Zoos should only keep native animals

dragon(ele)nerd

dragon(ele)nerd

Well-Known Member
greetings everyone,

I've been given a school essay topic and I was wondering if anyone could help me with some good points.
For and against arguements are both appreciated.
 
I'm going to suggest you frame your answer so that it's taken to mean that all zoos *worldwide* should only keep animals native to their country.

Three arguments for:
- Would help curtail the illegal trade in wildlife, because the single greatest legitimate recipient of animals no longer needs to trade animals across borders. This means that smugglers wouldn't be able to hide behind the zoo trade at all.
- Would encourage international visitors to go to zoos. If you couldn't see a kangaroo or koala anywhere else in the world you're going to go to the zoo when you're in Australia so you can do it. The same with going to a zoo in Indonesia to see orang-utans and Sumatran tigers.
- Would enable zoos to focus on conserving species that they're best positioned to help. Often, keeping large colonies of smaller native species that are critically endangered is in fact cheaper than maintaining, say, elephants from Thailand, giraffes from Kenya, polar bears from Canada and gorillas from the Congo.

Two arguments against:
- A majority of the world's endangered animal species live in third world countries, where governments don't have the resources to engage in expensive captive management programs. The world's best zoos are in the developed west, and it is these zoos, regardless of their location, that are best equipped to conserve species.
- The zoo-going public expect, enjoy and benefit from seeing animals from across the world. Many people will never go to the Congo, Kenya, Canada or Thailand to see the above-mentioned species, but the zoo is only a car trip away. Whilst at the zoo, they may get immersed in a replica cultural landscape that prompts them to think about (and even act on) environmental problems outside their own little part of the world.
 
Thanks CGswans,

In my essay I plan to mention its not about abolishing zoos as a main form of zoos is education. Just that welfare of animals can be maintained better if they are held at a zoo where the climate and native resources such as food and landcape can be aquired easily.

Millions of dollars can also be used on one exhibit to house what? only around 5 animals where as that money could go towards reforestation and protection etc.
Would an elephant exhibit for 5 still cost $13.5 million dollars in Thailand to build?

I also have a rebuttal on the captive breeding programs. I haven't perfected it yet though I feel as if the animals weren't taken out of their native habitat, researchers wouldn't have to take the time and effort of convincing locals (for example) that the elephants being imported to australia are going to be used for a good purpose.
 
dragon(ele)nerd said:
Millions of dollars can also be used on one exhibit to house what? only around 5 animals where as that money could go towards reforestation and protection etc.
Would an elephant exhibit for 5 still cost $13.5 million dollars in Thailand to build?
.
Click to expand...

This I feel is a bit of a false argument. Certainly it is true that that 13.5 million spent on conservation in the wild is better than 13.5 million for a zoo exhibit. However would the money spent on the zoo exhibit be available for conservation. I don't think so as the money was made available for that zoo and would have been directed elsewhere if the zoo didn't exist. In particular towards some other project that would benefit the inhabitants of the city that that zoo was in.

As for the arguement that it would encourgae visitors to a country to the zoo to see the local wildlife I don't think that would work. I have never been overseas but I know that if I ever get the chance I won't be travelling all the way to Africa so that I can see lions and giraffe in a zoo.

Also I think it would cut out locals from visiting a zoo. When I visit Melbourne or Taronga it's not for kangaroos and koalas. I can see kangaroos in my backyard thank you. Yes I do visit places so that I can see more obscure native fauna, that's where places like Currumbin are really great. But when I visit a major zoo I avoid the native fauna section. Unless it's something special such as the big bird aviary in Melbourne
 
jay said:
As for the arguement that it would encourgae visitors to a country to the zoo to see the local wildlife I don't think that would work. I have never been overseas but I know that if I ever get the chance I won't be travelling all the way to Africa so that I can see lions and giraffe in a zoo.
Click to expand...

Didn't say I *agreed* with the argument. Just that it's something that Dragon may wish to put forward. :)
 
CGSwans said:
Didn't say I *agreed* with the argument. Just that it's something that Dragon may wish to put forward. :)
Click to expand...

Actually when I think about it somemore I would actually say that my argument was half right. If I went to Africa I wouldn't visit a zoo to see lions and giraffe. However if I wanted to see a sumatran rhino I might be better of visiting a zoo that had it than trying to see one in the wild.
 
Another benefit of only displaying natives: when school groups come in they have no choice but to learn about the animals found in their own backyard, they are not distracted by weird and wonderful big flashy animals. In developing nations this is important grassroots conservation.

Belize Zoo only has native Belizean animals, so the kids learn about tapirs, conures, coatis, jaguars, currasows, toucans and chachalacas. If they had elephants, rhinos, Kodiak Bears and Kangaroos, then the kids might be more interested in these wildly different species and the message would not be as well-absorbed.

:p

Hix
 
You could conclude that zoos should have, aswell as exotics, a native section, and also do a lot of work towards conserving native animals. Perhaps the stories of the plights of the exotics could be related back to conservation stories in their own country?
 
when i go overseas i occasionally pop into a zoo - but usually only to see something obscure that i failed to find when i was knee deep in mud and giddy from all the blood loss from mosquitoes. and only if i have heard it is "okay". i don't think i could handle doing a f-grade southeast asian zoo ever again. i feel like passing the monkeys razor blades through the wire or a weeks supply of sleeping pills.

a good example was when i visited a zoo in borneo just to see sumatran rhino.


now i know this that dragon(ele)nerd is after clear for/against arguments but its my STRONG belief that yes, it generally makes for better conservation and education outcomes if a zoo keeps only native fauna but lets face it, to many australians, koalas and kangaroos are boring (i'd argue koalas are boring to most people in fact!).

so its my belief that globally zoos should DEFINITELY focus on native fauna first and second to that, exotic species from similar climatic conditions. in many cases it not only delivers a higher chance of reproductive success in rarer species, but moreso it is more humane and even more importantly provides something exotic and of interest but also keeps the message close to home and RELEVANT to the people that live there. saharan desert ecology and conservation is for more relevant and relatable to someone from arizona than it is to someone from the united kingdom. someone in the europe is best taught a message about boreal forest conservation, even if its a through the interest captured by a siberian tiger.

the zoos also have a greater point of difference form one another.

still, convincing the far northerners to give up their elephants is about as likely as adelaide sending back its pandas.

but i live in hope.
 
I'm no expert, but I would think that by having a diverse variety of places taking care of a type of animal, you would be getting more people with differing views trying things to improve the lives of the animals. I would think this would likely lead to more innovation in the animals care then keeping them mainly in a few large group at local zoo's.
 
actually i'd argue the opposite.

specialising in a type of animal rather than being a generalist is where all the real learning comes from.
 
phoenix said:
the zoos also have a greater point of difference form one another.
Click to expand...

On this one point: the general public in any particular locale does not, as a rule, see their zoo in comparison to others (except to gloat that theirs is the best!). They - unlike us - go to the zoo as they might go to the movies or local amusement park or the beach. It is simply the local attraction.

What we have seen is that if the local zoo does not have elephants or lions, there is a strong public push to get them. No Northern zoo has had a public outcry that they show raccoons or marmot (as far as I know)

That doesn't make it right (or wrong), but since a zoo depends on its visitors for survival, it better understand what they want. If the management disagrees with the public, then they better have a strong and vibrant vision to promote. Zoos, unlike the local electric utility, can be dispensed with.
 
Hix said:
Another benefit of only displaying natives: when school groups come in they have no choice but to learn about the animals found in their own backyard, they are not distracted by weird and wonderful big flashy animals. In developing nations this is important grassroots conservation.

Belize Zoo only has native Belizean animals, so the kids learn about tapirs, conures, coatis, jaguars, currasows, toucans and chachalacas. If they had elephants, rhinos, Kodiak Bears and Kangaroos, then the kids might be more interested in these wildly different species and the message would not be as well-absorbed.

:p

Hix
Click to expand...

When it comes to school groups I think it depends on what the teachers organise previously with the zoo. If the children are with a zoos education staff I believe a decent percentage of the animals spoken about are natives. You look at a zoos education centre and most of the animals within are natives!

It also is usually the best part of the experience for school students. getting to meet natives.
 
I think you should definitely discuss captive propagation. One of the earliest successes was the Arabian Oryx being saved by the Phoenix Zoo. It certainly helps to have a similar climate, but that's not the only factor to conisder.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Oryx_Reintroduction]Arabian Oryx Reintroduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Jarkari said:
When it comes to school groups I think it depends on what the teachers organise previously with the zoo. If the children are with a zoos education staff I believe a decent percentage of the animals spoken about are natives. You look at a zoos education centre and most of the animals within are natives!

It also is usually the best part of the experience for school students. getting to meet natives.
Click to expand...

I agree that zoos in Australia tend to have lots of natives in their ed centres, but not everyone going to the ed centre meets necessaruily meets them.

In Australia we have lots of natives which are handreared and ideal contact animals. However, that case may not be the same in the rest of the world.

:p

Hix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top