Are Zoos Only For The People?

T

Taisha

Well-Known Member
Millions of visitors flock into the zoos of the world. Most of them return as uneducated about animals as they have entered them.

The banner of many zoos nowadays reads: Animal conservation and research

However, they are also advertising differing goals that range from "A place for recreation" -Djakarta Zoo, over "Our mission is to inspire appreciation of nature"- Singapore, to " An exhibition of animals for humans", (quote) - Berlin Zoo.

When I registered at ZooChat a short time ago, I soon realized, that it is a microcosmos of the diversity mentioned above: There are practically minded members concerned about new building structures, animal collectors, zoo-collectors and people who are in one way or the other connected with animals.

Assuming that all of us like animals, I would be curious, is the statement above generally accepted? And if not, which could be the way to reconcile the different approaches.
 
gentle lemur said:
I don't think I agree with that. Do you have any evidence to support it?

Alan
Click to expand...

I am afraid, I am only speaking from personal experience.
Instead of enjoying my visit to the zoo I often ended up to have to explain to visitors: ", No, this is not a Chimp, this is a gorilla". "No, this Orang doesn`t look sad, it has just been playing". "No, this one is not laughing, it is afraid"..."This animal is not boring, it is bored". Just to mention a few examples.
There has been another thread here, about what members don`t like when visiting the zoo. It included: Laughing about animals when they display their natural behaviour. For me just another prove of a lack of knowledge.
Not to mention the real bad things, like offering cigarettes, shouting at the animal and banging against the window to provoke a reaction.
Although some zoos offer some education nowadays, I don't believe, it meets more than exactly the minority, that had already a special interest in animals when entering the zoo. As for the rest: entertainment, recreation.
How about a dissertation about the question, do visits to the zoo rise awareness about animals and their possible extinction?
Or a survey, a simple questionnaire when people are leaving, about what the visit meant for each of them?
 
When I have worked at zoos the ignorant and destructive visitors were the most visible to me. When I would lose heart I would remind myself that for each of these fools, thousands of other visitors observed animals, read signs and learned something, talked to each other about the animal behaviors they were seeing.

Our reaction to what we believe we see in zoos is, I believe, more about Us than it is about zoo visitors. You are focusing on what you choose to focus on. Next time you go, look for other behaviors and I bet you will find them (they are just not as loud and boorish) ;)
 
Taisha said:
How about a dissertation about the question, do visits to the zoo rise awareness about animals and their possible extinction?
Or a survey, a simple questionnaire when people are leaving, about what the visit meant for each of them?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Europe, but such things are done routinely at US zoos. If I encounter any examples I'll post for you
 
Anything that helps people connect with nature should be a positive.Zoo's introduce millions of people to nature who otherwise would not be exposed to it. Zoos have value in this area.

I struggle with the argument that zoo's can restore wild populations.Zoo's generally arent large enough & focus on diversity, rather then devoting resources to a large number of a few species.

Zoos could increase their conservation outcomes,but this would mean less money at the gate. Zoo's generally do, what it is they do well,but, working towards partnerships & greater co operation with private breeders could increase their conservation results. Unfortunately these relationships are getting rarer because of politics & the genetics in captivity bottleneck.

Zoo's have become a political football.Politics means "of the people" so yes, the majority of a zoos function is "of the people".


Cheers Khakibob
 
Well, zoos actually have completely reintroduced and strengthened several wild populations that had become extinct in the wild or which had declined to a critical level. This cannot happen on a large scale, though, as many zoos also face financial challenges and need to invest into their own structures to remain attractive. Thus, it seems much more effective and perhaps even cheaper to protect the natural habitats in the first place. If all the money used for zoos would directly flow into in situ projects and general conservation of habitats it would be much better obviously, but it probably wouldn't work this way.

As khaki bob pointed out the zoos establish a relation between people and nature which also helps to raise funds for wildlife preservation. In my opinion this task at least ranks as highly as the reintroduction of rather limited species and creation of a "genetic backup" of threatened species. If the latter are to be truely successful it takes a high degree of organisation and networking between zoos as well as money. This cannot be done for all species, particularly less popular ones which in many cases are as crucial as the flagship species. If habitats are preserved e.g. by use of a popular animal such as a tiger or polar bear other animals also benefit though and zoos can help by raising awareness and donations. The natural eco systems obviously don't consist of some few species and such narrowed conservation efforts such as breeding and reintroduction of popular mammals and birds probably just won't do in the long run - it may perhaps make us feel better, though.
 
I think many visitors learn a lot in a zoo. I suspect that most of the things they learn seem pretty trivial and obvious to ZooChatters, but that's because we learnt them years ago on our first visits to our local zoos.
Many visitors enjoy seeing unusual animals and observing how animals behave, and they learn something from these observations - well designed signs, presenters' talks, video displays and 'immersion' experiences can all add to this informal learning. The learning may be so subtle that the visitors are not really aware of it, but ideally it should be part of their total experience.
Of course this is not guaranteed. Some people will leave the zoo as ignorant as when they arrived. Some may have an unpleasant experience of one sort or another, learning the opposite message to the one the zoo would like to teach. That is why it is so important that every part of a zoo's service to its visitors should be good - because that will encourage a repeat visit. As every ZooChatter knows, you learn a little more each time you visit a zoo.

Alan
 
Last edited:
Are Zoos For People And Animals?

Reading your comments it dawns on me that I may not have posed my question in accordance to my original thoughts.

Recreation, inspiring for the appreciation of nature, exhibition of animals,, for me an important player is missing in these goals: the animals themselves.

Facts about animals can be found everywhere nowadays. Excellent exhibitions have been made by some zoos to boost awareness about wildlife preservation, but they could have been done elsewhere. Quite independent from zoos, animal organizations in favour of conservation as well as saving individuals seem to flourish.
What exactly are the educative aspects of a zoo?

Taking as an example the infamous displays of native Americans and Africans in past centuries in zoos, did they ever produce a better understanding, or even support?

For me todays presentation of zoo-animals still (not always!) prevents real connection and a deeper understanding, hence no educational aspect.
Much more effort is needed to offer them a more natural life (for the visitor a more realistic life) which would allow them to act according to their different personalities.

Nevertheless, there have been some animal flagships around the world with apparent impact but with different results for the zoos concerned.
F.i., while the presence of Orang Utan Ah Meng at Singapore Zoo can still be felt all over the zoo, (even after her death she is so respected, that she got a grave on one of the most beautiful spots) polar bear
Knut succeeded in creating fan groups that are full of criticism about certain conditions in the keeping of the animals. Both animals however have probably heightened a general interest in their species.

Education: a last point: I once came across a survey that stated, that the average visitor spends one minute (and something) in front of each enclosure.
 
Taisha, I feel there is a point your trying to make.
Excuse my lack of interprative ability,but I work with my hands & with animals,so your just going to have to come straight ouy & say what it is you mean.

Cheers Khakibob
 
khakibob said:
I feel there is a point your trying to make.
Click to expand...

I will try....

If you offered me the choice between a visit to the zoo or to a sanctuary, I would always option for the sanctuary, because it looks to me as if their approach to animals is far more personal than by the average zoo official (keepers excluded).
I would also feel much more connected with animals I see treated as individuals.
While there have been great improvements in the handling during the last decade (unfortunately not everywhere), the knowledge about animals has also gained pace.
That's why I sometimes wonder, how certain animals feel when they are forced together, for their lifetime sometimes, without ever been able to retreat or choose.
Or what does it mean to them, when they are taken from a surrounding that may have felt just right, to be sent for breeding purposes around the world, again and again.
Breeding and collecting is for the people. Saving the species is for the people.
To offer a decent life is for the animals.
If you are personally involved in the zoo business, where would you see room for further improvement?
And what would you suggest, how could zoo visitors be educated to develop more empathy?

The perspectives among members of this blog display a vast variety, also because our zoos differ a lot. Maybe wrong generalizations are unavoidable under these circumstances..
 
It seems to me that if the goal was to create the best retirement/sanctuary "homes" for individual animals then:

1. Visitors would be excluded (how do the animals "feel" having you gawk at them? having streams of humans passing by all day?)

2. Animals would be free to breed as they choose. (I have no idea what then one does with all the offspring)

3. All enclosures would be of vast size so the individual animals could select where they wanted to be

4. Predator animals would have prey

5. Prey animals would be free from predators

6. All animals would receive complete health care that was completely not intrusive. A new sort of veterinary science I suppose

7. The animals would search for their food, but they would always find plenty.

8. Airplanes and trucks and trains would be excluded from the area and surrounding areas.

9. There would never be drought

Perhaps others might add to the list?
 
Last edited:
"Breeding and collecting is for the people. Saving the species is for the people.
To offer a decent life is for the animals."

I don't agree with that statement in the first place, but from such a point of view there indeed seems to be little to no point to zoos or any form of human intervention. Having said that: In reality SOME animals are perhaps much better off in the zoo as their natural habitats are either totally devastated (e.g. many species from South-East-Asia and in fact all over the globe) so they cannot find proper food, places to sleep or hide, ways to reproduce or they are being hunted close to extinction (e.g. rhino).

You also would have to define a "decent life" first of all. Have you ever asked an animal which kind of life it prefers? In many cases, life is much less stressful in a zoo as they don't have to risk their lives fighting off rivals, run away from stronger animals, starve or die from a comparatively harmless disease. They get older and can reproduce more often and more easily. In fact I also don't know if an individual animal would prefer or even choose such a "boringly perfect" life over the wild but it might even be possible from my point of view.

Besides, if saving endangered species can be dismissed, in many cases there soon won't even be any individual animals to worry about a definition for a decent life. As you can't turn back the hands of time, you cannot ignore the damage that's already been done and for sure will be done to many natural habitats and animal populations. In (increasingly) many cases, the genetic material of a species is even more degenerated in the wild than it is in captivity. In some cases, animals are extinct in the wild and only live on in zoos/ breeding stations etc. This is sad stuff, but it shows rather clearly zoos may even serve animal interests in the long run. The major problem is the conservation or restauration of proper habitats though. One process has to complement the other. Otherwise zoos will become living museums one day...
 
Taisha said:
I will try....

If you offered me the choice between a visit to the zoo or to a sanctuary, I would always option for the sanctuary, because it looks to me as if their approach to animals is far more personal than by the average zoo official (keepers excluded).
I would also feel much more connected with animals I see treated as individuals.
While there have been great improvements in the handling during the last decade (unfortunately not everywhere), the knowledge about animals has also gained pace.
That's why I sometimes wonder, how certain animals feel when they are forced together, for their lifetime sometimes, without ever been able to retreat or choose.
Or what does it mean to them, when they are taken from a surrounding that may have felt just right, to be sent for breeding purposes around the world, again and again.
Breeding and collecting is for the people. Saving the species is for the people.
To offer a decent life is for the animals.
If you are personally involved in the zoo business, where would you see room for further improvement?
And what would you suggest, how could zoo visitors be educated to develop more empathy?

The perspectives among members of this blog display a vast variety, also because our zoos differ a lot. Maybe wrong generalizations are unavoidable under these circumstances..
Click to expand...

I'll start by saying that animals are not like the characters in a disney cartoon.They don't see the world or think the same as you,OK.

I actually feel that to anthropomorphise animals is an act of cruelty as it encourages & feeds some folks desire to treat them like primitave people & not animals.The animals real needs then are not actually met.

I have taken a few rescues that have recieved the best "personal" attention.It's sad really as these animals have no concept of the rules & pecking order in their natural social unit.They don't fit in with their own,& are at risk of harm if they are kept with their own kind.Are they "happier" because they have recieved "personal" attention? I dont know & cant tell from expressions the way you can,but I'd reckon they'd be "happier" if they'd recieved less "personal" attention & could enter a social unit.

An animal raised with lots of "personal" attention may never feel hunger,pain or fear & thus no cruelty.Once imprinted on humans the cruelest thing in fact we could do to this animal is try to "rehabilitate" it. I cant read expressions like yourself but they most likely experience fear or terror when some good meaning folks try.I don't want people developing more empathy if they think animals are like a disney character,it will lead to more cruelty.I'd like to see people understand biodiversity & how important it is instead.

The area where one of your concerns could be addressed is the increassed use of artificial breeding (AI) not only can genetics be shipped with greater ease,it can be stored safely for centuries.The ability to go back a couple of decades or centuries to a straw or egg, without disease or to address genetic drift cannot be underestimated.I feel zoo's are decades behind agriculture in the use of this.I get the sense that there is resistence because it will actually increase the avaliability of genetics & upset the balance of power for some associations/cartels.

Zoo business is political & politics is "of the people" ,not, of the animals.

Cheers Khakibob
 
Really interesting thread here guys. It's a concept I struggle with all the time and often find myself wondering if I'm actually being incredibly selfish working in such a place. However I usually find myself looking at the case of the Scimtar-horned Oryx when I do have doubts. Without zoos they would not still be walking on this earth. It's a shame that it has reached this level, in an ideal world zoos wouldn't exist (although I guess I'd be out of a job) but whilst the situation of so many species is so dire hopefully it can do no harm to try to help.

An interesting point was made earlier about forcing animals together. I think any good zoo would offer the animal a choice of where it wants to be and who it wants to be with. Offering choice of social situations is a form of enrichment to a certain extent and reduction of choice of any situation will always increase cortisol levels but if given the space and the potential to meet/breed with others the I wouldn't necessarily see it as forcing them together. As long as an animal is displaying it's natural behavioural repertoire then I would say the individual is not suffering any ill effects from captivity but I know this doesn't always happen given social situations and enclosure design.

As for the educational aspect I know it's true that 99% of visitors come to the zoo for a nice day out but we can only hope they go home having had a nice day and learning at least 1 or 2 little nuggets of conservational information. When I do public talks I will always stress the situation of the wild populations of the animals I am talking about and the amount of people that you can hopefully shock into action with a statistic such as "there are only about 200 black and white ruffed lemurs left in the wild" is amazing. I've had wonderful people come up to me and ask how they can help and even kids who are clued up on palm oil and tasmanian devil facial cancer of all things so yes I think there is hope. On the flip side you do get the people trying to feed the animals ice cream and walking away from the wallaby enclosure still thinking they are kangaroos but in that case I will always try to redouble my efforts in educating them. A big part of my job is the customer interaction side of things so there is always the potential to try and gently goad people into caring more about it. We also use a couple of our talks as fundraising for the charities we support so money going into in situ projects is always a good thing.

As I said though, it's a concept I struggle with every day but hopefully all zoos are moving into the direction in which we can improve visitor understanding as well as their enjoyment.
 
Taisha said:
@zooplantman

Any serious contribution to this question?
Click to expand...

Given the context, it is a serious contribution.

If you've ever tried to get development approval or some other licence to conserve,exibit,keep or restore animals the points which have been raised by zooplantman (& many far more insane ones which I wont plant the seeds of ideas here) are those which need to be satisfied to politicians & the public opinion cycle before you get a start. Most often this cripples good conservation initiatives.

Its time that conservationists, biologists,zoo's,breeders & those who actually work with animals & care,took a stand for good animal husbandry, instead of some anthropomorphistic view from animal liberationists, that animals need to be treated like primitave people.If the animals could, they would thank us.

Cheers Khakibob
 
markmeier said:
from such a point of view there indeed seems to be little to no point to zoos or any form of human intervention.

You also would have to define a "decent life" first of all. Have you ever asked an animal which kind of life it prefers?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify it: I never questioned the need to try to save as many species as possible. I was only in doubt about the motivation of some institutions.

My hope concerning the discussions in this blog has been to find an uptodate definition for a decent zoo animal life that could be equally accepted by the collectors, breeders and others I had mentioned before.

While obviously some species enjoy the protection and other advantages of their captivity, others may not. Elephants? Primates?
Whenever a door is left open in a Zoo, the animal will try to escape. Why?

I knew a baboon, kept in a hotel compound, who had lived all of his life in a cage. When he was dying and already half paralysed, a person he trusted entered his cage to support him. She left the door open. With his last energies he dragged himself to the door- and outside. And as little there was left, he tried to defend himself not to be pushed back.

As research suggests humans need a certain level of stress to function well, why should this be different in animals?

Can we ask the animals? In a way I think, yes. Nonverbal communication helps humans to interpret another person better than through words. The same most probably applies to interaction between animals and humans.
I suppose zoo-keepers would agree?
 
Taisha said:
Whenever a door is left open in a Zoo, the animal will try to escape. Why?
Click to expand...

This has not been my experience.

If animals do find themselves on the wrong side of the fence, usually the first thing they do is try to get back.

Cheers Khakibob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top