Zoos

[paul m]

What do folks think about zoos? I'm a bit in two minds - some that I've seen over the years were pretty appalling but things have changed a lot over recent years. I prefer the big open ones like Whipsnade but some in more urban situations are very large with space enough for some quite big animals.
I don't really like to see primates in zoos - although this orang utan in Berlin looked quite happy:
http://www.wildabouttheworld.com/gal...to/428/cat/503 I suspect that many large animals will only be seen in zoos in the future ...
Berlin Zoo is very large with lots of trees and many of the houses are new. A particularly interesting one was the penguin house:
http://www.wildabouttheworld.com/gal...to/430/cat/506
Keeping a cold house can take as much energy as a hot one but this is all well insulated, recycling air, with a meadow grown on the top .....
Any other recommendations.

[Zebethyal]

I too am not a big fan of Zoos where the animals have little or no room to move about.

I prefer the wild animal parks where the animals have plenty of room, albeit no where near as much as they would in the wild, but enough for them not to look cramped.

I would love to go on a safari some time to see the animals in their natural environment. I may get this opportunity one day when we visit South Africa to show our children where their mother grew up and that side of their heritage.

I agree that in not too many years time zoos or animal parks may be the only places we will be able to see certain species.

Regards

Tim

[Rhea]

I'd often seen tigers in Zoo's and wildlife Parks like Whipsnade etc- but once you see this amazing cat in the wild- you'll never be the same again. Its sheer power and beauty leaves you breathless. Its like a divine gift to be able to share the same air as it- even if for a few minutes. And the best part is - the animal completely ignores you, and just goes about his usual business. Check out this website-www.junglemantra.com. Bandhavgarh National Park has the highest density of Tigers amongst all the Parks in India- and its the best place for seeing Tigers in the wild.

[paul m]

I can believe that watching an animal in its native habitat is the best way but
there are many problems with 'nature tourism' (not just for tiger-watching ) - not the least being the pollution caused by people flying to see them. Tourists require accomodation and transport when visiting (e.g.) India - this impinges on the space available for animals - especially large mammals which need a vast area of undisturbed habitat for survival.

I suspect that the tiger will not last long in India unless something really serious is done to conserve it (e.g. http://www.france24.com/france24Publ...a6&cat=science ), so for my part I'll watch films! - if it does become extinct in the wild then I'm afraid we shall only see them in zoos ...

Originally Posted by Rhea

I'd often seen tigers in Zoo's and wildlife Parks like Whipsnade etc- but once you see this amazing cat in the wild- you'll never be the same again. Its sheer power and beauty leaves you breathless. Its like a divine gift to be able to share the same air as it- even if for a few minutes. And the best part is - the animal completely ignores you, and just goes about his usual business. Check out this website-www.junglemantra.com. Bandhavgarh National Park has the highest density of Tigers amongst all the Parks in India- and its the best place for seeing Tigers in the wild.

[Rhea]

Lots of people hold the view that the animals in the wild are best left alone and that 'nature tourism' does more harm than good. Sure, I agree to a certain extent. BUT- lets face it, those areas where tourism has come in- especially in the Tiger Parks in India- the tiger populations have usually gone up. This is mainly for 2 reasons, one the tourists act as additional patrols, and secondly- picture this- poachers for tiger/leopard skins don't actually go in and catch these predators themselves- they use poor locals. If the locals have a source of employment where in keeping the animals safe is more profitable then they will be more likely to join in to the fight to protect the jungles and its denizens. My husband and I live and work on the outskirts of a Tiger Reserve- so this is not just theory.

[paul m]

Your location sounds excellent, Rhea.
I hope that your hopes come true - perhaps I just read too many newspaper reports about poaching, habitat destruction, hunting &c?
I do recognise that reducing poverty can, in some ways, remove the need of local people to kill animals or destroy habitat.
On the other hand, it can create a demand for cars, roads, shops - and thus lead to destruction of habitat and pollution!
It's a very finely blanaced situation and, as I've said, I would much prefer animals to be left in undisturbed habitat ...

Originally Posted by Rhea

Lots of people hold the view that the animals in the wild are best left alone and that 'nature tourism' does more harm than good. Sure, I agree to a certain extent. BUT- lets face it, those areas where tourism has come in- especially in the Tiger Parks in India- the tiger populations have usually gone up. This is mainly for 2 reasons, one the tourists act as additional patrols, and secondly- picture this- poachers for tiger/leopard skins don't actually go in and catch these predators themselves- they use poor locals. If the locals have a source of employment where in keeping the animals safe is more profitable then they will be more likely to join in to the fight to protect the jungles and its denizens. My husband and I live and work on the outskirts of a Tiger Reserve- so this is not just theory.

[paul m]

This makes depressing reading ....
IOL: Starving tigers eat each other at zoo

[goosey]

That is so awful - it doesn't bear thinking about. Stories like this are so depressing . I can't say on a public forum what I actually think .

[wild worlds]

I must agree with Rhea I feel that one of the best ways to protect wild animals is to make sure they are more valuable to the local people alive than dead. The only real way to do this is by allowing tourists to visit. I know of a tracker that used to poach in the Kruger National Park, but now has a decent job and makes a good living, as a tracker, on a private reserve nearby. I think the majority of operators act in a responsible manner. The big issue is the sheer numbers of people that now want to see wild places. Limiting the number of permit issued must be worth consideration. But as for zoos, I feel that they contribute little to conservation and research and are jut a throwback to Victorian times. How many of the species currently in zoos are critically endangered?WW

[paul m]

Originally Posted by wild worlds

........ The big issue is the sheer numbers of people that now want to see wild places. Limiting the number of permit issued must be worth consideration. But as for zoos, I feel that they contribute little to conservation and research and are jut a throwback to Victorian times. How many of the species currently in zoos are critically endangered?

Yes, there are embarrassing numbers of non-endangered species in zoos but there is also much work on seriously endangered things - these tend to be insects, molluscs &c which don't get much publicity or sympathy really!

I think that urban zoos have a very limited value although they do provide a means whereby the casually interested member of the public can get a first look at exotic animals. I think there's a much better justification, for large mammals only, of wildlife parks. Several reasons for this: parks in Europe can be much better policed than ones in natural habitats (sadly); with climate change the historical home range of many species may (sadly, again) become desert or otherwise unsuitable; isolation of populations might be useful in avoiding extinctions from disease.

So, I was intrigued when passing this valley in Galicia, northern Spain (south of Santander), to see:


Apparently this is a wildlife park: I didn't go in but could only see elephants and some deer. Hardly native Iberian fauna but if the climate warms by a few more degrees, this environment might become more like that of East Africa?

Interesting to see that despite plenty of water availability they dig scrapes in the ground - I presume this is for dust bathing rather than a search for water?