Trophy hunting continued...

With my last post, I briefly explained each of the three types of legal hunting; in this post, I want to explain why trophy hunters do not contribute to conservation efforts. 

The Actual Conservationist

Conservationists do not want to kill any animal. All animals are incredible, fascinating and play significant roles in their habitats that we're still understanding; however, it may be necessary, when it comes to invasive species who take over and dominate a particular habitat and are out competing the native species within the area, to consider a cull. For example, this could be like the American signal crayfish out-competing the British native white clawed crayfish; other examples of where conservationists have to manage a population would be in areas were, through hunting and human domination over landscapes and habitats, all or most of the large predator species have become extinct in the wild. 

Another British example of this is the UK deer population; due to no large predator species (due to persecution and hunting for furs) deer (red and roe are native, fallow considered native, and other non-native species) have become dominant within their habitats, causing, in some cases, immense destruction to the habitat. Its due to a lack of predators and an overpopulation of deer that has led to a stunted growth of pine forests in Scotland, young trees do not stand a chance against grazing deer and as this is primary habitat for the threatened (in the UK) red squirrel population, their habitat and food source is greatly reduced. 

In this case, an experienced marksman (i.e. someone who can shoot and kill cleanly, first time), who would know the deer populations incredibly well (breeding and non-breeding males and females, which are old, lame, too weak, you need to consider the impact of so many grazers on vegetation and what impact that has on other species sharing the same habitat), would decide which individuals would be culled to allow for a healthier and sustainable population. All of that animal is used (for meat and hide), so there is no waste. 

Obviously, I would advocate the reintroduction of a European predator species into some areas to naturally control deer numbers, and there are tentative talks of it in Scotland.

I'm hoping you can see where I'm going with this... within conservation there is thought, planning, consideration for the wider environment, white rich men (and some women and kids) are not paying for the privilege of gunning down a randomly selected animal (by this I mean the one with the biggest tusks, horns, the biggest male etc); not that this doesn't happen on private estates, but not this is the difference between hunting and conservation.

The Trophy Hunter

Below are a series of images, they are graphic, some faces have been blurred and some haven't; I have taken them directly from a facebook group, who took them from the pages of trophy hunters who have posted them of their own free will. 

Mommy-"Look at the pretty kitty!"

Not the best way to teach a child about death. 

I think if I was taught how to shoot a magnificent elephant
as a child, I would have been gravely scared for life. 

I prefer my giraffes standing, not covered in blood, and generally alive.

Ivan Carter - I asked him to explain how hunting like this (above), contributes to conservation efforts. I thought it was a reasonable question, I prefer shooting animals with a camera and I enjoy learning, I wanted to be 'educated'. He blocked me from his Facebook page and never answered my questions :(

mmmm...okay....???? 

Whenever I see people with a dead animal, and they claim they love these 'beasts', I can't help but think of Lennie in Of Mice and Men

This man is a multimillionaire banker Sir David Scholey “I have been hunting all over the world for many, many years and I have always hunted within the legal arrangements of the country concerned.
I regard that as an entirely personal matter,All the animals I hunt are wild beasts and even I have felt threatened by them at times". 
We all have an opinion on bankers.

The above three images are of the New Zealand Rugby team.
Rugby is meant to be the sport of hooligans played by gentlemen... they seem to be absent from these images.

I always make sure I smile next to my victim. 

I always make sure I give my victims a big ol' hug in the photo too, just so everyone knows what I kind sweet person I am. And how big my victim was... I don't know why I keep saying victim, I mean snarling brute of a  wild beast.

And now for some interior design tips from trophy hunters

Make sure you get a variety of colour to work with your scheme.

If you have a high enough roof, you can't go wrong with a half a stuffed giraffe.
Make sure when you shoot, you get the half you don't want to keep; the blood would just stain and then its a mess. 

Corpse is very much in this season.
Obviously a human corpse very much adds to the decor, but you can get arrested for this.

Notice any themes in these images - apart from that they're all white - they're all smiling. 

I grieve when I've batted away a fly and I've accidentally killed it.

I get upset when I see roadkill; there was a fox whose paw was just on the verge, he nearly made it across the road before being hit. He was there for weeks (the council never took him) and I drove past him every day; I didn't think I was allowed to get out and give him a proper burial - probably would've been flattened too, its quite a busy road.  

I know I would be a crap hunter, I much rather see an animal alive than dead. 

Ivan Carter (whose face you saw earlier over the bloodied corpse of a lion) says this on his page, when asked...

“Ivan you are so passionate about african [sic]wildlife and in particular elephants, how can you hunt them?“ the answer is, I don’t know, but let me make an attempt, not to justify Hunting, but rather to simply try and explain...the ethos of Conservation Through Hunting

You can read all this on his page, FYI, he doesn't technically answer the question, but he goes on to say this ...

"...It’s hard to find this whithin [sic] any other pursuit , be it africa[sic] , hunting the rocky mountains for a sheep or any one of the miriad [sic] of different experiences hunters pursue …and I can truly say, for the true hunter it’s not about the killing, it’s about the hunting, it’s about getting the many moving parts to come together perfectly..."

Apart from truly atrocious grammar and spelling, he says "for the true hunter it’s not about the killing, it’s about the hunting". 

...It's not about the killing...

...It's not about the killing... 

If its not about the killing, then why kill? 

Why not just stalk, track and take a photo? I mean, take a photo of the live animal, not a dead one. 

He doesn't actually go on to say why he can kill an elephant, he goes on to say why killing an elephant can feed a village - a village that is highly unlikely to be hunting elephant for meat in the first place, by the way. 

One area of conservation that I am particularly interested in is community conservation (engaging and educating the local community and involving them in conservation efforts) and capacity building (job creation, creating a better standard of living whilst safe-guarding natural habitats); if you don't have the support of local people in your conservation efforts, then your efforts are futile. This is some great work being done with communities, really it is inspiring, but I'm saving that for a future post. 

What Ivan and his trophy hunting buddies are doing, is not community or in-situ conservation nor capacity building; they may be making themselves 'feel better' or justify to themselves that they're helping, but if it was actually contributing to community conservation, poaching wouldn't be as rampant as it is today, we wouldn't have lost 33,000 elephants last year to poaching, we wouldn't have lost over 1000 rhino's last year to poaching if that money generated by trophy hunting went into community development programmes. 

Ivan can spout all the cherry-picked bits of information he wants, but trophy hunting only serves to fund the game reserve owners and the local government, not the people - not the ones that are themselves poached by criminal organisations to kill elephants and rhinos. 

As I've said in a previous post, I adore elephants, most of what I've done has involved Asian elephants and poaching threatens both African and Asian elephants. For my undergrad dissertation, I sat in a tree hut in Sri Lanka waiting for elephants and watching people, trying to understand the nature of conflict between the revered species and man. 

When you hear that branch snapping, or that gentle rumble behind the tree line, you know you're about to see something incredible. It could be a solitary bull, or a young family herd, but it doesn't matter, you're in their territory; you can barely breath with anticipation. 

This is one of the images I took of a family that emerged from the forest, on their way to the tank (reservoir); there were around 14 members of that family, from the matriarch to calves and it was probably one of the highlights of my life. 

The first wild elephant I saw was in Thailand...but these stories will emerge on my voluntearthling blog soon enough!!

Check out Russel Brand's comments to Fox *rolls eyes* news on "hunting truths". 

Have you ever noticed that whenever Sean Hannity agrees with his guest, he actually lets them speak? If he had a fair and balanced argument on there, with someone representing actual conservation, he wouldn't let them get a word out.  


Just for the record, leopard's and cheetah's are considered vulnerable to endangered with extinction in the wild. This means, there are so few of them, that their future is in the balance - hunting only harms, not protects. 
I will be writing another post about human-wildlife conflict, so keep an eye out for that!

As I've said before, if the money from trophy hunting actually helped the local human population, then poaching would not be as rampant as it is today. 

Humans are the cause of the 6th Mass Extinction.

The Green Alternative

Green hunting has a twist on hunting but combines it with conservation, and its actually a pretty good idea. 
This is happening in South Africa, albeit on a small scale, where animals are targeted for a particular research study; the 'hunter' pays the organisation a fee not too dissimilar to what they would pay to kill. After induction and training, the research team goes out with the hunter, a vet and a tranquilizer gun. 
Shooting a tranq gun is - I've heard - much harder and requires more skill than a conventional gun; once the targeted animal has been identified, the hunter then shoots the animal with a tranquilizer dart, the animal goes down. 
Then its a rush of taking skin and tissue samples, biometric data and fitting a tracking collar. The hunter poses for a photo and plaster casts of the tusks, horn (or whatever appendage is on offer) are taken. The animal has its tranquilizer reversed, comes around and staggers around before finding its feet again, to live the rest of his or her life as it was meant to. 

The hunter has his photo, he's shot an animal and the finished casts of the animal are sent to his address. 

No-one had to die, no-one was harmed - in fact, the data collected on the day and the movements of the animal being received from the tracking device will actually help research and conservation!! Its a win-win scenario!! 

On top of this, the ivory or horn that would have come from a dead animal is no longer on sale in the states (the US being the second largest collector of ivory, after China!) and this in turn pushes down the value of ivory. 

This alternative is pretty new, but knowing that this is available, there really isn't a need to hunt to kill anymore (not that there ever was). 
So, if you get exactly what you got trophy hunting, but no animals have died, my question is to trophy hunters, why don't you pursue this route? 

Trophy Hunting, Canned Hunting and Sustenance

Legal Hunting

Trophy hunting is the permitted killing of wildlife, though cited by Save the Rhino as a specifically selected older male of a particular species, in exchange for a fee to the hosting country. Canned hunting involves the captive breeding of lions specifically to be hunted by permitted hunters; whilst sustenance hunting is reserved for nomadic people, in a traditional tribe or rural setting where the whole of the animal is used; this can include Inuit people of Alaska to various African tribes.

Trophy Hunting

Trophy hunting has been a recreational pastime since colonial times; however, it is rare for a hunter to want to kill the weakest of a herd, after all, hunters want the biggest ‘trophy’. There are even medals that can be attained from this. Trophy hunting in Africa revolves around the Big 5 – elephant, lion, leopard, buffalo and rhinoceros. Only the buffalo has a least concern IUCN red list status, with the other 4 deemed between Near Threatened (leopard) to Critically Endangered (black rhino) with extinction in the wild.

Permits are sold by the governments of African nations and monitored by CITES which also allowed for the sale of 5 critically endangered black rhino permits, you may remember the uproar caused by the Dallas Safari Club early this year.

When trophy hunters seek out elephants, they often referring to big tuskers, these are the largest, oldest males with the biggest tusks. Though these males may have fathered a number of offspring over the years, it is possible that during times of abundance (in terms of food resources), these bulls would be able to continue breeding, passing on the genes, including the gene for big tusks. Taking these males out of the equation could potentially be detrimental to the wider ecosystem, particularly when permitted kills are combined with indiscriminate poaching too. They do not take into consideration the impact of genetic diversity in conservation. 

Organisations such as Save the Rhino (who receive a donation from a UK Trophy Hunting magazine) deem there to be many benefits from trophy hunting; whereas WWF recognises benefits in deprived countries where there is little to no wildlife management, poaching and political corruption is the biggest threat and the country has no infrastructure to commence with tourism, managed trophy hunting is a mitigated compromise; though Botswana and Zambia have banned all forms of trophy hunting and have burgeoning tourism industries.

Despite the regulation of permits within African countries for trophy hunting, it is a system that is easily opened to exploitation; it has been well documented that the cost of permits and travel is negligible to the wealthy Asian businessmen, when the value of ivory is so high and rhino horn is worth more than gold. Businessmen will purchase permits and flights and send someone over to use the permit, often these hunts are carried out by people with little or no experience of using firearms, and the animal will suffer a slow death, often having to be shot again. The ivory is then legally allowed to be shipped out, under CITES regulation.

Canned Hunting

Canned hunting is the breeding of captive lions that are bred purely for trophy hunters. Animals are sedated before being taken out of their enclosures and are left (albeit drowsy) in the bush for the ‘hunter’ to shoot the lion from a close range. Though this method of ‘hunting’ is seen as sustainable and protecting their wildparts, there are obvious moral and ethical debates that surround this; a comparison would be pheasant shoots in the UK (though many of them escape and start breeding; then they’re attacked by birds of prey and persecution begins all over again!).

Sustenance hunting

Sustenance hunting is the hunting of wildlife for food; nomadic and indigenous tribes are the primary users of sustenance hunting, where all body parts of the animal is used. As with all legal hunting, there are instances of exploitation; one case study from Alaska saw the indigenous Inuit people banned from hunting walrus, as there was a spate of numerous walruses being killed for their ivory, with their bodies being dumped back into the ocean. It was only noticed and subsequently monitored after decapitated walrus carcases were floating back to the surface once the bodies swelled with decomposition gases. This ban was over turned as their traditional way of life was compromised; however, they were under a strict quota to the number of walrus that could be taken.

Response to a zookeeper

This was posted on my Facebook page (in bold) – I've excluded the name of the original author, as what they've stated is what a lot of zoo people claim (not all, I might add!).

"I'm so tired of this whole "pro-captivity" vs. "anti-captivity" ordeal. Come on guys, very few people are actually pro- captivity, and as a firm believer and supporter of zoological organizations and their conservation work, I would never call myself pro-captivity. Actually, I'm anti-deforestation, anti-ocean-acidification, anti-illegal-wildlife-trade, anti-animal-abuse (which is why AZA or EAZA accreditation is so important) (~you forgot WAZA), anti-habitat-loss, anti-pollution, anti-bycatch, anti-unsustainable-harvest, anti-industrial-farming, anti-poaching, anti-over-development... And honestly, unless you can tell me that you don't benefit from one of these many things that harm wildlife (and there are more), then frankly I don't value your damn opinion about how captivity is inherently evil."

Let’s start by distinguishing the two.

Whether you agree with zoos or not, zoos are not there as hotels for animals whilst their natural habitat is destroyed, Ok? So you can say you’re anti-everything whilst stating zoos are great, but a zoo is not a stop gap; a zoo is not a genetic holding area – the money that goes into a zoo, normally stays in a zoo. 

For charity registered zoos or some non-profit registered zoos, on average, less than 10% of their end of year profits go to in-situ conservation efforts (conservation in the field) – that’s a meager amount compared to what zoos pay for one animals enclosure – please see my Tiger Territory blog.

Conservation and zoos are not mutually exclusive, they are two totally different entities; just because they both deal with exotic animals, doesn't mean they are related in any other way.

The messages many zoos portray are actually incorrect, contradictory and just plain wrong. There are just as many good zoos as there are bad.

I define a bad zoo by their on and off exhibit facilities (on-show areas, are the places visitors to zoos can see, they are often very well designed – not necessarily for the comfort of the animal but for the visual appearance and experience for the visitor. Whilst many off-show areas are concrete blocks – apart from the keepers, nobody sees these areas so why spend the money on it?). Whether that zoo only contributes to breeding programmes (which increases ticket sales, as everyone loves a baby animal) but no actual in-situ conservation work and what type of profit the company pulls in, and how much is spent on said conservation work.

So, an organisation like Seaworld is very different to Disney’s Animal Kingdom. 
A global

A sample collection of zoos & aquariums
Parque Reunidos own

company like Parque Reunidos is very different from ZSL (London Zoo). The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Bronx Zoo are different again (Conway brought about a revolutionary change in the conservation efforts of zoos).

"Captivity is one of the only ways some species still even exist today, some that are completely extinct in the wild."

This is not exclusive for all zoos – yes, some species have been reintroduced into their natural habitat from zoo stocks, because their wild counterparts were eradicated from that habitat. This is great, but it does not happen nearly often enough.

Do not state that 'because of zoos, the przewalski's horse has been reintroduced', because a lot of bad, terrible and awful zoos are stating the same when they had not part of that project. 

It was a collaborative effort between a small group of zoos – it should not be a reason to claim all zoos are great, or why conservation needs zoos.

"Others have had successful breeding programs through SPPs and TAGs, but releasing and reintroducing captive bred species isn't always a possibility (what is causing them to be threatened/endangered/extinct? Can that threat be removed? Is there suitable habitat where that threat doesn't exist? Are they behaviorally prepared for the wild where they will have to forage, avoid predation, have to survive without a vet team on stand by and have to find a mate for reproduction; because without successful reproduction, then all the sweat/blood/tears and time and money that went into caring for these animals in captivity was a complete waste)."

Threats are typically either humans or come about due to human activity; so removing that threat is quite tricky. Plenty of conservation organisations are working with local people to try to alleviate human-wildlife conflict, destruction of habitat from settlements and agriculture (namely food crops, oil palm plantations, rubber etc), through community conservation projects and capacity building. The biggest problem is down to human population size, and that is a very tricky subject to deal with; to this day, I have yet to see a zoo that states people need to stop or dramatically reduce their breeding rates.

As I've stated in my Tiger Territory post, animals in captivity are not there for conservation purposes; their genetics are merely preserved whilst in confinement, they are not exposed to the same environmental pressures as their wild counterparts are. This is not to say all attempts for reintroduction should be abandoned; it means more emphasis needs to be placed on relocating these individuals to their native home ranges and starting concerted efforts to re-establish populations; however, the main reason many zoo organisations do not invest in reintroduction programmes is because it is very expensive, with no guarantee it would work, and because they would have spent a lot of money on that animal and see no financial return. 

No conservationist would ever state to just reintroduce a zoo animal into the wild; it needs to take into account disease transfer risk, the health of the individual and its parasite burden, its natural behaviours - determining innate and learnt behaviours and so on. It requires in depth knowledge of population ecology within the habitat. 

"All this goes on while conservation/environmental educators and animal trainers/keepers try to find meaningful ways to inspire you (while also keeping their cool when bombarded with zoo-hating individuals). To inspire caring for wildlife and wild places. It is difficult to near impossible to get people to care about something that don't value, and one of the only ways to get people to value anything is for them to experience their beauty, their uniqueness. This may be through a show, or a public training session, maybe through keeper talks or biofacts, and maybe through zoo ambassadors/educational-animals. Many of these connections between people and wildlife only happen in situations where the animals are in captivity. Why? Because our world is so focused on technology (television, social media, video games) and all-inclusive entertainment (comfortable resorts over backwoods camping) that fewer and fewer people (especially children) are spending time outside in natural areas and/or learning about wildlife."

I’m not entirely sure how you can inspire someone to care for a wild place in a captive environment, to be honest. I've listened to keeper talks in a variety of zoos, often they’re mildly incorrect – as is the signage dotted around the enclosure, that isn't actually read – other times, I've had to pull up the person giving the talk and asked where they found that random piece of totally incorrect and scientifically erroneous information (replying: ‘from a TV show’. Brilliant).

It is near impossible to get people to care about something they do not value – but you need to define value.

Aesthetically, people who visit a natural habitat or environment (be it Yellowstone National Park or the rainforests of Borneo) will gain a much higher worth of something, than visiting a ‘Asian rainforest’ in a zoo. By experiencing the sights, smells, sounds, tastes and feel of the rainforest, that has immediate gratification, it roots itself down into that person’s life and develops a worth and a value.

When you travel, you experience – the first time you hear the rustle of leaves and the brake of a branch, it chills you; when you hear that subtle rumble from within the trees and see the waft of the ears of an elephant. That chills you. That is an experience that you will always remember. Seeing these animals in their natural environment is beyond anything anyone can imagine when watching an elephant in an enclosure. 

To be honest, I actually don't think people have the right to see every animal on earth - regardless of how charismatic it is. It is a privilege to see these animals; they are not commodities, Victorian freak-shows, circus beasts or critters that deserve to be stared at.  They evolved to fill a unique role within their habitat; not to be a trapped in an enclosure or paraded around, near screaming kids. 

When I visit a zoo, I do not think about the elephant in the rainforest, I think about the elephant in that enclosure and what it is not experiencing. I know that in the wild, an elephant can walk up to 25km a day; I know that they will deal with different obstacles; they will meet other elephants – some old friends and brothers that left their herd 20 years before.

I know that that elephant in that enclosure has (or is likely to develop) foot problems, arthritis, obesity, conflict within her artificial herd – she cannot walk the distance she has evolved to walk, she cannot develop those strong family bonds – as her sisters, offspring and aunties are shipped off for breeding; she is denied her most basic birth rights.

Zoos are about the individual. Conservation is about the ecosystem.

Meanwhile, many conservationists and ecologists are trying to put a monetary value on the services we derive from the ecosystem (ecosystem services); how much is that colony of bees worth, when they pollinate all our crops for free? Compared to how much is that job going to cost when people have to do it, because companies are developing insect-resistant crops and using gallons of horrific pesticides? How much will it cost to feed my family in either scenario? *Hint: people pollinated crops is massively more expensive than bee-pollinated crops*

As I’ve said before, you wouldn’t visit an African country to see its starved children, before you donate to Save the Children. So why visit a zoo to give money to conservation?

You visit a zoo, because you want to visit a zoo, not because you want to be inspired to donate money to conservation efforts.

If you do need to be inspired to donate money, then maybe you need to sort out your morals and ethics.

"I feel that some hunters have a greater appreciation for animals than people who are anti-hunting. Because these hunters know that the ecosystem is important, and they require sustainable hunts so they can continue to eat, year after year. They don't want to eat animals who have been poisoned by toxic pesticides or pollutants. While it may seem contradicting, hunting was one of the major avenues that led to wildlife conservation."

So wrong!

I love animals, I greatly appreciate them. I have no desire to kill one and mount its head on my wall. To be honest, this whole statement lacks any form of intelligence. Please see my blog about legal and illegal hunting.

FYI, people who hunt elephants, lions, leopards or rhino generally don’t eat it.

Roosevelt did start off hunting, which led him down the path of declaring national parks, granted; however, conservation efforts established globally at different times (Roosevelt was not the catalyst for it). The RSPB was founded in 1889 due to the outrage of using bird plumage for fashion and hats; The Wildlife Trusts were established by Charles Rothschild in 1912; individuals like Beatrix Potter and John Ruskin became aware of conservation issues within their local areas, as well as the dangers of pollution and acid rain in the 19^th Century.  

"All while anti-hunters value petitions, boycotts and protests. And with all those people who are anti-captivity, what are those petitions, boycotts or protests really doing to help the animals in captivity (or in the wild)? Nothing."

I’ll tell you what all those people have done – they’ve brought awareness to the welfare of animals in captivity. They’ve changed how enclosures appear; they’ve stood up against the use of animals as mere photo opportunities and performing animals; they’ve highlighted what was wrong with a zoo and those zoos have been changing. Obviously, it’s not an overnight solution –

Arturo in Argentina - I won't mention
he's in the wrong hemisphere
or climate

nothing is – without those protests and boycotts, the general public would not be aware of the welfare issues surrounding orcas and dolphins in captivity; they wouldn’t care about Arturo the Polar Bear; they wouldn’t understand what constitutes neglect of an animal in captivity. These protests, boycotts and petitions have changed laws and legislation. You might smirk and belittle them, but they’ve changed the very job you’re working in.

We’ll ignore all the people who work for Greenpeace, WWF, RSPB, Birdlife International, WCS, World Land Trust, Born Free Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Sea Shepard, The Wildlife Trusts, The Badger Trusts and all the smaller NGO’s in all the world, and all the students, researchers, scientists, conservationists, ecologists, volunteers and anyone else who I’ve forgot, that hate/dislike/question the morals and ethics of zoos, whilst doing their bit for in-situ conservation efforts on a greater or lesser scale.

Petitions, boycotts and protests are just one small – tiny – area where people feel they can try and make a difference; its giving your voice to a cause, when otherwise you feel powerless or insignificant.

"If you want lfewer (sic) animals in captivity, then work on changing humans' natural parasitic and destructive behavior. Make lifestyle changes. Help others make those changes. Devote all this passion and energy you have on the cause of the "problem", rather than the result."

Conservation and zoos are not mutually exclusive; telling people to work on changing the parasitic behaviour of humans does not refer back to the welfare of animals in captivity. In fact, zoos are essentially the total abuse of those animals by human’s parasitic and destructive behaviour – if humans were kind, sentient beings with just the care for all our fellow species, then zoos wouldn’t exist. The reference of ‘hunting leading to conservation’ – zoos are still Victorian menageries; they started as research facilities, then evolved into signs of status and wealth, then as crowd-pleasers and ‘freak shows’ and little has changed since then. The enclosures might be wider and attempt to replicate the animals’ native habitat, and have some questionable signage outside the enclosures, but really, what has actually changed??

"You want to empty the tanks? Open the cages? Then please, tell me where animals will go as the ever growing population of humans continues to encroach and pollute the remaining, fragmented and low quality habitat. Just because Africa is large, doesn’t mean elephants have room to roam."

Africa is not the only continent with elephants in it.

What are zoos doing to prevent human population expansion? What are zoos doing to prevent habitat fragmentation and loss? What are zoos doing to prevent the use – and dumping - of mercury in gold mining in Peruvian rainforests? What are zoos doing to aid in in-situ conservation?

Very little, if anything.

Zoos are not animal hotels or genetic holding areas whilst the natural world is destroyed.

The biggest argument anti-zoo people have is the conditions the animals are kept in, the animals’ health and welfare, the use of animals as entertainment, and the money being spent on a zoo enclosure compared to that being spent in the field. The educational message zoos portray is often inaccurate, they will happily gloat at the work they claim to do, but they have lots of fingers, in lots of pies and not very much is being achieved.

As I said at the beginning; there are good zoos and there are bad zoos. I would class Disney as one of the great ones, from what I’ve read about their conservation work and the work they’re doing on improving enclosure designs and enrichment too, and documentary films (though very much scripted); I would class Seaworld as one of the worst, for their lack of concern or empathy.

Zoos could easily change things round; though zoos and conservation are not exclusive, there is a lot more that many zoos can do to aid in delivering the conservation message.