Howletts keeps generic elephants which, according to him (and rightfully so), have no conservation value.
~Thylo
Damian Aspinall: You all know my views on zoos prove me wrong
- Thread starter Damian Aspinall
- Start date
Howletts keeps generic elephants which, according to him (and rightfully so), have no conservation value.
~Thylo
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
its a very hard thing to do and we are looking at this very carefully but i make this promise when i have a viable plan i will let this forum know. I would expect news in the next 12 months
So are you admitting that elephants would be in huge trouble - possibly extinct - without zoos? And you are okay with that?
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
No not at all that is certainly not correct. Lets look at this logically please. Is the captive population of African elephants in zoos in decline yes why > because they do not breed them. Out side of our collection i think there has been 11 births in the UK (from memory) we have had 24 births. which is a shocking result for UK zoos considering the number of Ele they have had and the years zoos have had them. It is impossible to argue with this logic.
Secondly if you need a bank or preserve of Ele in case they become extinct in the wild (still 500,000 left in the wild)then SA has 20,000 El in safe very large fenced reserves with zero poaching so that is your bank so to speak ... zoos have contributed nothing to the survival of the species including our own.
All very sad but true.
Having looked through this thread it seems there is a lot of common ground between Damien and most of the respondents. Many zoos, are pretty poor and the conservation claims of some are overstated. Most of us want better zoos with a greater conservation impact. Durrell also had extreme views about zoos, and was outspoken about their weaknesses, but recognise we should work to improve them. Damien is being extreme in his views and stirring people up. I would hope that he would support the real conservation efforts being made by zoos, with a long list of species that would not now exist without them. Zoos can generate highly skilled conservationists who can transfer techniques to conserve wild and free-living populations. Sometimes you have to make left of field claims to get people to sit up and take note.
Ok a few things here: How do you know a zoo is a prison, your a business major not psych or bio or zoology; so what if the animals aren't threatened all animals deserve protection and recognition if we simply ignored common species they wouldn't be so common anymore;some are not genetically viable but not that many, if that was that was true how would we have all of these Reintroduction Programs. Zoos are even working on bringing back the northern white rhino through artificial insemination; finally zoos do work to protect these species through outreach programs, conservation funds, and joining in special research. When we see an animal in a zoo we take their situation for granted but they are getting a much better experience than what they would in the wild, around the clock medical care, and protection from predators so to say a zoo is a prison is far from the truth
Hello Mr. Aspinall, with all due respect surely zoos and conservation organizations must provide visitors with something better than a dinosaur in order to receive funds that can supply conservation work.
The way that I view it, the funds that zoos receive can be put back into the zoo to modernize exhibits and go to conservation. If all the money zoos receive go into conservation, then surely they will eventually be not up to animal welfare standards. Zoos like the Bronx Zoo, one of the world's best in my opinion, can donate so much to conservation because their exhibits are already some of the best in the world. Other zoos may need to spend more to make sure their exhibits remain at the highest standard possible. By maintaining those higher standards through the use of funds, zoos can continue to bring in money that can supply conservation work rather than eventually fall out of favor due to increasingly higher standards. If all the funds to fund a zoo come from zoo visitors and the zoo still manages to donate to conservation work, isn't that a net gain? If those same zoos disappeared wouldn't that continuous funding also disappear?
This isn't to mention my own personal belief that people won't care about something they can't see and experience. In order to receive conservation funds, you need the people to care about these animals. Personally, I think it would be much harder to do so without live animals. Despite my own love for prehistory, I have often seen in my experience that interest in prehistory peaks at a young age before slowly disappearing. Without these animals in zoos, would the same thing happen? I rarely hear about people I know donating to conservation. Without zoos to inspire people, I would dread a world where people no longer have a connection to the brilliant natural world. I'm not sure how you became interested in conservation as a kid, but I know that for myself and many others zoos played an integral role in bringing me closer to the natural world when travelling and seeing wild animals wasn't an option.
Certainly zoos aren't perfect. I'd like to think that on this forum we are all sensible enough of zoo's defects to ignore the errors. There are certainly some exhibits that I would agree aren't the most efficient use of funds. However, I can't think of a better practical solution. Zoos certainly will keep modernizing and improving animal welfare. Personally, I would enjoy a stronger conservation factor in zoos as well, but I feel as though that will take time and would still prove more fruitful than a complete abolishment of zoos. I am by no means an expert on these topics, just an amateur who spent most of his life at zoos.
Lastly I thought I should state that though I may not agree with you, I will at least respect your opinions. I hope that you'll respect mine. I think that I'll leave the rest of this discussion to some of the forum's more educated members. I will say though, that the views of @Carl Jones most closely represent mine.
The way that I view it, the funds that zoos receive can be put back into the zoo to modernize exhibits and go to conservation. If all the money zoos receive go into conservation, then surely they will eventually be not up to animal welfare standards. Zoos like the Bronx Zoo, one of the world's best in my opinion, can donate so much to conservation because their exhibits are already some of the best in the world. Other zoos may need to spend more to make sure their exhibits remain at the highest standard possible. By maintaining those higher standards through the use of funds, zoos can continue to bring in money that can supply conservation work rather than eventually fall out of favor due to increasingly higher standards. If all the funds to fund a zoo come from zoo visitors and the zoo still manages to donate to conservation work, isn't that a net gain? If those same zoos disappeared wouldn't that continuous funding also disappear?
This isn't to mention my own personal belief that people won't care about something they can't see and experience. In order to receive conservation funds, you need the people to care about these animals. Personally, I think it would be much harder to do so without live animals. Despite my own love for prehistory, I have often seen in my experience that interest in prehistory peaks at a young age before slowly disappearing. Without these animals in zoos, would the same thing happen? I rarely hear about people I know donating to conservation. Without zoos to inspire people, I would dread a world where people no longer have a connection to the brilliant natural world. I'm not sure how you became interested in conservation as a kid, but I know that for myself and many others zoos played an integral role in bringing me closer to the natural world when travelling and seeing wild animals wasn't an option.
Certainly zoos aren't perfect. I'd like to think that on this forum we are all sensible enough of zoo's defects to ignore the errors. There are certainly some exhibits that I would agree aren't the most efficient use of funds. However, I can't think of a better practical solution. Zoos certainly will keep modernizing and improving animal welfare. Personally, I would enjoy a stronger conservation factor in zoos as well, but I feel as though that will take time and would still prove more fruitful than a complete abolishment of zoos. I am by no means an expert on these topics, just an amateur who spent most of his life at zoos.
Lastly I thought I should state that though I may not agree with you, I will at least respect your opinions. I hope that you'll respect mine. I think that I'll leave the rest of this discussion to some of the forum's more educated members. I will say though, that the views of @Carl Jones most closely represent mine.
seeing a statue or a picture just doesn't work for most people, if I see a picture or statue of a dragon and the only thing that tells me its real is a sign I'm not going to truly believe it, but if you show me a dragon and teach me why I need to protect it then I will really believe you. There is a very large difference between a museum and a zoo in that a museum tells me something but a zoo shows and tells me
Which is honestly on itself a bit dumb, since there is pretty much no hope for the species. But that's a discussion for a different time.
Zoos with good breeding records have joined the project so there is hope but not much, whats important is that we are still trying to save the species
Good evening Damian,
Personally I believe that there are few things in life better than a visit to a good zoo. You seem to get a lot of enjoyment from the interactions you have with your animals. Do you not believe that it’s a positive thing to have places where people can go to gain some interaction with and observation of animals, irrespective of any conservation value?
Do you believe that any of the animals you currently keep are suffering physically or psychologically? Or are they living contentedly on your estate?
You have referred zoo animals as enslaved, considering that enslaved people are often subjected to beatings, murder and rape, and that these acts are used as a weapon of terror against the victims of slavery, is this not an unfair comparison?
If I visit Howletts to enjoy a day of animal watching how would you view me? I’m enjoying seeing imprisoned animals after all.
Considering the growing human population and increasing urbanisation of the planet, do you not think that captivity in some form is the only way many large mammals can continue to exist? At least until the human population reduces?
In some of your replies you make comments such as zoos being more honest about the conservation status of their animals being a first step, is this a hint of reconciliation on your behalf towards zoos?
Thanks
Personally I believe that there are few things in life better than a visit to a good zoo. You seem to get a lot of enjoyment from the interactions you have with your animals. Do you not believe that it’s a positive thing to have places where people can go to gain some interaction with and observation of animals, irrespective of any conservation value?
Do you believe that any of the animals you currently keep are suffering physically or psychologically? Or are they living contentedly on your estate?
You have referred zoo animals as enslaved, considering that enslaved people are often subjected to beatings, murder and rape, and that these acts are used as a weapon of terror against the victims of slavery, is this not an unfair comparison?
If I visit Howletts to enjoy a day of animal watching how would you view me? I’m enjoying seeing imprisoned animals after all.
Considering the growing human population and increasing urbanisation of the planet, do you not think that captivity in some form is the only way many large mammals can continue to exist? At least until the human population reduces?
In some of your replies you make comments such as zoos being more honest about the conservation status of their animals being a first step, is this a hint of reconciliation on your behalf towards zoos?
Thanks
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
The argument made here against zoos is rife with misdirection and confused assumptions.
One can criticize bad zoos but to extend that to the very concept of zoos is disingenuous (at best)
Zoos are not prisons. The comparison is fantastical. Too often zoos are criticized because humans imagine how they would feel if they were living in an enclosure. But are these feelings that an elephant has? Or a tiger? or a cuttlefish? We talk about how a cheetah in "the wild" is free but life is risky and how a cheetah in a zoo may be confined but cared for. Those are human experiences and perceptions. Both sides never ground their arguments in the animal's lived experience and perceptions. They are, then, arguing about life on the moon by debating what it is like to live underwater.
Research on animals in bad zoos has taught us a great deal about bad zoos.
To extend these conclusions to "Zoos" with a capital Z is not reasoned argument it is expressing a belief system. One cannot argue with that. Here, Aspinall replies to what he feels like replying to. His challenge to "prove me wrong" is disingenuous.
It is foolish to debate someone on their terms. The argument has been stacked against you by their leaps of reason.
There is no actual discussion.
Feh.
One can criticize bad zoos but to extend that to the very concept of zoos is disingenuous (at best)
Zoos are not prisons. The comparison is fantastical. Too often zoos are criticized because humans imagine how they would feel if they were living in an enclosure. But are these feelings that an elephant has? Or a tiger? or a cuttlefish? We talk about how a cheetah in "the wild" is free but life is risky and how a cheetah in a zoo may be confined but cared for. Those are human experiences and perceptions. Both sides never ground their arguments in the animal's lived experience and perceptions. They are, then, arguing about life on the moon by debating what it is like to live underwater.
Research on animals in bad zoos has taught us a great deal about bad zoos.
To extend these conclusions to "Zoos" with a capital Z is not reasoned argument it is expressing a belief system. One cannot argue with that. Here, Aspinall replies to what he feels like replying to. His challenge to "prove me wrong" is disingenuous.
It is foolish to debate someone on their terms. The argument has been stacked against you by their leaps of reason.
There is no actual discussion.
Feh.
Last edited:
I istened to 'The Media Show' on BBC Radio 4 (BBC Radio 4 - The Media Show, The economics of outrage). There was a discussion about whether universities etc should ban people from expressing unpopular points of view. I know several people with views I don't agree with and occasionally have heated arguments, which achieve little for either party.
It is important for Zoochatters to consider alternative viewpoints and not resort to personal vitriol. In fact, I think I learn more from listening to reasoned arguments that I wouldn't normally agree with, rather than listening to people with the same opinions.
Carl Jones has perhaps saved more species than any other Zoochatter and makes reasoned arguments on many issues on Zoochat.
I think that zoos need to adapt to changing conditions. I remember going to zoos decades ago. There were lots of species, but some had cramped enclosures. A number of zoos have improved enclosures for some species by cutting the number of species. I think that zoos should decide to keep species that can be reintroduced into the wild; those that cannot be reintroduced into the wild should be kept in situ.
It is important for Zoochatters to consider alternative viewpoints and not resort to personal vitriol. In fact, I think I learn more from listening to reasoned arguments that I wouldn't normally agree with, rather than listening to people with the same opinions.
Carl Jones has perhaps saved more species than any other Zoochatter and makes reasoned arguments on many issues on Zoochat.
I think that zoos need to adapt to changing conditions. I remember going to zoos decades ago. There were lots of species, but some had cramped enclosures. A number of zoos have improved enclosures for some species by cutting the number of species. I think that zoos should decide to keep species that can be reintroduced into the wild; those that cannot be reintroduced into the wild should be kept in situ.
There is a third category - those that cannot be reintroduced as yet for whatever reason, but which cannot be allowed to remain in-situ; the most notable examples of these being amphibian species threatened by chytrid or other factors making their place of origin unsurvivable (the aforementioned Kihansi Spray Toad , rendered EW by the destruction of their sole wild locality after the construction of a dam, being foremost of these).
Partula snails are, to some extent, another example.
I agree with those species being kept in captivity, TeaLovingDave. London Zoo has bred various Partula snails as well as reintroducing them to the wild.
I was talking more about large ABC species that take up a lot of space in zoos.
I was talking more about large ABC species that take up a lot of space in zoos.
Honestly I think that because there are always exceptions, we should make these judgements on wild release/in-situ per species as opposed to catogorising
It is a pleasure to meet you, Damian Aspinall. I really miss that I did not visit Howletts or Port Lympne during my stay in England.
Maybe some questions from me:
- I cannot agree with your generalization that since many zoos are bad, then zoos in general are bad. Wouldn't the same view be disingenious if applied to any other generalization? For example, nobody argues that since 90% of national parks in Asia and Africa lost elephants, rhinos and big predators then national parks should be slowly closed down.
- I notice clear improvement of both conditions of animals and commitment to conservation in zoos. Howletts was once praised for breeding gorillas. Now it is normal in zoos. Your views become more critical of zoos despite zoos themselves improving year after year. Why?
- I think the main function of zoos is education/PR, not narrowing it to releasing endangered species. Do you pay importance to the role of zoos as education or more broad raising public interest in nature? What zoos Howletts and Port Lympne do in this aspect?
- I notice that you yourself live in England, instead of opting for a simple life with more space, but less comfort. I notice that in most zoos there is plenty of wild birds and small animals which enter aviaries and ponds, evidently preferring food to the concept of wildness. I also note, correct me if I am wrong, that gorillas released from Howletts and Port Lympne didn't go to a typical wilderness, but to sanctuaries with no hunting, few or no leopards, and little chance of meeting wild silverbacks. Why do you think animals are happier in the wild than in a zoo, even an imperfect one? For you it may be nice, but you do not face predators, parasites, hunters or competitors.
- I notice that you want zoos to donate more money to wild conservation, but are against keeping non-endangered but popular animals. Aren't you, in a sense, proposing a catch 22 impossibility? Where this money should come from? Only a handful of zoos worldwide are run by millionaires who get money from elsewhere.
Apologies to those who already saw these arguments, probably several times over.
Maybe some questions from me:
- I cannot agree with your generalization that since many zoos are bad, then zoos in general are bad. Wouldn't the same view be disingenious if applied to any other generalization? For example, nobody argues that since 90% of national parks in Asia and Africa lost elephants, rhinos and big predators then national parks should be slowly closed down.
- I notice clear improvement of both conditions of animals and commitment to conservation in zoos. Howletts was once praised for breeding gorillas. Now it is normal in zoos. Your views become more critical of zoos despite zoos themselves improving year after year. Why?
- I think the main function of zoos is education/PR, not narrowing it to releasing endangered species. Do you pay importance to the role of zoos as education or more broad raising public interest in nature? What zoos Howletts and Port Lympne do in this aspect?
- I notice that you yourself live in England, instead of opting for a simple life with more space, but less comfort. I notice that in most zoos there is plenty of wild birds and small animals which enter aviaries and ponds, evidently preferring food to the concept of wildness. I also note, correct me if I am wrong, that gorillas released from Howletts and Port Lympne didn't go to a typical wilderness, but to sanctuaries with no hunting, few or no leopards, and little chance of meeting wild silverbacks. Why do you think animals are happier in the wild than in a zoo, even an imperfect one? For you it may be nice, but you do not face predators, parasites, hunters or competitors.
- I notice that you want zoos to donate more money to wild conservation, but are against keeping non-endangered but popular animals. Aren't you, in a sense, proposing a catch 22 impossibility? Where this money should come from? Only a handful of zoos worldwide are run by millionaires who get money from elsewhere.
Apologies to those who already saw these arguments, probably several times over.
Last edited:
Mr. Aspinall, I have never heard of you before this, so forgive me if you have covered this issue elsewhere, but I was wondering if in your disdain for zoos you differentiate between conventional zoos (and by that I mean the modern incarnation that attempts to recreate naturalistic habitat, but still in a small enclosure), vs wildlife parks where the animals roam free within a large ranch, and the visitors move through the ranch to see the animals? For an example I give the AZA accredited Fossil Rim Wildlife Center here in Texas.
A somewhat related question, here in Texas blackbuck antelope (Antilope cervicapra) are more numerous than they are in their native South Asia, where they have only scattered herds in India and Pakistan, and have been extirpated in Bangladesh. Most of the blackbuck in Texas live on large private ranches with high perimeter fences, but there are a few free-roaming herds. I wonder what your thoughts are on practices like this, of maintaining populations of animals like this, in environments similar to their native habitat, though far away, while the populations in their native habitat continue to be threatened by poaching, habitat destruction, etc.
Isn't there a chance that Texan blackbucks are hybrids of any sort.
Here are the numbers of animal types according to conservation status based on ZTL
H = Howletts PL = Port Lympne
EW: H 1, PL 2
CR: H 7, PL 7
EN: H 12, PL 16
VU: H 11, PL 14
NT: H 3, PL 9
LC: H 15, PL 24
DD: H 0, PL 1
NE: H 0, PL 2
H = Howletts PL = Port Lympne
EW: H 1, PL 2
CR: H 7, PL 7
EN: H 12, PL 16
VU: H 11, PL 14
NT: H 3, PL 9
LC: H 15, PL 24
DD: H 0, PL 1
NE: H 0, PL 2