ZooChat
 
Go Back   ZooChat > General > General Forum

Notices

bear breeding

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Ara
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 818
  #76
Old 08-09-2008

In other words roobee, if my grandkids want (for example) to see spider monkeys, then instead of taking them to Taronga, I should book the whole family on a trip to Guatemala?

Not very realistic!
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Victoria
Posts: 14
  #77
Old 08-09-2008

Did I say that you should do that? The words I posted are the words I thought of, not "other words".

I believe what I said was with the way travel has opened up these days, people can go to the places if they want to. Also, there are so many good docos on TV or available on DVD, if people want to learn about exotic animals.

The reason I dropped off this forum before is because of the antagonism I saw from some posters towards others.

I believe a debate is best conducted politely, with respect for others views.
foz
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 604
Photos: 19
  #78
Old 09-09-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by roobee View Post
Well, that sounds very hopeful, Glyn. Publicity stunts by zoos breeding animals is not to be encouraged. Perhaps they are phasing that out, too. With zoos and keepers becoming more professionally managed, it is hoped that they will be more considerate of the animals.

Personally, I would like to see the old style zoos phased right out of being.

If it is necessary to keep zoos (and I question that) then I would much prefer to see the open range type of zoo.

I believe that with the easy travel open to most people these days, they should be able to go visit the animals in their primary habitat. That is, if we stop encroaching on it, and using animals for profit (such as hunting, medicine, etc.)
i think that it has got easier and easier to see wildife in the natrural habitat, but it doesn't mean zoos should be phased out, not everyone has the opportunity to go abroad.....i've only been abroad once in my whole life, though i wou;d love to go again
taun's Avatar
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chester
Posts: 2,357
Photos: 230
  #79
Old 09-09-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by foz View Post
i think that it has got easier and easier to see wildife in the natrural habitat, but it doesn't mean zoos should be phased out, not everyone has the opportunity to go abroad.....i've only been abroad once in my whole life, though i wou;d love to go again
Exactly, also there will allways be a demand to see animals and its much cheaper than travelling abroad.
tetrapod's Avatar
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sw england
Posts: 472
  #80
Old 09-09-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by roobee View Post
... Personally, I would like to see the old style zoos phased right out of being.

If it is necessary to keep zoos (and I question that) then I would much prefer to see the open range type of zoo.

I believe that with the easy travel open to most people these days, they should be able to go visit the animals in their primary habitat. That is, if we stop encroaching on it, and using animals for profit (such as hunting, medicine, etc.)
You should probably mean old style zoo exhibits rather than zoos. Most good modern zoos started out in the same mould as what you would expect to see in poor third-world zoos. It is just a difference of money and education. There is a role for modern good zoos (which is happening) in helping out the poorly funded ones to help raise their standards.

I think the argument for open-range zoos is too simplistic. It should be a 'horses for courses' approach. I firmly believe that large ungulates and particularly elephants should be only kept in large open-range facilities. The majority of elephants in captivity are kept in groups of less than four individuals which is not a true herd structure. But an open-range setup would be obviously wasted on slow loris, millipedes or piranhas.

Your third point has problems too. Ecotourism can be used constructively to provide an important income stream to poor countries, and thus encourage governments to move away from more destructive industries. But it is not necessarily the best situation for the animals. For example, crowds in minibuses hanging around cheetahs in East Africa, openly encourage lions and hyaenas to steal their kills, thus putting extra stress on the cheetah population. Added to this the few opportunities to see rare and obscure wildlife in the wild, rising cost of fuel, the effects of increased plane travel on global warming etc etc, than visiting and viewing animals in the zoo probably sounds like a sound idea for the average person.
Ara
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 818
  #81
Old 09-09-2008

You would need to spend a lifetime, and several fortunes, travelling the world just to see the animals that you can see in one day at a typical city zoo.

roobee; if my admittedly abrasive answer to your earlier post offended you then I apologise. I can tell by your earlier posts that you have the welfare of animals at heart and I applaud that; it's just that I believe that much is made of the alleged "suffering" of zoo animals, when in reality they have it a whole lot better than most farm stock.

I also don't accept the argument put forward by some anti-zoo people that wild animals should have more "rights" than domestic animals. That is really another way of admitting that it is acceptable to treat domestic animals less considerately than wild animals.
ALL animals, be they tigers and elephants or pigs and poultry, should be well treated.
tetrapod's Avatar
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sw england
Posts: 472
  #82
Old 11-09-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ara View Post
... I also don't accept the argument put forward by some anti-zoo people that wild animals should have more "rights" than domestic animals. That is really another way of admitting that it is acceptable to treat domestic animals less considerately than wild animals.
ALL animals, be they tigers and elephants or pigs and poultry, should be well treated.
What has always struck me as being hypocritical is the lack of effort by animal rights activists (and RSPCA) into pushing for controlled breeding and better accomodation for man's so-called 'best friends' (cats and dogs). It is far easier to attack the more visible zoos, because elephants and big cats should be 'safely' in the wild.
mstickmanp's Avatar
Member
Online
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 2,639
Photos: 1,052
  #83
Old 11-09-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetrapod View Post
What has always struck me as being hypocritical is the lack of effort by animal rights activists (and RSPCA) into pushing for controlled breeding and better accomodation for man's so-called 'best friends' (cats and dogs). It is far easier to attack the more visible zoos, because elephants and big cats should be 'safely' in the wild.
Well, here in california, the gobernor was about to sign a new law that required all cats and dogs to be spayed or neutered, but I don't know what happened with that. I haven't heard anything of late. The big problem was that feral cats are eating endangered birds and reptiles all over California.
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pilton Queensland Australia
Posts: 401
  #84
Old 11-09-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetrapod View Post
What has always struck me as being hypocritical is the lack of effort by animal rights activists (and RSPCA) into pushing for controlled breeding and better accomodation for man's so-called 'best friends' (cats and dogs). It is far easier to attack the more visible zoos, because elephants and big cats should be 'safely' in the wild.
You need to look at this in the right perspective. The animal welfare groups [and the animal rights propagandists] all need MONEY.

In an ideal world, the monitoring of true animal welfare would be done by non-aligned, properly trained pros. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world, governments have traditionally shirked their responsibility to animals, and so an animal welfare/rights "industry" has flourished. It has flourished to the point that there are now so many of these organisations competing for financial handouts that they have to be increasingly more strident in their claims in order to get publicity. Even the RSPCA has been forced to go down this track. I vividly remember a State director of the RSPCA telling me that if he could get a good anti-circus story on the TV evening news it would be worth $5000 at least in donations to his Society.

Some years ago, Lady Molly Askin [widow of a former NSW Premier] died and left over $1 million to any animal charity that could demonstrate that it was "active" in looking after animals. You should have seen the "activity" levels rise then as they all vied to get the cash!

Of course it is much easier to raise your public profile if you are making outlandish claims about high profile animals - such as our zoo animals.

Unfortunately, the public are so used to stray dogs and cats that they don't raise much interest - "the poor will always be with us" mentality. Yet, as tetrapod has pointed out, that is where the real animal welfare tragedy exists in this day and age.
tetrapod's Avatar
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sw england
Posts: 472
  #85
Old 13-09-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Robinson View Post
You need to look at this in the right perspective. The animal welfare groups [and the animal rights propagandists] all need MONEY.

In an ideal world, the monitoring of true animal welfare would be done by non-aligned, properly trained pros. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world, governments have traditionally shirked their responsibility to animals, and so an animal welfare/rights "industry" has flourished. It has flourished to the point that there are now so many of these organisations competing for financial handouts that they have to be increasingly more strident in their claims in order to get publicity. Even the RSPCA has been forced to go down this track. I vividly remember a State director of the RSPCA telling me that if he could get a good anti-circus story on the TV evening news it would be worth $5000 at least in donations to his Society.

Some years ago, Lady Molly Askin [widow of a former NSW Premier] died and left over $1 million to any animal charity that could demonstrate that it was "active" in looking after animals. You should have seen the "activity" levels rise then as they all vied to get the cash!

Of course it is much easier to raise your public profile if you are making outlandish claims about high profile animals - such as our zoo animals.

Unfortunately, the public are so used to stray dogs and cats that they don't raise much interest - "the poor will always be with us" mentality. Yet, as tetrapod has pointed out, that is where the real animal welfare tragedy exists in this day and age.
So true. Funnily enough though, back when I was working in a zoo, we had a complaint about an animal seen pacing in its enclosure from the carpark, and they had informed the RSPCA. The inspector was perfectly happy with the explanation that it was a relatively new animal that was still getting used to the enclosure, and was also probably waiting for its dinner. Unfortunately for him he had to check out every case, even if he knew it would be a waste of time. So the RSPCA (inspectors at least) aren't all that bad, just wish they would back off zoos as a policy.
sooty mangabey's Avatar
Member
Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 173
  #86
Old 13-09-2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by roobee View Post
The reason I dropped off this forum before is because of the antagonism I saw from some posters towards others.
The reason I come on to this forum is to communicate with people whose views on zoos are positive (whilst realising that not everything in the garden smells of roses). If I wanted all this claptrap about "you could see them in the wild" I could get it elsewhere, frankly. Your call for the "open range type of zoo" reminds me of those who claim "I don't like zoos but I like wildlife parks" - give something a big field to live in, and all is well.
MARK's Avatar
Moderator
Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,875
Photos: 244
  #87
Old 13-09-2008

I believe what I said was with the way travel has opened up these days, people can go to the places if they want to. Also, there are so many good docos on TV or available on DVD, if people want to learn about exotic animals.[/quote]

Zoos these days play a very important role in conserving some rare and endangered animal species with some species alive today because of zoos keeping and breeding them even to the point of reintroducing some species back into the wild ,

Also there are people who can not travel to see animals in other places due to costs they can not afford or heath reasons they may have, having seen many docos and DVDs about animals over many years I would not compare seeing real animals in the flesh to seeing them on TV its no where near the same
 


Bookmarks
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT +10. The time now is 03:41 PM.

Copyright © 2003-2008 Hampel Group Pty Ltd
(ACN 115 622 074)