Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
I hate soft news/drivel on zoo’s socials:
Some zoos post nothing but lions having crazy hair days, what the meerkats had for breakfast, who is excited for the weekend and monkeys experiencing sibling rivalry.
The second most annoying thing is the people these posts cater to. Those that make inane comments like “Oh my heart” “OMG we must protect that doggie (Maned wolf) at all costs!”
Some zoos post nothing but lions having crazy hair days, what the meerkats had for breakfast, who is excited for the weekend and monkeys experiencing sibling rivalry.
The second most annoying thing is the people these posts cater to. Those that make inane comments like “Oh my heart” “OMG we must protect that doggie (Maned wolf) at all costs!”
Pantheraman
Well-Known Member
That'll do nicely.
I can understand the sentiment behind this, but what about keeping animals in zoos for educational purposes? A huge job of zoos is to educate the public and foster an appreciation for wildlife and conserving nature, and this role can be successfully achieved with species that are not endangered. In many cases, I'd also argue this job can more successfully be done with species that may not be "on the lowest level of endangered". A lot of zoos also keep individuals that were injured in the wild and cannot be reintroduced. Is it acceptable, in your opinion, for a zoo to provide a good home to a bald eagle with a wing injury? The species is not endangered anymore, but has high educational value and is helping an individual animal, even if not the entire species.
Furthermore, what about species that are locally endangered? Roger Williams Park Zoo for a number of years now has done conservation work with timber rattlesnakes, a species that is not endangered globally, but is locally endangered. The zoo has a few individuals on display at the zoo, and has signage discussing the role the zoo plays in conserving this species in the wild. This conservation program also relies on head-starting rattlesnakes for re-introduction. Would you call this a bad thing for the zoo to invest in purely because the species is not globally endangered? Or is it acceptable in your opinion for zoos to keep locally endangered species that aren't globally threatened?
I would like to add that, while I do disagree with some aspects of your post (as I discussed above), I do really understand the sentiment and think that zoos should more carefully consider the conservation value of animals when planning their institutional collection. I also agree with you on giant pandas and would actually love to see some more zoos phase the species out.
Tbf with giant pandas, the only reason they're so rare in non-Chinese zoos is because of the absolute BS the CCP makes you go through to get a pair and how much BS you have to deal with just to have them. Like of all the countries and how they handle zoo exports, I don't think any is more of a pain in the ass to work with than China and, IMO, foreign zoos would be better off sending all their pandas back until they can actually make dealings normally. Tho given how China treats everyone, I don't see that happening.
Sphenisciologist
Well-Known Member
Unless we’re talking about the sub-Antarctics, that is a pretty hot take
.Whilst I agree that education isn’t the sole reason zoos should exist, I definitely think it’s important in forming that connection between a person and an animal. Even though some people of the public likely may not go to a zoo for the sole purpose of learning about animals, I think it’s hard to believe that the average visitor doesn’t at least learn something on their zoo visit, even if they didn’t intend to.
I also mostly agree with @Neil chace. I think it’s also important to note that one of the main reasons of conserving species that aren’t on the lowest level of endangerment on the IUCN scale is so they don’t become endangered. Being endangered is far from a good thing, and I think that sometimes people (myself included) may get too wowed by the fact that they are witnessing an endangered species without realizing the environmental consequences. If we promote only keeping critically endangered species in zoos I think it’s inherently harmful in the long run to the species that currently aren’t.
While I do think that a zoo visit should be fun, it's hard from a moral / ethical pov to justify keeping wild animals in capitivity just for the mere sake of entertainment. As for the last part: while this is a general issue in modern societies, it's no excuse for zoos, average or not, not to constantly improve their education program.
Pootle
Well-Known Member
I agree with the BS you mention and there is probably a lot more BS too that we don't know about. Send them back, zoos stand together on this!
Pootle
Well-Known Member
Hey Neil,
Educational Purposes – Not really for me, education on animals is widely available online, on tv, even old fashioned books everywhere if people are interested in it.
Injured animals that cannot be returned to the wild – Of course keep them and give them a decent life over euthanasia! In this case an Individual of the species is really endangered, not the Species as a whole. Just don’t plan to keep healthy non endangered species I say.
Locally endangered is endangered. Zoos that are in areas where species naturally occur which are endangered should be encouraged to keep (if possible), educate the local human population and help out in the local environment. It would be nice to see some UK zoos doing more (some may do) for British animals, Red Squirrels and Hedgehogs just 2 examples, there are loads more I’m sure people can think of.
Pandas have been a bug bear of mine for many years, I won’t dwell on it I see others have below and rightly so.
That's a common argument brought up against zoos, aquaria etc. by the anti-zoo lobby. However, I don't see theoretical knowledge from the aforementioned external sources and "pratical" education / experience provided by modern zoos as mutually contradictory, but rather as synergetic parts of an interdisciplinary educational big picture. I witness so many excited kids coming to WdG with their heads full of all the things they have learned about certain animals via YT, Netflix documentaries etc., only to see them baffled, fascinated /surprised and in awe when facing said animals live and in reality.
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
If kids only know an animal from their tv screens, what makes it (or it’s plight) any more “real” to them than Harry Potter, Star Wars, or the Avengers? Even if on some level they understand that the “characters” are real, it’s easy for it to just be another show for them, divorced from reality
Pootle
Well-Known Member
Hi Batto,
You make a very good point when you say you cannot beat meeting the animal face to face. I agree you cannot beat seeing them in reality, the smells and the real sounds (or lack of!).
However, there are so many animals endangered, I believe that getting the message across that zoos are for conversation and research will promote zoology and get zoos what they need, more funding. We sadly have so many species endangered there won't be much shortage of zoo animals.
I mentioned research above which opens a possible separate debate, but to do conservation successfully, research is often needed. However one coutries definition of research on animals can seem barbaric to another, so best for a separate conversation that one.
Pootle
Well-Known Member
Culling is also an interesting topic.
The Oxford Dictionary defines it as : The reduction of a wild animal population by selective slaughter.
This obviously means that us humans make the choice of what is to be culled and what isn't up for a culling. Different countries, religions and traditions all have parts to play in cullings and it is a subject in the animal world that opens up debate and very personal views on it. Views that can change as you get older, learn more and as fashions change too.
To me what is referred to a big game hunting is culling. The people who do this pay to be allowed to reduce the wild population by selective slaughter. IF the money generated by this is put back into the big picture for conservation and protection then I support it (just never ask me to pull the trigger). It is a good way to raise funds for essential work often. Others may think I'm off my rocker for supporting this and that's you opinion.
Online searching will give you loads of examples on culling, some you may think make sense others you may think are crazy.
There was once an island which had a healthy population on deer. The deer grazed on the grasslands and they were adored by a small population of humans, all whom were vegetarians. There was also a small population of lions, who of course killed and ate the deer. The lions and the deer had populated the island for generations. The vegetarian humans saw the lions killing these deer, sometimes even the baby deer. So the humans decided to kill all the lions so no more blood was shed by the lions. The deer population grew and grew........... what happened next?
I would add a lot of educational material still steers towards charismatic megafauna or the cute and cuddly, and often a handful of habitats recieve deep representation, ie an African safari. My appreciation for aardvark, black-footed cat, pygmy hippo, slow loris, and oryx came from seeing those animals in person and how it feels to be physically there with them. I'm not sure I'd know of the cat or loris from television or a book. These less iconic animals, in my opinion, have no chance competing on television or in books with lions and tigers, and a zoo exhibit may be their best chance to make an impression on kids. Maybe the lions were asleep that day, but the black-footed cat were so active and playful. That is a valuable teaching moment.
To me, equating zoos and wildlife documentaries it's a bit like equating a concert and an album. They both fulfull the practical purpose of experiencing the music, but they are wholly different experiences themselves.
To me, equating zoos and wildlife documentaries it's a bit like equating a concert and an album. They both fulfull the practical purpose of experiencing the music, but they are wholly different experiences themselves.
Unfortunately zoo's have become entertainment centers catering to everything human. Back in the day I could stay at the zoo through night time, now they have beer nights/sleep overs, halloween ( heaven forbit never mind trying to have folks appreciate wildlife but let's just continue learning about being fearful of monsters! The most important animal now in the zoo is the very visible cash cow! Will just pick your pockets in name of conservation while animals take second fiddle. Serious education and learning has been taken over by dopey stuff. Back in the day the Brookfield Zoo had a serious animal/planet bookstore.
I haven't seen a single zoo have a halloween event that focuses on being scared of "monsters". They are always family friendly and try to encourage people to like the real animals that are associated with halloween. Yes, these events help bring in money. What do you think that money goes towards?! People attending beer/wine events at the zoo aren't the ones visiting the zoo for some education.
That actually supports @junglejim 's critique regarding the commercialisation of zoos. As I've preached (to the choir) many a times, the current focus of zoos on families with small children as their main audience has an significant impact on their perception by the public, their educational output, their economic development, their true role in conservation & research and last but not least on their day-to-day business.
Last edited:
And people who go to an halloween event are?