Article about three serval kittens at Werribee. They are being trained to interact with the public. Any comments on the photo? Cool new cats for Werribee Zoo - Local News - Geelong, VIC, Australia
"nice chain"? why do zoos feel the need to have their wild cats (especially cheetahs and servals) "conditioned" for interaction with the public. Why not have them behaving as wild cats instead?
.......so why not make them jump through a few hoops while they are at it??!! After all, the name of the game seems to be Amuse the Paying Customers, and to hell with keeping the animals as natural as possible. I know I'm a purist, but I just hate seeing animals on a collar and chain.
since when was a cat in a cage even remotely natural? and since when were you not one of those 'amused' paying customers? you paid to get into the zoo and see a serval in a cage. how is paying to interact with one any worse? and give me one good reason why an untrained carnivore at a zoo has a better life than one that is trained. one reason. just one. how is cruel to condition animals to people that are around people all day long for their entire lives? zoo animals are cared for for the sake of aesthetics. thus they are in fact closer to pets than livestock. it is not the wild. not even close. these are not wild animals - they are generation after generation captive bred non domesticated pets. i just find it fascinating how so many of the other zoo groupies around here attack zoos for the most mundane of reasons yet continue to justify their existence, no matter what, all the same.
When it comes to using animals for up-close educational encounters like this, any good zoo like Werribee will take into consideration both the species and the individual animal. Some species simply do not work well with public interaction and are therefore not used. (If we stick to the cat family, leopards would be a good example, but there are plenty of small mammals and reptiles that would apply as well). Servals (and cheetahs) are some of the only cats that actually do work well with people. The reason for doing this is that the keeper or docent who has the animal gets to explain something about it to the visitor. They learn far more from this than from a sign at the exhibit, which most people do not bother to read. The individual animal is also taken into account. Although servals in general work well, if one of them showed signs of stress (such as hissing or hair loss), I am sure the staff would remove him/her from public interaction. That is the approach we take at Reid Park Zoo, where I do handle a couple of our education animals, and I have seen some taken off rotation for that very reason.
I totally agree with you, I don't like to see wild animals turned into "puppies" just for people can to pet them.
Dammit, phoenix, I hate the way you make me examine my own prejudices and my own conscience; and I ESPECIALLY hate it when you are right! (I've had a few red wines and now I'm ready to answer you.) It's got so that, in my old age, I am beginning to question the very right of zoos to exist. All the worthy and worthwhile reasons that we have been fed about zoos seem to fall apart and the only justification seems to be to amuse the public, at the same time extracting as much money as possible. You mention in another thread something along the lines that contemplation of zoos seems to be better than actually visiting them - that's the way it is for me now. And you're right; those servals are not wild servals. They and their descendants will never live in the wild, anymore than will Dreamworld's tigers or Mogo's white lions. All my life since I was a little kid I have enjoyed zoos, but there's always been the small niggling feeling that it's been at the expense of the animals. For some species it's maybe not too important - it probably doesn't matter much to a water buffalo whether it's grazing in the wild or grazing in a zoo paddock - but a cat is an alpha predator with a hunting instinct and, in a perfect world, would not live in a zoo. So the zoos and wildlife parks of the world will continue to lead their cats around on chains and pose them for "photo opportunities", but they can forget it as far as I am concerned.
It's really no dfferent than the seal, bird, dolphin, elephant, tiger showa that are put on at other institutions. I guess it's a slippery slope though and the real dilema is where are the boundaries. When does a seal show which is ok by many peoples minds morph into elephanst doing headstands, lions jumping through flaming hoops and chimpanzee tea parties, which many people consider aborant.
ha ha! welcome to my world ara! i was really just trying to make the point that life in a zoo absolutely sucks for a myriad of animals. and that interaction in a positive manner does nothing but provide benefits. a chain conjures up instant reactions from people, yet those same people have blinkers on when it comes to the bigger picture. i remember everyone here having a **** fit about a photo that was released of the pre-export thai elephants, with chains temporarily around their legs. yet these elephants were about to be put into crates, and shipped to an urban zoo in another country to spend the remainder of their lives in tiny dusty paddocks. apparently a chaining an animal, even temporarily, is archaic and unnecessary, yet keeping them in crappy exhibits is justifyable - you know, for the good of the species. i actually think we massively overestimate the educational capacity, and value of zoos. i don't think, compared to the resources they chew up, they inspire anyone to really change their attitudes to the environment. and those that they do garner some kind of reaction from, they fail to provide with an opportunity to contribute change. we all know the world is screwed. we are all educated about that. but unless education spurs action. its pointless. thus, whilst i do believe that interaction with an animal, rather than simply viewing it, allows for a much, much greater platform for education - i honestly couldn't care less about those benefits. so simply from the standpoint that in being trained those servals are awarded far more stimulus that an untrained one, i have absolutely no problem with it. likewise i think dreamworlds tigers have a much more enjoyable life than melbourne's. i just also think its all fun and games until someone gets mauled.
Well, some very thought provoking entries here. Although I love and defend zoos, I agree most do not do enough to actually get the average visitor involved in conservation. But it need not be that way. There is no question that zoos and aquariums are the largest conservation organizations around and that they reach a constituency that are not necessarily conservation minded. (I mean many families that visit a zoo would never join WWF or Nature Conservancy, etc). So, we need to somehow encourage more zoos to take steps like the following examples, that really do make a difference: 1) The Living Desert and San Diego Wild Animal Park (both in southern California,USA), have each set aside approximately 1000 acres of their property to preserve the local habitat. 2) Cheyenne Mountain Zoo (Colorado,USA) charges an admission that ends in 25 cents and all visitors get a 25 cent token to put into a box at the entrance for the conservation project of their choice. 3) London Zoo (England,UK) takes approximtely 2 pounds right off the top of every admission for tiger conservation. 4) Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (Arizona,USA) and The Living Desert (California,USA) sell native desert plants to encourage local residents to use drought tolerant local vegetation in their landscaping. 5) Arizona Docent (yes, me) does a monthly powerpoint lecture on Wild Cats at Reid Park Zoo (Arizona,USA) that ends with five tips for protecting the environment - things I do in my life that I tell visitors they can do too to help animals everywhere.
trained servals Some excellent points. I am a huge supporter of handling animals, where possible, in captive settings. Boredom for both animals and patrons is a major problem and with well conceived and managed handling programs their are substantial benefits. There are also benefits for conservation programs as well. Being quite close to Dreamworld's tiger program I know that the money they raise and send to in situ projects is only possible due to the handling and training of the tigers.
@Hix, Here are the five: 1) SAVE LAND FOR ANIMALS (by living in the city instead of buying vacant land on the outskirts or the country and building on it) 2) BUS,BIKE,WALK (instead of driving everywhere, to reduce global emissions) 3) USE A REFILLABLE WATER BOTTLE (instead of buying plastic water bottles, a new craze that is producing lots of waste) 4) USE CORK PRODUCTS (like the cork tape on my bike handlebars, which creates a financial incentive to preserve Spain's cork forests for reintroduction of the endangered Iberian Lynx) 5) JOIN A CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION (WWF, Nature Conservancy, or even conservation funds at your local zoo)
What if the vacant land is a cow paddock that doesn't support much in the way of wildlife? All very well if you live where there is good public transport or close enough to all the places you visit that you can walk or ride there. As I live ih a hilly place of a sub tropical city, I'm not riding for an hour to get to work and arriving indesperate need of a shower. And how do you bring home enough groceries for a family of four or more? No arguements with this one. Impractical can be very difficult indeed to buy ethical/green items, if you can afford them when you find them. no arguement. The problem with so much of the ideas that are promoted is that they are generally impractical, diffiuclt or expensive. They sound nice and good in theory but when you actually try to put them in practice. I find this a major issue with Green groups. I am a single person working full time and with I feel a string conservation ethic and I find it hard to be consistanly green. It is impossible and undesirable for most people. That is why the green movement is constantly being derided as luddite and wearing hairshirts
You have got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!! Arizona Docent provided five tips that he does to promote conservation - just because you can't do those five things (because they are "generally impractical, difficult or expensive") doesn't mean they are bad ideas, just not applicable to your situation. There is no magic panacea that can be applied by all 6 billion people on the Earth. The point is to look at the fundamental idea and apply it to your situation. (1) Don't want to live in the city? Then buy that cowpasture and, over the next few years, replant it with native plants. (3) No public transport? To hilly for a bike? To far to walk? Fine, use your car. I do. I walk when I can (which isn't often). But there are lots of other people who can catch public transport instead of driving, and just because the suggestion is no good for you doesn't mean it's a bad suggestion. Personally, I reduce my global emissions in other ways. (4) I don't use cork products either. But when I'm dining out I'll always order kangaroo (if it's on the menu) over beef, because it's better for the Australian environment and I show my support for the industry that way. They are good ideas. Don't shoot the messenger because they are certainly not the luddites. Hix
And you completely miss what I was saying. The majority of hard working people, who are struggling to pay mortgages, raise kids etc are just not going to put themselves to the bother. It IS difficult, expensive and impractical for many people. All the ideas are fine, just most people cannot or will not do it. Let alone see the reason why they should bother. And I wasn't shooting the messanger. I was just using the ideas to explain how they don;t always work.
