To wonder why older kids never go to the zoo?

[anotherfinemess1]

I had a fantastic day out with DS (8 years old) at London Zoo yesterday. We all loved seeing the animals and it’s great now he’s older and can read the signs and learn about species and how they are being saved in the wild. I was really shocked that he was about the oldest kid there. Why don’t older kids (8+) go to zoos any more? I hope my son never grows out of it - at the moment he wants to be a conservationist when he grows up and surely that’s going to be really important for his generation after the older generations have made such a mess of the planet!

Loads do, but as they get older they can voice an opinion on what they do and don’t like doing. X

I find London Zoo a bit depressing, but we go to its partner at Whipsnade which feels a bit better in terms of space for the animals. Our kids enjoy it, they are 15 and 17 and keen on wildlife and photography. They understand the difference between conditions/freedom in the wild and the conservation role of a zoo, and appreciate the latter is a necessary evil.

Granny can talk (I assume) and do different stuff.

Warthogs just stand there and occasionally grunt.

When DGD(15) was about 12 I asked her if she wanted to go to the zoo, where she'd been when younger, she replied 'No thank you grandma, zoos are cruel'.

So that was that!

Mine still enjoy them with my eldest being 11, however we don’t go more than once a year as we don’t live within a couple of hours of one. With the entry and travelling it’s too expensive to be a regular thing.

Zoos aren’t true animal conservation, if your son follows that career path - he will more than likely hate zoos…..

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
In an ideal world perhaps zoos wouldn't be necessary.
But we don't live in an ideal world.

if you look up how many species need to be in zoos due to species being on the brink of extinction, there are only roughly 5 I believe - why do we take the rest of the species out of their natural habitat for our enjoyment ? Some end up in zoos for various reasons so it isn’t as simple as my above statement, however…at some
point the previous generation of that species would have been take out their habitat for the enjoyment of humans.
Also, many zoos are also not well equipped to deal with certain species which is incredibly sad.

Quite easy information to find online, there’s also an extremely famous activist who’s father owned zoos, he does some great podcasts on zoos and conservation.

They’re doing really important breeding on their Sumatran tigers and Asiatic lions, which are nearly extinct in the wild

But is it so noble to be breeding these magnificent creatures only to be keeping them in zoos - I don't think they're introduced back into the wild are they?

I don't know if being in a zoo is better than becoming extinct, in the overall scheme of the animal kingdom.

I’m fully aware, but a part of conservation is repopulation for release, so it’s not really an alternative to a not so ideal world?

I’m 29 and love the zoo, I also love a good aquarium 😍

I don't agree with zoos.
Yes, they are vital to the conservation and saving species that face extinction in the wild.
But it's sad to see wild animals penned up in cages and enclosures.

I disagree. Life in the wild is brutal. There are pros (and cons) to living in a safe, comfortable, enriching environment - medical and dental care, no malnutrition, no poachers, no dying a slow and painful death (and animals often live far longer in captivity).

I do recognise that some animals are absolutely not suited to living in captivity, polar bears being the most obvious example.

Not sure I follow you.
Zoos do repopulation for release.
And hold saviour (terminology?) populations.

Zoos and conservation in the wild are what I believe we need right now.

I'm a wildlife scientist. The wild is always better.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with animals in cages, but a good zoo is a treasure. I love them, being able to see the animals, find out about them. I remember the first time I saw the Okapi at London zoo. I never knew such a thing existed. I was about 40.

Zoos cannot replicate the multi-faceted aspects of a natural environment. For example, ability to choose a mate, search for food, selection of environment, rather than having these aspects artificially decided and provided. It's about quality of life. Living longer doesn't mean that the animal is having their needs met, equally breeding is rarely a sign of good animal welfare. It's much much more complicated than I can explain here obviously. Zoos can play a part in protecting some species who may be at risk of extinction, however the number of animals who are actually released from wildlife captivity back to the wild is miniscule. Conservation within their own habitats is much better, in collaboration with education and human wildlife coexistence projects.

Zoos can play a part in protecting some species who may be at risk of extinction, however the number of animals who are actually released from wildlife captivity back to the wild is miniscule.

But would zoos survive without the other animals there too to encourage visitors? If not what would happen to the critically endangered ones?
Also, is 'the wild' yet safe enough in lots of situations to release back into? Is the land protected from development, are poachers able to be kept out etc etc?

Conservation within their own habitats is much better, in collaboration with education and human wildlife coexistence projects.

Agree. However how do you conserve an environment that has a volcano, or one where there is a civil war etc?

No, they don't. There are no 'good' zoos. The animals in their 'care' are not indigenous and weren't brought here for 'safeguarding'. That's a complete sop.

This giraffe was healthy and whilst that zoo didn't want him, another zoo did, but he was killed anyway. Lots of parents and kids seem to enjoy watching that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26098935

If animals become extinct in their own habitat that isn't a disaster. If all of the impotent navel-gazing could be directed to looking after and protecting animals in their own habitat, from poachers/game seekers, etc. then you might have a point.

It is so expensive! The only reason mine went to Whipsnade last year because I managed to the cheap UC tickets for it.

If animals become extinct in their own habitat that isn't a disaster.

I would disagree.

What are your thoughts in regard to disabled animals who couldn’t survive in the wild? Birds with broken wings that healed incorrectly, et cetera.

What?!?

they do? i took my kids 13 12 10 and 7 last month, we go once a year.

Expense maybe - my 13yo son would love to go to the zoo all the time, in fact I asked my mum to get him a London Zoo membership as a present but then we found under 16s can't visit without an adult, which I thought was ridiculous personally (OK, I get not allowing under 12s maybe, but older kids ought to be able to go), and it wasn't much good as a present if we had to spend £40 a time for an adult to accompany him.