Zoos.

[Berserker]

Possible controversy in this topic.

From an ethical standpoint, what do you think about zoos?

Is the modern zoo an obsolete Victorian relic? A sad display of exploitation that Western society should move away from?

Or do they serve a noble purpose, educating people about animals in a relatively safe and carefully controlled setting?

I for one, don't think zoos can be done "right," no matter how they're designed or operated. Modern human intervention in the animal world strips that world of its soul. I can enjoy the zoo somewhat if I visit it, and you won't see me protesting outside the gates (although the treatment of animals at some zoos is outrageous,) but the concept of the zoo itself just makes me a bit uncomfortable. (Of course, I didn't always think so.)

Your thoughts?

[PariahPoet]

I think they're ok if they take care of their animals. If a zoo provides it's animals with the correct food, entertainment, and environment I don't see anything wrong with it. There are a lot of species that are functionally extinct and they now only survive in zoos. I also prefer zoos that rescue injured or neglected animals rather than buying them from breeders. The Ellen Trout zoo used to have a three-legged ocelot that could not have survived in the wild but found a safe home there. That's the kind of thing I like to see.

I do wish, however, that zoos would start offering the animals a place to hide. It makes them feel much more confident and secure in their home. If they have the option of hiding they feel less need to.

[outwarddoodles]

Zoos provide animals an abundance of food, and security -- what more could they ask for?

Admittingly, I'm disgusted by some zoo's treatment of animals -- the one with tight, concrete cages and no entertainment. But if the zoo provides a suitable habitat, with enough free roaming space and stimulation, then I'm absolutely fine with it.

The zoo near me provides a lot of funds for conservation and breeding programs. I see that as a definite plus.

[Terastas]

There are a lot of species that are functionally extinct and they now only survive in zoos.

This was a big part of my pro-factor. Taking the wild out of the tiger is preferable to taking the tigers off of the planet, if you will. Zoos also suffice to raise awareness to the animals that still have a shot in the wild. We've reached a cultural point where a lot of people think of wolves and tigers as fictional characters before actual animals; a lot of people have to see the living thing in person before they can ever have a true understanding of it, and you need to understand something before you can appreciate it.

Mind you, my level of support is equally proportionate to the level of care and concern is provided to the animals in question. I'll look the other way somewhat when it comes to places that would be better classified as animal havens or rescue centers that may not have substantial funds, but an actual zoo being run as a business should keep the animals safe, secure and healthy before they even begin to think of ways to keep their guests entertained.

I agree about the shelter thing. If somebody wants to see the animals, let them wait until the animals are ready to be seen. Residents before guests, as it were.

[PariahPoet]

Totally agreed Terastas.

Kent told me that one time there was a Buddhist nun visiting Mission:Wolf and she ended up on a tour along with several biology majors. The biology students felt that it would be better for the wolves to die in the wild than stay in a 5 acre enclosure their entire lives. When the nun asked why, they told her that the wolves would never know freedom.

She told them that the wolves may never be able to roam past the fences, but true freedom for a wild animal is the ability to survive.

I'd never thought about it, but really she's right. If a wild wolf pack found a 5 acre valley with plenty of food and safe dens to raise pups, they would have no need to leave that small area. A sanctuary is not that different. The fences are there for their safety, not ours. ^^

[BornIntolegend]

There have been a few zoo's that have been forced to close due to improper funds, and improper care. Animals are usually sent off to other zoos with room, and "foster homes" until a zoo has room. Its sad when this happens. Some animals can nerve be returned to the wild.

[PariahPoet]

Yeah, most can't.

Most humans couldn't survive in the wild, what makes people think animals raised by humans can?

[Terastas]

Mm. When you think about it, what is it that animals do in the wild? Search for food, fend off larger animals, stay warm. . . And a bunch of other stuff they no longer have to do in captivity. An animal raised in captivity wouldn't fare in the wild because they never had to develop the talents to.

I only really have issues with zoos on two occasions.

1) When they're neglectful. I can understand a zoo using the concrete cages because they can't afford alternatives, but I resent the ones that try and insist that the animals are happy there and they don't need natural open enclosures.

2) Zoos that try and entertain guests by making the animals perform for them. Mind you, this is a gray area for me; I recognize that some animals require a lot of attention and stimuli (dolphins, sea lions, etc) and that in these cases, some degree of training can be beneficial to them, but there's a fine line between making a show out of what an animal does naturally and training an animal to do something it wouldn't. If they're going to make a tiger jump through hoops, they lose any claim to being a zoo in my book. The zoo is where people should go to see animals behaving naturally, not as directed by someone else.

So. . . Yeah, again, I measure my tolerance in proportion to the zoo's quality n' such.

[PariahPoet]

Agreed. The welfare of the animals should always be the first priority.

[MoonKit]

Totally agreed Terastas.

Kent told me that one time there was a Buddhist nun visiting Mission:Wolf and she ended up on a tour along with several biology majors. The biology students felt that it would be better for the wolves to die in the wild than stay in a 5 acre enclosure their entire lives. When the nun asked why, they told her that the wolves would never know freedom.

She told them that the wolves may never be able to roam past the fences, but true freedom for a wild animal is the ability to survive.

I'd never thought about it, but really she's right. If a wild wolf pack found a 5 acre valley with plenty of food and safe dens to raise pups, they would have no need to leave that small area. A sanctuary is not that different. The fences are there for their safety, not ours. ^^

I totally agree. I think the biology students were thinking too "humanly". I dont think wolves really know/care about freedom vs nonfreedom. They care about safety and survival.