For many people, the zoo is a source of childhood amazement and fond memories: swinging monkeys, laughing hyenas and growling tigers. Conservationists say zoos advance their educational and preservationist efforts, but others see zoos as prisons where innocent creatures are unjustly held captive. The next time your child asks you to take them to the zoo, what will your answer be?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Out there in the animal kingdom, have you ever seen animals keeping other species in their own territory for studying? If yes, then we should keep the zoos. If no, why should we be different?
Even though zoos have existed for thousands of years, it does not mean that we have to continue running zoos. Just like vegans do not continue eating meat even though humans have been eating meat for a long time.
It is also unfair for us to take the animals out of their homes.
Have you ever felt not knowing what was happening but some animals of another species are taking you to their own territory? I have never felt it,but if you have ever and you find it a nice feeling, then go ahead and keep the zoos. I just do not want to risk them feeling confused and their mental health affecting their physical health, so I'd rather not have the zoos.
As a child, I would rather give up my learning experience if that's the way you want to put it, than let others suffer.
- Rainie August 10, 2008 8:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Like Jack Hanna has already stated zoos don't get animals from the wild anymore they buy them from other zoos or breed them.
- vampsquest
February 13, 2009 12:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
In the wild, as you say, have you ever heard of animals sitting in cubicles for long hours and getting paid so they can buy bigger cars and iPods? Have you seen, in the wild, animals who want to eat other animals but will not themselves kill them, instead buying sanitized packages of dead animal? Why do you equate human behavior with wild animal behavior on this one issue but not on others?
- Curious March 4, 2009 7:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
WE ARE DIFFERNET.
Humans are the dominant species on earth. We are the most intelligent. Our intelligence means that our whims can determine the fate of nearly every lifeform on this planet.
Our intelligence gives us power , and to quote Spiderman's grandma, "With great power comes great responsibility."
I believe that as the most intelligent species on earth, humans have an responsibility to protect and preserve other lifeforms. We can not do whatever we want. It is our duty to live our lives in a way that minimizes the amount of harm we do to others - human and non-humans alike and equally.
I am not saying that humans are the BEST species, but we are the one in control and we are the most unique/strange/peculiar.
" animals [don't] keep other species... for studying,... why should we be different?" WE ARE DIFFERNET.
We watch tv, get vaccines , wear jewelry and clothes, brush our teeth, start wars over diamonds and oil , and kill for reasons other than self-defense and food . We value virginity, and ponder religion , God, and morality . We marry, and care about beings we've never met and will never meet (tigers, Aids Epidemic and starving children in Africa). We read, write, cook , farm, and fertilize. We have jobs, use money , perform surgeries, and eat so much more food than we need to survive that we become obese. We claim that one member of our species is superior to another because of their skin color, get abortions, make bombs, and ensure the survival of our old, and weak, and crippled long past the time that they are able to take care of themselves.
Some of those things make us WORSE than animals,
and
some of those things make up BETTER than animals,
but
all of those things make us DIFFERENT from animals.
So it is not a valid arguement, that because other species don't do something we should not either.
That arguement is just a reversal of the teenagers' claim/excuse that something is okay because "everyone else is doing it."
- gatorgirl7563 April 16, 2009 3:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If the animals are maintained and treated properly as well as bred and raised within the zoo, than I see those animals as lucky. They will never have to survive or fight for food or die a violent death by another animal in the zoo. Nature is rough and I think under good conditions those animals are lucky to be there.
- blond2much September 15, 2008 1:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
I think animals should be kept in the zoo because animals shouldnt be in the wild. Animals such as elephants and girafes should be kept in zoos to be healthy and clean. Some people see zoos as a prision but its actually better for animals than the wild.
- happyface4638 February 25, 2009 7:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Zoos are about making money, many a profit is made off the back of an animal. How can keeping an animal in a setting as unnatural as a zoo help conserve the species? While the zoo is busy "conserving" the species it's natural habitat is being destroyed and overrun by humans. The only thing learned by a zoo is how to oppress other species for our entertainment and amusement.
- amj March 20, 2009 9:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Due to human overpopulation of this world, animals are losing their natural habitats. Starvation and the lost of their land, is slowing dimenishing. Some day, the only animals you will be able to see, to teach your children about the animals of this world, will be in zoos. The animals you see, have been bred domestically, and are NOT taken from the wild. Because they have been bred domestically, they have lost that certain edge they need for survial that can only be taught in the wild by their parents . To ship them to a land, they know nothing of would be a death sentence . To prove my point, a cheetah brother and sister, that was raised by humans, was shipped to southern Africa. The brother was murdered by a pride of lions, because he teased them. If he was born in the wild, his mother would have "taught" him to stay away from the predators - the big cats. So to ship them to a land they know nothing of, is a death sentence. Once again, the animals you see in zoos, are domestically bred - they are NOT taken from the wild.
- Animalwelfare2007 April 1, 2009 8:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am very sensitive to animal rights - but I have no objection to zoos - because most animals there were born in captivity and zoos are the only place where some sepecies are safe, receive good vet care and live a healthy life.
- sor666
May 6, 2009 8:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Credible zoos should not be lumped together with circus's and sideshows. I understand that most actual zoos in the USA are for research as well as public recreation. Not every zoo in the world or place with zoo in the title at the entrance does this but there is a difference and opposing credible facilitines works against conservation efforts.
- Mcdowelli76 May 29, 2009 8:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The following is from The Life of Pi by Yann Martel (Cannongate Books 2002 pp19-25). It sums up my views exactly:
I have heard nearly as much nonsense about zoos as I have about God and religion . Well-meaning but misinformed people think animals in the wild are “happy” because they are “free”. These people usually have a large, handsome predator in mind, a lion or a cheetah (the life of a gnu or of an aardvark is rarely exalted). They imagine this wild animal roaming about the savannah on digestive walks after eating a prey that accepted its lot piously, or going for callisthenic runs to stay slim after overindulging. They imagine this animal overseeing its offspring proudly and tenderly, the whole family watching the setting of the sun from the limbs of trees with sighs of pleasure. The life of the wild animal is simple, noble and meaningful, they imagine. Then it is captured by wicked men and thrown into tiny jails. Its “happiness” is dashed. It yearns mightily for “freedom” and does all it can to escape. Being denied its “freedom” for too long, the animal becomes a shadow of itself; its spirit broken. So some people imagine.
This is not the way it is.
Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. What is the meaning of freedom in such a context? Animals in the wild are, in practice, free neither in space nor in time, nor in their personal relations. In theory—that is, as a simple physical possibility—an animal could pick up and go, flaunting all the social conventions and boundaries proper to its species. But such an event is less likely to happen than for a member of our own species, say a shopkeeper with all the usual ties—to family, to friends, to society — to drop everything and walk away from his life with only the spare change in his pockets and the clothes on his frame. If a man, boldest and most intelligent of creatures, won’t wander from place to place, a stranger to all, beholden to none, why would an animal, which is by temperament far more conservative? For that is what animals are, conservative, one might even say reactionary. The smallest changes can upset them. They want things to be just so, day after day, month after month. Surprises are highly disagreeable to them. You see this in their spatial relations. An animal inhabits its space, whether in a zoo or in the wild, in the same way chess pieces move about a chessboard—significantly. There is no more happenstance, no more “freedom”, involved in the whereabouts of a lizard or a bear or a deer than in the location of a knight on a chessboard. Both speak of pattern and purpose. In the wild, animals stick to the same paths for the same pressing reasons, season after season. In a zoo, if an animal is not in its normal place in its regular posture at the usual hour, it means something. It may be the reflection of nothing more than a minor change in the environment. A coiled hose left out by a keeper has made a menacing impression. A puddle has formed that bothers the animal. A ladder is making a shadow. But it could mean something more. At its worst, it could be that most dreaded thing to a zoo director: a symptom, a herald of trouble to come, a reason to inspect the dung, to cross-examine the keeper, to summon the vet. All this because a stork is not standing where it usually stands!
- roguegrafix
May 30, 2009 3:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
A child shouldn't have to "smell an elephant" to learn about respect for animals. Parents and teachers should educate their children on the rights of animals to live freely in their natural habitat. Educational shows are a wonderful learning resource. Zoos are not.
Witnessing a polar bear roaming a concrete cube by a little dipping pool, cannot possibly contribute to an understanding of this animal's nature.
What a fine recreation: sitting in a trolley with a big gulp, cruising miserable animals in cages. And for the extreme athletes who cruise the zoo on foot: wow, what a work-out!
By this formula we can consider a circus bear riding a moped cultural education. Zoos showcase imprisoned animals for profit, let's educate ourselves about that reality.
- Citizen D July 28, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
...for teaching a lesson. Parents and teachers talking about mythical, hypothetical animals like "bears" and "elephants", reading stories about these allegedly magnificent creatures, seeing pictures of them... none of these experiences can even remotely begin to touch the experience of seeing these animals, live and up close. After all, you can hear stories, see pictures, and read documentation of unicorns and yeti, too. Zoos may not always have the perfect environments, but I'd rather keep a few bears in zoos so that humans will continue to protect them in the wild. For humans, out of sight is out of mind. People find it much easier to ignore and neglect the hypothetical. If seeing a magnificent panther caged helps to encourage people to protect wild spaces and advocate for wild animals, then I'm all for it. Seeing them in the wild is even better, but not many of us are so fortunate.
- locavore February 25, 2009 6:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Keeping a wild animal caged and put on for show is abuse. What gives us the right to do this. We have been doing this forever with human beings. We did it to Indians, Blacks, Hispanics and now since there are laws against human slavery, we move on to helpless animals . We don't have the right to do this.
- dms61757 August 6, 2009 4:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Alot goes on behind the scenes that helps find out why various species are in decline and how we may help them. While the tickets sold for admission and other recreation for the public to enjoy they fund research on species which includes creating assurance colonies so that species on the brink are not lost forever. The animal attractions that use both keeper and animals educate the public that man and animal can co-exist side by side as they have for thousands of years while at the same time showing the public that the animals are intelligent interactive beings to be respected and protected.
- Mcdowelli76 May 29, 2009 8:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This argument is irrelevant as it A) assumes that humans ought to act paternalistically therefore zoos are justified (would this argument also extend to humans suffering in Africa, for example? Why not?) and B) that if we adopted a principle of respect for the autonomy of sentient beings those ranchers mentioned would not be prevented from acting with such extreme methods to protect their "animal property" (which should also be justified). Both assumptions are unsound and as yet unjustified.
- Alex M August 9, 2008 3:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree with your point about animals not being able to survive when they 'intrude human territory'. However, it's their nature to hunt for food, it is also the basic needs of living things, so our presence should not deprive them of it.
Livestock is not what other animals have. To the wolves, our livestock is just food. No other animal in the animal kingdom have 'livestock', feeding their prey before killing them. No animal breeds it's prey and claims their prey only for their species, and sell their prey to another animal of the same species. This means that mankind having livestock is already unatural. 'Livestock', if we must have it, should be shared with other animals, because this earth does not belong to humans alone. It belongs to all living creatures on the earth, and humans have no right to deprive the other occupants of the earth from their needs.
I strongly believe that if your point is for animals' good, we should change ourselves first.
- Rainie August 10, 2008 6:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I appreciate the educational value of zoos, but at the same time, I cannot ever agree that instead of a beautiful tapestry stretching across a wall, we should be happy with individually sorted threads in a drawer.
By all means, keep some animals in zoos--but there's no way to introduce a carnivore from captivity to the wild without extensive reeducation that can take years, and our last hope for a species should not live in captivity. It's far better to devote energy to conservation in the first place than to look in an enclosure and say "he's happier in there."
- sharky September 24, 2008 5:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
How do you feel if u r kept in one room for your whole life.
don't worry for food and other necessary things... that will be given to you...but can you spend whole of your life in one room with a window?
- animalbuff June 15, 2009 12:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
...if I were an animal, I would love it. It doesn't make a lot of difference to animals . As long as they get their food , water, shelter, and space, they're happy as clams.
- starvingartist July 11, 2009 6:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Animals in zoos were mostly born in zoos so if we let them go into the wild they'd probably die. So either let them stay in zoos or die.
- vampsquest February 13, 2009 12:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This means only that we should fund zoos better.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 12:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I suppose it could be argued that a zoo could create a reasonable environment for something like a butterfly. But then again, some butterflies migrate thousands of miles each year! In my view, it is self-evident that a zoo cannot create a "natural" environment for an elephant, a walrus, a lion, a rhinocerous, etc. Whether what the zoos do create is "comfortable" or not - well, you'll have to ask the animals. Alligators seem happy enough in zoos, but who knows?
I'm not A PETA person. I think most of them have too much time on their hands. But I don't see the value of zoos in the 21st century. I think there is a level of cruelty there, borne out willfully ignoring our increasing knowledge of animal behavior and evolution. If I were king, I would phase them out.
- JackNYC September 3, 2008 3:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Zoos are very proactive in protecting, breeding and preserving endangered animals . Zoos can provide a natural habitat, like the ones they originated form. When animals become endangered or their habitat becomes endangered, zoos can help grow their population back to normal. Some zoos have set up reserves for endangered animals to walk free without hunters or other human contact.
Animals can thrive in zoos because their habitats are similar. Habitats in the wild are being destroyed every day. Farmers and meager paper plants destroy hundreds of acres a day.
the Virginia Zoo and Oregon zoo are just two of the hundreds of zoos that breed, protect rebild and then set free animals. some animals get hurt in the wild to and cant serviv on their own. ZOOS ARE GOOD
- cheerkaterina April 30, 2009 9:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
People who truly care about animals know that the only other option is to stand back & to let these species become extinct unless by some miracle the destruction of these species habitats is completely & totally ceased, as in yesterday, & that we also somehow manage to regrow their habitats quickly as well as reduce the human population & expansion by at least two thirds. Maybe PETA should make this possible instead of slamming zoos for their efforts. Also, if their hunting behaviours were allowed to occur naturally in zoos would your organization not then be up in arms over the gazelles, antelopes, etc, raised solely for this purpose & suggest the display is just another form of "zoo propaganda"? But i forgot, by the whole human population turning vegetarian there'll no longer be a need for farms or ranches therefore freeing up space to recreate natural habitats, but alas what happens to the newly liberated livestock if culling is out of the question? I DON'T agree with culling animals BUT again what would be the alternative if you get your wish? We're not allowed to milk them, which is ESSENTIAL for THEIR health , how are they going to FIND adequate food to support their current numbers? Not to mention the destruction of the environment when millions of sheep, etc are all "free", whoops! There goes the newly re-created habitats. I mean we're not allowed to put fences up to contain them because then, that would be a ZOO!!
- OpenedEyes May 31, 2009 7:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Based on recent experience with my 23 month old granddaughter, I'd disagree. She didn't view the animals as "wallpaper." She stared in wonder, asked questions, and in the case of the rhino and the monkeys, for whatever reason, obsessed over the experience for more than a week afterward. As a result, we began looking the animals up online, where she can spend a surprising amount of focused time sitting in a lap watching, say, a Flicker slideshow of baby animals or real-time aquarium footage of sea otters. She would have had no access to that aspect of the world without a zoo, and no institution to spark her interest and wonder regarding animals.
PETA loses credibility by making this argument. Zoos may or may not be cruel. But to claim they "propagate rather than educate" simply doesn't stand up beside most people's personal experience ... certainly my family's.
- Gritsforbreakfast August 20, 2008 5:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There seems to be an internal conflict in the zoos-educate-people argument: If your child were to truly learn about the nature of monkeys and the rhino - their lives, their habitats, their relationships, etc. -it stands to reason that he/she would challenge the justness of keeping experiencing beings such as these encaged for our "education" and amusement.
This seems like the reasonable conclusion for anyone who spends "a surprising amount of focused time" learning about the lives of these creatures, unless the underlying message that "we don't need to ask questions because we are humans and they are not" is successful. Zoos do not educate they propagate because here you are saying that PETA looses credibility for raising these questions that follow from your child’s experience.
- Alex M August 21, 2008 2:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It seems to me that once a child does "truly learn about the nature of monkeys and the rhino - their lives, their habitats, their relationships, etc." they would get concerned about poaching and human developments that threaten wild populations rather than obsessing over the zoo animal that got them to fall in love with wildlife. That's what I don't get about these anti-zoo arguments. They are rarely pro-wildlife. Simply anti-zoo. Makes me think it has more to do with building a political and financially successful organization here (one that gets animal lovers to donate) rather than about improving the lot of animals.
- Curious March 4, 2009 7:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This argument assumes that our paternalism is justifiable. I ask, then, to what principle can you appeal to justify this paternalism that shouldn't, to be logically consistent, be extended to humans suffering extreme poverty, hunger, disease, etc. throughout the world? If such a principle cannot be articulated, it's selective reasoning or irrationality at work here.
I would ask further, if the interests of the nonhumans is driving our actions in regard to zoos (as the argument explicitly states) why shouldn't we employ these resources to challenge the paradigm whereby animals are treated as our property? Why not, that is, participate in P.E.T.A.-like advocacy efforts to alter our habits and irrational assumptions and beliefs about nonhumans, which, of course, leads to the endangerment of the gorillas we are now forced to protect?
- Alex M August 28, 2008 4:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should Animals be Kept in Zoos?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
unjust
imprisonment of animals for the such trivial purposes as entertainment and education! there is unjust and violates the fundamental interest individual animals have in living free from human oppression.
the wild is no paradise..
even so, this is not a justification of the enslavement of nonhumen sentient beings, it represses them makes them miserable. sincere enslavement is an oxymoron where it means permanent imprisonment of individual animals for the supposed benefit of a 'species interest', if anybody buys into that at all..the whole argument of 'it's soo dangerous out there..come live in this cage where it's safe' is bogus.
animals must be free to live their lives their own way, according to their own natures and free from human exploitation.
chris forkasiewicz,
your friendly vegan abolitionist
- chris forkasiewicz
August 6, 2008 1:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
re: unjust
I agree that animals should not be imprisoned in zoos! Zoos are no more than animal prisons, they are only there to make money & lots of it. The animal's feelings are the last thing the zoos care about, they have been ripped away from their homelands, from their family groups... it's sick!
Also a friendly vegan abolitionist :o)
- veganpanda
September 10, 2008 1:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Makes them miserable."
Curious. Has anybody done a study on animals' neurological pathways in zoos vs. out of zoos?
- QuinceyQuick
January 27, 2009 10:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
unjust
well I disagree if many cases animals in zoo's are cared for better than one's in the wild and in alot of cases the animal that is encaged is endangered and in same cases unable to care for themselves.Now even in the case where the animal is healthly or not endangered they got it made food brouhgt to them and a inhouse doctored, and how do you know how it makes them feel you linked into there brain no you are just asumming that.I don't know anyone who doesn't like going to the zoo and seeing animal's otherwise they would not be able to.
- popabear
November 4, 2009 9:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who Speaks for the Animals?
Of course not. Use your heads, people, a natural environment is not man made. Don't you get it. Have we all become so self-involved that we can't even speak to this subject without somehow injecting our own wants and fears into the headline. Animals were discovered in the wild, they should remain in the wild. The education argument is a farce. Children don't learn about habitats and mannerisms from a poorly maintained and caged facility. We have no right to determine what is humane treatment and then fail to carry it out. Zoos do this, they should be outlawed.
- turbotwice August 6, 2008 1:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Does a bad zoo damn ALL zoos?
Your statement rightly criticizes bad zoos. But you seem to take that then to prove that all zoos are bad. That makes little sense.
- Curious
March 4, 2009 7:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PETA wants all animals released from zoos?
It seems like PETA is more concerned about under-funded zoos, not all zoos in general. I'm sure they feel that the San Diego Zoo does a lot of good for animals and wouldn't endorse releasing the animals held there.
- sportsguy
August 7, 2008 7:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
UnFair
anyone has the right to live independent life whether animals or human beings. So, in my opinion this is not fair. the animals should be free from any prison. consider if for 1 day you are put into jail or prison what you will feel. Definitely, you wish to come out as soon as possible. so as are the animals.
Please, protect the animals being make of fun
Muhammad Sajid
- Muhammad Sajid
August 7, 2008 10:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Ritz or the Gutter
What would you prefer: 1) To be put up, free of charge in a 5 star hotel where there was free room service, no parasites, no predators or thugs to hunt you--where you had food , water and medical treatment
or 2) to be left out on the street in your natural habitat - no food, shelter or clothes.
- roguegrafix
May 30, 2009 3:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who argued that all the animals ought to be released?
Why must we assume such ridiculous things in these discussions? It becomes apparent that those who would challenge PETA on the grounds that "they want to release all animals from zoos, today" are either consciously mischaracterizing the argument, are being purposefully dense, or are ignorant and therefore shouldn't involve themselves in the conversation.
- Alex M
August 10, 2008 9:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
True, but some look at things too positively
Education is, of course, important. However, if visitors do appreciate and respect animals, they would respect the animals' freedom too. Most visitors would want to visit the zoo again because they are more than amused by the antics that the trainiers have taught them. The animal shows and rides attract more visitors than those kept in cages, as they get to interact with the animals and they laugh at the funny tricks or 'talents', which were actually taught by trainers.
Just like our understanding of true love, being wishing the ones that you love happiness, only those who truly love them will start making a change for them.
Another point is preventing extinction. Do we really wish for joy for the species, or is it just a challenge to keep as many species alive as possible? Perhaps they would be happy not living on this earth, fighting for their own survival, while we are forcing their kind to live on.
I am not in the position to say anything yet, but I hope you will think about i
- Rainie August 10, 2008 6:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Two sides of a medal
Keeping animals in zoos, entrapped in a small, artificial atmosphere, depriving them of their instincts to survive, to hunt, taking every purpose out the animal's life itself - that is how zoos work.
They strip animals bare of, if it exists, their dignity, just to entertain the masses. to have ever seen a noble panther "in real life", seeing him sleeping or walking up and down his small cage, waiting for insanity to kick in, wating for something to relieve him from this prison.
Sure, zoos do ensure the existence of animals that are endagered and whose habitats cannot sustain them, but what is the price the animals pay for existing? I don't call that living, vegetating a lifetime. Sometimes it sure would be better to not cling too much on the existence of an animal, but to let it die or even go extinct in dignity. If we took all the money from the zoos and put it in animal protection, there would be no need of them at all.
- eApricot August 17, 2008 5:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I so agree!!!
I've also seen first hand these beautiful creatures pacing, pacing, pacing back and forth in small cages, deprived of their natural instinct to run, hunt and live their lives in their natural environment. It's not pretty, and CANNOT be compared to criminals in prison. A lot of those criminals have better lives in prison than they would being free. Television, education, exercise, 3 meals a day..and on and on. Plus the fact that prisoners have a choice! They chose to be in prison by committing a crime.....what crime did those beautiful 4 legged beings commit?
- Glasscat
September 3, 2008 3:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What?
"If we took all the money from the zoos and put it in animal protection, there would be no need of them at all."
Are you saying that if we foreclosed on all the zoos (most of which are operating at a loss according to one of these arguments), auctioned their property to the highest bidder and used that money to protect animals we could stop animal extinction?
Apart from being illegal, (talk about depriving someone of something), I don't think there'd be nearly enough money to counteract the economic situations that are driving people to hunt animals and develop the land they live on (care to vacate your home so an animal can live there?)
In short I think that zoos are a fine place for animals. Where people who love animals and want to see them and protect them is a great place for them. We should be complaining about crappy zoos that are too small and applauding great zoos that are large and allow animals to have all the benefits of wild life without the dangers that exist there.
- GreenLove
September 5, 2008 7:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals should be left alone, and their habitat protected
Let's stop making a human-created problem worse. Let's protect animals in the wild, where they evolved to adapt in their own ecological niche.
- Eric Prescott
August 26, 2008 12:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's protect property rights
Silly people
Let's say I want to open my own zoo for a business and make money. Let's say I get my animals legally, by purchasing them or if allowed by trapping them with a license...or however. Then I make the cages to keep them in and I charge people to come see them. Wow, this is my business. I make money. I own the land, the zoo, the animals. Period. I can do what I want with them. I can also do what I want with the money I make from the zoo....so perhaps I donate it to a habitat charity - or I hire scientist to work with the animals to develop better ways to keep the animals healthy- because they are my property and I want to keep them alive to my business runs well. So...its really not about the animals - its about the zoos. Of course if there was a State or Federally run zoo --well I would really be frightened for those animals - we all know how government run property ends up (look at how HUMANS can barely make it on government welfare support---let alone some tigers!)
Personally though I wouldn't start a zoo... - wild animals - let them live in the wild. If we are worried about their survival in the wild - poaching...we need to address the black market for these animals ---get rid of the black market for hides and tiger's penises and we'll prolly fix stuff.
- selfish November 18, 2008 7:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
aren't we already
Aren't we already protecting them by taking them from other zoos instead of the wild.
- vampsquest
February 13, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals belong in the wild
I remember going to a game ranch near my home several years ago. I was excited when I arrived, and disgusted when I left! All the animals there looked quite unhealthy, but what really got me was a mountain lion imprisoned inside a 15 x 15 cage with a bare cement floor. This majestic cat, whose typical range approaches hundreds of miles, was trapped in a filthy cell. It really bothered me to see all the ignorant people just enjoying the hell out of this mountain lion who just laid there, uninterested.
ALL problems with animals are due to humans encroaching on their habitat. I get so angry when a wild animal is summarily executed for roaming close to humans and following their predatory instincts. We are killing animals and then blaming them for it!
- PSYOP
August 28, 2008 2:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
To imprison animals is cruel.
Let's face it...the animals are imprisoned due to the entertainment that many individuals feel they need. There have been numerous situations where the animals either did not, or could not receive the proper care they needed to maintain a healthy life. The other issue...How many have been attacked by one of these animals? No matter the reason, it should have never happened. How is captivity good for any animal?
- kim42
September 4, 2008 11:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This site ONLY incorproates human views
stop thinking about how zoos are good for education or conservation
think about how the animals in zoos feel
how do they feel to be imprisoned for no reason?
- Stormwolf
February 12, 2009 3:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good question
How do you determine how an animal feels? I assume you have an idea of how you might feel if "imprisoned with no reason." Can you explain how you would get an answer from an animal?
As I understand it, very little is know about what and how animals "feel." Less is known about how a human can make sense of what an animals "feels" without comparing them to humans. It's a tough riddle. How do you scientifically solve it?
- Curious
March 4, 2009 7:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Behavior
of animals and even their moods are very easy to read for a person that spends their time with the animals. It is not hard to discern the feelings of an animal without applying a humanistic metric. Of course we will still use the same words like frustrated, sad, or angry but that does not mean that we gauge an animal by how a human would respond. Animal psychology is an extremely valuable tool. I don't mean psychotherapy for your cat. I am referring to animal biologists understanding the natural emotions of each animal in question.
While it may be harder for a behaviorist to figure out the diggings of an ant than it is to monitor a temper tantrum of an orangutan, it's not hard to discern the moods or mental health of animals. Do you have a dog?
- tek August 8, 2009 4:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Open Range
I don't remmember what the name of the zoo was when I went when i was a little kid, but it was a 10000 acre reserve that was open range for animals to roam freely throughout the park. Guests toured the zoo by taking trucks through the park and to different places where the animals usually roamed. I think this is an acceptable way of keeping animals in zoos . If the animals can move around freely in a simulated non cramped environment , I don't see what is wrong with that. Zoos promote research on animals, and education to teach kids how to help the environment and svae dying animal species. In the wild if a certain animal is going exctinct, they have a much better chance of surviving in a zoo. That is why I think zoos are acceptable in society
- Just That Guy
May 27, 2009 11:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Education through zoos are tainted
Zoo associates can make the argument that zoos enable people to get closer to wild animals without having to travel thousands of miles, but its not natural. Animals dont deserve to be in cages in the middle of skyscrapers and traffic. Visitors of zoos aren't even looking at the real thing, they are looking at a product of what, us humans, have made. You can learn more about lions, for example, through a wildlife documentary on the National Geographic Channel, where lions are in there natural habitat, than some sleeping lion at the zoo. Conservation to an endangered species is a good point in why we have zoos but this is also flawed, the only reason we have conservation is because once again humans have damaged the natural world of animals through deforestation and poaching. Animals should be studied in the wild, if it takes traveling to the ends of the earth ,so be it, you will be observing nature at its purest which is how it should be kept. Conservation should not be put in captivity, because the species will be more and more influenced by humans depriving animals from the true wild spirit, who knows maybe decades or centuries from now tigers will be the new domesticated house pet. Of course zoo keepers all over the country are not just going to open their cages and set all the animals back free, partly because the animals themselves wouldnt be able to survive by themselves in the wild, but zoo assocites should try to keep animals in their natural habitat as much as possible.
-- just a voice for animals...
because animlas need
to be heard
too :)
- jablonkas319
July 19, 2009 1:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Isn't it safe to say
that the whole world is just a giant zoo at this point? The real question becomes "What size zoo is appropriate"?
- tek August 8, 2009 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Poor picked on Zoo animals
They are fine. Some zoo's suck, but for the most part they are fine. They are treated like a dog in your home. You probably trained it somehow you love it you keep it in your home or yard... AKA Cage. You'll never set it free. All of this and you're not even being paid to do it. Zoo keepers and their animals at the zoo have the same type of relationship.
When a Kid goes to a zoo they see up close an animal that is new and amazing to them. They can learn alot more about the animal by watching TV, but they wont care as much about the animal as if they see it up close. Zoo's give children sympathy for the animals they see.
- ttut21
August 15, 2009 8:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ZOO
I just took my children to the zoo last month.They liked it better then disney world.For the most part there was not any long lines to stand in.
And it did look as thou the zoo keepers and the animals at the zoo have the same type of relationship
- countryboy
August 15, 2009 10:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It depends on the zoo and the situation for the animal
Many of the animals kept in zoos would be extinct otherwise. Zoos primarily preserve, protect and try breed endangered animals. Many of the animals in zoos were born in the zoo and are not wild. They might never adapt to the wild. I am vegan, I am want animals not to be property, but if the choice is between extinction and being in a zoo , I think I would rather the animal was taken care of in a good zoo with proper vet care and good food .
If there was no loss of habitat, no poachers, and species were not dying out - then great- we could release all the animals.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 12:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.