sportsfangirl

Okay, before you answer, I only ask that you read the essay here and feel free to comment on the LJ site; also, I hope that we can have a decent discussion about it here.

GhostWriter

I felt that the point they seemed to be trying to make was very vague and that it was also crossed out by saying that we can just watch it on TV or VHS/DVD. Also, they point out a flaw in their own argument: these animals cannot survive in the wild. They can't do it any longer. So, unless all the animals are killed off, it's not something that would be seen right away. Also, it wouldn't be anything that the animals in zoos now would benefit from. And once in the wild, what will the newborn animals do, since there is no other animal to teach them how to survive? As nice as it would be to just have them all be fine and let them go back into the wild, it'd be really hard to do. Plus, many people who'd want to keep the money that zoos make would exploit the many school trips taken to zoos, in an attempt to us children as cover.

sunnykerr

I don't think zoos ought to be closed outright, particularly as they sometimes provide the only safe environments for endangered species to survive. I remember seeing a special on TV about a tiger sanctuary in India that was essentially devoid of any tigers because there weren't enough guards to keep poachers out.

So I do think that certain species can benefit from living in a zoo, even if it's as far from their natural habitat as it possibly gets, so that their continued existence is nevertheless diminished in some capacity.

However, and this is the big however, I think zoos should have to abide by very specific and very stringent animal-treatment guidelines or else lose their ability to do business.

elisheva

I only skimmed the article (I'm at work) but in general, no, I don't think zoos should all be closed down. I do think they need to make sure they stick to very strict guidelines, like Sunny said, and maybe even restructure themselves a little to make sure all the animals have enough space to be comfortable.


sportsfangirl, where did you find the LJ post?

JohannafromIHJ

I definitely think zoos serve a very important dual purpose: protecting those animals that are on the brink of extinction, and giving human beings from all corners of society a chance to bond with and care about more than just fellow human beings.

The idea that zoo animals "feel no joy" and whatnot is, I think, something that stems from the rather complicated emotional nature of human beings, and cannot fully be applied to the emotional life of an animal. They are, as far as I can tell, just as content to live in a place where they are fed regularly, groomed, cuddled and looked after as they are to live in the wild.

I think what the authors of that piece have failed to grasp is that zoos are, for the most part, not simply a business designed to rake in as much cash as possible - many zoos use their profits to protect and nurture animals that desperately need it. Anyone who's witnessed the joy within the international zoo community when a baby panda or such is born in captivity, as a result of years of work, can attest to that.

And I'm intrigued at the mention of "glass cages". I'm assuming they are talking about the cages designed for animals who need specific temperature and humidity and so on to thrive? If so, wouldn't it be crueler not to have them behind glass? Most zoos I've been to, the glass cages have been for animals with special needs, whether it be for privacy or plants or whatever, while the rest of the animals - like elephants, giraffes, lions, wolves, bears - have enjoyed rather spacious enclosures out in the open, with "dens" and such to take refuge in when they want privacy or extra warmth.

I must confess I've failed to see any sort of sorrow or longing for freedom in the eyes of various zoo-animals. I guess I'm just not emo enough.

sportsfangirl

In case any of you missed it, the post stated that for those animals who are in captivity, the zoo officials should create a sanctuary for them. I mean, it would be another form of murder to send them into the wild after they've lost all of their experiences.

Also in response to the TV/VHS thing, it also mentions that there are safari trips for those who still want the up close and personal.

Johanna; I'm not saying that everyone notices the joylessness of some of the animals, but we happen to, and no, the article wasn't talking about the animals placed behind there for their own protection. There are certain exhibits where animals aside from those that thrive in the cold are placed behind glass cages i.e. Lions, Jaguars...you get the picture.
I think that it is an insult to the animals (like the post says) to put a plaque on their incredible capabilities while they're laying there in their captivity not knowing what they're capable of.
The last zoo the I went to, I took note of the animals and most of them showed no joy, what I saw was boredom and possibly depression.

I'm not saying that everything the zoos do are evil, but I think that it would be in the best interest of the animals if they were allowed to live out the rest of their days in a conservation park.

elisheva I co-wrote it

Indian Summer

How do you measure the joy displayed in animals in zoos? To me, that seems to be more opinion/bias than fact.

sportsfangirl

I undersand that everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and we voiced ours. Though they're animals, I'm sure we're all aware that they have feelings: Imagine the animals that were taken from the wild to that life. Of course they get fed, are groomed/taken care of, but that doesn't replace the life that they had, and I'm sure that they can remember how things were before they were brought to the zoo, and now they get just a small space to live in for the rest of their lives? Wow.
I know that some of the spaces aren't considered small by our normal standards, but let's just remember where some of these animals are used to roaming (The Cheetah or Eagle, for example), and hunting for themselves. One must admit that it's something of a massive downgrade.

As for those born into captivity, it's also bad considering that they have no idea how to even survive in the wild (of course the other ones also lost that ability), and that's the life that they know and will know forever.

God created animals be free and when they're in zoos, they obviously aren't living out their God-given purpose.

Indian Summer

That's assuming you believe in God. Not only that, but as previously mentioned, many of the animals in zoos are endangered or incapable of surviving outside of the zoo. Unless you want animals to die, there isn't really an alternative unless you want to start a eugenics program- somehow making it impossible for captive animals to breed seems much crueler than feeding them and taking care of them, and otherwise generations will continue to be born with no understanding of the world outside their walls/cages.

It just seems silly to me that we're trying to measure the joy an animal feels when there isn't really a way to do that. Anatomically speaking, many animals aren't capable of the complex thought necessary to register/process emotions due to their cerebral cortex. And even if they were, it seems backwards of us to assume we know how an animal would be happiest- animals, by their very nature, often enjoy human contact.

On a side note, since sportsfangirl referenced it, almost all animals can almost surely not remember things, particularly long term. It goes back to the cerebral cortex thing and their much more simple brains. Obviously, there's some exceptions, and some trained behavior, but for the most part... no, an animal in captivity wouldn't remember its home outside the zoo for long. Real life isn't a Disney movie.

For example, I've visited a wild dolphin resort on Moreton Island off the Brisbane Coast in Australia (Tangalooma, if you're familiar). The dolphins there are still wild- some come in for feedings nightly, but they spend most of their day roaming the ocean, and when they're at the resort, guests can give them a fish, but you can't pat them or swim with them or anything else that domesticates them. It's all very carefully patrolled.

The point is... they come willingly. They aren't fenced in, and they're free to leave and never come back, but for all intents and purposes, they seem to "like" the human interaction, they seem to "like" being able to get food without hunting for it.

sportsfangirl

I think it is fair to say that an animal can live out its naturally intended life better in its own natural habitat (and to that I'm sure that even some non-christians would agree).
As for the dolphins, at least they have the option to stay or go, just like some other animals do at safaris.

Dark Half Undine

I agree, these zoos are trying to care for these animals, and patronage at a zoo provides the necessary money that it takes to care for a zoo animal. They are very expensive and these zookeepers LOVE these animals.

I do agree that more parks that are more spaced and wilder would benefit the animals, and many zoo actually ARE attempting to give them as wild a natural habitat as possible without stopping patronage. These animals cannot survive in the wild. Most of them are endangered and if you stopped zoo breeding programs they would go extinct. Is that the preferable choice? And the truth about people is, unless they can see it, touch it, smell it, and realize the consequences of their actions, they won't do anything. It's human nature...apathy.

So your fantasy may be to get rid of all zoos, but that may also get rid of many of the animals that live there.

It's not practical. Not until humans start making REAL changes in the way they treat the environment, animals, and themselves.

Indian Summer

That's an opinion, not fact. It's cool that it's your opinion, but you can't state it like it's fact.

You have to take into account that animals roaming free means Darwin's theory of survival comes into play. It's important to recognize that in many zoos, the animals brought in from the wild are sick when they arrive, and nursed back to health by vets and zookeepers. In the wild, those animals would most likely fall prey to a larger or more ferocious predator... it isn't as simple as saying their lives would be better if they were free. In many cases, that life would end if they were free. Can you honestly say that an animal being cared for when it's ill and fed is worse than it dying out in the wild, prematurely?

Ashleigh

This is the part that got me:

That makes no sense to me. Ever read The Giver? One of the best pieces of literature ever, in my own opinion. In it, the characters don't realize animals like hippos and elephants ever existed; they're considered "make believe" animals reduced to stuffed toys. Same goes for many other things in the community of the story, like weather or even pain. That's what this statement reminds me of. Is it real if we can't experience it? Can you truly retain something by watching a movie? Does it mean as much?

In my opinion, it doesn't. Further, I'm unsure that animals experience the same thought processes and emotions that we do, and I don't see anything wrong with any well-cared-for facility that displays animals.

sportsfangirl

Okay, they're animals but they aren't dumb. They have feelings; I don't believe that any animal was born to be locked up in a zoo - that's what it really is. Of course the ones who are locked up can't survive without them now, and the only benefit they could possibly get from this would be to live out the rest of their lives in conservation parks; the point is also to prevent this from happening to other animals.

Indian Summer, you and I both know that not every single one of the animals that are in zoos were simply ill or on the brink of extinction (I'm not denying that some are/were); besides, what would be wrong with treating them on a conservation park or a safari?

Another scenario; if you all seem to agree with zoos, what do you think about the birds that they have locked up in there? Birds that were used to flying and being free (as all animals). Please tell me how living in a zoo benefits them or the other animals that were neither ill or nearly extinct. To me, it doesn't; what it seems to benefit is the human desire to see them up close and personal.

Um, Ashleigh; there are not only great DVD'S like Planet Earth, but there are also safaris. Since we as humans were creative enough to lock animals up in zoos then we can surely be creative enough to come up with alternatives; anyway, if me never seeing a wild animal again would be the simple price of closing down zoos, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

By the way Undine, it isn't a fantasy of ours, nor is it a dream, but it's a vision, and visions go a long way.

Okay, so if we can't register their every emotion (I've gotten that remark a couple of times), how can any of you tell me that they're either ahppy or contented there?

Sheebs

I wrote a paper on this topic for university a few years ago. I defended the view that zoos are immoral. The research/data that I found was so horrible: such a large portion of zoo animals have physiological problems. Self-mutilation, feeding disorders, reproductive disorders...etc.

They are so closely confined, and lack privacy, and have little opportunity for mental stimulation or physical exercise, which causes them to rock, sway, pace non-stop, or bang their heads on their enclosures. I believe it was polar bears that often scrape their paws raw and bloody in painful and constant pacing in their zoo cages. It is clearly unnatural to these animals.

If I remembered correctly, 95 percent of animals that are kept in zoos aren't even endangered. And less than 1 percent of endangered animals have been introduced back into the wild. So sad.

Then there is the argument about education. But visitors spend only a few minutes at each display, seeking entertainment rather than real knowledge about the animal. It isn't worth their misery. IMO.


I see your point. But we watch wildlife documentaries with such amazing footage of like powerful lions running down prey, but how does this correspond to the lions bored in the corner of a cage? They aren't in their natural habitat and because of this, lack the skills that they would have had in the wild. They have no control over their lives. They just aren't the same as truly wild animals.

It is easy to argue both sides. I don't think the issue will ever be resolved.