Jump to content

Menu

Cincinnati Zoo Incident - What do you think of zoos? Do you go to zoos?


Slojo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I won't post the video of the 4 year old boy who fell into the gorilla exhibit habitat (parts of it are graphic/scary to watch - boy is okay in the end, and seems gorilla wasn't intending harm but may have gotten confused/agitated by all the human commotion). If you want to see it, and haven't you can view it on several websites (again boy is okay, but gorilla was put down to save the boy's life). The incident has sparked a fair amount of outrage over the gorilla (an endangered silverback) being put down. I read several comments (some of which were callous, and not a central part of my interest), and was wondering what folks around here think of zoos?

 

Are you opposed to them? Like them? Do you think they are part of the answer to conservation efforts? Centers for human entertainment that probably shouldn't exist? I am conflicted about zoos. I have gone to them, and my children have gone, but I'm kind of on the side of them not being such a good thing. I think conservation centers, largely not open to the public, might be a good thing for endangered species, but zoos feel a little gray - kind of about conservation, but mostly about human entertainment, and the Cincinnati incident highlighted those issues again for me. What do you think?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We love zoos and frankly, I find the argument that people who want to view animals should just travel to their natural habitats to be very elitist. Visiting the zoo is inexpensive while travel is expensive, especially going oversees.

 

Lots of veterinarians, zoologists, etc. fell in love with animals because they visited zoos as children.

  • Like 38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fall in between. I don't think every city or county needs its own zoo. I'm in favor of fewer but larger centers that are more geared towards conservation and sanctuary, knowing that a good portion of awareness and support for those missions come from the public's support and interest. These places would have an eye toward natural habitat and education and research, rather than cages and entertainment. They'd serve a larger region, rather than be individual to cities - even big cities.

 

I actually think it's more elitist to put our desires (as opposed to our needs) ahead of our responsibility towards the species entrusted to our care.

  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy zoos in general but I don't like seeing gorillas there. I know all gorillas in zoos today are born into captivity , but, they sure do not seem to enjoy their small habitats and monotonous lives.

 

I don't understand protests against shooting the silverback. It is very very sad, but , saving the child had to be the paramount goal. It's not clear whether the gorilla meant to do harm but he did seem to have no idea or concern with how fragile that child was. Gorilla moms don't let their children near silverbacks either.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love zoos. Our local one only has rescued or rehabilitating animals that for one reason or another cannot be released back into the wild. They also have an isolation hospital unit for animals that *can* be released but need care first. Very cool!

 

I grew up less than ten minutes from the Wild Animal Park (now called Safari Park) down in San Diego county. It was amazing to have so many beautiful animals so close by and they did great work in preserving many species that we're going endangered in their natural habitats. You can't control the government and habits of xyz country, but you can cultivate breeding programs and captive herds/flocks to keep at least some of the population alive where farming, deforestation, or poaching has threatened their existence.

 

Yes to zoos. Absolutely. St Louis's was also lovely - I couldn't believe we could just walk in free of charge and enjoy it. Love!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't like zoos. They just seem sad and depressing. Dds won't go to them at all, along with circuses and Sea World. They don't mind going to actual rescues, but those are set up very differently.

I don't think it's fair to compare zoos to places that actively torment creatures do they will perform. Not in the same moral ballpark.

 

I do know a number of people who don't like zoos and find them sad. I think that is fair. There are clearly some animals that do not thrive in that environment . Some cats, some primates. Maybe octopi?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think zoos are good for the animals. My kids love them. Should that matter? Should an animal have a less than ideal life for my children's amusement??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cinci zoo is national recognized, has fantastic breeding programs, is well run and amazing.  I have spent HOURS by that habitat over the years and seen more IDIOT parenting there than in the local walmart.

 

The situation is tragic.  

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think zoos are good for the animals. My kids love them. Should that matter? Should an animal have a less than ideal life for my children's amusement??

I don't think that zoos are for children's entertainment.

All the zoos that I am familiar with have stated goals of public education not entertainment.

They are associated with non profit organizations that raise funds for research at the zoo and for conservation all over the world.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, zoos exist for scientific research, for preservation, and for public education.  Its not like the modern zoo is comparable to Uncle Pete keeping three bears and a tiger off of route 66 for the amusement of passersby.  Tho I think some states do still have issues with that sort of thing. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of zoos. We used to go often and even had a membership one year. But in the past couple of years I have become more of the opinion that it's not right to keep these animals this way. Our zoo has gone from cages to large habitats over the last several years, but it is still a relatively small area compared to these animals' natural environments. The kids have asked and we may take them this summer, but I'm not sure. It's a hard call for me. My DD7 absolutely loves animals and wants to be a vet when she grows up. So on the one hand there is so much she could learn if we make use of the zoo's programs plus her joy of being there. But on the other hand I am reluctant to continue supporting something I don't really agree with.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, zoos exist for scientific research, for preservation, and for public education.  Its not like the modern zoo is comparable to Uncle Pete keeping three bears and a tiger off of route 66 for the amusement of passersby.  Tho I think some states do still have issues with that sort of thing. 

 

:iagree: Our local zoos really work to keep exhibits as much like a natural habitat as possible and intentionally place items to simulate things that happen in the animals natural environment, etc.   I do think education oriented zoos make people more aware of conservation efforts and overall are a net positive for the good.

 

That said, there are certainly more entertainment oriented parks and older zoos with small and inadequate exhibits.  Sea World is appealing to me. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that zoos are for children's entertainment.

All the zoos that I am familiar with have stated goals of public education not entertainment.

They are associated with non profit organizations that raise funds for research at the zoo and for conservation all over the world.

 

Well, there's a fine line between public education and entertainment. People get mighty ticked if they can't see the animals & they won't pay $20/head to go in even if there's a chance they won't see anything. The facilities with the really giant habitats and significant evidence based scientific programs, and the ones working on reintroduction into the wild and preserving species at risk are doing good work. I don't think they necessarily need to be open to the public and especially not the way that people want them to be. 

 

The Elephant Sanctuary is closed to the public. The Big Cat Rescue has tours and maybe that's a good compromise? 

 

btw, regarding the roadside zoo issues - it's still a problem in the US. In fact, Big Cat Rescue is championing a bill which would end the private possession of big cats - many of which end up in small travelling zoos or just mistreated in some concrete cell http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/51389/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=16017

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much better that these animals die out completely apparently.

 

bc that is the legitimate alternative. you guys. really.

There are many animals in captivity that aren't in danger of dying out. So, I don't really get why that's a credible argument. If those animals were the only ones being kept, maybe I could see the argument. That's not the case, though.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zoos always make me sad.  But, we still go once a year when the kiddos get their free passes from the library's summer reading program.  And they love it.  I've got one who loves, loves, loves animals.  Seriously, she just spent all weekend with the grandparents, who have eight - yes, eight! - puppies, and she loved every minute of it - spent half an hour giggling straight as puppies climbed in her lap, bit her toes, and pulled her hair.  She loves seeing the animals at the zoo, and I have to practically drag her away from one habitat to go see another one.  She is young enough though, that I don't think she realizes how small their spaces are compared to what they would have in the wild.  But on the other hand, most zoo animals have been born in captivity, and there is no danger of poachers or predators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean African safaris (that is why I mentioned the one in Louisiana).

 

By cages I meant the gamut from cages (

) through to enclosures.  The only zoo I have been to is the Kansas City Zoo.

 

They are almost all quite small compared to the animal's natural habitat.

 

I am actually okay with a lot more human use of animals than you might think - animal testing for medicines, responsible and humane farming, hunting, etc.

 

But to put an animal in an enclosure/cage its whole life just so my kids can *look* at it?

 

Nah.  Not for me.  I don't know that they should be outlawed, but I don't feel like being responsible for one (by paying to go there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big Cat Rescue has tours and maybe that's a good compromise? 

 

 

 

I would prefer this sort of thing.  Of course, the variety of animals to be seen would be reduced (places like that usually specialize) unless the facility is HUGE because I think animals deserve WAY more space in their "free" time than zoos usually give them.  :(  I think many zoos do wonderful things behind the scenes, but to make them all closed to the public would be a shame.  I do think a compromise is important because the world needs to SEE God's creation, IMO, in order to be more compassionate towards it.  And zoos educate us about these creatures, as well.  The zoo was our very first field trip and learning experience as homeschoolers...it was the first outing that we didn't take for granted as just for enjoyment, but for education!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer this sort of thing.  Of course, the variety of animals to be seen would be reduced (places like that usually specialize) unless the facility is HUGE because I think animals deserve WAY more space in their "free" time than zoos usually give them.   :(  I think many zoos do wonderful things behind the scenes, but to make them all closed to the public would be a shame.  I do think a compromise is important because the world needs to SEE God's creation, IMO, in order to be more compassionate towards it.  And zoos educate us about these creatures, as well.  The zoo was our very first field trip and learning experience as homeschoolers...it was the first outing that we didn't take for granted as just for enjoyment, but for education!

 

 

I disagree that you need to see exotic animals to have compassion for them.  I went to my first zoo at age 21 or 22 (also my last zoo) and have not lacked compassion either before or since.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the big zoos are generally doing a good job of treating animals well and contributing to conservation while still educating people.  It is so much better than when I was a kid, there really is no comparison.  So I am in favor of a responsibly-designed, responsibly-managed zoo.

 

The recent gorilla incident was tragic, but I find some of the comments I've seen disturbing.  As if there is any question that the little boy's safety was #1.  Of course he shouldn't have been in there, but he was, so we deal with it.

 

I haven't found a video that showed the whole incident.  The one I keep seeing says they have edited out the disturbing parts.  So how can anyone argue about whether or not the little boy was in trouble?  I am sure the person with the gun had no desire to kill the animal but felt there was no other choice.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think zoos are good for the animals.

 

Even though many endangered species are being kept alive through zoo breeding programs? And that exposure to zoo animals inspires people in rich countries to financially support habitat preservation and anti-poaching efforts in poor countries?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's the fine line between education and entertainment that I think most zoos are walking. I think that the fact that there is no way that the space that zoos can dedicate is anywhere near their natural territory makes it complex. I think that zoos have to have a profit margin and that not every single animal in a zoo is a member of an endangered species complicates the conservation argument. I think mostly, next time I go to a zoo, I'm going to think a little harder about the animals and whether this is indeed the best way to protect endangered species. Maybe I'm leaning more toward the rescue center model as a better model to support. I like the idea of regional centers that allow some access for education, but probably far less access and in a way that many people, with entertainment in mind over conservation (let's keep this real - zoos are in the amusement business) might not fork over the $20 for out of the goodness of their hearts. I don't have the answers - just thinking. 

 

Much better that these animals die out completely apparently.

 

bc that is the legitimate alternative.  you guys.  really.

 

No - no one is in that camp. I do know there are poachers, and that some of the protection efforts are extremely difficult and dangerous because of that. I'm not opposed to zoos entirely, but do think we need to continue to rethink them. It just doesn't feel like we are quite at the right balance between the various aims of zoos -- and, zoos have various aims, not all of which are about the animals. 

 

I disagree that you need to see exotic animals to have compassion for them.  I went to my first zoo at age 21 or 22 (also my last zoo) and have not lacked compassion either before or since.

 

I think this is right. A piece of the problem is the idea that the only way to garner support is that humans have to see the animals. I get that humans like connection, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that animals need to be "paraded around" to get the humans to care. Some things should be supported as inherently right whether I get to have a personal encounter with it or not. We wouldn't say that of human crises -- no, I need to personally see Haiti before I can find it in my heart to give to the cause (though I'm sure those people exist). I know there are flaws with that analogy, but there are flaws with the "zoos as the way to build the public interest" argument as well. If for some reason we didn't have zoos - or we removed primates from zoos -- we just wouldn't care as much about the animals? That makes me sad (and makes me want to donate to a rescue center that I've never been to just to prove that one doesn't need to see wild animals up close to care). 

Edited by Slojo
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People might be interested in the IDA 2014 worst zoos for elephants list. http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wild-free2/elephant-protection/hall-of-shame/2014-ten-worst-zoos-elephants/

"Ă¢â‚¬Å“Conservation cannot be used as an excuse for cruelty, especially when we know that elephants bred in captivity will not be released to the wild. The tens of millions of dollars spent keeping elephants in zoos could be used more wisely and compassionately for real conservation.Ă¢â‚¬

The IDA received support from Jane Goodall for their tireless efforts to get the Coulston lab chimpanzees freed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't go to zoos or places like SeaWorld because I really feel bad when I see big animals like elephants and giraffes in a small enclosure and to me they look depressed. These majestic creatures should be roaming on acres of wild forest instead of being in a small place with a bunch of noisy people walking around them all day long. I am not the fun parent who takes her kid to the zoo on summer break. My child understands my point of view. What i love is to watch animals in their natural habitat on TV. We watch a lot of those in our house.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love zoos and seeing the animals interacting etc. I don't think they are all sad or all look sad. Our zoos have a significant breeding program and species that won't exist in their own countries soon may be able to be reintroduced to those countries eventually because of the breeding programmes.

 

I do think as humans we have a responsibility to give the best possible quality of life we can if we take an animals freedom. I feel that our zoos mostly do the best job they can of doing that with the budget constraints they have. (Actually they run at a loss sadly. It's definitely a labour of love and not a money spinner).

 

There are occasionally times when animals do seem really bored and unhappy with their situation and that makes me sad but it's definitely not all the animals all the time. Overall I think most zoo animals have a far better quality of life than cage chooks or lot fed beef cows.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's the fine line between education and entertainment that I think most zoos are walking. I think that the fact that there is no way that the space that zoos can dedicate is anywhere near their natural territory makes it complex. I think that zoos have to have a profit margin and that not every single animal in a zoo is a member of an endangered species complicates the conservation argument. I think mostly, next time I go to a zoo, I'm going to think a little harder about the animals and whether this is indeed the best way to protect endangered species. Maybe I'm leaning more toward the rescue center model as a better model to support. I like the idea of regional centers that allow some access for education, but probably far less access and in a way that many people, with entertainment in mind over conservation (let's keep this real - zoos are in the amusement business) might not fork over the $20 for out of the goodness of their hearts. I don't have the answers - just thinking.

 

 

No - no one is in that camp. I do know there are poachers, and that some of the protection efforts are extremely difficult and dangerous because of that. I'm not opposed to zoos entirely, but do think we need to continue to rethink them. It just doesn't feel like we are quite at the right balance between the various aims of zoos -- and, zoos have various aims, not all of which are about the animals.

 

 

I think this is right. A piece of the problem is the idea that the only way to garner support is that humans have to see the animals. I get that humans like connection, but it doesn't quite sit right with me that animals need to be "paraded around" to get the humans to care. Some things should be supported as inherently right whether I get to have a personal encounter with it or not. We wouldn't say that of human crises -- no, I need to personally see Haiti before I can find it in my heart to give to the cause (though I'm sure those people exist). I know there are flaws with that analogy, but there are flaws with the "zoos as the way to build the public interest" argument as well. If for some reason we didn't have zoos - or we removed primates from zoos -- we just wouldn't care as much about the animals? That makes me sad (and makes me want to donate to a rescue center that I've never been to just to prove that one doesn't need to see wild animals up close to care).

I get that it might not be right but I think it's realistic right now unfortunately. Not everyone is idealistic and compassionate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some zoos are better then others and they are getting better over time. I like larger sanctuary type places that get less visitors but zoos with large more natural enclosures that do a lot of conservation type stuff are fine.

 

I think this situation is sad. I try not to judge parents before knowing the whole situation. It bothers me how people villipfy parents and blame them for everything. People are quick to vilify and judge in general. I do have a hard time though knowing how you can let you kid in the areas that are clearly fenced off with warnings. I think it is very sad they had to shoot a critically endangered species especially when he does not even appear to purposely try to harm the child. I do not want to see a kid die but this is a species us humans nearly wiped off the face of the earth with our actions. They are highly intelligent animals and their future survival is at great risk. Losing an individual for something like this is not good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't vouch for all zoos, but I like ours. They've built awesome areas for different animals, the animals don't look "depressed" like some have mentioned. It seems like they are loved and treated properly? Why would I be against it? I won't judge the Cincinnati incident. I wasn't there. Already saw some fb posts calling the mom a B&%$ who wasn't watching her kid. Really?? Maybe, just maybe, it was an accident. And yes, it is unfortunate the gorilla had to be killed, but the little boys' life had to be protected. I want to believe the gorilla would not maliciously hurt the child, but trample him to death in all the commotion? You bet! It could have happened easily. I wasn't there, so I don't know if the mom was irresponsible or not? But it made me sad to read that post referring to her in such a mean way. I mean, my 18month old was fascinated by the alligators during our last visit to the zoo...he was so sure he could jump in and go hang out with his new friends... I had to hold him tight! An accident can happen anytime. I'm bummed the gorilla had to die, I'm so glad the little boy is safe, and I'm appaled anyone would call his mom a B&%$#...I don't think it's right for anyone to judge :(

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how you can let you kid in the areas that are clearly fenced off with warnings.

I haven't watched the video, and I won't...but I clearly read the little boy fell. It sounds like it was an unfortunate accident? I doubt any parent will easily allow their kid to go hang out with gorillas. Sounds to me like this was an unfortunate and frightening accident, not a "let's break the rules and allow my child to go hang out with gorillas" type of thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of decades ago I toured a zoo with a zoo biologist. He pointed out all the problems with the habitats and a number of animals that weren't behaving naturally, i.e. a big cat that chewed its tail and a bear that paced back and forth, back and forth. It really put me off zoos. I know the habitats are better now at that zoo, and probably most U.S. zoos, but zoos are tainted for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only taken my kids to the zoo once when we trekked up north to see family.  It was far far better than when I was a kid.  I also can not see a child falling into an enclosure at Wellington Zoo with the modern enclosures though I think the awful polar bear enclosure they used to have could be fallen into.  Did the kid climb up the railing while the parents looked on smiling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only taken my kids to the zoo once when we trekked up north to see family. It was far far better than when I was a kid. I also can not see a child falling into an enclosure at Wellington Zoo with the modern enclosures though I think the awful polar bear enclosure they used to have could be fallen into. Did the kid climb up the railing while the parents looked on smiling?

There are a couple of enclosures at zoos I've seen in Aus where a determined kid could probably get in. I read in a comment though it's not verified on the news that the mum had multiple kids, possibly daycare kids, and was distracted by other kids at the time. I must admit I have had trouble with my normally cooperative kids at the zoo at least once, when there was a huge crowd and I lost sight of them. I'm hesitant to judge the mum. The permanently switched on thing as a mum is really hard and accidents happen.

 

I also think the zookeepers made the right decision as I have unfortunately witnessed lovely "nature" at work when some local wildlife got into an enclosure once and it was pretty horrific.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who is a  wildlife biologist, and who has worked for many years on a project for endangered animals. Part of her employment was through a large zoo, which she wasn't particularly pleased about, but she saw the pros and cons of modern zoos.

 

But historically speaking, most zoos when they first founded (20's, 30's, 50's) were absolutely horrific places for animals. Nothing more than a stationary circus, with abuse and mistreatment that rivaled that of the worst circuses of those days. Zoos today are pouring money into natural enclosures, breeding programs, education, and conservation programs in part to atone and make up for their awful history. We, Jane Doe Public, may not understand the reasons for these things, but the short memory of the public is what the zoos are counting on. In the eyes of many biologists, the "new and improved" zoos are still awful and doing too little way too late.

 

I am sensitive to the controversy of zoos. I do sometimes take my kids to a zoo. I try to focus on the education aspect ("Yes, the koalas are sleeping. They sleep a lot. Look, it says here that they need only certain types of eucalyptus, and their habitat is endangered, that means some koalas could starve to death."). And I would investigate a zoo thoroughly before buying a membership.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they had used a Tranquilizer Gun, to put the animal to sleep, how long it would have taken, for the animal to sleep, so they could rescue the boy.  I suspect that might have taken a long time and they did not want to   risk the boys life. This morning (30 May 2016) there is a major article on the news page that is my "Home Page" in my web browswer. From the title, I think they are now "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" the decision that was made.

 

We had not been to a zoo in years.  At the end of April, we went to Animal Kingdom in Walt Disney World.  Many of the animals they have in Animal Kingdom, and, in our local zoo in Cali, Colombia, are nearly extinct.  Probably without them being in zoos, and with breeding programs, many species would become extinct.    

 

Animal Kingdom seemed to be a place where the animals can roam around and be happy. We especially enjoyed the show about Birds, which was, indeed, a learning experience for us.  

 

Bottom line is that without responsible zoos, I believe a lot of species would  become extinct. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love (most) zoos.  I would not care for the small cage/big critter variety that many zoos used to be, but that's not the situation now at the majority of zoos.  Now they actively work toward enrichment and other things.

 

If I were a prey animal, I'd want to live in a zoo!  Those in the wild are always fearful (for good reason).  Those in zoos look far more relaxed and happy.

 

Predators tend to have life better too.  In the wild, many starve - esp if they aren't good at hunting.  I haven't noticed a difference in "look" between sleeping predators in wildlife documentaries and sleeping predators in zoos.

 

Poached animals are certainly safer in zoos.

 

Overall, the more room critters get the better, but there tends to be a limit on what's available.  Even our ponies have fences at the end of their pastures.  Heck, one of my boys would love to roam free too, but our property only goes so far.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like our (NC) zoo.  It's the largest walk-thru zoo in the world.  Most animals have very large enclosures to roam.  Yes, sometimes that means visitors don't get to see them.  It's a small issue IMO.  Our zoo is/has been involved in the species survival plan for many endangered animals, including red wolves gorillas and numerous bird species.  I've been to quite a few other zoos throughout the country (including the Cincy zoo) and haven't been impressed.  But all those visits to other zoos was a very long time ago, so it's possible things have improved at most of them.  And our zoo has caused me to have an extremely high bar for judging.

 

I don't like to see any animal exhibiting stress behaviors, but I think it's important to keep in mind that even well loved dogs who live in caring homes with people who keep them mentally and physically active can show stress behaviors.  Animals are like people as far as each one having their own personality and some being naturally more anxious/stressy than others.  And I don't say that to excuse anything seen at zoos, but just to point out that it may not ALL be due to being confined.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I have watched the video on this URL, yes, sadly, I believe they did the correct thing. Shooting the Gorilla with a  Tranquilizer Bullet would, IMO, have put the life of the boy in far more danger, because the effects would probably not have been immediate.  IMO, the zoo team did the responsible thing, to save the boy.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/30/cincinnati-zoos-killing-gorilla-to-rescue-4-year-old-boy-sparks-outrage.html?intcmp=hpbt2

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most zoos I am opposed to.  They do a poor job of conservation and creating decent habitats for the animals.  The only two exceptions I have found so far are the Omaha (HD) zoo and Disney's Animal Kingdom.  And even the HD zoo was a little iffy after I found an internal letter of correction shoved in a library book.
 

We have zoos near us I won't go to.  They just feel wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like zoos. I don't like parents who let their little precious climb into animal enclosures

 

Well, very few parents LET their littles into animal enclosures, so that group is thankfully small indeed. I, too, get incensed by "entitled parenting", but I don't know that this is a case of "mommy let little Johnny climb where he wanted." I was angry at the moms who watched and filmed their little darlings pulling at a glass art sculpture, and then -- oh, a piece broke off... oops!  This seemed more like, she counted heads and was searching, and he was already through (and not visible in the foliage) in the time it takes to count the three or four heads she had in her care and then several people heard the splash. There were a couple of people who were there that posted that it was much closer to a scenario that most parents find themselves in at least once or twice (losing sight of your child for 10 - 15 seconds - and in that time, he was through and not seeable until people heard the splash), and that she didn't seem like a particularly irresponsible parent. I think the lesson is less "what a horrible mom" and more "as bizarre as this was, it could happen to me." I think we should all take in a bit of "it could happen to me" into our take-away of this story, the same way we might take in a "leaving a baby in a hot car when you thought you dropped him off at daycare." Horrible, freak accident - but each of us needs that small reminder that it could happen to us. 

I get that it might not be right but I think it's realistic right now unfortunately. Not everyone is idealistic and compassionate.

Yes. But it kind of proves my point. Zoos seem, more often than not, an unfortunate compromise. Still makes me sad that humanity can't do better.

 

A couple of decades ago I toured a zoo with a zoo biologist. He pointed out all the problems with the habitats and a number of animals that weren't behaving naturally, i.e. a big cat that chewed its tail and a bear that paced back and forth, back and forth. It really put me off zoos. I know the habitats are better now at that zoo, and probably most U.S. zoos, but zoos are tainted for me.

Yes, this. I think some zoos do a better job certainly, but I do wonder about the stresses on animals. I remember seeing a polar bear at a zoo once, and he was walking forward five steps and then backing up nervously five steps, and kept repeating that behavior for 10 minutes. Maybe it was nothing (and I don't know anything about bears), but my friend and I were like, "the bear's gone crazy... poor bear." It didn't seem like something the bear would have done under normal circumstances. 

 

I think there is a reason why the Inky the Squid escape resonated with a lot of folks: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/13/the-great-escape-inky-the-octopus-legs-it-to-freedom-from-new-zealand-aquarium  There is a compromise with zoos and similar places that doesn't feel 100% right. This is not an argument for "just let the species become extinct," just acknowledgement that humans are central actors in creating the conditions of species extinction in the first place.

Edited by Slojo
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think zoos are ridiculous, and I think people are weirdly entitled in their attitudes toward them, generally. That they are for the benefit of the animals themselves is such a blatantly egregious lie. Sure, marginally so, that is what they do. But we are human beings! We have conquered the globe! If "caring about animals" was what we were into, we could do 100% better than ZOOS. I mean it's almost laughable.

 

I also recognize my opinion here doesn't matter at all and they aren't going any where any time soon, and I don't boycott them.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like our (NC) zoo. It's the largest walk-thru zoo in the world. Most animals have very large enclosures to roam. Yes, sometimes that means visitors don't get to see them. It's a small issue IMO. Our zoo is/has been involved in the species survival plan for many endangered animals, including red wolves gorillas and numerous bird species. I've been to quite a few other zoos throughout the country (including the Cincy zoo) and haven't been impressed. But all those visits to other zoos was a very long time ago, so it's possible things have improved at most of them. And our zoo has caused me to have an extremely high bar for judging.

 

I don't like to see any animal exhibiting stress behaviors, but I think it's important to keep in mind that even well loved dogs who live in caring homes with people who keep them mentally and physically active can show stress behaviors. Animals are like people as far as each one having their own personality and some being naturally more anxious/stressy than others. And I don't say that to excuse anything seen at zoos, but just to point out that it may not ALL be due to being confined.

I agree. I live the same distance from the NC Zoo as another zoo in a bordering state. I know many people go to the one in the bordering state because its not as much walking. Its not as much walking because the enclosures are SO much smaller. It makes me so sad any time we have been there with friends so we go to the NC Zoo when we can. Yes that means you may not see the animals or may only get to a part of the zoo and not be able to see it all in one day. Fair trade off. Its not a perfect zoo of course. But the size of the enclosures is massive compared to other zoos, even well known zoos.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do agree that people can certainly have compassion for animals without needing to see them....but at the same time, I think the experience of seeing the animal in person, being "up close and personal with it" at least in some sense, creates an understanding about the animal that is just not possible any other way.  Reading about bald eagles, watching some eagle cam on You Tube, that's all well and good.  Seeing the bird up close...a WHOLE other experience.  You really feel how BIG and truly awesome it is. 

 

So, what does this WHOLE other experience persuade people to actually do for wildlife that they otherwise do not do?

 

Incidentally, since you used them as your example, my husband's ship regularly travels somewhere where bald eagles are treated like rats of the sky. Because they are everywhere, and go through dumpsters and make giant messes and terrorize cats and dogs.  Everyone he has spoken to there said they would gladly shoot them on sight if they were permitted to do so because they are behaving as urban vermin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think it's an elitist attitude to tell people to just go visit Disney's Animal Kingdom and the various safari parks if they want to see animals. There's a safari park a little over an hour's drive from where we live but we've never been because they charge $115 per adult or teen and $50 per child. The three zoos in our area charge $20 A, $14 T & C; $17.75 A, $13.75 T & C; and $14.25 per person.

 

You want to get rid of zoos and replace them with safari parks? Make the safari parks as affordable to middle-class families, not just the rich.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...