# Anti Vs Pro Captivity



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

Did anyone just watch the ITV animal awards with Paul O Grady?

Nice speech at the end there by the 'anti' Born Free founder.


Amazing to see a person so passionate yet so wrong.
ALL wild animals should be in the WILD.

Never mind that not all conservation can be carried out in situ.

Does anyone else find this anti captive keeping viewpoint somehow contradictory? 

Organisations who are pro conservation yet believe that no animal should be held 'captive'. 

I don't know where to start. Just amazed how an entire audience looked so suckered in when all I could see was idealistic ignorance.

Nothing in life or nature is so black and white. 


Curious to see what others think. 
Is it that simple? Should we never keep any animal captive?


----------



## TalulaTarantula (Jan 21, 2011)

im not a huge fan of zoo's and simarlar things if im completley honest, the ones that have animals just for the entertainment factor to bring in the public.

however

i am all for conservation and preventing species from becoming extinct, it would be REALLY nice if zoos ect who have certain animals could maybe set up a project of actually focusing on releasing certain individuals back into the wild.
Alot of species wouldnt be around today without human intervention, but they shouldnt be shut up and put on show.


----------



## Zoo-Man (Apr 12, 2008)

TalulaTarantula said:


> im not a huge fan of zoo's and simarlar things if im completley honest, the ones that have animals just for the entertainment factor to bring in the public.
> 
> however
> 
> ...


If zoos only housed the species that needed the most conservation work, they would not be able to afford to stay open, as very few people would pay to see frogs & insects. They need species such as African Lions, Giraffe, etc to draw in the public, especially the ones who are not knowledgable about animals.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Pouchie said:


> Did anyone just watch the ITV animal awards with Paul O Grady?
> 
> Nice speech at the end there by the 'anti' Born Free founder.
> 
> ...


I did not see the show, was the speech by the founder or by the current CEO?

I have absolutely no time for the Bourn Free Foundation, in my view they are the epitome of what is wrong with many of the so called ‘conservation’ organisations. They reside in an entirely fantasy world dethatched from reality (I guess this is the situation for many film starts) they loose sight of reality!

The dichotomy here is you have someone like Paul O Grady, who be all accounts is an animal lover with lost of his own animals, giving a platform to the fanatics like Bourn Free who do not think any animals should be in captivity period – how does that work! 

How many other so called ‘conservation’ organisations hold the same view, lasts and lots and lots. The worst of all are those, organisations (such as Bourn Free) or individuals who hold the view “its ok for me to keep them, but you can’t” that view is rife…….


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

Here it is Chris, if you can bear to watch the WHOLE self indulgent speech.

Virginia McKenna receives British Animal Honour from Brian May & Anita Dobson 11 Apr 2013 - YouTube

As for the contradiction of animal lovers, most cannot differentiate. They simply see an animal charity and support support support.
They don't see the wildly different agendas.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Pouchie said:


> Here it is Chris, if you can bear to watch the WHOLE self indulgent speech.
> 
> Virginia McKenna receives British Animal Honour from Brian May & Anita Dobson 11 Apr 2013 - YouTube
> 
> ...


Thank you for the link but I will politely decline your suggest that I should watch it - I have to stomach enough of their (BFF) bilious diatribe in meetings…..!!

The fundamental problem you have here is actors (actresses) and rock stars who do not live in the real world preaching too, for want of a better terminology, the gullible public! The blind leading the partially sighted is an expression that was used once, and very apt.

How do we redress such an imbalance?


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

We let them promote their opinion then we promote our rights as ex situ conservationists.

The only reason there is an imbalance is because they heavily promote their work.

Exotics keepers are beaten back into the shadows and made to feel guilty for keeping wild animals in captivity and it is so easy to do. They can make us feel unworthy by focussing on the 'trade' and moneymakers. Nobody promotes the success of the conservationists amongst us and things are so desperate that there is not enough support among keepers themselves. In fact infighting is much more common than supportive pats on the back.

Unless our 'side' step forward and claim some well deserved respect from the public, we'll never be heard. Only represented by the wackos and money grabbers whose stories make such good news.


----------



## Rum_Kitty (Jun 14, 2009)

Can anyone recommend conservation charities to support that don't hold this view? And preferably not ones like WWF where 1% of the funding actually goes to where it's supposed to :bash::bash:.


----------



## carpetjohn (Nov 17, 2008)

now whos being blinkerd you are tarring all them with the same brush,rspca,born free ect,[were you get the 1% from i dont know]or is that just a wild statement the likes of the fbh put out.no wonder we get a bad reputation we dont push our hobby just slate off other animal welfare folks.having been in the herps hobby for over 40 years do you and the fbh want to go back to the old days when all you could get is wild cought,whitch if you were luky kept alive.i have known cris for more years than i can remember so he knows were i am coming from[we allways have a argument about this]so before people start throwing wild accusations about get your facts right becauuse if a outsider was to read some ofr your comments would think we were all nutters.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

TalulaTarantula said:


> im not a huge fan of zoo's and simarlar things if im completley honest, the ones that have animals just for the entertainment factor to bring in the public.
> 
> however
> 
> ...


There aren't actually that many species that this has been done successfully with.....certainly not with the big crowd pleasing animals. It's not easy, and zoos are starting to realise this. But Colin is right in that they big ones need to be there to attract visitors....no one will pay money to see just ducks, snails and frogs. Therefore, they concentrate more and more into raising money at home to put to conservation projects in the wild, where they have more success. Of course they're there to entertain the public, but hopefully in the midst of all that entertainment, some of the education elements will sink in. That's why they have more and more public talks and staff on hand to answer questions. 

If it weren't for the work that zoos do by putting animals "on show", raising cash _*and*_ awareness, then we'd end up contributing naff all to the worldwide conservation effort.


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> The fundamental problem you have here is actors (actresses) and rock stars who do not live in the real world preaching too, for want of a better terminology, the gullible public!


That is what I took from the speech, I did actually turn to my partner and say 'is she after an Oscar?'!

I'm glad Caroline started this thread as I thought it was just me who was deeply disturbed by the whole performance... How very odd indeed that a programme which was almost entirely dedicated to celebrating the achievements of CAPTIVE animals, would allow such an 'anti' speech at the end. Made the organisers look like a right bunch of plonkers if you ask me!
I am tempted to put my thoughts to ITV as quite frankly I think they must have been taking the p*** out of their audience...weren't they?


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

If visitors to this thread don't have time to watch the whole sordid speech just skip to 8:18

and I quote:

*'captivity of wild animals in zoos and circuses, ALL captivity of wild animals, is deeply shocking and unforgiveable really, in my view'* - _Virginia McKenna_


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

I hear that itv received a number of complaints about the way Ms. McKenna was allowed to get on her soapbox and 'devalue' the entire awards show :whistling2:


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 24, 2012)

The way I see many zoos is they are there to help the conservation of animals. Attracting visitors will help them earn money and also educate/inspire people. The problem with keeping animals in captivity comes when you cut corners and sacrifice animal's welfare for the sake of visitors or money or generally lose sight of ethics.
I could understand if every zoo out there was saying "I know, let's breed white tigers!", "Let's chain animals and let kids poke them with sticks!", or other stuff which I for one consider unethical, but they aren't. As with all thing in life, you get good examples and bad examples. Generalizing isn't a good idea, especially when you're saying that it's "unforgivable".

What I've heard is this woman has said in the past that if you want to see animals, you see them in the wild. Sorry to disappoint you, lady, but not everyone is swimming in cash like you are. Many people's only connection to wild animals is to see them in a zoo.


----------



## Moony14 (Aug 20, 2011)

I remember my first trip to the zoo like it was yesterday and just meeting those amazing creatures, big and small, has inspired me to dedicate my life to animal welfare. Without that real-life access to the animals I doubt that I would have ever formed an interest in animals and I believe the same can be said for many others. In my opinion the education that zoos provide is vital to the conservation of species, as is the work the zoos do (such as breeding programs). I think her point of view is even more illogical considering the huge improvements in zoo conditions in recent decades. Infact some zoos offer just as much environmental stimulation as the wild in my opinion (Singapore zoo!).


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

Totally agree with all above comments.

In fact not only can animals be kept with as much enrichment as the wild can offer but we can do it without the dangers wild animals face.
Thus creating a safe version of the wild and allowing animals to live longer in captivity than they can in the wild.

Besides, these idealists seem to be so stuck in their own ignorance about nature that they believe the best thing about being in the wild is FREEDOM. But do they honestly believe that a rainforest species enjoys the freedom of the entire jungle so therefore can't be happy in captivity? 
It is utter rubbish. Animals occupy a territory in the wild and I think the antis would be surprised at how small such territories can actually be.
Many animals will only roam across and protect a territory just big enough to meet their food and water supply needs.

Look at us humans. We live on Earth too but do we roam the whole space available to us? No, we live in villages and biggest case scenario, cities.

The only argument I can think of 'against' this territory theory is nomadic animals who would naturally move on and not inhabit a specific area.


----------



## RubyTiger (Dec 12, 2012)

I have mixed opinions about zoos and I guess it depends where in the world those zoos are. The way I see it is a zoo is a business and therefore their prime goal is to make money. They may help with conservation but if you ask me they only do that for publicity too. Although you cannot tar all zoos with the same brush as the people managing each zoo may have very different opinions. I have been taught of cases where animals have been bred in zoos, even though they know they have no more room and they may not find somewhere else for the offspring, with the sole intention of attracting the public because they are 'cute baby animals'. Soon as they are older they're euthanized. But I've also heard good things, unfortunately less often than negative things. 

Pushing that aside I think having a gripe about other organisations and other people's opinions is mostly injudicious. Whether it is right or wrong to keep animal in captivity is too much a controversial subject and too complex to find the right answer. Even in the answer was that all animals have to be set free from captivity it just wouldn't happen. I think the best way to think is to liberate your mind and sit on the fence and logically think from all stand points to get a full understanding.

By all means have your own opinion. But do not slate those who have a different opinion particularly when it is still in the interest of animals and their rights. Isn't what we all want the best for animals. No such thing could ever be achieved by people arguing over who is right and who is wrong.

and McKenna may have seemed like she was preaching but I noticed she said "in my view" suggesting she was just expressing how she sees things

plus I can easily admit I'm a hypocrite as I disagree with the exotic pet trade yet I'm involved in it because my money has contributed in funding it. But just because I do it I'm not going to pretend I'm a saint and that there is nothing wrong with it. 

(Not having a go at anyone here just having a wee rant lol)


----------



## EmmaLock (Nov 10, 2010)

I listen to these speeches about as much as I listen to religious fanatics, preaching in the streets. 

I can completely understand the idealistic situation of animals remaining in the wild and being beautiful and admired for years to come, however I feel that the reality is very different in this rather space-like of ages. 

In order to protect some of the most vulnerable species there must be conservation efforts. If there werent, we would have already lost more of he iconic animals that enrapture peoples imaginations and inspire generations. 

I also think that many animals, exotic and domestic have become almost 'disposable' to easily distracted keepers. Ultimately it results in a throw-away attitude which reflects very negatively on the millions of people who keep their animals, regardless of species, conscientiously and to a very high standard. 

One day, when people begin to realise the importance of preserving and encourageing the regeneration of the planet and all her creatures, we may see a stark decline in the amount of animals (particularly exotic) being kept as pets as there becomes more of a 'wild' for animals to live in. I would not welcome this as a rule as there is an important, educational part to play in keeping exotics and helping the less animal-knowledged of the world to embrace and love rather than fear the likes of exotic creatures. However, thats a bridge to be crossed as-and-when. 

In conclusion I would say that provided animals needs are met to the highest possible standard, and that on-going support is willingly given by the public (which will always prevail) to help with conserving vulnerable species and eco-systems, there is certainly a need to try, try and try. 

I would say that this particular speaker, featured on the Paul O'grady awards is certainly passionate, but he should never forget the gravity of spoken words that cannot be taken back and erased, and in his best interests if he is ultimatley for the protection of species and conservation, he may do well to revise what he says in the future to avoid anyone misinterpreting his words as anti-worldly.


----------

