who cares what's in zoo?

Maybe a few of the "phase out' monkey species could be passed on to some of the smaller zoos in Aust and then the big zoos can focus on the "phase in" species, since Taronga has so far the only pair of Francois Langers in Aust, I wonder then when others will follow to back up the plan breeding program for them.
 
I like that idea too Mark...

Australia Zoo
Taronga/WPZ
Melbourne/Werribee
Adelaide/Monarto
Perth Zoo
Auckland Zoo
Wellington Zoo
Hamilton Zoo
Orana Park

Wouldn't be great if these 9 groups/zoo's got together and "vote" for any new species to be exhibited, with 5 commiting to acquiring them within 5 years and 3 'other' regional zoos agreeing to take excess stock of a analogue species for it to be a 'go'...

It's a pipe dream, I know, I think most of us wish for more co-operation and have suggestions...

I do get a bit annoyed about the message zoo's send to the public about their committment to this and that, when the reality (as shown by their actions) is obviously lip service...
 
An excellent example of the zoos working together to forward a species was when they behind the white rhino. About 7 of the zoos got sizable populations within a couple of years creating a viable founder population in the region. This has acheived results with a number of births.
 
@pat: Sorry, but I'm not "jumping" to extremes, and I'm not trying to enforce a discussion; my very first post in this thread was actually intended to just shortly state my opinion-and leave it to it. Therefore, I considered Your answer inapt. Alas, my chit-chat with You about big animals in zoos was actually neither "jumping to extremes". You see, You sometimes make very generalising, bold statements-no offence-and I just dare to point out "inaccuracies", at least according to my opinion, in Your theories one otherwise might draw the curtain over. They might sound like "extremes" to You, but they tend to play quite an important role and shouldn't be neglected/belittled.

Unfortunately, the "pet-shop" zoo is not an extreme, but has become more and more of a reality for quite a bunch of zoos I've visited so far. More about it on "Boring" animals, too.

""the reason i get so "sharp tongued" sun wukong is because despite the potentially misleading title of the thread - "who cares what's in a zoo", in my opening comments i make a pretty clear statement regarding what it was i meant by that. this is meant to be a conversation about accepting that not all your a-z of animals be in the zoo, in return for better managed, more proactive breeding programs. obviously, the suggestion that zoos become glorified pet shops is ridiculous as neither zoos nor domestic pets would not benefit from a managed zoo-based breeding program. so instead of giving a valid argument, instead all you achieved was to intentionally take my title out of context and drag this conversation in another direction. a direction that, lets be honest, none of us have much interest in." You start to repeat Yourself, mate...;)

@MARK: Sorry to be cheeky, and please do not consider this a personal insult, but what is it with all these written "backslapping" I witness almost every time someone attempts to put me in "my" place? Freedom of expression & affirmation, ok, ok, but I know other forums where this is (rightfully) considered spamming...or toadyism/partisanship. Just my 2 cents, which hopefully won't trigger any hard feelings.
 
Last edited:
Sunny I feel Patrick is right in what he said, no one here is trying to put you in your place, just maybe its the way YOU see things, there is no hard feelings on my part about anything, why should there be, If I agree with a view of yours on the forum I will say such.
 
No, MARKy, I'm not trying to read something into something here; I'm just curious, as this occured a tiny bit too often, and is not just limited to me...Well, whatever...
 
I think you're being rather sensitive.

Surely this is a normal part of forum etiquette? I see it in all sorts of fora. It's like sitting around in a pub and someone says something, someone else just nods their agreement without repeating the argument.
 
I haven't seen this in any other fora i'm on, and i find it rather simpleminded as well. Either explane why you agree or watch from the sideline. Not that i would take too much offence by it, it does seem unnecessary. Feels like people are in awe of the phrases and words rather then actually listening to what someone says.
 
@jwer: Thanks. You expressed exactly what I meant. Let's hope cronyism won't put us both in detention because we're so naughty to state our opinion...

@Pygathrix: Well, judging from I saw so far, I wouldn't be the only one here who has a chip on his/her shoulder. At least that meanS one is among peers here.

Nevermind, do the written affirmative "nodding" if it makes Your day...
 
I've reread this thread and it seems to me to be a misunderstanding of Patrick's first post, which to me is really understandable.

I have decided that i no longer care what animals are in zoo collections.

what's important it that what species zoos do keep, they care for ethically, manage effectively and in a way that contributes to the species survival, and that they maximise the the opportunity to educate the public and capitalise on the ability to gather support for conservation efforts.

if zoos do this properly, then they most likely no longer have room for the A-Z of animals, nor does the average visitor have the time to see them all if they did. effective, engaging exhibits take up a lot more time that traditional ones.

the real future zoo might not have elephants or bears. maybe it only has one species of great ape. but so what? for the species they do keep, they make a significant contribution towards conserving both financially and through captive breeding and education. they don't spread themselves thinly instead making a real difference in maybe just a few select areas.

i'll sacrifice my opportunities to see a couple of jaguars for that.
Click to expand...

This post reads to me as patrick saying that if a small zoo keeps ringtailed lemurs, meerkats, black-and-white colobus, oriental short-clawed otters, bearded dragons, prairiedogs and bennet's kangaroos, and does so in a way that's educating and contributing to conservation that he's absolutely fine with it. He states that "if zoos do this properly, then they most likely no longer have room for the A-Z of animals" but i don't see why, with the arguments stated above ("care for ethically, manage effectively and in a way that contributes to the species survival, and that they maximise the the opportunity to educate the public and capitalise on the ability to gather support for conservation efforts") this would be true. Neither seems Sun Wukong.

For me, Sun Wukong is saying that if a zoo's only keeps the common "A-Z" species, no matter how educationally and conservationably responsible they are, he wouldn't be very interested in this zoo, and probably others wouldn't be neither.

Now for my own opinion, i agree with what i think Patrick MENT to say, which is that zoo's should think about keeping animals that are endangered and in need of conservation, keep them in a decent exhibit and use them to educate and for conservation purposes. But to me, this means more then the mentioned "care for ethically, manage effectively and in a way that contributes to the species survival, and that they maximise the the opportunity to educate the public and capitalise on the ability to gather support for conservation efforts".

just my 2 cents
 
And if that was meant sarcastically, I think it was rather sensitive of you jwer :):):):) (using up my smiley quota there)
 
@jwer: What You wrote is correct-and I dare to say that I think what pat MEANT might even result in a partly "nod" of mine.

However, let me precise what I wrote & meant: I could do fine with a zoo that has "the common "A-Z" species" and will appretiate its educational & conservation values-even though I'm honest enough to say that a "special" species would at once get my interest. But what I don't like is the image I depicted in the thread " "Boring" animals"-zoos that look so much alike that they could be stores of the same trade chain. And this particularily in terms of the collection & presentation. The "slacker" attitude You rightfully animadverted, in terms of zoos picking only the most common species, as well as indirectly the pressures of the standard breeding programmes lead imo to a certain loss of the individuality of zoo collections and maybe in the end to the "extreme" of a "pet shop zoo"-because it's much simpler to get & keep a budgie instead of a St. Lucia Parrot, or a Green instead of a Lesser Caymans iguana...
 
Last edited:
i MEANT to say exactly what i did say. i re-read my post and it doesn't sound confusing to me. but i'll clear a couple of things that i suspect what may be the parts misleading some of you.

when i say A-Z of animals, i'm not saying the A-Z are all "common" or non-endangered species. what i'm saying is that in the future zoos wont necessarily have all the animals we have come to expect.

i don't care if and individual zoo want to keep say, puma which are not that endangered. what is important is like i said, is that if they take that species on, they make a commitment to it. a commitment to its continued survival in the wild but also a commitment to its continued survival in captivity. which brings me to the next statement i made which has seemed to cause confusion...

the reason zoos, if acting in the above mentioned manner would "no longer have room
for the A-Z of animals" is because to fulfill the second part of that commitment (the species continued survival in captivity) it is likely they will need to hold larger groups. in australia the lack of available spaces for a particular species is an issue that is magnified, due to our lack of large zoos in the country. but its an issue that is to a certain degree a problem all over the world. zoos are supposed to be increasing numbers of endangered species, but often the breeding program is compromised by the lack of zoos offering space to the species.

and lastly, there is one more reason why a more ethical zoo cannot afford to display quite so many species - not only does the zoo need to now have to hold larger populations of each species it displays, it needs to offer each individual more access to space. its a strong belief of mine that in general, zoos grossly underestimate what constitutes a "reasonable enclosure size" for each species. in addition to this, creating more educational exhibits has set a trend for devoting more space to the visitor in each exhibit. imagine if every exhibit at the zoo had the same amount of space devoted to interps and other educational tools as most of our new "immersion" exhibits have.

factor in all the above and your local urban zoo is fast running out of room.


@sun wukong - you may have missed some of the above, but i made it VERY, VERY clear that the reason i "no longer cared what was in a zoo" was so that zoos could develop better managed breeding programs. therefore coming to the conclusion that i was suggesting these breeding programs might be for domesticated animals is absurd in my mind. you can write a thesis on the situation with domestic animals becoming more prevalent in european zoos if you like, but it will never make it any more relevant to this particular discussion.

your correct in that your absolutely within your right to make a irrelevant response - i just wish i'de stop wasting my time reading them.
 
Would it be true to say that Emmen would fall into this category of run-of-the-mill animals being kept under very good conditions? This is conjecture on my part as I haven't visited it, but I get the impression that there is a small range of common species in top class exhibits which apparently makes it a very popular zoo with visitors both local and from further afield.
 
@patrick: Your peripatetic recapitulations are just an attempt to circumscribe Dr. Bernd Schildger's, director of the Tierpark Dählihölz, catchy phrase "More space for less animals". That's not a new idea-and it surely did not come just out of Your head. I agree with the idea behind this phrase, yet I also see some more or less minor dissonances here; I already mentioned a few of them in various posts, also here.

What I don't like is the way You try to argument, Patrick. Your constant reproaches that one does not read or even understand what You wrote emanate from a self-acclaimed claim of infallibility; hints or formal objections You consider to run contrary to Your arguments are brushed away as "irrelevant" or "extremes". Quite often, Your sometimes pretty snotty responses to these "extremes" include fragments which are productive in terms of continuing the dispute-a situation You seem to hate, but nevertheless constantly nourish. A good example: "suggesting these breeding programs might be for domesticated animals is absurd in my mind." Once again, a case of misinterpretation from Your side; what I wrote is that a side-effect of the "I don't care what animals are in zoos", including the confinements by breeding programs( yes, breeding programs are not always perfect, even if looker-on's often seem to miss that) can be the bit-by-bit replacement of the zoo collections with the easier to obtain pet shop/domestic animals-a situation I happened to observe in various zoos lately. This quotation of Yours could lead me however to the casual remark- without "writing a thesis"- that breeding programs for domestic animals do exist-even in zoos, for example for Poitou Donkeys.

Your attempts of trying to deal with me seem to be quite ambivalent: on the one side, You try to butter me up by praising my "intelligence", merely judging from my "elaborate" word structures( I'd happier if You based Your judgement on the content of the text...), and on the other side You try to depict me as a disputable fool who is barely able to read and utters extreme irrelevant nonsense just to keep a discussion going. ? So what am I for You-just a cumbrous pest who dares to question Your inerrancy, or an interlocutor on eye-level whom one can reply to politely and adequately even if he does not applaud You uncritically to everything You write?

If You want to avoid such time-wasting, I'd kindly recommend You to tone down the provocative and snotty parts in Your posts as well as in Your thread titles a little bit. And maybe not start topics about subjects that have been chewed through like old chuddy and will only result in the very same answers and arguments...
Just a friendly advice by someone who enjoys a casual dispute now and then, but not hardening feelings/positions...
 
Words to analyze: peripatetic, recapitulations...and that's it for now. I know the definiton of the rest of them (I'm an aspiring English teacher and adore big words) but those first two I'll have to look up in a dictionary. Well written Sun Wukong, but surely you are losing some of your audience with this chosen dialogue.
 
blah!! is he ever snowleopard!

which brings me to the answer to the below question...

Sun Wukong said:
on the one side, You try to butter me up by praising my "intelligence", merely judging from my "elaborate" word structures( I'd happier if You based Your judgement on the content of the text...), and on the other side You try to depict me as a disputable fool who is barely able to read and utters extreme irrelevant nonsense just to keep a discussion going.
Click to expand...

no, i think you do use elaborate wording to make your otherwise pretty simplistic statements sound fancy.

"peripatetic, recapitulations" are you serious?

nonetheless, its funny you accuse me of such since i think its you who darts around here. often looked for the pettiest loopholes in peoples arguments for you to exploit. this forces your opponent to detail the micro-elements of a broader argument, which defeats the point of a broad discussion in the first place.

a good example is when you say you agree with me that you think elephants in zoos deserve more space, yet you'll viciously defend urban zoos right to keep them based on your perceived "expectations" of the public. you cite plenty of examples of zoos quite close to eachother that both house elephants. if one was to relinquish theirs it would give the others a competitive edge over the other. okay, but how does that actually make my view, that urban zoos don't cater for elephants wrong?

it doesn't. it an irrelevant statement in a the broader context of my argument. who said i cared if as a result zoos closed down?

and this sun wukong, is your debating style.

so far mate, i am yet to hear one decent argument against my views, not because its impossible to prove me wrong, but because your so preoccupied trying citing pissy little examples of domesticated animals in your local zoo that your missing the point entirely.

but hey, okay. why don't i stop throwing out viewpoints on the future of zoos and let your do it. before we continue arguing any longer do me a favour and explain to me, what exactly is it you stand for?

how do you think zoos can better manage breeding programs in the future? without the risk of them all becoming pet stores if that truly is what it you perceive.

and what about elephants? if you agree its ethically wrong to give them such little space in urban zoos, yet you believe urban zoos are within their right to maintain them, how is it you believe we can resolve the problem?

but remember, giving them more space at the urban zoos, comes at the cost of demolishing other animals exhibits, something that will no doubt result in a loss of diversity or size of the collection overall. and then we are running into petshop territory again.

explain that, without contradicting yourself, and i'll concede that that the mighty wordsmith sun wukong is smarter than me.
 
blah!! is he ever snowleopard! is it true that i am not the only one who finds sun wukongs drawn-out posts often to "sexed-up" to bother reading?

which brings me to the answer to the below question...

Sun Wukong said:
on the one side, You try to butter me up by praising my "intelligence", merely judging from my "elaborate" word structures( I'd happier if You based Your judgement on the content of the text...), and on the other side You try to depict me as a disputable fool who is barely able to read and utters extreme irrelevant nonsense just to keep a discussion going.
Click to expand...

no, i think you do use elaborate wording to make your otherwise pretty simplistic statements sound fancy.

"peripatetic, recapitulations" are you serious?

nonetheless, its funny you accuse me of such since i think its you who darts around here. often looked for the pettiest loopholes in peoples arguments for you to exploit. this forces your opponent to detail the micro-elements of a broader argument, which defeats the point of a broad discussion in the first place.

a good example is when you say you agree with me that you think elephants in zoos deserve more space, yet you'll viciously defend urban zoos right to keep them based on your perceived "expectations" of the public. you cite plenty of examples of zoos quite close to eachother that both house elephants. if one was to relinquish theirs it would give the others a competitive edge over the other. okay, but how does that actually make my view, that urban zoos don't cater for elephants wrong?

it doesn't. it an irrelevant statement in a the broader context of my argument. who said i cared if as a result zoos closed down?

and this sun wukong, is your debating style.

so far mate, i am yet to hear one decent argument against my views, not because its impossible to prove me wrong, but because your so preoccupied trying citing pissy little examples of domesticated animals in your local zoo that your missing the point entirely.

but hey, okay. why don't i stop throwing out viewpoints on the future of zoos and let your do it. before we continue arguing any longer do me a favour and explain to me, what exactly is it you stand for?

how do you think zoos can better manage breeding programs in the future? without the risk of them all becoming pet stores if that truly is what it you perceive.

and what about elephants? if you agree its ethically wrong to give them such little space in urban zoos, yet you believe urban zoos are within their right to maintain them, how is it you believe we can resolve the problem?

but remember, giving them more space at the urban zoos, comes at the cost of demolishing other animals exhibits, something that will no doubt result in a loss of diversity or size of the collection overall. and then we are running into petshop territory again.

explain that, without contradicting yourself, and i'll concede that that the mighty wordsmith and devil's advocate sun wukong, has done me over, once and for all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top