What is your opinion on zoo's?

Depends, I don't agree with people taking animals out of the wild just for people to gawk at them, but some zoo's are homes for animals that irresponsible people decide to get because it's exotic and kewlz and end up not able to take care of them, then they can go to the zoo & educate people about the beautiful animals in our world.

yeah, if they're taken out of their natural habitat- im against it.

but, those that take in injured animals and nurse them back to health and hten release htem - they're cool , and i would visit them. :)

but, you dont know that.. usually. you dont know hwat htey do... and i guess you could ask and find out.

um, i dont know.

circus i hate.... zooo.. i still dont think it's good to have animals in cages... but like i said, it depends on what htey're doing with them. and how they got them. and why the animals are there. :)

Anything that provides education to people can't be a bad thing.

Anything that provides education to people can't be a bad thing.

Yea, screw the animals and their welfare!

i hate zoos all kinds we should just leave them alone
i mean how would you feel if someone came uip to you and tock you away from your family so people can look at you ?

well, some animals seem to do OK in zoos and there are some really nice zoos out there. Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle has some really beautiful exhibits (not all though) that are well done for the animals - they mimic the wild very nicely. Their elephant exhibit is hideous though and to stand there and watch the elephants sway and bob is really very awful AND what they did to Bamboo is truly so sad... I cried. . I personally dislike zoos and won't go to our local one but have protested there. I think that continued pressure by the public will only enhance zoos. The AZA is being held accountable for what is happening in zoos now. For instance - in the past, "surplus" animals were sold to wildlife "brokers" who would in turn would sell them for "canned hunts" or roadside zoos. Now, this practice (wildlife brokers) is frowned upon.

Anything that provides education to people can't be a bad thing.
Dissection provides education and that's definitely a good thing. :think:

My view on zoos is if the animals are there because they are injured and need to be taken care of to become healthy again, that's great. And if they are there to protect the species because it's endangered and would be in danger if left in the wild, that's okay too. Obviously that's not the case for most of the animals in every zoo because animals from across the world must be sent to the zoo simply to be put on display when they could live perfectly in the wild. It's kind of contradicting to say, zoos are great if the animals are treated as well as they deserve to be treated. But seriously, even if they are treated well, the zoo really doesn't have the right to "own" the animals in the first place. Of course lots of people want to see all the animals and be educated on all the amazing species, and they want to see "the real thing". In this world, it seems unrealistic to say: if you want to see beautiful animals you must go to a different country and see them in their natural habitat. Why not just go see them at the zoo? Just like everything in this day and age, the zoo will give the people what they want if they get something in return, $$.

What really irks me is how they can serve meat at zoos. It's amazing how ignorant people can be, especially when they are surrounded by animals while devouring a hot dog. It's like that quote of why does SeaWorld have a seafood restaurant.

The zoo here in Austin, TX is the only one I would ever consider visiting. They only have rescued animals -from circuses, labs and turned-in pets that were never meant to be pets. And the only snacks they have are vegan!

I fail to see how zoos are educational. As a kid I went to the zoo (Cleveland, OH) and all it did was make me think animals were filthy and disgusting. Of course that was because the animals were kept in small, cramped spaces with poor maintenance. I learned nothing about their fascinating natural habitat and how they interact and live in the wild.

For example - penguins - I saw the penguin display at the zoo as a kid and didn't find them interesting at all. But March of the Penguins taught so many people what penguins have always done in their own enviroment. It was beautiful and inspiring to many.:nigel:

I think zoos can serve some valid purposes- namely, captive breeding programs for endangered species and providing homes for animals that cannot be rehabilitated.

In theory it seems they could be important sources of education re the importance of wildlife conservation efforts, and I see them trying to do that, but they don't seem to do it very effectively. Certainly, a movie like March of the Penguins has probably had much more impact on public awareness of and concern about penguin conservation, but OTOH, if zoos are going to exist, they might as well educate the public at least a little bit. Maybe if they went multimedia and had onsite movie theaters where you could watch movies that really showed you the animal's life in its natural habitat, and then you could go outside and watch the animal interact with the trainer so you could feel a personal connection to that animal. I think seeing real live specimens is important in that sense... it's more 'real,' especially for kids, than seeing something on a screen or in a book.

But the horrible exhibits, the pacing, neurotic animals, the parents who think all their kids need to know about lions is, "It's a big kitty! Meow!" :cry: :grr:

I can see that zoo management has come a long way in the last couple of decades... they've now learned things like, gee, sea lions really do better in salt water than chlorinated water! and I can see their attempts to provide enrichment activities for some of the animals, but others are still sadly neglected.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/jamieson01.htm

I'd be all right with zoos if they had some restrictions placed on them by governments, preventing mistreatment. Some zoos are excellent places of education and preservation, teaching respect and care for all the animal kingdom. These zoos often have large wallets and large expanses with which they can house their wards in natural comfort, whilst allowing the public to view them in a way that is unavailable to most otherwise. On the other hand, there are some terrible zoos in the world that mistreat or downright abuse the animals they pretend to care for, and that's obviously not acceptable. Even if they have the best intentions, many zoos simply aren't equipped to acceptably care for many species (elephants, rhinoceros, predatory birds, etc.).

If I had my way, zoos with the means to care properly for species they wanted to maintain would be allowed to continue housing live animals and zoos that weren't would convert their exhibits into something like those in a paleontological museum, with artifical representations and media presentations. People would be able to learn more either in a simulated enviornment or in a suffering-free pseudo-natural situation. Either way they learn something and nobody gets hurt.

I'd be all right with zoos if they had some restrictions placed on them by governments, preventing mistreatment. Some zoos are excellent places of education and preservation, teaching respect and care for all the animal kingdom.

I cant speak to Americans but UK zoos are governed by the Zoo Licensing Act 1981,
The Secretary of States Standards of Modern Zoo Practice,
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976,
the Performing Animals Act 1925,
the Protection of Animals Act 1911
and soon to be the Animal Welfare Bill once it has passed through Parliament.

Isn't a zoo's purpose is to have animals to be looked at? Would it be a zoo if they were only taken in to nurse them back to health?

If they did to that, wouldn't they still have to show the animals? Is it still a zoo if they are taken in, and no one sees them?

Isn't a zoo's purpose is to have animals to be looked at?
That's the whole problem-- that purpose is an invalid, immoral purpose. Animals are not objects to be put in cages for our children to gawk at. They are living beings with rights and needs, and in too many zoos those rights are violated and those needs are not met.

i like the non-profit ones who only cater to those who are injured and can't survive in the wild on their own. the other ones really suck though and i'd never visit one that is only for profit and tourists.

I have learned much, much more about animals by reading books and magazines and watching television programs where people are filming them in their natural environment than I have by going to a zoo. Ripping animals away from their natural habitats and putting them on display for humans just perpetuates the notion that we can use animals as a means to our ends, in this case our education.

Isn't a zoo's purpose is to have animals to be looked at? Would it be a zoo if they were only taken in to nurse them back to health?

If they did to that, wouldn't they still have to show the animals? Is it still a zoo if they are taken in, and no one sees them?

I wouldn't call it a zoo but a sanctuary. Some sanctuaries (such as The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee :angel: ) do not allow visitors but once a year, you can take a tour of the sanctuary but you may or may not see the elephants because they will be out - they have a total of 2700 acres. You won't be able to interact with the elephants and they will not "show" the elephants. PAWS Sanctuary in California (I love them too) has elephants and felines which have been rescued. Theirs is different but a sanctuary none-the-less. Not all sanctuaries are reputable and that is a problem as well. Zoos main goal is to make money. They generally have designed their zoos to make it attractive for the humans. That is slowly changing. The exhibits are only one small reason why I dislike zoos.

i like the non-profit ones who only cater to those who are injured and can't survive in the wild on their own. the other ones really suck though and i'd never visit one that is only for profit and tourists.
I've never heard of a non-profit zoo. Any examples?

For the most part, I like the zoo in my city. However, I have mixed feelings on the idea of zoos themselves. Obviously, its not ideal to yank animals from healthy environments and toss them into cages and fenced yards just so people can have something to look at. That much is wrong. As a person that learns best by visual means I DO think zoos are educational. They also provide safe homes and medical care for animals that would otherwise be in danger. I don't see them as either being 100% positive or 100% negative.

Zoos (speaking in terms of the UK ones) were designed for a purpose - to show wild animals to the high class societies, after lack of money they opened to the poorer classes (Source: London Zoo) and over time developed into 3 areas (see Secretary of States Modern Zoo Practices) - Conservation, Education and Research.

First area (and my opinions)- Conservation (zoos are FORCED to run conservation programs). Zoo animals are seen as 'ambassadors' for their wild conterparts and some of the revenue from the zoos are given to field conservation programs. The way I see it a few animals have to suffer to save a majority of wild animals(!) If we stop urbanization destroying habitats, needless killing and skinning then they'll be no need for zoos in a conservation sense (the focus can be solely on the wild animals) - YET people are more likely to donate to save wild animals from viewing captive wild animals! Change the attitude! I wish society would stop having the attitude of tit for tat and start being more generous - if not for your childrens sake!

And what about captive breeding conservation programs. All 3000 zoos with Europe participate, sooner of later genetic mutation may occur - the solution? Culling and bringing in more wild animals. Seed banks and artifical insemination - talk about taking the rights away from animals and slapping a big conservation sign upon it! Sadly in some ways I support this, it seems to be ONE of the ways to go in conserving the species. I just wish more money was given to actual conservation programs to avoid putting animals in zoos and instead in reserves designed for their freedom and protection.


Research - another purpose of animals in a zoo is behavioural research - i want a good scientific paper to provide how pointless this is! How can zoos say they are doing behavioural research to enhance the lifestyles for their wild counterparts? THESE ANIMALS ARE LOCKED UP - their behaviour will be different (but not entirely) to wild animals - they will not display the natural behaviour they would in the wild! The 'research' purpose in zoos? So they can make life more comfortable for animals IN ZOOS, so they can exploit and house more!!! On one hand, yes it is of benefit to existing and future animals being housed in zoos but sadly has no purpose other than that.


Education - zoos are FORCED to provide an educational program to children and adults. The minimum they can do, and some do, is only provide minimum information on information boards outside an exhibit detailing facts about the animal(s). Rarely does a zoo in Europe document the declining numbers of wild animals, the prevention methods or useful contacts - why? Because sadly it's not what people want to read about when they go to a zoo. Would it be of benefit - probably. It's sicken, their target audience, people who care somewhat about wild animals, as given misinformation or no information at all to help.


As far as I am aware I don't see the benefits zoos are doing to help wild animals, i see a money making adventure focused on profit, not benefical research, education or conservation. All this at the expense of the animal. Sure they are trying to provide a better life for them but they can not AND NEVER WILL recreate what they can in the wild. Just as we need our freedom to express our natural behaviour so do they.
I think attitudes should change at a personal level so they can influence the change in societies attitude.
I could write more but I doubt anyone would read it all.

People do not go to zoos to be educated. They go to be entertained. The only thing we teach our children by taking them to zoos is that it's OK to lock up animals for our entertainment.

Wild animals belong in the wild. Period.

By the way, I worked at a zoo briefly, in an administrative function, and thought it was a really fun place to work. I wish I would have realized that it probably wasn't so fun for the animals.

People do not go to zoos to be educated. They go to be entertained. The only thing we teach our children by taking them to zoos is that it's OK to lock up animals for our entertainment.


Oh really? I could have sworn that zoology section in school, complete with several sessions with a zoologist at the zoo, was about educating the students about the various species of animals, families, and their characteristics. Going simply to point and laugh at monkeys flinging poo is one thing. Going to actually learn about animals (education is a form of entertainment by the way), is another. After a semester of all the family charts and research, seeing the real animals studied made things 'click'. Photos and text could only do so much, and few schools could fund a required elementary school trip to Africa ... and the rainforests of South America ... and Asia ... and Antartica.

I wouldn't call it a zoo but a sanctuary. Some sanctuaries (such as The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee :angel: ) do not allow visitors but once a year, you can take a tour of the sanctuary but you may or may not see the elephants because they will be out - they have a total of 2700 acres. You won't be able to interact with the elephants and they will not "show" the elephants. PAWS Sanctuary in California (I love them too) has elephants and felines which have been rescued. Theirs is different but a sanctuary none-the-less. Not all sanctuaries are reputable and that is a problem as well. Zoos main goal is to make money. They generally have designed their zoos to make it attractive for the humans. That is slowly changing. The exhibits are only one small reason why I dislike zoos.



Oh you Noelson. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I have never in my life been to any kind of Sancutary. I mean, do we even have them here? I'm in Mississippi. Folks here problaby don't know about them. Well, at least I don't. Haha. Ok, don't mine me. :)