to think that Zoos are outdated in this day and age

[GetOrfMoiLand]

I am fully prepared to be put right if I am wrong. It's just that we went as a family to Bristol Zoo yesterday. I was pretty apprehensive about it anyway, I went there as a kid and the main memory of the place was of a pathetic bear in a concrete pit, and a white lion in what I remember being a small cage.

The zoo all seemed well run, and very educational and seemed full of the best intentions. And to be honest I did find it enjoyable.

I did however feel rather uncomfortable towards the end, where I saw the gorillas, sealions, pygmy hippos and a gazelle type animal, the name of which escapes me. The enclosures seemed very small for the size of the animals. And, although I am not anthropomorphic about animals, there seemed something particularly sad about the gorillas, who were in a glass screened enclousre eating fruit aboit 8 feet away from flashing cameras and shrieking kids.

OK, so I understand that zoos undertake breeding programmes for endangered animals, and these are funded (probably) by visitors. However, I f elt deeply uncomfortable with the fact that these animals are kept mainly for the amusement of paying customers. And it seems a rather old fashioned idea to collect rare breeds, and continue breeding them in captivity. Obviously I do not know much about it at all, however personally the zoo was not an enjoyable experience for us (me, DP and DD all felt the same).

I meant to say it was enjoyable at first.

And it was a white tiger, noyt lion, when I wnt as a kid (not that that matters).

Ah well if it was a white tiger that makes all the difference

i know what you mean, I felt a bit uncomfortable walkignm around Paignton zoo a couple of years ago. Such amazing animals, felt that they were looking at us humans and thinking "knobheads".

The sealions were swimming round in a very small pool.

I just compared them to the seals which you can see easily on the coast in north devon, and thinkink how much more of a life they would have being free, rather then in some poky pool.

And the gazelle whatsit. It wouldn't have been able to gallop about in its enclosure. I know they are restriced with space being an inner city zoo, but I think perhaps I would rather have not seen such large animals kept there, just smallers ones which could be contained better in the space they have.

But then the visitor numbers would reduce I suppose having no lions and apes.

Living in Africa we only ever see the real deal. I once went to London Zoo and felt absolutely horrified. Especially with the plains animals, like impalas and giraffes who had no space to run.

Surely with accessibility to fantastic wildlife programmes on TV and internet, including waterhole webcams there is no need to go to a zoo to 'see' the animals?

Money may be better spent in protecting these animals' natural environments and protect them from poaching which would stop them from becoming endangered, rather than in expensive breeding programmes in captivity.

YANBU.

Alhough, zoos here are a luxury compared to zoos in China. I mistakenly took ds to one while backpacking last year it was heartbreaking. Massive tigers in filthy cages so small they could bearly turn round. We left after 10 mins feeling sick that we'd given our money to the place. The worst past was walking past the petting zoo on the way out, 'western' dogs tied to very short chains in the hot sun with no shade looking half starved. Just awful.

The thing is, they can't just release animals that have been born into captivity, most of them would die. In light of this, zoological societies now work hard in terms of conservation of existing habitats, and the enrichment of the lives of the inhabitants in the zoos now. I'm not sure how that fits in with breeding, perhaps the zoos will just die out?

Bristol zoo are currently discussing a project of moving the zoo out of the city and into a more safari park type affair. I agree that a lot of the enclosures are very small.

Dunno really -- they vary so widely. I never went as a child, but since having DS we've been to two: Edinburgh Zoo (similar reaction to yours, I felt they were trying hard but not succeeding everywhere, and aspects of it troubled me) and then in France, La Palmyre zoo, which was so different and (to my eyes) so fantastically well-thought-out, I can't even begin to tell you here. It really impressed us. If all zoos were like that I'd say that's absolutely fine but of course they're not ...

I was thinking the same as I was driving through Longleat last week. Like Madamdeathstare, I would also rather support the work done in the animals' native habitat but as long as there are zoos I feel I should support them to ensure they are well looked after. Sound's crazy given the money Lord Bath must be making though ...

YANBU they make me quite uncomfortable now. I'd love the ds's to see all these animals and when they are old enough would love to take them to africa.

I broke the news to DH that when we go to Florida we will not be visiting Seaworld. He's

It depends on the zoo.

And when it comes to endangered species what are the alternatives? Shoot all the humans that are trying to make a living on the same land? People are pollution, to use a rather inflammatory phrase, and there isn't much room left for the beasts in large parts of the world.

But in principle I tend to agree.

Hmmm, I'm not sure.

It's been two years since I've been to a Zoo (Edinburgh) and I have promised DD a trip there this year which I am looking forward to too.
I have looked at the enclosures and wondered if they're big enough, or good enough but then if the animals were bred there, then surely that's all they know and they are surely, well I hope, kept as happy as they can be?

I disagree when it comes to good zoos ? and in that I would definitely include Bristol Zoo. (Bad zoos ? are a completely different story). I think it would be lovely if we didn?t need zoos, and i agree that it would be better if we just watched wildlife on telly, or in their native habitat if we were fortunate enough. But I do know that good zoos do an enormous amount of work for the conservation of animals in the wild. There are many species that would have become extinct if it were not for the work of zoos, and studies on zoo animals help tremendously towards the care and conservation of animals in the wild. I could go on and on, but if you look at the zoo?s conservation pages, you can find out about some of their projects in more detail. www.bristolzoo.org.uk/about/conservation

It is anthropomorphic to say the gorillas look sad ? male silverback gorillas have that expression. Have you not seen the babies/young ones? They are always playing and to be anthropomorphic myself, look happy. On the other hand, dolphins have a happy expression, but I doubt there are many that are truly happy in an aquarium. Unfortunately, we cannot say for sure whether an animal is happy or not.

MadamDeathStare, it is great that you would donate to help animals in the field, but there aren?t many people that do, whereas a lot more will visit a zoo.

I'm kind of with you GetOrf. But you should have a little poke around on the Bristol Zoo website about all of the conservation work that they do. It's not just breeding programmes.

For example, the penguins you saw at Bristol Zoo are the rare African penguins, and Bristol zoo supports a charity which washes oil of said penguins in the wild. And they test tags on the captive penguins which they will then use in the wild to tag and monitor wild penguins to keep them safer.

Re. the gorillas. Bristol Zoo are on the Board of an African charity trying to help protect gorillas and campaigning against the bushmeat trade. (Hence why they have little charity boxes around Bristol Zoo, which no-one ever notices). There were a lot of signs etc. trying to educate your kids about gorilla threats and what they can do to help.

I am with you on the lions but Bristol Zoo has a good track record eg. when the elephant died they didn't replace her as they recognised that they were too small to give her a big paddock. (Indeed, even London Zoo has no elephants any more). The bulk of animals in Bristol Zoo are fish, birds, insects, reptiles etc. No bears, for example, which fare the worst in zoos.

TBH I think a lot of people are remembering zoos that they went to when they were young/ in other countries, and good zoos have changed quite a bit recently in terms of the way they look after their animals. It is also only really when you research the zoo, become a member, get their literature etc. that you find out all the fab things they do in the wild. And I can't think of any zoos which receive public money, even London Zoo, which does masses and masses of research and conservation, all from fund-raising and entry sales.

I think that gazelle whatsit might be an okapi. Did it have stripy legs?

It's a difficult one I think; in principle I'd agree that Zoos are not a good thing for individual animals, and it's particularly cruel to confine animals that normally range through large territories.

But I can also see a bigger picture in that a well-run Zoo can be a powerful tool in engaging the imagination of its visitors (and in particular children) about the plight many species are in, in a way that a wildlife programme never could. An animal on a screen, no matter how high definition is still only pixels on a screen

Then the circle turns again, in that of course that just engages well-off western kids who happen to live in areas where big wildlife is thin on the ground anyway, when really the people you would need to reach are those in Africa, Asia and South America. So that invalidates my argument a bit... So maybe it's a chain.. our Zoos create a support base for global conservation charities, who in turn are able to work and educate in the places where it really matters

Thanks domesticslattern - you said a lot of what I wanted to

I also think it is worth speaking to someone - a keeper or an education officer if you feel uncomfortable about what you see. eg if you feel worried that an enclosure is too small, or an animal is displaying unnatural behaviour - it may be that the species in question is happier in smaller spaces (some feel vulnerable with too large a space), or that there are plans to move it, or some other answer - it is easy to make assumptions. There may not be a satisfactory answer - but at least then you will have voiced your concerns and it might make a difference for future decisions.

oricella - you are right that often it is kids in the countries where some of these endangered animals live that need to be educated, as well as western kids. For example, Bristol Zoo pays for an Education Officer in the DR Congo to educate the kids out there about bushmeat. But also, our kids do need to know things like how recycling a mobile phone can help gorillas in the congo.

i know its not really a zoo, but monkey world is nice, although still in captivity all the animals are rescued from terrible places.

but yes yanbu

GetOrfMoiLand - I could have written your post word for word following my visit to London Zoo last week. Anti-zoo protestors were outside leafletting the queue and it really made me think. Whilst I agree that the animals seemed happy enough and the zoo well run, I too was upset at the sense of 'imprisonment' of these animals and also at people taking flash photography despite notices not to do so. It has also left me feeling uncomfortable and I dont think there will be any more zoo visits for us.

We have a nice zoo here, but it is (imo) not that visitor friendly, as its very much aimed towards conservation and a lot of the exhibits are hard to spot, especially the tamarins. The biggest animals we have are gorillas, and orangutans and maned wolves

www.durrell.org/

been to zoo's - edinburgh too as a kid, wont contemplate a visit as an adult..
..i find them incredibly sad sorrowful places to be and a real reminder of human take over and 'filing' of creatures...i just about take a city farm!
not my cuppa tea

Bristol zoo has a long term plan to shift away from the old style show animals towards more ethical/suitable choices, hence not replacing the elephant etc.

However there have been rumours of moving out of the city for years and years- no sign of it progressing, the current site is tiny.

But it has gone from one of the most notorious to one of the best- with v strong educational and veterinary guidence.

I once had a row with the born free founder's son as he is anti any zoo, whereas I feel a well run, welfare conscious 'zoo' can inflence the next generation of conservationists.

I can't stand some of the zoos/exhibts though. So sad.