An interesting critique of modern zoos is presented in this new article, the first of a series on www.mongabey.com (and if you've never been to that site before, I highly recommend it!) Granted there's not much in the way of original thought, but it is a good summary of the morality issues. Zoos: Why a Revolution is Necessary to Justify Them
I read the essay, and it is slightly depressing and dour (to quote the author) towards zoos in general. Claiming to have visited more than 20 collections is nothing for us ZooBeaters as many of us average far more zoos all over the world. The prose was well written but ultimately one-sided and bleak. It is definitely a "glass half-full" type of writing that demeans and questions the existence of zoos.
I feel it is a rather acurate description of today's zoos and what they need to strive for towards the future. In the last 10-15 years, there seems to have been a regression towards a recreational venue, rather than the educational institution that zoos were striving to be back in the 1980s.
The logic in saving power is driving me mad. I could make an argument that if animals wouldn't moving much they woudn't need so much food to get an energy to do so. Less food is less power to prepare it (including transport from outside a zoo, less workers distibuting it - so less people will travel to work, etc.). So we would actually reduce pollution and save some animals. By letting other starving. Hoorray! This is sick way of thinking. But it happens too much often these days.
I find extremely hypocritical that he calls for "green improvements" and even acknowledges that they would be expensive to do, but then criticizes zoos that receive money from corporations like Wells Fargo. Many people (sadly) do not see zoos as necessary recipients of tax money. they are often seen as "luxuries". So I find it disturbing that he does not support a bank donating money in return for advertising on the Web site
Yes, is a bit stupid to save a little on green building at expense of letting whole species go extinct. The guy is right that many zoos could reach the visitors better. But the very thing that he is zoo lover and choose to speak about zoos - proves that zoos captivated him.
Stopped reading here, too much anthropomorphing and unscientific "glass half full" babbling going on. OK, did read on and it became progressively worse...
Despite the negative tone and the occasional lapses into sentimentality, I got the overall impression that the writer is a supporter of good zoos. After all, he suggests many ways in which zoos could, in his eyes, improve, and gives examples of those which have got it right. I think his frustation comes from the fact that visiting zoos and following their progress can so often be a disappointing experience (and one which many in this forum must share from time to time). His "only reason" for allowing the existence of modern zoos is spot on. However I'm not too convinced by some of his proposed solutions. For example, the need to improve the educational experience is all very worthy, but passes by the requirements of most zoo visitors. The diversification approach, incoporating AV presentation, has already been tried in the UK with the ill-fated Wildwalk@Bristol. The idea of establishing closer links between zoo exhibits and conservation projects is already being carried out to some extent (Budongo at Edinburgh is one example that comes to mind). The problem here is that conservation priorities are constantly shifting, whereas zoo exhibits tend to hang around beyond their use-by date. Business capital financing zoo projects is fine by me, providing the money is sourced ethically and spent wisely. I'm not familiar with the Minnesota Zoo example he cites, so I don't know whether it was a misuse of funds or not. But what is increasingly the case in the modern world is that the petting zoo or farmyard is the only exposure to "nature" that children from low-income urban homes get. I find it hard to get worked up over a few logos splashed around the zoo, if that's the price to pay.
