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

[Mr. Zootycoon]

Thank you for your article, @Carl Jones, an interesting read and it mostly sums up my views on zoo conservation (but worded and argued better that I ever could have done) while providing a few new interesting insights.

---

A background assumption that has surfaced often in this thread but is rarely articulated is the assumption that we should judge zoos mainly or entirely on their merits as conservation centers, with a clear emphasis on ex-situ breeding programs. In my opinion this view of zoos is reductive at best. Zoos are more than breeding centers opened to the public.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

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.

A very interesting piece @Carl Jones and one that if I'm honest is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow but there is some cold hard logic and sound reasoning in the article that is very difficult to argue with.

I do agree with you in terms of a lot of these species being better conserved in-situ and within their range countries but there is more within the article and specifically the future of zoos that I would like to ask you about.

I have to ask, in the five years since you wrote the article have any of your positions that you raised in this piece changed in any way ?

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Thank you for your article, @Carl Jones, an interesting read and it mostly sums up my views on zoo conservation (but worded and argued better that I ever could have done) while providing a few new interesting insights.

---

A background assumption that has surfaced often in this thread but is rarely articulated is the assumption that we should judge zoos mainly or entirely on their merits as conservation centers, with a clear emphasis on ex-situ breeding programs. In my opinion this view of zoos is reductive at best. Zoos are more than breeding centers opened to the public.

I agree they are and all for the wrong reasons very sadly..whatever reason people try to justify the purpose of zoos at the end of the day it results in millions of animals stuck in sub standard enclosures all over the world because of the myths education conservation and the worst of all "its nice for people to be able to see these animals "
There is a headwind on the way as regards the future oz zoos which will turn into a storm pretty quick The first of this headwind will be the abolishment of Ele in captivity in UK and the sooner the better ...Thank for comment

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

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.

Damian, what about species that are specifically threatened with extinction from hybridization and disease in the wild ?

Like the buffy tufted and buffy headed marmosets that I work with.

 

[Dassie rat]

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.

Hello, Damien

A few years ago, there was a rather animated debate on Zoochat about Barcelona Zoo planning to only keep species that could be reintroduced into the wild.

Do you think that Howletts and Port Lympne could adopt this example and reduce the species that are not part of a reintroduction programme?

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Damian, what about species that are specifically threatened with extinction from hybridization and disease in the wild ?

Like the buffy tufted and buffy headed marmosets that I work with.

I would need to understand fully the facts and details before i could really comment.
In some cases as i have said the same diseases that are in the wild are in captivity

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Hello, Damien

A few years ago, there was a rather animated debate on Zoochat about Barcelona Zoo planning to only keep species that could be reintroduced into the wild.

Do you think that Howletts and Port Lympne could adopt this example and reduce the species that are not part of a reintroduction programme?

This is our aim and have started the process however i do believe there is a need for rescue centres where animals are given a better life.

 

[Shirokuma]

There is a headwind on the way as regards the future oz zoos which will turn into a storm pretty quick

Can you elaborate on this? What evidence is it based on? How will this ‘storm’ materialise? And what is it based on?

 

[Rayane]

This is our aim and have started the process however i do believe there is a need for rescue centres where animals are given a better life.

Out of curiosity, what should be done with all the non-subspecific individuals in captivity? They can be lions as well as turquoise tanagers, both of them non rewildable am I right?

 

[TeaLovingDave]

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 ?

Quite a few people in this thread have asked you to cite at least some of the CE mammal species in European collections whose captive populations you suggest are mere hybrids, and thus far you haven't answered this question - it is somewhat difficult for the members of this site to disprove claims which are never actually expanded on by yourself when asked.

On a related note, you have also yet to acknowledge the point made by several people in this thread that the categories of "Extinct in the Wild", "Endangered" and "Threatened" also include species which are of conservation significance, not merely "Critically Endangered" - as such, the number of species in captivity requiring no conservation action is rather lower than the 95% cited interchangeably for CE and unthreatened species.

Anyhow, good to see this overall discussion going a bit more smoothly now.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

The article called Limits of the Ark is attached.

Excellent - I shall enjoy reading that when I get onto my computer later Carl

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

I agree they are and all for the wrong reasons very sadly..whatever reason people try to justify the purpose of zoos at the end of the day it results in millions of animals stuck in sub standard enclosures all over the world because of the myths education conservation and the worst of all "its nice for people to be able to see these animals "

Damian, am I correct if I say that with "sub standard" you mean insufficient from an animal welfare point of view?

If so, I'm (again) interested to hear from you on what metrics (behavioural, endocrinological, etc.) you base the assertion on that a substantial part, of not all, zoo animals suffer from living in a zoo.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I would need to understand fully the facts and details before i could really comment.
In some cases as i have said the same diseases that are in the wild are in captivity

In our case (which I admit is a highly unusual one), in contrast to what you have said about the prevalence of hybridization and disease in animals in captivity / zoos our focal species are actually subject to far greater pressures from hybridization with Callithrix jacchus and Callithrix pencillata and disease outbreaks such as yellow fever in the wild. These in fact ARE the principal threats to the species in the wild.

So much so in fact that some form of ex-situ management (in zoos or otherwise) may be even required to prevent the genetic extinction of our species from hybridization with the invasive species that I have mentioned or metapopulations being literally wiped out by yellow fever. Regarding, the case of one of our two focal species, the buffy tufted marmoset (Callithrix aurita), we have so far found that the most genetically pure individuals are actually held ex-situ within zoos.

I am mentioning this specifically in the context of this debate because you have raised the issue of both disease and hybridization. I think our case here in Brazil clearly illustrates that it is far more nuanced a topic than you suggest it to be.

 

[Carl Jones]

A very interesting piece @Carl Jones and one that if I'm honest is a bit of a bitter pill to swallow but there is some cold hard logic and sound reasoning in the article that is very difficult to argue with.

I do agree with you in terms of a lot of these species being better conserved in-situ and within their range countries but there is more within the article and specifically the future of zoos that I would like to ask you about.

I have to ask, in the five years since you wrote the article have any of your positions that you raised in this piece changed in any way ?

Zoos have a huge part to play in future conservation by taking the skills of animal care and management into the field. The world is becoming radically altered and many species will only survive with our care. Many can be kept in captivity but this is far from ideal due to the genetic changes that happen in captivity as a result of the largely irreversible impacts of domestication, and there is not enough room for all the imperiled species.

An important and emerging area of conservation is the long-term management of free-living populations.at the interface between captivity and the wild. These will still be under some natural selection and fulfilling an ecological role.

The idea that we can save wild life by setting up protected areas, and restore systems to their once pristine state is limiting. Of course where we can protect and restore, we must. However in a rapidly changing and dynamic world protectionist approaches are not enough. In damaged and modified systems we have to help the failing populations and here a medical analogy is fitting. When critically endangered, species may need intensive care; the failing populations can be nurtured with the skills of animal management taken from captivity; by mitigating the limiting factors and improving survival and breeding, - that is by giving life sustaining care.

Zoos need to think beyond the cages and integrate their work more closely with the long-term care of animals in the wild.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Zoos have a huge part to play in future conservation by taking the skills of animal care and management into the field. The world is becoming radically altered and many species will only survive with our care. Many can be kept in captivity but this is far from ideal due to the genetic changes that happen in captivity as a result of the largely irreversible impacts of domestication, and there is not enough room for all the imperiled species.

An important and emerging area of conservation is the long-term management of free-living populations.at the interface between captivity and the wild. These will still be under some natural selection and fulfilling an ecological role.

The idea that we can save wild life by setting up protected areas, and restore systems to their once pristine state is limiting. Of course where we can protect and restore, we must. However in a rapidly changing and dynamic world protectionist approaches are not enough. In damaged and modified systems we have to help the failing populations and here a medical analogy is fitting. When critically endangered, species may need intensive care; the failing populations can be nurtured with the skills of animal management taken from captivity; by mitigating the limiting factors and improving survival and breeding, - that is by giving life sustaining care.

Zoos need to think beyond the cages and integrate their work more closely with the long-term care of animals in the wild.

Thank you for your reply @Carl Jones. This is very interesting to read and I agree with the points you make here.

One of the examples mentioned in your article is one that is very pertinent is that of the black lion and golden lion tamarins that are kept at Jersey zoo. Based on what I have been told by colleagues and what I have read giving these animals free-range of areas of the zoo has helped enormously with both reintroduction and subsequent survivorship.

Moreover, the concept of keeping primates at liberty but with some form of management is a very interesting one and one that I think is definitely worth implementing with many species (I know it is to some degrees already being done by IPE with the black lion tamarin). I also have to agree with you that this is ultimately a superior management strategy than confining animals to a life in zoos.

However, I also think that implementing this type of strategy if it is indeed feasible with our focal species would not be without its challenges in the case of the buffy tufted and buffy headed tamarin (at least in the short-term future).

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Zoos have a huge part to play in future conservation by taking the skills of animal care and management into the field. The world is becoming radically altered and many species will only survive with our care. Many can be kept in captivity but this is far from ideal due to the genetic changes that happen in captivity as a result of the largely irreversible impacts of domestication, and there is not enough room for all the imperiled species.

An important and emerging area of conservation is the long-term management of free-living populations.at the interface between captivity and the wild. These will still be under some natural selection and fulfilling an ecological role.

The idea that we can save wild life by setting up protected areas, and restore systems to their once pristine state is limiting. Of course where we can protect and restore, we must. However in a rapidly changing and dynamic world protectionist approaches are not enough. In damaged and modified systems we have to help the failing populations and here a medical analogy is fitting. When critically endangered, species may need intensive care; the failing populations can be nurtured with the skills of animal management taken from captivity; by mitigating the limiting factors and improving survival and breeding, - that is by giving life sustaining care.

Zoos need to think beyond the cages and integrate their work more closely with the long-term care of animals in the wild.

Also, one thing I noticed that you mention several times in your piece is the contributing role that other zoos, institutions, government legislation and overall bureaucracy played in some of the long-term failures or difficulties to effectively establish species at Jersey.

This really highlighted to me just how much of these problems are not necessarily or wholely related to the suitability of a species being managed ex-situ but rather in many cases human problems relating to organizational cultures of zoos (in the wider sense of zoo networks) and lack of vision or long-term commitment by zoos collectively.

Reading about these examples actually made me feel really very angry with the wider zoo community because ultimately I can forgive the general public and even governments of the developing world their ignorance for not caring about a Round Island boa or a black lion tamarin. However, I cannot forgive the supposedly educated zoo directors / curators of Europe and North America for their lack of interest or cooperation so easily.

I'll quote some of what you've written below:

"Many of these species bred successfully for several generations before failing. The main reasons they died out were because we were unable to maintain large enough populations, a lack of room, a lack of interest from those running other animal collections in collaborating in our breeding programmes, and staff and institutional fatigue in the species. After working with a species for several years staff want new challenges, and zoo marketing departments new stories to tell."

"Subsequently, however, zoos lost interest in them: the pigeons were problematic to keep as they were often aggressive to one another, were poor parents and were destructive to plants in aviaries. They were also not as spectacular or attractive for the general public as some other species that became available at the time. As a result, pink pigeons have declined in captivity until by 2015 there were only about 60 birds."

"The zoo based, long-term breeding programmes that are most likely to be successful are with the classic zoo animals, for which there are always a demand, and which can be maintained, across collections, in large numbers. The obscure, small, retiring and cryptic animals are of limited appeal and the idea that we will be able to establish self-sustaining captive populations of these in mainstream zoos is unrealistic."

 

[Jurek7]

The first of this headwind will be the abolishment of Ele in captivity in UK and the sooner the better ...

By the way, Asian Elephant EEP in Europe is now facing challenge of too good breeding of elephants. There is currently an issue what to do with at least 17 young Europe-bred bulls and new ones are coming. What if you could step in and release them in the range countries, this is considered one of the options?

https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/izy.12233

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

By the way, Asian Elephant EEP in Europe is now facing challenge of too good breeding of elephants. There is currently an issue what to do with at least 17 young Europe-bred bulls and new ones are coming. What if you could step in and release them in the range countries, this is considered one of the options?

https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/izy.12233

I have to add that this is a much better idea than the one you suggested in another thread of sending these to zoos in Central and South America.

 

[Zorro]

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.

I am starting to believe regardless of

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 .

So you are aware of some of the smaller species, well why are you not aware of some of the larger species your lack of insight into this really leads to believe you maybe are not who you are claimed to be and as far as the title of this thread says "prove me wrong" I really feel it could be more to do with that you want more to prove you are right

 

[Damian Aspinall]

I am starting to believe regardless of

So you are aware of some of the smaller species, well why are you not aware of some of the larger species your lack of insight into this really leads to believe you maybe are not who you are claimed to be and as far as the title of this thread says "prove me wrong" I really feel it could be more to do with that you want more to prove you are right

I am aware of the very few larger species and i suspect my insight is far greater than your own