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

[Damian Aspinall]

How did Jane Goodall get involved with the chimp exhibit in LA?

And we approve our own design of gorilla cages and as the number one breeder of gorillas in captivity in the world and successfully reintroduced 70 gorillas back to the wild i don't think that justifies gorillas in zoos at all..of course some cases are better than others but 95% of cages are absolutely substandard of this i am certain.

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

And we approve our own design of gorilla cages and as the number one breeder of gorillas in captivity in the world and successfully reintroduced 70 gorillas back to the wild i don't think that justifies gorillas in zoos at all..of course some cases are better than others but 95% of cages are absolutely substandard of this i am certain.

What is in the 5%? How do we devise the criteria for this? Is it a matter of space or some other factor? I think this issue is far too complex for a simple ‘good or bad’ argument, because different zoos fall at different points along the scale. I completely agree that some are substandard, but also there are many that the animals absolutely benefit from. I think it’s a matter of specifics, but there are just too many variables involved for one conclusive answer.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Very interesting read, thank you

Thank you for your comment but having lived and run wildlife parks my whole life and studied the effects of animals in captivity and the wild makes me more knowledgeable and an expert on the subject than your good self. Whilst your note was filled with good intention it was short on empirical evidence to support your argument. Your assumptions about zoos were simply naive and misinformed. However all discussion is welcome and thank you for your comment.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

I'm a fish nerd, so that's what's going to come to mind for me, and one that leaps right out is the Yangtze sturgeon (Acipenser dabryanus). Due to pollution and damming of the Yangtze, it cannot breed in the wild, and the only thing keeping it from going extinct is captive breeding.

Also several species of pupfishes endemic to springs of the American Southwest, extinct in the wild because their springs have degraded or dried up completely. Some are even around now because dedicated aquarium hobbyists started breeding them in the 70s through an American Killifish Association breeding program.

Even if this is correct why cannot these species be saved in situ in small sanctuaries like we are doing in Java with Gibbon and Langurs and also even if some species have to be put in captivity which is arguably a tiny handful it simply does not justify the thousands of species kept in zoos.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

What is in the 5%? How do we devise the criteria for this? Is it a matter of space or some other factor? I think this issue is far too complex for a simple ‘good or bad’ argument, because different zoos fall at different points along the scale. I completely agree that some are substandard, but also there are many that the animals absolutely benefit from. I think it’s a matter of specifics, but there are just too many variables involved for one conclusive answer.

Good question In my view space is always an issue diet is an issue privacy is an issue etc
and why have species in zoos that are not even threatened in the wild

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

@Damian Aspinall I believe you have a very valid point when it comes to many large mammal "charismatic megafauna" type species which are often ill suited to captive environments like zoos.

I would like to see many of these phased out of zoos anyway (as I believe In-situ conservation interventions benefit these animals much more) in favour of a shift of focus towards smaller conservation dependent species like small mammals, small birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.

These smaller animals do often desperately require ex-situ management alongside well implemented in-situ conservation and typically adapt more easily to captive environments (with some notable exceptions such as the tarsier and many mustelids).

This is the main point which I find myself disagreeing with you on because I do believe zoos can still play a supporting role yet in the conservation of the smaller species (if this is required) providing that this is matched by long-term in-situ work.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Dude everyone started naming animals saved by zoos and Damian just stopped responding

I have been away and don't get to my computer over weekend. and have now responded .
The point about naming animals is this . even if zoos were the only way to save the species listed which is doubtful as no one has provided evidence of this then it still is a tiny handful of species compared to the many thousands of species in captivity so it is simply not an argument to justify zoos at all..how does anyone explain this ...

 

[Damian Aspinall]

@Damian Aspinall I believe you have a very valid point when it comes to many large mammal "charismatic megafauna" type species which are often ill suited to captive environments like zoos.

I would like to see many of these phased out of zoos anyway (as I believe In-situ conservation interventions benefit these animals much more) in favour of a shift of focus towards smaller conservation dependent species like small mammals, small birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.

These smaller animals do often desperately require ex-situ management alongside well implemented in-situ conservation and typically adapt more easily to captive environments (with some notable exceptions such as the tarsier and many mustelids). This is the main point which I find myself disagreeing with you because I do believe zoos can still play a supporting role yet in the conservation of these species.

Absolutely as long as it can if at all possible be done in situ and not in a zoo and certainly does not justify zoos all over the world.

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

@Damian Aspinall I believe you have a very valid point when it comes to many large mammal "charismatic megafauna" type species which are often ill suited to captive environments like zoos.

I would like to see many of these phased out of zoos anyway (as I believe In-situ conservation interventions benefit these animals much more) in favour of a shift of focus towards smaller conservation dependent species like small mammals, small birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.

These smaller animals do often desperately require ex-situ management alongside well implemented in-situ conservation and typically adapt more easily to captive environments (with some notable exceptions such as tarsier and many mustelid).

Agreed. It does seem to be overlooked that zoos have been through several updates since the 1970s in which animal welfare was viewed as being not up to scrap, so they improved, particularly in the last few years in which zoos have been phasing out animals that they either couldn’t care for properly or weren’t well suited, just look at the ongoing attempt to phase out elephants from many UK zoos or asiatic black bears in AZA collections. It is clear that despite the issues that some zoos have, I'm not sure applying argument a against substandard ones to all zoo, particularly at a time when zoos are making a serious effort to improve animal welfare and phase out many species, is quite the right way to go about it. (Terrible analogy incoming) It’s sort of like attacking world governments for not attempting to tackle climate change during the Paris Agreement, and then applying what the US did to all of them. Does that make sense or am I thinking too much into this?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Absolutely as long as it can if at all possible be done in situ and not in a zoo and certainly does not justify zoos all over the world.

Yes, I agree, if it can be done in-situ then it absolutely should be. Simply placing species in zoos is not by any means a quick fix solution (it is actually often a lazy, uninspired and mediocre one) and without committed work to ensure populations remain extant and ecologically functional in the wild this is like placing a band aid over a gaping war wound.

However, it is often immensely challenging and often impossible to do this given the nature of certain threats such as hybridization (not just a problem limited to captive animals but also a threat to wild ones) or infectious diseases. Sometimes such situations necessitate ex-situ management of a species albeit even if this is merely a temporary measure.

Earlier in the thread some posters left comments regarding amphibians such as the Panamanian golden frog and as someone who has also been involved in amphibian conservation and research into chytridiomycosis I do not think you responded adequately to the question of amphibians and this disease.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Agreed. It does seem to be overlooked that zoos have been through several updates since the 1970s in which animal welfare was viewed as being not up to scrap, so they improved, particularly in the last few years in which zoos have been phasing out animals that they either couldn’t care for properly or weren’t well suited, just look at the ongoing attempt to phase out elephants from many UK zoos or asiatic black bears in AZA collections. It is clear that despite the issues that some zoos have, I'm not sure applying argument a against substandard ones to all zoo, particularly at a time when zoos are making a serious effort to improve animal welfare and phase out many species, is quite the right way to go about it. (Terrible analogy incoming) It’s sort of like attacking world governments for not attempting to tackle climate change during the Paris Agreement, and then applying what the US did to all of them. Does that make sense or am I thinking too much into this?

The question we have to ask ourselves without any emotion and with real evidence is even in the good zoos and i put ourselves in that category is ..what are the good zoos actually doing ? Why do they have so many non threatened species why are so many of there own cages substandard which they are etc how much money do they actually put into insitu conservation and how is this measured as actually being effective and does this alone justify there existance

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Agreed. It does seem to be overlooked that zoos have been through several updates since the 1970s in which animal welfare was viewed as being not up to scrap, so they improved, particularly in the last few years in which zoos have been phasing out animals that they either couldn’t care for properly or weren’t well suited, just look at the ongoing attempt to phase out elephants from many UK zoos or asiatic black bears in AZA collections. It is clear that despite the issues that some zoos have, I'm not sure applying argument a against substandard ones to all zoo, particularly at a time when zoos are making a serious effort to improve animal welfare and phase out many species, is quite the right way to go about it. (Terrible analogy incoming) It’s sort of like attacking world governments for not attempting to tackle climate change during the Paris Agreement, and then applying what the US did to all of them. Does that make sense or am I thinking too much into this?

No, that does make perfect sense to me @Paleoarchontas and I generally agree with you on those points you've made.

 

[ShonenJake13]

Thank you for your comment but having lived and run wildlife parks my whole life and studied the effects of animals in captivity and the wild makes me more knowledgeable and an expert on the subject than your good self. Whilst your note was filled with good intention it was short on empirical evidence to support your argument. Your assumptions about zoos were simply naive and misinformed. However all discussion is welcome and thank you for your comment.

So if you are the big expert here, why are you having this discussion and asking to be proved wrong? Surely if you believe you are absolutely correct then no one here will be able to change your mind...?
I bring up the same point that I notice you failed to pick up on earlier as well...this is largely a forum for zoo enthusiasts. Granted there are people from the zoo world on here, most of which don’t really use the forum, and there are people from the conservation world, some of whom have given strong arguments on this thread (such as @Onychorhynchus coronatus and @Carl Jones). You are better pushed to attempt to, as you keep saying in your statement about your EAZA membership, try and change it all from the inside rather than approach a large community whose foundation is based on their love of zoos.
You can deflect all valid points that are made against your argument all you like, and I’m still planning on staying out of this discussion as I know your mind cannot be changed. You have had this view for years and years now, and I highly doubt anyone here will be able to change it.

A note: I am glad to see that for the most part the discussion has been passive and that both sides have taken their points into account. But I do have a question to repeat and then that’s it for me on this thread:

1. see my London Zoo question from before. You frequently claim to your social media followers that their keeping of tens of thousands of animals on 36 acres is barbaric, but you make it sound like it’s all large animals (like the majority of your collection) and not largely made up of corals, fish, insects, small amphibians and reptiles etc. What is your thought process here? Bear in mind a lot of their species are extinct in the wild and kept ex-situ for a reason, as ectotherms are far more sensitive to environment disruption.

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

So if you are the big expert here, why are you having this discussion and asking to be proved wrong? Surely if you believe you are absolutely correct then no one here will be able to change your mind...?
I bring up the same point that I notice you failed to pick up on earlier as well...this is largely a forum for zoo enthusiasts. Granted there are people from the zoo world on here, most of which don’t really use the forum, and there are people from the conservation world, some of whom have given strong arguments on this thread (such as @Onychorhynchus coronatus and @Carl Jones). You are better pushed to attempt to, as you keep saying in your statement about your EAZA membership, try and change it all from the inside rather than approach a large community whose foundation is based on their love of zoos.
You can deflect all valid points that are made against your argument all you like, and I’m still planning on staying out of this discussion as I know your mind cannot be changed. You have had this view for years and years now, and I highly doubt anyone here will be able to change it.

A note: I am glad to see that for the most part the discussion has been passive and that both sides have taken their points into account. But I do have a question to repeat and then that’s it for me on this thread:

1. see my London Zoo question from before. You frequently claim to your social media followers that their keeping of tens of thousands of animals on 36 acres is barbaric, but you make it sound like it’s all large animals (like the majority of your collection) and not largely made up of corals, fish, insects, small amphibians and reptiles etc. What is your thought process here? Bear in mind a lot of their species are extinct in the wild and kept ex-situ for a reason, as ectotherms are far more sensitive to environment disruption.

I completely understand taking this stance. Realistically Mr Aspinall isn’t going to change his views because a few people he’s never met on a (fairly niche) forum disagreed with him, and neither me nor anyone else on here is going to suddenly change either, I mean, we’re members on Zoochat. But the middle ground makes sense as both sides have valid points, and although I align more with the pro-zoo side, I’d rather not be in Mr Aspinall’s bad books due to my admiration for the Aspinall Foundation and love of Port Lympne, to the point that it is one of my favourite places on Earth (that I have been to). I also appreciate the important input he has put into the foundation, and the questions that are being brought up are questions that need to be asked, especially at this turning point for both zoos and the natural world. But I do think that zoos should be given the benefit of the doubt, as they remained the same for over a century and a half, and only prioritised animal welfare in the last few decades, and many are now improving significantly. I think we need to see how things go - allow zoos to improve and become something more than a menagerie. And yes in an ideal world we probably wouldn’t need or even have many of them, but this isn’t an ideal world. It is necessary for zoos to change and evolve as opposed to simply going extinct, as many (not all, mind you) have so much potential to be something more, they just have to reach it.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

So if you are the big expert here, why are you having this discussion and asking to be proved wrong? Surely if you believe you are absolutely correct then no one here will be able to change your mind...?
I bring up the same point that I notice you failed to pick up on earlier as well...this is largely a forum for zoo enthusiasts. Granted there are people from the zoo world on here, most of which don’t really use the forum, and there are people from the conservation world, some of whom have given strong arguments on this thread (such as @Onychorhynchus coronatus and @Carl Jones). You are better pushed to attempt to, as you keep saying in your statement about your EAZA membership, try and change it all from the inside rather than approach a large community whose foundation is based on their love of zoos.
You can deflect all valid points that are made against your argument all you like, and I’m still planning on staying out of this discussion as I know your mind cannot be changed. You have had this view for years and years now, and I highly doubt anyone here will be able to change it.

A note: I am glad to see that for the most part the discussion has been passive and that both sides have taken their points into account. But I do have a question to repeat and then that’s it for me on this thread:

1. see my London Zoo question from before. You frequently claim to your social media followers that their keeping of tens of thousands of animals on 36 acres is barbaric, but you make it sound like it’s all large animals (like the majority of your collection) and not largely made up of corals, fish, insects, small amphibians and reptiles etc. What is your thought process here? Bear in mind a lot of their species are extinct in the wild and kept ex-situ for a reason, as ectotherms are far more sensitive to environment disruption.

The key question is prove me wrong which absolutely no one has been able to do no one has come up with a valid reason that justifies zoos and all the thousand of species held by them. People have suggested there own emotive thoughts and ideas but that is not evidence that justifies them. Why am I here ? of course i will not change my view i am coming from a perspective of i have been in zoos all my life and therefore i speak with some knowledge and some truths that are factual. I know more than probably anyone on this thread about the truth about zoos (I say this as obviously i don't who everyone is as they don't say) but even so i doubt anyone has the knowledge or experience that i have. I have studied and looked at all the facts around hybrids inbreds genetically unviable species etc etc I have the knowledge to determine what is a good enclosure or bad and the same with diets.
As to London Zoo im sorry but it is a pathetic example of a zoo the money they waste on enclosures is a crime against nature. £6m for sumatran tiger enclosure £9m for lion etc etc and they are terrible enclosures great for the public and awful for the animals.
I appreciate your comments and will always do my best to steer people hopefully to the right conclusion and this can only be done if people keep an open mind. thank you

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I think we need to see how things go - allow zoos to improve and become something more than a menagerie. And yes in an ideal world we probably wouldn’t need or even have many of them, but this isn’t an ideal world. It is necessary for zoos to change and evolve as opposed to simply going extinct, as many (not all, mind you) have so much potential to be something more, they just have to reach it.

I agree but I think this is what @Damian Aspinall is ultimately suggesting that a great number of zoos are not evolving or changing or adapting yet are giving the impression publicly and to all intensive purposes of having done so.

I do think that he is right in many ways that a good number of zoos could well do with going extinct because they grossly underperform in terms of their conservation and education output yet smugly claim otherwise.

However, where I differ from Damian is that I do not believe that this applies to all zoos (I believe that this is too reductive) and I do still believe that there is a supporting role for some of them (even if a minority) to play in conserving species and as I've mentioned I think this is particularly the case with the smaller ones.

 

[ShonenJake13]

The key question is prove me wrong which absolutely no one has been able to do no one has come up with a valid reason that justifies zoos and all the thousand of species held by them. People have suggested there own emotive thoughts and ideas but that is not evidence that justifies them. Why am I here ? of course i will not change my view i am coming from a perspective of i have been in zoos all my life and therefore i speak with some knowledge and some truths that are factual. I know more than probably anyone on this thread about the truth about zoos (I say this as obviously i don't who everyone is as they don't say) but even so i doubt anyone has the knowledge or experience that i have. I have studied and looked at all the facts around hybrids inbreds genetically unviable species etc etc I have the knowledge to determine what is a good enclosure or bad and the same with diets.
As to London Zoo im sorry but it is a pathetic example of a zoo the money they waste on enclosures is a crime against nature. £6m for sumatran tiger enclosure £9m for lion etc etc and they are terrible enclosures great for the public and awful for the animals.
I appreciate your comments and will always do my best to steer people hopefully to the right conclusion and this can only be done if people keep an open mind. thank you

Thank you for your response.
The point I’m asking your opinion on isnt the zoo’s money expenditure. That is something that, if you have a read on this forum, you’ll find a lot of us have the same opinion as you. London is my local zoo, and I can absolutely agree that whilst the tiger enclosure is a significant improvement on what they had before, the lion enclosure is a big money sink for not much change.
I want to know why you tell your followers that they shouldn’t keep so many animals on such a small site, despite the fact an overwhelming majority of those animals are insects, small fish, small amphibians/reptiles and corals, and therefore don’t require as much space as you make them out to need.

I also want to take this opportunity to say that I very much fall into the middle of this debate, like @Paleoarchontas. I have been to both of your collections, and seen first hand the quality of husbandry some of your animals get. I also follow the Aspinall Foundation’s exploits on social media, and do not doubt how much you put conservation first. But zoos have their place in that too. And no I don’t mean roadside zoos, I mean zoos that use their money and resources to support animals in the wild through ex-situ breeding and conservation programmes.
Your collections focus almost entirely on mammals. That’s fine! But a lot of the smaller, more sensitive species (lots of examples have been presented up thread so I’m not going to say them again) need extra provision to ensure their survival, and in some cases that means ex-situ work. The spray toads needed to be taken out of Tanzania not only because their original habitat was entirely gone but also because there was no financial feasibility/amphibian expertise to keep them in-situ. Now that there are enough of them, they are being taken back and released into suitable replacement habitats. The Santa Cruz ground dove needed extracting and moving to Jurong BECAUSE there wasn’t an option in situ. Etc etc

I believe all species in a zoo should have a purpose, or not be kept. Breeding as an insurance population/for release, or keeping as a conservation ambassador/future insurance population, or keeping for research purposes, should all come first. Anything that is kept for visitor engagement or theming just isn’t worth it.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to discuss this with you/see what you have to say about everything.

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

I also think that there are a number of people who need to be brought up. Let’s say that tomorrow a fairly average zoo closes down. Seems good at first right? Let’s also assume that none of the animals were euthanised and were all moved to reintroduction facilities within their native ranged. Still seems good? Well, not really.
I need to bring up the keepers. I need to bring up the vets. I need to bring up the maintainence workers, gardeners, contractors, accountants and everyone else involved. All of those people would be suddenly displaced, and although some would move on, many, particularly the keepers, can’t. That’s anywhere between 20-60 people for an average zoological institution that now have to find a vacancy for a very specific job, not to mention the loss of animals that they spent years of their lives working with. Now let’s apply that to other zoos.
It’s also worth mentioning that people who have gained a training in this would now be unable to find a job at all. And the public would loose a part of their local community, history and income. I think that the operations and decisions of a zoo need to be thought of as a group of people, and one must consider the tens of thousands of people they employ all over the world. In the case of zoos people shouldn’t be a priority, but they are something that no-one has mentioned yet despite being a quintessential aspect of zoos.

 

[birdsandbats]

@Damian Aspinall I have yet to see you provide any evidence that all zoo animals are suffering.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I also think that there are a number of people who need to be brought up. Let’s say that tomorrow a fairly average zoo closes down. Seems good at first right? Let’s also assume that none of the animals were euthanised and were all moved to reintroduction facilities within their native ranged. Still seems good? Well, not really.
I need to bring up the keepers. I need to bring up the vets. I need to bring up the maintainence workers, gardeners, contractors, accountants and everyone else involved. All of those people would be suddenly displaced, and although some would move on, many, particularly the keepers, can’t. That’s anywhere between 20-60 people for an average zoological institution that now have to find a vacancy for a very specific job, not to mention the loss of animals that they spent years of their lives working with. Now let’s apply that to other zoos.
It’s also worth mentioning that people who have gained a training in this would now be unable to find a job at all. And the public would loose a part of their local community, history and income. I think that the operations and decisions of a zoo need to be thought of as a group of people, and one must consider the tens of thousands of people they employ all over the world. In the case of zoos people shouldn’t be a priority, but they are something that no-one has mentioned yet despite being a quintessential aspect of zoos.

Yes, and I agree that there is a wider economic fallout to consider.

But regarding keepers, take the Aspinall foundation for example, I know for a fact that at least some of their keepers have found rewarding work in in-situ conservation in Madagascar, Africa and Indonesia because I have heard this from at least one of them who has told me this (sure, the opinion of one person isn't representative of everyone but I am just adding this as I think it is important).

I'm not at all suggesting that this is an easy crossover or replacement nor that all keepers or vets used to zoo work could adapt to working in in-situ or ex-situ conservation within a species range but with adequate training at least some of these could.

Moreover, there are frequently a number of transferable skills obtained during the course of zoo work that can be extremely useful in in-situ and especially ex-situ conservation within the range of a species. There are many conservationists working in the field who are in fact former zoo keepers or who have at one point or another in their lives worked within zoos.