What do you believe? Are zoos bad or good for animals ? please explain Sorry for the mistake in the poll question! I mean : are zoos good or bad for animals ?
I really don't want to sound snide , but isn't a zoo enthusiasts' forum a bad place to go looking for people who think zoos are intrinsically bad for non-human animals?
This is an interesting issue. I voted yes but I think it completely depends on the species. Many have argued on my 'Javan Rhinos in Zoos' thread that Sumatran Rhinos have failed in zoos and would say that zoos are bad for them and I'm sure some would argue the same for Northern White Rhinos. Stacey101 has clearly expressed her hatred for cetaceans in captivity. On the 'Your Line in the Sand' thread someone said cetaceans and pinnipids should both be kept out of captivity. Some argue the same for elephants. Also, it depends on the zoo. A place like San Diego, Bronx, or Cincinnati is a great place for wildlife in captivity but a small, road-side zoo or a private collection that keeps its animals in cages would not be discribed as good for animals. Again, it depends highly on the zoo and species but the overall state for endangered animals in AZA zoos/aquariums (and sometimes non-AZA) is pretty good so I'd say yes, zoos are good for animals in that they save endangered species.
A tough question. "Good" or "bad" in what ways? Is an individual best served by being in a zoo? Do zoos cause harm to animals worldwide? Are zoos in general taking good care of their animal collections? Do animals in the wild benefit or suffer due to the existence of zoos? If I were a tamarin (fr example) would i pine for life in a zoo?
I voted yes because zoos protect endanger species and inform people about unknown species and with that way they bring people closer to the nature!!!Also the average of the life of the animals increases!!!Also in the wild many animals die from, illneses that they can overcome in the zoos!!
Of course they aren't bad for animals. Whether or not they're good, however, depends on the zoo. A good zoo is good for animals.
As stated above, I 120% boycott/hate any facility that houses cetaceans. Heres the link http://www.zoochat.com/2/your-line-sand-298697/ with all my chatter. As far as a zoo goes (as long as there are no cetaceans ) im for them, in fact studying zoo technology in hopes of becoming a keeper/zoologist(well you can call yourself a zoologist now LOL) UNLESS the animals are not giving enough stimulation, enrichment, more then enough space, companionship (and depending on the species, more then just another of its species ), health, past issues and purpose ( ie: educational? conservation? ) However I will never support road side zoos.
If its an animal rescue facility with the purpose like Big Cat Rescue then I think they are ok. If they are anything else, level them all (remove the animals first of course)! Let's remember that not all non-AZA zoos are bad. I know no one's really gotten into that but I just want to mention it. @Everyone- What are you're opinions on breeding facilities. Places like the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and LEO's Zoological Conservation Center whose main purpose is to breed endangered species? But not all are as good as these and give their animals as much space. There're places that keep their animals in smaller enclosures with concrete floors yet breed these highly endangered species very successfuly. Ones that come to mind are ones that focus on big cats.
Some non AZA and CAZA zoo's are better then the ones with AZA & CAZA I agree with breeding facilities as long as its not just for show and tell purposes, I really like facilities who breed and teach the young how to be wild and then release in a safe area. Now there needs to be some endangered in zoos in order to expose to the great ape species known as Homo sapiens that there are so many species that need help..and fast! I dont like concrete, its hard on their joints ( just throwing that out there ) and imo high success rate or not, if the facility is cramped, non stimulating etc. I dont agree with it, because it feels like a mass production (like pet store animals)
Toronto Zoo falls into that catagory for the time being. Breeding facilities have pretty much the same purpose as zoos, to breed endangered species. Zoos do have other reasons but breeding is a huge one. Besides, no AZA zoo will breed North Chinese Leopards or Persian Leopards in the US so it's up to these breeding facilities to do so. I do agree with the concrete and cage dilema. Unfortunetly, that's how the US population of North Chinese Leopards are currently spending their days (they still breed, too). ~Thylo
I am 100% for zoos as a conservation, research, and breeding endeavor. There are too many variables in most regions of the world to keep animals there safely nor is it feasible to say no more human development because it's encroaching on the animals. Zoos and wildlife preserves are the way to go if we expect most species to live beyond the next 50 years. But the animals must be treated properly. No abuse, no too small cages, etc. The animals must also be bred humanely (unlike in the elephant article that mentioned over 100 AI attempts... that cannot be good for any animal). For animals that cannot be provided for in captivity such as whales and dolphins, there needs to be global legislation (and repercussions for those who violate it) to prevent them from being killed and/or the establishment of more global no kill sanctuary zones. More importantly, zoos are a child's opportunity to actually see animals up close and they can foster a sense of awe and admiration for animal life that can cause these kids to pursue careers in fields that will further help the conservation movement. So yes, zoos are good for animals!
I think more parents need to bring kids to zoos when they're infants. That's what my parents did and that's why I love animals so much! My parents brought me to the National Zoo when I was less than a year old almost everyday and it sparked a love for me. If we expect species to continue to thrive in the wild and Humans to begin to be more concerned when it comes to wildlife than children need to be exposed to them at an extremely early age. ~Thylo
My parents took me when I was about a year old and then at least once every year until I was 10 or so (then money got a bit tight). We took a picture every year in front of the elephants and when they realized that I was very interested in the animals they went above and beyond to get me books and videos and toys that were animal related. They actually took an interest in what I was doing and encouraged me. (Unlike some parents...*cough* my brother *cough*) Start 'em young!
I have to agree, this is almost like inciting a riot. That being said, I think zoos provide a valuable lesson to people about animals and about their threats. This is especially true since most zoos are located in urban areas and the residents there are far removed from the natural world. One thing I don't like reading in anti-zoo publications is that people can travel to see exotic species. I don't know about any of you, but a trip to Africa, India, or Indonesia would be prohibitive, even though I would love to see the wildlife in those places. Even for me to go to Alaska and stay within my own country would require some careful budgeting. Zoos provide the public the opportunity to see animals that they would not get to see and they can learn about what they can do to help. However, there are some things about zoos that I do think should change. I think every zoo (and I think most do) should have a section that is dedicated to wildlife from their area and describes threats to it. I also think zoos in cold climates should rethink whether it is right to keep certain warm-weather species indoors for long periods of time. As far as cetaceans, as has been mentioned before, I have yet to see a very satisfactory dolphin exhibit (too barren) so I do think those need changes. I also do not support roadside zoos, although I do think not all non-AZA zoos are bad. Two great examples not too far from me are Reptile Gardens and Bear Country USA in Rapid City, SD.
Also visiting animals in the wild can possibly ruin their wild habitats and further endanger several species. I think it can cause more problems like the ones we've seen in Africa. About cetacean exhibits- it's been stated on here before (I think on a different thread, though) that many cetaceans are sourced from deeper, more barren waters so putting more things in the exhibit will be very different (even stressful) from what the animals are used to. Also, the more you have inside the exhibit, the less swimming space the animal has. ~Thylo
Seeing animals in the wild is a double-edged sword for conservation. If the animals have more value alive than dead, it is beneficial for them since the locals have reason to preserve them. However, you are right that too much visitation can be harmful to the habitat and can acclimate them to people. Living close to two major national parks you can see this first hand.
Free food. Free home. Free health care. No predators. Plenty of admirers. Yes, zoos are good for animals.
I don't think you're going to find a lot of anti-zoo people on a forum made for zoo lovers... Anyway. Uh, of course I don't think zoos in general are bad. Some individual zoos are bad, of course, and there are some animals that aren't well suited for captivity. And of course, even the best zoos can improve a lot. Zoos can be useful in both educating the public as well as helping to preserve endangered wildlife, and can produce research. Personally I'd like to see more of a shift toward education, as well as trying to promote more obscure animal species.
I agree with 'The Mighty Orca' about the need to promote more obscure animal species. Apart from a few zoos, such as Plzen, zoos seem to be moving towards having fewer species with the 'chosen ones' prospering at the expense of less popular species. I find it especially galling when zoos ask for money for a new enclosure for a species, represented by several hundred individuals in zoos, as it is needed to save it from extinction. That money would be better spent in preserving the wild habitat for many species and helping the local people, rather than making money for the zoo. I think that some zoo visitors believe that breeding large endangered will lead to the zoo sending captives to the wild. The problem is that transporting large animals is very expensive and some captives can't adapt to the wild, even if there were enough viable habitat for them. I agree with David Attenborough when he said that people could stop wild habitats being destroyed, but won't. The human population will continue to rise and soon large areas of the planet will only be able to provide habitat for smallish animals. These small animals are the ones that zoos should be trying to keep and breed, so they can be released into the wild. Good education programmes could make visitors interested in smaller animals. After all, I can remember when the meerkat was an obscure mongoose (not that there are many species of mongoose that are not obscure) that few people had heard of. Zoos should be trying to save as many species as possible, rather than having lots of individuals of large animals that can't be returned to the wild.
