I keep seeing various articles crop up all over the place about how boycotting zoos is the only way forward if you care about animals, and as a man who's planning to spend the rest of my life dedicated to animal interests I thought I would try and debunk the myth that zoos are inherently bad places to go. The most common and influential culprit of this fad are my favorite charity, or money laundering service as I like to call them, PETA, who have given us a nice article to sum up why boycotting zoos is best for everyone. (http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-not-use-entertainment/zoos/)
The primary problem here seems to be that PETA is manipulating its supporters into approaching this issue, which is solely about animals, from a human perspective. Not only is that completely irrelevant, but it's a sure way of giving animals human emotions despite captive animals themselves having no idea what freedom is and so obviously won't react in a similar way to humans. What PETA are doing here is effectively dictating an animal's emotions and assuming that they know the inner workings of its brain when in actual fact scientists are still debating over this issue to this very day. There's a varied range of different organisms inside zoos, and so different organisms are going to react to captivity in different ways. Are PETA seriously suggesting that a chimpanzee has the same cognitive functions as a cockroach, whose behaviour is designed for survival, not self satisfaction? Science has told us that humans hate being in captivity for long periods of time, but humans aren't the organism in question, so PETA need to can this generalisation schtick that unfortunately runs throughout the whole article. PETA do the same thing with the evil cluster of zoos that are clearly all the same no matter where they're located. Zoos are varied areas that differ in how they operate, coming under totally separate guidelines. But PETA don't target the minority that are solely in business for the money, and instead use these broad generalisations to demonise a problem that largely doesn't exist. Here's how they justify their radical reaction:
The reasons PETA give for boycotting zoos are lacking any scientific evidence for them to actually come across as valid. They do have a point here about a problem they call 'zoochosis', which when given its scientific name is actually known as 'stereotypical behaviours'. This is actually a very important issue to highlight, but will under no circumstances be solved by simply boycotting the zoos in question. Stereotypical behaviours can be reduced by providing a highly enriched enclosure that can only be achieved by a constant stream of funding. Boycotting will lead to a decrease in revenue that can be spent on animal welfare, and so this problem is just going to escalate without the public funding that you're trying to stop. The sole evidence you bring forward is about the use of drugs on animals, which if I'm not mistaken is standard medical procedure for depressed and agitated human beings. Still, this issue has only been reported very few times, so to use this as a reason for boycotting all zoos is incredibly naive. I've just never understood the logic of giving less money to zoos and suddenly expecting the conditions of the animals to suddenly improve. You must be aware that businesses require money to operate, so why the hell are you trying to deny a positive environment for the animals to live in?
Again, despite using the word 'instances' you still use this point to try and prove that every single zoo is evil. I doubt that every charity out there is entirely reliable, but does that mean all charities are wasteful with their money. Actually I wouldn't answer that if I was PETA considering they're ranked very lowly when it comes to where their money goes on websites such as 'Charity Navigator', which only just gave them a score of 2 out of 4. Still, you could of at least found a few more sources considering that the two you cite here are from the same article. You didn't even mention that the Cologne incident was caused by a keeper not shutting the gate properly, and not because the animal was frustrated and desperate to escape like you falsely claim. If your total sample number is one, and even that is invalid, then you cannot possibly make a broad generalisation on the activities of zoos in general on a global scale, especially when your sole source doesn't even mention any atypical behaviour that would cause me to doubt the animal welfare of that single location. Also, how did that tiger try and 'regain its freedom'? In my funny little world I would of thought to 'regain' freedom you would've been free at some point in your life, not born into captivity. Yet again another false statement from supposedly the world's leading animal welfare charity. Shameful.
Well first of all zoos are a small gene pool segregated from the wild, so actually they are the stand between extinction for wild animals; that's just basic logic. It's also interesting to note that despite zoos hiring educated experts, PETA assume that all zoos are idiots when it comes to animal welfare and have to remind them that captive animals won't fare well in the wild, which coincidentally also invalidates PETA's argument that all animals should be free. It's all very well saying establishments such as 'SeaWorld' should empty their orca tanks when you admit yourselves that the process would just end up with more suffering. Zoos are aware of this and so they support breeding programmes that you completely fail to mention despite this process being an integral part of conservation in zoos. Instead you focus on how many zoos dispose of their animals, despite again providing a single source that isn't definitive proof. That source by the way refers to Knowsley Safari Park, which contrary to your beliefs occurred due to the animals simply dieing of natural causes, and not just culled or sold on the black market, as that goes against WAZA regulations. Again, surely if zoos are so evil then you must be able to provide at least a few reliable sources, but so far there has not been one.
We then go onto this bullshit argument that zoos divert money away from conservation efforts, despite the fact that breeding programmes themselves are conservation methods. To call the protection of the natural habitat 'the only effective and sustainable way' is simply bogus. In no way have schemes to prevent habitat loss been sustainable in the last few decades as fragile environments are declining at a record rate, with various statistics coming out daily on how long they have to last. It's interesting that you say it's the only sustainable way, yet when reading your annual report I couldn't seem to find any expenditure from your charity into these so called 'sustainable' projects. Funny that. Schemes such as ecotourism in Rwanda have worked wonders for the local gorilla population, but your so called 'sustainable' approach is just wasting money on a problem that isn't being rectified. Surely the sheer number of new animals appearing on the endangered species list is enough evidence for you to realise that your solution is absolutely hopeless, and maybe you should actually leave this conservation issue to people who know what they're doing; you know, the people who are employed by zoos. But no, just as long as the animals are free then all their problems are gone. The only reason this breeding programmes exist is because your solution is so fucked up, and so drastic measures are needed. By boycotting zoos you're making the process of extinction a thousand times worse, which you don't seem to care about. Animal welfare doesn't make any difference if the animal in question has become extinct.
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Even from personal experience I can say that thanks to the educational facilities at my local zoo I'm now going into a degree that centers around the science of animals. The fact that zoos have a great number of educated professionals working directly for the animals shows that not only are they educational places, but probably the best educational method for conservation that doesn't require you to spend thousands of pounds. Thanks to zoos you don't have to fly halfway around the world for the slim chance of seeing an animal in the wild, as you can see the same animal just down the road for a fraction of the price, with the same awe inspiring effect. At the end of the day PETA have to pick their poison and prioritise which issue is far greater. Is the real evil a business that confines and personally cares for their animals, or the natural world that is constantly under threat from habitat destruction and mineral exploitation? Does a tiger that's been bred in captivity care about its natural context? Of course it doesn't, it has no knowledge that even exists. Zoos don't segregate an animal from its natural habitat since the animal never had one, and unlike humans has no notion of the concept.
Here's a little factbox for gullible idiots. I refuse to call these actual facts as they're simply misleading. The survey in which Bristol University students found that over 75% of zoos didn't meet minimum animal welfare standards was determined through visits that often didn't last a single day and was funded by an organisation known as 'Born Free'. That doesn't sound biased at all does it. It also turns out that the majority of 'zoos' who didn't meet the standards were actually farm zoos, and therefore not members of the BIAZA, who claim that 83% of their members meet all of the minimum welfare standards. But somehow it gets worse, as we have the life expectancy of ONE animal found in zoos. One. That is quite possibly the worst generalisation I've ever seen, when in fact the reality is that captive animals generally live longer than their wild counterparts due to the decreased selection pressures found in controlled environments. The explanation for the last statistic is that breeding programmes are often used as an insurance method, just like seed banks, and so the animals often become sources for scientific knowledge and act as ambassador species for their wild counterparts. Breeding programmes are a global initiative, and like any initiative the results have been mixed. However populations of animals such as the Siberian tiger have rebounded from 40 to over 500 in the last 70 years according to the WWF, so unlike your prevention of habitat destruction plan, this method is proven to work. Let's just say the UN isn't so positive when it comes to estimating habitat loss each year, which of course is the only sustainable solution.
So no PETA, zoos should never be boycotted by the public on the grounds of animal welfare issues. Your reasons given for avoiding zoos are blatant lies to manipulate idiots into thinking they're making a difference in the world. I urge people to support their local zoos, as contrary to what PETA believe they are not the enemy, and are the simplest way in helping to maintain biodiversity on our precious planet. PETA on the other hand operate like hypocritical assholes, and are actually part of the problem they're trying to erase. They have the audacity to say just watching animals on a television screen is good enough, when everyone knows that seeing and experiencing things for yourself is a totally different, and much more beneficial experience. So actually I agree that we should withhold our money from inhumane establishments that profit from exploiting animals, and that begins with boycotting PETA. Yes these are the hypocrites that have no problems with people owning a pet, but object to them visiting zoos. The worst thing is it gets worse when you actually look deeper into their operations.
No comments:
Post a Comment