Printable View
Do you agree with keeping wild animals in captivity?
My grandma says that animals shouldn't be kept in captivity and I agree with her. Animals die earlier when they are kept in cages. Animals should be running free instead of laying in a cage. That's just my opinion.
I Think that today, the main reason, besides for entertainment, and learning, zoos play a most important roll in Saving the Endangered animals, with their breeding programs, so Yes, i would have to say that I agree with animals in Zoos.
I agree with Maggie,
the breeding programs for re introduction in the wild, and also for simply re establishing endangered animals is too important to ignore.
With many many zoos now changing the enclosures and exhibits to better suit habitats and needs, it is nothing like 20 years ago when all you saw were concrete and bars.
i voted yes.
Well, kittygurl, I don't think znimals belong in cages.
We have an award winning zoo here, and the animals are in natural habitats. They have plenty of grass and trees, can hide from viewers without going inside some concrete hole to a little cave area. They also do have inside places to go. They can get up to a full gallop / run which they all seem to do if a sea gull happens to land in the habitat. ha ha.
And I also recognize that the breeding programs are helping restore endangered species populations, even in the wild, through the release programs.
So I voted mixed.
Yes I do agree simply because it helps endangered animals.
I think it depends on how the animals are treated. I went to a zoo last week, and while some of the animals had a HUGE area, others had a very small area. The Leopards, Lions, Tigers, Bears, etc are all kept in cages and pace back and forth but the Zebras, Antelopes, and some other animals had acreage to run free and seemed happy. So, I guess it depends on how big of an area they have and also what kind of vet care they recieve, etc.
I have a mix feeling cause 1, it keeps them safe from bein hunted and i do think they should be free also :)
If they are taken care of properly and have plenty of room i see nothing wrong with it.
For the few there are in zoos they are doing a wonderful service for their counterparts in the wild. Especially the programs that are trying to bring back species from extinction.
Many species actually can live longer lives in zoos.
The days of steel bars and small cages are gone. Shame on any zoo that still runs this way.
I have seen some wonderful zoos and i have been to a few that make me want to cry every time i think about them.
That sound like one zoo i went to a couple years back. Someone was telling me about the wonderful displays they had so i decided to go check it out. It was sad how small some of the enclosures were for the predators!!! The wolves(3) had a section no bigger than half of my back yard (which is 50'x75')!!! (Lucky for them they had been hand raised by the owners and were accustomed to people. ...I guess they also get walks on occasion ...but still!!!)
I think the highlight of my trip there was seeing a real live Wolverine! (Trying to focus on the good.)
I got to see many animals there i've never seen before... but i never fail to mention to people what small enclosures the place has for the predators. The place has the potential to be Great. They really do. ...but they aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by .sarah
I agree with it as long as they are treated well and have the space they need.
I voted mixed feelings
I'm all for the breeding programs for endangered and threatened species, to help introduce to the wilds -- i think thats great. And zoos that provide an apropriately sized space for the animals is good as well.
The ones i have problems with are the enclosures that are clearly too small for the animals they are housing. Like seeing the panthers walking the same trail over and over again, wearing down a path through the grass from boredom doesn't sit too well with me.
Last summer, i had friends up from the states, and we went to the toronto zoo -- where they have a Canadian exhibit. They had an exhibit of raccoons who were all sleeping, so we couldn't see them very well. Later that night, behind the house, the raccoons were into the garbage again, and we went out with the flashlight to scare them off, and the joke was that we didn't have to to the zoo to see the canadian wildlife, just check out back near the garbage bins ;)
I agree with everyone else ... sometimes it is necessary for the survival of a species to maintain captive populations. And some zoos are VERY nice.
Also, I think people are more likely to care about and try to help save animals they have actually seen "in real life".
Actually, captive animals do not die at an earlier age than wild animals. Due to lack of predators, a steady diet, vet care, etc. captive animals ususally live much longer lives than their wild cousins.
I would prefer to see animals contained in a wild life refuge place than
keeping them in a zoo.
I would have to say yes because they do save endangered animals, and some have amazing natural habitats where they have sooo much room to live their natural lives.
And I also would think they would live longer because they are taken care of, in the wild they die quicker because of predators and/or sickness. but I could be wrong.
The Zoo I have a membership for, is closing their old "houses" and converting the animals over to specialized habitats that are bigger and more suited to the animal's natural environment. They are keeping the old buildings just for the architectural details and using them for other purposes like office space. I'd rather see a tiger or lion in a huge enclosure, even if it is way at the back of its enclosure, rather than stuck in a cage. With digital photography they can create a special display of the cat where you can see what you might have (up close) if it were caged.
I think that as long as the animals have a proper habitat and plenty of space, then I agree. It helps a lot with restoring endangered species, and typically they do live longer in zoos if properly cared for.
I think wild animals shouldn't be kept in zoos. They should be free and in the wild. I understand that some animals are endangered, but once the baby is born in the zoo, they can't be released into the wild. They don't know how to hunt and survive. So animals should be in the wild
That's not true of all species. Think of the non-predators, for example - an antelope will graze on whatever is grazable. And until something is done to make their natural habitat safe for them again, there's no question of releasing them yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmGirl13
If the world were a different place, maybe the animals would be better off in the wild, but the best "zoo" I have ever seen is the San Diego Wild Animal park, where the people stay in the vehicles, and the animals have big areas to roam.
Actually, it is just the opposite at many zoos. The one that has an Animal Planet tv show has a pair of leopards that has long outlived the wild life expectancy. Having animals just "survive" in captivity is wrong, having them THRIVE is another.Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyGurl
Zoos are my happy place. Good ones that is. Anyone been to Henry Doorly? :D
I think zoos are vital in the survival of some species on the brink of extinction. Without a stable and safe environment provided in a zoo, a lot of animals we are still clinging on to would have been wiped out. They raise awareness of the dangers facing our wild animals and I for one can say they inspired me to become interested in animals and animal welfare.
But there's a difference between real zoos and borderline circuses. Thankfully I can say that no such zoo that I am thinking of exists in my country, and I expect the same is generally true of most others. But many countries still keep exotic animals in iron prisons with little or no room to move. And that's just sick!
Mixed. I don't aggree with zoos in Wisconsin having animals from South America and Africa. The lions and giraffes and such have to be in small indoor enlosures or out in the snow during the winter. Those types of animals don't belong in our climate, just as polar bears don't belong in zoos in florida.
Its nice that some species can be saved, or that zoos do educational programs. But how much education do you get from watching a lion or a tiger roam a 1/4 or half acre enclosure for 20 years? The amazing thing about our loacl zoo is that the exotic animals have tiny enclosures, but the native animals have huge spaces. They have several acres for white-tailed deer. Nobody in WI wants to see more deer. We have them in our back yards in the city. I guess the exotics have to be in small enclosures to ensure the public can see them. Poor creatures.
Well, being the animal lover I am, I had to vote mixed. There are the pros and cons to everything, including animals in zoos.
For the pros side, think of scientists. They need to study how a certain species lives so they can save them in the future. Like for example, white tigers. I was watching a show on TV the other day and it said that only 1 in 10,000 tigers are white. Basically they are going extinct because of habitat loss, but there are other reasons; starvation, poaching, etc. There was even a tiger in Russia that moved into someone's basement to have its cubs. That's pretty desperate. Anyway, so scientists need to study how the animals live. If they didn't, we probably wouldn't know how to approach a wild animal if we ever needed to. We wouldn't know their temperment, what they eat, if they're dangerous or not, etc.
For the cons, yes, the animals will die faster. They will not get to experience freedom in their short lives. I wouldn't want to be locked in a fenced in area for my whole life. I mean there are certain zoos that have large pastures and such for the animals, but then there are the ones who only have cages. Like here we have Parc Safari. The animals roam free and go up to your car and you can pet them, feed them, and they'll even stick their heads in the car window. But what would happen to them in the winter? I mean here on the border of Ontario/Quebec we have pretty cold winters, and these animals aren't used to cold climates. I'm sure they have some sort of barn or something but I certainly would not want to be locked up inside a barn for 3 months.
I'm neutral on this topic.
If I'm not mistakened, white tigers are a product of a recessive gene. Thus, if a white tiger existed in the wild, it would easily be hunted out and would not survive as well as the dominant coloreds (the normal red/orange tiger). Humans, on the other hand, are fascinated with rare colors and so circuses and unreputable zoos started breeding white tigers. In fact, our zoo does not accept white tigers because they are inbred and have many unnatural disorders. Thus, I wouldn't agree it is necessary to continue their lineage. However, you're right in that many many many species of fauna AND flora would be extinct without the help of zoos, breeding programs, wildlife refuges, and reintroduction efforts. In this day and age where we are continually pushing species of plants and animals (even the creepy crawly insects) to the brink of extinction, I think zoos are the lesser of the two evils. Continue a lineage with the faint hope of reintroduction? Or stand by and watch them slowly die out?