by 
Ruby21103
ANSWERS: 19
-
No , not really
-
It depends on the zoo. I wish all zoos had large natural habitats and excellent care taking into consideration their social needs. Small cages is just cruel. We don't even do that to our dog.
-
No
-
No, they try the best with what they have to take good care of the animals and make them happy. Those animals may not have all the room in the world, but they do have the best medical care, mental stimulation, and food they can get. And zoos provide more then just entertainment. They do research, conservation, and education. Without zoos a large number of animals would have died out do to destruction of their habitate or hunting. And the breeding programs provide not only animals for zoos, but ones that get returned to the wild as well. The research has been invailable to our understanding of animals and they way they learn and their social behaviours. And the education programs teach the public not only about the animals, but why it is so important to protect them and the envioument we all live in. Going to the zoo has inspiered my son to become a vet and work with elephants as a conservationist when he grows up. And he's only seven.
-
It is wrong to cage animals for the enjoyment of human beings.Would you like to caged for the benefit of a race far beyond us?This was a story line in an episode of the twilight zone TV series.We treat the animal kingdom without respect in the wild.Why carry to the extreme in a zoo!
-
Yes...Sorry to go against the popular opinion but in zoo's often times you see the animals pacing back and forth the length of their enclosures..this is not something that occurs in nature..the animals are stressed..being held captive in this attempt to "save them"..but for what..a life in a cage...its not fair to them.
-
Of course they are. Releasing leopards in the zoo for a few laugh. Those bastards.
-
animals don't belong in cages.
-
Yes. Grocery stores and laundromats are torture..especially on Sundays.
-
1) I think than humans should have a high sense of ethics that would allow them to consider animals as fellow living beings on this planet, and let them live in a suitable environment, as long as they do not harm humans. Unfortunately, these higher ethics standards are not yet universally recognized as a necessary part of humanity. 2) A suitable environment for animals could eventually be achieved in a good organized zoo. The advantage of zoos is that children, for instance, have the opportunity to observe some animals which they do not see usually. And sometimes the natural environment of some animals has been destroyed or is too dangerous for them. 3) Zoos which do not reproduce a suitable environment for the animals are in conflict with this higher ethics standards. 4) The industrial exploitation of animals for the production of meat, which involves killing, is also in conflict with this higher ethics standards. This also applies to the industrial exploitation of animals for the production of other animal products, where animals are not given a suitable environment as long as they live.
-
It depends why they are in a zoo. If they're just babies that were found, they should raise them a bit and let them free later on when they're older. They might suffer in survival skills though. If the animal is hurt, the zoo could care for them until healed. If they're breeding them since they are near extinction that isn't a bad thing. If you just caught a wild animal and stuffed it in a zoo, that just isn't right...
-
They can be. However, the zoo in my city, Perth Zoo, has undertaken a project since 1970 where it's purpose is primarily educational and conservationist, not entertainment. Zoos (should) help protect endangered species by rebuilding endangered populations and educating people in conservation.
-
Not the ones in Australia, now. In the past yes, zoos were terrible. But now a lot of the herd animals are out at Western Plains Zoo in NSW or Werribee in Victoria. They live much as they would in the wild, but are not subject to predation. In the city zoos now, the animals are not in cages like the old cages, but in enclosures which mimic their natural environment. The ape and chimpanzee enclosures are fantastic. We have nocturnal enclosures too, so that the animals of the night can have their darkness, and butterfly houses, which are heated and the butterflies and nectar eating birds fly free. Many of our zoos are helping restock the wild with disease free animals. The existence of wild herds of Przewalski's Horse or Mongolian Wild Horse is owed to their captive breeding, and re-release. This may be the only hope for the Sumatran tiger, as its Javanese and Balinese cousins were rendered extinct in very recent times. Had their been captive breeding in the 1970s, the Javan tiger might have survived.
-
I think it is wrong to keep them caged, but if they have enough space to roam around and some of their "natural habitat" then I have no problem with it. . .
-
Yes...how would you like it? Animals and fish have shown intelligence and more importantly, the ability to suffer as much as humans. We need to preserve what we call humanity, and treat them with the respect they deserve.
-
hmmm there is positive anjd negative thing but in general it is wrong I think......maybe breeding animals in captivity that are close to extinction is a positive thing
-
Not the good ones. The best zoos also help rebuild endangered species. Now circuses, that's a whole different kettle of fish!
-
yes it is cruel to keep animals locked up
-
Yes, for they aren't supposed to be humane. You could say they are animalistic.
iwnit RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC