Should zoos be banned?

Hangout GupShup Cafe
21

Animal sanctuaries, national parks and legally protected wetlands and forests are of course ideal for animals, there are national parks allover the world, Africa, Asia, Australia, everywhere and are probably the best way of fulfilling all the objectives.

But just how many people could afford to visit those parks? People with money can easily fly to South Africa, or Kenya, for their wildlife safaris and adventures to watch the animals up and close in their natural habitat, and then post their pics on Instagram and FB as much as they like, but what about poorer families living in poorer countries? how exactly will they enjoy seeing and interacting with all those weird and wonderful animals? Going to Zoo is still a relatively cheap family entertainment for a whole social class that has no means of accessing the more exotic and naturally expansive facilities spread over hundreds of acres in different parts of the world.

You could argue for bringing in more regulation surrounding the zoo industry, bringing in a cultural change into how animals are treated and nurtured in such controlled facilities, talk about closing down zoos that fail to adhere to guidelines and expected standards, but advocating for a total ban on zoo industry (and terminating employment of thousands of workers associated with it) is surely over the top rhetoric. We have not managed to ban tobacco industry over all these years that is responsible for deaths of millions of people, coz it brings in billions of dollars in tax revenue vital for many public services, and here we are hell bent on banning zoos? it does not make much sense to me.

If all zoos are closed down today, then visiting and experiencing animals and the joy this brings to us the humans will only become exclusive to the rich and affluent who are able to afford their wildlife safaris and adventure trips to animal sanctuaries and national conservation parks.

Additionally, many animals can only be kept in open spaces if they are within their natural habitat, with the right climate, atmosphere, temperature weather and provision of food , prey and water. You cannot open expensively run and guarded natural parks in places and continents totally different from the natural habitat of a given animal, for example, you cannot place a Siberian, or even a Bengal Tiger at the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania, it will just not survive there. However in properly run zoos at a much smaller scale, provisions and efforts can be made to make life easy for all sorts of animals from different and varying habitats allover the world as they can be kept inside specialised enclosures specifically designed to mimic their natural habitats as much as possible.

22

If you ask the question whether animals should be free in their respective environment or confined everyone should choose the former. But how practical it is? Are animals not being hunted? Are they not being eaten? Are they not being taken as a pet?
Why are animals slaughtered?

So why talk about zoo only?

Thats why zoos should be regulated and refined to make sure they are spacious enough, have the best possible environment required by them, go through medical boards etc . The point is they should be treated very gently as per their own requirement. I've seen some of very good zoos and it really felt as if animals are better taken care of than human.

23

Well I am certainly not going to pretend that what I am saying solves all the problems, it would need lot more brainstorming at a much higher levels to find a working alternative to zoos. However, the idea doesn?t need to remain confined to few big sanctuaries. As I said earlier, if governments step in, such places can also be easily set up at smaller scales outside city limits, still remaining accessible to local population.

And what you?re alluding to is more of hyperbolizing a stereotype to say only the rich spoiled ones go to such sanctuaries, maybe to daylong safaris, yes but conservatories and sanctuaries are on a different plane ? many of the sanctuaries are non-profits, primarily depend on volunteers who take up the daily grinds of caring for the animals, upkeep & maintenance of facilities etc. If you commercialize them as a regulated industry and as an alternative to zoos, they would still need the manpower to run the place, hence the fear of unemployment is a moot point.

Banning zoos is a rather harsh idea ? a cultural shift away from zoo to a better alternative is how I would describe it.

2 Likes
24

No, but you can put old or sick animals there for some time.. and No for circus too..

25

Hum insanon ka bus chale to eik human zoo bhi bana den gharebon ko usmen band karke

2 Likes
26

**Good idea Sir ji… :nerd:

Is trh dinosaurs k beech ghoomney ka mouqa bhi mil jaey ga :phil: :rock:​​​​​​​**

27

i don't support capturing wildlife in a box

28

[quote=““Greek Goddess””]
i don’t support capturing wildlife in a box
[/quote]

Greeko does it mean you support capturing non-wildlife which can be human in a box? Halanke, human have more wildlife in them.

29

Aap log hain ruju!

30

I agree that zoos and aquariums are very educational. I think that circuses should be banned because they usually treat animals bad. Also what do you think about sheltered animals? That’s the only way to keep stray animals, they get a chance to be healed and adopted. I know it because I’ve been in a few local shelters and adopted puppies from there. You should do that too, that’s way more effective instead of just talking about animals. By the way, you’re not supposed to take only puppies and kittens, you can adopt older animals too. Though some of them might need diapers like this but it will be a good deed anyway.