BBC Horizon - Should We Close Our Zoos? 17/04/2016

No one is questioning these assertions?!?!?!

 

Interesting never knew Flamingo Land had whales; though must admit I never thought anywhere on the site would even big big enough for them! Granted from what I can find they only had a younger Killer Whale there; even then their pool looks very small
http://www.zoochat.com/495/where-cuddles-once-cavorted-27th-december-302580/

 

I am.

The only photographers in Australia that have a bad reputation are the paparazzi, and you can tell them apart from everyone else.

Having a big lens is usually a thing of envy, and people often comment on it. They don't associate it with terrorism, and would only think 'paedophile' if you were hanging around a school.

Then again, Australia hasn't really had the kind of terrorist attacks the UK has had in the past.



Hix

 

Here in the U.S. I am not aware that the general public has any opinion at all about people with cameras and large lenses. It all rather depends on what someone is doing, not what they carry.

I just wonder where overread got these ideas. What makes this member believe these statements?

 

Steering the conversation back to topic, ZSL have posted a statement from their Director David Field on their website addressing the role of the "modern zoo."

In light of the forthcoming broadcast, coincidence or pre-emptive strike?

 

How one sided is this programme going to be? That is a quote from TV guide.

Not sure on Elephants and bears (must be getting comparable now) but big cats certainly live longer in captivity.

How angry will I get watching this programme if they are making stuff up?

 

https://www.zsl.org/blogs/leading-a-modern-zoo

 

Having just watched it, I thought this edition of Horizon was well below the usual standard. I felt that it it was diffuse, unfocused and not particularly enlightening.
The first section dealt with the culling policy at Copenhagen (Marius the giraffe and a sable antelope) which provided some unattractive footage but was robustly defended by the zoo staff and attracted a significant number of spectators, but only two protesters holding home-made signs were shown in close-up.
Then elephant welfare was discussed with the Director of Detroit Zoo, which has sent its elephants away, and the author of the RSPCA report into elephants in British zoos, who was critical. The only footage from a British zoo showed Twycross's elephants and Sharon Redrobe explained the changes that had been made in their husbandry. There were a lot of old and very old clips showing poor housing and stereotyped behaviour, followed by an interesting sequence showing the old and new polar bear enclosures at Detroit.
The sequence about the orcas at SeaWorld was predictably and justifiably critical - but made quite redundant by SeaWorld's recent decision. Finally there was a discussion of captive breeding, looking at Californian condors and the problems that reintroduced birds face (although that is hardly relevant to the question of the future of zoos) and the failure of efforts to save the northern white rhino. Another speaker said, in effect, that no amount of captive breeding and re-introduction can solve the problem of habitat destruction - which is obvious, but hardly the fault of zoos.
Liz Bonnin, the presenter, is scientifically trained - and was handling a pile of scientific papers on a train, but she went all fubsy with a condor egg and an old rhino at Dvur Kralove. What really irritated me was her throwaway comment that zoos claim that they donate 3% of their income to conservation, but there is little evidence for that (or some such phrase) - has she never heard of accountants and auditors? It is very easy to check figures like this.
There are real issues to be explored about the future of zoos. A more rigorous approach, with harder thinking and less jetting around the globe would have made a much more interesting and challenging documentary.

Alan

 

I agree. It was more balanced and less sentimental than the usual rubbish but... why use a 14 year old study about stereotypic behaviour (surely there have been hundreds of studies since then) and why such old footage, over and over again? I thought there was a serious problem between UK and world zoos. Which zoos spend 3% on conservation, is that 3% of total income of zoos all around the world? Probably not, so how do you end up with an average? Detroit and Twycross were clearly happy to be involved, so why not a comment about the amount they contribute and why ,income, and not 'profit'? A bit sloppy in places but better than I expected.

 

Because many zoos, in this country and around the world, are charities or other forms of not-for-profit organisation.

Alan

 

But that's my point really, the comment is meaningless; you can't be expected to spend a huge percentage of income on ex situ conservation but you could be expected to spend a significant amount of profit on it; charities make profit too... but what was included in the 3% bracket? Tiger Temples? UK or world? I think the questions were too big for the hour programme and therefore some of the assumptions were daft; every UK zoo with elephants because its expected? and then going to Twycross where the elephants had already outlived the 'average' life expectancy... just feels a bit as though the real points were compromised. I still say that it was more balanced than I expected and benefitted from a lack of the usual emotive but shallow emotional responses from PETA and the like.

 

No! That is not allowed. Charities can make a surplus in a financial year, but that money must be used to further the charity's aims. These aims must include conservation for all UK zoos (under the Zoo Licensing Act and the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice) - even for those which are commercial organisations. Of course these efforts can be in-house at the zoo, elsewhere in the UK or overseas; in practice many zoos do some work in all three areas.
Incidentally the Daily Torygraph's review of this programme is not uncritical Horizon: Should We Close Our Zoos? review 

Alan

 

Watched it, enjoyed it, but felt the title was a tad misleading. Maybe it should've been called "What Can Zoos Do?" Totally agree that WE are the problem and WE are the solution.

And I for one would certainly be happy to visit the type of zoo that Jane Goodall spoke of.

 

The programme was predictably quite anti-zoo, and the two main issues that were covered, were based around the Marius the giraffe issue and the Blackfish documentary. Both issues have been much talked about already as we know, but these two issues just won`t go away, certainly the latter has continued to rumble away ever since it was first broadcast and in actual fact has gained much momentum of late. There is a great deal of anti-SeaWorld feeling in the public domain. This cannot be ignored for too long, and SeaWorld have had no choice but to listen. A policy of not breeding any more Orcas or Killer Whales has now been adopted by SeaWorld. They are also planning to establish better captive environments for their whales. But the truth is no enclosure can be large enough to properly accommodate them.
Personally I have been leaning towards agreeing with those who say the keeping of cetaceans, particularly the large whales, in captivity is no longer acceptable (?) The two other main species which were dealt with were the other wide-ranging species of Polar Bears and Elephants. I think there are certainly better ways of keeping both species, taking into account their natural behaviour, but I don`t think that they should not be kept at all. Zoos have improved generally, but there are still too many bad ones which let the good ones down. I think Copenhagen Zoo grossly underestimated the reaction to their culling policy, and whilst it continues to adopt the same policy - culling rather than contraception, then I think it will not be forgotten any time soon.

 

No they grossly underestimated the reaction from public announcing it. It is a management tool used in many zoos. Is there a better way? I am not sure, should animals be bred to maintain a healthy population knowing that some animals depending on gender may need to be culled to ensure their is space for the future generations?

If the giraffe had been female it would have lived, so would they have been better trying to engineer a female calf and would them announcing this cause as much riff raff with the bunny huggers?

 

I was going to repeat everything Gentle Lemur wrote, so to save time and space I just want to endorse his comments.

There are some interesting debates to be had about what future zoos should be like but this was not it.

 

Yes it is a management tool, but my issue with it is more specifically their policy of NOT controlling their populations in the first place as it would avoid some of the secondary issues created by themselves.

 

You have missed the point, if need to breed them but need more females how do you do that? What you do with males that are not required?