Brian Chilly Ale wrote: » Micky Dolenz wrote: » I think most animals have the mating thing nailed Except for the pandas. A species of awkward teenagers.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » I think most animals have the mating thing nailed
bluewolf wrote: » well, yeah i was surprised how many species are endangered...
Micky Dolenz wrote: » Elephants,giraffes , hippos, rhinos, zebras,Gorillas, Chimps,Monkey's, Lions, other big cats. The list could go on of zoo animals that aren't endangered. Unless zoos plan on repopulating a wild species, then they are little more then a freak show and cheap entertainment.
g'em wrote: » I'd see your view as pretty sensationalist tbh. As humans we have an innate tendency towards anthropomorphising other animals' feeling, even those that are dubiously capable of emotional intelligence. Animals no not 'feel' the way we do, but they do have basic needs. A zoo meets - and often surpasses - those needs. They had unlimited food, medical care, they are free from the stress of predation or having to forage for sustenance. They have a ready made territory and there are numerous accounts of animals who have become freed or escaped from an enclosure only to return to the safety of their 'freakshow' home. The chances of becoming prey in a zoo are non-existent, the chances of succumbing to disease or parasites is massively reduced. The chances of starvation or dehydration are nil. So what part is the animal missing out on? Freedom? Meh, given the option of a potential niche the animal will rarely, if ever, occupy all of that territory, instead living in a much smaller realised niche. If you want to humanise it, think about one person living in a huge mansion - chances are they will live most of their time in the house in two or three primary rooms and will rarely if ever venture into others. I don't know if you've ever seen big cats in the wild, but they are lazy baxstards. Wonderfully so. It's only the pressures of mating and feeding that force them to go anywhere. Likewise with most of the animals you have listed. Social interaction? This I would agree with in some cases. Elephants thrive in a socially complex hierarchy, travelling in large groups headed up by a long standing matriarch. Socially interactive animals like to be told what to do, in the wild their 'leader' does this for them, in captivity their handlers and feeders can play a surrogate role. It's not a patch on the real thing though. Breeding programs - this is one extremely important role that zoos play. Take our own Dublin zoo for example - the zoo is a member of the international tiger breeding program. Given that the wild tiger population is in such horrible decline, one of the only ways to keep the lineage going (and not only going but varied, a major issue facing dwindling populations in the wild is genetic bottlenecking. By 'blind-dating' tigers from zoos around the world we are keeping the lineage for the tigers varied and healthy. Some of the breeding programs are also involved in reintroduction programs - afaik some of the birds bred in the zoo are reintroduced in their native rainforests. I've seen something similar in Zimbabwe where the lion cubs of captive lionness are reared for release at 1-2 years old. And then there's the educational factor. Keeping animals in captivity helps us to understand how they tick, how they work, what they need. It will help us to understand what kind of conservation programs need to be implemented to make sure that healthy populations remain that way. Even for children (and adults) of the tropical animals that we associate with zoos need to be educated about their value in ecological society. In Kenya or Tanzania lions are seen as cattle killers; in India elephants are seen as crop destroyers. Zoos help us all to appreciate animals as more than just a local pain in the face. I'm not saying all zoos are great, and I'm not saying zoos are all inherently great. But slating zoos as having no redeeming feature is - to me - quite misinformed. And I say that as a zoologist and someone who has worked in animal conservation on three different continents.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » You can't breed out instinct.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » There is a difference between animal conservation and putting animals on display for an audience.
g'em wrote: » How are they being denied?? Mating and feeding in the wild are tough going, many animals in captivity get the opportunity to breed, they just have their mate brought too them. Other than apes and dolphins, no animals take any real pleasure out of mating. It's not like they're sitting in their enclosures bemoaning the fact that they haven't had the ride in months And to answer your question I don't think animals 'rather' anything. They don't have the power of choice. They don't understand the concept of enclosures, but I do think its possible for an animal to be 'happy' (I.e. undergoing little or no distress) in a.zoo, and the wild subjects them to a heck of a lot more distress and danger.
OpenYourEyes wrote: » You very very definitely can breed out instinct!
Denying an animals instinctual urge to feed, mate and laze about or roam is completely wrong in my opinion. As a zoologist, do you truly believe that large (ultimately) wild animals would rather be enclosed then not?
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » The big difference is that putting animals on display pays for conservation I'd rather see a tiger in a cage than have them go extinct. Tasmanian Tiger
Micky Dolenz wrote: » There is a difference between animal conservation and putting animals on display for an audience. Denying an animals instinctual urge to feed, mate and laze about or roam is completely wrong in my opinion. As a zoologist, do you truly believe that large (ultimately) wild animals would rather be enclosed then not?
krudler wrote: » there's a great documentary about how animals are happy in the zoo, some even thrive on the attention of being looked at, Madagascar I think it was called.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » What about all the animals who are caged up and not near extinction?
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Like 90% of lemur species ? Loss of habitat is the threat of extinction of most animal species. Poaching and bush meat are also high up on the list. Nature reserves don't work if the locals don't have a stake, if there is political instability or corruption or there isn't the political will to support them.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » What about giraffes, zebras, kangaroos, emo's, etc etc. We could exchange Google found tit bits all night. In my own personal opinion, zoos are horribly depressing places. Taking an animal out of it's natural environment is wrong. If they need to be conserved, do it on a nature reserve and make it as close as possible to the environment they are from. Having Camels or polar bears in Dublin is far from natural.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » In my own personal opinion, zoos are horribly depressing places. Taking an animal out of it's natural environment is wrong. If they need to be conserved, do it on a nature reserve and make it as close as possible to the environment they are from. Having Camels or polar bears in Dublin is far from natural.
TiGeR KiNgS wrote: » I remember when I was young going to Dublin Zoo and seeing, 2 Cheetahs ? (big Cats anyway), just pacing back and forth in this small cage. I felt sick looking at it and never went back. Has this changed ?
Brian Chilly Ale wrote: » They're probably long dead by now so... yes.
