They did at one point in my life, maybe as recently as a couple of years ago, when I last made the effort to drive into Rhode Island. It was the first place I saw them. They even had a display of lemur heads and lemur skulls to represent the living and extinct species of lemur. What happened to them? The docents used to make a big deal out of them and everything.
I agree with Dean and Arizona Docent. Some zoos are good for animals and some are bad. Some zoos are better for some animals than others. I'd like it if zoos would do more to conserve non-ABC species, rather than the popular species that have been saved from extinction and won't be returned to the wild. I would prefer millions of pounds to be spent on saving wild habitats, rather than building new enclosures for animals that are relatively common in captivity, but face extinction in the wild.
The only problem with spending the money on conservation of wild habitats, rather than on enclosures is that without the zoo enclosures to attract visitors there is no money for the wild habitat conservation. There needs to be a balance, of big mega attractive species and smaller though equally rare species, but how to hook the visitor that is the problem. As the western lifestyle becomes more instant, with techno gizmos, and a, get it now attitude, will people spend an ages at an enclosure looking for a small animal however rare or will they just move on and complain they hadn't had their moneys worth and not go back? It boils down to education every time and how you do that is the problem As the old saying goes, 'You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'
I agree about needing a balance. I went with a group of zoo volunteers to Bristol Zoo and only one other volunteer was interested when I said I'd seen four tarsiers. It seems that the other volunteers just wanted to see examples of the same species they could see in London. I agree that education is important, but I fail to see the value of a multi-million pound exhibit trying to point out that a certain species is endangered, when it is common knowledge. I remember reading that the Highland Wildlife Park had spent £85 on converting an enclosure for Pallas's cats. I would prefer it other zoos followed suit by by helping improve enclosures for many species, rather than spending a lot on a few species. If a species becomes extinct in the wild and there are none in captivity, that is the end of the species. Look at some of the species chosen by some Zoochatters to see that some of us want to prevent animals becoming extinct, rather than making safe species safer.
I get what you're saying. Even if tigers or gorillas are endangered in the wild, their status as charismatic megafauna helps them a lot. They don't need as much attention in zoos because people already know and care about them, and there is a well-established captive population. Though one could argue that the big fancy exhibits for the popular animals helps bring in zoo guests, who can then be exposed to the lesser known animals. But, I do think zoos should be more active in promoting their less well-known animal species. Like, maybe they could have festivals and event days. The reason I'm so big on ocelots today is because where I grew up, there was an annual ocelot festival. There were educational talks, ocelot themed crafts and activities, a silent auction, and they brought out a live ocelot on a leash. Zoos should better work to establish that all species, big and small, have value, and how each one is important to its environment.
Thanks TheMightyOrca I like it when London Zoo visitors ask for unusual animals, such as red uakaris and freshwater sawfish. A few weeks ago, a visitor came from Scotland to see the aye-ayes and was disappointed they were not on show. I found it strange on my first visit to Chester Zoo that the extensive colleection of postcards did not include one of a tuatara, one of the animals I had gone to Chester to see. It seems strange that some zoos have postcards of animals that aren't in their collection, rather than promoting species that are. Once again, it's a case of education and trying to interest people in all kinds of animals, not just the popular ones.
Not the only true treasure held permanantly offshow at London, of course - the day the decision was made to replace the incredibly unusual Panay Cloudrunner exhibit with one for Malagasy Jumping Rat, a species which is doing much better in captivity and is one of the most ubiquitous "nocturnal" taxa in the UK, was a sad day indeed. Considering the opportunity to teach the public about something odd and very much endangered, the choice to go for the familiar species once again wins out....
Ha ha, yeah, I recall on a recent trip to the San Antonio Zoo looking around the gift shop and finding a TON of white tiger souvenirs. The zoo doesn't have white tigers so I thought it was kind of funny. On that note, having non-zoo animals on zoo postcards doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure, it's one thing to have a plush white tiger in the gift shop, but postcards are zoo-specific. ... If I went to a zoo with a tuatara I'd go nuts looking for some kind of tuatara souvenir. It's one of my favorite animals, but I don't think any zoo in the US has one. One of my life goals is to get to New Zealand someday, so I'll make sure I get to see a tuatara there. I think one of the biggest benefits of zoos is that they do help expose more people to the more obscure animals, and I wish more places would take advantage of that. If a person wants to look at tigers or learn about them, he might type "tiger" on Google Images or look for documentaries about tigers. But you can't easily look for content on animals you've never heard of.
And another columnist shares his opinions in the New York Times (so this will get reported on widely): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/m...on=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region
Article about zoo-animal welfare : Nine in 10 zoos 'failing' welfare standards - Blueprint for Living - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
While the 9 out of 10 was just a number this experienced zoo guy threw out and is not any kind of actual statistic, the idea that 9 out of 10 zoos worldwide are not up to par with the animal welfare standards of, say, North Carolina or London zoos is palpable. If only all of those terrible zoos around the world could be turned around into facilities with proper animal care standards, we would have the capacity to provide more secure population safety nets and create many more for species who need them. Alas, countries like Indonesia have a lot of other things to worry about before they can get to that point (like human development, and the destruction of their own environment and species). That being said, this problem is not restricted to developing countries. There are atrocious roadside zoos across North America, and the fact that a country as rich and modernized as our's has so many is absurd. I feel that the federal government really needs to step up the pressure on animal-keeping facilities or the situation will not improve.
I think zoos are good to many animals, but elephants, cetaceans and apes feel what means liberty, and they reckon they are in "prison".
Is there evidence of this that doesn't come from a biased AR group you base this on? Because I could give multiple examples and articles that show animals are "happy" in zoos including cetaceans and elephants depending on how we define "happy."
"Freedom/liberty" is a very human, abstract concept. And if we applied it consequently, hardly anyone is free. Or could you, out of a sudden, sever all your social, occupational and bureaucratical ties and just leave for another life? No? Then you're no different to the animals in the wild that are bound by their (social) behaviour, their territories, food, water supplies and the habitat itself. And how should a great ape, elephant or dolphin born in a zoo "long" for a "freedom" / "liberty" aka the natural habitat it has never experienced? The world has never been "free" for any animal, even less so in the time of the Anthropozene, in which the last remaining habitats are more and more turned in oversized zoos / natural reserves, with its wildlife more and more managed by humans. And why should just these species be "entitled" to long for "liberty"? What about a straw-colored fruit bat, a hyazinth macaw, a Malayian king cobra or a Pacific giant octopus; can't they also "feel liberty" and the confinements of their "prisons"? Or are some species more adaptive to human husbandry than others?
What is important in this discussion, and at the same time rarely mentioned, is the reason why animals would want freedom. Animals, including humans, have an individual set of desires and needs they want to be fulfilled. The question is whether freedom has an instrumental value - thus it helps an animal to satisfy a desire - or whether freedom has value in and of itself, an intrinsic value. If freedom is merely a means to an end, a way to satisfy a desire, human caretakers can, in theory, provide other ways to satify that desire. If that is the case, then keeping an animal in captivity does not have to be detrimental to its welfare. However, if an animal values freedom intrinsically, thus the freedom itselfs it the desire to be fulfilled, the animal cannot be kept in captivity without compromising their welfare (though it may still be justified in some cases). In reality these things are not black and white. Wild animals are not completely free and captive animals are not fully constrained. One might argue that some animals "need" more freedom than others (from both an instrumental as well as an intrinsic viewpoint), especially the ones with extremely highly developed cognitive abilities such as ravens and apes. Whether zoos can provide a sufficient level of freedom for these species is an open question that I do not dare answering.
Right....even the zoo born elephants, apes and cetaceans. It must be terrible for a gorilla to be deprived of freedom in the African jungle and locked up in a cage in the zoo. He knows very well that he has to spend the rest of his life behind bars. The same applies of course to all other animals that are caught and locked up. But all animals feel the same - that's why so many animals keep trying to escape from their prison, and many escape from their cages and prison cells every year. It's not called"in captivity"without a reason
I think this is a very confused argument. On the one hand, you say that 'all animals feel the same'. If you watch individuals of many species of animals, you will find this is untrue. Many individuals react differently to similar situations and don't 'feel the same'. Are any gorillas still captured from the African jungle to be locked up in zoos? If so, they may remember their life in the jungle, especially if the zoo's conditions are squalid. Most gorillas in zoos have never experienced the African jungle, so have no memories of living there. They may not also know that they will spend the rest of their lives behind bars, even if they do so at present. At the moment, many people are observing lockdown during the coronavirus pandemic. They do not know when they will gain their 'freedom'. I don't know if captive gorillas have similar feelings about freedom, but I suppose other Zoochatters don't, either.
Actually, there are numerous direct accounts of elephants, cetaceans and apes which returned to human care after tasting that 'freedom'. Domestic elephants in Asia are still often let to graze free at night, when they encounter wild elephants and domestic cows often become pregnant. When domestic elephants were still used to catch wild elephants, many times happened that the mahout was killed, and his domestic elephant returned to the camp on his own, dragging the captured wild one. About cetaceans, you know the sad cases of released killer whales. For great apes, too, young chimps are afraid of the wild. And we had a longer theoretical discussion about whether animals understand the meaning of freedom. Nobody could put forward any evidence that any animal, even a chimpanzee, understands the freedom as a concept, although animals were shown to understand some other abstract concepts. In all known cases, animals value only practical things like food, water, companionship or space.
