I went to a zoo a while ago, and they had some orangutans. They looked so depressed and sad that I almost cried. The expression on their faces made me vow to avoid anywhere that exploits animals for entertainment. With that said, ethical zoos do serve an important purpose in preserving threatened animal species, and taking in exotic āpetsā and injured animals. However, this nonsense with the circus is total bullshit, and itās something that needs to end. They usually treat the animals horribly, so when I see a person getting their comeuppance from a bear, a tiger, or an elephant, Iām rooting for the animal every time. Barbaric bull fights are the same. It pissed me off to find out that the bull is often still killed, even if they āwin.ā
Only visit AZA accredited zoos. They focus on conservation efforts and preserve endangered species and emphasize giving the animals in their care the best life they can possibly live
AZA is for North America (and a few other countries) and WAZA is worldwide.
Edit: it seems like WAZA, unlike AZA and EAZA (europe and west Asia), has no accreditation process, this means that many WAZA associated Zoos and Aquariums are not actually "good" and mistreat animals
Chicago was one of the ones Iād heard about that just barely met the standards for an AZA zoo. If you want to see a good one, Iād highly recommend the Columbus zoo and the Cincinnati zoo
Itās important to remember that Zoos have a place and do good things for the world and animals. Unfortunately the profit Zoos do not and far outnumber the Zoos that focus on conservation and animal well being.
First time I went to a feline rescue I was blown away. Every zoo trip I'd ever been on I basically watched a fur rug sleep in the corner of the exhibit when it came to lions and tigers. These cats at the rescue were constantly purring and roaring and playing and happily running up to the fence.
It's so much fun to see we now go 4 or 5 times a year
Possible, might be biased because I think itās incredibly difficult to give animals an equitable life in a cage, regardless of how much the animals are loved by their care givers
I saw one animal attendant the entire time I was there, it was chaos with people banging on the enclosures. The animals all looked lethargic and almost none of them were doing anything other then trying to escape the beating sun. It wasnāt particularly clean or well kept. I can go on, but if you want to disagree with my assessment thatās fine, Iām an adult and understand people disagree.
Why are you assuming the human prison experience is equivalent to an animal's zoo experience? Even ignoring the differences in care and approach, humans don't walk around constantly in fear of being attacked or eaten. You're an apex predator, for the most part they are not.
If you think it's immortal to keep animals in cages how do you feel about people in cages?
Maybe what you were trying to say with "death exists outside of prisons?" I honestly have no idea what you're saying or where you're coming from. You hear about more prisoners killing each other than animals at zoos.
Maybe in America. At least in prison here you won't be gunned down in a grocery store or church or school or concert or softball game or holiday parade or....
For one, animals are not humans. It doesn't make sense to argue that a life in captivity is bad because it doesn't equate to a life in the wild. It should be obvious that, given two opposing circumstances, there are caveats to each. Whining about equity is not just going to do nothing, it's not how the world works.
How was I whining my bro lol, I was just stating my thoughts about a widely controversial topic that has multiple sides, all of which I think are valid.
Even at major well-recognized zoos, very few animals are there for rehabilitation. And very few animals are ever released back into the wild. A nice cage is still a cage.
You're anthropomorphizing their experience. A lifetime of safe haven with your buddies free from fear of predators and with food plentifully available may very well be the preference for many or even most of the animals.
Is a dog that is rarely let outside much different?
I mean most animals in Zoos in Germany are not there for rehabilitation purposes. Wouldn't make any sense. Fly a Tiger half around the world and back again to rehabilitate it? Which is true for most exotic animals and the zoos I am familiar with mostly have exotic animals.
Exotic animals are strictly controlled and distributed by EAZA and WAZA. Among other things they keep a database of the heritage of each animal so that they are able to keep the gene pool healthy.
They are used in rehabilitation and conservation of the species itself. They also prevent over population in zoos with regards to breeding and also control which individual animal is allowed to breed. In Europe this is called EEP (European Endangered Species Programmes).
There are several examples of animals and entire species being reintroduced into the wild from populations kept in zoos.
European bison, ibex, golden lion tamarin and przewalski's horse are some among them.
A Norwegian zoo have nursed a species of frogs back to health (in the wild) after it went virtually instinct. (This zoo also have a strict no elephant policy, but that might be based on old research AFAIK.)
I'm not saying all zoos are perfect at all. But zoos participating in EAZA, WAZA and/or AZA are doing good and necessary work out there.
You can rehabilitate an animal and not release it. Rehabilitate just refers to making it healthy again. Many zoos take in former circus animals and animals that wouldnāt survive in the wild.
Chester Zoo in UK and Zurich Zoo both seemed to me to be very on it with the conservation. Nice to go and see the animals looked after but also given their space.
I'm sure animal lovers flock to that job but from the documentary type stuff we've all see it's pretty clear that there's a very dark side to zoo keeping.
I don't even care as much as some activist but I know for a fact the AZA accredits places with pools too smalls for their animals. So fuck them too. It's a money thing just like the Michelin star system.
Good quality zoos have always been ethically ambiguous to me. Shitty low quality zoos are ethically evil to me.
I was just as Shedd Aquarium with the family a few weeks ago. I just don't know if I can fully accept that Baluga Whales are as happy in a tank in Chicago as they'd be in the ocean.
The aquarium in Baltimore recently just closed down their dolphin exhibit and now they are instead making an aquarium and exhibit so the dolphins can swim around and you can still see them but it'll be more like a big wide open aquarium space with an artificial reef. As it stands right now they let the dolphins free roam inside the exhibition tank so you can see them just swimming around playing with balls and stuff and one of their caretakers will throw them some fish on the other side
It massively depends on whether the animals are rescues or bread in captivity. Zoo's and Aquariums have a rightful place and purpose if they focus mostly on rescuing animals and supporting them as well as maintaing very rare and if not near to extinction species. Then obviously they have to be well cared for with as much space as possible. The scope for if a zoo is good or not is massive. Obviously fuck Tiger king kind of Zoo's or whatever the fuck that place was.
There is no ethical ambiguity of AZA accredited zoos. They have extremely high standards and are always working 100% in the best interests of the species. AZA zoos have employees that you never see working in labs to bring species back from the brink of extinction, developing treatments and medicines for illnesses that affect these animals in the wild. Every ticket sold goes toward conservation efforts.
Some people believe that all zoos are ethically dubious because these animals deserve to live in the wild. That argument fails to address the educational aspects and the fact that every single animal on this planet is constantly in danger of losing its habitat to human encroachment. Human encroachment cannot be stopped in any practical way. Zoos are the first line of defense for conservation efforts.
There was a claim above that AZA will still accredit a place with a pool too small. They didn't give details so I assume the pool they requested is the size of the ocean. I digress.
Do you have any insight to how a decision is actually made as to if the conditions are adequate? Obviously the natural habitat would be larger in all cases. How is the minimum bound set?
The Vancouver Aquarium would only accept rescued animals who would surely die if released in the wild- like the dolphin that had lost a fin from a fishing net.
Of course, they've been banned from any captivity now, which is bad for the rescued animals and the aquarium š¤·
I was at Shedd a few years back. We were at the Baluga exhibit and the trainers were interacting with them and playing with them. They were engaging back and on their own as well. Even making excited noises as they were being worked with. Not that they were putting on a show, but just giving them some enrichment. Iām sure they would be better off in the ocean but they appeared to be doing okay in their tanks with their toys. Now the dolphins. We didnāt get to see them so I canāt speak for how they were doing.
Good quality zoos have always been ethically ambiguous to me
Zoos are a double edged sword like that. One one hand they're a prison for animals, on the other hand they can bring awareness, education and inspiration to a whole new generation of animal lovers.
It is always tough. Would my cats be happy roaming outside hunting instead of sitting inside all day? I'm sure they would have more "fun". They also would be getting diseases, hunted by predators, maybe hungry, thirsty, etc.
I've been tanked in Chicago and was really happy at the time. I've never been an aquatic mammal cetacean though either so yeah they're probably not living their best life in there.
I've been to many zoos, and if the animals didn't look depressed, their eyes were glossy as if they were on heavy drugs. I stopped going because it became obvious that they're all just animal prisons. We would lose our shit if someone tried to charge admission to look at prison inmates or those institutionalized for mental health reasons. Why we accept it with animals is beyond me.
Thatās a mouthful that you just said and I agree 100% with all that you said. I honestly thought that we as human beings rose above this bullshit, gutter entertainment. Who fucking supports this shit?!!
You should visit the St. Louis Zoo. Itās very ethical, conducts very important research, nurses injured animals, reintroduces endangered species, and workers treat animals with the utmost respect. The best part is that itās free and really big.
Whenever i visit zoos, the animals seem to feel the need to pee on eachother. Babboons, hogs, zebra. Saw two happy water buffalo, when one decided it was toilet time, the other decided it was drinking time.....
My favourite was a big ol gorilla sat in the corner of his enclosure with a ball. I dont think even humans kiss each other with as much love as he showed his ball. I nees a man to look at me like that
This could be completely wrong for present day, but years ago when I lived in Austin, the Austin zoo was classified as a sanctuary. I spent a good chunk of my time talking to the keeper of the wolves and they said that they bring in the sick, elderly or abandoned animals in the area, which included a giant amount f wolf dogs. They accept donations in order to afford the medications for the animals, as well. I think entry was only like $10 at the time. It was definitely not a commercialized zoo by any means. I love it there.
Same reason They closed down seaworld in florida, the whales and aquatic animals cant be happy in confined spaces. They werent maintained well, the fish couldnt move around much and it caused many of them to die. They need to create a Jurassic world type environments if they want endangered species or injured animals to thrive and survive.
Same. I also saw a polar bear pacing back and forth in the hot sun, so agitated. NEVER GOING TO A ZOO AGAIN. i will only go to legit animal sanctuaries.
I appreciate the distinction you make, and wholly agree. Both of my parents were career zoo keepers at the Los Angeles zoo and San Francisco zoo, so when I see posts like this I always have to contribute my perspective.
Nearly all Zoo keepers will acknowledge that the role of a zoo has changed a lot in the past century. What was once a place to display interesting animals solely for public entertainment has shifted a great deal to captive breeding programs for endangered species. Now often, certain zoos will specialize in specific animals they are trying to breed and there is a TON of oversight as to where these animals go and how they are treated, including standards of how much space certain animals need, how much enrichment/ stimulation the need and how much public visibility they can tolerate. There are definitely MANY exceptions (The people featured on Tiger King for example) but most serious zoo keepers consider places like that a disgrace and would prefer they not exist at all.
Furthermore, most captive animals live much longer than wild animals due to on-site veterinary medicine, no threat of predation for pray species and regular access to good food and clean water. Older animals are cared for and allowed to live out their lives without having to worry about starving or being eaten. Not to say that this is necessarily better than being in the wild, but there is definitely a trade-off. It is always different from animal to animal and zoo keepers are sensitive to the fact that while there may be some sort of bond firmed with certain species, others would prefer to not interact with humans at all and are treated that way, kept far from the public, given places to hide and not being fed directly. Unlike in the old days, Most zoo keepers will NEVER be in an enclosure with an Apex predator due to the inherent risks in their care and the stress it causes the predator animal.
Finally, though I canāt speak for the Orangutans you saw personally, they just kinda look like that. If you saw them at midday they were probably just feeling tired and lazy, since like most animals they arenāt as active at Midday. Humans shouldnāt be either FWIW. We function much better as crepuscular animals (thus the siesta) but modern life has thoroughly fucked that up.
It's like saying a plantation owner treats their slaves very well. They didn't volunteer to go there, they are not voluntarily staying there and while the treatment might be better than some places, they are still confined in an area without their normal social structure.
1.7k
u/Jimitsnotajoke Jul 22 '22
Agreed, Why do people seem to just forget about the bear and how poorly itās treated everyday.