I hate all zoos, circuses and animal amusement parks, such as Sea World.

[MoonRiver]

They enslave animals against their wills for human greed and entertainment. That is pure evil, imho, and should be ended.

[G_j]

1. tragically,

Zoos may be the only places in which some animals will continue to exist, as we destroy their natural habitat.


http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/275885377/in-the-world-s-sixth-extinction-are-humans-the-asteroid

----
Elizabeth Kolbert is the author of the new book The Sixth Extinction. It begins with a history of the "big five" extinctions of the past, and goes on to explain how human behavior is creating a sixth one — including our use of fossil fuels and the effects of climate change.

"We are effectively undoing the beauty and the variety and the richness of the world which has taken tens of millions of years to reach," Kolbert tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. " ... We're sort of unraveling that. ... We're doing, it's often said, a massive experiment on the planet, and we really don't know what the end point is going to be."

Climate change was the subject of Kolbert's previous book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe. Her research for the new book took her around the world, to oceans, rain forests and mountains — as well as a place nearly in her backyard — where scientists are studying disappearing plants and animals.

"Amphibians have the dubious distinction of being the world's most endangered class of animals," she writes. "But also heading toward extinction are one-third of all reef-building corals, a third of all fresh-water mollusks, a third of sharks and rays, a quarter of all mammals, a fifth of all reptiles and sixth of all birds."
----

[MoonRiver]

2. I wonder if the animals would agree that life in captivity is worth living.

Humans in control of their every move, even to deciding if they live or die from one day to the next. My guess is they would say, thank you very much but I'll take my chances in the wild. Humans need to worry about our own survival and let animals do their thing.

[el_bryanto]

7. I think the point is that in some cases that's not a choice; not trying to breed them in capitivity

means letting that species die out.

But then I think there are good zoos and bad zoos - some zoos/wildlife preserves are pretty horrible, some are more humane.

Bryant

[Jgarrick]

11. There's no need to wonder, given that non-human animals are incapable of expressing or even forming

such a concept.

[MoonRiver]

13. Do wild non-humans voluntarily run into a cage designed to remove them from their families

and environments? Of course they're not aware of what the cage is for, but they avoid entrapment none the less.

[Jgarrick]

15. It depends. Has the cage been baited? If it has, that bear will stroll right in.

Of course they're not aware of what the cage is for, but they avoid entrapment none the less.

The animal isn't avoiding entrapment as such; they're simply avoiding something unknown to them. Strange=danger is a strong survival mechanism.

Try introducing something else such as (just for instance) an automobile into an area in which animals have never seen them...for the most part they're not going to just walk right up to it, they'll avoid it. The design of the object in question is utterly irrelevant.

[FreeJoe]

63. Sometimes

I had an uncle that worked at the LA zoo many decades ago. He said that a mule deer living outside the zoo used to hop over the fence some days to feed with the deer on exhibit. One day, decided to stay and never left after that. They just added a "Mule Deer" sign to the exhibit.

[Hip_Flask]

43. The local schnauzer seems pretty content with his life...

People over-humanize animals and assign complex emotions and thoughts to them that they just aren't capable of having.

[TBF]

67. Scientists disagree with you -

Dolphin speech: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/dolphin-language/

Are animals senient: http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-sentience.html

Quite frankly given the violence of many in the US I would argue that animals are capable of more complex communities than many humans.

[Sienna86]

20. The better answer is to work to preserve their habitat.

I also feel badly for these animals. It is cruel, in my opinion.

[G_j]

23. I absolutely agree with that

"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

[gollygee]

3. I remember the last time I went to a circus

PETA was distributing flyers outside and I thought they were silly, but then when I was inside I was struck by how sad and terrified the animals looked, so I ended up reading the flyer. I didn't become a vegan, but I do agree with their view on circuses.

I have mixed feelings about zoos. Some are kind of like rescue sanctuaries (like the Austin Zoo), and some are full of sad animals pacing around in small spaces.

I've never gone to anything like Sea World, and I've now seen Blackfish and I'm glad I never have.

[CrispyQ]

4. We are a wretched species. --nt

[hueymahl]

21. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Must be a shitty way to live.

[G_j]

25. even worse, I think

is living in denial. Though, we also have the potential to be loving, kind and wise, we can go either way.

[MoonRiver]

40. It's a realistic way to live.

You seen to be in total denial about the destruction that humans are bringing down on this planet.

[Duppers]

44. +100

[hueymahl]

46. No, not in denial

Just not a believer that we are a wretched species. We have the capacity for greatness. And the capacity for unmitigated horror.

Saying we are a wretched species asserts a kind of fatalism that I choose not to engage in. It is almost like giving up. If we are truly wretched, then there is no way to change.

But I understand the feeling.

Peace.

[MoonRiver]

51. To be honest, I have given up.

I think humans will destroy the planet and everything on it. I try to mitigate the immediate damage by working to help animals and children.

[DirkGently]

5. It can be "pure evil," or close enough. Not always though.

SeaWorld keeping huge, intelligent mammals in small tanks, showing and breeding them for profit, or circuses dragging chained elephants and declawed bears around the country to performs tricks is offensive and wrong, and should stop.

But I do think there is a mutual benefit to truly well-managed zoos or animal refuges that actually protect animals from man, while helping instill appreciation in those that come to see them. If we didn't have any of that, there are any number of species that would be worse off than they are today, or extinct.

We can't get out of interacting with the other species on the planet. We're already interfering -- altering the landscape, the food supply, the air and the water. We have to interfere again to protect other creatures from ourselves.

Small dirty zoos and zillion-dollar Orca shows covering up abused and miserable animals is not the way to do it. But we can be better than that. We have to.

[reddread]

6. "hate all"

do you realize there are some institutions involved in captive propagation and other studies on endangered species that
may do more good than harm?
Not to say the Fresno Zoo didnt wipe out a big number of endangered frogs with their clumsy carelessness, but it is a tool that
shouldnt be thrown in the trash in some cases.

[Agschmid]

8. Yup... You took it a bit to far.

"Hate" is too much. Especially as stated above some zoos literally are doing everything they can to keep a species alive. Zoos also provide education to youth/adults and hopefully drive more people to become concerned with the world environment as a whole (see polar bears).

I don't hate zoos, I don't hate animal safari parks, and I don't hate circuses. However animals should be treated humanely and with good intentions if someone is NOT doing that then there is a problem... But I still usually don't use "hate" to describe that feeling.

[MoonRiver]

9. Well, you may not be totally informed about the abuse that takes place in most of those places.

Truth is that if we weren't killing animals in the wild for trinkets and destroying their habitats, zoos would have no reason to exist except for human curiosity, entertainment and profit (which in fact is what most do exist for). The fact that a few appear to be doing something semi-positive does not excuse the fact that animals are held captive against their wills. Some slave owners in the South were kind to their "property" also. Those individuals in no way excuse or mitigate the institution of slavery.

[reddread]

12. habitat destruction is the one thing that matters most

first things first.
although, it is awfully late, in a very rigged game.
and we have ramped up the destruction to an inconceivable degree,
because industry owns our politicians and officials.
you cannot solve another problem without solving that one first.
putting campaigns of hate into place is no substitute whatsoever.

[Agschmid]

39. +1

Exactly.

[librechik]

10. Yes indeed--I watched "Blackfish" last week on Netflix

what a revolting tragedy.

[kairos12]

22. I recommend the recent book "Death at Seaworld."

[naturallyselected]

14. There are some great humane zoos

Circuses and animal shows, agreed, absolutely. But my feelings about zoos are mixed. There are some excellent zoos. And some really, really bad ones.

As a biology professor, when I travel for business, I always try to see any local zoos. Some depress me horribly.

Knoxville, Tennessee: there is (or was - this was several years ago) a white tiger there that does nothing but pace and jump against the fence at visitors. I hated that zoo.

National Zoo in DC: the gorillas and orangs are so bored and miserable that they "regurgitate and re-ingest" just to see the reactions from visitors.

Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago: A good zoo that needs to send their big cats to Brookfield. They should not be in their Lion House with barely any outside space. Cats are a huge problem at zoos; it is so hard to simulate a natural environment for them.

The closest zoos to me are in Boston, and I haven't been to either in decades. Both are truly bad zoos.

But some are very good, both for the visitors and the animals. I always have a clear sense of where the animals are happy and where they are not. And there are places where they are happy.

Cleveland Zoo: A very pleasant surprise for me. Well-cared for, happy animals, in creative environments. After seeing the miserable gorillas in DC, I saw a keeper in Cleveland sitting next to a gorilla (the observation glass separated them), as they read a picture book together. Thee other gorillas had a lot of space and were moving about and freely interacting. The zoo is a great experience for the visitor as well.

Toronto: The first truly good zoo I ever saw. The challenges of keeping these animals in a cold climate forced innovation and creativity.

Syracuse: One of the very few examples of a good small-city zoo. An emphasis on cold-weather animals to match the local climate, although the lemur display is great as well.

San Diego: A truly great zoo. It takes several days to see everything. I do wish they would stop their trained animal shows though.

There are plenty of other good zoos and unfortunately more bad ones. But in this world of disappearing natural populations, the best zoos have active breeding programs and breeding exchanges with other zoos. And they are the only way a lot of people will ever experience wildlife.

To me, the key is choosing the right animals for the budget, facilities, and climate. I don't know if big cats should ever be kept in zoos; they need too much space. And elephants should never be kept unless it can be done right. As a child, I saw an elephant at the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston chained to the floor, just shifting back and forth, side to side. An image seared into my brain forever. But I have no problem with the elephants in San Diego.

I have seen so many great exhibits - from insects to great apes. The great reptile and insect houses in Philadelphia, the innovative Australian area in Cleveland, the butterfly displays in Cleveland (not at the zoo) and Chicago. The way the red pandas are kept in Cleveland, the indoor rain forest exhibit in Toronto. If animals are well cared for in naturalistic exhibits, I just don't think they "miss" something they never knew. And life in the wild has its downside for animals as well; it's not all Garden of Eden.

I understand and respect philosophical objections like yours. But just because someone enjoys the good zoos out there doesn't mean they enable "pure evil". For those of us who can't experience the huge wildlife refuges in Africa (something on my bucket list), good zoos can be enjoyable. I don't know about others, but I have an immediate sense of when I am in a good zoo and when I am in a bad one. Do the bad ones mean that no zoos should exist? I would rather just get rid of the bad ones, and let the good ones prosper.

[MoonRiver]

16. My point is whether it is right for us to enslave animals because we are curious about them

and can't visit/see them in the wild. IMO, the answer is no. And yes I do think it is evil to take animals out of their habitats and force them into limited enclosures, where humans make all decisions regarding their life and death. They should be left alone unless, like dogs and cats, they voluntarily choose to live with and around humans.

[DirkGently]

28. I think "enslave" is a bit too anthropomorphic a term.

You keep using it, so I'm thinking it's central to your thoughts here. I don't think it's entirely applicable.

It's true we're still learning the extent of intelligence among other species, and there's no question there are great depths of emotion and familial ties and "culture" in a lot of species. And there's no question cruelty is wrong.

But the inhabitants of the ant farms and bat houses are not composing essays on their years of cruel imprisonment "against their will." Their psychologies, however dignified and meaningful, are not the same as ours. They do not necessarily perceive living in a human-created habitat as "enslavement" any more than they they think of killing a competing animal's offspring as "infanticide" or chasing a weaker creature away from a meal as "stealing."

I've heard people suggest that domestic animals like dogs and cats and cows are "enslaved" as well. Do you think that's true? Does the cat in the windowsill, or the dog running in the backyard, who would likely run away if given a choice, resent her confinement the way a person captured and shackled would?

I think we can empathize with our fellow creatures, and understand that cruel treatment is an evil unto itself, without taking the added step of imagining that every species we encounter is imbued with exactly the same concerns about self-determination and free will that we have.

Animal intelligence is alien to ours. We learn more all the time about the complex needs of various animals -- for space, for familial and friendly contact, for stimulation -- but we are not the *same.* All creatures do not share all of our sensibilities or moral or philosophical imaginings. They live closer to basic survival than we do. A goat in a pasture with good food and water is probably a pretty happy goat. A spider in a well-appointed terrarium or a fish in a spacious aquarium is probably living as good a life as it could want. And in many cases, the world we have left them outside the enclosure is likely far less benign. No one poaches a captive rhino for its horn.

An Orca in a 35-ft deep tank, cut off from familial ties and forced to breed and perform? No. Big cats confined to a few dozen square yards, or great apes in cages or small enclosures? We know better now.

But "enslavement" is probably not the issue. Enslavement is a concept for people, concerned with motivations and freedom of choice and a lot of other ideas specific to our culture and our psyche. We know things the animals do not. We impact the world in ways they do not. We are in a position to study and protect and conserve and educate, and have responsibilties that do not concern the other creatures around us.

Our job is to be more aware and more sensitive and to be better caretakers of the world than we have been. If that means elephants "confined" to hundreds of acres in Tennessee, or captive breeding of the last handfuls of great cats, or trying to understand just exactly HOW smart apes or cetaceans are through experimentation and study, we need to do that, and not confuse their reality or ours with ideas drawn from our specific way of experiencing the world.

We are animals ourselves, but we are unique in our impact on the rest. They may be better than us in a number of ways. But we don't do them any favors imagining they think and feel exactly as we do. We have to try to do right by our environment, and it's far too late to approach that job by not interfering at all.

[MoonRiver]

33. I don't know why you think the term "enslavement" applies strictly to humans.

I consider it quite appropriate for animals who are forced into bondage by humans.

[DirkGently]

42. For the same reason "tax evasion" does?

Not to be overly glib, but "enslavement" is a sophisticated concept created by human construct. A goat in a pasture or ant in a terrarium is not being oppressed like a human in shackles.

Tried to give you a careful, nuanced thought on this, but if you're just going to toss back the baseless assumption that human notions of morality and constitutional rights simply apply equally to animals, I'd have to ask that you back that up with some kind of logic.

[MoonRiver]

45. The logic is the reality of what happens to animals at the hands of their human captors.

Have you ever seen elephants in shackles or dancing bears. Just a few examples of enslavement. Maybe we do need lawsuits filed on behalf on enslaved animals.

Here's a little info about what happens to the dancing bear cubs, ripped from their mothers and tortured until they die a painful death.

One of the most horrible forms of animal torture are the dancing bears of India. These native Sloth bear cubs are captured from their homes in the wild, their mothers killed.

Every captured cub must undergo the painful ordeal of having its sensitive muzzle pierced so that it can be controlled. It is held down without anaesthetic while a crude iron needle is heated in a coal fire and plunged in with a group of men holding the squealing cub tight. The tug of this rope, along with an intense fear of the strike of a heavy stick, motivates the bear to lift its legs in turn and 'dance'.

Before it is a year old, the bear's incisors and canine teeth will be wrenched out and sold as lucky charms. The toothless bear is unable to eat its natural diet, and this often leads to terminal intestinal disorders.

Every year, over 100 bear cubs are taken from the wild and sold or traded at markets to gypsies. Many of the cubs do not even survive the journey back to the village because of dehydration or traumatic ordeal. Despite the fact that there is a law against the capture and trade of bears in India, it is rarely enforced. This cruel fate happens to an estimated 1,200 of these adorable bear cubs each year. The poor animals live short lives of pain, misery, and premature death.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-dancing-bears-of-india.html

[DirkGently]

49. That's physical cruelty. Not "enslavement."

Last edited Wed Mar 26, 2014, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

The objection to human slavery is not simply that slaves are physically abused. We have an innate desire to choose our own destinies and control our fate. A perfectly benign environment that is completely controlled by another person is unacceptable to us.

The cockerspaniel in your living room is not unhappy because he wanted to move to the Southwest and study landscape painting. He is unhappy if don't treat him well.

Point being, there are many valid, benign, and morally just ways in which humans may keep animals. It is not "slavery" any more than a lion eating a gazelle is "murder."

[MoonRiver]

50. Well, I completely disagree with you.

I do believe that many animals also have an innate desire to choose their own destinies and control their fates. Can you look into the minds and souls of animals in zoos, circuses and amusement parks, and tell me they don't?

[DirkGently]

62. Circuses & amusement parks are not the question.

The question you raised is whether we are "enslaving" animals by keeping them for any purpose.

I noticed you said earlier that cats and dogs are with us "voluntarily." How so? They didn't fill out a form. Leave the door open and a lot of them would leave, maybe to return when they get hungry or because they just don't know anything else, but it's not any kind of formal arrangement where they "agree" to a life circumscribed by humans.

A lot of the "enslavement" talk regarding animals decries domestic animals of any kind. PETA is huge on the idea of "enslavement." They'd rather see a pet dog or cat euthanized than subjugated by their human "masters." I think they're wrong and are anthrompomorphizing the concept. You seem to be on both sides of the line. Which is it? Are we "enslaving" our dogs and cats and cows and goats," or is it possible for humans to "keep" animals in a benign and justifiable way?

No one I know, least of all anyone on DU, would argue in favor of lions forced to jump through hoops of fire or declawed bears made to ride bicycles or elephants kept chained in a damp barn.

But a well-run nature conservancy or research facility -- even a good zoo -- whether or not animals are "on display" is another kettle of fish. We have a unique place in our own ecosystem -- largely, screwing it up -- and as a result, we have a responsibility to raise awareness, protect species, and learn all we can. We can't do that by pretending that animals are always best left alone. It's too late for that. We have to do more.

[leftyladyfrommo]

17. Pretty soon there will be no large wild animals.

All that we will have will be pictures.

So many species are right on the brink of extinction. It's only going to get worse as humans destroy their habitat or poach them for whatever it is that people can get money for. We can either just let them all die out or we can try to save a few.

Life in the wild is no piece of cake. Most wild animals have pretty short lifespans. And a lot of the time the life they do have is precarious. Most are full of parasites. They are constantly searching for food so they don't starve to death. Or they are killed for food by other wild animals. It's really not a glorious, free lifestyle. That's a huge myth. The whole natural system is kill or be killed.

I'm hoping the zoos and the animals refuges can save a least some of these animals.

[MoonRiver]

18. Sounds like the Copenhagen Zoo.

At least in the wild they have a chance.

[leftyladyfrommo]

19. No they don't.

Not any more.

If we just let things go they will all be gone.

[MoonRiver]

24. What we need to do is stop the killing and destruction of the habitat.

Truth is humans are as endangered as any other species out there. Our destructive activities will take us out as well as every other living thing.

[leftyladyfrommo]

29. I don't much care about the humans.

We deserve it. Humans have been destroying everything we touch since the beginning of time. ( I do care about individuals but as a race we are the most awful animals to ever rise up out of the primoridial muck).

I do care about the animals. None of this was their doing. And they are the ones that are paying the biggest price.

I don't see any way to stop what is happening at this point. Then a few billion years will go by and whole new species will evolve and everything will start all over. And hopefully it will go better for them than it did for us.

[MoonRiver]

30. I completely agree with you.

[NickB79]

72. Even if we stopped ALL fossil fuel consumption today

The planet will continue to warm for decades, possibly centuries, before the carbon content starts to drop again.

That means massive climate shifts are already baked into the cake, so to speak. Stopping active habitat destruction (clearcutting forests, breaking new land for farms, building bigger and bigger cities, etc) is no guarantee that we won't see a mass extinction anyway, because wheels have already been set in motion we can no longer control.

Zoos and wildlife conservation facilities may be the last refuges of many species that will lose their habitats to climate change.

[CFLDem]

26. ...

[LWolf]

27. I don't.

I do my best not to hate anything, as I find hate to be self destructive, rather than destructive of the thing I'm hating.

That aside, I don't like or support with my attendance the circus or animal amusement parks. I do support some zoos, though, because, unfortunately, they are the last places that some endangered species exist, and they do make an effort to keep species viable. They are also good places to educate people about the world they live in. Way too many people are disconnected from the non-human world, and that allows the destruction of habitat for human gain to continue.

I'd prefer, though, a concerted effort to reduce the human population, restore habitat, and share the planet rather than consume it on our part. What I've found, though, is that no matter how supposedly progressive people are, they draw the line at national or global population policies that would reduce the human population, and at the eradication of capitalism.

[HereSince1628]

31. As a zoologist, I've got the zoo boo's, too.

I do recognize the potential for education and fund raising that could support conservation.

But I can't square the zoo experience with my own appreciation of the animal kingdom...which is that vertebrates are mostly good mobile homes for the coolest critters in the animal kingdom.

[dembotoz]

32. it is where my kids learned to love and appreciate animals other than dogs and cats

an educated populace needs to start somewhere.

a book or video is not the same

[LordGlenconner]

61. Key words being "educated populace"

The OP is not part of that population, apparently. If they were they'd know that the vast majority (in some cases as much as 90 percent) of animals in an AZA accredited zoo are born in captivity. They are not technically wild animals as they have never known what it was like to be wild.

AZA accredited zoos also participate in the Species Survival Plan, which is more or less self explanatory. Zoos trade animals for breeding purposes and, to you know, help ensure species survival which to some of us is something worthwhile.

Our local zoo is very active in this endeavor and also has spent a great deal of time and money educating visitors about palm oil deforestation that is killing habitat for some tigers and orangutans.

There is a great deal of conservation work that goes on at a good, metropolitan zoo and there are a number of them across the US.

I had many of the same reservations and criticisms about zoos before I started working, through my job, with the staff at our zoo. I've seen these people, many of whom make peanuts, give countless hours of their own time for the betterment of the animals they care for.

As far as SeaWorld goes that is to me a completely different animal. Your local zoo is not going out into the ocean and steal whales from pods and drag them back to a THEME PARK (your local zoo is not a theme park) with extremely high admission costs (many local zoos are funded primarily through sales tax initiatives and have low admission costs) run by a for profit mega corporation like SeaWorld.

And even in SeaWorld's case they do a good amount of conservation work through that wing of their operation but in my opinion it is not enough to offset stealing highly intelligent animals from their families and placing them in tanks.

I do not patronize circuses either because I don't think it is possible to care for animals humanely while constantly touring. And in many cases the animals in circuses have been acquired in ways that are not ethical.

At any rate, it's not a black and white issue. There is a fair amount of nuance, at least to those of us who are informed.

[joeybee12]

34. knr...I think most of the "research and preservation" by some zoos is PR...

They're out to make a profit, after all.

[MoonRiver]

36. Exactly. Sea World said the same b.s. until CNN revealed the ugly truth.

[polichick]

35. I'm with you - we took our kids into nature, not to those places.

[tclambert]

37. But, but chimpanzees wearing cowboy outfits are funny!

Maybe someday super space aliens will dress up their human pets in little astronaut costumes. And if we dance nice, they'll throw us a fish.

[yeoman6987]

38. When is the last time you were at Seaworld?

I was there recently and the trainers seemed to care very much about their jobs. I didn't see any abuse at all.

[MoonRiver]

41. Have you seen "Blackfish?"

[Android3.14]

47. Haters gotta hate

So glad you gave this issue the thoughtful consideration it deserves.

[MoonRiver]

48. I'm not so glad that you seem to be ok with the torture and abuse of animals.

[Android3.14]

54. I'm unhappy that you apply opinions on others that they have never expressed.

It's an unfortunate character flaw, though a common one for haters.

[LuvNewcastle]

52. I've never liked zoos or circuses or anything in which wild animals are captive.

I'm not a radical animal activist or anything like that. I eat meat and dairy and farms don't bother me, although I don't think I'd like to raise animals myself. I draw a distinction between domesticated animals and wild animals. Maybe I'm being hypocritical; I don't know. But it just seems wrong to me to keep animals captive just so people can walk by and look at them. I always feel like they aren't happy in those places, whatever "happy" means for an animal. Maybe it's because I hate being stuck somewhere and not able to get away. I avoid zoos and other places with captive wild animals. I feel bad the whole time i'm there.

[Android3.14]

56. Dislike, is such a great word

It allows people to communicate to perhaps improve the things which they dislike.
When I was a child, my family raised, bred and raced greyhounds. I despaired for many of the aspects of the business, including the euthanizing of the dogs when they were past their usefulness at the track.
It was concerned citizens who developed the popular retired greyhound adoption programs by working with the greyhound breeders that has alleviated some of the problem.
I've adopted two dogs so far, and will probably adopt another within a year or so.
Somehow, I doubt that MoonRiver is going to accomplish anything to alleviate the hate s/he feels.
Unpleasant things exist, and our lives are an opportunity to involve ourselves to make them less unpleasant and to revel in the things we love.
Only thoughtless people hate.

[MoonRiver]

58. Do you hate someone who rapes and kills a small child?

Or do you dislike him?

[Android3.14]

60. I'd incarcerate the person

But no, I don't hate the murder rapist. What purpose would it serve?
The only things I hate are okra and creamed peas.

[RKP5637]

53. And, in a strange way, this parallels what is also happening to humanity, humans

enslaved for "human greed and entertainment." Humans, many, are not a very pretty species as earth is turned into a cesspool. Earth will renew, humans, not so much. Many are destroyed/enslaved against their wills.

I'm always shocked when I hear of the horrific lives some animals live in these outfits. I remember as a youth traveling in Florida and seeing mountains of alligators, many dead from the sheer weight and maltreatment. As a tiny kid it was a real WTF to me.

[Triana]

55. Agreed. As another here said, it would be best to preserve

their natural habitat and leave them free in it.

[Vox Moi]

57. Zoos are a relic of the era when nature was to be conquered ..

and big game hunting was the sport of Presidents.
Yes, there can be a legitimate protection and preservation role we humans can perform, if nothing more than a desperate attempt to keep species we drove to near extinction from disappearing altogether, but the main activity of Zoos is to capture, breed and display for 'education' and entertainment. For profit.
WRT to education: I think that it is far more educational for people to learn that the best thing we can do for wild animals is to leave them and their habitat alone.
You will learn no more about animals by visiting them in a zoo than you learn about humans by visiting a Prison.

[TreasonousBastard]

59. That is true in many cases, but...

there are places like the Bronx Zoo (which prefers to be known as the Wildlife Conservation Society) that don't exactly treat Siberian Tigers as pets, but try to maintain native animal populations and educate us humans about these critters. Six thousand animals living in native habitats, not worrying about starvation or being some other critter's breakfast isn't all bad.

[FreeJoe]

64. In what ways are really good zoos...

...different from pet owners?

[Bluenorthwest]

65. Not all circus companies use animals, the largest and by far most lucrative does

not. A list of animal free Circus troop can be found here.
http://www.zoocheck.com/campaigns_circuses_animalfreecircuses.html

[Zorra]

66. Agreed. It breaks my heart to see innocent animals imprisoned. nt

[WatermelonRat]

68. I worked at a conservation-oriented zoo, and I will firmly say that they're about more than

greed and entertainment. There was a ton of emphasis on education and teaching people ways they can contribute to a better environment, not to mention all of the breeding programs. We also took in injured wildlife and performed counts of the local bird and reptile population.

[MoonRiver]

69. That sounds more like a wildlife sanctuary, which I completely support.

Except I don't know what you mean by "breeding programs."

[WatermelonRat]

70. It wasn't quite a wildlife sanctuary, though many of the exhibits could pass for one.

In particular, we had a huge "savannah" area set aside where antelope, storks, and ostriches can roam freely.

Our breeding program is meant to breed animals for reintroduction into the wild and to keep the captive gene pool diverse. Our greatest success was the Mexican Wolf program, which has contributed to the reestablishment of wild wolf populations in Arizona.

[DirkGently]

74. That is good stuff. And very much needed.

Everyone saying they'd prefer wildlife to live safely in clean, expansive natural habitat is right. But we can't give them that right now.

What we can do is evolve our sensibilities and shift into a mode where we focus on protecting and rehabilitating species and educating people while treating captive animals as humanely as possible. We screwed things up for them -- the least we can do is try to reduce or even reverse the damage.

And I think conservation efforts are helped enormously when people are able to see and appreciate live animals. Not stuffed and mounted, not tortured in a circus or ill-treated in a cramped zoo, but managed by professionals whose first priorites are conservation, study, and proper treatment. Just seeing an animal being carefully looked after in a healthy environment reinforces the type of relationship we're all saying we're supposed to have with the rest of the natural world. People who have only seen animals on television or mounted in a museum may never feel the connection that leads them to value other species and want to fight to protect and preserve them.

There is a small nature conservancy near where I live. It's actually moved to a more spacious site that I have not yet seen, but in its original form, it was small and cramped. The animals were all rescued -- from highway accidents or from misguided owners of exotic "pets." The enclosures were simple cages, but they were clean, as large as the facility could manage, and lovingly equipped with all the comfort the under-funded staff could manage. The lemurs had hand-made hammocks and climbing wires. The Arctic Fox someone thought would be a good apartment pet had boxes to hide in and planks to climb. Every animal was healthy and energetic and happy to see the workers there. You could go and look for free, but they took donations. We went to help them with promotional photos for their website and custom credit cards that generated small donations with every purchase.

Had they been shut down, all of those animals would be dead, period. The brain-injured racoon who couldn't keep her balance in trees anymore, the one-eyed Horned Owl, the Sherman's Fox squirrel injured on the road, the bobcat, the panther. Lemurs, herons -- the West African Tortoise who would follow you around her giant pen hoping for a bit more lettuce. That fragrant Arctic Fox that looked a little like a cute puppy dog, but was a wild thing to the core. All abandoned or injured. All taken in and cared for relentlessly, no questions asked.

The people working there were straight-up animal lovers, nursing baby squirrels in their living rooms and scrambling for donations of food and material to keep things going. I've got to go out see their new place soon and see how they're doing.

[DefenseLawyer]

73. I visited the St. Louis Zoo last week

Had never been there before but was in town with the family for something else and it was something to do. Admittedly I haven't been to a zoo in years, but I was struck by how "old school" it was. Nothing "natural" about it at all. Lots of fake rocks and greenery painted on concrete walls, tiny cages with the animals on display. I suppose in 1904 when it was built, it was really something, but the whole thing was pretty depressing and I'm not even an animal lover.