kwigibo

i think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself with that CGI remark.

I think the argument against zoos is a valid one, but not all-encompassing. Enclosures are the problem, and for years cages have been evolving into artificial habitats, so i think it's only fair to compliment the majority of zoos. most (large) endangered species owe their existence to the work of zoos. And while research of natural behaviour is important, there are just some things you can't study in the wild. i think most 1st-world zoos are heading away from traditional confinement, and rightly so, as i also hate the idea of animals in cages (the way they still keep a great deal of monkeys )

kwigibo

as for the original question, i guess,
Homo Neanderthalis

Amen-Moses

I was at Marwell last year and overheard some brash tourist complaining that the Leopard was obviously mistreated by the way it was pacing backwards and forwards (they obviously have seen all those programmes about Bears, Lions and Elephants where this behaviour is a sign of mental illness caused by etreme boredom). The "keeper" (who turned out to be a Phd student volunteer) explained that this behaviour is completely normal for this species and that they even do it in the wild), the tourist was having none of it and kept going on about how being couped up the tiny cage (around a 20-30 metre cube) was causing the animal distress when the Leopard stopped, let out a huge yawn and promptly fell asleep on the grass area it had been pacing over, within seconds the animal was snoring loudly much to everyones delight and the "keeper" just turned to the tourist and said "Looks happy enough to me.".

(btw just for the info of other readers, the Leopard's have to be kept in a large totally enclosed cage because they can climb over any size fence, the cages at Marwell are designed
specifically to mimic the normal wild range of each species as they breed animals to be released back into the wild. It is quite spooky to be able to walk along just a few feet from a Cheetah with only a couple of fences between you with the Cheetah looking at you and licking his lips. At Marwell you are in their domain rather than the other way round.)

Amen-Moses

hyzer

quote “the "keeper" just turned to the tourist and said "Looks happy enough to me.".”

With all due respect, I think that you are missing the point. It is not about whether or not the leopard “looks” happy. We should be doing everything in our power to allow leopards to live their lives out in their natural habitat. Looking happy has nothing to do with it (as subjective a judgement as can be made whether by a PhD student volunteer or not). A cage 20-30 meters IS tiny for an animal the size of a leopard (can they hunt in that space? Run?). The leopard might indeed pace back and forth in the wild (in response to what I wonder?) but as long as they are not in the wild it very well could be in response to being caged.

Zoos might have a place in maintaining various species that would otherwise face extinction, and paid admissions certainly provide funding, but lets not justify putting leopards in small cages because they “look” happy.

bluefugue

I think most modern zoos give animals a little more room to move around in than a "small cage." It's not as good as roaming free in the veldt, of course, but it's not really that inhumane.

Amen-Moses

That is the point, this does in fact mimic their normal environment, this particular species does not range far and wide across the savannah like a Cheetah (which at Marwell has an enormous enclosure), nor does it congregate in large packs like Lions. It is a secrative loner which spends the bulk of it's time sitting in trees or crouching near the edge of the forest waiting to ambush Bambi.

For a full grown adult male Leopard the daytime is sleep time, the fact that this particular animal can go to sleep just a few yards from gaggles of noisy humans does not indicate an unhappy animal.

Remember these are wild animals, they are never handled unless sick, they are not hand reared unless absolutely neccessary, i.e if the mother dies for example, and the Leopards are given live food once a week - they do it at night after the Park is closed to the public. (apparently the Cheetah's and Tigers prefer their food dead but dragged along on elaborate pulley systems to mimic the chase)

Normally I am against any form of captive animals purely for entertaining big apes but considering that all of the species at Marwell are on the endangered list with many being extinct in the wild and that they make huge efforts to put the animals into as natural an environment as possible (I imagine the Leopard above would have much to gripe about if he could talk, mainly the cold and the rain just like the rest of us here) I am in favour of Marwell and always try to visit a couple of times a year to help finance them.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

btw It is the Persian Leopard that is bred at Marwell.

Check out this link and compare the compound sizes with the house in the middle of the map.

<a href="http://www.marwell.org.uk/about-map.htm" target="_blank">http://www.marwell.org.uk/about-map.htm</a>

Amen-Moses

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

hyzer

Amen-Moses –

Thanks for the links. I will look at them when I get a chance.

I am sure the size and design of the leopard’s enclosure at Marwell was well considered by those who design and care for such animals (as I am sure that the design was also tempered by budget constraints as determined by the annual take at the gate, operating and feeding costs, available space, etc).

As I wrote, I am sure that there are some zoos that do an admirable job in maintaining and/or breeding various species that would otherwise face extinction, educating the public and raising the awareness of vanishing habitat. I am also sure that there are many zoos that serve no larger purpose, where the animals live, by any measure, horrible lives. I make it a point not to patronize any zoos, my own personal statement if you will.

I objected to your story in which the zoo habit is judged to be acceptable because the animal appeared happy because the animal fell asleep as judged by a student volunteer. I wouldn’t deign to make that judgement (not being a leopard, nor educated in animal care), maybe others would. Tourists often voice inane criticisms about, well, everything. Perhaps the tourist ought not to have visited Marwell in the first place, if he (she?) had intense feelings based on, presumably, visits to other zoos.

Oolon Colluphid

Hyzer, two further slight points. As anyone who studies these creatures in the wild would tell you, it’s not (entirely) quantity of space, but quality. Doubtless leopards (or anything else) have much larger ranges in the wild -- because they have to have, to find enough food, water, shelter, etc etc. When provided with these things, they can be just as happy with a much smaller territory. (I’m sure I’ve read stuff about the range/resources correlation -- anyone know more?)

And zoos are also a major resource, in their vast expertise in veterinary medicine. If your wild manatee is sick, the best place to call is the zoo .

Cheers, Oolon

Ergaster

In a perfect world, we would be able to return animals to their native habitats. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and the human hunger for land makes it basically inevitable that adequate habitats simply will not be found for many many species in the wild. It is not really much of an option anymore--there is already considerable conflict between villagers trying to scrape a living and wild animals confined to ever-shrinking areas of preserved habitats.

And there is another factor that has not been mentioned yet--in many cases the "wild" animals that we do see in many zoos, especially the big ones involved in breeding and conservation, are *not* wild-caught, but captive-bred. Their grandmother's habitat might have been the wide-open savanna or the pristine rainforest, but it is highly doubtful that most of these creatures could survive "in the wild", and most certainly they would not live as long or be as healthy.

(I recall a scene in one of Gerald Durrell's many books, where he recounts an episode where a group of tourists were viewing the newly-captured animals, and one woman raised objections to the effect that they had been taken from their habitat. Durrell invited her to observe while he examined the primate, and removed an assortment of parasites, worms, and nasty vermin from the creature, some of which had burrowed under the skin and raised interesting cysts and ulcers).