Zoos, good or bad?

[UED77]

Not so long ago, I visited the Smithsonian National Zoo in Washington, DC, US. I was looking forward to it, thinking "oh yeah this is gonna be awesome!"

But once I got in, and saw the animals, my interest in zoos drastically waned in an instant. And that's when I decided that I would someday create this thread.

For me, it was really depressing to see how all the animals only had a relatively small space. Their lives are boring, and their days are repetitive. They are trapped in a cage from which they can never escape from. And us, people, we just go there to have a glance at them, perhaps take a few pictures (in which the emphasis is usually on a family member, not the animal), and in less than two minutes we've already moved on to another specimen.

Younger kids might be in awe for a few seconds when they see something up close for the first time, but then they turn to other thoughts (cotton candy, drinks, restroom, video games, comic books).

I think there are very few people who are actually interested in zoos. Ordinary people have their own lives to live; they have their own problems. Those who do care about other species are generally scientists, but they prefer to study these creatures in their natural habitat.

And even though in most zoos, the plaques in front of the cage do inform the guests of the animals', say, endangered status, but most people do not stop to read the signs.

Basically, I feel that zoos are largely unnecessary. Sure, it is a good thing that people could go and see species that they haven't yet seen up close, but most people do not show the amount of interest that I think would justify the very existance of visitable zoos.

For endangered animals, conservation centers should be founded, which would provide them with plenty of space, so they could roam (almost) free. But seeing them trapped in zoos... that is not what they deserve.

I ask you to keep this discussion at an educated level.
If you are only here to make short, pointless posts, go away.

UED77

[Chiron]

It would be great if the zoos had a lot more room for the animals to roam and feel like they're in their natural habitat. I think this is where the ideal situation meets the harsh realities of life. I don't think public zoos are major investment opportunities with awe-inspiring cash flow. It would take a serious amount of capital to set up a natural habitat with the appropriate climate for a few animal species, let alone all the different animals you find in a zoo. Not only that, you would need a way for customers to actually see the animals, and make them feel like they're getting their money's worth. It's like a whale watch and you don't see squat. For the most part, zoos may be unnecessary, but their role in helping to save endangered species is a valiant effort. Otherwise, it would be up to researchers at major universities to take care of them, at least until their research is done.

[TranquilNightElf]

Hmm I agree that most zoos are rather a disappointment, but I'm against the idea that zoos are not worth anything. It is very important in my opinion that people get to see the animals and how they are and find out information about them.True maybe one or 2 in 50 may actually develop an actual intrest but it is better than none at all. And it's not like the others haven't a an inkling of fascination. They get to see animals for real that they could never have dreamed of. That endangered species they saw is no longer a far away living organism that people couldn't care less about. It's right there in front of them to see and this does have an effect. It may be subtle, small..subconscious even..but it still affects them.

I do wholeheartldly agree however that the state of many a zoo that I've been to is pitiful for animals.I'm all for better animal treatment and bigger enclosures as well , so that they do behave somewhat as they do in their habitat and I think nature parks/reserves should be the way to go for encouraging educational interaction for humans with animals, instead of cramped cages.

[GiaDragoness]

The whole idea of a zoo, to see animals for educational purposes, is a good thought. Animals being trapped up in close proximity, with something that is far from what they once knew as a home, is a terrible thing. One bright side though, is that at least they don't have to worry about predators, where their next meal will come from, and they get medical care. If they had big enough areas to roam in and such, that would be better, but i think it would rob humans of such experiences seeing such animals.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[TranquilNightElf]

If they had big enough areas to roam in and such, that would be better, but i think it would rob humans of such experiences seeing such animals.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:


Not necessarily ,
I don't remember names, but I've been to large nature reserves where you can see animals easily enough and the place was huge.

[TheBB]

Zoos/aquariums (let's not forget the fishies!) as a concept isn't as bad as UED77 want it, I think. No zoos would pretty much alienate the rest of the world to humans. It's great as a reminder that we're not alone on this globe. It's also a great education facility. And it does function as an interest "grabber". It's also great fun for kids.

One may wonder what would happen if the zoos went away? The next generation would perhaps be more ruthless in environmentalist issues than before... they have never touched a llama, never had a monkey sit on your shoulder or never stared into the eyes of a tiger.

Natural reserves and parks and other facilities of that sort are great as a way of preserving endangered species. They do that much better than zoos do. But their public profile isn't that big. To spot an animal in such a reserve, even though the experience is much more fascinating than in a zoo, is a much more costly endeavour, both time and money wise.

So my conclusion is that if there was a way to arrange animal "safaris" into reserves or parks in an economic fashion, so that the average Joe and Jane in a hypothetical commuity like that would "safari" just as (if not more) often than they visit zoos today, then reserves and parks are preferable to zoos. However, this isn't the case just yet, so we need zoos to "bridge" the interest. While I do, of course, admit that this could be done in a much better way than now. It's just that removing them won't solve anything. I don't want to live in a world where noone has had animal experiences, so to speak.

[EdvardMunch]

I think zoos should be turned into those drive-through zoos. Although a lot of the problems still remain, animals have a much more natural environment and a lot larger area (I think they're more fun anyhow). TheBB is right that we need zoos to keep people from becoming apathetic about animal issues.

EDIT: Actually, drive through zoos are a dumb idea, too much gas in the air. They should have electric trolleys meandering through the areas.

[GiaDragoness]

If they had big enough areas to roam in and such, that would be better, but i think it would rob humans of such experiences seeing such animals. Not necessarily ,
I don't remember names, but I've been to large nature reserves where you can see animals easily enough and the place was huge.

um, i was talking about the dissappearance or lack of interest in zoos, would rob humans of such experiences seeing such animals. Not the big open areas.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Seal]

zoos have seals. they keep them well fed and nice. zoos are nice.

[Whiteknight]

Zoos take quite a role in helping endangered animals. They also keep all the endangered plant species in a seed bank, which they trade among other zoos, keeping the plant species diverse.

UED, I do not believe that kids have that short attention span. I'm sure they will be entertained for at least a few hours at the zoo, since there are so many different animals to go and see.

Of course we would all like to see them in national parks, but we have to be reasonable. We take up a lot of land, and that would be quite expensive. Zoos give the modern man the ability to see diverse animals without having to drive too far and spending much time.

Also, you are all attributing too much intelligence to the animals. Only a handful of animals might actually care, the rest are just content to recieve food and copulate, live out their lives.



For me, it was really depressing to see how all the animals only had a relatively small space. Their lives are boring, and their days are repetitive. They are trapped in a cage from which they can never escape from. And us, people, we just go there to have a glance at them, perhaps take a few pictures (in which the emphasis is usually on a family member, not the animal), and in less than two minutes we've already moved on to another specimen.
Sounds quite like work in a cubical. ;)

[Modred]

I too have been to the National Zoo in D.C., and I did not share your emotion UED77. While I am torn on the necessity of zoos, I find that they provide a necessary function for the preservation of wildlife.

Consider species such as the Giant Panda, which you no doubt saw in D.C. I will admit that I was disappointed by this exhibit. But on to my point. Creating a natural reserve in which a Giant Panda could live would cost an incredible amount of money, and the rarity of the creatures would make it financially unfeasable. There would not be a large enough number of pandas available to justify the creation of a large habitat.

I myself would much rather observe an animal in a large, more natural habitat, rather than an enclosed space that I can measure with my eyes without moving from my position. For several land animals, this could be possible in a zoo. However, aquariums must be more limited. I do quite love aquariums.

I was in Hawaii in 2003 and went to the Aquarium in Waikiki, and I must say it was quite nice. Well, I'm starting to ramble again, and I'm not sure I've even made a point...

So here we go. Zoos can do things with a smaller space that would not be possible on a nature reserve.

[hammocksleeper]

Most of the animals in zoos were born in captivity, so they could care less if they were trapped in a cage. They have never known the wild, and don't want to know it.

Anyways, speaking of zoos, I saw a great movie the other night called Fierce Creatures. It's pretty much the follow-up to A Fish Called Wanda (same cast). Hilarious movie, stars John Cleese, Kevin Kline, Michael Palin and Jamie Lee Curtis. It's a little Monty Python-esque, so maybe you're not into that, but I recommend the movie.

[TranquilNightElf]

Most of the animals in zoos were born in captivity, so they could care less if they were trapped in a cage. They have never known the wild, and don't want to know it.



Good point, but all animals have instincts,and at least (most )zoos, however small try to create a portion of a habitat or a facsimile in which visitors can at least get a glimpse of animals and their behaviour.





Anyways, speaking of zoos, I saw a great movie the other night called Fierce Creatures. It's pretty much the follow-up to A Fish Called Wanda (same cast). Hilarious movie, stars John Cleese, Kevin Kline, Michael Palin and Jamie Lee Curtis. It's a little Monty Python-esque, so maybe you're not into that, but I recommend the movie.

Two VERY excellent movies those. :D

John Cleese: "Sorry, I keep making boobs"
lol

[singo]

[QUOTE=hammocksleeper]Most of the animals in zoos were born in captivity, so they could care less if they were trapped in a cage.
QUOTE]

dosnt matter, my local zoo has no cages at all, and decent sized enclosures too
(not big enough but still quite good)


im behind zoos, many animals would be extinct today if it were not for zoos and their breeding programs, many children would never see a wild animal in their lives (okay, it is pushing it a bit to call an animal born in captivity "wild" but you know what i mean)


in my opinion the benefits of zoos far out weigh the disadvantages

[Killphill]

Breeding animals in captivity to ensure the survival of their species is one thing. I think it's ok. But just caging up animals that would be numerous in the wild just so children can go look at them..., I don't think that's right. But I don't own any zoos. If they took the time to make sure the animals they were caging up for their own personnal gain were happy, I might just support it.

[Modred]

If they took the time to make sure the animals they were caging up for their own personnal gain were happy, I might just support it.

Note that most zoos are far from profitable and several are state or university subsidized. If you wish to find a "profitable" organization benefiting from mistreated animals, try a circus. ;)

[bluemicrobyte]

Not so long ago, I visited the Smithsonian National Zoo in Washington, DC, US. I was looking forward to it, thinking "oh yeah this is gonna be awesome!"

But once I got in, and saw the animals, my interest in zoos drastically waned in an instant. And that's when I decided that I would someday create this thread.

For me, it was really depressing to see how all the animals only had a relatively small space. Their lives are boring, and their days are repetitive. They are trapped in a cage from which they can never escape from. And us, people, we just go there to have a glance at them, perhaps take a few pictures (in which the emphasis is usually on a family member, not the animal), and in less than two minutes we've already moved on to another specimen.

Younger kids might be in awe for a few seconds when they see something up close for the first time, but then they turn to other thoughts (cotton candy, drinks, restroom, video games, comic books).

I think there are very few people who are actually interested in zoos. Ordinary people have their own lives to live; they have their own problems. Those who do care about other species are generally scientists, but they prefer to study these creatures in their natural habitat.

And even though in most zoos, the plaques in front of the cage do inform the guests of the animals', say, endangered status, but most people do not stop to read the signs.

Basically, I feel that zoos are largely unnecessary. Sure, it is a good thing that people could go and see species that they haven't yet seen up close, but most people do not show the amount of interest that I think would justify the very existance of visitable zoos.

For endangered animals, conservation centers should be founded, which would provide them with plenty of space, so they could roam (almost) free. But seeing them trapped in zoos... that is not what they deserve.

I ask you to keep this discussion at an educated level.
If you are only here to make short, pointless posts, go away.

UED77(oooo I went there!!)

Perhaps rather than improve or eliminate zoos, we could have fewer zoos, like maybe 1 per state (or do we have less already?) and that would be enough, parents could take their kids there when their little, the kids would see the animals, and then they would forget about zoos. But less zoos would'nt hurt anyone is what I'm trying to say. We could still improve these zoos, or maybe have less species of animals in them. less animals means more space for each animal

[TranquilNightElf]

My knowledge of zoos/state is a bit dodgy...but one per state??? and then fewer species to display per zoo?...that would defeat the purpose of a zoo.

[chibi]

I enjoy Zoo's. Especially the ones who raise their animals to mate with one another to produce a higher popukation. I think that they are very educational. They show people up close what how exotic animals really act. But I am sure that there are many disadvantages.

[Battlecruiser]

Without zoos, people wouldn't be educated about animals. Sure, many people just look at the "cool looking" animals and don't see anything else and don't read anything about those animals, but there are also good people who do take time to read each plaque, and respect every animal, whether it is a Jaguar or a rat.

[noobmapmaker]

The baby pandas are soo cute http://www.sandiegozoo.org/pandas/pandacam/index.html
........i mean, the polar bears are cool
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/zoo/polarcam.html
...DAMIT......i mean....i would like to live in a zoo if they gave me a laptop with a lifetime supply of bbq hot pockets and highspeed internet. zoo animals have the life man...eating...sleeping..scraching your ass...scaring little kids when you parents lift you over the balcony.........i say there good.

[Wick3d]

Zoo's are excellent for animals that would otherwise be dead.

[Basan]

Since it was 're-opened', I'll post here.

Zoos when using the mating programs can enlarge endangered species. When those are in greater numbers they could be used to repopulate their areas of origin (in the wild, obviously). If those are still free n' it's possible. ;)

I know that Zoos can have pretty darn disavantages like when the Zoo is getting overpopulated (in certain specie's numbers) and doesn't have the option or the knowledge of whom to trade the animals with (to a reserve or another Zoo that has the proper conditions).
When these animals begin to clog in their spaces, restricting it n' the Zoo doesn't have the budget necessary to enlarge it's compound(s), then the quality of life in the imprisioned animals vastly decreases ending in what we call "Zoo of misery".

[ZeroCross]

Zoos preserve the animal, but seldom their instincts. Their once powerfull will to dominate and hunt with fury and passion is turned to will to scratch their ass in public and get fat and lazy. It depends on your point of view, they keep animals alive, but they sometimes fail to save the animal, inside the animals, if you catch my drift.