And in my opinion, first and foremost, zoos exist so that people can get close to wild animals. Something which KateA is demonstrating very well here! I don't think anyone can assume to tell her that she is doing her job wrong simply by looking at one picture, especially when they don't have any experience with zoos themselves. I also don't see this as degrading to the animal, it choses to come up to the fence and interact with its keeper, when we shake hands with someone are we degrading them?
Kate, I bet you couldn't have foreseen all these speculations when you uploaded this photo? We have several arguing about lion communications; one has informed us that he fancies you; and whatever else.
And now 'disrespect for animals' has entered the debate. I wish the most serious form of disrespect for animals we have in this world would be that we give them a scratch behind the ear, but when I see photos from bear farms in Vietnam and Cambodia, I realise it is not so. And if anyone fears that Kate has with this photo ruined all the good effort zoos are doing with conservation and education, do not fear, at least do not fear Kate. I would rather fear the effect Craigh Busch will have on the reputation of zoos. Remember the footage of him kicking that lion cub (or was it tiger cub?) Remember the footage of him dragging that male lion on a chain against its will, hitting it hard when it resisted and even kicking it. Remember that the bloke is/was connected to a zoo (Zion Wildlife Gardens) and the antis have had less in their hands than that to fight with. More people have seen that footage than this innocent photo of Kate with this relaxed, albeit potentially very dangerous, charge of hers.
Not just my opinion, pretty much everyone's. George Schaller, in his book "The Serengeti Lion", devotes several pages to visual communiction and vocalisations and describes snarls several times. Richard Estes also describes snarls and their use by Lions ("The Behaviour Guide to Large Mammals"). And any big cat keeper will tell you they snarl. Maybe you have a different understanding of the word?
She is promoting the Cat as friendly, but makiing a fuss of it and putting her head against the mesh next to his, you think about that then again, deal with it yourself, cos if you think she was implying he was a "snarling" beast, you are wrong.
I don't understand this comment. If Kamal was snarling Kate would not have been close and taken the photo. Are you saying that unless the animal is snarling it doesn't look wild and therefore the implication is that it is friendly?
I readily accept that, as I have views that are contrary to the norm. What I will NEVER accept is people trying to force their views upon others. Express your views, fine - no problem. But forcing your opinions on them (eg. trying to change someone's opinion to your own, or going to a zoo to complain about a photo that you have a different opinion about) is something I just can't abide. Especially when that person is ill-informed.
Dawn B said:
I know they shouldnt be portrayed as "friendly" on a public forum, I find it disrespectful to a wild animal to say the least.
You must really have hated the scene where David Attenborough is lying in the Rwandan undergrowth playing with those Mountain Gorillas. Or anyone working in a zoo with seals, or birds, or elephants, or doing a reptile show and handling snakes.
Do you not think that some of your comments could also lead to them targeting zoos? (not just in this thread)
I find that you’re very negative towards zoos in general. Could you maybe use more constructive criticism? If not maybe you would be better off at another site that does not like zoos that much. Also try not to come across so rude in your posts.
I also think if we lived in an ideal world we should not have zoos, but we don't live in an ideal world.
No I dont, I think that they would realise that some people have a lot of respect for the animals in Zoo's and treat them with the respect they deserve, not use their mobile phone to take pictures of them with their own head pressed up against the mesh that separates them, how "cool" is that???
Im not the one being rude, try people like Hix to start with, she was one of the ones I was told "owns" the site and pretty much what she says goes, and how dare anyone argue with her, seems that was true doesnt it!
I also cannot see where I have been rude to anyone?
Im not negative towards Zoo's otherwise I wouldnt spend hundreds of pounds each year visiting them, to look at, admire and photograph the animals. Photography has taught me much more about Zoos Ill admit, by spending more time there, however if I dont agree with something, Ill say so, seems that many wont though, shame, nothing changes behind closed doors does it? And of closed doors, take all the photos you want behind them, but photos like this will be the target for many "antis" and believe me I know all about "antis" Ive been targeted for years for my support of hunting and working my dogs!
And in my opinion, first and foremost, zoos exist so that people can get close to wild animals. Something which KateA is demonstrating very well here! I don't think anyone can assume to tell her that she is doing her job wrong simply by looking at one picture, especially when they don't have any experience with zoos themselves. I also don't see this as degrading to the animal, it choses to come up to the fence and interact with its keeper, when we shake hands with someone are we degrading them?
Im sorry if that was directed to me I didnt say she was doing her job "wrong" I said in my opinion and others on the thread, thats she is creating the wrong impression of a "wild" animal supposedly kept that way, but in this instance fussed and petted through mesh with one hand while in the other hand she uses her mobile phone to take a photo of herself doing it.
I wouldnt shake hands with a wild animal either, anthropomorphism is wrong on all levels, so a comparison in this case is irrelevant.
Kate, I bet you couldn't have foreseen all these speculations when you uploaded this photo? We have several arguing about lion communications; one has informed us that he fancies you; and whatever else.
And now 'disrespect for animals' has entered the debate. I wish the most serious form of disrespect for animals we have in this world would be that we give them a scratch behind the ear, but when I see photos from bear farms in Vietnam and Cambodia, I realise it is not so. And if anyone fears that Kate has with this photo ruined all the good effort zoos are doing with conservation and education, do not fear, at least do not fear Kate. I would rather fear the effect Craigh Busch will have on the reputation of zoos. Remember the footage of him kicking that lion cub (or was it tiger cub?) Remember the footage of him dragging that male lion on a chain against its will, hitting it hard when it resisted and even kicking it. Remember that the bloke is/was connected to a zoo (Zion Wildlife Gardens) and the antis have had less in their hands than that to fight with. More people have seen that footage than this innocent photo of Kate with this relaxed, albeit potentially very dangerous, charge of hers.
Not just my opinion, pretty much everyone's. George Schaller, in his book "The Serengeti Lion", devotes several pages to visual communiction and vocalisations and describes snarls several times. Richard Estes also describes snarls and their use by Lions ("The Behaviour Guide to Large Mammals"). And any big cat keeper will tell you they snarl. Maybe you have a different understanding of the word?
My interpretation of a "snarl" is indeed different, I equate them to canine subjects not Feline.
I don't understand this comment. If Kamal was snarling Kate would not have been close and taken the photo. Are you saying that unless the animal is snarling it doesn't look wild and therefore the implication is that it is friendly?
No, you dont understand the behaviour of Cats. This "rubbing" is also a sign of scent marking and not just how some people percieve "affection" It can also demonstrate stress and appeasement. Scent marking is a sign of dominance too, put the two together and you have an incredibly dangerous situation that could turn nasty very quickly indeed.
I readily accept that, as I have views that are contrary to the norm. What I will NEVER accept is people trying to force their views upon others. Express your views, fine - no problem. But forcing your opinions on them (eg. trying to change someone's opinion to your own, or going to a zoo to complain about a photo that you have a different opinion about) is something I just can't abide. Especially when that person is ill-informed.
You need to READ your own posts, telling me to "deal with it" is what riled me with you, if that isnt forcing your views I dont know what is, but Hix I was warned about you being like this, so in actual fact it came of no surprise which is why I responded to you in a similar fashion.
You must really have hated the scene where David Attenborough is lying in the Rwandan undergrowth playing with those Mountain Gorillas. Or anyone working in a zoo with seals, or birds, or elephants, or doing a reptile show and handling snakes.
Those animals are in the wild where they should be, not confined where many of their behaviours would be unnatural and stereotypical, these FACTS make captive animals more unpredictable if anything. A wild animal will have a more nervous approach to humans, flight and flee technique for many, however, captivity makes them lose a lot of that, its what makes them more dangerous in many cases.
Those animals are in the wild where they should be, not confined where many of their behaviours would be unnatural and stereotypical, these FACTS make captive animals more unpredictable if anything. A wild animal will have a more nervous approach to humans, flight and flee technique for many, however, captivity makes them lose a lot of that, its what makes them more dangerous in many cases.
So surely it's worse to interfere with the wild animals that are in the wild? That gives more of a distorted impression of how wild animals are and could (arguably) teach kids it's ok to play with gorillas even more so than photos like this. You are obviously very oblivious to how often photos like this are taken. I've got loads and I've never had a full time zoo job!
So surely it's worse to interfere with the wild animals that are in the wild? That gives more of a distorted impression of how wild animals are and could (arguably) teach kids it's ok to play with gorillas even more so than photos like this. You are obviously very oblivious to how often photos like this are taken. I've got loads and I've never had a full time zoo job!
Thats ace!! Ill remind my nieces and nephews not to play with the Gorillas next time we visit the jungle!!
Im not oblivious to anything, I just dont agree with it, and however many photos you may have means nothing to me Ash, I respect your opinion completely, I just dont agree with it.
