This long piece by Damian Aspinall appeared on 14 August: Zoos are outdated and cruel – it’s time to make them a thing of the past – I thought it was really interesting and hard to disagree with and I'd be really interested to hear what other zoochatters think.
No time for a detailed reply, but claiming the "successful release of Western gorilla" is at least misleading...
Are are you serious? It is the most extraordinary nonsense that I have read in a long while. My dislike of this man is intense. My dislike of what he says here is even greater.
I only got as far as his quoting "facts" about how many mammal species are in EAZA zoos and how many are considered endangered... I couldn't get any further because it's just codswallop really. He wants all zoos gone in 25-30 years but (in the part I managed to read) didn't mention anything about closing his parks. He may further down the article but it really wouldn't surprise me if he didn't mention it.
For those who, like @Brum, wisely decide not to read all of this bilge, it is perhaps worth pointing to one or two of this gentleman‘s conclusions: ...or how about this gem? And so it goes on... One point which I think does emerge from this is that if zoos attempt to justify their existence purely by pointing to their role in the conservation of species, they are leaving themselves open to attack if that role can be demonstrated to be less-than-central. Therefore, the belief that there is an intrinsic good for people in being able to see wild animals, and that there is no harm in this being the case, is one which, I believe, zoos should be prouder in proclaiming.
What makes me laugh is he criticises zoos, but refers to his own zoos as 'wildlife parks', it does not matter what he chooses to call them, they are zoos(pretty good ones, but one's I always feel guilty about visiting due to the owner's attitude!).
Wow, this is a truly terrible article! In the very first paragraph he basically says “Zoos are terrible and should be shut down, I know because I own two of them”. What kind of logic is that! Interestingly for someone who thinks zoos should be shut down, he gives no indication that he will shut down his two “wildlife parks”. It’s more than a little hypocritical to say “zoos should be shut down” yet give no indication of shutting down your zoo because I guess to him all zoos but his are “cruel and outdated”. This reminds me of the saying “practice what you preach” and this Aspinall sure isn’t doing that.
The signs outside his zoos say something like - we are not a zoo, unlike zoos our wildlife parks are focused on the animals welfare first - total garbage!!
I agree with everyones comments so far on this thread. However, I read it and too was shocked, but it stirred something in me and I couldn't stop thinking about it all day. I'm trying to step back and least be objective and take something from it. I love & adore my local zoo in Paignton and I visit as many zoos as I can each year at home and overseas. Its Aspinalls point about continuing to keep species that are not endangered that struck a chord with me. However, I also understand that good zoos keep non-threatened species for a number of reasons e.g. keeping Lesser Adjudant Storks at Paignton will prepare them for being able to one day care and breed Greater Adjudant Storks. However, Paignton did spend good money and resources on building an enclosure for coati recently. They also continue to keep meerkats, capybara, Ostrich, Eastern G Kangaroo and Hamadryas Baboon. Now, zoo staff have always told me that keeping capybara for example is so very important because they are such an important animal in the chain for maintaining healthy Jaguar and Anaconda populations and educationally they allow zoos to talk about rodents on a different level? At Paignton the Kangaroos are one of the most popular animals for university students to observe and study. I admire Aspinall for attempting to release animals back into the wild and put his money (gambling profits or not) where his mouth is. Should he wait for the rest of the zoo world to commit and come on board, maybe, but at least he's trying. On his point about zoos less than 50 acres and so on, where would that leave Shaldon for example who do amazing work with Civets and small primates? I do agree with my fellow zoochaters but also think we should all read it again, be less defensive perhaps (?) and question as much as we can. If I'm completely honest & transparent, there is still that zoo collector part of me that would love Paignton, Twycross and Marwell to fill as many empty spaces & enclosures in their zoos with as many different species as they could! I'm not necessarily proud of that mentality. I know this response may draw criticism, but maybe there is a thread of some truth in Aspinalls piece that we could all learn from? I'm off to Living Coasts now to ask again if they can try and swap the Fur Seals for Sea Otters or a smaller mammal- I ask every month so they know I'm coming!!
Ive just seen this and im absolutely stunned,Im not even going to dignify his hypocritical rant with any counter-arguments.Id be interested to know what BIAZA and EAZA think about it. Perhaps the writing was on the wall when one of the first things he did upon assuming control after his father`s death was to get rid of International Zoo News(we now incorporate it with Zoo Grapevine) citing financial savings..it was running at a 12k loss - perhaps he isnt as wealthy as he makes out. Quite honestly anyone that loves/respects/ likes zoos should boycott his zoos with immediate effect..And,speaking as the founder of the Independent Zoo Enthusiasts Society we will of course make direct representations to Aspinall himself(well,a letter at least)..i would suggest zoochatters do the same as it is unlikely that he reads/know of,these posts.
Is the ultimate aim though to have no animals at all in captivity? Though highly unlikely, if every habitat in the world was restored and protected and vulnerable, endangered and extinct in the wild classified animals were thriving again, could we not then close all zoos/wildlife parks? ......so, though Aspinalls article seems ridiculous, mis-timed and hurtful, the utopia he is striving for is what we should all want right? Mavericks like Aspinall are sometimes needed to shake things up! I'd be gutted if Paignton Zoo closed in the next 25 years, but if it closed because the endangered animals it works with were doing well in the wild I'd be happy & content. The article has made me consider whether we should be keeping some species in zoos in the UK.
I think that that is what Aspinall ignores and ignites many members here. Zoos do not exist because they can be up to a certain extent centers of conservation. Zoos exist because people want to see animals, that desire will not go away anytime soon and is the main reason why zoos are more popular than ever before. In an age where everything that exists needs to have a reason to exist, preferably an economic one, but otherwise morally, zoos have reached out claiming they are centers of excellence for conservation, education and research. Aspinall is in many way right that most zoos fail that test. Many of his arguments are flawed and misrepresent evidence (e.g. increase in Greater Bamboo lemur numbers has a lot to do with the discovery of new populations, not recovery of existing ones), but there is some truth to some statements. Apart from the fact that he ignores many zoos make significant contributions to in situ conservation, he is right that a large number of zoos only do conservation in little more than name. What Aspinall deliberately overlooks, is that zoos exist because people want to see animals and experience them from close-up. That is something television shows and virtual reality cannot replace. Seeing animals up close, including ones previously unknown to visitors, is the main reason people go to a zoo. In an increasingly industrialized world, zoos are one of the few opportunities for people to see wildlife at all and I think zoos should be more honest in this regard as to why it is important they exist. From an animal welfare point there is a lot that we know, but still a lot of unknowns. Many husbandry successes show that a large number of animals can be kept normally in captivity.
Hang on - he’s been doing a decent hatchet job on Port Lympne for well over a decade now! You’ve got to give Damo credit of persistence. Almost to the day every year now he’s been coming out with this blurb. Maybe we should mark it on our calendars Perfect timing though, what with it being the Bank Holiday weekend coming up, and decent weather too! The coffers at Howletts and PL should be happy.
I 'get' and respect what you are saying, but you haven't addressed the questions I posed in my post - should the ultimate aim be to have 'no' animals in captivity? OR NOT? - this may take 35, 65, 150 or 500 years; but ultimately, anyone who cares about the natural world (which I assume we all do on zoo chat, unless you are still a bird egg or butterfly collector?) should ultimately want all animals in their own natural wild state. I continue to justify the zoos I frequent on a weekly basis on their own claims they want to do the same whilst researching and educating. Surely we need to 'reach for the stars' and aim for an END GAME or we'd be eternal pessimists and we may as well give up? I love good zoos, but, for example, I thought Paigntons great ape, big cat and savannah exhibits were huge 15 years ago, now I think they are barely adequate. I used to feed the elephants at Twycross and Paignton 35 years ago now I wouldn't dream of it. Come on ! - Aspinalls article was pitched wrong, but read between the lines and you must admit there is some level of truth that we must all stand up to in the coming decades!
The answer to all your questions is NO! Basically even if it was safe to return most species to the wild, it would still be necessary to keep a captive pool of animals to guard against future changes or disasters. Captive breeding programmes would need to continue for decades for many species. Aspinall's dream won't and shouldn't happen!
OK, I trust your opinion & thoughts Pipaluk. Maybe I'm an eternal optimist? I thought I was just being selfish in wanting my great grandkids to see exotic creatures on their UK doorsteps?
There are many species at Howletts/PL that have never been the subject of any reintroduction scheme- the majority in fact. Not sure of the rationale for keeping them there in that case...
I remember Gerald Durrell having the same idea. He wanted to live in a world where there were no endangered animals so that zoos weren't needed. I don't think this will happen. The current situation in Brazil is making conservation even more important.
I find this line of argument really baffling, wrong-headed and inconsistent. Underpinning a statement such as this is the belief that the only justification for keeping an animal in captivity would be that its species could be thus conserved. I would wholly disagree. Conservation is important, of course, but it is not the sole raison d'être. I don't always agree with @lintworm's views, but, on this occasion he is absolutely bang on... Absolutely it shouldn't! Capybaras are mentioned above. The argument that they should only be maintained because they might be a vital food item for endangered Jaguars is fallacious in the extreme. Capybaras should eb kept i captivity because they can be, with no apparent ill effect to the animals, and because in so doing the lives of those who see them are enriched. Full stop! Noting selfish in this at all. As @lintworm has argued so cogently above, it is good, maybe even essential, for people to be able to see, experience and enjoy wild animals. The selfishness is from that man Aspinall. His own life has been enriched by its including Gorillas, Elephants and Tigers. But he would deny such enrichment to others, apparently.
'Zooreaucracies and zoo-rocrats have a stamp collector’s mentality and an appetite and preference to please the public with iconic and non-threatened species, leading to their needless captivity and “consumption” for entertainment.' um...… So are you a zoo-rocrat Mr Aspinall? What is his alternative to zoos? If zoos don't exist there will be no steady flow of money for conservation? People won't suddenly donate all the money they would use to go to the zoo to wildlife charities as soon as zoos are gone? The justification for new exhibits point is absolutely moot.
