Zoos: Helpful or Hurtful?

[selusa]

I recently finished Yann Martel's "Life of Pi", which is a brilliant novel that gets you thinking about all sorts of things. To make a long story short, the son of a zoo-owner (Pi) is stranded aboard a lifeboat with a hyena, a zebra, an orangutan, and a tiger after a ship transporting the zoo's animals sinks. All of the animals save for the tiger die, which leaves a teenage boy alone on a lifeboat with a full-grown male Bengal tiger. The main question that Martel asks his readers is if the tiger is really a tiger, or just a substitute Pi made up as a way of coping with the unhinged person who represents the tiger and its animal nature.

 

But one of the other issues that got me thinking is the question of zoos, and if they're good or bad, both for the animals and for the people. Pi, given his father's occupation, is pro-zoo, giving the argument that wild creatures are at the mercy of nature, while zoo creatures live a life of luxury and constancy. The image of a noble wolf pack dashing sleekly through the forest and taking down its meal quickly and efficiently is utter myth; nature is a cruel, hard, and dangerous world that shows no mercy to any of its inhabitants. Predators starve when they can't catch a meal, and prey dies slowly and brutally at the hands of its hunters. By taking the animals out of that world and putting them into a controlled environment that's tailored specifically to their needs, Pi argues, zoos are helping further the species and bettering the animals' lives.

 

On the other hand, there are those that argue against zoos, saying that it's unnatural and cruel for them to be confined within a city, away from nature and its intricacies, and that there are too many zoos out there that treat the animals inhumanely. They say it's unnatural to interfere with the animal's diet, habitat, breeding, etc., because they were doing just fine on their own before we came along and started to 'help' them.

 

Personally, I'm not sure which side I'm on yet, which is why I'm asking all you lovely people for your opinions. You could look at zoos as us fixing our own past mistakes or simply meddling too much all over again. I think that both sides pose valid arguments; yes, zoos encourage conservation, breeding, education, and research, but the cost of these benefits may be taking too much from the animals. The world is a cruel place, but the biggest reason that most of these species are threatened or endangered is because of humans interfering with their habitats and hunting them in the first place. Millions of species have survived for centuries because they were left to their own devices, but we can't say the world is the same place it was even 100 years ago, and you could argue that as the times change, so should the natural world.

 

All right, TDNers. Stun me with your brilliance.

[Jake.]

Every zoo I have beento is dirty and mesy, and smells disgusting,

 

NoZoo :king:

[jesse_rocket]

Me, I think zoos are brilliant. I get to look at pretty animals and go "ooh, how pretty". And that, I think, is reason enough. Not for me personally, but as humans, we tend to want to look at things that move around and look different. Zoos (the ones I've been to, at least) enable this safely, and with respect to the animals themselves. Yes, it's not a true representation of nature, but most modern zoos, in developed places, do a pretty good job of providing a comfortable habitat that won't drive the animals to the point of insanity. The last zoo I visited had elephants. They were lovely to watch, eating sticks and lolloping around and putting water on themselves. Later that day, I went to a State Fair. And there, there were some elephants, just stood there, wearing some sequinny things on their backs, and feathery things on their heads, like out of Dumbo, the sign said they had an act and such, but clearly they were on break right now. And they were sad to look at. They were just depressing, standing there, under a little pavillion, chains around their ankles, and a barrel of water to drink out of. And still, people flocked to see them, to look at their crazy trunks, to spend $1 on a bag of peanuts that they could pelt the elephants with. But even then, it was in their handlers' best interests, as their livelihood, to take a minimal standard of care of them, to make sure they were fed, watered, and generally happy enough that they weren't moments away from charging the crowd/trampling the handlers/dropping dead of misery. The care I saw of the animals in the zoo far, far exceeded this minimal standard.

 

I think a point to be remembered is that animals are individuals too. It's well-known that an animal raised in captivity who is then released into the wild has a pretty low survival rate. By the same token, a healthy adult animal captured from the wild will suffer in captivity. They have mentally developed different expectations of what life is like, I don't believe animals raised in zoos and such are unhappy, I think they know that that is where they live, and food comes from those pink guys. It's just a different way of living.

 

People are always going to want to look at animals. I'd much prefer it was generally in a context of respect, as I saw in the zoo that day, to the horrible spectacle I saw at the fair.

[Spritzie]

I think zoos are good, as long as it's done right. I remember when the large cats and monkeys were in cages. That's it. But my local zoo has been working on remodeling the entire zoo, section by section. Now the large cats all have their own exhibits that look like their natural habitat. (Many have "streams" and small waterfalls.) There's tons of room for them. They've done this for nearly all the animals now, monkeys, wolves, birds of prey, etc.

 

In the Denver Zoo, they have an amazing set up for the Polar Bears. (That was always my favorite when I was little) So they even have a very large area to swim in when they chose.

[CAV of Gang Green]

If they are in cages, then no to zoos.

 

If they are in a large area that is like a simulation of their natural habitat, then yes to zoos.

 

A zoo in New Jersey has that kind of zoo, and it's great.

[jesse_rocket]

If they are in cages, then no to zoos.

 

If they are in a large area that is like a simulation of their natural habitat, then yes to zoos.

 

^ this ^

 

I think if this discussion was taking place 100 or even 25 years ago, my views would be quite different. A few years ago I went to London Zoo, which is a wonderful zoo, and very old. Many of their old (and mainly unused, or re-purposed for different animals) enclosures are "Listed Buildings", which means they're not allowed to be torn down because they're historic and works of great architecture. And great, beautiful architectures they are, but for keeping animals in, quite incorrect.

Here is an interesting article on the subject of zoo architecture: http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article05150901.aspx

[selusa]

I think a point to be remembered is that animals are individuals too. It's well-known that an animal raised in captivity who is then released into the wild has a pretty low survival rate. By the same token, a healthy adult animal captured from the wild will suffer in captivity.

That's an awesome point. I think a lot of anti-zoo people struggle to understand this, as they think that the entire zoo's population was hauled unfairly from their natural homeland and stuck in an exhibit. But it's like domestic dogs vs. feral ones: people don't think that a domestic dog that's treated well and with respect suffers, because it has a warm home and would never starve or suffer too much injury, whereas some might feel sorry for the feral dog that's left to fend for itself in the wild or in the city. Most zoo animals are raised in captivity and all they've known is the relative peace and security of their habitat, and obviously it's not an option to set them free in the wild, so it's not like they're suffering everyday (one hopes).

 

But my local zoo has been working on remodeling the entire zoo, section by section.

Yeah, mine too underwent a fairly recent transformation, and it's pretty awesome to see the different habitats. They've got the animals arranged by continent, so all the African animals like giraffes and lions and zebras are grouped together (but not, y'know, in the same enclosure) and all the South American rain forest creatures are together. As long as you can tell that a lot of effort and planning went into each and every animal's enclosure, usually you can have a good experience knowing that they're well-looked after.

[RayHumbert]

If they are in cages, then no to zoos.

 

If they are in a large area that is like a simulation of their natural habitat, then yes to zoos.

 

A zoo in New Jersey has that kind of zoo, and it's great.

 

I agree with this. I always thought the whole caged up business was over-exaggerated coz the zoos here really resemble the animals natural habitat. It has been awhile since I visited the Singapore zoo but I don't recall seeing any cages.

[hrtbrk]

I think most major zooss are good as they attempt to put in a "natural" habitat for said species as well as repopulate/conserve species.

 

I was watching some show yesterday and they said there are no Chinchilla's left in the wild but there are millions in pet stores. There are a few zoos out there that are raising "wild chinchillas" and are going to try and release them back into the wild next year.

 

There used to be this show on tv called Zoo Diaries about 10 years ago and I remember that the Toronto Zoo and a few other partners in America had helped repopulate some sort of weasel back into North America?

 

Good stuff.

[Quark]

My close friend works at a zoo in Delaware, and it's lovely. It's a wonderful example of what a zoo could and should be.

First, all the animals that live at the zoo cannot survive in the wild. They were either maimed, disfigured or were kept as illegal pets. Turning them back into the wild would only assure their death, whereas keeping them in a zoo ensures that they'll spend the rest of their lives taken care of. Zookeepers play stimulating games with the animals, giving them plenty of ways to occupy themselves and fight off boredom.

 

It was protested recently by animal activists who thought that ALL zoos are cruel and inhuman. I'm a vegetarian and animal-activist myself, but I promise you that I was impressed with the zoos upkeep and regulations. My friend teaches schoolchildren at the zoo about animal behaviors, conservation and even anatomy. (I was there one day when she was showing animals skulls to children, and let me tell you, I have never seen little kids SO interested in anything before.)

 

So, in short, it obviously depends on the circumstances. Zoos should ideally be for animal conservation and rehabilitation. <3

[elvenstrawberry]

There is protocol and precedent for successfully releasing animals raised in captivity back into the wild. It's sometimes called a soft release. I think that zoos are so important for this, and for making sure that kids get to see these animals. It's not the same just seeing them in a book.

 

That being said, I think that zoos are great. I love seeing animals, and if they have adequate space then I think it's great. Few zoos that I've been to provide this in my opinion though. If an animal's instinct is to run around, then it should have the space to do so. Birds shouldn't be kept in cages too low for them to fly in. Places like Seaworld just make me shake my head - I mean, animals attack you and seem actively unhappy and yet people continue to go and gawk at them.

 

A lot of my experience with zoos comes from the Central Park zoo, which has enough space for some animals but far too little for others.

[selusa]

One thing I've noticed lately is that zoos get a bad rep for animal deaths that aren't natural. The Calgary Zoo has had a huge amount of bad press from this:

A knife was accidentally left in the western lowland gorilla enclosure. A Turkmenian markhor goat hanged itself on a toy. 41 cownose stingrays' deaths blamed on human error. Two baby elephants have died, and several gorillas too. A hippotamus succumbed to circulatory complications after being transferred from the Denver zoo. On December 11th, an 18-month old female capybara died instantly after being crushed by a hydraulic door operated by a worker who wasn't following proper safely protocols. --(from wikipedia)

I know animal deaths by human error aren't entirely unavoidable, but it seems to me that there's way too many going on in this particular zoo, even though on the outside, it's is a really nice facility with great enclosures and conservation programs. I'm just not sure if it's one of those things that should make people boycott or if it's just an unavoidable consequence of animals living in captivity and around humans.

[Unstream]

Since most people are pro-zoo, and I don't really care too much, I guess I'll be the devil's advocate.

 

So what if my problem with zoos isn't how the animals are treated, but how we as humans view the animals?

 

I mean, nature is powerful. It is this awesome force with intricate workings, and what we're doing with zoos is diminishing it to a little exhibit for our entertainment. Zoos are a horrible representation of what's out there, and yet we can claim it's for our own educational improvement. What we're really doing is taking nature and making it man-made.

[selusa]

What we're really doing is taking nature and making it man-made.

Totally agree, especially since it seems like we're trying to take over the world (oh wait, we've already done that). However, it seems to me that a zoo's main purpose is not to entertain, or at least not its sole purpose. I think what zoos are trying to achieve first and foremost is conservation of threatened or endangered species that don't stand much of a chance if left completely wild (which I know sounds horribly controlling, but if you think about what we're doing to the natural world, it's not all that unreasonable to assume these animals won't survive our destruction of their habitat), sort of a way to try and fix our own mistakes. Secondly, it's about education. People do go to zoos to be entertained by the wide array of exotic animals, yes, but they also go there to learn about them. Zoos are a great way to study these creatures without traveling to every continent and seeing them in the wild. Personally, I'd much prefer to do the latter, but that's definitely not an option for many people, and it might be a better way of doing it than plunking yourself in front of the National Geographic channel.

[hklampshade]

I find them more helpful as long as they're properly maintained. I have heard about some people who abuse the animals in zoos but the zoos that I have been to were all in great condition. To me, they are educational as well as entertaining, but I love animals so it comes as no surprise.

 

It also depends on where you are and which zoos you've seen though.

 

This topic has been edited by a member of staff (Spritzie) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Please do not bump topics over 21 days old.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

Per the reason above, this topic has been LOCKED. Please contact Spritzie if you have any questions regarding this action.