Mine are the followings:
1. Zookeepers are only jailors
2. Zoos don't participate in animal conservation
1. Zookeepers are only jailors
2. Zoos don't participate in animal conservation
What was the biggest lie that you ever heard from anti-zoo people?
- Thread starter HungarianBison
- Start date
TheChukaulorian
Well-Known Member
- Most, if not all zoo animals are caught in the wild.
- Zookeepers "break" the animals's morale during training to make them tame and docile in their exhibits.
- Organs of dead zoo animals are sent to be used in chinese traditional medicine or black market.
- Extinction is preferable to a "life of suffering".
- Zookeepers "break" the animals's morale during training to make them tame and docile in their exhibits.
- Organs of dead zoo animals are sent to be used in chinese traditional medicine or black market.
- Extinction is preferable to a "life of suffering".
Where did you see/hear this?
That is a common one, and in fact was widely used to oppose the California condor program starting. "Better dead than bred" was the slogan.Where did you see/hear this?
The Indian government actually introduced a law to make it compulsory for zoos to keep animals in pairs.
A lot of people seem to believe that all animals live long and happy lives in the wild, and find it difficult to understand that most animals that are born (hatched) never survive long enough to ever breed.
A few questions here:
1. What does it mean by pair? Does keeping two females together count as a pair or does it have to be Male-female?
2. Can they keep more than a pair together? For a lot of species, keeping only two individuals together would be poor husbandry.
3. Does this apply to all animals, or just certain animals? Does it count for reptiles?
4. Is this an actual law or just a law that was introduced and hasn't passed?
I really don't know more than what I've said so can't answer your questions. I don't imagine the Indian politicians have much of an idea about any of this either.
I mean surely there is the possibility it is just unenforced?
TheChukaulorian
Well-Known Member
@MRJ already replied, and for me it's a similar situation. It's always typical to find comments like this when a well-known zoo breeds a new species, no matter how endangered: "What's the point if the poor thing's gonna be locked behind bars its entire life" or "conservation is not a excuse to deny an animal its right to freedom".Where did you see/hear this?
This one seems to be common not only among anti-zoo activists but also misinformed pet owners. I've met people that are unwilling to keep their hamsters alone because it would be "cruel", yet the hamsters would probably become more stressed precisely because of sharing their space.
I read it in a reputable zoo source some time back. Of course it may have never been enacted, not enforced or repealed. It is an example how people put their values onto animal welfare, though.
Having said that, isolated monkeys are a serious welfare issue.
People who believe zoo animals would be better off released into the wild really don’t understand the whole picture. Obvious examples are big cats that haven’t been taught how to hunt; to humanised carnivores bears, cats etc. that would pose a danger to any surrounding villages due to their lack of fear for humans.
On a wider scale, you have species that depend on the support of their social group to survive e.g. male Orca that live with their mothers for life and are documented to rely on them for finding food etc. for the entirety of their lives; or lionesses who cooperate to hunt and defend their cubs.
If we’re talking Syrian Hamsters, they don’t so much get more stressed, as kill each other
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Where did you see/hear this?
This is what the animal rights activist / former terrorist Pedro Ynterian believes and has stated on his blog.
This kind of rhetoric / hypocrisy is commonplace with animal rights activists even if they themselves keep animals in captivity in sanctuaries that they own.
Last edited:
