Chanee, founder of the Kalaweit association has just posted a rather interesting video in my opinion on what he thinks of zoos. It offers several things to change the zoos of today and ultimately achieve a better zoo tomorrow: - the parks become foundations or associations in order to ensure that all the money goes back to conservation or the park and not to various private companies. - creation of independent organizations for the transparency of zoos. Indeed today all the associations which deal with this section are managed by zoo directors : contradictory ! - public posting of studbooks in order to reveal the origin of animals and thus verify that none come from nature. - the blameless zoos denounce the bad practices of euthanasia of the other parks. - public posting of park registers with the cause of death. And explanation from the veterinarian. I add that they mention the fact that many parks have asked to import rare species of Kalaweit to their zoos: some zoos can probably recognize themselves inside, at least I recognize some. I think we have our role to play in massively sharing this video so that these proposals may one day truly change zoos. The video is in French but English subtitling is of course available. To your keyboards for the many reactions ... I hope !
I'm not so sure about some of these. For one thing, euthanasia may be a bit controversial but in some cases there may be no other choice. What do you do with surplus male hoofstock, for example?
It's funny, your example is exactly what it denounces. I am not Chanee so I do not know what he could answer you but I will answer. I think that zoos should think of an exhibit for a group of males and females when they are thinking about their future hoof enclosures and another to house the excess male. Also some parks could be devoted only to the reception of male surpluses a little as it is already the case with gorillas. Euthanasia cannot be a solution!
I have ambivalent relationship to Euthanasia for breeding purposes. I perceive that unpleasant and it feels like stroking against my fur. At the same time, I fully understand why it ´s done and it increases capacity for breeding of species in zoos, it´s neccessary tool if you think about animals not like about your castrated pet dog, but like about pools of genes you want to preserve for future. Resources of zoos and number of zoos are both limited even in Europe, if zoos want to keep animals long term without taking them from wildness, they need managed robust breeding populations. If you give up, you might end like Australian zoos with their diminishing collections. I have stopped that video after few seconds when titles read "filthy EAZA". I think I need calmness of evening to see it whole with cool mind.
This is the kind of things that get on my nerves. While I don’t know as much about European zoos as I do about American ones, I’ll be willing to wager a lot that EAZA zoos are clearly superior to the vast, vast majority of Asian zoos. “Filthy EAZA“? I haven't watched the video, but if they want to slam somebody let them slam India! I’ll gladly offer my country for constructive criticism. It might not have much effect on the overall situation of zoos here, but it might make the government more interested in doing actual conservation instead of running glorified deer parks for money. Similarly, there are horrible ‘zoos’ in the USA, the pictures of which many members have posted, that are clearly out for making money, not for anything a good, nonprofit zoo should stand for. Why not criticise those? I can only hope that some of these issues are addressed in the video, I can’t bring myself to watch it.
Yes certainly today euthanasia remains the only way but that is precisely the problem. Why not create spaces dedicated to this surplus to avoid euthanasia? At no time does Chanee say these words, no doubt a youtube translation error! He simply explains that these associations being managed by the park directors, there is a problem of interest. He doesn't criticize just finds. And I think that depriving of the whole of this video because it boils down to a bad interpretation or translation is pity. The forum is of course a place to exchange opinions. But expressing his nervousness about a person and about what he would have said in a video without even having bothered to watch it is clearly nonsense. I think you have to make your own opinion on the video by watching it and not just by reading another member. If your opinion remains this one after having looked at it then yes I would understand but there ...
Because then there is no space for breeding. In times that zoos have tried this in the past it has often lead to populations of said animal dying off.
But as said in my second message, why not systematically create a space for a group so for reproduction and another only for the surplus ?
So, I have just seen the whole video and my opinion is not even half as wild as before. That man seems to critize ?mainly? French zoos or at least his comments are based on his opinion/reality of French zooworld, with little knowledge how it looks like in the rest of Europe or America. He raises the same questions that several generations of zoo workers raised before him and tried to rectify. My feeling is, he tries to break a door that is actually wide open. My comments to his raised points. 1) Zoos are run in form of for-profit bussiness and not as non-profit companies, profits are not used for ex-situ or in-situ programs. He is mostly wrong, majority of zoos in CZ, Germany and many other places are either municipal, or non-profit. If they are private, they usually have constant need of donations/funding to stay at black zero. Only very low single-didget percentage of zoos in Europe is run as bussiness AND generates any meaningful profit. And those few zoos that indeed are able to generate nice private profits, like Beauval or Pairi Daisa, are usually financially so strong that they can pamper their animals, finance expensive enclosures and transfers, that they are net positive for ex-situ programs, public education and generate funds for ex-situ programs. 2) French zoo association is manned by zoo directors thus is unable of impartian control of zoos. Yes, Holmes. He asks a zoo association which is a professional member organisation, financed by membership fees, to be responsible of something that should be solely within hands of goverments? Each country has it´s laws and enforcement, zoos usually fall under veterinary administration control. Zoo associations might have some internal rules and what´s not, but those are just valid for its club members. At the end of the day, resposibility to enfore laws stays always with state. 3) Zoos and aquariums are still taking animals from the wild. This is a work in progress, I´m sure he knows. With time and growing experience, more and more species are bred in captivity at such levels that newly-captured animals are not needed, with exception of adding new blood from time to time. Large part of fish are still wild-caught, but those would otherwise just end legally eaten or sold to private ornamental fish keepers. European and US zoos are nowadays actually pretty responsible when obtaining wild-caugh mammals and birds. CITES and national importation laws help too. He critizes something that zoos and states work long-term to improve. He is half a century too late. 4) He demands that zoo studbook are online to be seen by everybody. I have no problem with this, many of them are online. 5) Zoos that practice euthanasia are filthy and EAZA is too because it supports it. He comes from the place of his personal moral code. Which is something that varies heavily based on culture and time, and can´t be proved to be right or wrong, moral is always a societal consensus. He demands that French zoos openly condemn Scandinavian zoos because of euthanasia of healtly animals. He comes with indignation in voice, but little reasons. Small note - each european country has different societal and law views on euthanasia of non-domestic animals. Few examples. In the UK, rescue wild animals, who are deemed non-releasable, ale all euthanised. In Germany, euthanasia of captive wild animals without health reason is punishable by Criminal Code, while hunting is legal. In Denmark, zoo animals are perceived similar to farm animals and managed similarly, including euthanasia. In Poland, euthanasia of zoo animals bring a strong public condemnation including death threats. In Czechia, part of zoos use euthanasia frequently and openly, part of zoos rarely, part of zoos never, and all zoo directors and managements come along, cooperate closely and don´t denounce either side. Czech animal protection law prohibits killing of animals without reason, but doesn´t specifies what reasons are justifiable thus zoo directors dont have to fear law as long as they can reasonably defend their decisions. Funny fact - the same law also protects animals from cruelty, thus forbids feeding of live vertebrates to captive animals. This leads to strange situation that future keepers in specialised high school that train zoo staff for their role, have to learn how to kill small feed animals like rats, guinea pigs or rabitts. To kill them by breaking their neck, quickly and safely, in large quantities, so they can be fed fresh and still warm. Many people never get to accept it and so they give up their dream job. (US staff used to minted meat must fell horrific now.) 6) He asks that zoos list all their animals with date and reason of death. Zoos take care of thousands of animals, sometimes tens of thousands. This is probably not realistic demand, at least at my local zoos. Our state veterinary administration has an access to all these documents )autopsy report), they come regularly for controls, so I feel that is enough. However I like what British or Czech laws demand if any zoo wants to keep it license - they have to publicise annual reports that also list in abbreviated form all movements of animals, births, deaths, stock-taking numbers. If all EU countries would legislate it the same, it would increase control of public over zoos. If some strange movements would be visible, then people can start their questions.
There is an exception from the law actually, you can feed live vertebrates if it is "physiologically necessary" (i. e. snakes, although I know that most of them will eventually accept dead food)
Yes, the law has a few exceptions. Another one is pre-release training of animals that must learn how to hunt to survive in the wild on their own. Like zoo-bred owls that get live mouses to catch before they are released.
I also watched the entire video and was in the process of writing up my own thoughts/review/rebuttal but @Jana beat me to it I agree with pretty much everything said in the quoted post, so I'll try not to repeat the same points and instead add a couple other things I noted in the video: "In studbooks, by many of the animals' names it says 'wild-born' - which means captured." The term "wild-born" doesn't automatically mean it was "captured"; it just means what it says. An injured animal that can't survive in the wild anymore (ex. a raptor rendered flightless by a irreparable wing trauma), an orphaned animal that can't survive without a parent (ex. a bear cub after the mother is hunted or hit by a car), or an illegally trafficked animal handed to a zoo by customs that is in poor health and whose origin may be uncertain or imperiled (ex. a rare Asian songbird discovered in airport cargo) are all wild-born, but none of them were captured with the intent of stocking zoos. "We have always refused requests for captive-born gibbons [at our facility] to be sent to zoos around the world." Seems a pity to me, since that would a) free up space in his facility for more rehab animals while b) supporting a captive population that could be used to bolster wild populations as needed - as has been done with Javan gibbons at Perth and Howletts, for example.
He states that only small percentage of accepted rehab animals get a chance for release. Why is he then eeven breeding them when he refuses to send that offspring to reputable zoos? Does he have unlimited high-quality enclosures at hand that he can grow and grow their numbers? But admitedly, he might have some reason to do that, I know nothing about his rehab station.
Social structure is a big problem with animals. You can't just stick a bunch of male gorillas together
Not to mention the fact that devoting space to surplus animals, while also maintaining enough space for a genetically healthy breeding population, is probably too idealistic for most species at this time.
It's always better to watch before ! To return to Chanee, some of these ideas are very good, however, I don't think that tying good parks against bad ones is a good idea. Or at least it may not be the right wording. This kind of denunciation can only lead to a breakdown of the community. I don't understand that, zoos that have the means to build huge greenhouses or huge spaces do not prefer to build two spaces for the same species rather than euthanize each surplus male. Or maybe this double space is not attractive enough ... As for the social structure, with time and enough space or combinations of spaces it is quite possible. For the sending of animals from its center to European zoos I agree with you it's a shame that it does not. The animals which it is certain that they cannot be released could be sent to Europe on the one hand to constitute new populations and in addition undoubtedly an advantage for him: more gibbons to reintroduce coming from European zoos since undoubtedly births. In addition, these imports would be a great opportunity to observe extremely rare species !
It's a trade-off; building space for surplus animals means fewer species overall. It's about both physical space and cost of constructing it - both of which are finite resources that are limited by the zoo's funding base and purpose, as defined by both its visitors and its benefactors. "Zoos" in the traditional sense aren't really equipped for keeping large numbers of the same species anyway - they are designed to exhibit a few individuals each of many different species to showcase ecosystems and taxonomic diversity. The best system for managing large populations with room for surplus are off-site conservation centers. Some zoos have these, but they are expensive to maintain and not generally profitable - so only a few zoos can afford that model of breeding. The benefit of that system - if it can be financially sustained - is that the zoos themselves can hold the surplus, while the bulk of breeding occurs at the off-site facility. Of course, you're still potentially sacrificing breeding space either way. It's also worth mentioning how challenging it can be to build up a truly sustainable population of a species in zoos - depending on the species in question, it could take over a hundred facilities to hold the number of animals required. With some species it is and can be done, but there just isn't enough physical space or financial resources to do it for every captive species that would benefit from it. Of course, keeping unsustainable populations of more species isn't necessarily a better option... hence the trade-off.
