The Bsas Zoo

[semigoodlookin]

We could say that these animals should be free, but it is too late for that utopian ideal. Good zoos exist to not just entertain public but to raise awarness and to engage in conservation and breeding efforts. Again, we can argue that zoos should never have been created in the first place, but its too late for that conversation.

To save species that are on the brink of extinction requires zoos and animal parks, the discussion that they are endangered because of us is almost moot, or at least should not be used to beat the concept of zoos over the head.

There is also a misconception that animals raised in captivity by parents that were raised in captivity have an innate desire to be free. They have no concept of what that freedom should be, and in a good zoo where their every whim is taken care of they have freedom, arguably more than their wild cousins who do not roam over huge territories and engage in a constant life and death struggle because they are free, but simply because their circumstance forces them too.

Btw, the zoo in the city is a rotting place and is pretty shit, it should be closed or undergo a massive regeneration. The animals there are not unhappy though, they have no concept of what that emotion is, but they are suffering (in some cases at least).

 

[Dada]

Raise awareness? Of what exactly?

If I was an animal and had a choice, chances are I would prefer a ZOO to a fur farm in China, or any farm for that respect, but then again, who knows for how long.

Animals might not have a very clear concept of what freedom is but I wouldn't underestimate their emotions. Not so long ago (1860s) there was a debate about the abolishment of slavery in the US. The arguments of those who disagreed ran along the same lines - black people have no emotions, they have no concept of freedom, can't take care of themselves etc. The worst thing is that in some cases it might have been true. But, seriously, is that a valid reason to keep slavery going?

 

[nicoenarg]

But, seriously, is that a valid reason to keep slavery going?

I might have misread this but you didn't just try to equate slavery of black human beings to animals in a zoo...did you?

 

[semigoodlookin]

Raise awareness? Of what exactly?

If I was an animal and had a choice, chances are I would prefer a ZOO to a fur farm in China, or any farm for that respect, but then again, who knows for how long.

Animals might not have a very clear concept of what freedom is but I wouldn't underestimate their emotions. Not so long ago (1860s) there was a debate about the abolishment of slavery in the US. The arguments of those who disagreed ran along the same lines - black people have no emotions, they have no concept of freedom, can't take care of themselves etc. The worst thing is that in some cases it might have been true. But, seriously, is that a valid reason to keep slavery going?

What? So much wrong here, I don't know what to ... what?

I am going to ignore the second half of that because it is nonsense. Counter that if you must, but I would prefer leaving comparisons to the slavery of black people out of this conversation.

Regarding the first part. If you were an animal, you would have no choice either way. An animal does not choose when it eats, drinks, where it lives (fur farm, zoo, or jungle) etc. It acts on instinct, always. I could not agree more that all animals should be "free", but as I said in my first post, we are well past that even being a viable argument. When I was in unversity, one of the most common mistakes people made when thinking of animal behaviour was to beleive that their cat was happy, or their dog was sad, or angry, or whatever. None of it is true unless 200 years of modern zoology and the study of animal behaviour is completely wrong. Animals act on instinct, everything it does is a direct reaction to an environmental stimilus, it chooses nothing and does not understand the concept of pain, happiness or whatever... it simply acts.

This transfers into the zoo environment ideally because an animal in captivity, that has always been in captivity, and has generations of its family in captivity has no yearning to be anywhere else. A tiger roams a huge environment not because it is free, but because the territorial nature of the animal dictates that males need to be spread out to avoid constant breeding confrontation and inbreeding and to have a steady supply of food. Given the ideal conditions of care, food, shelter, easy access to a viable mate, and myriad other things, the tiger is instinctly and perfectly functional in a smaller enclosure with twenty people staring at it.

I am not even arguing whether zoos are good or bad. As a concept they are terrible, built originally for people to look at animals that should never have been there in the first place. Humans are absolutley to blame for zoos even exisiting, but unfortunatley they have now become part of maintaining a species, for better of for worse. However, like I said in my first post, whether zoos are good or bad is rather a moot point by now because we keep killing animals that would not otherwise be endangered.

I am not being obtuse either, this is a subject I studied and love, so I am just enjoying having a debate with someone about it. I also do not want to go off subject too much as this is about one particular zoo, one that is indeed doing things very wrongly.

 

[Ceviche]

I am totally against all zoos and all circuses worldwide irrespective of any fair treatment

 

[glasgowjohn]

I s it politically correct to go to zoos like Temaiken?

 

[nicoenarg]

I s it politically correct to go to zoos like Temaiken?

Only if you "check your privilege" and apologize to the animals.

 

[rrptownley]

I once took my wife to the Buenos Aires Zoo.
On our way in we passed the Arctic exhibit where there sat a lonely polar bear on his haunches, perplexed and panting in the summer heat. It was the first time we both had seen a polar bear, "Wow, he's so tall!" my wife enthused, "He looks a little lonely, too," I replied.
We continued on our walk around the zoo, taking the main path that circled back to the exit, and the polar bear's unnatural home.
The bear was nowhere to be seen.
"Where did he go?" my wife asked.
"Most probably he is inside, crying or sweating, probably both," I opined.
We paused to absorb that sad thought before heading out of the zoo gates to eat pizza across the plaza.


The architecture is lovely though.

 

[Dada]

I might have misread this but you didn't just try to equate slavery of black human beings to animals in a zoo...did you?

No, it's just my clumsy writing. Sorry if it sounds like that.

I was trying to point to the logic behind the reasoning behind both things, which is very much the same. Look, I have no doubt that the majority of the white landowners in the Confederation were fairly nice people, with high moral standards. If you want to make this large group of nice people support something as horrible as enslaving other human beings based on the color of their skin, you need good marketing. There are two main lines of reasoning. First of all, you'll have to dehumanize the subject. "Black people are not people, animals have no feelings", you name it. Second, appeal to their more noble feelings: "The poor creatures need our care, by keeping them captive we are saving them from themselves, because they were not born for freedom, they couldn't handle it."

Again, I'm in no way equating or even comparing the two things. Despite the fact that both are about slavery. The irony is that now the idea of enslaving another human race sounds absolutely horrible and unacceptable to our ears, and rightly so. That's a normal, healthy reaction of human conscience. Yet we know there is a way to silence the conscience. It's not hard to make crowds accept and support just anything, if you serve it to them the right way.

 

[scotttswan]

I once took my wife to the Buenos Aires Zoo.
On our way in we passed the Arctic exhibit where there sat a lonely polar bear on his haunches, perplexed and panting in the summer heat. It was the first time we both had seen a polar bear, "Wow, he's so tall!" my wife enthused, "He looks a little lonely, too," I replied.
We continued on our walk around the zoo, taking the main path that circled back to the exit, and the polar bear's unnatural home.
The bear was nowhere to be seen.
"Where did he go?" my wife asked.
"Most probably he is inside, crying or sweating, probably both," I opined.
We paused to absorb that sad thought before heading out of the zoo gates to eat pizza across the plaza.


The architecture is lovely though.

I like Zoo's in general but Zoo's that have been refurbished and provide lots of things to do for the animals.

Edinburgh Zoo's pretty good for Penguins and smaller animals. Their African Hunting Dog pen is pretty big too. Their Chimp part wasn't bad either. The problem is the Big Cats, Their Tigers and Lions were pacing in repeated routes.

Whereas at Blair Drummond Safari Park the Tigers and Lions never paced http://www.blairdrummond.com/

They really shouldn't keep big animals that naturally roam miles and miles in a wee cage.

The Scottish Wildcats seemed happy enough though.

I'm sure the wee local wild life park i went to as a kid had feral tabby cats in a pen rather than proper Scottish wildcats. :lol: