Jump to content


Posted Image Trick or treat! We have a new Halloween theme. We also have two Halloween contests going on right now - enter with your pumpkin carvings here and your costumes here!

Photo

Debate: Should We Ban Wild Animals Being Kept In Captivity?

Debate GDC

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Vesper

 
Vesper

    Outlander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,037 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • Age:21
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 05:25 PM

Zoos are premises for the captivity of animals, often in urban areas, with the intention of both studying the animals and also presenting them to the public. Many types of zoo exist, from the petting zoo to the safari park. Proponents argue that zoos are beneficial both to the animals themselves, protecting endangered species with specific breeding programs, and the public, as an educational tool to increase both awareness and understanding. Opponents respond that the removal of wild animals from their habitat is wrong, that they should be left in their natural surroundings and not used as tools for public entertainment.


Points For
1. Wild Animals in Zoos suffer unnecessarily.
2. Zoos encourage animals to be used for entertainment
3. Animals can be protected in their native state through laws and regulations
4. Wild animals belong in their natural habitat.

Points Against
1. Zoos act as educational tools
2. Zoos help to protect endangered species and to promote breeding programmes
3. Zoos permit longer, more fruitful scientific research.


What do you think? Can animals be protected in their natural habitat? Is it necessary for some species (particularly those that are critically endangered) to be in captivity to help promote breeding programmes? Are laws and regulations really effective in protect species natural to a particular country?

If Zoos are allowed to keep wild animals, should circuses still be allowed?

Full link/debate here.

#2 Kayfabe

 
Kayfabe

    syllables, killaholic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,469 posts
  • Joined Jun 20, 2009
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:To'hajiilee
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 05:29 PM

No. Unnecessary forfeit of control.

#3 Hedwig

 
Hedwig

    Dominated Love Slave

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,111 posts
  • Joined Mar 02, 2011
  • Age:17
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Sweden
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 05:57 PM

I once went to a zoo in Serbia, and what I saw there, well that shouldn't be legal.

#4 Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

 
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

    No, this is Patrick

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,788 posts
  • Joined Oct 23, 2008
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hollmanyreland
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 05:58 PM

Some zoos have great programs to preserve wildlife and improve species' well-being, and do as much as they can to imitate an animal's natural habitat. And while they're at it, they inform people about nature and preserving it. I think zoos that do that should definitely be allowed. Zoos that are just the "oh look it's a tiger in a cage"-type of zoo should either be encouraged (and by encouraged I mean forced by regulations) to improve, or closed. Locking up animals in bad setting should not be allowed and is animal abuse.
  • chewychorizo and MrsBillieJoe95 like this

#5 Comrade

 
Comrade

    Razzamataz

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,974 posts
  • Joined Aug 31, 2008
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:02 PM

No, no of course not. It is increasingly common that many species can and will only survive under human supervision in constructed environments such as zoos and safari parks. Best keep them or risk losing even more of natures diversity.

#6 Hedwig

 
Hedwig

    Dominated Love Slave

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,111 posts
  • Joined Mar 02, 2011
  • Age:17
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Sweden
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:08 PM

I once went to a zoo in Serbia, and what I saw there, well that shouldn't be legal.

edit: stop fucking up, dammit phone!

#7 spark in the night

 
spark in the night

    ◊∴◊ 400⋅LUX ◊∴◊

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,919 posts
  • Joined Jul 15, 2005
  • Age:25
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NOLA
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:08 PM

I love the zoo. I love seeing exotic animals. I think they're great for little kids. I guess it depends what kind of zoo you have been to. The zoo here is a great facility. We also have an aquarium that is great too.

I understand that animals should be in their natural habitat, but I also think we should have them to learn and study them. To better protect the ones still in wild with the threat of extinction or poaching.


I am not against Zoos.

I am against circuses using animals for entertainment because I don't believe they can adequately take care of such animals like an elephant the way that a zoo can.

I am also against civilians having exotic animals as pets (tigers, chimps, etc)

#8 fukingcounterstrike

 
fukingcounterstrike

    legally retarded

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,391 posts
  • Joined Jun 12, 2007
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:no where in particular
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:12 PM

More for hunters to have at :woot:

#9 greendepent

 
greendepent

    Pedestrian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,147 posts
  • Joined Jul 18, 2008
  • Age:24
  • Location:Concepcion, Chile
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:17 PM

I say yes. The human has made too much interventions everywhere. Perfectly they can make some kind of parks protected for national laws.

If you were an elephant, a tiger or a lion, would you accept that they put you in jail just because you are almost in extinction Anyway, with this neo-liberal thinking, is hard to quit to such a business.

#10 Vesper

 
Vesper

    Outlander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,037 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • Age:21
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:20 PM

More for hunters to have at http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...


:angry

#11 spark in the night

 
spark in the night

    ◊∴◊ 400⋅LUX ◊∴◊

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,919 posts
  • Joined Jul 15, 2005
  • Age:25
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NOLA
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:23 PM

I say yes. The human has made too much interventions everywhere. Perfectly they can make some kind of parks protected for national laws.

If you were an elephant, a tiger or a lion, would you accept that they put you in jail just because you are almost in extinction Anyway, with this neo-liberal thinking, is hard to quit to such a business.


They have laws and reserves. That doesn't stop poachers

#12 fukingcounterstrike

 
fukingcounterstrike

    legally retarded

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,391 posts
  • Joined Jun 12, 2007
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:no where in particular
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:28 PM

http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...

Serious answer now then. I did not read the initial post but I feel wildlife and forestry preserves are the exact way to go. It is what I absolutely love about western US before over colonization occurred like it did on the east coast. We have incredible amounts of public land, land for the people to use in recreation and kept in preserve, as is. It's incredibly important to the ecosystem, water distribution, wildlife, and even such industries including beef which the land is used for grazing and for simply preserving the land in and of itself. It makes me incredibly sad that so many nations don't have systems built up that can support such preserves and public lands. I won't back out of the hunting stance because I know it is something that continually helps contribute, not only economically in funding such programs to continue through such items as licenses and game tags, but ecologically as well as overpopulation of animals is something that happens, and something that is within our control and our involvement in the issue through hunting is by far not a detrimental one but a helpful one with regulation and observance. it's the urban sprawl, the theft of the land which is truly harmful to any ecosystem and which I do feel greatly should actually be stopped flat out.


How's that?

#13 greendepent

 
greendepent

    Pedestrian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,147 posts
  • Joined Jul 18, 2008
  • Age:24
  • Location:Concepcion, Chile
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:29 PM

They have laws and reserves. That doesn't stop poachers


Well, at least, give the wild animals the chance of be wild. Humans believe that they can control anything. I think that not.

#14 fukingcounterstrike

 
fukingcounterstrike

    legally retarded

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,391 posts
  • Joined Jun 12, 2007
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:no where in particular
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 06:51 PM

Now having had read the initial post I'll say I don't really have much of a problem with zoos. If you have problems with zoos then I'd say you should have a problem with the domestication of many animals. Now I think there are improvements to be made all around. Firstly in many a nations control over there wildlife and forests. Secondly, within the zoos, I think instead of basic feeding methods the zoo themselves should cater to the instincts of the animals, and let the predators actually hunt their prey and such. Life is exactly that. Now I can also understand the need of some as shelters, the amount of actual inhabitable environment for these animals are limited so "rescuing" some from that environment will provide itself as a home and reduce inter-species and intra-species competition as to what's allotted to the land. This I can understand the value in not exactly conforming/contributing to the lively hood of these animals as their life would normally play out. I will not say they are a solution by any means though. If true study were to occur then the natural environment of of course a necessity as it is the control. Ultimately the problem lies in their natural environment. The rest is second hand and need not be addressed prior to the main problem.

#15 Floyd Pinkerton

 
Floyd Pinkerton

    Head of Tom's legal council

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,149 posts
  • Joined Jun 08, 2009
  • Age:19
  • Gender:Other
  • Location:Behind the Wall
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 08:41 PM

I don't have a problem with zoos so long as they do well to keep proper care of the animals and at least try to mimic the animals' habitat. There was a zoo I went to in Maryland last year and it was terrible. The animals were cute and all and they didn't look like they were being abused really, but I certainly wouldn't be paying to go to that zoo again; all the animals were literally just put in pastures that were at least 50% dirt. The sheep didn't even have grass to nom on, plus the ducks and the peacocks were left without exhibits to be chased around all day by kids.
Now, the zoo that they have as part of an amusement park I frequent, it's called Zoo America, they do a WONDERFUL job of keeping care of their animals. They do mostly rescues, and what they do there is they mimic the animals' original habitats, plus they do mind stretching activities with them so they don't get bored. For example, they have black bears there, and what they do is they'll give the bears buckets with ice in them and they'll have to search through the ice to get the berries they like; so while they're being fed, they're also given activities that help expand their minds and work with their wild instincts.
Getting a little off topic there, but when it comes down to it, I don't think we should ban keeping animals in captivity. It can be great for breeding programs and education purposes as long as it's done properly and in a way that's safe to the animals.

Advertising

#16 Emilie.

 
Emilie.

    Super Nintendo Chalmers

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,723 posts
  • Joined Jun 18, 2010
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Other
  • Location:Brisbane
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:33 PM

I'm torn. I feel like zoos that are just for entertainment or family outings and stuff aren't necessary? The animals didn't need to be taken and put there just to give kids something to do on the weekend.
But I do like zoos. I've only been to two zoos, Australia Zoo (Steve Irwin's) and Alma Park Zoo, and they're really nice. Not cages for the most part, except for the snake tanks. Just fields and paddocks and stuff.
But then Australia Zoo uses the animals for shows. They make the crocodile feeding into an event, like they would with dolphins or sea lions (or seals?) at Sea World. I don't know if I like that.

And then on another side, Australia Zoo takes in injured animals and helps them get back on their feet. I adopted my parrot after it was found on the side of the road with a broken wing. And before he came to us he went to Australia Zoo so they could help him start flying again. That's good, that's why I'm glad they're there. But I mean, the zoo's not necessary to have that going...

#17 Batgirl

 
Batgirl

    #twerk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,131 posts
  • Joined Jan 17, 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At some rock show
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 09:48 PM

Honestly, I am completely against captivity. I know some zoos take great care of their animals, but does anyone think about how does animals get hunted? Where do they come from really? Because zoos and aquariums buy their animals. I just think, how would you feel if you were in a cage 24 hours a day? I don't think that's your purpose in life. The 'they live much longer in captivity' argument is complete bullshit.

#18 Floyd Pinkerton

 
Floyd Pinkerton

    Head of Tom's legal council

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,149 posts
  • Joined Jun 08, 2009
  • Age:19
  • Gender:Other
  • Location:Behind the Wall
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:24 PM

Honestly, I am completely against captivity. I know some zoos take great care of their animals, but does anyone think about how does animals get hunted? Where do they come from really? Because zoos and aquariums buy their animals. I just think, how would you feel if you were in a cage 24 hours a day? I don't think that's your purpose in life. The 'they live much longer in captivity" argument is complete bullshit.

There are many zoos though, like the one I mentioned and the one Emilie mentioned, that take in injured animals and nurse them back to health. Surely those are a good thing?

#19 Batgirl

 
Batgirl

    #twerk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,131 posts
  • Joined Jan 17, 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At some rock show
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:31 PM

There are many zoos though, like the one I mentioned and the one Emilie mentioned, that take in injured animals and nurse them back to health. Surely those are a good thing?


Yeah, I think those are a good thing, I just don't agree with animals being in small cages. Like for example in Disney World, the animals are loose and you go on a safari, I think that's a great idea :)

#20 Floyd Pinkerton

 
Floyd Pinkerton

    Head of Tom's legal council

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,149 posts
  • Joined Jun 08, 2009
  • Age:19
  • Gender:Other
  • Location:Behind the Wall
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 10:35 PM

Yeah, I think those are a good thing, I just don't agree with animals being in small cages. Like for example in Disney World, the animals are loose and you go on a safari, I think that's a great idea http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...

Ah, I see. I'm not crazy about the small cages either. Animals should have enough space to move around and get the exercise they need, but at the same time if they are in big pastures, they should have the resources they need (enough grass, shade, water, etc) and not have their fences be too small that they can easily escape them.

#21 Tre's Busted Drumkit

 
Tre's Busted Drumkit

    "ben's actually a giant teddy bear" -Lone

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,808 posts
  • Joined Feb 25, 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Confusion
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:24 PM

No. There are numerous species that are alive today only because of the work of zoos. Many species are completely extinct outside of zoos. Creak down on the mom and pop outfits, sure, but don't shut down zoos entirely.

#22 Justin

 
Justin

    Hard Don

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Joined Nov 07, 2009
  • Age:25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawaahhhhhh
 

Posted 25 November 2012 - 11:45 PM

I think Zoo's and Safari parks are ok for endangered animals, specifically as the illegal fur trade has grown rapidly over the last few years because of the recession, so i always encourage any method as a means of protecting their welfare.
Personally, i am a huge animal lover, so as long as they are well looked after and they feel right at home i don't mind zoo's and safari parks.
However, something that really bothered me was when i was in Central Park Zoo in New York. Seeing a polar bear in 40+c heat was something that i didn't like at all. Yeah fair enough in winter the climate suits them and so forth but i just didn't like it at all.
My pet cats who i bought from rescue centre's, (originally i was just looking for one cat) were brother and sister. I couldn't bare to break them apart as i felt it was horrible if they were. I knew that if i didn't get them myself, they would be split up by the next person, so i took them both home.

So, in my opinion, as long as they are protected and as close as they can be to their natural environment, captivity is fine.

#23 fiercecircus

 
fiercecircus

    Insomniac

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Joined Aug 21, 2011
  • Age:34
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:New England
 

Posted 26 November 2012 - 01:33 AM

I'm high right now...

but- depends on the zoo. Some zoos take exceptional care of their animals and have lots of space (and not many zoos go out and capture animals from the wild for display anymore- they're more into rescuing and rehabbing.) Good zoos are educational for people who otherwise never see wild animals. I think seeing wild animals in a (good) zoo can teach people to respect wild ecosystems. But not SHITTY zoos that keep their cats in tiny concrete pens and such.I really hate the philly zoo in this regard- not enough space! Send the cats someplace else that can support them!

and- NO YOU SHOULDN"T BAN THE CIRCUS!!! :-P But- i don't think the elephants or big cats thrive in the circus. I am more apt to support things like dog or parrot acts, smaller animals that can exist in captivity well (if mentally stimulated enough) and also... uh... human-only circus acts :). Because i need a job :)

(ringling has way too many fucking elephants though. i can't imagine living on a train/in an arena is ANY way to live for an elephant.)

#24 Maddy.

 
Maddy.

    i am groot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,921 posts
  • Joined Jun 15, 2009
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
 

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:02 AM

I think it's good for educational reasons. If an animal is treated badly though, or is put in a small confinement where there's only room to pace up and down (attn Blijdorp) then that is quite frankly disgusting. Zoos should be used for the good of animals and not for the good of people. Unfortunately animals go extinct all the time, it's a natural process. It's nice to have a large diversity of animals but if we try to combat extinction with the wrong means (i.e. putting them in small cages) then I don't think that should be allowed.

#25 Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

 
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

    No, this is Patrick

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,788 posts
  • Joined Oct 23, 2008
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hollmanyreland
 

Posted 26 November 2012 - 04:34 AM

I think it's good for educational reasons. If an animal is treated badly though, or is put in a small confinement where there's only room to pace up and down (attn Blijdorp) then that is quite frankly disgusting. Zoos should be used for the good of animals and not for the good of people. Unfortunately animals go extinct all the time, it's a natural process. It's nice to have a large diversity of animals but if we try to combat extinction with the wrong means (i.e. putting them in small cages) then I don't think that should be allowed.

(not 100% sure what attn means) But Blijdorp is doing a pretty awesome job of creating habitats for its animals! Except for some birds I can't think of any animals in small cages with only room to pace up and down? Unless you mean all the things with the tigers where they have a big piece of land with plants and whatnot outside but their inside house is a small-ish-but-still-pretty-big-because-they're-all-connected cage?

#26 Maddy.

 
Maddy.

    i am groot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,921 posts
  • Joined Jun 15, 2009
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
 

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:22 AM

(not 100% sure what attn means) But Blijdorp is doing a pretty awesome job of creating habitats for its animals! Except for some birds I can't think of any animals in small cages with only room to pace up and down? Unless you mean all the things with the tigers where they have a big piece of land with plants and whatnot outside but their inside house is a small-ish-but-still-pretty-big-because-they're-all-connected cage?

Last time I went to Blijdorp practically all the tigers were just pacing up and down. Bored out of their minds. Sure there's room to pace but it's not fair on the animals. Tigers aren't supposed to be locked up that way. It has probably changed in the last 8 or so years though.

(attn = attention)

#27 Kaddi.

 
Kaddi.

    Hello stranger, I'm a disaster.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,889 posts
  • Joined Mar 28, 2006
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Germany
 

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:18 AM

This is an interesting topic. I'm really into aninmal rights, so I tend to read a bit about topics like this. While many animal rights organizations are completely against zoos, I don't share their opinion completely. There are indeed a couple good zoos where the animals can have a nice life. Not the same life they'd have in their natural habitat, but still... they have a lot of space, some stuff to keep them entertained, little games for "hunting" their food etc. so they don't end up being mentally ill like other animals kept in captivity. So yeah, that's my point on zoos.

And then there's something I'd like to share on here, because until a few weeks ago, I had no idea such things even excisted. This is some kind of area where bears are kept in captivity somehow (as in, they're not entirely free to go where they want), but they live in a really natural habitat. It's somewhere in Germany and owned by a German organization for animals rights. I think it's really impressive and a great option to maintain all the good points about zoos (education, scienctific research, protect endangered species, ...) and at the same time give the animals an opportunity to live a pretty much natual life.



Watch the first 35 seconds to see how it should be done. And then watch the rest of the video to see what horrible conditions some animals have to live in when they're being kept in captivity. It's a shame. :( Anyway, the first bit of the video is an example of what I tried to explain above.

#28 Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

 
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

    No, this is Patrick

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,788 posts
  • Joined Oct 23, 2008
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hollmanyreland
 

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:36 AM

Last time I went to Blijdorp practically all the tigers were just pacing up and down. Bored out of their minds. Sure there's room to pace but it's not fair on the animals. Tigers aren't supposed to be locked up that way. It has probably changed in the last 8 or so years though.

(attn = attention)

Ah okay. No they also have a big outside part where they can go with lots of space and plants and rocks and water. Their inside part still looks a bit sad with the bare cages, but they definitely have a good habitat outside and as far as I know they can go there whenever they want.

#29 Maddy.

 
Maddy.

    i am groot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,921 posts
  • Joined Jun 15, 2009
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
 

Posted 26 November 2012 - 12:09 PM

Ah okay. No they also have a big outside part where they can go with lots of space and plants and rocks and water. Their inside part still looks a bit sad with the bare cages, but they definitely have a good habitat outside and as far as I know they can go there whenever they want.

That's good though it's so sad. They have nothing to do they need to hunt and kill things.

#30 Green Day In Seattle

 
Green Day In Seattle

    fuckdatshit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,996 posts
  • Joined Aug 27, 2012
  • Age:23
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:I don't even know...
 

Posted 29 November 2012 - 03:52 AM

I won't say either way, all I'll say is this: Some species have gotten to the point where it is vital to keep in captive breeding programs in order to attempt to save them from extinction. Tigers, for instance, have much fewer numbers in the wild than in captivity. With some of these animals it is possible to reintroduce them to the wild at some point so that the wild population can be rebuilt. As hard as it is to see wild animals in captivity, it really is a good thing for some of them and could be helping to save a species.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Debate, GDC

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Skin Designed By Evanescence at IBSkin.com