Zoo Photography - Ethics Dilemma

blakester

blakester

Shine On Harvest Moon
Messages
6,677
Name
Iain
Edit My Images
No
Following a TP meet to Banham Zoo today with the Norfolk Mafia, Lynton, Slimbert, Tigerdriver and PatrickO (all thoroughly good company I may add), I was left feeling a little saddened. Although the weather wasn't brilliant......drought :suspect: mmmm, the animals just seemed sad and bored. It set me thinking on the way home through the border controls, Norfolk-Suffolk-Essex :D, do zoos really make for interesting and ethical photographs. Don't get me wrong, I am sure Banham Zoo animals are well cared for and treated but a couple of my images today sum up my dilema, see them posted below. I am not looking for critique, I am more interested in others opinions/views on zoo photography.

Beyond Bored

Beyond Bored by iain blake, on Flickr

Get Me Out of Here

Get Me Out of Here by iain blake, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
a very good point

on the one hand -- it is hard to see animals caged
on the other [and I'm no expect] i believe a lot of good research is being done which will help those endangered in the wild

i did visit London Zoo in the late 1950's ... never been to one since..:D
 
You make a good point and I face a similar dilemma. Your second photo is quite thought provoking.

This is a bit of a trick photo -

DFA3.jpg


It is actually not the goose that is fenced in, it is me.
 
You make a good point too John, I fully understand the conservationist argument but it was still difficult to see the animals looking so bored/unhappy today. It was a challenge to capture (no pun intended) some decent/different images today. Anyone else have a view/opinion?
 
I agree it's a very good point.

I recall, some years ago, seeing a notice near the entrance of Edinburgh Zoo that they do not keep elephants there as they do not have room for more than one. As they normally live in groups in the wild they therefore chose to keep none.

I got from this that the responsible zoos do their best for the animals within the limits of their resources.
 
'Wild' animals are clearly better off in the wild, under ideal conditions - however it's a fact that species in the wild are under threat, mainly due to mis-managment of the environment by man.
Zoos have been instrumental in breeding programmes that have aided the natural population so that's a plus. Good zoos make efforts to stimulate the animals but inevitably there will be times when they appear 'bored', (should have seen me at home this afternoon!).
It isn't ideal but if the animals are bred in captivity I think it is a lesser evil.
 
The monkeys always seem to look sad. They're very intelligent animals. They know they're not supposed to be there I'm sure. The red panda looked very depressed in Colchester zoo, so much so, that I didn't take photo's of it, as it looked like it wanted some peace and quiet! Other animals seem happy as larry though!
 
You're working on the presumption that the animal wouldn't sit around bored at any time in the wild and that the one climbing the fence is doing so because it wants to get out of the cage (I'd imagine it would rather be out of a cage than in one but it isn't necessarily climbing for that purpose).
Those are meanings that you have attached to your photos because of how you imagine the animals' experience to be.
 
Last edited:
although the TV series ''The Lion Man'' must be bit staged to some extent, I enjoy the opportunity to see them, and they do seem to have room and appear to enjoy their occasional woodland walks

but how better to see them in the wild ..!

of course then the school children [and me..:D] wouldn't ever see them

a balance of freedom and exposure which will never be balanced
 
gramps said:
'Wild' animals are clearly better off in the wild, under ideal conditions - however it's a fact that species in the wild are under threat, mainly due to mis-managment of the environment by man.
Zoos have been instrumental in breeding programmes that have aided the natural population so that's a plus. Good zoos make efforts to stimulate the animals but inevitably there will be times when they appear 'bored', (should have seen me at home this afternoon!).
It isn't ideal but if the animals are bred in captivity I think it is a lesser evil.
Click to expand...

An eloquent view Gramps, I do agree. I am as guilty as the next person who pays their entrance fee to a zoo, so am in some way supporting the conservationist argument. It just felt a bit of a 'cheat' to take photographs of these wonderful animals, hence my dilemma.

Tori said:
The monkeys always seem to look sad. They're very intelligent animals. They know they're not supposed to be there I'm sure. The red panda looked very depressed in Colchester zoo, so much so, that I didn't take photo's of it, as it looked like it wanted some peace and quiet! Other animals seem happy as larry though!
Click to expand...

I agree Tori, some of the animals look very content and don't seem to have a care in the world, are well fed and have ample room to move and do what they do. Others, like the red panda looked sad.

DazJW said:
You're working on the presumption that the animal wouldn't sit around bored at any time in the wild and that the one climbing the fence is doing so because it wants to get out of the cage (I'd imagine it would rather be out of a cage than in one but it isn't necessarily climbing for that purpose).
Those are meanings that you have attached to your photos because of how you imagine the animals' experience to be.
Click to expand...

Another eloquently put and valid opinion Daz. I indeed attached meaning to my photographs and that is at the heart of my dilema. It is my interpretation of how I saw some of these animals today and what made me think. Thanks for your input, food for thought.

Yardbent said:
although the TV series ''The Lion Man'' must be bit staged to some extent, I enjoy the opportunity to see them, and they do seem to have room and appear to enjoy their occasional woodland walks

but how better to see them in the wild ..!

of course then the school children [and me..:D] wouldn't ever see them

a balance of freedom and exposure which will never be balanced
Click to expand...

I agree John, it is a balance and I am not quite sure if it is correct.

Iain
 
right.. I am now going to stick my oar in...........

I did a BSc in Animal Science at Uni of Nottingham in the 90's. One of the essays I will always remember that I had to write was "Do Zoo's do more harm than good."

And for once - I find myself sitting on the fence with splinters up my bum.......

On one side some zoo's do a lot of very good work in conversation and there are several projects nationwide and worldwide to ensure the survival of different species due to extensive breeding programmes. Some zoo's are extremely well maintained and really care for the animals, some others are more questionable. I last went to Banham on 7/6/10 and was pleasantly surprised. My thoughts today were, it has slipped somewhat and I was disappointed.

Today there was severe evidence of boredom, lack of interaction, didn't see a zookeeper

e.g. The Tiger pen - a very well worn track around the perimeter fence - obvious signs of boredom, containment and wanting to be stimulated...........

The cheetahs were in a pathetically small cage for the area they need to do what they do.......... at times I felt quite guilty....... certainly a lack of pleasure...........
 
Its alway been a hard one for me,somtimes the animals just look so bored and sad,must admit havnt been to a zoo in a long while,and your photos are very good,but also seem to bring the point home.
 
Well, in first of all admitting that 1. I wasn't there yesterday, 2. have never been to Banham zoo, 3. have no connection with Banham zoo, and 4. am not qualified in animal psychology I have read all preceding posts with care and would like to offer an another suggestion.

Boredom is a human state of mind and I wonder how appropriate it is to anthropomor... whatever the word is for attaching human behavioural characteristics to animals?

Is the monkey/ape in photo 1 bored or resting? Is it perhaps curious about all those long pokey tubular things which the humans are holding up to their faces and pointing in his/her direction?

Photo 2 is super but the primate to which it belongs could be doing absolutely anything at all out of shot. It shows a paw holding onto to a cage.

Big cats and a well-worn path around the perimeter fence. In the wild, animals tend to develop paths which they use and re-use over time. Rabbits do it, badgers do it, rats do it, foxes, deer, sheep and cattle do it. The perimeter fence represents the boundary of the big cats' territory and the worn path might represent nothing more than the cats going as far as they can. Or seeing how close they can get to fresh meat on legs.

I don't know how many hectares represents the natural territory of a big cat but if they had this amount of space, with natural vegetation and cover, and without using feeding stations to draw them closer to the visiting humans, I wonder how much of them you'd actually see?

How many animals in their natural environment divide their time between sleeping, reproducing and eating and when not doing one of these three simply conserve energy?

Is there a reptile house or an aquarium at Banham zoo and, if so, how did the inhabitants look? Excited? Bored?

Those of you with a dog will know how much time your pet spends flat on its back fast asleep. Does that imply boredom?

There has been the occasional thread here about street scene candid photography and how you'd feel if you came across a car crash - would you take photos or wouldn't you? Surely the same ethical consideration applies at a zoo: if you're uneasy about taking the photo you simply walk away?

How many of the animals at Banham zoo have been bred in captivity and know no other environment?

There. I don't expect everyone to like my post but I simply offer, as part of this interesting discussion, a different point of view.

Oh, and by the way, what crummy weather you had yesterday!

And, I have nothing against any ot the TP members involved - lovely people one and all. So I am not having a pop at anyone.
 
Last edited:
I guess my post will, to a point, reinforce what others have said but this is my take.

Most Zoos in the "developed" World do seem to exist for more than to allow us humans to see animals up close that we would struggle to see in the wild.

The problem is that some animals do not do well in confined spaces.

On the flip side I was at a Dolphinarium in Israel some years ago and this was on the coast with only a small gate between the dolphins and the sea. Someone asked if the dolphins had ever escaped and the staff said that they dolphins were quite capable of jumping the gate but chose not to and that in the past they had come under pressure to close (from the likes of PETA) and so had opened the gate to let the dolphins leave. The dolphins left but were all back the next day when it was feeding time!

Really, really tough dilema especially when it is our species that has done so much harm to many of these animals in the wild in the first place!
 
I think zoos are appalling.
If you cannot go, for whatever reason, to watch animals in the wild without harming them or their environment then do without.
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
Well, in first of all admitting that 1. I wasn't there yesterday, 2. have never been to Banham zoo, 3. have no connection with Banham zoo, and 4. am not qualified in animal psychology I have read all preceding posts with care and would like to offer an another suggestion.

Boredom is a human state of mind and I wonder how appropriate it is to anthropomor... whatever the word is for attaching human behavioural characteristics to animals?

Is the monkey/ape in photo 1 bored or resting? Is it perhaps curious about all those long pokey tubular things which the humans are holding up to their faces and pointing in his/her direction?

Photo 2 is super but the primate to which it belongs could be doing absolutely anything at all out of shot. It shows a paw holding onto to a cage.

Big cats and a well-worn path around the perimeter fence. In the wild, animals tend to develop paths which they use and re-use over time. Rabbits do it, badgers do it, rats do it, foxes, deer, sheep and cattle do it. The perimeter fence represents the boundary of the big cats' territory and the worn path might represent nothing more than the cats going as far as they can. Or seeing how close they can get to fresh meat on legs.

I don't know how many hectares represents the natural territory of a big cat but if they had this amount of space, with natural vegetation and cover, and without using feeding stations to draw them closer to the visiting humans, I wonder how much of them you'd actually see?

How many animals in their natural environment divide their time between sleeping, reproducing and eating and when not doing one of these three simply conserve energy?

Is there a reptile house or an aquarium at Banham zoo and, if so, how did the inhabitants look? Excited? Bored?

Those of you with a dog will know how much time your pet spends flat on its back fast asleep. Does that imply boredom?

There has been the occasional thread here about street scene candid photography and how you'd feel if you came across a car crash - would you take photos or wouldn't you? Surely the same ethical consideration applies at a zoo: if you're uneasy about taking the photo you simply walk away?

How many of the animals at Banham zoo have been bred in captivity and know no other environment?

There. I don't expect everyone to like my post but I simply offer, as part of this interesting discussion, a different point of view.

Oh, and by the way, what crummy weather you had yesterday!

And, I have nothing against any ot the TP members involved - lovely people one and all. So I am not having a pop at anyone.
Click to expand...

First up, I as the OP didn't feel for one minute that you were having a pop Tikka, my reason for posting was to open up this very discussion on zoos or more the dilemma of photography in zoos. I enjoyed your thought provoking post. As I said above, the photographs were my interpretation of how I thought the animals were feeling. I remain undecided on the point of the OP, and am thinking, as Lynton that I shan't be visiting a zoo any time soon. Thanks again for your opinions/view.

TheEngineer said:
I guess my post will, to a point, reinforce what others have said but this is my take.

Most Zoos in the "developed" World do seem to exist for more than to allow us humans to see animals up close that we would struggle to see in the wild.

The problem is that some animals do not do well in confined spaces.

On the flip side I was at a Dolphinarium in Israel some years ago and this was on the coast with only a small gate between the dolphins and the sea. Someone asked if the dolphins had ever escaped and the staff said that they dolphins were quite capable of jumping the gate but chose not to and that in the past they had come under pressure to close (from the likes of PETA) and so had opened the gate to let the dolphins leave. The dolphins left but were all back the next day when it was feeding time!

Really, really tough dilema especially when it is our species that has done so much harm to many of these animals in the wild in the first place!
Click to expand...

Thanks too for your comments TE, as I said a dilemma.

Iain
 
Many zoos are now trying to improve things for the animals. giving them stuff to play with, hiding food etc.
What you also have to ask is do these animals know any different bored or not, most are born in captivity and as has been said many won't be out there in the wild for much longer :(
Have a friend who runs a woldlife project in kenya, they have huge problems with poachers, no matter how hard they try to protect animals in the reserve, only recently they had a family of elephants wiped out, rhinos are already endangered but there's money to made in illegal sales of ivory etc so it will continue.
In another point you only have to look to the canine world too, take a dog that is badly mistreated by it's owner, if it has known no difference it still adores that person, maybe nervy and scared but it knows no different until shown love and affection in a better home.
I think we are too ready to attach human emotions to animals of all varieteis, they aren't the same as us.
There are some zoos that I find depressing but on whole many are improving vastly these days
 
This is always a bit of an ethical dilemma for me... But I do ultimately feel that by large, it is ok.
As has already been mentioned, naturally many species will spend large parts of the day resting - just due to a lack of predators and the setups, they don't hide while doing it in captivity. It is a very human idea to perceive this as boredom. Likewise with pacing - there's a fox who has made a path near the hedge in the field behind by house from pacing. That is his territory, it's natural for him to pace it regularly, so why do we expect different when it's a fence not a hedge?

I also come from a family where a few generations were gamekeepers - my great grandad for instance raised a badger cub from about a week old, who despite being free to go the next year, chose to come back each night for his life. My dad had a magpie who was a fledgling when he rescued it, old enough to be wild completely, yet chose to remain with the family instead of going free. My point is, wild animals will sometimes choose to stay "restricted" - the perception that all animals want to be completely free is inaccurate in my opinion, sometimes if they have the choice of an easier life, they will take it.


On the side of those who really do suffer in captivity, well that's a harder call. The only logical way forward is to decide if the conservation risk means we need to do something.
 
arclight said:
I think zoos are appalling.
If you cannot go, for whatever reason, to watch animals in the wild without harming them or their environment then do without.
Click to expand...

But it's nothing to do with harming animals in the wild - some zoo animals are there because they'd be extinct otherwise, and let's be honest, people want to see animals like tigers in the flesh (so to speak) without having to spend and arm and a leg going to wherever it is they reside.

If you're going to keep an animal then yes, treat it as best you can to make its life happy. But let's not get into thinking that zoos are ultimately a bad thing..... they're just not THE natural environment, no matter how much stage managing goes on....
 
Last edited:
Just want to say thanks for this thread.

I went to the evening opening at London Zoo earlier this month and was left with very similar thoughts and questions, my last visit to Regent's Park had been forty years earlier so things had changed!

I love seeing the animals and without a lottery win cannot imagine seeing any truly in the wild but felt quite uncomfortable about the limited pace available.

Think I'll be giving it a miss in future
 
The animals must have done something truly awful to deserve life imprisonment.

I lap up the wildlife programmes on the BBC, but I would not go to a zoo. I'd rather not see these magnificent animals at all than see them banged up.

I know there are breeding programmes, some of which help counteract man's destruction of the animal's habitats, but many of these have poor results. One cause of could well be the mother has not been raised with others of her kind and doesn't know how to be a mum. She's never seen what to do with the small thing that's appeared next to her. Can the captive bred creatures be successfully released into the wild? Without the knowledge gained from being brought up by wild animals who know what to do and how to do it, what chance have they got?

If the only way of seeing a snow leopard in the future is by us trying to survive in their habitat, rather than the other way around, is that such a bad thing?
 
blakester said:
First up, I as the OP didn't feel for one minute that you were having a pop Tikka, my reason for posting was to open up this very discussion on zoos or more the dilemma of photography in zoos.
<snip>
Click to expand...


You're welcome and I appreciate your response. Given that people can sometimes become dogmatic about the "rightness" of their view, I thought it better to head off any suggestion that I wanted to engage in "me right, you wrong". :thumbs:
 
I'm not a fan of animals in captivity, so I choose not to go to zoo's.

More than this though, from a photography point of view, I can't see the appeal of shooting at a zoo. When I set out to take a wildlife photo most of the pleasure comes from getting close enough or into a position to get the shot I want.

It's often a case of being in the right place at the right time & I can't claim to be Bear Grylls:naughty:, but moving from cage to cage to shoot the animals within, doesn't do it for me.

Each to they're own though, I'm not condemming those who.
 
Just to chime in here.....

A properly run zoo or conservation zoo I think is essential on a global scale. Take Colchester Zoo for example, a conservation zoo and part of the ESP. A lot of the stock bred at Colchester will go to other zoos to increase the population and raise awareness of diminishing "wild" stocks and in some cases will form the basis of back to the wild release programmes. Good example, the amur leopard. Colchester currently have 2 leopards which they hope to breed from, through mans intervention there are less around 35 in the wild classified as critically endangered. The captive leopards not only ensure the survival of the species but because of how they have been trained also allow a lot of research into the habits of leopards and medical conditions such as heart murmurs which is apparently quite common. Spotting the signs for this on a wild leopard when you can't put a stethescope and ECG on it is impertive to ensure they survive.

A lot of the activities including feeds are designed to give enrichment. They don't just put food out for the tigers at the same time every day, but will conceal the food of differing amounts at different times and make them work for it just like in the wild. The diets of all the animals are carefully calculated to ensure that they get the right nutrition for what they do, and don't get fat and lethargic. By keeping them healthy it will extend there life significantly.

Now as for animals in zoo's looking sad, not sure about this but can see why it happens - if you look at anything with human emotions expecting human attributes you won't get them. Orangutangs always look miserable because of their physical makeup, and most animals cannot smile and show happiness or contentedness in different ways. The key thing is going to be the overall condition and the long term care the animal is receiving.

Yes the red pandas always look bored, but then again they don't really do a lot in the wild and when I saw them in San Diego in a bigger enclosure, they still look bored. I think its just a panda look. The crocodiles don't do anything all day, just sit there staring at the world going by. Animals are not people and don't do people things. In response to the OP's posted images these are strong images based on human emotion and human behaviour, but don't neccesarily mean the same in the animal kingdom. As a slightly better example just think of the difference in mating practices.

So, in conclusion I don't think zoo photography as a whole is a bad thing at all, afterall we pay our money to get into the zoo which funds the zoo and on from there. Again, in response to the OP's shots (nicely composed btw) I think it portrays quite a bias view and would invite him to post some other shots taken in addition. As photographers we can to some extent control how the image can be perceived and I think it is important to remember this. Some of my best images were taken at zoos and don't portray animals looking sad, but healthy and enriched, acting as ambassadors for their species and doing their part in research to prevent extinction.
 
Very thought proking thread, as I havnt been to a zoo in many many years , its made me consider my views on this, which I hadnt before.
 
cw318is said:
Just to chime in here.....

So, in conclusion I don't think zoo photography as a whole is a bad thing at all, afterall we pay our money to get into the zoo which funds the zoo and on from there. Again, in response to the OP's shots (nicely composed btw) I think it portrays quite a bias view and would invite him to post some other shots taken in addition. As photographers we can to some extent control how the image can be perceived and I think it is important to remember this. Some of my best images were taken at zoos and don't portray animals looking sad, but healthy and enriched, acting as ambassadors for their species and doing their part in research to prevent extinction.
Click to expand...

I have selected just a small part of what was a fantastic post CW, simply to answer some of the questions posed in your last paragraph. I agree with your points but am still undecided on my feelings to the whole zoo photography genre. My images do portray a biased view but they summed up my feelings on that particular day. I don't have anything else to offer that was any different to those who attended the meet. I know I chose to pay my entry fee to the zoo and am sure this money goes toward the upkeep and care of the animals, so am buying into the argument for zoos. Perhaps it simply comes down to a lack of inspiration on my part for photography at the zoo, and wanting to capture something which is a bit different. Thats a challenge for my part and perhaps doesn't/should'nt reflect upon the zoo. This is probably at the heart of my feelings from the day. I am enjoying this thread and the views of all those who have posted, I don't think we will resolve the 'argument' for or against zoos as each 'side' have posted relevant and thought provoking views.
Regards
Iain
 
Interesting dilemma here. Personally I support the reserves, custom expansive environments that are designed to protect a species and ensure its future are really rather important for some species.

I visited the Panda reserve at Chendu in China, and the work they do there is phenomenal and they really are helping prevent the pandas from going extinct.

The zoos on the other hand are a bit of a different story, for the smaller animals they aren't quite so restrictive, but for the big cats and elephants etc you have to question the quality of life.

I hear good things about the Knowsley safari park though, so perhaps that is the way forward for captive animals.
 
Not getting into the I'm right / you're wrong mentality, though there is a wealth of scientific research from the mid 80's through to today that gives conclusive proof that many mammals, esp higher primates are capable of a variety of emotions......... including boredom.

Yes, animals in the wild generally use well worn tracks etc, however pacing around the inside of a cage is a classic sign of distress and unhappiness and that's not anthromorphising
 
There are several safari parks which give large animals a large amount of space, and I would suggest that in such places the animals have a very nice life indeed. It's not quite natural of course, but they don't have the stress of confined spaces and they have fairly normal social interaction with other animals. Two such places near me in Kent are Port Lympne and Howletts.

Looking at the valuable conservation and educational work which such places perform, I can't see any ethical problem at all in supporting them.
 
arclight said:
I think zoos are appalling.
If you cannot go, for whatever reason, to watch animals in the wild without harming them or their environment then do without.
Click to expand...

Have you actually considered the problems that would occur if it were not for zoos?

Lets start with how many species would no longer be here, or even closer to extinction. How much less we would know about animals. Or, even worse, how much damage they take away from the habitats of the animals in the wild!

If it wasn't for zoo's traffic on safari's etc would be a lot higher causing more grief and putting more animals at risk.

Also, lets not forget places like Monkey World, which is effectively a specialist zoo, that do a lot of good rescuing animals.
 
Stratman said:
I know there are breeding programmes, some of which help counteract man's destruction of the animal's habitats, but many of these have poor results. One cause of could well be the mother has not been raised with others of her kind and doesn't know how to be a mum. She's never seen what to do with the small thing that's appeared next to her. Can the captive bred creatures be successfully released into the wild? Without the knowledge gained from being brought up by wild animals who know what to do and how to do it, what chance have they got?
Click to expand...

There have been many succesfully reintroduction programmes of captive bred animals. That have gone on to rear there own young, a few that come to mind now are Black Rhino and Scimitar-horned oryx.

There are more but as am not sure on spellings I've not posted but will do later if you want a longer list, there are also countless number of bird and reptile species that are captive bred that have be reintroduced and become thriving wild populations and zoos have helped in most of these cases.

I also have to add that in 10-15 years time I wouldn't be surprised if we have the first birth of a captive bred gorilla that has be reintroduced to the wild. While you may say it cheating I say it showns the state of the world, these gorillas have had the help from wild orpaned gorillas but just shows that we need to do something to help save them, zoos can play a role.
 
DazJW said:
You're working on the presumption that the animal wouldn't sit around bored at any time in the wild
Click to expand...
I was going to say this and little else.
Have only been to a zoo/park about 3 times in my younger days and none in the last 20 plus. I'm 'sure' they do good work in some way and are not just there to fulfill this insane 'right' some British people believe we have to see them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top