to not want to go to the zoo?

[MilaV]

I find it depressing, animals have so little space. None of my friends seem to share my views, they keep insisting we go (the ones with children as well as the ones who don't - zoo lates have become so popular). I don't wat to point it out or say anything not to look preachy. But seriously, do people not think about this??? I feel so bad every time I see an ad on the tube (that penguin beach, or any other photoshopped image showing the animals having "fun"). Life in zoos for animals is terrible :(

Epiphany: but surely zoos are not the only way to do such conservation work?

No, they're not, absolutely. But they are an option. That's how they should be looked at. Zoos exist for historical reasons, mainly to do with people gawping at animals. But instead of judging them by that, we should be judging them by what they have to offer now.

So an animal that might be coming under threat now can have access to a range of options (or rather the people trying to 'save' it can). Are reserves the way forward? Can they be protected? Captive breeding in the animal's own country? In which case would it be useful to send someone over from a zoo, who has expreience working with a range or similar animals, to get things going? Or captive breeding in a zoo somewhere because local resources aren't suitable? Most people now, including those in zoos, would not want to see species brought into captivity now. But sometimes it's necessary - like when a volcano errupted in Montserrat in the Caribbean and the Montserrat Oriole, needed rescuing (the population had been declining for ages due to habitat destruction by humans, the volcano just pushed it over the edge). Establishing a breeding programme in zoos in the UK was essential as trying to do anything on an ash covered island with an active volcanp wasn't an option.

newnameforamoment - your post was throughly interesting to read, its nice to have a real inside view of what zoo's really do provide. I am very much in the camp that i would prefer animals alive in a zoo then extinct in the wild. Thank you

Yes it was interesting to read an insider's view. I do believe that many of the people working in zoos do care deeply about animals and conservation, and do give much thought to all the complex ethical issues.

It's a fundamental feature of zoos though that they are open to the public. I wonder if they weren't, how would that change the way they operate (assuming the same funds available). Of course I know the reason it's this way - it's necessary because that's where their income comes from. I don't know if it would be feasible for it to come from somewhere else? It wouldn't even need to be as much, because surely they spend a lot on the 'visitor experience' itself, not to mention the insurance etc they must need for inviting the public in. I just wonder how many things would be done differently, if there wasn't the need to put on a display. Are some of the animals just there to help draw in visitors, so their money can help pay for work on other projects/species?

Sorry, these are just rambling thought. But certainly I'd rather just make a donation and not go, than potentially cause stress to the animals with my presence. I don't need to see them to care about them. I do give all I can to other animal causes (dog rescue), and don't expect to get anything or see anything in return. And it's not just potential stress, but whether we're fostering a general attitude of animals as being there for our entertainment and use.

No worries!

I don't think many people realise the scope of work now that goes on inside a decent zoo. Most zoos don't breed for release into the wild any more - dangers of disease transmission etc make it an unfavourable option, but there are so many other ways they can contribute, and should be contributing. Not all do, obviously, and they need to start.

If you go to a zoo and see a cute animal that isn't endangered, it's there to pay for another, probably less cute, animal that is. The otters at Durrell, for example, through an adoption scheme, generated something like 4 times the amount of money they cost to keep. That money can then go back into funding work to try and understand a fungal disease that is wiping out frogs and toads across the world - but which doesn't 'sell' as well as a cute otter. Because of the otter playing in her pool at Durrell, the mountain chicken (a huge brown frog) has a chance at a future. Very few people donate direct to it's conservation though - it's not attractive enough - and no-one would pay to come and see it on it's own at the zoo.

As long as you stick to those animals which don't suffer especially by being in a zoo (like meerkats), I don't have a problem with this. I do have a problem with cetaceans, for example, and think you would have to put forward an extremely compelling case to justify keeping them in captivity.

I also think, once there, you are duty bound to provide the animal, any animal, with a good life. That includes an area which allows them to carry out natural behaviour (water for swimming, sand for digging, branches for climbing etc), some measure of privacy if they need it, and a range of interesting ways to 'find' their food - so at Durrell, a lot of time is spent hiding food either in the enclosures or in 'toys' or devices that can be thrown in for the animals to explore and shred! And shows, demonstrating unnatural behaviours, should be off limits. (Those that take the chance to show something the animal does naturally, I think, need to be discussed further).

The problem is that much of this work is either behind the scenes or taking place in another country, so it is easy to assume that all that goes on is people gawping at cute animals.

Ephiphany - money coming from somewhere else would be nice, and zoos spend a lot of time chasing money from grants, corporate sponsors etc. Mostly, it isn't enough. And yes, money is spent on visitors. The thing about visitors is it's an ongoing source of money (not just entrance but secondary spend in places like shops and cafes, and donations that people feel moved to make while they are there, not to mention those who take out memberships or adoptions, or leave legacies based on a visit). And there is an education argument. I think, judging from my experience of people at zoos, many people can be persauded into caring about an animal and it's conservatino only when they can see it for themselves. A sad fact, but there it is. Many zoos have off show areas where you can put animals that are sensitive, whether that is selected individuals or whole species. So at Durrell, only about a third of the reptiles and amphibians were on show.

I would agree there is a risk of the wrong attitude being fostered but I think it's part of a wider problem. For example, if you see an advert featuring an animal (eg a monkey), I think that's an even worse message than seeing it in an approximation of it's own habitat doing it's own thing. Done right, zoos can help to balance it slightly rather than contribute. So allowing the animals space to hide, and teaching visitors to accept that the animal may not be on show, for example, can shift the focus from people have the right to see the animal because they have paid, to accepting that if the animal is on show, it's there because it doesn't mind sharing part of it's life with the onlookers! not an easy balance and one which even the best zoos can get wrong but still one that most of the keepers I know try desperately to achieve.

yanbu, people don't really think zoos are around for anyone but their own bebefit do they? animals need space and appropriate climate.

Great post newnameforamoment And very informative.

we went to Dudley zoo last week

I do remember the chair lift! bloody death trap, I remember frantically trying to get on/off aged about 6

now, it's quite odd. Overall it is a good zoo, with walk through massive enclosures for lemurs, monkeys/wallabies

but still the dreadful old 1970s enclosure for the sealion/ penguins and the giraffes also have a very small enclosure.
theyve invested hundreds of thousands in monkeys, and the lions,tiger bear and chimps are wonderful. just the poor sealions letting it down really.

dont forget to take cash for the fair... £1 a ride. quite nice day out all-in-all
*wear comfy shoes, you forget it's all up and down hills,
the castle keep is also fun to climb great views

So hear your animal cry OP. I remember going to the zoo some 30 years ago and HATING the conditions the animals were kept. Was dragged by the IL last year to some friggin new age conservation centre- Oddly enough I still saw animals living in conditions that where at odds to their natural lifestyle.

When I object to the suggestion that my son be brought to the circus- I'm accused of being different for the sake of it. (note- must tell ILs to fvck off ).

Your child, your rules DNBU.

Thank you to newnameforamoment for her posts- very informative.

A few weeks ago I visited Jurong Bird Park and while some enclosures were fantastic (like the lorikeet loft which you walk through) others were far too small. The eagles could only fly a few feet as their cage was so small.

Usually Singapore do a pretty good job with regard to looking after the animals in their care, but I think the polar bear, dolphins and eagles have been let down and should not be here or should have much better accommodation.

I think that you should go to Durrell wildlife park in Jersey. The animals I managed to find (they are pretty good at hiding) looked in very good shape.

newnameforamoment your posts are brilliant.

I remember reading a Gerald Durrell book that pointed out that a) People tend to anthropomorphise animals in zoos ("I know how I'd feel in a cage, therefore the animals must feel the same") and b) People tend to vastly overestimate how much space many animals need. For instance, in the wild, many tree-dwelling animals might spend their entire lives in the same 3 trees. And as has already been pointed out, even some larger animals that you might assume need vast spaces, actually have comparitively small territories in the wild, only roaming further if the need for food necessitates it.

I really don't like zoos. I've been to them in many different countries, DD is keen to go to one now that we've moved back to England.
I will buy her a build a bear instead.

Thank you newnameforamoment for your excellent informative posts, I hope people take the time to read them. I was aware of a lot of what you talk about but I still learnt a lot of new stuff.

As a family we support Bristol Zoo who are continually working on improving the spaces that the animals are in. It is a different place to when I was a little girl, think elephant rides etc. The only two big animals they have now are Asiatic. Lions which have just successfully bred and their enclosure has tripled in size since we've been going there and the Gorillas which have also bred and again the enclosure has improved vastly since we've been going.

To the person who commented on the polar bear at Bristol there was a huge media stink because of this bear being kept in conditions that were horrific. Bristol Zoo stepped in and rescued it, unfortunately the damage had been done and the bear was mentally ill so all the zoo could do was give it as nice a life as possible and change their policy on rescue. They weren't going to be keeping any like polar bears once theirs had gone but felt they had to step in and help and they got slated for it.

I agree Jurong is weird in it's range! The one that worried me was the huge huge walk through aviary. Plenty of space yes, but how on earth do you monitor the animals to see if they are ill or not? Or breeding or not? There are some birds in there that are nest predators so if they are preventing breeding of some of the smaller birds you'd have no way of managing that, which means to keep the bird numbers up you'd have to keep putting new ones in there. And either you have amazing off show facilities to breed the birds you put in, or you are a drain on the wild population. I have not spoken to anyone who works there to ask them how they manage the birds in a space that large, so I might be doing them a huge injustice.

When I visit a zoo, I look for space, yes, but it's so much more complex - places to hide, things to do, evidence of enrichment (hiding food forcing the animals to move around looking for it), ways for animals to move away from other animals who are intimmidating them. Animals won't mindlessly run around a big space just because it's there, you have to make the space usable for them (think big garden for a toddler, but no toys or anything in it - you need to provide that toddler with a football or something to make that space worthwhile). I question where the animals come from (should be captive bred either there or at another zoo) - animals shouldn't be taken from the wild unless it's essential. So can you see evidence of babies, or attempts to breed the animals? I look for evidence of conservation in other countries (usually zoos will have signs up saying if they have programmes running overseas), and I also look for how the animals are managed - so in that huge aviary at Jurong, are there feeding stations around and are they clean? is there any indication of how you would look after a sick bird? Not being able to see if there is an indoor aviary to get the birds into if you need to separate them for health reasons doesn't mean it's not there so it's then best to speak to someone and ask, but as I didn't talk to anyone, and as I couldn't see any way of how you monitor individual animals, I am really sceptical about that aviary.

My other favourite Gerald Durrell quote is about Florence Nightingale and hospitals. If she had found one that was awful and then said 'Well, clearly hospitals are all awful and we need to shut them all' then we might not revere her in quite the same way. Instead, she found they were awful and strove to make them better. His point was that zoos can have a function but they need to be decent to carry it out properly. So you need to make them better, not shut them.

The other thing people need to be aware of with old city zoos is that buildings may be listed. In which case, regardless of the animals that live in there, they will not be allowed to alter the building. I am fairly sure this is what happened at London (would be ahppy to be corrected though as it's in the recesses of my mind!) - they knew the elephant enclosure was unsuitable and they applied for permission to make alterations to the building to improve the welfare of the animals, but the City Council turned down the applications because the building was listed - they could alter the inside but not the appearance and this wasn't a good enough compromise to allow them manage the elephants well. So they moved the elephants up to Whipsnade rather than keep them in an unsuitable building. It's why you also may go to some old city zoos and see old enclosure standing there empty - the zoo may not be allowed to destroy the enlcosure if it's listed but not be willing to keep anything in there - turns it into wasted space when space is at a premiuim but there's not much that can be done about it.

No UANBU. Don't go. I find them very depressing because they are just a 'smack in the face' example of our horrible attitude to animals. They are not for our entertainment and conservation work should be done in their natural environment. It's our fault that they have very little natural environment left and this is where the attention should be. Zoos are a left over of Victorian times and I can't bear them.

There are no tigers at Bristol. There is a male and female Asiatic lion plus there cubs at the moment. The Asiatic lion is an endangered species from the Gujarat area of India, they are confined to a small forest area. Where as once they ranged the whole med. area and India. Bristol is helping to establish a nee sanctuary for them and also in preserving the line. They have to make sure that they do not get inter bred.

Next time I am at Jurong I will ask some questions. I was thinking of the Lory Loft- which seems lovely. It has clean feeding trays and loads of space. However there are three other walk through aviaries. I do wonder now how they spot and look after birds that are ill. Surely they wouldn't put nest predators with other species- that would be cruel.

It's a while since I've been there so I could be doing them a huge injustice. I thought I remembered nest predators (hornbills?) but I could be mistaken. I do mean other birds rather than snakes or anything!