Zoomoments

Z

Zoomoments Team

Active Member
Dear Zoochatters,

May we introduce our new zoo website, zoomoments.com, which is a professional, informative and entertaining magazine that is concerned with the vivid and diverse world of zoos. It mostly contains own material. The staff consists of active members of present zoo life. Our goal is to operate a continuously updated and expanded magazine.

We would like to show how others are working elsewhere, what they have achieved and what experiences they have got during the years. Furthermore it is important for us to show the tireless work carried out behind the scenes and we would also like to introduce those people to whom the zoo trade has a lot to thank for, those who make us proud. Finally, we present to you where zoos came from, where they are at the moment and what future might await them. Since life produces so many moments worth mentioning, we wish to preserve these often unique moments and show them to you!
Our site wishes to address the numerous community of the zoo trade, professionals and students interested in science, and last but not least, the curious and open-minded visitors.

With kind regards,

The Zoomoments Team
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just had a quick look, IMO it is a nice addition to the already operating zoosides and I wish Zoomoments al the best for the future !
 
The "about us" link states:
Our site, zoomoments.com is a professional, scientific and entertaining magazine
Click to expand...

I must say I find it odd when I read an article in a professional and scientific "publication" where the author draws conclusions as I see in "Mixed-species Exhibits with Ursids".
Opinion

My overall impression is – and experiences reflect the same fact – that keeping different bear species in mixed exhibits can easily be problematic in many cases which is strengthened by numerous lethal attacks and fatalities caused by bears. All of these facts show that we have to handle this exhibitry type with bears very cautiously with special emphasis on preliminary studies and use of risk analysis methods.
Click to expand...
And who is this author that is drawing this studied conclusion? "Christian."
Who is "Christian"? No idea. No info.
It is frustrating and weak journalism. It is certainly neither scientific writing nor very professional.

I felt equally uneasy with the link "We are zoo people." If you click on it, there is nothing there that relates to that statement.

I assume then that this is another fanboy enterprise dressed up to appear professional. But why the air of insider professionalism if the are no grounds for it?
 
Dear Zooplantman, what's wrong with this opinion? What statement in it looks non-professional? Have you read the "acknowledgements and references" in the end of the article?
 
e-lajos said:
Dear Zooplantman, what's wrong with this opinion? What statement in it looks non-professional? Have you read the "acknowledgements and references" in the end of the article?
Click to expand...

I am not criticizing the opinion itself. Apologies that I was not clear.
I am criticizing a publication where the opinion is offered by an anonymous "expert." It is the anonymity of the writer that I find inconsistent with a scientific publication or a professional one.

And since you are yourself on the Zoomoments team, perhaps you can relay this concern to your colleagues.
 
Thanks for your reply. It is a startup and there were some reasons because we chose the semi-anonimity (if somebody is an Internet expert, we could be found easily...) for a while. Nevertheless, we plan to reveal our names as soon as we can see the time of it. We would like to be not too serious but also entertaining for the 'zoo people'. I hope you will enjoy it and we are waiting any good ideas to improve it.
 
I did feel that the article was very interesting and thoughtful.
I simply prefer that an author expressing an opinion be accountable for that opinion and I think that requires stating his identity.
 
Zooplantman said:
I did feel that the article was very interesting and thoughtful.
I simply prefer that an author expressing an opinion be accountable for that opinion and I think that requires stating his identity.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Author, photography references and a list of scientific references. Mild mannered or not ..., if one wishes to be taken not just for granted ...

For the record: best of luck and yes some interesting opinions expressed.
 
e-lajos said:
If somebody interested in the authors of the Zoomoments.com, it can be read in the impressum.
Click to expand...

Thank-you.
I very much appreciate that the editorial staff considered these comments and took the risk (whatever that might be) to "go public."
Well done!
 
e-lajos said:
There is a new article about human zoo projects - what do you think about?
Click to expand...

That it is completely off.

So-called 'Voelkerschau' were folklore shows given by hired workers travelling on voluntary work contracts.

Zoos in the late 19. and early 20. century were often showing natural and exotic world in general, which, besides animals, included plants, minerals and folklore. Similar 'human zoos' are common today as folklore shows, theme parks, bioparks and natural history museums. Typical example is AANH, which contains stuffed animals together with folklore exhibits and astronauts. Of course this doesn't justify supposition that AANH equates astronauts with animals.

There is also a mention that in 1870s exotic people were seen in Warsaw Zoo. Warsaw Zoo was founded in 1926. I don't know where all this nonsense comes from, because the text doesn't list any sources.
 
Hi,
I didn't mean the Zoo of Warsaw, but - according to sources - there was human exhibits in Warsaw too, as in many other European cities. This type of exhibit is not connected to the real zoos only, for example it was popular attraction in World expositions too.

I suggest to see archive photos of human zoos and to read the life history of some "exhibited humans". They were far from fair, the exhibited ones were considered as primitive half-humans by both visitors and exhibitors. Because of copyright reason I didn't use a photo of a human zoo in Brussels 1958, where visitors fed a child through the fence... But you can see it here:
Human-Zoo-in-Brussels-1958.jpg


And I also suggest to read the story of Selkman people here: Selknam natives en route to Europe for being exhibited as animals in Human Zoos, 1899

So, they were not folk exhibits, but they were very stereotypic and racist shows. It was the Zeitgeist, which - I hope - will not return.

I hope, I have convinced you, but, naturally, the opinions could differ...
 
Last edited:
I guess that 'in Colonial times zoos exhibited people together with animals' is becoming the same misconception as 'in the Middle Ages people believed the Earth was flat' and 'Viking warriors wore horned helmets'.

You are looking at 19. and early 20. century from the perspective of 21. century. These shows, in the context of their times, were entertainment and educative, and were fairly paid - on the background of situation of general population and workers of that time. They filled the role later taken over by photographs and then film.

Common sense points that it would be impossible to have large groups of people touring and giving public presentations around Europe against their will.
 
BTW, you may examine today zoos and theme parks, where South Asian and South American exhibits often feature ruined temples and rainforest plants. Should they show skyscrapers and semi-desert shrubs, because these continents have numerous big cities and dry habitats? ;)
 
Hi,

But I don't mean to discourage you, the article about bears is very interesting. Zoomoments can be fine resource with some small changes :)
 
As I expected, the situation of Sandra the orangutan didn't change a bit.

Because what Sandra needs is not rights, but money and effort to re-home her to a better enclosure said to exist in Brazil (which still would be legally a captivity, mind it).

Human rights don't give it. Just like any of numerous humans living in favelas in Latin America has no absolute right to move to a comfortable house.

The situation from the legal standpoint became a mockery: Sandra cannot live in cage nor outside the cage (because of danger to humans). What is a legally right solution - somebody steps up with money to move her (possibly some of these lawyers, who are presumably quite rich people) or to kill her, or to revert the verdict?

BTW - anybody actually knows what are conditions in Buenos Aires orangutan cage, and where is the supposed sanctuary in Brazil and what is there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top