35
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
35 points (100.0% liked)
Environment
3918 readers
46 users here now
Environmental and ecological discussion, particularly of things like weather and other natural phenomena (especially if they're not breaking news).
See also our Nature and Gardening community for discussion centered around things like hiking, animals in their natural habitat, and gardening (urban or rural).
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm going to post one of my nested comments here, because I think it bears pointing out:
[This] article is full of rhetorical fallacies designed to influence you towards their view that zoos aren’t good.
Take this part about conservation funding:
To which the opposition interviewee states:
That is not a direct response to the first assertion. The first quote didn’t assert that the majority of funds went to conservation, just that the funds that do are both significant and critical to conservation partners.
To which the clearly very biased author then responds:
Soooo? You think getting rid of those funds is better for conservation?
If you read the part on breeding, they do something similar; they embed one section, that acknowledges that zoos have in fact been key to successful breeding and reintroduction programs, inside several quotes of personal opinions: the first one literally from a newspaper opinion piece, and the second from an actual scientist who acknowledges that the breeding programs do work, but just doesn’t personally think that is justification enough for zoos.
This article is biased trash. There are plenty of arguments to have about the ethics of zoos, but this article is not dealing with those head-on, because they’re not clear-cut. Instead, it’s trying to trick you into thinking that none of the actual positive impacts of zoos exist.
This is how smart misinformation works; use leading language and selective quotes to make the viewers think you said something you didn’t, so you can always go, “Oh, but I never SAID the breeding programs don’t work, or that the funding isn’t important!”
I'm inclined to agree with this take. And to add to it, I think accusing zoos and aquariums of not spending enough on conservation, because they spend so much more on operations and construction is pretty unfair, because obviously the author hasn't actually considered the fact that zoos and aquariums are incredibly expensive to run.
At least in my country, most zoos are charities, not companies: they're not run to make profit. They're not cash cows for greedy shareholders. So the money they make from visitors and donations, unsurprisingly is mostly spent on those annoying "luxuries" like feeding the animals, paying the staff, maintaining the enclosures, etc, and where funds allow it, improving the enclosures. My local zoo almost always has some kind of construction work going on as they retire old enclosures that are now not considered sufficient for the animals within, and build new ones that are more suitable, either for that species or a different one.
The zoos that are legally companies rather than charities (due to regulatory laws) are small zoos that predominantly house exotic pets that other people could no longer take care of. These are animals that were either captive bred or taken from the wild at a young age, which often have complex health or behavioural needs: they cannot be returned to the wild or used in breeding programs, they just need somewhere to live where they'll be looked after. These kind of zoos are often run by 2-3 people, who spend the "profits" of their zoo on luxuries like food and shelter for themselves.
Personally, I'm fine with the fact that zoos and aquariums spend the bulk of their money on looking after the animals in their care. I can't see how zoos neglecting their animals in order to spend more money on direct conservation would be morally justifiable. If only 5% is being spent on conservation elsewhere because 5% is all that was left over after the rest went on making sure their animals are happy and healthy, I don't have a problem with that. Especially when happy, healthy animals in captivity are so vital to breeding programs.
That is a selective misreading of what the article is claiming. The article is talking about how zoos are claiming conservation is the main reason zoos are ok and should exist. Near the top of the article:
They are pointing out how it's misleading to say we contribute a decent bit so we're deep into conservation, but ignore that's not the main things they spend their time and money on
It's not misleading at all. You are the one (along with the author) who simply thinks that there is some objective percentage amount required (which apparently you don't think they clear) before you can take credit for the positive impacts you cause.
"Zoos aren't spending enough of their money on conservation" is not a refutation of, "The money that zoos do generate for conservation is both significant and important".
One other thing that zoos do that has always struck me as important is put certain species essentially in protective custody (gorillas and condors come to mind). Condors were able to recover in the wild BECAUSE zoos served as a protected gene bank for the species. Is this ideal? Fuck no! Ideal would be idiots didn't fucking wipe out condors in the wild. When a human being is in protective custody, it probably sucks but it will save your life from other piece of shit human beings if you ever need it! Let's focus on the fact that the world is such that we've had to do this with whole species of animals because of shitty human reasons BEFORE we start Karening at zoos because of some armchair ass pseudo-vegan principles from some privileged ass hipsters. I mean... we live in a world of poaching, deforestation, factory farms, ocean acidification and global warming and THIS is the hill you're gonna die on? Fuck off.
I'm not sure what you and the author want here? Do you want them to neglect the animals they hold to give more to in situ conservation? Do you want them to have less animals? Less animals means less money so even less being sent. No animals means no money.
It's also ignoring the fact that in situ conservation isn't the goal here. Zoos themselves are ex-situ conservation. They have literally bought animals back from extinction, or protected threatened species.
Look at the current Tasmanian Devil Programme.
I think it's quite clear that people in the comments are not reading the article and reacting to the headline alone and maybe the first few paragraphs. Scroll to the end of the article where it starts taking about sanctuaries and funding and how they don't expect any of this to be an easy process
What is your point here?
They claim to want sanctuaries, but don't seem to actually know what a sanctuary means. They're against captive breeding, which is the whole conservation bit that they claim to be for. They also want these to be closed, which means no money? It's just a really weird view from someone who has no understanding of conservation or reality.