Rex Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Couple of months ago, my niece had her first birthday at a zoo. I didn't want to go, since it was going to be at a zoo. I told my mom that I didn't to go, but then she told me that zoos aren't bad at all since they take care of animals they feed them and they're safe inside. I ended up going and the animals looked happy, clean and most of all safe. The bad side is that they're not free, but then again if they were there's danger outside. I hope I get your opnions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MontanaVegan Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I don't think that zoos need to be bad.We have a small local zoo. I've never been there though.I have been to the ZooMontana website. Some of the animals are rescued.It would be nice if all the animals were rescued.Sadly, Wendy's is one of the major sponsors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 by the way I mean free as in running, I didn't mean anything as for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trev Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I have mixed feelings about zoos -- but for the most part I think they're a meager attempt to update an antiquated form of entertainment by making a case for conservation. Marine parks are really controversial in this regard. I , too would like to think most zoo animals are rescued, but I fear that usually isn't the case. In film school my wife made a documentary about the Metro Toronto Zoo, and I helped her film it. I remember being quite ed at some exhibits, particularily the baboons, who were all trying to reach the long grass outside their completely concrete cage. The Taronga Zoo in Sydney, Australia had some pretty oldschool type cages. They had a Kodiak bear from Canada in an outdoor pen the size of a small, urban backyard, with a pool maybe 15 feet across. The bear had lost most of its fur, and was really skinny, probably because of the Australian climate. It was also completely alone and seemed to be behaving a bit neurotically. The Taronga Zoo also had McDonald's sponsorship everywhere. I have photos somewhere of the signs. They're quite ironic. On that trip, we also went to the Australia Zoo in Queensland -- this is the zoo owned by the late Steve Irwin, the Croc Hunter (as if you don't all know!). They claim to have only rescued animals and it seemed pretty legit. They had dozens of Kookaburras that had been injured and couldn't have survived on their own. The zoo seemed to make a point of the fact that their rescued animals were all injured or orphaned by human activity. It was pretty good in terms of natural habitats, but like so many of these places it couldn't shed its cheesy, theme park atmosphere. You should have seen the souvenirs! I guess there are good zoos and bad zoos. The very word, zoo, has some negative connotations. I imagine that, like the endangered animals in their captive breeding programs, zoos are slowly becoming extinct. One thing's for sure, I've never left a zoo feeling happy that I saw some cool wild animals; I've always left feeling kind of sad that I saw a bunch of animals in cages, denied their natural lives. Sorta' like the feeling you have after leaving the dog pound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonzen Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I am in agreement with Trev. Personally I have never felt good after visiting a zoo, and I always questioned the bigger picture, that these places charge admission, therefore they are a business. With apologies to businesspeople, I have developed something akin to an allergy to the concept of "business", the driving force that seems to have lead to the very real potential of ruination of this planet. I think it is a short-term solution with long-term costs which we are beginning to realize. Zoos that charge admission and sell souvenirs are part of this in my opinion. What to do with injured, orphaned, endangered animals? Protect them, yes, but not by placing them in display areas to be observed by humans walking on asphalted walkways and concrete. It seems very wrong to me. I worry about the Polar Bears as the ice melts due to Global Warming, and I feel responsible, I drive a Jeep. This is the price of convienience and speed, yes? Often I feel sick about it, dirty, guilty.......as I watch ever more and more people add to the heat. Sorry to rant. The Zoo subject got me going I guess. I think that if a majority of the people of this planet were to be mindful and changed to veganism, things would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 One 'byproduct" of many, if not all, zoos is 'excess animals." Baby animals attract customers, so the zoo likes to have them, but the zoo can't keep them all as adults, so they sell them. Some to other zoos, some to canned hunts, some to who-knows-where. There is a difference between an animal sanctuary type situation (set up for the benefit of the animals, with the goal of protecting animals) and most zoos (set up for the benefit of the public). I'd start with the assumption that the zoo is not a good thing, and make them prove to me that they are good. Do thorough research before you decide that a zoo is acceptable. How are they meeting the animals' needs for space, companionship, etc.? What happens when animals get old? What happens to 'excess' animals? Are any of the animals on display connected with animal experimentation (at the zoo in Madison Wisconsin, the monkies used to be---I hope no more---associated with the cruel experiments of some psycho scientist---he didn't bill himself as psycho, that's my editorializing ---who used them or their offspring in experiments to prove that young need the affection of their parents. He'd take the newborns from their mothers, and provide them with a 'mother' make of metal and spikes covered in burlap, and when these babies grew up, they often did not want to mate, so he strapped the females down to a 'rape rack' to force them to mate, and when they gave birth, many of them killed the babies. I once read a quote from the scientist where he described how one of these mothers smashed her babies skull in and he was appalled at the cruelty she showed..... ) I frankly can't stand to see animals in cages. The only type of zoo I can imagine visiting now would be one where animals are in their own natural environment (which often means that you may or may not be able to see them, because the amount of space they have allows them to hide or do their own thing far from human spectators). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I am in agreement with Trev. Personally I have never felt good after visiting a zoo, and I always questioned the bigger picture, that these places charge admission, therefore they are a business. With apologies to businesspeople, I have developed something akin to an allergy to the concept of "business", the driving force that seems to have lead to the very real potential of ruination of this planet. I think it is a short-term solution with long-term costs which we are beginning to realize. Zoos that charge admission and sell souvenirs are part of this in my opinion. I don't see charging admission and selling cheesy souvenirs as a bad thing in itself. There has to be some way to pay for the feeding and care of the animals. Just thinking of how much food the big ones (elephants, for example) go through in a day. However, the fact that zoos do rely on 'customers' for income can lead to situations that are bad in themselves (like providing lots of 'cute' baby animals to show the public, then dealing with them in a not-so-cute way when they grow up). Ideally, the planet would have enough space for all animals to be free, with huge areas allocated just for them, with no human encroachment of their territory. Sadly, I fear that some day, zoos and the like will be the only place some animals will exist anymore, because we humans have spread over the planet like a cancer and can't seem to let nature just BE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pelicanAndrew Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I'd be for them if they were all amazing and actually cared for the animals and not for profit. Granted, i'd be for Wal-Mart if they were pro-union and actually cared for their workers as well. It's a huge change. I think that some zoo-pamphleting may be in order. Not sure if they exist yet. Possibly educate people on what they're really supporting. Maybe piss a few parents off for making their kids cry too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 i think it really depends on which zoo it is. Theoretically, if the zoo existed to save animals when their habitat had been destroyed, or their parents killed by hunters etc, and the living environment was as good as could practically be, then I'd say you can't really fault it. But I don't think this is the way most zoos operate. Certainly, the living conditions for most animals that I've seen fall far short of what I'd consider reasonable even for a prisoner who had committed a terrible crime. That's for things like snakes, rodents, lizards, birds, they are often cooped up in tiny places (as far as I know). The larger animals tend to get a better deal, a wide open field for large four-legged animals like deer etc, I think is acceptable, or a an entire area to play around in for monkeys is good to see. Zoos should be the result of saved animals, and the way the zoo sustains itself is by people visiting. The opposite is true though often, that the animals haven't been saved, they are just captive, and they are just being exploited (as far as I know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crystal Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I'd be for them if they were all amazing and actually cared for the animals and not for profit. Ya, but now you are describing a sanctuary, not a zoo! There is a huge difference. Sanctuaries number one priority is the animals, zoos number one is money, and subsequently, its visitors. Ya, some zoos *might* have a sanctuary aspect to them, but only for some animals and its the exception, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daywalker Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Yes, i'm against zoos - no exceptions. - Zoos create a wrong image of animals in children. You can see animals in wildlife, or in TV, but a zoo is never a natural environment!- Sanctuaries, yes, nature reserve/conservation area, yes - zoo, no. A zoo is exploitation of animals, the only purpose of a zoo is to make money, everything else is propaganda. - No matter how "nice" a zoo looks, the surroundings are never as natural as nature or as vast. Zoo is prison for innocent. I don't think there are bad zoos and good zoos - there are bad zoos and worse zoos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JW Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Very well put Daywalker!completely agree with you. Yes, i'm against zoos - no exceptions. - Zoos create a wrong image of animals in children. You can see animals in wildlife, or in TV, but a zoo is never a natural environment!- Sanctuaries, yes, nature reserve/conservation area, yes - zoo, no. A zoo is exploitation of animals, the only purpose of a zoo is to make money, everything else is propaganda. - No matter how "nice" a zoo looks, the surroundings are never as natural as nature or as vast. Zoo is prison for innocent. I don't think there are bad zoos and good zoos - there are bad zoos and worse zoos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finbarrio Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I think zoos are animal prisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odidnetne Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I was going to say that Richard is starting to describe an animal sanctuary. I agree with Daywalker 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 I think some zoos are bad too. Some of them are just for money. I don't think is wrong to charge small amounts since they need to pay for rent, food etc. but to charge big amounts then it's just big business. I had nothing against capitalism, but after watching A Burning Rage really made me think how evil is capitalism. Just like some of you said that some zoos sell their animals, then that's really bad because they're not doing it to for the care,but for the money. I think there are other zoos that really care about animals, and it's a good thing that these zoos are really doing it, since they're protecting orphans, or other animals from hunters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Well, I am not an expert on zoos, and don't know the full functioning of any of them. What I say is theoretical, that I think I could be in favour of a particular 'zoo' which would be like a sanctuary, or basically, just a sanctuary, but for wild animals which are rescued. But the reality is that almost all zoos probably won't be like this, so I wouldn't support a zoo unless I knew it was actually an ethical company; and I don't know how to find that information out, so I don't visit zoos because I asume they are unethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I only support rescues...zoos have no place and should only make money to maintain the rescues and grow to have more...I don't know what we need to learn about elephants and zebras since none of us are around them. We learn what they are like in the wild from TV...not in a small pen not even remotely resembling the naturaly habitat these animals live it. As for sactuaries...this also means the only non native rescues you should ever see are animals taken from people poorly housing them or other zoos...so in reality you'd be seeing a bunch of animals you could see if you went to a national park so don't waste your time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I only support rescues...zoos have no place and should only make money to maintain the rescues and grow to have more... Yeah that's what I mean. Theoretically, if a zoo was to do that, I'd be for it, but it seems unlikely to happen, yet I don't know the ins and outs of every single zoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Yeah...they pretty much all blow... As for the animals being happy sure some are happy but for the most part thats because they don't know any better...if you put an infant in a cage and don't let it move and you grow him/her too adulthood and feed it icecream all the time the person will be happy too but its not right. Wild animals aren't supposed to be happy...they should be wild animals which means eating animals for food to keep the balance and also being eat...remember animals are killed to feed animals in the zoo...no worse than us eating animals ourselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now