I also feel like a zoo that does not create proper representation of an existing ecological region its just lazy and even harmfull for the educational aspect of the park. I do not care if the general public would think the african savanna would be one either way, the standard of science has never be defined by the broad public. If you go to a zoo, you should not just be provided the possibility to properly educate yourself but also show respect to the matter and interact with the
exhibition.
I miss transperancy, I expect such professional scientific institutions to work with public on managing the matter. Be entirely open about the challenges they face both keeping and breeding but also sourcing the animals, not just from the wild but publicaly adressing how politics can mean serious damage to conservation programmes and regulation not always properly protecting the habitat and species since its often sadly only the officials that stick to the rules and illegal poaching still taking place. Brexit seems to disable not just the also the functionality of conservation programmes but also the management of less endangered species that could still serve the purpose of education. In this case the zoos should dare to speak up, minding the attention does not help the matter, education and conservation as well as recreation are still very much needed no matter how much some groups try to boycott the proper conversation in the first place. Their intentions are not bad but partialy misguided. Its a stressfull world these days.
This might be more controversial but I have been in many zoos growing up where I asked zoo keepers or even official educators questions that might have been a bit more specific than the average visitors question but the way I got treated was just off. They either lied with a confidence that buffled me or sorta tried to get back at me for exposing that they did not know the answer. Its ok to not know these things, but neither are lying nor even lashing out.
Another point that I found unfair was that both critics but also zoos themself rotated mainly if not even exclusively around the concept of conservation, instead of also recognizing of the importance of zoos as museum or space of recreation. Its selfspeaking that the animals welfare must never be compromised ever, but some arguments of critics feel so one dimensional like claiming that a child playing at the zoo would have learned that conservation would not be a serious matter.
Conservation has become undeniably one of the main pillars of zoological institutions, but neither should it be the zoos responsibility to be the one and rather only adress for this matter nor should it be the only definition of the zoos themself.
Conservation is important to probably all people, especialy us enthusiasts, but nobody goes to the zoo so they could get the twenty euros to finance the conservation programme, but because we want to recreate. So we should create zoos that make the most of that aspect that draws people in, and demand the politics to take care of conservation so that the zoos have something to work with instead of being forced to be ten things at the very same time.
It should not be a question I would need to personaly have to find out what species should be kept. What would be a waste of resources and better invested in the husbandry of another species. What species would actualy suffer from ex situ programmes.
Call keeping the standards so low. The zoos might not be able to meet them any time soon but every reality starts of with an ideal and I feel like our concepts were either too fantastical and unrealistic or too conform with working the present state.
Call out yourself sometimes. We need to be self critical as community both enthusiasts and professionals alike. Thats not an invetation to use me as a target, just saying because I brought things up in a manner that I feel might attract some irritation.
This is a bit idealistic but not entirly impossible. I believe in equality for people all over the world including education and experience. This is sometimes easier in certain places than in others but generaly would i support that round about most species would be present in parks all over the world, so that nobody would need to travel longer distances to see species that have almost gain a sort of cult status not just within the community but even general public.
Call out gate keeping animals and plants should not be made an political instrument to impose status or create interest in people visiting the place themself. Tourism increased that much on the galapagos islands that it shifted from funding the conservation project to threatening the archipelagos fauna and flora. Some things are rather unfair like that europe america and asia have the resources to find and maintain breeding programmes for species that oceania sadly could not on that level of diversity, they have less parks therefor less funding from both goverment and entry fees the very same time they have one of the richest and rarest fauna and flora on this planet, that they could need help with to preserve what would mean that it would make sense to allow the export of some of the specimens to europe and america even asia. What would mean that not just oceania would get less exotic species but would also give away some of their unique fauna and flora, of course not in the case of threatening their survival. Ethicaly do I absolutelj understand the concept of if we can not have these you can not have the few things we have have that you do not, but sometimes did I get the impression that both australia and new zealand might not be able to protect all the species. I mean its still an idealism to say keep some of the exotic and we take care of some of the natives as well so you would not have to take care of the conservation programme all by yourself.
As of now I feel unable to tell what species might not be possible to keep in captivity even with enlarged enclosures and improofed condition. Would I want to say goodbye to lions, no but if they would suffer in some form or another that I felt was more challenging that the wild would have been. My ideal concept is that zoos would work together to create a pattern (since no singlee zoo could keep all species) that would maximize the diversity within the smaller region while ensuring the sustainibility with a larger amount of contributors to a breeding programme. An example lets say smaller countries have on average five larger parks and larger countries have on average five larger zoos within the different regions within their larger area, instead of concentrating all kordofan giraffes in one country or region I would advocate for the five different parks to find a pattern where no zoos that are the closest to one another keep the same species, not always but mostly.
The following statement is just my personal opinion and I am fully aware that it might be wrong and idealistic and that I could change my mind over time but I personaly would chose to keep a species in human care even when they could never ever be released back into the wild again because their natural habitat would be destroyed and could never be recontructed ever again. Eventhough I have to note that this is a rather theoretical concept, I do think that they have a right to exist, but also serve a purpose as educational specimen, as long as they do not suffer in any way in captivity. Not in relation to contemplation of the question if the resources could have been invested in a species that would have the chance to survive. Essential for me is that in the end the programme is working long term even if it meant sarcificing one of
the two.
When I think of the future of zoos I always envision much bigger and better structurised parks. I see species that were previously kept but disappeared due to mismanagement and external condition, that could not be fixed all at the same time and therefor an intermediate phase with much lesser species was given. We finaly have optimized zoos that keep track of every single species kept, that have much better educational exhibitions. One thing I hope to become more of a common enclosure design is the multi dimensional lay out, where the complex the animals live in is build around the winding paths, that allow separation and rotation. One example for these tho still as a not so elaborate version is odense, with their manatee house and their tiger enclosure, that offer several different angles, in case of the later two views from above one from a tower one from the top of the stone cave platteau, two side views one with a small trench with a car droven into, and the tunnel that would allow to feel closer but also allows the tigers to roam above the visitors space. Those tunnel zurich currently plans and that philadelphia made famous are probably practical, but look awfull and can not in my opinion not compensate for proper enclosure design. I hope I could go to a zoo for once an have the feeling that things are taken care of at least in one smaller corner withing this giant chaos, because too often I felt as if the park was neither able to take care of the some of the species themself nor the others as community. I want to be able to say ah thats cologne they ensure that this and that species can maintain it self in captivity of course also support the in situ programmes but once again this should be stemmed by independent conservation organistations and they also keep this species that another parks properly manages. I want to see in depth exhibitions with skelletons and taxidermy with models with dioramas with interactive simulators i want to be able to get all the information on the species and the park and their history with one another even the very specimens that were and are kept and bred, and I do not think that I should go to the natural history museum for this. Both serve two different purposes the natural history museum can display much more specimens within the same space as the zoo, but when I am at the zoo i want to be able to dive into the specific collection, I mean every museum and zoo has a different composition, is not this the very reason we want to attent
different institutions.
I am sorry that its such a mass of a mess, it could have been probably several independent threads where I should have elaborated the different elements more in depth, but for me they felt so intertwined that I just could not decide how split these things into different entries. Hope that I would neither get attacked nor just ignored just because I would always be so all over the place. Maybe this forum is not the places for this idk. Thanks to everybody who reas this.