Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yes, I know, I was just curious as to where abouts in the zoos the golden cats were historically kept and whether the enclosure still exists.
Damian Aspinall: You all know my views on zoos prove me wrong
- Thread starter Damian Aspinall
- Start date
Yes, I know, I was just curious as to where abouts in the zoos the golden cats were historically kept and whether the enclosure still exists.
I agree with you but Sumatran rhinos are a major flagship species even your rhino keepers would/should of been aware of this news and if they have contact with you why would you also not be aware of this major news in the zoo world?
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with you that zoos have saved a lot of species people make these statements with out any real evidence this is true. At best it may be a handful of species so how that justifies the existence of zoos and the thousand of species in them is a mystery to me. Secondly look at all the damage zoos have done to species people just ignore this continually. Its simply to uncomfortable for people who support zoos to engage with. Zoos have misrepresented themselves to the public and have let down the animals in there care and anyone who really wants to engage ought to know the facts re these matters before they cast there produced judgements.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
Firstly most animals in zoos are not able to be re wilded because they carry disease or are hybrids or not genetically viable which make the argument of conservation absurd.
Simply we need to protect the wild better and all the money wasted on zoos could be re channeled into protection.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
This again is a very reductive statement Damian and I respectfully disagree with it.
I would say that some zoos have done damage, a great many have misrepresented themselves to the public, many have let down the animals in there care but there are a select group that have done and continue to do great things for conservation (i.e. Durrell trust / Jersey zoo).
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yes, I totally agree, we do need to protect the wild and focus on broader ecosystem conservation.
Furthermore, I agree there is a lot of money wasted on zoos and flashy exhibits that could be re-channeled into in-situ conservation.
However, I believe there is still a need in certain situations for ex-situ and a role for some zoos to play in this.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
There are perhaps a very very small number of zoos that may do some good but that does not justify the existence of zoos at all. I put our own at some of the best and i cannot justify our own existence if it was not for all the re wilding we do
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
See I would agree somewhat with some of the points of that statement but the generalization of all zoos is not appropriate in my opinion.
Personally I would rephrase it as there are a minority of zoos that may do some good and that this does not justify the existence of all zoos (that is just my own take on it though).
However, it does indeed justify the existence of that said minority that go above and beyond the call of duty in terms of contributing to conservation in the field and within their institutions.
Last edited:
Your just wrong bro there are quite a few species that have been re-wilded you should know this
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
Your just wrong bro there are quite a few species that have been re-wilded you should know this
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
I am aware that some of the smaller species have been re wilded however a only handful of larger mammals have been re wilded and none of the above justifies zoos. The truth if zoos want to continue to justify there existence then they must do much more. My view is they don't want to and they won't .
I have enjoyed this debate although it is now going around in circles a bit with polarized views. A few years back I wrote a piece where I played the Devil's Advocate and embraced some of the views that Damien is putting forward. I examined them and argued that there is a huge role for zoos although it needs a lot of thought, with a rethinking of dearly held, but sometimes mistaken, beliefs. The article made me very unpopular with some colleagues although I am just embracing the views of Gerald Durrell and questioning what we do, and how we do them. Zoos will be stronger by learning from failure and building upon what works. The article called Limits of the Ark is attached.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
Thank you and have read with great interest and agree with 90% and it is true peoples views are to polarised to change which is what i believe needs to happen. Thank you for your interest in this debate.
Why then are you re wilding your honey badger if it is a hybrid??
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
It is not a hybrid both parents are from SA origin.
It looks like Damian is discussion deaf and just returned to the same nonsense of 'handful of species' after been shown to be wrong.
Carl: your article has weaknesses in reasoning which come up again in discussion about zoos. My comment:
- Value of tropical zoos and semi-captive breeding centers was NEVER evaluated large scale in the same way as Western zoos. All we hear are one-off examples of good tropical centers (often just starting) and one-off bad zoos. In fact, in tropics successes are few, these places often fail from the same problems as wild populations nearby (especially poor governance and uncertain funding). Most rely directly on Western zoos for expertise in wild animal husbandry and funding. Many so-called sanctuaries are venues aimed at foreign tourists with no real conservation action - a direct counterpart of the worst entertainment-based menageries.
- Every single endangered species which is saved is an achievement. it is false reasoning not to save anything, because zoos cannot save all.
- Many groups of species thrive and breed well in zoos and contain more species than zoos have physical space to keep. Therefore that many other groups do poorly in zoos is not an issue for zoos in general. Zoos can either not keep them or carefully figure out their requirements. Zoos can keep great apes, big cats, bears and bottlenose dolphins, and largely avoid red colobuses, lagomorphs, roe deer, colugos, big whales etc.
- Saving species in the wild is ALSO more often failure than not, and often turns impossible (animals go extinct).Most rare species in the wild have decreasing populations and most reserves are poorly or not at all managed and lose rare species. Anti-zoo people generally ignore it and judge zoos to higher standards and national parks to lower standards. I once said that it is possible to call two Asian reserves where whole population of rhinos was killed for one individual Sumatran rhinoceros which died without breeding in a Western zoo.
- Improving conservation in the wild is not simply the matter of moving more funds to the wild. In this way, billions were wasted over decades by putting them in national parks and generally in failed development aid. Issues like civil unrest, poor governance, invasive species, bad political decisions in the tropics are common and cannot be solved with conservation money or wished away.
- Money generated by zoos towards wild conservation come from money spend by city people on entertainment. It is well known that it cannot be taken directly to tropical conservation, but this argument is tried or implied ad nauseam.
Carl: your article has weaknesses in reasoning which come up again in discussion about zoos. My comment:
- Value of tropical zoos and semi-captive breeding centers was NEVER evaluated large scale in the same way as Western zoos. All we hear are one-off examples of good tropical centers (often just starting) and one-off bad zoos. In fact, in tropics successes are few, these places often fail from the same problems as wild populations nearby (especially poor governance and uncertain funding). Most rely directly on Western zoos for expertise in wild animal husbandry and funding. Many so-called sanctuaries are venues aimed at foreign tourists with no real conservation action - a direct counterpart of the worst entertainment-based menageries.
- Every single endangered species which is saved is an achievement. it is false reasoning not to save anything, because zoos cannot save all.
- Many groups of species thrive and breed well in zoos and contain more species than zoos have physical space to keep. Therefore that many other groups do poorly in zoos is not an issue for zoos in general. Zoos can either not keep them or carefully figure out their requirements. Zoos can keep great apes, big cats, bears and bottlenose dolphins, and largely avoid red colobuses, lagomorphs, roe deer, colugos, big whales etc.
- Saving species in the wild is ALSO more often failure than not, and often turns impossible (animals go extinct).Most rare species in the wild have decreasing populations and most reserves are poorly or not at all managed and lose rare species. Anti-zoo people generally ignore it and judge zoos to higher standards and national parks to lower standards. I once said that it is possible to call two Asian reserves where whole population of rhinos was killed for one individual Sumatran rhinoceros which died without breeding in a Western zoo.
- Improving conservation in the wild is not simply the matter of moving more funds to the wild. In this way, billions were wasted over decades by putting them in national parks and generally in failed development aid. Issues like civil unrest, poor governance, invasive species, bad political decisions in the tropics are common and cannot be solved with conservation money or wished away.
- Money generated by zoos towards wild conservation come from money spend by city people on entertainment. It is well known that it cannot be taken directly to tropical conservation, but this argument is tried or implied ad nauseam.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your comment it is the people like yourself that are discussion deaf and unwilling to consider the reality of the situation zoos find themselves in today. It is a very sad fact of life that 95% of species in zoos have no right to be there at all they are just entertainment for the public secondly what have you to say about all the hybridisation issues the disease issues or the problems with genetically unviable species.No one has come back and disproven this in this debate and the reason is they cannot as it is true. The above accounts for most mammal species in captivity. I know this as I have done the work on this ..have you ? What about all the hundreds of millions wasted on ridiculous enclosures that feed the publics appetite but not the animals welfare. Again absolutely no one has been able to justify this money spent..why because they know deep down it is a waste of money.
All you naysayers just ignore these issues and continue to bury your head in the sand.
There are many many fantastic in situ projects doing amazing conservation work and to imply that zoos can do this better is just absurd. As regard to the supposed expertise of people in zoos i actually find the opposite to be true. Most zoo people have naive entrenched thinking and beliefs that actually do more harm than good. People with this zootopian view of the world need to wake up to what is actually happening and happened in zoos over the years. It is time to put pride aside and reevaluate otherwise it will happen anyway through government and public pressure.Again thank you for your comment.
At this point the argument is loosing any purpose, as it doesn’t seem to matter how many reasons as to the positives of zoos and how many species we name that they have saved (I’m sure many of us could go on) the is no effort whatsoever on Damian’s part to pay any attention to what is actually being said, as each credible argument given has simply been greeted with ‘well, that doesn’t justify the existence of zoos’, and is failing to add up all of the many reasons various people with different backgrounds and experiences have come to the same conclusion of and are now giving, which overall amounts to a lot of evidence.
I do believe that this is a discussion that needs to be had, however despite the many pieces of evidence that Damian has put across, I maintain my views. I am not burying my head in the sand, I just don’t share that opinion, and of course he has a point but equally there are important points to be made on both sides. And it is unlikely that Damian will change his view either (despite using the same two or three points over and over) because of the way he views the situation combined with his background and experiences. The points are important but neither side has gained any traction and BOTH sides have valid points.
I do believe that this is a discussion that needs to be had, however despite the many pieces of evidence that Damian has put across, I maintain my views. I am not burying my head in the sand, I just don’t share that opinion, and of course he has a point but equally there are important points to be made on both sides. And it is unlikely that Damian will change his view either (despite using the same two or three points over and over) because of the way he views the situation combined with his background and experiences. The points are important but neither side has gained any traction and BOTH sides have valid points.
taun
Well-Known Member
Surely the burden of proof lies on you as you are making this calm, you are the one saying this and yet you have not provided a shred of evidence to support it.
Again, take your blinkers off I don't think anyone is saying this...there are some that are doing incredible work that zoos could not replicate but that is not true off all of them. Just as the same that can be levelled at zoos. You think your zoos is one of the best but say all zoos are evil and cruel and should close, so how can your zoo be one of the best if they are all cruel?
You would find people more engaging if your retoric was more open and engaging.
Again, I think we all wants best for the incredible flora and fauna that we share this world with, we just disagree in how that should be achieved and I think you will find the answer lie somewhere between the two polar opposites. So maybe get off that high horse and engage and give a bit of credit to some of the fantastic work zoos have done just as we would do with your own zoos.
Damian Aspinall
Well-Known Member
No high horse just high morals
i have offered proof to a number of people and no one has taken it up not surprisingly. I have given the name of someone with contact info who has collated all the evidence so that it can be shared. Check your facts before you make these accusations I do believe our own parks are one of the best however i also say if you read that they fall fowl to exactly the same issues which is why i am doing what i am doing. My rhetoric is to engage debate which it has done and i hope it has proven beyond any doubt the hopelessness of the pro zoo argument to anyone who is not wearing zootopian blinkers. Thank you for your comment