Essay talk:The Case Against Zoos

Now that there are 'films, David Attenborough and the internet' there is perhaps less need for zoos to see exotic creatures.

What about safari parks and other 'large protected environments' (eg London Zoo's Snowdon Aviary - or significantly smaller for some insects) - so the animals are in effect not aware that they are being constrained?

There is a case for providing suitable environments so that certain species with low numbers can be bred until sufficient numbers have been reached (and sufficient genetic variation is maintained) and/or appropriate environments have been found - Przewalski's horses and Chillingham Wild Cattle are often cited examples.

If people visit zoos they may well be more willing to support 'looking after the environments in which these creatures' - and may reduce travel to those environments (with travel related pollution).

There is also the question - as zoos etc exist, what use can be made of them to the advantage of the animals? Anna Livia (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Safari Parks and other large areas would usually still have issues regarding the culling and/or trading of surplus animals, if they didn't they'd be more like a sanctuary instead, which I support.
 * Rights theory puts the individual before the group, regardless of the potential benefits. There's other ways to help endangered species.
 * I'm not sure if meeting animals is necessary to foster respect for them, I've never met a Japanese person but recognize that harming Japanese people is wrong.
 * As zoos exist, the best we can currently probably hope for is that they try to turn themselves into sanctuaries. RockyRob97 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a lot of hubris about freedom
Similar to the pet ownership thing that was written. Animals should be cared for in zoos but there's no doubt they live longer and happier when properly cared for. The "wild" isn't some verdant utopian heaven of freedom land. It's a brutal world of disease, starvation, fighting, raping, and harsh weather, and predation, depending on species. If a longer life isn't happier, then what is? Because I don't think halving a lifespan from succumbing to usually predation and disease, starvation if you're a predator, is something any animal wants. 21:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Captivity isn't some verdant utopian heaven of protection. It's a brutal world of small enclosures, boredom, zoochosis, cullings, relocations, live animal feedings, and potentially abusive workers. RockyRob97 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't say it is. I said animals should be cared for. There should be standards of care to adhere to when keeping animals in captivity. If those are met, then animals have longer lives for stable food, proper medical care, and attention from humans. Those issues you listed are all from improper care and doesn't universally apply to captive animals as my issues on living in the wild do because it is a fact of life. 15:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find this stance for freedom dangerously similar to the discourse professed by quarantine denialists (note: I'm not saying the author is a Trumpist, nor comparing him to far right-wing nuts). Unlike most romantic languages, English has has a different word for freedom and one for liberty, you guys should make better use of them. GeeJayK (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried looking this up but couldn't find anything significant between the two definitions - could you elaborate? RockyRob97 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Inb4 RockyRob97 brings up the cognitively disabled. Uncle Mark (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah not really. People don't usually try to say zoos are OK because "the animals are stupid so who cares". I could bring them up if you really want me to. RockyRob97 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You may hate him (and he is a great deal more extreme than me when it comes to government), but Thomas Hobbes' famous quote still stands strong: "Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And life in captivity is a life in prison. There are other ways to help wild animals. RockyRob97 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we rescue blind cave fish stuck in permanently dark 2 meter square puddles deep underground? Sounds literally hellish by human standards. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense to compare captivity to prison. Why must I keep bringing up the big differences in lifespan between most captive and wild animals? Why do you think pigeons in captivity can easily last 10 years while 15 years for a wild one is like a record age and pigeons generally die at 3-6? What is going on here in the lifespan? All I'm seeing is the "quality over quantity" excuse but those 3-6 years are not quality, it's a life cut short by disease and predation. 20:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Supposing the base argument is true
There's going to be a number of animals that can't be released into the wild. This isn't a talking point, it's a recorded zoological fact that animals can be come familiarized to humans to their own detriment. That means there's a number of animals that cannot take care of themselves if released into the wild. That means they'll have to be put down if we were to abolish zoos. Can you live with that? If you can't, I strongly advise reconsidering your position. 21:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Devil's advocate: I think the goal is to abolish zoos but the means is probably to let animals live and then succumb to old age. Like, think about some breeds of dogs that just are likely to suffer due to to the nature of the breed. The pugs I believe? We probably need to stop breeding them but we shouldn't put down the existing ones either. 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. The subject is wild animals that have either been bred in captivity from birth or have become acclimated to captivity. In the case of the former, releasing them into the wild would be detrimental to the animals' wellbeing, as they are literally unable to fend for themselves. They have been semi-domesticated, with all the drawbacks that entails. So, the question becomes, is the author willing to support euthanizing them en masse? 21:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It does matter, there’s no need to euthanise any animals in theory. In practice you’re admitting zoos aren’t that bad if you’re willing to keep them open to let the animals live out their lives, finding funding+workers for a “zoo” consisting of one or two very old animals would be difficult, and in some cases it’s impossible to prevent animals from breeding unless you split them up (involves constructing new enclosures, can be psychologically detrimental for social animals). Christopher (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Case 4 is weak
Case 4 largely consists of hand-waving on the author's part. 17:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

More topics to consider
Where is the borderline between 'zoos and safari parks', 'nature reserves with humans confined to particular paths and walkways' and 'the countryside as it is' that the author would be happy with as the minimal intervention?

If a species/collection of species is in immediate danger from non-human sources (volcanic eruption, changing river courses etc) should humans perform a rescue operation; and should 'small separated populations' of a species (eg in desert oases) be brought together/intermixed to ensure survival/retention of genetic diversity?

If people go to a local-ish 'zoo or other locality where animals are supervised to some extent' rather than flying to see them in their locality, thus not contributing to global warming and pollution is this not a Good Thing?

And what are the arguments about the plant equivalents? Gardens of whatever sort where plants are crowded into beds/otherwise constrained, and are prevented from growing to their full extent? Are seed banks necessary?

Likewise humans - who may be forced to live in concrete jungles, and work in offices on the [large number]ed floor? Anna Livia (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)