# Should Zoos Be Abolished?



## frenchtranslater

My friend and I were discussing about the abolishment of zoos. However, it almost seemed impossible to answer because we were not able to define what a zoo was.
As merriam-webster defines it a zoo is: "_a garden or park where wild animals are kept for exhibition *b* *:* a collection of living animals usually for public display_". However, it means that circuses are zoos under that definition and aquaria (plural of aquariums) are zoos. It also makes natural reserves/game reserves zoos. So what is a zoo?
My last question (if the first one is answered) is - Should zoos be abolished? Everybody on first thought would say no, but I would like to know both sides of the issues (if in one zoo there is mistreatment of animals, should all zoos be abolished?).
Merci,
Frenchtranslater


----------



## TRG

The question presumes some authority which has the power to ban zoos. I don't know what authority this would be unless you mean the UN. You see where I'm going with this...

I think a better question is how should zoos be regulated so that they properly care for the animals and serve some useful social and scientific purpose. Whether or not to have a zoo is simply something each city or local government gets to decide for itself.


----------



## Mate

TRG said:


> The question presumes some authority which has the power to ban zoos. I don't know what authority this would be unless you mean the UN. You see where I'm going with this...
> 
> I think a better question is how should zoos be regulated so that they properly care for the animals and serve some useful social and scientific purpose. Whether or not to have a zoo is simply something each city or local government gets to decide for itself.


Nowadays, zoos have no scientific purposes whatsoever. Wild animals are to be studied right where they belong: in the wild, of course. 

If there is there is any need to make more specific and/or complex studies on a given species, then scientific labs are the right place to do that. 

In my opinion the only purpose of zoos is merely commercial rather than social. 

My standpoint may be seen as quite radical in this regard: if I had the power to decide and to enforce my decision on the matter, I would ban every single zoo on earth.

Mateamargo


----------



## don maico

agreed! Zoos are the most depressing places . Some animals just go mad with boredom. We have some safari parks in the Uk which at least allow animals to roam over some distance.


----------



## frenchtranslater

that is actually not true, most animals seek three thing. Namely: shelter, safety and food. Most animals in the wild live in confined spaces that have the size of a cage. 
Zoos also teach children with their five senses what are animals. 
Finally, people have an image in their heads of a gazelle running in the savannah. But truly it only runs to save its life. So I do not understand why animals should live in nature, if they have a better life in a cage.


----------



## emilymonster

What would happen to all the species that are nearly extinct? There are hundreds of animals such as rhinos (and is the bacterian camel- the one with two humps) that just aren't going to survive in the world if we do not intervene. 
What about polar bears- are they going to learn to adapt in the next 50 years from a life they have been living for thousands on the ice?
Obviously my scientific knowledge is very little or useless, so my arguments aren't amazing, but surely zoos are useful for observing animals as well as for breeding and learning more about nature?


----------



## xarruc

The first time I went to a zoo I was about 5 years old and on a playschool trip. I cried and cried all the way there. As I remember it, two little boys had climbed into the polar bear enclosure the week before and been eaten and my mother had put the fear of God in to me to make sure I didn't do it too. She obviously overplayed her hand.

Although not one to torture animals for the sake of it, its always good to remember what those two little boys didn't - at the end of the day, cute though they may be, there are just animals, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Brioche

Some "animal welfare" groups are opposed to zoos and the like, not because they have the welfare of animals close to their hearts, but because they don't like the idea of humans profiting from animals.

Some also disapprove of pets ("companion animals") since they see this as a form of animal "slavery".

They remind me of the Puritains who wanted cock-fighting and bear-baiting banned, not because the animals suffered, but because the spectators found pleasure in it.


----------



## Mate

frenchtranslater said:


> most animals seek three thing. Namely: shelter, safety and food
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most animals in the wild live in confined spaces that have the size of a cage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot imagine where in heaven did you find any evidence -in case you did- to support such unbelievable belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoos also teach children with their five senses what are animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would rather say that zoos teach children how sad is to be confined when you are ment to be free (or better said "born to be wild").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, people have an image in their heads of a gazelle running in the savannah. But truly it only runs to save its life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is life. At least for the gazelle among several other wild creatures that are adapted to be preyed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I do not understand why animals should live in nature, if they have a better life in a cage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No comment.
Click to expand...

 
Mateamargo


----------



## cuchuflete

Is a snake in a herpetarium more or less free than "in the wild"? Does it know, or care?


----------



## Victoria32

emilymonster said:


> What would happen to all the species that are nearly extinct? There are hundreds of animals such as rhinos (and is the bacterian camel- the one with two humps) that just aren't going to survive in the world if we do not intervene.
> What about polar bears- are they going to learn to adapt in the next 50 years from a life they have been living for thousands on the ice?
> Obviously my scientific knowledge is very little or useless, so my arguments aren't amazing, but surely zoos are useful for observing animals as well as for breeding and learning more about nature?


Then there is conservation... Zoos here are engaged in actively conserving tiger species with the eventual aim of returning them to the wild. This is a worthy thing - as few tiger species are not under threat. 

Vicky


----------



## Mate

emilymonster said:


> What would happen to all the species that are nearly extinct? There are hundreds of animals such as rhinos (and is the bacterian camel- the one with two humps) that just aren't going to survive in the world if we do not intervene.
> 
> 
> 
> It is our responsibility as humans to keep their natural habitats since we are the ones who are destroying them at an overwhelming pace. We have to intervene yes, but not by putting those endangered species to jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about polar bears- are they going to learn to adapt in the next 50 years from a life they have been living for thousands on the ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to scientific predictions the Northern Pole ice cap will melt earlier than that. Are you suggesting that we should provide proper housing for all polar bears? Do you think that that would be at all possible? Don't you think that we humans should make every effort in order to stop and reverse global warming (if there is still the possibility to do that?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously my scientific knowledge is very little
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but surely zoos are useful for observing animals as well as for breeding and learning more about nature
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. If someone wants to learn about wild animals he/she should travel to their natural habitats and/or watch docummentaries on TV. Those movies cover many more species than those that can be confined in any zoo.
Click to expand...

 
Mateamargo


----------



## _forumuser_

The idea behind the zoo is to bring a piece of far away lands back to your living room. It is the same logic of the ancient art museum to which the zoo as an institution is closely related: to allow visitors to enjoy the beauty of Amazonas or ancient Egypt without a rough sea (air today) trip or contact with insufferable "locals". They were born around the same time, and were pushed by the same logic of accumulation and robbery that drove XIX century imperialism. 

The preservation argument is weak. I love watching and being close to animals, but we should invest our resources in preserving their natural habitats by insituting more and more natural parks and reserves, and not in creating cheap, papier mache copies three blocks down from us. Preservation of animals should go hand in hand with preservation of nature.


----------



## Mate

_forumuser_ said:


> The idea behind the zoo is to bring a piece of far away lands back to your living room. It is the same logic of the ancient art museum to which the zoo as an institution is closely related: to allow visitors to enjoy the beauty of Amazonas or ancient Egypt without a rough sea (air today) trip or contact with insufferable "locals". They were born around the same time, and were pushed by the same logic of accumulation and robbery that drove XIX century imperialism.
> 
> The preservation argument is weak. I love watching and being close to animals, but we should invest our resources in preserving their natural habitats by insituting more and more natural parks and reserves, and not in creating cheap, papier mache copies three blocks down from us. Preservation of animals should go hand in hand with preservation of nature.


I have to declare the feeling of rejoice I had after reading this post. Your English is as admirable as your opinions on the subject.

Mateamargo


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> The question presumes some authority which has the power to ban zoos. I don't know what authority this would be unless you mean the UN. You see where I'm going with this...


If we follow this path there will be slim pickings in the Cultural Forum.
This question seems to ask for an opinion not a signature on a binding document.

I visited a zoo once and fled in silent screams from the primate enclosure.  I can not abide the hideous places.  The animals are better off dead.

.,,


----------



## JamesM

> The preservation argument is weak. I love watching and being close to animals, but we should invest our resources in preserving their natural habitats by insituting more and more natural parks and reserves, and not in creating cheap, papier mache copies three blocks down from us. Preservation of animals should go hand in hand with preservation of nature.


 
This is an admirable sentiment, but there are a couple of problems with it. 

Often the animal habitats that are being threatened are not under the control of the people who would like to preserve them. While they can't save the habitat in another country, sometimes they _can_ save the animals themselves from extinction. 

Also, the resources required to preserve the kind of space some animals require to thrive in the wild are far beyond many preservation group's funds. Is it better to do nothing, or to preserve some of the animals rather than watch them die out completely?

I would rather that we have Panda habitats in several zoos throughout the world with living Pandas than to see the Panda become extinct from total inaction. The San Diego Zoo has done amazing work in preserving Pandas. 

The preservation efforts of the Los Angeles Zoo with the California Condor brought the bird back from near-extinction and has returned a growing population of condors into the wild as a result.


----------



## _forumuser_

Yes. I know lots of people in zoos worldwide work really hard and with the most admirable intentions to keep animals alive, sane and healthy. I have the outmost respect for what they do. But we have to be realistic: keeping a few exemplars in these tiny artificial environments and completely dependent on humans for their survival is hardly a satisfactory answer to the ecological catastrophe we are causing. To preserve animals for me means to preserve them at their own conditions: free and self-sufficient. Zoos only preserve oversize pets. 



JamesM said:


> Often the animal habitats that are being threatened are not under the control of the people who would like to preserve them. While they can't save the habitat in another country, sometimes they _can_ save the animals themselves from extinction.


 
Right you are again. But again zoos are not the answer. Desperate though it might sound, the only road to travel is greater international cooperation. Money is tight, but no matter how little, I'd rather see it spent to support groups and organizations that work for effective and durable solutions rather that short-term patch-up measures. The Tokyo zoo recently spent the Japanese equivalent of US $10 million to build a new environment that would encourage their bears to hibernate (for some reason they had stopped doing so in their new artificial habitat). I believe it would be a better service to the animals to use these sums to institute parks and reserves or, in the case of animals from different geographical areas, to fund international or foreign organizations that can do so in their area of jurisdiction. 

The problem, I know, is that no one has money to give away for nothing in return. Without prospects of financial or publicity returns few would invest in animal preservation. That's why local administrations and investors prefer giving to local money-making machines like zoos, to donating abroad. How can we teach governments and multi-billion companies that it is very important to save animals, regardless of personal profit? I don't know. But zoos are hardly the answer to enviroment destruction and animal extinction and they absorb precious resources that could be used for more substantial efforts.

Here is my modest proposal. How about keeping zoos as and where they are, but transforming them into animal preservation hubs that use the great seductive power of living animals to collect funds and re-route them to the animals' native areas to set up parks and preservation programs? This way animals that have the misfortune of living their life in captivity would at least do so for a purpose. I am sure Mr. Bear would be much happier if he knew he was sacrificing himself for the greater good. Great plan, uh? 

Mandatory viewing for all contributors to this thread:

Fierce Creatures (1997)


----------



## danielfranco

The zoo idea is a very old one, and it seems to me most cultures have thought of it at different times in their development. So it cannot be blamed on Imperialism, or any of those "modern" times. I mean, Motecuzoma (Montezuma, to English speakers) had his own zoo. That's because he enjoyed hunting birds with a blow gun, and running the Aztec empire didn't give him many oportunities to fly back to his ranch in Texas and... Sorry, wrong Head of State.
Anyhoo, yeah, zoos have been with us for a long time, and the best explanation I've read so far about the motivations for having a zoo in the first place I just read it a few posts back, from _forumser_, when he explained that the idea is to see this exotic beasties from far away lands without having to travel.

Should they be abolished? I don't know, but the only part of the zoos that I find deplorable is the ape enclosures. Gorillas, Orang-utans, Chimpanzees and Binobos probably have psychotic breaks because of the space limitations. Well... Maybe not the binobos: they are too busy shagging even the darn bushes, for cripe's sake...

So, yeah, a zoo without animals that have some sort of self-awareness would be fine with me. Maybe.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

We need to distinguish between zoos and conservation/breeding facilities, although often the line is thin.

Roadside zoos in Canada operate with no regulations other than the animal welfare bylaws.  There are no restrictions on breeding animals, and no regulations on maintaining them in appropriate habitats or feeding them tailored diets.  These zoos are an abomination.

Zoos like the Toronto Metro maintain some breeding programs, but other animals are there simply because the public likes to see them.  In other words, the giraffes in their 4-acre enclosure are there to subsidize the breeding programs of other creatures.  Some of these creatures represent species whose habitat has almost disappeared, or who are at intense risk from poaching; they must be bred artifically to save the species.

Some breeding programs, like that of the Karner Blue butterfly, have been suspended because their natural habitat is diminishing, not increasing.

Others are being phased out.  One of these, thankfully, is that of the Arctic wolves.  Although 6 acres of woodland in metro Toronto might seem generous, it doesn't begin to meet the wolves' psychological needs.  On the other hand, I didn't get the impression that the komodo dragon (comment from a little boy - "Look, Mummy, it's really a statue - it's in exactly the same position it was last year") or capybara, to name two rather inert species, are unduly bothered.

All that said, I'd love to see more breeding and conservation programs, including creating conservation areas and better enforcement programs, take the place of zoos.


----------



## Mate

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Others are being phased out. One of these, thankfully, is that of the Arctic wolves. Although 6 acres of woodland in metro Toronto might seem generous,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't begin to meet the wolves' psychological needs
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the word needed here is ethological, but I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I didn't get the impression that the komodo dragon (comment from a little boy - "Look, Mummy, it's really a statue - it's in exactly the same position it was last year") or capybara, to name two rather inert species, are unduly bothered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't know much about komodos but I really know almost everything about capybaras (we call them "carpinchos" here) and believe me: their natural behaviour is all but inert. Perhaps you should go visit the zoo after the sunset  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that said, I'd love to see more breeding and conservation programs, including creating conservation areas and better enforcement programs, take the place of zoos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quote]
> 
> Mate
Click to expand...


----------



## JamesM

> Here is my modest proposal. How about keeping zoos as and where they are, but transforming them into animal preservation hubs that use the great seductive power of living animals to collect funds and re-route them to the animals' native areas to set up parks and preservation programs? This way animals that have the misfortune of living their life in captivity would at least do so for a purpose. I am sure Mr. Bear would be much happier if he knew he was sacrificing himself for the greater good. Great plan, uh?


 
We must have very different experiences of zoos. The two closest major zoos in my area (the Los Angeles Zoo and the San Diego Zoo) do exactly that. 

The problem is with some animals. Snow leopards, for example, need huge expanses of open space to freely breed in the wild. No matter how much money is collected at the gate, it will not add up to an amount that would purchase a major portion of Nepal, for example, in order to protect them. Even if it did, what would you be doing to the Nepalese if you turned a majority of their country into an internationally purchased game preserve and crowded the citizenry into a small corner of the country, all for the benefit of the snow leopard?

These are not simple problems. Everything affects everything else. Any feasible plan will have to take into account the human and economic impact on the country "hosting" the preserve as well as the preservation of the animals.

I hate to see the extinction of animals. I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot, actually. I think this will come back to haunt us in the future. All that being said, it takes a monumental groundswell of support and staggering sums of money to protect animals in the wild. The zoos are, if nothing else, a survival mechanism to save a portion of the population until we come up with a viable way to protect their habitat. 

Negative population growth by humans would be a very good start to solving the encroachment on wilderness habitats, but that is a massively difficult challenge in itself. 

I think if you really want to preserve open space, you should work towards negative population growth for the human race. Many of the problems we face today are simply the result of an overwhelming explosion in the number of humans on the planet.  For a stunning representation of this exponential growth over the last century, see this page. Scroll down towards the bottom to see a chart on the right showing a chart that looks like a rocket taking off!  This, to me, is the source of most of the land loss for wild animals.


----------



## Dave44000

In marketing the first step is awareness. Zoos of all kinds make us aware that there is more to the world than zoos. If you look at people that contibute to animal welfare oranizations, they have animals in their lives from zoos, pets, hunting, or fishing. Zoos prepare people to do more for the wild.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Mateamargo said:


> Don't know much about komodos but I really know almost everything about capybaras (we call them "carpinchos" here) and believe me: their natural behaviour is all but inert. Perhaps you should go visit the zoo after the sunset  .
> 
> Mate



Thank you for correcting my horrible generalisation.  If it weren't for the incessant noise of the hamster wheel all night, I'd think my son's hamster inert.

The only documentaries of carpinchos which I've seen were, of course, shot in daylight .....


----------



## Etcetera

I don't have anything against zoos, as long as animals feel themselves well in a zoo. Some animals were preserved for future generations due to their keeping in zoos.
Besides, if you don't live in Africa (and can't afford a safari), a zoo is the only opportunity to show to your child a real tiger, for example.


----------



## _forumuser_

Etcetera said:


> I don't have anything against zoos, as long as animals feel themselves well in a zoo. Some animals were preserved for future generations due to their keeping in zoos.
> Besides, if you don't live in Africa (and can't afford a safari), a zoo is the only opportunity to show to your child a real tiger, for example.


 
A lifetime behind bars to be seen by my child. I wonder what the tiger thinks about this...


----------



## hbomb

I would rather a species go extinct than have an animal live outside its native habitat (a reserve is ok). It seems to me that the instincts of wild animals are so strong that they can't possibly live a happy life in a zoo. I don't believe animals are here for human purposes, they have their own role to play in the environment.


----------



## Victoria32

_forumuser_ said:


> A lifetime behind bars to be seen by my child. I wonder what the tiger thinks about this...



With regard to tigers (which are not found in Africa, by the way), the Wellington Zoo in New Zealand, built a special habitat for the tigers which contained forest, a river, all very beautiful and natural (though by necessity quite small). The public could observe them only from a walkway above the habitat, in order to be as unobtrusive as possible. It was, I thought, the best that could be done at the time (1989). 
Given the laudable aim of conservation, I found it to be optimal, but then of course I am not a tiger! 

I was inspired to write a long science fiction story about tigers communicating telepathically with a woman who comes to New Zealand 200 years after a nuclear war has rendered the few wild animals in zoos in Australia and New Zealand, the only ones left in the world... (OK, it's unlikely.) 

What really inspired me was the obvious mourning for his mate, of the male tiger after his mate died of cat 'flu in 1988. 

Vicky


----------



## deGerlaise

I disagree with Zoo's which are built to gratify people's curiosity. If Zoos are to continue then they should be built and maintained not for people, but for the animals and should have their well-being and preservation in mind.  

When I was persuaded to pay a visit to a zoo some years ago I ended that day seeing one of the saddest sights I ever saw in a zoo. It was a a Siberian bear sitting like a stuffed toy and enclosed in a cage about the size of the average bedroom. He was gently rocking back and forth like a madman and was in all probability - insane.

Although somewhat off topic and I apolgize - Circuses which include wild animal acts are hideous. I would love to see these Victorian monstrosities eliminated entirely.


----------



## _forumuser_

deGerlaise said:


> Although somewhat off topic and I apolgize - Circuses which include wild animal acts are hideous. I would love to see these Victorian monstrosities eliminated entirely.


 
Ditto.


----------



## Mate

I was born and raised in a Zoo called Buenos Aires City. 

After graduating I managed to liberate myself. I run into the wild: a farm in the Pampas, just one and a half hour drive from my former urban prison.

Since then I celebrate both life and freedom each and every day.

Now I am self-commited to give my best efforts in order to help every innocent creature deprived from it's/her/his liberty to regain it. Just as I did some 30 years ago.

Nothing compares to freedom. Nothing feels better than liberty.

Mateamargo, el libertino idealista


----------



## badgrammar

I find zoos just awful.  Just outside of Paris is the zoo in Vincennes.  Concrete and fences and faux rocks, and magnificent, royal animals turned into docile caged spectacles.  Really ugh.  

Even worse, there's the Parc de Thoirry, where on the grounds of an old chateau, they have created a "safari" style park, with herds of elephant, zebra, lions, etc.  The animals are more or less in total liberty (except the felines.  

What makes this park different is that you drive through it in your car.  You are not supposed to leave your vehicle, because the animals are everywere, and they come onto the road.  

But picture this:  It's a cold, rainy day near Paris and the line at the entrance is backed up several kilometers.  You drive through the park, inching along, bumper-to-bumper like you were on a traffic jam on the beltway.  The exhaust fumes from vehicles is enough to make your head spin.  The people in the car in front of you have rolled down the window and they're feeding some sort of sweets to a zebra who has stuck his nose into their vehicle.  It's just plain sad, ,if you ask me.

But a conservation park is different, and of course there are many reasons to breed and keep some wild animals that might otherwise no longer be able to survive in their natural habitat for whatever reason.  

So my answer is yes and no.  If a zoo can truly do a decent job of replicating natural habitats and respecting wild animals' nature, then ok.  But drive-thru zoos and concrete-cell gawking zoos, I say close 'em all down!

Brioche, m'dear, you're not saying that bear baiting and cock-fighting should be legal, are ya, mate? ;-


----------



## Veggy

Should zoos be abolished? YES absolutely. No animal -including man- can feel good behind bars.


----------



## la reine victoria

JamesM said:


> I hate to see the extinction of animals. I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot, actually. I think this will come back to haunt us in the future. All that being said, it takes a monumental groundswell of support and staggering sums of money to protect animals in the wild. The zoos are, if nothing else, a survival mechanism to save a portion of the population until we come up with a viable way to protect their habitat.


 
I agree with you entirely, James. The Isle of Wight Zoo is doing sterling work in caring for endangered species, and has an excellent educational programme for children.

It is a pleasure to visit this zoo. The keepers are totally dedicated to the welfare of the animals, which are kept in surroundings as close as possible to their natural habitat.

So long as there are zoos with conservation and breeding programmes, it is very probable that species which become extinct in the wild (as they undoubtedly will) will still remain, albeit in captivity. Far rather this than the total disappearance of some animals.

LRV


----------



## Veggy

I hope that anyone out there who enjoy taking the children to a zoo, would think being wise to tell those children that what they see is "a sort of" tiger or bear. It would be good to tell the children that a "real" tiger is something else, it's a proud animal with the dignity of his nature if he is free. Only freedom and liberty bring out the best there is in nature. This tiger behind bars has lost his instinct, cannot run to catch his food but is being served dead meat every day and receives injections of many drugs to keep him calm and sleepy.
I do not think that extinction in the wild is happening by itself but because of what man does out there; and I do not think that overgrow population is the problem but indeed what man ( no matter how many) does to nature and animals.
On one side we create the situation in which extinction is probable, on the other hand we pretend to solve this problem by building zoos!!.


----------

