I was looking through the photos of Leningrad / St Petersburg Zoo and found myself considered a dilemma I’ve faced while zoo visiting in the past. Would I visit? On the one hand I’d be interested in visiting as I’m interested in zoo history and architecture, and in some ways I think I should visit the bad as well as the good, just to get as complete a picture of zoos in the 21st century as possible. On the other they’d be some pretty depressing sights and my entrance fee would be helping to fund the place. Others of you must face this dilemma when travelling abroad. What do you do?
Should we visit slum zoos?
- Thread starter Ned
- Start date
An interesting topic for discussion, as I've been reading Peter Dickinson's multiple threads and reviews from Asian zoos and it seems as if 98% of them are horrific. There are many barbaric roadside contraptions all across North America, some hideous menageries throughout Africa, and even many major zoos from all over the world have badly outdated architecture that almost takes precedent over the welfare of the captive animals. Should the plight of those animals be broadcast to others so that something can be done about the situation? Or if such zoos were shunned would that mean they'd close down anyway? It's a rotten decision either way.
I've visited most of the major zoos across the United States, Canada and Australia, and for all of the brilliant exhibitry there are still notable establishments that have handfuls of subpar enclosures. Just glancing through the ZooChat gallery, and its 852 different zoos, aquariums and wildlife parks begs me to ask this question: how many of those 852 establishments are actually world class? Maybe 5%? How many are above average? Maybe 20%? But who defines what is top-notch and what is substandard? Everything is subjective, and there are many shades of grey to the equation.
I've visited most of the major zoos across the United States, Canada and Australia, and for all of the brilliant exhibitry there are still notable establishments that have handfuls of subpar enclosures. Just glancing through the ZooChat gallery, and its 852 different zoos, aquariums and wildlife parks begs me to ask this question: how many of those 852 establishments are actually world class? Maybe 5%? How many are above average? Maybe 20%? But who defines what is top-notch and what is substandard? Everything is subjective, and there are many shades of grey to the equation.
This thread brings up the memory of the PETA plant that was here trying to convince us not to visit Zoo Negara because it was supposed to be a slum zoo. I have been there so I can comment on it, and you will find many worse zoos in Europe. It is not the best I have visited, but certainly no slum zoo. Not to me at least.
How can you know if a zoo is slum or not if you have not visited? From photos or videos? Photos and videos are usable to some extend but you will have to try and realise what objective the person behind them may have had by taking them. If you see photos on a zoo's website, the objective is to get you to visit. If you see photos on the PETA or the Born Free websites, the objective is to get you to boycott. Its as simple as that. Photos in a tourist brochure are always modified with the obvious objective in mind. And all the smiling people in it will not guarantee you a great vacation in that destination
Your money in most cases will be used to feed the animals, give veterinary care and employ keepers. Take the money away and you take all this away. By all means call me naïve but this is how I see it. And if no one visits, no one will know about the plight of the animals. And if the zoo closes because of insufficient funding, the animals might find themselves in an even worse zoo, a circus, or even dead. The problem won't vanish by boycotting the zoo. Its as simple as that. If we visit it and become aware of its problems, we can do something about it, otherwise not.
If no one had visited Lisbon Zoo and made noise about their gorilla house, the gorillas there might still be behind bars on a concrete floor. I love to watch groups of gorillas play outdoors on green grass. Why do I appreciate that sight so much? Gorillas are of course magnificent animals but another reason could be that I have seen horrible facilities too, including a single gorilla sitting on a concrete floor in a small cell in Lisbon Zoo back in August 1997. I felt sorry for that gorilla then and always have but I'm glad that I got to see it as it taught me to recognise and appreciate good gorilla exhibits.
I have good savings today but I also know what its like to be almost broke. Fortunately I have never had to go hungry but I imagine that it would teach me to appreciate every meal more. Visiting bad zoos teaches us to recognise good zoos and appreciate the good things they do for endangered wildlife. We can then continue to support the good zoos and do something about the bad ones.
How can you know if a zoo is slum or not if you have not visited? From photos or videos? Photos and videos are usable to some extend but you will have to try and realise what objective the person behind them may have had by taking them. If you see photos on a zoo's website, the objective is to get you to visit. If you see photos on the PETA or the Born Free websites, the objective is to get you to boycott. Its as simple as that. Photos in a tourist brochure are always modified with the obvious objective in mind. And all the smiling people in it will not guarantee you a great vacation in that destination
Your money in most cases will be used to feed the animals, give veterinary care and employ keepers. Take the money away and you take all this away. By all means call me naïve but this is how I see it. And if no one visits, no one will know about the plight of the animals. And if the zoo closes because of insufficient funding, the animals might find themselves in an even worse zoo, a circus, or even dead. The problem won't vanish by boycotting the zoo. Its as simple as that. If we visit it and become aware of its problems, we can do something about it, otherwise not.
If no one had visited Lisbon Zoo and made noise about their gorilla house, the gorillas there might still be behind bars on a concrete floor. I love to watch groups of gorillas play outdoors on green grass. Why do I appreciate that sight so much? Gorillas are of course magnificent animals but another reason could be that I have seen horrible facilities too, including a single gorilla sitting on a concrete floor in a small cell in Lisbon Zoo back in August 1997. I felt sorry for that gorilla then and always have but I'm glad that I got to see it as it taught me to recognise and appreciate good gorilla exhibits.
I have good savings today but I also know what its like to be almost broke. Fortunately I have never had to go hungry but I imagine that it would teach me to appreciate every meal more. Visiting bad zoos teaches us to recognise good zoos and appreciate the good things they do for endangered wildlife. We can then continue to support the good zoos and do something about the bad ones.
devilfish
Well-Known Member
I agree with Baldur. I tend to visit at least once, just to see what its like. The entry fee usually doesn't really matter to me as most of the time for poor zoos its such a small amount that it wouldn't make any difference to their income, or to me, whether I paid or not (in my experience a lot of these zoos get most of their income from other sources, e.g. government funding).
I also agree that drawing your own conclusions after visiting is much better than taking a stance from a few photos or someone else's opinion. I find that often there are interesting exhibits or animals even though the rest of the zoo may be of a terrible standard: Angkor Zoo had the world's only captive hairy-nosed otter, for example, and Tehran Zoo has Asiatic cheetahs.
I also agree that drawing your own conclusions after visiting is much better than taking a stance from a few photos or someone else's opinion. I find that often there are interesting exhibits or animals even though the rest of the zoo may be of a terrible standard: Angkor Zoo had the world's only captive hairy-nosed otter, for example, and Tehran Zoo has Asiatic cheetahs.
I have always encouraged people to visit zoos and form their own opinion, as my views might not be the same as others (remember the debates earlier this year over US immersion exhibits vs UK wooden cages?). Zoos can change markedly over only a few years too - a zoo that was crap theree years ago may be very different today.
While I appreciate people's views - and photographs - I will continue to go to zoos to make up my own mind as to how bad (or good) they are. As snowleopard says - it's all subjective and there are many shades of gray.
Hix
While I appreciate people's views - and photographs - I will continue to go to zoos to make up my own mind as to how bad (or good) they are. As snowleopard says - it's all subjective and there are many shades of gray.
Hix
Thanks for your views. I was expecting the opposite response. I’m quite relieved that others of you are prepared to visit a zoo with an open mind; even if it has a poor reputation. On occasions I’ve found myself visiting zoos abroad with the feeling that I’m being quite selfish; I’m fairly sure the animal housing is going to be poor but I’m keen to see any rarely kept species hey might have. However there’s probably only one zoo I’ve visited that I wouldn’t re visit. That was the Old Valencia zoo which was by far the worst hell hole of a zoo I’ve ever visited and I’m very glad it’s gone. I also disliked Madrid but that was 20 years ago.
An important question: in my book a slum zoo is not a zoo with poor housing for their animals, but one where the animals are not cared for properly. I don't like either of these conditions, but the first can be remedied while the second is contemptible.
I don't want to visit a slum zoo or to support one in any way. If I consider that a zoo is a slum zoo when I visit it, I will never visit it again (unless I am assured that it has improved considerably).
Alan
I don't want to visit a slum zoo or to support one in any way. If I consider that a zoo is a slum zoo when I visit it, I will never visit it again (unless I am assured that it has improved considerably).
Alan
I would like to add that when deiding which zoo to visit (not everyone can afford to see/go to every zoo) that my decision comes down to what I've heard it is like i.e it is good enough?
With a very limited fund I (and i dare say most people) would much rather would rather spend their money well visiting a good establishment. I'm not saying this is the only reason influencing choice of zoos (other factors include location and time constraints) but it is a hihgly important factor.
I would love to visit every zoo if just to form my own opinion of it but this is not possible and so I prioritise my zoos according to how good it is supposed to be.
With a very limited fund I (and i dare say most people) would much rather would rather spend their money well visiting a good establishment. I'm not saying this is the only reason influencing choice of zoos (other factors include location and time constraints) but it is a hihgly important factor.
I would love to visit every zoo if just to form my own opinion of it but this is not possible and so I prioritise my zoos according to how good it is supposed to be.
I tend to think of a slum zoo as one with bad housing. As for poor animal care, no zoo I’ve visited springs to mind as having poor animal care. Even the old Valencia zoo had clean cages when I visited. Often it’s the percentage of bad enclosures compared to the percentage of good enclosures that makes the difference between a good zoo and a slum. Even good zoos often have the odd poor enclosure and bad zoos have the odd redeeming feature. When researching a zoo, it’s often the case of trying to ascertain how much of the zoo is good and how much bad. I think Bladur makes a good point about researching zoos, the fact that the info you get is tailored to the agenda of the organisation who publish that information. But this is the point of the question, do you take the chance that the zoo is going to be a bad one. I tend to think any zoo is worth one visit but I do have this battle with my conscience before visiting zoos in poorer countries. With the risk of offending all people from Mediterranean countries, it was only a decade or so ago that I felt this way when visiting zoo in that region. These days I’m quite confident that zoos in this area are as good as any in Europe.
I agree with Ned's logic: Poor housing for humans is called a slum. Therefore poor housing for captive animals could also be called a slum. As I've said before, it is a grey area and there is definitely no clear right or wrong answer here, but even at some of the worst zoos the keepers are attempting to make a difference or are striving to keep an area clean for a particular animal. Zoos with junkyard exhibits or crappy, outdated cages might have keepers who are just as diligent at their job as the biggest and best zoos in the world, but the enclosures that the animals spend their lives in can go a long way to fitting a "slum" description.
Baldur also has some excellent points, including the fact that advertisements can often be quite deceptive. An specific image of a zoological park can be presented that does not contain an iota of truth, and at the same time a bad impression can be attained when it is not warranted. I do believe that complaing and criticizing certain substandard zoo exhibits in the western world has led to the renovation or total destruction of such enclosures. Many American zoos that I visit, and this must surely be the same throughout Europe, are demolishing their outdated cages and grottoes and replacing them with modern habitats with natural substrate. I've visited a couple of zoos in the past where there was a customer survey that asked a number of questions about the overall zoo experience, including what improvements could be made. Years later those two zoos have interestingly enough smashed their old cages down and replaced them with contemporary habitats.
Even the big zoos are not immune to critics, and another intriguing fact is that just before the 1996 Olympics Zoo Atlanta demolished their row of bear grottoes. The bears were all placed in other zoos, the pits were filled in and destroyed, and I'm not sure if anything was actually ever built in their place. I suppose the administration of Zoo Atlanta thought that it was better to have zero bears at all then to showcase such magnificent animals in substandard and outdated grottoes. I know that not everyone will agree with what the zoo did, but I applaud them and really support such a movement. It gives the wrong impression to the public if animals are kept in outdated grottoes and pits, as there are so many wildlife documentaries on every day of the year that illuminate the fact that wild animals come from diverse, beautiful, natural environments. Zoo Atlanta found that people were complaining about the plight of their bears, and so the entire set of grottoes was given the green light to be destroyed. Who really wants to see such "slums" in zoos?
Baldur also has some excellent points, including the fact that advertisements can often be quite deceptive. An specific image of a zoological park can be presented that does not contain an iota of truth, and at the same time a bad impression can be attained when it is not warranted. I do believe that complaing and criticizing certain substandard zoo exhibits in the western world has led to the renovation or total destruction of such enclosures. Many American zoos that I visit, and this must surely be the same throughout Europe, are demolishing their outdated cages and grottoes and replacing them with modern habitats with natural substrate. I've visited a couple of zoos in the past where there was a customer survey that asked a number of questions about the overall zoo experience, including what improvements could be made. Years later those two zoos have interestingly enough smashed their old cages down and replaced them with contemporary habitats.
Even the big zoos are not immune to critics, and another intriguing fact is that just before the 1996 Olympics Zoo Atlanta demolished their row of bear grottoes. The bears were all placed in other zoos, the pits were filled in and destroyed, and I'm not sure if anything was actually ever built in their place. I suppose the administration of Zoo Atlanta thought that it was better to have zero bears at all then to showcase such magnificent animals in substandard and outdated grottoes. I know that not everyone will agree with what the zoo did, but I applaud them and really support such a movement. It gives the wrong impression to the public if animals are kept in outdated grottoes and pits, as there are so many wildlife documentaries on every day of the year that illuminate the fact that wild animals come from diverse, beautiful, natural environments. Zoo Atlanta found that people were complaining about the plight of their bears, and so the entire set of grottoes was given the green light to be destroyed. Who really wants to see such "slums" in zoos?
i also applaud them, atlata is a really good zoo now
well i have visited many terrible zoos here in Mexico and also in central and south America not to mention foul zoos in the United states which proves not everything is greener on the other side of the huge , barbed wired border fence hahaha as gringos would have us believe, things are improving slowly but surely , i think it is important to visit zoos in bad conditions to gain evidence to report animal cruelty to organizations , im currently in correspondance with a few organizations regarding a terrible i visited in the north of Mexico , however no great news yet unfortunately ,