Are zoos bad or good for animals ?

is zoos bad or good for animals ?

  • bad

    Votes: 4 4.2%

  • good

    Votes: 92 95.8%
  • Total voters
    96
Zoos were never build for animals-just for People, and this hasn't changed within the past 250 years, Zoos existing.
 
Dassie rat said:
I agree with 'The Mighty Orca' about the need to promote more obscure animal species. Apart from a few zoos, such as Plzen, zoos seem to be moving towards having fewer species with the 'chosen ones' prospering at the expense of less popular species. I find it especially galling when zoos ask for money for a new enclosure for a species, represented by several hundred individuals in zoos, as it is needed to save it from extinction. That money would be better spent in preserving the wild habitat for many species and helping the local people, rather than making money for the zoo. I think that some zoo visitors believe that breeding large endangered will lead to the zoo sending captives to the wild. The problem is that transporting large animals is very expensive and some captives can't adapt to the wild, even if there were enough viable habitat for them.
I agree with David Attenborough when he said that people could stop wild habitats being destroyed, but won't. The human population will continue to rise and soon large areas of the planet will only be able to provide habitat for smallish animals. These small animals are the ones that zoos should be trying to keep and breed, so they can be released into the wild. Good education programmes could make visitors interested in smaller animals. After all, I can remember when the meerkat was an obscure mongoose (not that there are many species of mongoose that are not obscure) that few people had heard of.
Zoos should be trying to save as many species as possible, rather than having lots of individuals of large animals that can't be returned to the wild.
Click to expand...

My issue is that there are lots of small, obscure species that are highly endangered, but don't get as much help or attention as some of the charismatic megafauna. I think it would be cool if zoos used exhibit placing and design, and good marketing, to help publicize and popularize obscure animals. Like you said, some animal species are barely known until something popular brings them into attention. What if zoos could be the thing that brings the little animals to greater public attention?

I'm not opposed to large animals at zoos, of course. Shoot, I'm a sucker for the tigers at any zoo. But as I said, plenty of small animals need help too. Plus, if the public can move away from the idea that every zoo needs to have a certain set of stock animals (usually lions, tigers, bears, giraffes, elephants, etc.) then I think that would help improve zoos quite a bit. There'd be less pressure to get animals the zoo might not have the best resources to have, and the increased presence of obscure animals might encourage more learning. People are probably less inclined to read the signs of animals they already know about, even if the signs could tell them new things.
 
I completely agree with TheMightyOrca. I mean, large, popular megafauna are fine, but I wanna see small obscure things in zoos as well. And I'm sure most ZooChatters feel that way. I mean, I'm not against them at all either. In fact, most zoos should have at least two or three species like that. But then they should have something odd as well. Like go ahead and have your Masai Giraffe if it brings in visitors, but then also have your Arabian Oryx as well.

And it works even more so with smaller species (Like TMO was saying). Like I'd be fine with a zoo even having Meerkats if they then went on to talk about and display a more endangered species such as the Liberian Mongoose, for example.

~thylo:cool:
 
tamarin said:
I voted yes because zoos protect endanger species and inform people about unknown species and with that way they bring people closer to the nature!!!Also the average of the life of the animals increases!!!Also in the wild many animals die from, illneses that they can overcome in the zoos!!
Click to expand...

Tοttally agrre with you :cool:
 
I think that zoos are good places but can still be improved on. I think that open zoo will become the future of zoos for large animals and PAWS and the elephant sanctuary will lead the way for elephants and will help influence how Cetaceans, big cats, bears and great apes are kept. Cetaceans will be kept in large sea pens ,bears and big cats will get larger enclosure and will be and will be able to hunt though the use of robotics and great apes will able to climb and live in there groups without being disturbed
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I completely agree with TheMightyOrca. I mean, large, popular megafauna are fine, but I wanna see small obscure things in zoos as well. And I'm sure most ZooChatters feel that way. I mean, I'm not against them at all either. In fact, most zoos should have at least two or three species like that. But then they should have something odd as well. Like go ahead and have your Masai Giraffe if it brings in visitors, but then also have your Arabian Oryx as well.

And it works even more so with smaller species (Like TMO was saying). Like I'd be fine with a zoo even having Meerkats if they then went on to talk about and display a more endangered species such as the Liberian Mongoose, for example.

~thylo:cool:
Click to expand...

The ideal zoo would have a mix of the species that are a draw but also more obscure species. For example, a good savanna exhibit would have zebras and ostriches to draw in crowds and then have wildebeest, kudu, and Cape buffalo in the area along with an indoor exhibit with leopard tortoises and a lesser known mongoose species. Or in an area with Asian species you could have tigers near anoas, gaur, and babirusa. The popular species could be a sort of "anchor" to an exhibit.
 
elefante said:
The ideal zoo would have a mix of the species that are a draw but also more obscure species. For example, a good savanna exhibit would have zebras and ostriches to draw in crowds and then have wildebeest, kudu, and Cape buffalo in the area along with an indoor exhibit with leopard tortoises and a lesser known mongoose species. Or in an area with Asian species you could have tigers near anoas, gaur, and babirusa. The popular species could be a sort of "anchor" to an exhibit.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's what I was kind of trying to say.

~Thylo:cool:
 
Some zoos are good for animals and some are bad for animals, so it is impossible for me to place a vote. The quality of zoos worldwide is so variable that I do not think a blanket statement like that is helpful.

Going by the numbers (at least here in the states), zoo visitation remains very high so I do think the general public feels they are good. (Of course those of us on ZooChat think they are good).

As for AZA facilities being higher quality as a general rule (with exceptions), I think this may be true but it is not because they are AZA accredited. It is because most big city and big budget zoos happen to be AZA accredited (which they need to be to get certain animals). So I think it is more that already good zoos formed the AZA rather than the AZA making zoos good. Yes I know they go through a five year inspection, but the more I learn about the AZA from zoo professionals as well as my own experience volunteering at an AZA facility (which I no longer do), the more I realize how much baloney goes along with it. I am at the point where I feel zoos in America would probably be better off if the AZA were disbanded.
 
Arizona Docent said:
Some zoos are good for animals and some are bad for animals, so it is impossible for me to place a vote. The quality of zoos worldwide is so variable that I do not think a blanket statement like that is helpful.

Going by the numbers (at least here in the states), zoo visitation remains very high so I do think the general public feels they are good. (Of course those of us on ZooChat think they are good).

As for AZA facilities being higher quality as a general rule (with exceptions), I think this may be true but it is not because they are AZA accredited. It is because most big city and big budget zoos happen to be AZA accredited (which they need to be to get certain animals). So I think it is more that already good zoos formed the AZA rather than the AZA making zoos good. Yes I know they go through a five year inspection, but the more I learn about the AZA from zoo professionals as well as my own experience volunteering at an AZA facility (which I no longer do), the more I realize how much baloney goes along with it. I am at the point where I feel zoos in America would probably be better off if the AZA were disbanded.
Click to expand...

... Well, this is certainly interesting to hear. I'd love to know more. Sometimes I see things that suggest the AZA isn't always properly enforcing rules, so I'm kind of curious about the whole matter myself.
 
I think a few requirements must be checked off before I can determine if a zoo is good or not (this would apply to most exhibits,as every zoo has some exhibits that are not as great as the rest). Do the animals have enough space,is stimulation provided,does the exhibit at least resemble the species' natural habitat (no bizarre metal trees like a certain exhibit we're all fond of on Zoochat). I'd personally prefer larger facilities with wide-open spaces like the San Diego Zoo Safari Park,as those facilities seem to be quite successful in breeding. I'd also prefer,as others have mentioned,one species everyone's familiar with mixed in with species most people may not have heard of,like San Diego displays okapi and black duiker right next to an exhibit for hippopotamus. High quality signage is preferred,but not required,the things I'd look for is conservation status,species name,scientific name,habitat in the wild,and where in the world it is found. That,to me, is helpful for people to make a connection to the species,or at the very least learn more about it.
 
I believe that zoos are good for animals as long as the animals are treated correctly. Without them, animals such as the Père David's Deer and Hawaiian Crow would no longer exist. However, I dislike the concept of zoos containing animals such as lions and rare birds not being open to the public.
 
I think it's important to remember that zoos do not exist for the animals in the first place, but for people who want to see animals. The role of zoos regarding conservation, education and animal welfare is relatively recent.

Zoos in Europe and the US tend to hide their true motive behind conservation and education motives, but that is not the case with asian zoos.
 
I think that well kept zoological facilities are good for animals. I have to agree with elephante, not everyone can afford to spend five or ten grand or whatever it costs now to go see an animal(s) in a remote (well, to many of us at least) animal in a place like southeast Asia. Especially when getting around even your own large country is a production.
 
Good zoos are obviously good for conservation. Many species are bred to bolster wild populations. In the UK Water rail, cirl bunting, harvest mice, water voles have been bred in captivity.
All reintroduced species orginate from specimens bred in captivity.
There is also projects like the frozen zoo, where sperm and ovum are used to impregnate zoo animals around the world without them leaving their zoo.
As technology surges ahead, in veterinary and medical science etc, zoo animals can benefit from many of the advances. DNA finger printing means the gene pools of zoo animals can avoid inbreeding.
As the human population increases and habitat is destroyed species will die out, without a doubt. The stark reality is zoos can prevent extinction.
Some conservationists and animal welfare groups argue captive animals belong in the wild. The truth is for many species their bit of wild will not be there much longer. Now the bad thing about zoos, in this country apart from
London Zoo, zoos are not government funded. So they still have to draw in the maximum visitors, this has led to the situation with Giant Pandas that are rented out by Chinese zoos to other zoos to increase visitor numbers.
The Giant Panda battery farms in China have nothing to do with Giant Panda conservation.
 
I don't think I can vote on this poll, it's a bit like asking are parents good for children, some are some aren't and some should be neutered, but I agree that all zoo's should have small animal collections as well as the visitor draws. Sadly there in lies the rub, how many people visit smaller and sometimes more interesting collections such as Hamerton (in the UK) than say something like Colchester or Chester, who have huge visitor numbers and massive budgets. looking at some of the gallery photos on here most show the same sort of animal in zoo's world wide, tigers, elephants,great apes the list goes on.That is what most people want to see in a zoo. Though zoochatter's on the whole are not most people.:D

On conservation,It is easier to get more people interested in saving the tiger then the Mallorcan midwife toad for example, but saving one species and it's habitat saves lot of others in the same area, Sadly zoo's don't always make that point to the visitor quite as often as they should, you can't save anything in isolation, and people should be informed enough to realize that. Having said all of this how many people read the signs on the enclosures anyway? Possibly if they don't know what the animal is they may look to find out the name of the animal, but often that is about it, anything more than that becomes a bore, and they are on a day out, they don't want to be bored.
 
Lemurs seem to be cliche in a lot of zoos, nearly every zoo I have been to has them, typically Ring Tailed Lemurs. Not that that is a bad thing.

Interestingly enough the worst petting zoo display I ever saw had Ring Tailed Lemurs. They were displayed as a sort of curiosity inside a cage shaped like a circus car. They were all clutching each other and had a wide eyed, thousand yard stare. It was after dark and the whole place was lit up and noisy. There wasn't anywhere where they could climb or hide, just animals in a box. Nothing like the naturalistic displays of lemurs that I see every time I visit somewhere like Roger Williams or Capron Park. The Lemur's there are rather aloof and mostly go about their business without paying any attention to you.

Interestingly enough they weren't there the year after, or ever again for that matter. The whole petting zoo that is. Not that I am anti petting zoo, I just think that Lemur's aren't a good choice for them. Maybe a camel but that is about as exotic as one ought to get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top