Should zoos exist? | BBC Ideas
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ต.ค. 2022
- Are zoos a great way to teach people about nature and save species from extinction? Or a cruel way of using animals for entertainment?
Made by Daniel Nils Roberts, in partnership with the Open University.
Find more of our favourite videos about animals and our nature world here 👉 • OUR NATURAL WORLD
Subscribe to BBC Ideas 👉 bbc.in/2F6ipav
____________________________
Do you have a curious mind? You’re in the right place.
Our aim on BBC Ideas is to feed your curiosity, to open your mind to new perspectives, and to leave you that little bit smarter.
So dive in. Let us know what you think. And make sure to subscribe! 👉bbc.in/2F6ipav
Visit our website to see all of our videos: www.bbc.com/ideas
And follow BBC Ideas on Twitter: / bbcideas
#bbcideas #zoo #animals
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 65 | คู่เอก "จ้าวเสือใหญ่ vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDpOh5eEJKw/mqdefault.jpg)
I think keeping animals is acceptable only if they're protecting a species from going extinct. I don't think making people happy is more important then animals being free
☀️
Bald Eagles are no longer endangered. But if it weren't for captive breeding efforts, they would still be endangered. Not so much from hunting, but habitat destruction. On saying that, I believe that in order to remind people of what a success story looks like, there should still be captive exhibits in operation.
Really ? Then why are people allowed to have things called cats and dogs hmm ? Don’t be stupid
@@davidlawson8227 you should be an exhibit for no reason other than to make other people aware to be careful what you logic you provide because the same logic can be reversed on to you.
@@Mansicckle so. You don't care about the survival of animals? Extinction does not bother you? Ok. No problem. The very reason for zoo's is to show people what they are saving. But if you don't care, that's your problem.
The thing is there’s not much of an option at this point. “Setting the animals free” is a nice sentiment, but it’s not always an option. Gorillas for example need to learn how to survive in the wild from their parents, and since all captive gorillas are descended from orphans that knowledge had not been passed down. It’s a similar scenario with a lot of animals where they just can’t survive out of human care. So we’re presented with few other options.
1: Just stop breeding and let the captive animals pass away without offspring. But that raises an issue with many species rapidly going extinct, and if there’s none in captivity then once they’re gone in the wild they’re gone for good.
2: Take animals off display to sanctuaries, but if there’s no revenue from visitors then giving the animals good care becomes harder. As an employee at a non-profit animal shelter I can’t recommend that. You’d have to rely on private donations and government grants.
3: Just keep the zoos going and try to improve conditions as much as possible. Zoos in the past were very unethical, and while there’s still plenty of improvements to be made, most zoos have come a long way in terms of animal welfare.
Really what we need is for ALL people to care for ALL animals more. Domestic, captive, wild, they all need our help.
I think 3. is the best option. We should strive to have spaces like sanctuaries with the intractability factor that many zoos provide. Take a look at The Wilds in Ohio. A 10,000-acre property that has more than enough space for animals, while also giving visitors a safari. You can let the animals engage in naturalistic behaviors while entertaining or educating visitors. Best of both worlds.
You sir have common sense, unlike most of the people in this comment section
Animals should be let free,for them to explore their natural environment, their range is vast and the distances they travel is phenomenal,you should not confine a elephant in the room. 😊
I think the majority of animals would rather have the safety of a zoo than wilderness where they worry about their next meal and whether they will get eaten alive.
The only exceptions are probably the more intelligent animals like elephants, primeapes or even parrots.
@@hejalllthey would rather be captive than free? Yeah right.
@@hejalll they do not worry, they just follow their instincts when it comes to nutrition.
@@LeroySinclair69 most of them, probably yeah. Stress is only seen in select animals like lions, primapes, polar bears, parrots etc. either animals that are highly intelligent or use a lot of space in the wilderness
@@hejalllThis thinking is extremely niave.
It depends on the animal and the zoo. If the zoo can provide for the needs of the particular species and individual then there's not a problem, but the needs of different species and individuals are not equal. If we were talking about specific animals and specific zoos it would be a much easier question. Should elephants be kept in zoos? A large intelligent animal like that? Probably not. I can certainly see that being phased out given the difficulties in providing for their needs. But what about smaller animals whose needs are more easily met?
Some animals should not be kept in zoos and some so-called zoos should not keep animals. On the other hand there are some animals who would not survive in the wild; and there are some animals in the wild who would not be there if not for the captive breeding programs of zoos. There are hundreds of individuals in the wild today who would not exist if not for my local zoo. Though perhaps those programs too will be phased out as more sanctuaries are established outside of zoos and the needs of the species change.
I'd say it's not about the individual animals. It's about creating humans that care. And the greater good end more than justifies the means. We're in the midst of an ecocide. Nature needs us to do all we can to reign in capitalist excesses. Do zoos help? I liked them and went on to study zoology at university. If we had 8 billion zoologists on the planet, would we have an ecocide?
What do you mean by 'some zoos which can provide the needful '? Dude, there's a difference between freedom and captivity. You just can't live in a 5 start prison even if given exquisite things.
@@shrutisinghrathore2127 Do you see my avatar? That's an old illustration of a numbat; a marsupial a bit smaller than a guinea pig. Estimates are that there are only about a thousand of them left in the wild. A significant number of the numbats alive in the wild today (240 odd) are from a breed-for-release program at Perth Zoo in Western Australia.
In the wild numbats face being wiped out by habitat destruction and predation from introduced species such as cats and foxes. In recent years, thanks to the aforementioned breeding program, they have been re-introduced into newly established predator-free sanctuaries in areas that haven't seen a wild numbat in decades.
Do you think that we should have left the numbat's survival dependant on just the two small remnant populations that were left before a zoo stepped in and helped? What do you know about the needs of a numbat? Or the needs of the other species that that zoo has helped save from extinction?
Do you think that the freedom to be a feral cat's dinner is better than being looked after in a zoo?
Depends: how do you feel about trophy hunting?
To educate people about what are the impacts of their daily activities, use other methods and solutions.. Use technology..Animals are not here for us.
I hear you but would insists it's not the same. Zoos / nature docs inspired me to study zoology at university. The docs were amazing but I could smell the animals at the zoo. We breathed the same air. I'd argue that could have been equally important where the direction my life was to take is concerned.
I totally agree 'animals are not here for us' but do you really think banning zoos would make humans less ecocidal? I don't. WE need to be there for nature. We need to inspire the young to turn their back on capitalism's destructive ways. If a few 'poster boy' animals (zoo captives) help in this respect, then surely it's for the greater good?
But if animals are outside the zoos, it is really really easy for bad hunter to hunt them for wrong purposes. There would be no security for animals
Bruh half of animals would be extinct if it wasn’t for zoos
@@Dachin55555bruh that’s just not true, animals become extinct because of us lol. Zoos are literally for profit, if it were what your claiming it to be bout none of us would be allowed to enter these zoos. Stop trying to justify what is clearly a cruel and barbaric practice. Belgians kept Africans in zoos at one point.
I think that while the argument can be made that there are some positive effects of zoos, the truth is that they do not justify keeping animals locked in captivity. Zoos are for-profit and they are not designed to give animals the natural life they deserve away from crowds of loud people. If you want to observe animals, observe them in an unobtrusive way in their natural environment or with David Attenborough's soothing voice narrating.
If it weren’t for zoos pandas would have died long ago
They DO justify keeping animals locked in, with an environment that somewhat resembles their homeland, enrichment, keepers that make their lives better, before being reintroduced into the wild.
Your comment is actually completely wrong!All members of the AZA are non profit and all that money they get goes right back into the animals!
The positive’s definitely outweigh the negatives!
Actually zoos give animals so much privacy they can go forever without being seen by the public!
It is obvious not all zoos are bad. Maybe even most. But some are just horrendous and they still can be in business for decades. Which imo shouldnt.
Most zoos back in the day where those horrendous zoos you where talking about but now at least good zoos know what to do
i think existing laws just have to be enforced, no new laws are necessary
Whipsnade zoo does a good job at conservation in the uk and the animals have huge spaces there and it’s like paradise to them
Indeed, it is true that some animals may experience a longer lifespan in captivity; a circumstance which could be applicable to humans as well. However, has anyone ever considered asking the animals themselves about their preferences in this matter?
For an optimal understanding of an animal's welfare and preferences, it would be advisable to release the inhabitants of zoos and observe their decisions to either remain or depart. This would generate useful knowledge in this regard.
They’ll leave and then come right back. It always happens like that. Just like dogs and cats. When we let them go, they come right back.
Biased anthropomorphism at its finest.
Most animals, even our closest relatives like gorillas and chimpanzees, do not share the same cognitive thinking abilities like we do, and even if they *did*, I’ll use the same logic you are using, but instead flipping it on it’s head: would you ask, say, a wild cheetah, for example, if it would rather live in the wild, where even though they have your typical animal-rights activist’s view of “freedom”, however they’re still second-tier predators, regardless, and are under constant threat of bigger, badder predators like lions or hyenas, both trying to kill them to get rid of competition over resources and steal their hard-earned kills on a daily basis?
No, if the scenario goes like what *you’re* trying to convey than it would more than likely say “this sucks”, and if it’s a mother with cubs then, for the sake of her offspring, she’ll take the easy way out and live in a zoo where at least she doesn’t have to worry about any of her cubs being killed by rival predators and grow up knowing that they’ll be well cared for by zookeepers.
There’s always a price for “freedom”, and that’s the thing animal-rights activists outright refuse to ponder.
Ah yes we can totally speak tiger and giraffe 🤡🤡🤡
Yeah please don't ever compare humans being kept in captivity to animals. There's a reason we are the only species with skyscrapers, planes, nuclear bombs, computers, internet, etc.
As the other person pointed out, be careful not to anthropomorphize the animals, that is, attributing human traits to them, such as a longing for freedom.
Take a snake for instance, snakes are known to be perfectly fine in a small habitat with little stimulation, decor or movement. That would be living hell for any human being, but for snakes, they are fine with it. So don't assume all animals want what humans would want.
That ofc doesn't mean malpractices doesn't exist in zoos, or that some animals don't have proper habitats.
would a human experiencing stockhold syndrome prefer to be on their own? Probably not either. They would FEEL more protected by the person holding them captive. These animals in captivity feel safe sure and they just may be compared to the wild. But it's unethical to be kept in captivity in the first place.
They need vast open natural spaces,not enclosures.
Depends on what species; I believe that large carnivorous like tigers or bears aren’t suitable bc of they’re large appetite and dangerous for zookeepers
As they said. Without zoo's. A large number of animals would be extinct. As for the virtual cr@p they talk about is ludicrous at best. Simply hearing about an elephant is one thing. But showing a person what is at stake is better. As for the amount of funds going to preserving habitat and reintroduction efforts. If people would help more.( donate, volunteer, or educate). There could be more funding
So many in the comment section are idiots, thinking zoos shouldnt exist is stupidity
You want animal abuse to exist? Great choice kid, you just won the stupidity record!
@@unit-3650LOL YOU THINK ZOO KEEPERS WHIP TIGERS 🤡🤡🤡
it’s not necessary
@@sheridan7475 yes it is
@@sheridan7475Many animals went extinct and only came back because of zoos so you hate animals. Nice to know.
10% that visits zoos is no validation for them. The majority of people eats animals just for taste and pleasure but that argument does not hold against critical thinking on if it should be allowed to keep and kill animals just for food.
It's objectification writ large. The way scientists always say they're helping by accumulating more data. All nature needs is to have space and be left alone.
It's all good and well saying nature needs to be left alone but are we leaving it alone? Capitalism is lustful. Every single day, we encroach further into nature. It's hardly zoos that are destroying nature. Would we destroy nature if there were no zoos to remind us of what's really precious on the planet? I'd argue possibly yes. And probably at a faster pace. Therefore, zoos are a great idea. (I studied zoology at uni, incidentally. :D). Let's kick capitalism into touch, instead, eh?
That statement is entirely ignorant to the fact that many species, food chains, and even habitat spaces are in places that can’t and won’t be fixed by time left to their own devices.
Plenty of species now are functionally extinct (there isn’t enough animals for the species to properly bounce back due to limited genetics)
These species and the environments they come from need heavy supervision to even get into a place where they can naturally bounce back.
This situation is more complex than your led to believe.
This is why animal welfare and conservation (despite frequently being subject of public debate) is scientific stem field of biology that has frisbee experts making these decisions for a reason
"Should we still have zoo's? Let's ask the most unbiased source, the zoo!"
zoos aren't the only voice here
Yes!
we all experienced lockdown and went crazy for one year, just imagine being a poor wild animal spending all your days your whole life.
For me, I would rather touch an animal in.Feel them logged in a robot which yes it might have the same textures but won't be that good of an experience. Most people prefer hands-on experiences.And the zoo is a good example of that
Yes.
Why
@unit-3650 who tf is going to the arctic to see a polar bear in person and not the zoo where you can see one in person in a safe way
Maybe if they were animals no longer capable of surviving in the wild on their own for some reason, AND they could be kept in a way that didn't make them miserable, but otherwise, no.
Have to say, I disagree, sorry. 'No longer capable of surviving in the wild' reasons sounds like the end of the world would be merely days away. That is, all hope would be lost. Too late. We'd have failed at tackling the ecocide. Polar bears aside, the vast majority of animals in the vast majority of zoos are hardly going to be any more miserable than your average pet dog / cat / goldfish. With zoos, I'd argue you're more likely to create your zoologists of the future. Maybe one of which can defeat capitalism? And in the nick of time.
@@neillynch_ecocidologist Jesus Christ, get a grip. I was talking about animals that have injuries that would prevent them from lasting long. As for the rest of your rambling... go sleep it off.
@@HazyWave1974 Me get a grip? Look up the word, "Zoo" (which is what this video is about). Your small brain's obviously confusing ANIMAL RESCUE SANCTUARIES with zoos.
@@neillynch_ecocidologist Get a grip.
@@HazyWave1974 I guess you're a kid. So I apologise. Sorry. You're still totally wrong, though. Admit it when you're wrong and learn from those smarter than you, maybe? The video is about zoological gardens aka zoos which house animals (often raised in captivity) for display and conservation purposes (it's sad that we need to 'conserve' animals but due to the actions of our forebears lots of species are faring much worse number-wise than they otherwise would be). If you want 'petting zoos', enter the phrase in the search facility.
Thanks for watching and for your comments 😊If you'd like to watch more, we have a whole playlist all about animals here 👉th-cam.com/play/PLMrFM-P68Wh4b6aU6rZvGwHbnKAqEMXCU.html
There are pros and cons to having zoos of course, and if you like I do, have a pet then you really cannot argue against it.
Yes there’s a huge difference… quantity being a big one, but we’re both keeping animals captive, we give them love, food, attention and a great family/social life but we are still confining them, just like these zoos do.
Animals are incredible, I do prefer to see them out in the wild in their own natural habitat though, I’ve not been to a zoo since I was 11 so 18 years but I’m not going to slate those that do take frequent trips to the zoo, as long as the animals aren’t being mistreated and forced to do tricks like those poor creatures in places like seaworld or some carnivals/circus’ etc then it’s fine…
IELTS task 2 essay
real
Yes, zoos should exist. If we would think ethically, technology and research would not be as advanced today, and we wouldn't even know that animals can feel pain. So, non ethical thinking leads into better ethical thinking in the long run.
But has 'for the greater good' ideology ever worked out in history? Debatable.
And okay if we have learned that then great, but now we can close them then no?
Captive animals paying for human's greed of power, wealth and dominance.
You clearly don't know what an animal is. Animals get killed in the wild and often live longer happier lives in captivity. Look at rhino's, they are so aggressive in the wild. But in zoos they jump around when they see someone they like.
👌
Lots of reasons for / against. Mostly for, though. As a zoology graduate, I always like checking out zoos / aquaria in places I visit. For educational purposes, there can be no greater inspiration for a child to see 'happy' animals in a well-maintained zoo. There are too many nihilistic capitalists on the planet killing the planet. Nature needs saviours. Maybe someone will save nature, yet?
Sure, they are a little like 'prisons', you could argue, but most of the animals won't really care / realise that. And it's not like capitalism isn't wrecking their natural habitat (where individuals could meet their end through human encroachment).
So, yes, well-maintained zoos are a great idea. But maybe they should refrain from animals prone to stereotypical behaviour (ie *madness*). It's obviously cruel to exhibit polar bears walking back and forth in the same manner all day every day, like could be seen in a fair few zoos around the world in the past. Thankfully, those days are gone, though.
So what you're saying is "yes, we're keeping these animals in prison but I want to be educated so let's pretend that animals don't care if they're in cages or not. It's not like I can get educated through videos, books, etc. I need to see this animal in a cage to truly understand them."
@@GuitarBldr9 If you’re anti-zoo, you’re pro-trophy hunting.
@@GuitarBldr9 This. How can an animal no realise all the loud ass children and how it's being severely restricted. Make it make sense.
So you graduated with a degree in zoology and didn't learn basic animal behavior and psychology to know that animals being in a cage and gawked at all day leads to depression, anxiety, and other physical and mental conditions for that animal? You spent thousands money on a degree and think captive wild animals are happy in prison. Amazing. Zoos are animal jails and only teach kids and adults that enslaving wild animals for entertainment is ok. You can learn more watching a documentary about animals in their natural habitat exhibiting natural behavior than you would seeing a depressed animal in a zoo. Logic.
How can an animal not realize its being kept captive...i doubt you really studied zoology..
TIMMAH
Yes
No animals in Zoos, please! 🥺 For me, personally, it only is convincing if their living condition is better or equal to that of their natural habitat, for the sake of their protection, and both their physical and emotional needs are respected and cared for…!
they should be in the wild ,any conservation should be in the country and continent they come from
You can't insure that. If you did, you are on a fools gamble.
☀️
Zoos help with that.
Anything else would be supporting trophy hunting.
@@kaikaifilu4873 if you want to see these animals go to africa and see them in there natural environment context period,
if an african wanted to see a kola bear or a kangroo he have to go to Australia to see them in there natural home environment
if you want see a zebra a giraffe then go to africa
were africa benefits
if i want see panda ive got to go china
tsame thing with african animals
That's like saying no human should live outside of Africa.
Should BBC exist?
Uh Yeh ofc it should why shouldn’t it exist?
I got one in my pants 👖 rn
Zoos are cruel and animals should be left where they are and at most observed without disturbing them. The most disturbing thing are those people who use fine words and complex concepts to justify that well-maintained zoos are ok and that certain types of animals can be kept in a zoo, I consider them psychopaths. The only sector where captive animals can be justified in some way is the food sector, for our survival. But even here there would be a lot to change and we too should stop want to eat meat every day.
You’re pro-trophy hunting, then.
Zoos: provide quality life for animals with plenty of food, enrichment, lots of space, caring staff, protection from poachers, and training before reintroduced into the wild
You: "ZoOs ArE cRuEl"
Zoos never reintroduce animals into the wild and they condamn them to a miserable life in tight spaces only to please paying spectators.Then some1 can say that they're stupid and don't see the difference between freedom and jail but that's not the point,the point is that nature placed them in their habitat and that's where they belong,stupid,unaware,intelligent,sentient or not sentient nobody/nothing deserve that unless you're an evil,manipulative being.Don't get me wrong thou,i wouldn't esitate 3 secs to kill a wild animal or any animal to protect my self or some1 else.
Since when do we have to eat meat for survival?
You're right,nowadays we don't really need meat to "survive",i meant to say that killing and eating an animal only because you're hungry it's 100% justifiable even if it could be wrong for some people who are more empathetic towards them.About the food sector,well,they do even worse than zoos sometime.I just hope you get my general concept
As a kid I thought zoo protected endangered anmials and rehabilitate them. After more research I now understand that zoo are an incredible evil business with no let me repeat no ethical reasons.
ANIMAL FRIENDS SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND NOT BE FORCED INTO CAPTIVITY AND ALSO PROTECT THE ECOSYSTEM!
LUL
You see animals as firends, they see you as annoying or food. They aren't humans
no, animals should not be kept prisoners
You’re pro-trophy hunting, then.
@@kaikaifilu4873 your comment doesn't make sense
@@ravhirani2660 I think he meant if there's no zoo, which means most of animal species would be endangered from hunters.
@@avi_0213abolish zoos and ban hunting and incorporate animal rights into our education system because we have a very broken relationship with ALL animals
@ito_tofu5324 so I guess screw every extinct in the wild animal
No!
evillution is a lie
Kgob
Xib
It astounds me how we dont see such obvious moral flaws in our behavior
It astounds me you don't know zoos primarily study animals.
@@cosygoose1813 what's your point?
@@noah7477 Many animals would be extinct without zoos. Zoos are normally to studie animals and to get funding they charge to see them. And the walls aren't to keep the animals I they are to keep people out. Many big cats van leave but don't. That's Many Zoos in general.
Zoos are horrible let’s all be honest, none of these animals want to be contained. They are stripped from their lives, and they live in a small plot of land.
There are plenty of great zoos such as San Diego, Columbus, Toronto, Woodland Park, and Tampa. You need to have an emphasis on animals living in good conditions. "None of these animals want to be contained" is just an anthropomorphic fallacy that can't blanket the thousands of species' different needs. "Small plot of land" ultimately depends on which animal too. Modern times have made a lot of conscious effort to expand spaces for the animals' needs.
@@theonlytman2344don’t forget about whipsnade zoo
We put people in boxes and restrict their movemts it's called punishment. We put animals in boxes and restrict their movements its called entertainment.
I’m pretty sure we would call the humans in boxes entertainment if we had tours and annoying souvenir shops 😁
I mean, human zoos were a thing, you know?
@@osleem7845 เพ้อเจ้อ
@@osleem7845 I'm talking about prisons
If said "box" was a 5 star hotel room with a big backyard, protection, free food, things to get busy with, etc, then I would gladly pick that "box".
Because that's what zoos provide to animals, in a way. A quality life. And they weren't "locked up", they were BORN there.
You NPCs are fine if a place is called a "park" or "sanctuary". But take any of these two places and put the word "zoo" in it, and you all lose your minds.
Idiot.
If the zoo approximates the natural environment that the animal comes from, I think the only animals that should live in zoos are one that could never live successfully in the wild. For instance, disabled animals and animals that are too acclimated to humans to live in the wild. This would probably make zoos rare, but then it would be like a second chance for that animal that could never survive in the wild and I could buy the "animals as education" argument more. Also, animal breeding needs to stop at zoos and for domesticated animals. There are way too many stray cats, dogs, etc for humans to breed more animals that they throw away onto the street.
“...animal breeding needs to stop at zoos”.
Okay, but at the same time what are your thoughts on trophy hunting?
No.
No? They're hardly the worst abuse of nature, though, eh? Would us wonderful humans with our big brains and right wing voting patterns not destroy nature faster but for zoological gardens? I'd say 'yes'. Do we want that? I'd say 'no'. I loved zoos and went on to study zoology. 8 billion zoologists and there wouldn't be an ecocide. Just think how cool that would be, eh!
@@neillynch_ecocidologist It’s either that or trophy hunting, Neil.
I'm sure slave owners thought their slaves "had a good life" as well. To justify to themselves of course.
That's racist on so many levels. One animals who cannot take care of themselves exist. I'm not sure what you see in animals but it isn't people. Cheetahs are so stressed in the wild, but in captivity they get help. Rihnos go from kill on site to giant puppies. Please be racist somewhere else.
Prison.
The wild is often way, way, *way* worse.
How do you know?
@@Social_Brat Do you *really* think being eaten alive in the wild by predators is superior to living a long life in captivity?
@@kaikaifilu4873and being safe from diseases and trophy hunters
@@kaikaifilu4873You really think they can live on this earth on their own who do you or this Homo sapiens think they are. leave them free. Dont justify your ego in this way or another. who the fuck give rights to human to keep a living beings behind the var just for fun and entertainment. It just show the mentality of human that how shallow a human can be.
No
So you are smarter than BBC?
@@meeswander7328 no, I am not showing the sate of my smartness. I just don’t like the idea of torturing the animals & caged them for our entertainment
@@snigdha5039 i can understand, but know, in a age of wildlife decline, we really need zoos
@@snigdha5039 eat cows
@CG Ah nice! Another person who doesn't know how the zoo community works! I am very much looking forward to this! (I'm being sarcastic) Firstly the wildlife decline (sometimes even called the sixth mass extinction) this is due to humans, hunting (especially poaching) and habitat destruction are indeed a few causes. But climate change, fishing, pollution and invasive species are also causes. But the role of zoos in all of this, they protect these animals from outside dangers. They also breed species to prevent extinction, which are also sold to other zoos for their breeding programs. Okay, here's a list of animals that would have gone extinct without zoos:
Arabian oryx
Amur leopard
Paterdavid deer
Scimitar horned oryx
Preswalziki horse
Indochinese tiger
barbary lion
Red wolf
Giant panda
Protecting areas can help, but also can't help. Since Western people visit a zoo more often than go on safari, that is certainly better.
This sick society sees animals as a spectacle.
No we actually save them more than we harm them they get more harm in the wild by other animals or their own
@@bobbygotthesauce8204
You have an anthropocentric vision. Nature doesn't need us.
I hate how it's even a question. The answer is obviously no. If it's wrong to keep an African Pygmy in captivity, then it's wrong to keep creatures in captivity.
Equating non-sapient animals to human beings is a major anthropomorphic fallacy.
@@theonlytman2344Nah, it's called empathy for other sentient beings.
@@royhay5741 "A human is not compatible with a controlled environment. Therefore, non-human animals aren't." The problem with your logic is that it equates species of different cognitive functions to a sapient species like humans. For a lot of animals like domestic dogs or cats, they have higher quality of life in human care than in the wild. You can also bring that up for bearded dragons or spider monkeys when you provide their necessary enrichment.
no
NO NO and NO!!!!!!!
Definitely not.
I hate zoos
I don't agree with zoos. As we have them, large & intelligent animals should NOT be held captive in zoos which includes:🐘🐒🐯🦏🦍🦒🦁
Lions,tiger,cheetah,bear,hippo,whales , gorilla ,monkies should not be in zoo cuz they are animals who like exploring , hunting ,finding food , killing each other
And for animals which are gonna go extinct they should be kept in a large areas of land with some professional doctors,workers,guards and in their suited habitat like forest. In that way it would be good for the animal they could run , be givens good food,care , zoos have a very small area for big animals
@@Fight77965You get the funding then. And animals like gorilla's are brought in that cannot survive in the wild, or were going to die.
No
No