"I consider myself a Greeny, but not the political party as they are only green on the outside, red under the skin. I fence off areas for revegetation and plant trees. In my time off I camp and walk in the bush and protect our native species by killing introduced pests. This also reduces my carbon output as I can the provide my own organic free range meat. I am having rabbits for tea tomorrow." II have only popped in because I received a reminder that I hadn't looked in for a month, in fact, I haven't posted for many, many months. I usually find someone posts something that is rude and insulting to others, and bingo, there it is again. People I know who support the Green party are very intelligent, well educated people who think seriously about social issues, environmental and animal issues, as well as trying to make a change to the long lived corrupt practices in government, at all levels. That is why the Greens do not accept donations from business, but rely on their members to financially give the support needed. In these days of cheap air travel, good wildlife documentaries, and known animal cruelty in circuses and zoos, I see no need for confining wild animals purely for the entertainment of the general public.
You are of course entitled to argue a political position, and indeed to express your opinion on zoos and circuses. I might even agree with much of what you have to say. However don't kid yourself that your "cheap" flights don't come at a cost to the environment, that "wildlife" documentaries don't rely on captive animals, and that many "wild" populations are not as much at the mercy of human managers as "captive" populations.
[QUOTE In these days of cheap air travel, good wildlife documentaries, and known animal cruelty in circuses and zoos, I see no need for confining wild animals purely for the entertainment of the general public.[/QUOTE] Entertainment?, You say nothing about zoo's which have saved a number of species from extinction and also returned those species to the wild again so why cant you give them some credit than just saying they have them "purely" for entertainment . Cruelty?, If you are talking about cruelty why have you not mentioned anything about the hundreds of bears in China that are kepted in tiny steel cages 24/7, they cant even move and milked of there bile with a big steel needle inserted into their body?, are the greens trying to do anything about this?
There are indeed bad zoos, but many, many good ones. Here is an example of a good zoo helping out a species which may otherwise have become extinct if it wasn't for their efforts: The Canadian Press: Endangered black-footed ferrets return home to wilds of Canadian Prairie
Nothing like a spot of rampant hypocrisy eh? You'd have to kill an awful lot of invasive species and eat them for tea to offset a flight to PNG or Indonesia admire some wonderful animals... It's fair enough to simply say, you know what I've had a change of heart or reassessed my values and for me Zoo's etc just aren't ok. Great, get your account deleted and off you go. But if you're going to come along to preach about greenness and carbon footprints, it's terribly important to make sure you've really thought your statements through and that you aren't going to come across as a bit silly It takes a lot more than a quick, dashed off, self congratulatory post to earn the higher moral and ethical ground. Nevermind eh!
Well Im not really "into" greenness nor carbon footprints, but I do think the OP has a point. My personal feelings on Zoos are that they should ONLY contain highly endangered species. I cannot understand nor condone the breeding of animals that are abundant in the wild and to me they certainly do only provide public entertainment. For example species like: Chimpanzees Common Zebra Mara Many Deer species Lions White Tigers White Lions Camels Meerkats Prairie Dogs Elephants Kangaroo Wallaby I could go on for ages, but to me the only reason these animals are kept is for public viewing alone, thats what I cant agree with.
Some of those species are under threat if not endangered at this moment in time. Zoo's are there for entertainment, otherwise we would have in-situ snactuary's to save these animals as it would be easier.
It strikes me how upper-middle class this point of view is, whereas zoos welcome so many working class and even working poor to marvel at Nature. I doubt that the majority of our voting public can take the time off from work, or have the free funds to travel to see wildlife. But their love of Nature is what may someday stop the slaughter and development. How many people can take their children and grandparents on a trek or safari? Why are they so unimportant in this proposal? As others have said: zoos also serve as research labs in animal husbandry where techniques of breeding endangered species can be developed. Zoos serve as refugia for disappearing species that have no "wild" for you to visit. I don't mind that someone decides they feel no wish to visit a zoo or support a zoo. I do mind applying society-wide, moral arguments why others should do as they do.
But in most cases zoos aren't keeping wild animals confined, they are keeping CAPTIVE bred animals that are used to no other lifestyle. Yes there are bad zoos in the world, and we as a responsible community should be working with them and the anti-zoo community to help these facilities and their livestock. And of course in these days of cheap air fare you can fly to the rain forest and see the terrifying rate they are being felled to make way for farm land and plantations. Wildlife documentaries are fantastic, but they don't give you the scale of the animal the awe-inspiring size of a giraffe or full grown lion or bear, they don't tell you how the animal smells, or its little quirks. There are animals kept in captivity that are not endangered, but, still healthy populations need to be maintained, otherwise what are the options? re-release them into a dwindling wild, euthanasia, or sterilise them all so they can't breed. In an ideal world there wouldn't need to be zoos, but this is far from an ideal world, there aere those that say zoos shouldn't be open to the public, but they need a little thing called money to keep going, therefore by opening to the public they generate the required revenue to continue to develop facilities, anmd support conservation both in breeding programs and field conservation.
Sorry to say you are mixing up a couple of posts. The comment about shooting rabbits and eating them is actually a quote from a post by Monty,You'll notice that this is quotation marks. He an extremely practical minded guy who sees no problem in using animals for human use (ie eating rabbits) but is also doing quite a lot on his property to conserve the native biodiversity. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but he is putting his money where his mouth is.
Really, considering you dont know me thats a very sweeping statement, However, at this point I have to go to work, if I were "upper class" perhaps i wouldnt need to do that!
Three points I'd like to make: 1. My comments were meant for the idea put forth by roobee...sorry for the lack of clarity. roobee was more sweeping in his/her comments than you were. 2. I was speaking of the statements made, the point of view expressed (I thought my sentence was clear on that point at least!), not the individual. If one says "Let them eat cake," that does not imply one is the soon to be dethroned queen of France, but the point of view is aristocratic nonetheless 3. I wrote of "upper-middle class" not upper class. The bourgeoisie are different
Ok, apologies for my tone, it did hit a nerve somewhat. (And Id love to be able to afford to NOT go to work!) Anyhow Im back now and would like to expand on my feelings. All the Zoos I have visited have many common species that to me shouldnt be there. As a conservation effort, common species to me at least are taking up valuable time, space and funds which could be better spent on more suitable accommodation and housing, therefore giving more vulnerable species a better chance at reproducing in an artificial environment. It seems pointless and it also highlights roobees' point of being there for public entertainment alone, its a point I agree with. West Mids Safari park and its white Lions and Tigers are a disgrace for me, the male Lion particularly looks like something out of a cartoon, artificially large, cumbersome and very "unnatural." These animals are not bred to conserve any species in the wild, they are bred for profit through the gates and nothing more, something "different" to attract more attention. Chimanzees are not really endangered, there are many many in Zoos, with these places often using contraceptives to control their breeding. My thoughts are housing rare and endangered animals only would give them a better life than that in a place crammed with animals that need not be there. I appreciate the points made, but I cant agree with some of them as using animals for profit goes against the grain for me Im afraid.
...or for public education. There are things to educate people over that aren't conservation-related. And we need to consider that a species that is common now may not necessarily remain so - we may need experience of keeping the species in the future. (and personally, I have no problem with animals being there principally for entertainment provided the husbandry is up-to-scratch - particularly as it is generally the big names and cuddlies that bring in the visitors that provide the money for conservation projects) An animal doing well in captivity does not necessarily mean it is not endangered. Eastern Bongos are one of the most 'endangered' large African mammals yet are pretty common in European zoos. I can't say I've ever noticed anything odd about the male white lion other than the colouration (though I do not approve of inbreeding them to promote the white colour).
Mmm I thought they were listed as endangered but nowhere near as endangered as "Mountain Bongo's?" Still if they are common in Zoos, why are they not being released back where they should be? All I see is "could be released" and "in the future" what about now? What about sending these animals to where they should be to repopulate the areas they should be in? Keeping a core breeding stock and all others back to the wild? WHat it actually boils down to is what will bring people through the gates. Well that really IS the main problem isnt it? Whats the point? Money of course, they sell tickets! Do you really think that education is paramount? There is no way people take their kids to a Zoo to learn, they take them to see the little animals in cages. You point about the future is one that really annoys me (not you personally of course) Lets not keep animals "in case" its a pathetic excuse, thats like me breeding my dogs "in case" the breed reduces in numbers, rubbish and scaremongery!
Mountain Bongo and Eastern Bongo are the same thing - Tragelaphus euryceros isaaci. The Western/Lowland Bongo Tragelaphus euryceros euryceros is more common in the wild and not present in captivity that I'm aware of. As I understand it, poaching and human disturbance are still too high in their Kenyan habitat for reintroduction to take place. Is we release large numbers of bongo only for them all to get shot within months that would hardly be good conservation. Reintroduction is a tricky subject, as in most cases is it is not feasible until all threats to animals and habitat have been either eliminated or greatly reduced. Which doesn't often happen. When it does, it is often immensely successful (Mauritius Kestrels being a great example). If no-one comes throught he gates then there is no zoo. And no ex situ conservation programme. And no education (of which more below). I agree that that's why certain places want to preserve the White Lions - I was just pointing out that I had never noticed the other characteristics you said the male possessed - I shall look more closely when I see him next. Sorry to answer your question with a question, but do you really think all those people going to the zoo learn nothing while they are there? Might not be why they go, but it happens, often without them realising. Why? Because they're having fun at the time. Education and awareness-spreading is vital - whether people come away from the zoo with lists of fascinating facts about animals or have simply learned that animals like bongo even exist then that has had an educative benefit (and see foz's post for how great that benefit can be). To be honest, I've always felt that the education benefit is the clearest and least controversial of a zoo's aims - there are problems with ex-situ conservation, there are problems with zoo-based research (in that it being based in captivity reduces the applicability (is that a word?) in the wild) but zoos have a very clear educative role and do excellent work. On your last point, if no-one breeds your dog's breed then they will reduce in numbers. And may end up dying out as the population ages before anyone realises. Just because we cannot be prepared for everything doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to prepare for anything. Captive populations of Montserrat Oriole are being built up 'in case' there is another eruption on the island - I don't think that's pathetic at all.
Re-introduction is no longer one of the core mission's of zoos, as it is very costly and often unecessary. It can be done successfully when needed but often it is better to "nip it at the bud", so conservation education is now a primary aim. Zoos are in an excellent position to teach their visitors about the need to preserve the "animals in their little cages" before captive breeding and re-introduction is needed. For some zoos yes, but many others are leading forces for conservation, Wildlife Conservatio Society and Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust are prime examples. Gone are the days of Moctezuma's palace menagerie which had a section exhibiting human freaks, nowadays most responsible collections have stopped keeping white lions/tigers, as they realise that these mutations are just the same, and a drain on resources which could be better spent on species which are actually in need help. Some zoos, however, still maintain the myth that these are "critically endangered" and breed from them and this, I agree, is unacceptable. No! However, research reveals that once leaving a good zoo exhibit, the vast majority of visitors come away with at least some understanding of the species exhibited and their environment. Of course people don't come to zoos to be educated, but good zoos do it without the visitor even realizing. I hate to sound alarmist, but this is certainly not pathetic. Every species which inhabits a forest environment is in danger due to the risk of logging and slash and burn, as are those in continental lowlands due to farming and desertification, our oceans are under siege due to over-fishing and hunting is becoming a bigger and bigger problem - especially in countries with corrupt and unstable governments. The ice-caps are melting, which is not only a problem for polar species but also those in areas which aren't far above sea level as a global rise is predicted. And if all that isn't enough, climate change threatens to take away any remaining habitats that species have adapted to! And that is not even how I would answer your question! Yes, zoos need to protect individual species, but what's the point if there's no-where to return them to? Therefore, they need to help teach about how whole eco-systems are under threat, and what we can do to help. That can only be done with a range of species, from the humble Meerkat, to the Black Rhino. * * * Overall, I think your arguments are very much the epitomy of an irresponsible zoo - most have entered the 21st century with a new ethos - not just somewhere to look at animals in little cages . EDIT: Sorry Maguari, this is getting to be a bit of a habit .
Maguari and Redpanda. I cant agree that people go to learn with their kids, they dont, not going on what you see at these places anyway, I mean I cant ever recall people with kids being in the education and lecture places at Zoo's, in fact at Dudley I had to ask for the "education" centre to be opened one day as it was "rarely" used! Recent studies show Polar Bear numbers to be increasing, I do think scaremongery comes a lot into people's lives these days, taking my dogs into account, should I breed them "in case" then? I mean what if they are crap specimens with no health testing? Would it matter as long as they could grace my home and I could say "Ive got one?" Then how sad is that? Practice what you preach I say!
