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

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

But there is no point in this thread if one half of the debate will not find a common ground. Its just one guy saying his beliefs with no real evidence to back any of it up and even when given proof of the value of zoos he just states "I believe it could be done in-situ" but does not explain how this would be funded, as has been asked time and time again.

I think most here will agree zoos can and should do more and that there is a balance between in-situ and ex-situ to be met but Damian doesn't think or believe this, he just wants them shut down because he feels animals suffer. So why are we continuing this?

I still think that there has to be a potential common ground for more constructive dialogue somewhere in this debate even if it is just the recognition that both sides have some valid points and that the situation with regards to conservation is enormously complex.

 

[taun]

I still think that there has to be a potential common ground for more constructive dialogue somewhere in this debate even if it is just the recognition that both sides have some valid points and that the situation with regards to conservation is enormously complex.

As I have said one side has and does acknowledge some of the views of the other side (Damian), thinks all zoos should close and keeping animals in captivity is cruel and does not accept that zoos can play any role in conservation.

And Damian is not going to change his mind even if he has come here under the pretence that he wants to prove him wrong.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

As I have said one said has and does acknowledge some of the view the other side (Damian) thinks all zoos should close and keeping animals in captivity is cruel and does not accept that zoos can play any role in conservation.

And Damian is not going to change his mind even if he has come here under the pretence that he wants to prove him wrong.

Well I have read the debate from when it started right up to this current point and I do think that it has been an interesting discussion in some ways though a common ground hasn't yet really been reached.

 

[Jurek7]

Right, but lets not skip over the fact that large mammals and particularly African and Asian megafauna (many of which belong to species that are not threatened) would count for an outsized portion of zoo mammals.

Yes, but zoos prioritize species and subspecies which are threatened. In Europe, for example, endangered antelopes like addax, scimitar-horned oryx, dama gazelle, mountain bongo are given priority over other antelope. More endangered white-cheeked gibbons are given priority over lar gibbon. More endangered deer like Alfred's are given priority over common ones like axis. Endangered monkeys are given priority over rhesus macaques. Rare leopard subspecies are given priority over generic and African leopards etc. Some very common and easy species stopped being kept in European zoos: almost no coyotes and jackals (but many bush dogs and maned wolves), few American black bears (but many spectacled bears) etc.

There were whole threads over this: why alcelaphine antelopes (hartebeest, cama etc) disappeared from zoos, why bushbuck disappeared from zoos, why majority of small carnivores disappeared in zoos etc.

There have been both studies that show some zoos have a demonstrable impact on meeting environmental education targets with the general public and studies that show that a good many zoos do not effectively meet these targets.

Sure, there are many bad zoos, especially in poorer countries, but the improvement is clear. Which sort of shows two things: that bad zoos can improve, usually faster than animals could be released or waited to die, and animals kept in poor countries do not have better welfare just because they are in home countries.

And Damian is not going to change his mind even if he has come here under the pretence that he wants to prove him wrong.

Damian certainly has big ego ('you prove me wrong') and does not understand that education or conservation of zoos are objectively measured. He thinks it is just his say-so versus others say-so.

I am simply containing him - adding real information so other readers can judge by themselves.

 

[Simon Hampel]

As I have said one side has and does acknowledge some of the views of the other side (Damian), thinks all zoos should close and keeping animals in captivity is cruel and does not accept that zoos can play any role in conservation.

And Damian is not going to change his mind even if he has come here under the pretence that he wants to prove him wrong.

You are under no obligation to participate in this particular discussion if you feel there is no value in it.

 

[(Adsa)]

Damian went into this thinking “i’ll ask these group of people who obviously support zoos to argue their point. I expect them to be wrong although i should try to listen.” Damian has already has a lot of these questions bubbled in and he already submitted the test.

 

[Zoofan15]

@Damian Aspinall, you say you have successfully released 70 Gorillas back into the wild. How do you measure 'success' here? Do you track all of these gorillas (either individually or as troops) over any period of time? If so, for how long? For example, Perth Zoo released a female Sumatran orangutan into the wild in 2006 and tracked her for three years, until she had become adjusted to life in the wild.

Also, I note tigers are kept at your zoos and presumably these are not exempt from your belief that all zoo animals should be released back into the wild. How would you (or other zoos) address the obvious issue that captive born tigers are a substantial risk to the human population due to their lack of fear of humans?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Clearly, I don't agree fully with his statements on zoos as I believe they are far too reductive and I do believe and quite passionately that they have utility for both ex-situ and in-situ contributions to efforts to conserve endangered species.

Where I find myself agreeing with some of his points and seeing the validity of some of his argument is when it comes to larger mammals within captivity and when he questions the conservation and educational output of many zoos.

To be clear, my stance on zoos is quite utilitarian as I am a conservationist, I believe these institutions should be centres / vehicles of conservation and education and I do feel cynical about the claims of many of them to be such.

I think it is an important discussion and I do think it is quite a shame that communication has broken down and that a middle ground could not be reached here...

 

[Damian Aspinall]

@Damian Aspinall, you say you have successfully released 70 Gorillas back into the wild. How do you measure 'success' here? Do you track all of these gorillas (either individually or as troops) over any period of time? If so, for how long? For example, Perth Zoo released a female Sumatran orangutan into the wild in 2006 and tracked her for three years, until she had become adjusted to life in the wild.

Also, I note tigers are kept at your zoos and presumably these are not exempt from your belief that all zoo animals should be released back into the wild. How would you (or other zoos) address the obvious issue that captive born tigers are a substantial risk to the human population due to their lack of fear of humans?

Thank you for your question and i will answer as best as i can..
we have tracked all the gorillas since the release for the last 20 years as we employ people on the ground to do this and it is measured daily and ultimately by scientific papers that are written and submitted to the community including EAZA gas etc.I do hope this clarifies your answer.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Right, but lets not skip over the fact that large mammals and particularly African and Asian megafauna (many of which belong to species that are not threatened) would count for an outsized portion of zoo mammals.

well there are 800 mammal species in captivity and and your assumption that small mammals and insects etc don't apply is just plainly wrong i have been to many many zoos where these smaller animals are kept in far worse conditions. thank you for your comment

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

Thank you for your question and i will answer as best as i can..
we have tracked all the gorillas since the release for the last 20 years as we employ people on the ground to do this and it is measured daily and ultimately by scientific papers that are written and submitted to the community including EAZA gas etc.I do hope this clarifies your answer.

See, that is an example of an actual good question. Also, very interesting answer, as I know surprisingly little about the inner workings of the Aspinall Foundation despite having been visiting consistently for years.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

well there are 800 mammal species in captivity and and your assumption that small mammals and insects etc don't apply is just plainly wrong i have been to many many zoos where these smaller animals are kept in far worse conditions. thank you for your comment

Well I haven't said that they don't apply to the discussion as I agree with you that the conditions they are kept in within many zoos could be drastically improved.

There is a photo in the zoochat gallery that I have seen for example that illustrates this point well. It is of a little marsupial carnivore from Australia called a kowari that is kept in an enclosure that appears to be a converted wardrobe in a zoo in the Czech Republic (posted in the link below).

Kowari enclosure - ZooChat

For many zoos (though not all), small mammals, insects, amphibians, fish and reptiles often play second, third or even fourth fiddle to the large and "charismatic" mammals and this bias can be reflected in enclosures that simply do not meet their requirements in captivity.

What I have said is that I believe smaller taxa are often better suited to ex-situ management by decent zoos when this is also complemented heavily by a focus on in-situ conservation. For example, the work of Jersey zoo and the Durrell trust with the Malagasy giant jumping rat.

Conversely, I strongly believe that megafauna benefits significantly more from in-situ based conservation than ex-situ which is something that you also seem to agree with.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Not. People very patiently keep giving you reasons but you simply ignore them. You are also unwilling to check in the internet for objective papers which show the value of zoos for education and wild conservation.

You are also mis-interpreting 'all the thousands of species' held in zoos. By sheer number of species, most are invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, rodents and rescued local animals, for which your arguments of lack of space and great emotional needs don't apply. For large mammals and large birds, there are only several hundred of species kept (excluding local rescues) and large proportion of individuals belong to threatened species.

You also seem to mis-understand that budgets of zoos worldwide could go directly for conservation. It is a so-called fallacy of fixed lump of conservation money. Zoo budget comes from the money city people spend for recreation. If there were no zoos, none would be spend on conservation, because the money would be spent on shopping malls, theme parks, sport centers etc.

Reason is not fact i want to consider anything if it is supported by fact including any papers that support that zoos educate the public effectively to support the argument of zoos in the first place.
I have read many to date and none do but if anyone want to send me a paper which provides independent evidence i will happily read it ..and then happily discuss..

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Well I haven't said that they don't apply to the discussion as I agree with you that the conditions they are kept in within many zoos could be drastically improved.

There is a photo in the zoochat gallery that I have seen for example that illustrates this point well. It is of a little marsupial carnivore from Australia called a kowari that is kept in an enclosure that appears to be a converted wardrobe in a zoo in the Czech Republic (posted in the link below).

Kowari enclosure - ZooChat

For many zoos (though not all), small mammals, insects, amphibians, fish and reptiles often play second, third or even fourth fiddle to the large and "charismatic" mammals and this bias can be reflected in enclosures that simply do not meet their requirements in captivity.

What I have said is that I believe smaller taxa are often better suited to ex-situ management by decent zoos when this is also complemented heavily by a focus on in-situ conservation. For example, the work of Jersey zoo and the Durrell trust with the Malagasy giant jumping rat.

Conversely, I strongly believe that megafauna benefits significantly more from in-situ based conservation than ex-situ which is something that you also seem to agree with.

If the only solution to smaller taxa is zoos then i would be fine with that and subject to a rigorous process to determine that outcome.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

If the only solution to smaller taxa is zoos then i would be fine with that and subject to a rigorous process to determine that outcome.

Well I agree with you that even with smaller taxa it is up for debate whether zoos are ultimately the best destination for them and I also agree that even with this it should be subject to a process which ascertains whether this is a desireable outcome.

But I do think that there are some zoos that do a very good job with this kind of taxa (for example Jersey zoo / Durrell trust) and I think they should continue to do so. I also think that if in the best scenario many large mammals that are not well suited to captivity are indeed to be phased out then this is what many zoos out there could aim to shift to focusing on.

That is to say providing the aforementioned zoos also commit to long term in-situ too and that the species kept are indeed suitable for zoos and not better suited to ex-situ management within the country of species occurence (and yes this is often a better option).

 

[Damian Aspinall]

As I have said one side has and does acknowledge some of the views of the other side (Damian), thinks all zoos should close and keeping animals in captivity is cruel and does not accept that zoos can play any role in conservation.

And Damian is not going to change his mind even if he has come here under the pretence that he wants to prove him wrong.

Lets deal with facts .. i have said that zoos should phase out of inbred hybrids diseased and non genetically viable animals for a start .. my guess that would be around 70% of animals in zoos .. then phase out of all animals over 20-30 years ... the reason again are 95% of animals in zoos are not critically endangered and of the 45 species of critically endangered mammals only a tiny handful perhaps 5-7 species are actually viable. I do believe keeping any animal in zoos including our own and we have some of the best facilities is cruel or in efficient if you care about the welfare of the animals which I do. hope this helps

 

[birdsandbats]

Lets deal with facts .. i have said that zoos should phase out of inbred hybrids diseased and non genetically viable animals for a start .. my guess that would be around 70% of animals in zoos .. then phase out of all animals over 20-30 years ... the reason again are 95% of animals in zoos are not critically endangered and of the 45 species of critically endangered mammals only a tiny handful perhaps 5-7 species are actually viable. I do believe keeping any animal in zoos including our own and we have some of the best facilities is cruel or in efficient if you care about the welfare of the animals which I do. hope this helps

70% of animals in zoos are hybrids? That is a drastic overestimate.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Lets deal with facts .. i have said that zoos should phase out of inbred hybrids diseased and non genetically viable animals for a start .. my guess that would be around 70% of animals in zoos .. then phase out of all animals over 20-30 years ... the reason again are 95% of animals in zoos are not critically endangered and of the 45 species of critically endangered mammals only a tiny handful perhaps 5-7 species are actually viable. I do believe keeping any animal in zoos including our own and we have some of the best facilities is cruel or in efficient if you care about the welfare of the animals which I do. hope this helps

Wouldn't you concede that there is a marked difference in the way that an axolotl, golden poison frog, Potosi pupfish or even a Malagasy giant jumping rat cognitively and behaviourally experience the condition of captivity in comparison say to a Western Lowland gorilla, African elephant, okapi, or a Siberian tiger ?

Because I would tend towards thinking that the former suffer a lot less stress within captive environments (providing that their needs are met well) than the latter which are prone to stereotypical behaviour and other psycho-physiological stress induced illnesses from being in captivity.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

70% of animals in zoos are hybrids? That is a drastic overestimate.

No that's not what i said please read my thread again >..thank you

 

[amur leopard]

Lets deal with facts

of the 45 species of critically endangered mammals only a tiny handful perhaps 5-7 species are actually viable

Where are you getting the '45 species' from? There are 48 critically endangered species/subspecies in Europe alone, and likely far more across the globe where zoos tend to exhibit a more local collection.
Also, what are the 5-7 species you refer to here, and why are the others not viable? Finally, would you rather there were no, for example, Amur leopards or Eastern bongos left than for there to be a large, thriving (albeit genetically limited) population within zoos?