Zoos, safari parks, and wild places

[Robert S]

I was having a think this morning about wild places. I don't go on holidays other than occasionally with my grandkids and kids, for Christmas get togethers. These days [ covid style ] everyone heads for the home of one of my children and we all spend a few days together.
When I did travel it was for work. I lived in Borneo for two years and China for over three. I don't believe I ever encountered a 'wild place'. Even Batu Bua on the Muara Laung had MTV.
Seems wild places are very few and far between. That got me thinking. Question I came up with was 'When does a wild place become a safari park, and when does a safari park become a zoo? I gave up with Antarctica because my brain was beginning get cramp.
I appreciate that zoos and safari parks can do a lot of good. Jakarta zoo seemed ok. However there are zoos that are bad.
Are there safari parks that are bad?

 

[Doug Herr]

Lots of wild places in North America. No MTV, no traffic, no cell service. Awesome for social distancing. My favorite places.

 

[Robert S]

Good to know Doug. Thanks for the post.

 

[MrFotoFool]

It seems like you are asking two separate questions. I will answer both since I spent over a decade as a zoo docent and used to be obsessed with zoos. It was the primary interest of my photography for the first two decades I was into photography, though in the last few years I have lost interest. Towards the end of my interest (in 2014) I self-published a book called Zoos of the Southwest.

Your first question, as I understand it, is when does a wild place become so overrun - and the animals so acclimated to people - that it almost seems like a safari park or zoo (even though the animals are not captive). Some national parks are this way. Grand Canyon may be my favorite place on earth but the wapiti (American elk) are so "tame" (for lack of a better word) they often graze next to the main parking lots or sit down to rest next to the lodges. This does not necessarily bother me because it makes getting photos easier. Bighorn sheep graze in a city park in Boulder City, Nevada, and their ease around people allowed me to get some great photos when they left at sunset to go back up to the surrounding cliffs.

As for designated zoos and safari parks - places with captive animals - there are good and bad and yes this applies to safari parks as well. The animals may have more room to roam at a safari park than a traditional zoo, but there are some that do nothing to contribute to conservation which in my opinion is the only justification for modern zoos and safari parks. Some just get whatever animals non-accredited zoos can obtain, so they mix domestic and wild and mix animals from different continents, providing zero education value.

If anyone is truly interested in zoos and aquariums, you should visit the website ZooChat.com.

 

[Robert S]

Thanks for the post MrFotoFool. The ZooChat site looks very interesting.

 

[GrandNagus50]

Lots of issues here.

in any number of (for example) national parks (as in the US) there are developed areas and as mentioned above, some of the animals become semi-tame. But realistically, the "overrun" areas are relatively small, and one could hike even a mile away and be in what feels like a truly wild area. Even when I was in highly developed southern Ohio photographing warblers this past spring, we drove into a couple of the state forests and there was no cell service, just about no traffic, and forests that are not virginal but where second growth trees are huge and there are wild animals (e.g., black bears) that are not at all tame. Wild or not? OTOH, the Passenger pigeons are long gone and the greater ecosystem is forever transformed from its original "wild" state.

Meanwhile, as Thoreau famously asserted, one can perceive "wildness" even in the smallest patch of ground, e.g., a city park or a back yard.

The question also made me think of two situations in Africa where these issues are germane. First, there is the wonderful (in my opinion) "Nairobi National Park" in Kenya. The 45 square mile park is surrounded by a fence, and hence, strictly speaking, is really a kind of glorified "wild animal park." But when one drives through, an amazing variety of seemingly completely wild animals are seen, by all appearances acting naturally. On a bigger scale, the world-famous Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania is situated in a crater with fairly steep walls. With a few exceptions, the animals stay there and never go elsewhere. It could be perceived as a gigantic wild animal park or even a zoo.

How big does a "wild" area have to be to be considered "wild?" California is highly urbanized but includes numerous wilderness areas. Even Alaska has MTV. OTOH, in Alaska they managed to exterminate their Musk Ox during the nineteenth century and later these were replaced with animals from elsewhere. Does this mean Alaska has been turned into a gigantic wild animal park?

I'll leave the zoo question to others.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

I was having a think this morning about wild places. I don't go on holidays other than occasionally with my grandkids and kids, for Christmas get togethers. These days [ covid style ] everyone heads for the home of one of my children and we all spend a few days together.
When I did travel it was for work. I lived in Borneo for two years and China for over three. I don't believe I ever encountered a 'wild place'. Even Batu Bua on the Muara Laung had MTV.
Seems wild places are very few and far between. That got me thinking. Question I came up with was 'When does a wild place become a safari park, and when does a safari park become a zoo? I gave up with Antarctica because my brain was beginning get cramp.
I appreciate that zoos and safari parks can do a lot of good. Jakarta zoo seemed ok. However there are zoos that are bad.
Are there safari parks that are bad?

Long question -- but here is my take. Any place that has animals in captivity who are there to support a breeding programme where young animals -- typically vultures primarily -- are reintroduced into the wild is a GREAT thing.

Any place where animals are breed to be shot as trophies - is a BAD thing. Trophy hunting while economically advantageous in a few spots in africa is lousy -- BUT if the money goes towards a breeding programme for reintroduction of species back into the wild then one is torn by conflicting needs.

Most Zoos persee are their to educate the people AND to act as centres for research and breeding. Most seem to breed amongst other captive animals and rescues.
Private collections -- like those in the Middle East and Russia are simply terrible.

Private Reserves in South Africa and East Africa are as a rule far better now the fences have come down and to be very frank offer a far better experience for their guests than they can get in for example the Kruger public park -- I will always go to Mala Mala rather than the Kruger itself.

Visitor safety -- I can see why in alaska and the pacific north west watching Grizzly Bears must be controlled -- is it not better to have trials and viewing spots clearly laid out and everyone safe, rather than letting lots of food go for a walk in the woods.

Maasai Mara -vs- Mara Triangle -the Mara Triangle has become Disney Land with very very strict rule and fines for those visiting -- so much so that we do not go there anymore. The Maasai Mara is more lessefair -- FOR NOW -- but there is a new management plan that could change this -- NEW "super highways" (permanent roads) are being built both to the parks and inside the park to allow more visitors to get into the park BUT they make it much more difficult to get close to sightings; to track species etc.. It is close to impossible to buy an off road permit without great time and expense - so most simply mpay a small fine when caught. BUT -- still better roads mean more and more Matatus (white busses) and these are a plague. Particularly when they leave the established tracks and GET Stuck

Can you spot the pair of Cheetah in this photo when EVERY single bus is STUCK in the mud and the one Land cruiser had to be paid to help so the Rangers would not be called. The ranges came anyway and we just watched and waited for the Cheetah boys to head off. [2nd photo added to make it easier]

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[MrFotoFool]

@Andy Miller Photo UK It took me a while to find the cheetahs, especially the second one to the right of the first one!

 

[Doug Herr]

Can you spot the pair of Cheetah in this photo when EVERY single bus is STUCK in the mud and the one Land cruiser had to be paid to help so the Rangers would not be called. The ranges came anyway and we just watched and waited for the Cheetah boys to head off. [2nd photo added to make it easier]

View attachment 63525
View attachment 63529

There is absolutely nothing that would entice me to participate in this activity.

I've visited lots of wilderness in western North America (Pacific coast from California to British Columbia, Alaska, Yukon, Great Basin, and interior mountains from Arizona to Alberta), where encounters with truly wild animals in truly wild lands can be found simply by avoiding the popular locations.

 

[Nimi]

Long question -- but here is my take. Any place that has animals in captivity who are there to support a breeding programme where young animals -- typically vultures primarily -- are reintroduced into the wild is a GREAT thing.

Any place where animals are breed to be shot as trophies - is a BAD thing. Trophy hunting while economically advantageous in a few spots in africa is lousy -- BUT if the money goes towards a breeding programme for reintroduction of species back into the wild then one is torn by conflicting needs.

Most Zoos persee are their to educate the people AND to act as centres for research and breeding. Most seem to breed amongst other captive animals and rescues.
Private collections -- like those in the Middle East and Russia are simply terrible.

Private Reserves in South Africa and East Africa are as a rule far better now the fences have come down and to be very frank offer a far better experience for their guests than they can get in for example the Kruger public park -- I will always go to Mala Mala rather than the Kruger itself.

Visitor safety -- I can see why in alaska and the pacific north west watching Grizzly Bears must be controlled -- is it not better to have trials and viewing spots clearly laid out and everyone safe, rather than letting lots of food go for a walk in the woods.

Maasai Mara -vs- Mara Triangle -the Mara Triangle has become Disney Land with very very strict rule and fines for those visiting -- so much so that we do not go there anymore. The Maasai Mara is more lessefair -- FOR NOW -- but there is a new management plan that could change this -- NEW "super highways" (permanent roads) are being built both to the parks and inside the park to allow more visitors to get into the park BUT they make it much more difficult to get close to sightings; to track species etc.. It is close to impossible to buy an off road permit without great time and expense - so most simply mpay a small fine when caught. BUT -- still better roads mean more and more Matatus (white busses) and these are a plague. Particularly when they leave the established tracks and GET Stuck

Can you spot the pair of Cheetah in this photo when EVERY single bus is STUCK in the mud and the one Land cruiser had to be paid to help so the Rangers would not be called. The ranges came anyway and we just watched and waited for the Cheetah boys to head off. [2nd photo added to make it easier]

View attachment 63525
View attachment 63529

I have one of those Land Cruisers and a weekend doesn't go by without pulling at least two lesser vehicles out of mud, ditches and beach sand! It's the D5 of trucks.

 

[Robert S]

Lots of issues here.

in any number of (for example) national parks (as in the US) there are developed areas and as mentioned above, some of the animals become semi-tame. But realistically, the "overrun" areas are relatively small, and one could hike even a mile away and be in what feels like a truly wild area. Even when I was in highly developed southern Ohio photographing warblers this past spring, we drove into a couple of the state forests and there was no cell service, just about no traffic, and forests that are not virginal but where second growth trees are huge and there are wild animals (e.g., black bears) that are not at all tame. Wild or not? OTOH, the Passenger pigeons are long gone and the greater ecosystem is forever transformed from its original "wild" state.

Meanwhile, as Thoreau famously asserted, one can perceive "wildness" even in the smallest patch of ground, e.g., a city park or a back yard.

The question also made me think of two situations in Africa where these issues are germane. First, there is the wonderful (in my opinion) "Nairobi National Park" in Kenya. The 45 square mile park is surrounded by a fence, and hence, strictly speaking, is really a kind of glorified "wild animal park." But when one drives through, an amazing variety of seemingly completely wild animals are seen, by all appearances acting naturally. On a bigger scale, the world-famous Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania is situated in a crater with fairly steep walls. With a few exceptions, the animals stay there and never go elsewhere. It could be perceived as a gigantic wild animal park or even a zoo.

How big does a "wild" area have to be to be considered "wild?" California is highly urbanized but includes numerous wilderness areas. Even Alaska has MTV. OTOH, in Alaska they managed to exterminate their Musk Ox during the nineteenth century and later these were replaced with animals from elsewhere. Does this mean Alaska has been turned into a gigantic wild animal park?

I'll leave the zoo question to others.

Thanks for the post Grand Nagus. You make some interesting points. Appreciate you sharing your understanding of things. Read 'On Walden Pond' thirty odd years ago. Thoreau and his mates attempted to get back to 'nature' in order to do whatever, but found they were that knackered after working all day they didn't have much energy left for anything else. [ least that is what I understood of it all ] I'm not up to international travel anymore. When I did travel I would read up on the place I was going to. Although it was useful it never meant I knew what the place would be like. One interesting thing I found was that for a few weeks in a new place I was 'seeing a lot', but after that it all became normal.

 

[Robert S]

Long question -- but here is my take. Any place that has animals in captivity who are there to support a breeding programme where young animals -- typically vultures primarily -- are reintroduced into the wild is a GREAT thing.

Any place where animals are breed to be shot as trophies - is a BAD thing. Trophy hunting while economically advantageous in a few spots in africa is lousy -- BUT if the money goes towards a breeding programme for reintroduction of species back into the wild then one is torn by conflicting needs.

Most Zoos persee are their to educate the people AND to act as centres for research and breeding. Most seem to breed amongst other captive animals and rescues.
Private collections -- like those in the Middle East and Russia are simply terrible.

Private Reserves in South Africa and East Africa are as a rule far better now the fences have come down and to be very frank offer a far better experience for their guests than they can get in for example the Kruger public park -- I will always go to Mala Mala rather than the Kruger itself.

Visitor safety -- I can see why in alaska and the pacific north west watching Grizzly Bears must be controlled -- is it not better to have trials and viewing spots clearly laid out and everyone safe, rather than letting lots of food go for a walk in the woods.

Maasai Mara -vs- Mara Triangle -the Mara Triangle has become Disney Land with very very strict rule and fines for those visiting -- so much so that we do not go there anymore. The Maasai Mara is more lessefair -- FOR NOW -- but there is a new management plan that could change this -- NEW "super highways" (permanent roads) are being built both to the parks and inside the park to allow more visitors to get into the park BUT they make it much more difficult to get close to sightings; to track species etc.. It is close to impossible to buy an off road permit without great time and expense - so most simply mpay a small fine when caught. BUT -- still better roads mean more and more Matatus (white busses) and these are a plague. Particularly when they leave the established tracks and GET Stuck

Can you spot the pair of Cheetah in this photo when EVERY single bus is STUCK in the mud and the one Land cruiser had to be paid to help so the Rangers would not be called. The ranges came anyway and we just watched and waited for the Cheetah boys to head off. [2nd photo added to make it easier]

View attachment 63525
View attachment 63529

Thanks for the post Andy. All interesting stuff. Looking at the photos it is not a thing I'd be that fussed to do. Reminds me of tourists doing China in a week and being herded around by Chinese tour guides with bullhorns and little flags on a pole. Saw a lot of them in Suzhou where I was living. My students would take me to the touristy places and explain things, much more relaxed. Your info on the different styles of park are interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Robert S]

@Andy Miller Photo UK It took me a while to find the cheetahs, especially the second one to the right of the first one!

Being distantly related to Davy Crocket and Leif Erickson I let the genes take over and spotted the cats immediately. [ thought I would add some BS so you know it's me ]

 

[Robert S]

I have one of those Land Cruisers and a weekend doesn't go by without pulling at least two lesser vehicles out of mud, ditches and beach sand! It's the D5 of trucks.

My youngest son had a cruiser. He sold it because his wife got the poops parking it. Good of you to help people out. I had a Land Rover in the UK. Some bloke ran into the back of me. Minimal damage to the rover made a mess of the front of his car though. He was very apologetic, I told him to forget it and tried not to laugh.

 

[Jeffrey Davidson]

I was having a think this morning about wild places. I don't go on holidays other than occasionally with my grandkids and kids, for Christmas get togethers. These days [ covid style ] everyone heads for the home of one of my children and we all spend a few days together.
When I did travel it was for work. I lived in Borneo for two years and China for over three. I don't believe I ever encountered a 'wild place'. Even Batu Bua on the Muara Laung had MTV.
Seems wild places are very few and far between. That got me thinking. Question I came up with was 'When does a wild place become a safari park, and when does a safari park become a zoo? I gave up with Antarctica because my brain was beginning get cramp.
I appreciate that zoos and safari parks can do a lot of good. Jakarta zoo seemed ok. However there are zoos that are bad.
Are there safari parks that are bad?

San Diego Safari Park and Zoo are right up at or near the top. I highly recommend them.