Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Zoos may be keeping some animals from being poached, but not all...so, do we stick all animals in zoos to keep them safe? Also do you think these animals have a good quality of life in captivity? As opposed to the 50/50 chance they would have of being poached, while being born to live in the wild/enjoy their lives as they were meant to?
Zoos allow people to have a connection with these animals. You are not going to care as much about some animal you only see on National Geographic documentaries, but it becomes more personal when you can see them at the local zoo only a few feet away. People become more invested in the species, and are more interested in countries creating anti poaching laws. So while they don't keep all animals of a species from being poached, they do help with conservation and raising awareness to hopefully help more animals in the wild. The zoos are also able to raise money to help animals in the wild. They are not only concerned about the animals they currently have in captivity, but working towards helping those in the wold as well.
Yes, I think they do. A few years ago we did a "behind the scenes" tour of Big Cat Country at the zoo. I work at an animal shelter, so I understand the behavior of sad, neglected animals. These animals were not sad. They were coming up to the fence, having the zoo keeper pet them, They were playing with the enrichment toys they had in their habitats, showing off for the cameras...
If they were in the wild, they would probably be dead considering the mortality rate of tiger cubs is 50%. Most often they don't die from predators, but from freezing or starving to death. They're not starving to death in zoos. They're not spending all of their waking hours hunting for food, not knowing if they will be able to eat or die. Tigers usually have a lifespan of about 10 years in the wild and 18 in captivity. Its not depression that is allowing them to live a longer life.
You can't speak for all animals. Again MY experience when I went in the past has not been that these animals looked remotely happy being there. Yours are different.
But I will play along.
Sure some might be happy but would they be happier in the wild? Would you be happy if you were placed in an exhibit like they are? Don't lie either. Zoos main purpose revolve around selfish humans and their education and entertainment. They weren't created to protect the animals. The intention is what I'm getting at-them being protected as a result is merely a bonus if you will. It certainly isn't why the Zoo exists. There's a lot of denial going on in this thread. That is all I'm going to say at this point--if some of you want to rationalize why they are good or better for animals so it can validate why you are okay with Zoo's then so be it. Just understand that most humans would not be okay if the tables were turned and that is you truly care about their lives it shouldn't just be once their lives end. It should be the quality of life and what's natural--there natural home is NOT the zoo, and I bet many would be much happier in the wild where they are free not imprisoned for your viewing pleasure.
You can't speak for all animals. Again MY experience when I went in the past has not been that these animals looked remotely happy being there. Yours are different.
Obviously I don't speak for any animals. I was just commenting on the tigers, lions, jaguars, etc... at the zoo I visit. Yes there are probably some zoos out there that aren't very nice, but their seems to be more pressure from the public these days to have better habitats for the animals.
Just because you want to project your feelings onto an animal, doesn't mean they are actually sad or depressed. There is no evidence to suggest that the gorilla was depressed. He was living in a habitat with other gorillas, so he wasn't isolated. He probably was giving plenty of enrichment, so he wasn't bored. And he was born in captivity, so its not like he knew any other life.
Zoos allow people to have a connection with these animals. You are not going to care as much about some animal you only see on National Geographic documentaries, but it becomes more personal when you can see them at the local zoo only a few feet away. People become more invested in the species, and are more interested in countries creating anti poaching laws. So while they don't keep all animals of a species from being poached, they do help with conservation and raising awareness to hopefully help more animals in the wild. The zoos are also able to raise money to help animals in the wild. They are not only concerned about the animals they currently have in captivity, but working towards helping those in the wold as well.
Maybe these animals don't want/aren't meant to have a connection with people. Maybe they just want to be left alone to live their lives without any intervention from us whatsoever.
Maybe these animals don't want/aren't meant to have a connection with people. Maybe they just want to be left alone to live their lives without any intervention from us whatsoever.
I don't blame the zoo for putting Harambe down. I don't think he meant to harm the boy, but he was an agitated/excited huge wild animal. The video was frightening, the kid is lucky to be alive. However, I do blame the zoo for the shoddy three foot fence and hedge barrier. When my kids were that age, they could have vaulted it in a nanosecond. Which is why they were always belted into a stroller or wagon at zoos and amusement parks. As far as I'm concerned the mom was at fault for not having her child under control. It seems the only one not at fault here was the poor gorilla.
Maybe these animals don't want/aren't meant to have a connection with people. Maybe they just want to be left alone to live their lives without any intervention from us whatsoever.
Except its pretty much impossible for animals to have zero intervention from humans unless we round them all up and put them on an uninhabited island. Unless humans go extinct, animals are not going to be able to choose whether or not they want to come into contact with people, so why not try to make the best out of the situation? Is it not better to at least try to save those animals who are going extinct? I would think the animals would want their species to continue, after all isn't that the whole point of breeding?
What else was the zoo supposed to do? I am against them killing the animals with people that should know better, but in this case they had to kill the gorilla because it was a child. If it was somebody of age to know better, meh. The only thing that should happen from here is that child should be taken from his parent(s).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
