Posted by Richard Teller on November 11, 2010 at 8:58 AM
I posted some pics of a gorilla I shot at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha.
It brought up some comments about zoos that I thought would make an interesting discussion. I have mixed feelings about zoos. I see the beautiful animals confined and I wish they were in the wild. Sometimes I don't like zoos. But, at least some zoos, do a great deal to help preserve wildlife and their natural habitat and are very worth while. One reason I like the Henry Doorly zoo is that they have very few animals in small cages. The have larger habitat areas. I would like to hear some other feelings about zoos and zoo photography. I would never be able to get images of some animals if it were not for zoos.
Posted by Luke Ormand on November 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM
The standard argument that people in favor of zoos make is that they provide education to the public... that is, the general population wouldn't know about a gorilla or a panda or a giraffe unless they saw it in a zoo and read about it. This is true to a certain extent, but it doesn't hold up well for me if that's all it is. An animal in a cage with a few paragraphs about it... if the zoo is doing something to help preserve this species, or their habitat then it becomes much more beneficial. Keep in mind that many animals (nowadays) are bred in captivity, so they aren't being taken from the wild like they had in the past which I think is a big positive change.
There is also the example of the Panda which has been successfully bred in captivity and is an important program between China and the U.S. It's my understanding that many of the bigger institutions (zoos and aquariums that are part of the AZA for example) conduct a lot of research on their animals and help advance knowledge on biology, genetics etc. for these species which can be invaluable.
I worked at an aquarium one summer (which is a for-profit business, in contrast to most not-for-profit aquariums). The animals were all treated exceptionally well and virtually all of the Atlantic tropical fish were wild caught (a bad thing you would think). The caveat is that in the summer the gulf stream takes tiny juvenile tropical fish and brings them up to Long Island where they spend there time in the bays until the water gets too cold and they die. So the aquarium collects these fish before the waters get to cold, and they get the chance to live a nice long life in captivity where they are fed every day, and the public gets to learn about these creatures (for more info, read this article by one of the aquarists:Tropical Fish on Long Island)
Additionally, the aquarium had some non-sea life animals (emus, monkeys, reptiles etc.) that were all rescued from clueless "pet" owners who realized maybe it wasn't a great idea to have a caiman as a pet. That's a win-win for me. Additionally, attached to the aquarium is the Riverhead Foundation, a not-for-profit sea mammal rescue/rehab facility. They pay a small fee for rent at the facility and in exchange everyone who visits the aquarium walks through part of their facility and is educated on sea mammal rescue. Many vistors donate money to this worthy cause, and some end up becoming volunteers for the organization. The Riverhead Foundation would never be as successful as they are without this partnership.
As for taking photographs, I think it is important to take pictures at zoos and aquariums if you have the talent to really show off the subjects. Many contests (small and large) have categories for zoos, and you can capture moments in a zoo that you would never be able to capture in the wild. These images can be used for true conservation purposes when connected with the right organization or used properly - but that's where it falls on the photographer. If you are going to take advantage of these captive animals, you should accept the responsibility to use your images for good.
Posted by Jim DeWitt on November 11, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Zoos serve a set of useful functions. Public education is one of them. I don't think that is the most important one. Most importantly, they are repositories of gene pools and, to a lesser extent, meme (behavioral) pools for species that are vanishing in the wild. They are a form of insurance - not really good insurance, but still insurance - against the loss of biodiversity.
Photos from zoos are fine, as long as that's disclosed, although that may not always be necessary. A while back, I posted a head shot of an Andean Condor. No one thought it wasn't from a zoo.
Posted by Brad Hill on November 11, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Hi Richard,
I've seen heated debates on the pros/cons of zoos - everything from their true value in education and conservation thru to the issue of the emotional cruelty they impose on their non-human occupants. In the real world zoos have issues/problems (the Calgary Zoo comes to mind here - they've gone thru a recent and sustained string of unnecessary animal deaths in the last few years) and I WISH there was no need for them. But, if I'm being honest and am forced to continue to reside in the real world, I think there IS a need for them. And, mostly as an aside, I find even the most strident argument about the cruelty they impose pretty hypocritical on a society-wide context - shooting hot metal thru many of the species we can find in a zoo is OK (during hunting season), but doing our best to treat individual members of a species (endangered or otherwise) to the best of our ability in a zoo is not?
Ultimately the "to zoo" or "not to zoo" debate boils down to a discussion whether mankind does or doesn't have a role as "steward of the environment." I've always found this debate interesting and the best treatment I've read of it was a book by John Black called "The Dominion of Man, The Search for Ecological Responsibility" (Edinburgh University Press, 1970). I know many are convinced that mankind IS the proper steward of the environment (and Black traces this idea back to the rise of Christianity), but my thought is that if man is the steward of the environment, he/she ought to be fired from this job with NO severance pay!!
On the photographic side: I have no problem at all with images shot in zoos - as long as the photographer doesn't turn around and claim they were shot in the wild (and I have seen this!). Zoos can be great places to test new equipment and practice your techniques...
Now if this doesn't get things going, nothing will!!
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by John Tobias on November 12, 2010 at 10:11 AM
First, just to be up front, for those that do not know I am a retired zoo director. I have been in the zoo field for over 32 years, and even though retired, I still go to zoos to take photos and to see wildlife. I enjoy taking photos of animals in zoos, even teaching zoo photo classes, but also enjoy photographing wildlife and nature subjects.
Zoo education is not limited to the graphics which are with the exhibits, but also include classes. At the Miller Park Zoo where I was the director we would have between 6 and 10,000 annual participants in classes. Miller Park Zoo is one of the smallest accredited zoos in the country, The last time I saw any info on it, the Associations of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) was supporting or involved with around 600 conservation and research projects and programs. I, as the zoo director was involved with the Sumatran tiger, red wolf, black footed ferret, red panda, ruff lemur, New Guinea Singing dog and other conservation programs.
There should no question however, that zoos also entertain. Most visitors come to the zoo for a nice time. This is needed in order for zoos to beable to conduct their conservation, research, and education programs.
There are of course bad zoos, IMHO should not even be called zoos but manageries. I don't visit them, and do not recommend them.
Enough of that. My suggestion if you enjoy going to a zoo, photographing the animals there, many of which you may never see in the wild, do so, join the zoo help to support their conservation projects. If, on the other hand, you do not like zoos, don't go, but support wildlife conservation through other organizations. We are really all working towards a common goal, the conservtion of our natural heritage.
Posted by Basil Greber on November 12, 2010 at 5:08 PM
A lot of good things have been brought up already. I'd like to add one thing (assuming I didn't miss that it's already been mentioned): Zoos allow people - and I'd guess particularly children - to connect emotionally to the animals, much more than just by viewing images in a book or watching a movie. I would hope that this would make these people more likely to support conservation efforts, both specific to "exotic" animals as seen in zoos, and also in general, such as by ecological behaviour.
Discussion
5 repliesIt brought up some comments about zoos that I thought would make an interesting discussion. I have mixed feelings about zoos. I see the beautiful animals confined and I wish they were in the wild. Sometimes I don't like zoos. But, at least some zoos, do a great deal to help preserve wildlife and their natural habitat and are very worth while. One reason I like the Henry Doorly zoo is that they have very few animals in small cages. The have larger habitat areas. I would like to hear some other feelings about zoos and zoo photography. I would never be able to get images of some animals if it were not for zoos.
There is also the example of the Panda which has been successfully bred in captivity and is an important program between China and the U.S. It's my understanding that many of the bigger institutions (zoos and aquariums that are part of the AZA for example) conduct a lot of research on their animals and help advance knowledge on biology, genetics etc. for these species which can be invaluable.
I worked at an aquarium one summer (which is a for-profit business, in contrast to most not-for-profit aquariums). The animals were all treated exceptionally well and virtually all of the Atlantic tropical fish were wild caught (a bad thing you would think). The caveat is that in the summer the gulf stream takes tiny juvenile tropical fish and brings them up to Long Island where they spend there time in the bays until the water gets too cold and they die. So the aquarium collects these fish before the waters get to cold, and they get the chance to live a nice long life in captivity where they are fed every day, and the public gets to learn about these creatures (for more info, read this article by one of the aquarists:Tropical Fish on Long Island)
Additionally, the aquarium had some non-sea life animals (emus, monkeys, reptiles etc.) that were all rescued from clueless "pet" owners who realized maybe it wasn't a great idea to have a caiman as a pet. That's a win-win for me. Additionally, attached to the aquarium is the Riverhead Foundation, a not-for-profit sea mammal rescue/rehab facility. They pay a small fee for rent at the facility and in exchange everyone who visits the aquarium walks through part of their facility and is educated on sea mammal rescue. Many vistors donate money to this worthy cause, and some end up becoming volunteers for the organization. The Riverhead Foundation would never be as successful as they are without this partnership.
As for taking photographs, I think it is important to take pictures at zoos and aquariums if you have the talent to really show off the subjects. Many contests (small and large) have categories for zoos, and you can capture moments in a zoo that you would never be able to capture in the wild. These images can be used for true conservation purposes when connected with the right organization or used properly - but that's where it falls on the photographer. If you are going to take advantage of these captive animals, you should accept the responsibility to use your images for good.
Photos from zoos are fine, as long as that's disclosed, although that may not always be necessary. A while back, I posted a head shot of an Andean Condor. No one thought it wasn't from a zoo.
I've seen heated debates on the pros/cons of zoos - everything from their true value in education and conservation thru to the issue of the emotional cruelty they impose on their non-human occupants. In the real world zoos have issues/problems (the Calgary Zoo comes to mind here - they've gone thru a recent and sustained string of unnecessary animal deaths in the last few years) and I WISH there was no need for them. But, if I'm being honest and am forced to continue to reside in the real world, I think there IS a need for them. And, mostly as an aside, I find even the most strident argument about the cruelty they impose pretty hypocritical on a society-wide context - shooting hot metal thru many of the species we can find in a zoo is OK (during hunting season), but doing our best to treat individual members of a species (endangered or otherwise) to the best of our ability in a zoo is not?
Ultimately the "to zoo" or "not to zoo" debate boils down to a discussion whether mankind does or doesn't have a role as "steward of the environment." I've always found this debate interesting and the best treatment I've read of it was a book by John Black called "The Dominion of Man, The Search for Ecological Responsibility" (Edinburgh University Press, 1970). I know many are convinced that mankind IS the proper steward of the environment (and Black traces this idea back to the rise of Christianity), but my thought is that if man is the steward of the environment, he/she ought to be fired from this job with NO severance pay!!
On the photographic side: I have no problem at all with images shot in zoos - as long as the photographer doesn't turn around and claim they were shot in the wild (and I have seen this!). Zoos can be great places to test new equipment and practice your techniques...
Now if this doesn't get things going, nothing will!!
Cheers...
Brad
Zoo education is not limited to the graphics which are with the exhibits, but also include classes. At the Miller Park Zoo where I was the director we would have between 6 and 10,000 annual participants in classes. Miller Park Zoo is one of the smallest accredited zoos in the country, The last time I saw any info on it, the Associations of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) was supporting or involved with around 600 conservation and research projects and programs. I, as the zoo director was involved with the Sumatran tiger, red wolf, black footed ferret, red panda, ruff lemur, New Guinea Singing dog and other conservation programs.
There should no question however, that zoos also entertain. Most visitors come to the zoo for a nice time. This is needed in order for zoos to beable to conduct their conservation, research, and education programs.
There are of course bad zoos, IMHO should not even be called zoos but manageries. I don't visit them, and do not recommend them.
Enough of that. My suggestion if you enjoy going to a zoo, photographing the animals there, many of which you may never see in the wild, do so, join the zoo help to support their conservation projects. If, on the other hand, you do not like zoos, don't go, but support wildlife conservation through other organizations. We are really all working towards a common goal, the conservtion of our natural heritage.