Zoo Trips

[MrGreen]

Read an article in Vegetarian magazine today about going to the zoo. And it was written by someone from Chester Zoo.

Now i am a vegan, and i dislike animals in captivity, but i LIKE zoo's.
and feel free to contradict me but i'll list the reasons why.

1. The animals are treated for very well, fed proper diets and have on site medical care if needed, they have regular check ups.
2. It is a great way to teach children about animals in a real environment.
3. The writing makes the animals "Real" such as Wendy the Elephant we used to have in Bristol, who got moved to a bigger zoo (Shows that it is not all about profit) it will help children care for animals which is what i want.
4. The animals are protected from poachers, hunters and collectors while in the zoo

Now i love seeing images of animals in the wild...on google earth there are some amazing images of grazing or stampeding animals in wild. But they are safe and well treated, especially if they are endangered.

Now i am talking about English/American and big city zoo's i know there are many in some other regions that treat their animals poorly.

On a last note the zoo in Chiang Mai is amazing, the lighting is kept very low and tours are done with a torch, so the animals are not confused...the lions were roaring and it was the most bone chilling noise to hear, Raw Power.

What are other peoples opinions....Safe Havens or Plush Prisons?

[phact0rri]

It really depends on the Zoo. Some Zoos are horrible with small habitats, neglectful feeding and nutrition, and just daft treatment of animals. Just to name a few things.

however some Zoos do some amazing work, in helping to rehabilitate animals to be reintroduced to the wild, and protect endangered species. Along with caring for the animals, giving them love, and at least making the captivity not so much like captivity.

So generally I don't mind zoos and aquariums. Some of them are not much different than reserves. However there are some that make me feel sick to my stomach.

[RubyDuby]

I don't like the idea of zoos, but I know very little about the pros and cons as well and am interested in this discussion.

I know I'm not an animal, but regardless of how well I'm treated I don't want to be taken from my environment and locked up for people to watch. Also, dozen of species go extinct every day and new species get discovered everyday. How is breeding these animals in a foreign environment better than letting them go extinct?

[Prawnil]

...to teach children about animals in a real environment.

Seriously?

The animals are protected from poachers, hunters and collectors while in the zoo

Yeah ... why leave any animals in the wild? - they'd be much safer in zoos! Except that the animals were collected in the first place.
Rehabilitation can be done without turning the animals into exhibits. They are shows, & I fail, completely, to see how exposure to large or 'exotic' captive animals teaches care or compassion any more than occasional contact with local, free wildlife. Prisons, is my vote, & not plush ones.

[fiamma]

The animals are treated for very well, fed proper diets

How can you really be sure of these things?

It is a great way to teach children about animals in a real environment.

Is a zoo environment really so "real"?

it will help children care for animals which is what i want.

Does it though? I don't agree with your logic here.

I'm in two minds - I know some zoos do good work, but I think it's an unnatural environment for animals in any case. I feel the only good reason for having animals in captivity is for reasons of rehabilitation, animals that will then be released back into the wild.

[boatsteem1]

Like you I'm against animals in captivity, with the exception of zoos.

As I see it zoos:
1) Contribute to knowledge of wild animals and in doing so aid in conservation;
2) Keep endangered species as a backup if they should go extinct in the wild;
3) Reinforce endangered populations with fresh genes and individuals via relocation when necessary;
4) Provide a base of doing research on animals that are difficult to study in the wild;
5) Let people donate money to in-situ projects, as in conservation projects in the wild; and
6) Some times donate money out of their own pockets to in-situ conservation projects.

I've worked at two Swedish zoological gardens and visited most of the others. I did animal caretaking and information for visitors. It varies a lot from zoo to zoo, but most western zoos today work extensively to assure proper animal welfare. Zoos from the 19th century and early 20th century were pure menangeries (animals in cages for entertainment) but these developed into zoological gardens starting maybe from the 1970's, and today the World Association for Zoo and Aquaria (WAZA) strive for the next change, to make them into conservation stations, actively working for wildlife conservation. A lot of zoos still have a long way to go but they're getting there!

My two cents on zoos

[harpy]

I agree there is room for debate here, but personally I don't like zoos and wouldn't choose to visit one, as I see them as primarily exploiting animals for the (dubious in this case) benefit of humans. Now children can see wild animals on television etc I feel that's a better educational tool. Zoos mostly "educate" children to think we can treat animals any way we want, IMO.

I can just about see a case for captive breeding programmes to conserve endangered species but I've read that even when successful they rarely manage to reintroduce animals to the wild because of habitat destruction, unfortunately. The Born Free foundation website is worth a look, e.g. http://www.bornfree.org.uk/fileadmin...animal_ark.pdf ETA would be interested to read mazatael's thoughts on this paper - was writing while he was posting.

I do that agree there is a lot of difference between better ones (that manage to provide something like a natural environment and allow animals to live in the same social groups that they would in the wild) and worse ones.

[hullabaloo]

I do not like zoos personally and have spent a lot of time at a zoo previously doing research (behavioural study for my degree). I won't name the zoo but it became apparant that, depsite choosing a sociable species of primate to study (ringtailed lemur), which seemingly had an adequate environment, they still exhibited signs of stress. They were well cared for; they were fed, cleaned out and receive medical care when necessary. But I felt very sad for them.

They never got any enrichment during my 3 month period there, despite the zoo's claim that they did (during public talks). And with regards to public education, you could learn what the keeper told you if you looked up the internet! And I don't think the public are well-educated anyway as the number of people who told their kids the lemurs were something entirely different was ridiculous- even had someone think they were badgers!!

The thing is, yes some zoos put their admission fees into conservation work in the wild. But it is sad fact that people will pay to gawp at animals in cages but wouldn't think to give the money directly to conservation.

As for the idea that zoos have breeding programmes to save endangered species. They are breeding for a captive population. Do you really believe that populations that exist in zoo are behaviourally (or genetically for that matter) able to survive in the wild? I personally would rather see a species go extinct than condemned to prison if the worst were to happen (couldn't be saved in wild). The reason: keeping them in zoos is more beneficial to people (believing we are saving a species etc) than the animals themselves.

[missbettie]

What about the animals that are in Zoos that would other wise be hunted down for the sport and the money? Are Zoos not protecting them?

This is another weird thing for me, I love Zoos, but I haven't been to one since turning vegan because i'm kind of on the fence...I really think it depends on the Zoo, but like I said, i'm still on the fence.

[Panzer]

I wonder if the animals know they are in captivity or are they made to feel so at home that they never notice.

[boatsteem1]

There's a lot I could say about that Born Free article. Some things are true while other claims are twisted to their opinions.

I'm going to share some thoughts on the article's arguments.

First off they claim that the majority of species in zoos aren't endangered. This is definitely the case. The majority of zoos are probably still keeping the same species they kept twenty years ago - with some renewal. In Swedish zoos I've noticed a change over the six years that I've followed their work. The thinking has changed in most of the staff on these zoos. Even the first zoo that I worked at, which had a lot of endangered species but was more directed to entertainment and families. Today they have rebranded themselves as a conservation zoo. They still have the same enclosures and many of the species are still the same and this is logical because it will take probably 20 or more years to phase out animals that aren't "needed" any more (i.e. animals that aren't endangered). This is because they preferably don't want to euthanize the animals and more importantly because (many of) the enclosures are designed to fit a specific species which means that they need to have the investment covered. I'm not saying, though, that all zoos will get "rid off" all the non-endangered species, but it'll move more and more towards that goal.

They have some pictures with image text that I would like to comment on. One picture shows a gorilla and says that the gorilla enclosure could've paid for helping animals in the wild instead. Well the zoo is run like a business and needs to be renewed in order to attract visitors. Imagine going to the same zoo over and over again seeing the same animals. Circulation is needed. This is the same reason they like to have young, because it's something new that attracts visitors. They're on a tight, tight budget (only a couple of Swedish zoos are self sustainable). So this new enclosure will pay it self off in time by attracting visitors and thus money (of which some of it may go to in-situ projects). And also consider my point about visitors donating money. This is very effective and raise many millions to conservation projects every year.

The elephant picture. First off I want to say that using animals for shows (such as dolphin shows or other things) are bad because it gives the wrong idea of what the animals are. But all training isn't wrong, though. Training an animal can be a way of doing enrichement. And it may also help keepers because the animals will be easier to work with (I'm not suggesting to teach them to jump through burning rings, but rather some basic things may help).

The article also argues about endangered amphibians. Why don't zoos keep more of endangered amphibians? The simple reason is why don't people give a darn about endangered frogs or fish or insects or other small animals? Because people are people and people are more impressed with impressive species such as big cats, wolves and other large mammals. This is a sad fact but it's the way it is! If you had a zoo which only has amphibians it would go bankrupt within a week. As long as they're dependant on visitors they need to find ways of attracting people so that they will come and pay for a visit. Mammals are the only way to go to attract people. They still keep a lot of amphibians but they're not their main draw.

They also argue that some times zoos need to bring in animals from the wild to conserve the captive gene pool. I don't know about elephants, but I picture that if they will bring in animals from the wild then it will be animals that were to be shot anyway (Zimbabwe, for one is trying to make elephant hunting legal again, because they have a thriving population). I know the cheetah situation better, being a cat guy. Cheetahs don't breed well in captivity and breeders need new blood to make it work. To do this they don't go out and catch wild breeding individuals. That's a total no-no! Animals that were caught in traps, about to be killed or may have been hurt and can't live in the wild any more, these are the kind of animals that they take in to the captive gene pool. I imagine it's the same way with all species.

There, think I got all of their "points" covered. Like I said, some things make for good valid criticism while others are twisted.

I agree there is room for debate here, but personally I don't like zoos and wouldn't choose to visit one, as I see them as primarily exploiting animals for the (dubious in this case) benefit of humans. Now children can see wild animals on television etc I feel that's a better educational tool. Zoos mostly "educate" children to think we can treat animals any way we want, IMO.

I can just about see a case for captive breeding programmes to conserve endangered species but I've read that even when successful they rarely manage to reintroduce animals to the wild because of habitat destruction, unfortunately. The Born Free foundation website is worth a look, e.g. http://www.bornfree.org.uk/fileadmin...animal_ark.pdf ETA would be interested to read mazatael's thoughts on this paper - was writing while he was posting.

I do that agree there is a lot of difference between better ones (that manage to provide something like a natural environment and allow animals to live in the same social groups that they would in the wild) and worse ones.

[boatsteem1]

I wonder if the animals know they are in captivity or are they made to feel so at home that they never notice.

A bit of a funny speculation. Do domestic cats and dogs know they're in captivity?

[missbettie]

we have an animal compound that takes in wild animals that have been wounded and that would have otherwise died. Like there is a bald eagle, an animal that is extremely endangered and he was shot by a farmer... I think they teach some of the animals tricks to give shows to the public, but its mostly ran by donations...its also part of a college to teach students veterinary work and unfortunately to teach them about the animal entertainment industry...

Whats everyone's opinion on this? Not including teaching kids about animal entertainment, because we all will disagree with this anyway...

[boatsteem1]

As for the idea that zoos have breeding programmes to save endangered species. They are breeding for a captive population. Do you really believe that populations that exist in zoo are behaviourally (or genetically for that matter) able to survive in the wild? I personally would rather see a species go extinct than condemned to prison if the worst were to happen (couldn't be saved in wild). The reason: keeping them in zoos is more beneficial to people (believing we are saving a species etc) than the animals themselves.

They are breeding for genetically viable captive populations that in ideal circumstances resemble the wild populations; if possible with subspecies. If you've spent some time at a zoo then you know that breeding programmes have studbook keepers and that all animals are matched to an ideal partner (often at a different zoo) in order to preserve the genetic variation.

Relocating captive animals into the wild is the matter of a huge debate among conservationists and zoos. Genetically I think the animals are most often ok, as in they aren't inbred. Genetically they will be able to breed and do all the things that they've got to do in the wild. Behaviourally they're very different of course, and this is the tricky part. Some animals (actually all animals save for more intelligent animals that need training in order to learn how to live in the wild, like tigers to take an example) don't basically need any training at all. At the second zoo I worked at, which is the most beautiful zoo in Sweden and a true conservation station, they relocate many endangered species every year. The frogs they relocate don't need any kind of training. The falcons are fed for a couple of weeks until they have learned, on their own, how to hunt. The lynx they relocated to Poland were first trained in, I think, Estonia. The otters they've relocated to Germany were probably trained as well. As you see there are great possibilities.

Personally I think that evolution is the most important thing the Earth has to offer. All these species have evolved over hundreds of millions of years - it's such a long time span that it's totally incomprehendable. I, for one, will not let any species die out if I'm in the power of saving it!

Humans have screwed this world up beyond recognition. It is very unfortunate, but until we've restored the natural habitats and put an end to species extinction, then we've got to keep these animals safe. When we have sorted the threats out then these extinc species and populations will be relocated into the wild. I think it is utterly unfortunate, but I think it is a price that we must pay, keeping these animals in captivity, for what we have done to this planet, in order to save it from bleeding more.

[missbettie]

Humans have screwed this world up beyond recognition. It is very unfortunate, but until we've restored the natural habitats and put an end to species extinction, then we've got to keep these animals safe. When we have sorted the threats out then these extinc species and populations will be relocated into the wild. I think it is utterly unfortunate, but I think it is a price that we must pay, keeping these animals in captivity, for what we have done to this planet, in order to save it from bleeding more.

I agree...

[leedsveg]

Personally I think that evolution is the most important thing the Earth has to offer. All these species have evolved over hundreds of millions of years - it's such a long time span that it's totally incomprehendable. I, for one, will not let any species die out if I'm in the power of saving it!

I always thought that evolution meant that over the past 4 billion years, millions of species have become extinct? Surely that's part of what evolution is all about? No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

lv

[boatsteem1]

I always thought that evolution meant that over the past 4 billion years, millions of species have become extinct? Surely that's part of what evolution is all about? No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong. lv

Millions of species have come and gone and this is natural. What's not natural is that one species comes in and kills species in the manner that we are doing. Evolution is a really slow process. For a species to evolve it can take tens of thousands of years. We've killed off a lot of the world's biodiversity starting with big mammals as hunters and gatherers, then we started changing the world's habitats when we began farming 10 000 years ago, and then everything escalated with the boom of the industrial age and commercial society.

The current rate of extinction of species and alleles (which is what true biodiversity is about) is unparalleled in the history of the Earth.

[MrGreen]

Wow, some interesting feedback.

I would like to say my experience of the working of the zoo, such as the claims about them getting a nice diet are based on a good friend of mine who works at Bristol Zoo. And so i hear about what they get up to and try and push my ideas through him (hehehe)
But yeah i agree the captivity still is the main issue, with some enclosures being up to 18,000 times smaller than the space the animals would roam in the wild (taken from article.) But i think the zoo's that are bordering more on the sanctuary side of things are a lot better.

And in regards to Prawnil saying these animals are taken from the wild in the first place. A lot of them are also rescued from poachers or bad conditions and then re housed, and as mention some are even sent back into the wild again.

[leedsveg]

The current rate of extinction of species and alleles (which is what true biodiversity is about) is unparalleled in the history of the Earth.

And why does this matter? Let homo sapiens die out and the cockroaches take over, says I.

lv

(I won't post again as I realise I'm going way off-topic.)

[Prawnil]

Frankly, I'm surprised that a thread starting with a member stating they LIKE zoos has had such a small & slow reaction.

Mazatael, was the post that was a response to the Born Free article intended to clear up some of the twisted opinions in the article? Minus the first sentence, it reads, to me, more like a quite cynical description of the working of zoos, & so, the way I read it, could easily be interpreted as a thoroughly anti-zoo post.

A lot of them are also rescued from poachers or bad conditions

Also is the important bit. How can you know which have and haven't? As I see it, to support one zoo is to support zoos. Success of one is an indicator that the business works, and drives the huge number that lag in terms of standards of conditions & conduct.

[Blue moon]

I'm kind of on the fence, but leaning over to the prison side. I love seeing animals up close, but it makes me so sad to see them cooped up and miserable. So I haven't been to a zoo in years.

I hate that humans are killing everything, and money is the driving force in everything... but realistically that's not going to change. I can't imagine humans will ever give back any habitat, so if there isn't enough right now then I don't see there ever will be, so then we're just keeping a species going as captives because of our collective guilt at driving them out rather than for the benefit of the species concerned.

I'm not convinced about the gawping... I know it brings money, and some kids will feel for the animals and maybe get interested, but most will just gawp while eating a burger/ice cream and then forget all about it. Like someone else said, it's for the kids to "smile and be happy", not for the animals benefit.

What it comes down to I suppose, I wouldn't want to be trapped in that enclosure with parades of people going past staring at me, no choice in my companions, diet, or location.

[fiamma]

What I don't understand is

i dislike animals in captivity, but i LIKE zoo's.

and

I'm against animals in captivity, with the exception of zoos.

How can you be against one, but for the other?
This is not a criticism; I am genuinely curious.

[sparklingsights]

I haven't read everyone's response in detail and I don't want to get too into the debate but:

I do like zoos. However! I am cautious about the ones I visit, because some do not treat their animals as they should, while others provide outstanding care.

For example, in Canada we have a place called Marine Land. I've never been, and I will never go. I don't support large marine mammals living in chlorinated cement pools. If you do any kind of Google search (or something to that effect) for them, they have a pretty rough reputation in the animal rights department... which is really a shame because they advertise like crazy on TV and a lot of people take their kids there. Sigh.
However, in the west there is the Vancouver Aquarium. They rescue and rehabilitate marine mammals, not capture common breeds (orca whale, bottlenose dolphin) and put them on display as Marine Land is so well known for.

Anyway... that's my thought. I know a lot of people are on the fence and it's a tricky subject... where do you draw the line? But like anything involved with veganism or being a compassionate person: do the best you can. Personally I like to support zoos/aquariums that are doing good work.

[boatsteem1]

How can you be against one, but for the other?
This is not a criticism; I am genuinely curious.

I give zoos the exception because they do huge amounts of good for conservation. In fact, conservation wouldn't work without zoological gardens.

[gogs67]

I give zoos the exception because they do huge amounts of good for conservation. In fact, conservation wouldn't work without zoological gardens.

Though not 100% behind that i would kinda lean in favour of the sentiment!

My veganism does nothing for the planet really, if i look at the greater picture.
People heavily involved in Conservation will actually do a lot more good for animals in the long term than my personal lifestyle choices will!

[veganwitch]

And why does this matter? Let homo sapiens die out and the cockroaches take over, says I.

lv

(I won't post again as I realise I'm going way off-topic.)

imo, you are more on topic than you think. i've always thought that humans dying out would be the best thing for the animals in the long run.

[hullabaloo]

They are breeding for genetically viable captive populations that in ideal circumstances resemble the wild populations; if possible with subspecies. If you've spent some time at a zoo then you know that breeding programmes have studbook keepers and that all animals are matched to an ideal partner (often at a different zoo) in order to preserve the genetic variation.

Relocating captive animals into the wild is the matter of a huge debate among conservationists and zoos. Genetically I think the animals are most often ok, as in they aren't inbred. Genetically they will be able to breed and do all the things that they've got to do in the wild. Behaviourally they're very different of course, and this is the tricky part. Some animals (actually all animals save for more intelligent animals that need training in order to learn how to live in the wild, like tigers to take an example) don't basically need any training at all. At the second zoo I worked at, which is the most beautiful zoo in Sweden and a true conservation station, they relocate many endangered species every year. The frogs they relocate don't need any kind of training. The falcons are fed for a couple of weeks until they have learned, on their own, how to hunt. The lynx they relocated to Poland were first trained in, I think, Estonia. The otters they've relocated to Germany were probably trained as well. As you see there are great possibilities.

Personally I think that evolution is the most important thing the Earth has to offer. All these species have evolved over hundreds of millions of years - it's such a long time span that it's totally incomprehendable. I, for one, will not let any species die out if I'm in the power of saving it!

Humans have screwed this world up beyond recognition. It is very unfortunate, but until we've restored the natural habitats and put an end to species extinction, then we've got to keep these animals safe. When we have sorted the threats out then these extinc species and populations will be relocated into the wild. I think it is utterly unfortunate, but I think it is a price that we must pay, keeping these animals in captivity, for what we have done to this planet, in order to save it from bleeding more.

I wasn't talking about inbreeding when I was referring to genetics. I've tried to write this to explain what I mean a few times and got in a muddle, so I hope that this makes sense...

Behaviour, is like any other genetically influenced trait. It is subject to natural selection. What happens in zoos is far from "natural selection", individuals are paired up and chosen for each other, as you so rightly say but, although this prevents inbreeding, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are breeding for the right "traits" that would mean the species would survive in the wild. Take a simple personality trait, for example- boldness. It is known that captive breeding selects for fearlessness, as high reproductive success is only achieved by those individuals that are least stressed by their captive environment (i.e. not fearful of people, the noise of the lions roaring nearby, all the sounds/smells/noises/sights encountered). This has serious consequences when it comes to re-introduction as boldness is maladaptive in the wild and results in a low survival rate. And that's just one example. As you breed generations of captive bred animals, the species evolves to suit a captive environment.

You also have to think about whether having animals that have been habituated to humans will really do well when released into the wild.

And as to the question of whether animals realise they are in captivity, ever heard of zoochosis? I do not think that it can be compared to dogs/cats as these are domesticated species. I do not care how well wild animals are cared for in captivity, I truly believe that zoos are not able to care for their mental well-being. They take away an animal's freedom, thus preventing it to exhibit many natural behaviours. That has to be stressful.

One this I absolutely oppose is cetaceans being kept in captivity. It is downright cruel and there is no need.

Another point to add- captive populations are not subjected to natural diseases and thus will have no immunity to them. Even if a species was successfully introduced and overcome all the problems presented already, they could potentially be wiped out should there be an outbreak of disease.

I am actually shocked at how many vegans see zoos are being acceptable! I think that zoos defend themselves by using the word conservation. Do your research and decide for yourself whether you believe that is the reason behind them.

[Prawnil]

In fact, conservation wouldn't work without zoological gardens.

What's inherent to zoos that makes them necessary for conservation? That they oversee captive breeding populations, & bring in an income? Neither relies in principle on exhibiting animals, especially non-endangered, high damand animals, to the public as an attraction, though. Some might call exhibition of captured, non-endangered species, to generate income to support conservation, pragmatic - I'd just call it immoral (& frustratingly enough, expected vegans to generally agree).

People heavily involved in Conservation will actually do a lot more good for animals in the long term than my personal lifestyle choices will!

Which ones, though? Not the large-attraction non-endangered ones that live restricted lives as income generators, for some indeterminate time while conservation experiment goes on, if the conservation is associated with a zoo.

I am actually shocked at how many vegans see zoos are being acceptable!

Yeah. I see this thread the way I would a debate on honey on the forum.

[missbettie]

good grief...this is one of those threads isn't it?

opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.

[leedsveg]

I am actually shocked at how many vegans see zoos are being acceptable!

Not acceptable to this vegan.

And while I'm at it, the life of one cow out of a billion cows is as precious as the life of the last surviving panda.

lv

[clare155]

Another against zoos here. After seeing Peter Tatchell's lecture on the disgrace that is London Zoo I wouldnt consider visiting one.

[missbettie]

And while I'm at it, the life of one cow out of a billion cows is as precious as the life of the last surviving panda.

lv

good point.

[Sloth]

This...

Yeah. I see this thread the way I would a debate on honey on the forum.

...and this.

Not acceptable to this vegan.

I know I'm being an echo here, but I'm also stunned by the amount of people on here who seem ok with the idea of zoos.

[gogs67]

Not acceptable to this vegan.

And while I'm at it, the life of one cow out of a billion cows is as precious as the life of the last surviving panda.

lv

And yet the paradox is that some folk say they'd be quite happy to see a species become extinct rather than see them in an environment that is not 'natural'!

[BlackCats]

I know I'm being an echo here, but I'm also stunned by the amount of people on here who seem ok with the idea of zoos.

I think most vegans are completely against zoos, maybe they are just not responding to this thread.

I don't really know about the conservation argument but I am against zoos because they are just prisons for animals to my eyes. The animals are kept there to generate money for the zoo and used as entertainment.

[Mr Flibble]

Perhaps this thread should be a poll?

I'm in the not a fan camp.

[harpy]

I have reported you to the mods, Mr F, but only because I think it would be a good idea to add a poll to this thread!

I do think conservation of endangered species is desirable (not from a vegan perspective particularly) but feel that the end (conservation tomorrow) doesn't justify the means (imprisonment of animals today). Also the fact that we're still destroying habitats (as well as hullaballoo's points about zoos breeding out characteristics necessary for survival in the wild) makes it unlikely that many species we conserve will get restored to the wild in the foreseeable future.

I've read about the idea of conserving (e.g. freezing) DNA and embryos rather than actual animals so that species can be recreated in future when suitable habitats are available. I don't know how viable that is at the moment but in future it might perhaps be a more realistic and humane way of conserving species? Although of course it comes with problems of its own, sigh.

[Blue moon]

"I think most vegans are completely against zoos, maybe they are just not responding to this thread"


I don't know, I think vegans are as varied as any group of people... some will be for, some not. Neither can really say which vegans are "supposed" be.

There have been good points made in favour of zoos, and come on we're human, we LIKE animals, so people are drawn to them.

[BlackCats]

I don't know, I think vegans are as varied as any group of people... some will be for, some not. Neither can really say which vegans are "supposed" be.
There have been good points made in favour of zoos, and come on we're human, we LIKE animals, so people are drawn to them.

Vegans are against the exploitation of animals and zoos fall under that category in my opinion.

[harpy]

Yes I think some people see zoos purely as exploitation of animals for the benefit of humans (hence analogy with honey), and therefore think vegans would be against them by definition.

I'm not sure I would put zoos in quite that category myself because the conservation aspect is arguably not just for the benefit of humans. I'm still not happy about them though - certainly not zoos in the traditional sense. Wildlife reserves seem more acceptable, but then the dividing line between a wildlife reserve and a zoo isn't always that clear

[Mr Flibble]

I've voiced my opinions previously on threads concerning extinction vs exploitation, so shalln't repeat myself (especially as it seemed to be quite an emotive subject).

I'm also stunned by the amount of people on here who seem ok with the idea of zoos.

I'm not, given the amount of people on this forum who've openly supported commercial breeding of animals as 'pets'. Each to their own I guess.

[RubyDuby]

really? I haven't seen anybody ok with breeding pets. Could you please link to that?

[Mr Flibble]

Sure, thou I warn you it's a very long thread:

http://www.veganforum.com/forums/sho...&highlight=pet

20.74% of people who took the poll did not choose "I'm against puppy mills and commercial breeding of animals"

[RubyDuby]

That could be misleading. There is a good possibility that choice got overlooked or members didn't really they could choose multiple answers. Within the thread itself I can't recall anybody ever arguing for commercial breeding of pets.

[BlackCats]

Oh no, not that pet thread again.

[harpy]

I do recall one or two people posting that they thought breeding of animals as "pets" was OK with various caveats, but I'm afraid I can't remember who or where. FWIW my impression is that they were in a small minority compared with the ones that thought rescuing was OK but not breeding (or were against keeping companion animals).

[Mr Flibble]

I do recall one or two people posting that they thought breeding of animals as "pets" was OK with various caveats

Here's one such example:

http://www.veganforum.com/forums/sho...2&postcount=72

[RubyDuby]

20% sounds really high! Then again, I can see why somebody pro-breeding would just vote but choose to not participate in the discussion...

And yet the paradox is that some folk say they'd be quite happy to see a species become extinct rather than see them in an environment that is not 'natural'!

that's a little over-simplified... and "quite happy" is unfair.

I do think conservation of endangered species is desirable (not from a vegan perspective particularly) but feel that the end (conservation tomorrow) doesn't justify the means (imprisonment of animals today). Also the fact that we're still destroying habitats (as well as hullaballoo's points about zoos breeding out characteristics necessary for survival in the wild) makes it unlikely that many species we conserve will get restored to the wild in the foreseeable future.

nicely put, Harpy.

[fiamma]

nicely put, Harpy.

Ditto

[gogs67]

that's a little over-simplified... and "quite happy" is unfair.

.

I think the whole argument is oversimplified though.
To me it's not a black and white issue. I personally don't like the idea of zoos but almost every single one of these conservationists who are out there in the world seeking and cataloguing new species, in the hope that areas can be deemed worthy of saving in their natural state, are or have been involved with zoos in some form!
Man IS destroying the earth, and will continue to do so, i just feel that people who are in the frontline trying to slow down that process are actually doing some good.
I'm just trying to be practical in dealing with how fucked up things are! If the general public can see animals that have been rescued from death in the wild, and that raises awarness of their plight, then i can cope with that.