Responding to Zoo Protestors

[LowlandGorilla4]

I debated with an anti-zoo individual recently. It started with me and my friend discussing feral hogs and the damage they do in the USA. I brought up hunting hogs as one of the current methods of population control when another friend joins in. After a bit of banter which play no real role in the story I asked about the subject of zoos. The conversation is as follows:

Friend: I am pro-conservation but I don't like that the animals live in unnatural environments.

Me: Actually most zoos go through great lengths to replicate an animals natural habitat. (Pulls up pictures of Gorilla exhibits)

Me: This is the Woodland Park Zoo's gorilla exhibit, they have amazing habitats there and give their animals a great lives. They have great breeding programs for their animals.

Friend: Well they probably drug the animals so they have more babies.

Me: (A bit flummoxed) That would extremely expensive and rarely if ever happens in zoos unless there are extenuating circumstances i.e. an endangered species or lack of fertile males.

Friend: I also don't like that people get to watch the animals. They have no privacy and its not fair for the animals.

Me: Well, how do you suppose zoos make money other than having people pay to see the animals?

Friend: I don't know. They should find another way though because its bad for the animals.

Me: Most animals will have access to shade and can move out of sight if they choose too. Plus zoos provide education and inspire the next generation of conservationists. They really are important to saving animals and do a great job with animal welfare.

Friend: Ok, I still think they're wrong.

Our teacher arrived and we couldn't finish our debate.

In the end I think he personified the animals based on what he likes and dislikes. He also has little understanding on animal behavior and their needs. This debate really goes to reinforce the idea that these people think with their heart. One good thing is that he acknowledges the benefits zoos are to conservation.

 

[JT]

I debated with an anti-zoo individual recently. It started with me and my friend discussing feral hogs and the damage they do in the USA. I brought up hunting hogs as one of the current methods of population control when another friend joins in. After a bit of banter which play no real role in the story I asked about the subject of zoos. The conversation is as follows:

Friend: I am pro-conservation but I don't like that the animals live in unnatural environments.

Me: Actually most zoos go through great lengths to replicate an animals natural habitat. (Pulls up pictures of Gorilla exhibits)

Me: This is the Woodland Park Zoo's gorilla exhibit, they have amazing habitats there and give their animals a great lives. They have great breeding programs for their animals.

Friend: Well they probably drug the animals so they have more babies.

Me: (A bit flummoxed) That would extremely expensive and rarely if ever happens in zoos unless there are extenuating circumstances i.e. an endangered species or lack of fertile males.

Friend: I also don't like that people get to watch the animals. They have no privacy and its not fair for the animals.

Me: Well, how do you suppose zoos make money other than having people pay to see the animals?

Friend: I don't know. They should find another way though because its bad for the animals.

Me: Most animals will have access to shade and can move out of sight if they choose too. Plus zoos provide education and inspire the next generation of conservationists. They really are important to saving animals and do a great job with animal welfare.

Friend: Ok, I still think they're wrong.

Our teacher arrived and we couldn't finish our debate.

In the end I think he personified the animals based on what he likes and dislikes. He also has little understanding on animal behavior and their needs. This debate really goes to reinforce the idea that these people think with their heart. One good thing is that he acknowledges the benefits zoos are to conservation.

I think this shows that a lot of the general public aren’t really against zoos, they’re just uneducated on the topic and I think social media has a big part to play with this, people see what they want to see and form an ill-educated, biased opinion from this. A large number of people view all zoos as similar to something in “Tiger King” and don’t actually realise that any good zoo is very far removed from this. People simply don’t realise the thought that goes into breeding programmes, the thought that goes into designing an enclosure, the welfare based research that many zoos do etc. I don’t think anybody else in my year group of over 200 people would be able to tell you what BIAZA or AZA stand for, they wouldn’t even know that associations such as these existed. What I’m trying to say is people simply don’t understand how a big modern zoo works and operates because it’s rarely spoken about outside our community.

 

[birdsandbats]

I debated with an anti-zoo individual recently. It started with me and my friend discussing feral hogs and the damage they do in the USA. I brought up hunting hogs as one of the current methods of population control when another friend joins in. After a bit of banter which play no real role in the story I asked about the subject of zoos. The conversation is as follows:

Friend: I am pro-conservation but I don't like that the animals live in unnatural environments.

Me: Actually most zoos go through great lengths to replicate an animals natural habitat. (Pulls up pictures of Gorilla exhibits)

Me: This is the Woodland Park Zoo's gorilla exhibit, they have amazing habitats there and give their animals a great lives. They have great breeding programs for their animals.

Friend: Well they probably drug the animals so they have more babies.

Me: (A bit flummoxed) That would extremely expensive and rarely if ever happens in zoos unless there are extenuating circumstances i.e. an endangered species or lack of fertile males.

Friend: I also don't like that people get to watch the animals. They have no privacy and its not fair for the animals.

Me: Well, how do you suppose zoos make money other than having people pay to see the animals?

Friend: I don't know. They should find another way though because its bad for the animals.

Me: Most animals will have access to shade and can move out of sight if they choose too. Plus zoos provide education and inspire the next generation of conservationists. They really are important to saving animals and do a great job with animal welfare.

Friend: Ok, I still think they're wrong.

Our teacher arrived and we couldn't finish our debate.

In the end I think he personified the animals based on what he likes and dislikes. He also has little understanding on animal behavior and their needs. This debate really goes to reinforce the idea that these people think with their heart. One good thing is that he acknowledges the benefits zoos are to conservation.

Most zoos drug their animals to have LESS offspring, not the other way around.

 

[Animallover360]

My view on this issue is to just ignore the protestors. You don’t want to start interacting with them and having them get all mad at you and try to change your opinions.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I think this shows that a lot of the general public aren’t really against zoos, they’re just uneducated on the topic and I think social media has a big part to play with this, people see what they want to see and form an ill-educated, biased opinion from this. A large number of people view all zoos as similar to something in “Tiger King” and don’t actually realise that any good zoo is very far removed from this. People simply don’t realise the thought that goes into breeding programmes, the thought that goes into designing an enclosure, the welfare based research that many zoos do etc. I don’t think anybody else in my year group of over 200 people would be able to tell you what BIAZA or AZA stand for, they wouldn’t even know that associations such as these existed. What I’m trying to say is people simply don’t understand how a big modern zoo works and operates because it’s rarely spoken about outside our community.

I agree with pretty much most of the points here that you have made.

The key thing here I think is that the onus is very much on zoos to seize the opportunity to effectively engage with and educate the public about what truly goes on in a zoo and why they are important institutions (the role of educators in zoos is amongst the most important staff roles IMO for this reason).

Although some zoos do seem to be doing this kind of outreach regularly via social media and television etc. there is nearly always room for improvement in this regard and I don't think there is such a thing as too much coverage.

I've often thought that the better zoos out there should perhaps be a bit more assertive in engaging with animal rights opponents too and really engage in debate (perhaps publicly?) rather than stonewalling which strikes me as being exactly what these groups want.

When it comes to zealots who have actually gone to the trouble of turning up to protest outside of a zoo I don't think that much can be done because these are "true believers" who have already made their minds up.

Instead I think the best way of changing erroneous views towards zoo is through providing an effective counter-narrative through the media that frames / showcases the scientific and educational importance aspects of zoos.

 

[Batto]

Instead I think the best way of changing erroneous views towards zoo is through providing an effective counter-narrative through the media that frames / showcases the scientific and educational importance aspects of zoos.

I think that this is the most effective option. However, it would also require zoos to practice what they preach. Which includes addressing uncomfortable issues such as the management of surplus offspring, the imbalance between money spent on attractions vs money spent on (long-term) conservation, and the general question whether modern zoos actually want to be places that goes beyond mere mass entertainment or whether they want to continue on the path of child-friendly amusement park businesses with popular animals, full of popcorn vendors and kitschy plastic toys sold at the gift shops.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I think that this is the most effective option. However, it would also require zoos to practice what they preach. Which includes addressing uncomfortable issues such as the management of surplus offspring, the imbalance between money spent on attractions vs money spent on (long-term) conservation, and the general question whether modern zoos actually want to be places that goes beyond mere mass entertainment or whether they want to continue on the path of child-friendly amusement park businesses with popular animals, full of popcorn vendors and kitschy plastic toys sold at the gift shops.

I couldn't agree more with what you've said here Batto, but I think that zoos as a whole tend to get very uncomfortable with addressing those issues and particularly when it comes to doing so in view of the public because of the fear of bad press.

 

[JT]

I couldn't agree more with what you've said here Batto, but I think that zoos as a whole tend to get very uncomfortable with addressing those issues and particularly when it comes to doing so in view of the public because of the fear of bad press.

On the topic of bad press, I think many zoos struggle with the media and on social media over things that people may misinterpret or don’t understand. Zoos can get caught up with bad press very easily in my opinion. For example the other week ago when 2 bears were shot at whipsnade, the general consensus here was that it was an incredibly sad incident but there wasn’t much else the zoo could’ve done, however, a quick look on whipsnade’s social media comments and the general public were IMO very insensitive on the issue and just simply used it as another ‘reason’ to “shut down zoos!” This can be both incredibly upsetting for any staff reading these comments (which have now been blocked on a few recent posts) and it could’ve been entirely preventable if people were just a little bit better educated on the matter.

 

[Batto]

Given the tendency of many modern journalists to dislike zoos in general, combined with little to no factual knowledge regarding animals and their husbandry as well as the infinite lust of social media for drama and public reputation damage, bad press is almost a given when it comes to zoos. But I think, and don't get it the wrong way, zoos are not eager to address these issues because they are detrimental to business. And most zoos are, one way or another, businesses. Fluffy, easy, shallow entertainment is great for business; serious, partly unpleasant subjects like education, conservation, population management, euthanasia etc? Not so much.

 

[Batto]

if people were just a little bit better educated on the matter.

Thanks to the internet and mobile devices, more people have more access to knowledge than ever before. And yet they rather prefer to send each other cat videos, argue with complete strangers about anything and construct conspiracy theories and fanfiction, instead of educating themselves.
Most people don't go to zoos to learn, but to be entertained. And when it comes to emotional animal welfare and real or perceived "injustice" regarding animals, people are even less willing to learn and change their pov. They just want to vent their personal anger and frustration.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Given the tendency of many modern journalists to dislike zoos in general, combined with little to no factual knowledge regarding animals and their husbandry as well as the infinite lust of social media for drama and public reputation damage, bad press is almost a given when it comes to zoos. But I think, and don't get it the wrong way, zoos are not eager to address these issues because they are detrimental to business. And most zoos are, one way or another, businesses. Fluffy, easy, shallow entertainment is great for business; serious, partly unpleasant subjects like education, conservation, population management, euthanasia etc? Not so much.

Yes, I agree, many journalists tend to go for the easy default / lowest common denominator response of condemming the "cruelty" of zoos because of what they percieve to be popular opinion of the masses.

I suppose they do this also because it doesn't require a lot of critical thinking and it provides convenient sound bites and an already made moralistic narrative / template which is basically convenient for lazy journalism.

Again I agree and you are sadly right that zoos are ultimately businessess and most will do what is considered to be expedient for their businessess rather than more challenging options.

 

[Dassie rat]

I have a friend who was a member of CAPS. She gave me a newsletter and I exchanged e-mails with one of the representatives. It was civil and I think one way of responding to zoo protestors is for both sides to listen to each others' compliments. I wonder if any of us believe that all zoos are good or that all zoo animals are kept in suitable enclosures. There is also the problem of mistakes made by marketing teams etc. If zoo protestors have valid points, shouldn't we listen to them and perhaps try to think up ways to rectify the problems?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I have a friend who was a member of CAPS. She gave me a newsletter and I exchanged e-mails with one of the representatives. It was civil and I think one way of responding to zoo protestors is for both sides to listen to each others' compliments. I wonder if any of us believe that all zoos are good or that all zoo animals are kept in suitable enclosures. There is also the problem of mistakes made by marketing teams etc. If zoo protestors have valid points, shouldn't we listen to them and perhaps try to think up ways to rectify the problems?

Yes, I think you are right, we should listen to them for sure and try to engage in debate with these groups / individuals when it is possible to have a civil discussion.

I can only answer for myself but I most definitely see that there is a great deal of nuance surrounding whole argument and my position is more middle ground really.

As I stated in the Aspinall debate thread a while back I don't believe that all zoos are good and many are unnecessary, however, I do passionately believe that the better zoos out there are necessary for conservation.

 

[Batto]

Yes, I agree, many journalists tend to go for the easy default / lowest common denominator response of condemming the "cruelty" of zoos because of what they percieve to be popular opinion of the masses.

In some cases, that might be true. In others, it has to do with the predominant political orientation among journalists and the social circles they usually frequent. Zoos are generally frowned upon among these people. They are not highly regarded.

If zoo protestors have valid points,

The critical word here is IF. Most of their points are based on an overly emotional interpretation of animal welfare, romantic anthropomorphization, double standards (especially in regard to speciecism), a blind dogmatic ideology that rejects any facts and observations challenging it as well as a lack of factual knowledge, common sense & experience. There is little to no common ground with such people to start a constructive discussion upon. It's like a dedicated nudist trying to convince a salafist or Taliban of the virtues of his lifestyle and vice versa. I don't see much sense in that.
The situation is very different when discussing the matter with agreeable, smart and reasonable people who have factual knowledge (and experience) to base constructive criticism and feedback upon. My previous posts should indicate that I'm neither an uncritical zoo fan boy, but see plenty of room for improvement in zoos.

 

[zoomaniac]

Knowing the journalist business in person, I allow myself to add to @Batto's comment, that regarding how a journalist is writing about zoos depends also for what the media stands he/she is working for. Boulevard is and was always more "emotions" orientated then serious (old) newspapers.
As Batto already wrote, I also have the impression that more and more people (even well educated ones) prefer to watch cute pictures of animals or read not more then a headline instead of "diving" into a longer, scientific based article.

However - and here I might(?) be disagree with some of my valued forewritters - I'm IN GENERAL not against the "Fluffy, easy, shallow entertainment"-way or "the path of child-friendly amusement park businesses with popular animals etc." many if not most zoos go. Learning is easier when it makes fun. And kids are the paying visitors of tomorrow. And nobody can run a zoo (and so doing conservation tasks) without money. So think at the german saying "Mit Speck fängt man Mäuse". The questions is more, how much of this "Speck" (entertainment stuff) a zoo should offer. This can be a walk on a wire.

And going back to the topic: "Listen to eachother" is indeed the magic term. Unfortunately I (also) made the experience, that animal right activists mostly ignore scientific facts (so do not listen) but "argue" with emotions or weird comparisons to humans...

 

[Batto]

However - and here I might(?) be disagree with some of my valued forewritters - I'm IN GENERAL not against the "Fluffy, easy, shallow entertainment"-way or "the path of child-friendly amusement park businesses with popular animals etc." many if not most zoos go. Learning is easier when it makes fun. And kids are the paying visitors of tomorrow. And nobody can run a zoo (and so doing conservation tasks) without money. So think at the german saying "Mit Speck fängt man Mäuse". The questions is more, how much of this "Speck" (entertainment stuff) a zoo should offer. This can be a walk on a wire.

I think there is and should be a place for entertainment (and children) in a zoo. The question is how much room and money the entertainment aspect takes up, what kind of entertainment we are talking about and if it respects the needs and requirements of the animals. It is a very shaky walk on a wire, indeed, and all to often, zoos are leaning all too heavily to the site of idle entertainment.

I just had an online conversation with an emotional anti-zoo lobbyist today and oh boy! I didn't have to wait long for those weird comparisons to humans...

 

[Batto]

The other week, a local animal right activist group published a critique on the reptile and fish department of the Haus der Natur, my local "brother-in-arms". I'm not going to share it here, since it's trivial, nonsensical and the usual "Emotions >> facts". And written in German. The reptile curator now has to reply to it, and he is "thrilled" to say the least...
However, since the headquarter of the group is closely located to my venue, it might only be a matter of time that WdG is targeted next. So how do you think I should react?
A) Keep calm and carry on, not paying them any attention.
B) Invite them in.
C) Not let them in when they try to book a tour.
D) Let them in when they try to book a tour.

I'm heavily leaning towards A)... ^^

 

[zoomaniac]

what about..
E) shoot them, as soon as they put a foot on your ground (Hey, sometimes US-law isn't that bad if you could have in here in Europe as well, is it?)

Okay, let's be serious: I guess it depends how they get in contact with you. But when you have doubts about if they would behave politly, then A would be the best solution.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

In some cases, that might be true. In others, it has to do with the predominant political orientation among journalists and the social circles they usually frequent. Zoos are generally frowned upon among these people. They are not highly regarded.
The critical word here is IF. Most of their points are based on an overly emotional interpretation of animal welfare, romantic anthropomorphization, double standards (especially in regard to speciecism), a blind dogmatic ideology that rejects any facts and observations challenging it as well as a lack of factual knowledge, common sense & experience. There is little to no common ground with such people to start a constructive discussion upon. It's like a dedicated nudist trying to convince a salafist or Taliban of the virtues of his lifestyle and vice versa. I don't see much sense in that.
The situation is very different when discussing the matter with agreeable, smart and reasonable people who have factual knowledge (and experience) to base constructive criticism and feedback upon. My previous posts should indicate that I'm neither an uncritical zoo fan boy, but see plenty of room for improvement in zoos.

Sorry @Batto , I didn't see this comment before so this is a late reply.

Yes, I agree with what you've written here about the narrative of animal rights activists.

It is based upon emotion, anthropomorphization and dogmatic belief systems and that it is extremely difficult with these sorts of people to find that middle ground where a reasonable discussion could take place.

The other week, a local animal right activist group published a critique on the reptile and fish department of the Haus der Natur, my local "brother-in-arms". I'm not going to share it here, since it's trivial, nonsensical and the usual "Emotions >> facts". And written in German. The reptile curator now has to reply to it, and he is "thrilled" to say the least...
However, since the headquarter of the group is closely located to my venue, it might only be a matter of time that WdG is targeted next. So how do you think I should react?
A) Keep calm and carry on, not paying them any attention.
B) Invite them in.
C) Not let them in when they try to book a tour.
D) Let them in when they try to book a tour.

I'm heavily leaning towards A)... ^^

This is a really tricky one, I suppose it depends on testing the waters with this group.

In a perfect world it would be great if you were able to invite them in, have a civil conversation and explain to them what is being done at WdG and why it is important and also to try to address any misconceptions they have with husbandry of captive reptiles.

But realistically speaking are these open minded people and would they be willing to listen ?

 

[Batto]

@zoomaniac They would probably use E) to their advantage, i.e. as martyrs for the animals.

But realistically speaking are these open minded people and would they be willing to listen ?

Given their previous actions and the current "critique", I somehow doubt that...
But see for yourself:
Verein RespekTiere | Unsere Stärke ist unsere Schwäche für Tiere!