Do zoos have a place in modern society?

I can't speak for other sanctuaries but fostering out, for want of a better phase, is not something I'd consider for many reasons. First none of the keepers I know who keep their primates to high enough standards don't keep marmosets, the primates most effected by the pet trade. Even if they did the monkeys rescued are psychologically and physically scared/ill and need intensive care which I wouldn't trust or have confidence others away from the sanctuary to do or to do to an acceptable standard, it is also an expensive process. If I did let monkeys be fostered out so Mr x takes on a marmoset to free a space in the sanctuary and I fill that space, then Mr x decides he can no longer care for the marmoset we are right back at the beginning. Also these primates have been shifted about enough, the aim is offer them a stable naturalistic life for their whole life

 

Though this discussion is very polluted, an very valid point is made.

Ex situ conservation, so saving species by captive breeding populations, has been successfull in saving several dozen of species. Though one has to admit there is a bias to larger mammals. And even when some species are saved, ex situ is an extremely expensive way of conservation, of which only a very limited group can profit. The zoo ark is very small and allthough ex situ conservation can be useful, it is not more than a small helping hand at best, compared to in situ conservation work. I feel that many zoochatters overestimate the potential of ex situ conservation.

However there are quite some zoos who practice very helpful and good in situ conservation practices. Eg by paying management of national parks (Zurich & Masoala in Madagascar, Kerzers + Burgers Zoo & Shipstern Belize) or fund research and other conservation activities around the globe. I would be interested to see how many millions of dollars/euros are invested yearly by zoos worldwide in nature conservation.

Btw. about advertisements mainly focussing on larger species. Money raised for snow leopards does not only lead to increased conservation of snow leopards, but to the whole ecosystem where they live, so they are merely used as an umbrella species. And even the snow leopard trust does not work solely with snow leopards, but they also perform/ facilitate research about Himalayan wetlands and food availability for birds there for example.

 

I wonder if being brutally honest about the fact it is unlikely elephants, tigers, orangutans etc the 'flashy' species bred in zoos are ever going to be able to return as they are to far gone, would make people sit up and take notice ? Although that could cause a plumit in donations

 

To be honest, I can't ever see elephants being reintroduced into the wild. For one, Asian Elephants aren't even being managed on a subspecies level since the captive population cannot support doing so. Though even with that being true, their presence in zoos and people being able to see and get close to them gets more people to care about them and that will lead to more donations being made to help save them in the wild. So they do serve a purpose. I can't speak on the behalf of most zoos, but Bronx and the WCS has spent the last few years focusing strongly on elephant conservation and saving all three species in the wild. They've even held two charity runs in the past three years to raise money for the cause.

~Thylo

 

Except that the vast majority of zoo income doesn't come from "donations" but from gate income and trading.

 

Yes of corse that have place, even their number should be increased for more capacity for holding animals. But they to be modern zoos, even small (eg. to house just animals from few species), but to be modern - or with high standards of animal care.

 

Intresting article about the subject :
Sanctuaries or showbiz: what's the future of zoos? | World news | The Guardian