I think this article is pretty thin stuff. It makes some valid points and it pays lip service to the concept of plurality, but with scarcely any discussion of the range of possibilities that the future may hold. Consider this paragraph:- Ask a dozen zoo directors why these places should exist today and you'll get a different answer every time. Education, conservation and science all come up. But the most common answer--fostering empathy for animals--is becoming harder to do while providing humane care to these animals.Frankly, I don't believe this (unless the author actually spoke to 12 zoo directors and happened to pick a dozen of the most idiosyncratic and eccentric members of the profession ). I suspect that their answers would actually be quite similar in content, although I am sure there would be differences in the emphasis that they gave to each component of their answers. But note the author's sting in the tail: it is his judgement that fostering empathy for animals is becoming harder to do as we learn more about animals. It is not news that zoos are changing. It is not news that different zoos are changing in different ways. It is not news that zoo professionals and zoo visitors alike want better care for the animals in zoos, better education, better science and better conservation. Neither is it news that zoo consultants like Messrs Coe & Hancocks need to publicise their ideas with the help of tame journalists to attract future commissions and to talk down alternative ideas to their own
Once again the media does a lousy job of covering zoos. I'll admit, I had to quit reading the article suggested that blackfish wasn't a splendid example of yellow journalism (sorry for bringing that up.)
Glad to see that the article initiated some discussion. What actually happened to Hancock's vision of a virtual zoo in which you can only see animals on computer/TV screens via satellites, holograms etc.? Except for the Dubai Mall or the "whale in a gym" videos, I can't remember any current example for the latter.
This is happening now. Extinctions of most antelope species in zoos were well discussed on this forum. Other groups where where number of species declined dramatically include monkeys, deer, small carnivores, waterfowl and small birds.
And it's done! I don't know if it's a bad policy to advertise oneself, but screw it; here's my latest brain child: the VUZ!!!! VUZ: Vertical Urban Zoo | ZooChat
I would also like to see more focus on improving pinniped exhibits. A lot of them are pretty weak. A shame not only for the animals, but because pinniped exhibits feature both water and land and thus have great coastal design possibilities. Plus, in my experience, pinnipeds are popular with guests because they're both charismatic and active.
Is there a reason that no pinniped exhibits seem to have natural substrate? Of the exhibits I've seen, it's all just a simple formula of mock rock/concrete + water.
I reject these articles that set up a false choice for zoos between animals living in zoos vs living in "the wild." Very 19th century. 1. There is no longer a "wild." 2. In general, zoos outside of China are not taking animals from nature to "captivity and coercion" in the zoo. It is not to say that we can't learn and improve, but (as someone indicated above) the entire argument is dishonest.
Many aquaria, Sydney Wildlife World and Dallas World Aquarium? Structural reasons related to weight of exhibits might make buildings for big mammals inpracticial. They are a typical flat screen TV or a home movie beamer, and 3D cinema. Technology became so common that nobody notices it.
I can't tell if you mean they are going extinct because of zoos or failed help of zoos. Can you explain what you mean or link me to where this was discussed?
I think Jurek is talking about a decline in species diversity in zoos, not about species going extinct in the wild (although that is also happening currently). No specific thread comes to mind, but it has been discussed at length several times before.
That we know; I was just wondering whether something practical actually came out of those pipe dreams.
Yikes! They're happening... This'll give those zoo-haters even more credibility... Hopefully it'll crash and burn.
In some respects I wonder if these things only make people want to see real animals more, they work like adverts. And would people really only want to see animals on a screen, they wouldn't be happy only ever seeing their relatives on Skype ?
This idea of virtual zoos came up in a debate I assisted some years ago, about whether or not zoos should exist. The anti-zoo spokesman proposed this idea, and the main arguments against it were that people would miss seeing real animals, but the anti-zoo crowd then accused them of anthropocentrism. Another strong argument was that people are addicted to touch screens enough as it is, and this is pretty much like playing with a giant tablet. The woman who said that pointed out that the last time she visited the Aquarium, kids were "widening the image" on the glass of fish tanks! The spokesman said that, that way, people would experience "real animals, not animal bodies with artificial behaviors." But really, how "real" is a screen showing an animal documentary? :/ I must say that the spokesman from Barcelona Zoo didn't do a great job, basing the fact that there are elephants there by saying "there have always been elephants in the Zoo." I think I intervened, saying that while the zoo is important for conservation, there's nothing wrong in leaving Elephants off your collection, if you can't afford them. In the end, it's all about being reasonable; we need zoos, that's a given, but they must be built with intelligence, in design, collection and image.
