Zoos:Good or bad?

Discuss the live critter cams, animals and green topics around the planet.

Moderators: Kenya, webearthonline

Zoos are good or bad?

Bad
5
26%
Good
14
74%
 
Total votes: 19

Foxesrule
Cardinal Chick
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Slaying dragons in Skyrim.

Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by Foxesrule »

I think Zoos are bad. The cages (Or, prison cells as I call them...) are so small! :cry: But I ant to know in other peoples opinions: Are zoos good or bad? :|
Your neighbourhood moderator.
Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or just want to chat. c:
Image
what am i doing with my life..?
NatureHeart
Cardinal Chick
Posts: 2346
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Probably in my room. ;3

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by NatureHeart »

I do too! When I went there, all the animals looked sooo bored! Innocent animals in prison camp. That is what it is.
Cheer up!
Image
Be silly!
Image
♥ And fly! ♥
Image
Foxesrule
Cardinal Chick
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Slaying dragons in Skyrim.

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by Foxesrule »

Once I saw a drawing a 6 year old did with a tiegr in a cage,crying. It said 'I hated the zoo. It was the worst day of my life because the cages were small and the tigers were crying' Thats kind of cute, but I agree.
Your neighbourhood moderator.
Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or just want to chat. c:
Image
what am i doing with my life..?
User avatar
Alrai
Baby Gecko
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by Alrai »

The idea of a zoo is not, at least in my opinion, inherently good or bad. Would you consider a zoo that properly provides for the needs of its animals (which most do, zoo are indeed regulated such that the animals are kept in livable conditions) "good"? One where the cages are suitably large, food is of suitably quality, ect ect? Unfortunately animals other than ourselves do not speak the same language as us, but we can still understand them to know if they are "happy" or otherwise. Simply, a "good" zoo has happy animals. A "bad" zoo does not.
There is also the opinion of the animals always being better off in the wild, and not under human control; but that has yet to be brought up by anyone on this thread.
"Always be present."
-?
User avatar
Alexander
Adult Rabbit
Posts: 3898
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: Srsly.

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by Alexander »

There is always a good and a bad zoo, but which ones are which are beyond me. I prefer the National Sanctuaries, as they are in the wild, only that they protect the endangered species out there. They of course allow people to walk or boat, however there are some places where they are not allowed to cross mainly due to an endangered species is living there. I only really know of the ones in the oceans.
I went to a zoo a very long time ago. I think the animals were pretty happy because it was nicely spaced out for them and in a lot of them you could have the chance to feed them. I have never, ever seen a cage in that zoo. All I saw were large fences or glass walls (for water environments).
Image
Got #1 high score for goats! Woohoo!
NatureHeart
Cardinal Chick
Posts: 2346
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Probably in my room. ;3

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by NatureHeart »

The last time I went, the animals were in small cages with to many things. They all looked bored and sat there or paced back and forth. Even the endangered ones were bored!
Cheer up!
Image
Be silly!
Image
♥ And fly! ♥
Image
Foxesrule
Cardinal Chick
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Slaying dragons in Skyrim.

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by Foxesrule »

I think safari parks aren't as bad- They have bigger spaces to run. Like in Woburn, if the cage is too small for the animal to run full speed, they make it bigger. Actually, I have to admit that I went to a zoo-like place with birds and lemurs and stuff for a zoo keeper experience day, which was really fun. That's the ONLY good zoo I know. ((The cages were pretty big and the penguin's enclosure looked really natural. They weren't penguins living in cold places.
Your neighbourhood moderator.
Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or just want to chat. c:
Image
what am i doing with my life..?
NatureHeart
Cardinal Chick
Posts: 2346
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Probably in my room. ;3

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by NatureHeart »

I know the Memphis zoo, and it's the only good zoo I know!! All the cages were large and all the animals looked like they were having a great time! The only problem was, they were a little too big, so we couldn't see if some were having a great time because they were practicly a mile away!
Cheer up!
Image
Be silly!
Image
♥ And fly! ♥
Image
animalguy888
Adult Gecko
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:42 am
Location: In the sky hunting for a hybrid between superman and bigfoot in an alternate universe
Contact:

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by animalguy888 »

Foxesrule wrote:I think Zoos are bad. The cages (Or, prison cells as I call them...) are so small! :cry: But I ant to know in other peoples opinions: Are zoos good or bad? :|
Yes it us bad to have small cages. Though not all zoos are like that. Most zoos have a purpose. To preserve endangered species and also educating the public so that they to will want to preseerve nature as well. In fact in some areas small pens are outlawed and in otheres they can get sued for it.


Zoos and similar facilities that publicly exhibit wild animals have existed throughout history, beginning as far back as Ancient Egypt. In the past, animals were kept in small cages and used by rulers to display their wealth and satisfy the curiosity and fascination surrounding wild creatures. Society’s views about zoos have changed. No longer are people willing to view animals pacing nervously back and forth behind bars. Instead, the public has begun to express concern for the welfare of the animals within zoos, preferring aesthetically pleasing and more natural habitats for zoo enclosures. Zoo proponents now claim the exhibitions exist for education, conservation, science, and recreational purposes. The imprisoned animals are the property of the zoo and laws are in place to regulate and protect them. Unfortunately, the current mandates lack effective protections and enforcement to ensure the welfare of animals kept in captivity. This paper will examine current laws pertaining to zoo animals, exposing their benefits and downfalls, and illustrating that more protection is needed.

Laws pertaining to zoo animals exist on international, federal, and state and local levels. On the international level, the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) regulates the trade and movement of roughly 5,000 types of endangered animal species. Membership of nation states is completely voluntary. CITES covers both live animals and their products. The act works by employing restrictions on trade, both import and export, through licensing and permitting systems. The species are listed in three appendices, which determine how much protection they are afforded. Trade in species listed on Appendix I is almost never permitted, while trade in species listed on Appendix III is much less regulated. Additionally, all animals housed in zoos prior to the signing of the treaty in 1973 are exempt from its provisions. And animals born in captivity are afforded much less protection their free-roaming counterparts.

In addition to CITES, on the international level, the International Air Transport Association (hereinafter “IATA”) regulates the majority of airlines. Membership is voluntary, but highly regarded within the industry. Member airlines must meet the IATA industry standards for shipping live animals, whether pets or zoo animals, to ensure their safe transport.

On the federal level, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the only statute that protects the welfare of individual zoo animals. Under the AWA, animals that meet the definition set forth in the statute, in the custody of a dealer or exhibitor, are protected by the statute. The definition of an animal, however, greatly limits the scope of the act. All cold-blooded animals, constituting a great number of the animals housed in zoos, are excluded from protection. Dealers and exhibitors must be licensed and participate in record-keeping and marking requirements. Additional protections exist governing their care, handling, and transport. The Act gives power to the Secretary of Agriculture and the US Department of Agriculture, whose power is further delegated to the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS), to administer and enforce the Act’s requirements. APHIS enforces the Act through conducting inspections and instituting rules and regulations for facilities. APHIS is required to conduct a yearly inspection and investigate facilities whenever a complaint is filed; however, there are only 104 inspectors and over 2,000 facilities to inspect. The resources of APHIS, and enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act have proved inadequate. Additionally, the standards are very broad and set forth only basic minimal requirements for food, water, housing, and sanitation. Except for primates, the mental health of the animals is not protected or even considered. The ensuing question arises -- is the Act is sufficient to ensure the welfare of animals? Another problem with the AWA, is that it lacks a citizen suit provision, which would allow a concerned citizen to sue on behalf of the welfare of a zoo animal. Only in very limited circumstances are people allowed to sue on behalf of a zoo animal.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) applies only to specifically listed animals, and even then it only regulates the import or export of species being bought or sold in foreign commerce. There are currently over 1,050 animal species designated as “endangered” or “threatened” by the Secretary of the Interior. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is in charge of administering and enforcing the Act. The ESA applies to both public and private actors; prohibiting the “take” of listed animals by anyone. “Take” is further defined within the Act as harming or harassing; however, the Secretary’s regulations exempt normal animal husbandry, which includes exhibition of endangered species. Therefore, exhibiting an endangered species alone is not a violation of the Act. Additionally, the Secretary may grant specific exemptions allowing for the take of an endangered species. One benefit of this Act is that it contains a citizen suit provision, which allows a concerned citizen to bring suit to enforce the Act, subject to some limitations.

Also at the federal level, there are statutes that purport to protect specific species including the African elephant, Asian elephant, great apes, tigers and rhinoceros. The most important part of these statutes is the money allocated toward conservation of the protected species. They also affirm the endangered status of these animals, under CITES provisions, and employ moratoriums on the products of such animals. Besides allocating funding for such species’ conservation efforts, these statutes do little more than affirm CITES findings and provisions.

Although states are subject to the AWA, every state has enacted its own anti-cruelty laws. Forty-one states sanction felony-level penalties for certain types of cruelty violations. Six states, however, wholly exempt exhibited animals from their scope. State laws vary greatly both in the scope of coverage and sentencing provisions. One problem with state laws is lack of enforcement. In most areas only local law enforcement is in charge of enforcing anti-cruelty laws. Most city and county agencies lack resources, especially in high crime areas. Where there are inadequate resources to enforce the laws and prosecute violators, the welfare protections purported in the statutes are rendered ineffective for zoo animals.

In addition to the international, federal, state and local laws, additional voluntary standards are also in place for zoos that choose to implement them. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (hereinafter “AZA”), an organization of zoos and related facilities, regulates the zoo industry through voluntary standards. To become a member, zoos must be accredited and related facilities must be certified, according to the guidelines the AZA sets forth. Related facilities are those that house wild animals, but are not open to the public on a regular basis. The AZA Code of Professional Ethics, a heightened standard for the care and welfare of zoo animals, governs AZA members. AZA Membership is highly regarded within the industry. The standards regulate everything from the movement of zoo animals to the image the zoo must set forth to the public.

Several findings seem apparent after reviewing existing laws to protect zoo animals. First, zoo animal welfare protections are only found in state and federal anti-cruelty statues. The majority of existing statutes and regulations govern only the transport or trade of animals or animal products, ensuring their status in the world market without wiping the species out entirely. These laws purport to protect the well-being of the species as a whole, rather than a specific animal. Secondly, well-known charismatic animals are afforded much more protection under existing laws, with regard to specific statutes and the Animal Welfare Act, which exempts all cold-blooded animals. Additionally, certain species are afforded much more protection than others depending on the specific statutes and funding in place to help conservation efforts. Thirdly, there is a lack of adequate enforcement mechanisms within the statutes. Adding to the problem, most state and federal governing agencies are over-worked and under-funded leading, to less than optimal enforcement of the statutes that exist. An increase in funding and/or public concern would put pressures on such agencies to ensure that at the very least, minimal standards are upheld. Lastly, only minimal standards currently exist. Tighter controls and stricter regulations would lead to an overall improved quality of life for zoo animals.

One result of the scarcity of laws and insufficient enforcement of existing laws, is the existence of a prospering black market in the trade of rare and exotic species. Surplus zoo animals from breeding programs and retired zoo animals are easily sold off to dealers for canned hunts, shoddy roadside attractions, or slaughterhouses to be sold for their parts. This trade is a thriving industry, as exotic species can be worth a great deal of money. There are countless documented cases of zoos selling animals to dealers in the black market disguised as conservationists, despite the AZA being aware of the imposter’s true identity. For more information on this subject, see Alan Green, “Animal Underworld: Inside America’s Black Market for Rare and Exotic Species.”

In light of the commendable goals the AZA sets forth in education, conservation, recreation and science, the question remains: is it okay to keep wild animals in captivity? Recently, there have been several incidents of zoos nationwide deciding to release their elephants to sanctuaries, acknowledging that their facilities were inadequate to properly care for them. Elephants are highly intelligent creatures, capable of being trained in captivity. They are also very emotional creatures, known to mourn their dead in the wild and nurture their young into their teens. In the wild, elephants usually live past 65 years-old and roam up to 60 miles a day in social groups comprised of eight to ten animals. They are capable of communicating through infrasound and vocalizations. In captivity, elephants are confined to small enclosures, kept with only a few other elephants, if any. Imprisoned elephants die at a much younger age than wild elephants. Additionally, in captivity, elephants are plagued with diseases such as Tuberculosis, Arthritis, and mental illness, in addition to suffering to feet and joint ailments – a direct result of not being allowed to roam. In the last few months, the Detroit Zoo, the San Francisco Zoo, and the L.A. Zoo have all decided to close their elephant exhibits and release the animals to one of the two sanctuaries nationwide. Hopefully, this is a trend that more zoos will follow in the future, evaluating the welfare of their animals as the top priority, above the selfish human desire to observe wild animals in captivity.




http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuszoos.htm
Image
Image
Image

"There is beauty in every Creature, Stone, and Plant. To find it you Just have to look for It."


Click here if you dare!...

Image
User avatar
Alrai
Baby Gecko
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by Alrai »

Greatly appreciated that paper, animal. c:
Hopefully, this is a trend that more zoos will follow in the future, evaluating the welfare of their animals as the top priority, above the selfish human desire to observe wild animals in captivity.
^I stress that ending line, because it is essentially the difference between a "good" zoo and a "bad" zoo.
Sanctuaries do seem to be very effective ways to allow animals a fulfilling life whilst still being under humanity's protection. However, I am not saying that the conventional idea of a zoo could not but sufficient or even preferable in some cases.
"Always be present."
-?
User avatar
oceanpelt
Bluebird Chick
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Location: He's the map, he's the map, he's the map! Yeah, I am lost.
Contact:

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by oceanpelt »

It can't be either right? Zoos do not always have bad concepts but they do not always have good things about them either.
Considering the fact if they don't have the money and they stay open can be wrong when the animals would have it better out in the wild. Lots of zoos keep nice open spaces for their animals. The reptile areas are not so bad and I think they have enough space considering they do not just roam all over more then the little glass cages. If they are bigger then that is something different.

Bad zoos do have cramped cages and I think they could have some of the cages a bit bigger where I live. They also have the small spaces which cause them to get closer and sometimes start a disease or sickness. They also do not have a high budget to pay for all the food and care the animals need. Good zoos have nice open spaces. Like the one in San Francisco. When I was there they had nice large spaces. The animals were constantly active and happy. They had plenty of food and there was even a large swamp-like place where several alligators or crocodiles lived. So that would be a good zoo.

But for all the bad zoos out there, I wonder if they actually consider their animals or just like the pay they get.
Image
Kazz
Adult Bluebird
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by Kazz »

They're terrible but necessary.
NatureHeart
Cardinal Chick
Posts: 2346
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:10 pm
Location: Probably in my room. ;3

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by NatureHeart »

Kazz wrote:They're terrible but necessary.
How are they necessary??
Cheer up!
Image
Be silly!
Image
♥ And fly! ♥
Image
User avatar
Alexander
Adult Rabbit
Posts: 3898
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: Srsly.

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by Alexander »

"Depending on your point of view, though, zoos are either sanctuaries of education and entertainment or unnecessary prisons. While some people argue that zoos play an important role in conservation and research, others counter that they do more harm than good."

Pros: Education, Conservation, and Entertainment
Cons: Wild animals are meant to be wild

The other thing this article says, from Animal Planet, is that it also depends on what Zoo you're talking about. Like I said earlier, in the Zoo I went to, I have never caught sight of any sort of cage. There were widespread fences and the animals always seemed like they were having fun. I remember seeing this one somewhat small area for seals (they had another cage but this small area was out in the open for this purpose) where you could buy a cup with some fish so you could give it to them. I also don't remember seeing any real big animals like big cats and elephants, more like otters and penguins.

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal ... or-bad.htm

To be honest I didn't read too much of this article because I personally don't want to become unbearably one-sided. I don't trust any articles to be completely honest, I just searched through the basics.
Image
Got #1 high score for goats! Woohoo!
animalguy888
Adult Gecko
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:42 am
Location: In the sky hunting for a hybrid between superman and bigfoot in an alternate universe
Contact:

Re: Zoos:Good or bad?

Post by animalguy888 »

Alexander wrote:"Depending on your point of view, though, zoos are either sanctuaries of education and entertainment or unnecessary prisons. While some people argue that zoos play an important role in conservation and research, others counter that they do more harm than good."

Pros: Education, Conservation, and Entertainment
Cons: Wild animals are meant to be wild

The other thing this article says, from Animal Planet, is that it also depends on what Zoo you're talking about. Like I said earlier, in the Zoo I went to, I have never caught sight of any sort of cage. There were widespread fences and the animals always seemed like they were having fun. I remember seeing this one somewhat small area for seals (they had another cage but this small area was out in the open for this purpose) where you could buy a cup with some fish so you could give it to them. I also don't remember seeing any real big animals like big cats and elephants, more like otters and penguins.

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal ... or-bad.htm

To be honest I didn't read too much of this article because I personally don't want to become unbearably one-sided. I don't trust any articles to be completely honest, I just searched through the basics.
that is very well put alex. I have seen a zoo/wildlife park were th people are in caged trams. The aniimals roam the area behaving like the would in the wild.

as said before. It depends on the oo you go to as to good or bad. There are also rules and regulations zoos have to follow involving the welfare of the animals.

Also without zoos what would happen to rehabilitation. What would happpen the sick or abandoned animals? I remember these two belugas at point defience. They were my favorite animal to look at as a kid. Then just one or two years ago I found a note on their exhibit stating that the were part of a rehabilitation program and were moving to the next step of being released. I felt upset that I probably would not see those two whales again. Yet I also felt happy that there going back to were they were born and belong. If zoos did not exist I would never had been insprired to be a marine bioligist some day. Also if they did not exist what wouuld happen to belugas like those two? So if you ask me I will always say zoos are good.
Image
Image
Image

"There is beauty in every Creature, Stone, and Plant. To find it you Just have to look for It."


Click here if you dare!...

Image
Post Reply