Zoos (bad places for "Nature" photography)

I have recently seen a posting of a picture of a captured eagle in the nature forum. The problem I have is the promotion of zoo photography as something to be respected. I find zoos to be one of the sickest and saddest places on earth. While zoos can be homes for orphaned animals,

most are scenes of animal abuse. People need to wake up and realize what a sad state our planet has reached when zoos are the last place for people to see animals. I personally would rather never see an animal that have to see one in a zoo.

 

<p>

 

As photographers, we would do a better service by documenting the abuses to animals in a zoo rather than trying to pretend we are taking pretty pictures of them. The last zoo I visited (Anchorage, Alaska) had a number of visible animal abuses going such as very small cages and freaked out animals.

 

<p>

 

I hope this sparks some discussion on zoo photography (which is not nature photography, but caged animal photography.

 

<p>

 

Steve Cook

It's nature by the PSA rules (not that that means much!), so it's

acceptable here for image critique.

 

<p>

 

Yup, zoos are on the list of "bad" places, but they're generally

above circuses, rodeos and game parks, but below rehab centers

and national parks. There are bad zoos and better zoos and probably

no perfect zoos. In a perfect world, there would be no zoos and all

the animals would be free. However, that's not very realistic. Since zoos are probably here to stay, all we can do is lobby for the best possible conditions, and not support bad zoos (or marine parks) where the animals are simply "entertainment" (sometimes thinly diguised as education).

 

<p>

 

Here's my "favorite" zoo shot, wheres's yours?

 

<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://bobatkins.photo.net/photos/ZOO1.JPG">

</center>

<p>

[bTW this is actually a good zoo. It's "Popcorn Park" in NJ, a center which takes in injured

and rejected animals. They have a selection of abandoned "exotic" pets,

traffic accident victims, animals made "surplus" by other zoos. This

monkey was abused by it's original keeper (who scalded it with boiling water).

Though the conditions at Popcorn Park are far from ideal due to lack of funds,

their hearts are in the right place and I urge anyone who passes near

Forked River NJ to pay them a visit and make a contibution to their work]

If we had no zoos then only those rich enought to travel over the entire world could see and appreciate these animals. That would greatly reduce the political will to preserve them. While I cannot and will not condone abuse of a captive animal in a zoo, I think we must be aware of how we build a consensus to preserve these animals.

 

<p>

 

As the National Park Service in the USA knows, they must provide access and enjoyment for all of those 'auto tourists' so they can get the support necessary to support the wildnerness areas. I think the same is true for zoos and preserving wildlife worldwide.

 

<p>

 

Let's also define abuse. Some folks believe any captivity is abuse, eating animals is abuse, wearing leather is abuse and so forth. Others would limit abuse only to intentional and purposeless cruelty.

I don't know the story behind the youngish bird photographed by Marc.

 

<p>

 

However, I can tell you with certainty that "Montana", the bird I photographed, is not releasable.

 

<p>

 

Unless you want her to quickly starve to death, that is.

 

<p>

 

Tell me, Steve, could you personally wring her neck and kill her in order to save her from the zoo life you abhor?

 

<p>

 

That would be the humane answer, unless you consider starvation to be a humane death.

 

<p>

 

There's a lot about zoos I don't care for. Yet, I'm on the board of a place (Portland Audubon) which keeps captive birds, in particular raptors. They are universally unreleasable, in most cases due to hitting cars or being shot. These are birds that can't fly, or can barely fly perhaps across a room. They would starve within days in the wild. Those that can't be placed as educational birds are put down. Most raptors actually get along pretty well with their handlers, and while not pets I'd much rather see them kept as educational birds than killed.

 

<p>

 

Others disagree, I realize.

 

<p>

 

Regarding photography of captive animals in general, I have mixed feelings. Wild animal photography is often accompanied by harrassment and interference. This is particularly true of hard to approach and hard to find animals such as wolves and cougar. From the conservation point of view, it is easy to argue that photography of captive animals is less harmful to the viability of the species than harassing a wild animal of a species which is sensitive to human disturbance.

 

<p>

 

Bald eagles probably being the raptor most sensitive to human disturbance in North America during nesting season, by the way,

even when it's not obvious to the casual observer (I'll leave that

for another time) ... and until recently an endangered species, making harassment for purposes of photography not only immoral but illegal.

 

<p>

 

I do strongly feel that photographs of captive animals should be very obviously labelled as such.

Thanks Bob!!! That is the kind of shot the public should see.

 

<p>

 

Steve Cook

I think this basically reflects my feelings about zoo's in general although I have taken some of my favorite shots there in the past. The older I get the more I detest them.

 

<p>

 

I couldn't resist posting this one after seeing Bob's.

<center>

<img src="http://members.ucmail.com/tmartin/images/monkey.jpg">

</center>

 

<p>

 

Thomas Martin

Lumping all zoos in the same catagory as abusers of their wards is particularly dangerous. Having no direct personal knowledge of other institutions I will not comment on their situation. However I am very familiar with the program at Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo and feel very comfortable defending its program. In addition to a great job of public awareness and education through its seminars, programs and the like, the raptor recovery program has been responsible for rereleasing in excess of seventy (70) bald eagles to the wild. Those birds entering the center which cannot be rereleased because of limitations which preclude their living in the wild are sometimes used in public education programs. Their keepers/handlers are extremely knowledgable and conscience and do an outstanding job. Both "Montana" and the bird photographed by Marc are part of this public education program, neither are releasable to the wild nor are they suffering any physical pain. There are some who may argue that this being the case they should be summarily euthanised. However I feel strongly that with greater public knowledge in part provided by these birds in educational programs that the birds in the wild are better served for the future.

I agree with the comments about the different standards of zoos around the world. I've been to quite a few now, with my kids. The best I've seen was in Munich - a really superb place where they have attempted to give the animals large habitat areas, as close to their wild environment as possible. Visible fences are kept to a minimum, with moats (setup to look like ponds and rivers) being used wherever possible.

<p>

I've never seen a really really bad zoo, but the one in Berlin wasn't great - there was the saddest looking Panda there. My home zoo of Edinburgh is Ok.

<p>

I still prefer zoos to the type of water parks where they hold killer whales and dolphins in horrible little pools in order to provide public performances. I <b>really</b> hate those. I still go however, as the kids love them. Hypocricy or what? At least back home in Scotland the equivalents (the superb Sea Life centres for example) are mostly setup more as a conservation centre than anything else - with access to animals (who are mostly released back into the wild) more to provide funding and education.

<p>

Dear me, I'm rambling here. What was the question again....?

<p><img align="right" src="http://bvsd.co.edu/~stanglt/Photo/caged_rabit.jpg" width="300"

height="200">    Another thing to consider is as nature

photographers/enthusiasts wouldn't we be more pleased to see animals in their natural

habitat rather than locked up in the local zoo.  Film is one of the best ways to

see/show an animal in their natural environment.  But as described above some of

these nature public education program are a well justified attempt to save the natural

world from our existence.</p>

 

<p><font size="2">    This rabbit was caged in our yard and garage for

years, it was never some thing that I saw fit, but it wasn't my rabbit.  The rabbit was treated well but as

always could have been better.</font></p>

Where do you draw the line on animals in captivity? I live in Salt lake City where the Zoo personnel have killed several animals, including (2) giraffes through abuse, low pay(lack of caring personnel) and lack of training for animal handlers, during the past (2) years. The Zoo director finally resigned under pressure, but I do not feel comfortable that his resignation will do anything to resolve the problem. What can I as an average citizen do about these abuses, in a local society that does not care.

 

<p>

 

Utah runs huge surpluses ($100MM+) each year in tax revenues, but will not spend any money even to fairly compensate school teachers (we rank 48th in teacher pay), let alone spend money to clean up the Zoo.

 

<p>

 

Additionally, I have (6) pet cats, (4) of whom I rescued from advanced starvation when people abandoned them in our neighborhood or in my children's school yard. Is it kind to keep housecats as pets? Mine certainly are pampered and well treated, but their lives are not "natural" in the absolute sense.

Zoos make me sad and I try my best to avoid them. I'd much rather see a beautiful photo or video of a wild animal in its natural environment than observe a caged animal. Properly done, photos and videos can help one understand and appreciate much about an animal's behavior and environment. Observing a caged animal in a zoo gives me almost no information. It's nothing like the real thing.

 

<p>

 

Injured animals who would die in the wild are another matter completely. If people want to care for them, I believe it is OK for them to do so.

First, there are no doubt bad zoos, and even in "good" zoos conditions for certain of the animals which are not as natural or "cage free" as the better exhibits. However, there are more to zoos, and zoo photography, than what people have described. A significan omission is the scientific research that is undertaken, particularly in connection with preserving endangered species. Much of this reasearch is difficult if not impossible in the wild. For example, at the National Zoo in D.C. (some good exhibits, some not so good), one of the projects is the Cheetah preservation program. This is done through breeding and research. The enclosures for the Cheetahs are natural and relatively large. There is also the program to reintroduce Golden Lion Tamarinds into Brazil. In the summer these animals are allowed to roam free, no fences (they don't actually roam too far) in an effort to get them acclimated to life in the rain forest with the goal of reintroduction. There are some species whose only existence is now in zoos. Those arguing against zoos are arguing for their extinction. A "good" zoo can educate, inform, and provide valuable research into helping preserve a species whose existence in the wild is threatened by the hand of man. Indeed, if not for these programs and opportunities to view and understand wildlife, there would most likely be far less public support than now exists for wildlife preservation.

 

<p>

 

As for the photography issue, there are simply some animals photographs of which would not exist if not for zoo photography. Franz Lanting's recent book Wild Eyes contains some images taken in zoos or other captive conditions because it is impossible to get photographs in the wild. And he is certainly not the only one. Label? Without a doubt. Avoid taking the photographs? That debate will continue with no answer that will satisfy everyone.

 

<p>

 

By all means do whatever can be done (within the law and reason) to eliminate the problems some zoos have, and to clean up their act. But getting rid of zoos entirely could do far more long term harm to the goals some people say they profess.

Blah blah.... the only acceptable zoo (or aquarium, which are often worse) is one that inspires OUTRAGE. People need to be shocked, to have their senses battered to a bloody pulp with the idea that gets the point through to a middle-class, brain-dead consumer nation (ummm, that's for us Americans) that the destruction, the disrespect, the ideals of a zoo are outdated. Out-freakin'-dated. We're not talking raptor reintroduction programs, or exotic animal havens for the dimwits who can't take care of them; we're talking the Philadelphia zoo burning up 23 primates and charging $9.50 admission and posting LOSSES. There's a compromise here, sure, for zoos that house and educate and enrage; it's a difficult juggling act. Hooray for Vancouver!!

I'm enjoying the genuine concern radiating from this page. I see more questions in the "zoo" one and will try to suggest some answers.

 

<p>

 

Question 1: Any reasons for zoos to exist? Yes.

 

<p>

 

a) Breeding endangered species when their future in wild is uncertain.

Better captive then gone forever.

 

<p>

 

b) Teaching people to know and understand and care for nature. A close personal experience is a step towards personal interest, or fondness. Knowledge is a step towards responsibility and care.

 

<p>

 

c) Helping individual disabled or sick animals.

 

<p>

 

d) Gaining knowledge and experience otherwise unavailable. (How to feed an infant platypus, hmm?)

 

<p>

 

Quetion 2: Do animals in a zoo (or similar place) have to suffer? No.

 

<p>

 

Examples: Munich Zoo, Jersey Zoo (the one founded by Gerald Durrell), John Aspinall's gorilla centre (the gorillas naturally breed there, which means they feel really OK), etc... I guess if the animals feel love and care, and possibly if they have a habitat similar to their natural one, and a lot of space, it's not that bad.

 

<p>

 

Question 3: Can we help animals in bad zoos? I hope so.

 

<p>

 

Mainly by raising public awareness and pressure. Any other suggestions?

 

<p>

 

Question 4: Is this about zoos only? No.

 

<p>

 

Many people, particularly business people, particularly multinational corporation's top managers, apparently do not consider environment, or animals, to be an issue. (See other websites - Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace etc.) With MacMillan-Bloedel logging in the Clayoquot Sound rainforest, I guess the wild animals there were as unhappy as a little monkey behind zoo bars. (Or with Mitsubishi on New Guinea, etc...) Not only were they unhappy, but also losing their habitat.

 

<p>

 

I also believe that circuses and shows are even a few levels below zoos and some investigative photojournalism should be done. In this case I consider using a hidden camera perfectly ethical.

 

<p>

 

I believe that as photographers, we would do the best service by documenting what's really going on where. I don't mind a sweet picture taken e.g. in the Munich Zoo. But on the other hand, abuse or poor care or devastation should be documented as such, very emotionally, and made public. (From my experience, public pressure is the only thing which works.)

 

<p>

 

I'm looking forward to reading more stuff here.

 

<p>

 

Jana Mullerova

This type of question ends up much like the digital ethics one. Nothing gets really resolved and is a personal issue, pro and con, with most including myself. I do feel, like most of you, the bad zoos need to be policed and that is up to each state's legislature which may really care such as here in Florida or may not such as Utah. It should be a national issue but is not at present probably because it needs more lobbyists that have money and power to influence the system. Unfortunatly most money and power oriented people could care

less about animals, forests and the environment in general. That

type of thinking will be turned around when this planet cannot provide us with our needs and the rate of species extinction surpasses the natality rate.

One thing that does result from this, is the waking up and awareness

made to photographers and others who probably never thought about it before.

There was a BBC programme called "State of the Ark" shown here in Hong Kong at the weekend - specifically looking at zoos. With "good" zoos there seem to be too types - those that concentrate on conservation, with human access a secondary consideration, and those that concentrate on education - with large open areas for the animals in natural looking enviroments.

<P>

Good examples of the conservation type were given as Jersey Zoo (the island of Jersey off the coast of France that is) run by Gerard Durrell, and the UK zoos of John Aspinall. Interestingly these both used traditional cages and bars and justified it as being better for the animals. Emmen zoon (in Holland) was an example of the education type - it looked similar to Munich zoo, with large open areas, few bars, and moats to sperate visitors and animals. This type of zoo would be far better for photography and to the uneducated (me for example), looks more humane.

<P>

There were some appalling pictures from a zoo in Belgium (didn't catch the location) of Kodiak bears living in disgusting squalor in horrible concrete cells. Emmen rescued them, and built an enormous area for them, even creating a stream with live trout in it for them to catch. I think it would be possible to get some pretty good shots of the bears there.

Are zoos bad places for nature photography? They AREN'T places for nature photgraphy. Nature photography is photographing the natual world. What's natural abobut a fat leopard in a small enclosed space? Call it animal portraiture if you want, but please don't call it nature photography. If you like that sort of photography then by all means do it. If you want to photograph a starving leopard struggling to take its kill into a tree before a hyena pulls it away, then go to where you can photograph that and you can call it nature photography.

As one who has only recently started shooting at a local zoo let me add a few comments. First, some modern zoos have fairly realistic habitats that could meet the criteria for not showing the "hand of man". Still, I agree with those who believe that all zoo images should be labeled as being captive animals. It is the ethical thing to do.

 

<p>

 

Second, zoos are great places to practice animal photography so one is ready for those times when one is out in a natural environment. Most of us who live in the big city don't have enough opportunities to photograph wild animals and when we get them we want to know what we are doing. I know from my own experience that getting good images of zoo animals requires quite a bit of skill, patience and effort. This makes me admire the good nature photographers even more.

Anthony,

It's more or less exactly this response I was thinking about, in addition to all valuable additions in this thread.

Zoos are rather depressing artefacts. But for the reasons you mention + the moments when I witness their educational value for people (other than "polar bears live in a concrete hole in the ground") I can sometimes really enjoy them.

(...)

Absolutly! Great places to practice when we are not in the field.

Yes I agree with most of the comments but is another drag on discussion while we can be out trying a new film, lens, metering

techniques etc. on some of the inhabitants there.

Zoos a good place? Beter bred in a zoo than in the wild because endangered? I dont think so. The bottom line problem is too many goddam people. You want to see an animal from another continent but cant afford to go there to see it? TOO bad. Why should that animal suffer just for the sake of YOUR curiosity? We should think about how best to solve the problem of human overpopulation which can be directly tied to every problem on this earth. How would YOU like it if you and wife were the LAST humans and the cockroaches put you IN A CAGE SO YOU COULD MATE AND KEEP THE SPECIES ALIVE? I dont think you would.

After reading all of these posts, I feel a answer here is a must.

 

<p>

 

1)Zoo as a place for nature photos? Yes, unless your going to pay my way to Africa or other points out of the midwest USA. just how many racoon and crow pics you want to see?

 

<p>

 

2)Zoos abusive to animals? I'm sure some are and some aren't, but with out all those dolphin shows do you think we'd care if they were in our tuna?

 

<p>

 

3)Solution? Become a member of what ever zoo is close to you. And let them know you, as a photographer, that does and will take pictures and GIVE them to any newspaper or TV staion that will run them, of any level of animal crulety! Also, make friends with the staff. This is the best way to "hear" of any cruelty, and try to get photos of such or the after effects.

According to a Wall Street Journal article the Seattle zoo has started unintentionally attracting wild eagles. The wild eagles are attracted by the captive eagles and the other amenties that the zoo offers (food, for example). So perhaps visiting a zoo may be a great idea for shooting wild raptors after all.

I live in Seattle as well, and visit the Woodland Park Zoo on a regular basis. The raptor programs it has is wonderful. There are daily raptor shows involving keepers speaking about the birds, telling their stories, and educating about the conservation of the species they represent and vital habitats. Many of them are allowed to fly free over the zoo during this time, and they always return. I'm glad someone mentioned the attraction of wild eagles to the zoo as well, because that is certainly true - they nest near the Northern Trail each year. If nothing else, the zoo serves as a permanent wooded place free of pollution and abundant in food. Many wild birds, as well as squirrels, also thrive in the environment. They choose to live there.

 

There is no zoo free of a dark history. How do you think the first captive animals became captive? Especially in the case of apes, elephants, and other large animals, the story is pretty dang horrifying. No zoo animals, in the US at least, come from the wild anymore, with the exception of the rehab-releases. When release fails, sometimes the zoo acts as a home for someone unable to take care of themselves. I equate it to living in a nursing home in a busy city, really. People are always coming and going, and you learn to tune out the noise. They're safe, they're taken care of, they are allowed to love and be loved in return, but they aren't independent. It's the same problem that many people in nursing homes have.

 

I spend a lot of time with the Seattle gorillas. Many people question the effect of a staring, nearly constant public eye on such gentle people as gorillas, or any captives for that matter. I know from my time with them that they have a very acute and honed ability to just block that out. It bothers me anyway, being on the noisy side of the glass, but I'm learning to tune it out too. If someone oversteps the boundary, the gorillas need only extend an unforgiving elbow or fist to bang against the window and the public jumps back (they like the reaction that can illicit). In addition, the gorillas and other animals have constant access to several off-view areas and they do make use of them from time to time. Through glass (rather than cage bars), noise is also greatly dulled and visitors are much less likely to taunt whomever's on the other side. No throwing in of trash, no catcalling, etc. which can and does get agitating in the zoo settings that provide that opportunity. I've watched these gorillas for years, something that no critics I know of would do. I know them. I watch them because I care about them. I sit with them, I hum to them. They know me, and they appreciate the few polite people that have become regular visitors to be with them. I see that they all are unique, they all are very smart, and they all have individual and together lives. Conditions for them aren't ideal because they're captive. But in other ways, they're healthy and they have family - babies, elderly folk, mothers, and sisters. I think they have more control over their own life than many people realize, and they make the choice to live their lives fully. They play the hand they're dealt very well. That wasn't always the case.

 

My point is that criticism of zoos is very common. I do think conditions will only get better, and I encourage people to, instead of being distressed, to make an effort to get to know the subjects of the captive world. You might be surprised the difference a familiar face can make to them, or to you. You might also learn something. You WILL learn something, each time you go.

 

What I disagree with (in many ways) is eco-tourism. I think it's far worse to disrupt a once-wild place where people/animals HAD freedom than to be one anonymous (or familiar) face in an ever-flowing sea of many in a home that can only improve.

 

For me, zoo photography is about portraiture, not about shooting "an animal" or "nature." The Woodland Park gorillas are not just apes - "look! a gorilla!" but some of my favorite companions (some, more than others). If I knew anyone who lived in a nursing home and I took photographs of them, I would hardly label them "incapacitated animal" or "old person," and I doubt the photos would receive the same criticism as portraits of Montana or his zoo-living counterparts.

 

Just my fifty cents.

I visit the San Diego Wild Animal Park about once a month and the conditions are so bad that thousands of visiting egrets, Turkey Vultures, Great Blue Heron, ducks, pelicans, etc have decided to make it their permanent home. It's kind of like the United States, many foreigners don't like us but have no problem moving here when given the opportunity.