Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

I think the talk of conservation efforts not being necessary is a dangerous path to start walking down.

There are a number of people for whom zoos justify their existence because of the conservation projects they support. When I have heard people talking about zoos, I am surprised by the number that don't agree with the concept of keeping animals in captivity but regard zoos as a positive overall because of what they have achieved with regards to conservation.

Take that away and I think a lot more people would be open to listening to the anti-zoo campaigns.
 
A lot of times people here say they dislike "theming" for exhibits I do have some trouble telling whether the OP is referring to habitat immersion, narrative elements or cultural elements. I consider all of these forms of "theming" but I imagine most of us have different feelings towards each. It usually takes some context clues to figure it out which is being discussed at a time.

I do think strongly zoos have to be involved in conservation projects though, just from a practical standpoint. It is the "proof" that zoos care about wildlife conservation and animal welfare that is more critical than ever in a day and age when consumers are exhibiting even more concern about 'greenwashing' and asking for nonprofits and environmental initiatives to put money where their mouths are, and the fact AZA zoos have been doing this for decades shows it isn't a response to some recent trend; even legendary zoo directors like Bill Conway seemed to feel as if zoos had no purpose without this. I think @NMM made a strong point that some who disagree with keeping animals in captivity tolerate zoos for this practice and might be more inclined to be anti-zoo without this foundation.

Zoos are suffering a little bit of a popularity slump right now, and there are a lot of people who may love their local zoo or a few certain facilities but are not warm to the concept in the broad strokes. There are companies who might be reluctant to associate with zoos, not to say there are not plenty who still do. A lot of people still associate them strongly with children but don't take them seriously as adult institutions and even those who like them but are not enthusiasts seem to go maybe once a year. This will hopefully turn around some day, but I also cut some slack for zoos that are financially struggling because the environment just isn't very favorable.
 
Wanderer said:
  • Zoos don't have to be involved in conservation efforts. A zoo's fundamental purpose is to display animals, and that's more than enough. If a zoo wants to get involved in conservation efforts, that's great, but it's not an obligation and it shouldn't be considered a 'mission'... it's fine for zoos to just be a place where people go to see animals, without a greater purpose.
Click to expand...

This statement is at least for zoos within the European Union not true. Actually there is an EU directive called "the role of zoos in the conservation of biodiversity". It is clearly stated there, that in order to obtain a zoo license, zoos must participate in species conservation at some point.
 
remar said:
This statement is at least for zoos within the European Union not true. Actually there is an EU directive called "the role of zoos in the conservation of biodiversity". It is clearly stated there, that in order to obtain a zoo license, zoos must participate in species conservation at some point.
Click to expand...
Well if this is true, I disagree with this directive and find it intrusive. Besides, it's only something that was made in retrospect. Zoos have been around for a long time and their purpose has always been to display animals... even today, let's be honest.

I cannot help but feel that this whole thing with zoos and conservation is nothing but a deceptive form of reasoning.
 
PossumRoach said:
On the other hand, many zoos that exist without a noble purpose do tend to be straight up bad. I can give many examples which I have seen in person and on the internet. When the goal is to just show animals, such facilities will do the bare minimum to display their animals. They will just build an enclosure which the guests can see the animal even if the animal is deprived of privacy or opportunities to display natural behavior. Another question is, if the owner/manager of the place is running the zoo from a passion towards animals then why not help animals outside the zoo?
Click to expand...

The way I see it, just because the goal is "just" to show animals, it doesn't mean that the place is gonna be bad. You can put a lot of attention and care into building a zoo, simply thinking of it as a place that people will enjoy visiting. Complete disregard for the animals' wellbeing is a separate issue, I'm not sure how to solve it.
 
Wanderer said:
The way I see it, just because the goal is "just" to show animals, it doesn't mean that the place is gonna be bad. You can put a lot of attention and care into building a zoo, simply thinking of it as a place that people will enjoy visiting. Complete disregard for the animals' wellbeing is a separate issue, I'm not sure how to solve it.
Click to expand...
I am of an age ,where I can remember in the UK, when the criticism of zoos was very intense. Not just because the way animals were housed, but also because they had no real direction in conservation and/or education. Over the years, public opinion changed and zoos became more acceptable, because they took a more serious direction towards conservation and education. I think that without conservation and education, zoos would not be where they are today.
 
Wanderer said:
I cannot help but feel that this whole thing with zoos and conservation is nothing but a deceptive form of reasoning.
Click to expand...

What exactly is your issue with ex situ conservation? I can understand believing it to be less effective than in situ conservation (which I think in some cases isn't true anyway) but labelling it a lie is disingenuous. I'm sure you already know the big long list of species who wouldn't be around without zoos, or those who would be in a serious pickle without them, so why the grumble?
 
Wanderer said:
The way I see it, just because the goal is "just" to show animals, it doesn't mean that the place is gonna be bad. You can put a lot of attention and care into building a zoo, simply thinking of it as a place that people will enjoy visiting. Complete disregard for the animals' wellbeing is a separate issue, I'm not sure how to solve it.
Click to expand...

Again, it will for the most part end up being bad. Average Joes who don’t know any better nor care do have a good time in terrible facilities. A good example are most facilities where guests can interact with non-domestic animals. The priority of such places are giving guests a good experience and that guests see the animals, even at the compromise of the wellbeing of the animals. These places just want to show animals, just animals. An animal that doesn’t display natural behavior, is stressed, or lacks privacy still just an animal. Despite that, such places still have fans who enjoy them and stay open when the laws of their respective countries permit them.

I can think of a couple zoos, even if they take part in conservation activities, prioritize showing guests animals first and foremost. But even then they have some glaring issues that make them look subpar compared to zoos that prioritize conservation.

I am also aware that there are bad zoos that slap buzzwords like sustainability, zoological, and conservation. Those are to be taken as exceptions and not examples of a rule.

So, do you have any good examples of zoos that prioritizes the display of animals over conservation that could be considered spectacular?
 
Nashville is the worst facility I have ever visited. Lack of species, I’d even say it’s worse than Wilderness Trails Zoo. This response will provide an outrage most likely but I found it unimpressive at all. For sure I’d like to give it a second chance but no way am I going out of my way to visit again.
 
Wanderer said:
I have a lot of opinions that I think are different from what most zoochatters think, so I thought it might be interesting to share them here:
  • I do not like heavily-themed animal exhibits. I find it goes in the way of simply observing the animals. I prefer a design that focuses on the animals themselves rather than the theming. Japanese zoos in particular tend to have this approach and I really like it.
  • In the same vein, I'm not fond of geographical zones. It works well in some cases but often times it is too constricted and it doesn't articulate well with the other, regular exhibits. Also, there tends to be a single designated pathway. I prefer being able to wander freely, and I think most zoo visitors do too.
  • Glass panels are being used too much nowadays. They reflect the sun, often rendering it difficult to observe the inside of the exhibit. They collect mud. And they sort of create this 'distance' with the animal... not sure how to explain it. I will often prefer looking at the animal through wires. Overall I'm not saying glass panels should be phased out, just that they should be used more cautiously, with more attention given to practical aspects.
And now my most controversial ones...
  • Zoos don't have to be involved in conservation efforts. A zoo's fundamental purpose is to display animals, and that's more than enough. If a zoo wants to get involved in conservation efforts, that's great, but it's not an obligation and it shouldn't be considered a 'mission'... it's fine for zoos to just be a place where people go to see animals, without a greater purpose.
  • It's also fine to collect animals directly from the wild, as long as it is done in a sustainable way.
Bonus: Ringtail lemurs are awesome, I will never get tired of them. Lemurs as a whole are one of my favorite animals. Meerkats I will pass. Binturongs are nice, I find it cute that they eat fruits despite being carnivores.
Click to expand...
You're not as edgy/special as you might think of yourself...
- In general, Japanese zoos are rather "old-fashioned" in regard to other parts of the world when it comes to zoo exhibit design meeting the needs of both animals and humans. So referring to them as a role model is kinda strange, to say the least.
- You will find single designated path ways in many zoos, even without zoogeographical orientation. Given the stupidity and lack of awareness of most zoo visitors regarding their own safety and the danger they can pose to wild animals and vice versa, no reasonable zoo staff would have you roam "freely" & unsupervised through any zoo, as you might end up in the big cat, polar bear or bull elephant enclosure. As evidenced by various previous incidents of such...
- I could leave out the glass panels for my spitting cobras; however, I somehow doubt that you would truly appreciate this for long.
- As for conservation: it seems to me that there is a need to catch up on the basics of modern zoos and their self-conception. Heini Hediger's works might be as good a start as any.
Is conservation in zoos sometimes mere placative green-washing, could they do more or can a focus on conservation even be detrimental to the modernisation of zoo amenities and livestock collection diversity? Sure - but that doesn’t invalidate it as one of the core concept elements of modern zoos, at least according to the current zeitgeist. And it does justify the further existence of zoos to many people these days.
At my zoo, our contribution to conservation is comparably limited, also due to our thematic specialization. However, what we focus on is another element of the tasks of a modern zoo according to Hediger et al: education, without fully neglecting the other so far not mentioned aspects, such as recreation and research.
Just displaying animals for the sake of idle entertainment is no longer publicly accepted by a modern audience - which, among others, is the reason why circuses are struggling more than zoos to stay alive these days. That the main motivation to visit a zoo or a public aquarium with your kids / family is still to be entertained is another kettle of fish; doesn't mean that you can't "spice up" that recreational demand with the other aspects...;)

I couldn't care less about personal preferences regarding lemurs or viverrids; to each their own...
 
Last edited:
amur leopard said:
What exactly is your issue with ex situ conservation? I can understand believing it to be less effective than in situ conservation (which I think in some cases isn't true anyway) but labelling it a lie is disingenuous. I'm sure you already know the big long list of species who wouldn't be around without zoos, or those who would be in a serious pickle without them, so why the grumble?
Click to expand...
To clarify, I am not saying it is a lie. The zoos that are involved in conservation efforts (especially in situ) are mostly genuine in their actions, although not disinterested since it helps justify their existence. What I mean is that they fall for a reasoning created in hindsight, that doesn't reflect what they really are about (displaying animals). Instead of lie, maybe syllogism would be a better word?
 
Wanderer said:
What I mean is that they fall for a reasoning created in hindsight, that doesn't reflect what they really are about (displaying animals). Instead of lie, maybe syllogism would be a better word?
Click to expand...
Is it truly a lie, or rather an continuous thematic adaption to changing demands? Zoos have always been the product of their times and contemporary zeitgeist. With a vastly dwindling nature and an increasing public interest in conservation (genuine or fake), the focus of zoos on conservation (once again: genuine or fake) does make sense, both from an economic and ecological pov.
 
Wanderer said:
To clarify, I am not saying it is a lie. The zoos that are involved in conservation efforts (especially in situ) are mostly genuine in their actions, although not disinterested since it helps justify their existence. What I mean is that they fall for a reasoning created in hindsight, that doesn't reflect what they really are about (displaying animals). Instead of lie, maybe syllogism would be a better word?
Click to expand...

Who created this reasoning?
 
Wanderer said:
Besides, it's only something that was made in retrospect. Zoos have been around for a long time and their purpose has always been to display animals... even today, let's be honest.
Click to expand...

Many things in the world have been introduced retrospect so i don't get that point. Nobody says, that zoos shouldn't display animals. But who says, that zoos can only have one purpose? The purposes of Zoos changed trough history, so i don't understand why this one shouldn't be right.
 
It's fascinating to read books about zoos that were written in the 1960s and 1970s, full of interviews with folks who are now famous in the field as pioneers of conservation and improved animal welfare, seeing the mull over this "new fangled" conservation business and what it means for zoos. "Zoo: Animals, People, Places" by Bernard Livingston and "Animal Gardens, or Zoos Around the World" by Emily Hahn are two great examples. It's so interesting to see what folks back then, at what we might think of the start of the modern zoo era, thought about how they were doing, and where they thought we were all going
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top