• usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That is a selective misreading of what the article is claiming. The article is talking about how zoos are claiming conservation is the main reason zoos are ok and should exist. Near the top of the article:

    The way that zoos have been trying to justify their existence for quite a few years now is pointing to conservation,

    They are pointing out how it’s misleading to say we contribute a decent bit so we’re deep into conservation, but ignore that’s not the main things they spend their time and money on

    • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not misleading at all. You are the one (along with the author) who simply thinks that there is some objective percentage amount required (which apparently you don’t think they clear) before you can take credit for the positive impacts you cause.

      “Zoos aren’t spending enough of their money on conservation” is not a refutation of, “The money that zoos do generate for conservation is both significant and important”.

      • The Bard in Green@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One other thing that zoos do that has always struck me as important is put certain species essentially in protective custody (gorillas and condors come to mind). Condors were able to recover in the wild BECAUSE zoos served as a protected gene bank for the species. Is this ideal? Fuck no! Ideal would be idiots didn’t fucking wipe out condors in the wild. When a human being is in protective custody, it probably sucks but it will save your life from other piece of shit human beings if you ever need it! Let’s focus on the fact that the world is such that we’ve had to do this with whole species of animals because of shitty human reasons BEFORE we start Karening at zoos because of some armchair ass pseudo-vegan principles from some privileged ass hipsters. I mean… we live in a world of poaching, deforestation, factory farms, ocean acidification and global warming and THIS is the hill you’re gonna die on? Fuck off.

    • Devi@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure what you and the author want here? Do you want them to neglect the animals they hold to give more to in situ conservation? Do you want them to have less animals? Less animals means less money so even less being sent. No animals means no money.

      It’s also ignoring the fact that in situ conservation isn’t the goal here. Zoos themselves are ex-situ conservation. They have literally bought animals back from extinction, or protected threatened species.

      Look at the current Tasmanian Devil Programme.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think it’s quite clear that people in the comments are not reading the article and reacting to the headline alone and maybe the first few paragraphs. Scroll to the end of the article where it starts taking about sanctuaries and funding and how they don’t expect any of this to be an easy process

        • Devi@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is your point here?

          They claim to want sanctuaries, but don’t seem to actually know what a sanctuary means. They’re against captive breeding, which is the whole conservation bit that they claim to be for. They also want these to be closed, which means no money? It’s just a really weird view from someone who has no understanding of conservation or reality.