THE
ZOO OUTSIDER'S response to
in turn a response to
Which was actually a response to
As ever,
these are just my two pennies worth, or 200 as the case may be. I
read this response and at first though I would not say anything at
all, but then as time passed I felt it an injustice to those in my
industry and the hard work they do to NOT stand up and speak out. You
might want to grab a pot of tea or something, we might be here a
while... Anyway, here goes...
1. All zoos are
created equal.
Does the author think for
one moment that human philosophy has any bearing to an animal, it's
easily as irrelevant to them as emotion is.
Firstly lets look at
the basic definition of philosophy.
“Philosophy is
distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its
critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational
argument.”
Secondly, lets then
look at how in the preceding post we see continual neglect to
acknowledge the many undeniably positive and constructive aspects of
zoos, a systematic and rational approach indeed.
An opinion coming from
such an unbalanced view can only be by extension, emotionally biased.
I'd be interested to
see where the author and their cohort draw the line on what
“captivity” actually is, In some zoos I've seen huge (and I mean
huge) stimulating exhibits which border on the size of some of the
smaller African game reserves I've visited and in some parts of
Africa these reserves are about a “wild” as it gets. By that
reasoning, if we build bigger enclosures in zoos add a few carnivores
into the mix and stop feeding everything, they will feel more
comfortable with the idea? Indeed if you were to feed a lot of
animals in the wild, their natural ranges would significantly reduce
as they rely upon that feeding, which is an entirely natural and
voluntary response. There's a blackbird in my garden who barely
leaves as he has everything he needs there, if I were to net over my
garden, some might see him in captivity, but what would he see?
Nothing, in fact his life would change very little if at all.
All zoos are Equal: Compare this to some east Asian zoos, I dare you to try.
2. Sanctuary =
Amazeballs! Zoos = Internment Camp
Captivity is
unacceptable according to the previous point, so sanctuaries should
be a contradiction in themselves, if the author finds them acceptable
because they rescue an individual from peril, why can they not find
rescuing entire species from peril equally acceptable in a zoo
setting? The individual had poor care where it was, it was removed
for its own sake and cared for with the hopes of rectifying the
problems. The exact same logic can be applied to a species as a
whole, granted they are not being neglected or abused, but their
supporting habitats are, and for this reason sustainable populations
are necessary in the hopes that those issues can be resolved. In that
respect sanctuaries and zoos are doing the same things, just on
different levels.
3. What I feel
is what the animal feels.
Stereotyping can often
be open to interpretation as much as an animals facial expression
can, some animals pace when they are anticipating food, in the same
fashion that a dog jumps up excitedly when it is about to be fed, or
a cat meows incessantly when anticipating feeding. It doesn't always
equate to repetitive behaviours = ZOOCHOSIS. It would be foolish to
try and suggest that stereotypes don't exist, but I can assure you
that in the zoo industry they are considered just as concerning as
they would be by any onlooker and can often be easily rectified by
changes in schedule, enrichment or a multitude of other methods that
good zoos work very hard to apply on a daily basis, this is done not
to impress anyone, not to fight any corners, not to attract any
guests or to make any money, it is purely for the animals sake and
can often lead to massive discoveries and improvements in captive
welfare.
Real sterotypical behaviour in really appalling conditions, there's little comparison.
Just look at the level of scientific observation here, absoluteley no emotionally guided anthropomorphic judgements going on at all, not even one. Actually how does a fish look when it's sad? Do they all smile in the wild? do their eyes sparkle with delight? Answers on a postcard.
4. Changing a
picture to black and white, cropping a picture so only a single
animal is shown, and taking a picture during the winter are all fair
and accurate portrayals of zoos.*Bonus if you can somehow have Sarah
McLachlan music in the background*
The difference here is
that a negative anti - photo insinuates something bad where there may
not be anything via psychological manipulation of the viewer, where
the positive one simply shows animals behaving nicely, unless you're
trying to suggest the animals are being forced to behave normally, or
maybe zoos are photoshopping the stimulation in there somehow.
5. Zookeepers
are nothing more than glorified prison guards.
Simple propaganda and
reverse psychology.
A clever attempt to try
and get good keepers to sympathise with your views at the same time
justifying them. Not much else to say there except the author would
be happy to see all these good hard working professionals out of a
job and away from the life they live and breathe in a heartbeat. Not
aimed at anyone in particular no, just all of you. Forever.
6. Zoos are
irrelevant because you can learn about animals in books and from the
internet
The author has
typically chosen topics which are impossible to witness in person.
Seeing, hearing and witnessing are fundamental aspects of learning,
stimuli taken in from live animals is the very core of what attracts
us all to them. Space and dinosaurs are not in need of active
conservation and a sense of collective responsibility in all who
visit. Do all children interested in space and dinosaurs become
astrophysicists and palaeontologists? If they could see dinosaurs or
visit space, would it be right to deny them that experience? How
might such an experience affect their respect for these topics?
Seeing a Tyrannosaurus rex in a book = seeing a Tyrannosaurus rex in
the flesh, I know which one might instil more respect.
Lack of evidence does
NOT constitute a conclusion, it insinuates that further research
needs to be done to come to a conclusion. A jehovah's witness can
give out leaflets on a street corner, and have no evidence that any
of those leaflets have been effective, it does not mean, however,
that he has not had an effect on those people.
Why go to the length of building these when you could have just handed them a book?
7. It's okay to
own a pet and be a hypocrite
Many domestic animals
are still partly inappropriate as pets, a dog for example, still
needs to be walked, still loves to run and roll in mud, dig, interact
with other dogs and behave as if it were a wild animal and to some
extent this behaviour is preferable to being in the artificial
environment of the modern home. Domestication in the sense the author
implies would mean that domestics should be completely happy with
their lot within the home, but still, after thousands of years of
line breeding, a majority of dogs still prefer to behave this way,
not unlike a wild animal. The behavioural problems the author
mentions could well be rooted in such a situation. On a philosophical level does domestication not represent a type of mental supression rather than a physical one?
The new guinea singing dog, like the dingo, once domesticated, now feral, returned quickly to its wild roots, indicating that domestication may not be quite as stable and long term as we think.
8. Animals in zoos would be better off if
they were freed into the wild
9. Habitat destruction has halted AND
fixed itself AND poachers no longer exist
To think that all
species can be blanket covered by the “they wont survive in the
wild” line is naïve, some species do very well as re-release
species and on the flip-side some do terribly, but this does not mean
they always will, release techniques have come a long way and will
continue to do so, something that cannot be released now, may be
releasable in future with more research. The problem here is that
because anti-zoo people wish to see the end of zoos, they don not
consider the positive future of zoos beyond the current moment and so
wont see the future context. The author also fails to acknowledge the
many species which have become extinct in the wild and have been
returned successfully or at present remain extinct in the wild.
Mr. Oryx, zoos don't work!, I guess that kinda makes you extinct. Sorry about that one.
10. To help the
animals we must boycott zoos!
To compare zoos to
circuses is unfair (if not rather predictable) when did anyone last
hear of a circus showing interest in the conservation status of wild
animals? When have circuses contributed thousands of pounds to
conservation projects or better still founded them?? Can't say I've
heard of that happening. The evolution of zoos over the last 50+
years has come on leaps and bounds animals which used to not survive
in captivity can now be kept very well and so much has been learned
about these animals (if not out of a wild context) from a veterinary
perspective especially, which can be directly applied to in-situ
conservation efforts.
I feel the authors last
points highlight how skewed and biased the stance is, they present it
cleverly to create the illusion of a rational equal approach to the
subject, but in reality little has been considered outside of the
authors own view and agenda and it shows. They have clearly taken a
lot of time thinking about the downfall of zoos, which considering
the contributions zoos make (which are huge compared to any of the
tiny contributions we as individuals could hope to give) is quite
sad, I feel such passion and effort could be better spent on fighting
the real menaces to the animal world, the big corporations,
underground poaching and trophy hunting to name a few. The zoo
industry and the people within freely consider and evaluate the
concerns of many people on a daily basis, looking at all available
and reasonable options, that's how constant improvement has been made
over the past decades and will continue to be made in the decades to
come as the world moves further into an industrialised and rather
bleak future for some species.
Maybe instead of going
out to the zoo, they should stay in and read a book about animals or
possibly try a theme park, enjoying a day of non-educational,
unconnected fun and contribute absolutely nothing to any conservation
effort anywhere and fill themselves up with fatty junk foods
saturated with palm oil, a sure fire way to ensure a healthy respect
for nature in our future generations.
Real shameful actual abuse, going on every day all over the world.
There are people out
there right now doing hideous things to the species we ALL know and
love, anti zoo people need to look at what we have in common rather
than sitting back taking easy pot-shots at the zoos when in reality
we all want the same things, Imagine if all the zoo antis put the
same amount of time and effort into anti poaching, deforestation and conservation projects,
we might all be getting where we want to be a lot quicker.
Just my 2 pennies,
Good day.
