Zoos - Should they still be a thing?

englishpremier said:
But how were the conditions in the zoo? Did they mirror the amount of land/water space those animals would naturally use?
Click to expand...

I'm not qualified to answer that.

Did I, in any way, feel the animals were in poor conditions or deprived of clean water, quality food, comfort, stimulation or mistreated? No.
I saw a dedicated staff looking after animals that could live out the rest of their lives in safety and security.

Obviously there is a balance between space, resources and facilities [which require cash to go out] and cash coming in [donations and fund raising].
That's basic economics.

Given the work they are doing and what I heard/saw [and smelt!], I came away feeling a damn sight better about some humans and what they give back to the world.
 
Some zoos are ok, particularly breeding centers. What needs to be a thing of the past is the use of wild animals in circuses, which is barbaric tbh.
 
Zoos done right yes - where the animals plainly have cramped conditions and very little ability to get away from visitors, etc. nope. Increasingly there seems to be a need for better regulation.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Chester Zoo was recently rated as the third best zoo in the world. It's really not fair to condemn the concept of zoos in general based on bad ones, when the good ones - like Chester - are so damn good.
Click to expand...

Been to Chester Zoo and it looked very well kept. Shame it was 28 degrees Celsius when we were there!

Been to South Lakes Safari Zoo and it looked good, but previously the owner was refused the renewal of his licence when it was found that nearly 500 animals died in 3 years, a keeper died in 2013 (tiger attack) and the state of the remaining animals was of great concern. I think there was a take over and they seem to have pulled it around. When you read up on the conditions its a wonder how it was allowed to stay open for so long.

Edinburgh zoo had some really good areas and some areas that left me feeling so sorry for the animals namely the Tiger who looked old and was just pacing back and forth looking miserable. The lion was, when we were there, locked in a concrete building (concrete floor) and again not surprising looked sorry for itself. Then the lioness, only one, by herself in field :( Wasn't impressed.

That said no zoo for me has the bigger animals in a large enough enclosure but if they are in a breeding program and well looked after I can just about convince myself that the benefits make it worth it.
 
Depends on the type of zoo, places like chester that are mainly done for conservation yes, the ones in China etc that are purely there for public viewings no.
 
=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Been to South Lakes Safari Zoo and it looked good, but previously the owner was refused the renewal of his licence when it was found that nearly 500 animals died in 3 years, a keeper died in 2013 (tiger attack) and the state of the remaining animals was of great concern. I think there was a take over and they seem to have pulled it around. When you read up on the conditions its a wonder how it was allowed to stay open for so long.
Click to expand...

You talking about David Gill? him and my dad had a bit of a run in once. To be fair he seemed well intentioned but a bit lacking in foresight.
 
D3K said:
Been to a few places and not seen a zoo that sits right with me yet.

Worst was near Nagoya in Japan. Seen a polar bear in a windowed box barely able to turn his body around, swinging his head side to side in a kind of manic state.

I dread to think how poor the conditions are in underdeveloped countries.

Get rid imo.
Click to expand...
Just because some third world country has low standards don't knock our zoo's
 
LabR@t said:
Just because some third world country has low standards don't knock our zoo's
Click to expand...

Many zoo's in the uk could be much improved, certainly in terms of space for the animals.

The last zoo I went to was bristol.
They had done a pretty good job given that the place is quite small. But some animals had very little space.

I much prefer safari park places where enclosures are much larger.

I would make regulation tighter, closing or relocating zoo's that can't provide better conditions.
 
Not really, it's just a bit weird isn't it. We're meant to be more conscientious than this I feel, wild animals should be just that, wild.
 
It's a trade off for the animals. Their natural habitat isn't exactly usually very forgiving and many animals are either prey or vulnerable to disease, starvation, dehydration etc.

Not that many apex predators in zoos that love to roam. Heck lions are quite happy to lie there and be fed. You can see Tigers getting distressed if they don't have a big enough enclosure though. Primates can get board.

Ive often noticed It's usually the small native animals like otters etc in the sanctuary type zoos/nature reserves that seem very distressed when in captivity.

As others have said though, better regulation would be good but facilities and welfare varies hugely in the UK and other countries.
 
I have been to London zoo and a really ****** zoo in Tallinn. I am never stepping foot in zoo again, I don't like to see animals in cages.
 
LabR@t said:
Just because some third world country has low standards don't knock our zoo's
Click to expand...

Zoo's in general have been notorious in failing to meet animal welfare standards. It isn't the odd animal accident when a cat gets loose or kid gets in a pen. I have seen poorly run zoos before and my friend who is a zoo keeper says that there are plenty of abysmal zoos in the UK.

A lot of zoos also seem fine on the surface but are poor behind the scenes too.

Since 1981, zoos in the UK have been licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act, which requires them to meet certain standards of care.

The study, which was funded by the Born Free Foundation, is the first to review animal welfare in British zoos since the Act came into force.

The researchers looked at 192 zoo inspection reports and found that only 47 (24 per cent) met all the animal welfare standards.

Nearly half of the zoos assessed (47 per cent) did not meet two or more of the criteria relating to the provision of animal health care and one zoo failed to meet nearly half of all animal welfare standards.

The researchers also discovered that a quarter of zoos did not have a satisfactory programme of veterinary care and 25 per cent did not meet the standards relating to the provision of food and water.
Click to expand...
 
Evangelion said:
Zoos are essential for conservation, research, and education.
Click to expand...


To say a zoo is essential for any of the above is odd when there are plenty of alternatives such as conservation centres and animal sanctuarys.

Plenty of conservation, research and education happens outside of zoo's. A large proportion of animals kept in the zoo do not need conservation as they are not endangered, while others would not be ever fit for release due to the enclosure conditions they are kept in. Open safari's and conservation centres seem to do a great job when it comes to conservation and research.

As for education, you can argue video or streaming an animal acting naturally as it would with no people crowding round would be more educational, even if more pixelated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom