17 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2018
    1. Sadly, this happens all too often. As National Geographic points out, 42 animals have died during escapes or attacks in US zoos since 1990. During that time, 15 humans have been killed at zoos, and 100 have been injured. Of these injuries, only 15 incidents involved primates. The last time a gorilla was fatally shot in a US zoo was in 2004, when 13-year-old Jabari was killed after escaping from the Dallas Zoo.

      There have been far too many incidents where people have been killed or animals have been killed because of their unnatural confrontations with humans.

    2. There’s a strong case to be made that zoo officials made the right decision by killing the ape. After all, it wasn’t clear whether or not the gorilla would continue to harm the boy, and tranquilizers would’ve taken too long to sedate the animal.

      In order to save the boys life, it does make sense that the zoo keepers killed the gorilla. But if zoos weren't a thing in the first place, then there wouldn't have been a situation like this.

    3. The public is upset that the zoo shot a beloved 17-year-old Western lowland gorilla (a threatened species of which fewer than 175,000 still remain in the wild); the police are worried that the parents dared to take their eyes off a three-year-old for a split second; and activists are concerned that the zoo isn’t safe for animals or humans. In other words, people are pointing fingers in every direction.

      Zoos put animals and humans into situations that are unsafe for both parties and if zoos didn't exist then a lot of these lethal encounters wouldn't have happened

    1. Because a gorilla was shot and killed after escaping from an “award-winning” exhibit at the Dallas Zoo.

      This gorilla was doing nothing wrong, and since he escaped his tiny enclosure that doesn't allow him to live as if he would in the wild, he gets killed

    2. Because this giraffe was killed and fed to lions when he had outlived his “usefulness.” (NSFW)

      While all zoos don't throw their animals to lions once they are done being useful, it is horrible that any animal can be put in a situation where this is even in the realm of possibility

    3. penguins are on anti-depressants.

      It is horrible that the quality of life of zoo animals is so low that in order to preserve their state of mind they have to be given medication. It also does say that zoos do care about their animals mental health so they are medicating them to help them out

  2. Feb 2018
    1. If the motivation of zoo owners was truly to inspire passion for conservation then, with a little imagination, they could begin to lead the way out of this archaic practice and towards a learning experience which was both valuable and, most importantly, free of suffering.

      While zoos aren't exactly the ideal way to inspire conservation, if zoo owners were to have the mindset that they do have the ability to inspire, then zoos could be valuable tools to educate the public on conservation

    2. I can say with great confidence that a zoo enclosure can never be a proper substitute for an animal's natural habitat.

      while zoos might seem like a good way to solve the issue of decreasing habitats, they will never truly be an identical way to their natural habitat, which they are accustomed to living in.

    3. I think the overriding point here is that, even if they did inspire a passion for conservation, the end does not justify the means.

      It isn't fair to animals that, in order to inspire people to take action on behalf of conservation, we have to keep animals in captivity their entire lives rather than living in their natural habitats

    4. Many of the smaller zoos are exempt from the licensing standards and thus, are not subject to inspections. For the larger zoos, they are inspected once a year (at best) or once every three years (as a minimum). The inspection is carried out over a maximum of two working days and might have to assess hundreds or even thousands of animals. When you bear in mind that the inspectors also need to review record keeping, health and safety, procedures, education and conservation contribution in the allotted time, it becomes clear that, even with the best of intentions, the system is simply unworkable.

      The system in place to make sure that the standards set in place to protect animals isn't effective and hardly does anything to help protect animals

    5. I agree that there are "worse zoos" but I do not believe that there is such thing as a "good zoo".

      Not all zoos are completely horrible, but no zoo (as stated above) is a "proper substitute for an animal's natural habitat"

    6. Worryingly, zoos teach children that humans can control nature. They demonstrate that if an irreplaceable natural habitat is destroyed by our actions, we can pluck individual animals out of the destruction, manipulate their breeding cycle and produce more of them to live in city centre zoos or safari parks thereby "saving" the species

      Zoos prevent the public from the realization that humans can't just do whatever they want and then save the animals who are endangered as a result of their actions. Instead it makes us think that regardless of how small habitats get, we can just "pluck" animals out and put them in captivity.

    7. What it fails to demonstrate to the child [is] the urgency of the need for habitat conservation, or the complexity of the role of the tiger in its natural habitat, or the ways in which that child could aid the conservation of the species in reality.

      Zoos could be much more effective if they were to help demonstrate why this animal was in captivity, how people can help with habitat conservation, or even demonstrate the vital role animals play in their ecosystems

    8. By showing a tiger in a cage to a child, a zoo can teach that child nothing more than the size of a tiger, the colour of a tiger and the shape of a tiger. A zoo shows the animal completely out of context, outside of its natural habitat and the ecosystem it was designed to inhabit.

      While zoos enable people to see animals that they otherwise wouldn't be able to see in their day to day lives, prevent people from learning how animals act in their natural habitats and what behaviors they have

    1. "Disorders like phobias, depression and OCD, documented at zoos, don’t appear to have analogues among animals living in the wild."

      Zoos introduce new psychological issues that wouldn't be as present in the wild

    2. So much confinement and artifice is bound to drive the animals crazy, Wallace-Wells argues, even if they've never known anything else.

      While zoos might provide a "better" life and the animals might not have ever known life outside a zoo, they still might have issues dealing with their instinctual tendencies in a zoo setting

    3. the cushy lives of zoo animals have made them a bit soft. "An animal in the wild can’t afford to be depressed," she says in the Times piece. "It will simply be killed or starve, since its environment requires constant vigilance."