Can we do something against Zoo Animal Rights Activists?

You know something? After twenty years in the field, ranging from sketchy little roadside zoos to very well-known AZA zoos, I have never, ever encountered a protestor or a picketer. Even when I was at one of said sketchy zoos, when bad stuff happened that did make the news, and I drove to work every day expecting to see someone from PETA out front... nothing. Most anti-zoo people limit themselves to some snark on facebook, and then move on with their lives.

My gut feeling is that there is a small percentage of the population that absolutely adores zoos. There's a (much smaller, but still there) percentage that despises them. The vast majority are what I think of as a fair-weather friends. These are the folks who were outraged after Harambe died, swore they'd never go to a zoo again, free all the animals etc, etc... and then, a few years later, were buying up all the Fiona merchandise they could get their hands on. People's perceptions of zoos are very easily swayed by whatever happened most recently. The best way for zoos to keep a positive profile is to continually put out good stories, while honestly addressing when negative news breaks.

As far as negative folks online, as I see it you aren't really trying to change *their* opinion - because that's probably impossible. Instead, when you put out a reply, it's really an open letter to everyone who is still on the fence, to remind them of why they should support (good) zoos and aquariums. When I do engage with folks, which is not often, I just go for positive, pleasant persuasion. Sometimes you'll actually when them over. Sometimes it's a draw. Once or twice they seem to go full on unhinged, in which case they're probably repelling their own potential supporters. But usually, I don't bother. Whenever I see a news story about zoos, it generally seems like the positive comments greatly outnumber the negatives.
 
The only time I have ever seen animal rights protestors was at a circus show. Even then it was only a few.
 
You can simply answer them calmly and objectively.

Many of these activists try to frame the discussion at the start that zoos are outdated and must justify their existence. One can easily reverse and point this is a fringe view and millions of people enjoy them.
 
Zoos can follow their principles a bit so they are satisfied, ie. less dolphins (or at least more humane and natural exhibits), no whales, more natural enclosures, etc.
 
MOG2012 said:
Zoos can follow their principles a bit so they are satisfied, ie. less dolphins (or at least more humane and natural exhibits), no whales, more natural enclosures, etc.
Click to expand...
On the one hand, this makes sense - Dallas Zoo used to have one of the worst facilities for elephants out there and then built one of the most inventive ones out there. On the other hand, this creates a slippery slope, as a zoo that tries to appease even the most hardline individuals who will never be satisfied ends up phasing itself out of existence. Zoos should absolutely ensure they have the best facilities for their animals, but chasing approval that they'll never get shouldn't be the goal in the slightest.
 
In my view the best way to counter anti-zoo people is to promote the positive, ie conservation, welfare, education and the joy zoo visitors experience. And to remind that bad zoos do not represent all zoos.
 
StoppableSan said:
On the one hand, this makes sense - Dallas Zoo used to have one of the worst facilities for elephants out there and then built one of the most inventive ones out there. On the other hand, this creates a slippery slope, as a zoo that tries to appease even the most hardline individuals who will never be satisfied ends up phasing itself out of existence. Zoos should absolutely ensure they have the best facilities for their animals, but chasing approval that they'll never get shouldn't be the goal in the slightest.
Click to expand...
I agree, zoos need to set their standards and work towards them. It is pointless trying to get the approval of anti-zoo activists.
 
I feel to the general public and activists a good enclosure is a big enclosure. Though it is just one component of husbandry, making larger enclosures that allow for more 'wild' behaviors may be what the public wants.

Many activists favorably compare the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee against zoo enclosures, and it's hard to argue that 2,700 acres of habitat isn't more ideal than the >10 acres they get in traditional zoos. An extreme example, but it illustrates my point.

When bear grottos first appeared they were the cutting edge of animal husbandry; now they border on abuse. Perhaps many of the enclosures that we have today will be considered quaint a century from now. There is always room for improvement.
 
StoppableSan said:
Dallas Zoo used to have one of the worst facilities for elephants out there and then built one of the most inventive ones out there.
Click to expand...
Wasn't however dallas stil listed on the top 10 worst zoos for elephants after the renovations? (Which does show how you can never appease everyone)
I think that it is important to sometimes ignore the demands that seem ridiculous (after all the extreme ones will never be satisfied), but what should not be ignored is constructive criticism
 
S. Venaticus said:
Wasn't however dallas stil listed on the top 10 worst zoos for elephants after the renovations? (Which does show how you can never appease everyone)
I think that it is important to sometimes ignore the demands that seem ridiculous (after all the extreme ones will never be satisfied), but what should not be ignored is constructive criticism
Click to expand...

What metrics are they using to evaluate habitats? Ranking something as difficult to quantify as enclosure quality often leads to vibes-based judgements, even when ranking the best exhibits. Animal husbandry is not a fixed formula; there is no single perfect way of doing things.

When I look up the Dallas Zoo's elephant exhibit, I see reactions criticizing space and stress from zoo goers. Though space can only be improved so much with what they have, I believe the elephants do have a yard away from the visitors they can be alone in. Perhaps this is a consequence of zoos hiding their behind the scenes areas in maps and so forth-- from the viewers perspective, the elephants have only a small habitat where they can't hide from us, where in reality they can travel to multiple yards, some of which are more private.

Another problem with these rankings is that there are things the Dallas Zoo can do better than other, higher ranked habitats. Texas is better climate for elephants than the Elephant Sanctuary, which gets freezing cold in winter. The elephants can bear the cold, but I can't imagine they are completely comfortable during that time, 2700 acres or not. The Dallas Zoo also is one of the few Zoos that cohabitate elephants with other African megafauna, which I imagine is a great source of enrichment for them. I don't expect that the activists weigh the effect of cohabitation in their rankings, and even if they did, it would be difficult to measure its benefit. Some may even count it as a negative, seeing as it could potentially stress some animals.
 
Monoceros said:
What metrics are they using to evaluate habitats?
Click to expand...
I think they used whatever will get them the most media attention tbh. For example some years has to do with breeding, others with space or wild captures. However I think that most people with the bare minimum of knowledge can tell that it is mostly PR.
 
JDB1992 said:
They've successfully prevented a new zoo being built in the UK! I feel that BIAZA needs to address this problem and declare these animal rights thugs as extremists that are doing more harm than good to society.
Click to expand...
I am familiar with this...
Though I am of opinion there's little the BIAZA can do. From what I understand there is a special interest group [the interest in this case; anti-zoo] and person who oversees construction. The interest group campaigned and the other person gave in.
And so I'm not sure as to what the BIAZA group could do... and I do feel when working with interest groups it's always good to be careful when deeming any or other to be extremist. That's a sort of thing everyone likes to do to each other.
 
Zoo opponents sometimes try the tactic of looking for people absolutely unfamiliar with zoos, and convincing them. When people are 'primed' about some topic, they often accept the first opinion about zoos as their own and are reluctant to change it.

In Switzerland in 2022, activists approached the city of Basel to organize a referendum to give human rights to primates. Luckily, the referendum motion was rejected - the city council replied that it does not own any lemurs, monkeys or apes and does not feel knowledgeable about them, and the traditionally level-headed Swiss did not support the idea.
 
dillotest0 said:
working with interest groups it's always good to be careful when deeming any or other to be extremist.
Click to expand...

Many zoos in Europe have a zoo friends society, a club of private people interested in animals and the zoo. They, among others, often raise money and support the zoo in other ways. They also freely discuss and criticize the zoo when they feel so, for example outdated enclosures. This is what I would call a sensible interest group.
 
Jurek7 said:
Many zoos in Europe have a zoo friends society, a club of private people interested in animals and the zoo. They, among others, often raise money and support the zoo in other ways. They also freely discuss and criticize the zoo when they feel so, for example outdated enclosures. This is what I would call a sensible interest group.
Click to expand...
True.
Though I was thinking along the lines of ...
calling any one interest group 'extremist' may lead to a motion for that group to do the same to the other group.
So it's hardly productive.
 
"Can we do something against Zoo Animal Rights Activists?"
Why?

I don't know about y'all experience in the West, but in developing countries and especially here in Indonesia, the role of animal right activist are important for the welfare of the animals involved. While mostly sheltering rescued animals, Indonesian zoos often involved itself in shady business and practices, as well as continuing outdated practises like unethical attractions (Ex. elephant ride, photos with orangutans or tigers, etc.) that are all for monetary profit. These animal activists have the important role in exposing these activities that often help reformed and improved zoos, or even closing down the very bad one.

These are somewhat some successes in Indonesia:
  • Medan Zoo is currently in the headline for the many death and mistreatement of their tigers, the dystopian state of the zoo, major incompetence from the administering city government, and shady funding that reportedly only focused in building new attractions rather than improving the exhibits and welfare of the animals. Despite no significant progress happening, a lot of people has contributed in exposing the sheer incompetence of the zoo and the administrator.
  • Several people have exposed the miserable state of the now-closed Bogor Mini Zoo due to bad exhibits and animal care. The virality of this issue resulted in investigation by the city government itself, which had surfaced a lot of shady business including involvement with the illegal wildlife trade.
  • Public and even international pressure on city zoos like Bandung and Surabaya Zoo resulted in these zoos to attempt to modernize themself, with mixed result.
  • Additionaly, further pressure on Taman Safari Indonesia for their practise of photos with lions, tigers, leopards, and orangutans lead to the park to eventually phased out this practise for good. Though practises like elephant rides is still prevalent.
  • In the past, there used to be travelling dolphin shows where several Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins are kept in horrid conditions. Several activists had even appeared and stand around the shows stage while educating would-be guests about the horrible situation. As of now, there are currently no known active travelling dolphin shows.

Animal activists have a very important role of giving criticism and protests against unethical and outdated practices of zoos as well as aquarias, just like other form of activism in society.
 
What I don't like is that often people will go to assume that what is right for one nation is right for all nations.
Do I think that 'animal rights' played a part in improving welfare of zoo animals in the 20th century in western countries? I do think that's a plausible idea.
But do I think all nations are equally impacted by poor husbandry of animals as I write now in the year 2024? I think not.
I think I can comfortably say that zoos in 'western countries' have managed to escape the image portrayed by these activists within the 20th century, and have developed into more ethical facilities. And now we are starting to see this in countries such as Indonesia also.
But what I think we are seeing now is that countries like Indonesia find their zoos and ARAs in a similar situation as to times before in western countries. And now that zoos have largely moved from that image, ARAs in western countries have taken the frivolous approach that animal captivity of any sort is inherently wrong.
It's what the activists do to keep themselves from going out of business.
 
dillotest0 said:
What I don't like is that often people will go to assume that what is right for one nation is right for all nations.
Do I think that 'animal rights' played a part in improving welfare of zoo animals in the 20th century in western countries? I do think that's a plausible idea.
But do I think all nations are equally impacted by poor husbandry of animals as I write now in the year 2024? I think not.
I think I can comfortably say that zoos in 'western countries' have managed to escape the image portrayed by these activists within the 20th century, and have developed into more ethical facilities. And now we are starting to see this in countries such as Indonesia also.
But what I think we are seeing now is that countries like Indonesia find their zoos and ARAs in a similar situation as to times before in western countries. And now that zoos have largely moved from that image, ARAs in western countries have taken the frivolous approach that animal captivity of any sort is inherently wrong.
It's what the activists do to keep themselves from going out of business.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said that "I don't know the situation with zoos and animal activists" in the West, I even adore some practices by Western zoos (I.e modern and natural exhibits as well focus on scientific studies). The conversation in this thread appears to be more universal, which is why I feel like I had to put my view and perspective, especially as an observer from a developing country with its own problem including with zoos. If Western zoos have done a good job improving themself and the animal activists there are somewhat more of a problem than they do good, that doesn't mean the assumption made there always applied in zoos and activism anywhere else. In short, I'm not universally judging every zoos, including in the West, based on my personal experience here in Indonesia, I think I should've worded it better. Though, I hope it need to be noted, these issues are very much real here and are unfortunately very much different from the current experience in the West.

Different culture are also to play. In the West, I think I can safely say that zoos and their management mostly oriented towards conservation and scientific studies (Though profit are of course at play, but I think the management there are mostly aware of this) and average people there are mostly aware of animal right and welfare. These are a different experience here in Indonesia and probably in some other part of the world. With the notable exception of probably Jagat Satwa Nusantara and a handful of others, a lot of zoos here are very much oriented towards entertaintment and is often treated as a business rather than a legitimate scientific and conservational institution (Explaining how numerous and homogenized most of the newer zoos are), especially due to how prevalent exotic pets are in Indonesia. This also impacted to the people view of the zoo, which almost entirely focused on the entertaintment aspect of zoos (You don't care if say there's a Sunda clouded leopard in a modern exhibit if there's a tiger or lion feeding attractions in . There are a lot of aspects that are too much to say, but like I say, different cultures and social construct are to be analyzed when talking about these most often or not. This is also my criticism of animal activists in Indonesia, which often always focused on issues like old exhibits and starving animals but not to arguably more prevalent issues like I had mentioned.
 
@Rizz Carlton - what you describe is very sensible, but they are not animal rights activists but normal animal enthusiasts.

Animal rights, in the Western sense, is an extreme and not logical idea that animals should have absolute rights like human rights, especially to be 'free'. Animal rights activists question the whole concept of zoos or keeping particular animals, like cetaceans. They normally don't care about improving conditions for animals in zoos, or conservation, or extinction in the wild, because this still violates the 'right to freedom'. Some seem actually more interesting in extorting hush money from rich businesses. Others sabotaged zoos or killed aquarium fish because 'death is better than prison'. I hope such people never appear in Asia.

Every zoo enthusiast would pressure a zoo to rebuild outdated exhibits, or stop circus like traveling exhibits keeping animals in poor conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top