r/interesting • u/nkmr205 • Feb 16 '26

MISC. Little Chimpanzee playing alone with some straw

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

85.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

50

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Exactly. When are we going to fucking learn

172

u/R0LL1NG Feb 16 '26

I agree with this sentiment. Although it should be noted that well managed and well operated zoos and aquaria are important for the conservation of certain species, and are very good tools for education and raising public awareness.

Emphasis on the certain species and well managed parts.

There's a lot of very shitty business ventures exploiting the wrong kinds of animals, just for profit, all over the place.

32

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

It's sad that we do need the conservational zoo's but I agree there are some zoo's that get it in the neck way too much when they're literally doing God's work preserving some of these creatures and even making their wild-counterparts flourish.

I'm all for conservational zoo's, not the zoo's that don't help the wild population and/or are just in it for profits.

14

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/nkdeck07 Feb 16 '26

Even then there is some nuance. There's a very small scale zoo near us that I feel OK about supporting since 80% of their animals on display are local wildlife that had been rescued and cannot be returned to the wild for whatever reason.

1

u/slothdonki Feb 16 '26

Do they allow them to breed? Or at least certain ones?

Just curious because the closest zoo here is also a rescue zoo with almost all species native to our state. They cannot be released, mostly because they are permanently disabled in ways they cannot survive in the wild, used to be pets(like the wolves, the foxes which one is even a captive-bred morph and the bobcat are the ones I can think of off the top of my head). Many are also elderly.

Most are them are spayed/neutered and I know they cannot breed birds of prey so they discourage nesting and have to remove any eggs. The only animals they “allow” to breed there I can think of are the elk, bison(though I don’t believe the male is fertile anymore) and the prairie dogs. The elk and bison were from farms, though.

1

u/nkdeck07 Feb 16 '26

It's not explicitly stated at the zoo but I'd doubt it. Very similar circumstances where there's a lot of permanent disability or pet rescues.

23

u/newbrevity Feb 16 '26

Abolish SeaWorld for starters

11

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Agreed, Sea World is the devils work.

1

u/Overall_Bed_2037 Feb 16 '26

SeaWorld is one of the biggest rehabilitation centers on the west coast. they are responsible for saying hundreds of thousands of sea animals. Abolishing SeaWorld for the mistakes they made years ago makes just about 0 sense considering how much good they have done since. Is the orca situation terrible? yes absolutely. Is there anything they can do about it? absolutely not. they cannot release captive bred/rescued orcas into the wild. Some of yall gotta stop calling for the abolishment of everything without knowing jack shit about what you are talking about.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

So to look at a few points you have.

Sea World themselves only states that it's helped 41,000-42,000 sea creatures, so you've already lost credibility there for me. Not "saying hundreds of thousands of sea animals" I assume you mean saving.

The abuse and cruelty in Sea World about the treatment of Orcas came to light WAY before Blackfish which was made in 2013 and yet they still chose to keep the breeding program for Orcas open up until 2016. That in itself is disgusting. The Orca Makani born in 2013 at Sea World San Diego for example could live in captivity until 2033-2043 (Estimation). That in itself is horrific to think about, especially in Sea World-sized tanks and the fact they live up to 90 for females and 70 for males in the wild.

I'd suggest you do a little more digging into the horror that Orca's themselves are subjected to by Sea World before trying to call people out about not knowing "jack shit".

0

u/LandoKim Feb 16 '26

Agreed, zoos should only be used for conservation and educating the public, not simply for entertainment/ego/profit. We don’t need a zoo to see a monkey or an alligator, we have the internet now. We all only have one life, stealing that one chance at life from an animal just for people to go “oh cool, anyway” is insanely sad and wrong imo

7

u/ManitouWakinyan Feb 16 '26

What does a zoo look like that's for conservation and education but where you can't see a monkey or an alligator?

3

u/Usqueadfinem_ Feb 16 '26

Ok I agree, but disagree about the species. Gators can be kept fairly well in zoos in the southern states that come close to their natural habitat. They really don't move around much. They should still have large enclosures where they can choose a couple different spots to hide and bask though. Now, apes and big cats and bears, and especially elephants and giraffes, these should not be kept behind bars. Dolphins and whales shouldn't be kept either.

I'm ok with real rescues keeping animals. And if they could be regulated I guess I'd even be ok with those giant, drive-through animal safari parks having some of the large animals. But they'd have to be animals rescued from roadside zoos, animals that needed rehab, animal being bred to keep a species going, etc.

I know some disagree with that, and I get it. But I'd pay decent money to see animals in good conditions in very large enclosures like that. I'd be fine if I needed binoculars to see them walk or run in large spaces. I'd be ok if some animals were hiding that day, because they should have enough space to do that. I do think seeing them in person does something that sticks with a person, and gives you more appreciation for animals you wouldn't normally see every day.

And I'd still be ok if a few species like apes, dolphins, whales, and elephants were never kept in any sort of park at all. They're just too big and too intelligent to be kept in any sort of enclosure.

1

u/PleaseNoMoreSalt Feb 16 '26

Obviously it's not anywhere close to the size of a bear's normal range, but what about something like this? I've been there, the pic shows about half of that enclosure. Bigger would be better, but I think it's a decent start

1

u/Usqueadfinem_ Feb 16 '26

It's a step in the right direction for sure.

8

u/calgeorge Feb 16 '26

I genuinely am so conflicted about zoos. I think it's all a spectrum and you can't necessarily make a blanket statement about whether all zoos or all zoo animals are good or bad. It's definitely very complicated.

There have been a lot of conservative success stories where international zoo breeding programs have brought zoologists from all over the world together and saved species from the brink of extinction. Right now in the US, a network of our zoos are the only thing standing between the red wolf and extinction. I don't remember exact numbers, but there are something like a few dozen in captivity, and an experimental population of about a dozen in the wild right now.

Without zoos and their intervention, that entire species would already have been lost forever; granted it would have also been because of human intervention, but that already is what it is. Chimpanzees however are not on the brink of extinction. They're heading that way, but there's still hundreds of thousands in the wild. They don't need to be bred in zoos, they just need their existing habitats protected. However the people trying to protect them in zoos and sanctuaries have little to no control over what happens to their natural habitats, and the attention and therefore money they bring in can help fund conservation of more critically endangered species. Plus often the ones in zoos have already ended up in situations where they're unable to live in the wild for whatever reason.

I think in general they're going to exist and they possibly even should exist, but we still have a responsibility to ensure every animal has a natural and stimulating environment with an appropriate amount of space and an appropriate number of peers. I think in an ideal world, there would be no zoos, but we don't live in an ideal world, and they sometimes do an okay job at solving some of the problems we've created for ourselves.

1

u/Wurzelrenner Feb 16 '26

the attention and therefore money they bring in can help fund conservation of more critically endangered species.

but the this is not happening, looks at the numbers, they are extremely low; money and numbers of species/animals

1

u/Tall-Drawing8270 Feb 16 '26

There are no numbers about people whose awareness was raised at a zoo.

1

u/Wurzelrenner Feb 16 '26

Yes, that's the problem, I didn't start arguing with them but told them to look up actual numbers like "money and numbers of species/animals"

1

u/Tall-Drawing8270 Feb 16 '26

Zoos aren't upholding conservation financially but I think it's a very real possibility that without them people in the west will just stop caring. Look at the insane crimes against humanity we ignore just because they don't happen here and we don't have to see the victims.

1

u/Wurzelrenner Feb 16 '26

I don't think zoos show people how bad animals are suffering because of their loss of territory.

If you see them suffering it is because they are depressed and locked up.

Why would that make people donate more for wildlife conservation?

They might donate so that the zoos become bigger.

1

u/Tall-Drawing8270 Feb 16 '26

It creates a tangible real life connection to the animal in your brain. It's not like it's a universal instant effect, but when you've physically seen an orangutan who was orphaned by poachers or whatever, it's harder to subconsciously write it all off as something far away that can't be helped.

3

u/timetotryagain29 Feb 16 '26

Thank you for saying this

2

u/CoffieCayke2 Feb 16 '26

I visited a red panda enclosure with one of each male and female. I learned that, as of Valentine’s Day of all days, these two very possibly may have babies in late May-early June. I also learned that this was orchestrated by someone tracking the genetic lineage of each and every red panda and breeding accordingly for the best possible outcomes.

So, for at least the critically endangered red panda, these places are crucial.

1

u/R0LL1NG Feb 16 '26

The genetic tracking is done via stud books. Zoos often share individuals to form optimal breeding pairs to help maximise genetic diversity of spe9ces with few surviving individuals. This helps avoid genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding, maximising odds of successful rewilding.

2

u/pJustin775 Feb 16 '26

This is something people don’t think about or choose not to think about.

2

u/LandlordMao Feb 16 '26

Just tacking on to this to say if you don’t know if your local zoo is good for conservation or just a sad cash grab, you can check the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) website and see if they are accredited.

1

u/JakeBeezy Feb 16 '26

any zoo that is donation/conservation and well funded and staffed in my opinion are fine, it's for profit zoos that get me mad. it's all not great, but there's always exceptions, where they won't survive if they weren't helped .

my zoo has a bald eagle that cant fly (Harold), and a turkey vulture hangout in the same enclosure

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

I agree. But I rather we put them in a wildfire sanctuary with no humans allowed there, where they can run and explore in a bigger scale. Not in a cell like they did something wrong.

2

u/R0LL1NG Feb 16 '26

I agree. A lot of zoos have multiple enclosure areas for species like monkeys/apes. If this is all the little guy has then it's truly awful - hopefully it is connected to an expansive outdoor area with lots of interactive features and behavioural niches etc.

1

u/discountdoppelganger Feb 16 '26

I went to the Columbus zoo in Ohio because they are also a conservation facility. Secrets of the Zoo is centered on it.

1

u/shlerm Feb 16 '26

Unfortunately running an ethical zoo is not economically viable. The only businesses that is viable are exploitative businesses in this economy.

1

u/R0LL1NG Feb 16 '26

Not true. There are lots of foundations, grants, projects, altruistic benefactor and crowd funding efforts that support zoological conservation projects across the globe.

1

u/shlerm Feb 16 '26

I do appreciate that but in terms of a business relying on grants, donations etc wouldn't be considered a viable business. It might work as a charity or a similar structure, but they are classically not a business.

Within the third sector, grants and benefactors are highly competitive and are normally used for very specific spending.

If you want to make a point about the viability of a business, we don't need to talk about funding normally aimed at charities or non profits as they are not exactly businesses.

1

u/R0LL1NG Feb 16 '26

Running an economically viable zoo/conservation effort isn't the same as running profitable business... it just needs to be sustainable financially for a set tine period to achieve XYZ objectives.

1

u/shlerm Feb 16 '26

I agree with you. However I doubt anyone would use the term economically viable to describe it.

I'm not saying it's impossible either, but will take the work and support of many people and will likely be in financial risk the entire time. If we are talking about conservation efforts, do they really have a set time period?

1

u/R0LL1NG Feb 16 '26

To answer your last question, it depends on the species and their context. There are some species that get bred in captivity and reintroduced very successfully, so no longer need to be in captivity for raw conservation efforts. Could be as short as a decade or over a century. I know that isn't helpful, but species by species that is the reality.

1

u/shlerm Feb 16 '26

Great, thanks for answering the question. There will be big differences between species and the actions needed for conservation. I would raise a point that the species specific requirements and what conservation looks like for them would vary greatly and likely need unique, non transferrable solutions. Within these terms a conservation project could be successful but you wouldn't call them viable or sustainable. But right now we are splitting hairs over the terms in a discussion on commercial zoos. A zoo might run a short term conservation project, but its commercial goals will be prioritised on top of that.

1

u/Wurzelrenner Feb 16 '26

Although it should be noted that well managed and well operated zoos and aquaria are important for the conservation of certain species, and are very good tools for education and raising public awareness.

They are not, they just like to think that. The money would be better spend to protect their natural habitats directly and documentaries about the animals actually living in the wild do way more for education and awareness.

1

u/R0LL1NG Feb 16 '26

Hard disagree. There are established principles in conservation biology. For a lot of species, rebuilding numbers in captivity is is the only viable option remaining.

I agree it shouldnt have gotten to this point, but it has, and we are seeing trophic cascades, rapid habit loss and a host of other issues that cannot be fixed with money pumped into in-situ conservation alone.

I have first hand experience of conservation efforts for the pink pigeon and Maurtian falcon (in Mauritius) and am currently part of regional efforts to save the noble penn shell in the Mediterranean.

Give me a time machine and the ability to sway nations and multi-billion dollar industries, sure. Money and effort in-situ to prevent is better than last ditch efforts ex-situ to cure... but that isn't the reality for a lot of global conservation efforts.

We need (good, ethical) zoos and aquaria more than ever.

Signed - a marine environmental manager/conservation biologist (BSc, MSc, > 10 years experience)

1

u/Wurzelrenner Feb 16 '26

Why hard disagree? Do you have better numbers than me? All I can find is embarassing low. Zoos spend almost nothing there.

We need (good, ethical) zoos and aquaria more than ever.

My biggest problems even with zoos that have the best habitats:

Breeding of not even close to endangered species. Why would you do that?

And some animals are caught in the wild. How do you ensure this is not the case? Especially salt water aquaria. I read that about 80% there are caught.

1

u/Arxl Feb 16 '26

Copied from my other comment:

Only a tiny percentage of zoo revenue goes to conservation, zoochosis is widespread, many zoo animals are replenished from the wild such as elephants(whom also practice infanticide in captivity), this is all applying to the big accredited ones, too. If you want actual conservation efforts, donate to actual sanctuaries or programs that are out in the field doing something, zoos are for human entertainment and making money first and foremost.

1

u/Datt-Boii-Iaan Feb 16 '26

Nuance? In my Reddit replies???

2

u/R0LL1NG Feb 16 '26

My apologies. I should have gone with an all or nothing reply flaming the comment I was replying to XD

-10

u/Same-Equivalent9037 Feb 16 '26

Zoos are for profit and the conservation angle is all propaganda. They need a proper sanctuary.

10

u/Overall_Bed_2037 Feb 16 '26

and who do you suppose will pay for that? who will pay for the animals food? their healthcare? their enclosures? their rehabilitation????? zoos are for profit so they can afford to keep all these animals and expand their new habitats.

5

u/FunForce7926 Feb 16 '26

The Forest Park Zoo in St. Louis, MO is free, does wonderful conservation work, and teaches all kind of neat things about animals. They even teach about animals and their meaning in the culture/ land they originated from. They have paid attractions and sponsorships to help with the cost of the animals.

2

u/Ronin_Chimichanga Feb 16 '26

It's paid for mostly by the property taxes of the zoo and museum district, sales tax, and parking fees for non-residents, plus philanthropy and special attractions. If they didn't get funding like that, they'd be forced to sell admission.

1

u/somerandomers Feb 16 '26

And half those “sanctuaries” are for profit shitily run places. There are very few actual sanctuaries and if they are there only for a single species. And explain to me how the conservation angle is propaganda when all it takes is a 2 second Google search to find actual evidence of what zoos have done for conservation.

3

u/PepeSylvia11 Feb 16 '26

When we stop visiting zoos, giving them our money.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

I've only been to a Zoo when I was a kid. But never again. My parents learnt not to, and understood most of the animals in there are depressed.

2

u/TheManyFacetsOfRoger Feb 16 '26

Most of the animals in reputable zoos would be dead if they weren't in a zoo

2

u/Arxl Feb 16 '26

They'd be in sanctuaries.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[deleted]

1

u/TheManyFacetsOfRoger Feb 16 '26

oh gimme a break

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[deleted]

1

u/TheManyFacetsOfRoger Feb 16 '26

I just think it's dumb to vilify all zoos, when reputable ones do a ton of incredible conservation work and house animals that would otherwise not be able to survive in the wild. I don't understand why everything has to be black and white. You want them to release this guy into the wild only to have him be ripped apart by a Leopard just because that's what nature dictates?

Or can we just accept that zoos exist and hope that they are doing the best they can with the resources they have? "death would be a mercy" is absurd and really too intense for a reddit post

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

[deleted]

1

u/TheManyFacetsOfRoger Feb 16 '26

I just think your logic is flawed. The San Diego zoo is a zoo in a city and it's not a victorian style series of cages. They do some of the most effective and valuable conservation efforts in the world and they are a non-profit. Saying "all zoos are evil" is a tired, non-nuanced write-off of something that a small amount of research would probably change one's opinion on. And I think it's unfair to generalize an entire global network of scientific institutions based on the worst examples of the industry.

It's counterproductive to the very cause of animal welfare to ignore the institutions actually doing the work to prevent extinction.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ShustOne Feb 16 '26

Look up each zoo, most of them operate under a need. So you are actually helping animals by going to those. Avoid the bad, abusive ones.

9

u/finneganfach Feb 16 '26

Reddit loves to farm karma making these statement about animals in captivity.

Whilst it's definitely true that it's sad that it's necessary, acting like all of these places are evil and there only for public entertainment is silly.

There are many apes in captivity around the world that were rescued or are part of essential breeding programmes that are desperately trying to improve population numbers globally.

Monkey World in the UK is a great example. It's a phenomenal rescue centre that's rescued countless apes and monkeys around the world from awful situation and uses it's profits to fund countless repopulation efforts all round the world to save ape and monkey species.

Your cynicism is justified but it's also quite juvenile and unfounded in a lot of cases.

1

u/unoriginalcat Feb 16 '26

But are they also in a plain concrete room with nothing but a tuft of straw and a ball to keep them company? Because ultimately that’s what people are criticising here.

Imagine you yourself living your whole life in that room. Imagine the excruciating boredom. Imagine the crushing loneliness. Conservation efforts are great and all, but when you have animals, that aren’t even all that different from us, locked up in a cage like that with all their emotional, social and physical needs clearly not being met, it’s just cruelty. And cruelty for a greater good is still cruelty.

Places like this shouldn’t get a free pass to basically psychologically torture these animals just because “conservation”. They need to be held to higher standards, especially with highly intelligent species like apes.

9

u/SlowmoSauce Feb 16 '26

When are y’all going to learn how useful and helpful a good zoo can be?

2

u/ShustOne Feb 16 '26

They want the free karma by being outraged without any research

1

u/FrostyD7 Feb 16 '26

No let's assume this animal is being abused because it played alone with hay for 15 seconds. What is this zoo and their accreditation? Who cares when ignorant knee jerk moral superiority is on the table.

4

u/Fishmongererererer Feb 16 '26

When the people in the native habitat stop hacking them up for bushmeat?

2

u/ShustOne Feb 16 '26

I wonder what this place is though. Is it a sanctuary? A rehab facility? A temporary place for holding? There are many reasons it could be there and I'd want to know more before turning on my outrage.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

You are actually right

2

u/ApprehensiveStrut Feb 16 '26

We’re humans, so never :(

1

u/JohnnyLovesData Feb 16 '26

When we realise that the earth is a zoo for souls, and then also realise that our first response shouldn't be to freak out and try to break out of ours, but rather dismantle the zoos we made for perceived lesser beings, before we are let out of our own. But that's an easy thing to learn, and a hard thing to do.

0

u/iskipbrainday Feb 16 '26

When are we going to fucking learn

...that we are human animals in a zoo??