Misanthropic Zoo Haters

[TheChulloChampion]

When I was around 10-11 years old at a local camp program, I had a discussion with this other girl about zoos. I don't entirely remember the context or full conversation, but one thing that really stuck with me is the girl confidently saying things like: "zoos trap animals for human entertainment" and "there's no such thing as a good zoo". I knew that those statements were rubbish, even then.

Some adults even still have mindsets like this. Poor, innocent animals stolen from their homes trapped into 1 inch jail cells for no good, evil human entertainment!!11 Oh, the horror! People like this tend to conveniently ignore the zoos doing breeding programs to help endangered or threatened. species. Not to mention, most animals in zoos WERE BORN IN CAPTIVITY for generations. If you were to release them into the wild, they would not remember how to properly survive, because their parents and probably grandparents were born in zoos! Not all zoos are good, that's true, but not all zoos are bad either! Not all zoos just have animals trapped in tiny, concrete enclosures or something either.

Zoos aren't just solely for human entertainment either. They are for educating, and like mentioned earlier, animal conservation. Without zoos, animals like the Przewalksi's horses, Amur leopard, pandas, and regent honeyeater just to name a few would've gone extinct. That's another thing many people against zoos ignore. The stuff we buy some zoos not only helps fund the zoo themselves but the money is also being used to help animal conservation. So buy all of the zoo popcorn, plushies, and slushes you want! The animals will appreciate it. Ha, not really, but you are helping fund their conservation.

Have you guys had any experiences with people like this before, too? I find misanthropes sometimes understandable—but in cases like this—I find them very annoying.

 

[Mr. Bobcat]

When I was around 10-11 years old at a local camp program, I had a discussion with this other girl about zoos. I don't entirely remember the context or full conversation, but one thing that really stuck with me is the girl confidently saying things like: "zoos trap animals for human entertainment" and "there's no such thing as a good zoo". I knew that those statements were rubbish, even then.

Some adults even still have mindsets like this. Poor, innocent animals stolen from their homes trapped into 1 inch jail cells for no good, evil human entertainment!!11 Oh, the horror! People like this tend to conveniently ignore the zoos doing breeding programs to help endangered or threatened. species. Not to mention, most animals in zoos WERE BORN IN CAPTIVITY for generations. If you were to release them into the wild, they would not remember how to properly survive, because their parents and probably grandparents were born in zoos! Not all zoos are good, that's true, but not all zoos are bad either! Not all zoos just have animals trapped in tiny, concrete enclosures or something either.

Zoos aren't just solely for human entertainment either. They are for educating, and like mentioned earlier, animal conservation. Without zoos, animals like the Przewalksi's horses, Amur leopard, pandas, and regent honeyeater just to name a few would've gone extinct. That's another thing many people against zoos ignore. The stuff we buy some zoos not only helps fund the zoo themselves but the money is also being used to help animal conservation. So buy all of the zoo popcorn, plushies, and slushes you want! The animals will appreciate it. Ha, not really, but you are helping fund their conservation.

Have you guys had any experiences with people like this before, too? I find misanthropes sometimes understandable—but in cases like this—I find them very annoying.

I agree with you 100 percent.
Most zoos use their facilities to educate about the plight of the natural world and the species we share this world with.
I heard one lady say that we should be spending the money we use to build and maintain zoos to buy land in the places that the species live.
I just rolled my eyes.
If it was only that simple.
Even with the parks, etc in place now, species are going extinct.
Parks don't prevent poaching or illegal farming, logging, etc.
I saw something about how people in Africa rent their land to farmers then move their cattle to the park land for grazing. Then when some lions killed some of their cattle on park land, they poisoned the whole pride.
I'm afraid that wildlife parks and zoos will be the only place left for many animals.
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, but stupidity is the lack of trying to gain knowledge.

 

[jopif]

I've come across three kinds of zoo haters

Basically, they're all concerned about animal welfare, but when I confront them on the subject of ex-situ conservation and in-situ funding, I get three types of response :

First, there are those who dislike zoos because they believe human intervention in the survival of certain species illegitimate, especially ones they consider "aberrant" (Panda as been brought up twice). They think that certain species are far too little adapted to the human world, whether they like it or not. While I strongly disagree with that view, I can at least understand the underlying philosophy, and it has the merit of being coherent.

Then, there are those who hate zoos because they think zoos aren’t needed at all for conservation. This position is much harder to defend: where would the funding for conservation come ? How do they expect ex-situ breeding programs to work without zoos ? I think this perspective results from a lack of knowledge about how conservation actually works and it's the most annoying type of zoo hater...

Finally, other are bothered by zoos as a form of "voyeurism", they’re uncomfortable with the idea of humans watching animals in artificial settings. I can respect that point of view too. It’s subjective, but valid. What matters to me is that these people don’t always pass judgment on those who do find meaning and value in visiting zoos.

Now let's be real, we love zoos and know what they do, but I think well over half of zoo visitors go there simply to “see animals” and nothing more. I can understand why it might bother some people.

 

[evilmonkey239]

In my experience, most anti-zoo activists are also diehard animal rights activists in general. Many of these people have deeply misanthropic views because of the way mankind has mistreated and continues to mistreat nonhuman animals (and really, can you completely blame them?) but they tend to take them to such an extreme that they’ll often see anyone who doesn’t completely subscribe to their ideology as evil (which of course, is most of the population).

 

[Mr. Bobcat]

I've come across three kinds of zoo haters

Basically, they're all concerned about animal welfare, but when I confront them on the subject of ex-situ conservation and in-situ funding, I get three types of response :

First, there are those who dislike zoos because they believe human intervention in the survival of certain species illegitimate, especially ones they consider "aberrant" (Panda as been brought up twice). They think that certain species are far too little adapted to the human world, whether they like it or not. While I strongly disagree with that view, I can at least understand the underlying philosophy, and it has the merit of being coherent.

Then, there are those who hate zoos because they think zoos aren’t needed at all for conservation. This position is much harder to defend: where would the funding for conservation come ? How do they expect ex-situ breeding programs to work without zoos ? I think this perspective results from a lack of knowledge about how conservation actually works and it's the most annoying type of zoo hater...

Finally, other are bothered by zoos as a form of "voyeurism", they’re uncomfortable with the idea of humans watching animals in artificial settings. I can respect that point of view too. It’s subjective, but valid. What matters to me is that these people don’t always pass judgment on those who do find meaning and value in visiting zoos.

Now let's be real, we love zoos and know what they do, but I think well over half of zoo visitors go there simply to “see animals” and nothing more. I can understand why it might bother some people.

Yes, many people just go to zoos to see animals, just like going to a national park or safari in Africa.
And I'm good with that, it brings in income for the zoo and their conservation goals.
I try not to put a human emotional spin on animals in captivity. Who's to say that a captive born animal misses absolute freedom, when they have known nothing else.
In a good zoo, they get excellent medical care, plenty of food, and excellent care in general.
With the added bonus of being safe and not ending up as food themselves.
I find it hard to believe that deer, antelopes and other prey animals don't live in near constant fear.
And fear leads to stress. But this is just my opinion of course.

 

[Mr. Bobcat]

I've come across three kinds of zoo haters

Basically, they're all concerned about animal welfare, but when I confront them on the subject of ex-situ conservation and in-situ funding, I get three types of response :

First, there are those who dislike zoos because they believe human intervention in the survival of certain species illegitimate, especially ones they consider "aberrant" (Panda as been brought up twice). They think that certain species are far too little adapted to the human world, whether they like it or not. While I strongly disagree with that view, I can at least understand the underlying philosophy, and it has the merit of being coherent.

Then, there are those who hate zoos because they think zoos aren’t needed at all for conservation. This position is much harder to defend: where would the funding for conservation come ? How do they expect ex-situ breeding programs to work without zoos ? I think this perspective results from a lack of knowledge about how conservation actually works and it's the most annoying type of zoo hater...

Finally, other are bothered by zoos as a form of "voyeurism", they’re uncomfortable with the idea of humans watching animals in artificial settings. I can respect that point of view too. It’s subjective, but valid. What matters to me is that these people don’t always pass judgment on those who do find meaning and value in visiting zoos.

Now let's be real, we love zoos and know what they do, but I think well over half of zoo visitors go there simply to “see animals” and nothing more. I can understand why it might bother some people.

Those people, who you mentioned, that think other species need to adapt to the changes we have made to the planet, in my opinion, are self absorbed, narrow minded and arrogant. They are the ones I despise.
They justify why I have grown to dislike humanity in general.

 

[Dino]

Zoos are great for education and also for general recreational family time. Animals are fun to see and be around and honestly with animals struggling in the wild or being too far for the average person to travel a zoo is a great alternative to see these animals. If an animal can thrive in the right captive conditions and an organization can offer those conditions I have no issue with it honestly. A lot of people around me seem surprised by this because I have actually written essays before that were more so anti-zoo but I just think its interesting to see either side especially because there are points to be made about it encouraging some people to illegally buy exotic animals because they think it looks cool. That being said even without zoos or a wide exotic animal trade I think we would still be having poaching issues and people obtaining animals from the wild to keep as pets, there just needs to be better regulations for that issue in particular instead of attacking zoos. As for animal rights activists... you can't really convince them to be pro-zoo since the long-term goal is to stop any animal ownership. I think some people are also just allergic to fun.

 

[jopif]

Yes, many people just go to zoos to see animals, just like going to a national park or safari in Africa.
And I'm good with that, it brings in income for the zoo and their conservation goals.
I try not to put a human emotional spin on animals in captivity. Who's to say that a captive born animal misses absolute freedom, when they have known nothing else.
In a good zoo, they get excellent medical care, plenty of food, and excellent care in general.
With the added bonus of being safe and not ending up as food themselves.
I find it hard to believe that deer, antelopes and other prey animals don't live in near constant fear.
And fear leads to stress. But this is just my opinion of course.

I agree with everything you said there, even if we should be careful about anthropomorphism.

For the animal welfare part, I think we can say with certainty that, today, some species are still kept in enclosures that are not perfectly suited to their needs, and are therefore “mistreated” in a way. Studies often contradict things that have long been taken for granted.

Those people, who you mentioned, that think other species need to adapt to the changes we have made to the planet, in my opinion, are self absorbed, narrow minded and arrogant. They are the ones I despise.
They justify why I have grown to dislike humanity in general.

Basically, I agree with you, that kind of anthropocentric thinking can feel cold and arrogant. But I do think we also have to acknowledge the reality of our species’ impact, and the fact that humanity is, biologically speaking, a part of the natural world. In that sense, some people argue that the ongoing extinction crisis is a natural consequence of one species (ours) dominating the planet. It’s not a moral justification, but an ecological observation.

I myself sometimes find it hard to “choose sides” about certain subjects.
For example, a huge driver of extinction is habitat loss, especially due to land-use change caused by agriculture, urbanization, mining, etc. And while sometimes these actions are clearly driven by human greed or capitalism, other times they’re tied to the basic needs of growing human populations. Take the DRC, for exampl : part of it is one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth, and also one of the fastest-growing in terms of population. People there NEED housing, infrastructure, energy, and all of that inevitably comes at a cost to natural ecosystems.

When Western countries criticize habitat destruction in places like the Congo or Indonesia, we tend to forget that we already destroyed most of our wilderness centuries ago, and in many cases, directly profited from colonial exploitation of those very same regions. So for some, there’s a certain hypocrisy in trying to preserve biodiversity without acknowledging historical and structural inequalities.

Again — I’m not defending the idea that we should just let vulnerable species vanish because they’re "not fit" for the Anthropocene. Quite the opposite. But understanding this perspective helps explain why some people see intervention (like captive breeding or habitat protection) as “unnatural” or unjustified. Personally, I think it's precisely because the extinction crisis is human-driven that we have a moral obligation to act — even if that means "artificial" solutions like zoos and ex-situ conservation.

 

[SeaOtterHQ]

/Then, there are those who hate zoos because they think zoos aren’t needed at all for conservation. This position is much harder to defend: where would the funding for conservation come ? How do they expect ex-situ breeding programs to work without zoos ? I think this perspective results from a lack of knowledge about how conservation actually works and it's the most annoying type of zoo hater...

Because of the recent cuts to USAID, many global conservation efforts will suffer from depleted funds. Now more than ever, alternative sources of funding will be necessary, including from private donors. Zoos can and must play a role in raising awareness for these efforts.