|
1-10 of 43 messages
|
Page 1 of 5
Next
|
|
Should Reptiles be Kept in Zoo's ? Not Really.
|
Reply
|
|
by MasterSquam on November 11, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Usually when people see my cobra's they say things like, "those things should be kept in a zoo !" However, I believe that the exact opposite is true. I believe that the proper place for an exotic reptile is not in the zoo, but in the home. Now I know this may seem counter intuitive because the idea that exotic reptiles should be kept in zoo's has been repeated so many times that it has become almost religious, and I know that when I say things like "zoo's are communist bureaucracies" it may seem a little quaky and aloof, but I think that if you just let me articulate myself and heard my point of view out you may all agree with me.
First of all, let me just start off by saying that I am not arguing that all exotic animals do not belong in zoo's and belong in the home. Certainly large animals like tigers, lions, and elephants rightfully belong in zoo's. I am specifically arguing the that exotic reptiles, and reptiles only, do not belong in zoo's. This is because I feel that ideally private possession of reptiles is better for both the individual, society, and the reptile. It is also way more practical to keep a ball python in captivity then a chimpanzee; and since 95% of reptiles are capable of being kept in the home successfully, and I feel the home is the ideal place where an animal should be kept, I think that there is no need to keep reptiles in zoo's.
But why shouldn't reptiles be kept in zoo's you ask ? Well, there is a number of reasons. First off, if you were to ask the question, "what purpose do modern zoological institutions serve?” You would typically get three answers: conservation, environmental education, and entertainment. But almost all zoo's don't make enough money to stay afloat, and have to take tax payer money to stay open. In other words, they are subsidized. Aron Heller, in his article entitled, "The Evolution of Zoos," writes that:
" The main reason the Bronx Zoo has been able to distinguish itself as it has is that it has money, something not all zoos have in abundance.
'Zoos and aquariums are conservation and scientific institutions, but they have economic limitations,' explained Hutchins.
'It’s going to come down to, are we going to get the money? … Money is the bottom line. If you don’t have money, you will not accomplish anything.'
Despite the financial crises that have plagued most other American zoos, the Bronx Zoo continues to grow. Last year, its operating revenue and support rose by 11 percent from the prior year. Its budget and scope of operations are on par with behemoths like the Smithsonian and the Museum of Natural History.
The overall revenue is generated from three primary sources: government funding (city, state and federal), general admission and concessions, and individual donors. As is the case for most zoos, government subsidies are a critical source of support. Last year, the WCS got $36.5 million, $24 million of which came from cash-strapped New York City. However, as many other zoos have also discovered, taxpayer dollars come with certain restrictions.
'The money is to exhibit animals to the people of New York, for the education and entertainment of the people of New York,” explained Henry Stern, who for 14 years served as Commissioner of Parks & Recreation, the department that authorizes the New York City budget for the Bronx Zoo. “The city is not in a situation to pay for the preservation of animals in Africa and Asia.' "
However, on the other end of the spectrum, according to US ARK and Georgetown Economic Services LLC, the trade in high quality captive bred reptiles is a $3 billion a year industry. And that is with most states seriously regulating the private possession of exotic reptiles which cripples small businesses ! Especially when it comes to venomous reptiles or large constrictors. NYC even bans ball pythons ! However, to put this in perspective, the private reptile industry is creating jobs, making money, helping conserve the populations of species, teaching about ecology, and entertaining people way more than a zoo ever could. In other words, the private reptile industry is way more effective at accomplishing everything zoo's try to do. What is a more effective way of getting kids into conservation and ecology, bringing them to the zoo for an hour and letting them look at a green tree python for five minutes, or buying them a green tree python and teaching them how to raise it ! The later is way more effective and way more entertaining as well ! There is no competition. Zoo's cost the tax payer money and kill economic growth while the private reptile industry is more effective at accomplishing everything that zoos' try to do and create economic growth. Why do you think so many "professionals" and legislatures advocate outlawing the private possession of reptiles ? Well obviously if you can just walk into a pet shop and buy a snake who the hell is going to go to their zoo's ! No one ! Therefore, the government has to resort to banning you from keeping reptiles in order to perpetuate an ineffective and wasteful system. This is why I argue that zoo's are communist bureaucracies, it is literally the free market and freedom vs. government control and regulation of your rights. You cannot define communism any more clearly then the states acquiring and banning the rights of the people.
The home is also a much more suitable place for a reptile then any government agency. In the home animals get one on one interaction and attention daily. They are constantly being stimulated and taken care of. As opposed to zoo's which treat reptiles as more of display specimens then actual living things. I know some people who treat their iguanas and bearded dragons better than some people treat their kids, and I am not exaggerating. These animals have extremely good lives and are extremely healthy both mentally and physically. No to mention how some of the higher end morphs that go for about $20,000.00 are treated. They probably go to the vet more then I go to the doctor. Again, the reality of the situation is in stark contrast to the myth that exotic reptiles should not be kept in the home. And while I am on the topic of myths, I would like to address another popular myth put out by the bureaucratic machine.
This myth is way more potent form of disinformation because it preys on peoples ignorance and irrational fear. This myth claims that, "keeping reptiles is dangerous." Lets address just two types of reptiles that many people would consider the most dangerous types of reptiles for a hobbyist to keep in a private collection. Venomous reptiles and large constrictors. When it comes to venomous reptiles the center for disease control reports that 7000 bites occur per year and out of those bites 15 fatalities occur annually. 50% of these bites are dry bites meaning that the person is not injured. However, 98% of these bites are from wild indigenous snakes that people come into contact with accidently, not from snakes that people keep as pets. When the statistics are adjusted to account for how many people have died from the venomous snakes that they keep as pets we find that from 1990 -2008 16 people have died as a result of keeping venomous snakes as pets. The number of people who have been killed from keeping large constrictors as pets from 1990- 2008 is 8. Other types of snakes virtually kill 0 people per year. To put this in perspective the CDC reports that about 1,000 people a day go to the emergency room for serious dog bite injuries. In 2001, an estimated 368,245 persons were treated in U.S. emergency rooms for nonfatal dog bite-related injuries after they were severely maimed; and an average of 31 people per year are killed by their pet dogs. Although, a 2009 report issued by DogsBite.org shows that 19 dog breeds contributed to 88 deaths in a recent 3-year period. In addition, 45,343 people die annually for motor vehicle accidents, 1,690 die from falling down the steps, 20 a year die from playing with toys, 344 die while getting in the bath tub, and around 1000 a year die from air plane accidents. Of course if I didn't drive, take airplanes, or give my kids toys I would probably live a safer life. However, what is the point of living life if you can't enjoy it ! Thousands of people go to venomous reptile shows around the country, and buy venomous reptiles online and at pet shops, every day. Yet we regulate the rights of our citizens to own such animals when toys kill more people per year then venomous snakes have in the last 18 years ! Is the private ownership of reptiles, even venomous ones, that much of an issue as to ban people from owning them privately ? I think not. And I think reptiles belong in private collections, not in institutions. Therefore, it is not just enough to just call for the deregulation of exotic reptile laws, we must also call for the decentralization of zoological institutions. This way we stop the incentive to ban reptiles.
Source Citations
1) Andrew Wyatt. "USARK Reptile Industry Economic Summary for the Office of Management & Budget RE: USFWS Proposed Rule Change to Injurious Wildlife List of the Lacey Act; March 1, 2010." Nov 11, 2011. http://www.usark.org/uploads/Economic%20OMB%20Testimony.pdf.
2) Aron Heller. "The Evolution of Zoos." Nov 11, 2011. http://aronheller.com/articles/the-evolution-of-zoos/.
3) US ARK. "Re: Docket No: FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015." Nov 11, 2011.
http://www.usark.org/uploads/USARK%20Addendum%20Public%20Comment%20f%20AW080210.pdf.
4) Center for Disease Control (CDC). Nov 11, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?q=venomous+snake+bite+statistics&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&site=default_collection&btnG.x=17&btnG.y=14
|
| |
|
RE: Should Reptiles be Kept in Zoo's ? Not Really.
|
Reply
|
|
by CanadianSnakeMan on November 15, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tommy,
You seem to be forgetting the important function that zoos have in research and conservation projects with regards to reptiles that most private keepers do not have the knowledge, time or ability to co-ordinate on a large scale. I'm not saying that reptiles should not be kept by private keepers (in fact I've spent the last 2 years working on projects to change restrictive exotics legislation for the private sector), what I'm saying is that telling people that the private pet industry for reptiles will save species is not entirely true, unless you mean saving species for captivity only.
Next is your point about public funding for zoos. Your take on this communist machine behind zoos first is not entirely accurate at all and secondly, why does it have to be a bad thing? With public funding comes projects from money that would otherwise be funnelled into shareholders' bank accounts. Do you mean to tell me that there would be more conservation projects undertaken by a private institution focused on profit as opposed to one that is at least partially publically funded? Public funding denotes public control, i.e. if there is a project that is important for the public interest (such as captive breeding and reintroduction programs of species, free education programs for students etc) then that zoo can be mandated to fulfill that goal. I'm sorry, but if that puts a couple of private zoos or commercial breeders out of business then I think that's an acceptable loss.
There should always be space for safe, sane and responsible private exotic ownership but the private, for-profit animal trade should never come at the expense of projects in the public domain.
|
| |
|
RE: Should Reptiles be Kept in Zoo's ? Not Really.
|
Reply
|
|
by tomhartman on November 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this guy has a point and that you are not giving the private secter enough credit. With regards to conservation projects the private secter can certainly be more efficent then the public secter. Someone in the government or the private secter could coordinate an adoption center for unwanted herps and use those herps to reintroduce to the wild. Shipyourreptile.com ( which evolved from the private secter and creates jobs) has even made it possible for one facility to recieve animals from the entire country. If the government subsidized the shipping cost people would probably stop releasing reptiles into the wild here in the US. Look at how many cats and dogs are in shelters here in the US. It would be excellent and probably only cost the government a fraction of what it cost now to subsidize zoos. Also, if we encouraged more people to keep and propogate herps, especially the rare and threatened ones, there would eventually be a surplus which we could send back to the wild. I am sure if you contacted USARK industry leaders would be more then happy to comply. This is all very possible and is something we could do right now. You guys have to just stop giving up on the private secter so quickly and stop trying to take the easy and sleezy communist way out.
Second, with regards to research, I think you are grossely underestimating the power of the private secter. I am sure if you gave some industry leaders research requirments they would be more then happy to meet them. In NY we have to meet those requirments in order to keep our venomous reptile permits. Also, if you just gave common people more incentive and coordinated them I am sure that they also would meet those requirments with flying colors. Again, all this would create jobs, promote conservation, and cost the government less money. Its not that I am against taking others peoples money to help conserve the environment, I am just saying, why resort to thugery if there is a better way that actually puts money in peoples pockets instead of taking it.
|
| |
|
RE: Should Reptiles be Kept in Zoo's ? Not Really.
|
Reply
|
|
by tomhartman on November 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You guys just have to realize that you dont have to depend on the government for everything and that if you just try hard enough you can control things yourself, make a difference and help the environment, and make money. Joining a beaurocracy is like joining a gang. Its going no where, it hurts people, and you will never make something of yourself as long as you are in it.
|
| |
|
RE: Should Reptiles be Kept in Zoo's ? Not Really.
|
Reply
|
|
by theemojohnm on November 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tommy, if you are going to post, please just post, and don't pretend to be multiple people. Man, I mean it is was obvious just by the username, and opening sentence of your last post..
|
| |
|
RE: Should Reptiles be Kept in Zoo's ? Not Really.
|
Reply
|
|
by CanadianSnakeMan on November 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love how in his attempt to give himself more credibility, he ends up giving himself less.
You think he'd have learned by now.
Isn't there a way to permanently block an IP?
|
| |
|
RE: Should Reptiles be Kept in Zoo's ? Not Really.
|
Reply
|
|
by CanadianSnakeMan on November 18, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also, to address some of the things you said...
You need to actually talk to people involved in conservation projects to see the nauseating amount of planning, expertise and work involved in captive breeding programs for release into the wild. The idea of setting up an adoption centre to reintroduce captive herps into the wild is a complete dreamland. That could do far more harm than good. You would have no controls over where the bloodlines of the species came from, whether they or their ancestors are crossbread with other species, their socialization to humans, their prey preferences (if on a standard lab rodent diet). Have you though about what it would be like for an exotic disease (like OPV, certain parasites etc) to be introduced into a population you're trying to save? Besides, when you're in an organization concerned mainly about profit, then inevitably some (or most) of your financial resources will end up in the banks of shareholders instead of in the projects in which they belong - and if that was my tax money going into buying someone's summer home, I'd be pretty mad. And also, with public money comes public control. I don't know about you guys in the US, but here we don't vote in shareholders and corporate executives.
As for research, why go to industry leaders when we already have zoos and reputable public institutions to do it for us? There is a place for the private sector, but the public sector should take over projects for the public good. I don't see how one can balance a project for the greater good of the public while trying to make a buck. Another benefit of public control over conservation and research is that they can run at a loss if necessary so that important projects get accomplished regardless as to whether they're losing money or not. Do you ever hear of private institutions running at a loss for the greater good?
Do the police, departments, fire departments and schools in your area worry if you can't pay for their services? Perhaps next time your house is burning down and you don't have a wad of cash in your bank account the fire department should just let it burn? This 'communist evil' you're talking about is absolutely ridiculous.
The cold war is over. Get over it.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
