Ethical dilemma

[Horseguards]

The last time I visited a zoo was over ten years ago. I would never go again - I was a stressed as some of the poor animals in cages. I even find it very difficult to watch zoos on tv.

Similarly, perhaps someone with more knowledge could help with the following. There is a bird of prey sanctuary pretty close and I would like to take some pictures.

But doesn't sanctuary ultimately mean captive, here? Unless the birds were injured - and I'm pretty sure most would be able-bodied - wouldn't they prefer to be free? If that's the case, I won't bother. A visit would equate to condoning this. And if it was a choice between seeing captive birds, or seeing none at all, I'd settle for the latter.

Grant.

[digi]

In some cases sanctuary means a place of recovery for rescued animals so that would not be a problem for me. As for Zoo's I never visit them because like you I don't agree with them.

[Oy]

Places like this can also, if managed well, provide a great educational resource in raising public awareness about Birds of Prey which in turn can lead to benefits for the wild population.

[matt_xyz]

As digi says, a bird of prey centre may be some sort of recovery centre so may have some justification. Beware, though, even if primarily a zoo (with wild caught animals) they will claim they are a rescue centre even if only one of their birds was rescued. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors with these sort of centres, much like zoos. The latter will always exaggerate the scale (and the worth) of their breeding programmes since they know the public is increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of wild animals in cages.

Of course, there are many wildlife rescue/rehabilitation centres that do an excellent job so it might be worth checking out what sort of place it is (and reading between the lines of what they tell you).

Matt

[Alan]

Remember if an animal is born in captivity, the chances are that it may never be returned to the wild. They'd just die if they did because they've never had to look after themselves. Of course this applies more to carnivors. So if it is a true rehabilitation centre, they should have a release program for the animals that can be returned - so ask them if they have! As for the animals that can't be released, they have to be homed somewhere - either that or be put down. But at least they can be used to educate the public.

The one thing that really gets on my nerves is that some animals such as barn owls can still be bought and bred leagally without the need for a license. I've often been walking down the street and seen them in peoples living room windows!

[Walwyn]

I have no problems with zoos. I did have some reservations twenty or thirty years ago, but no longer. Put simply I have no problems with Slimbridge, Twycross, or other such institutions.

[Imaginos]

I think there is a place for zoos in modern conservation efforts-look at Jersey Zoo with its successful rearing & reintroduction programmes (Pink Pigeons and Marmosets spring to mind) and London Zoo also has some good programmes in place. The balancing act is to have enough popular exhibits to keep the money coming in without compromising the conservation effort.

[digi]

Originally Posted by Imaginos

I think there is a place for zoos in modern conservation efforts-look at Jersey Zoo with its successful rearing & reintroduction programmes (Pink Pigeons and Marmosets spring to mind) and London Zoo also has some good programmes in place. The balancing act is to have enough popular exhibits to keep the money coming in without compromising the conservation effort.

You have a point but I hate to see captive animals.

[Imaginos]

I recall Gerald Durell saying (or writing) that with many species 'freedom' is not a concept, as long as there is all the necessary requirements are fulfilled then they are content. He used a species of (I think) squirrel to demonstrate this concept. In the wild these squirrels will not leave their home tree-ever, if put in an enclosure with more than one tree then they will pick one and remain in it thus giving you a large, generally unused enclosure.
The trick is to find out what are the necessary requirements, obviously for some animals these requirements includes space to roam (e.g. bears, big cats), for others the requirement may be the opposite and all they need is food & a place to sleep that is safe.

With species recovery programmes you need to get the subject to breed. With many animals if they are stressed then breeding is impossible, thus the need to give an animal as good conditions as possible.

Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that in captivity an animal tends to be well fed and safe from predators and hunters.
Of course there are some bad, and some very bad zoos out there & many irresponsible private owners/collectors. This is a problem & should be addressed.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Imaginos

I think there is a place for zoos in modern conservation efforts-look at Jersey Zoo with its successful rearing & reintroduction programmes (Pink Pigeons and Marmosets spring to mind) and London Zoo also has some good programmes in place. The balancing act is to have enough popular exhibits to keep the money coming in without compromising the conservation effort.

I think some zoos make a worthy contribution to conservation efforts but the majority do not. Furthermore, although there is a place for the re-introduction of some species, for many other species a lack of habitat is the problem so no amount of captive breeding can help that. Plus, the reintroduction of many species is simply not a realistic proposition.

I still struggle greatly with the concept of caged animals and wild animals being caught for zoos. I'm amazed that the latter still goes on (and not just for captive breeding/reintroduction programmes).

So, I fully acknowledge that some reintroduction programmes are valuable but many zoos give the illusion of operating such schemes. Have a look at many zoos' websites and try to work out exactly what conservation work they are involved in. There are lots of vague phrases like 'zoos can help the conservation of threatened species' rather than 'this zoo is helping to conserve species in the following ways...'.

I think, for many, their sole contribution is that they are maintaining a captive gene pool should it ever need to be called upon. This may be worthwhile but they certainly like to give the impression that they are doing far more than that.

Matt

[wildone]

I have been against zoos ever since I saw Guy the Gorilla at London Zoo. The look on that poor animal's face was enough to make me hate the idea of keeping a sociable animal in isolation and caged. His eyes were asking what had he done wrong to be punished like this. I can still recall his eyes even now and it saddens me that humans could even then have behaved in such a fashion to another sentient being.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by wildone

I have been against zoos ever since I saw Guy the Gorilla at London Zoo. The look on that poor animal's face was enough to make me hate the idea of keeping a sociable animal in isolation and caged. His eyes were asking what had he done wrong to be punished like this. I can still recall his eyes even now and it saddens me that humans could even then have behaved in such a fashion to another sentient being.

I couldn't agree more. It seems clear to me that some animals suffer more than others in zoos. I hadn't visited a zoo since I was a child but was talked into visiting Twycross zoo last year sometime. Some animals seemed reasonably well catered for but the big cats in particular looked in a very sorry state. They were in relatively small enclosures and were simply pacing around, back and forth. I found it quite upsetting really. Also, the zoo had a large number of birds, typically in enclosures (i.e. cages) around 6 to 8 feet square. None of them could do any more than flutter from one perch to another. How unnatural is that for a bird? Terrible. And I believe Twycross is one of the better zoos.

Matt

[cherrybee]

I remember zoos as a child where animals were in cages as a child I loved it but as an adult I would hate it.I love to visit Paignton Zoo as the animals have lots of space and a huge lake for the water birds which come and go freely.They breed animals there and have some success with some of the animals which are in danger.Look at their site it is very informative and very educational for schools etc.Paignton Zoo environmental Park is home to some of the world's most endangered plants and animals.

Here is their site if anyone is interested
http://www.paigntonzoo.org.uk/

[nightshade]

The old days of zoos (I can remember a bear-pit at Bristol zoo) were really bad but most are geared to the breeding programs which are so necessary
to the survival of a lot of species nowdays
The local bat group recently gave a talk at the zoo to promote bats

[PhilBriggs]

Grant,
I think you'll find the bird of pray centre will be displaying captive bred birds.
If they do have an injurd wild bird in thieir premises then it should not be on display and kept away from the public as this will only cause it distress.
To keep any uk species of bird of prey you need a certificate called an article 10 which outlines the history of the bird, ring number owners history etc. If a bird is injured and cannot be re-released then it cannot be put on public display and mainley used for breeding. Again an article 10 has to be issued from DEFRA.

Phil

[crisscross]

having spent a couple of years in Kenya in my youth, I found it exciting to start seeing lots of large animal pics on the web, but then looking at most of them, an element of absurdity took over. A giraffe without a thorn tree is like it being 3 legged and big cats lounging on lumps of concrete even worse. We used to take people on a flip through the Nairobi game park, I think several dozen square miles on the way into town from the airport and even that seemed a bit over-compressed.

As far as breeding and rescue and educational programmes are concerned, it would be nice if they could be funded without the deadening hand of commercialisation which can kill off the joy of almost anything.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by PhilBriggs

Grant,
I think you'll find the bird of pray centre will be displaying captive bred birds.
If they do have an injurd wild bird in thieir premises then it should not be on display and kept away from the public as this will only cause it distress.
To keep any uk species of bird of prey you need a certificate called an article 10 which outlines the history of the bird, ring number owners history etc. If a bird is injured and cannot be re-released then it cannot be put on public display and mainley used for breeding. Again an article 10 has to be issued from DEFRA.

Phil

Phil, I'm still right in thinking this doesn't apply to owl's, aren't I? Cos as far as I know you still don't need a license/certificate to keep them.

[MalcolmX]

I find myself in a dilemma of my own making in that i generally do not like zoos yet i keep about 40 wild fowl in my pen at home .these are all captive bred birds from UK suppliers and they seem not to be stressed at all in fact they are starting to get very friendly as we speak ,again in the summer i take delivery of tropical butterflies from the philippines and other places where they are bred on special breeding farms ,valuable employment in these ares .still these are captive animals yet i do not like lions tigers in cages and i think the worst are some of the so called sanctuaries in particular those that house sea creatures as none of these are captive bred(as far as i know) and they are used to the open sea not a cement pool .overall i think that even though we derive some educational value from zoos and sanctuaries i feel uncomfortable with captive wild creatures and i think they should be phased out

[wildone]

Originally Posted by MALCOLMX

I find myself in a dilemma of my own making in that i generally do not like zoos yet i keep about 40 wild fowl in my pen at home .these are all captive bred birds from UK suppliers and they seem not to be stressed at all in fact they are starting to get very friendly as we speak ,again in the summer i take delivery of tropical butterflies from the philippines and other places where they are bred on special breeding farms ,valuable employment in these ares .still these are captive animals yet i do not like lions tigers in cages and i think the worst are some of the so called sanctuaries in particular those that house sea creatures as none of these are captive bred(as far as i know) and they are used to the open sea not a cement pool .overall i think that even though we derive some educational value from zoos and sanctuaries i feel uncomfortable with captive wild creatures and i think they should be phased out

The worse thing you are doing is importing foreign species into Britain. Has there not been enough said on the forum to realise that importing any foreign species is a very risky thing to do. OK I am aware that the butterflies are not likely to breed in this country, but what if one species just did? The fact of it breeding means that it must find the environment to it's liking. Yet another species difficult foreign species to erradicate? I am sure that there are other ways to help people in under-developed countries without putting our own at risk.

[Imaginos]

Wildone does have a point, however in the case of tropical butterflies the chances of a species a) surviving even our summer temperatures, b) finding a suitable foodplant and c) getting through a British winter are rather slim.
As for the wildfowl, this is a different matter they are well able to survive & breed in our climate as evidenced by the large number of escapee populations in Britain. I've not yet seen any reports or research into whether these extensive populations are directly detrimental to British Wildlife. (The Ruddy Duck underwent a cull late last century to protect the closely related & rare White Headed Duck in the Mediterranean from potential interbreeding should our population regain its migratory instinct).

[MalcolmX]

Originally Posted by wildone

The worse thing you are doing is importing foreign species into Britain. Has there not been enough said on the forum to realise that importing any foreign species is a very risky thing to do. OK I am aware that the butterflies are not likely to breed in this country, but what if one species just did? The fact of it breeding means that it must find the environment to it's liking. Yet another species difficult foreign species to erradicate? I am sure that there are other ways to help people in under-developed countries without putting our own at risk.

i actually buy from people in Cambridge who own the farms and supply the pupae.thses butterflies live in a sealed area in my green house and do not nor can they mate with any native species . i totally agree with not introducing foreign species into the UK but in this instance it is a total impossibility .i do agree you are right to be concerned

[PhilBriggs]

Originally Posted by Alan

Phil, I'm still right in thinking this doesn't apply to owl's, aren't I? Cos as far as I know you still don't need a license/certificate to keep them.

Alan
An article 10 is still required for any indigenous owl species to the UK ie barn owl, tawny owl and even snowy owl. (not eagle owl as the jury is still out)

Phil

[Horseguards]

Thank you to everyone for the replies.

I am surprised at the number who are against zoos on the site, but then again, this is possibly due to hitherto not corresponding with those of sufficient interest and concern.

Wildone, I can appreciate your feelings. This was how I felt re Chester zoo. I forgot what animals they were, possibly chipmunks. But by the way they were climbing the cages, as if to seek escape really got to me. They looked really stressed.

I recently became aware of the magnificent red panda. A Google search of images produced examples in zoos. They looked completely bewildered, as if saying “what the xxxx are we doing here”?. I couldn’t look anymore.

Malcolmx, employment potential doesn’t supersede ethics in my mind. However, you do raise an interesting point re how many feel about wildlife. Most people do not like to see elephants, for example, mistreated. But what about insects? Peoples’ strength of feeling seems to correspond to size. I hate seeing flies or slugs squashed (why I also have reservations re formal gardens); but they feel pain (necessary for survival).

Grant.

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Horseguards

However, you do raise an interesting point re how many feel about wildlife. Most people do not like to see elephants, for example, mistreated. But what about insects? Peoples’ strength of feeling seems to correspond to size. I hate seeing flies or slugs squashed (why I also have reservations re formal gardens); but they feel pain (necessary for survival).

Grant.

...I know its cruel to go out hunting foxes,
Or to put my aftershave in Rabbits eyes,
The problem that i find is where to draw the line,
Does this rule extend to embryos and flies?

Is it cruel to kill the microbes in my toilet,
Or to swat a thingy like a stingy bee?
Is it cruel for me to say that I'll never fall in love with you,
What about cruelty to me

from: Cruelty by Watercress

[Horseguards]

Imaginos, the extreme thought of, for example, the potential pain of plants occurred to me while writing the post above. Do plants feel pain? Actually, this is a red herring.

In the main, killing in the animal world is predicated on the need for survival. For humans, destruction of flora and fauna is usually a question of economics (financial gain), sport (for whom?), vanity (fashion) or aesthetics (a pest-free, weed-free, wildlife sterile garden).

I don’t adhere to the belief that plants and vegetables should have equal rights, but I don’t pick flowers from their habitat to make my home pretty. They don’t belong to me; I have no right to them; let others enjoy them.

Grant.