OK, I've started this thread because, on another thread (North America's Gorilla Exhibits), I suggested that those of us who LOVE ZOOS should not use the language of our ENEMIES, the animals rights radicals who hate all zoos and whose main goal and intention is to see all zoos closed! I was inspired to challenge us all in this after one poster called the gorillas in zoos, "inmates". Eventually, however, things got a little bit heated, and I was accused of basically hijacking the Gorilla Exhibits thread. What was especially shocking to me is that a few posters on that thread actually defended the idea of calling zoos, "animal prisons". One of the later posts pulled out the dictionary definition of "prison" and said that sure sounds like a zoo! Where I strongly, strongly differ with anyone who sees any correlation between prisons and zoos is that (as I said): Prisons are for PEOPLE, that is people who have committed a crime and need to be punished and locked away from society. Zoos, on the other hand, are for ANIMALS. These animals, 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 truly do believe that if we love zoos, we should stop surrendering to our enemies (IDA, PETA, Hancocks, and other zoo-haters) by using their lingo. THEY are the ones who started this "animal prisons" talk. But just so no one misunderstands me, I never meant to challenge anyone's love for zoos. In fact, I was only bringing up something I don't think many of you have even thought about. One point being battered about is whether or not the zoo-haters (listed above) have actually done a good thing by criticizing zoos. It was suggested that, because of them, zoos are now building bigger and better elephant exhibits. To this, I disagreed. The perfect example of why this logic is wrong is the recent controversy at the Los Angeles Zoo. There, the Zoo was in the midst of building a fantastic new multi-acre modern elephant exhibit. Did this make the anti-zoo radicals happy? NO! They did all they could to stop this new exhibit! As I've said, they have zero interest in seeing zoos improve. They only want to see zoos destroyed. Still, I conceded that perhaps accidentally, sometimes the animal rights radicals have actually caused zoos to improve. But, I said, I still give these awful people zero credit! Why? Because it is very important to look at their INTENTIONS. To illustrate this, I posted the following historical examples: For some reason, this REALLY upset some of my critics! No, I'm not saying the zoo-haters are as evil as Hitler or the 9/11 terrorists. But I stand by my comparison. These radicals are no more deserving of "credit" than Hitler or the terrorists were. I hope you can now see the comparison. I'll quit and see what you all think now. Are Zoos "animal prisons"? Should their inhabitants be thought of as "inmates"? Should we really pay any attention at all to those who hate zoos and want to shut them down?
I agree with you that we should not be acknowledging, giving credit, or adopting the language of the "anti-zoo" crowd. I would however like to offer this tidbit I have noticed. I have been reading Gerald Durrell's "Catch Me a Colobus" and at one point he refers to an animal in its cage as an inmate. It was a completely casual thing, but I never get the impression from reading his books that he sees his animals as prisoners. I just found it rather odd. Any thoughts?
The only time I consider zoo animals "inmates" is, aside from Gerald's casual reference, is when it comes to those dreadful roadside and other run-down establishments which give good zoos a bad name.
If an animal is truly in an unsuitable habitat, a small cage, that yes it is an inmate. But I have NEVER, EVER seen a zoo exhibit like that. That term would apply to a cruel pet owner or animal smuggler, not a zoo. "Inmate" and "prison" are too derogatory to be associated with zoos. I completely agree with Allen, when he says we must stop using those words because a zoo supporter should not give credit to those who are opposed to zoos and everything they stand for. I have stopped using the word "cage" when talking to the public at the Columbus Zoo. We call the indoor gorilla exhibits Cage 1, Cage 2, etc. However, that word has a negative connotation, and should not be used in front of the public when describing very well done indoor exhibits.
Semantics are an interesting field ... and zoos are a prime example of where using certain words in place of other can paint a very different picture of a situation (see the link at the very bottom of this post for more on this). Regardless of intentions, ideals, or whatnot, I think honesty is key when discussing zoos. NOTE: The following bit is slightly tongue-in-cheek ... and before attacking, here's a quick reminder that I work at a zoo. So let's be honest: animals in zoos are captive. True, many animals in the "wild" are captive in parks and preserves as well, but zoo animals are still in captivity (or would you prefer "managed care"?). They are held captive - whether you call them prisoners or residents or inmates or "denizens of the Ark", they do not get a choice (and could care less what they are called, so long as they are taken care of). The methods of containment/confinement/captivity have evolved significantly over time ... at least where the public can see them. But they are all still there. A gunnite mudbank may look natural, but to an animal confined by one it could just as easily be a plain block wall or fence. Off-exhibit holding areas are still built with bars ("vertical containment"?) and mesh ("metal lattice"?), there are charts detailing moat depths and spans, and engineers factor in the strength of a charging elephant when designing an exhibit ... a cage is a pen is an enclosure is a captive habitat. No matter what word you use, the area remains the same. Finally (and I hate to raise the prison analogy for the backlash it may cause), zoos have to practice animal escape drills in case an animal gets past the barriers designed to hold it in ("insert politically correct euphemism here to distance this from the television show 'Prison Break' ..."). Allen, I totally agree with your general thoughts on intent, and found your examples illustrative (if only for being a bit outrageous!). However, by the same logic, using words with positive intent ("cage", "inmate") should not immediately align anybody with those using them with negative intent. Shying away from words with potentially negative connotations panders to the power/negative intent of the other groups (someone else pointed this out on the gorilla discussion). To describe an enclosure with the word 'cage' should not be something to be "ashamed of". While it may initially bring up negative images, if a visitor is next to a large, well-done exhibit, might it not sway their perception of what a cage is, or what a cage can be? Would it not turn the 'enemies' on their heads if we were proud of the cages our animals live in??? Example: Yes - 'prison' applies ... they house captive animals! Zoos are great! They keep animals safe from people, and people safe from animals! Hurrah! Yeah! The best-taken-care-of animals in the world! I love visiting my local zoo and learning about animals from around the world. I would suggest that everyone not get bogged down with the potential connotations; celebrate the good, be honest and true, and the anti-zoo groups won't have an argument to stand on. Regarding perceptions, this is a great read on the topic: Brenda Scott Royce: Zoo Is Not a Dirty Word
I appreciate everyone's observations, and I truly don't mean to get bogged down with "semantics". I know most who use the zoo-haters' terms are not doing so with any malice towards zoos. As I said, I point it out not to criticize, but rather to wake us all up. As to the point that animals are "captive", I have no quarrel with that. But there's a difference between being a captive and a prisoner. My pet cat is captive, but none of us considers her to be a "prisoner". Quite honestly, when my children were little, it could have been argued that they were "captive" in our home. They were certainly not free to leave as they please. For their own good, we (my wife and I) kept them "captive" in the safety of our home. Sorry but I'm not familiar with Gerald Durrell's book, so I can neither criticize nor praise it. I have no problem using the word "cage" when it applies, though I know that most in zoos dislike this word. I think the reason I've gotten a bit worked up over semantics was that quote I read from the new Director of the Antwerp Zoo (in Belgium), when he said zoos are a "necessary evil". It may just be semantics, but I'm sorry, to me words mean things! The word "evil" is not just a semantical word, it refers to things that are entirely bad, without any redeeming quality. That foul term is what a European zoo director referred to our zoos as, and quite honestly, I'll bet that even HE loves zoos too. But sadly, he's buying into the negative image and terminology that zoo-haters are using.
I agree with what you wrote on the subject matter. I find it curious that this kind of language creeps in on a thread discussing gorilla exhibits. We can qualify exhibits and term them this or that but those terms should - in my view - be foreign to all forumsters. Those that do, in my view, are a waste of space on this forum and bring it down to a WWI battlefield. There is no argueing with these folks as they are imbued with some curious form of fanaticism (equal to the neo-con Bush right and al-Qaeda operatives). Now, the latter is ofcourse not denouncing that we should not objectively discuss animal exhibits and look at them in terms of animal welfare. That is a valid subject, but equalling zoos=prisons and inhabitants=inmates is simply ridiculous. It is also not fair on the good portion of animal keepers on this forum who have trained for the profession in subject matter ranging from animal husbandry, animal management, veterinary care and animal enrichment. That is all I wish to put forward.
I fail to see what's gained by continuing to make a mountain out of this molehill. Apparently I committed a grave violation of what some seem to be a commandment or law. I used a word. It was in no way a deliberate attempt to characterize zoos as prisons. I don't want to "destroy zoos", nor am I Adolf Hitler or George Bush for that matter. The subject being discussed, ie waterfalls and their neccessity/functionality in exhibits was hardly a radical animal rights issue. I wasn't trying to say that waterfalls kill or endanger the welfare of gorillas. I was just questioning their usefulness. Apparently this is grounds for grandstanding and a call for some form of censorship or intimidation through drumming up a call for branding certain word usage as unacceptable. If there are indeed words that offend the delicate sensibilites of some forum members then perhaps a complete list should be delivered via email to every new member. Maybe then, folks like me will manage to avoid inadvertently provoking hyperventilation and demonization form other "more enlightened" forumsters looking to make people look stupid, or in this case downright malicious. Radicalism may indeed be a real threat to zoos. I personally have no use for it. Censorship and dictating language guidelines, in my opinion are not the way to combat them, especially when the person you attempt to make an example of probably agrees with you already. Who are you trying to convince exactly?
Funny this- as I also used the same word, completely by chance, later in the same thread. As a major fan of Zoos, and certainly the Gorillas living in them, I said 'inmates' but could equally have said 'inhabitants' or 'gorillas/animals' living in them' or whatever. It was just a natural descriptive word to use in that sentence without any specific connotation attatched to it.
Nice post, @Ungulate. Personally, I consider ANyhuis' constant use of the term "enemies" to personalize the anti-zoo lobby as rather exaggerated, infantile and eventually contraproductive. As history has taught us again and again, the creation of an artificial foe image doesn't lead to anything, except the hardening of already difficult situations and more bad blood. It's tough and nearly impossible to get through the hard skulls of fanatics-may they be pro or anti-zoo; yet that doesn't mean that you have to make the situation even worse by instigating personal antipathy. Hate is no solution. Ideally, it should be a productive exchange of factual arguments, not emotions-even if that's hard to understand for both PETA and Co., as well as some all too euphemistic zoo fans ...
Does anyone see these as ridiculous? I only started to reply to the North America’s Gorilla Exhibits because of the unnecessary attack on a member who called gorilla’s inmates. I find this term not offensive in anyway to the Gorillas (some of which are wild caught and will still remember being free). Unless a Gorilla specifically takes offence to me for calling gorilla’s inmates, I will continue to use this term. As I have said before love is blind, and too truly appreciate what zoos are and do we need to take the blinkers off (some people more than others).
Quite honestly, I feel it's YOU have made a "mountain out of a molehill". I quite gently (no insulting names, no challenges to your love of zoos, and no questioning of your intelligence or maturity -- as Sun just did of me) asked you (and others) to consider NOT using the lingo of our enemies, those whose ultimate goal is the destruction of what we all love, zoos. I was just trying to ask everyone to consider what we're doing when we use their terminology -- we are surrendering to their propaganda. I'm not saying anyone should be "censored", just voluntarily reconsider whether or not we're subconsciously accepting anti-zoo dogma. I've given one clear example of what happens when we make this concession to the zoo-haters: We get Zoo Directors (Antwerp, Belgium) who tell the media that he sees zoos as a "necessary evil". Does anyone want to address this? Is there truly ANYTHING "evil" with the concept of zoos? Sun, I guess I do "personalize" the anti-zoo lobby as our "enemies" based most recently on my experience with helping the LA Zoo fight their critics and keep their new Pachyderm Forest exhibit on track. One (nameless) zoo insider told me that he truly did see the "battle of Pachyderm Forest" as an "Alamo-like" moment for the zoo world. Had the IDA/Hancocks/PETA won that battle, they would have been emboldened and by now they'd be either up in Seattle or in Dallas, trying to shut down their elephant exhibits. But instead, they lost, and so now they're severely disheartened and trying to regain their momentum. Their goal, as my friend told me, is to eventually shut down ALL elephant exhibits in zoos, as they know this will clearly hurt zoos' attendance numbers. Once zoos are elephant-free, they'll next turn to polar bears, or rhinos, or even gorillas. Eventually, if they have their way, zoos will be city parks were we can all go to feed the squirrels and ducks. So forgive me if I get a little bit personal in my dislike of these zoo-haters. I love zoos too much to see them destroyed. And yes, I truly do get annoyed when I see compromising with our enemies on this site -- such as the utter fascination with each year's new IDA Worst Elephant Exhibits list. Finally, I want clarify what I mean by our "enemies". That does NOT mean I literally "hate" these anti-zoo fanatics. I do NOT want them killed, imprisoned, or to go to Hell. My hope is that they'll be "shamed", laughed at, and simply not taken seriously. When Cher, Bob Barker, and Lily Tomlin got up and spoke at the LA City Council meeting, for the most part they were laughed at and humiliated. THAT is my ultimate goal for these enemies.
Alan, I don't agree with your assumptions. The various identity politics groups struggled with the use of names for many years. One school says do not use the terms that "They" use because it is offensive. But another school points out that in avoiding "Their" terms we give Them the power to define the discussion (as the Republican Party in the US did when it labeled Democrats as "Liberal" and turned that long-respected political philosophy into a curse word.Last year some Democrats worked to take the word back.) I staunchly oppose the anti-zoo lobby. But I cannot do that by denying that zoo animals are "captive." How the heck did that gorilla get into this exhibit in the first place and why is he still here? Given the options, he may not try to head off for C.A.R., yet he sure would wander beyond that moat! But he's not permitted to. And we have reasons why, and reasons why we need him to be here. And to argue our case to the public, we need to be able to address those reasons. The AZA tries to define the argument by asserting that zoo animals are better cared for and cared about than animals in the wild. They start with the premise that zoo animals are under the care of, and "held" by zoos. I think that if we act as if these animals are not confined...and use real words to describe real life...then we can only be laughed at. Lily Tomlin will not get to decide how I express myself. Why does she decide for you? I expect that in your fine book, referring to zoo animals with the words of captivity isn't appropriate. But this Forum is a different place.
Thanks for your graciousness, Zooplantman! You are MISunderstanding me! I do not in the slightest object to the term "captive" and in fact, I use it myself. I object to the MUCH more negative terms of "inmates", "animal prison", and especially "necessary evil". There is a HUGE difference between a captive and a prisoner. As I pointed out, small children are essentially "captives" in their parents' homes, but few would call them "prisoners". Same with beloved pets.
@ANyhuis: Pardon, but I did not question your maturity in general-but rather that of your use of the term "enemies". That's quite an important difference. I had my share of experiences with members of the anti-zoo lobby. And even though those dear gents and ladies have aggrevated me again and again, and will therefore probably never be on any of my friend or guest lists, I do not consider them my "enemies"-as long as they do not cause harm to me or the ones close to me (i.e. also my animals). "My hope is that they'll be "shamed", laughed at, and simply not taken seriously." I agree with you in regard to the last aspect; yet I wouldn't depreciate zoo criticism in general, especially if it is constructive, professional and factual. "Is there truly ANYTHING "evil" with the concept of zoos?" Leaving all uncriticial zoo love aside: yes, there exist potential trouble spots, as zoo husbandry obligatorily implies the artificial confinement of wild animals for human entertainment. Apart from the quite often exagerrated emotional and philosophical/ethical aspects, this results in several problems/problematic issues - may it be clipped wings or antlers, restrictive long-term indoor confinement (especially at night or during cold winters), increased inbreeding/lack of natural selection/(more or less unintended) domestication, the issue of "surplus" specimens/birth control, apt diet problems, behavioural problems or even interspecific disease transfer. In my opinion, your fear about the general abolishment of zoos is unfounded. Especially in the West, zoos have become a solid part of the society-and are quite often important for the local tourism industry (think of San Diego or Omaha). Unlike most circuses, zoos seem to be more capable of changing torwards today's public concept of modern animal husbandry and animal-linked entertainment. The main harm the anti-zoo lobby can cause is the unnecessary tightening of laws and regulations, which will make operating a zoo more problematic. The zoo world could counterreact: by openly and corporately(!!!) addressing and solving problems, informing the public (especially when it comes to surplus animals...) and practical, matter-of-fact and direct dealing with the media and the legislative, while professionally exposing the flaws in the "argumentation" of the too radical parts of the anti-zoo lobby. THAT is my ultimate goal for those "anti zoo lobbyists"...
Hi Sun, That is a fair arguement. I would advocate myself more pro-active work on the part of zoo PR professionals to counter-act the anti-zoolobby. Whereas I would not use terms like inmates or prisons to term captivity of wild animals, I have no qualms with "captive" or captive individuals for that matter. The challenge is to advocate better husbandry, care, welfare and management of wild animals in captivity in reputable zoos. However, having said that ... I can see that all too often zoos have qualms entering into full combat with the anti-zoolobby which is highly vocal, media savvy and not high on interpersonal skills nor working with ... (rather working every which way around zoo professionals which I find so offensive and arrogant). Anti-zoo fanatics are no laughing matter and poison every discussion beyond objectivity or a qualified disagreement between different individuals of varying backgrounds ... that is what I see every day when it comes to PETA and Born to be Wild et al (it is a nice notion, yet so highly unrealistic that endangered fauna and flora will survive in the wild unmolested into the 23rd century without human intervention ... so, pre-sixties and ahum ... ignorant). But I do agree that the zoo profession and zoo lovers in general should and could do more to confront these ill-informed, blinkered folks and still manage to discuss the subject of wild animals in captivity with objectivity, sound judgement and realism .... and have a standard of respectability remain around us
Well said, Kifaru! Sun Wukong, even though you and I have disagreed on a few things in the past, I do not find you to be a disagreeable chap. If you'll pardon me, I'll suggest that our main disagreement on this issue is that you are more willing to think that these anti-zoo fanatics "mean well" and are "only acting out their love for animals". My view is that they do not at all mean well and I'm guessing that most of them could care less about animals. This is more of a political battle for them and as such, animals are merely political pawns which they use to make their points. One thing that must be considered is that animal rights extremists are already becoming violent, with reports of setting fire to researchers' homes and vandalism to fur stores, pharmaceutical companies, and animal research labs. PETA (who joined with IDA and Hancocks in the LA battle) is well known for pouring real blood onto women wearing fur coats. Isn't it naive to think they might soon be targeting zoos? So am I really over-stating things by calling these zoo-haters "enemies"? By the way, I just looked it up: In our book, we used the term "captive" or "captivity" eleven times! So I have no problem with that term. Let's just stop thinking of our zoo animal friends as being "in prison". They are not!
The anti-zoo brigade could equally use the same terminology for those of us who are pro-zoo (see bold in quote). The world is a varied place with a whole spectrum of opinions. Although I disagree totally with the views of the anti-zoo brigade I know that they are entitled to their opinion, just as I am to mine. We will never come to a consensus with them because our views are too polar, if someone with an anti zoo attitude wants to discuss it with me I am more than willing to listen, counteract their points and understand that we both have opposing views. What I do disagree with is anyone trying to force their opinion on me or trying to convert me, wether politics, religion or conservation. For this reason I do not see the opposition as "the enemy" and treat them and their views with the respect that I would like them to treat me with. With your apparent intolerance of the anti-zoo extremist doesn't this may you a pro-zoo extremist? This is in no way a personal attack as I too would be devasted by the loss of any of the zoos that meet required care minimum standard. The middle ground is zoos that have high standards of husbandry and enrichment, where both animals and visitors needs are met, some antizoo activists think this doesn't go far enough but they would conceed that it is better than the road side pits that have previously been mentioned.
Some really interesting points in this discussion. While I think it is perhaps a tad extreme to be comparing the anti-zoo lobby to Hitler and the 9-11 terrorists, i do largely find myself agreeing with Allen. Language is important, and the terms we use clearly shape the way our meanings are percieved. However, i think the point made by Zooplantman about reclaiming language is a valid one. It is, perhaps, best not to pander to the PC dictats which rule out certain words. We should, maybe, be proud to call cages cages. If this means that we avoid that hideous euphimism 'habitats', even better still. Allen is spot on, I think, when he is distressed by those who would see zoos as prisons, and those who seem to regard this as being no big deal. In its previous discussion, on the gorilla thread, the point was made by some that the wild is some nirvana to which all creatures would yearn to return. I think it's easy to romanticise the idea that the wild is so wonderful. Anyone who has spent any time amongst wild animals will have seen misery and suffering, some of it inflicted by humans and some of it the result of natural causes. The wild can be wonderful, but it can be bloody awful too. The whole concept of 'liberty' is one which was largely unthought of until fairly recently, even for humans (John Stuart Mill's On Liberty was written in 1859). To think that such a concept could be understood by an oryx, or a binturong, or even a gorilla, is, i think, to over-value the philisophical understanding of such creatures. Allen - you've refreed to the director of Antwerp Zoo calling zoos an evil on several occasions. Do you have a reference for this? It seems odd, given the fact that Antwerp is one of the most gloriously old fashioned zoos in Europe. The most shocking thing of all in this discussion is Allen's comment that he has not read the books of Gerald Durrell. For a zoo enthusiast to make such an admission is truly extraordinary. I'd start with The Stationary Ark - it's got a great deal that's relevant to this discussion, actually.
