I counted people on the photo. There were about 30 protesters - less that 1/100 of visitors to Jardin des Plantes every day. Knowing the subculture of animal rights activists, they easily switch to different targets and often try to randomly throw sh*t here and there and see if it sticks. Zoos which are too timid and self-excusing easily encourage more unjustified attacks. I think zoos do best by unapologetically explaining their role, not only as captive breeding but education, support of in situ conservation and general raising interest in wildlife. And loudly calling out a lie or distorting the truth whenever activists do so. It wouldn't harm also to ask anti-zoo organizations to prove their contribution to conservation and science credit themselves. Anti-zoo organizations are very vulnerable to their own poison - being shown as unethical and losing face. And yes, zoos downplay their real role by presenting themselves only as breeding centers of endangered animals - which is actually not the biggest contribution to conservation of modern zoos.
I dont disagree , I think they should be called out whenever they try these kind of inane campaigns and I think the points you raised are correct and useful tactics in combating them. However, I don't think Animal rights groups are by any means vulnerable, in quite the opposite. I think / know that mainstreem support for these kind of organizations is growing due to the influence of social media. Another point that bears mentioning is that many of these Animal rights groups actually don't care about either science or conservation and profess as much themselves. Their narrative is one of saving individual exotic furry animals and good for them but bashing zoos and their role in ex-situ conservation just wont do and is absurd. Nevertheless this is a narrative ( perhaps because of its simplicity and Disneyesque feel ) that is evidently highly marketable on social media.
I am more stoic about real influence of social media recently. These internet storms tend to be forgotten quickly and the public moves to a different topic. Probably people in the West recently became more clever about social media, too, and are not likely to believe and jump into rage at anything. It may be enough to monitor social media and worry only something becomes permanent or turns into an organized anti-zoo action. Zoos have inherent advantage in social media, because they can generate an unlimited number of cute and colorful animal photos, memes and videos. Not that I would be very happy if a major zoo funded a social media manager instead of a field ranger. However, every major zoo, or a group of zoos, could easily create a social media channel with daily pictures and films of young endangered wild animals born at their zoos. Together with a channel from national parks, with the information that these places and animals are protected with support of the zoo(s).
I haven't really observed people either in the Western hemisphere or anywhere else being more astute about social media, in fact quite the opposite, but it would be encouraging to see this. Yes I agree , it goes without saying that calibration is best and improving a social media presence is also a decent idea. I think perhaps one difference is that organized anti-zoo action by animal rights activists can really be a wrecking ball for zoos located in countries of the developing world and particularly Latin America and it has corresponding detrimental impacts. Don't get me wrong there are some really terrible zoos here that are very much deserve criticism and a wrecking ball. But my concern is that there are some very good zoos in the region which are on the receiving end of very undue and unwarranted criticism and attacks through campaigns by ill informed and moronic activists. This in turn sadly bleeds over into conservation efforts subsequently hampers their efficacy.
This is a compelling point, but ecotourism can't be expected to shoulder it. Either societies will agree that mass air transit is acceptable or they won't. If they don't, ecotourism will still take place at the level that the domestic market, and low-emission long-distance travel, allow. I think you are really underestimating the level to which much of the world has already been domesticated. At least in my own area of experience, South-East Asia, I can barely think of any patches of 'Wild' that aren't surrounded by human development. It's logging roads that bring poachers, not ecotourism. At least for Western tourists, they don't want a good road to a luxury hotel, they want to take a canoe upriver to a rustic cabin, albeit probably for a 'glamping' style experience. The emerging Chinese tourist market is much more likely, from my anecdotal experience, to want hotels etc, but, again anecdotally, most Chinese tourists aren't so interested in ecotourism . Tourism-related development can be ecologically devastating, but such examples will not usually be ecotourism. There will be some, and they should be aggressively criticised. The general argument put forward in this thread seems to be that wilderness should be left alone. I would suggest that countries who couldn't stop ecologically damaging tourism, but are able to prevent logging, mineral extraction or even subsistence agriculture on the same land, are few and far between.
Zoo in my home town was precisely such a case. Very much outdated 25 years ago and targeted by activists. These activists, however, started a foundation called Panda which raised funds and successfully lobbied for city subsidy. One by one, over the 25 years, they build modern animal houses and enclosures for every single species except the monkeys, and returned some ABCs like elephants and rhinos which left the zoo. As you see, criticism can be positive, too. @zoos vs animal activism in general I think zoos should present their own conservation projects, and aim to take over the group supporting activists or at least marginalize them. Most of activists are well meaning and could easily support e.g. a project to build an expansive new animal enclosure or protect some reserve from poaching. They might need to see a charismatic animal (e.g. big cats or elephants), a direct action (e.g. anti-poaching patrols) and a clear way to help (e.g. funding directly from the zoo). Many conservation projects lack a clear target and a clear measure of positive change, so they hardly capture public interest. Chinese are often focused on photography. Perhaps they want a photo as a material result of their trip, and also something to impress friends. National parks should perhaps develop wildlife photography safaris in addition to wildlife viewing. Actually, zoos might also think of organizing animal photography workshops and tours, and photo-friendly exhibits.
