DA seems as much off a rocker as the current "PM". I would not read too much in the drivel Indepedent feature!
Absolutely not, let's not also forget there's an egalitarian and "green" arguments for zoos. Without zoos less well off people would never see exotic animals "in the flesh" (as they couldn't afford to travel and see animals in their natural habitats). Also, it's arguably better for the environment (less damage by travel and over-visiting of habitats) to see animals in zoos.
I think it is clear that the answer to that question is OR NOT. As I said before zoos do not exist because of conservation reasons, it is a benefit that (at least some) have. But the ultimate reason why zoos exist is because we want to see animals, out of love and curiosity. I personally think it is not ethically wrong to do so, though for some species I have my reservations. I see most zoo animals not as conservation props, for which the majority indeed does not play any role, but as ambassadors of their wild counterparts. Animals in zoos don't necessarily have it better or worse than their wild counterparts. Yes they are confined, but it is very easy as a human to see an ethical problem in that, whereas we cannot ask a Gorilla what his ethics are and it is highly unlikely he would share the same ethics. Many species live longer and less stressful lifes in captivity than their wild counterparts, but their wild counterparts stay in a way more true to their evolutionary history in many cases. I think there is a balance between those different circumstances and being in the wild is not necessarily better for the animal itself. The ethics of keeping animals in zoos are constantly changing and what was acceptable 35 years ago is not so now, likewise things that are ok today, will be outdated in 10 years time. That does however not means zoos should close, they should adapt to changing insights and changing attitudes. Given popularity of zoos I do not think there is any reason for them to close down anytime soon and I think they are more needed than ever as it is the only place where many people can actually see wild animals.They will however need to continuously improve themselves, that is fortunately increasingly the case.
Just like the Holy books of the different religions. Just because there are some values that do not agree with our modern principles, doesn't mean we should entirely stop evaluating it and taking our own meanings from it.
Some really good responses to my posts about Aspinalls article. I feel better in myself for being a part of this discussion and less 'guilty' about my desire to continue visiting zoos. Thank you for adding some justified balance to the thread. I hope good zoos, small or large continue to educate, conserve and act as place of research and intrigue for people from an array of backgrounds. I hope my great grandkids get to walk or cycle to Paignton Zoo to see exotic animals from all over the world. At the same time, let's hope that more zoos are able to aid and contribute to the reintroduction of endangered species at home & overseas. Thanks again.
Erm, wasn't Aspinall Snr involved with that completely disastrous project that took dozens of Sumatran Rhino from the wild into captivity, all but two or so out of a hundred died within a couple of years? The Gorilla enclosures at PL and Howletts are zoo enclosures, along with pretty much all the others... They also work with other "zoos", such as hunting dogs to London, Grey Gibbons to Chester, etc, so I guess it's all about publicity...
He was.. although Port Lympne Sumatran rhinos did not seem to suffer the feeding/malnutrition problems experienced in USA. Both females they received were old aged too, so it wasn't necessarily their fault their own breeding attempts with this species failed, and later they did relocate the male Torgamba back to Sumatra. However, it was a major failure for them, like the Asian Elephants. Many other animal exchanges or transfers have been made with other zoos, among them Sumatran tiger, Lion, Black Rhino, Gorilla (many) African elephant, Drill, Diana and De Brazza Monkey, GB Mangabey, Honey Badger, Swamp deer, and those are just a few that spring to mind. I am sure there will have been plenty among the smaller carnivora too. You can't run breeding programmes without such exchanges over time. This involvement in the EEP makes them automatically part of the zoo fraternity he constantly criticises.
I can't help noticing that Young Master Aspinall's zoos continue to maintain such rarities as Axis Deer, Domestic Bactrian Camels, Greater Rhea, and our old friend the conservationally more or less worthless but undoubtedly money-spinning Meerkat, so he can take his high-handed piffle about zoos keeping taxa which don't need ex-situ conservation and stick it where the Sun don't shine.
I'm so glad I posted that link! I have really enjoyed all the responses and it has certainly generated some lively discussion... I do think zoos generally lay themselves open to criticism by not admitting (and it shouldn't be "admitting" – there's nothing to be ashamed of) that they are there because people love seeing the animals in the flesh – with the additional benefits of conservation, research and everything else that a good zoo undertakes. And the piece seems to concentrate almost entirely on mammals – what about birds, fish, reptiles, inverts, corals etc etc? Such good work being done in those fields.
No surprise there I guess as Damo’s collections are almost entirely mammal based. An earlier post got me thinking-what would Gerald Durrell make of all this? Put both in the same room and I doubt Aspinall Jr would be even fit to wipe Gerry’s boots! ...A voice sorely missed in the current climate.
I wouldn't give much for his chances in a debate with Chris Packham or Carl Jones either, for that matter.
This is, by far, the most compelling argument for me. Regardless of your opinions on him or on zoo’s, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a huge amount of classism which undermines his argument.
I know I'm a bit late for the party, but some things really got me when reading this article. Many things have already been discussed in this thread. But the thing I have a real problem with, and that is barely talked about here, is the research part. The article claims that there's no clear reason why that research could not have been carried out in the wild. This is utter and complete nonsense. Whether done in zoos or in special research facilities, research on captive animals has given us insights in a wide variety of fields (from animal cognition to sexual selection) that would have been extremely hard or impossible to get from wild animals. Carefully controlled experiments are almost completely impossible in the wild (and undeniably necessary to really understand nature). Even "simple" observational data is often difficult to gather, and may require very expensive equipment or serious disturbance of natural habitat. I'm not saying research is or should be a main goal for zoos, or that zoos are particularly good for doing research. But claiming, as the article does, that there's no particular reason to use captive instead of wild animals for research is simply not true.* * Note that I completely glossed over all the fundamental research done where rats/mice/flies etc. were used as model organisms. This obviously requires captive animals but I don't think it's the kind of research the article talks about.
