Damian Aspinall: You all know my views on zoos prove me wrong

This conversation shows well why the arguments of anti-zoo people don't really hold water. They do raise some great points sometimes - many zoos do need enclosure improvements, there aren't enough endangered species in zoos, and many zoos need to put more money towards conservation. However, they are always convinced that these animals are suffering. When presented with evidence that this is not the case in most zoos, they just say it again, presenting no evidence towards their point.
 
Mattaki said:
Just because it isn't a direct quote that doesn't mean it is bending the truth, but alright I won't do it again I suppose.

Either way I have a few questions for you now. And let me remind you that you said in a previous post that you have replied to ALL questions but still have NOT replied to the questions I quoted yesterday so I really hope you DO reply to my following:

1. What should we do about species that can not be released due to a lack of sustainable habitat such as the Kihansi Spray Toad?

2. If zoos were to be abolished and all the animals released to the wild, would this not cause a lot of environmental stress on the already established wild populations and the local people? Would the other option be to put them to sleep?

3. Without zoos, do you not think there would be a lot less people becoming interested in animals to then help future conservation efforts? I and many others certainly became interested in animals and conservation thanks to visits to the zoo.

4. Where do you expect all the money for conservation to come from without zoo admissions? That definitely makes up a large amount of it and without it I am sure the fate of many other species would be different.
Click to expand...

1. I would look at doing a captive or semi captive project in the country of origin managed by a suitable organisation. This would only be if there was absolutely no way to protect the last remaining pockets of the natural habitat.The benefits of this concept is the animals stay in there natural environment with the right climate food etc etc and close to a release site if that was ever possible. We have been successful doing this.
2. My position is not to put all zoo animals back into the wild as this is unrealistic. My position is that zoos should do everything they can to find projects where they can release animals rare or not rare back to the wild (they do not do this presently) and species that are impossible to rewild like hybrids etc slowly phase out of these animals.Of the 45 critically endangered mammal species in captivity only 4 are actually viable the rest are hybrids in bred or genetically unviable ..so zoos have done a terrible job here.
3. I hear this point a lot and i have sympathy for this however today we can learn so much about so many things do we really believe that the only or best way to learn about wildlife is to have captive animals. Especially as the vast majority of zoos are truly awful places.
4. I have said on this thread now a few times that the amount people think zoos give to conservation is much less than people imagine. On average for all EAZA zoos the amount is £35k pa per zoo. now way that up against revenue and it is a tiny fraction of the revenue. Even a rich zoo like chester which annual revenue is circa 50m pa give a few hundred thousand a year.about 1.5% of revenue. For me that does not justify zoos existence that they support conservation. Secondly does anybody know how effective this money that goes into these projects is no because no body checks. Again this is not acceptable for me.
Most importantly far far more money is raised for conservation outside of zoos so actually zoos are one of the worst ways of raising money for conservation.
Hope this answers your questions
 
birdsandbats said:
This conversation shows well why the arguments of anti-zoo people don't really hold water. They do raise some great points sometimes - many zoos do need enclosure improvements, there aren't enough endangered species in zoos, and many zoos need to put more money towards conservation. However, they are always convinced that these animals are suffering. When presented with evidence that this is not the case in most zoos, they just say it again, presenting no evidence towards their point.
Click to expand...
i just wrote a thread with evidence its a good read
 
Damian Aspinall said:
1. I would look at doing a captive or semi captive project in the country of origin managed by a suitable organisation. This would only be if there was absolutely no way to protect the last remaining pockets of the natural habitat.The benefits of this concept is the animals stay in there natural environment with the right climate food etc etc and close to a release site if that was ever possible. We have been successful doing this.
Click to expand...
In the case of the Kihansi Spray Toad, what would make the captive populations being the country of origin any different than the the current situation?
 
Damian Aspinall said:
i just wrote a thread with evidence its a good read
Click to expand...
Where?
Damian Aspinall said:
3. I hear this point a lot and i have sympathy for this however today we can learn so much about so many things do we really believe that the only or best way to learn about wildlife is to have captive animals. Especially as the vast majority of zoos are truly awful places.
Click to expand...
What are some examples you have of zoos that aren't "truly awful places" then?
 
aardvark250 said:
A lot of zoo are giving their animals nice natural environment and they can enjoy doing what they do in the wild. They can act like they're in it. Of course there are bad zoo around the world, which still use cage in small exhibit, but most of them are throwing away this idea and building exhibit that replicate the nature as much as possible.
Click to expand...
Now i don't know who you are and what you do but i say this with respect. I have been involved with the welfare of animals in captivity all my adult life over 40 years and therefore absolutely no my subject matter and it is with great sadness that i can tell you without any doubt that 90% of the animals enclosures are sub standard even a lot of the new enclosures focus on what is great for the public not the animals. You can ignore this if you wish but it is true
 
Damian Aspinall said:
I would also add there are just as many studies saying the opposite.
I can say with absolute certainty that animals suffer in zoos.
Click to expand...

Don't be shy, show these studies. But real ones, not opinions, not from animal rights organizations (you said you like independent) and not from 30 or 20 year old data, where animals really lived in different conditions in zoos. I would be interested to see.
 
Last edited:
Damian Aspinall said:
Well this is where we differ considerably which is fine..in my mind the idea that we can keep animals in cages just so people can see them in the flesh fills me with utter dread. It makes homo sapiens a horror species that it could be so arrogant to deprive animals from there natural environment for this reason. I literally feel this is barbaric. As to the amount of money you think zoos contribute to conservation on average the amount of money given by every eaza zoo in 35k pa. is that acceptable to you? Has anyone ever measures the effectiveness of that money every year to see if it justifies the animals being kept in cages ..no sadly...
Click to expand...
It's not just so people can see them in the flesh... they're for conservational and educational purposes, too.
 
birdsandbats said:
Whether this very idea is horrible or not is a matter of opinion, but let me ask you this. The average person doesn't really seem to care about conservation, and everyone I've met who does has fond memories of seeing animals in captivity. Do you think all of these people would still care if they had not seen an elephants (for example) as a child? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
I agree. If I hadn't been to any zoos in my childhood, I wouldn't want to pursue a career in conservation. Zoos are the whole reason I have a love for animals.
 
Damian Aspinall said:
I disagree caged is an extreme word just look on the internet at how zoos keep animals of course they are caged its unrealistic to suggest anything else.
You don't need zoos to raise money for conservation.Far more money far far more money is raised for conservation outside of zoos so this has no merit at all. what use is a study of a caged animals not acting in its own natural environment absolutely none secondly have you not read all the studies that show how much mental harm is done to captive animals. Read Professor Bob Jacobs Colorado college study the subject. Very depressing and completely independent.
Surprised you feel that zoos should exist so that you could benefit seems selfish to me and what about all the animals that have suffered over the time you visited do you knot feel any guilt that they are there just for people like yourself. Thank you for your comment
Click to expand...
If there were no zoos, then there would undeniably be less money going to conservation.
 
I believe The Aspinall Foundation is currently under suspension wIthin EAZA. If zoos are the evil you believe them to be, why not leave EAZA , close Howletts/Port Lympne down,let good zoos get on with the good work they do and move onto purely in situ-based projects?
 
Damian Aspinall said:
1. I would look at doing a captive or semi captive project in the country of origin managed by a suitable organisation. This would only be if there was absolutely no way to protect the last remaining pockets of the natural habitat.
Click to expand...

Damien, you ignore that many tropical countries have poor governance or civil unrest and such local centers simply do not work. And large proportion of animals are threatened by poaching, introduced species, pollution, diseases, increase of native predators etc. 'Protecting habitat' will not save them.
 
Jurek7 said:
Damien, you ignore that many tropical countries have poor governance or civil unrest and such local centers simply do not work. And large proportion of animals are threatened by poaching, introduced species, pollution, diseases, increase of native predators etc. 'Protecting habitat' will not save them.
Click to expand...
yes i agree it is not easy but look if we can save the mountain gorilla without having them in zoos in a place with civil war rabid poaching and de forestation then honestly we can do it in most places and we must at least try everything possible before any type of captivity.
 
Tim Brown said:
I believe The Aspinall Foundation is currently under suspension wIthin EAZA. If zoos are the evil you believe them to be, why not leave EAZA , close Howletts/Port Lympne down,let good zoos get on with the good work they do and move onto purely in situ-based projects?
Click to expand...
i don't leave eaza as i think i can do more to improve things being on the inside and i have enacted a plan to close the parks over time..
 
Damian Aspinall said:
I disagree caged is an extreme word just look on the internet at how zoos keep animals of course they are caged its unrealistic to suggest anything else.
You don't need zoos to raise money for conservation.Far more money far far more money is raised for conservation outside of zoos so this has no merit at all. what use is a study of a caged animals not acting in its own natural environment absolutely none secondly have you not read all the studies that show how much mental harm is done to captive animals. Read Professor Bob Jacobs Colorado college study the subject. Very depressing and completely independent.
Surprised you feel that zoos should exist so that you could benefit seems selfish to me and what about all the animals that have suffered over the time you visited do you knot feel any guilt that they are there just for people like yourself. Thank you for your comment
Click to expand...

How do you feel about exhibits like Masoala Halle?
I think you pick your questions, I talked twice about zoos with simple GREAT exhibits (Réserve de la Haute Touche), not once you answered about it. How a HUGE land area, fenced, but huge is a cage?
You can't mix everything up, captive animals is a general term. There is a huge difference in mental health between the Mandrills in Berlin Zoo, and the ones in la Vallée des Singes. And if there is no difference, then they're all pretty happy. Have you seen the exhibits in la Vallée des Singes? The outdoor one, the indoor we could argue maybe.
There might be a bit of selfishness when I go to average to mediocre zoos for a picture of a rarity, yes, of course I'm happy to see the said rarity. I'm not happy it's in a ugly enclosure, on this point I can't disagree. But I will never feel guilty in some zoos I find GREAT exhibit wise for all, or almost all, of their animals. Of course, there aren't that many zoos that are that good.
 
Fignewton said:
If there were no zoos, then there would undeniably be less money going to conservation.
Click to expand...
well that's not necessarily true as the money people waste going to zoos if these people truly care about conservation which is the zoos argument then they will support conservation projects regardless. And more importantly the money that zoos raise is a pittance and really has no real measured benefit and no proof that these projects would not of found the money elsewhere .
 
Damian Aspinall said:
well that's not necessarily true as the money people waste going to zoos if these people truly care about conservation which is the zoos argument then they will support conservation projects regardless. And more importantly the money that zoos raise is a pittance and really has no real measured benefit and no proof that these projects would not of found the money elsewhere .
Click to expand...
A zoo is a way to get people who don't care about conservation to donate to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top