Zoo's good or bad?

might be easier if they made it a regular PDF not an annoying page slider thing.... cant copy and paste from it if you wanted to do analysis and overall its just annoying. hate things like this.
 
dan_yell said:
might be easier if they made it a regular PDF not an annoying page slider thing.... cant copy and paste from it if you wanted to do analysis and overall its just annoying. hate things like this.
Click to expand...

So, that's a "no" then :LOL:
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/steve-backshall/zoo-animal-welfare_b_7987394.html

Steve Backshall

For the last seven years, I've spent a portion of the school holidays doing live shows at some of the nation's best-known zoos. The shows attract thousands, mostly families with younger kids, and most leave with big smiles on their faces. I do however every year receive a number of messages that go something like this: "You're a massive hypocrite. You claim to be a conservationist, to care about wild animals, and yet you endorse institutions that keep these noble beasts imprisoned behind bars." My stance on this criticism - for which I have a certain amount of sympathy - is rather too complex to get across in 140 characters or less, so I decided to offer a more considered response to the ethics of keeping wild animals in captivity.

The first thing I have to say is - deep breath - I do support zoos. Admittedly with reservations, and with dreams of how they could be better, but sixteen years working in wildlife media has convinced me that they have an essential role to play in the healthy future of our planet. Much of my conversion dates back to a night I had drinking Guinness in a distant Scottish pub with Terry Nutkins.

Sadly no longer with us, Terry was the man best known for the stumpy fingers he had bitten off by otters, for breaking down on a major motorway with a sea lion in the back of his van, and was the driving force behind the Really Wild Show (a kid's wildlife series that ended up running for 20 years). Terry gave his whole life to the good of wildlife, and ended up living in the most remote part of Scotland in glorious wilderness... but grew up in the middle of London, to parents who knew and cared nothing for nature. He gained all of his inspiration from climbing over the wall into London Zoo and gazing at the elephants. Despite spending the next sixty years filming and living with animals in the wild, he still looked back on the zoo as the place that changed his life. And I see kids like Terry every hour when I'm doing my zoo talks; youngsters fired with a zeal that will become a life's passion. Young people particularly get enthused by what they can see, smell, touch and feel. A lion on the telly is OK, but a real lion is something else entirely.

Many zoo critics will say '"we took the children to the Masai Mara, and that's how wildlife should be - living free in their natural environment". Fair enough. As a naturalist, I'd rather find an obscure cockroach in the wild, than see a snow leopard in captivity, but then my life has been absurdly privileged. I had parents who used their concessionary air travel to take my sister and me round the world from an early age. We went on our first safari when I was probably six years old. We grew up on a smallholding surrounded by animals and wild land. I had their knowledge and passion to show me the way, and have spent the entirety of my adult life in the world's wildest places filming and finding wildlife. My life is a one in a billion privilege, and for someone with that privilege to snub the zoos that provide a taste of those experiences to the multitudes would be stratospherically unjust.

There are obviously caveats. There are private zoos which keep scores of big cats. Places like SeaWorld where sentient cetaceans are made to perform cheap tricks for our entertainment, and vile concrete and chicken wire prisons where some of the world's most majestic beasts pace back and forth across inadequate pens in tortured stress. I've seen many of those in developing countries that haunt my nightmares. But our best zoos are now at the forefront of animal welfare and conservation awareness. When I was a kid, zoo enclosures had notices alongside that identified an animal, said where it comes from and what it eats. Now there will also be a display noting their conservation status, the threats that face them, and in the best institutions, things you can personally do to make a difference.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium, where I am spending my summer filming for the BBC, is one such place. The 1.8million people that pass through their doors every year are all treated to a phantasmagoria of information, presented through art, interactivity and divine displays, which give them the knowledge and the tools to save our ailing oceans. Everyone leaves a little smarter, a little better informed, a lot inspired. In the ZSL institutions I worked with, a portion of the money gained from watching animals like pygmy hippos and elephants goes to protecting those same species in the wild; in some cases their efforts are the crux battlements that could prevent extinctions of all manner of beasts, from Chinese giant salamanders to pangolins. These places are empowering, and you leave with determination to go out and make a difference. I'm sure we've all seen a kid who's got a bee in their bonnet about a cause - they can make big waves, even changing lifelong habits of their parents!

Correct management starts with choosing the right animals to stock exhibits with, and this is all information that is well-known. A classic example found in many aquariums worldwide is that the shark of choice is the ragged tooth or grey nurse shark. They are one of the few species that hang out in groups, that keep to a limited home range, and thus seem to do better in captivity than pelagic species that range for hundreds of miles and find conflict with others of their kind. We know which animals do well in captivity and which do not. My dream zoo is dominated with invertebrates and reptiles that visitors can actually interact with. Many of these have simple needs of food and temperature, and if those are met, they can live as happily - if not more so - than in the wild. Other more intelligent animals have large enclosures that allow them to roam over decent distances, with correct social groupings, and considered 'enrichment' to assure they don't get stressed or bored. We would have more native species, with information and advice for how those animals can be seen in our own backyards, converting little naturalists by the million.

I've now been to 105 countries around the world, and over the last two decades seen changes that make my head spin. Wildlife is in big trouble. For example, three out of five species of rhino are critically endangered; the Western black gone, Javan and Sumatran rhinos probably functionally extinct. We've gone from half a million to a few thousand rhinos left in the blink of an eye. While those left in the wild are ludicrously precious, the rhinos that are in zoos (which were bred there, born there and cannot ever be released into the wild) are of disproportionate importance to their kind. And I'm not talking about 'captive breeding programmes', which in many cases are really breeding programmes for animals in captivity, and can offer little to the genetic diversity of animals in the wild. I'm talking about the power those individuals have to inspire and excite the next generation. The pragmatist in me says the captivity of certain animals is essential. And of course they would be better in the wild, but we are past such naïve idealism now.

The future of most wild animals is in human hands, and if a few can benefit the many, then I believe that is the path we have to take. We need rich folk going to zoos, falling in love with a beautiful rhino and then reading the sign alongside that says why they're nearly gone... then deciding not to have a cocktail with powdered rhino horn in it. We need young naturalists moved to tears by the thought that the gibbon swinging around their ears may not have a home left in the wild - unless they do something about it. Our planet needs the next Goodall, the next Attenborough, the next Nutkins. So I don't know about you, but I'm going to the zoo.
 
@nickEnackEnoo I have a lot of time for Steve Backshall, he's a great guy and I've been to watch him speak a few times. I can't argue that zoos are useful because they engage the public that otherwise may not know the plight of animals. I'm sure zoos play a big role in the current model of conservation but my point has been and still is that they keep certain animals captive for the benefit of others. So the question is still, why should the animals in zoos have to suffer to save their wild relatives? Does a tiger in a zoo care about the future of other tigers that it doesn't even know exist? Or a polar bear? I know I wouldn't want to be held captive to help the future of people I've never met and don't even know exist.

I said it a lot further back in the thread but the crux of the matter is that animal rights activists such as myself care about the individual and the conservationists care about the species as a whole. If the current model continues, this will always be the problem. I don't have a solution to this but luckily it's not my job to think of one.
 
htid said:
I said it a lot further back in the thread but the crux of the matter is that animal rights activists such as myself care about the individual and the conservationists care about the species as a whole.
Click to expand...
I can understand your thinking on this, but lets just take the fugly Rhino, that no one loves because they are not cute and cuddley.
Last year 1125 Rhinos were shot and killed by poachers.
The Rhino's in zoo's are safe, they get medical treatment if required, shelter for the night, they don't have to travel hundreds of miles following the rain falls looking for food,
as that's supplied ad lib.
They don't have to fight and risk injury for a mate or territory...
Most wild animals are inherently lazy, only expending the minimum energy to find food, its no point in calorific out put in search of food, being greater than gained by finding food


I know where I'd rather be..
 
But who is to say that these animals in zoo's "suffer"

Yes there are some terrible zoo's in developing countries, but all the zoo's i have been to in this country appear to have healthy/happy animals, and by that i mean that non of these look malnourished or overweight, they all appear to have decent healthy skin/fur/hair etc

And i know you don't agree with keeping pets @htid , but like most domestic house pets, who are born into "captivity", they do not know any different

We currently have 9 cats in our house (long story, but our recent addition was pregnant, unknowingly to us at the time) and they are all very lively and happy/loving cats, are you saying for them to have a happier, more natural life, we should kick them out and lock the door?
 
Last edited:
Maybe the title of the thread should be Zoo's good or bad, for animals or individuals?
 
Cobra said:
I can understand your thinking on this, but lets just take the fugly Rhino, that no one loves because they are not cute and cuddley.
Last year 1125 Rhinos were shot and killed by poachers.
The Rhino's in zoo's are safe, they get medical treatment if required, shelter for the night, they don't have to travel hundreds of miles following the rain falls looking for food,
as that's supplied ad lib.
I know where I'd rather be..
Click to expand...

and guards to if I remember rightly from a talk at Whipsande.
Due to the lack of available rhino's in the wild, poachers are now targeting the captive zoo animals and
even museums displays
 
So, a couple of Lions were shot recently in a Zoo, because a man with mental issues wanted to commit suicide.
A Gorilla was also shot, because a child's parents were nt keeping an eye on him.

Thoughts anyone?
 
in the lions case the keepers had no choice - but the man shouldnt have been able to get into the enclosure anyway

in the gorillas case there was no need to shoot it ...reports that it was dragging the child arround the enclosure turn out to be false... in a similar incident at Jersey 20 or so years ago the keepers simply climbed into the gorrila enclosure and ushered the gorilla away from the child before climbing out with it ..

either way these are individual cases and don't really lend themselves to generalisation (lions and gorillas are also shot in the wild with fargreater regularity, so any "if it hadnt been in captivity it wouldnt have been shot" argument is flawed)
 
Last edited:
The situation reminded me of Jambo at Jersey zoo who actually appeared to protect the child that fell in. For that reason, i expected the same protective behaviour in this gorilla - i don't know if Jambo was a one off or if its part of their behaviour, i dont know anything about their character traits.

lots of people passing judgement on the mother, im not a parents so dont feel i have any right to do so, but she has said that 'God' protected her child which i feel is unlikely. If i were the kid i will feel terrible that my actions caused this, maybe not as a 4 yr old but once older.

i dont know anything about the lion situation.
 
@big soft moose have you see the video of the latest gorilla situation - technically he was dragging the kid around but not in an aggressive way, seemed spurred on when people were screaming and agitating him.the boy has no injuries so prob just the same way would carry its own young to safety if threatened. Watched the video of the Jersey incident yesterday and aside from Jambo, one other gorilla did get territorial about the humans getting in and it was more than just 'ushering' i think. I think if the kid hadnt started crying Jambo would have stayed with him longer as he seemed scared it that.
 
My friend Gary Clarke was one of the keepers involved at jersey - hes the lad with the dodgy hair cut who gets lowered down the wall , and his take was that the kid was never in any real danger as the gorillas basically saw it as a small injured primate and wanted to take care of it ... the same probably applied at cincinatti
 
He was dragging the child, first by the foot, then by the arm, however they do that with their own young when they don't "do as they're told".
He also held the boy's hand, and rubbed his back.
There was no need to kill him IMHO
Yanks....Always too quick to pull a trigger.
 
viv1969 said:
He was dragging the child, first by the foot, then by the arm, however they do that with their own young when they don't "do as they're told".
He also held the boy's hand, and rubbed his back.
There was no need to kill him IMHO
Yanks....Always too quick to pull a trigger.
Click to expand...

Indeed, i think it is more an indication of the "American way" than an indication of whether Zoo's are good or bad
 
big soft moose said:
My friend Gary Clarke was one of the keepers involved at jersey - hes the lad with the dodgy hair cut who gets lowered down the wall , and his take was that the kid was never in any real danger as the gorillas basically saw it as a small injured primate and wanted to take care of it ... the same probably applied at cincinatti
Click to expand...

oh really - that's how i saw it too. so no into zoos these days but still look upon Jersey with affection. in relation to the fb post fabs has shared, looks like jersey were up to speed/ahead of the times when it came to type of enclosure (open, not cage) for the gorillas (altho obv changes were needed in light of 1986)

@rpsmith79 yeah not really a clear cut 'good or bad' for zoos - more of a why child was unattended, why react in that way, etc.

@fabs - interesting, thanks for sharing.
 
Last edited:
if you go to dartmoor - which is open fronted on bears, wolves and tigers (oh my) .. hardly a visit passes without some numpty sitting little Jonny or Janey on the wall to 'get a better view'
 
It really is a case of the zoos being damned whatever they did in both cases.
The child may not have been in danger, but if he was injured everyone would be shouting loudly because the zoo hadn't taken action.
A sad situation, but I think anyone with kids will understand that you can't always guarantee you have them under close control,
it only takes a second and they are doing what you have told them not too, part of the learning curve. and occasionally it leads to this sort
of tragedy.
 
Wouldn't it be lovely though, if parents occasionally admitted that themselves in these extreme cases, and took a little of the responsibility?
 
viv1969 said:
Wouldn't it be lovely though, if parents occasionally admitted that themselves in these extreme cases, and took a little of the responsibility?
Click to expand...

Not sure if you have children, but I'm sure if you did you can say you've never ever had them out of your sight for a few seconds.. :runaway:
 
BennyBoo said:
Not sure if you have children, but I'm sure if you did you can say you've never ever had them out of your sight for a few seconds.. :runaway:
Click to expand...

I have 2 now grown up, kids can be so unpredictable, there one minute and gone the next, more eye witness statements are coming out now that seem to indicate this
was the case here, despite the mother telling the lad to keep away, and it seems je was seriously injured but not life threatening, it doesn't say exactly how yet.
Again as parents, we do have a responsibility but how many times have you had disapproving looks when you do try to restrain a child and it starts screaming :mad:
I agree we should keep them under control but it ain't that easy as you obviously know
 
BennyBoo said:
Not sure if you have children, but I'm sure if you did you can say you've never ever had them out of your sight for a few seconds.. :runaway:
Click to expand...

Now read back carefully.
I never said they couldn't escape sight for a while, did I?
But losing sight of them for however brief a time doesn't make a zoo a bad zoo; nor does it make them culpable for an event such as this, but you can bet your arse a law suit will follow.
 
Other people's disapproving glances shouldn't affect the way a person handles their own children.
 
viv1969 said:
Other people's disapproving glances shouldn't affect the way a person handles their own children.
Click to expand...

As I said previously about the zoo, parents are in the same situation, damned if you do- damned if you don't.
When a tragic accident happens people always look for someone to blame and this is exactly what this was
unlike the lions earlier which was a deliberate act and cost the lions their lives.
 
Gremlin said:
As I said previously about the zoo, parents are in the same situation, damned if you do- damned if you don't.
When a tragic accident happens people always look for someone to blame and this is exactly what this was
unlike the lions earlier which was a deliberate act and cost the lions their lives.
Click to expand...
Yes that one was a bugger too :(
 
viv1969 said:
Now read back carefully.
I never said they couldn't escape sight for a while, did I?
But losing sight of them for however brief a time doesn't make a zoo a bad zoo; nor does it make them culpable for an event such as this, but you can bet your arse a law suit will follow.
Click to expand...
No no, honestly I'm not having a go.

I just meant that no person let alone a parent in the right mind would accept any responsibility for this event..

Won't admit their fault on losing sight for a millisecond of the child

Won't admit they had to fight for ages to break through the barrier

And will not accept responsibility for the death of the primate.


In my view the Zoo was at fault.

It all comes down to the protection / barriers in place to restrict access.

Parents are not to blame and the person taking the decision to shoot the primate was not to blame.

There's a fine line between restricting access and giving the public a good view.
 
Well, I disagree.
I don't see fault in the part of the zoo.
Their enclosures look sound.
Completely caging the enclosures isn't necessary just because parents abdicate some responsibility.
 
Tis a tragedy for all concerned, that's for sure, its a real pity that they took the decision to shoot the silver back, but at least the kid survived.
The zoo's obviously have a duty of care towards the paying public, and I'm sure they would have passed rigorous scrutineering to get a licence to operate.
But you can't legislate / regulate against idiots or people with no respect of the rules.

It seems the lad was 3 years old, I would have hoped that the parents would have had more control over someone that age,
Both mine were kept on a tight rein ( in all senses of the the word) at that age, I certainly wouldn't let them wander, in any area that constituted a risk, at that age.
Maybe I was too hard on then when they were younger, and no doubt "modern day" parents would probably say I was, but they both grew up to be well rounded adults.
 
Cobra said:
Tis a tragedy for all concerned, that's for sure, its a real pity that they took the decision to shoot the silver back, but at least the kid survived.
The zoo's obviously have a duty of care towards the paying public, and I'm sure they would have passed rigorous scrutineering to get a licence to operate.
But you can't legislate / regulate against idiots or people with no respect of the rules.

It seems the lad was 3 years old, I would have hoped that the parents would have had more control over someone that age,
Both mine were kept on a tight rein ( in all senses of the the word) at that age, I certainly wouldn't let them wander, in any area that constituted a risk, at that age.
Maybe I was too hard on then when they were younger, and no doubt "modern day" parents would probably say I was, but they both grew up to be well rounded adults.
Click to expand...

I was told I was too strict with mine, and things were different when they were young, but with the best will in the world there were still moments when things happened,
zoos were totally different places, no open views so less chance for something like this to happen, safari parks yes but then child locks were used and kids safely in the back.

It's hard to apportion blame when you didn't witness what happened in the moments leading up to the event, there are eyewitnesses saying that moments before the child
was holding onto it's mum the just shot off through the pyacantha bushes before she realised, would take a very determined 3yo to go through a thorn bush, seems he was intent
on getting to the water if what is being said by witnesses is true, despite his mother telling him not to
 
dan_yell said:
I had reigns as a child :)
Click to expand...

I don't have kids of my own (at least, non that i know of), but when we take our nieces out, they always go on reigns, especially when going to places like the Zoo, or anywhere there are large expanses of water
 
big soft moose said:
if you go to dartmoor - which is open fronted on bears, wolves and tigers (oh my) .. hardly a visit passes without some numpty sitting little Jonny or Janey on the wall to 'get a better view'
Click to expand...

All too true. On the day before the Cincinnati Zoo incident we visited DZP and a stupid woman stood her toddler on the tiger wall while she fished around in her handbag for her phone to get a snap of him. When we told her she was being stupid, she got her arse in her hands and whinged to hubby that we had been nasty to her so he came over and had a chat. He was rather apologetic when he was told the truth about his wife's real behaviour (seems she hadn't told him that she wasn't actually watching little Tommy tiger-snack...)
 
big soft moose said:
in the gorillas case there was no need to shoot it ...reports that it was dragging the child arround the enclosure turn out to be false...
Click to expand...
...turned out to be true actually. The kid was lucky to be alive, undrowned and with all limbs still attached : but I guess the latest video clip releases were held back by squeamish broadcasters until now.
The kid was lucky to be alive : although unlucky to have brain-dead morons for parents. Did they actually drop him into the pen, how else could a toddler get inside?
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
...turned out to be true actually. The kid was lucky to be alive, undrowned and with all limbs still attached : but I guess the latest video clip releases were held back by squeamish broadcasters until now.
The kid was lucky to be alive : although unlucky to have brain-dead morons for parents. Did they actually drop him into the pen, how else could a toddler get inside?
Click to expand...

Four years old isn't a toddler.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
...turned out to be true actually. The kid was lucky to be alive, undrowned and with all limbs still attached : but I guess the latest video clip releases were held back by squeamish broadcasters until now.
The kid was lucky to be alive : although unlucky to have brain-dead morons for parents. Did they actually drop him into the pen, how else could a toddler get inside?
Click to expand...

No the fencing was inadequate and has now been changed

Pictures with report of changes being made

seems to be changing views on the age of the child but what ever I find it somewhat harsh to call the parents brain dead morons
presumably if you have kids you have never taken you eyes off them for a moment ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top