Lynx Escape - Dartmoor Zoo
- Thread starter TeeDee
- Start date
I visited Dartmoor zoo years ago and swore I'd never go back. The poor animals were in crappy concrete floored pens. Am I right in thinking (dis-abuse me at yr will my wife does) but wasn't this zoo bought by one of the presenters from '90's tv day show Anna Ryder Richardson? And (again have yr way) her story was then made into a film with Matt Damon and Scarlet Johansen?
That's exactly my thoughts on zoos but like it has been pointed out to me, maybe I just don't get it.
Some zoos maybe good, who knows...
Anyways,
Anna Ryder Richardson... the name rings a bell....
Baywatch body crimewatch face, is that the one? 🙊
Likewise with a lot of zoos Scoman... not surprising the animals slowly lose their sanity. But you have to look at the pro side as well as the cons... its educational to the little children to see deranged animals in poor environments.
Anyone who wants to prevent the closure of a zoo just needs to stand in front of it screaming "Won't someone think of the children!" as loudly as possible... it appears nowadays that's the way to get things done... stand up and have a huge hissy fit as we've seen in London recently
😂😂😂Likewise with a lot of zoos Scoman... not surprising the animals slowly lose their sanity. But you have to look at the pro side as well as the cons... its educational to the little children to see deranged animals in poor environments.
Anyone who wants to prevent the closure of a zoo just needs to stand in front of it screaming "Won't someone think of the children!" as loudly as possible... it appears nowadays that's the way to get things done... stand up and have a huge hissy fit as we've seen in London recently
There's some funny peeps here...
👍
A long time ago in another life I spent a a month or so living and working in the ZSL - London Zoo.
I really don't want to get into an argument with anyone so just going to give my 2p worth and then run away.
I know for a fact that a lot of money made at London Zoo is used for research and conservation. Unfortunately the "public" want to see lions and tigers and bears etc. so the zoo has lions and tigers and bears etc.
A lot of the technicians and scientists I met who worked in the research and conservation did at some point visit a zoo when they were younger which helped sparked their interest, some wanted to help the animals, some wanted to get them out of "jail", some wanted to see them back in the wild etc.
IMHO there is huge difference between a lion/tiger/bear in a cage and much smaller animals. I'm convinced a lot of the smaller animals had no clue what was going on and given low survivability of prey in the wild may well have been better off. There clearly is a quantitative difference between zoos, reserves parks etc. most animals have some sort of range, if where they are kept is similar in size to their usually range this is significantly different/better to seeing a bear in a cage.
IMHO Great Apes should never be in a zoo, for any reason, I found seeing a Gorilla in a cage is upsetting.
Personally I'd rather watch animals on my TV narrated by Attenborough, I can't imagine I'd ever set foot in another Zoo again.
I think all children should visit zoos, for a lot of kids it is an amazing eye opening experience, and will often give them more to think about and make them ask more questions than they will answer. For children it is also exciting and fun seeing animals, and if it helps teach 10% of the kids that we need as a species to have more respect for the planet that can only be a good thing..
I really don't want to get into an argument with anyone so just going to give my 2p worth and then run away.
I know for a fact that a lot of money made at London Zoo is used for research and conservation. Unfortunately the "public" want to see lions and tigers and bears etc. so the zoo has lions and tigers and bears etc.
A lot of the technicians and scientists I met who worked in the research and conservation did at some point visit a zoo when they were younger which helped sparked their interest, some wanted to help the animals, some wanted to get them out of "jail", some wanted to see them back in the wild etc.
IMHO there is huge difference between a lion/tiger/bear in a cage and much smaller animals. I'm convinced a lot of the smaller animals had no clue what was going on and given low survivability of prey in the wild may well have been better off. There clearly is a quantitative difference between zoos, reserves parks etc. most animals have some sort of range, if where they are kept is similar in size to their usually range this is significantly different/better to seeing a bear in a cage.
IMHO Great Apes should never be in a zoo, for any reason, I found seeing a Gorilla in a cage is upsetting.
Personally I'd rather watch animals on my TV narrated by Attenborough, I can't imagine I'd ever set foot in another Zoo again.
I think all children should visit zoos, for a lot of kids it is an amazing eye opening experience, and will often give them more to think about and make them ask more questions than they will answer. For children it is also exciting and fun seeing animals, and if it helps teach 10% of the kids that we need as a species to have more respect for the planet that can only be a good thing..
As a person who is interested in museum work. (stuffed animals dont need feeding.) I agree that there is a big difference between what the public want and what Museums want to promote.
There are certainly a lot of animals out there (some of them very rare) who would thrive in semi controlled game parks.
(The wild camels and pygmy boar are two that spring to mind though there are many more.)
There are certainly a lot of animals out there (some of them very rare) who would thrive in semi controlled game parks.
(The wild camels and pygmy boar are two that spring to mind though there are many more.)
Sad fact is that the vast majority of people won't ever get to see the many wondrous beasties of the world in the wild- be it for rarity or inability to go visit them. If they never see or connect with them, how can they be expected to care about and protect them? Plus, I see a lot of people saying 'they should be in the wild', which is all well and good except we've gone and destroyed most of the wild haven't we.
I see the importance of good zoos, doesn't mean I like wild animals in cages, just makes me a realist.
Sent from my SM-J100H using Tapatalk
I see the importance of good zoos, doesn't mean I like wild animals in cages, just makes me a realist.
Sent from my SM-J100H using Tapatalk
I see where you're coming from, but.... and there is always a but in this type of discussion... I've never seen or connected with the indigenous people of the south American rainforests... I do however care about their plight and I wish there was a way to protect them. They do live in the wild but that wild is being threatened by commercial enterprises.
Conversely, we haven't destroyed 'most' of the wild... the world is a big place... I mean for instance, the vast land mass that is Eastern Russia... any idea what goes on there? What animals roam the land there? Are the rivers and streams polluted? China, for its mass population and increased industrialisation, has hundreds of miles of untouched land and natural wildlife/beauty. Even the perceived great satan of excess, the USA, has vast areas of land where animals roam free and you're unlikely to see anything even resembling the modern world. So 'most' of the wild has been destroyed... we just hear about the areas that are being destroyed.
And please, define a 'good' zoo. What does that mean? If you lock up an animal that is used to roaming in acres of land and restrict it to 5 acres, is it a good zoo because its given 5 acres rather than a 20ft by 20ft cage? I'm not being daft with this question... it is a genuine one... what is a 'good' zoo?
A more pertinent question, is our chance of seeing a particular animal or 'learning' about them more important than that animals right to roam free where it comes from? Are we now really that arrogant as a species that our 'educational needs' are more important than any other species? And at the risk of being (again) labeled as asinine or banal, we don't stick humans in a cage for education or entertainment... prisons are punishments for crime, we don't parade people outside their cells to watch them eat, sleep or see them taking a dump.
And before someone jumps in with the reservation arguments... I'm on about zoos... the vast majority of which don't span hundreds of miles... they're crammed into the available land on the border of our cities.
You've clearly never been to a professional wrestling match or an Ultimate Fighting Championship match.
I think the answer to that question is; 'better than one where they are in cages'.
I've been to such a 'zoo' in France. It had a wolf pack in an enclosure that was acres in extent. Signs informed visitors that the wolves would likely only be visible at feeding times - the enclosure was designed so that the wolves wouldn't be 'overlooked' except from one small area. It distresses them to be stared at.
Mostly that zoo concentrated on rare breeds of cattle, horses, sheep, deer and suchlike. I think it was a fairly 'good' zoo. The animals all seemed in very good health. Apart from those species that benefit from human interaction, great effort had been made to prevent people from pestering the animals.
Well shucks! I forgot that professional wrestlers and UFC contestants live in the ring... personally I feel sorry for them that they have to eat, sleep and relieve themselves on that canvas mat whilst the audience wander by day after day looking at that sad look in their eyes. Fortunately the cage owner switches on the lights every now and then to encourage the occupants to fight... that must be what we get on television.
Last edited:
Fair play, I'm not sure better necessarily equates automatically to good but giving the animals their space and not necessarily being visible at all times is better than them being locked in cages.
