It’s the autumn holidays here and we decided to go for one nice family excursion before we’re bogged down in postponed work again. We’d been promising the kids to visit that zoo in France for ages and finally decided to go. I know, for Americans 100km one sounds like your weekly shopping trip, for us it isn’t.
The zoo is in a smallish town near Metz that seems to consist of a thermal fountain, an amusement park, and a giant complex with restaurant, hotels, cinemas, parking and the zoo. The entrance fee is prohibitive, because in France most zoos are private enterprises and not public institutions, but we decided that we can afford it for a special trip, especially since we always bring food and drinks and therefore don’t have to pay the prohibitive prices inside.
To be honest, I don’t regret the money. It was a wonderful day and the zoo is amazing. There are no holidays in France, it was a Monday in October and there were at the most 150 visitors in the whole zoo. I guess in summer the people push you through, but now we had the leisure to enjoy the animals and the shows.
Of course I took a ton of pics. Original count was 2200, after weeding out the really bad ones there are 1300 left. I won’t post them all ;).
First part is the white lions. They are gigantic, at last 30% larger than the “normal” lions in the next enclosure. The couple has some juvenile cubs and as you can see, in the pics, the male was very interested in making some more…
©Giliell, all rights reserved, click for full size.
After his third attempt ended like this he threw himself against the glass of the enclosure…
No means No!
What magnificent animals. Their colour is so soft they look cuddly, but those last few shots will keep me standing well back. I wonder why white lions are bigger?
How does one adopt one of these?
This is a bit intrusive for a lighthearted post with animal pictures and I apologize in advance. I wrote something awhile back about why I thought zoos are bad. Here’s the link if anyone’s interested:
https://proxy.freethought.online/forgiven/2018/02/27/fuck-zoos/
I have forgiven Jesus
Now, I’m obviously disagreeing with you about your opinion on zoos. Maybe it’s because I’m of a European persuasion, but the example of the culled giraffe exemplifies to me many of the issues I have with that kind of argumentation: why is a pride of lions brutally killing a giraffe in the savannah good, but culling one in a zoo is bad?
Unfortunately, I think one of the strongest arguments for zoos is that extinctions in the wild may become depressingly common in the decades ahead.
“Why is a pride of lions brutally killing a giraffe in the savannah good, but culling one in a zoo is bad?”
I don’t think lions killing a giraffe is good or bad. Creatures eat other creatures -- it’s part of life. A lion kills a giraffe to eat. Humans kill giraffes in a zoo for whatever justifications they can conjure. In the former, the giraffe was able to live its life in the wild. In the latter, this is not the case. The primary difference is context, which matters to me. I realize it might not matter to some.
I would also argue that a human that imprisons an animal (for entertainment/education, not food) has a duty to keep it alive, excepting extraordinary circumstances in which it would be exceedingly difficult to do so. For the giraffe referenced in the article -- the zoo could have easily transferred him somewhere else, like another zoo, wildlife park, or sanctuary. He didn’t have to die.
The overall point about culling was less about ethics related to killing and more to expose an aspect of zoos that most people don’t like to think about.
I Have Forgiven Jesus
Animal husbandry in general is distasteful and involves humans controlling the lives and deaths of many creatures, from highly intelligent pigs, to cows, to fish. We kill these creatures to eat them ourselves. I don’t see the difference between that and what zoos do with their populations. A giraffe was humanely killed and given to a lion to eat. What else would the lion have eaten, but another different animal. Do you value a giraffe more than a deer or a boar and why? Lions are obligate carnivores and must eat other animals. The giraffe in question was also used to provide a valuable educational experience to people who will use that anatomical learning to better the lives of other animals. In the study of anatomy there is no substitute for 3D hands on learning. A textbook cannot animate a tendon or palpate a liver.
Humans are destroying every single habitat on earth. Zoos may be distasteful to some, but soon they will be the only places that many of these animals exist. Many if not most of them were born in captivity. I also think that the caregivers of these animals, by vast majority, are as concerned with the well being of their charges as you are of your cats. By your definition I am keeping my dog prisoner. I tether him with a leash and don’t allow him to leave the house without me. I control what he eats and when. There are strict rules for behavior(which he appreciates because he doesn’t need to think as much. Jack is not an alpha dog) and I have involuntarily had him sterilized.
And then they fed it to the lions, which is where I am lost in the argument, because in the end, the result is the same.
As voyager says, the lions needed to eat anyway, so I don’t get why a cow would be acceptable where a giraffe is not.
From what I understand, the terms ‘easily’ and ‘transferring’ are not usually put together when it comes to zoo animals, since not every other zoo out there has the facilities to care for, say, giraffes, or a single giraffe (my understanding is that they’re herd animals and do better in company), or might not have the resources to take on extra giraffes (because holy shit, look at the size of them!).
“Animal husbandry in general is distasteful and involves humans controlling the lives and deaths of many creatures, from highly intelligent pigs, to cows, to fish.”
I agree!
“I don’t see the difference between that and what zoos do with their populations.”
The context is different. In the case of animal husbandry, humans do it to meet human need; for zoo animals, the usage of their flesh for food is incidental to the reasons for its death. But I am not pointing this out to defend animal husbandry -- I restricted what I wrote about to zoo animals.
“Do you value a giraffe more than a deer or a boar and why? ”
No.
“What else would the lion have eaten, but another different animal”
If the giraffe wasn’t killed the lions wouldn’t have starved. That the giraffe took the place of other animals that would have been killed is irrelevant to my overarching concerns about zoos. To reiterate what I wrote to Giliell, the section on culling is more to expose aspects of zoos that most are unaware of.
“The giraffe in question was also used to provide a valuable educational experience to people who will use that anatomical learning to better the lives of other animals. In the study of anatomy there is no substitute for 3D hands on learning. A textbook cannot animate a tendon or palpate a liver.”
I tackle the educational justification for zoos in the blog.
“Zoos may be distasteful to some, but soon they will be the only places that many of these animals exist.”
This is probably true. Better for them to exist in animal sanctuaries rather than zoos in their current form. But I realize this won’t happen. We’ll collectively use them a haunting reminder of what we’ve done, as they live out their lives in confinement being gawked at by the species that caused their imprisonment.
“Many if not most of them were born in captivity”
I broadly tackle this subject in the post. If importations ceased, according to researchers I cited: “Theoretically…zoos could be closed just by calling a halt to their supply of animals for four to six years; at the end of that time, only a few veterans would remain.” Further, to plagiarize myself: “One would think that zoos would loudly tout their non-reliance on captured animals if that were truly the case. But, not surprisingly, this is information that is shrouded in secrecy and not made available for general public consumption.”
“I also think that the caregivers of these animals, by vast majority, are as concerned with the well being of their charges as you are of your cats.”
They probably do care about the animals. But their participation in imprisoning wild animals makes them part of the problem.
“By your definition I am keeping my dog prisoner. I tether him with a leash and don’t allow him to leave the house without me. I control what he eats and when. There are strict rules for behavior(which he appreciates because he doesn’t need to think as much. Jack is not an alpha dog) and I have involuntarily had him sterilized.”
I touch on this in response to a comment on the post. The gist: “I believe that we can enter into mutually beneficial relationships with companion animals. But I do realize this is an emotional argument, and not entirely uncoupled from selfishness on my part.” I also wrote briefly on domesticated/semi-domesticated animals, but it’s a whole other can of worms. Adding that piece into the blog would have made it even longer. One of these days I’ll probably write more about it.
“From what I understand, the terms ‘easily’ and ‘transferring’ are not usually put together when it comes to zoo animals, since not every other zoo out there has the facilities to care for, say, giraffes, or a single giraffe”
Not that it would have been easy from a logistical standpoint, but several zoos offered to take Marius:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/marius-giraffe-killed-copenhagen-zoo-protests
This goes completely against my experience. At least in the European zoos I have visited that information is widely publicized, usually to increase the public’s emotional attachment to the animals, but also for educational purposes, like information about conservation and breeding programs.
Sometimes there’s even information about how an animal is doing at a new zoo.
I seriously don’t get this. Dead giraffe, dead cow. The giraffe probably had a better life and less stress than the average factory farmed cow.
I’m going to call that the “adopted baby” argument. For the show, yeah, they would have taken that giraffe. And the next one? And the 5 after that?
Our small local zoo has agreed to serve as a kind of waiting line for the bulls too old for their family group and too young to lead their own herd, if there is one where they need a bull. This means that we often have a fun medley of different giraffe breeds, but no, not all of them can find a new home and we are limited to three individuals, if they get along with the rest.
When one breeds animals, perhaps with the attempt to conserve them or perhaps for other reasons -- and zoos are not exempt from this -- one on average gets 50% females and 50% males. In herd animals such as giraffes, one male can serve, or breed, many females. Out in the wild such excess male herd animals form bachelor herds and fight and tussle amongst themselves. With limited room in a breeding facility (such as a zoo, or a farm) the room may not be available. So yes. There are times when animals are culled. Out in the wild this would be done by predators, or sometimes even by fellow animals of the same species. Yes, it’s true that people tend to not like this. Life on a farm, or a zoo, or the wild, is not easy. It never has been. It has always resulted 100% in the death of every single animal and every single human, every single time.
Although I can see the point that zoos are not ideal, neither is extinction. In either case, the population must fall under some control, whether by predators, nature or other means. A humane death for a giraffe is not always what it would get in the wild.
Am I in love with the fact that every single animal on the planet today is only alive at the sufferance of human beings? No. I am not. Even so I recognize that conservation efforts, as clumsy as they may be, are at least an improvement over the idea of simply killing everything. I do applaud efforts to make things better for the animals, but I am also not convinced that no culling should ever take place. Life does not work like that, alas.
I Have Forgiven Jesus
I disagree with you for reasons others have already stated, but also for this one:
You are using the same rhetorical tactic that has so far completely failed to convince me that veganism/vegetarianism are a moral and not a dietary choice.
Whether deliberately or not, you are using a word that has very specific and negative meaning when applied to humans, and you are applying this word to animals. That might be valid, if the situation were really analogous -- but it is not. Zoo is not a prison, capturing an animal is not analogous to incarcerating a felon (or an innocent person for that matter) because animals are not humans (in fact, no two species are alike). There is superficial similarity, but there is a whole lot of differences in context both on the side of the entity behind the bars and on the side of the entity putting it behind the bars.
Thus, in essence, your argument relies on using superficial similarities to create emotionaly loaded false analogy in order to at least partialy project human characteristics onto the animals in question, anthropomophizing them to some extent in order to make your case.
You, as well as others, are interspersing the loaded words inbetween valid arguments about animal well-being, to shoehorn those valid arguments into your case. But whilst those valid arguments do make their own cases (for example about animal well-being), they are logicaly separate from those you are trying to make here, which is “keeping animals in captivity is bad” and “culling animals in captivity is bad”.
Giliel
“This goes completely against my experience. At least in the European zoos I have visited that information is widely publicized, usually to increase the public’s emotional attachment to the animals, but also for educational purposes, like information about conservation and breeding programs.
Sometimes there’s even information about how an animal is doing at a new zoo.”
I went to a few zoo websites in my general vicinity (Milwaukee & Chicago). They have detailed listings for all their animals, but nothing about where they came from (I don’t count the geographic regions they’re native to), with the exception of Chicago listing a few born on its premises. For wild captures, I found next to nothing about prevalence/methodologies/transport aside from what I reference in the blog. I’m open to seeing data about what percentages of animals are caught in the wild verses those bred in captivity.
As for education, emotional connections, and conservation. I cover all of this well.
“I seriously don’t get this. Dead giraffe, dead cow. The giraffe probably had a better life and less stress than the average factory farmed cow.”
We seem to be doing that thing where we’re talking past each other -- I also don’t get your point/argument. Not sure why you’re bringing up factory farms since I’ve said nothing to justify them. Just as you likely think you’re being clear, I do as well.
My arguments against zoos have little to do with this topic -- as I noted, I brought it up to highlight aspects of zoos that are primarily hidden and (now that I’m re-reading it) how negative publicity is handled (as you noted, there definitely does seem to be a difference between America and Europe, especially in terms of zoo-related PR). I never even broach the morality of culling and to what extent it is or isn’t necessary, and I don’t think my arguments hinge on this topic. I’m primarily concerned with attacking the new-ish rationales for the existence of zoos -- education and conservation. I’d like to think I provided evidence to call their unquestioned acceptance into question.
I reject the main reason which those rationales supplanted -- that humans should be able to see animals whenever we want (discussed below).
Charly
I can’t deny that a lot of my what I wrote is emotional in nature, and that the terms you highlighted are indeed loaded. However, I think that the confinement of humans and the confinement of nonhuman animals are analogous. The context is different for literally every organism confined, with the commonality that humans are the ones confining. But I also agree that analogizing nonhuman animals to humans is a non-starter for a lot of people, and might not be the best way to frame animal rights-related arguments. I loathe seeing vegans/vegetarians comparing the holocaust to factory farms.
But I disagree that I’m anthropomorphizing -- I don’t think the following premise entails anthropomorphization: “I operate under the assumption that a specific organism wishes to do things that are the result of the accumulation of millennia of evolutionary adaptations specific to their species – and being able to do so in the general environment where that species is found.”
My conclusion to this is that I think it wrong to hinder this for bad reasons (for the purposes of this discussion I’m restricting this to confinement in zoos/aquaria). I wouldn’t disagree if you claim that this is based not on logic, but on morality/emotions. Proceeding from there, I identify education and conservation as primary rationales used by zoo advocates to justify their continued existence. These, I think, are able to be investigated empirically (which I go into).
But, going back to what I wrote in respond to Giliel, the primary reason people go to and like zoos is because they want to see animals whenever they want. I am not able to logically or empirically show that this is bad, at least not in terms you’d agree with. I mean, if the cold, dispassionate writings of Peter Singer or Tom Regan on the topic of animal rights aren’t persuasive on logical grounds, I don’t have much of a shot.
@I Have Forgiven Jesus
This word presupposes some sort of mind capable of reasoning. Thus, this argument is antrhopomorphising animals too, despite your best efforts.
Further
a lot of these adaptations in any given animal are there to help it deal with predation, diseases, parasites and stress -- using your own arguments, do gazelles “wish” to live on constant allert about being mauled to death by wild dogs or do you think they would prefer quite safe paddock? Do they “wish” to be eaten half alive if even a mild diesease weakens them, or would they prefer a shot of antibiotics or a rest had they have the choice?
But even if we accept your argument as valid -- and it indeed could be reformulated into one by just slight rewording -- it will be, as I said previously, an argument about animal well being. It does not adress the morality of killing a captive animal or holding an animal in captivity. It only adresses which forms of captivity and killing are acceptable.
“This word presupposes some sort of mind capable of reasoning. Thus, this argument is anthropomorphism animals too, despite your best efforts.”
I do presuppose this. I’m not pulling that idea out of thin air -- It’s not like there isn’t a ton of research done on animal reasoning/cognition. But, perhaps instead of wish I should have used “strives to perform activities.” Though, perhaps you would object to “strive” as well.
“do gazelles “wish” to live on constant allert about being mauled to death by wild dogs or do you think they would prefer quite safe paddock?”
There’s no evidence that confined gazelles are cognizant that the humans injecting them with antibiotics are doing it to fight sickness and keep them alive. As they are not able to conceive of the human-related context of their captivity, I err on the side of what I already wrote (a “specific organism [strives to perform activities] that are the result of the accumulation of millennia of evolutionary adaptations specific to their species). The prospect of being eaten is part and parcel of being a prey animal, for better or worse. I don’t deny that nature is brutal and violent, but it doesn’t follow that we are responsible for mitigating this (which is distinct from what we should/shouldn’t do to mitigate the massive amount of destruction we’ve wrought).
“It does not adress the morality of killing a captive animal or holding an animal in captivity. It only adresses which forms of captivity and killing are acceptable.”
I think we’ve reached that point where we just gotta agree to disagree. And I think that’s okay. Not sure you feel the same, but I think you (and everyone else) I’ve interacted with made compelling, thought-provoking points.
There is, and I am not familiar with most of it. But what I am familiar with is that evidence points to there being a continuum from animals with probably no or negligent reasoning/cognition (jellyfish) across a wide variety of complexity that is at its peak somewhere around primates, carnivores, cetaceans, parrots and corvids. Any generalization across all animals will, in this as in other aspects, be false with regard to most of them. That means inevitably a lot of what is good/bad for humans, will be good/bad for many animals, but not for most of them. Captivity is among those things -- there might be species that take it rather badly (I am aware of cheetahs for example, who are very shy and private animals), but also species that thrive in it (fowl).
That is actually one of the reformulations that I had in mind.
Well, exactly!
However what you seem to avoid is to follow that argument to its full extent -- equally gazelles born in captivity are not cognizant of being deprived of anything. There is no reason to assume that they “wish” to live in the wild, because they do not have human concepts like “freedom” “imprisonment” or, for that matter, “wishing”. As long as their needs are met, they will be content. If they have a paddock and a herd big enough to meet their evolved needs for movement and social interaction, they are not missing anything positive they would have in the wild. On the contrary, pretty much all they are missing is the gruesome death by predators. And the occasional stress by inoculation/shot of antibiotics/whatever is probably no bigger than a stress of evading said predators by a hair from time to time.
My disagreeing with you does not mean I am hell-bent on convincing you, so I am OK with agreeing to disagree, because I do not think that disagreement on this particular issue has any concequences worth fighting over.
However, please do not dismiss the role of ZOOs in preserving wild animals. For example Przevalsi’s horse could only be returned to the wild because of being bred in captivity in ZOOs, and only because careful breeding in captivity could mitigate the damage of extreme genetic bottleneck.
“gazelles born in captivity are not cognizant of being deprived of anything.”
I think they are cognizant in their own way, and obviously not one defined by human standards. The primary evidence I find compelling for this is the existence of zoochosis/stereotypy/abnormal repetitive behaviors. These behaviors are either not observed in the wild, or observed far less in the wild. The existence of behaviors that are widely regarded as maladaptive/harmful by even the animal welfare community (and not just animal rights activists) gives evidence to the hypothesis that the gazelle (if they exhibit these behaviors) has some cognitive awareness that things are not right.
Unless I’m wrong, there have been no efforts made to quantify the totality and determine what proportions of animals (or species) that display these behaviors. That this may not be observed across all species and all organisms at all times doesn’t negate that there is an unknown, but nonzero, amount of animals that do so.
“However, please do not dismiss the role of ZOOs in preserving wild animals. For example Przevalsi’s horse could only be returned to the wild because of being bred in captivity in ZOOs, and only because careful breeding in captivity could mitigate the damage of extreme genetic bottleneck.”
Definitely! I express far more ambivalence in the conservation section and highlighted the San Diego Zoo and their California condor program.
Yes, I think we cannot get much further here, because I think we are starting from very different premises.
I do completely agree with animal welfare arguments, and I have seen zoos change a lot during my lifetime so far, and I hope I will see them change further, but I don’t see them as inherently bad.