Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I didn't find it completely anti-zoo but it may have just been my reading.
As it is an opinion piece I really think someone should write a nuanced reply / critique of the argument in response.
NY Times Takes Another Shot at Zoos
- Thread starter Gomphothere
- Start date
I didn't find it completely anti-zoo but it may have just been my reading.
As it is an opinion piece I really think someone should write a nuanced reply / critique of the argument in response.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
The on-line version now has 1055 comments posted. I do not intend to read them.
It is a mistake, I believe, for zoos to stage the argument on the anti-zoo activists' terms, justifying the humane exhibition of animals by insisting we accept this evil in order to do good. It insults the wonder of zoos and demeans the work staff do; it also misses the mark of why so very many people come. Let the families who come for a day out be the ones who speak out.
Here! Here!
It is a mistake, I believe, for zoos to stage the argument on the anti-zoo activists' terms, justifying the humane exhibition of animals by insisting we accept this evil in order to do good. It insults the wonder of zoos and demeans the work staff do; it also misses the mark of why so very many people come. Let the families who come for a day out be the ones who speak out.
Some people, unfortunately, see animals and zoos as an easy target. There is no immediate monetary value, most people know nothing about wild animals, so a poor author thinks he/she can write nonsense and get away with it.
Overall, it is majority of the public which will decide. That is why it is worth to openly and unashamedly show that one supports zoos. Not necessarily give scientific arguments, lists of species saved or reserves created. They will not matter to a politician either way. The public support will.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Have you read the article ?
I wouldn't call it poor writing by any means though the conclusion is a bit crappy.
I would say IMO I think it is worth openly and unashamedly showing that one supports good zoos whilst also keeping an open mind and acknowledging that many zoos are below par.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Sadly there is little room left in the civic discourse for such niceties. The author of this piece, like so many before her, drags up stories of subpar zoos to make the case against the best zoos. There is no gray only black or white.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
You can download a pdf of it here (until the link expires in 1 week)
Opinion Zoos Are Bad for Animals - The New York Times.pdf
Thank you @Zooplantman for the pdf!
I'm honestly not that impressed by the article. It is not a genuine discussion. The author seemingly wants to bring up as many points against zoos as humanly possible within one article. The result is that the article comes across as very shallow, with many underlying assumptions not explored or even acknowledged. Different points are stated but remain unexplored and without context.
Not a very good article in my opinion.
I'm honestly not that impressed by the article. It is not a genuine discussion. The author seemingly wants to bring up as many points against zoos as humanly possible within one article. The result is that the article comes across as very shallow, with many underlying assumptions not explored or even acknowledged. Different points are stated but remain unexplored and without context.
Not a very good article in my opinion.
As mentioned in previous threads: nihil novi. The majority of Western journalists has little understanding and practical knowledge regarding animals, zoology, conservation, animal husbandry and zoos. And they are less and less representative of the vox populi. The general attitude regarding zoos in the institutions they attend and the social circles they usually dwell in is at best dismissive, if not plain and simple negative. Their only experience with the zoos in their adult years are family trips they "have" to attend because of the kids, and which are seen through ideological googles. They just don't know better, and they don't want to learn or even change their pov. Therefore, such negative "hit pieces" on zoos come up again and again. But given the shrinking importance of the established media, they are just helpless attempts to get the short-lived attention of their last readers, who agree with them anyway. The majority of people prefers to visit zoos, and cares little about another meaningless lady trying to sell another meaningless book to support her meaningless existence.
So keep calm and carry on. Zoos will still be there when the NYT has gone the way of other print media...
So keep calm and carry on. Zoos will still be there when the NYT has gone the way of other print media...
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Agreed about niceties but I think we should always attempt to engage in constructive discourse with the other side because if nothing else it shows that we are capable of engaging in debate and shows up the lack of nuance in the arguments of the animal rights activists.
Again, I didn't think the author wrote terribly but yes she could have mentioned the ex-situ conservation work of the decent zoos out there which would have made the article far better.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the majority of journalists are as you have described are in the anti-zoo camp but I think there is definitely still some hope out there with journalists capable of seeing the bigger picture.
Here is an example of one such journalist and an article with a positive take on the role of zoos :
With zoos shut due to Covid-19, conservation suffers - Geographical Magazine
There have even been some opinion piece style articles written in defence of zoos (albeit not by journalists) in mainstream newspapers and popular science sites:
Why the world needs zoos
Zoos are key to the planet's healthy future – don't let them go extinct
Zoos aren't Victorian-era throwbacks: they're important in saving species
In defence of zoos: how captivity helps conservation
Last edited:
Are you familiar with the Peanuts cartoon strip? Lucy is always going to pull the ball away, mate.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yes there will be many in that camp who will pull the "Charlie Brown" trick on us but we have to at least try to engage in discourse.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Because otherwise we just end up stonewalling and allowing the other side to occupy ground and continue to dominate the narrative and erode the public perception of zoos during a very critical time.
Personally I've always thought that the best strategy to deal with animal rights zealots and their anti-zoo campaigns is to not allow them to dominate and shape the narrative and to go on a counter-offensive in terms of media outreach and increasing popular support.
Another point is that such articles are not informative. They rewind the debate back to decades ago, so to say. For example, zoos collect proof that their education programs work, and improve them further, for decades already. Then in 2021 an opinionated journalist writes again that for her it is unclear whether zoos have any role in public education. This might be true in the 1980s or 1990s, not now.
I would read with interest an article about the real zoos and their real problems in 2021. It could argue, for example, about how zoos should respond when conservation breaks down because of lawlessness in Africa, with northern white rhino and ploughshare tortoise as examples. Or how to fit self-sustaining populations into limited zoo spaces, see the long lists of phase-out species. Or the moral dilemma whether zoos should let animals live happy lives or natural lives, for example let lions breed and euthanize. Lionesses respond very poorly to contraceptives. But such an article would be probably too ambitious for an average journalist.
I would read with interest an article about the real zoos and their real problems in 2021. It could argue, for example, about how zoos should respond when conservation breaks down because of lawlessness in Africa, with northern white rhino and ploughshare tortoise as examples. Or how to fit self-sustaining populations into limited zoo spaces, see the long lists of phase-out species. Or the moral dilemma whether zoos should let animals live happy lives or natural lives, for example let lions breed and euthanize. Lionesses respond very poorly to contraceptives. But such an article would be probably too ambitious for an average journalist.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I suppose that it would depend on the publication that the journalist was writing for.
If it was a mainstream newspaper with a lowest common denominator readership then the inherent nuance and complexity of those issues would be a turn-off and a story wouldn't be approved by an editor for obvious reasons.
However, there are a lot of amazing popular science magazines out there whose editors would definitely approve publishing complex and nuanced stories or opinion pieces on the role of zoos in ex-situ conservation.
That said, those kind of publications typically won't reach as wide a readership as your average tabloid newspaper.
Educating others and hoping they are open minded is good and all, but as Batto said, these people won’t change their idea. We are not talking about impressionable kids here, these are adults who made up their mind about the topic in question (you should know this bc when you showed me oodles of evidence pointing to morality I did not reply or say anything that would point out that your given points compelled me). And while there could be a chance they change their idea, it is a very low chance. Trying to discuss such people to understand the “necessary evil zoos” are is as effective as explaining evolution to a creationist.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Many will not change their ideas but we shouldn't consider them as a monolith and we must be mindful that there are those on the sidelines who are undecided and still haven't made up their minds about this issue and may look to a debate as a way of informing and developing their own opinion.
For example, whenever I look at a geopolitical / societal issue or whatever which I don't have a clear idea about or stance towards I look to educate myself on it through consuming media which exposes me to different points of view / perspectives in order to develop my own opinion.
I'm sure that with the debate on zoos people find themselves in exactly the same situation and it would be a shame for the extremist animal rights narrative to win these "hearts and minds" just because we consider it a battle that is already lost, wouldn't it ?
Sorry, you've lost me on the second point, I don't understand what you are trying to say, what do you mean about morality ?
For me that analogy that you draw with religious fundamentalism really isn't a convincing argument for avoiding engaging in debate with these people and I'll explain why below.
There are many people all over the world who have been raised in faith systems with a creationist worldview such as Islam and Evangelical Christianity and who one day are somehow exposed to counter-arguments and recognize the truth of evolution and therefore the nonsense of their own faith and who then go on to become secular humanists and atheists.
Last edited: