I've recently found out these posts and I will show you why they are trying to lie to us about zoos: Experts Agree: Zoos Do More Harm Than Good 10 Reasons Zoos Are Bad for the Planet Perspective 1: "Zoo animals are taken from the wild" Many species in zoos, no matter if it's an endangered species or not, are bred in captivity to supply the entire industrial chain. I do understand that zoos get animal resources from the wild for various reasons (eg: introduce new species or refine the genetics) , but the thing is that it must be sustainable and reciprocally good, meaning a way that doesn't damage the wild population, and I am not angry about it. Perspective 2: "Zoo hire hunters to kill parents in order to take baby animals or make baby animals, which will attract people. When they grow up and become no longer cute they will kill them or sell them to undesirable collections" How stupid will zoos nowadays do this, I am a zoo lover but I have never heard about it anywhere. Zoo staff are among the biggest animal lovers I know, if they don't care about good treatment of animals they will probably not be part of this job actually. Perspective 3: "Zoo animals do not have the chance to choose a partner or make friends" I'm not talking much about this, go to a nearby accredited zoo to find out, and you will find out that this perspective is misleading. Perspective 4: "Surplus animals are sold to undesirable collections or killed" In my opinion, many zoos do not sell their surplus to undesirable collections or kill them, for example Mysore Zoo have send their surplus stock of deers to a sanctuary. You can also search "surplus" to find out what will really happen to surplus animals. Perspective 5: "Zoo care about profit than to animals" The answer is the same as answer 2. Most accredited zoos raise money for wildlife conservation, actually. The opinion does reflects the situations in some of the zoos, I do know. But many of those zoos' conditions are very poor, and animals were often forced to do tricks. Yet more and more people are refusing those disgusting circus acts after what they saw on internet, so those will eventually be criticized. Perspective 6: "Zoos send the wrong message" Zoos nowadays exist for those reasons: conservation, learning and for scientific research. England stole pandas in the 1930s before China created laws to protect pandas, pandas won't get a worldwide prestige if the thing has not happened. Some of the experiences of keeping pandas were actually burrowed from foreign countries, without them the reintroduction of captive bred pandas to wild will probably not become successful. Many studies like the ones from Jensen (2011, 2014) and Moss et al. (2017) did found positive impacts of visitors after visiting zoos, which includes awareness to biodiversity. Perspective 7: "Zoos are dangerous for animals" In many situations, zoo animals will eventually have a longer lifespan and a larger size due to absence of predators and adequate keeping conditions. Early deaths often happen because of innate problems or other factors, I know. I know zoo animals often escapes for various reasons, but if lucky they will come back voluntarily. One of the primary factors are the good treatments. If the enclosure and treatment is good, the animals will not think the enclosure is a prison cell.
The ignorance of whoever wrote that article (no wonder no individual put their name to it) could be summed up in three words: Coordinated breeding programmes. An understanding of what these are and how they work instantly invalidates 90% of the article. The most laughable part for me was, “Animals are not allowed to choose their own mates or friends.” I wonder which friends my local Sumatran tiger would choose if she could attend a conference with all the other tigers in the region.
Well the first website is a notorious anti-captivity group, so no surprise there. Second one looks more like AR clickbait stuff. I don't get their title point of how zoos are bad for the planet. Surplus can be a bad place to be for animals in some countries. Not everywhere treats surplus the same way. Yeah the key word is accredited here. Zoos are very expensive entities though, as lots of food, water, and electricity are needed daily, along with keepers to provide it. Many zoos struggled badly through the initial pandemic shutdowns, they are non-profits and most of their income goes right back into zoo upkeep. Some zoos are for-profit, many of which tend to be low quality. Even so they're still expensive to run.
They clearly don't know of or are disregarding the bts facilities created specifically for letting the animals pair themselves off. Or you know, species kept in flocks that pair themselves off as they please. Nor do reputable zoos force introductions that are not proceeding well. (Unless you're Cincy gambling with your hippos for publicity. )
Rather stupid post, and both claims are largely untrue. However, they hint at the self-contradictory nature of zoo opponents: should animals live as in nature, or live happy and long? Nature, of course, is not a happy place for animals (nor people). The bigger contradiction is: if a zoo opponent opposes that zoo managers force animals to do something, why a zoo opponent claims the right to force something on zoo managers and visitors?
Well truth be told these accusations ARE true of some zoos around the world. We like to point to the "better" zoos and insist these things don't happen but the "better" zoos are not the only zoos Still, it is telling that the links in the articles (whose presence suggests to those who don't bother to click them and read the linked article that the referenced claim has been corroborated) offer no more proof or evidence than the assertions themselves. There are better examples that could be cited but to direct the gullible animal-loving public to the real cases would introduce them to the complexities of international zoo practices and to how accredited zoos have controlled these offensive practices. You can't build an army of internet activists by introducing them to facts and inviting them to weigh complexities after all.
Agreed I also think it is as disingenuous to suggest all zoos are good as it is that all zoos are bad. One of the issues with all these debates now is that everything appears so black and white. We who are pro zoo should be the first to call out any bad or sub standard collection, so the brillIant ones can be maintained and celebrated.
(let me play out lafone's point a little) As always, there's a lot of grey between the black and white. Every single point the articles make and every single point my good sir unenlagia makes are both true in some zoos. I can't pretend zoos are all good, nor can i pretend zoos are all bad, but some zoos are much more good than they are bad (like most zoos in europe, north american and oceania). It's up to the persons where they draw the line and choose wich zoos to support and wich ones not. And before you get the wrong idea, i fully support modern zoos and admire their contributions to conservation and education.
I know for number 1 and 2 some roadside zoos and circuses still do these but the modern ethical zoos do not. Honestly looking at the first website, it seems as if they think zoos are still what they are like 150 years ago, and I wonder if who wrote the article has ever even been to a zoo and thought about it or read any of the signs about animal welfare.
I think the problem is in how most of these sites are monetized currently, they want to get as much traffic through their site as possible and that often means it's quantity over quality, doing the bear minimum of research they have to do before writing an article..
I think the more prevalent issue is most of these anti-zoo articles are often based off information from AR activists. Over and over the activists have shown facts don't matter if lies will get them what they want. Much of the anti-zoo arguments are based off lies and biased fact. There are bad zoos (ironically often including the "sanctuaries" claimed to be better by activists), however there are many good zoos that have absolutely no reason to be thrown under the bus by activists. These bad zoos ought to be shut down, and recently we have seen a few fall here in the US. But from an overarching view, it is not fair to stick Waccatee and Bronx under the same 'bad' umbrella - the two are massively different. The AR activists do know this, but admitting it doesn't help their agenda, therefore everyone is bad.
Precisely why I used it as my example, as the numerous problems with it are relatively well-known at the moment and it was a prime example of a facility that needed to go. A pity many of the animals will end up in places not much better.
The untruths are rather deeper. 1. Don't lie even for good cause. Activists have no right to spread distorted or outdated information, no matter what their views are. 2. Don't treat independent things as one thing. Zoos are independent of each other. Other zoos have no say on how a bad zoo is run. Bronx zoo has no say over a zoo in Wichita or Las Vegas. 3. It is wrong to judge the whole using one example. As others pointed - one bad zoo is does not mean than all zoos are bad. To be frank, zoos and media in general are also often guilty of picking one example of a problem, which example may or may not present the problem accurately. 4. When you criticize something, check alternatives - they may be worse or impossible. Zoo activists often propose unrealistic alternatives: it is not possible to save all animals in the wild, animals in the wild are not happier or even remotely happy, there is nobody step in the education and fundraising role of zoos. Zoo activists routinely talk about 'sanctuaries' which are too few and too poorly run to provide an alternative to zoos. 5. Activists don't necessarily have right to impose their views on the majority of society, and on independent businesses. Too many regulations are bad by themselves. Just because activists want to prohibit something, it does not mean that they can force majority of American public who sympathizes and visits zoos. Nor they automatically have a say on zoos which are independent businesses. 6. It is dangerous to have power without responsibility. Activists propose things, but they will not be held responsible if e.g. 'rescued' animals suffer or an underfunded nature reserve folds a conservation project. These points are worth remembering, not only about zoos.
