"habitats" is much better than "cage", and that is what I refer to almost all good animal exhibits out there.
Zoos = Animal Prisons? Animals=Inmates?
- Thread starter ANyhuis
- Start date
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Why is it 'better'? Isn't this an example of language being rendered meaningless by the desire to wrap it up in euphimism?
Isn't that what a cage is?
Also, isn't that what modern day zoos are doing, recreating the animals habitat?
Also, isn't that what modern day zoos are doing, recreating the animals habitat?
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I repeat: I did NOT mean to compare the actions of the anti-zoo lobby with these really evil people (Hitler or the terrorists)! I was just setting up a comparative scenario to illustrate how wrong it is to give credit to people whose INTENTION was destruction. Of course the main difference is that Hitler and the terrorists meant to destroy human lives, while the anti-zoo lobby "only" means to destroy zoos.
Here you go: Vague rules mean animals suffer in EU zoos--NGOs | Reuters
What he said is that zoos are a "necessary evil". As I further said, I would guess that this guy probably does love zoos as much as any of us. But he's feeding the anti-zoo media a great quote when he links zoos with the word "evil".
Point taken! I'll start reading! (Actually, I have paged through that book, but was unaware of the author's name.
I think some zoos (a few) are doing a reasonable job of REPLICATING or SIMULATING some aspects of animals' natural habitats, but "re-creating" implies actually making a working replacement for a habitat, something even the most ambitious zoo exhibit can never really do. I too am offended by the unthinking way many zoo supporters refer to any zoo exhibit as a "habitat," no matter how crude or depauperate the space really is. But of course in the company of non-zoo people I am more likely to use the word "enclosure" instead of "cage," because "cage" comes loaded with negative imagery.
Language IS important. But real or perceived political correctness can backfire too. In a slip of judgment, the former Director of the Bronx Zoo defended his attempt to change the name of the institution to the "International Wildlife Conservation Park" on the basis that "Bronx Zoo" was a double pergorative. That comment did not play well with the local politicians, nor did the attempted name change stick......
Language IS important. But real or perceived political correctness can backfire too. In a slip of judgment, the former Director of the Bronx Zoo defended his attempt to change the name of the institution to the "International Wildlife Conservation Park" on the basis that "Bronx Zoo" was a double pergorative. That comment did not play well with the local politicians, nor did the attempted name change stick......
It`s totally impossible to recreate a wild animal`s habitat in a zoo, what zoos do is they try to make it LOOK like an imitation of the natural habitat. That`s not a bad thing per se, because zoos need to satisfy their visitors, but I admit I admire zoos who keep things simple and instead of spending ridiculous amounts of money on fake waterfalls and mock rock, build (large!!) cages that are actually equipped with what animals (and I`m thinking of primates here) need - shade, overhead cover, climbing structures.
And more in general, I think some members here make Peta & co much more important then they really are, if you let dictate them which words we shall use, and if you start such big discussions. Their opinions are not shared by the general public, and if zoos continue to improve, I know that they have nothing to fear.
I have sadly seen zoo enclosures for which the only apropriate term is "prison", and in which animals are suffering in an awful way for no other reason then human entertainment (not to take part in very important breeding programs!). The lonely elephant in Barcelona is a good example for that.
By the way, ANyhuis, what do you think WHY do Peta & co want zoos closed if you believe so strongly that they dont care about animals at all? I have friends who sympathize with AR groups (being vegetarian, anti hunting ect. - not particularly anti zoo), and I have had some interesting discussions with exactly those people you call "enemies" - and I assure your that my honest impression was that they cared about animals very much. It makes no sense that someone puts a lot of time, effort and money into anti-zoo campaings just because they "hate" zoos, without any reason for that. My opinion is that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, and if someone is against keeping wild animals in zoos, that does not make him/her my enemy, and given that freedom of speech and opinion are very high values, everyone should accept that people have different views. I don`t think their opinion is right, but I think - and that`s the VERY big difgference with terrorists and Nazis - that they are correct in serveral points, because not everything in zoos is perfect, and there ARE still many enclosures and management decisions that need to be critizised.
Not all of them want to distroy zoos, actually. Many if not most AR people are against traditional zoos, but don`t want to see them all closed, but rather converted into breeding centers for critically endangered local species, rescue centers for injured natice wildlife, and sanctuaries for exotic animals rescued from circusses and illegal trade.
I have sadly seen zoo enclosures for which the only apropriate term is "prison", and in which animals are suffering in an awful way for no other reason then human entertainment (not to take part in very important breeding programs!). The lonely elephant in Barcelona is a good example for that.
By the way, ANyhuis, what do you think WHY do Peta & co want zoos closed if you believe so strongly that they dont care about animals at all? I have friends who sympathize with AR groups (being vegetarian, anti hunting ect. - not particularly anti zoo), and I have had some interesting discussions with exactly those people you call "enemies" - and I assure your that my honest impression was that they cared about animals very much. It makes no sense that someone puts a lot of time, effort and money into anti-zoo campaings just because they "hate" zoos, without any reason for that. My opinion is that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, and if someone is against keeping wild animals in zoos, that does not make him/her my enemy, and given that freedom of speech and opinion are very high values, everyone should accept that people have different views. I don`t think their opinion is right, but I think - and that`s the VERY big difgference with terrorists and Nazis - that they are correct in serveral points, because not everything in zoos is perfect, and there ARE still many enclosures and management decisions that need to be critizised.
Not all of them want to distroy zoos, actually. Many if not most AR people are against traditional zoos, but don`t want to see them all closed, but rather converted into breeding centers for critically endangered local species, rescue centers for injured natice wildlife, and sanctuaries for exotic animals rescued from circusses and illegal trade.
Zoos already are breeding centers for endangered species, rescue centers, and basically sanctuaries for wild animals! (at least in the U.S.)
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
No. I rather agree with you that most of the fanatical part of the "anti zoo lobby" use animals as a means to an (political) end.
I also agree with Yassa's assumption that we overvalue PETA, BF etc. A dialogue at eye level is often impossible with those folks; paying them no attention might sometimes be the best way to exclude them from their main goal, i.e. the attention of the media and public. However, I also think that a more uniform collaboration of the zoos in regard to the problematic issues mentioned above would take the wind out of the anti-zoo lobby's sails.
@BlackRhino: With sometimes quite serious reservations...
@ Anyhuis, you seem to have found some people who agree with you.
I was not going to enter into this again as l prefer to enjoy my experiance here on zoochat and not be antoganised or read the kind of subject matter you can use in your arguments. Also my grammer is not as good as some.
However here goes.
From another post l have read that there were two elephants half brothers Jambo and Kitto. Colchester Zoo had hoped they would stay together as they have formed a incredibly strong bond. Another zoo it seems has decided not to keep them both.
This and many similiar senarios apply to gorillas as well. Now both these animals are recognised to be highly intelligent and social, building strong bonds.
When they are removed from there family obviously without consent or prior knowledge. How do you think they "feel" They have lost the freedom of choice! They have lost there family. This is why l would comfortably say zoos are prisons. Very nice ones allot of them but prisons none the less.
Your quote
I believe, are not denied their freedom because "freedom" is not a concept they understand. They are "passengers" on the conservation "ark" (the equivalent of the biblical Noah's ark story), keeping them safe from the floodwaters of pollution, poaching, and habitat destruction. They are also "ambassadors", living in our world as representatives of their world -- to give us a better understanding of their world.
I somehow feel they would strongly disagree with you.
Personally l feel that the idea of a naturalistic enclosure is totally wasted on animals. They want/need to be enriched, l dont belive they care how things look. The naturalistic look is for the public! Definatley not the animal.
I was not going to enter into this again as l prefer to enjoy my experiance here on zoochat and not be antoganised or read the kind of subject matter you can use in your arguments. Also my grammer is not as good as some.
However here goes.
From another post l have read that there were two elephants half brothers Jambo and Kitto. Colchester Zoo had hoped they would stay together as they have formed a incredibly strong bond. Another zoo it seems has decided not to keep them both.
This and many similiar senarios apply to gorillas as well. Now both these animals are recognised to be highly intelligent and social, building strong bonds.
When they are removed from there family obviously without consent or prior knowledge. How do you think they "feel" They have lost the freedom of choice! They have lost there family. This is why l would comfortably say zoos are prisons. Very nice ones allot of them but prisons none the less.
Your quote
I believe, are not denied their freedom because "freedom" is not a concept they understand. They are "passengers" on the conservation "ark" (the equivalent of the biblical Noah's ark story), keeping them safe from the floodwaters of pollution, poaching, and habitat destruction. They are also "ambassadors", living in our world as representatives of their world -- to give us a better understanding of their world.
I somehow feel they would strongly disagree with you.
Personally l feel that the idea of a naturalistic enclosure is totally wasted on animals. They want/need to be enriched, l dont belive they care how things look. The naturalistic look is for the public! Definatley not the animal.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Zooman,
Are your initials "DH"? Let's not antagonize anyone -- that is certainly NOT my goal. Sorry, but I will never ever agree with anyone who wants to attach a negative term like "prison" to zoos. I know far too many zoo directors, public relations reps, and zookeepers who would be horrifically offended by such a term -- especially when it comes from someone on our side.
I'm not at all saying zoos are perfect, nor that they don't make mistakes. As for Jambo and Kitto, I'll be interested to see how they turn out after they're separated. Do they show signs of animal depression and thus deteriorate physically, or do they adapt and thrive again. Rather than get antagonized at each other, let's just agree to disagree. While we both love animals, I see animals and people as very different creatures, while you are more willing to attach human-like emotions and thinking to animals. That doesn't make either of us evil.
Are your initials "DH"? Let's not antagonize anyone -- that is certainly NOT my goal. Sorry, but I will never ever agree with anyone who wants to attach a negative term like "prison" to zoos. I know far too many zoo directors, public relations reps, and zookeepers who would be horrifically offended by such a term -- especially when it comes from someone on our side.
I'm not at all saying zoos are perfect, nor that they don't make mistakes. As for Jambo and Kitto, I'll be interested to see how they turn out after they're separated. Do they show signs of animal depression and thus deteriorate physically, or do they adapt and thrive again. Rather than get antagonized at each other, let's just agree to disagree. While we both love animals, I see animals and people as very different creatures, while you are more willing to attach human-like emotions and thinking to animals. That doesn't make either of us evil.
I agree with Allen 100%, and personally I hate when people assign human emotions to people. It is like comparing apples to oranges, which are completely different.
Zooman, what you said about how enclosures look is important too. Why do you think for example, Congo Gorilla Forest is the best exhibit for gorillas? Because not only does it make the visitors feel like they are in the Congo, it is also makes the gorillas feel like they are in the Congo. I think if an animal feels like it is in its native land, it will act like it is.
Zooman, what you said about how enclosures look is important too. Why do you think for example, Congo Gorilla Forest is the best exhibit for gorillas? Because not only does it make the visitors feel like they are in the Congo, it is also makes the gorillas feel like they are in the Congo. I think if an animal feels like it is in its native land, it will act like it is.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Thanks, BlackRhino, for your support! But I think you meant "when people assign human emotions to ANIMALS".
Clearly there are bad roadside "zoos" that are nothing more than prisons and I'm sure everyone here agrees they should be shut down. Many years ago I visited a backyard menagerie near the border called Douglas Wildlife Zoo that had a cougar and bear in CRAMPED cages. I wrote to several agencies to have it shut down, but legally it could not be. Thankfully, I heard they have since closed on their own. If animal rights groups focused on places like this, they would serve a valuable purpose.
Fortunately, the public knows a good zoo from a bad zoo (or exhibit) when they see it (I was the only visitor at Douglas Zoo - and it was a Sunday!). I used to consider myself an animal rights advocate, but I now use the term animal WELFARE advocate, thanks to a book by Jeffrey Bonner (St Louis Zoo director). It is called "Sailing With Noah" and has an excellent chapter called "The Problem With PETA." He clearly distinguishes the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Although the writing style is not the smoothest, it is the best defense of zoos I have seen published - highly recommended.
Fortunately, the public knows a good zoo from a bad zoo (or exhibit) when they see it (I was the only visitor at Douglas Zoo - and it was a Sunday!). I used to consider myself an animal rights advocate, but I now use the term animal WELFARE advocate, thanks to a book by Jeffrey Bonner (St Louis Zoo director). It is called "Sailing With Noah" and has an excellent chapter called "The Problem With PETA." He clearly distinguishes the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Although the writing style is not the smoothest, it is the best defense of zoos I have seen published - highly recommended.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. I also like your distinction between animal "rights" and animal "welfare". I too am all for animal welfare! By the way, I've met Bonner many times from back when he was Director of the Indy Zoo. He's terrific!
I didn't particularly want to get involved in this debate as I don't think it really matters whether a zoo animal is called an inmate or a guest of honour. However, I disagree with this. Humans ARE animals (albeit intelligent ones) and human emotions have been proved in animals - take the recent study on dogs which shows they feel pride and envy as an example.
Although it is dangerous to think of animals as humans, it is also dangerous to think of the two as separate. Less than a fortnight ago was Darwin's 250th birthday yet many still hold the belief that humans are separate from the animal kingdom, WE ARE NOT.
And, to be honest, we do not know enough about animals to know whether or not they feel the concept of freedom, they certainly feel boredom which comes from inadequate housing.
I don't think that zoos are animal prisons however I am more critical than a lot of members of this forum because animals have to live in their enclosures/habitats/cages/prisons for their entire lives. ANyhuis, I believe you said that you know of hardly any major problems in US zoos, in my opinion any animal living in unsuitable conditions is a major problem because this is an animals life, it would sure as hell be called a major problem if it were a human in that situation.
Well, there's my rant. Tear it to pieces if you like but that's what I think.
Black Rhino are you aware that at Congo Gorilla Forest. They can spend up to 5 months indoors. With access to only a very small indoor that apears naturalistic. I am sure the rest of the off exhibit that is not seen by the public. Does not look like Africa!
Yes CGF is a great exhibit. The best feature of it. It keeps the gorillas in a large group. Probably the most naturalistic thing about the exhibit. As far as the gorillas are concerned.
Hear Hear!
I would also suggest that gorillas are more sensitive than us.
You may even be refered to as a DH as l thought might happen. That is why l was also hesitant to join in here. Given Anyhuis aproach to discussion.
.The most natural thing about the exhibit is all the real foliage along with the large troop of gorillas.