Asian Animal Protection Network

[Chlidonias]

AAPN.org - Asian Animal Protection Network - The Zoo Pages
anyone else familiar with this site? I've seen it before but just recently came across it again when searching for something else. Its run by a chap who is anti-zoo but not entirely rabidly-so -- most of his criticisms seem to relate to whether the zoo has large animals like elephants or bears, or whether the surroundings look pretty or look like prisons, and he regularly seems to admit that a zoo "isn't as bad as some zoos" or is "quite good". He does appear to spend an extraordinary amount of his time and money visiting zoos all round the world. The China section is pretty appalling reading, but when you read what he writes about zoos that you're familiar with yourself you almost wonder what planet he's on and if he's even visited the places he writes about. For example, he gives an almost glowing account of the awful Alma Park Zoo in Brisbane:

The Alma Park Zoo was pleasingly unambitious and the management was obviously doing its best to achieve good conditions for the animals and to educate the public. Some of the cages of course were far too small. They had a solitary leopard in a rather old fashioned (but clean and well furnished) menagerie cage - but there was a notice saying that he was very old and they had decided that to give him a new cage at this stage in his life would be disturbing to him. An eagle had a similar cage and a similar notice. (I think one can understand the economic reasons more easily than the humane one). The monkey cages were certainly overcrowded but there were good educational commentaries from the guides. The kangaroo and koala areas were walk through areas and the animals seemed quite happy - plenty of interaction with quite well behaved children. Lots of vegetation - inside the animal compounds as well as outside.

but then says this about the far superior Melbourne Zoo:

Melbourne Zoo - August 2000. A good example of the impossibility of giving a decent life to wild animals in an urban setting. Obviously a great deal of work has been done to incorporate all the latest ideas of open plans and environmental enrichment. But the animals are still confined to inadequate spaces and are exposed to tormenting by visitors. Despite all the money spent there are many examples of miserable looking animals displaying typical zoochotic signs.

about Orana Park he says...

There are two small zoos in Christchurch. One I didn't see is just a small petting zoo - the Willowbank Park. The other is more ambitious - the Orana Park. I visited it in March 1997. The management seem to be doing their best to implement modern ideas of zoo keeping but I feel they are being too ambitious. In the first place I really don't think Christchurch needs a zoo at all. New Zealand enjoys excellent television with access to good wildlife documentaries - and no one will learn more about animals by seeing them standing in cages or even fields. My second criticism is that they are being too ambitious. They obviously have limited cash and are hoping that by having a wide selection of animals they will draw the public and improve their financial position. They may be right - but it is the animals who suffer from inadequate conditions in the meantime. It must be pretty grim there in the winter.

and then Auckland Zoo...

I visited in March, 1997.
I am against zoos in principle. I believe it is wrong to keep innocent animals captive. We should put our resources not into building and maintaining zoos but into keeping wildlife in the wild.
Having said that, I have to admit that the Auckland Zoo is pretty good! It is does not have more animals than it can cope with and great effort has obviously been put into improving the lot of the inmates. The animals could all do with more space but they certainly have much better conditions than the vast majority of zoos.
Anyone who insists on being involved in running a zoo would be well advised to come here to learn

a section from the Singapore Zoo review...

The zoo is a money making entity. Animals are maltreated - though more discreetly than in other zoos. The cruelty is just as prevalent and pervasive, the attitudes are the same - just more cleverly and sophisticatedly concealed.

and a second longer review (from a different person) with some bizarre complaints in it: Singapore Zoo, Shubhobroto Ghosh
in the Bronx Zoo review:

When visiting one of these better zoos, it becomes so obvious that the whole concept of animal prisons is wrong. It is not a question of bigger cages and more enrichment - zoos must be closed and the effort put into preserving natural wild habitat. Nothing else will do.

my favourite quote from the site is a toss-up between

My lasting impression is of watching the visiting animal lovers, after spending the morning cooing over the cuteness of the animals, sit down to great piles of ribs. Where do they think the ribs come from?

and

Two remarkably good zoos here (but please remember that there is no such thing as a good zoo - wild animals should be left in the wild).

Find a zoo you know well and compare...

 

[snowleopard]

I've gone through that website before and just decided to browse it once again. Some of those photos are disgusting, as the Chinese zoos that are on the site are beyond ghastly and into some realm of horrible torture for the imprisoned animals.

 

[Animal Rights]

I am the person who wrote the Singapore zoo report on the AAPN website. What did you find bizarre in it?

 

[John Wedderburn]

AAPN.org - Asian Animal Protection Network - The Zoo Pages
anyone else familiar with this site? I've seen it before but just recently came across it again when searching for something else. Its run by a chap who is anti-zoo.

Hi!
I'm the 'chap who is anti-zoo' who wrote the Zoo Pages at AAPN. Your comments have just been brought to my attention and I would like to make some comments of my own!
First, I did not 'spend an extraordinary amount of time and money visiting zoos all round the world'. My visits to those cities were work related so I was on company time. The reason my rate of zoo visits has dropped off is that the company is now much more efficient at scheduling my time - now I usually arrive late at night and leave early in the morning with no opportunity to visit the zoo.
I was motivated to visit zoos by a former friend who was Curator of the Hong Kong Zoo and Botanical Gardens who told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I told him his zoo was a disgrace. At that point I hadn't seen many zoos so he had a point. I made up my mind to become a zoo expert - that was in 1990. I do now know what I am talking about and I still say the HKZBG is a disgrace. No, it is by no means the worst in Asia but for an affluent city like Hong Kong it is disgraceful. Moreover the site is far too small for it ever to be improved. I have been campaigning since 1990 for it to be phased out and restored to its former glory as a Botanical Garden - as was done at the original Hanoi Zoo. In Hanoi the new zoo is still a disgrace but at least the Botanical Garden is a joy.
I am the first to admit that my assessments of zoos are subjective. At the beginning I tried to make scientific assessments of the Zoocheck type but I never had time to do them properly. I consider my reports to be merely starting points for conversations. Attitudes can only be changed one conversation at a time. I am sorry I missed your comments when they first appeared here.
My primary criterion for assessing a zoo may be different from yours. I try to see things from the inmates' point of view.
I shall be interested in your reply to this; also I would like you to explain why you found Shubho's report 'bizarre'.

 

[Zooish]

I am the person who wrote the Singapore zoo report on the AAPN website. What did you find bizarre in it?

Hello. I don't find your article "bizarre" but IMHO it clearly sets out to criticize for the sake of criticizing. Anyone who fundamentally disagrees with the concept of zoos will always be able to find (or cook-up) faults.

I quote a line from your article:

"To counter this problem, the zoo has taken the ingenious step of having announcements done by keepers extolling that 'polar bears are actually black and get their white colour by reflection from the sun in the Arctic environment'. It is a ludicrous claim at best and a harmfully insidious one at worst."

In response to the above, it shows a clear lack of knowledge and how selective your hearing is. Polar bears do have black skin. It is a fact. The keepers' commentary explains this clearly and further explains that polar bears have transparent hairs which reflect light, hence the bears appear white. When the bears moult, bits of the black skin may be exposed.

I agree that the Singapore Zoo polar bear enclosure is grossly inadequate, but i can't side with critics who don't get their facts right.

The following quote amuses me:

"The Naked Mole Rats are exhibited in a small plastic box with wood chips that do not allow them to bury and disappear from human view. This is possibly extremely uncomfortable for these very essentially subterranean creatures."

Naked mole rats are nearly blind. I don't think they'd be too bothered by curious stares. But if its of any consolation, the exhibit no longer exists.

In case you're wondering, I don't work for the Singapore Zoo, just a regular visitor.