Aspinall Part 1 - Life Sentence?
This ended up a long post, so I’ve split it into six parts. That way it’s easier to read and I get to post more photos….
There are undoubtably good zoos and bad zoos, but the owner of one of our, arguably, most successful zoos thinks all zoos are bad. I was one of the first visitors to John Aspinall’s Howletts and Port Lympne zoos, sorry, wild animal parks, both opened in the mid-1970s. Living not far away from these Parks and loving animals, I've made numerous repeat visits over the years, both on my own and later with children and grandchildren. But have I done harm in doing so? My best friend thinks I have. Like many others he believes that “at the end of the day, zoos are businesses geared towards entertainment, not educational establishments. All they teach people is that it is acceptable to interfere with animals and keep them locked up in captivity, where they are bored, cramped, lonely and deprived of all control over their lives.” And yet I could argue, if it were not for zoos, the South Tiger would be extinct, and captive tigers overall are flourishing, with 15,000 to 20,000 worldwide, outnumbering their wild relatives five to one.
I am not going to list all the arguments for and against keeping animals in captivity for the pleasure of the public. I just wanted to introduce this dilemma since it is clearly relevant to the subject of my photo.
Actually, there are two controversies surrounding the Aspinall zoos, sorry, wild animal parks. Firstly, there is the question of human interaction, and then there is the question as to whether it is ethical to release captive animals back into the wild. But in Aspinall’s case , the two are intertwined, since John (and since his death, his son Damian) believe that the one followes the other.
[Continued in Part 2]
Aspinall Part 1 - Life Sentence?
This ended up a long post, so I’ve split it into six parts. That way it’s easier to read and I get to post more photos….
There are undoubtably good zoos and bad zoos, but the owner of one of our, arguably, most successful zoos thinks all zoos are bad. I was one of the first visitors to John Aspinall’s Howletts and Port Lympne zoos, sorry, wild animal parks, both opened in the mid-1970s. Living not far away from these Parks and loving animals, I've made numerous repeat visits over the years, both on my own and later with children and grandchildren. But have I done harm in doing so? My best friend thinks I have. Like many others he believes that “at the end of the day, zoos are businesses geared towards entertainment, not educational establishments. All they teach people is that it is acceptable to interfere with animals and keep them locked up in captivity, where they are bored, cramped, lonely and deprived of all control over their lives.” And yet I could argue, if it were not for zoos, the South Tiger would be extinct, and captive tigers overall are flourishing, with 15,000 to 20,000 worldwide, outnumbering their wild relatives five to one.
I am not going to list all the arguments for and against keeping animals in captivity for the pleasure of the public. I just wanted to introduce this dilemma since it is clearly relevant to the subject of my photo.
Actually, there are two controversies surrounding the Aspinall zoos, sorry, wild animal parks. Firstly, there is the question of human interaction, and then there is the question as to whether it is ethical to release captive animals back into the wild. But in Aspinall’s case , the two are intertwined, since John (and since his death, his son Damian) believe that the one followes the other.
[Continued in Part 2]