Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • zoo or no zoo
  • elaineanne
    Free Member

    listening to the radio today,think it was talk sport radio, they were arguing about zoos and saying 'they shud be closed down'.. …and for anyone in their right mind who cares for animals shud never pay the entrance fee or to visit a zoo ever… reason : because the animals never live to their full potential.. if they were in the wild they,d live to a ripe old age but in captivity they more or less live to half their age…
    well this maybe the case : but beast destroys beast in the wild too as we all know and so many dont live to a ripe old age.. and as for elephants (we have man who destroys them also -we all know what for….
    anyway discuss….what are your views…

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    thought they lived longer in zoos actually but cant recall.
    Essentially cruel. Very very nice cage but still basically prison. Do lots of great conservation work but I think it i spehaps th emodern day equivalent of the freak show????
    Difficult issue but can see both ways

    iDave
    Free Member

    Should a cheetah be in an enclosure the size of a tennis court, having meat chucked at it or hunting on the Serengeti? Hmm, lets have a debate…

    westkipper
    Free Member

    Mixed,
    there are many animals that can be housed perfectly well in captivity, and live way beyond their natural lifespans. Reptiles, amphibians fish, and many invertebrates being good examples.
    many of these are also animals that could benefit the most from conservation efforts, as there may, for smaller species at least be just enough enviroment left to re-introduce them.
    The problem is, the public won't generally care or more importantly pay, to see these creatures- they want the lions, tigers and elephants etc, Animals that have drawn the short straw of being contemporaries of humans.

    brakes
    Free Member

    I thought most zoo animals these days are rescued; orphaned animals, taken from poachers, bred in captivity etc.
    so they never really had a shot in the wild and if they were given their freedom now they wouldn't last 5 minutes

    westkipper
    Free Member

    tribal,
    The cheetah is a good example of where zoos potentially can help.
    Cheetahs are all descended from a surviving population so small,and now so inbred that they can even accept skin grafts without rejection.
    All it would take would be a single disease, with the immune system homogeneity they have, and all wild cheetahs could be wiped out.
    The fact that zoos have captive Acinonyx jubatus may be the only hope the species has.

    tails
    Free Member

    Zoo's do a lot of good work some animals would be gone without them although some of that is of our making. But no a polar bear should not be kept in San Diego zoo in half the enclosure the panda gets.

    jam-bo
    Full Member

    i have no moral objection but everytime I go I come away feeling a bit sad.

    westkipper
    Free Member

    One of the brutal realities is that the only animals and plants that are now able to truly thrive are the ones that are able to live alongside, and be useful to humans.
    Wherever there is a conflict, or even a suspicion of one, the wild animal loses.
    There is an argument that the ONLY future for the likes of big cats, giant pandas, elephants and rhinos is FULL domestication into captivity.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    I have seen nothing sadder than an enclosure full of chimps. They are as smart as half the punters on here. I have not been to a zoo since and I will never go to another.

    kennyp
    Free Member

    i have no moral objection but everytime I go I come away feeling a bit sad.

    Well put. I don't like them, but they do a lot of good. I know that sounds daft, but……

    PenrodPooch
    Free Member

    Looking at this forum is like looking at the mollusc enclosure.

    westkipper
    Free Member

    Again, I know what you mean, but lots of the curators of zoos would rather concentrate on productive, meaningful conservation work with species who's needs can be met.
    But conservation efforts cost money and the public who provide the money, want megafauna, primates and other animals that they can identify with, not Partulina snails or Dendrobates frogs.
    It is to some degree the hypocracy and disinterest of the punters that forces many good zoos into persevering with the same creatures that they get criticised for keeping.

    westkipper
    Free Member

    BTW, does anyone think that STW should put more effort into conservation of their hamster collection?
    Or have they loaned some of theirs out to stud?. 🙂

    Hairychested
    Free Member

    ZOO's work. They need to be a bit different to what is often a prison for animals though.
    An example of how animal preservation was once done and will never be again, sadly.

    mrmo
    Free Member

    reading that bit about the wisent you have to wonder if it was worth it. There is so little genetic variability there fate would appear sealed in the same way as cheetahs.

    trailmonkey
    Full Member

    I have seen nothing sadder than an enclosure full of chimps. They are as smart as half the punters on here

    😆

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)

The topic ‘zoo or no zoo’ is closed to new replies.