Nat Geo attacking zoos?

[Great Argus]

So this disturbing article crossed my news feed this morning...

Hundreds of zoos and aquariums accused of mistreating animals

Based on a report by World Animal Protection, Nat Geo posted this to my surprise. WAP is attacking WAZA, over human-animal interactions. Some 75% of the facilities have at least one according to the report. To quote:
"Such contact, the report notes, can be damaging for animals’ mental and physical well-being and often requires training methods such as premature separation from mothers, physical restraint, and pain- and fear-based conditioning.

“Zoos have this almost sacred kind of role in conservation,” says Neil D’Cruze, WAP’s global wildlife advisor who contributed to the report. “It’s time for [WAZA] to take a step back and take the leadership role that we as visitors, let alone WAP as an NGO, need them to take.” "
Also
"The most common interaction was petting—offered by 43 percent of facilities, most often with mammals and reptiles. About a third offered walking or swimming through an enclosure, 30 percent had performances involving wildlife, and 23 percent had hand-feeding experiences, in which tourists can provide food and water for captive wild animals, which brings them into direct—potentially dangerous—contact with them.

These experiences are inherently stressful for animals, says Nancy Blaney, director of government affairs for the Animal Welfare Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit."


SeaWorld is listed as one of the "particularly troubling institutions", to little surprise considering the general negative from such groups.

' “Getting [animals] to the point where they’re completely safe around people involves a whole level of different training and breaking of the animal’s spirit,” D’Cruze says. “There’s a difference between a domesticated species like a cat or a dog that’s been changed over thousands of years biologically and behaviorally to be around people, and an animal that’s been broken to be tame.” '

That reads very inaccurate and dangerous for the AZA and EAZA as well as many reputable zoos around the globe...

 

[AmbikaFan]

WAP's statistics here are misleading, both in terms of what constitutes member zoos and what the types of human contact are. They would like to make the reader think that hundreds of zoos/aquariums allow visitors to ride the backs of dolphins and play with diapered chimpanzees--and attempt to do so by piggybacking falsely on more general petting, touching, and feeding statistics. For example, WAP says that 43% of facilities worldwide offered touching or petting opportunities; we know just from forum reports here that 43% probably ARE offering petting opportunities, but of domestic animals in facilities ranging from local petting zoos to the children's zoos or farms now seen in the world's most prominent exhibitors of wild animals.

In addition,I feel fairly sure that 33% of all facilities may have had feeding opportunities that involved touching of animals; many of said children's zoos offer hand-feeding of domestic farm animals, not wild species. Some facilities like Marineland of Canada may allow feeding of bears or other exotics, but only allow food to be thrown to the animals at some distance. WAP has intentionally misrepresented these two numbers to make allegations that are, for the vast majority, absolutely untrue. And don't even get me started on the labyrinthine mathmagic required to count all of these unsupervised or accredited facilities to inflate the hyperbole to include nearly any animal exhibit anywhere on the planet... This is just more manipulative spin from activist groups whose claims are baseless without misrepresentation and exagerration.

The more worrisome issue is why Nat Geo wouldn't easily see through and dismiss such claptrap, let alone give their claims an audience by publishing them.... Could these groups have possibly acquired enough money to effectively be lobbying/buying Nat Geo's willingness to feature "both sides" of the "animals in human care" debate? Nat Geo comes out looking worse than anything in the article.

 

[Coelacanth18]

"The most common interaction was petting—offered by 43 percent of facilities, most often with mammals and reptiles. About a third offered walking or swimming through an enclosure, 30 percent had performances involving wildlife, and 23 percent had hand-feeding experiences, in which tourists can provide food and water for captive wild animals, which brings them into direct—potentially dangerous—contact with them.

These experiences are inherently stressful for animals, says Nancy Blaney, director of government affairs for the Animal Welfare Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit."

Those "interactions" are so broad and undefined that they are practically meaningless. "Petting" - of what? Domestics? Exotics? In educational programs, or VIP access programs, or petting zoos? "Walking or swimming through an enclosure" - that could be anything from swimming with dolphins to a walk-through aviary, which I would argue is not actually an "interaction". "Hand-feeding experiences" - again, domestic? Exotic? Is it talking about feeding giraffes and lorikeets? How are these interactions "potentially dangerous", either to animals or people?

In addition to all of this, while Blaney appears to have a long track record of working with government officials and legislators on animal welfare laws, I have found no evidence that she holds a degree or education qualifying her to make such a statement. Maybe she does, but since she appears to be a lawyer by training I am skeptical.

On the other hand...

' “Getting [animals] to the point where they’re completely safe around people involves a whole level of different training and breaking of the animal’s spirit,” D’Cruze says. “There’s a difference between a domesticated species like a cat or a dog that’s been changed over thousands of years biologically and behaviorally to be around people, and an animal that’s been broken to be tame.” '

This man (Neil d'Cruze) is a scientist, a wildlife biologist with a PhD. I'm rather surprised and dismayed that he would make such a statement that, again, is so vague that it is patently meaningless. What animals is he referring to that are "completely safe around people" - are lorikeets and goats not safe for people to interact with? "Training and breaking of the animal's spirit" - there are some species and circumstances for which this is certainly true, but how does all training of zoo animals "break their spirit"? With the evidence showing that even non-educational dolphin and pinniped shows offer important enrichment and social interaction for the animals that participate, that claim is highly dubious.

 

[AmbikaFan]

.....but since she appears to be a lawyer by training I am skeptical.

This man (Neil d'Cruze) is a scientist, a wildlife biologist with a PhD.

Have you ever noticed how every activist organization has leaders with some academic credential? Anyone can call themselves a "scientist" or "wildlife biologist," but while a PhD implies a threshold of excellence, a PhD student's dissertation must show extensive original research, and sometimes it can be in a niche that most wouldn't agree with. The degree is awarded on the ability to come up with a proposal that has not been researched and show exemplary research skills in coming to a conclusion. There is broad disagreement between PhDs on topics in almost every field of study. Discourse and further investigation keep academics and all fields of study healthy, advancing. But it's possible to find someone with the degree that will agree with almost any position imagineable, in almost every field. They may know better, but if they haven't done exemplary work and can't teach well and need a job, they may have to sell out a bit, let their contributions sit side-by-side with out and out misrepresentation. Somewhat like pinching your nose, screwing your eyes shut and hitting the button in the voting machine before making a hasty exit. Don't idealize PhDs; they may well know when something smells, but they may neverthless end up being in the stink themselves.

 

[AmbikaFan]

Just when I was surprised Nat Geo would publish something so sketchy, I just saw that they are advertising a new program featuring Gordon Ramsey. And, er, the world. Gordon Ramsey is so much about explosive personality, and he's certainly no Anthony Bourdain. This choice is as odd as that article. Are they on solid footing?

 

[TheMightyOrca]

Just when I was surprised Nat Geo would publish something so sketchy, I just saw that they are advertising a new program featuring Gordon Ramsey. And, er, the world. Gordon Ramsey is so much about explosive personality, and he's certainly no Anthony Bourdain. This choice is as odd as that article. Are they on solid footing?

Ramsey's "angry jerk" persona is just something he does for some of his shows to make them entertaining. Apparently he's pretty nice in real life, and he does seem to be pretty well-respected as a professional chef. He has some shows where he doesn't do the whole "angry jerk" thing. I doubt his Nat Geo show is gonna involve him going around the world and screaming at people.

Anyway, I agree with you that this WAP report is highly questionable. I agree with some of their complaints (I'm no fan of elephant rides or swimming with the dolphins either) but doing these generalized statistics and presenting the worst examples to explain them is incredibly misleading. Holding and feeding a lorikeet is nowhere near the level of harm as petting a drugged up tiger or whatever.

I wouldn't necessarily take this as a sign that Nat Geo is going downhill, they've had missteps and controversies in the past. It's trends you have to keep an eye out for.