Zoos

I have said for a long time that zoos are a business and refused to go to them, even to get photos of animals I would like to get and this has really turned me against them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/n​ews/world-europe-26098935

Sad. And the picture at the end is disturbing...

"Visitors, including children, were invited to watch while the giraffe was dissected and fed to the lions"

I wonder what they'll do when the Zoo Director becomes redundant.

Distasteful...perhaps. I don't think one can 'turn their backs' on zoo's in general. W/out them many endangered species would be in far worse shape.

I would have been more upset if they had simply put the giraffe in the lion pen w/out killing it before hand. That would have been barbaric.

Circle of life and all that.

Let's not marginalize lion opinion. Lions approve of giraffe eugenics.

And yet another http://www.bbc.co.uk …ngland-wiltshire-26115468 Marginalize, Can not turn our backs on zoos, perhaps we should.

cdiver2 wrote in post #16679158
...uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-26115468….

Hmmm. If they feed inbred "baby" giraffes to the lions, to which species do they feed the inbred lions?

Zoos are trying to maintain a limited genetic base of animals and if one is found to have a genetic defect they can't breed the animal and pass that along. They have extremely limited resources and aren't able to keep a spot for an animal that cannot assist in the preservation of the species. The Zoo followed guidance of the International bodies that establish these rules and standards.

Their biggest mistake was telling the public what they were doing. They would behave been better served to just pull the "He died suddenly during the night" line like the rest of them do.

I understand how you feel. But, you have to respect the rules and regulations in the zoo. They might just think of the animals there if they are not used to the flash of light the camera can produce. Think of the animals in the zoo instead. You can enjoy the scenery even without their photos.

michelleannB wrote in post #16680187
I understand how you feel. But, you have to respect the rules and regulations in the zoo. They might just think of the animals there if they are not used to the flash of light the camera can produce. Think of the animals in the zoo instead. You can enjoy the scenery even without their photos.

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

cdiver2 wrote in post #16676080
I have said for a long time that zoos are a business and refused to go to them, even to get photos of animals I would like to get and this has really turned me against them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/n​ews/world-europe-26098935

I'm not familiar with the Copenhagen Zoo, but I'm assuming that it's considered one of the "good" ones.

Anyway, stuff like this doesn't concern me that much. I've got nothing against animals, but some animals can't go back into the wild and there's limited space and resources at zoos that needs to be reserved for more suitable animals. As much as I hate to say it, some animals are just going to have to die. At least this one apparently has breeding programs going on and is looking towards the conservation of species.

What gets me are the really BAD zoos. You're right, zoos are a business, and there are a lot of them out there that not only have to kill animals but can't even provide humane conditions for the animals that they have. There aren't even any breeding programs going on there because they can't afford it and they can't afford to hire qualified people who know what they're doing.

cdiver2 wrote in post #16679158
And yet another http://www.bbc.co.uk …ngland-wiltshire-26115468 Marginalize, Can not turn our backs on zoos, perhaps we should.

I understand the raw emotions here. Yeah, it's eugenics, and killing off animals because of genetic imperfections. That SHOULD clearly remind people about the horrors of the holocaust. And yes, in a perfect world, these animals wouldn't have had to die.

But my question is, if that's so bad, then what exactly should be done with these animals? The zoo doesn't have unlimited space and resources, that's the reality of the situation. And I'm assuming that these animals are unsuitable to be released back into the wild. So what else is there to do besides either keep that animal and potentially compromise their breeding program, or basically give the animal away to a backwater "zoo" that'll keep the animal alive in bad conditions because they simply don't have the funds to properly care for it?

What if all zoos were to go away? What would happen to the animals? I suspect that pretty much ALL of the animals would end up dying (many in a MUCH more inhumane way), and then we'd also lose the benefit of the actual breeding programs that do go on at the ("good") zoos.

And as ugly as this sounds, I have to say it. For some zoos, conservation of the species is actually one of their goals. And when you're dealing with conserving a species that is threatened with extinction, eugenics WILL come into play. I honestly don't think that anyone WANTS this giraffe to die, but realistically what are the other alternatives and are they any better than humanely putting the animal down?

EDIT: But on the other hand, of COURSE I'd say that. What else would you expect from someone who self-applied the name "Clean Gene"?

The only thing they did wrong was to publicise it.

Saying all zoos are bad is like saying all photographers are creepy.

hes gone wrote in post #16708502
=he's gone;16708502]Saying all zoos are bad is like saying all photographers are creepy.

Well....

And your point is?