Do zoos have a place in modern society?

No I didn't I was asked, again please read properly before commenting.

B to build the inferstructure, insurances and employe people to sell tickets your guides etc would cost more than we could make at least at the begining. Would you pay £8~10 to see a few sickly primates at the very beginning of the rehab?

C if you don't like how these organisations spend your ticket money don't buy tickets it's simple

 

Commercial Finance well in that case i take it back you must have something to sell or trade. so its become a potential commercial operation.
But that expenditure can only be spent on what money you make your not going to spend it in the same financial year thats business suicide.
A longer term solution needs developing - agreed ! If animals are taken from the wild then surely they should be replaced - i know easier said than done and i'm not particulary advocating that. Should we perhaps introduce species to slightly different areas or even countries and i know we would have to look at the impact of that etc but it may be something to discuss. But for instance would a troop of Lemurs cause much destruction in the New Forest here ?

 

ZSL is a charity and does not make any 'profits' , any surpluses will be re-invested in its work . This also applies to Chester Zoo and many of the other
large collections . Charities are encouraged to hold reasonable reserves to tide them over possible difficult periods .

 

I didn't want to post, but I can't resist. First I'm not pro every zoo (and I'm sure nearly everybody on here has a similar view), many in the world are horrific, and should be shut down. But many at very valuable in saving endangered species.

I couldn't resist this (and I'm surprised nobody else posted this); since when was the soap farms?

Why won't it be a zoo? Is a glass of water the same as a plastic cup of water? Just because you don't open to the public doesn't mean your not a zoo, take Heythrop for example, they have a couple of open days a year, their collection includes Lions, Bears, Giraffes, Penguins etc.; would this be a zoo? (Amazing Animals is their trading name): Amazing Animals


Why did you join? I hate football, so I'm not going to watch the whole Premier League. Which is basically the same as someone who hates zoos, coming on a pro-zoo site.

 

The definition of a zoo as stated in zoo license is a collection of animals open to the public 7 of more days a year. Therefore as I won't be open to the public it won't be a zoo.

I've answered the why are you here question at least 3 times once in this thread. Go read before asking repative questions. I also don't hate zoos

 

While monkeyarmy states that this thread is simply an inquiry into the role of zoos today and that s/he wishes to learn more, I see that his (?) only responses are to points he feels he can debate. Each time someone has posted countering any of his main points he ignores those.
Wouldn't someone who was open to the outcome of the discussion, someone who wanted to learn, reply to the points he couldn't counter?

Try these line on,
"Oh? I didn't know that. Where might I learn more about that?"
"These conservation programs are exactly what I was talking about. So glad zoos are engaged in them!"

This is not, in fact, a inquiry. It is an effort to make a point against zoos. A point based on poor information and strong, unfounded opinion

 

I'm not sure how the quoted tiger numbers, sepilok returning orangutans t the wild and the financial information is unfunded opinion when it is all verifiable by independent sources.

 

My point was not questioning your ability to defend your points.
My comment was that you seem disinterested in all of the counter points you cannot defend.
And your reply only demonstrates what I was saying.
And therefore this is not an honest exchange but is, instead, the case against zoos that so many here have recognized it to be.
Your motives are apparent in your on-line behavior in spite of your words to the contrary.
If you are truly here to explore and learn then do act accordingly.
If you wish a debate where you try to prove the statement that Zoos Have No Place In Modern Society then why not say so and see if anyone is interested?

 

From what I understand from your business (?) venture the lottery are going to fund- what I assume with out visitors will be a private animal collection or hobby- Is that correct?

I was under the impression lottery grants were only given to groups etc. that benefited society in a public way such as sports clubs, churches etc.

 

I have read it, but its hard to remember what's said, as the is so much nonsense.

That's the definition of a zoo which requires a zoo license, not a definition of a zoo, from the Oxford English Dictionary:

zoo - definition of zoo in English from the Oxford dictionary

From Wiktionary:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/zoological_garden

 

See you've proven my point the primates won't be exhibited therefore not a zoo. Definition of exhibit:
ex·hib·it (ĭg-zĭb′ĭt, ĕg-)
v. ex·hib·it·ed, ex·hib·it·ing, ex·hib·its
v.tr.
1. To show outwardly; display: exhibited pleasure by smiling.
2.
a. To present for others to see: rolled up his sleeve to exhibit the scar.
b. To present in a public exhibition or contest: exhibited her paintings at a gallery. See Synonyms at show.
3. To give evidence or an instance of; demonstrate: young musicians eager to exhibit their talent; a plant that exhibits dimorphism.
v.intr.
To put something on public display.
n.
1.
a. A public showing; an exhibition: spent the afternoon at the art exhibit.
b. Something exhibited: Each exhibit in the show took hours to assemble.
2. Exhibit Law Something marked for identification with the purpose of being introduced as evidence: referred to Exhibit A

I'm speaking nonsense? Your the one who's argument is I like zoos so I'm going to make poor incorrect insults. Come back at me with a reasoned answer to the title question! What are zoos doing to over come the issue of in breeding? Is in breeding inherently wrong? Tuan suggested it has been ok in gorillas, I'm reading up on that statement currently

 

To monkeyarmy,

I would recommend reading a couple threads on Zoochat as to what people on here believe to be clasified as a zoo. Here are a couple of helpful threads.(In no way trying to be attacking)
http://www.zoochat.com/2/how-many-zoos-aquariums-have-you-275159/index7.html
http://www.zoochat.com/2/what-zoo-342779/

 

Well apparently grammar, spelling and courtesy have died in the service of this thread

 

They fund alsorts of projects, mine will benefit the rescue of primates from the UK pet trade, the other side of the enterprise will be community engagement and education. This is all I'm prepared to say on the subject on a thread completely unrelated

 

Courtesy?! I've been polite in all my responses to people on this thread I'm the one being attacked personally. A cynic would argue sinking to personal insults and spelling remarks demonstrates a lack of ability to engage with the question in hand.

 

Perhaps you'd respond to the posts I made on pages 1 & 2 & 4 of this thread so we can continue our conversation?

On second thought, I have just read the (now closed) other thread where monkeyarmy engaged in debate. The approach is consistent. I have no further interest in such a waste of time and resources. :-x

 

Where do you draw the line? £1 million is a hell of a rainy day fund to some people.

I suppose I will argue, when life is good makes sure your saving as much as you can as tomorrow is another day and no one knows what the future may bring.

The real question is without zoos how do you engage people to support conservation? (Many will be ignorant that they are supporting conservation by just going to the zoo)

What agenda do I have?

I am enjoying this, not enjoyed a thread on here since maybe Dan was here.

Or the often heated debates with your friends across the pond about the Aspinal parks gorilla enclosures.

 

Probably a whole new topic of conversation.

I was referring to this recent study that the results where published.

BBC - Earth - Inbreeding makes mountain gorillas genetically healthy

I'm not saying its ok, esp. when done to the degree with white tigers. Just saying may not be such a terrible thing with endangered species.

Also while we are on inbreeding do you have a reference you can quote me about the zoo world not allowed to release inbred zoo animals? I cannot see this being the case as Pere Davids deer could not be released to wild if it was the case.

Not after the reason behind it just where you have picked this fact up from.

 

Who can exert influence, then, on these governments? And who can exert influence on international corporations? Mostly other governments and in many ways First World consumers. Zoos can be instrumental in forging the personal, emotional connections between people and animals that can galvanize action. Citizens are not motivated to boycott or protest via rational argument or TV nature specials. It requires an emotional commitment.[/QUOTE]

Who can exert influence, then, on these governments? And who can exert influence on international corporations? Mostly other governments and in many ways First World consumers. Zoos can be instrumental in forging the personal, emotional connections between people and animals that can galvanize action. Citizens are not motivated to boycott or protest via rational argument or TV nature specials. It requires an emotional commitment.[/QUOTE]

Of course it is the west driving habitat destruction, hunting, poaching and traditional medicine; after all people living in habitats that are being damaged have lived in harmony with their surroundings for thousands of years and habitat destruction is a relatively new issue. It also isn't the average Joe that can afford to pay thousands to hunt rhino bad elephants. Bear bile, rhino horn and other traditional Chinese medications are also incredibly expensive. Therefore going to locals demanding they stop doing xyz is never going to change anything; after all the massive demand for Palm oil isn't coming from the locals. Another big threat to natural habitats is land clearance for grazing for animals destined to be eaten, we can't create more land to farm without destroying natural habitats so we either need to say sod it and continue to destroying natural habitats or consume less meat and turn the industry back from multinational to local farmers serving their own communities. The issue is only going to get worse as 'the west' expands with China and India two of the world's most densely populated become more westernised.

I agree zoos have a role in creating a emotional connection, which they do and are getting better at, but humans are fickle and often don't make the connection from the orangutans, for example, they saw in the zoo and the keeper educational talk on habitat destruction to their chocolate bar that is packed full of palm oil. That of course isn't the zoos fault. Another strategy is of shocking images of dead animals, those trapped in snares, habitat destruction etc but again people don't make the connection to their lifestyles. People also become immune to seeing this images and they loose the shock value. To get over this it could it could be helpful to engage the use of psychology and psychologists like advertising company's do to get the message to stick.


Politicians generally want to do minimal amount of work for for maximum votes, there are exceptions, so if they can chuck money at zoos/conservation organisations or meet with officials from countries, all done very publicly, and pay lipservice while in reality doing very little to change. It is my stance we need an international conservation organisation independent of zoos and anti organisations such as born free. Which will be compelled to report what it is doing and how it is doing it. It should also be a regulatory body to ensure that money given to countries for conservation is spent on conservation i.e. the money China receives from zoos for having pandas

In reality though how much influence do governments and the people that elect them over things such as hunting and the illegal pet trade being as it's already illegal new laws won't make a difference and leaves customs and wildlife police in a cat and mouse situation with the criminals. Though even that situation isn't as straight forward as it may seem. Individuals caught stealing or smuggling aren't the ones behind the operation so when one mule gets caught another is recruited. Another issue is poverty in places such as Africa where a poacher or smuggler could be offered more money than they could earn in a year for one job, it would tabs strong person to refuse and watch their family struggle.