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

ThylacineAlive said:
And why would your employee say anything that contradicts what you claim :p



Excellent point but one small, pedantic correction. The bison reintroductions, spearheaded by the American Bison Society, were founded at the Bronx Zoo by their first director William T. Hornaday who used to work for the Smithsonian which is probably where the confusion comes from.

But yes, I am still waiting for Mr. Aspinall's suggestions for what we do with all the Kihansi Spray Toads, Panamanian Golden Toads, Wyoming Toads, Partula snails, Mexican splitfins, Mexican Wolf, Red Wolf, Lake Victoria cichlids, Pere David's Deer, Vietnamese Sika, Hawaiian Crows, Guam Kingfishers, Guam Rails, Socorro Doves, Alagoas Curassows, Seychelles Giant Tortoises, Scimitar-Horned Oryx, and many others which only survive today due to human intervention.



Are your own social media posts misquoting you?



Obviously there are examples of animals being saved in-situ, no one said there weren't, however you are STILL ignoring the topic of the animals which do rely on ex-situ conservation, which is the question I asked before you moved the goalpost.



What rhino hybrid? There are no hybrid white rhinos in captivity, there are no hybrid Black rhinos in captivity, and there are no hybrid Indian rhinos in captivity. There aren't any taxa for any of these species to hybridize with so what exactly are you referring to?

~Thylo
Click to expand...
I will also add my point of view to this thread:

  • I am from Panama and I can see forehand the effects ex-situ conservation of the Panamanian Golden Frog has brought. While you would say that zoos are bad, AZA accredited zoos that have them are one of the reasons they aren't extinct. Chytridiomycosis expanded its range and they are now extinct in the wild, the only center that cares for them in Panama is funded by the Houston Zoo and AZA. If we maintained them in-situ we wouldn't see the results we are currently having on their conservation.
  • Their population is increasing in captivity and scientists from Smithsonian are trying to stop or decrease chytridiomycosis, when it happens there could be a possibility for them to be returned to the wild. If a group of Panamanian Golden Frogs is released now, they would die soon because the threats in their environment just keep increasing.
We could say in here that the release of a captive-born animal that never learnt how to survive in the wild, would be a death sentence for it. I acknowledge that not all zoos are good, but those who are, mean the survival of countless species. I'll give you another example in which in-situ conservation failed:

Panay Cloudrunner. The entire captive population is located in Plzen Zoo. After an accident on a Panay Cloudrunner breeding center in the Philippines, almost all the insurance population was lost. Now, a single event like a natural disaster, a disease outbreak or just continued habitat loss can wipe out this species. If the captive population was stable, Panay Cloudrunners would be at least risk. This is the reason why zoos are important, because in case a species dissapear from the wild, they are there to breed it and avoid that. Without them, certainly the Panamanian Golden Frogs would be extinct and countless other species as mentioned by other Zoochatters.
 
LARTIS said:
I think no matter if real or not this was one pf the most interesting discussions i have read on here so far

goodness a new entry every second
might miss something while i write this

zoo chat meant a plattform to meet other people interested in zoos and i have learned a lot for example that the community is a spectrum
i learned not generalize and see such preoccupations mean a threat

it is not that all species thrive in captivity
but neither do all suffer
even within species there can be tremendous differences

look at why do zoos exist
it does not matter what i or another person or even group d like to be reality

i let everbody have their opinion as long as their view does not impct another creature in a negative what did happen with some that actually intended to help
mistakes might happen but i d like to see both sides of the spectrum more flexible

i support every conservation and believe in challenging ur view
i do see some extremes on both sides
i think it is up to the middle to shape a real solution both parties might be able to find a common ground
Click to expand...
spot on !!
 
Damian Aspinall said:
my point is they could of been saved without zoos if people had tried.
Please what questions am i not answering it is not my intention
Bronx zoo is still not justified..you only need to look at the many millions they waste on terrible enclosures when that money could support the wild
Click to expand...
Ok, hold up. Terrible? They spend millions of dollars on award winning enclosures, for conservational purposes, and have been used to breed rare species successfully, yet they are terrible? As much as I want to sway your opinion, I know I can't but this is just false.
 
Damian Aspinall said:
my point is they could of been saved without zoos if people had tried.
Please what questions am i not answering it is not my intention
Bronx zoo is still not justified..you only need to look at the many millions they waste on terrible enclosures when that money could support the wild
Click to expand...

They did try, very hard. Without captive assistance the programs would have failed, and that's what factual. Taking the toads into captivity was literally the last ditch attempt to save them after their entire population crashed into eventual extinction.

You obviously don't know much about the Bronx Zoo is you're saying "look at the many millions they waste on terrible enclosures when that money could support the wild" :p It's pretty much the #1 criticism of the zoo that they hardly build new exhibits and haven't had a major multi-million dollar project in over a decade, largely due to just how much of their money they spend on conservation. An amount, if you really want to talk putting your money where your mouth is, that will no doubt be ten fold what you yourself donate.

Go back and read through my posts to you, questions on animals extinct in the wild, the fact that there are no rhino hybrids in human care (or anyway on Earth afaik), how releasing hybrid Ratels benefits conservation, etc. There are many more.

~Thylo
 
Damian Aspinall said:
honestly that's a pathetic amount
Click to expand...
First off, I bet you could do a lot in terms of conservation with 7 million. and Honestly, this is a bare minimum for a zoo that also does other conservation work (you even admitted that WCS does good work for conservation) and there are hundreds if AZA zoos in the US, not to mention the numerous zoos in other countries.
 
CheeseChameleon2007 said:
I agree. How are these exhibits terribble. Have you been to the San diego zoo?
Click to expand...
ok guys when you look at these exhibits that may look great from the public perspective are they great from the animals and i promise you they are not secondly you have to take into account is this the best use of the money. no one actually considers that and truly the money is better spent in the wild ...just because they are award winning does not mean they are any good
try to keep an open mind as these points are so important
 
Fignewton said:
AZA zoos are recommended to donate at least 3% of their funding towards conservation... Sooooo that's about at least 7 million for the Bronx Zoo.
Click to expand...

The Bronx Zoo spends a hell of a lot more than $7million on conservation. I'll search up the figure later, but $7million is a drop in the bucket.

Damian Aspinall said:
honestly that's a pathetic amount
Click to expand...

How much money do you give out of pocket to conservation projects worldwide?

~Thylo
 
Damian Aspinall said:
ok guys when you look at these exhibits that may look great from the public perspective are they great from the animals and i promise you they are not secondly you have to take into account is this the best use of the money. no one actually considers that and truly the money is better spent in the wild ...just because they are award winning does not mean they are any good
try to keep an open mind as these points are so important
Click to expand...
"Just because they are award-winning does not mean that they are any good". Thats why their award-winning. Their good.
 
Jungle Man said:
I will also add my point of view to this thread:
Panay Cloudrunner. The entire captive population is located in Plzen Zoo. After an accident on a Panay Cloudrunner breeding center in the Philippines, almost all the insurance population was lost. Now, a single event like a natural disaster, a disease outbreak or just continued habitat loss can wipe out this species. If the captive population was stable, Panay Cloudrunners would be at least risk. This is the reason why zoos are important, because in case they dissapear from the wild, they are there to breed them and avoid that. Without them, certainly the Panamanian Golden Frogs would be extinct and countless other species as mentioned by other Zoochatters.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Zoos are also important to maintain ''back-up'' populations incase something happends to this species in its natural environment. In situ conservation can't protect the animals against natural disasters in the area or human caused conflicts. Zoos in relative safer areas (both conflict and natural disaster) are therefore vital!
 
Fignewton said:
First off, I bet you could do a lot in terms of conservation with 7 million. and Honestly, this is a bare minimum for a zoo that also does other conservation work (you even admitted that WCS does good work for conservation) and there are hundreds if AZA zoos in the US, not to mention the numerous zoos in other countries.
Click to expand...
you have to look at there accounts and actually see what revenue they have and compare that.
If you consider eaza zoos which claim 16m pa is put into conservation sounds like a lot ?? its about 35k pa per zoo on average ...and then is that money actually wisely spent?? no one measures it so no one knows.
 
Jungle Man said:
I will also add my point of view to this thread:

  • I am from Panama and I can see forehand the effects ex-situ conservation of the Panamanian Golden Frog has brought. While you would say that zoos are bad, AZA accredited zoos that have them are one of the reasons they aren't extinct. Chytridiomycosis expanded its range and they are now extinct in the wild, the only center that cares for them in Panama is funded by the Houston Zoo and AZA. If we maintained them in-situ we wouldn't see the results we are currently having on their conservation.
  • Their population is increasing in captivity and scientists from Smithsonian are trying to stop or decrease chytridiomycosis, when it happens there could be a possibility for them to be returned to the wild. If a group of Panamanian Golden Frogs is released now, they would die soon because the threats in their environment just keep increasing.
We could say in here that the release of a captive-born animal that never learnt how to survive in the wild, would be a death sentence for it. I acknowledge that not all zoos are good, but those who are, mean the survival of countless species. I'll give you another example in which in-situ conservation failed:

Panay Cloudrunner. The entire captive population is located in Plzen Zoo. After an accident on a Panay Cloudrunner breeding center in the Philippines, almost all the insurance population was lost. Now, a single event like a natural disaster, a disease outbreak or just continued habitat loss can wipe out this species. If the captive population was stable, Panay Cloudrunners would be at least risk. This is the reason why zoos are important, because in case a species dissapear from the wild, they are there to breed it and avoid that. Without them, certainly the Panamanian Golden Frogs would be extinct and countless other species as mentioned by other Zoochatters.
Click to expand...
Appreciate your comments but you assume that you can't release these animals but people are finding out all the time now that you can release these animals secondly i do believe it would of been possible to protect a small area in the wild with these animals rather than stuck in zoos
 
Damian Aspinall said:
Appreciate your comments but you assume that you can't release these animals but people are finding out all the time now that you can release these animals secondly i do believe it would of been possible to protect a small area in the wild with these animals rather than stuck in zoos
Click to expand...
Their is outrageous deforestation going on right now, and many conservation efforts are in place to stop this. If we released all the sumatran rhinos back into deforestation habitat and out of their sanctuary, would you like that. Many more would be killed.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
The Bronx Zoo spends a hell of a lot more than $7million on conservation. I'll search up the figure later, but $7million is a drop in the bucket.



How much money do you give out of pocket to conservation projects worldwide?

~Thylo
Click to expand...
That's what I thought, but that's the bare minimum that they can spend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top