Are Zoos Only For The People?

[Taisha]

peI'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


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

I agree to all your points. Especially where Zoo business is concerned.

Empathy, you must have misread me. For me it means people should be educated to respect animals for what they are, to intrude as little as possible, and to help them survive, better in the wild than in the zoo.

But as Jane Goodall said, only what you know, you will want to protect.
That may be easier better done in schools, in villages, but not necessarily in the zoo.

 

[Taisha]

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

Right! Only, I feel left out not belonging to any of these groups and still in favour of change.

 

[khakibob]

Right! Only, I feel left out not belonging to any of these groups and still in favour of change.

Taisha ,I feel you'd be included in the category of who "care".
Sorry I didn"t make my point clearer.

Cheers Khakibob

 

[markmeier]

@Taisha: First of all, I said SOME animals are PERHAPS better off in the zoo. I wasn't trying to make a general case. Generally speaking animals belong to their natural habitats of course (but in increasingly many cases those habitats sadly aren't functioning properly or even existing any more). I don't like to repeat myself again, but in my view zoos should help to raise awareness and funds for wildlife preservation. They may even directly support selected in situ projects by themselves as this will also make them more trustworthy and may even attract more visitors. In addition, I feel strategic breeding efforts grow more important as many wild populations have a weak genetic basis (often less variety left than in zoos or other captive populations) and some have already become extinct in the wild. And of course zoos should try to inform and educate people as they possibly reach more of them than most other approaches and they may complement other information channels (e.g. documentaries on the television/ articles in newspapers etc.). While this may not work for everybody it's still far better than complete fatalism. If it is but a small fraction of all visitors that care more and act differently in response to a visit, it still would be millions all over the globe every year...

Besides and as khakibob pointed out: Many animals will indeed "escape" once they find a way out, but very often they also return as quickly and try to get back in. This may not be a statement on their general preferences, though, as they just lack orientation outside their accustomed enclosures... At the same time I wouldn't necessarily call the original outbreak a desperate chase for freedom. It may as well be mere curiosity or just coincidence or anything... Sometimes the animals seem rather surprised by their sudden "liberty" or even shocked when they don't know where they are... Also animals probably can't assess and reflect their situation (captivity vs. freedom) to the degree you may imagine. Such categories don't even exist for them. Having said that, they probably would "feel" better in the wild than in a totally insufficient enclosure. And I do agree that zoos should cater for the individual needs and comfort of their guests which I believe they generally do (both individual keepers and overall managements). Corresponding nonverbal communication may be an indicator for "happy" animals, showing a large repertoire of natural behaviour is another one. And of course it is always a good signal if they breed successfully and also bring up their offspring by themselves. Still, in the end we always have to interprete what we see and we will never know what an individual animal would choose/ prefer if they could have a decision on their own. Your theory is an appropriation just the same as the theory of the most dedicated zoo manager would be one.

 

[sooty mangabey]

in an ideal world zoos wouldn't exist

Oh dear - I'm old enough not to get wound up by things on the internet, but this one never fails to get me....

if it's wrong to keep animals in captivity then it's wrong; if it's not wrong, then it's not. The rarity of the animal has nothing to do with it. I have far more respect for the Will Travers brigade, who consistently argue that it is wrong to keep animals in captivity, then I do for those who work within zoos but are somehow ashamed of it.

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 think I'd be pretty shocked if I were told that there were only 200 black and white ruffed lemurs in the wild - I think most estimates seem to put the population rather higher, somewhere up to 10,000 (with red ruffed lemurs considerably more populous).

 

[Zooplantman]

Who can deny that animals (including humans) deserve the very best conditions in which to live?

But little can be gained by applying human or personal motives and interpretations to animals. Once we define for ourselves that zoos are incarceration we run down the road of humans in jails and how they must feel, how they will want to escape, etc. But what evidence do we have that this metaphor is sound for a good zoo? What evidence do we have that "animals" as a category of intelligence/feeling/experience exist? Is an elephant's intelligence and "emotional" development indistinguishable from a Bower Bird's? (Others on this thread have also explored this problem quite nicely.)


But if I have a "pet peeve" with some on this thread it is this: whether one would prefer to stare at animals in a zoo or in a "sanctuary" ...whether it is laudable or deplorable that humans build zoos (or "sanctuaries") and display animals, the bigger issue is the state of animals "in the wild" all over this planet. Human expansion, human exploitation of land and other resources, human population growth, human consumerism are driving other species to extinction and reducing many species to deprivation that is more than what the vagaries of Nature might cause.
The post's question is whether zoos are "only for people" and yet the first point made is where one would prefer to gawk at animals!
And so the issue you want to explore is whether animals in zoos get enough personal freedom and resent their loss of Liberty?!?!?!?!
Also, I am a bit shocked that the zoos Taisha has visited do such a poor job at educating the public. I know many zoos that conduct evaluations to discover what the visitors have learned and that information influences future designs. But, I must say, what does it matter what one has been taught if one's behavior doesn't change as needed? Millions loved Knut. So what?

@zooplantman

Any serious contribution to this question?

If (and I do mean "if") you are advocating that zoos become sanctuaries and that the animal's best interests are the only goal of the facility, then consider the reality of that proposal(as my earlier post attempted to do) and...now here's the challenge... figure out how to fund it. That is the problem those abominable zoo bureaucrats face daily. They will welcome your well thought out suggestions. I have no doubt.

 

[Jarkari]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I honestly think I am making a difference. I have mentioned this before but at the end of my tours I ask kids and families if what they gained from their experience and am amazed at how much they have taken on. When I look at everything we are doing to the world it really is what keeps me going when i start to lose hope.

As an example i recently took on a challenge to make more people aware of saola. i had just finished a tiger talk while feeding a tiger. i could tell people were generally interested in what i had to say about the animal in front of them. but when i started talking about saola you could see the interest drop in all but a few of the visitors. the difference, the live animal. hell Ive been stuck talking about barbary sheep for 25 minutes just because they were there and close. i dont really like the sheep so only spurt out the most interesting few facts and was then hammered with questions.

 

[BonkersBlake]

Sooty, I can only apologise for assuming there were only 200 b+w ruffs in situ. When I first started at my current job I was given that number as a rough estimate and always assumed it was correct. I'll amend the information I give to people from now on.

I also apologise for winding you up but you must understand I am in no way ashamed of working in a zoo. I'm incredibly proud of the conservation and educational work we all try to do there and am very passionate about the animals I work with. The only problem I have is the ethical aspect of keeping them in captivity. I personally base it on a species by species approach as some species seem to fare better in captivity than others although judging from your comments I'm guessing you don't agree. I just don't see the zoo world as so black and white in that it's either wrong or it's right. It's just something I struggle with every day as we can't give them what they would have in the wild but there isn't much "wild" left for a lot of them. If there was then I feel that zoos would be more of an entertainment rather than a conservational practice. My comment about an ideal world was very generalist and stemmed from many similar previous debates but again, sorry if it wound you up.

 

[Chlidonias]

Sooty, I can only apologise for assuming there were only 200 b+w ruffs in situ. When I first started at my current job I was given that number as a rough estimate and always assumed it was correct. I'll amend the information I give to people from now on.

see this page Primate Factsheets: Ruffed lemur (Varecia) Taxonomy, Morphology, & Ecology where the wild population of black-and-white ruffed is estimated at between 1000 and 10,000 (in 1997: obviously a very wide estimate there which just shows how little is actually known) and the population of red ruffed at between 29,000 and 52,000 (an estimate from 1992).

However the IUCN lists black-and-whites now as Critically Endangered following an estimated 80% decline in population: Varecia variegata (Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur, Ruffed Lemur) (no population figures given). [I would assume that is where your figure of 200 individuals came from: 1000 with an 80% decrease equals 200 but that is obviously a rather flawed method].

 

[BeardsleyZooFan]

Hands on interactions increase awareness. Interactions with animals themselves or with items such as skulls make children interested. You don't even have to work or volunteer there to help with education. When a kid asks his unknowing parents a question such as "What do wolves eat?" or "What's a peccary?", I sometimes step in and answer the question, knowing one more person is more interested in animals.

 

[Taisha]

You did'nt have any reason to apologize! My first reaction to your posting was, your zoo sounds very attractive, with keepers who allow themselves doubts and questions. Isn't that the supposition for further development? But it also needs a supportive managment, otherwise the best keeper can achieve little.
Your second post voices probably better than I have been succeeding to do - my own doubts.

 

[Taisha]

Also animals probably can't assess and reflect their situation (captivity vs. freedom) to the degree you may imagine.

An interesting point, as apparently no research is available on the construct freedom vs. captivity (at least at Google).
Do you know research with Coco the gorilla, who uses sign languages? Apparently she can reflect the construct "death", so this might be just another question to ask her.

 

[Taisha]

But little can be gained by applying human or personal motives and interpretations to animals.

What evidence do we have that "animals" as a category of intelligence/feeling/experience exist?


I know many zoos that conduct evaluations to discover what the visitors have learned and that information influences future designs. But, I must say, what does it matter what one has been taught if one's behavior doesn't change as needed? Millions loved Knut.

Uff!.... A lot of contradictions necessary, which is not my favourit pasttime:

How could you avoid to "interpret" animals, as it is scientifically proven that our whole life consists of nothing but interpretations, just as you have to interpret me, and I do so now, likewise.

To judge intelligence, emotion, experience, right, humans among eachother may sometimes turn out to be just as helpless as other species.
Hopefully I misunderstand you, and you don't claim, that animals have no intellig./emotion/experience, as this is an accepted fact nowadays, supported by scientific evidence.

Your "pet peeve" seems a bit beside the point. While I share your despair about the state of the wild planet, my topic always has been another one, right from the beginning, By the way, it has escaped you, that I changed to -for people AND animals-. Sanctuaries were nothing but an example, following a question being asked, the construct freedom was never on my agenda.

I don't know how many zoos you have visited in your life, I may have seen too many: in Asia, Africa and Europe. And I can assure you, taking them altogether, in most of them education is still a foreign language.
Even my home zoo would never dream of conducting a visitor evaluation, and even less to use the acquired information for development.

"Millions loved Knut"? A feast for the zoo management, a boost for the medias of the world, and an almost hysterical public. Neither his life nor his death is something we should be proud about.

 

[sooty mangabey]

"Millions loved Knut"? A feast for the zoo management, a boost for the medias of the world, and an almost hysterical public. Neither his life nor his death is something we should be proud about.

You really do have an anti-zoo agenda, and an anti Berlin Zoo in particular, agenda, don't you?

 

[Zooplantman]

How could you avoid to "interpret" animals, as it is scientifically proven that our whole life consists of nothing but interpretations, just as you have to interpret me, and I do so now, likewise.

To judge intelligence, emotion, experience, right, humans among eachother may sometimes turn out to be just as helpless as other species.
Hopefully I misunderstand you, and you don't claim, that animals have no intellig./emotion/experience, as this is an accepted fact nowadays, supported by scientific evidence.
.

No, my point is simply that we cannot know if or how or what any animal "feels," whether an urge for freedom or a dislike of its keeper or a passion for romance novels. We simply cannot know. Sure we can interpret, but that is mere wishful thinking and a poor way to make decisions about how to build a facility for animals. We observe certain behaviors.. but what is behind them?
The scientists I have spoken with admit that they use anthropomorphic images and phrases to describe animals' intents because they lack another way to express them. But a bad metaphor is not a truism.

What exactly are the educative aspects of a zoo?...
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.

"Millions loved Knut"? A feast for the zoo management, a boost for the medias of the world, and an almost hysterical public. Neither his life nor his death is something we should be proud about.

We'll ignore what appears to be your contradictions about Knut and his impact.
My point about Knut was this: what positive results for polar bears came of this "heightened general interest"?
I agree with your concerns about the educational aspects of zoos but my focus is not the same as yours (I think). You wonder whether visitors in fact learn at zoos. I know that a great many do. I ask, and in what real ways does that benefit wildlife?

I avidly support the existence of good zoos in any case: it seems true that we will not save what we do not love. I just wish we were able to inspire real societal change.

 

[Dassie rat]

I think the problem with the question "Are Zoos Only For The People?" is the implication that all zoos are the same. I know a few anti-zoo people, some of whom say, "All zoos should be closed down," but do not say where the animals would go. I have visited several zoos with a member of CAPS (the Captive Animals Protection Society) and she prefers some zoos to others. She quite liked Prague, the Berlin Tierpark, Kilverstone and Cologne, but not Frankfurt nor Stuttgart and I don't think she was too keen on Plzen. I have visited several zoos on my own and I much prefer some to others.

Some zoos do seem to be geared for visitors, or more particularly to get money out of visitors. I agree with the John Aspinall philosophy that animals should be able to retreat into indoor areas and visitors don't have the right to see them, but I can understand that if visitors pay a lot of money to visit a zoo, it can be frustrating not to see many animals. As has been said in several discussions, the welfare of the animals must be paramount. I would not like to see a return to single animals in bare, concrete enclosures. I remember the stump-tailed macaque picking chunks of flesh out of his cheek at Broxbourne Zoo and the brown hyaena moving around his enclosure at San Diego, but being unable to enter an indoor den. Zoo directors ought to consider that such scenes don't reflect well on a zoo.

At a discussion at London Zoo, many years ago, Doug Richardson clashed with Clinton Keeling. Doug said that large, natural enclosures were good for cats, while Clinton preferred the old Lion House, which made it easy to compare and contrast different species of cats. I think this sort of argument is important. I have talked with two people who have visited Tanzania and said the lions were boring, spending most of their time lazing around. This is natural behaviour for lions and if captives are fed dead meat, as they are in most zoos, a large lion enclosure can be wasted, as lions may not move around much, unless they have to. Some other Zoochatters have noted that visitors seem to have a confused idea about what enclosures should be like. They want bi enclosures for big animals and then complain that they can't see the animal, or it is just a speck in the background. Visitors can't really have it both ways and I don't think they learn much by looking at a label, seeing the animal and moving onto the next enclosure. If zoos used audio-visual displays, museum specimens and the like, this could interest visitors more.

Zoo should be for the animals, but should do more to attract people. I think it's sad when children are more interested in a playground than they are in the animals. Perhaps the most innovative zoo I've been to is the Burgers Zoo in Arnhem and the children there seemed to be enjoying themselves. Perhaps other zoos should follow suit with a lot more imagination.

 

[Taisha]

We observe certain behaviors.. but what is behind them.

We'll ignore what appears to be your contradictions about Knut and his impact.
My point about Knut was this: what positive results for polar bears came of this "heightened general interest".

You wonder whether visitors in fact learn at zoos. I know that a great many do. I ask, and in what real ways does that benefit wildlife?

I just wish we were able to inspire real societal change.

No idea, why you should dismiss findings, only to mention a few, like Kanzi the bonobo, communicating via computer, or Coco the gorilla with sign
language.

I don't think I had a contradiction where Knut is concerned, because I had already agreed on your point, that learning does not necessarily imply changing mind and behaviour. After Knut, have there been any noticable efforts to save the polar bears in the wild, even if millions should have had a heightened awareness? but maybe you didn't understand, that in passsing by, watching the cowds Knut attracted, I would have wished a different life for him.

I could not agree more about your last statement, maybe the question should rather be, how people should be educated, to develop more motivation for saving the wild.

 

[Taisha]

I think the problem with the question "Are Zoos Only For The People?" is the implication that all zoos are the same.

If zoos used audio-visual displays, museum specimens and the like, this could interest visitors more.

.

Maybe I should explain how my question came up in the first place:
Whenever the Berlin zoo director is asked for improvement, his standard answer will be "zoos are for humans...", implying to me, not for the animals.
Coming to this blog for quite another reason, I soon started wondering, are there any members that share his view and what would be their arguments.
But as we all can only speak from personal experience (hence the zoos we know), I also began to realize the limits of such discussions.
Speaking about "the zoo", includes the horrors of Trivandrum zoo (India), and Bonice (Slovakia) but also the wonders of Singapore or Prague.

Would it not be even in the interest of the people to be taught to watch patiently until they have discovered an animal, as this would reflect nature much better? In the long run it may even increase their interest.

Is there any possibility to get to know CAPS positive assessment of the Berlin Tierpark?
Finding it hard to stick to just one example: the primate house, built in 2000, style 1950, wouldn't be able to meet your requirements for retreat or banning of bare, concrete enclosures. On one of my visits, I saw an animal dying, knocked over by its group again and again, with no possibility to retreat and with nothing but bare concrete around.

Some zoos seem already to use the measures you mentioned, I hope many zoos will follow.

 

[markmeier]

Maybe I should explain how my question came up in the first place:
Whenever the Berlin zoo director is asked for improvement, his standard answer will be "zoos are for humans...", implying to me, not for the animals.
Coming to this blog for quite another reason, I soon started wondering, are there any members that share his view and what would be their arguments.

Is there any possibility to get to know CAPS positive assessment of the Berlin Tierpark?
Finding it hard to stick to just one example: the primate house, built in 2000, style 1950, wouldn't be able to meet your requirements for retreat or banning of bare, concrete enclosures. On one of my visits, I saw an animal dying, knocked over by its group again and again, with no possibility to retreat and with nothing but bare concrete around.

Sooty was right I think, you do seem to have an aversion for Berlin's zoos and I believe you also take things out of context a bit to suit your views... Blaskiewitz did say zoos display animals for people (which in fact they do), but I think it wasn't in the context of/ response to such critique.

Besides, the tierpark has been criticised many times by you by now, why not open an own thread for such stuff in the correct area rather than spreading "arguments" all over the blog? And of course I can't check or disprove the claim of an animal (which species and at around which time anyways?) cruelly being killed by others, but I haven't witnessed anything like it in the years I've been visiting the place or ever heard of anything. And in fact dassie rat was talking of boxes with cement floors that displayed single animals. The monkey building in the tierpark is nothing like this. In fact many modern monkey enclosures won't have better inside boxes or even any equipment, but you just cannot see them...

P.S.: Since you are from Germany, I have a link for you that discusses the Tierpark quite in depth (although it's partially outdated as some improvements have been made since then). Strikingly, even this fierce (but rather well informed) criticism does not deny that most enclosures are absolutely adequate for the animals. The argumentation rather criticises the attractivity for visitors. The at least equally well founded response also stresses some of the objective givens (e.g. low budget) that are often ignored. But better check it out yourself if you will and be it to enhance your own criticism with the rather smashing rhetorics : Zoo-AG: Bericht Tierpark Berlin 4.97

 

[Taisha]

Besides, the tierpark has been criticised many times by you by now, why not open an own thread for such stuff in the correct area rather than spreading "arguments" all over the blog? [/url]

TO BRING THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION TO AN END:

For me it is pretty obvious now, that your comments are nowhere based on practical experience with the subject concerned. Just as your quote Sooty came as a foreign visitor, with no knowledge of the language, and still finds himself qualified enough to judge my remarks.

For enlightment:

Süddeutsche Ztg. 30.9.2010, Berlin, ein Tierversuch
www.claudia-haemmerling.de/2010/sz0930-tierpark.pdf

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/umwelt/im-gespraech-berliner-zoo-direktor-bernhard-blaszkiewitz-wir projizieren-unser-empfinden-auf-die-tiere-1607328.html

www.3sat.de/page/?source=/ard/sendung/161010/index.html

By the way, it is not up to you to decide what I should talk about in this thread. I initiated the thread, and nobody has forced you to participate.