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

I skimmed through the topic to ensure that I didn't regurgitate anyone else's points. With that being said, I'm going to hop right onto my soapbox. (I will also lump aquariums, safari parks, and other places into zoos for simplicity's sake).

As what virtually everyone else said here, no matter the circumstances and in a anthropogenic climate like this, zoos are an absolute necessity today. Some would call it a necessary evil, others would disagree. That being said, I do personally feel that many institutions, even the most prestigious facilities, have improvements that could be worked on. That's with many places; no zoo is perfect, and those that don't strive to improve should be shut down.

As also what others have pointed out already, a plethora of species would be extinct if it weren't for zoos today. Not to mention that, without such facilities we wouldn't even obtain knowledge of many animals, (especially with elusive species or those native to almost inaccessible areas). In a conservation standpoint, zoos are among the biggest contributors to wildlife conservation, and I also want to note that there isn't just one or a few staple ways to protect/restore ecosystems itself. You can't just release a few animals out in the wild or preserve some habitat and slap it off as conservation; there's a multitude of other factors that have to be considered, as well as management strategies that need to be considered as well (ex. maintaining a healthy captive insurance population, eradicating invasive species, conducting surveys, learning about general biology/ecology, etc.).

I'm also a staunch believer that being against zoological facilities in general is rooted by classism. Not everyone can afford a luxurious safari somewhere in Botswana or Kenya; therefore, where are people going to go to see all kinds of animals? Zoos. A few other people have even said that people who previously weren't interested in conservation became so after visiting a zoo. Watching a nature documentary on TV doesn't have the same feel as seeing animals in person. It hits me at a personal level as well because for awhile, because what's the only place I've seen animals like rhinos, giraffes, and many others? Zoos. Some of the most memorable experiences I've had with such animals were places were at zoos; I wouldn't have been able to almost anywhere else.

I also personally disagree (along with many others here) that just the sake of keeping animals captive causes suffering; there is a large difference between having a nice, lush, and enriching exhibit vs. living in a squalid, sterile cage most of your life. One could argue that we don't really know whether animals are truly suffering or not, but most research, from what we have, tells us otherwise. Most people here also mentioned that a lot of arguments proposed by anti-zoo activists are mostly emotion-based, ignoring the sciences of captive animal husbandry, conservation, etc.

Though there are radicals on both sides, I've personally noticed that anti-zoo, animal rights groups are much more harmful to overall wildlife conservation than a few individuals who like SeaWorld or Ringling way too much (Not saying whether either places are good or bad, just giving a few examples out).

I'm not going to say anything else about the ethics of keeping animals in captivity in general, such as pets, farming, etc., since I feel this would derail the conversation, since the intention was on zoos.

And that's my stance. Anyone can agree to disagree, as long as they acknowledge some points that I or many others have made. As for Damian Aspinall, please don't take this the wrong way; I do not dislike you as a person at all, I just have to disagree with many of your points you've made in this topic, and I hope you understand my viewpoints as such.
 
Azamat Shackleford said:
I skimmed through the topic to ensure that I didn't regurgitate anyone else's points. With that being said, I'm going to hop right onto my soapbox. (I will also lump aquariums, safari parks, and other places into zoos for simplicity's sake).

As what virtually everyone else said here, no matter the circumstances and in a anthropogenic climate like this, zoos are an absolute necessity today. Some would call it a necessary evil, others would disagree. That being said, I do personally feel that many institutions, even the most prestigious facilities, have improvements that could be worked on. That's with many places; no zoo is perfect, and those that don't strive to improve should be shut down.

As also what others have pointed out already, a plethora of species would be extinct if it weren't for zoos today. Not to mention that, without such facilities we wouldn't even obtain knowledge of many animals, (especially with elusive species or those native to almost inaccessible areas). In a conservation standpoint, zoos are among the biggest contributors to wildlife conservation, and I also want to note that there isn't just one or a few staple ways to protect/restore ecosystems itself. You can't just release a few animals out in the wild or preserve some habitat and slap it off as conservation; there's a multitude of other factors that have to be considered, as well as management strategies that need to be considered as well (ex. maintaining a healthy captive insurance population, eradicating invasive species, conducting surveys, learning about general biology/ecology, etc.).

I'm also a staunch believer that being against zoological facilities in general is rooted by classism. Not everyone can afford a luxurious safari somewhere in Botswana or Kenya; therefore, where are people going to go to see all kinds of animals? Zoos. A few other people have even said that people who previously weren't interested in conservation became so after visiting a zoo. Watching a nature documentary on TV doesn't have the same feel as seeing animals in person. It hits me at a personal level as well because for awhile, because what's the only place I've seen animals like rhinos, giraffes, and many others? Zoos. Some of the most memorable experiences I've had with such animals were places were at zoos; I wouldn't have been able to almost anywhere else.

I also personally disagree (along with many others here) that just the sake of keeping animals captive causes suffering; there is a large difference between having a nice, lush, and enriching exhibit vs. living in a squalid, sterile cage most of your life. One could argue that we don't really know whether animals are truly suffering or not, but most research, from what we have, tells us otherwise. Most people here also mentioned that a lot of arguments proposed by anti-zoo activists are mostly emotion-based, ignoring the sciences of captive animal husbandry, conservation, etc.

Though there are radicals on both sides, I've personally noticed that anti-zoo, animal rights groups are much more harmful to overall wildlife conservation than a few individuals who like SeaWorld or Ringling way too much (Not saying whether either places are good or bad, just giving a few examples out).

I'm not going to say anything else about the ethics of keeping animals in captivity in general, such as pets, farming, etc., since I feel this would derail the conversation, since the intention was on zoos.

And that's my stance. Anyone can agree to disagree, as long as they acknowledge some points that I or many others have made. As for Damian Aspinall, please don't take this the wrong way; I do not dislike you as a person at all, I just have to disagree with many of your points you've made in this topic, and I hope you understand my viewpoints as such.
Click to expand...
Well said and I believe correct, not everyone can travel to Africa or other places to see wild animals if one can thats fine but many in the real world can not do so!
 
I've been watching this thread, and originally had no intention of commenting... but here's my "two cents", as our friends across the pond would say, on the in-situ vs ex-situ conservation argument.

As someone that's been lucky enough to visit Madagascar, I was so incredibly shocked by the sheer amount of habitat destruction that has taken place on the island... even more so than I could have ever imagined before visiting. Luckily, there are conservation charities such as Operation Wallacea and Durrell (and many more) that have been doing amazing work in the country. Durrell's captive breeding centre for the Ploughshare Tortoise at the Ampijoroa Forest Station is a perfect example; in 2015, they released their 100th tortoise into the wild.

If it weren't for Jersey zoo and the work it supports, then there may never have been this station, and the story of the Ploughshare tortoise may not be the same. I'm not naïve enough to suggest the species will have gone extinct without the stations presence, as it's held in zoos, and then privately, but the species may have been in more of a precarious position than it's in today. I hope that "good zoos" will continue to do such fantastic work, and that "bad ones" won't be "thrown to the wolves", but instead be supported until they become "good zoos"... allowing them to continue with supporting in-situ conservation as well.

I'm glad that I have been able to see various Malagasy species in zoos, and even more so to have seen them in the wild... my love for the animals and the amazing country they come from my never have developed if it wasn't for seeing them in zoos... As mentioned by others, not everyone is fortunate enough to jump on a plane and travel to see wildlife - the work that good zoos do is invaluable in terms of inspiring the youth, and encouraging the next generation of conservationists.

TNT
 
Last edited:
I am afraid that "we" will never be able to "prove you wrong," @Damian Aspinall, because there's nothing to prove. Your opinion seems mostly influenced by your view on animal ethics and personal experience instead of on hard data. That's not wrong per se, but be aware that you're playing a game you cannot lose.

However, I do believe there are interesting discussions to be had. For example: you state that at least a major proportion of zoo animals suffer terribly. On what indicators do you get to this impression? What behavioural measures or hormonal analyses do you use? Genuine question.
 
Jurek7 said:
I don't like to move from numbers to one-off examples. But mountain gorillas are highly unusual because they generate luxury tourism which is a large part of Rwanda's income. Not even other great apes do that. Lowland gorillas? Nope. Tapanuli oragnutans? No. Bonobos? No. Javan gibbons? No. Hainan gibbons? No.

Opposite would be Javan tigers or northern white rhinos. Breeding them ex-situ was called but was turned down. Both went extinct in the wild.

Another case is wisent or european bison.There are releases from zoos to the wild, but many of these groups survived for several years and decades but were killed by poachers. Everybody is aware, that if a civil unrest or a war happens, wisent population in the area goes into a free-fall and in few years is extinct. Mind you, Europe in the late 20-21 century.

You still ignore the role of zoos in raising general public interest in wildlife and, indirectly, creating donations and sponsorships in the West which you suggest are alternative financing. Note that you yourself became interested in zoo animals in England, not wild animals in Rwanda. And you are on a forum of enthusiasts of zoos, but there was not enough enthusiasts to make a forum of enthusiasts of wild African national parks.
Click to expand...

White Rhino is another good example but i agree none of what i suggest is easy however if there is a will there is a way as zoos do not prove to be the answer you just have to look at the record of zoos and how they have allowed so much inbreeding and hybridisation to see that you just have to look at the 45 critically endangered mammals in zoos only a handful are actually viable the rest are hybrid inbred or genetically not unviable. So zoos are not the answer what we have to do is get much much better at protecting the areas of the wild that need protecting. I think the civil unrest point is very valid which is why i am on record at suggesting the pockets that are protected in the manner i suggest should be geographically spread around to avoid this ...
For me the role of zoos raising public awareness is to a high price to pay as its the animals that suffer and pay this price and there is no empirical evidence that this awareness is you suggest actually translates into anything meaningful ..thank you for your comment
 
Jana said:
My personal view: captive animal keeping is an innate characteristic of modern human race. It´s natural behaviour of Homo sapiens since at least few ten thousand years ago, long before we invented cities or wheel. It´s hard wired into our genetic code now, the same as usage of fire or tools. It´s as natural to our species as is brachiation to gibbons or infanticide to gorilas. Maybe such behaviour got selected due to its comparative advantage to our survival, maybe it´s just "collateral damage" of some other advantageous mutation during our evolution, don´t really know. All extant cultures all over the world practise animal keeping of domesticated and/or wild species. Many ancient civilisations (including precolombian America) came up with institutions that even today would fall under the term "a zoo".

In this time and age, we can AND SHOULD of course discuss the quality and reason behind animals and species kept and bred at zoos. How can we improve their husbandry. How can we make zoos better institutions. How to generate more help towards wild cousins of zoo inmates. How to sensitise zoo visitors to engage in wildlife potection. How to utilise all the knowledge gained during last few centuries. What reintroduction to undertake et cetera. But to discuss the very existence of zoos is a moot point. They exist because we are humans, it´s part of us, our heritage.
Click to expand...
That is sad but you have a point but surely as modern civilised humans we try to constantly look within our own behaviour and improve as a species otherwise we would be doing all types of terrible things and just blaming it on 'Oh its in our genes' Slavery has also been going on for almost all of humanity but we ended that in the modern world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top