i have decided that i no longer care what animals are in zoo collections. what's important it that what species zoos do keep, they care for ethically, manage effectively and in a way that contributes to the species survival, and that they maximise the the opportunity to educate the public and capitalise on the ability to gather support for conservation efforts. if zoos do this properly, then they most likely no longer have room for the A-Z of animals, nor does the average visitor have the time to see them all if they did. effective, engaging exhibits take up a lot more time that traditional ones. the real future zoo might not have elephants or bears. maybe it only has one species of great ape. but so what? for the species they do keep, they make a significant contribution towards conserving both financially and through captive breeding and education. they don't spread themselves thinly instead making a real difference in maybe just a few select areas. i'll sacrifice my opportunities to see a couple of jaguars for that.
Quality over quantity is the key. Some animals, such as elephants, will probably maintain their numbers in captivity...but there will be a decline in the number of zoos that exhibit them. I'd go for naked mole rats any day of the week!
I agree I would rather see a small zoo that looks after its animals , works towards a sustainable breeding plan , and is noticably conservation minded -- that even non zoo nuts can recognise , than trying to be the largest zoo in the country or some other "worthy" statement . Healesville comes to mind , even though it only has Australian natives . Never mind ; the are exotic to me !
Healesville Sanctuary is a great example of a small zoo that is geared exclusively towards native animals. On my solitary visit there I was tremendously impressed, having arrived without too many preconceptions. There is a place called Northwest Trek Wildlife Park in the State of Washington in the U.S. (already has a separate thread) that houses only North American animals. It is these type of institutions that often thrive in terms of breeding success, animal husbandry, and showcasing creatures in their natural environment. However, as sad as it is for me to say this...the average zoogoer still wishes to see lions, tigers, bears and zebras dotting the landscape. The majority of zoos that only exhibit native animals struggle in terms of government sponsorship and attendance.
The sad truth is that 99% of the zoo-going public have very definite ideas as to what a zoo should display. You could give them Sumatran rhinos, okapis and mountain tapirs and they would still say," No elephants? What kind of zoo is this?"
not true. 99% of the zoo going public don't know the difference between a chimp and a gorilla and think tigers come from africa. however, unfortunately 99% of the worlds elephant-keeping zoos have people working there that will call apon this very argument of public expectation to defend their own personal desires to care for or display "their" elephants. if you were right ara, then adelaide, jersey, mogo, london and all the other non-elephant keeping zoos of the world would have closed down years ago.
I'm not trying to turn this into a pro - elephant keeping thread patrick. Elephants was probably a bad example to choose - too many people get steamed up about them. What I should have said is; you could display lions, snow leopards and golden cats and people would still say, "No tigers?"
but do you think that will actually stop them going? or will they return because the thriving 25+ orangutan colony they saw kept them entertained for 40 minutes?
I think in a way it doesn't matter what animals are kept, so long as they meet Patricks criteria. Even then I could say that they don't need to be endangered find a place. To me the conservation bit is important but not the over arching aspect. So giraffe could and should be exhibeted - so long as the conditions are met. So the best place is of course the Open Range zoos. I think that a zoo that gives 1/4 of its space to a thriving colony of one large animal eg gorillas or lions, then have several medium size species that don't need as much space (eg colobus) and several and very active small species eg meerkats would meet most of Patricks criteria.
To answer the question in the title-I do. As far as I can remember, we already had a very, very similar discussion-or rather, discussions, about such subjects. Therefore, I'm not going to repeat myself here. All I would say is that I personally wouldn't be all too attracted to a zoo keeping only (very) common pet species (like rabbits, budgies, goldfish...), no matter how greatly they are kept; I can have that all for free. If at all, I might(!) visit such a zoo once, and that's it. Similarily, a zoo consisting solely of meerkats, llamas, raccoons and other very "mainstream" species wouldn't be the optimal zoo I would go long distances for, either.
In the UK Bristol Zoo is one that has severely rationalised its animal collection in recent years. The zoo is only about 10(?) acres in size and can never expand on its present site. Despite that, formerly(circa 1950's) the zoo held virtually everything you would expect to see 'at the zoo'- elephants, giraffe, black rhino, large range of big cats, large range of primates, zebra, giraffe, 3 great ape species, polar, brown, himalayan and sun bear, wolves, antelope, okapi, llamas, sea lions, rhesus monkey colony, ostrich, bird house, big collection of aviary birds, reptiles, aquarium etc etc. Over the last fifty years the collection has gradually changed, with far fewer large animals now being kept. Bristol is now a small 'modern' zoo and the accent nowadays is on diversity with a nocturnal house, 'seals and penguins' exhibit, reptile house, bugworld, aquarium and large walkthru bird aviary all deputising for the larger animals which are largely absent, except for;. Asian Lion- one pair. Gorilla- small group(1.2.+ 2 babies) Okapi- one pair Brazilian Tapir(pair). Pygmy Hippo- one pair A fair range of primate species are also kept. I don't know if the citizens of Bristol have ever noticed how their zoo has changed- probably not as its been a very slow and gradual process. I imagine despite there being no elephants, rhinos, tigers, bears etc there's still enough variety to entertain the city's children when they go there, but do they miss the animals that no longer exhibited nowadays? Its worth noting Bristol are planning a big new park on their country estate site- it will feature at least some of the big animals(rhinos, cheetahs, orangutan, bears etc) absent from the city zoo...
Fair enough. Please don't think I am advocating the old - style zoo; I just believe that, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people still expect it. It is possible to wean the general public away from their expectations, but it's a slow process. (For example, the Australian public no longer expect to see polar bears, whereas they most definitely did when I was a kid.) Obviously the criteria for choosing which species to display depends on a lot of other factors apart from public expectations. I'm sure that there have been numerous studies done as to which exhibits hold the public's attention the longest; and you don't have to be a genius to realise that it is those enclosures where the animals are active. Therefore any zoo should have a good display of primates, and here Australian zoos are both good and bad. In the main, they have a good representation of apes but very few other primates.
We've been discussing only part of the question: Who cares what's in a zoo? While the what is usually assumed to be a vast animal collection (oh how 19th Century!) why is that the 21st Century answer? Can zoos use live animals, interactive displays, sophisticated exhibitry, etc. to celebrate the natural world in fun, smart, engrosssing ways? I agree that many visitors say if there is no elephant (lion, tiger, bear, whatever) then what kind of zoo is this? But it was common knowledge among zoo men for a long time (yes, they were men) that visitors would not accept big open exhibits in place of cages (and while some don't, most do). It was common knowledge among bird people for a long time that keeping large mixed bird exhibits was an awful thing. Why it was a fact that you could NOT keep gorillas in natural outdoor exhibits. Yet all of these innovations were enacted and some fantastic exhibits were the result. Which brings me to the Who part of the question. Personally, I love large complex collections. Seeing some ungulate I never even heard of at San Diego is real fun (spoken like a zoo geek). Yet for the bulk of zoo visitors, they are not there for the animals really. They are there to have a fun time with each other. A small zoo with a carefully edited colllection (like the Central Park Zoo here in New York) can meet the needs of many zoo goers quite nicely. And in many small cities, while zoo goers know that - for example - the Akron Zoo is nothing like the Cleveland Zoo, they love their zoo for its intimacy. So that leaves me thinking of a correlary question: Why do we care what's in a zoo?
That's another important point NZ Jeremy mentioned: a reptile lover won't have that much fun in a zoo without reptiles, a bird fan will be disappointed with no birds in the collection and a fan of congo buffaloes might feel the zoo would be better with them...
I thought a bit about this. I think public has a set of about 40 popular zoo animals and "normal" zoo should have most of them. I even written this set once. For me, I can enjoy nice exhibit, rare species or whatever. Mostly relax watching something relatively baeutuiful and unimportant.
I think one of the things that make a zoo good in many peoples mind is a personal connection between them and a paryicular animal. Knut is a good example. Mant people will go to a zoo on a regular basis to see 'their' animal. They may have watched it grow up, seen it 'married' with a mate, have babies of its own and eventually mourn when it dies. This sort of connection can be a powerfulk thing. Used properly it can be a powerful educational force that will do wonders for conservation of its species. Used wrongly it can disrupt the very things that the animal needs. It was this sort of attachment that stopped some movement of gorillas in Europe I beleive.
Good point about the movement of gorillas from zoo to zoo, jay. I remember that some zoos got themselves "in hot water" over their gung-ho attitude to moving gorillas around without due regard for the emotional welfare of the animals; (their attachment to their group, for example.) I believe that with such intelligent animals as gorillas we can't just ship them from zoo to zoo as if they were stud cattle.
Whats in the zoo ...... ? I dont try to list all the animals that I see in the zoos that I visit , but try to major on the strengths or themes that they might have . Wellington Zoo does very well breeding chimpanzees and baboons , and has a lot of other primates as well Being a reptile fan , I DO particularly enjoy the reptile section very much , especially snakes . I was disappointed when I discovered that there were no snakes when I visited San Francisco Zoo several years ago ( and paid the highest zoo admission fee for that particular trip ! ) and so my personal views was that it was not one of my "favourites" Not having an animal doesnt really preclude people from visiting zoos . here in NZ , there is only one zoo that has elephants and hippos , and no zoos are allowed to display even a solitary snake ( NZ Law prevents this ) There are no more camels either . But that doesnt stop people from visiting the zoos , and seeing whatever animals might happen to be there . Due to tough biosecurity regulations and distance from other countries , it is very difficult for NZ zoos to obtain alot of animals . Most NZers have some knowledge about this , but still visit zoos anyway
