06-02-2016, 10:58 AM
(06-02-2016, 02:33 AM)username Wrote: I was happy to hear that they're directing donations to the zoo. I don't think there should be zoos as we've known them. There should be breeding sites and sanctuary sites with as much open space as possible but a zoo (except for the breeding/research work it does) is just a pet store with bigger cages and animals as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if they're treated well but those places where you can just drive through in your car are better than zoos. In the sanctuary's, perhaps they can have tours in a car type vehicle (I'm thinking unbreakable glass on wheels) but the whole caged, cramped quarters conditions with animals pacing out of boredom shoudl go bye bye.
I think Donovan, LoveChild, you and sally all make good points. Some of them are conflicting points, but they're valid points and reflective of the conflicting views among and between animal rights advocates and activists, scientists, animal lovers, and the general public. I've been reading up a little on the issue and stances since the Harambe story broke.
Many prominent animal rights activists/advocates and organizations disagree with any captivity of non-domesticated species in any setting (except sanctuaries, in some cases). That includes zoos staffed by highly-qualified and compassionate experts committed to species preservation.
Those such animal rights activists (like PETA) believe that wild animals, as sentient beings, should never be placed or bred in captivity because the right of the individual animal to live naturally does not justify captivity for the sake of preserving the species. Preserving and protecting the natural environments/habitats for each individual animal is the only appropriate human action, in their view (based on what I've read).
So, even though the observation and research undertaken at great zoos is sometimes effective in getting environmental/habitat protection acts pushed through, it involves the captivity of animals and is thus not justified or moral in their eyes.
On the other hand, a good portion of scientists, zoologists, animal lovers, and others don't share that 'all or nothing' view, for a variety of reasons. And, there are some species that have in fact been saved from extinction and now exist in the wild due to the research and breeding undertaken at major zoos. For other endangered species, however, zoo conservationists have only managed to increase the species population in captive environments (as is the case with lowland gorillas) -- the hard-core animal rights advocates don't consider that a success.
Of course, there are still plenty of people who think that nothing should be done to protect the environment and animals from the immediate wills/desires/needs of humans, while others would rather see some human lives and economies put at risk than to see wild animals become endangered.
In my opinion, animal rights advocates and activists have (even if indirectly) improved the conditions for captive animals overall. Over the last twenty years or so especially, they've helped increase the public's understanding of all species of animals, helped get laws/regulations about captive conditions and care implemented in the U.S., and generally increased people's respect for non-domesticated animals. There are still some scumbag animal exhibitors and practices at zoos, but that appears to be much less common than it was when we were growing up.
Whether or not captivity-bred animals who experience proves cannot be released into their species' natural habitat should continue to be bred is more controversial than I previously realized. I'm interested in how others here think/feel about it.