Counterfeit Nature

A frequent criticism launched at zoos and aquariums by those who are philosophically opposed to them is that they are anachronistic.  Back in the Victorian Era, sure, zoos had a place for education, they argued, but today, with the internet and virtual reality and animatronics and nature documentaries, we don't need them.  This argument ignores perhaps the most important reason why a zoo might need actual, live animals - for conservation breeding and research - but sure, we'll take this argument at face value for a moment.


I would like to direct them to the following:

It’s about time we recognised that nature documentary makers regularly deceive us – and we’re partly to blame

Now, I have absolutely nothing against Sir David Attenborough.  Actually, I'm a huge admirer of his work, from his earliest episodes of ZooQuest to his Life on Earth series (Life of Mammals, Life of Birds, Life in Cold Blood, Blue Planet, and, of course, Planet Earth, among others).  In fact, I really don't mind if they producers use a little zoo footage here and there.  Why stress out a pregnant female polar when you've already got a zoo female, habituated to humans, using a cubbing den with built in CCTV?

There are limits to it.  I'd hesitate to show staged predation, though my feelings on that are flexible.  Offering a grasshopper to a chameleon so that it's tongue-shooting can be displayed?  Sure, why not.  Siccing a wolf on a camel in an enclosed setting?  Hard pass.  Also, for full disclosure, I think the producers should acknowledge what scenes are filmed in a zoo or sanctuary setting and which are in the actual, unrestricted wild.  If animal's are not truly free of human agency, you can't be 100% sure how natural the behavior that you see is. 

There's a long history of using semi-wild (or straight up captive) animals to film nature programs.  The entire Belize Zoo originated from animals that had previously been collected from the wild for use in a nature documentary, and could not be released back into the wild.  Gerald Durrell, the British zoo director, animal collector, filmmaker, and author, was once scolded fiercely by a woman who was outraged that he was "faking nature" by filming a brief clip of insects in a recreated setting in a parking lot.  There's an equally long history of filmmakers (including Disney in their earliest nature documentaries) manipulating animals to try to make for more dramatic viewing.  That, for example, is where the legend of lemmings throwing themselves into the sea came from.

Studying animals in the wild is hard.  I know, I've tried it.  Filming them - especially getting footage that is extensive enough, clear enough, and interesting enough to hold the interest of increasingly fickle audiences, can be much, much harder.  So yeah, I can understand taking a short cut to get a shot or two.  I just think that the zoos and aquariums that work to care for those animals should get proper credit - especially if they are being held up (without credit) as facilities that are allowing for display of truly natural behavior.