Not too long ago, I got into a possibly ongoing debate with a couple of zoo haters on a post of a chimpanzee and its human "friend". You know their usual argument, animals are too smart for zoos and what not. My response? Animals don't have a concept of freedom or captivity. I explained that if the habitat is naturalistic as possible and all of their needs are met, they don't need to roam miles and miles, which costs energy. Another mentioned hunting. I don't know if they know that hunting isn't really a fun game for animals. I proceeded to explain how prey escapes more often than thought, and how many prey animals will fight back and may inflict fatal injuries to the predator. Another said that zoos don't save species, so I went on to list some species, such as wild dogs and Panamanian golden frogs, as well as many more, have been saved by zoos. Of course, I couldn't leave out that animals in zoos are cared for and outlive their wild counterparts, but they seem to always ignore this. Many think animals are still captured from the wild and "locked up". Looking at exhibits such as Woodland Park Zoo's brown bear habitat, Disney's gorilla habitat and safari, Columbus zoo's savanna, and many more, I would say locked up is a pretty poor choice of words. I can see how some may be a bit conflicted on zoos, but rather than letting animal rights propaganda and jumping on a zoo-hating bandwagon (which is honestly what it seems like these days), I wish these people could research or even visit a zoo for themselves and develop an opinion. I just don't get why they never seem to take these facts and respond with their "zoos are still bad." Anyone ever successfully converted a zoo hater? They just seem too stubborn to even think about the actual facts and see how most zoo animals behave outside of footage of roadside zoos used by animal rights people.
