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

[pendraig_milnerae]

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 as much.

I'm not at all suggesting that this is an easy crossover or replacement nor that all keepers used to 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.

Fair point, I hadn’t considered that

 

[Damian Aspinall]

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.

And I have never ever said zoos should close immediately i have said that they should be phased out over time perhaps 20-30 years which then deals with the issues you rightly bought up.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

And I have never ever said zoos should close immediately i have said that they should be phased out over time perhaps 20-30 years which then deals with the issues you rightly bought up.

Yes, I know but sometimes the wording of your comments can lead people to think erroneously that you are intending to close down the parks within the next few years rather than it being a gradual process.

Ideally on a societal level we should be looking to create conditions for more conservationists / conservation biologists to emerge and pursue that career path rather than more zookeepers but zoos are an established industry and conservation is unfortunately not.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

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.

I will do my best ...even if you take into account the amount of small animals and insects the enclosures in London Zoo are still far to small especially as they have 600 acres in the countryside to keep the animals. Why do they keep all those insects and small amphibians ? keeping them at London Zoo is not the answer. Most of them don't need to be there at all and I believe if they are so rare they need to be in captivity then more much more need to be done where that work can be done in situ. There are plenty of knowledgable people around the world would love to do that work in situ.
Your point about zoos supporting animals in the wild sadly has very little relevance (it should i agree) as the numbers and facts simply do not support that. The average in situ conservation investment of every EAZA zoo is 35k pa and no one can tell me that's enough when you consider the billions of revenue received every year by zoos. Secondly even the money that does flow through to conservation who checks that it is doing the work it should be doing as zoos justify there existence on this argument.
Why are 95% of animals in zoos not even threatened? of the 45 critically endangered mammals held at zoos only 3-4 are actually viable ie the rest are hybrids inbred or not genetically viable..these are questions no one wants to deal with.
Breeding as an insurance policy is also thrown about a lot. lets consider that..
On what basis is a species chosen that it needs an insurance policy ..there is none..
consequently it is an argument used over and over again but without any foundation as there is no process to this question. IE. this is a species at a tipping point and we have looked at all the alternatives of protecting this species in the wild or in captivity in situ and for whatever reason none of this works so we must protect in zoos. Then which zoos are most suitable etc etc
None of this process happens absolutely none therefore this insurance policy argument has absolutely no validity.
thank you for your points and will always try to answer as honestly as possible passing on any knowledge i have .

 

[ShonenJake13]

Why are 95% of animals in zoos not even threatened? of the 45 critically endangered mammals held at zoos only 3-4 are actually viable ie the rest are hybrids inbred or not genetically viable..these are questions no one wants to deal with.
Breeding as an insurance policy is also thrown about a lot. lets consider that..
On what basis is a species chosen that it needs an insurance policy ..there is none..
consequently it is an argument used over and over again but without any foundation as there is no process to this question. IE. this is a species at a tipping point and we have looked at all the alternatives of protecting this species in the wild or in captivity in situ and for whatever reason none of this works so we must protect in zoos. Then which zoos are most suitable etc etc
None of this process happens absolutely none therefore this insurance policy argument has absolutely no validity.
thank you for your points and will always try to answer as honestly as possible passing on any knowledge i have .

So are you yourself admitting that of the seven or so critically endangered species your zoos keep only 3 or 4 of those are viable? And are you also admitting that the various species you’re sending back to the wild (a lot of which are threatened and a lot of which would fall under that umbrella of 45) aren’t genetically viable and/or are hybrids? That can’t be good for the wild population....

The insurance population policy is one that many zoos run with. At least a dozen zoos that I have been to/know people at work with a priority system where they prioritise which species they keep based on eligibility for wild release, research potential etc.....so I wouldn’t say it’s entirely invalid.

I would also argue that keeping a good portion of those smaller animals at London is a good idea, given they have been the ones who have successfully brought these species back from the brink AND are busy working on wild release.....Partula snails, Bermuda snails, Desertas wolf spiders, Fregate Island beetles, killifish, pupfish, midwife toads, mountain chickens.....I could go on.

Thank you for your reply anyway. Always interesting to discuss opposing arguments with someone.

EDIT: it might also be prudent to inform people that a threatened species is anything from vulnerable to critically endangered or extinct in the wild, and that would therefore bring that 95% total down significantly. What about data deficient I hear you say? A species being data deficient may benefit MORE from being kept in captivity as it helps with research purposes and if it turns out there are none left in the wild after initial surveys.....there’s your insurance population.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

@Damian Aspinall Just for clarification on your point regarding the viability of critically endangered mammal species that are held by zoos, which are the 3 or 4 species that you mention as being viable ?

So are you yourself admitting that of the seven or so critically endangered species your zoos keep only 3 or 4 of those are viable? And are you also admitting that the various species you’re sending back to the wild (a lot of which are threatened and a lot of which would fall under that umbrella of 45) aren’t genetically viable and/or are hybrids? That can’t be good for the wild population....

@ShonenJake13 I think what Damian is trying to suggest, if I understand his point correctly, is that there are only 3 or 4 mammal species held by zoos globally that could be considered genetically viable.

 

[ShonenJake13]

@Damian Aspinall Just for clarification on your point regarding the viability of critically endangered mammal species that are held by zoos, which are the 3 or 4 species that you mention as being viable ?



@ShonenJake13 I think what Damian is trying to suggest, if I understand his point correctly, is that there are only 3 or 4 mammal species held by zoos globally that could be considered genetically viable.

This would still mean that a lot of the species he keeps aren’t genetically viable, which I’m sure wouldn’t be beneficial to the wild population either.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

So are you yourself admitting that of the seven or so critically endangered species your zoos keep only 3 or 4 of those are viable? And are you also admitting that the various species you’re sending back to the wild (a lot of which are threatened and a lot of which would fall under that umbrella of 45) aren’t genetically viable and/or are hybrids? That can’t be good for the wild population....

The insurance population policy is one that many zoos run with. At least a dozen zoos that I have been to/know people at work with a priority system where they prioritise which species they keep based on eligibility for wild release, research potential etc.....so I wouldn’t say it’s entirely invalid.

I would also argue that keeping a good portion of those smaller animals at London is a good idea, given they have been the ones who have successfully brought these species back from the brink AND are busy working on wild release.....Partula snails, Bermuda snails, Desertas wolf spiders, Fregate Island beetles, killifish, pupfish, midwife toads, mountain chickens.....I could go on.

Thank you for your reply anyway. Always interesting to discuss opposing arguments with someone.

EDIT: it might also be prudent to inform people that a threatened species is anything from vulnerable to critically endangered or extinct in the wild, and that would therefore bring that 95% total down significantly. What about data deficient I hear you say? A species being data deficient may benefit MORE from being kept in captivity as it helps with research purposes and if it turns out there are none left in the wild after initial surveys.....there’s your insurance population.

I am saying including our own collections yes that is true sadly.
We don't send back hybrids or non genetically viable animals to the wild the opposite in fact for the cheetah we sent back recently there genetics were incredibly valuable to the wild population and we will happily send back non threatened species as they deserve to live free like any animals.
Insurance argument is invalid for reasons i have stated that 95% are not even rare and most of the rest are diseased hybrids or inbreds or not genetically viable im sorry if this is uncomfortable to read i get that but we have done a huge amount of research on these subjects. Even if london zoo has if as you say have bought these few species back from the brink lets look at the evidence of that statement .. Really? i doubt it and honestly even then it does not justify London Zoo existence or any zoo sadly. And to be honest if that is justification for the zoo after the hundreds of millions of pounds invested in London zoo it is an appealing return on investment ...
thank you again for your comment

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Even with the smaller animals and ex-situ management there is still a lot of nuance in regards to whether they should be kept within the country of origin or in zoos outside.

In the case of amphibians there have been some excellent ex-situ research and captive breeding facilities that have been located pretty much in-situ within the species range country.

Some examples would be Jonathan Kolby's centre in Honduras for endangered anurans, Edgardo Griffin's Golden frog project located in El Nispero Zoo, Panama and the various Ambystoma / axolotl salamander captive breeding projects in Mexico.

I tend to think that a mixture of ex-situ management within the country range (a stronger emphasis here and on ecosystem management / conservation) and with a select group of decent zoos around the world is the best option to avoid placing all the eggs within one basket but that is just my view.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I would also argue that keeping a good portion of those smaller animals at London is a good idea, given they have been the ones who have successfully brought these species back from the brink AND are busy working on wild release.....Partula snails, Bermuda snails, Desertas wolf spiders, Fregate Island beetles, killifish, pupfish, midwife toads, mountain chickens.....I could go on.

I agree with you about the smaller animals at ZSL but they still keep a lot of species that really do not need to be kept there or at Whipsnade.

Moreover, I do think we all have to admit that even with programes like the excellent EDGE species (big admirer of it) that Damian has a point that there is still an awful lot of money that has simply been wasted and mismanaged by ZSL.

 

[CGSwans]

I’ll just note that at no point has Damian made any sincere attempt to substantiate his claims about zoos being miserable places for animals to live. Until he justifies his first principles opposition to zoos - that they are bad places - none of the rest matters and you are all simply letting him set the terms of the debate for you.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

This would still mean that a lot of the species he keeps aren’t genetically viable, which I’m sure wouldn’t be beneficial to the wild population either.

A lot of the species we keep are genetically unviable which we are phasing out of or like in the case of African Honey badger we are re wilding. I do believe it is important to follow through with ones own beliefs

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Even with the smaller animals and ex-situ management there is still a lot of nuance in regards to whether they should be kept within the country of origin or in zoos outside.

In the case of amphibians there have been some excellent ex-situ research and captive breeding facilities that have been located pretty much in-situ within the species range country.

Some examples would be Jonathan Kolby's centre in Honduras for endangered anurans, Edgardo Griffin's Golden frog project located in El Nispero Zoo, Panama and the various Ambystoma / axolotl salamander captive breeding projects in Mexico.

I tend to think that a mixture of ex-situ management within the country range (a stronger emphasis here and on ecosystem management / conservation) and with a select group of decent zoos around the world is the best option to avoid placing all the eggs within one basket but that is just my view.

I think your view is very sensible But with the condition only zoos if there was no genuinely alternatives and there was a proper process behind the decision.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I’ll just note that at no point has Damian made any sincere attempt to substantiate his claims about zoos being miserable places for animals to live. Until he justifies his first principles opposition to zoos - that they are bad places - none of the rest matters and you are all simply letting him set the terms of the debate for you.

I think we need to avoid partisanship in this debate and try to find the common / middle ground.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

I think we need to avoid partisanship in this debate and try to find the common / middle ground.

I have stated on previous threads that my beliefs and opinions are based on my deep knowledge and understanding of zoos and animals and what has been written about the negative effects of captivity and even quoted a particular author to read.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I think your view is very sensible But with the condition only zoos if there was no genuinely alternatives and there was a proper process behind the decision.

Yes, I agree with you regarding this but genuine alternatives take time and time as you know is something that is often in critically short supply in conservation interventions.

For example, consider chytridiomycosis. We are begining to see signatures of assisted selection conferring some immunity to the fungus / pathogen within some amphibian populations in Central America.

However, we do not know to what extent this occuring, whether this will work to the same level with all species or how long this natural selection process takes. We just do not have a full picture yet and only have educated guesses really.

By the time we have answers it could be too late for many species which could have been saved by being taken into captivity and managed through ex-situ conservation (the debate remains whether this is best within the country of origin or outside).

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Yes, I agree with you regarding that but genuine alternatives take time and time is something that is often in short supply in conservation.

For example, consider chytridiomycosis, we are begining to see signatures of assisted selection conferring some immunity to the fungus / pathogen in some amphibian populations in Central America.

However, we do not know to what extent, whether this will work to the same level with all species or how long this natural selection process takes.

By the time we have answers it could be too late for many species which could have been saved by being taken into captivity and managed through ex-situ conservation (the debate remains whether this is best within the country of origin or outside).

I agree it can take time and perhaps not every species is suitable but there must be a process to the decision and there is none at the moment and as a consequence thousand of species are held captive unnecessarily

 

[15399]

@Damian Aspinall- I completely understand if you do not want to answer this question, but if you are truly so anti-zoo, then why would you be on a zoo enthusiasts forum in the first place? I know there are a lot of people in the world that do not like zoos, and I completely respect that opinion. However, I don't think that this forum is the right place for an anti-zoo member. Why not just avoid zoos if you hate them so much?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I agree it can take time and perhaps not every species is suitable but there must be a process to the decision and there is none at the moment and as a consequence thousand of species are held captive unnecessarily

Yes, I agree but that process to the decision is precisely where I think there is the potential for a middle ground in this debate.

I think it is an opportunity for both opponents of zoos and advocates to inform the process through evidence based conservation (and I believe that both sides do have valid arguments to offer if we can just find the common ground).

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

@Damian Aspinall- I completely understand if you do not want to answer this question, but if you are truly so anti-zoo, then why would you be on a zoo enthusiasts forum in the first place? I know there are a lot of people in the world that do not like zoos, and I completely respect that opinion. However, I don't think that this forum is the right place for an anti-zoo member. Why not just avoid zoos if you hate them so much?

You gave an example earlier in the thread which illustrated this point and the nuance of this whole debate very well on so many levels but not quite in the way you think when you mentioned the golden lion tamarin.