Thread: Should all zoos be closed?

^ Look on the bright side, the staff will either have to start eating each other soon, or they'll starve too.

One of the things zoos do is keep records of animal's DNA which they share with other zoos. This enables them to breed animals and maintain optimum diversity in the DNA. Genetic defects brought on from inbreeding animals takes those animal's DNA out of the breeding program leaving zoos with less animals to maintain diversity with.

You missed out the option I wanted to vote for, DD.

Close all bad zoos.

I am not satisfied that I made as complete a comment as I would have liked. Please tolerate my following remonstration to illustrate the worth of today's zoos.

For the most part, zoos of today have taken on a new look. This is due to a new philosophy - work being done in "new zoos" can help wild animal populations survive and thrive. In the past, zoo residents were once captured from the wild, but today's captive breeding programs are helping to replenish wild populations. Animals in zoos are helping scientists learn how to protect many wild animals, whose habitat has been shrinking to the brink of being uninhabitable.

The roots of zoos extend to ancient Egypt, where wild animals were caged and then worshiped. Later, collections of exotic animals became symbols of power and wealth, and rulers competed to acquire the greatest number of species for their private menageries. Eventually, the menageries moved beyond the courtyards and into urban centers. The word zoo was coined as an abbreviation for London's zoological garden, where the objective was science rather than just an exhibition. Despite the intentions of the founder Sir Stamford Raffles, zoos persisted as popular places for entertainment, and before long there was one in almost every port.

Most of the first zoos were typically collections of whatever could be procured, in which single animals were housed side by side in metal cages. In the early 1900s in Germany, a new idea that would eventually revolutionize the look of future zoos throughout the world, took hold. Carl Hagenbeck, a well-known animal supplier, opened the world's first zoo without bars. In place of steel, Hagenbeck used moats, shrubbery, artificial rocks, and walkways to provide visitors, - and animals - with a more natural experience.

During this era, the New York Zoological Society became the Wildlife Conservation Society. Besides conducting research, they spearheaded efforts to restore the nearly extinct American bison to the western plains. As the environmental movement gained speed, the preservation of wildlife and wilderness moved outside of zoo walls. As funds became available, zoos collectively contributed millions toward land purchases to prevent habitat destruction.

Don't get me wrong, not all zoos are good zoos. There still are animals pacing in metal cages, and cramped in outdoor enclosures. Even some of the best zoos still take animals from the wild, although captive breeding continues to reduce this number. And, no matter how you look at it, a wild animal in a zoo equals one less animal in the wild. But, zoos are charged with the responsibility of balancing the costs and benefits between education and conservation. It is true that some are simply not up to the task. Luckily, the zoological community, as a whole, is moving forward to reduce habitat destruction and pursue reintroduction of indigenous species, if possible.

The zoo needs to struggle between being a place of entertainment, and a conservational facility. It needs visitors to enter and pay fees to fund its operation. At times, this effort can become too commercial. They need to provide 'animal shows' to bring in extra funds. If they are purely educational, I support them. But unfortunately, things like kangaroo boxing, certain elephant training attractions, chained monkey exhibitions and (horrid) reptile sensationalism make me cringe.

In America alone, more than 180 million people go through zoo facilities every year. To obtain the funding needed to survive, zoos need to be creative, since most people go to the zoo to have fun, and not to be educated. To motivate people to get involved with conservation, they need a positive experience with nature and animals. Environmentalists tend to have a negative reaction to zoos, because they envision animals in the wild, and not in captivity. Zoos can be a powerful persuasion for conservation, by reaching into communities that no one else has reached, and provide an emotional connection to wildlife.

Lately, zoos have been specializing in only the species they do well with by their unique facilities and successful breeding program. Single animals are farmed out to other zoos on a "breeding loan', in hopes that new blood will strengthen the captive population, to eventually allow its reentry to the wild. So, instead of having as many specimens as possible for the purpose of display, the zoological community is attempting to specialize in what they do best as individuals. Just for you Brits who may not agree with me, have you ever visited the late John Aspinall's Howletts Wild Animal Park, in Canterbury? I had the privilege of not only meeting him, but his troops of gorillas.

Whether it is saving the Rock Hydrax (precursor of the common horse), or breeding the Madagascan Lemur (both of which I've personally been involved), zoos have turned the corner to help preserve the critical flora/fauna balance that took thousands of years to evolve, and now are being destroyed in a decade.

Yeah, zoos do have their place, but I can't help but feel sorry for the animals in some places, national parks and conservation areas are better options IMO.