If it wasn't for some zoo's and their captive breeding programs, I would imagine there could well be several species of wonderful creatures now extinct....panda bears, Sumatran tigers, snow leopards for example....
I believe that some zoos are fast becoming the saviours of some animal species.
I do believe though that any venue that actively promote the use of "performing" animals should be closed down with immediate effect...there is no place for that in modern society, but the conservation of endagered species is very important and zoos are at the forefront of this.
Plus, being face to face (barring a 20ft gap and a fence) with a lion or tiger is far better than watching it on TV...
The worst day out I had in my life was taking my oldest son to Dudley Zoo for the day. The animals looked so depressed and miserable.
I thought you were going to say that Dudley ended up inside the snake exhibition, thanks to his wizard cousin, Harry! I obviously misread as I thought your son was called Dudley!
I'm in the middle of a conservation degree right now and I think the vast majority of zoos these days do a fantastic job caring for the animals. We've come on leaps and bounds from 50 or so years ago when there was no concern at all for their welfare. At lot of the bigger zoos are primarily geared towards conservation now anyway, and they do a great job educating the public as well.
By the way, I assume the people saying they're against keeping these animals in captivity are also against keeping cats and dogs as pets?
That's disingenuous and you probably know it.:)
Those animals I saw at Dudley (who by the way even then had loads of PR about their conservation attempts) were not being treated like pets. They were in small enclosures, a continent or two away from their natural habitats, in captivity.
I do understand the 'protecting the species' thing....but surely these days we can do this in the wild? We have protected areas where these endangered breeds are left in relative peace to live as they should.
Although I don't think it matters as seeing animals in captivity (however credible the breeding program/good the conditions) is a different thing entirely. You can eat meat and have no problem with it, but find putting animals in cages for their lifetimes, or making African animals live outside through a British winter, to be a cruel thing.
It depends upon the zoo, the majority now are pretty good.
Most African animals (mammals and birds) have no problems coping with our winter, it can get cold in Africa - obviously Africa is huge with many different climates but just about everywhere can get extremely cold at times.
Do you think farm animals aren't "in captivity"? Most farm animals are treated worse than zoo animals and they almost always have a worse fate.
By the way, I assume the people saying they're against keeping these animals in captivity are also against keeping cats and dogs as pets?
Dogs and cats are different as they are usually with us on their own terms especially cats and usually have a good life. A more pertinent point is those who consume animal products but are still against zoos, I cannot understand that.
Those animals I saw at Dudley (who by the way even then had loads of PR about their conservation attempts) were not being treated like pets. They were in small enclosures, a continent or two away from their natural habitats, in captivity.
Well that rather depends on how small we're talking here. Obviously they don't have the freedom to go wherever they like as they would in the wild, but not all animals need huge wide open spaces to live comfortably. And for those that do in the wild it's usually because of low densities of food or some other resource, which obviously aren't an issue in captivity. Of course I haven't been to Dudley specifically, the enclosures there may well be freakishly small in which case I apologise.
The more visitors they get, the more chance of more animals being snatched from their habitat and put in disgusting and cruel places like zoos.
Do you feel guilty?
You should.
It depends on the zoo.
If it's a good zoo that allows animals to carry out natural behaviour as much as possible and has large encloses, then not so much. If it's a poor zoo in some country that has little understanding of the animal's needs and only has small encloses, then such zoos should be closed down.
Some animals will become extinct without the effort being made by zoos.
I took my kids to Colchester Zoo about 15 years ago. It traumatised me to be honest. I will never forget the look in the monkeys eyes as it placed its hand over mine behind the glass. And the poor ****ing Lion.......Honestly it was horrific to me.
I do understand the 'protecting the species' thing....but surely these days we can do this in the wild? We have protected areas where these endangered breeds are left in relative peace to live as they should.
I hate zoos with a vengeance. I feel for those that work within them. I am sure they are doing it for the animals, but they are so misguided.
I knew Colchester Zoo (grew up in Colchester) and you are right it was fu.cking awful:(. No idea what it's like now, but 15-20 years ago it was horrendous. That is exactly the kind of Zoo which shouldn't be allowed imo.
There are many places where they do have large protected areas, unfortunately they are often targeted by poachers so for animals that are really on the edge of extinction just aren't safe enough. There is also (unfortunately) the issue of the relative instability of some of the states that they are in, a prolonged civil war means that a protected area actually isn't protected at all. I think the reality is, to have any hope of ensuring that some species survive, zoos and their breeding programs are essential right now.
I'm in the middle of a conservation degree right now and I think the vast majority of zoos these days do a fantastic job caring for the animals. We've come on leaps and bounds from 50 or so years ago when there was no concern at all for their welfare. At lot of the bigger zoos are primarily geared towards conservation now anyway, and they do a great job educating the public as well.
By the way, I assume the people saying they're against keeping these animals in captivity are also against keeping cats and dogs as pets?
Cats are allowed to carry out natural behaviours outside the home - before choosing to come home on their own accord - so it's not quite the same thing as elephants and tigers being confined in cages - albet big cages in a well run zoo.
A better comparassion would be rabbits kept in hutches.
Dogs and cats are different as they are usually with us on their own terms especially cats and usually have a good life. A more pertinent point is those who consume animal products but are still against zoos, I cannot understand that.
True, although I did see one post that seemed to be condemning keeping animals in captivity in general, which that point was mainly directed at.
To be honest, if i were a zebra i'd rather be in a zoo than on the plains of Africa with a lion munching on my arse or worrying if i take a drink a crocodile might bite my face off.
I am a caged animal at the moment anyway, stuck in my office at work.
If it wasn't for some zoo's and their captive breeding programs, I would imagine there could well be several species of wonderful creatures now extinct....panda bears, Sumatran tigers, snow leopards for example....
I believe that some zoos are fast becoming the saviours of some animal species.
I do believe though that any venue that actively promote the use of "performing" animals should be closed down with immediate effect...there is no place for that in modern society, but the conservation of endagered species is very important and zoos are at the forefront of this.
Plus, being face to face (barring a 20ft gap and a fence) with a lion or tiger is far better than watching it on TV...
So if the end of the World was nigh, you would be fine with your children living in concrete bottomed cages [size comes into this] for the whole of their natural lives to breed more humans then? Because it will maintain the human race innit.
Alternatively we could set up a natural habitat with a nice little house a tesco and a bit of garden and let them get on with it undisturbed and watch from a distance. Or send in a trusted few with cameras.
I know what I would prefer.
I visited Chessington World of Adventures at the beginning of the week. Once upon a time it used to be called Chessington Zoo, then the rollercoasters and rides appeared and the zoo took a back seat. It seems to have gone full circle and now has a 'ride' called Zufari which is essentially a truck that takes you on a mini safari where you see giraffes, zebras, rhinos and flamingos.
So if the end of the World was nigh, you would be fine with your children living in concrete bottomed cages [size comes into this] for the whole of their natural lives to breed more humans then? Because it will maintain the human race innit.
Alternatively we could set up a natural habitat with a nice little house a tesco and a bit of garden and let them get on with it undisturbed and watch from a distance. Or send in a trusted few with cameras.
I know what I would prefer.
No pop your natural habitat with a nice little house, a Tesco and a bit of garden in the Democratic Republic of Congo. See how it works out.
So if the end of the World was nigh, you would be fine with your children living in concrete bottomed cages [size comes into this] for the whole of their natural lives to breed more humans then? Because it will maintain the human race innit.
Alternatively we could set up a natural habitat with a nice little house a tesco and a bit of garden and let them get on with it undisturbed and watch from a distance. Or send in a trusted few with cameras.
I know what I would prefer.
That's just ridiculous make believe though isn't it...
Some species of animals extremely cose to extinction in the wild is a very close reality...innit !
Breeding programs in "places" specially built to re-create the animals natural habitat in a "safe" zone would obviously be far better for the animals....but as others have stated, in real terms this is not working in many instances, purely because of where the conservation parks are globally located...they are open to abuse....
If we could have these conservation parks with a guaranteed level of safety, security & privacy for the animals, this would trump zoos enormously.
Anyway, If we were to "cage" humans in the future simply to breed to secure the human race, the first lot to be caged would be the ones who say "innit".... that way, through a program of captive breeding we could breed it out of modern vocabulary.
That's just ridiculous make believe though isn't it...
Some species of animals extremely cose to extinction in the wild is a very close reality...innit !
Breeding programs in "places" specially built to re-create the animals natural habitat in a "safe" zone would obviously be far better for the animals....but as others have stated, in real terms this is not working in many instances, purely because of where the conservation parks are globally located...they are open to abuse....
If we could have these conservation parks with a guaranteed level of safety, security & privacy for the animals, this would trump zoos enormously.
Anyway, If we were to "cage" humans in the future simply to breed to secure the human race, the first lot to be caged would be the ones who say "innit".... that way, through a program of captive breeding we could breed it out of modern vocabulary.
I don't know! If we are breeding back the human race shouldn't we try to do that from the top of the gene pool, not the bottom?;)
If it's a good zoo that allows animals to carry out natural behaviour as much as possible and has large encloses, then not so much. If it's a poor zoo in some country that has little understanding of the animal's needs and only has small encloses, then such zoos should be closed down.
Some animals will become extinct without the effort being made by zoos.
I agree. Extinction of these magnificent animals is the saddest thing imaginable.
Contrary to what some people appear to believe, animals are not snatched from the wild and placed in cages. Animals in the wild are hunted and shot, daily, because of human greed. Killing elephants and rhinos to use tusks for medicine is bigmoney business. If there was no conservation programme/breedingprogramme how long will there be any of these animals in their natural environment.
What about these rich fools paying a fortune to travel thousands of miles with the aim of shooting and killing zebras, lions, tigers? Will nature be able to withstand this? I doubt it.
Edinburgh Zoo has an excellent Education Programme. If it were not for zoos then there would be no Giant Pandas, Tigers or many other species.
I remember years ago, Glasgow Zoo, a large room with barred cages all the way round each containing a lion or tiger. The saddest sight I've ever seen. Visit Edinburgh Zoo now. It's nothing like that. These animals are protected, fed and I think, content. Being hunted down in Africa, babies left to starve while mothers are murdered for their skins or tusks, is what I call morally wrong but it won't stop. If zoos can halt the extinction of the animals then Iam all for them.
I'm in the middle of a conservation degree right now and I think the vast majority of zoos these days do a fantastic job caring for the animals. We've come on leaps and bounds from 50 or so years ago when there was no concern at all for their welfare. At lot of the bigger zoos are primarily geared towards conservation now anyway, and they do a great job educating the public as well.
By the way, I assume the people saying they're against keeping these animals in captivity are also against keeping cats and dogs as pets?
Cats and dogs have evolved over thousands of years through domestication and can't seriously be compared.
I don't visit zoos as I find it quite distressing to see wild animals out of their natural environment, but I do understand the invaluable conservation work they do.
Without a reservoir of animals with which to breed from we would undoubtedly lose many species to poachers and habitat destruction.
I have not been to London recently but have been to sister site ZSL Whipsnade.
Whipsnade 600 acres. 193 species, 2741 animals
London 36 acres 19178 animals (assume includes insects)
It is of note Whipsnade is rather close to Woburn which as a drive thru park is larger that Whipsnade.
But reading some comments should we close ths smaller parks and give the animals more sapce?
To be honest, if i were a zebra i'd rather be in a zoo than on the plains of Africa with a lion munching on my arse or worrying if i take a drink a crocodile might bite my face off.
I am a caged animal at the moment anyway, stuck in my office at work.
:D:D:D You've come out with some belters today Picto! Thank you.:D
Comments
I believe that some zoos are fast becoming the saviours of some animal species.
I do believe though that any venue that actively promote the use of "performing" animals should be closed down with immediate effect...there is no place for that in modern society, but the conservation of endagered species is very important and zoos are at the forefront of this.
Plus, being face to face (barring a 20ft gap and a fence) with a lion or tiger is far better than watching it on TV...
I thought you were going to say that Dudley ended up inside the snake exhibition, thanks to his wizard cousin, Harry!
That's disingenuous and you probably know it.:)
Those animals I saw at Dudley (who by the way even then had loads of PR about their conservation attempts) were not being treated like pets. They were in small enclosures, a continent or two away from their natural habitats, in captivity.
I do agree wholeheartedly with this......
It depends upon the zoo, the majority now are pretty good.
Most African animals (mammals and birds) have no problems coping with our winter, it can get cold in Africa - obviously Africa is huge with many different climates but just about everywhere can get extremely cold at times.
Do you think farm animals aren't "in captivity"? Most farm animals are treated worse than zoo animals and they almost always have a worse fate.
I imagine it takes such a long time to get down off that massively high horse that by the time they get there all the zoos are shut.
Dogs and cats are different as they are usually with us on their own terms especially cats and usually have a good life. A more pertinent point is those who consume animal products but are still against zoos, I cannot understand that.
Well that rather depends on how small we're talking here. Obviously they don't have the freedom to go wherever they like as they would in the wild, but not all animals need huge wide open spaces to live comfortably. And for those that do in the wild it's usually because of low densities of food or some other resource, which obviously aren't an issue in captivity. Of course I haven't been to Dudley specifically, the enclosures there may well be freakishly small in which case I apologise.
Wouldn't riding a high horse be cruel to the horse though?
It depends on the zoo.
If it's a good zoo that allows animals to carry out natural behaviour as much as possible and has large encloses, then not so much. If it's a poor zoo in some country that has little understanding of the animal's needs and only has small encloses, then such zoos should be closed down.
Some animals will become extinct without the effort being made by zoos.
I knew Colchester Zoo (grew up in Colchester) and you are right it was fu.cking awful:(. No idea what it's like now, but 15-20 years ago it was horrendous. That is exactly the kind of Zoo which shouldn't be allowed imo.
There are many places where they do have large protected areas, unfortunately they are often targeted by poachers so for animals that are really on the edge of extinction just aren't safe enough. There is also (unfortunately) the issue of the relative instability of some of the states that they are in, a prolonged civil war means that a protected area actually isn't protected at all. I think the reality is, to have any hope of ensuring that some species survive, zoos and their breeding programs are essential right now.
Cats are allowed to carry out natural behaviours outside the home - before choosing to come home on their own accord - so it's not quite the same thing as elephants and tigers being confined in cages - albet big cages in a well run zoo.
A better comparassion would be rabbits kept in hutches.
True, although I did see one post that seemed to be condemning keeping animals in captivity in general, which that point was mainly directed at.
I am a caged animal at the moment anyway, stuck in my office at work.
So if the end of the World was nigh, you would be fine with your children living in concrete bottomed cages [size comes into this] for the whole of their natural lives to breed more humans then? Because it will maintain the human race innit.
Alternatively we could set up a natural habitat with a nice little house a tesco and a bit of garden and let them get on with it undisturbed and watch from a distance. Or send in a trusted few with cameras.
I know what I would prefer.
The animals looked bored shítless, poor buggers!!
No pop your natural habitat with a nice little house, a Tesco and a bit of garden in the Democratic Republic of Congo. See how it works out.
That's just ridiculous make believe though isn't it...
Some species of animals extremely cose to extinction in the wild is a very close reality...innit !
Breeding programs in "places" specially built to re-create the animals natural habitat in a "safe" zone would obviously be far better for the animals....but as others have stated, in real terms this is not working in many instances, purely because of where the conservation parks are globally located...they are open to abuse....
If we could have these conservation parks with a guaranteed level of safety, security & privacy for the animals, this would trump zoos enormously.
Anyway, If we were to "cage" humans in the future simply to breed to secure the human race, the first lot to be caged would be the ones who say "innit".... that way, through a program of captive breeding we could breed it out of modern vocabulary.
I don't know! If we are breeding back the human race shouldn't we try to do that from the top of the gene pool, not the bottom?;)
I agree. Extinction of these magnificent animals is the saddest thing imaginable.
Contrary to what some people appear to believe, animals are not snatched from the wild and placed in cages. Animals in the wild are hunted and shot, daily, because of human greed. Killing elephants and rhinos to use tusks for medicine is bigmoney business. If there was no conservation programme/breedingprogramme how long will there be any of these animals in their natural environment.
What about these rich fools paying a fortune to travel thousands of miles with the aim of shooting and killing zebras, lions, tigers? Will nature be able to withstand this? I doubt it.
Edinburgh Zoo has an excellent Education Programme. If it were not for zoos then there would be no Giant Pandas, Tigers or many other species.
I remember years ago, Glasgow Zoo, a large room with barred cages all the way round each containing a lion or tiger. The saddest sight I've ever seen. Visit Edinburgh Zoo now. It's nothing like that. These animals are protected, fed and I think, content. Being hunted down in Africa, babies left to starve while mothers are murdered for their skins or tusks, is what I call morally wrong but it won't stop. If zoos can halt the extinction of the animals then Iam all for them.
Cats and dogs have evolved over thousands of years through domestication and can't seriously be compared.
I don't visit zoos as I find it quite distressing to see wild animals out of their natural environment, but I do understand the invaluable conservation work they do.
Without a reservoir of animals with which to breed from we would undoubtedly lose many species to poachers and habitat destruction.
I adore animals so went on safari to see them in their natural habitat - now that was amazing and something I will remember for the rest of my life.
I have not been to London recently but have been to sister site ZSL Whipsnade.
Whipsnade 600 acres. 193 species, 2741 animals
London 36 acres 19178 animals (assume includes insects)
It is of note Whipsnade is rather close to Woburn which as a drive thru park is larger that Whipsnade.
But reading some comments should we close ths smaller parks and give the animals more sapce?