Wild Animals In Zoos

[dab_20]

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.

[FarmGirl13]

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

[Karen]

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.

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.

[Suki Wingy]

[CENTER]
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.

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.
Zoos are my happy place. Good ones that is. Anyone been to Henry Doorly?

[Miss Z]

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!

[IRescue452]

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.

[xcolbi]

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.

[Giselle]

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?