Should animals be placed in zoos for people's entertainment?
of course not
Side Score: 11
|
 |
why not?
Side Score: 24
|
|
Why not both? Making Safaris and Animal Conservation Habitats open to the public seems to me a win, win, win, win. Humans win in being able to appreciate nature that would otherwise be too dangerous or exotic; Animals win in being cared for and having their populations regenerated etc.; Scientists win in being able to do research; and the Habitat itself wins in being able to charge a fee to zoo-goers that will bring in money to reinvest back into the Habitat or other causes, like the World Wildlife Fund. 121 days ago | Tagged As: Why not?
Absolutely not. Jailing living, feeling, wild animals for our own selfish entertainment is unacceptable. I have a lot of trouble with this, because as an animal lover I both feel compelled to visit the animals in the zoos and to boycott zoos. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I aspire to wildlife photography, as it will give me the ability to be surrounded by the animals I love in a non-abusive environment. 120 days ago | Tagged As: Of Course Not
Yes, and I'm sure that if you keep humans in an entirely regulated, tiny environment and controlled their eating, movement, and every other aspect of their life, they would indeed be healthier and live longer. Would they be happier? Some animals, though, are entirely unsuited to be in zoos. Exhibit A: elephants. Did we realize years ago how dangerous zoos are for elephants? No. Will we realize in future years how dangerous zoos may be for other species? Maybe. Who knows?
Supporting Evidence:
How Zoos Kill Elephants
(www.scientificamerican.com)
120 days ago | Tagged As: Of Course Not
|
Not solely for people's entertainment. By housing these animals in Zoos and Aquariums and Sanctuaries, we are able to educate our children, study the animals behaviors, help to breed them more successfully, and yes, be entertained. There are many positive reasons for Zoos, et cetera. I only hope that every Zoo is able to understand that the habitat that the animal is contained in is very important. At the San Francisco Zoo, the animals are miserable. it's an awful place to be. But the San Diego Zoo, specifically the Wild Animal Park, are magnificent examples of a good zoo. 121 days ago | Tagged As: Why not?
I don't really know which side to pick, but I'm not against zoos. The purpose of a zoo is to inhabitant animals and rehabilitate and raise them so as to not go extinct. Considering, most animals in zoos are endangered species, and if you put them back in the wild, they will be wiped out. Plus, the letting people see the animals part of a zoo is probably to make the situation a win/win for the zoos. Meaning, the people that go to the zoos and pay to get in and who donate money within it, the money gets used to help the animals. So, in a sense, it's like fundraising for the animals. And no one would really wanna just give the people $30 if they can't at least see the animals. The zoos are just the foreground to making the general public more aware of animals in the world, and it WORKS... it makes us more compassionate towards them and wanting to help them... and it leads people to give money to random animal preservation charities. Therefore, they are not primarily in zoos for human entertainment. Because there actually is NOTHING entertaining about watching an animal locked in a caged home. In fact, zoos make me sad more than happy. But I love seeing the animals at the same time because they're more beautiful than the average human being. :-) 119 days ago | Tagged As: Why not?
Animals live a lot longer in captivity than if they lived in the wild with natural predators and hunters, and there is nothing wrong with helping animals survive. The only difference is that we get the entertainment of watching them walk around in the zoo. Plus, some animals are sent back into the wild after they grow up. No down side to any of this. 121 days ago | Tagged As: Why not?
|
