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.
Zoos (bad places for "Nature" photography)
in Nature
Posted
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.