View Full Version : Animals in Zoos
Are there certain animals that we should never keep in zoos?
I'm thinking of the polar bear cub currently in the news...cute, fluffy and content as he may look right now, will he ever have a good life?
Edinburgh Zoo was a favourite place for an outing when the kids were young, but even then (and opinions have changed over the past 20 years) it seemed wrong to keep the bigger animals in an environment which was inevitably very different from their natural one.
Do you think that zoos still play a role in conservation?
Do we still need them for education, given the high standard of nature programmes we can watch on TV?
Or would creating more sanctuaries for certain types of animals be a better option anyway?
I can understand where you are coming from, keeping animals in a zoo will always be a hot topic of conversation.
This bear was not born in the wild, nor was its mother a wild bear, she was a performing bear. If it had happened in the wild i may well have said let nature run its course, but as it was not, and we played a hand in ( not us directly but us as people) her mother being used as a performing bear then we have a duty of care for the cub.
Further more i am sure ever step will be taken to try and let this animal live as close to normal as possibly, although be in captivity.
As for using them in a education format, yes, looking at pictures, watching animals on tv never gives a true perspective on size etc.
Some animals are held in zoo's because there are very few left in the wild and breeding programmes are started, many get their animals via events like the bear cub.
Me, i would rather see large sanctuaries or huge parks set up for them to roam wild and let them lead a natural life if possible, but again this brings other problems,ie poachers
porshiepoo
25-Mar-07, 08:13
IMO we should abolish all zoos. Safari park type set ups should be the absolute minimum requirement.
I wouldn't be prepared to keep my dogs in any of these zoo enclosures and this is an animal that has been domesticated over the years, so to keep any form of wild animal in a cage, a pen, a compound should not be acceptable - captive bred or not.
Zoo's have NEVER played a role in conservation. You CANNOT save a species through a few hundred examples kept in the different zoo's around the world. At the most they play an inadverted role by interesting young minds in the animals that they see there.
Zoo's have, however, changed alot in an attempt to make the old Victorian zoo, with bars and animals pacing to and fro behind them, disapear. I remember going to the Lisbon zoo when I was very young and what they are now has nothing to do with what they were. The enclosures are larger and simulates as closely as possible the natural enviroment of that species. With regard to polar bears, I remember a domed cage buried in the ground ( to afford a cool space in Lisbons hot summers), with a pool of stagnant bathing water around which one single polar bear paced incessantly. They do now have a large enclosure with cascading water, open aired and not close enough that people can throw things at them. This has to be an improvement if not ideal.
As for the Belgium zoo: I do not know what kind of zoo it is ( it was a victorian type). The handlers were confronted with a situation of rejection (It often happens in artificial enviroments- Panda mothers are renowned not only for being extremely difficult to make pregnant, but also accept and raise the babies). One bear had already died and they decided to hand rear the other. I am not sure about polar bear social networking, but I suspect it's not that much different from a dog's. They need a pack and that bears pack has become those humans. I do not believe that hand rearing him will make him intolerant of other (zoo) polar bears. He was never going to have the life a polar bear was meant to have, but neither is it going to be worse than the life he was going to have if his mother had raised him. So all this hullabaloo about putting him down? I don't agree with it. We should make sure that he (and the other bears) are given as good a life as possible, considering that we removed them from where they are supposed to be.
I'm thinking of the polar bear cub currently in the news...cute, fluffy and content as he may look right now, will he ever have a good life?
He should be taken to the Arctic and allowed to live in freedom.
He should be taken to the Arctic and allowed to live in freedom.
there is a problem with welfare if you do that: he would die of dehidration or starvation...... we took away his (and the other captures bears) ability to survive and then the solution would be to toss him back into the wild???
Reminds me of americans that can have their cats declawed and then "get rid" of them ( abandon or give up for adoption). Declawed cats need a very specific and totaly artificial enviroment to live in: a flat with no outside acess.
Sorry Ju, I was just being a bit naughty. The cub is obviously far to young to survive alone and even when it is older it would have no idea how to hunt.
I'm still trying to get my head round the Animal Rights idiots whose warped logic says "Kill It", presumably so it will have a better life.
I could understand it if they were demanding that something should done to give it vastly superior living conditions than those you will find normally in a Zoo and to at least make it's life as natural as possible under the circumstances.
as polar bears are one of the most endangered of the animals we have left.
and thier natural enviroment is disapearing on a daily basis.. i would say its insane to even consider putting the cub down.
more than likley there will come a time.. in the not to distant future where the only bears you see will be in captivity.
I agree wholeheartedly with the conservation ideas..
i meea would you say .. oh look heres a child whose mother has rejected it and its going into the foster and social services system ( which is notorious for its horrors) so it would be more humane to put the poor little tyke down, as he wouldnt have any quality of life.
Reminds me of americans that can have their cats declawed and then "get rid" of them ( abandon or give up for adoption). Declawed cats need a very specific and totaly artificial enviroment to live in: a flat with no outside acess.
Sorry _Ju_ got to point out that this happens in the UK too, Our American friends are not the only guilty ones at declawing cats.
I'm not sure as to what animals shouldna be in a zoo, but there are plenty that should be:
Murderers
Rapists
People who commit violent crimes
Politicians
and there are many, many more.............................................. ...........
The only animals that should be in zoos are those in breeding programmes for repopulation of diminished and threatened species.
The only animals that should be in zoos are those in breeding programmes for repopulation of diminished and threatened species.
I do not think there is any reason for keeping animals in zoos. Zoos are the play things of zoolologists and for tourists to gape at animals behind 'bars'. There is ample superb film and video nowadays to educate children about animals without shouwing those very animals in an unatural environment.
Well i dont know. It cant be wrong or else something would have been done but it does seem unfair. I would only like to be put in a zoo if i was well cared for and had a big space to run around in and go hyper[lol]
Sorry _Ju_ got to point out that this happens in the UK too, Our American friends are not the only guilty ones at declawing cats.
I was under the impression that it is an illegal operation in the EU. I know it is back home and I would never suppose that portugal would have more advanced animal welfare legislation than the uk....
The only animals that should be in zoos are those in breeding programmes for repopulation of diminished and threatened species.
You cannot "save" a species from extintion by maintaining and breeding a few in a zoo. The easy analogy to understand is if 200 radomly choosen people (which would represent animals of a certain species in different zoo's) are the ones choosen to carry on the reproduction of the human race. After a few generations they will all be cousins and the genetic variability necessary to maintain genetic health will have been lost.
Conservation has to start within the enviroment of the threatened or diminuished species. The enviroment itself obviously also has to be included in the conservation.
I was under the impression that it is an illegal operation in the EU. I know it is back home and I would never suppose that portugal would have more advanced animal welfare legislation than the uk....
_Ju_ you are right, I was wrong, it is illeagal in the UK.
My lesson learnt today........ Google facts first:confused
Lolabelle
28-Mar-07, 08:10
Zoo's have NEVER played a role in conservation. You CANNOT save a species through a few hundred examples kept in the different zoo's around the world. At the most they play an inadverted role by interesting young minds in the animals that they see there.
Zoo's have, however, changed alot in an attempt to make the old Victorian zoo, with bars and animals pacing to and fro behind them, disapear. I remember going to the Lisbon zoo when I was very young and what they are now has nothing to do with what they were. The enclosures are larger and simulates as closely as possible the natural enviroment of that species. With regard to polar bears, I remember a domed cage buried in the ground ( to afford a cool space in Lisbons hot summers), with a pool of stagnant bathing water around which one single polar bear paced incessantly. They do now have a large enclosure with cascading water, open aired and not close enough that people can throw things at them. This has to be an improvement if not ideal.
As for the Belgium zoo: I do not know what kind of zoo it is ( it was a victorian type). The handlers were confronted with a situation of rejection (It often happens in artificial enviroments- Panda mothers are renowned not only for being extremely difficult to make pregnant, but also accept and raise the babies). One bear had already died and they decided to hand rear the other. I am not sure about polar bear social networking, but I suspect it's not that much different from a dog's. They need a pack and that bears pack has become those humans. I do not believe that hand rearing him will make him intolerant of other (zoo) polar bears. He was never going to have the life a polar bear was meant to have, but neither is it going to be worse than the life he was going to have if his mother had raised him. So all this hullabaloo about putting him down? I don't agree with it. We should make sure that he (and the other bears) are given as good a life as possible, considering that we removed them from where they are supposed to be.
I agree that zoo's are not ever going to be the same as the wild, but they are better than they were, and I think the park type is definately better again.
But I think that I have to correct you Ju, polar bears are solitary animals, not in packs. Not long ago saw a show on Nat Geo or something.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.