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

[Zoofan15]

Welcome to ZooChat @Damian Aspinall. While we may differ in our views on the value of zoos, I’m always open to hear your perspective as it’s one you share with many people in society. What sets you apart is your extensive knowledge and experience in your field, which adds to the validity of what you have to say (irregardless of whether we like it or not).

I have always had great admiration for the work of Steve Irwin (the episode of The Crocodile Hunter which featured your gorillas was a particular highlight btw). Steve’s philosophy has always centred around igniting a passion in people for wildlife. Nothing can surpass the experience of seeing an animal in the flesh; and in the case of many species, the only way for people to see them is in a zoo. Irregardless of whether the experience inspires then to contribute directly to conservation; many zoos ensure this happens indirectly through contributing a percentage of their admission to their conservation funds. This alone generates millions.

If it were not for the existence of zoos; how would you propose the same passion for the cause of conservation could be instilled in the general population?

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

Look, this page is filled with people who are stubborn in their views, myself included. This is a risk I am taking when confronting Damian Aspinall on this, as Port Lympne is my local zoological institution, and have been visiting frequently for the past 9 years to the point where I consider it to be one of my favourite places on Earth, and it does complicate things knowing Mr Aspinall’s views, as not only do I not agree with them, but until recently i was unaware of them. But this is a complex arguement, and both sides have valid points of view, and it is my firm belief that before you can take a stance on a serious discussion like this you must first be aware of and understand the views of people on both sides, otherwise it renders your arguement somewhat mute.

 

[CGSwans]

For me the price you ask is too high. I am not comfortable with the idea that we enslave wild animals in mostly substandard cages because a few people are interested in nature. think of all the misery that causes to the animals.

You’re very good at the emotive language (“enslave”, “misery”) and very bad at citing evidence for your beliefs. I’d like to see you at least *try*.

 

[sooty mangabey]

You are making an assumption about Mr Aspinall and are showing a reluctance to learn from others. If you are not prepared to change your views, why should you expect others to change theirs? I have learned various things from other Zoochatters and adapt my views when other people show that some of my views are wrong.

Thank you for the advice, but just as I wouldn't want to listen to someone who espoused, say, virulently racist views - I'm not going to be 'converted' - I have no desire to hear what Mr Aspinall argues, really. I find his views, his manipulation of information, his repeated attempts to find moral equivalence between the keeping of animals in captivity and the enslavement of people - all of this just leaves me with a bad taste in my stomach. Am I making an assumption about his being able to change his views? Yes, I am - but one I feel pretty safe making, to be honest. But please don't tell me that I am "reluctant to learn from others". Not true, in any way at all.

 

[Rayane]

I am keen to learn what these species cannot be re introduced and cannot be allowed to remain in situ. Thank you ..i ask as we have been told the same thing with every introduction we have done however with hard work and commitment we have succeeded ...

Tasmanian devils in Tasmania I believe, a sort of cancer is ravaging the population.
Having a back up Okapi population elsewhere than in Congo is great considering how tense Eastern Congo has been for way too many years.
All the Partula species could be handled in situ but well they only need a tank so in this case, for example, I don't see why they could not be kept in Europe or in the US.
If you want more examples, just ask.

 

[CGSwans]

Thank you for the advice, but just as I wouldn't want to listen to someone who espoused, say, virulently racist views - I'm not going to be 'converted' - I have no desire to hear what Mr Aspinall argues, really. I find his views, his manipulation of information, his repeated attempts to find moral equivalence between the keeping of animals in captivity and the enslavement of people - all of this just leaves me with a bad taste in my stomach. Am I making an assumption about his being able to change his views? Yes, I am - but one I feel pretty safe making, to be honest. But please don't tell me that I am "reluctant to learn from others". Not true, in any way at all.

Inherited status (in this case, living the zoo tycoon dream) has always garnered rather more respect in the Old Dart than it should. A bit of that in this thread, I fear.

 

[Dassie rat]

Unlike some, I do not think that engaging in debate and discussion is necessarily a good thing. Mr Aspinall is not going to change his views, and I am not going to change mine. I have no real desire to understand where he is coming from. I doubt whether he is particularly interested in what I have to say.

You are making an assumption about Mr Aspinall and are showing a reluctance to learn from others. If you are not prepared to change your views, why should you expect others to change theirs? I have learned various things from other Zoochatters and adapt my views when other people show that some of my views are wrong.

Thank you for the advice, but just as I wouldn't want to listen to someone who espoused, say, virulently racist views - I'm not going to be 'converted' - I have no desire to hear what Mr Aspinall argues, really. I find his views, his manipulation of information, his repeated attempts to find moral equivalence between the keeping of animals in captivity and the enslavement of people - all of this just leaves me with a bad taste in my stomach. Am I making an assumption about his being able to change his views? Yes, I am - but one I feel pretty safe making, to be honest. But please don't tell me that I am "reluctant to learn from others". Not true, in any way at all.

So, you don't believe that you can learn anything from what Mr Aspinall has to say. I don't think you would like it if other people said they didn't want to listen to what you say. I think we can learn from people we don't agree with, even if it just shows flaws in their arguments

 

[Damian Aspinall]

This is the key argument I can easily pick apart, keep in mind that a range of species in the wild free movement is restricted due to territory battles between members of the same kind and before you say it, not all those territory’s are as large as you may think, especially with habitat loss reducing the available amount of territory.

I agree these things are not easy and very complicated but that does not mean that its impossible its to easy to just say no it can't be done and if we do we are betraying the rights of animals and nature i would like to see a process of elimination before we all just decide a zoo is the best option. My only care is the best welfare for the animals nothing else.

 

[Rayane]

I agree these things are not easy and very complicated but that does not mean that its impossible its to easy to just say no it can't be done and if we do we are betraying the rights of animals and nature i would like to see a process of elimination before we all just decide a zoo is the best option. My only care is the best welfare for the animals nothing else.

Same way it's too easy to say that it can be done.
Conservation programms in tense or poor countries can cost tons of money, more than it would cost to just maintain the population in captivity ex-situ.
Not everyone is concerned by wildlife protection, and as hard as it can sound, some people in poor countries cannot be bothered by it. They have a 1000 problems to deal with before considering not doing this or that in order to protect something that doesn't speak to them.
One thing you may agree with though, is maybe more focused species keeping in zoos. It is true that many species have no real benefit of being held in captivity worldwide, but they may be what's left of an old import, a different mindset or an "experience".

 

[birdsandbats]

Asolutely agree if an insurance policy is needed however i believe in most cases that can be done in situ ..in special centres

How would these "special centers" be any different than zoos?

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Same way it's too easy to say that it can be done.
Conservation programms in tense or poor countries can cost tons of money, more than it would cost to just maintain the population in captivity ex-situ.
Not everyone is concerned by wildlife protection, and as hard as it can sound, some people in poor countries cannot be bothered by it. They have a 1000 problems to deal with before considering not doing this or that in order to protect something that doesn't speak to them.
One thing you may agree with though, is maybe more focused species keeping in zoos. It is true that many species have no real benefit of being held in captivity worldwide, but they may be what's left of an old import, a different mindset or an "experience".

i agree its not easy but we have managed it quite successfully and we have done this by being willing to do the hard work.What I object to is people just writing this option off without even trying to do it. My belief is first we must do everything to explore this option and then if that is not possible then every effort must be made to look at the option of semi captivity in situ. The problem is that people go from 'oh there is a problem lets put these animals in zoos without proper exploration and due diligence ' as a consequence of this thousand of species are in zoos when they have no right to be ...Thank you for your comment

 

[Rayane]

i agree its not easy but we have managed it quite successfully and we have done this by being willing to do the hard work.What I object to is people just writing this option off without even trying to do it. My belief is first we must do everything to explore this option and then if that is not possible then every effort must be made to look at the option of semi captivity in situ. The problem is that people go from 'oh there is a problem lets put these animals in zoos without proper exploration and due diligence ' as a consequence of this thousand of species are in zoos when they have no right to be ...Thank you for your comment

Well, thing is something you don't have the time. What do you do? Do you try and if it fails then the situation is even worse or do you play it safe and import the species where you're pretty sure you'll be able to keep it?
One example, maybe not the best, is what happened with the Sumatran rhinos. I do not master this topic but I believe the plans in captivity ex-situ weren't too bad if everyone had agreed, instead, they're slowly disappearing in-situ where things don't seem to be working out really well. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Then, I think having a try out with difficult species abroad, ex-situ, is not necessarily a bad thing. Knowing the limits of a species well being, knowing which one can adapt to a colder climate, a different diet and which one cannot, is good informations in case one day, the only solution for a said species is to be kept elsewhere than in its natural habitat/range.

What are your thoughts on places like the Zoological reserve of the Haute-Touche ?

 

[Damian Aspinall]

How would these "special centers" be any different than zoos?

good question . let me give you an example. We have such a centre for the protection of Moloch Gibbons and Javan langurs in Java. This centre is managed and funded by us and it core goals is to rescue captive gibbons and langurs and release back to wild as many as possible and so far we have released 150 including from our collections in the UK with over a 90% survival rate. Some animals are not able to be released a very small number for veterinary or other reasons in this case we obviously look after them in captivity. the reason this is a more optimal outcome for the animal than a UK zoo is that the space they have is probably 10 times any zoo in the world and secondly they live in the climate that suits them and have 100% the correct diet. They can also then breed and the offspring is then released into the wild.we do not open to the public so there is very little human disturbance and the animals are relaxed and happy enough For me this is a wonderful solution to a problem that could be multiplied in many countries with many species. Thank you for your comment

 

[Ned]

Thank you for responding to my post.
I have to say that I find the picture painted by the anti-zoo community to be very different from my experience when visiting a good zoo, which I often find inspiring. I appreciate that animals in captivity suffer if kept inappropriately but also believe that when kept appropriately they can live contentedly (you yourself said that some of your own animals suffer, suggesting that you believe that others are content).
I also think the argument needs to be balanced out with an acknowledgement that wild animals in nature also suffer, predation, disease, parasites, drought, poaching, life isn't all beer and skittles and a zoo might not be such a bad place to be.

 

[Jurek7]

I am keen to learn what these species cannot be re introduced and cannot be allowed to remain in situ...

Many species threatened by civil unrests, bad governance, by introduced predators, by pollution. On Zoochat you find multiple names.

The argument which is a common one when people are asked why do you have animals that are not threatened the answer is always well these species are not rare today but they might be in the future.

You came to the reasoning which I find especially bad in conservation. Some conservationists wish zoos to keep more threatened species, but are against catching new threatened species in the wild and bringing them to zoos. A self-contradictory opinion.

I think I’ve found the fundamental key point which is the definition of animals suffering in captivity

I think Mr Aspinall makes a common mistake that well being or suffering of animals is a personal opinion of humans looking at the animals, possibly because animals cannot talk.

There are multiple studies which checked that (most) zoo animals are as happy or more happy as the wild ones, checking such indications as behavior and stress hormones. This was discussed on zoochat at least once: it is possible to know certainly whether an animal is happy, medicine and agriculture depend from it. For a layman an obvoius test is choice: animals which are free ranging or kept behind barriers they could cross, but remain in zoos. Zoos relatively commonly have free-flying birds, flight shows where birds fly around but come back, free-ranging small monkeys, hoofstock kept behind much too narrow moats. Dangerous species are not kept this way in Western zoos for human safety, but there is no reason they would be different. In countries with different laws, e.g. in India working elephants are commonly let out to graze at night, they sometimes meet wild elephants and sometimes get pregnant with them, but they return back.

And, there is no indication any animal, not even a chimpanzee, understands 'freedom' 'slavery' or 'captivity' as abstract concepts, although animals understand some other abstract concepts like equal treatment for equal work or the number zero.

This should give users a peace of mind that animals in zoos are not suffering.

 

[Westcoastperson]

Thank you for your comment my beliefs are based on living my entire life with captive animals and although we are the leading breeder in the world in a number of species i still think they are best not held in zoos. The argument which is a common one when people are asked why do you have animals that are not threatened the answer is always well these species are not rare today but they might be in the future. The problem with that argument is what's the process to make that decision?.ie who decides that a species is at a point where it might need to have some extra protection? the truth is no one ..and secondly if a species was at a point where we all agree that some form of captivity is needed surely it is better to try to do that in situ, again there is no process to that either.
The consequence of this that there are hundred maybe thousands of species that have absolutely no need to be in any zoo for any reason. I am afraid the point that animals are better off in zoos than the wild is lost on me .. for me nothing is more wonderful than nature itself with all its beauty and letting living beings alone to be free.

If we ignore animals that aren't threatened we ned up with the problem of people just not caring about them; for example before they were introduced to aquariums nobody cared about California Sea Lions , nobody cared they were almost extinct until aquariums introduced them into their exhibits and people learned just how amazing they were and now they are a very common animal and are no longer going extinct. They have world wide attention and are loved by so many because people saw them in so many zoos and their popularity spiked.
And for the argument that zoos are cages I will say this. A place that a man cannot leave is a cage. You believe that zoos are cages because you are thinking how you would feel in a zoo. The problem is over time we will en up meeting thousands maybe millions of our own species in our lifetime, we have protection form diseases and predators, and we (for some reason) enjoy traveling across the world. the same cannot be said for animals who are ok with their small territories where we can bring the best of natures beauty to them.

 

[Smaggledagle]

Is there a thread I can read that explains all of this?

Who even is Damian Aspinall? Why do you guys hate him so much?

 

[Rayane]

Is there a thread I can read that explains all of this?

Who even is Damian Aspinall? Why do you guys hate him so much?

His father was the owner of Port Lympne Wild Animal Park and Howletts Wild Animal Park.
Damian Aspinall is now the owner and he is anti-zoos, therefore he is slowly phasing out the species of said zoos and is not really loved by zoo enthusiast for his degrading dialogue about zoos.
Not sure I summarized it well but there you go

 

[Damian Aspinall]

If we ignore animals that aren't threatened we ned up with the problem of people just not caring about them; for example before they were introduced to aquariums nobody cared about California Sea Lions , nobody cared they were almost extinct until aquariums introduced them into their exhibits and people learned just how amazing they were and now they are a very common animal and are no longer going extinct. They have world wide attention and are loved by so many because people saw them in so many zoos and their popularity spiked.
And for the argument that zoos are cages I will say this. A place that a man cannot leave is a cage. You believe that zoos are cages because you are thinking how you would feel in a zoo. The problem is over time we will en up meeting thousands maybe millions of our own species in our lifetime, we have protection form diseases and predators, and we (for some reason) enjoy traveling across the world. the same cannot be said for animals who are ok with their small territories where we can bring the best of natures beauty to them.

its ok to agree and disagree with each other i can't say more ..

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Many species threatened by civil unrests, bad governance, by introduced predators, by pollution. On Zoochat you find multiple names.



You came to the reasoning which I find especially bad in conservation. Some conservationists wish zoos to keep more threatened species, but are against catching new threatened species in the wild and bringing them to zoos. A self-contradictory opinion.



I think Mr Aspinall makes a common mistake that well being or suffering of animals is a personal opinion of humans looking at the animals, possibly because animals cannot talk.

There are multiple studies which checked that (most) zoo animals are as happy or more happy as the wild ones, checking such indications as behavior and stress hormones. This was discussed on zoochat at least once: it is possible to know certainly whether an animal is happy, medicine and agriculture depend from it. For a layman an obvoius test is choice: animals which are free ranging or kept behind barriers they could cross, but remain in zoos. Zoos relatively commonly have free-flying birds, flight shows where birds fly around but come back, free-ranging small monkeys, hoofstock kept behind much too narrow moats. Dangerous species are not kept this way in Western zoos for human safety, but there is no reason they would be different. In countries with different laws, e.g. in India working elephants are commonly let out to graze at night, they sometimes meet wild elephants and sometimes get pregnant with them, but they return back.

And, there is no indication any animal, not even a chimpanzee, understands 'freedom' 'slavery' or 'captivity' as abstract concepts, although animals understand some other abstract concepts like equal treatment for equal work or the number zero.

This should give users a peace of mind that animals in zoos are not suffering.

Lets look at these studies i would be very interested to read them are they independent ? what was the final outcome? I would also add there are just as many studies saying the opposite.
I can say with absolute certainty that animals suffer in zoos.