To think DH's view is far too grim about the zoos

[Return2thebasic]

I spotted in the news that the zoo we visited a month ago might end up close permanently if the lockdown is extended any further.

That promoted me to ask DS if he wants to chip in with his pocket money while I match his donation by x2. DS agreed to make a £10 donation, so we together could feed a sealion for a day (shocking!).

I told DH in the evening, as I thought my improvising was pretty smart. We helped the animals and it also gave DS an opportunity to show kindness. But DH's response was like "The zoo is owned by someone. That someone is probably quite rich and the zoo is a profitable business for him in normal time. By giving money to the zoo, you are just helping a millionaire to avoid dipping into his own pocket to feed the animals." ...Not exactly his words, but something like that.

I just can't help but feeling his view is too grim. Not only spoiled my good feeling, but also made me too confused to be either proud or feeling stupid.

What's your view on this? Shall I feel stupid?

Dd and her BF go to Edinburgh Zoo for their birthdays every year, though I don't think Dd has forgiven them for getting rid if her beloved African painted hunting dogs, they're at Chester now, and she's desperate to go and see them.

I would say zoos are less stressful and cruel to animals than "farms" where they're bred for meat. So I'd give up meat before getting too het up about zoos.

It depends on the zoo, the animals in them need fed, and most wouldn't survive in the wild. I think if they have a large enough area to roam it's not as bad but I went to Amsterdam zoo and the elephants had a tiny enclousure. One of them was swaying and bobbing it's head, it looked utterly miserable

@SchrodingersImmigrant

Not dim. I am with you. I donated to Chester zoo. They are doing great work and I would like them to be able to continue.

Support the good ones. Encourage your child to be generous. You are raising a great human being.

@SoundWithoutAName

It depends on the zoo, the animals in them need fed, and most wouldn't survive in the wild. I think if they have a large enough area to roam it's not as bad but I went to Amsterdam zoo and the elephants had a tiny enclousure. One of them was swaying and bobbing it's head, it looked utterly miserable

When did you go? Because if you google them now, it does look like a nice and big enclosure.

This is one of the things too. Lots of peopel, me included, remember zoos as a concrete boxes with shit space. That's not a case of quite a few zoos nowadays.

[quote SarahAndQuack]@lyralalala - of course, that's absolutely true, and I shouldn't be so glib.

What I mean is, sometimes it is quite clear animals are being kept for entertainment and not for any good cause. IME zoos that are trying to be ethical are able to explain this, and say why they have a young male polar bear or three elderly lions or whatever it is. But, the unethical zoos are the ones who keep ones and twos of all sorts of things, and they aren't interested in breeding programmes or anything related to breeding programmes.[/quote]
Zoos do have to balance up the entertainment side to get the punters in with their conservation side.

For example I hate, hate, hate the current trend for having meerkats at every single place. However, the donations and adoptions that they bring in mean I do understand why they do it.

There are some horror shows and I think the UK does need tightening in some areas. The scandal that was South Lakes was allowed to go on for far, far too long.

Edinburgh were slow in some areas to sort their enclosures, but are much better now.

It brought the nature closer to my child and therefore educated him to love the nature.

It’s not nature in the proper sense though is it? It’s wild animals suffering and living in stressful conditions but hey, that’s ok because it’s entertaining to your child. Please reconsider your support for these cruel and outdated places. They’re one step up from the circus.

Zoos are awful, depressing, and cruel. Animals are better off extinct than trapped in little enclosures for their whole lives. And if the people behind the zoos truly cared about animal conservation, they’d fund the protection of the animals’ natural environments rather than putting them on show for money.

Research the zoo you're considering donating to online. Look to see what good things (if any) they're doing towards conservation. Look for reviews and opinions online and on Facebook and once you've done that weigh up your thoughts on this particular zoo and decide.

A previous poster said she'd give up meat before worrying too much about zoos. That's exactly right. Anyone that claims to be concerned about animal welfare really is a hypocrite if they eat chicken, pork or other meat then bitch about the conditions that zoo animals are kept in.

Honestly I think a little bit more critical thinking is needed. So they breed animals in captivity to save that species, do you honestly think they 'release' these animals into their natural habitats? And if so how well do you think that goes when those animals have spent many generations being tamed by humans and no longer become fearful of predators? Do you not think it would be better to fund efforts in their natural habit before the numbers get too low? Of course they are kept in cages for humans to gawp at. How would you feel stuck in your house and people peering in your house all day?

And yes I am vegetarian, as our my children.

And yes he is probably right that the owner is sitting on his own money not willing to put his hand in as he full well knows people will pay for it instead of him. Just think of Branson asking for government money!

Gerald Durrell wrote a brilliant polemic about what a zoo should be, and why it was utterly different to an animal collection kept for show.

I would support Durrell Zoo - I think the work it does is so important, including all it's international projects to protect habitat and support environmental and economic initiatives that protect habitat, and train keepers and conservationists from round the globe.

Plus the serious active breeding it does to prevent extinctions - it's so good with snakes that it has saved species which was down to alarmingly low numbers (fewer than 10 in captivity and none seen in the wild for years)

Some zoos are horrible places with cages depressed animals owned by rich people. Some are charities run by very not rich people, desperately trying to look after their animals, educate the public about how important our wildlife is and breed endangered animals. Our local one, a good portion of the animals living there are rescues from circuses and bad zoos, they tell you their story on boards where the animals are.
Animals should be free, they should roam, they should be able to source their own food. But at the moment the world isn't safe for them, the forests are being knocked down, poachers are killing them for trophies, farmers are poisoning them.

Make sure you visit the right ones and donate to the ones that are trying to do good.

Most zoos aren't owned by millionaires, are they?

I agree that many are too small. If you think about the space a pet has - not a rabbit in a hutch or hamster in a tiny 20x30cm cage a la when we were kids, but the kinds of habitat recommended today, then scale up for large animals, zoos don't really seem suitable at all. Safari parks cater better. We have a local zoo (other European country) that very much started out as a millionaire's pet garden, although these days is quite underfunded, the smaller animals (meerkat, penguins, seals, horses, camels) all look relatively happy and cared for, but the lions, tigers, elephants, polar bears ALWAYS look unhappy, stressed, pacing, head bobbing. They have increased some of the enclosure sizes over the last few years but for the elephants in particular it doesn't really seem to have helped - I think it's probably just still too small, and elephants are very social, so being only two of them might be the issue as well.

I would love to see larger animals go out of fashion at zoos in the way that making animals perform for crowds has done. I'd happily go to a zoo just to look at smaller/medium sized animals that can be happy and catered for in that kind of environment. The state of the larger animals put me off going for years but now I have a 2yo I got an annual pass again as so many people here meet up there (and then, pandemic )

As others have said, it depends which zoo. London/Whipsnade are run by ZSL, which is a well recognised charity and uses its income to do a lot of conservation work. I’d it’s a small, local zoo it may well be privately owned. Worth checking the small print, I think.

Most zoos are not owned by millionaires. There are very few South Lakes style zoos thankfully. Even Aspinall type parks are getting rarer.

There are newer conservation programmes, such as the Amur Leopard breeding programme at HWP, that deal with issues such as the animals becoming less fearful of humans. They are not on show at all.

There are animals going out of fashion in zoos. Far fewer have elephants now. Breeding lines are much more carefully structured (giraffes are a good example of that).

Carefully choosing which zoos to support and which not to is the important bit. Although small, privately owned, parks shouldn't be ruled out completely - Five Sisters near Edinburgh is a smaller, privately owned zoo, that started off as a garden centre with a few pets. Then house a few unwanted animals. Their set up has grown because they have space - they were asked to rescue some bears and then some lions over the years. After showing their calibre they've become part of the Scottish Wildcat breeding programme and I believe are now housing a pair of snow leopards.

One thing that should be more of a push, imo, is to have better quality assessments of zoos by local authorities. Often zoos are inspected by council staff with very little experience - that is how South Lakes flew under the radar for so long - and that's not ideal at all. Being members of BIAZA is a good starting point as there is a standard to be met before they can be members.

Most zoos are charity's. Most zoos use some of their money to fund conservation projects. A good zoo will always have an area where the animals can go away from people. Zoos play an important role in conservation. People might not like that but it is true. Zoo's are heavily involved in education and research. It's not as simple as caged animals. Research into behavior especially during mating helps to work out how best to help the remaining animals in the wild.
Education of the public is also really important.

Chester zoo is a charity and a conservation zoo, their breeding program is amazing.

I think there is a hell of a lot of ignorance on the work of zoos on this thread from some people.
Decent zoos these days are focussed on conservation, breeding and education, not just putting animals on show.
We visit Jersey zoo & Chester are both excellent examples, with environments aimed at the animals above the visiting public (at both it can be quite hard to spot the animals at times).
Some zoos have 'saviour collections' (I'm not sure that's the exact term), where in the wild the creatures only exist in one small area or on just one island. A natural disaster (e.g. a volcano) could wipe out a species entirely.
Breeding programmes to prevent animals becoming extinct whilst simultaneously working on conservation and education in the natural environment can make a big difference.
How do zoos raise money to help the wild ones? By their ticket sales and donations made by people who see their work, hear their educational talks etc. Without the zoos you won't reach vast swathes of people.

I agree that not all zoos are great, but rather than dismissing them the whole concept, the naysayers would be better off recognising and supporting the good ones, and encouraging the more out of date ones to improve or close.

Zoos are a hideous anachronistic entity that should be banned anyway.

Breeding and conservation programmes largely could and should happen in the animal's natural habitat plus zoos and the people who owned them were one of the causes of extinction of some animals!

If you want your son to understand and appreciate nature take him to a natural wildlife reserve that works to celebrate and conserve our indigenous animals, teach him about why certain animals are becoming extinct, work with him to reduce your impact on the environment etc

I managed to raise a dd who understands, appreciates and loves animals without ever having taken her to a zoo. We fed birds and small wildlife we rescued bees and trapped animals on occasion, when we had a garden we planted species that provided food and other resources for the local wildlife (with a lot of help and advice from my parents I am not green fingered at all. My dad especially is a huge animal lover and was a keen gardener and he was very helpful)

You don't need to visit or support zoos to encourage a love of animals and nature indeed imo it does the opposite. It encourages the view that animals exist for our amusement and entertainment.

You can do better op and now is a great time to start

I think if I were a Tiger I would rather be dead than live like they do in zoos.

If people really wanted to save endangered species proper reserves adequately funded and secured should be the way to go.

Truth is no one with that sort of money cares enough.

People who visit Seaworld are just idiots.

@Frazzlefrazle

Honestly I think a little bit more critical thinking is needed. So they breed animals in captivity to save that species, do you honestly think they 'release' these animals into their natural habitats? And if so how well do you think that goes when those animals have spent many generations being tamed by humans and no longer become fearful of predators? Do you not think it would be better to fund efforts in their natural habit before the numbers get too low? Of course they are kept in cages for humans to gawp at. How would you feel stuck in your house and people peering in your house all day?

And yes I am vegetarian, as our my children.

Yes👀 They actually do release the animals to the wild.

Seriously, this is the issue. People trying to play smart. Use the critical thinking and go find yourself the info rather than making unsubstantiated claims.

I don't know when some of you were last in a zoo, but it sounds like it was 30 years ago.

It should be fairly easy to check on the zoos website and see if it is a charity or privately owned - as well as their policies on conservation, etc.
If it is a charity, that will be stated on any correspondence, including whatever fundraising communication you received. Accounts available form charity commission, co house and probably on its own website.
Not a charity - accounts will be available from companies house.

Op are you talking about Colchester zoo? That's our local, that zoo does so much conservation work and have programs running in struggling countries. I know people who work there who are worried sick about how they will make it through the winter.
I know zoo's are emotive topics but I fully support this one, their ethics and the staff who work so hard there.