, that exhibit may have began to push new standards for captive Orca care and now that will never come to fruition. Same goes for other programs like the Bronx zoo's elephant program.
 
Frankie_number_1_fan said:
Oh 100%. And the future they want to happen now isn't even tangible.
Take the case of orcas and elephants for example (them being at the head of the animal rights debate). These groups campaign for the transfer of animals to """Sanctuaries""" which are supposedly leugues better than any and all zoos. Completly ignoring the reality that not only do these Sanctuaries simply not exist, but also the fact that several Sanctuaries have very few regulations and are potentially more likely to have animal welfare issues.
They act like there's dozens of spacious facilities (some of those sea pens might I add) at the ready to accept dozens of animals. They're not only spewing lies, they're also straight up fantasizing.
Click to expand...
German Zoo World said:
i hate Anti Zoo Groups. Here in Germany Robert Marc Lehman manipulates 100s of People with his Anti Zoo Videos. He has formerly worked at Oceaneum Stralsund and is now against every captive Animals and every Time i am on Youtube his Channel gets more and more Subscribers. Very dangerous is also the V Partei which is against Zoos. They even want to close the Augsburg Zoo and if this Partei gets more Votes i am really worried here in Germany. More and more young People are influenced and i have Fears that Zoos are soon a Thing of the Past.

Lets hope they do not close any of our great Zoos as this would be my largest Horror.
Click to expand...
I wonder, is this Robert Marc Lehman an ex employee with a grudge? In my experience such people have been responsible for all sorts of problems
 
Brayden Delashmutt said:
I do feel like that’s a valid point, however I don’t think that tilikum was excessively violent…he was just a mistreated animal
Click to expand...

Just for clarity for people unfamiliar, he was mistreated at Sealand of the Pacific, the facility SeaWorld obtained him from once they shutdown. It was there where he was forced in a horrible social situation with two dominant females and was deprived of food when not doing a trick properly (something which is never done at SeaWorld).
 
Frankie_number_1_fan said:
There's not really a real risk for AR groups to actually push any genuine big name zoos to close. They can spur some bad publicity, sure, but ultimately the good zoos do overshadows what slander gets thrown at them because AR groups are simply not backed by enough fact to change the general public's view.

They sure can be a deterrent for zoos to pursue certian projects though, which is the real frustrating thing imo. Taking SeaWorld's Blue World project as an example, the bad publicity surrounding the program pushed its cancelation. And I genuinely do think that, if done right of course, that exhibit may have began to push new standards for captive Orca care and now that will never come to fruition. Same goes for other programs like the Bronx zoo's elephant program.
Click to expand...

Chimelong seems to be taking a page out of Blue World’s book. One example being the wave makers which are similar to the “underwater treadmill” current makers that were planned for the Blue World project. It’s possible Chimelong could be the one to push the standards of care. At the very least they’re doing very well in terms of breeding.
 
LycaonSekowei said:
I really don't like people that keep portraying zoos as cruel prisons for animals (when they're not). Zoos are one of the most important types of facilities because they can help species that aren't doing good in the wild.

PETA is a major example of this because they don't educate themselves on zoos, and instead bash them just for keeping them. PETA has never really done much to help animals, all they really do is euthanize perfectly healthy pets and tell lies.

I'm sure at least a few of you heard about the documentary Blackfish. Blackfish is a documentary that "exposed" SeaWorld's cruel actions. The thing is, Blackfish is just anti-SeaWorld propaganda made by animal rights extremists disguised as scientists. Unfortunately, most people believed their lies, and SeaWorld's image was ruined, when SeaWorld was doing nothing wrong.

So yeah, some people probably just need to be more educated or keep stuff to themselves. While yes, some zoos like the infamous Surabaya zoo are awful and need to be shut down, most zoos are actually really good places for animals.

What do you guys think about these people?
Click to expand...
My personal take on the statement of 'freedom'...
I believe when many people talk about freedom these days, really they are speaking two-fold; in regards to freedom itself - which here is the idea of being able to act with zero restraint... and agency, in which one's ability to act is not restrained in itself.
So many of the freedoms we know of then, like freedom to vote, freedom to love, freedom of movement... I would say these are not in themselves freedoms as I say here, but more like agencies. So in an equal country there is an agency to vote, an agency to love, and an agency of movement so to put it.
So do animals have freedom inherently in zoos? Not really. But neither do wild animals; those who cannot govern the food supply of the harsh winter, those who must choose whether to expend energy on flight, those who must feed children even when unable to feed themselves. And I would argue that neither do many people really have freedom; and we haven't had freedom in the last tenth-million years since we started to become more intelligent. And if people did have ultimate freedom, lord knows what atrocities would occur.
But what many zoo animals do have - is agency. They have the agency to forage in the manner they usually would for the large part, they have the agency to carry out movement in their unconstrained manner, and they have the agency to reproduce. And this isn't uniform in all zoos... but in western countries in many cases it certainly is. And even in other forms of captivity such as falconry and horse-training the element of agency reigns supreme in their modern forms. With falcons when left tethered they happily enjoy the agency of doing nothing at all; but for their health we allow them the agency of powered flight.
And what I would like to see is a future where animals perhaps have more such agency behind the scenes; their keepers allowing animals to carry out natural behaviours not just for the enjoyment/education of visitors - but also so that they can reap the rewards of such positive welfare.
 
dillotest0 said:
My personal take on the statement of 'freedom'...
I believe when many people talk about freedom these days, really they are speaking two-fold; in regards to freedom itself - which here is the idea of being able to act with zero restraint... and agency, in which one's ability to act is not restrained in itself.
So many of the freedoms we know of then, like freedom to vote, freedom to love, freedom of movement... I would say these are not in themselves freedoms as I say here, but more like agencies. So in an equal country there is an agency to vote, an agency to love, and an agency of movement so to put it.
So do animals have freedom inherently in zoos? Not really. But neither do wild animals; those who cannot govern the food supply of the harsh winter, those who must choose whether to expend energy on flight, those who must feed children even when unable to feed themselves. And I would argue that neither do many people really have freedom; and we haven't had freedom in the last tenth-million years since we started to become more intelligent. And if people did have ultimate freedom, lord knows what atrocities would occur.
But what many zoo animals do have - is agency. They have the agency to forage in the manner they usually would for the large part, they have the agency to carry out movement in their unconstrained manner, and they have the agency to reproduce. And this isn't uniform in all zoos... but in western countries in many cases it certainly is. And even in other forms of captivity such as falconry and horse-training the element of agency reigns supreme in their modern forms. With falcons when left tethered they happily enjoy the agency of doing nothing at all; but for their health we allow them the agency of powered flight.
And what I would like to see is a future where animals perhaps have more such agency behind the scenes; their keepers allowing animals to carry out natural behaviours not just for the enjoyment/education of visitors - but also so that they can reap the rewards of such positive welfare.
Click to expand...
Well argued, but a tethered falcon will also sunbathe, bathe in water, preen and interact with her surroundings. Even birds of prey don’t need to be in the air to be ‘doing stuff’. Obvs free lofted birds have even more agency, although less able to grab passing unwary garden birds
 
dillotest0 said:
My personal take on the statement of 'freedom'...
I believe when many people talk about freedom these days, really they are speaking two-fold; in regards to freedom itself - which here is the idea of being able to act with zero restraint... and agency, in which one's ability to act is not restrained in itself.
So many of the freedoms we know of then, like freedom to vote, freedom to love, freedom of movement... I would say these are not in themselves freedoms as I say here, but more like agencies. So in an equal country there is an agency to vote, an agency to love, and an agency of movement so to put it.
So do animals have freedom inherently in zoos? Not really. But neither do wild animals; those who cannot govern the food supply of the harsh winter, those who must choose whether to expend energy on flight, those who must feed children even when unable to feed themselves. And I would argue that neither do many people really have freedom; and we haven't had freedom in the last tenth-million years since we started to become more intelligent. And if people did have ultimate freedom, lord knows what atrocities would occur.
But what many zoo animals do have - is agency. They have the agency to forage in the manner they usually would for the large part, they have the agency to carry out movement in their unconstrained manner, and they have the agency to reproduce. And this isn't uniform in all zoos... but in western countries in many cases it certainly is. And even in other forms of captivity such as falconry and horse-training the element of agency reigns supreme in their modern forms. With falcons when left tethered they happily enjoy the agency of doing nothing at all; but for their health we allow them the agency of powered flight.
And what I would like to see is a future where animals perhaps have more such agency behind the scenes; their keepers allowing animals to carry out natural behaviours not just for the enjoyment/education of visitors - but also so that they can reap the rewards of such positive welfare.
Click to expand...
I mean, dictionary.com gives no fewer than seventeen definitions for what "freedom" is, so it doesn't need to be just one thing (FREEDOM Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com). While I agree with your general notion that people use the word freedom to mean multiple different things, however I also would say it isn't necessarily incorrect to use the word "freedom" in these multiple different contexts either. For example, one of the definitions of freedom is "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.," and in this context it is certainly not inaccurate to talk about a specific freedom- such as the freedom of speech, freedom of movement, etc.

Maybe it's different in Europe, but in the US using "agency" in this context isn't very common at all, and agency is mainly used in referring to an organization or business (e.g., a travel agency, the Central Intelligence Agency). Not saying you are incorrect in using agency in this way, just saying it isn't a very common thing to hear. Of course, ideas about what freedom is or isn't are also very culturally-driven, so that's important to acknowledge seeing as this is an international forum.

While at the end of the day a lot of the argument you are making is philosophical in nature, I do want to emphasize that there is a difference between a "freedom to" and "freedom from". A "freedom to", such as the freedom to vote, freedom to practice religion, or in the case of animals the freedom to express natural behaviors, is something that is unrestricted. When discussing animal welfare, however, it is very common to discuss "freedoms from", such as the "freedom from pain, injury and disease", and in these contexts you could easily argue that animals in zoos maintain certain freedoms that wild animals do not. Of course, then you could also debate what the benefits to "freedom" are, and whether maximizing freedom is even ideal, both for animals or for humans, but those are complex philosophical arguments that I think are beyond the scope of Zoo Chat!
 
Frankie_number_1_fan said:
They sure can be a deterrent for zoos to pursue certian projects though, which is the real frustrating thing imo. Taking SeaWorld's Blue World project as an example, the bad publicity surrounding the program pushed its cancelation. And I genuinely do think that, if done right of course, that exhibit may have began to push new standards for captive Orca care and now that will never come to fruition. Same goes for other programs like the Bronx zoo's elephant program.
Click to expand...
This one genuinely gets to me for a kajillion reasons
 
tigris115 said:
This one genuinely gets to me for a kajillion reasons
Click to expand...
The negativity surrounding the Bronx and LA's Elephant programs never ceases to make my blood boil. So many of the single Elephants remaining in phase-out zoos are the remnants of a very different management style than we see today. People can't seem to get it through their heads that the proper care of these animals isn't identical to how their peers' may look due to less than ideal circumstances in their pasts. Its frankly so exhausting watching ignorant people and even some sanctuaries (like PAWS recently did when Lulu passed) use things like arthritis and chronic issues to defend an anti-captivity stance when the cause of those issues is so clearly no longer happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top