Okay, so I’m not far from the Fresno Zoo. Fresno Chaffee Zoo participates in wildlife re-introduction programs in order to bring species back from the brink (or from extinction in the wild, even). That’s important work.
Does the threat of extinction justify subjugation? Well, I guess that’s down to your personal moral outlook, I suppose. Personally, I think that it’s better to preserve life than not, and given what poor stewards of the planet we’re being, I’d suggest we have a duty to keep these populations going until we can get our shit together. But, again, it’s a question of personal convictions.
People don’t read the plaques at the zoo? So what. Imo, you can’t judge educational efficacy on that metric alone. I think that seeing these animals helps make them real to people, instead of just some thing you saw on TV once. Besides that, this doesn’t account for a number of things, like:
-How often did the polled attendees visit the zoo in the last year? If they visit frequently, reading the plaques probably is kind of a moot point
-How familiar are attendees with zoos in the first place? If an attendee is familiar with a zoo, it’s not really that much of a shock to say that they didn’t have their world view changed by the visit. It’s possible their world view has already been affected by previous zoo visits.
I’ll concede that the system can use some work, but I see that as cause for reform, not cause for burning the whole thing down.
I appreciate where the author of this article is coming from, but I think they’re being a bit too one-sided.
For example, they make the point that zoos don’t contribute enough to conservation, donating only around 5% of their spending, as if the millions of dollars given doesn’t justify their existence. But if zoos didn’t exist, that’s a big chunk of money that wouldn’t be going towards conservation at all.
They also talk about the education aspect, that visitors don’t necessarily read the information about the animals and instead go for the spectacle. But a child isn’t going to read those plaques regardless, but seeing animals up close might ignite an interest in conservation later in life.
And one thing that the article doesn’t really go into is the fact that humans are still actively hunting animals in the wild, and destroying habitats for profit. And while I think zoos are a bit of a band-aid fix when it comes to endangered species, I’d much rather see an animal in captivity surrounded by zookeepers that care about it rather than extinction.
In an ideal world, zoos wouldn’t exist. In a slightly less ideal world, only open-plain zoos would exist. But we are a very long way from that, and I personally believe that reputable zoos are a positive in the world we currently live in.
Hunting also needs to be looked at objectively. Many people hunt, and for many different reasons.
Poor people will hunt because it’s is free food. Some risk they’re lives to do it. Some places like Tanzania will kill poachers. We need to look into removing that incentive, as in, we need to reduce global poverty.
I hunt because one deer will be most of my meat for a year. The price to have someone else cut it up makes it cost the same as cheap grocery store ground beef, but it tastes better and is much more eco friendly than that cute would have been.
Rich people BS hunting like I imagine you’re referring to is BS, but they pay big money to do it. The money they spend on that one animal funds the preservation of many times more animals, and by having a legal process to do it, there is less incentive to do it illegally, where accurate counts of animals taken can’t be done.
The first example I can think of showing the success of this is the American Alligator. They were almost wiped out, but now they flourish because people want to hunt and/or eat them. I think it’s something like 10 are raised fire every one that is allowed to be hunted. I’ll admit, it’s a bit like strange logic at first, but there are success stories to show it works.
I love animals. I even take care of the spiders at my house the best I can. But I hunt ethically as possible, just one legal deer a year. That deer lived a better life than a feed lot cow, didn’t need to clear cut or pollute land to live, and it was appreciated for it’s sacrifice every day by me, and I do my best to not waste a scrap of that meat, because I had to do the hard part myself.
I’ve met unethical hunters, and I won’t associate with them. They’re trash like any other cruel person. But most are regular people.
Unrelated: How do you conserve a whole deer for an entire year? You freeze the crap out of it? lol
We drop them off at a beef farm for processing. They pack it up all nice like you’d get it from a butcher shop, mainly in pound size packaging. We get from 60 to 80 pounds typically. Then it goes in the freezer.
You can also donate them to the poor through the Game Commission I think. It’s our family’s primary source of meat though. I just empty my freezer by Thanksgiving and it have room for it all. I occasionally find some that’s from the last season and it’s still always been fine.
Here’s one pack of ground meat from last year I still have. We also got jerky sticks, sausage, and stew cubes and loins. They’re just wrapped in butchers paper.
Found a tenderloin piece hidden away too.
deleted by creator
How can it be ethical to take a sentient being’s life against its will? If it lived a good life it is even worse to end it.
I don’t totally disagree with you. Many animals from bugs to mice and birds are killed in the process of farming and the delivery of those goods to market.
If I hunt a deer, I can tell you exactly what my environmental cost was, exactly one deer. It’s not something I’m proud of, it’s just getting food for my home. I’m very grateful to it, and appropriate the sacrifice I asked of it.
You don’t have to agree with me on that. If you don’t use any animal products, I appreciate your decision. But no supply chain is free of environmental cost, and I think it’s fair to ask you to keep that in mind too.
Because humans are powerful enough that we are a bit like gods, and we have to make these choices between which lives we keep and which lives we kill.
Is it ethical to allow the hunting of African game if that money funds the conservation of many more animals? We have to make that trade off. Ethics are subjective, and I’m firmly on the side of allowing hunting as are many other people.
In New Zealand, as with other isolated islands, there’s a unique population of indigenous birds that are now being massacred by introduced mammals. Is it ethical to hunt and trap and poison the introduced pests to save the indigenous birds. We have to make that choice.
A runaway trolley is going to kill 5 humans unless you switch it to another track where it will only kill 1 human. Is that ethical?
A politician could choose to lower the speed limit of a road to 10 km/h, saving lives but costing the economy, quality of life, and future election wins. Is that ethical?
Ethics are subjective, but we have to choose.
I see only humans as sentient so no question of ethics there. Though sentience by itself isn’t sufficient unless you have a very shallow sense of ethics. For example self-defense can involve taking a being’s life against it’s will. But that in no way suggests the action was unethical.
Hunting has no place in a modern society. When you can choose and choose to hunt and eat meat, you’re the problem.
I don’t totally disagree with you, if that means anything. I don’t get any personal satisfaction from it, but I don’t feel bad about it either. Animals eat animals.
People can choose to not eat animal products, and I can admire that. I try to progressively reduce my use of them too. But we’re both doing things to actively try to do something better for the world and ourselves, which is more than many will bother to do. Even if we don’t agree on some things, we’re both doing what we feel is making a better and informed choice. You don’t have to agree with me, but I don’t feel there’s either side that can claim a moral superiority based solely on what’s on our plates. I’m sure you could find someone who’d claim they’re “more vegan” then you or some other gatekeeping nonsense like that.
I disagree. There is a morally correct choice here. Animals feel pain, experience grief, play and form bonds. They don’t exist as some sort of resource, but people think of them as such. To willingly inflict suffering and pain on these creatures is wrong. Full stop.
Again, I don’t disagree with you. But no food supply chain has zero cost to animals. Land is cleared to farm. “Pest animals” and insects are killed to protect yields. Animals are killed or burned by pesticides, rodenticides, and fertilizers. More animals and insects killed at storage facilities. Pollution from transport. Waste from scrapping “ugly” produce. There is still a cost, and you can’t quantify what it is.
I get about 2/3 of my annual meat from a single deer, with no waste, no pollution, and no further cost to the environment and it leaves more food through the winter for the other deer. During the rest of the year, I supply them with essential mineral supplements so they stay healthy.
If you want to judge my decisions, you’re free to. But to think you still don’t require any sacrifice from animals is a bit naive, and if you have a pet, I find that mildly hypocritical. But you do you. We’re allowed to be different and have different values and beliefs. I’m not here to force mine on you or anyone else.
But we should probably leave this chat here. We’re kinda off topic, and I dont want us to get mad with each other. Keep doing your best.
But that single deer didn’t need to die. That’s my point. You don’t have to eat meat. That deer has just as much right to live as any human. You keep using mass suffering as justification to kill that one deer as “better” but it isn’t.
No attempt at justification, it’s accepting my biological footprint and having a personal understanding and a decision on what e cost of it is. We both have one. But you can’t say for sure the cost in animal lives of your choices.
You can downvote this like the other respectful comments I’ve given you, but it doesn’t change the blind eye you’re turning on the fact that your food still has a cost of life, you just hand those responsibilities off to someone else. I don’t feel like you’re open for discourse on this, so I’m going to politely disengage with you now. I’m sorry we couldn’t find any common ground, because we both spend more time thinking about these things than the majority of people ever will.
That’s only true if there are enough carnivores like wolves and bears around. If not: goodbye forests. Hunting is pest control.
This is not proven at all. It’s at best controversal.
It’s very much proven in some ecosystems where humans introduced new animals, which ate all the plants and caused tons of new erosion.
Show me a study tust proves it then please.
The example I’m thinking of is New Zealand, where there’s endless studies into causes of erosion most of which mention the introduction of grazing game animals(e.g. deer) as a contributing factor.
deforestation and overgrazing by livestock and introduced game animal
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3400060202
introduction of exotic plants and animals (e.g. rabbits, deer) resulted in obvious signs of land depletion and erosion
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/81/direct
By the 1930’s the deer population in New Zealand was out of control and causing serious environmental damage through grazing, severe soil erosion and slips from the thousands of hooves ripping up the ground
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/deer-wars/story/2018906408/e01-the-last-great-adventure
Its pretty proven at a 5th grade reading level of study, and even more proven with every grade up.
Its actually kind if hard to find a more proven aspect of biology.
You are confidentaly wrong here, my friend.
For one it realy is something that depends on the global and local region. There are multiple studies that point to a lack of evidence towards a clear answer. I’m not invested enoth to hunt down to many examples, so I’ll just quote this 2016 Australien study:
Public lands in Australia are increasingly being made available to recreational hunters to take introduced mammals such as wild pigs, goats, deer and canids. These species can cause substantial damage to environmental or agricultural assets, and it has often been argued that recreational hunting contributes to the amelioration of these impacts by reducing pest population densities. This position has been vigorously disputed by some parties. However, there is little locally-relevant evidence to support either side of the debate, and hence little evidence on which to base useful policy.
Even clearly pro hunting websites have liste of pros and cons to hunting as pest control, like this one
https://huntingandnature.com/index.php/2023/09/04/hunting-as-a-form-of-pest-control-pros-and-cons/
So no. It is not a clear cut matter, nor is it proven beyond any doubt.
Obviously it depends on region. It also depends on the species in question. No one thinks hunting rhinos is pest control.
That doesnt change the fact that in areas where we have removed or reduced predator populations, replacement hunting does show to help fill the gap and keep prey populations within healthy limits.
Look at the american deer conundrum as your prime example. When we stop hunting them in areas low in predation, they start destroying their already fragile ecosystems with overgrazing.
I mean, if there has been a forest somewhere for the last 100 years, chances are there are enough carnivores anyways. Nature finds its balance, hunting only adds chaos to the equation.
Wolves had been extinct in western Europe for hundreds of years, only slowly spreading again after the fall of the Iron Curtain 30-something years ago. And, consequently, the hunting quotas for deer are being lowered.
The chaos caused by eliminating wolves is slowly getting back to balance.
By the way: a 100 year old forest is in its early childhood. Hasn’t even reached puberty yet.
No it isn’t. This is the noble excuse hunters came up with to justify murder.
Nature has this funny way of balancing itself out. Humans are unique in that we somehow view ourselves as above that rule. But as you’ll see in the coming years we’re at the mercy of that equilibrium.
Right, all those noble ecologists who spent decades studying this just decided to fake their results cause they get so horny over killing.
Nature balances out over a couple thousand years. What you are asking for is to speed up the current extinction event.
Do you hunt?
No, I just have spent my whole career studying ecology.
You really need to go outside more. Modern society isnt some state of transcendance beyond nature.
I don’t think we’re beyond nature, but as it stands we certainly aren’t acting within it. We aren’t cavemen. We don’t have to hunt our food. We know the impact we have on nature, and more importantly how to lessen that impact.
We are nature. You need to stop pretending we are magically no longer living things just because you realized other living things are also alive.
What? Is reading comprehension a struggle for you? I know we’re naturally occurring. I’m not even sure what you’re getting at.
You claim you know, and then immediately contradict yourself. Not something someone does when they actually understand what theyre saying.
deleted by creator
Also zoos take in animals that are injured or otherwise unable to be rehabilitated to the wild, often as part of breeding programs, so it’s not like “we captured a wild X to breed it”.
Yet zoos also kill perfectly healthy creatures, however, because they are seen as “surplus”
So it’s not like they are being just held there while they are healing and then released once they are healed
This is bizarre. Why do European zoos refuse to use contraception as population control rather than… Well I hope that giraffe was the exception.
Odd but I think the US zoos are slightly more ethical on this one.
If you look further at the article you’ll find it’s hardly an exception:
but executive director Dr Lesley Dickie estimates that somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 animals are “management-euthanised” in European zoos in any given year.
It depends on the species. It’s one thing to neuter a giraffe but if you have a flock of peacocks or a colony of 40 bats you are probably not going to do surgery on all of them, it’s also very hard on some of the smaller animals. Making an effort to keep only females or males would be an option for some species but not all, as they won’t always show their full range of behaviour.
The article does point out a lot of it is small rodents, but also things like tadpoles or fish. It can be extremely difficult to control their breeding (or even identify their sex without cutting them open) yet detrimental to their welfare to allow them to be overstocked. The real solution here is probably not invasive birth control techniques (even restraining an animal to pill them can be very taxing), it is more effort to share surplus animals with other zoos, wildlife refuges, wild release etc with particular attention to those that are prone to being culled. But again, transport is a huge stressor for animals, so you have to consider that the potential benefit to them should be more than the risk of worse welfare.
This comment seems more like an inflammatory responses based on the wording used
It doesn’t seem like a logical response at all
I think video documentaries provide the same if not better benefits without having to imprison animals. You can even show directly how their habitats are endangered (see Our Planet documentary series).
Not to a 7 year old.
Walking through a zoo, watching the animals interact with each other, and with guests, reading about habitats, and experiencing an animal you’ve never even heard of before is a magical experience. I just got back from taking my daughter to a zoo 3 hours away from our house because she’d heard about okapis and wanted to see one. A documentary got her interested in the animal but the zoo let her learn a lot more.
Here’s the thing. An animals environment can be completely fucked. Their environment is not going to get better anytime soon, and they are in the verge of extinction. Is it better to let them go extinct or put them into captivity? This is not a hypothetical, California Condors faced this issue as an example.
This is actually discussed in the article, which states that the raising awareness effect of zoos is very very small compared to its entertainment effect on individuals.
So the entertainment funds the education? Sounds positively symbiotic to me.
From the article
On the contrary, most people don’t read the educational plaques at zoos, and according to polls of zoo-goers, most go to spend time with friends or family — to enjoy themselves and be entertained, not to learn about animals and their needs. One study found the level of environmental concern reported by attendees before they entered the zoo was similar to those who were polled at the exits.
People donate and will want to protect things they can see and experience. Zoos are an experience that help the public want to protect animals.
From the article
On the contrary, most people don’t read the educational plaques at zoos, and according to polls of zoo-goers, most go to spend time with friends or family — to enjoy themselves and be entertained, not to learn about animals and their needs. One study found the level of environmental concern reported by attendees before they entered the zoo was similar to those who were polled at the exits.
People can’t even be expected to read stuff that pertains directly to their life and well being, can’t expect them to read recreationally. But the zoo doesn’t need attendees to read to give them money. That money goes into directly helping wildlife.
5 % of or, according to the article.
Which translates to millions of dollars a year, and doesnt account for the money spent maintaining the animals well being.
There are a lot of different kind of zoos, but yes general rule is that if the zoo is good for human visitors it is not good for the animals.
Let me elaborate.
There are zoos which are more designed for the animals, i.e. Korkeasaari in Finland, but the problem is that it is not so visitor friendly. For example you rarely see the big cats, because the cats have large habitat, and lots of places to hide. This is good for the animals, but it makes lots of crying children because they didn’t see the tiger.
The most interesting zoos for the humans put the animals close to humans and in small cages. Some even let you interact with the animal. This makes the animals live very stresful life.
IMO it is very narrow minded to say all zoos are bad, but in general all the “good” ones are bad
Edit: you can go read tripadvisor reviews to see how it is that many leave 5-star saying that animals look happy and 1-star reviews saying that didn’t see any animals.
Ive never met anyone who is anti zoo that actually has any experience in animal conservation or wildlife rehabilitation.
I think of it as the armchair psychology of the biology world, given the near 1:1 comparisons between the two.
Exactly. When people here zoo, they usually picture something between the Tiger King and Sea World.
When in reality, it’s closer to a medical research center for animals.
A zoo is a business, and there are good, decent, and bad zoos out there. But the people working there and visiting there are there because of their fascination for animals. They’re not a single solution to all the issues animals face, but they’re doing more pro-animal than most businesses are.
To compare zoos to rescues seems a bit disingenuous, especially when the author is from an animal liberation organization. Rescues serve a different purpose and are funded differently and have different rules to follow. I’m not against any of the ideas the author supports, but I don’t see it as a zero sum game. There is room for different organizations to support animals in different ways.
I don’t mean offense to anyone reading here, and not to the author either, because I believe there are ethical ways to have animals in captivity, but here’s what I don’t get. Author goes on about how animals don’t get to consent to where they’re placed in captivity, that there’s no need to have captive animals that aren’t endangered, that zoos should at least not serve meat, etc., but then this same guy lives in the city, with a large dog, that he buys ground up animals to feed to the dog, but that’s ok. And that’s where I feel his right to criticize others on this stops.
Want to advocate for better treatment? Good.
Want to promote vegetarianism or veganism? Good.
Want tight regulations on places and people that keep animals? Good.
But nobody else should do what I do because I do it the right way? I’m not as cool with that. If you’re going to paint all zoos and aquariums as overall morally bad while you do the same thing with no rules or oversight doesn’t sit right with me.
Again, just my opinion. Check my posts, I promote animal rescues every day on here. I think good animals centers do good work, whether it’s a for profit business or a non-profit. In some states, zoos are the only ones licensed to rehabilitate some animals. If not for the zoo, those local animals that could be healed and released again would be euthanized.
Sorry again, this stuff just gets me worked up. Some people would rather throw everything out than have an imperfect but still working system…
It’s just bad faith arguments and inflammatory comments
This article also seems to rely a lot on logical fallacies
I’ve read about a few conservation programs where zoos had a central role in aiding with the resources and the reproduction and building of numbers of animals to reintroduce in the wild.
But besides that, it has been close to a decade I’ve been to a zoo and I don’t miss it.
At a point in my life I wanted to get a degree in biology to work at a zoo. Nowadays, I think the best “zoo” is 500 square kilometres of land, with the closest human settlement 50km away.
This definitely falls under “Betteridge’s law of headlines”.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
An examination of how zoos spend their money suggests that, despite branding themselves as champions of conservation, they devote far more resources to their main, original prerogative: confining animals for entertainment and profit.
There are some exceptions, Marris notes, in which zoos have played a starring role in reintroducing threatened and endangered species to the wild, including the California condor, the Arabian oryx, and Black-footed ferrets, among others.
Mileham told Vox captive breeding programs at zoos do more than just create insurance populations, and that they contribute to field conservation by providing opportunities for researchers to learn about species’ behavior, nutrition, veterinary needs, and more.
While the educational value of zoos is dubious, there’s certainly one message zoo-goers receive, if only implicitly: That it’s perfectly fine, even good, to put wild animals on display in tiny enclosures for the public’s leisure.
But there’s also this: One-third of Earth’s habitable land is devoted to cattle grazing and growing corn and soy to feed farmed animals, which has resulted in mass habitat loss for wildlife and crashing biodiversity levels.
Fashion designers are replacing leather and fur with animal-free textiles, meat companies are now selling plant-based nuggets and burgers, and in 2018, the traveling circus Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey announced it would stop using animals, such as lions, tigers, and bears, in its shows.
The original article contains 2,173 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 90%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
