What was the biggest lie that you ever heard from anti-zoo people?

A new important one that I have heard and seen several times over the last year with the lockdowns due to the Covid-19 health crisis is that zoo animals are under lockdown/cooped up for life without good reason, and that we now all know what it is like to be locked up/cooped up and should know better than to support animals in captivity.

Much as I hate to admit it, it isn't a totally powerless argument and it might appeal to some people.

It is definitely a new one to confront for zoos and zoo supporters.
 
Virginia McKenna helped form Zoocheck. One of its aims was to close down London Zoo. One of my colleagues claimed to have seen Virginia McKenna crying outside London Zoo when the zoo was threatened with closure about 30 years ago. "What will happen to the animals?"
 
Last edited:
TheChukaulorian said:
- Extinction is preferable to a "life of suffering".
Click to expand...

Let me play the devil's advocate here.

First of all, it is important to make the distinction between, for example, a tiger (a living, breathing creature that can feel pain and discomfort) and the tiger (Panthera tigris, a species). The species is a collective which cannot actually experience anything, even if it is comprised of entities that can. It can therefore be argued that the welfare of individual tigers is of greater moral importance than the species as a whole because, again, the species cannot literally suffer while the individuals can. And given how prone tigers are to behavioural abnormalities (and thus likely associated welfare issues) when kept in captivity, plus the widespread idea that (the vast majority of) captive tigers cannot be introduced into the wild anyway, I think this argument actually does make sense.

Obviously I think there are flaws in this argument*, otherwise I wouldn't frequent this site or visit so many zoos. But we should be careful that we don't become an echo chamber, and realise some values unquestioned here (e.g. the inherent value of a species) are not shared by everyone.



* I think several of them become obvious if you know I deliberately chose tigers as an example
 
Mr. Zootycoon said:
Let me play the devil's advocate here.

First of all, it is important to make the distinction between, for example, a tiger (a living, breathing creature that can feel pain and discomfort) and the tiger (Panthera tigris, a species). The species is a collective which cannot actually experience anything, even if it is comprised of entities that can. It can therefore be argued that the welfare of individual tigers is of greater moral importance than the species as a whole because, again, the species cannot literally suffer while the individuals can. And given how prone tigers are to behavioural abnormalities (and thus likely associated welfare issues) when kept in captivity, plus the widespread idea that (the vast majority of) captive tigers cannot be introduced into the wild anyway, I think this argument actually does make sense.

Obviously I think there are flaws in this argument*, otherwise I wouldn't frequent this site or visit so many zoos. But we should be careful that we don't become an echo chamber, and realise some values unquestioned here (e.g. the inherent value of a species) are not shared by everyone.



* I think several of them become obvious if you know I deliberately chose tigers as an example
Click to expand...
Just a quick response.

Genocide, the extermination of a human ethnic group, is regarded as a greater crime than murder. Just one example where we as humans regard the group as more important than the individual.

Another biological angle. Animals strive to see their genes passed on, often at the expense of their own welfare and even life. Therefore in a biological sense the survival of the species is more important than the survival, or welfare, of the individual.
 
MRJ said:
Just a quick response.

Genocide, the extermination of a human ethnic group, is regarded as a greater crime than murder. Just one example where we as humans regard the group as more important than the individual.

Another biological angle. Animals strive to see their genes passed on, often at the expense of their own welfare and even life. Therefore in a biological sense the survival of the species is more important than the survival, or welfare, of the individual.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree and well said!
 
littleRedPanda said:
When Twycross got it's tigers a couple of years ago, a group from the Nottingham area were claiming as fact that the tigers would be mated and their cubs sold for profit, until the tigers were exhausted and then destroyed.
Click to expand...

Based on what ?

Did they consult a psychic or just tarot cards to divine these animals futures ? :rolleyes:

And aren't the tigers Sumatran at Twycross ?
 
Last edited:
I agree with all of the arguments on here, however I think a bit of balancing can’t hurt. Honestly, in an ideal world where nature was 100% in tact and extinction wasn’t an issue then we probably wouldn’t need as many zoos, or at least keep certain species in them, however the argument that zoos are inherently bad or that animals are always depressed and suffer in them is just silly. More to the point, the people who make these arguments can never seem to back up any real evidence to prove their beliefs against the increasingly work done by zoological institutions worldwide, other than “That tiger was pacing and some bloke on the telly said pacing is a sign of stress therefor animal slavery whaaaahhhh”. Might have got a bit heated there. I mean, for god sake, I am a human and I start pacing when I get stressed, but that doesn’t mean I am always stressed or depressed or live a miserable life.
Basically the arguments made by these so called ‘activists’ are hypocritical and make no sense with absolutely no evidence to prove them, and just put a negative light on the people who dedicate their lives to working with animals, especially those working to save them from the extinction our own species caused.
Went on a bit of a rant there, soz
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why former terrorist? Did he commit any serious crimes other than those regarding animal welfare?
 
KevinB said:
A new important one that I have heard and seen several times over the last year with the lockdowns due to the Covid-19 health crisis is that zoo animals are under lockdown/cooped up for life without good reason, and that we now all know what it is like to be locked up/cooped up and should know better than to support animals in captivity.

Much as I hate to admit it, it isn't a totally powerless argument and it might appeal to some people.

It is definitely a new one to confront for zoos and zoo supporters.
Click to expand...
I have seen many people (both online and in real life) using the quarantine as one of the reasons why zoos should not exist. I really want some help to debunk these arguments, as more and more people are starting to use them.
 
Dassie rat said:
Virginia McKenna helped form Zoocheck. One of its aims was to close down London Zoo. One of my colleagues claimed to have seen Virginia McKenna crying outside London Zoo when the zoo was threatened with closure about 30 years ago. "What will happen to the animals?"
Click to expand...
As @Onychorhynchus coronatus said, hillarious. However, she should be called out because we're not only discussing about animals. There are other people's jobs and lives (vets, zookeepers and other staff) at stake.
 
Enzo said:
Why former terrorist? Did he commit any serious crimes other than those regarding animal welfare?
Click to expand...

Because he is a former terrorist who was a member of a cell of a right-wing Cuban exile terrorist group that specialised in assassinating Cuban officials abroad.

I'm not exaggerating just look it up as it's all out there online and he hasn't been quiet about his past life.


Cubano que arquitetou plano para matar Fidel vive no Brasil

As he himself admits he was happy to place bombs in countries like Mexico and at the risk of killing civilians in the hope of assassinating Cuban officials and Castro.

He was a rather crappy terrorist though and with that "career" a failure decided to become an animal rights activist instead.

Now he just terrorises Zoos that can't fight back instead as it's much safer and masquerades as a latter day wizened old Saint Francis of Assisi.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top