Strathmorezoo
Well-Known Member
Obviously, there was a long period of time when zoos didn't have to even consider conservation, simply because they could obtain pretty much whatever they wanted/could afford.
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
Wanderer
Well-Known Member
If you read my words carefully, I never talk about a conspiracy. It's a shift that happened over time. As animal rights activism emerged, zoos started feeling like they had to justify their existence in some way. But they didn't really have to in my opinion... I feel like they could have ignored the criticism and simply focused on building high quality animal habitats, and that would have worked better in the long run. Because by shifting their discourse to conservation, zoos have implicitly admitted that they are not good enough to exist as stand-alone places to see animals. Now they are stuck in this neverending circle of trying to justify their existence, and they are bound to lose in the long run.
I'm glad I was able to spark this discussion, however I'm feeling a bit of animosity in some of the replies. Therefore I will no longer be posting here.
cornu aspersum
Well-Known Member
Are you sure about that? The likes of Gerald Durrell and others started doing conversation because they genuinely cared about animals and didn't want them to die off. Resources are invested in caring for conversation and I feel it's a little callous in saying that they simply do so because they have to justify their existence. And regarding justifying their existence, I believe a good zoo has to do that and that conversation is a way to do so, but it didn't start due to the anti-zoo threat and reputable zoos don't do it today just out of fear. If they did, donations and their messages would be a lot more half-hearted.
It is true you never used the word conspiracy but it would be disingenuous for you to say that you didn't act like zoos were dealing with lies and not being truthful:
I don't think there was animosity here. You gave an opinion that is unpopular and potentially damaging to the mission of the modern zoo and a variety of species. It is expected that the discussion will be a little tense. And it is your choice to post or not, but I think you should not let one discussion decide it for you.
I think you are giving animal rights activists too much credit. There are plenty of zoo directors who think/thought that supporting in situ conservation is just doing the right thing as a zoo, no outside pressure needed...
I would say you mistake disagreements on the subject with animosity towards yourself. If you think certain posts are (verging on) personal attacks you can report those posts, but I don't see any myself...
Lafone
Well-Known Member
I usually take the view that if someone disagrees with something you can think they just disagree rather than they can’t read or comprehend what you say, are too stupid to understand or indeed don’t like you. Take the points on their merits.
On that basis I can’t say I’m persuaded by the idea that animal rights activists are responsible for conservation being a part of the mission of modern zoos.
The article linked as well as other posts and general evidence strongly suggest that zoos were front and centre in moulding that mission. And rightly so in my view.
I also disagree that zoos will lose the argument in the long run it’s far too doommonger for me.
Feelings are not a great basis for a discussion. The aforementioned fate of the circus industry illustrates that the mere public display of wild animals won't be enough for a modern audience in more and more countries in the long run. Hediger's concept of a modern zoo makes sense; what individual zoos make out of it, is another matter.
Too bad. This thread is quite prone to igniting slightly controversial discussions; hence the "Hot takes" title. So if you can't stand the heat...
This got lost in the larger conversation happening in this thread, but this is blasphemy! Though I'm not surprised this is how you view Nashville after discussing how fast you move through zoos in the other thread and what exhibits tend to get you to stop. Nashville just doesn't have many of those big ABC type animals you've mentioned.
That being said, a post like this would never spark true outrage from me, just very strong disagreement.
I don't know if this comment refers to my replies or not, but if it was it wasn't meant to be anything personal, just disagreeing with your opinions.
I would also ask you to reconsider your decision to no longer post. One of the big problems with the internet since the arrival of the large social media sites is everything becoming polarised into echo chambers. This forum is a remnant of what the internet was like pre-Facebook/Twitter, where most discussion was on forums where people with similar interests, but not necessarily the same opinions gathered. Discussions where people have different opinions are often far more interesting than when everyone agrees.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
I'll make two hot takes about the AZA:
- People overreact with the "phase-out" plans: Firtsly, just to clarify, there's no phase-ou plans (?), it's just a generalize term used to refer when the AZA recommends zoos and aquariums to have another species that's more well-known or has a stable population, but that doesn't mean that zoos can't have "rare" species if the want. Back on topic, I think that people tend to overreact with this. Yes, it's frsutating and sad to see extraordinary animals in zoos, I think and prefer that zoos concentrate in animals that have a well-established population and/or is in need for a new home for many reasons instead of concentrating on a population of elderly animals. I do think that zoos should give the best care for the animals, but they shouldn't have a long-term plan for them unless it has a well-base population in the zoo-itself or the animals are young.
- The AZA should be more estrict: Obviously zoos and aquariums have improven over the years but to this day there's still a lot of exhibits and institutions that have done nothing to improve the quality of the animals life. For example I think that if a zoo isin't adequate or doesn't meet the needs for the animal the AZA shouldn't turn a blind eye and pretend there's nothing happening. For example I think tha if a zoo doesn't have the space for elephants they should move the animals to another facility that can take care of the animals in a proper way and then the zoo could fill the space with rhinos or giraffes. I normaly like when zoos do this decision without the pressure of anti-zoo groups as it's a caring and smart move from part of the zoo and realy shows how much a zoo cares. Tho in the U.S.A polar bear habitats have improven quite a lot and the last "bad" exhibit for the species was at cincinnati and that close at 2021, and in europe there's still some loose ends but almost every facility is working to improve the animals live. Aquatic animals also suffer a lot. Hippos should have more land. There equaly terrestial as they're aquatic, and tho they spend a lot of time in water they also spend quite the time in land even if we don't see that. I do think that seals, sea lion and cetaceans sometimes get the short-end of the stick but I won't dive much on that because that could ause a lot of pointless discussion. And I realy don't like when birds are confined in small aviaries or have their wings clipped. It's just get sick to think about that, And don't get me started on the parrot on a perch trend...
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
The San Francisco Zoo's collection has decreased greatly over the past few years with the following:
- The zoo is down to just two monkey species when they had eight as of 2017
- The zoo had no hippos of either species as of 2010 and since then they have brought in and also phased-out both of them.
- They have given up all remaining pinnipeds, lesser apes, otters, and African antelope in merely a half-decade.
- They have gotten rid of multiple big cats, including tigers, and lions will soon get at least temporarily booted to make way for a Giant Panda exhibit.
- The last Polar bear died in 2017 and they chose not to replace it
- They got rid of their nocturnal gallery, and have lost 3 of their 5 marsupial species.
- The zoo is down to just two monkey species when they had eight as of 2017
- The zoo had no hippos of either species as of 2010 and since then they have brought in and also phased-out both of them.
- They have given up all remaining pinnipeds, lesser apes, otters, and African antelope in merely a half-decade.
- They have gotten rid of multiple big cats, including tigers, and lions will soon get at least temporarily booted to make way for a Giant Panda exhibit.
- The last Polar bear died in 2017 and they chose not to replace it
- They got rid of their nocturnal gallery, and have lost 3 of their 5 marsupial species.
I think the San Francisco Zoo should straight up just have someone come in to (mostly) start from scratch and make something wonderful. The whole zoo is severely underloved though it's oddly fitting for the city.
How exactly is this a "hot take" when 1) it's more a statement of fact than a "take", and 2) several people have more or less said the exact same thing on repeat in the San Francisco news thread...?
Several of the facts you stated were made just a week ago in someone else's post on that thread, making the exact same point...
I'm not sure what the point is in restating this person's statistics in another thread where it's not relevant?
DCzootripper
Well-Known Member
If i'm being honest, London zoo could have made a much better exhibit on the area that they use for the outback. Also unrelated but i found out today one of the reasons the goats left the zoo was because goat mountain was to hard to clean.
cerperal
Well-Known Member
I don't think that's a particularly hot take, especially on this forum! The Mappin Terraces are egregiously misused for the Outback exhibit and hopefully one day will be redeveloped into something far more fitting. One can dream about the return of sloth bears, I suppose.
DCzootripper
Well-Known Member
Sloth bears really are the dream cerperal
Kalaw
Well-Known Member
I for one would prefer Sun Bears. Smaller, and being Southeast Asian would combine with the adjacent tigers, gibbons, Komodos and babirusas to create an SE zone of sorts. The addition of Mindanao Monitors to the Komodo House has also aided with this area’s slow (and likely very much unplanned) transition into a geographical zone. I personally would love to see the process continue.
cerperal
Well-Known Member
The truth is I don't believe London can provide an exhibit up to ZSL's standards - let alone general modern ones - for any bears larger than sun. ZSL with only brown bears doesn't seem right to me - perhaps it's because of how great it was to watch Colombo. Completely agree that sun would be ideal, although I do have my own opinions on the current state of the Casson...
It's nice to have a breeding group of babirusa that are so easily viewed as well, but the RRH can't help but feel out of place to me. They also don't have great viewing - at least compared to the babirusa. I have no idea what would replace the hogs and there's far more important parts of London that need looking at first, plus they're a fairly difficult species to see in the South of England. For example the monkey walkthrough, which can be completely ignored at the loss of absolutely nothing except experiencing a way too busy cul-de-sac. But I don't think that's a particularly hot take either.
I can't really think of any true ZSL hot takes at the minute, which is probably a side effect of both zoos being run incredibly well at the moment.
Screw it. Polar bears up by Passage Through Asia at Whipsnade, would be more than doable and positively mad not to try and pursue over the next few years.
Kalaw
Well-Known Member
Agree about the RRH. When the zoo briefly went out of warthogs, I had hoped somewhat that they would move into their former enclosure in Into Africa, freeing up space on the Cassons for the return of Malayan Tapir, although I am quite glad to have the warthogs back. Outdoor viewing for the RRH isn’t great, but unlike the babirusa they tend to enjoy spending time indoors. With the interior of the Cassons now reopened to the public this tends to be the best way to view them.
I do have some ZSL hot takes, but all of them are very positive! The Blackburn Pavilion discussion we had a while back, for example. Another one which I have touched on in other threads is that, in my opinion, Whipsnade is by some margin the second best zoo in the country at the moment (after Chester, of course), with London being top five. I certainly agree that they are both amazingly well-run at the moment. I remember reading the other day that ZSL is looking for a new Curator of Small Mammals - hopefully whoever they appoint continues to bring much success to the collections.
Polar Bears at Whipsnade would be wonderful!
Thats very interesting about the cleaning issues for the goats. Prague Zoo gives their mountain goats a vertical cliff face that is surely at least 100 metres tall and covered in rocky ledges. Cleaning that must be immeasurably harder than cleaning the Mappins ever was. I wonder how they do it; abseiling?