'Species Count vs. Welfare' and the Zoo Enthusiast

[Maguari]

Twice in the last week the accusation has been made on here that those of us with an interest in seeing new and unusual animals or zoos with large collections don't actually care how well they are kept or managed, or even if the species survives, so long as we get to see them.

Can I PLEASE ask where on Earth this has come from? Because I have to say I find the assumption rather offensive (and I don't offend easily).

I like seeing unusual animals. I do. But I fail to see why I should therefore be repeatedly accused of not actually caring about the animals themselves. Have I ever said this was the case? Because it emphatically is not - and if I see poor husbandry or management I say so.

Should I cease to be interested in an unusual animal just because I don't approve of its exhibit? Would a horticulturist ignore a rare Fuchsia because it looks underwatered? Or an art historian ignore a previously unknown Rembrandt because it's been kept in direct sunlight and faded with time?

The interest in seeing new animals and in zoo animal husbandry are parallel, linked interests, and one doesn't get 'switched off' because the other one's 'kicked in'. It's very possible to simultaneously love seeing the animal but deplore its exhibit.




Keeping a large number of species does not have to mean keeping them badly - Rotterdam and Prague zoos, for example, have a massive collection of species and kept in superb exhibits.

I know at least one member here seems to automatically go into aggressive meltdown if any zoo shows any tendency to bring in any number of new species or to show pride in keeping a large collection (but then said member also seems to object to the idea of zoo enthusiasts in principle...).

What does everyone else think?

 

[Baldur]

The user you are refering to is in a private war with the zoos of Berlin so I wouldn't take him seriously. He probably got a job application turned down or is just envious of Blaszkiewitz's position as a Director of not one but two of Europe's best zoos.

There are small zoos out there that care badly for what they have and large zoos that care for theirs very well.

 

[kiang]

I have to admit i do feel a tingle, when say the Tierpark got their aardwolves and yes we now have a "full set" of hyeanids in a single European collection, is this a response dating back to the days of the Victorian and Edwardian postage stamp collections, maybe.
But the animals welfare comes top of any collection priorities, can the said animal be housed and managed well must be the overriding factor for bringing in that animal into the collection in the first place, even more so for an EAZA or BIAZA collection.

But like the Victorian collections of old, there are certain members here who seem to gain pleasure from poking certain members with a big stick to provoke a reaction, maybe the head keeper needs to have another word.

My view, i do like a huge collection of animals in one location, and as maguari said, if there are issues with the housing and management of an animal, it will be flagged up by one or many members, RSCC snow leopards anyone

Ramble over!

 

[Jarkari]

I think it's important for the survival of the zoo. People in general like information fast and get bored easily. The key to survival now lies in repeat visitation. Zoos will find this harder to achieve if they don't continuously add new and exciting things. It doesn't have to be open a new exhibit every six months. A few years between new things will suffice just so people have something extra to look forward to on each visit.

 

[chizlit]

Could the question just be as simple as does Berlin's big cat house seem a suitable place to keep animals in the 21st century?

I dont have a problem with a zoo having as many animals as they like as long as the animals are kept in what I would consider to be a good enclosure for them.
I also get just as excited in seeing a more common animal in a zoo, but not if it's in a bad enclosure.

For this reason I love most of what I saw in (East) Berlin zoo, but was totally shocked by the standards in the big cat house. Im not saying that the animals are not well cared for, but they need to have something better than small metal cages with just a few logs to climb on. It's not an area of the zoo I care to look at again until it's changed.

 

[Maguari]

Could the question just be as simple as does Berlin's big cat house seem a suitable place to keep animals in the 21st century?

If that was what had posted I'd have less objection - it's certainly not a modern house and more than open to criticism. However, what was posted was:

Yeah, some zoofreaks in another forum have squirt off after they have read the message, Berlins Species Collector has added another rare species to his"Collection".

At this another perfect example that zoofreaks are only interested to see rare species, nevertheless, how they are kept, and many animals at this Animalpark, are kept very bad.

So the aardwolfs, which have to live in this awul Big Cat Building.

Only People without any knowledge about the needs of animals,can love this place.

So what could have been a perfectly reasonable criticism of an outdated building became an attack on all the other posters in the thread as well, who had done nothing more than to say they were impressed at the zoo have all four hyaenids, and using their excitement over all four being in one place to accuse them of being uncaring and selfish.

(and there was nothing to say the Aardwolves were in the Alfred Brehm House before that post!)

 

[Chlidonias]

I know at least one member here seems to automatically go into aggressive meltdown if any zoo shows any tendency to bring in any number of new species or to show pride in keeping a large collection (but then said member also seems to object to the idea of zoo enthusiasts in principle...).

it does make you wonder why he's bothering with this site at all doesn't it, and even more so why he would actually work in a zoo given the attitudes he portrays!

 

[sooty mangabey]

I think Maguari speaks a lot of sense here, and, as is often the case, Tarsius does not present himself in the best light. I am not sure why this is so. Those of us who know Tarsius as a real person, rather than just as a contributor to a zoo site, know him to be a perfectly decent fellow. I do not understand why he feels it necessary to be so rude, belligerent and antagonistic here. I think it may be a language thing, but to call people who like the Berlin zoos "disgusting" is a little absurd! No, they're not perfect - but then, where is? Do the animals at Berlin "suffer", as compared to the animals at, to pick another German zoo at random, say Landau? i don't think so. The chimpanzee house at Landau isn't great, for example, but it is still a good place overall. The Berlin zoos are a hymn of praise for biodiversity, and to my mind that is wonderful. If the animals therein were poorly looked after, clearly it would not be so marvellous. But - and this is only ever going to be a fairly subjective thing - in my opinion, this is not the case.

On other threads, Tarsius has shown himself to have an unusual sense of humour - posting, I think, a Michael Jackson lyric in response to the death fo Knut the polar bear, for example, and shooting off some rather puzzling anti-American rants. This does rather undermine his antipathy towards the Berlin zoos. But he is a knowledgeable person, who, in the flesh, is quite convivial. I just wish he'd accept opinions other than his own...

 

[Tarsius]

@Sooty mangabey. I do, but I sure you, i'm not that person you think. We shouldn't discuss this personel things here, okay ? If youw ant, we can do that in the private sector. I'm a bad, evil, nasty and irnonic guy since i'm born.....But don't missunderstand me, please, I haven't named peole who likes Berlin zoos "disgusting", i've meant the "Zoofreaks".

Maybe you should think about the peole here at zoochat, which have not a little piece of sense for humor, sarcasm or irony. Typical for Zoofreaks, whcih ahve only"Zoos"in their heads.Best Examples for these peole are Threads like"Kissing or Smoking in Zoos".

 

[peacock]

Twice in the last week the accusation has been made on here that those of us with an interest in seeing new and unusual animals or zoos with large collections don't actually care how well they are kept or managed, or even if the species survives, so long as we get to see them.

Can I PLEASE ask where on Earth this has come from? Because I have to say I find the assumption rather offensive (and I don't offend easily).

Well I was simply using humour to try and get out of a discussion i was beginning to lose interest in. It was just starting to feel picky and I have a rule of not letting internet debates get me frustrated. By suggesting you probably considered me the stereotypical clueless animal lover and I considered you the clueless zoo lover, I was trying to inject some humour into an otherwise circular conversation.

I didn't realise you'd take it so seriously.

 

[Maguari]

Well I was simply using humour to try and get out of a discussion i was beginning to lose interest in. It was just starting to feel picky and I have a rule of not letting internet debates get me frustrated. By suggesting you probably considered me the stereotypical clueless animal lover and I considered you the clueless zoo lover, I was trying to inject some humour into an otherwise circular conversation.

I didn't realise you'd take it so seriously.

Oddly, being called an arrogant, heartless nerd didn't go down too well! Can't think why...


I think if you'd put 'we're starting look like the stereotypical clueless animal lover the clueless zoo lover' then I'd have got your point. 'I consider you the clueless zoo lover' doesn't (to me) leave much room for misinterpretation.


But anyway, I'm happy enough to chalk this one up to misunderstanding.

 

[Maguari]

@Sooty mangabey. I do, but I sure you, i'm not that person you think.

I know for a fact (from a past incident - details not relevant here) that you are one of no more than half-a-dozen people, and given that I know you're certainly not at least two of them, there's little doubt in my mind. Although you seem to think your various pseudonyms give you total anonymity, and you're welcome to believe what you like.

(If you have any doubt who I am, Facebook and Twitter links at top right of this post. Knock yourself out!)

But don't missunderstand me, please, I haven't named peole who likes Berlin zoos "disgusting", i've meant the "Zoofreaks".

Maybe you should think about the peole here at zoochat, which have not a little piece of sense for humor, sarcasm or irony. Typical for Zoofreaks, whcih ahve only"Zoos"in their heads.Best Examples for these peole are Threads like"Kissing or Smoking in Zoos".

If we're all so 'disgusting', why do you still come here? It looks like you just want to make trouble (and this from someone who agrees with you on the 'kissing' thread!).

 

[sooty mangabey]

@Sooty mangabey. I do, but I sure you, i'm not that person you think. We shouldn't discuss this personel things here, okay ? .

Fine, fine, fine....

I do think that Tarsisus - whoever he may be! - has some very good knowledge, and an interesting perspective. He just doesn't need to be so aggressive in voicing this disagreement...

 

[Tarsius]

@ Maguari .I'm not to be aggressive in my disagreements...The door swings to both sides.....

 

[Saro]

Fine, fine, fine....

I do think that Tarsisus - whoever he may be! - has some very good knowledge, and an interesting perspective.

Now, it seems that this has become the thread "Tarsius vs the zoo enthusiast". I would really like to move this away from a personal debate but I just can't help to wonder were the difference is ? I really don't see the "Very good knowledge", all I see is rants and insults. A reasonable discussion is not possible as he does not put forward reasonable points. He seems to visit zoos all over the world, takes pictures of rare and unusual animals, collects zoo memorabilia and talks to zoo personel - where is the difference to the so called zoo enthusiast? It does not take an expert to see that the Berlin zoos are on the wrong path and a lot of the enclosures are far away from being modern or even appropriate - it is all over the news papers. And talking about animal welfare, maybe Eskilstuna is the better place for Frankfurt's clouded leopards ? Maybe the Frankfurt director made an animal welfare decision after all, who knows, we were all not present. Maybe we can get back to the simple exchange of points and ideas and move away from the insults. After all, you achieve respect with a good argument rather than with an insult and that is what this should be all about.

 

[Maguari]

Now, it seems that this has become the thread "Tarsius vs the zoo enthusiast". I would really like to move this away from a personal debate but I just can't help to wonder were the difference is ? I really don't see the "Very good knowledge", all I see is rants and insults. A reasonable discussion is not possible as he does not put forward reasonable points. He seems to visit zoos all over the world, takes pictures of rare and unusual animals, collects zoo memorabilia and talks to zoo personel - where is the difference to the so called zoo enthusiast? It does not take an expert to see that the Berlin zoos are on the wrong path and a lot of the enclosures are far away from being modern or even appropriate - it is all over the news papers. And talking about animal welfare, maybe Eskilstuna is the better place for Frankfurt's clouded leopards ? Maybe the Frankfurt director made an animal welfare decision after all, who knows, we were all not present. Maybe we can get back to the simple exchange of points and ideas and move away from the insults. After all, you achieve respect with a good argument rather than with an insult and that is what this should be all about.

Well said.


And, Tarsius, I'm sorry that you found my post aggressive - that wasn't my intent. I just find it a little comical how we're all meant to respect your opinion as more worthy than others' but we're not allowed to know who you are.

But, as Saro says, let's get off the personal issues.

 

[zoomaniac]

@Tarsius: Just one question (no offense, just interest): What exactly is the difference between a person who likes Berlin Zoos ALSO because of the rich collection there and a zoofreak?

 

[Sun Wukong]

@Baldur: Would it be possible for you to delay this personal reckoning between you and Tarsius to the private communication sector, i.e. the PM department? Thanks in advance.
And if I'm allowed to add a short personal statement:
Pillorying someone (on the internet) is not quite my cup of tea, I dare say. Reminds me all too bitterly of the Cultural Revolution...

 

[Dicerorhinus]

Twice in the last week the accusation has been made on here that those of us with an interest in seeing new and unusual animals or zoos with large collections don't actually care how well they are kept or managed, or even if the species survives, so long as we get to see them.

Can I PLEASE ask where on Earth this has come from? Because I have to say I find the assumption rather offensive (and I don't offend easily).

Maguari, isn’t it rather obvious?
No? Well it’s a welfare issue.

When zoos like the two in Berlin choose to exhibit many species of the same Genus then those species absorb space and resources that would/SHOULD otherwise be directed at fewer examples of these animals.

Of course there is always the argument that reducing species diversity doesn’t necessarily equate to improved husbandry however that is really rarely often the case.
Most modern zoos strive to build new exhibits which can provide as much space as possible to their intended occupants, and the (in my opinion) outdated attitude of cramming in as many species as possible is not acceptable if zoo’s are to be taken seriously as Conservation centres.
I and it seems many other members here would always prefer to see fewer species with vastly improved living conditions to seeing a huge variety of species kept in sub-optimal conditions (on concrete floors/housed indoors full-time/small enclosures/close proximity to other species which cause behavioural problems/on permanent rotation just to squeeze a few more individuals or species).

Should I cease to be interested in an unusual animal just because I don't approve of its exhibit? Would a horticulturist ignore a rare Fuchsia because it looks underwatered? Or an art historian ignore a previously unknown Rembrandt because it's been kept in direct sunlight and faded with time?

Perhaps I miss the point? Poor enclosure design often leads to behavioural problems and other health issues which can distort individuals so seriously that I’d question if the individuals you are looking at could reasonably be considered representative of their species?

The interest in seeing new animals and in zoo animal husbandry are parallel, linked interests, and one doesn't get 'switched off' because the other one's 'kicked in'. It's very possible to simultaneously love seeing the animal but deplore its exhibit.

It is?

Personally I get no pleasure from seeing something living in deplorable conditions. I have travelled widely in Indonesia and South East Asia and I stopped visiting zoos because there was no enjoyment to be had in seeing animals kept in those conditions.

Is it different for the “nerds” who perhaps get the pleasure from putting a tick next to the species name in their notebook?

Keeping a large number of species does not have to mean keeping them badly - Rotterdam and Prague zoos, for example, have a massive collection of species and kept in superb exhibits.

You’re right, but no one is criticising you for liking Rotterdam of Prague (that I have seen here anyway). It’s when you “nerds” get excited because RSCC are adding yet more small carnivores to an over crowded site only to live out their existence in tiny, largely unsuitable and poorly conceived enclosures many of which are entirely indoors.

Let’s be honest it is only really a certain type of zoo nerd who enjoys seeing row after row of similar species/sub-species in sub optimal exhibits. There are members here who, intentionally or not, appear to value seeing an unusual species and the welfare of the animals is a minor concern to them.

You don’t have to cease being interested in seeing an unusual species.
Personally I have issues with certain people in the industry and seriously question their morality. There is a small collection in the UK where the owner/manager has essentially just become an animal dealer. Members of this website are singing the praises of his collection but do not realise or don’t care that many of these species are being sourced from the wild.
Do you know how difficult it is to adjust recently captured juvenile Aardwoves diet to one that can be easily produced in captivity and what a miserable experience that is for the creature? And for what purpose? So Berlin can exhibit all four species of Hyaenid?
Have you seen some of the capture techniques for these species? or some of the shady people employed by even the "best" brokers in East Africa where “losses during collection are inconsequential and do not count towards quotas”

What I would suggest (and I know that this doesn’t suit everyone) if you want to see unusual animals is to try and do so in the wild. Sure it’s difficult and expensive but the rewards are far greater.

95% of zoo visitors do not care if the see 1 sub-species of Takin or 3.

 

[nicholas]

Very good written Dicerorhinus! I would like to stray from the discussion about bad enclosures and husbandry, (because I feel there are no arguments, ever, that could support subpar holding of animals in a zoo).

I would however like to ask everyone here something: What is the first thing you think when you see a rare animal in captivity? Do you think about were it has been sourced from (wild or cb)? Do you think about if the species is part of a viable captive population, or just one of a few individuals, soon to die out?

Personally, I would say that for me it's different with different species. Sometimes my heart can miss a few beats when I see something that really interests me. A few years back, quite a few actually, I didn't really think it terms of viable populations or stamp collections. Now however, no matter how exited I get about seeing something, my enthusiasm usually settles very quick, in a matter of seconds, when I start thinking about the larger picture.