Zoo "Confessions"

[Lafone]

At the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, I turned on a bright flashlight I had brought with me in the Nocturnal House with the Platypuses.

The point of even going into a nocturnal house or darkened space is completely lost if you don’t want to spend time letting your eyes adjust to the darkness / red lighting. It’s an ugly thing to confess to.

If you don’t see an animal come back later or adjust your expectations.

Hopefully however the advice on behaviour and the facts about the animal concerned will mean you wouldn’t think of doing it again.

Don’t distress, damage or harass the animals at the zoo when you visit. Straightforward stuff really.

It is sad how some people are content to abuse and upset animals or ignore their distress (this ‘confession’ being one example, enthusing about the inbreeding of animals to their detriment so we can see colours of them we think is cool being another) - it’s a scale of behaviour I’d hope no one would want to be on.

 

[Strathmorezoo]

The point of even going into a nocturnal house or darkened space is completely lost if you don’t want to spend time letting your eyes adjust to the darkness / red lighting. It’s an ugly thing to confess to.

If you don’t see an animal come back later or adjust your expectations.

Hopefully however the advice on behaviour and the facts about the animal concerned will mean you wouldn’t think of doing it again.

Don’t distress, damage or harass the animals at the zoo when you visit. Straightforward stuff really.

It is sad how some people are content to abuse and upset animals or ignore their distress (this ‘confession’ being one example, enthusing about the inbreeding of animals to their detriment so we can see colours of them we think is cool being another) - it’s a scale of behaviour I’d hope no one would want to be on.

Like the comment about the inbreeding to the animals detriment, I said similar in the post on the colour mutation in parakeets thread

 

[ZooElephantMan]

The point of even going into a nocturnal house or darkened space is completely lost if you don’t want to spend time letting your eyes adjust to the darkness / red lighting. It’s an ugly thing to confess to.

If you don’t see an animal come back later or adjust your expectations.

Taking the time to let your eyes adjust can also make spotting an animal an even more meaningful experience. During my visit to the Philadelphia Zoo last year, I was fascinated by the Aye-Aye, a species I had never seen before. They lived in what was probably the darkest nocturnal room I had ever seen, and I ended up spending at least half an hour searching before I finally spotted one. It took a while to find the animal, but actually getting the chance to watch the Aye-Aye only became a more rewarding experience after all the time I invested into looking for it.

 

[15399]

Taking the time to let your eyes adjust can also make spotting an animal an even more meaningful experience. During my visit to the Philadelphia Zoo last year, I was fascinated by the Aye-Aye, a species I had never seen before. They lived in what was probably the darkest nocturnal room I had ever seen, and I ended up spending at least half an hour searching before I finally spotted one. It took a while to find the animal, but actually getting the chance to watch the Aye-Aye only became a more rewarding experience after all the time I invested into looking for it.

I felt that way on my most recent visit to Rosamond Gifford Zoo. I've probably been two or three times each of the last few years, however my most recent visit was my first time ever seeing their kiwi, and my second time ever seeing their large hairy armadillo (and the first time seeing it active). To spend so many visits before seeing it just made it an extra special experience FINALLY seeing everything in their nocturnal exhibit.

 

[joe99]

People doing that in noturnal houses is pretty common, at least a couple times a day, one time i had to stand and tell people not to use their phone torches and turn of flash, even with many signs and everything saying not to

 

[JVM]

It took me over half an hour to try to adjust my eyes to see the Aye-aye in Denver and I still felt a little dissatisfied to try to see the animal properly, since it looked more like a furry blob to me at the time. Very appreciate of my traveling buddy who stuck with me through this time as he probably had no idea what an aye-aye is or why it was important to me to spend thirty minutes in a dark room waiting for one. Still a fun experience despite the tone of the post!

 

[Sicarius]

If there was a "dislike" button, everybody would be using it for this post.

Why would you even bring a flashlight? What an awful, awful thing to do.

I find some of these comments incredibly judgy. Does everybody here see my profile picture? I flashed that giant flying squirrel right in front of me. It didn't care at all, neither did the owner. In fact, in all my years of visiting zoos and aquariums, I have almost always had a zookeeper or private holder given me permission to use a flashlight. The only problems I ever had were zoo fans who started screaming at me. I'm not saying that we should all flash a nocturnal animal, but I don't see why all of you and many others react so strongly to such a minor event. Great photographers worldwide, like Joel Sartore of National Geographic and Matthijs Kuijpers from Reptiles4all always use flashlights, and so do many field researchers & curators I know. I have not once heard of an animal having damage from this. Actually, I don't think it was ever proven that it harms any animal at all. Sure, it could result in temporary blindness, so says the internet, but I have never seen any proof of that. There is this strong, likeminded way that people have, in which they believe flashlights are horrible and hurt the animals. It is not. The highly professional deep sea research institutions of Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium & Aquamarine Fukushima are even so far that they allow flash in their aquariums. I'm not sure any animals are so used to the dark as deep-sea fish, I think that speaks for itself when it is allowed even there. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't judge so harshly because we have been told how terrible something is of which little long-term effects have ever been described. This is a confession page where someone is honest about his actions. Look how you are all reacting to him, about shining light on a tank that is being lit at night anyway. Not to mention this ironic fact: platypus have their eyes closed while diving.

I know this comment will probably result in a lot of backlash, and feel free to judge my actions if that makes you feel better. But do not act like someone is a bad person because they are so excited to photograph an animal that they use all the resources they have. The animal was not harmed, no captive animal was ever harmed by light. That way of thinking is purely based on speculation, rather than the animal's physiology.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

Despite the welfare compromises, I actually really liked Omaha’s old cat complex and Bear canyon…

Also, as a hyena fan, I’ve only actually seen one species irl.

 

[15399]

I find some of these comments incredibly judgy. Does everybody here see my profile picture? I flashed that giant flying squirrel right in front of me. It didn't care at all, neither did the owner. In fact, in all my years of visiting zoos and aquariums, I have almost always had a zookeeper or private holder given me permission to use a flashlight. The only problems I ever had were zoo fans who started screaming at me. I'm not saying that we should all flash a nocturnal animal, but I don't see why all of you and many others react so strongly to such a minor event. Great photographers worldwide, like Joel Sartore of National Geographic and Matthijs Kuijpers from Reptiles4all always use flashlights, and so do many field researchers & curators I know. I have not once heard of an animal having damage from this. Actually, I don't think it was ever proven that it harms any animal at all. Sure, it could result in temporary blindness, so says the internet, but I have never seen any proof of that. There is this strong, likeminded way that people have, in which they believe flashlights are horrible and hurt the animals. It is not. The highly professional deep sea research institutions of Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium & Aquamarine Fukushima are even so far that they allow flash in their aquariums. I'm not sure any animals are so used to the dark as deep-sea fish, I think that speaks for itself when it is allowed even there. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't judge so harshly because we have been told how terrible something is of which little long-term effects have ever been described. This is a confession page where someone is honest about his actions. Look how you are all reacting to him, about shining light on a tank that is being lit at night anyway. Not to mention this ironic fact: platypus have their eyes closed while diving.

I know this comment will probably result in a lot of backlash, and feel free to judge my actions if that makes you feel better. But do not act like someone is a bad person because they are so excited to photograph an animal that they use all the resources they have. The animal was not harmed, no captive animal was ever harmed by light. That way of thinking is purely based on speculation, rather than the animal's physiology.

There is a BIG difference between a photographer doing something WITH PERMISSION, and a zoo visitor taking it upon themselves to make the decision that it's okay to use a flashlight.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

I'm a big fan of the bison, so I'm well aware of how important the Bronx Zoo has been for the species. The bison might've gone extinct if the Bronx hadn't been an early propagator of them; Certainly many populations of bison wouldn't exist today as we know them without the zoos support.

The bison not being "purebred" is of no concern to myself, my avatar is a Przewalski's Horse - Another species that was saved by zoos and private individuals, but was hybridized in the process. (Although the P-Horse and now even the bison have been proven to have historically crossbred with their close relatives, even prior to being taken into captivity.)

The bison turning out to be "impure" on a species wide basis is just a huge deal in the bison world. For literally the last twenty years, bison conservation has been driven by "purity". Supposedly "pure" herds were favored for greater propagation and reintroduction into new areas over "impure" herds. Nearly half a million bison exist in the modern day, but before this study came out, in the eyes of conservationists, only the twenty odd thousand supposed "pure" bison mattered.

No more, now every herd is on an even playing field. A better thing for the species on a whole, since "pure" herds have genetics that "impure" herds lack and vice versa. Since every bison alive carries a tiny bit of cattle DNA in their blood, that means that bison can now be exchanged between herds freely. Allowing for greater and better genetic diversity, which is always key to a healthy species and assuring it's continued existence.

IMO, purity doesn’t matter. Even if it’s not breeding with domestic species, it’s bound to happen in the wild through common ancestry-for example, ALL american gray wolves, even Arctic wolves are a decent percent Coyote…

 

[Sicarius]

There is a BIG difference between a photographer doing something WITH PERMISSION, and a zoo visitor taking it upon themselves to make the decision that it's okay to use a flashlight.

So it's purely the mentality of following rules rather than the animal's health? Because I would argue that the latter is the most important here, which doesn't make a difference if it's a professional photographer or a zoo visitor.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

Also, I would MUCH rather taxonomic exhibits become the norm again before geographic ones. Ik there’s conservation value and stuff like that but having to walk a mile to see the lions and then across the zoo to see the tigers is quite the annoyance when I could just see them all in one building. I’m a carnivoran/small mammal fan, and I’d rather not go through tons of other animal exhibits to see my favorite animals if I could just spend a few hours in one carnivoran/small mammal building

 

[15399]

So it's purely the mentality of following rules rather than the animal's health? Because I would argue that the latter is the most important here, which doesn't make a difference if it's a professional photographer or a zoo visitor.

The animal health is what's important, however the average zoo visitor is not equipped to decide what is or isn't good for the animal. That's a job for the zoo's team of animal professionals to decide, which is why getting their permission (especially when many zoos state it is against the rules, for whatever reasons) is important.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

At the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, I turned on a bright flashlight I had brought with me in the Nocturnal House with the Platypuses.

Were you trying to photograph it? If so, the building really isn’t that difficult to photograph in lol

 

[Sicarius]

the average zoo visitor is not equipped to decide what is or isn't good for the animal.

Touché, can't argue with that.
I was mainly trying to point out that flash photography is not especially harmful and that it's being heavily judged everywhere based on speculation rather than facts.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

Also, y’all are telling me you’ve seriously never, EVER used flash photography in an exhibit that it wasn’t really condoned in? I’m sorry but I don’t believe that. Not justifying what @Nile Hippo Expert did but you guys are being way too harsh on him for something the majority of animal photographers have done

 

[birdsandbats]

Also, y’all are telling me you’ve seriously never, EVER used flash photography in an exhibit that it wasn’t really condoned in? I’m sorry but I don’t believe that. Not justifying what @Nile Hippo Expert did but you guys are being way too harsh on him for something the majority of animal photographers have done

Not intentionally I haven't. I've accidentally done it a couple of times when I didn't realize my flash was on, but if flash isn't allowed somewhere I'll never use it on purpose.

 

[Moebelle]

Were you trying to photograph it? If so, the building really isn’t that difficult to photograph in lol

I was going to comment on Nile Hippo's original post that it is in fact very difficult to photograph/video (not that I would opt to use flash... anymore) that area. It's darker than most nocturnal habitats I've seen.

It also doesn't help, from experience, that each guest was only allowed to view the platypus for 30 seconds before being moved along.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

I was going to comment on Nile Hippo's original post that it is in fact very difficult to photograph/video (not that I would opt to use flash... anymore) that area. It's darker than most nocturnal habitats I've seen.

It also doesn't help, from experience, that each guest was only allowed to view the platypus for 30 seconds before being moved along.

Exactly. I didn’t have that experience, but it was practically impossible to even see most of the exhibit.

 

[Lafone]

Also, y’all are telling me you’ve seriously never, EVER used flash photography in an exhibit that it wasn’t really condoned in? I’m sorry but I don’t believe that. Not justifying what @Nile Hippo Expert did but you guys are being way too harsh on him for something the majority of animal photographers have done

No and I take thousands of pictures of animals (in zoos, in the wild and in horse sports) per year in all manner of exhibits and scenarios (indoor arenas etc). Believe it or not of course however it is the case.

If I couldn't get the shot without disrupting an animal or busting the rules I just wouldn't get it. If I can't see an animal without doing something daft well I can go and look at something else. Isn't the state of things in general enough for people to have some thought about everything not being about us getting what we want in whatever moment we are in. I've seen flash photography disrupt dressage tests at international level because someone in the crowd 'needed' a photo of a horse on their iphone from 300m away. And they didn't even need to use a flash they just had no idea how to take a picture in a dimmer light without it. How about just... not.

'I would do it too' and 'everyone does it because I do' aren't really great arguments for something being right.

If someone has permission that's great as everyone has thought how to make it work. Great. If they don't, well don't do it.

That's the difference between careful and careless.

I don't think someone needs a kicking for doing it though and would just use it as an opportunity to be a bit more considerate and respect the rules next time - that's all it is.

I do like the taxonomic exhibits you mention in your other post though, sometimes I like the geography split from an educational / context perspective but great exhibits can be either imho.