it is right to keep animals in the zoo ?

Question

I am doing a debate on how it is or not right to keep animals in the zoo i am on the side which thinks that it is ok to keep animals in zoo can someone give me reasons for why it is good

thank you sooo much!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

It's not only right, it's necessary. Unless you want numerous endangered species to become extinct, zoos are nothing short of essential. Their main function is conservation. Without captive breeding, many endangered species would now be extinct - for example, the golden lion tamarin, red wolf and Przewalski's horse. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should stop trying to protect animals' natural habitats, but if endangered species were to become extinct in the wild (which sadly seems quite likely in the near future), zoos will have preserved them for future generations, with enough genetic diversity that the possibility for reintroduction to the wild exists. In my opinion it would be unforgivable to allow tigers, pandas and so on to become extinct because they were wiped out in the wild due to hunting, habitat loss, etc., and people did not want to see them in captivity. Would you like to have explain to your children or grandchildren that they will never see a tiger except in pictures, because you disagreed with zoos? I certainly wouldn't.



Zoos are also vital for education, enabling people to see beautiful wild animals that they would never otherwise get to see - seeing an animal in the flesh has a much greater impact than seeing one in a picture or on TV. - and teaching them about the threats to their species, which hopefully encourages them to respect and protect animals. The money they bring in is used to pay for the animals' food and care and to fund breeding programmes, as well as the employees' wages. Some also goes towards funding the protection of animals in the wild, and their habitats.



It's true that captive conditions in the past were often cruel, the animals being kept in cramped cages and so on, and indeed this is sometimes still the case in some countries, but in civilised countries zoos are carefully regulated - the animals are kept in conditions as close as possible to their natural habitat, with plenty of space, good diets and immediate medical care if they need it. Everything possible is done to ensure that they don't get bored - environmental enrichment is found in all good zoos. The animals will have scenery in their enclosure, things to play with if they're a playful species, and problems to solve in order to get their food, rather than it just being dropped in front of them.



It's also important to remember that animals are not taken from the wild and 'locked up in cages'. Animals in zoos are captive-bred - they were born in captivity, as were their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on. They have known nothing else, and have no idea such a thing as the wild exists, so there is no way they can miss it. They are certainly not unhappy - if they were, zoos would not achieve the breeding success they do (unhappy or unhealthy animals do not breed).



It is overly anthropomorphic to say things like 'they will never know freedom'. Freedom is a human concept - of course a human kept in one place would be miserable, but we have knowledge of the wider world outside. Animals don't - they have no knowledge of abstract concepts or things outside their own experience. They have no idea what freedom is, or that there is any other life than the one they lead. A lion in a zoo doesn't sit there thinking: "I could be in Africa hunting a wildebeest right now." It doesn't know what Africa is, or what wildebeest are. As long as an animal has a comfortable place to live, plenty of food, and the right company if it's a social species, it is content. One might even argue that they are better off in captivity, since they do not have to contend with the constant dangers of the wild - disease, injury, predation, starvation, etc. - and live much longer as a result.



EDIT: love.cat, I'm sorry, but you are talking utter nonsense. You have clearly got your information from anti-zoo websites that are obviously biased against the keeping of animals in captivity - such sites, especially extremist ones like PETA, often present false information to sway people to their side of the argument, or use that which is only applicable to badly-run third world zoos. Don't just believe what they tell you!



I used to be a zookeeper (in the UK), and have also studied various animals in the wild. I can assure you that I am very much informed on these matters - I have been there, seen it and done it myself. I have seen literally hundreds of endangered animals born in zoos (the "majority" of them are certainly NOT wild-caught), and many released successfully into the wild. As for your comments about breeding - yes, it is instinct to breed when the female comes into season, but in most cases if she is stressed or unhappy she won't go into season, and even if she does, she won't conceive.



I've also seen an 8-year-old male lion in the wild die a slow, painful death from infected wounds after being driven from his pride by new males, and a male lion of 25 romping around with his females and cubs in a zoo. Do you really think the wild one was the happier of the two?



Studying captive animals has produced literally mountains of information, which is often used to help protect the species in the wild, and I can assure you seeing an animal in a zoo can have a huge impact on people. If you'd ever seen a small child gaping with wonder at his or her first sight of a lion or an elephant, you would know what I'm talking about. Seeing animals in zoos has inspired many people to research and protect them in the wild.



And are you really saying that you would prefer animals like tigers and giant pandas to disappear forever than to see them in zoos? Because that is the future we may well be faced with - these animals are teetering on the brink of extinction in the wild.

Answer 2

Ideally, we would have all the time, money and the freedom to travel all around the globe and see all the animals that are found in zoos. Ideally, no animal species is endangered, so there is no need to keep captive populations to restock the species in the wild. If that is the case, zoos would not be necessary.



However, that is simply not possible. The vast majority of us will never be able to enjoy a fraction of the diversity of life we see in zoos. Even if we have the money and the time to travel, we may not be lucky enough to have more than a glimpse of many elusive species. The same is true for zoologists who want to study animals. There often is no other choice but to keep some animals captive. Further, the world's wildlife habitats are disappearing at an alarming rate. Zoos play an important role in helping us understand the habits of some wild animals much better and perhaps help us save some of the species in danger of extinction.



So, while zoos may not be perfect, they are necessary. Any suffering that a few individual captives may endure is more than repaid by the knowledge we gain that will help protect the species in the wild. Zoos can also raise awareness of the plight that many species face in the wild. After all, who cares if ___ became extinct if nobody has ever seen one. OTOH, most people would be devastated if giant pandas or Siberian tigers were to become extinct, after seeing these charismatic animals in a zoo. Of course, there are greedy, callous people who don't give a hoot about endangered animals. They are only interested in making as much money as possible, even if they have no need for it and no way to spend even a fraction of what they make. Unless you are one of those greedy bastards who destroy the environment for personal gain, you should care about zoos and wildlife.

Answer 3

Here are some arguments for and against:



Yes:

1. Education is critical to increase awareness of our natural world, and zoos help people understand the plight of different endangered species and loss of habitat. People who connect to wildlife at a zoo are more likely to contribute to the preservation of wild populations.

2. Reputable zoos provide safe, natural environments and enrichment activities for their animals, and many species have a longer life span in a zoo than in the wild.

3. Zoos provide critical refuges for many species that are near extinction in the wild. Breeding programs keep genetic diversity pools open so if enough natural (safe) habitat becomes available, zoo animals can be used in re-population efforts (see California Condors, Black-footed Ferrets for examples). I've helped capture a few individuals of endangered and sensitive species that are now part of a captive breeding program.

4. Some animals have nowhere to be set free, if they were, they would die off for the same reasons that caused the wild populations to die off. Other animals should not be set free because there are plenty in the wild population, and introducing zoo bred animals could introduce disease or increase competition beyond the carrying capacity. Breeding should be limited for these species.



No:

1. A poorly managed zoo with archaic enclosures and diets, where animals are kept solely for entertainment purposes do not justify their existence and don't have a valid reason for removing animals from the wild or holding them in captivity.

2. Zoos that collect animals from the wild, when there are plenty of that species in captivity are not contributing to a solution, over harvesting of some species for zoos is a factor in some species' decline.

3. People who irresponsibly keep exotic pets are as bad as poor zoos. Many species-like the golden lion tamarin, many Australian parrots, etc. are endangered just because of the pet trade.

Other people keep animals they are not able to control, like chimps or tigers, and they end up in poor living conditions. Other animals are irresponsibly released when owners can't be bothered, or don't have appropriate enclosures to prevent escape. This causes problems with native species. (see the python problem in Florida).

Answer 4

Well, really this argument has to be based on "which zoos?".



I'll give you a few points on the bad, and then say the good.



Very few zoos meet up to the standards they are SUPPOSED to meet for the well-being of the animals (this isn't a man-made regulation, just based on the real needs of the animals.) Stress and erratic behaviour in animals is very common in most zoos and is recorded regularly.



Also, the "all animals are bred in captivity" argument isn't true in many cases, many animals are still caught in the wild. it still goes on a hell of a lot more than people realise. (Usually because of shifty zoo-managers)



There are zoos in the world where animals show no signs of stress, and have huge environments. (i went to a zoo in Finland - it was spectacular, you couldn't even see the circumference of the enclosures they were so big.) and where the animals are given activities and toys to keep them motivated and satisfy their natural behaviours.



Of course, it is vital to have endangered animals in captivity in case the species becomes extinct in the wild (a type of Ibex extinct in the wild had it's population restored by zoo breeding programs.)

It is true that many animals in zoos have had generations of being captive, and so are unsuitable for release, but immediate reproduction for wild populations is not always the aim of zoos. The aim of many is to have healthy captive-born animals ready in case the wild population is wiped out. Then, what would happen is the animals in captivity would breed, and the next few following generations would be eased slowly back into more natural and wild environments, until a generation is born "wild enough" to be released. Some zoos do not follow this idea at all, and have generations of inbred and defected animals completely unsuitable for breeding (white tigers), and the only intention of having them is to attract visitors.



It is a fairly difficult process introducing animals from breeding programs back into the wild - because of the usually limited environments left untouched by humans. (the Asiatic lion, for example, was carefully protected and encouraged to breed, and now, even though there only a few hundred lions in the wild, their habitat has been so taken over by humans, that the lions are overpopulated in the Gir Forest, and are fighting.)



The main factor in the "are zoos a good thing" debate shouldn't be "abolish or not", but fix the ones that already exist. Close the truly appalling ones, and up the minimum regulations zoos need to follow. The minimum standards generally set are not good enough for the animals to be happy, and the minimum is where a lot of zoos like to sit to save money.



Zoos should be focusing not on how many animals they can fit in one place, but having fewer animals, and giving them bigger habitats, and fewer "funfair-style" attractions for people who visit. Some do this already, but many more don't. It is unfair to condemn all zoos as cruel for the way some zoos function.



Zoos in theory are a good thing, but many currently running are not. The "proper" zoos that focus on the welfare of the animals over the income they produce are the minority.





As the great Gerald Durrell said, "If it weren't for endangered species, there'd be no need for zoos." - Check him out if you're want an example of a good zoo actively taking part in conservation and animal-reintroduction.



http://www.durrell.org/About-Durrell/



http://www.durrell.org/About-Durrell/His-Legacy/

Answer 5

In my eyes i see it this way...



If the animals can survive and THRIVE in the wild...and there was no chance that the animals would go extinct because of illegal poaching. And the animals would still get the care that they got in the zoos then no i do not think they should be in zoos.





BUT...if we take all the animals out of the zoos and put them all in the wild. Then they are all killed because of preventable diseases

(that they could get treated for in the zoos) and they are killed because of illegal poaching. When the animals are gone you can NOT get them back....so if i would have to choose between the animals getting killed or being put in zoos....I would choose the zoo!





Thats just my opinion~Rachel

Answer 6

Ahh it makes me so mad reading the questions that are posted on here because people are so so so misinformed!



Zoos are NOTHING absolutely NOTHING but purely for human entertainment. The majority of animals if not all (especially marine mammals) are all caught from the wild, dolphins and whales are caught and selected by the trainers- but because they travel in such large groups only a few will be selected and the rest will be killed and their meat/fur sold. The thing is people are not informed about this because there is a huge media cover up, governments want zoo's because they contribute a great deal of money towards tourism etc.



A number of animals will live their entire lives in stress, recently (i can't remember what aquarium) but dolphins kept dying, 10 dolphin deaths later they discovered some one had left a drainage pipe taping on the cage, dolphins reply on echo location to communicate and are very social animals, the noise made it difficult for them to speak and made them very stress (along with visitors noise and banging) so they committed suicide. Marine mammals consciously choose to take their next breath unlike us, so when they have had enough will kill themselves, as many do but go unreported to people like me and you! That comment about breeding if unhappy is not true- its instinct to reproduce with a female on heat so this is what they will do however happy they are!



Also zoos for education is ridiculous, nothing valuable has ever really been learned from studying animals in cages. How can you possibly understand how an animal would act when it is in a cage not even 1/1000000 the size of its natural habitat, with humans they wouldn't be in contact with, being fed on cue, in smaller social groups then they would be in the wild. We can learn so much more and we have from looking at animals in the wild, also seeing an animal free in the wild, using all of its evolutionary traits to its best can take your breathe away, where as in zoos you walk around pointing oh yes thats nice- you hardly remember it for life.



Also animals in Zoos are rarely if ever rehabilitated in the wild, why would a zoo spend money upkeeping the animal and transporting it and supporting it in its new habitat when they could be earning ££££ from it? It doesn't happen, when a zoo says it supports the rehabilitation of endangered animals they will mean they fund charities to prevent whatever is killing the animals/ or support a reserve over there. Some centers may release animals- but these will not be zoos more like nature reserves- it would be very difficult to train an animal which has not been taught in the wild to hunt/ avoid humans/ run from danger to survive in the wild I know for a fact Sea World has never released any of its animals back into their natural habitat!



IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO SEPERATE ANYTHING FROM ITS NATURAL HABBITAT AND KEEP IT LOCKED UPUNABLE TO CARRY OUT NORMAL NATURAL BEHAVIOURS.



Sorry for rambling on for so so so long but once you look into this its so so so sad and horrible!



x

s