tockoloshe

Keep Wildlife in the Wild – slogan of the Born Free Foundation, an international wildlife charity working throughout the world to stop individual wild animal suffering and protect threatened species in the wild. They have made it clear that they think the $45 million which San Diego zoo is spending on its ‘Elephant Odyssey’ - the first supersized elephant home to be built after zoos have taken years of criticism from animal welfare activists – would be better spent to preserve wildlife habitats. A survey by the San Diego Union Tribune came up with these survey results:

“Standard enclosures are fine, it's a shame so many are shutting down” - 1%
“Larger enclosures like the one San Diego is building are the responsible course” - 60%
“Zoos should stay out of the elephant business, it can't be done humanely” - 37%

I would be interested to know your thoughts. Is it easier for us to take the moral high ground and oppose keeping animals in captivity because many of us have been lucky enough to see elephants and other creatures in the wild? Is such a position discriminating against those who cannot afford to travel to see wildlife in the wild?

matnikstym

I'm a fan of well-run zoos and their breeding programs. They are educational and for me in my younger years, made me understand and appreciate wild and endangered species. I don't think zoos should go out and capture wild animals, but pull them from breeding programs or other zoos. For most people, the only experience seeing many animal species is to visit a zoo.

twaffle

I don't enjoy zoos much, I never have but accept that they have a place if they are well run (by whose standards I wonder, though) and help to educate people in conservation of wildlife and wild areas. I don't know how well this happens in many places. I am a member of our local zoological society so am not anti zoos per se.

I also support Born Free, they do an excellent job.

I take a small amount of issue with the comment that asks whether we are discriminating against those who cannot afford to travel to see wildlife in the wild, because that implies that our needs as members of the human race to see animals is more important than that animal's right to a free life where possible. Perhaps it wasn't meant to imply that, however we do presume, often, to allow animals a free and wild life only when it doesn't impinge on peoples rights to economic success, entertainment or many other excuses we make to reduce wilderness areas.

spassvogel

I support twaffle's last paragraph.

I am totally against zoo's/wildife keep behind bars because I consider myself also part of the "mammal family" and don't want any creature to be kept artificially for scientific or any other reason.

SV

wildcatzoo

So spassvogel, you are against all pets - cats, dogs, fish- as well? And are totally vegan in eating?

Obviously I am not anti-zoo as i work at one! In the US, more people visit zoos every year than all pro sporting events combined. A zoo can not only educate children about the animals but also inspire them to support conservation of them in the wild.

Some animals would be extinct in the wild today if not for captive breeding, and more are likely to go extinct in the wild in the not-too-distant future. Some people feel that that's OK, just let them go extinct. I don't, especially since the reason they are going extinct is largely human-driven (hunting, habitat destruction, just plain human overpopulation).

nancy