My view on Zoos.

[Maguari]

Maguari and Redpanda.

I cant agree that people go to learn with their kids, they dont, not going on what you see at these places anyway, I mean I cant ever recall people with kids being in the education and lecture places at Zoo's, in fact at Dudley I had to ask for the "education" centre to be opened one day as it was "rarely" used!

Both myself and Redpanda have said that most zoo visitors DON'T go to be educated, but they ARE educated while they are there regardless. Neither of us claimed that people go in order to be educated:

Of course people don't come to zoos to be educated, but good zoos do it without the visitor even realizing.

Sorry to answer your question with a question, but do you really think all those people going to the zoo learn nothing while they are there? Might not be why they go, but it happens, often without them realising.

And it's not just the education centre that does education - every exhibit label is a potential source of education. You and I know what a tapir or a babirusa is. Does the average Dudley Zoo visitor? Maybe not. Making people aware of the species that are out there is education in itself, and will encourage a wider appreciation of the need for conservation.

Dudley's Education Centre is regularly open at weekends and during school holidays, and is doubtless used on school visits. I'm not sure who described it as 'rarely' used, but it is certainly is not in my experience.

Recent studies show Polar Bear numbers to be increasing, I do think scaremongery comes a lot into people's lives these days, taking my dogs into account, should I breed them "in case" then? I mean what if they are crap specimens with no health testing? Would it matter as long as they could grace my home and I could say "Ive got one?"

I'd be interested to know more about the Polar Bear studies - such as were the surveys carried out across the whole range, or just a part? Last I heard the overall picture was still one of decline, but I'd be very happy to be proved wrong. On our dog allegory, of you want to preserve the dog breed, someone has to breed them. If everyone says, 'oh, it'll be alright', they may die out.

If conservation is about anything it is about preparing for the future. You can't afford to leave out future considerations.

Then how sad is that? Practice what you preach I say!

As I have said, reintroductions are not something that can be rushed into. It is all about future considerations. That is what conversation is. Preserving things for the future. Keeping as many options for species and habitat survival as possible.

 

[Dawn B]

If you do a quick search you will find the info on polar Bear numbers increasing, especially in certain areas.

And it's not just the education centre that does education - every exhibit label is a potential source of education. You and I know what a tapir or a babirusa is. Does the average Dudley Zoo visitor? Maybe not. Making people aware of the species that are out there is education in itself, and will encourage a wider appreciation of the need for conservation.

Well I agree with that, which is why I dont think education is a main priority, otherwise kids would be more animal savvy than they are, so would adults really.

Dudley's Education Centre is regularly open at weekends and during school holidays, and is doubtless used on school visits. I'm not sure who described it as 'rarely' used, but it is certainly is not in my experience.

A keeper said that to me, somebody who was around the Penguins at the time I mentioned it. The day I visit most is Wednesday, as thats my day off from work, although I have visited on other days, I have even been during the winter months and the education centre be closed completely!

On our dog allegory, of you want to preserve the dog breed, someone has to breed them. If everyone says, 'oh, it'll be alright', they may die out.

Then this is where we disagree hugely! Animals should not be bred willy nilly for the sake of it, it only breeds deformities and illnesses, if it isnt done correctly, then it shouldnt be one at all. this is where things fall apart. I was horrified to see what appeared to be a dominant male Wolf at Whipsnade with a dreadfully undershot jaw, my questions about him went largely unanswered, except for "oh he's always been like that" suggesting an inherited genetic fault, to which if bred from would be reproduced just like in a dog. So you see, breeding from genetically flawed animals will breed more of the same, hardly ethical or responsible is it? and of course should these animals ever be re-introduced to the wild, would mean an almost certain death, where would the gene pool be then?

I have also spoken personally to "ex" keepers met through photography who claim that many animals in captivity have "problems" which are largely ignored as far as breeding is concerned, severe deformities or problems are dealt with by the animal being euthanised, however in the case of Wolves and other animals producing several offspring at a time, the siblings are bred from further perpetuating the genetic issue present in its littermate.

Zoos just want to breed animals at any cost, babies bring people through the gates, I just wish they would breed the ones that need to be bred, rather than those that dont.

I have no problem with Zoos breeding animals, quite the opposite, but animals that NEED breeding and not for the sake of it. Hope you understand where I am coming from.

 

[Maguari]

Well I agree with that, which is why I dont think education is a main priority, otherwise kids would be more animal savvy than they are, so would adults really.

When you say you don't think it is main priority, you seem to mean it hasn't been in the past, which is not quite my point. More people will know what a tapir is when they leave the zoo than did when they arrived. That is education, and requires nothing more than writing 'TAPIR' on the fence. A zoo with a well-managed interpretation and education programme can do so much more.

A keeper said that to me, somebody who was around the Penguins at the time I mentioned it. The day I visit most is Wednesday, as thats my day off from work, although I have visited on other days, I have even been during the winter months and the education centre be closed completely!

I wouldn't be surprised that the education centre was closed on a Wednesday in winter - from a realist point of view - would it be worth it for the number of visitors that day?

Then this is where we disagree hugely! Animals should not be bred willy nilly for the sake of it, it only breeds deformities and illnesses, if it isnt done correctly, then it shouldnt be one at all. this is where things fall apart. I was horrified to see what appeared to be a dominant male Wolf at Whipsnade with a dreadfully undershot jaw, my questions about him went largely unanswered, except for "oh he's always been like that" suggesting an inherited genetic fault, to which if bred from would be reproduced just like in a dog. So you see, breeding from genetically flawed animals will breed more of the same, hardly ethical or responsible is it? and of course should these animals ever be re-introduced to the wild, would mean an almost certain death, where would the gene pool be then?

I have also spoken personally to "ex" keepers met through photography who claim that many animals in captivity have "problems" which are largely ignored as far as breeding is concerned, severe deformities or problems are dealt with by the animal being euthanised, however in the case of Wolves and other animals producing several offspring at a time, the siblings are bred from further perpetuating the genetic issue present in its littermate.

Zoos just want to breed animals at any cost, babies bring people through the gates, I just wish they would breed the ones that need to be bred, rather than those that dont.

I have no problem with Zoos breeding animals, quite the opposite, but animals that NEED breeding and not for the sake of it. Hope you understand where I am coming from.

While I would agree entirely that breeding inbred animals to the nth degree is deeply undesirable, the cases of this are rare. But if the aim is to preserve the species, then they must be bred. I admit I started on this 'dog' allegory with the assumption we had a long-term aim of keeping the breed going - I guess you're thinking that you'd rather stop breeding that let them get inbred. That's a reasonable viewpoint, and inbreeding-related genetic flaws are more likely to be a problem with an already-inbred domestic breed.

But I am coming at this from a position of wanting zoos as an educative, scientific and conservation expertise resource, with continuing (ie breeding) populations of as many species as can reasonably be supported - so I guess we do have a fairly basic difference of opinion!

 

[MRJ]

What I hate about these discussions is the way the term "zoos this" and zoos that" is thrown around as if every roadside horror show is the same as the Wildlife Conservation Society (Bronx) or Durrell (Jersey). And the flipside is I also dislike the way the the mediocre, with no real intention of actually doing anything, ride the coat-tails of the good and the great.

If you do a quick search you will find the info on polar Bear numbers increasing, especially in certain areas.

It is always important to check short-term movements against long-term trends.

Well I agree with that, which is why I dont think education is a main priority, otherwise kids would be more animal savvy than they are, so would adults really.

Well maybe, but maybe they would be less so without zoos.

A keeper said that to me, somebody who was around the Penguins at the time I mentioned it. The day I visit most is Wednesday, as thats my day off from work, although I have visited on other days, I have even been during the winter months and the education centre be closed completely!

An education centre is the second level of education in zoos. The first is the interaction of people with animals, the exhibition of animals in natural habitat based exhibits (these are there for people, animals often don't care), interpretative materials and in face to face experiences such as keeper talks and animal shows.

Then this is where we disagree hugely! Animals should not be bred willy nilly for the sake of it, it only breeds deformities and illnesses, if it isnt done correctly, then it shouldnt be one at all. this is where things fall apart.

No responsible zoo does just breeds "willy-nilly". Genetic deformities express themselves because of inbreeding (unfortunately all too common in pets) and responsible zoos go to considerable efforts to avoid inbreeding. Indeed studbook managers do their utmost to ensure the widest possible genetic diversity in captive populations.

I was horrified to see what appeared to be a dominant male Wolf at Whipsnade with a dreadfully undershot jaw, my questions about him went largely unanswered, except for "oh he's always been like that" suggesting an inherited genetic fault, to which if bred from would be reproduced just like in a dog. So you see, breeding from genetically flawed animals will breed more of the same, hardly ethical or responsible is it?

I'm not here to be an apologist for every zoo around. However if this animal was indeed inbred with such a genetic fault, breeding it to unrelated animals that were not related would produce offspring that were not inbred. They may (50% possibility) carry the recessive gene, but this is unlikely to express itself, and the animal may be carrying important genetic lines not otherwise represented in the population.

and of course should these animals ever be re-introduced to the wild, would mean an almost certain death, where would the gene pool be then?

Probably enriched by the other genes carried by that animal, and selecting out the deleterious genes in the manner every wild population does.

I have also spoken personally to "ex" keepers met through photography who claim that many animals in captivity have "problems" which are largely ignored as far as breeding is concerned, severe deformities or problems are dealt with by the animal being euthanised, however in the case of Wolves and other animals producing several offspring at a time, the siblings are bred from further perpetuating the genetic issue present in its littermate.

Nothing like a bit of gossip and broad accusations to make a point.

Zoos just want to breed animals at any cost, babies bring people through the gates, I just wish they would breed the ones that need to be bred, rather than those that dont.

And your proof is? Which zoos? Where?

I have no problem with Zoos breeding animals, quite the opposite, but animals that NEED breeding and not for the sake of it. Hope you understand where I am coming from.

I do. Zoos should only breed animals in the context of managed programs, designed to preserve wide genetic diversity, and without creating unwanted surpluses. In fact in some parts of the world that is the law. I do understand where you are coming from but you do need to get a better understanding of best practice, understand that many zoos do follow it, and demand that zoos that don't do so.

 

[Dawn B]

When you say you don't think it is main priority, you seem to mean it hasn't been in the past, which is not quite my point. More people will know what a tapir is when they leave the zoo than did when they arrived. That is education, and requires nothing more than writing 'TAPIR' on the fence. A zoo with a well-managed interpretation and education programme can do so much more.



I wouldn't be surprised that the education centre was closed on a Wednesday in winter - from a realist point of view - would it be worth it for the number of visitors that day?



While I would agree entirely that breeding inbred animals to the nth degree is deeply undesirable, the cases of this are rare. But if the aim is to preserve the species, then they must be bred. I admit I started on this 'dog' allegory with the assumption we had a long-term aim of keeping the breed going - I guess you're thinking that you'd rather stop breeding that let them get inbred. That's a reasonable viewpoint, and inbreeding-related genetic flaws are more likely to be a problem with an already-inbred domestic breed.

But I am coming at this from a position of wanting zoos as an educative, scientific and conservation expertise resource, with continuing (ie breeding) populations of as many species as can reasonably be supported - so I guess we do have a fairly basic difference of opinion!

Yes Id agree with that Maguari, and I do appreciate the points you have made.

 

[Dawn B]

What I hate about these discussions is the way the term "zoos this" and zoos that" is thrown around as if every roadside horror show is the same as the Wildlife Conservation Society (Bronx) or Durrell (Jersey). And the flipside is I also dislike the way the the mediocre, with no real intention of actually doing anything, ride the coat-tails of the good and the great.

Yes,not actually "doing anything" fits right in with many Zoo's here.

It is always important to check short-term movements against long-term trends.

Ahhhh I get it now, we must believe that the Polar Bears are dying out, but we cant believe (now at least) that their numbers might just be recovering, that would go against the grain with so many wouldnt it?

Well maybe, but maybe they would be less so without zoos.

If they visit, perhaps, Id say TV plays the biggest part in most kids lives today.

An education centre is the second level of education in zoos. The first is the interaction of people with animals, the exhibition of animals in natural habitat based exhibits (these are there for people, animals often don't care), interpretative materials and in face to face experiences such as keeper talks and animal shows.

Mmm not sure the animals would agree with that, after all how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know whether these animals are happy in their surroundings? I guess the lack of breeding for many species highlights just how "artificial" we keep them, which is very sad really.

No responsible zoo does just breeds "willy-nilly". Genetic deformities express themselves because of inbreeding (unfortunately all too common in pets) and responsible zoos go to considerable efforts to avoid inbreeding. Indeed studbook managers do their utmost to ensure the widest possible genetic diversity in captive populations.

You'd think wouldnt you, doesnt explain the apparent (could be wrong) dominant Wolf at Whipsnade with the undershot jaw though does it? I mean how responsible would that be to breed from it? I do have a picture or two of him somewhere.

I'm not here to be an apologist for every zoo around. However if this animal was indeed inbred with such a genetic fault, breeding it to unrelated animals that were not related would produce offspring that were not inbred. They may (50% possibility) carry the recessive gene, but this is unlikely to express itself, and the animal may be carrying important genetic lines not otherwise represented in the population.

You really dont understand basic genetics here. Having been around breeding dogs for over 20yrs, faults like this and many others often skip a generation or two, only an idiot or people desperate would breed from such animals, its an absolute disgrace.

Probably enriched by the other genes carried by that animal, and selecting out the deleterious genes in the manner every wild population does.

Give an example, what other genes, a nice white coat? Come on please, you breed from genetically sound animals, giving the very best chance of producing the same, goes for any species on the earth.

Nothing like a bit of gossip and broad accusations to make a point.

f thats what you want to believe yes, I know the person very well now, I have absolutely no doubts about what he said, he was part of it for many years, and was slated for his objections.

And your proof is? Which zoos? Where?

Lets start with West Mids Safari Park then, breeding white Lions and Tigers that couldnt survive, let alone be re-introduced into the wild, what are they bred for? Money, and people looking at the freaky abnormal creatures they have bred.

Erm let me think now, Woburn perhaps. Seem very pleased to be breeding WHITE Wallabies, would would never survive in the wild, but they do look pretty!!

I do. Zoos should only breed animals in the context of managed programs, designed to preserve wide genetic diversity, and without creating unwanted surpluses. In fact in some parts of the world that is the law. I do understand where you are coming from but you do need to get a better understanding of best practice, understand that many zoos do follow it, and demand that zoos that don't do so.

I dont doubt that many Zoos follow these guidelines, and I support and admire them 100%, sadly its not all, and I can only comment on those that I have visited, with things I have highlighted, perhaps the UK lacks what some other countries are achieving?

Thanks for your reply. Its a shame roobee didnt come back and support their claims too.

 

[Maguari]

Yes,not actually "doing anything" fits right in with many Zoo's here.

There are certainly places whose conservation record is sadly lacking, btu I would still say anywhere allowing people to see aniamls adequately cared-for and presented is providing an educational benefit.

If they visit, perhaps, Id say TV plays the biggest part in most kids lives today.

But do you think it is better than a zoo visit? I don't think so.

You really dont understand basic genetics here. Having been around breeding dogs for over 20yrs, faults like this and many others often skip a generation or two, only an idiot or people desperate would breed from such animals, its an absolute disgrace.

Characteristics that 'skip' generations (assuming they are genetic in origin) are generally recessive genes. If they are deleterious to survival, they will be very rare in a natural population and would only come up again in later generations under extreme inbreeding situations, which is why they affect pedigree domestic dogs so badly, or freak mutations. No zoo species has the same history of extreme inbreeding as pedigree dogs, so it's not a particularly good comparison.

I dont doubt that many Zoos follow these guidelines, and I support and admire them 100%, sadly its not all, and I can only comment on those that I have visited, with things I have highlighted, perhaps the UK lacks what some other countries are achieving?

I'd be interested to know which places you have visited, in fact - is there anywhere you've been that did satisfy your criteria?

(I don't mean that to sound snotty, I'm just interested )

Its a shame roobee didnt come back and support their claims too.

Agree entirely!

 

[Dawn B]

There are certainly places whose conservation record is sadly lacking, btu I would still say anywhere allowing people to see aniamls adequately cared-for and presented is providing an educational benefit.

I agree in some part, however, regardless of how the animals are cared for, you will have places opening their gates to the public. Gentlesham wildlife centre was one such place.

But do you think it is better than a zoo visit? I don't think so.

Heck no, give me a Zoo any day, good one of course.

Characteristics that 'skip' generations (assuming they are genetic in origin) are generally recessive genes. If they are deleterious to survival, they will be very rare in a natural population and would only come up again in later generations under extreme inbreeding situations, which is why they affect pedigree domestic dogs so badly, or freak mutations. No zoo species has the same history of extreme inbreeding as pedigree dogs, so it's not a particularly good comparison.

You are correct in the wild they would be rare because these animals could not survive, which is why I am so "anti" about it in captivity, it destroys all hope of any re-introduction from my views. Just means breed for breeding sake as far as I can see.

I'd be interested to know which places you have visited, in fact - is there anywhere you've been that did satisfy your criteria?

(I don't mean that to sound snotty, I'm just interested )

The places I have been recently, and by that I mean in the last 2yrs or so are:

Dudley Zoo. (many many times)
Twycross. (4 times)
Woburn. (3 times)
Whipsnade. (3 times)
Cotswold Wild animal Park. (twice)
Hamerton Zoo Park. (twice)
West Mids Safari. (3 times)
Drayton Manor (once)
Paradise Wildlife Park. (once)
Bristol Zoo. (3 times)
British Wildlife Centre (once, photography shoot)
Aquarium of the Lakes. (once)
Birmingham Nature Centre. (many times)
Chester Zoo. (3 times)
Chestnut Centre. (once)
Knowsley Safari park. (once)
Gentleshaw Birds of Prey and Wildlife Centre. (once)

Many many Birds of Prey Centres, some of which specialise in rehabilitation and rescue.


I appreciate I am opinionated and I probably expect too much, but I really dont think so, especially with basic animal management.

I like Cotswold, for its space, nothing is "on top" of another, so Im fond of that place for that reason.

I like Chester, but not for its space! Although visiting mid week is much better!! I like many of the species they hold, but am not keen on how the black Jaguar is kept, nor how it behaves. I am fond of many aspects of many of the Zoos, Im just not ready to accept they all want to do the right thing, I think many of them breed because they can, not that they should.

 

[taun]

You are correct in the wild they would be rare because these animals could not survive, which is why I am so "anti" about it in captivity, it destroys all hope of any re-introduction from my views. Just means breed for breeding sake as far as I can see

So is there any point in keeping endangered carnivores?

They have very little chance of being reintroduced because of the complex process and cost involved.

 

[Dawn B]

So is there any point in keeping endangered carnivores?

They have very little chance of being reintroduced because of the complex process and cost involved.

Hello Taun.
From a very personal point of view, no there is no "point" but Id like to think animals like Lions and Tigers and many other carnivores, particularly Cheetah, could be released. Animals like Wolves in my opinion shouldnt be bred, their numbers are stable and dont need to be bred at all really.

 

[MRJ]

Ahhhh I get it now, we must believe that the Polar Bears are dying out, but we cant believe (now at least) that their numbers might just be recovering, that would go against the grain with so many wouldnt it?

No, it simply means that you have to be careful with statistics. Making decisions on short-term trends can lead to disaster

If they visit, perhaps, Id say TV plays the biggest part in most kids lives today.

Sadly, probably. But that is just not a problem with wildlife.

Mmm not sure the animals would agree with that, after all how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know whether these animals are happy in their surroundings? I guess the lack of breeding for many species highlights just how "artificial" we keep them, which is very sad really.

You are right that none of us can really be sure. However I would certainly suggest that animals would be happier in an enriched environment, rather than a sterile environment that just "looks" like their natural habitat. An example would be the highly enriched, but artificial environment for gorillas at Howletts, contrasting that with some gorilla enclosures I know that are masterpieces of landscaping, but all the trees are hotwired to avoid damage.

I guess the lack of breeding for many species highlights just how "artificial" we keep them, which is very sad really.

So now we go from over-breeding animals to not breeding them enough?

You'd think wouldnt you, doesnt explain the apparent (could be wrong) dominant Wolf at Whipsnade with the undershot jaw though does it? I mean how responsible would that be to breed from it? I do have a picture or two of him somewhere.

Leaving aside genetic questions, which I will talk about below, there may be other reasons that zoo has that animal on display. If you are right and it is the alpha male, it may be being kept to maintain the equilibrium within that pack of wolves. Indeed the animal may be infertile, and any breeding (if indeed they are breeding) left to subordinate males. The point is you don't have any idea, and are prepared to attack this zoos management without access to any of the fact, and based solely on your limited experience and expertise.

You really dont understand basic genetics here. Having been around breeding dogs for over 20yrs, faults like this and many others often skip a generation or two, only an idiot or people desperate would breed from such animals, its an absolute disgrace.

Give an example, what other genes, a nice white coat? Come on please, you breed from genetically sound animals, giving the very best chance of producing the same, goes for any species on the earth.

Unfortunately your gratuitous insults and sarcasm simply serve to display your ignorance. If you really understood genetics you would understand that breeding pedigree dogs is a fundamentally flawed exercise in inbreeding, which condemns many dogs to lives of unspeakable agony.

No it is not about one or another characteristic. The genetic makeup of an animal determines everything about it, what it looks like, it's sex and sexuality, its behaviour, everything. Within any population there is a huge variation in the genetic makeup of the population. Species managers try to preserve as much of this variation as possible within a captive population. Unlike dog breeders, they do not try and pick "sound" animals based on any particular characteristic. Rather they try and equalise the influence of ancestors across the entire population to maximise this variation. Why is this important? Your wolf, for instance, may be carrying a gene which which may be vital to a wild population that is not expressed in any other animals in captivity. Let me give an example.

The house sparrow is found from England to Spain. The English sparrow is larger and plumper than the Spanish sparrow. This reflects Bergmans Law, which relates to body mass and the distance you are from the equator. Early English colonists took their plump sparrows to Boston in the American colonies, where they thrived. Slowly the sparrows spread down the east coast of North America. By the time they reached Georgia they no longer resembled the plump English sparrow but the thinner, smaller Spanish sparrow. The reason is that many English sparrows carry genes that express as smaller birds, but any such bird hatched in the English climate quickly dies. If the colonists had not taken birds that carry these genes to the Americas, sparrows would not have been able to colonise the southern states. So while your wolf expresses a genetic fault, it may also carry other genes important to the population as a whole.

[

if thats what you want to believe yes, I know the person very well now, I have absolutely no doubts about what he said, he was part of it for many years, and was slated for his objections.

Lets start with West Mids Safari Park then, breeding white Lions and Tigers that couldnt survive, let alone be re-introduced into the wild, what are they bred for? Money, and people looking at the freaky abnormal creatures they have bred.

Erm let me think now, Woburn perhaps. Seem very pleased to be breeding WHITE Wallabies, would would never survive in the wild, but they do look pretty!!

I dont doubt that many Zoos follow these guidelines, and I support and admire them 100%, sadly its not all, and I can only comment on those that I have visited, with things I have highlighted, perhaps the UK lacks what some other countries are achieving?

The problem I have with your posts is that you are painting the good and the bad with the same brush. I do live on the other side of the world, and have only ever visited a handful of British zoos, and know they do vary a lot. My only advise is support the good, try and learn more about why they do things (did you ask Whipsnade about the wolf?) and question the bad, encouraging them to improve.

Michael

 

[Dawn B]

No, it simply means that you have to be careful with statistics. Making decisions on short-term trends can lead to disaster

Gotcha! So we are breeding "in case" are we? Thats convenient isnt it!

You are right that none of us can really be sure. However I would certainly suggest that animals would be happier in an enriched environment, rather than a sterile environment that just "looks" like their natural habitat. An example would be the highly enriched, but artificial environment for gorillas at Howletts, contrasting that with some gorilla enclosures I know that are masterpieces of landscaping, but all the trees are hotwired to avoid damage

Which has the better breeding success?

So now we go from over-breeding animals to not breeding them enough?

No, we go from not breeding animals that dont need to be bred, to concentrating on those that do need to be bred, simple really.

Leaving aside genetic questions, which I will talk about below, there may be other reasons that zoo has that animal on display. If you are right and it is the alpha male, it may be being kept to maintain the equilibrium within that pack of wolves. Indeed the animal may be infertile, and any breeding (if indeed they are breeding) left to subordinate males. The point is you don't have any idea, and are prepared to attack this zoos management without access to any of the fact, and based solely on your limited experience and expertise.

If a subordinate Wolf breeds then its a classic example of that group being totally UNnatural, the worst possible situation for a Wolf pack. I emailed Whipsnade about the Wolf, and recieved no reply, this is commonplace here, likewise my questions about Dudley went unanswered and others have said the same too, if its a question they would sooner avoid, they do!

Unfortunately your gratuitous insults and sarcasm simply serve to display your ignorance. If you really understood genetics you would understand that breeding pedigree dogs is a fundamentally flawed exercise in inbreeding, which condemns many dogs to lives of unspeakable agony

. Rhubarb! What rubbish, the reason we SEE dogs that have health issues is that we keep them as PETS! In the wild these animals wouldnt survive, like that Wolf, his jaw is so undershot it would have difficulty eating properly and may suffer as a result, more so, dominance situations would leave it helpless, in an artifical environment, prospective animals that may cause problems are removed, this Wolf will breed on if it is indeed the alpha, and its genetic problems will surface at some point. Less of the ignorance please, if you did know anything about Wolf pack hierarchy your ignorance would not be demonstrated here.

The problem I have with your posts is that you are painting the good and the bad with the same brush. I do live on the other side of the world, and have only ever visited a handful of British zoos, and know they do vary a lot. My only advise is support the good, try and learn more about why they do things (did you ask Whipsnade about the wolf?) and question the bad, encouraging them to improve

As I said, question the bad, receive no reply! Ive done it many times.

The problem I have with your posts is that you have no clear knowledge of what I have seen and KNOW to go on, what are your thoughts on constantly breeding white Tigers? Conservation? NO WAY! MONEY!! Its strange to read that Craig Busch breeds "mutants" and "freaks" yet when I mention the breeding of animals for colour, its largely ignored, why is that? Are white Tigers here, different to there? White Wallabies too, not mentioned, see my anger and frustration at people who support these places and see no wrong doing?

 

[taun]

Gotcha! So we are breeding "in case" are we? Thats convenient isnt it!

MRJ I believe was on about long-term polar bear numbers. You can say they have increased in the last few years but if you took data over the last 50 years then you would see a long-term trend of decreasing number of polar bears, years they may increase 5 years out of the 50 against previous years but the long term trend is still on decreasing numbers. (years are taken for an example purposes only).

We sometimes need to look at the bigger picture, that’s why an animal that is not threatened now may well be endangered in 10 years because of long term trends.

 

[Maguari]

The problem I have with your posts is that you have no clear knowledge of what I have seen and KNOW to go on, what are your thoughts on constantly breeding white Tigers? Conservation? NO WAY! MONEY!! Its strange to read that Craig Busch breeds "mutants" and "freaks" yet when I mention the breeding of animals for colour, its largely ignored, why is that? Are white Tigers here, different to there? White Wallabies too, not mentioned, see my anger and frustration at people who support these places and see no wrong doing?

How could someone know exactly what you've seen? You can hardly blame him for that!

And you are still treating 'zoos' as one homogenous entity - how many UK zoos breed white tigers? OK - West Mids does. I'm not aware of anywhere else off the top of my head. A few more places breeding white wallabies, but not usually (in my experience) deliberately, just because the genes are there in the population. I don't believe that white wallabies are particularly inbred (although I agree that they'd never be the animals chosen if there needed to be a Red-necked Wallaby reintroduction for any reason).

I still stand by my comments (and MRJ's) that pedigree domestic dogs have generally been through far more extreme inbreeding probably than any other species on the planet and for nothing more than human benefit (making them faster, fiercer or often just 'prettier'), so are not a particularly valid base for comparison on inbreeding issues.

 

[Dawn B]

How could someone know exactly what you've seen? You can hardly blame him for that!

Perhaps I should of said what I have said Ive seen in my posts.

And you are still treating 'zoos' as one homogenous entity - how many UK zoos breed white tigers? OK - West Mids does. I'm not aware of anywhere else off the top of my head. A few more places breeding white wallabies, but not usually (in my experience) deliberately, just because the genes are there in the population. I don't believe that white wallabies are particularly inbred (although I agree that they'd never be the animals chosen if there needed to be a Red-necked Wallaby reintroduction for any reason).

But these animals dont NEED to be bred at all, there is no shortage of Wallabies anywhere! Better management should be in place to curb the unwanted breeding, or is it wanted?

I still stand by my comments (and MRJ's) that pedigree domestic dogs have generally been through far more extreme inbreeding probably than any other species on the planet and for nothing more than human benefit (making them faster, fiercer or often just 'prettier'), so are not a particularly valid base for comparison on inbreeding issues.

Again, these are PETS and we all see this every day, in Zoo's if its deformed, ill or otherwise its put to sleep, or in some cases like the Whipsnade Wolf, its left and could mean breeding issues in the future, again for me thats bad management.

Didnt I read on here about litter siblings being bred? Cant get more inbred that that can you?

P.S. I visited Dudley again yesterday and purchased a season membership so Im going to visit more regularly (usually once a month anyway) and hopefully Ill see the improvements on a more balanced basis and report these on here.

 

[Hix]

I cannot understand nor condone the breeding of animals that are abundant in the wild

So I guess you won't be having kids then?



Hix

 

[Maguari]

I agree in some part, however, regardless of how the animals are cared for, you will have places opening their gates to the public. Gentlesham wildlife centre was one such place.

....

Dudley Zoo. (many many times)
Twycross. (4 times)
Woburn. (3 times)
Whipsnade. (3 times)
Cotswold Wild animal Park. (twice)
Hamerton Zoo Park. (twice)
West Mids Safari. (3 times)
Drayton Manor (once)
Paradise Wildlife Park. (once)
Bristol Zoo. (3 times)
British Wildlife Centre (once, photography shoot)
Aquarium of the Lakes. (once)
Birmingham Nature Centre. (many times)
Chester Zoo. (3 times)
Chestnut Centre. (once)
Knowsley Safari park. (once)
Gentleshaw Birds of Prey and Wildlife Centre. (once)

Many many Birds of Prey Centres, some of which specialise in rehabilitation and rescue.


I appreciate I am opinionated and I probably expect too much, but I really dont think so, especially with basic animal management.

I like Cotswold, for its space, nothing is "on top" of another, so Im fond of that place for that reason.

I like Chester, but not for its space! Although visiting mid week is much better!! I like many of the species they hold, but am not keen on how the black Jaguar is kept, nor how it behaves. I am fond of many aspects of many of the Zoos, Im just not ready to accept they all want to do the right thing, I think many of them breed because they can, not that they should.

Firstly, I agree with your two favourites of that bunch!

What are your objections to the black jag's exhibit? I'm guessing it might be because it's always indoors? I'd certainly prefer it to get some use of the rainforest outdor pen in rotation with the spotteds, but I again do not believe it is suffering.

There aren't any zoos on your list that exhibit generally bad animal management in my opinion - I've been to all except the British Wildlife Centre - though there's the occasional bad enclosure certainly (Hamerton's Tiger Barn, West Mids' leopards and some of Twycross Ape exhibits, for example).

I'm more intrigued by your reference to Gentleshaw at the top of your post, as (unless I'm reading it wrong) it seems to suggest you didn't like it. I know it is a little basic (for good-old finanacial reasons) but I certainly wouldn't say there were any bad practices going on there.

 

[Dawn B]

So I guess you won't be having kids then?



Hix

LOL! Probably!!

 

[Maguari]

But these animals dont NEED to be bred at all, there is no shortage of Wallabies anywhere! Better management should be in place to curb the unwanted breeding, or is it wanted?

Of course it's wanted - the zoos are making an effort to maintain a zoo population of Red-necked Wallabies. I know that conflicts with your ideal situation, but the breeding is deliberate. I do not believe that most places are specifically trying to breed white wallabies though.

Again, these are PETS and we all see this every day, in Zoo's if its deformed, ill or otherwise its put to sleep, or in some cases like the Whipsnade Wolf, its left and could mean breeding issues in the future, again for me thats bad management.

So by that argument we should be putting down (or at least ceasing to breed from) all pedigree domestic dogs as they are inbred and deformed. Would you support that?

Didnt I read on here about litter siblings being bred? Cant get more inbred that that can you?

Cannot comment on this as I'm not sure what case you're referring to.

P.S. I visited Dudley again yesterday and purchased a season membership so Im going to visit more regularly (usually once a month anyway) and hopefully Ill see the improvements on a more balanced basis and report these on here.

A zoo membership is always a good investment.

 

[Dawn B]

Firstly, I agree with your two favourites of that bunch!

What are your objections to the black jag's exhibit? I'm guessing it might be because it's always indoors? I'd certainly prefer it to get some use of the rainforest outdor pen in rotation with the spotteds, but I again do not believe it is suffering.

There aren't any zoos on your list that exhibit generally bad animal management in my opinion - I've been to all except the British Wildlife Centre - though there's the occasional bad enclosure certainly (Hamerton's Tiger Barn, West Mids' leopards and some of Twycross Ape exhibits, for example).

I'm more intrigued by your reference to Gentleshaw at the top of your post, as (unless I'm reading it wrong) it seems to suggest you didn't like it. I know it is a little basic (for good-old finanacial reasons) but I certainly wouldn't say there were any bad practices going on there.

Yes the indoors Im not keen on Maguari, the repetitive pacing, a bit of fresh air wouldnt go amiss! Suffering, well mentally it could be, Id like to see it outside to get a better feeling for its mental welfare.

West Mids Leopard I agree with too, they need some privacy and be away from the "amusements"

Hamertons Barn is OK for me, not ideal, but they certainly have much more outdoor space than many of the Cats at other places.

Gentleshaw was quite bad when I went Maguari. It stank to high heaven, the Monkeys did. It was filthy indoors as well as outside, with patched up wire etc.. Again (knowing me by now) I mentioned it and was told it was because they are shut in at night, but when I said so are most other Monkeys at Zoo's, they didnt really have a reply, except to say they could see my point.

The Coatis's were in poor condition, old I know, but they did look very poor, again it was dirty and smelly. What disturbed me greatly was the amount of RATS running round the place, frequently inside enclosures taking food, you could see the "runs" in the Coati's pen and also at the back of the recently revamped Puma enclosure. I asked about this too, and they seemed surprised! They said they cant use poison, of course not, but bait stations and boxes are normal where animals are concerned we have to use them by law at work, they are safe to use.

Its basic husbandry that really annoys me Maguari, if I ran my kennels like some of these places and kept the kennels in similar condition, Id lose the license in a flash!