Things people do that irritate you when you go to the zoo?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stefka said:
Oh yeah. You shouldn´t donate money to the Zoo to built a new enclosure for tigers, but you should donate money to organisation which is actually saving the wild tigers.
Click to expand...
To play devil's advocate here... it could also be argued that it's utterly pointless spending money on saving (certain) animals in their own habitat where they're unlikely to survive for more than a few years, and it's better to preserve what is left of the species by building new exhibits in zoos.
 
SMR said:
To play devil's advocate here... it could also be argued that it's utterly pointless spending money on saving (certain) animals in their own habitat where they're unlikely to survive for more than a few years, and it's better to preserve what is left of the species by building new exhibits in zoos.
Click to expand...

You devil you! :-)
I know that some conservational actions seems pretty hopeless in some areas now, but we can´t give up hope! Once we give up, we´re done.
I understand what you are saying. And I think there are lots of conservationist which are very pessimistic about the future of their work. But they simply can´t let this pessimism out. In order to get more support from the public you need to feed them with successes and good news. If you´re gonna say out loud (in the News for example), that there is not a chance to save the Amur Tiger, then it´s over. Your donors gonna back out and the tiger is as good as dead.
We need public to believe that there is a chance and that they can make a difference. If we give up, ... ah, you know what I´m trying to say :-)

(But that doesn´t change the fact that we need to keep a helthy genetic fund in our zoos as well. They are our last chance, if everything else goes wrong. )
 
Stefka said:
Oh yeah. You shouldn´t donate money to the Zoo to built a new enclosure for tigers, but you should donate money to organisation which is actually saving the wild tigers. There should be information about that next to the enclosure. And lots of zoos do that, Dublin zoo supports the EAZA Ape Campaign for example.
Click to expand...

Shepreth Wildlife Park has fairly simple enclosures for its animals and has several displays mentioning conservation programmes for animals, many of which are not kept in the park. Perhaps zoos should be trying to raise funds for the work they do around the world. I know someone at ZSL who has been doing work on Ganges river dolphins, pygmy hogs and hispid hares. These species are not kept in London Zoo or Whipsnade, but they still could be saved. I would just prefer zoos to be honest and stop pretending that large animals, represented by hundreds of captive individuals that will never be returned to the wild, represent conservation, while decreasing captive populations of other species could help condemn many species to extinction.


[QUOTE SMR: To play devil's advocate here... it could also be argued that it's utterly pointless spending money on saving (certain) animals in their own habitat where they're unlikely to survive for more than a few years, and it's better to preserve what is left of the species by building new exhibits in zoos. [/QUOTE]

This is a very difficult subject. I agree with David Attenborough on this one. I believe that we could wild habitats if we wanted to, but that the human population will continue to rise and wild habitats will continue to be destroyed. I also believe that certain species of large animals are likely to become extinct in the wild in the next decade or so. I agree with the ISIS principle of keeping about 80 captive individuals, with a wide genetic diversity, of as many different species as possible. Zoos should increase the number of species they conserve, instead of cutting their collections in order to build expensive enclosures from animals they have saved from extinction. Conservationists should be helping to preserve natural habitats and create wildlife corridors between reserves, but I think SMR is probably right that some species are doomed and there's little we can do. Some species have fallen to very low figures, such as the Mauritius kestrel, which fell to just 4 individuals in 1974, but was saved. I don't think we should give up hope and not bother to save rare species; I agree with Steffka on this one. I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about large mammals living in small areas of suitable habitat, surrounded by large populations of humans. That is why zoos should be cutting down on some species of large mammals to introduce other species that are rare in collections.
 
Well said, Dossie Rat!

I would just like to add one more thing: Even if some of the species are doomed, we shouldn´t stop trying to preserve their habitat. Cause we´re gonna need some place to release them to, when the situation improves. (Oh yeah, I am very optimistic :) )

And ZLS is a great example, I love their Edge of Existence project, for example.

Anyway, we´re a bit off topic here, aren´t we? This was originally a discussion about irritating zoo visitors. :)
 
Thanks Steffka.

Like you, I don't want to give up on habitats and I don't like the idea of the world being a continuous urban area with no variety of habitats. A few years ago, I visited the Natural History Museum's storehouse in Wandsworth. My group were allowed to touch the stuffed mammals and I stroked a crescent nail-tailed wallaby. This species is probably extinct, but was kept in London Zoo in the 19th century. Zootierliste has a long list of animals that were kept in European zoos, but which are now no longer kept in Europe. Some animals I have seen in zoos are no longer listed in ISIS, which is a great shame. I have fond memories of Cologne's saki and uakari house, which had red, white and black-headed uakaris, as well as white-nosed, bearded and monk sakis. When I visited Cologne in 2008, the house had red howlers and white-faced sakis, but it wasn't the same.

I agree that if we don't preserve habitat, then what is the point of continually breeding animals, especially if zoos do not have enough space to keep the young animals and they can't be sent to other zoos? We should be protecting habitats now and encouraging local people to appreciate their wildlife. I know someone at ZSL who has been helping schoolchildren in Kenya and Assam to appreciate their wildlife. I had a talk with Gerald Durrell's secretary at Jersey Zoo. He said that Jersey Zoo was involved with training people around the world to look after habitats. Surely this is the way forward: pay local people and get wildlife tourists to pay towards protecting the habitat, so that local people can see the financial benefit of preserving habitats, rather than destroying them.

I accept this is going way off topic, but I still feel that when zoos pretend that spending millions on new enclosures will save endangered species can be irritating, as well as dishonest.
 
While I understand that the animals and also their offspring living in these impressive new exhibits may never be returned to the wild, if a zoo spends vast amounts of money to build a new house for gorillas, tigers, elephants etc. and therefore improve the living conditions and welfare for the animals concerned, then surely this must be a good thing.
 
Thanks Tarzan.

I have seen animals kept in cramped enclosures where they can barely turn round. I accept that if animals can't be kept properly incaptivity, they probably shouldn't be kept at all. What is it like to keep a sloth as a pet? - Quora suggests keeping a sloth in a cardboard box, which I feel is totally unsuitable. What I was saying is that zoos are dishonest if they say that the new house aims to consrve the species, while it is really for other purposes. Please note that all captive animals, whether they be common or endangered, should be kept in good surroundings with the correct welfare, food etc. This is not necessarily linked with conservation.
 
Yes I agree, if the animal cannot be housed in the zoo correctly then it should not be kept at all, I see what you mean about a zoo highlighting charismatic species in state of the art enclosures under the banner of conservation, I do think the word "dishonest", however could be a little strong, if it is a genuine respectable zoo, eg, London, Chester, as well as the animals themselves, if the visitors are also impressed by the living conditions that the animals are living in, and makes them interested and aware of the plight of the animal concerned living in the wild then that also must surely be a good thing.
 
Thanks, Tarzan

I'm not saying that all new zoo exhibits are dishonest. I'd like to see Gondwanaland in Leipzig. What I was saying is that it is dishonest for a zoo to raise money for a new exhibit by saying that it will save animals from extinction. If you have two animals in an enclosure three times bigger than the old enclosure, the number of animals is the same. I can't really see the point in continuing to breed species represented in their hundreds, with no prospect of returning any of them to the wild. I especially disagree with the new enclosures replacing enclosures occupied by several species, some of which may be far more endangered in the wild than the charismatic species and with far lower captive populations. I'd be more in favour of breeding the latter and feel that this would be a more honest form of conservation.
 
Dassie rat said:
Thanks Tarzan.

I have seen animals kept in cramped enclosures where they can barely turn round. I accept that if animals can't be kept properly incaptivity, they probably shouldn't be kept at all. What is it like to keep a sloth as a pet? - Quora suggests keeping a sloth in a cardboard box, which I feel is totally unsuitable.
Click to expand...

OMG, I´ve just read it, that´s just unbelievable... Why on Earth would somebody want to have a sloth as a pet??? Jeezzzz, a cardboard box??
:mad::confused::mad:
 
Firstly, I quite agree that all species, great and small should be conserved in a good zoo, if they are endangered in the wild, if this could be possible, if the zoos had bottomless pits of money to build these enclosures on hundreds of acres at their disposal, unfortunately as we all know this is not the case, the zoos have to raise funds by attracting visitors, and like it or not, it is the charismatic animals that draw in the crowds. Also, I feel that the good zoos are, at times, in a no win situation, gorillas at London for example. When they lived in the Sobell Pavilion certain interest groups described their living conditions as "dire", I agree that they were certainly not perfect, however I remember what a great improvement they were on the old monkey house where they had lived previously. Due to the generous legacy of zoo volunteer, Delaine Welch, London have been able to build Gorilla Kingdom, at a cost of millions. You would then think that the people who had described the Sobell Pavilion as dire would then be pleased, this was not the case, they then state that this money would have been better spent on gorilla conservation in the wild, not just to rehouse three "dis functional" gorillas in the zoo. Well yes, it is preferable for gorillas to live wild in Africa rather than in a corner of Regent's Park, however let us live in real world here, I understand that if you know where to go, you can have gorilla meat served to you in a restaurant in London today, as far as I am aware gorillas are not "farmed " anywhere that I know of, unlike ostrich and deer, so I think it is correct in stating that this gorilla meat must have been obtained by killing wild gorillas, that is the reality of the matter,and unfortunately not only for gorillas, but many other endangered species, including the smaller, not so well known species that you mention.
 
Thanks Tarzan for your comments about the gorillas. I remember the old monkey house and the Sobells Pavilion. I must admit that when London Zoo was threatened with closure, I wanted the zoo to keep the orang-utans. I also had a talk with the zoo's Zoological Director when I saw the design for Gorilla Kingdom. I asked what would happen if the gorilla display was unsuccessful. He said the zoo would look at alternative species. I'm afraid that Gorilla Kingdom has not been a success with gorillas - the only baby born has died, as have two males. I still feel that London shouldn't be competing with Port Lympne and Howletts, which have been far more successful with gorillas. London had the best breeding group of orang-utans in the world and since the orangs left London, the net result of gorilla breeding is a dead baby. Even Chessington has a far better record.

I have seen bush meat on sale at Ridley Road Market in Dalston and a restaurant in Lambs Conduit Street that served various exotic animals. I used to work at Essex Road in Islington. A butcher advertised crocodile and kangaroo meat and had to close due to vandalism. I'm upset that anyone would want to eat gorilla meat and I've heard that it is quite easy for tourists to eat lemur meat in Madagascar.
 
No, unfortunately, Gorilla Kingdom has not been a great success with the animals concerned up to the present time, I did not agree with Kesho being introduced to the baby , Tiny, resulting in his death, hopefully fortunes will change there in the future, although, as far as breeding is concerned this will not be possible with Kesho. I don't think London are trying to compete with Howletts and Port Lympe, I don't think that was ever the intention when Gorilla Kingdom was built, Agree that it was sad when the orangs left though, hopefully they may return to Regent's Park one day, all going well:)
 
Thanks Tarzan.

I accept there have been mixed reviews of Gorilla Kingdom. One member of a group of zoo enthusiasts wondered how it cost over £5 million. I also accept that it would be difficult to please all the visitors. I know that a few people would have preferred the orangs to stay and there are a few people who would like to replace the gorillas with bonobos, as the only bonobos in the UK are at Twycross. I still feel that if the gorillas had left London Zoo, the number of baby orangs and/or chimps would have greatly exceeded the one baby gorilla.
 
I at one point had visitors throwing gummy bears at the beavers to wake them up. I told them that they are nocturnal and cannot eat gummy bears. So I had to go in and clean up the enclosure.. again. Then we had someone trying to climb into the hippo enclosure.. some people are just darn stupid. that and a parent was telling a 16 year old that this clone fish was "nemo". Kids pounding on fish tanks, and parents don't do anything then when I ask the kids to stop pounding on the tanks the parents get all defensive. Then at one point someone asked if she can feed one of the hippos an apple she had, we told her no and explained why, she threw it in anyways so we had to get the hippoes out of the pool and fish out the apple. I do not even want to go to when we had an animal emergency.
 
You are probably right, if the orangs had remained at Regent's Park there would probably have been more than one baby, the same could probably be said about the chimps if they were not on contraception, but remember Z.S.L. still maintains a group of chimps at Whipsnade. As for bonobos, yes it would be marvellous to establish a second group in the U.K. , I cannot think of anywhere better to do this than Regent's Park., but it is all to do with available space and finances. I for one was astounded at the cost of Gorilla Kingdom, there certainly seamed to be a lot more for the money at Edinburgh with their new chimp exhibit, also at Chester for their Realm of the Red Ape complex, all three built at a similar time, perhaps the higher cost of labour in the capital had something to do with it, I know what tradesmen who live in my neck of the woods tell me what they can earn in London as opposed to what they can earn in the North East, there is no comparison, also isn't everything that London Zoo builds expensive, i.e. one million pounds for a children's zoo in1995, and four million pounds for a new invertebrate house in 1999, that's what makes London Zoo, still to this day a cut above the rest!
 
Thanks Tarzan

I think you're probably right about increased costs in London. I also wonder if London Zoo gets the same treament as Local Government and the Health Service, where I think a seller puts a nought or two on the total due to the size of the budgets. I'm seen some of the purchases where I work and I reckon we've been duped. I suspect the same thing happens when architects get involved at London Zoo and I wonder if it would be better to use pre-fabricated material to make cheaper exhibits, where partitions can be removed or added easily and cheaply and where there is little chance of the exhibit winning an architectural award and being difficult to remove, even if it is unsuitable for animals.


I am impressed by Gentle Lemur's report (http://www.zoochat.com/38/report-hwp-tour-douglas-richardson-233843/) where an enclosure for Pallas's cats was refurbished for £85 at the Highland Wildlife Park. About 20 years ago, there were a couple of large houses in East London on sale for £35,000 and £40,000. I still they could have been developed to breed small animals. In 2001, a friend and I visited a room in the Alfred brehem house in Berlin's Tierpark, where a keeper had various small mammals, including short-tailed opossums and mouse-like hamsters. I miss the old Rodent House in the same zoo, with cururos, dassie rats, short-tailed opossums, gundis etc in a large garden shed, which I doubt cost much to build.
 
Here's a new one, maybe: Toronto Zoo's offical Facebook had someone say that TZ should release their animals or "put them out of their misery." :rolleyes: Misery, riiiight. I don't buy that animals are so much happier in the wild. To me, it's a Disneyfied image, especially the squrriel I saw after a territorial fight. Yikes.
 
Can't recall if this has been mentioned, but speaking of facebook pages for zoos one that really annoyed me was when Chester Zoo published a story on the breeding and releasing of highly endangered Fen Raft spiders.

People were honestly commenting with 'ohhh I hate spiders. If you release them anywhere near me I'll step on them!" - I'm sure CZ would appreciate the undoing of all their hardwork on trying to save a species (it mentions in the latest issue of 'Z' that there were 400 youngsters each in individual test tubes, each one being hand fed individually :o)

Honestly, I hate the fact that the general public seem to think Conservation is for the Cuddlies....


Let's start an awareness campaign right here, Conservation for the Underdogs :p
 
Right with you there JR! :D There was a column in the Guardian recently where the journalist replied to conservationist's concerns that the adder was becoming rarer in Britain and needed greater protection along the lines of 'Good, let them die out. They're small and mean and venemous etc etc'. Really got my blood boiling. If only people realised that without the 'uncharismatic' animals, there wouldn't be any tigers and pandas and elephants in the first place!

It's why I think zoos should do bug handling sessions as much as possible, whilst simultaneously not marketing them as 'creepy crawlies'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top