Why zoos are good for animals?

[21564]

Hi everybody,
Surely everyone has visited the zoo at least once. I personally do the same and I have always thought that animals should live in the natural environment rather than living in a zoo. However, I see people saying that they should live in the zoo. Can anyone tell me why it is better to let animals live in the wild than in the wild?
Thank you very much.

While not every animal should be in a zoo and there are some zoos and animal sanctuaries that do not treat animals correctly, not every zoo is that way. Think about this, if there is an animal species that is extinct in the wild and there are zoos that have several of them, the zoos can reintroduce those animals thus bringing them back from extinction. Also just think, if these animals were not in zoos where they are fed, cared for, and have a convenient living space, a lot of them would be in labs being tested on and killed. There have been over 30 animal species saved by zoos and conservation groups including the American bison. That is why zoos should continue to do what they do and they should not be shut down unless they are not treating there animals well.

 

[dillotest0]

To add on to what OC said, being able to see species is great for education, and thus, conservation. Think of all of the popular animals you know, the ones featured in books and cartoons, the ones people say are their favorite, the ones a random person on the street might be able to say something about. Other than a few outliers that are well known because of specific reasons, like blue whales and great white sharks, every single one of those animals is well known because people have seen them in zoos. Seeing them in captivity causes interest, which leads to money and education for saving those species' wild habitats. It also helps further laws and other protections for those species.

If you go to the WWF website, an organization most have heard of, The species mentioned on the drop-down "wildlife" tab are tigers, elephants, gorillas, pandas, polar bears, rhinos, sea turtles, and whales. All but whales are either common in captivity and have been for the last 100+ years, or are well-known from captive individuals (pandas). The WWF works with a lot of species, but those are the ones people donate money to, those are the faces of conservation as a whole. Without zoos bringing those species in to public view worldwide, people would likely care much less about them.

I, the tenth dentist
I think what the WWF sets out to do is good.... but it misses the mark.
It is a brand; built off the charismatic faces of endangered animals people have become familiar with. As said, in large part because of zoos.
But I worry the impression this gives... these special mammals are most of what is endangered, or are endangered to the highest degree.
But to speak of mammals here since that is the group of animals that is most familiar...
There are about 6,500 species of mammal. And about 70,000 different species of animal with backbone. So only 9% of all vertebrates are mammals.
And only 5% of all animals are vertebrates. So that's hardly .5% of all living animals! For many species, such as cheetahs and perhaps polar bears we are happy to work against the flow so to make sure their populations survive, but if one more beetle dies out that's a change we are neutral accommodating.
The WWF I feel puts the emphasis on these cute mammals. But one message which I'm sure they follow but simply don't do enough to embolden - that if habitats are protected, everyone wins in the end. The cute mammals, the not-so cute invertebrates. Now if only zoos put a bit more thought into curation of collections of endangered invertebrate...

 

[15399]

I think what the WWF sets out to do is good.... but it misses the mark.
It is a brand; built off the charismatic faces of endangered animals people have become familiar with. As said, in large part because of zoos.
But I worry the impression this gives... these special mammals are most of what is endangered, or are endangered to the highest degree.
But to speak of mammals here since that is the group of animals that is most familiar...
There are about 6,500 species of mammal. And about 70,000 different species of animal with backbone. So only 9% of all vertebrates are mammals.
And only 5% of all animals are vertebrates. So that's hardly .5% of all living animals! For many species, such as cheetahs and perhaps polar bears we are happy to work against the flow so to make sure their populations survive, but if one more beetle dies out that's a change we are neutral accommodating.
The WWF I feel puts the emphasis on these cute mammals. But one message which I'm sure they follow but simply don't do enough to embolden - that if habitats are protected, everyone wins in the end. The cute mammals, the not-so cute invertebrates. Now if only zoos put a bit more thought into curation of collections of endangered invertebrate...

While there are legitimate ways you can criticize the WWF, and there are other conservation orgs I'd personally much rather support, protecting habitat alone is not enough to actually make a meaningful impact on all species. Way too often preserving "habitat" fails to consider the connectivity between habitats- and instead creates small preserves that animals cannot freely move between protected areas, creating habitat fragmentation and all the negative consequences of it.

Perhaps the number one instance of this is migratory birds, a group with an ever-so increasing conservation crisis. There's plenty of excellent habitats created for birds in the United States, and also plenty of excellent ones in their wintering ranges, too. However, that can only do so much when the birds are being killed moving between the protected habitats. Wildlife corridors and protecting animal migration/dispersal routes are a much-needed, but missing aspect, of preserving habitat.

Furthermore, in the age of climate change, the ranges where animals can inhabit will continue to be, and already are, shifting. There are protected areas no longer suitable for the species that once inhabited them because of climate change, causing animals to move into areas that are unprotected and not suitable.

While I am not saying preserving habitat doesn't have a place in conservation (it most certainly does), it cannot be the end-all-be-all of conservation for all species.