Colchester Zoo Interview with the owner
- Thread starter CZJimmy
- Start date
(Quote from the article) "A keen animal lover and conservationist, Mr Tropeano admits that in an ideal world zoos would not have to exist..."
If Dominique Tropeano really said this, I must completely disagree with him. I really hate this idea that zoos are a sort of 'necessary evil'. Not everyone is wealthy enough - or even healthy enough - to go looking for animals in the wild. If zoos didn't exist, the vast majority of people would have no opportunity to see living exotic animals. I wonder if Mr. Tropeano feels obliged to come out with this kind of politically-correct nonsense when talking to the British media?
If Dominique Tropeano really said this, I must completely disagree with him. I really hate this idea that zoos are a sort of 'necessary evil'. Not everyone is wealthy enough - or even healthy enough - to go looking for animals in the wild. If zoos didn't exist, the vast majority of people would have no opportunity to see living exotic animals. I wonder if Mr. Tropeano feels obliged to come out with this kind of politically-correct nonsense when talking to the British media?
I think it is rather a trite statement. Colchester Zoo do some conservation work but the majority of the animal collection is there as a spectacle for the public to visit and as a money making venture. I don't think its a case of needing the zoo in order to keep species alive, at least not with many of the species Colchester displays.
karenZOO
Well-Known Member
I would like to live in an ideal world 
I think it is a statement to justify to people that dont necessary approve of zoos and one I have made myself during heated discussions with anti zoo friends!
He doesnt say that the previous owners were relatives either!
They do also own their own Private Nature Reserve in Kwazulu Natal, South Africa so do have the best of both worlds.
I wouldnt mind living in their world.
The Umphafa at Colchester Zoo
I think it is a statement to justify to people that dont necessary approve of zoos and one I have made myself during heated discussions with anti zoo friends!He doesnt say that the previous owners were relatives either!
They do also own their own Private Nature Reserve in Kwazulu Natal, South Africa so do have the best of both worlds.
I wouldnt mind living in their world.
The Umphafa at Colchester Zoo
Was Frank Farrar his relative- an inlaw perhaps? FF was basically an animal dealer with Colchester Zoo as a staging post for stock.... I often wondered how these foreign- sounding people came to take over a Zoo in Essex and now perhaps I can see how it happened.
The more I think of it, the statement about zoos is meaningless.
Last edited:
karenZOO
Well-Known Member
Sorry Pertinax I have been trying to find out where I got the info from about them being related but cant find it anywhere now Iv said it!
I am sure its through his wife Helena ? sure it was cousin or something but don't quote me till I find the source
They are French I think? seem to think something to do with catering or maybe I have dreamt the lot
I am sure its through his wife Helena ? sure it was cousin or something but don't quote me till I find the source
They are French I think? seem to think something to do with catering or maybe I have dreamt the lot
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
The 'in a perfect world' line of argument is one which has been put forward frequently, and it really bugs me, for all manner of reasons...
1. It's indicative of the fact that some people in the zoo world aren't really zoo people - they work in zoos, but would really rather be doing something else to do with animals. (I really don't think this applies to tropeano at all).
2. If an animal can be kept 'happily' in captivity, we can justify keeping it in captivity. If it cannot, we cannot. End of story, regardless of its conservation value. As Pertinax suggests above, it is erroneous to think that all of Colchester's - or any zoo's - collection is vital for conservation. It isn't. But I don't think their meerkats, for example, are suffering by being in Essex rather than namibia - on the contrary, their lives are probably considerably less nasty, brutish and short than would be the case in the wild - so there is an excellent justification for keeping them for you and I (and others) to enjoy their place in our lives.
3. Seeing animals in the wild is wonderful, but it is a wholly different experience to seeing them in captivity. Neither is better or purer than the other.
In an ideal world there might not be so much fake rock-work at Colchester, nor the piped music, nor the garish signs - but the zoo would certainly be there, with exotic beasts to enrich the lives of those who pay to see them.
1. It's indicative of the fact that some people in the zoo world aren't really zoo people - they work in zoos, but would really rather be doing something else to do with animals. (I really don't think this applies to tropeano at all).
2. If an animal can be kept 'happily' in captivity, we can justify keeping it in captivity. If it cannot, we cannot. End of story, regardless of its conservation value. As Pertinax suggests above, it is erroneous to think that all of Colchester's - or any zoo's - collection is vital for conservation. It isn't. But I don't think their meerkats, for example, are suffering by being in Essex rather than namibia - on the contrary, their lives are probably considerably less nasty, brutish and short than would be the case in the wild - so there is an excellent justification for keeping them for you and I (and others) to enjoy their place in our lives.
3. Seeing animals in the wild is wonderful, but it is a wholly different experience to seeing them in captivity. Neither is better or purer than the other.
In an ideal world there might not be so much fake rock-work at Colchester, nor the piped music, nor the garish signs - but the zoo would certainly be there, with exotic beasts to enrich the lives of those who pay to see them.
