Zoos and Circuses, and how I hate them.

[Angel]

For a number of reasons I find both zoos and circuses abhorrent, why do people need access to animals in environments not native to the animal's? I'm not talking about the conservation parks or attempts to bring a species back from the verge of exinction, what I mean are things such as the Polar Bear zoo exhibits in climates too warm (or small) for these poor captured creatures to live comfortably.

Monkeys in the Detroit zoo, Elephants in the Vienna zoo, Eisbären (Polar bears) in the Berlin zoo. No one can say that these exhibits are for the welfare or survival of the species, and these animals suffer because of humans whom wish to have easy access with what normally be wild animals.

If you want to observe a lion or elephant than go to Africa, oh you can't afford it? Tough, then read a book or watch BBC documentaries.

Zoos are bad, but circuses are far worse. Animals caged up inside of small containers so they can be moved from city to city, and then let out for only a short time to perform for the stupid masses. What kind of life is that what any living creature?

[3278]

For a number of reasons I find both zoos and circuses abhorrent, why do people need access to animals in environments not native to the animal's?

Because most people can't afford to travel the world, Ms Richie Pants. My gods. I mean, I can't say enough how much this statement...damn. I can't say anything more about this. Christ.

If you want to observe a lion or elephant than go to Africa, oh you can't afford it? Tough, then read a book or watch BBC documentaries.

I don't really think that's the same.

What kind of life is that what any living creature?

Fucking terrible. I don't disagree that zoos and particularly circuses are "cruel," inasmuch as animals are capable of sensing cruelty in a meaningful way, even those which try very hard not to be cruel. I would prefer all animals live in their native environments, and that humans leave those environments alone.

Oh. Wait. That would basically mean killing off all the people. Well, I'm okay with that, too.

But TV and books are a dim substitute for actually seeing the animal, even in an environment not its own. I don't think the solution is leaving all the animals where they are and going to see them - and thus destroying where they actually live - but rather finding a way to make seeing them locally not cruel to the animal.

[MooCow]

<i>why do people need access to animals in environments not native to the animal's?[/i]

We don't. However, we want, and as long as we're capable of delivering greater force then the animals are, we get to have what ever we want. If the polar bears don't like it, /they/ can go through the trouble of forming a civilization and technology that allows them to travel the world kidnapping other species and shoving them in little cages.

Or, as Mel Brooks so eloquently put it - "It's good to be the king".

(So, for your next trick, are you going to ask why the United States needs to travel around the world bombing little brown people? I always love answering that one.)

[3278]

If you want to observe a lion or elephant than go to Africa, oh you can't afford it? Tough, then read a book or watch BBC documentaries.

I don't really think that's the same.

I want to take a different tack here. Like anything else, comparative suffering can be expressed as a kind of equation. The question, ultimately [for me] is whether the sum total of suffering of the animal in question is greater than the sum total of suffering of all the people who will only get to see that animal remotely. When you think of the tens of thousands of children who would only get to see lions in books if there weren't one at Brookfield Zoo, and the number of lions at Brookfield Zoo, comparing the relative suffering doesn't, in my mind, make for a result that compels me to ban all zoos. It does compel me to support making zoos as non-agonizing as possible for the animal, absolutely, but really, at any reputable zoo, the degree of individual animal suffering is minor compared to the human suffering which would ensue if the animal were not there.

In addition, zoos offer a unique venue for educating people regarding conservation efforts, in a way that's much more effective than books and documentaries, particularly given the number of people who are willing and able to read books and watch documentaries about all the hundreds of different animals at a given zoo. I've never been better and more effectively educated about undersea conservation than I was at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Which brings me to another point: how do we gauge animal suffering, anyway? And which animals' suffering are we concerned about? Ants? Zooplankton? Cows? Elephants? Are aquariums okay - because fish don't have any feelings - but petting zoos not? And is the life of a lion at a zoo really worse than life on the plains, where, statistically, the lion is likely to have died young, anyway?

This isn't a simple issue, and it's not black and white. When I see a great cat gone mad from isolation, gone fat from lack of movement, sick, crazy, mindless, I want to watch the life fade from the eyes of every human who had any involvement, every hunter, every truck driver, every benefactor, every handler, everyone who came to watch the misery of this wonderful animal. I know what you mean. But for one thing, conditions are rarely so bad, anymore, and they're getting better every year. And for another, ultimately, it is just an animal, and no more or less important than any of the humans involved.

You don't like cruelty, of any kind. I understand that. But you must understand that not all cruelty can or should be avoided. Sometimes, it is justified. Sometimes, it is necessary. And sometimes, it's just a tiny bit better than the alternative.

Keep encouraging zoos and wildlife centers to improve their conditions, absolutely. But I don't think it's practical or desirable to shut down every zoo.

Circuses, I have no defense for. I despise circuses. I suppose an argument could be made comparing the relative suffering of the animals to the relative joy of the observing humans, but I am not the one to make such an argument.

[Cash]

Angel, are you talk about old style zoos only, all zoos (including the animal parks and newer zoos), or all zoos and aquariums? I agree with the circuses being abhorrent...how does a bear riding a trike show off the animal or its abilities that allow it to survive in the wild?

Monkeys in the Detroit zoo, Elephants in the Vienna zoo, Eisbären (Polar bears) in the Berlin zoo. No one can say that these exhibits are for the welfare or survival of the species, and these animals suffer because of humans whom wish to have easy access with what normally be wild animals.

What are these places like (never been to any of 'em)?

For those that have been to the San Diego Zoo and the San Diego Wild Animal Park, the elephant shows are on a strictly volunteer basis for the creatures. Some of the elephaints don't want to do the show and don't. Some know (roughly) when the 2 shows are and are waiting at the appropriate spot when the handlers come by. Elephants that perform get tasty treats and that's what the performing elephants want.

[lordhellion]

I grew up literally within walking distance from Wildlife Safari, a 600-acre wildlife preserve that was at one point the largest captive breeders of Cheetah's in North America (possibly the world--my memory's fuzzy on that), before thier funding went to the crapper. Today, they let their animals roam realtively free range (animals like big cats and bears are kept in ranges separated from the more docile herbavores).

Just that proximity to have animals from all over Asia, Africa, and North America so close was a big boone to the education of a school district that got little support to the community, as well as giving a community an understanding for natural conservation that would have been little more than a redneck huntin' town without it.

[Jestyr]

Many zoo animals are born and raised in captivity. Provided their conditions are humane and appropriate, there's not much cruel about keeping them in the only environment they know. It's certainly, IMO, not as cruel as Mother Nature can be.