BAT-UGLY: Animals generally considered repulsive, like this bat, might survive longer as a species if they were allowed to hang out within the protection of zoo walls.
Image: Matt Reinbold
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Zoos are like fancy hotels, albeit without the fluffy pillows and individually packaged soaps, or so says Daniel Frynta, an ecologist at Charles University in Prague. Only the "richest" animals get to check in. And if an endangered species gets a room, he says, it might just survive.
Frynta defines a rich animal as one that we humans find appealing. And, he says, we have very specific taste: It's got to be big. It's got to be cute. It's got to behave or look humanlike. If a critter is colorful, we like it. We also like it when zoo denizens play and speak and travel in family groups. Those animals, he says, get to stay in zoos. "Poor" animals—that is ugly ones—stay outside where their habitats are quickly being destroyed.
Species in zoos are often protected from total extinction because they are commonly the subjects of captive breeding programs in which staffers entice animals to mate and reproduce offspring that can then be released into the wild or shared with other zoos. Although it's hit or miss, captive breeding represents the last hope for survival for many species. The Hawaiian crow and the Seychelles giant tortoise only exist in zoos, for example. The Arabian oryx was once extinct in the wild, but captive breeding programs allowed for the release of individuals back into their native habitat. And zoos often fund conservation programs that happen outside their walls. "The record is imperfect," says Nate Flessness, science director at the International Species Information System, "but zoos are the only ones doing anything."
David Stokes, an ecologist at the University of Washington Bothell, agrees, noting that a biodiversity crisis is at hand. The current rate of extinction is up to 1,000 times faster than it would be without humans, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). The surviving species will "be the ones we decide to save," Stokes says. If zoos decide not to save "ugly" animals, they could go extinct. Snails and insects, for example, almost never make it into zoos.
The ugly truth: Zoos are businesses
Still, zoos have their drawbacks: Studies comparing the life spans of animals in zoological parks with their wild counterparts have found that captive animals tend to live shorter lives. Elephants, for example, live an average of 36 years in the wild, but only 17 in zoos. For many species, however, zoos can be a vital refuge from poaching, habitat loss and disease.
Yet, Frynta's research shows that zoos may not be entirely living up to their conservation promises. In a September 7 PLoS ONE paper his team asked Czech citizens to rank pictures of endangered and non-endangered parrots from most to least beautiful. The researchers then compared the rankings with worldwide zoo holdings and species' conservation needs as defined by the IUCN. Overwhelmingly, zoos are keeping pretty birds rather than endangered ones.
That's because zoos have another kind of survival to worry about—their own. "We have to deliver what our visitors want," says Greg Bockheim, director of the Virginia Zoo in Norfolk. Visitors want to see animals they like and recognize. Frynta agrees: "Zoos full of endangered but ugly animals will never make money."
And although gorillas and lions would not have to empty their bank accounts—if they had them—to check in at these so-called hotels, such popular mammals can certainly entice visitors to empty their own pockets. A white tiger, Bockheim says, can triple zoo attendance—And directors could put that money toward conservation for less beloved animals, he says.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentThe media can make anything seem attractive/popular/appealing--look at what the media has done for Justin Bieber LOL! Seriously--any species lost largely due to its lack of good looks and appeal can be solely blamed on us. We can put a clever spin on anything if we really wanted to. All the "uglies need are but a few champions in the conservation world with good marketing experience. And for the record, I think bats ARE cute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is pointless to discuss preservation of specific animals. The issue is preservation of distinct ecological regions. If you want to use a particularly cute animal as the spokes-animal for that region, so be it. Regardless, unique ecological regions need to be preserved no matter what the cuteness quotient is of the resident species. If we are unable to look beyond our own greed to preserve biodiversity then the planet's ugliest species, homo sapien, will not deserve to survive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake the general point - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I adore bats just like in the photo. This is learnt behaviour from my wife, actually, who over a period of time has encouraged me to understand just how wonderful they are. Please give tham a good press!! Andrew UK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomeone should set up a fund strictly for the conservation of unappealing animals. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would donate to it - I would give, definitely. Maybe have "adoption" of so-called ugly animals, and every month or so you get a picture of your ugly adopted animal and a little info on why the animal is still cool and important in its ecosystem. It would be a great thing for classrooms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI grew up believing that things didn't have to be beautiful to be amazing and interesting, and I think more kids could be taught to feel that way. Start when they're young, by showing them fascinating beasties that happen to not be very cute.
My favorite animal as a child was the manatee, by the way. Hardly the beauty queens of the animal kingdom. But something about them was able to capture my interest, and I think every species, no matter how unlovely, has some interesting fact or behavior or role in the world that can appeal to people if it's approached the right way.
I agree with Robert Schmidt we must protect habitat first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZoo's take untold millions of conservation dollars that would be far better spent protecting habitat where said charasmatic or ugly wildlife both live.
The classic examples of this is protecting apex predators in the wild will have the added benefit of supporting the entire foodchain below them.
Having gorillas et al in captivity really does nothing to support their conservation on the ground. If people really wanted to see/save gorillas give ytour money to the agencies on the ground doing the work.
Zoos should be left in the past where they belong if we want people to care about nature get them out into it rather than go for the "cheap" thrill of seeing animals in "cages" or should i say "enclosures"!
Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to the bone. We have set up zoos that appeal to the physical attributes of species, and debate which species is to be saved and which species is to die. The question should not be which species, which humans have encroached on the domain of animals with human expansionism. Humans as the dominate species have begun to settle everywhere on the face of the earth, but we don't want to take responsibility for our actions on this matter. The question should not be species goes into the human zoo and which stays in the wild, only to be brought to the brink of extinction. The basic premise of cities, towns, and villages that humans live in have not changed for the past four hundred years, and as we plod our way into the next 0ne thousand years what will our mother Earth be like? We need to design cities in a framework of environment, energy, and human habitability constructing in an upward and downward movement. We can not be the zoo keeper of the planet and that a bird in a gilded cage is still a bird in a cage. The cities can no longer be left to chance, but placed in a sense of purpose and insight. If we contain human expansion and leave the wild space to live, species can rebound and balance will again come back to mother earth. If we keep killing off the natural areas of the planet, we will perish along all of the other species, both the beautiful and the ugly, that we were responsible for killing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo bring balance to the force.
What is needed is a Manhattan project for the human habitation zones of the twenty-second century. What good is all of the crying over species extinction, when there are no concrete solutions to the problem. Why not bring the best and brightest minds together in order to tackle the problems and come up with solutions. We know what the problems are with species habitat erosion, how do we come up with the solutions? More zoos is differently not the solution, unless animals can place humans into zoos. Maybe human zoos are the solution. We should not place beautiful or ugly animals in zoos, put beautiful and ugly humans in zoos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe grass is always greener on the other side, even if it is a zoo.
What is needed is a Manhattan project for the human habitation zones of the twenty-second century. What good is all of the crying over species extinction, when there are no concrete solutions to the problem. Why not bring the best and brightest minds together in order to tackle the problems and come up with solutions. We know what the problems are with species habitat erosion, how do we come up with the solutions? More zoos is differently not the solution, unless animals can place humans into zoos. Maybe human zoos are the solution. We should not place beautiful or ugly animals in zoos, put beautiful and ugly humans in zoos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe grass is always greener on the other side, even if it is a zoo.
In New Zealand you obviously don't have much problem with over-tourism. In more densely populated areas we are actively discouraging people from visiting wilderness and parkland because too many people degrade the area and can actually cause plant and animal population declines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a solution to all of this. It is called birth control. The real, long term solution is to reduce the human population to around 3 billion or less. As most nations industrialize we are seeing this take care of itself as birth control becomes more widely available and as fertility rates drop. Give it a couple of decades and it may not be a problem any more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf enough people can relate to the story of the ark that Noah built, maybe the rest of us can relate to the story of biodiversity when wishing to reduce the preponderance of predators instead. Assuming that intelligent design is the survival story of evolution, then we need to ask ourselves what turns human nature on without nature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis topic certainly hit a nerve! Whatever the right general strategy for conservation may be, marketing is a big part of the picture. Displaying an appealing animal rather than the landscape of its natural habitat may in fact bring in more money. But this has an unintended consequence: with messages like "save this beautiful animal from extinction" imply that "ugly" species are less deserving or at least less interesting. And as I've learned on Twitter, photos of eagles get more retweets than those of vultures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like the conservation marketing world to resist the temptation to turn its message into a beauty contest.