Source (in French) : www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/10/16/monument-historique-ou-symbole-d-un-passe-revolu-le-zoo-du-jardin-des-plantes-conteste-par-des-militants-de-la-cause-animale_6015781_3244.html
I have very little time for animal rights activist groups and I am at odds with most of their criticisms that they direct at zoos. Having said that one of the issues mentioned in the article that is raised by the activists "Only one-third of the species here are threatened with extinction" is a good and valid point IMO. I think that this is precisely the problem with zoos as they currently stand and that this is ultimately what needs to be tackled/ revised by the zoo establishment: the keeping of non endangered exotic species as opposed to ex situ captive breeding programes for endangered species. If zoos were to do more to address this issue then I have no doubt it would not only improve ex-situ conservation but leave these "activists" dumb founded and floor them by taking away one of their primary reasons for criticism and personally I'm all for zoos working hard to prove these professional knee jerk idiots and malcontents wrong.
Currently threatened ... they way we are going, many more species held in zoos will join the threatened categories in the coming years. One third is actually quite high compared to a lot of large zoos.
Oh believe me I'm quite aware of this. Yes , it is relatively high but I think the general gist of the argument still stands. Zoos do need to show a greater commitment to ex-situ conservation while moving away from practices such as the unnecessary keeping of cutesy exotics and African / Asian megafauna that are both ill suited for inner city zoos and are often not endangered. Jardin des Plantes is a historically and scientifically significant zoo that when combined with the equally significant (IMO even more significant) natural history museums make up for an important part of the city of Paris. What a shame it would be if these "activists" were to dominate or win the argument by mobilizing opposition and the zoo were shut down due to popular demand. It isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility and more so when you consider that in these financially tight and politically/socially polarized times anything can happen. Personally I think it would be brilliant if the garden were to focus more and more on keeping smaller bodied and more endangered species whether mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian (which is what they already appear to be doing) and utilize the maximum of space they have available to the utmost for achieving this goal.
For example, the Tasmanian devils, whose arrival is imminent, are a suitable species for this establishment, in my opinion...
Totally agree Phillipe and what a wonderful addition to the zoo ! Especially considering that they have a historic connection to the institution through the 18th century naturalist Pierre Boitard who worked at the nearby museum and scientifically classified and described the species way back in 1841 (just read this on wikipedia). How many are due to arrive?
I totally disagree. The problem is that zoos only ever promote the conservation roll they have. They talk alot less about the educational roll they play or the fact they enable people to see the world's wildlife at home and so reduce the pressure that tourism puts on natural habitats.
It means more to me that they actually DO the conservation / education role that they promote or talk about and there are a lot of institutions that evidently talk the talk but do not walk the walk despite having ample resources at their disposal. True there is that reduction of the pressure of tourism on natural habitats. However, I think it bears mentioning that ecotourism when done correctly is an important role/tool for conservation (I have seen this firsthand on multiple occasions) therefore I think it is much better to have a more nuanced view and not be entirely critical.
I'd go further and point to the number of ecosystems that are dying for some eco-tourism to generate a sense of financial worth.
A while ago, a friend was posting responses to an activist groups "facts" about zoos which included how ineffective education was at zoos. Their supporting evidence was a single 'study' by someone who pretty much questioned around 1500 school kids; that was it. When challenged on their lack of evidence, from about ten years ago as well, the group said that's all they could find to support their damning claim against the zoo education dream.
I'm rather sceptical about "ecotourism" and feel the term legitimises the activities of less scrupulous operators who use it as a camouflage. The onus is on the tourist to research these companies and I'd assume most tourists don't look to deeply. Wild areas are increasingly restricted and with a growing number of people able to afford the cost of accessing them, even eco-friendly tours would struggle to avoid an impact. And then there are the surrounding issues of the impact of air travel on the environment. Many people fly in to a city and then fly on from there to local airports in order to access wilderness areas. Many tour operators also seem to think that wildlife is not enough for people (not unlike some zoos) and attempt to appeal to the tick-list traveller who want a quick excursion to see an orangutan and then zipwire through the canopy, as if everywhere on earth has to be turned into a playground.
Many wildlife areas have poor access. While some people may not mind trekking through rain forest, staying in tents or riding on dirt tracks, I suspect that many eco-tourists want luxury hotels and good roads. This will lead to the destruction of some of the habitat and will open wildlife areas to poachers and loggers, as has happened in various parts of the world.
That is definitely what I have observed , particularly in Brazil with the Cerrado and Atlantic forest ecosystem , ecotourism is IMO what will help safeguard what remains of these biomes.
Yes but the examples you give seem to be making rather large conclusions about ecotourism as a whole based on what a minority of agencies and guides do. Personally I do not think that this is a very fair statement. As someone who has many friends who work as eco-guides in Brazil and to a lesser extent Spain I can tell you that the people I know who work in this field have very high standards. They wouldn't dream of doing anything that damaged the environment , was invasive to the animals and they don't do the whole turning wild areas into a playground thing either.
So you're defending ecotourism because your friends do it? What about the other points that have been raised i.e dessie rats and that of air travel and the pressure that increasing tourists put on eco-systems.?
I am a conservation biologist and I would like to bet that I have seen more of the impacts of deforestation , habitat loss, biodiversity loss then you have seen or will see in your life. I am defending ecotourism not as you assume "because I have friends involved in that field" (Incidentally I dont care for cronyism / nepotism or the old boys network AT ALL) but based on what I have personally witnessed and experienced first hand. I have seen situations where ecotourism has been the only barrier standing in the way of swathes of habitat being swallowed up and destroyed by urbanization or agricultural land conversion for "development". Furthermore , I am convinced that these scenarios will become even more common in Brazil (and in Latin America as a whole) given the current situation. I've already agreed with some of the points you have made about air travel and pressure on ecosystems which I believe are pertinent to the discussion. However, I think it is frankly quite ridiculous to condemn ecotourism as a whole for the reasons I have stated quite clearly above. In essence why throw the baby out with the bathwater? What good does that serve?
First off the "I know better than you" approach is a weak one, there's been alot of habit destruction in the lest 50 years, will you see more that? I don't know. That aside I'm not saying ecotourism has no role to play but that zoos are in a position to show people wildlife and therefore maybe reduced the number of people travelling to and putting pressure on the wild areas. My initial point was that you seem to think that the only point of a zoo is ex-situ conservation. I don't think it is.
Actually , the way things are going , yes, I will probably see more of habitat destruction but let me be clear I wasn't making it a competition (what kind of absurd game would "who has seen more deforestation" be anyway?) but rather stating to you in strong terms that I have seen first hand the value of implementing ecotourism and the good that it brings. I dont know how you managed to reach that conclusion by what I wrote. To be clear , my position is that the function of zoos should be those defined as ex-situ conservation (and preferably a supporting role with in-situ conservation) , research, and education of the public. IMO zoos should embody substance rather than spectacle and deeds over words. I thought that the comment you wrote was very much a blanket statement regarding ecotourism , which is odd in terms of its logic as if you believe that zoos have room for improvement but are ultimately useful in terms of conservation , why would you not be able to conceive of similar nuance and complexity existing in the world of ecotourism?
Without going into lengthy discussion on how good zoos are with ex-situ conservation, this "only one-third of species are threatened" is extremely simplistic. I assume they looked up the IUCN status (which is fairly conservative, if you ask me) for the species they had and then calculated this number. This is easy to do but doesn't do the situation justice. For example, Cinereous Vulture (NT), Bearded Vulture (NT) and Griffon Vulture (LC) are not endangered according to the IUCN. Yet the European populations (especially in the Alps) are highly depleted and captive breeding is a tool now used to raise population numbers, with quite some succes. Despite not deembed threatened by the IUCN, they very much benefit from ex-situ conservation. Other examples of such species (with varying degrees of succes) are Grey Partridge (LC, UK), Eurasian Harvest Mouse (LC, UK), Corn Crake (LC, UK), Sand Lizard (LC, UK), Fire Salamander (LC, NL), Common Spadefoot (LC, NL), Garden Dormouse (NT, NL), European Hamster (LC, NL), European Otter (NT, NL), Ferruginous Duck (NT, Germany) and European Golden Plover (LC, Germany).
Oh I totally agree that it is a very reductive statement that misses the reality that many species currently will be in the near future in peril from climate change, disease pandemics and continued habitat loss and that their conservation status will change drastically. Animal rights activists IMO (from what I've observed) are only really able to think in black and white terms which suit their simplistic "arguments" and fuel their cause of "moral outrage" and pretentions of "moral superiority". But this is no longer a fringe element as with the popularity of social media the voices of bad actors like these are often louder than more reasoned and measured views. As such they have the potential to exert an inordinate pressure on institutions through galvanising opposition towards them. This is ultimately very bad news for the ex-situ conservation of species and we simply do not have the luxury of pretending otherwise. I believe that zoos are now continually pressed (and often rightfully so) to justify their existence and wider role in conservation and education. The fact of the matter is many zoos are underperforming in this regard and it isn't doing the zoo community or conservation as a whole any favours. Now with social media the landscape has fundamentally changed and by doing nothing to improve the situation it is giving ground to these activists and giving the appearance that their vitriol towards zoos is somehow ethically justified. We can dismiss them and laugh them off as just "crazies" or zealots but we do so at the risk of burying our heads in the sand and underestimating an enemy which not only wields political and economic power but is totally committed towards closing zoos and doesn't give a damn about the implications of this to conservation. Why give them this opportunity to inflict damage as they invariably will succeed in doing sooner or later ? My stance is in essence this : Perform ex-situ conservation well ( and support in-situ conservation wherever possible) and perform environmental education well and zoos will not only be fullfilling their function but also will invariably deprive the animal rights activists of the ground from which they use to continually attack zoos.
