Should zoos be made illegal or do they more good than harm?

[Severus Snape]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LHReo69Cu8

The vid talks about the debate about zoos doing much more harm than good after what had happen at Seaworld last year. I actually got to meet Jack Hanna last winter at the Columbus Zoo at an event for zoo members when they had Wildlights(he is still the spokesman for our zoo) and he is very nice guy and passionate about his work.

I'm currently a student at CSCC majoring in business but have thought about maybe seeking a career with working with wildlife.
As far as zoos go, they do a hell lot more good than bad. In fact, the Columbus Zoo is planning on releasing mexican wolfs back into the wild an animal that is currently extinct in the wild.
There are some real bad ones such as roadside zoos which people like Jack Hanna are fighting to get shut down.

 

[Loss Leader]

Zoos, yes. Seaworld, no.

 

[Baloney]

I agree that there should be community and government oversight into presenting captive animals to the public, in that the safety and health needs of both the patrons and the animals are met (or exceeded). However, even small zoos (where the previously-mentioned conditions are satisfied) can provide an educational outlet for scientific and conservationist concepts. Thus, in a well-managed setting, the good of zoos outweighs the bad; in fact, I'm not sure there is anything harm in a well-managed zoo.

 

[Severus Snape]

Zoos, yes. Seaworld, no.

Why you don't like Seaworld?
As Jack said on the vid, SW has played a huge role in saving the manatee from extinction.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I have mixed feelings about zoos. On the one hand, I understand that they serve important purposes when they are part of captive breeding programs that may preserve genetic diversity or even be the last sanctuary for certain animals.

I also understand that people have a tendency to protect what they understand, and zoos serve the purpose of introducing children to a wide variety of species so in the future they may feel motivated to protect them.

On the other hand, they suck. When I visit zoos with friends, I have to avoid the big cats, great apes, and elephants. I can handle the reptiles, fish, and some of the smaller mammals if they have plenty of room. It just bothers me to see the living conditions even the best zoos keep these animals in. There's no way to keep them captive and give them the room and experiences they need. In some ways I'm probably anthropomorphisizing.

I felt the same way about Steve Irwin; I understood what he was trying to do (I think) but it really bugged me to see him yanking animals out of their hiding places and handling them when they were obviously in fear of their lives. It's kind of the same thing.

 

[Amapola]

I think zoos that are well-run do a great deal of good. There are animals who would be extinct now if not for zoos. For example the Guam rail would now be extinct if not for zoos. Although some people may feel like "who cares" I believe that diversity is important. There are so many animals recently extinct I would have dearly loved to be able to see; the quagga, for one.

The educational element is important too. A lot of people have no contact with animals except at zoos. If people are able to observe animals, and gain a little understanding, that not only helps animals but the person as well.

I think Steve Irwin helped to educate about animals not always valued. Pretty much everyone likes beautiful animals like snow leopards; hardly anyone loves salt water crocodiles or scorpions. Yet they too are part of the world. Steve also did things like show how he would haul a dead animal, struck by a car, off the side of the road so that when scavenger animals came to feed on the carcass they too would not get struck by a car and killed. This sort of attitude, that animals matter, I feel is important.

 

[Baloney]

On the other hand, they suck. When I visit zoos with friends, I have to avoid the big cats, great apes, and elephants. I can handle the reptiles, fish, and some of the smaller mammals if they have plenty of room. It just bothers me to see the living conditions even the best zoos keep these animals in. There's no way to keep them captive and give them the room and experiences they need. In some ways I'm probably anthropomorphisizing.

I agree that many zoo habitats suck for larger animals, but well-funded zoos are getting progressively better at accommodating them. In my opinion, smaller, less well-funded zoos probably shouldn't have macrofauna if that they can't provide an appropriate habitat. With that said, it is also my opinion that (as Amapola points out) preserving endangered species is worth it if the cost is miserable individual animals, but I'd prefer it (and it makes more sense from a longevity standpoint) if the animals had what the needed.

The National Zoo in DC (USA) has what I feel is a good example of awful habitats in their great ape exhibits. The gorillas in particular often seem lethargic and ill (in comparison to other zoos I've visited).

I felt the same way about Steve Irwin; I understood what he was trying to do (I think) but it really bugged me to see him yanking animals out of their hiding places and handling them when they were obviously in fear of their lives. It's kind of the same thing.

Once again, the educational and conservationist aspects of what Steve Irwin did vastly outweighed the short-lived stress on the animals he harassed. He was frequently rescuing and rehabilitating injured or displaced animals as well.

I'm just surprised nobody has mentioned the taxidermed animals in natural history museums; however, again, I think individual animals of a species provide more scientific and educational value, as long as it's not contributing significantly to that species' endangerment.

[Also, I may have made up the word "taxidermed."]

 

[AmandaM]

That's an interesting interview, because both Ric and Jack are right.

Look at how much knowledge we've gained about mental health. Just, what, 50 years ago (?) people were carted off to asylums. Horrible. But we don't do that now.

Ric's experience was a very negative one, but that was also in the past. I think we've come a long way since the 50s, both in terms of mental health and animal psychology.

I enjoy places like SeaWorld and Animal Kingdom. If I thought for one instant that they were doing more harm than good, I wouldn't support them financially.

Roadside zoos and circuses need to go. We have strict rules on how lab animals can be kept and treated. Why not have the same rules for animals in an entertainment or zoo setting?

As for downing SeaWorld because it's a for-profit company, that's just ridiculous. Being for-profit doesn't equal evil.

As for training via treats, I do the same thing with my dog. He gets plenty of food during the day, grazing as he chooses, but he loves to do "tricks" for treats. Sometime I just give him pieces of his regular dog food for treats, instead of anything special. He's just as excited to receive those. I suspect he simply likes the interaction with me. He's certainly not starving or hungry.

Most of the larger animals like whales and elephants DO belong in the wild. But the people who inhabit those same wilds don't seem to appreciate their majesty and grandeur and simply slaughter them to make a living. I'd rather see them in zoos that attempt to mimic the wild than dying in the actual wild.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As a zoo director told me, "If the world were a perfect place, I'd close the zoo tomorrow".

 

[Varanid]

I don't have the energy at the moment to again defend animal education facilities as I just got home from working at mine.

Anthropomorphisms run rampant.

I'll leave you all with the same quote I did in the previous thread.

In the end, we only conserve what we love,
We only love what we understand,
and we only understand what we are taught.

-Baba Dioum

That is why I get out of the bed in the morning and go scoop up poo all day.

Before you go judging the big cat habitats, or the elephant habitats, et. al. and their keepers, you should probably educate yourself about these species. That does not mean reading the wiki page, it means going to spend a significant portion of your life caring for and studying these creatures.

Just because you would want them to have X doesn't mean that X has any value what-so-ever to the animal. You are not a lion, and short of spending an extended period of time studying and caring for them, I would suggest that you defer to those of us who work insane hours for far less than we are worth caring for them so that people can (hopefully) develop an appreciation for them, and the natural world in totality.

(I don't work with big cats, if that was confusing....and likewise....I will defer to those who do know what they are talking about). Personally, I work primarily with ectotherms (inverts, reptiles, amphibians, etc.). As soon as someone who works with big cats comes along and says that the way big cats are treated is improper, I will absolutely listen.

Say what you want about the "business" of zoos, but the people designing and maintaining habitats are by and large extraordinarily compassionate about their charges. We don't go into this field for the money....

(yes, I am lumping nature centers, science centers, natural history museums, and zoos into the same group- despite differences of scale).

Don't trip on my soapbox on your way out....

 

[BenBurch]

A zoo if often the last place a species exists. If we close them, all animals listed as "extinct in the wild" will be listed simply as "extinct."

 

[pipelineaudio]

what was the big sea world disaster you guys are referring to? I hope its not the case where a whole entire one person, an employee of sea world got killed while working there

 

[Varanid]

what was the big sea world disaster you guys are referring to? I hope its not the case where a whole entire one person, an employee of sea world got killed while working there

If I am not mistaken, several keepers have been killed over the years by the Killer Whales. I also fail to see the problem with people dieing doing a job they love, undertaking risks they understand better than anyone else.

Now, if Shamoo pops out into the crowd and grabs Sally in the third row, that is a problem.

I had better die from some sort of weird animal encounter....I could only be so lucky to be squished by a friggin Orca. With my luck I will die at the hand of some stupid bug or something.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Zoos, yes. Seaworld, no.

This! Seaworld is a tourist trap. Come visit us at the St. Louis Zoo. Or go to San Diego or Albuquerque even.

 

[roger]

Just because you would want them to have X doesn't mean that X has any value what-so-ever to the animal. You are not a lion, and short of spending an extended period of time studying and caring for them, I would suggest that you defer to those of us who work insane hours for far less than we are worth caring for them so that people can (hopefully) develop an appreciation for them, and the natural world in totality.

Defer? Sorry, no. Zoos in the past have done very poor things in regards to animals - presumably with the very same overworked, underpaid people. You are essentially arguing that oversight is not needed - 'don't you think the bankers know best how to run banks' kind of argument. Reality shows that oversight is needed in any endeavor.

I'm not disputing your main point - that what the average person thinks a wild animal needs may not be at all what it needs. But as with any profession, don't expect to be deferred to. Expect to be challenged.

 

[Varanid]

Defer? Sorry, no. Zoos in the past have done very poor things in regards to animals - presumably with the very same overworked, underpaid people. You are essentially arguing that oversight is not needed - 'don't you think the bankers know best how to run banks' kind of argument. Reality shows that oversight is needed in any endeavor.

I'm not disputing your main point - that what the average person thinks a wild animal needs may not be at all what it needs. But as with any profession, don't expect to be deferred to. Expect to be challenged.

Fair point that helps me articulate a problem I am having with my own argument.

On the one hand, the general public hasn't the first clue about what a given animal's true needs are. So, I (rightly in my mind) don't care what they think.

On the other hand, this is essentially an argument from authority.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If I am not mistaken, several keepers have been killed over the years by the Killer Whales. I

Isn't that what they're supposed to do? Hence, the name.

 

[Varanid]

As an example, in my state the Dept. of Ag. oversees retail animal production and DNR oversees native animals and their ownership.

In a decade and a half, I have yet to meet an inspector that could even identify most of the species in my care.

Those that were commonly kept (and easily identifiable) were the most difficult to deal with either agency about. They were frequently "educated" about these critters, and as such demanded counter-productive if not detrimental husbandry.

There is a species of desert lizard commonly kept. These lizards do not drink standing (still) water. For that matter, they drink precious little water in the first place- most of their water requirements are met by eating vegetation. However, the DoA insists that they are provided with water bowls.

Long story short, these water bowls are a horrible idea and are in many cases harmful to the lizards.

So, here is a case of being overseen by those who are barely better educated than the general public, and yet empowered to enforce their whims.

 

[Varanid]

Isn't that what they're supposed to do? Hence, the name.

But I am sure it was accidental.
Manslaughter Whales doesn't have the same ring though...

 

[roger]

Fair point that helps me articulate a problem I am having with my own argument.

On the one hand, the general public hasn't the first clue about what a given animal's true needs are. So, I (rightly in my mind) don't care what they think.

On the other hand, this is essentially an argument from authority.

Well, let's help your argument out. I don't doubt the passion and dedication in your line of work.

But, how is original research done for animal care? Is it mostly front line work by people like yourself just doing your daily job (hey, we threw some balls in the enclosure, and they ignored them, but boy do they love these XXX)? Is there funding and grants? Research from universities that you read and implement? Do you or other people do field work? That sort of thing.

What I'm getting at is that obviously zoos have improved since the 70s or so. Obviously, some of that was just due to having to comply to USDA regulations, but equally obviously zoos are learning how to care for animals better and doing things without being prodded by regulations. I'm just curious at how these advances are made, and how many advances might be yet to come (will a top notch zoo 100 years from now be very different, or very close to the best current zoos).