How do you feel about zoos?!
How do you feel about zoos?
Answers:
This is from the ALF,I share pretty much the same view...
Zoos often claim that they are "arks", which can preserve species whose habitat has been destroyed, or which were wiped out in the wild for other reasons (such as hunting). They suggest that they can maintain the species in captivity until the cause of the creature's extirpation is remedied, and then successfully reintroduce the animals to the wild, resulting in a healthy, self-sustaining population. Zoos often defend their existence against challenges from the AR movement on these grounds.
There are several problems with this argument, however. First, the number of animals required to maintain a viable gene pool can be quite high, and is never known for certain. If the captive gene pool is too small, then inbreeding can result in increased susceptibility to disease, birth defects, and mutations; the species can be so weakened that it would never be viable in the wild.
Some species are extremely difficult to breed in captivity: marine mammals, many bird species, and so on. Pandas, which have been the sustained focus of captive breeding efforts for several decades in zoos around the world, are notoriously difficult to breed in captivity. With such species, the zoos, by taking animals from the wild to supply their breeding programs, constitute a net drain on wild populations.
The whole concept of habitat restoration is mired in serious difficulties. Animals threatened by poaching (elephants, rhinos, pandas, bears and more) will never be safe in the wild as long as firearms, material needs, and a willingness to consume animal parts coincide. Species threatened by chemical contamination (such as bird species vulnerable to pesticides and lead shot) will not be candidates for release until we stop using the offending substances, and enough time has passed for the toxins to be processed out of the environment. Since heavy metals and some pesticides are both persistent and bioaccumulative, this could mean decades or centuries before it is safe to reintroduce the animals.
Even if these problems can be overcome, there are still difficulties with the process of reintroduction. Problems such as human imprinting, the need to teach animals to fly, hunt, build dens, and raise their young are serious obstacles, and must be solved individually for each species.
There is a small limit to the number of species the global network of zoos can preserve under even the most optimistic assumptions. Profound constraints are imposed by the lack of space in zoos, their limited financial resources, and the requirement that viable gene pools of each species be preserved. Few zoos, for instance, ever keep more than two individuals of large mammal species. The need to preserve scores or hundreds of a particular species would be beyond the resources of even the largest zoos, and even the whole world zoo community would be hard-pressed to preserve even a few dozen species in this manner.
Contrast this with the efficiency of large habitat preserves, which can maintain viable populations of whole complexes of species with minimal human intervention. Large preserves maintain every species in the ecosystem in a predominantly self-sufficient manner, while keeping the creatures in the natural habitat unmolested. If the financial resources (both government and charitable), and the biological expertise currently consumed by zoos, were redirected to habitat preservation and management, we would have far fewer worries about habitat restoration or preserving species whose habitat is gone.
Choosing zoos as a means for species preservation, in addition to being expensive and of dubious effectiveness, has serious ethical problems. Keeping animals in zoos harms them, by denying them freedom of movement and association, which is important to social animals, and frustrates many of their natural behavioral patterns, leaving them at least bored, and at worst seriously neurotic. While humans may feel there is some justifying benefit to their captivity (that the species is being preserved, and may someday be reintroduced into the wild), this is no compensating benefit to the individual animals. Attempts to preserve species by means of captivity have been described as sacrificing the individual gorilla to the abstract Gorilla (i.e., to the abstract conception of the gorilla).
Don't animals live longer in zoos than they would in the wild?
In some cases, this is true. But it is irrelevant. Suppose a zoo decides to exhibit human beings. They snatch a peasant from a less-developed country and put her on display. Due to the regular feedings and health care that the zoo provides, the peasant will live longer in captivity. Is this practice acceptable?
A tradeoff of quantity of life versus quality of life is not always decided in favor of quantity.
To gain true and complete knowledge of wild animals, one must observe them in their natural habitats. The conditions under which animals are kept in zoos typically distorts their behavior significantly. There are several practical alternatives to zoos for educational purposes. There are many nature documentaries shown regularly on television as well as available on video cassettes. Specials on public television networks, as well as several cable channels, such as The
Discovery Channel, provide accurate information on animals in their natural habitats. Magazines such as National Geographic provide superb illustrated articles, as well. And, of course, public libraries are a gold-mine of information.
Zoos often mistreat animals, keeping them in small pens or cages. This is unfair and cruel. The natural instincts and behavior of these animals are suppressed by force. How can anyone observe wild animals under such circumstances and believe that one has been educated?
To the entrepreneurs, animals are merely stock in trade, to be replaced when they are used up.
I have no issue with them.
I think they are cool...they're really educational and a good group activity. As long as the animals are being treated well and the place is clean and all that...yay for zoos.
Loved them as a kid. But, now I'm not so sure. They help protect some endangered species. But, I'm very concerned that the animals have sufficient habitat and that they are not bored. So, I guess if they are very large and interesting well maintained zoos. Like San Diego it's better. But, still may need to be rethought in the future.
they smell like horse, elephant, camel, giraffe, and gorilla poop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last time I went I felt like crying kind of. But I'm going to take my son this summer, I'll see how I feel now. I really miss the gorrilla for some reason, I'm going to be seeing alot more of him. I feel really bad for the polar bear because it gets hot here and all he does is swim back and forth repeatedly. I'd go stir crazy too. I think if we are to keep them they should be VERY well kept, like a resort. That you can't leave. kind of like the hotel california.
I think there good and bad because they help population of endangered animals grow but at the same time the animals don't have their freedom
For anyone to say they are against zoos, that zoos are cruel to the animals because they are not allowed to roam free,
is just plain ignorant.
Wildlife protection and animal awareness is the greatest product of our zoos around the world. Without zoos people wouldn't be able to get up close and personal with the Apes, Elephants, Camels, Hippos, Lions, Tigers, and Bears, oh my! etc, etc. and have the sensitivity about endangered wildlife that are facing extinction.
Many organizations concerned with the protection of wildlife and its habitat have been the result of young children visiting zoos with their parents, falling in love with the creatures we share this world with and growing up concerned about the future of all the animals on the planet and able to do something about it.
The animals in the zoos are well cared for and live long and happy lives...they are kept healthy and well fed and stand as a symbol for all wildlife around the globe.
Support your local Zoo...make a day of it, take the family, pretend you're Dr. Dolittle and go talk to the animals.
they are very mean to the animals. they should only have animals that are sick or injured in captivity.
I think zoos are harsh. Yes, the animals are "supposedly" taken care of, but how would you feel if you were taken from your home and family to be locked in a caged or glass area for the rest of your life?
It is also wrong for some zoos to charge their visitors. That's like charging people to go walk through a prison and stare at the prisoners. But unlike prison, the animals are innocent and don't deserve to be locked up!
Yes, some animals may be protected from endangerment, but I think we would have a much smaller problem if we stopped letting hunting rednecks walk around with their shotguns and shoot animals. Even if some of them do it during legal seasons, it is still wrong. And some people may say that hunting is good because we need to lower the amount of stray animals walking around, but animals were here before us and I don't see a problem sharing the land with them.
i have no issues with them and, i think they're quite nice. you get to learn about animals from indoor animals-wild animals. although there are quite alot of pungent smell and littered by inconsiderate people.
and, i also think that zoos shouldnt exist, how would anyone feel to be locked up all eternity?!?!?! what else is that i dun like those zookeepers or whoever u call them charge visitors, the visitors came to the zoo for fresh air and happiness and relaxation! they should charge people mostly at $5-$10. after all, they must earn money too?!
and back to the point about the locking up animals. when they train the animals, like tigers and lions, once, i went to a zoo, and then, i watched a horse vs lion show, really the zoo is gone now, but back to the point, YOU KNOW WHAT??!?!?! THE LION WERE FIGHTING THE HORSE, EXCEPT, THE HORSE ONLY RAN AWAY, NEXT THING WE ALL KNEW, ONE OF THE ZOOKEEPER SAID,"now, i going to show u how we train the fierce animals like tigers and lions" AND THEN HE WHIPPED THE LION AND HELD A CHAIR AND MADE THE LION SIT!!! can u imagine that?!?!?!?!? torture! but, overall, i think the zoo is quite nice....
i'm undecided on this
my arguement is that in a contained environment like a zoo or wildlife park the animals are given substantial amounts of food, clean water, decent weather conditions, medical assistance and are no longer under threat by predators. this will give them a more comfortable, probably longer life.
on the other hand it's obviously not fair to pluck animals out of the wild for visitors to gawk at, and to enclose them in a small environment is very unfair. animals should be allowed to run free through endless land, not feel trapped.
i guess perhaps it depends on the individual zoo and the workers attitudes towards the animals which will reflect how they treat them.
i probably didn't help, but every zoo is different. it's a tough question
I am all for the ones that rescue endangered animals, or rehabilitate injured animals. As long as they take good care of the animals, feed them a natural diet, and provide good living space for them, I have no issues and find them to be entertaining and educational
I feel bad for the animals and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to live in a cage while people poke and laugh at me. Its like putting the animal in prison.
I think that if they treat the animal with care it is a good Zoo, s bad Zoo is like not evan feeding them enough. Here is a good Zoo http://www.sandiegozoo.org
I feel against the zoos due many wrongful ways they treat the animals. I also believe if they contain them then they should have the animals spayed or neutered. Their rules should be more strict then they are.
I think the well-run, accredited zoos do very good things for wildlife:
http://www.helium.com/tm/148154...