So Vox recently put out a video titled are zoo's bad which while being a good watch ended up leaving me feeling frustrated.
The two pieces of evidence are if zoos help wild animals and if human studies about conservation change while visiting the zoo.
With the first point, they argue that megafauna (elephants, bears, large primates, big cats, etc.) aren't treated as reserves if for example the African elephant ever becomes Extinct in the Wild they can't just pull out of them to be placed in Africa. They also argue about the lack of conservation programs in zoos (8,700 animal species with only 117 programs... from the AZA)
The 2nd point the author talks about a survey researchers did on the public before and after visiting a zoo writing down what they would do to help animals, with people mentioning habitat protection and creation decreasing before and after. That's the only piece of evidence the author has.
The author's solution? Why just move all the cognitively complex animals to reputable sanctuaries and replace them with species that can be bred and transferred into the wild more efficiently or species that are native around the region and exhibit those.
------------------------------------------------
Now here are my gripes with the video:
1. The biggest thing I have a problem with is they are trying to say remove the big animals in zoos, replace them with small species, and visitors would understand. I don't think that makes much seen as a zoo is a balancing act between conservation and profit. What would make the profit go away, if you lose every big-ticket animal you have. It also just doesn't make much sense to send animals that are complex that are breeding well in captivity to move them off-exhibit. For example, I support orcas being phased out because I really don't think any facility in the US or anywhere else can fit these cetaceans. However, with something like elephants, with several zoos having prominent breeding success, it doesn't make much sense to remove them unless their exhibits are faltering, which leads me to my next point.
2. The video only really focuses on the connection between animals and humans and not the financial or husbandry standards of zoos. The author briefly mentions zoochosis but it's not the main focus of the video. The author doesn't mention where zoochosis is happening but I feel like they are trying to say its all zoos have them in some form, which I would agree to disagree with. But husbandry is not the focus of the video, which honestly if you wanted to say that zoos are bad, you should go after zoos that are bad. The author doesn't mention the financial risks that zoos would take if they were to transfer their biggest animals to sanctuaries. I'm all for sending roadside zoo animals that aren't taken the best of care and are confined to mediocre to terrible enclosures, but again it just doesn't make any sense to remove big-ticket animals if they are in good exhibits with good husbandry and they breed.
3. The second point is just rubbish, absolute rubbish. The only thing the author could find is a study about researchers going to people at the zoo before and after filling out a survey about what they could do to help animals. I think the last thing anyone wants to do before or finishing going to a zoo is to fill out a survey about what you can do, and basing the 2nd point off of that is just laughable. The author says that in the survey habitat protection decreased between the before and after survey which I would love to know where those researchers went to get that information. Imagine going to San Diego or Omaha and trying to recount what happened that day, I feel like most people would just scribble down answers because they are too tired and want to get back home for the day.
I'm going to cut it there for now. there are some other problems like the lack of mentioning how important small species play in zoos until the very end, or lumping in major zoos and roadside zoos as one which they should most definitely be lumped differently in a discussion such as this. I would like to know what you guys think. Do you guys agree or disagree with me, do you have any points I didn't mention or felt I didn't explain well, or any other thoughts or opinions are fine with me.
The two pieces of evidence are if zoos help wild animals and if human studies about conservation change while visiting the zoo.
With the first point, they argue that megafauna (elephants, bears, large primates, big cats, etc.) aren't treated as reserves if for example the African elephant ever becomes Extinct in the Wild they can't just pull out of them to be placed in Africa. They also argue about the lack of conservation programs in zoos (8,700 animal species with only 117 programs... from the AZA)
The 2nd point the author talks about a survey researchers did on the public before and after visiting a zoo writing down what they would do to help animals, with people mentioning habitat protection and creation decreasing before and after. That's the only piece of evidence the author has.
The author's solution? Why just move all the cognitively complex animals to reputable sanctuaries and replace them with species that can be bred and transferred into the wild more efficiently or species that are native around the region and exhibit those.
------------------------------------------------
Now here are my gripes with the video:
1. The biggest thing I have a problem with is they are trying to say remove the big animals in zoos, replace them with small species, and visitors would understand. I don't think that makes much seen as a zoo is a balancing act between conservation and profit. What would make the profit go away, if you lose every big-ticket animal you have. It also just doesn't make much sense to send animals that are complex that are breeding well in captivity to move them off-exhibit. For example, I support orcas being phased out because I really don't think any facility in the US or anywhere else can fit these cetaceans. However, with something like elephants, with several zoos having prominent breeding success, it doesn't make much sense to remove them unless their exhibits are faltering, which leads me to my next point.
2. The video only really focuses on the connection between animals and humans and not the financial or husbandry standards of zoos. The author briefly mentions zoochosis but it's not the main focus of the video. The author doesn't mention where zoochosis is happening but I feel like they are trying to say its all zoos have them in some form, which I would agree to disagree with. But husbandry is not the focus of the video, which honestly if you wanted to say that zoos are bad, you should go after zoos that are bad. The author doesn't mention the financial risks that zoos would take if they were to transfer their biggest animals to sanctuaries. I'm all for sending roadside zoo animals that aren't taken the best of care and are confined to mediocre to terrible enclosures, but again it just doesn't make any sense to remove big-ticket animals if they are in good exhibits with good husbandry and they breed.
3. The second point is just rubbish, absolute rubbish. The only thing the author could find is a study about researchers going to people at the zoo before and after filling out a survey about what they could do to help animals. I think the last thing anyone wants to do before or finishing going to a zoo is to fill out a survey about what you can do, and basing the 2nd point off of that is just laughable. The author says that in the survey habitat protection decreased between the before and after survey which I would love to know where those researchers went to get that information. Imagine going to San Diego or Omaha and trying to recount what happened that day, I feel like most people would just scribble down answers because they are too tired and want to get back home for the day.
I'm going to cut it there for now. there are some other problems like the lack of mentioning how important small species play in zoos until the very end, or lumping in major zoos and roadside zoos as one which they should most definitely be lumped differently in a discussion such as this. I would like to know what you guys think. Do you guys agree or disagree with me, do you have any points I didn't mention or felt I didn't explain well, or any other thoughts or opinions are fine with me.
