Should zoo's be banned on a global scale?

[User92]

I saw this question on the internet and want your opinion on this

[bang678]

I think they should have more standards they have to meet.

Things like ample amounts of space, a habitat similar to what it would be in the wild. Giving the animals enriching activities. For example at ths zoo near me during Halloween they give pumpkins to the animals that its safe to give to. Its a fun activity for visitors and it gives something new for the animal to explore and toy with. The lion habitat has a tug o war set up through the glass so that the lions can pull on one end and people can have the other end.

With the tug o war especially. I think once a person gets their arm yanked by a lion its kinda a wake up call how powerful these creatures are and therefore people will respect them more.

With the proper conditions zoos are a great place to rehabilitate injured animals or give a safe haven for endangered animals. Addionally it allows both experts and the general public to learn more about the animals.

[Nmalinova]

I think small zoos should be! Been to a couple where it was quite visible that the owners didn't have enough money to feed the animals adequately, which I am against and would rather the animals would fend for themselves. Equally, small zoos often have a lack of space, which, again can cause great suffering in animals.

Big zoos however can be an important institution, not only to help endangered species to survive, but also to educate youngsters about them. Imagine you tell a 10 yo that you should donate money to help for the survival of tigers for example... if zoos did not exist, the child would never understand or form this bond of 'oh yes I've seen a tiger, they are cute/big/whatever' and thus may not feel moved to help the species... just my opinion but i do believe it can help people understand and to be more compassionate for certain species :)

[Curmudgeon]

Were these privately owned, or municipal governments? The privately owned ones tend to be full of surplus or retired circus animals, and are not really "Wild".

[Hidden_P]

No they shouldn't be banned.

There are many wild animals for whatever reason rejected by mothers, struggle to survive, or are struggling to breed in the wild due to other factors.

Zoos have their place. They provide young animals that may have died with support and as much of a natural environment as possible. They can help encourage breeding within endangered species. The plus is we get to learn about nature.

Most zoos treat animals amazingly well and the only down is they are within a restricted area. The amount of animals that have been saved by zoos is astonishing. They have earnt the right to exist.

[randomhobo]

Not at all. Zoos provide an educational tool to learn about these creatures, and also a safe haven from poachers. Endangered species can be bred in captivity in an effort to bring them back from extinction, and allowing people to physically see these animals make it more personal towards them. If they have seen them and think are cute, they are more likely to feel as if losing such creatures would be a negative. As opposed to merely some creature they've read about disappearing in a country far away: instead they will see a tangible loss as the thing they saw and liked has now gone forever.

[madhatters4]

i was at the zoo on Sunday, my first time at a zoo since childhood. we can't deny the educational benefit or the benefits they can provide in helping endangered species. i was somewhat disturbed seeing these wild animals in pens that while somewhat spacious pale in comparison to their natural habitat. a lion on a 1/4 acre of land versus the 100s of acres it may roam in the wild. it didn't give me a great feeling.

i'm not really sure but i feel like there should probably be fewer zoos and perhaps more wildlife sanctuaries that better replicate the natural environments of animals and people can still hope in a truck or whatever and be driven around seeing the animals

[Irishman45]

There is not enough wilderness to house wildlife sanctuaries.

[Justacatlady]

@Irishman45 wilderness covers half the world.

[Irishman45]

Not true

[Waffles731]

@Irishman45 maybe in Europe, but we're Americans, we've got absolutely massive tracts of wilderness,
We have states larger than sweden with less than a million people

[diamondcrocodile]

@Waffles731 and @Justacatlady currently, 40% of Earth's land cover is used for agriculture. And that estimate is growing with the population. There is NOT enough wilderness to house millions of species when JUST ONE (humans) is occupying near half for food, industry, shelter, etc.

[Irishman45]

@Waffles731 And how many endangered species are native to America?

Most endangered animals originate in Africa, South America, India and South East Asia. There are no more natural habitats in those regions, zoos are the only places such animals can survive.

America is NOT the only place in the world and the rest of the world is NOT like it.

[Waffles731]

@diamondcrocodile so tell me?
Are you planning on growing food in a place like Montana, or Wyoming, or Arizona, or Anything other than peppers in New Mexico?
You planning on growing food in rural Alaska?
Cause there is A LOT of wilderness in the U. S that is completely unsuitable for agricultural purposes

[Waffles731]

@Irishman45 'Most endangered animals originate in Africa, South America, India and South East Asia. There are no more natural habitats in those regions, zoos are the only places such animals can survive.'
There is so much wrong with that statement
1. Endangered species are everywhere, you want to talk endangered, I'm not sure if Europe will have any wolves outside of eastern Europe in 50 years. I'm pretty sure the Wisent will die out.
And yeah the Rest of the world isn't like America, but places like Canada, or Australia could pull it off just as well as we can

[Waffles731]

@Irishman45
You're telling me that there are no natural habitats left in South America or Africa?
Its like the Amazon Jungle still is extremely remote, and the Congo jungle is still largely unmapped, and those are just the tips of the icebergs

[Waffles731]

@Irishman45 its not that the rest of the world can't do it, its that most of Europe has been pretty much ecologically sterilized

[Irishman45]

@Waffles731 Well there you go. There is absolutely zero room in Europe for wildlife and you're a fool do think that is any different for the rest of the world (with the exception of USA, Canada, Australia and Russia, all countries with a climate unsuitable for most species).

For endangered species the choices is between zoos and extinction. Anyone saying that zoos should be closed is a fool, hundreds of species would be doomed to extinction over night.

[diamondcrocodile]

@Waffles731 sure, there may be HUGE tracks of wilderness land in some areas of the United States and all across the world, but places like the Midwest are completely steamrolled, destroying any possibility for a normal "natural habitat" for those animals. Animals have particular niches that they have evolved to fill, and when those are destroyed, many times they cannot just move somewhere else, because the flora, fauna, soil, climate, weather, etc. is all different than what they are used to. So they have no choice but to die or live in zoos.

[madhatters4]

thanks for MHO

[User92]

Your welcome

[ak666]

Doing that on a global scale could quickly lead to a lot of endangered species becoming extinct.

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...2a313b7645.jpg

Zoos are a lesser evil as I see it to the alternative. Instead I'd like to see zoos actually supported more. With more funding, they might be able to treat their animals better.

The Singapore Zoo is quite excellent in this regard. Most of the animals aren't living in cages.

media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/.../singapore-zoo.jpg

[ak666]

www.visitsingapore.com/.../...usel-img.740.416.jpg

It was my favorite zoo. I think I went over 50 times when I was a kid.

[ak666]

Another way I see to help animals in the wild indirectly is to favor and promote economic freedom throughout the world. Repressed countries that lack it are often the ones that conduct poaching, mass deforestation, etc.

[ak666]

So I'd go with "no". Don't boycott your zoo. Go visit it. Help them out as a customer. It's better than leaving these animals in the wild when their numbers are dwindling.

[ak666]

With any political policy, it's so important to consider the consequences and not just the intentions. I don't exactly like seeing a giraffe in a zoo. But we have to consider that in the wild, this could be its alternate fate:

https://hashmag.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/6.jpg

So many bad things have happened as a result of what were initially good intentions, with people voting based on their emotions rather than considering the consequences of those good intentions.

[JimRSmith]

Without zoos, hundreds (maybe thousands, when you count the small ones) of species would be extinct.

Kids wouldn't get educated and would have little or no opportunity to see animals for themselves. They'd consequently be less interested, and would be all the poorer for it.

Keep zoos.

[estoydorado1]

Don't a number of zoo's actually run rehabilitation programs, research to help conserve wildlife and run breeding programs to boost fading species and reintroduce them to the wild? I agree that a number zoo's out there exploit animals for profit but I've heard that plenty of them are doing a lot to protect and preserve the animals that they hold. Some of the animals in zoos aren't able to head back into the wild because of an injury or something so I'd be all for certain regulations being put in place but banning zoos across the board doesn't seem necessary at this point.

[Wwwyzzerdd]

Yes.

[cipher42]

No absolutely not. Many zoos do an incredible amount for animal conservation through breeding animals in captivity and ensuring certain species survive better than they would in the wilds. Additionally, zoos serve a valuable educational purpose, allowing people to view animals they wouldn't normally get to and educating people about environmental conservation. Obviously I do think that zoos should be required to keep their animals in good conditions and to generally not be shitty, but banning zoos entirely would hurt rather than help animals overall.

[Anonymous]

no, a good zoo will try to preserve the species, and breed the animals so their populations will rise once again. if the animals are taken care of, and they appear happy, then I see nothing wrong with it

[GAGSUCKS333]

once you put them in these zoos you can't send their linage out in the wild they just won't survive. at least give them more space to go around this is just messed up.

[Opinion Owner]

there are plenty of zoos that specialize in rehabilitation and release. most animals in zoos wouldn't survive in the wild in the first place, so them living in the zoo is better than then dying. I recently watched a documentary about pandas being released back into china after being in captivity, it's completely possible, but requires training

[GAGSUCKS333]

i am talking about the zoo in that picture. its a small space which is just messed. besides, a panda being released back in the wild is different than a lion. why? because the environment that lions live in are extremely difficult. Other wild pact of lions, hyenias, wilder beast elephants, alligators, hippos desert like conditions etc.. pandas do not have to worry about half of that in their environment. a wild lion lives a much more horrible life

[Opinion Owner]

to be fair, you're only seeing a small part of space. it could be much larger on the other side, there are regulations about that after all. and also, I've never seen a zoo with a hyenia, wikderbeasts, alligators or hippos.

also, pandas are one of the most endangered species right now, and are easily killed off. lions have many natural defences meanwhile pandas are more laid-back. while they do have their defences, they aren't that good and are killed often. but now rehabilitated pandas are thriving in the environments created.

zoos are made for the conservation of species and entertainment for the public. zoos cannot rip away a lion from it's natural territory, either the lion was born in captivity or was injured and would not be able to survive without human intervention. That's why things like wildlife sanctuarys and national parks exist, where humans are able to intervene if necessary, but they are still in the wild. zoos are for those who cannot thrive in that environment

[GAGSUCKS333]

''to be fair, you're only seeing a small part of space. it could be much larger on the other side, ''

notice the gate to the far left of the picture I would say that this is an average sized space about the size of a house. They usually make sure that the lions are always in sight in these kind of zoos because they think something might happen.

''I've never seen a zoo with a hyenia, wikderbeasts, alligators or hippos.''

no lol I mean that lions natural habitats have such animals there and dumping them in the wild would almost be complete failure the majority of the time even with training. a lot of the time, pandas die for smaller reasons such as it being hard to care for the baby, only getting pregnant once a year and eating bamboo which is a horrible diet. just recently they found 1,864 pandas and the population rose 17% so they aren't even under the category of endangered anymore whereas with lions

[GAGSUCKS333]

lions have an extensive environment of hunt or be hunted, especially by their own kind and poachers. Do you know how often a pact of other lions run into other pacts? or how many times the mother or father kills other cubs or its own for some reason? they are literally on a breeding ground for savagery and complete brutality I couldnt bare to go out there and watch how life is for them and im a nature guy. Its a much different situation than pandas. I honestly think that there needs to be some intervention by putting them in reserves with good conditions because whats going on will wipe out a large majority of them

[GAGSUCKS333]

yeah, I think national parks are a good thing. some reserves breed a scarce environment though.

[frozenhorizon]

There are plenty of zoos with hyenas, hippos, and alligators (just saying)

[GAGSUCKS333]

@frozenhorizon lol...

[User92]

@frozenhorizon At what zoo cause i haven't seen any hyenas and hippos I may have seen alligators but I'm not a 100% sure

[GAGSUCKS333]

i've seen a alligator before but not hyenas and hippos

[frozenhorizon]

The Detroit Zoo used to have Hippos, I can't remember where I've seen hyenas but I swear I have. They were cute and lazy.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@GAGSUCKS333 Yes they can, they do it all the time. It has to be done carefully but it can and is done.

[Wwwyzzerdd]

@GAGSUCKS333 You haven't been to enough zoos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JepA74cA2uE

[GAGSUCKS333]

@Wwwyzzerdd im not saying all zoos are small places that trap them in cages. I am talking about the small zoos. I think you missed my point. I've been to big zoos before

[GAGSUCKS333]

@hellionthesagereborn yes they can what? what are you replying to?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@GAGSUCKS333 yes they can send them back into the wild, they do it all the time.

[GAGSUCKS333]

@hellionthesagereborn can you tell me what zoo or program sends lions back into the wild.

[Comawhite666]

I've only been to one zoo and the animals had large areas to roam and were well cared for and I'm ok with these sorts of zoos (and I'm a huge animal lover) I believe that more reservations should be made though.

However zoo's like this www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...k-dubbed-zoo-death.html should be banned altogether :( It seems a lot of Zoos in foreign countries, especially poor ones don't look after the animals well at all :'(

[SammyGurl]

No, many endangered species are being bred and numbers managed by zoo breeding programs which are diversifying the gene pools of the animals. Animals are far better cared for in even an average zoo than in the wild. Many zoo animals outlive the same type of species in the wild. Zoo animals don't face the predation or poaching many face in the wild. It just makes good sense to manage animals with dwindling numbers in a controlled environment like a zoo.

[oneinchyuri]

Yes! If you want to see animals, go see them in their natural habitat, enjoying their lives.
Almost all zoos do not take proper care of them and the animals live in way too small of areas. Zoos are disgusting and used to gain money.

Seeing animals in nature is so special and precious.

[oneinchyuri]

There are definitely alternatives to learning about animals as well as keeping them safe/rehabilitating injured animals, studying endangered animas etc..

[Irishman45]

Most animals do not have a natural habitat. Its either zoos or extinction.

[oneinchyuri]

No, there are places fo endangered animals. Safer places that are not made for profit.

[Irishman45]

Where

[oneinchyuri]

Wildlife sanctuaries?
There are many wildlife rehabilitation centres as well.

[Irishman45]

There is not enough wilderness to house wildlife sanctuaries.

Like it or not most animals in zoos have no natural habitat to go to.

[oneinchyuri]

There are many places for them to go. And many more places that are safer and more comfortable than zoos.

[Irishman45]

Well, thats just not true

[zagor]

The environmental impact of thousands of tourists going to see them in their natural habitat is much worse than the impact of removing a few individuals of a species from the wild.

[hellionthesagereborn]

No, what would that accomplish? Zoos are educational centers which lets us understand the animals better both biologically and socially which in turn lets us help the wild ones. It helps educate people and gives them something to connect with to care about the plight of these animals (its hard to empathize with something you have no experience with and no knowledge of existing or being endangered), they have breeding programs that help increase the animal populations, in fact they just found a stick bug that was believed to be extinct on a 300 foot area on a rocky outcropping, they are now breeding it in captivity in order to increase its population and re introduce it onto the island it was a native of. So no, getting rid of zoos is a terrible idea all around.

[Curmudgeon]

Hell no. Zoos are educational. You want the public to save certain species, then you have to make them available to the public.

Moreover, quite a few species are now "Extinct In The Wild", and zoos are their only hope?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_in_the_wild

Of course you want to argue for larger zoos with habitats, etc. But the educational and public support aspects of zoos are critical.

[Curmudgeon]

I might add there are some situations where wounded animals, which simply can no longer survive in the wild, can live out their days as exhibits for students and schoolchildren. That is not a bad thing.

[Z-100]

It goes both ways I think. Some zoos are the reason why some species haven't gone extinct. These zoos are there to make sure they don't go extinct in the wild.

But at the same time, zoos should not be locking animals up in small cages. If a zoo is to be setup, it better have a massive environment for the animals to live in.

And beside the zoos that prevent animals from going extinct, there should not be any zoos for purely entertainment purposes. All zoos should be not for profit or they can gtfo. When people only see $ signs, the quality of the zoo is going to be the bare minimum.

Zoos should only be owned and funded by animals lovers. If you don't care about animals, get the fuck out, no one wants you at a zoo or managing a zoo or being even 10 miles within a zoo.

[Sakura99]

Most zoos only hold animals so that they can bring them to a health level that is good for them to survive in the wild. I think animals should be free yes, but I also see the benefits that zoos do have. Zoos in Australia focus on the health and repopulation of many endangered and non endangered animals. I think our best zoo is Werribee Zoo though as they have I believe a 30 acre space for animals to roam and it's set up to replicate the actual wild for these animals.

[fauchelevent]

I don't think so... I don't like zoos and I do think that imprisoning animals for our own enjoyment is obviously not a good thing. But zoos also do a hell of a lot of stuff that is beneficial, like a lot of zoos take in animals who were taken from the wild and abused and can't be put back or they do great conservation work to try and preserve endangered species. There are a lot of shitty things about zoos but at the same time, they do some good work so shutting them down isn't good either.

[Waffles731]

on the one hand its kinda sad to see a lion confined in a 1/4 acre, on the other, its important to teach people about htese animals, and it provides education by seeing them up close.
So I guess the solution is wide open habitat exhibits. of course we'd have to have them outside large cities but thats cool with me

[thischickluvsya]

I believe zoos should be filled only with animals who can't live in the wild and that they should be more like sanctuaries. I believe proper education of the animals should be given there too.

[Prettygurl12]

No.

Say what you will about zoos. They're the reason so many species of animals have not gone extinct.

They may not be ideal but they're keeping our ecosystems running and that's a good thing.

[20sofia]

This is sooo true!!! Animals by themselves aren't safe in the wild. Ever heard of a White Rhino? They also have gone extinct thanks to us humans they r still here because of zoos.

[Anonymous]

Yes, animals should be left to their habitat. We shouldn't think hat oher animals are below us. Sure they may not be as smart, but that's only because their physiology has limited them.

We need to end SeaWorld and the like, and we need to end zoo's. Also circuses, because each of those are animal abuse. If you want to follow so. ethung on Instagram follow black jaguar white tiger, the dolphin project, world animals news. I don't always agree with what they say about animals right, I don't believe that evrone should be vegan or vegetarian. I believe that we should eat the food that our teeth are made for

[Whatthefluff]

No. I'd rather have animals somewhat confined than for multiple species to become extinct.

[fabulouspancakes]

No I don't think they should be banned, but I think standards for zoos definitely need to be increased. I've visited some zoos where the animals just don't have enough room to roam as they should. Their enclosures should mimic their natural environment as much as possible.

[Red_Arrow]

Zoos should be regulated to prevent shifty facilities or care. But so many have excellent and spacious areas for them. So many animals are heading to extinction because of trophy hunters and poachers. Elephants for example. I invite all to look up the Oregon Zoo and see their elephant facility and watch videos of them enjoying it. The rest of the Zoo is also fantastic.

[WalterBlack]

No, I would not support a global ban on zoos. I do think that more should be done to give zoo animals the best quality of life that can be offered in captivity. Zoos have a tremendous educational benefit. I believe that many animals in the wild benefit from conservation efforts that are inspired by people visiting zoos and seeing animals up close.