QUOTE=Chlidonias;809999] Zoos have always been about entertainment but as times have progressed they "have gotten a bigger importance along the way". They need the popular animals to get people in so that they can undertake the less charismatic work. Unfortunately it does seem many many zoos use "conservation" as an excuse or justification, and too many treat it
solely as a people-through-the-gates business (hence all the replication of meerkats at the expense of perfectly acceptable substitute mongooses). [/QUOTE]
I accept that zoos need a few popular animals to attract people that see zoos as a form of entertainment and/or have a limited knowledge of biodiversity. One of the problems is when zoos decide that they need larger and/or additional enclosures for popular animals and these replace enclosures occupied by less popular, and often endangered, animals e.g. more than one enclosure for meerkats
QUOTE=Chlidonias;809999] I think you have two basic misunderstandings with your thought processes. One is where you say things like "If there is no intention to reintroduce western gorillas into the wild, why are zoos breeding them". Humans suffer from a sort of "instant gratification" disorder -- if they can't see something happening immediately then it isn't happening. There is no real need to return gorillas to the wild
right now, the purpose of most zoo populations of endangered species has always been "back-up". Some species (mostly small ones) are bred specifically for release, but most (e.g. most of the larger ones) are a sort of contingency population. Ideally gorillas (as the example at hand) can be entirely preserved as wild populations, but in a worst case scenario they are also available as captive animals for reintroductions. Zoos like gorillas because they are popular, but that serves a good purpose (unlike, say, meerkats
). [/QUOTE]
I accept that many people want instant gratification and I’ve seen many people looking to find an animal in an enclosure and then moving straight onto the next enclosure. I suppose they see quite a few animals, but learn little about them. People have complained about not seeing certain animals and I suppose they may feel put out that a more naturalistic enclosure makes animals harder to see than when the animal was exhibited in a bare, concrete box. As natural habitats are being destroyed at an alarming rate, why are zoos breeding animals that they have already saved if there is no intention of sending any to the wild? I agree with David Attenborough that people could save the planet, but won’t. If there is no need to return gorillas to the wild now, will there be a time when there is enough space to return them to the wild in the future? If there are too many gorillas in the wild now to justify reintroduction, why are zoos aiming to breed more of them, thus taking up more space in zoos? As meerkats are popular zoo animals and people want to see them in zoos, why do you feel that they don’t serve a good purpose?
QUOTE=Chlidonias;809999] The second misunderstanding you have is where you use lines to the effect of "there are about 3 times as many captive western gorillas as are needed to save the species". You say this quite a bit for various popular species like gorillas and tigers. If I interpret you correctly, you are just taking the theoretical figure for which a captive population needs to be to preserve the genetic diversity of that species long-term (let's say 500 individuals for arguments sake) and assuming that is all there needs to be. Once you hit that figure the species is "saved" and it just needs to be kept at that number. That's not really how it works. It is a guideline, a base minimum if you like. Aside from right here, right now, really nothing has been saved. Conservation is ongoing. You don't stop when you have X number of tigers in zoos and say "right, what do we do next".[/QUOTE]
Several years ago, I read an article about how many vertebrate species could be saved from extinction if half the area of each zoo was devoted to endangered species. I think the figure was about 4,500. I have been to several zoos where a very high percentage of the animals are ‘Not Yet Threatened’ and some of the animals are very abundant, such as brown rats. The basic figure for zoos saving a species is about 250 genetically diverse individuals; a few years ago, I remember the minimum figure being 80. It depends how many species you want to save. Personally, I would like zoos to save as many species as possible. I would prefer 8 species with 250 individuals each, rather than one species with 2,000 individuals. Therefore, I disagree with you about the idea of continually building up numbers of certain species, as this can seriously impact on the chances of survival of less popular species in captivity.
If a species is larger and requires far more space, with no real likelihood of being reintroduced, is there really any point in continually breeding more individuals and getting other zoos to take on offspring, while removing other species from the collection? It’s basically a case of having a balance and trying to save as many species as possible and keeping them in a way that will make reintroduction possible. By concentrating on large, popular animals, many zoos are indirectly making some other species more vulnerable to extinction. Smaller animals could be saved, bred and reintroduced to small areas of surviving habitat. The way things are going, many large species are going to be hard to reintroduce, even if this is possible.
Gorillas have been protected in the wild thanks, in part to the financial incentive of international conservation monies and ecotourist income” .
I agree that there are many people who have helped to save various species and much of my interest in animals is due to visits to zoos. Many people have also helped preserve animals that they haven’t seen in zoos. A few years ago, I went to Shepreth and noted the information about how different animals are threatened and what people can do to help them. Many of the animals were not found in the collection, but it didn’t stop Shepreth trying to save the animals.
To reduce animals in collections to no more than oddities in an emporium is to insult the work and intentions of zoo people the world over. .
I know various people who are involved in conserving animals. I have also helped provide information for ZSL projects to save animals that are not kept at Regent’s Park or Whipsnade. I am not aiming to insult zoo people or to hark back to an age where animals were kept in cramped conditions for people to feed, prod and gawp at. Many zoo people are dedicated, caring people who often work unpaid. I just feel that zoos should be saving more species, rather than building up larger collections of the same species.
Of course zoos need visitors to survive and one must give visitors what they want to a large extent. But there is so much more going on. I object to the simplification, cynicism and naivete of statements that zoos are only focused on the business and that they ought not to focus on the business at all. The truth lies somewhere in between.
I agree that people have got to be attracted in to a zoo, but once inside, zoos could do more to interest people in the animals that they hadn’t expected to see. One zoo had a ‘paradise tree snake’ on display. Wouldn’t visitors be more interested if it was listed as a ‘”flying” snake’ and there was accompanying audio-visual information about the species? While a lack of knowledge in finance can seriously jeopardise a zoo, similarly a lack of knowledge in animals is not a help. I had a talk with a member of staff at Antwerp Zoo. He said that the Genk Zoo was the worst in the world. The zoo obtained animals, didn’t look after them well and then replaced them when they died, often after a relatively short time. There were no veterinary staff and Antwerp Zoo got fed up with providing free medical care. This is not the kind of zoo I would condone. If animals are to be kept in a zoo, they should be cared for and kept in naturalistic enclosures. It needs a balance between raising money and caring for the animals.
I'll add this as well, I am saddened that zoos appear to be simplifying their collections. I know of several, for example, that have redeveloped their bird houses and in so doing have reduced the diversity of the bird collections drastically. For me, seeing such variety and diversity of birds (again only one example) in a facility increases my appreciation for birds the world over and the threats to their survival. But there is a lack of imagination about how to fire up the current visitor population about something so seemingly ubiquitous as birds.
I must admit that this is my favourite paragraph, Zooplantman. I agree with you and I feel sad when I think of various animals that I used to see as a child and which I shall probably never see again.
