Animal Rights
Well-Known Member
JUst to ask a question, how does Durrell's support for hunting get along with his conservation beliefs and measures?
Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust Jersey zoo
- Thread starter Animal Rights
- Start date
- Status
In answer to your question, most of Durrell's expeditions were before the conservation idea kicked in. Also, many of the greatest conservationists used to be hunters and trappers, you're continually saying how great people like Peter Scott are but he was an avid shooter of wildfowl including some species numbering less than 1000, Durrell didn't go round shooting Sumatran Rhino or Mountain Gorilla. In places like the cameroons he was living in the rainforests where people often got their food through hunting - it was a cheap source of food for someone who is not known for his wealth.
And anyway, does it really matter what he believed? You appear to have a vendetta against him for being racist - if you really cared about animals or conservation, you would look past this and see the good he has done. You appear to be picking faults. Well, everyone has their faults but Durrell did more to further the cause for conservation than, arguably, anyone else - Nelson Mandella was considered a terrorist in his youth but he is still seen as a national hero.
I suggest you go back to Born Free as this is clearly the wrong site for you.
Applause for Tetrapod and Hix who in my opinion made the only non-biased and non-bashing replies in this discussion.
First of all, @ Animal Rights. You seem to take a very biased stand against zoos. It seems to me that during the 70's and 80's you read a lot of Durrell's books and thought he was great. Now you seem to have read a whole lot against zoos, and suddenly there's not much credit left.
Shouldn't the truth be somewhere in the middle? Durrell lived in a time when collecting animals was normal, and some form of racism was even considered normal. Just because there where exceptions in his time (you seem to name a few) doesn't mean it wasn't. Every man (or woman) has his or her flaws, and this was one of them. It detracts from the person he was.
That doesn't mean that in a time that most zoos where merely there for entertainment, he did more. You seem to rather easily dismiss the fact Jersey zoo did a lot for island species. Now you can talk it down, like many anti-zoo people do, but in my opinion you can't deny he, and his organisation, deserve credit for it. It isn't, and definately wasn't, flawless!
Noone is, or was ever, flawless! Not even the greatest people ever where flawless. They where all compared to others that lived in their time, and where considered better then avarage and thus got credit for it. In my opinion, you could call Jersey Zoo better then average in those days, and thus they do too, deserve credit.
So don't praise the person Durrell as the greatest man ever, but give him credit where it's due. Nowhere near perfect, but at least he tried...
@ Jelle, there's no need to bash India's conservation scheme's. As far as i know they seem to do quite well there, with animals like the indian rhino (numbers are on the rise) and Gharial. Anyways, who are we to talk, coming from a country who shot/killed/made extinct just about anything bigger than a rabbit...
First of all, @ Animal Rights. You seem to take a very biased stand against zoos. It seems to me that during the 70's and 80's you read a lot of Durrell's books and thought he was great. Now you seem to have read a whole lot against zoos, and suddenly there's not much credit left.
Shouldn't the truth be somewhere in the middle? Durrell lived in a time when collecting animals was normal, and some form of racism was even considered normal. Just because there where exceptions in his time (you seem to name a few) doesn't mean it wasn't. Every man (or woman) has his or her flaws, and this was one of them. It detracts from the person he was.
That doesn't mean that in a time that most zoos where merely there for entertainment, he did more. You seem to rather easily dismiss the fact Jersey zoo did a lot for island species. Now you can talk it down, like many anti-zoo people do, but in my opinion you can't deny he, and his organisation, deserve credit for it. It isn't, and definately wasn't, flawless!
Noone is, or was ever, flawless! Not even the greatest people ever where flawless. They where all compared to others that lived in their time, and where considered better then avarage and thus got credit for it. In my opinion, you could call Jersey Zoo better then average in those days, and thus they do too, deserve credit.
So don't praise the person Durrell as the greatest man ever, but give him credit where it's due. Nowhere near perfect, but at least he tried...
@ Jelle, there's no need to bash India's conservation scheme's. As far as i know they seem to do quite well there, with animals like the indian rhino (numbers are on the rise) and Gharial. Anyways, who are we to talk, coming from a country who shot/killed/made extinct just about anything bigger than a rabbit...
Dear Mr. Ghosh,
Before we really digress into something sinister here. Some facts over myself and why I feel more than qualified to respond:
a) I can take criticism fine, but please leave my nationality, creed or moral ethics out of the equation! I may be white, but no person can accuse me of bias towards non-whites, different opinions or continents. Hell, I live in a multicultural society and fully respect everyone's cultural or moral background. Besides, I have travelled a fair bit of our planet so know more than enough about other peoples' mores and culture and I also respect them wherever they may be!
b) I am not aligned to a zoo, not a director nor a keeper. I am however a zoo volunteer, field biologist and wildlife conservation enthusiast and I love visitting zoos recognising their benefits for natural history science, zoology, botany, geology, climate processes, education, conservation breeding and support for in situ conservation.
c) Yes, I have an European perspective and that may be different from your Indian perspective. But why I am not qualified to discuss the pros and cons of Indian wildlife conservation and yet you are allowed freedoms when discussing the merits of Jersey Zoo is beyond me. To compare me those that David Hancocks is fighting is perhaps a jibe on your part, I find it far from humorous and patronising (to put it mildly). This site is for all forumsters to contribute to and all are welcome in principle ... but if your sole intention is to be bashful regarding a particular establishment - be you a member of their Trust or not - then be not surprised that others may disagree with your Zoocheck biased credentials and opinions.
d) I am fully aware of the history of the Indian subcontinent from the Moghul emperors to the present democratic states of Pakistan and India. I have deep respect for both Nehru and Gandhi (and a host of other people besides like Mikhail Gorbatchov, Nelson Mandela, Pancho Villa et al). Politics aside, I am aware of the early conservation ethic deeply engrained in Indian society. Yet more than 50 years on from these leaders of mankind, I find much at fault with wildlife conservation in India. No, it is not an European perspective here as I try to be unbiased at all times ...! For my examples of Project Tiger and rhino conservation I have cited native Indian scientists on the ground who have come out against the conventional norm that wildlife conservation is successful in India. It is far from that ... What I meant with 800-900 millions folks in an upcoming economy with a large proportion of people below the poverty line, one feels that the more educated and financially wealthy classes (or castes) of Indian society should bear the brunt of investing in more effective conservation at home. It is entirely fair on my part to point to India's own responsibilities in this respect. I feel that good governance and transparency are imperative in this effort, if international conservation assistance through the IUCN/WWF networks is to be more successful in India. Hence, I am entitled to my opinion here I suppose!
e) As for Indian zoos, I know that a good deal is not rosy yet ... but thanks to NGO's in India and the CBSG network management, husbandry and basic zoo design is gradually improving. A major step forward will be the integration of the Indian zoo network into the international zoo community. With this support on board, Indian zoos will be more able to implement credible and effective conservation education and breeding programmes that also benefit in situ conservation.
f) Your view that zoos should take the criticism aboard by animal welfarists is a view typical of those that do not recognise the ins and outs of zoo management fully in the wider global context. Zoos do have ethics committees that look at improving animal welfare by designing better exhibits, husbandry protocols and management procedures. The 4 pillars of zoos are education recreation, conservation and research in the widest context that that entails.
Suffice, you are welcome on the forum to comment and discuss on zoos and zoo visits + wildlife conservation issues. But I will not allow you to simply visit, put down some obvious Zoocheck biased quotes and than do a runner. If you would like to explore my convictions on conservation, Europe, India and else more fully or zoos in general with me than I will do so by e-mail or pm. So, if you have nothing positive to add that may benefit the site other than the obvious, please leave us in peace and let us explore our common forumsters hobby of the zoo world.
Before we really digress into something sinister here. Some facts over myself and why I feel more than qualified to respond:
a) I can take criticism fine, but please leave my nationality, creed or moral ethics out of the equation! I may be white, but no person can accuse me of bias towards non-whites, different opinions or continents. Hell, I live in a multicultural society and fully respect everyone's cultural or moral background. Besides, I have travelled a fair bit of our planet so know more than enough about other peoples' mores and culture and I also respect them wherever they may be!
b) I am not aligned to a zoo, not a director nor a keeper. I am however a zoo volunteer, field biologist and wildlife conservation enthusiast and I love visitting zoos recognising their benefits for natural history science, zoology, botany, geology, climate processes, education, conservation breeding and support for in situ conservation.
c) Yes, I have an European perspective and that may be different from your Indian perspective. But why I am not qualified to discuss the pros and cons of Indian wildlife conservation and yet you are allowed freedoms when discussing the merits of Jersey Zoo is beyond me. To compare me those that David Hancocks is fighting is perhaps a jibe on your part, I find it far from humorous and patronising (to put it mildly). This site is for all forumsters to contribute to and all are welcome in principle ... but if your sole intention is to be bashful regarding a particular establishment - be you a member of their Trust or not - then be not surprised that others may disagree with your Zoocheck biased credentials and opinions.
d) I am fully aware of the history of the Indian subcontinent from the Moghul emperors to the present democratic states of Pakistan and India. I have deep respect for both Nehru and Gandhi (and a host of other people besides like Mikhail Gorbatchov, Nelson Mandela, Pancho Villa et al). Politics aside, I am aware of the early conservation ethic deeply engrained in Indian society. Yet more than 50 years on from these leaders of mankind, I find much at fault with wildlife conservation in India. No, it is not an European perspective here as I try to be unbiased at all times ...! For my examples of Project Tiger and rhino conservation I have cited native Indian scientists on the ground who have come out against the conventional norm that wildlife conservation is successful in India. It is far from that ... What I meant with 800-900 millions folks in an upcoming economy with a large proportion of people below the poverty line, one feels that the more educated and financially wealthy classes (or castes) of Indian society should bear the brunt of investing in more effective conservation at home. It is entirely fair on my part to point to India's own responsibilities in this respect. I feel that good governance and transparency are imperative in this effort, if international conservation assistance through the IUCN/WWF networks is to be more successful in India. Hence, I am entitled to my opinion here I suppose!
e) As for Indian zoos, I know that a good deal is not rosy yet ... but thanks to NGO's in India and the CBSG network management, husbandry and basic zoo design is gradually improving. A major step forward will be the integration of the Indian zoo network into the international zoo community. With this support on board, Indian zoos will be more able to implement credible and effective conservation education and breeding programmes that also benefit in situ conservation.
f) Your view that zoos should take the criticism aboard by animal welfarists is a view typical of those that do not recognise the ins and outs of zoo management fully in the wider global context. Zoos do have ethics committees that look at improving animal welfare by designing better exhibits, husbandry protocols and management procedures. The 4 pillars of zoos are education recreation, conservation and research in the widest context that that entails.
Suffice, you are welcome on the forum to comment and discuss on zoos and zoo visits + wildlife conservation issues. But I will not allow you to simply visit, put down some obvious Zoocheck biased quotes and than do a runner. If you would like to explore my convictions on conservation, Europe, India and else more fully or zoos in general with me than I will do so by e-mail or pm. So, if you have nothing positive to add that may benefit the site other than the obvious, please leave us in peace and let us explore our common forumsters hobby of the zoo world.
I've split these posts into a new thread - they were posted in an old thread about Jersey zoo anyway.
I think we all need to be a bit careful here. The original poster has made suggestions based on his opinion about the racist nature of Durrell. This is his opinion only - and was written as such. People are entitled to their opinion, especially if it can be substantiated by evidence (eg books written by the person). If you disagree (and have read those books) - feel free to post why you disagree.
The original poster did not personally attack anyone, and has not called anyone else here racist - I found his comments to be general only (even if rather cynical) and should not be taken personally by other members.
I think it is a topic worth discussing, so if you can keep it from being personal, then I would like to see more discussion about the topic.
Don't forget that you can always use the "ignore" feature if you really don't want to read posts by this user.
As for posts from members of "anti-zoo" organisations, they are more than welcome here, provided that they don't de-rail existing threads. In this case, it was easy to split this discussion from an existing old thread since they were new posts in an old thread. I wouldn't tolerate someone who started posting in every thread about how bad a zoo is (especially if it is off topic), but I think there is merit in a reasoned debate about zoos and their role in animal conservation.
On a side-note, I do find it somewhat ironic that we ourselves can be extremely harsh on a zoo and what we feel to be sub-standard enclosures or conservation practices, yet we don't tend to tolerate organisations who hold exactly the same points of view in many cases. For what it's worth I don't believe in the black-and-white view of the world that "all zoos are evil", nor do I believe that "all zoos are fantastic" ... and I think most of us here are the same - somewhere in the middle. I think we would all like to see the quality of zoos improve overall, while respecting the role that they play in conservation, and more importantly in education (something which I feel anti-zoo organisations don't take into account enough). I think most of us here also acknowledge the reality of how expensive it is to operate zoos and such animal conservation facilities and that a more pragmatic (city zoo!) approach to fund-raising may well be the only chance some of these animals have.
I think we all need to be a bit careful here. The original poster has made suggestions based on his opinion about the racist nature of Durrell. This is his opinion only - and was written as such. People are entitled to their opinion, especially if it can be substantiated by evidence (eg books written by the person). If you disagree (and have read those books) - feel free to post why you disagree.
The original poster did not personally attack anyone, and has not called anyone else here racist - I found his comments to be general only (even if rather cynical) and should not be taken personally by other members.
I think it is a topic worth discussing, so if you can keep it from being personal, then I would like to see more discussion about the topic.
Don't forget that you can always use the "ignore" feature if you really don't want to read posts by this user.
As for posts from members of "anti-zoo" organisations, they are more than welcome here, provided that they don't de-rail existing threads. In this case, it was easy to split this discussion from an existing old thread since they were new posts in an old thread. I wouldn't tolerate someone who started posting in every thread about how bad a zoo is (especially if it is off topic), but I think there is merit in a reasoned debate about zoos and their role in animal conservation.
On a side-note, I do find it somewhat ironic that we ourselves can be extremely harsh on a zoo and what we feel to be sub-standard enclosures or conservation practices, yet we don't tend to tolerate organisations who hold exactly the same points of view in many cases. For what it's worth I don't believe in the black-and-white view of the world that "all zoos are evil", nor do I believe that "all zoos are fantastic" ... and I think most of us here are the same - somewhere in the middle. I think we would all like to see the quality of zoos improve overall, while respecting the role that they play in conservation, and more importantly in education (something which I feel anti-zoo organisations don't take into account enough). I think most of us here also acknowledge the reality of how expensive it is to operate zoos and such animal conservation facilities and that a more pragmatic (city zoo!) approach to fund-raising may well be the only chance some of these animals have.
- Status