Reading an article in the BBC in seems like some animals would not like to be kept imprisoned in pens to be gawked at. On the other hand these animals are well treated and are safe from predators.
Question to debate: Do you think Zoo's are a Paradise for animals or a punishment?

Personally, I can't stand zoos. I can't stand to watch animals kept in cages or "natural habitats" (which aren't really natural at all, since they have man-made boundaries).

I much prefer places like Banff, where you can see a herd of elk walk down the middle of the street.

I think to a great extend it depends on their treatment. In the wild, although animals are free, their lives are a constant struggle for survival - finding food, finding water, avoiding predators etc. The reason animals cover a large territory is because food is so scarce.

So, in a zoo they will get fatter than normal, unless kept on a strict diet, because food is so plentiful.

And if they're mistreated they'll suffer stress & if not they'll be okay. I wouldn't say its ever a paradise, because they are on show and their living conditions reflect this - and will be designed so that the animals are more exposed than they might like, but on the other hand they may not get torn apart, starve or die of thirst...

Well, it sort of depends. Smaller animals, fish, or insects probably don't find it a hardship, since their relative size compared to the size of their enclosure doesn't give them too many problems in the way of boredom, or diseases of proximity (parasites, whatever the animal equivalents of cholera and other similar lurgies are, etc.)

The problem comes mostly from larger mammals as far as I can see, where sometimes smaller cages relative to their size mean they can't move freely, let alone wander about. Most modern zoos in the West cottoned onto this years ago, and give their animals much more room to move about, where necessary toys to play with, and separate, private living quarters where they can go it they get fed up of the gawking faces from time to time.

The biggest land animals (elephants or giraffes, say) or water mammals (e.g. killer whales) still pose problems, so I'd rather see them in the wild or at the very least in an outdoor safari-park type of enclosure (the type visitors drive through, or walk in a glass tube underwater) than in any kind of cage or pool.

In many cases, though, breeding in capitivity has been the reason that we still have viable populations of species, so I don't think we an do without captivity altogether just yet. Two examples that spring to mind are the Ne-ne or Hawaiian Goose and the Arabian Oryx antelope.

For all these reasons, I think zoos are necessary evils anyway, and increasingly make their animal charges as comfortable and as close to their wild habits as possible.

And, for the same reasons, I have never and will never visit any travelling circus that keeps any animals less domesticated than a dog or a horse.

I've never really given much thought to how animals felt about being in a zoo-- I never knew that animals had the capabilities of reason, logic, and feelings.

Since I have three cats living in the "zoo" I call home, I must take the position that zoo-kept animals are often in a better situation than those who are left to live in the wild.

For example, not a night goes by when I don't hear a cat fight outside my door. Not a day goes by where I don't see a dead cat on the side of the road.

Clearly those cats who fight and those cats who get run over would have been in a much better situation had they been indoor cats.

If we have zoos, we are told the animals are miserable. If we don't have zoos, we are told we are endangering the habitat by venturing into their environment. Well, which is it?

For me, it is simple. Animals are not people, and do not deserve the rights people do. They are free to rebel against the government if they feel they have been treated in an improper fashion.

Mike

My friend had an indoor cat that would claw and scratch if you taken him near an open door. When she was forced to give him up, he (Bob) was placed in another home with multiple cats. After seeing the other cats going outside Bob eventually started to follow them out. Now, he appears to be a outside cat that only comes home for food, even after they found him half starved from being incapacitated somehow. So in some cases I think it's not how safe they would be, but how happy they would be living a free life.

Well let me ask my cat.

"Jerry, would you prefer to live outside and hunt for food, fight for survival, deal with extreme weather, and have no shot at medical treatment, or would you prefer to live here and eat 3 times a day, fight only in a playful manner with your two beautiful female companions, enjoy 75 degree temperatures when it is 98 degrees with an equal humidity percentage, and have sufficient medical treatment?"

He just yawned. He doesn't seem interested.

Really, just how do you propose we gauge the happiness level of animals?

Mike

Yeah, my cat Puffy seems to agree too, probably because she hasn't been outside though and never will be.
I think in order for us to judge the happiness of animal we should judge how happy we would be if we were spoon fed from birth and being confined to a pen while humans peer into their cages. Especially when you consider that most of the animals would run with fear from us if they encounter us in the wild.

I certainly believe that they do. These skills may not be as complex as they are in humans, but I've enough personal experience with animals to be convinced, and there is an interesting feature at PBS's website that examines the issue: Inside the Animal Mind. Stressed Out



Indeed, your cats are probably better off, but cats have been domesticated for over 5000 years. There are a large number of wild animals that do not do well in captivity, particularly those animals that roam over a wide area.





You are trying to make it an either/or question, but it's not. Zoos are not the optimum way to preserve animal populations. If possible, it's better to preserve an animal's habitat first, especially since certain species do not do well in captivity, however some zoos can play an important role, particularly when in comes to conservation. Not all zoos are alike. There are some really awful ones, and there are some that continually strive for improvement, trying to provide an environment that is comparable to an animal's natural habitat.

Mike perhaps their attempts at escape are the only visible form of rebellion?


I have two cats...each of them is allowed outside. To me keeping a cat indoors is cruel. We all have our own perceptions and feelings on this subject...so please don't take my comments as accusing you of pet abuse.
I feel that I do still ensure a better quality of life for my animals than a wild animal..but my cats on occasion do fight and that is not some cruel experience for them...they are just doing what comes naturally... defending their territory.

I do not feel it is so much an issue of whether animals feel, can reason or have logic as much as it is how animals make us feel what logic we have towards their treatment and how we feel this reason should apply to our behaviors.

Sadly zoos are a needed resource in our world. I think they have been very helpful in preserving some species and helping to educate us on others.

I live in the DC metro area and I am not sure if anyone is aware of the situation here with our zoo..and when I say our I mean all Americans because this is the National Zoo. Here is a brief article for anyone interested.
The pygmy hippopotamus was my all time favorite and I as a human felt great sadness in his death and even more to learn it was possibly a result of negligence or mistreatment.

Pattern of Mistakes Found in Zoo Deaths

I have very mixed feelings about zoos. On the one hand, they are some of my favorite places to go, since where else can you get that close to a gorilla or a poisonous snake? If you actually read the signs you might learn something.

On the other hand, I have been to some terrible zoos where clearly the animals were suffering. I.e. the bears on exhibit in Bern, Switzerland, are just appalling -- basically a couple of bears at the bottom of a dirty pit. Putting a large creature who may have significant emotive, if not cognitive, capabilities into a small cage, under scrutiny day and night, and its no wonder that so many animals develop self-destructive behaviors, tics and illnesses.

There are important political reasons for keeping around zoos and acquariums. For many people they are one of the few places you learn about stuff like ecosystems, endangered species, the effects of urbanization, etc. As my girlfriend says, its where you learn that people are bad.

On the other hand, there are exploitative aspects of zoos, that have a profit motive. Kids aren't going to appreciate a large, open living space for a gorilla when they want to see one face to face. So they put them in small glass cages. Trot out those baby pandas!

Keeping an animal alive in a zoo is no substitute for keeping around an animal's ecosystem so it can live as God intended it. When the whales in the wild are gone, the fact that we have a couple in San Diego doesn't change much.

But if zoos can challenge us to find ways to live with each other and nature without paving the planet, so much the better.

I think it depends on the animals if it's indangerd species than yes we should keep them in a safe inviorment to up the population but other wise no not at all.

Locke1