I understand the conservation aspect of aquariums and all the good things that come out of it (research, etc) but it still makes me a bit sad when I read things like this.
I think it's better to think of zoos and arboretums and sanctuaries as embassies than as conservation.
Except in the direst of circumstances, your connection with that experience of seeing an African Elephant is a much more potent predictor for survival of the species than the benefit of having the elephant here where poaching is nonexistent but gene inheritance is complicated and limited. The star power of the animals triggers positive steps and slows or stops negative ones.
There's a conservation group I was involved with who thought they were going to save the world with a half dozen acres of land. The longer I knew them the more I realized that some of them didn't mean it figuratively. I love them but that's deranged. Meanwhile I treated it the way I think of zoos. That first hand experience re-establishing a human connection with Nature. The first or second domino in a long series of dominoes.
The better ones take really good care of the animals within.
And I think they serve an important and not-irreplaceable purpose - exposure. They help show ordinary people, many of whom live in cities with no exposure to real nature, just what out there is worth protecting. I think it helps build public support for things like reducing waste, better fishing and hunting practices, the importance of parks and preserves, wildlife crossings, etc.
Sure, you can see them on your phone. But the result is completely different than seeing them with your own eyes.
They ma provide good care, but how good can care be? A large animal would probably roam vast distances all the time and there's no way a zoo can allow that. Plus climate.
Polar bears at the zoo on plastic ice may be the saddest thing I've seen in my life, but how are you gonna provide tons and tons of ice for miles in a warm climate?
So it's okay to have some animals live in terrible circumstances in order for people to not have to put effort into being empathetic?
They might take "really good care" of the animals, feed them well, give them the best veterinary care, etc, but that's not a good life for an animal. When they have so little space to roam, so little engagement or interaction with other groups of the same species, no agency over their food or other aspect of their life, and all the while having humans gawk at them whenever they aren't hiding away. It's just a pitiful existence for the benefit of tourists. I can't buy into that.
Animal behavior and stress is a little more complicated than that. Not having to worry about predators, be low on food, or get sick/injured also significantly reduces stress.
Some animals need a lot of territory to roam and don't do well in captivity, some don't really care.
I'm not saying zoos are perfect, but well-run ones are far from evil either. Calling it 'terrible circumstances' is too broad. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Comments
These animals yearn for their mates.
I understand the conservation aspect of aquariums and all the good things that come out of it (research, etc) but it still makes me a bit sad when I read things like this.
I think it's better to think of zoos and arboretums and sanctuaries as embassies than as conservation.
Except in the direst of circumstances, your connection with that experience of seeing an African Elephant is a much more potent predictor for survival of the species than the benefit of having the elephant here where poaching is nonexistent but gene inheritance is complicated and limited. The star power of the animals triggers positive steps and slows or stops negative ones.
There's a conservation group I was involved with who thought they were going to save the world with a half dozen acres of land. The longer I knew them the more I realized that some of them didn't mean it figuratively. I love them but that's deranged. Meanwhile I treated it the way I think of zoos. That first hand experience re-establishing a human connection with Nature. The first or second domino in a long series of dominoes.
I yearn for my mate… but do they yearn for me?
I agree with you. The older I get, the less and less tolerant I become of the concept of zoos and aquariums.
The better ones take really good care of the animals within.
And I think they serve an important and not-irreplaceable purpose - exposure. They help show ordinary people, many of whom live in cities with no exposure to real nature, just what out there is worth protecting. I think it helps build public support for things like reducing waste, better fishing and hunting practices, the importance of parks and preserves, wildlife crossings, etc.
Sure, you can see them on your phone. But the result is completely different than seeing them with your own eyes.
They ma provide good care, but how good can care be? A large animal would probably roam vast distances all the time and there's no way a zoo can allow that. Plus climate.
Polar bears at the zoo on plastic ice may be the saddest thing I've seen in my life, but how are you gonna provide tons and tons of ice for miles in a warm climate?
So it's okay to have some animals live in terrible circumstances in order for people to not have to put effort into being empathetic?
They might take "really good care" of the animals, feed them well, give them the best veterinary care, etc, but that's not a good life for an animal. When they have so little space to roam, so little engagement or interaction with other groups of the same species, no agency over their food or other aspect of their life, and all the while having humans gawk at them whenever they aren't hiding away. It's just a pitiful existence for the benefit of tourists. I can't buy into that.
Animal behavior and stress is a little more complicated than that. Not having to worry about predators, be low on food, or get sick/injured also significantly reduces stress.
Some animals need a lot of territory to roam and don't do well in captivity, some don't really care.
I'm not saying zoos are perfect, but well-run ones are far from evil either. Calling it 'terrible circumstances' is too broad. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.