Woah, what?? You didn't offend! Don't be silent... keep on talking.
I do apologise if I gave you the wrong impression. You know me, I do my best to provide the hard evidence I know.
Last edited by a moderator:
Woah, what?? You didn't offend! Don't be silent... keep on talking.
I do apologise if I gave you the wrong impression. You know me, I do my best to provide the hard evidence I know. Its easy to say but I dont think I've read any thing that proves that. Harlow,H (1958) "The Nature of Love" 13 (12) 673 - 85 proved rhesus monkeys would treat a dog likes its mum. He also proved they would treat a lightbulb wrapped in a blanket like their mum as well. But I dont think thats a spontaneous inter-species relationship.
OK, that's a 1958 paper. A lot has changed since then. Also, we certainly cannot sidestep human involvement in a closed-environment study with test monkeys and utensils. Primate psychology is its own branch of research altogether, isn't it? What we cannot know is whether the monkeys, after being introduced to a dog, thought that the lead researcher, upon introducing them to a blanket, sought the same response from them. I haven't read the paper, so I don't know whether positive reinforcement was used with the dog. Like @fzjohnson I believe it might be more reliable to look at wild relationships (just that it doesn't necessarily mean that all kinds of human involvement is a pollutant).
But, yep, I guess we could say that since animal psychology is still in its infancy we might not be able to say much more than we don't know. Conceded
Last edited by a moderator:
Today i took my daughter to a zoo (yes i know i will be a monster in some of your eyes, but she likes it and that what i care about) and i had a taught.
Do you think some animals if they had a choice would want to be in zoos?
So i have come up with a taught experiment "what would you choose: would you prefer to be a wild pigeon, with all that includes, you have to fight for your food, you will die prematurely at the hands of a predator but you have the whole sky to fly in or a pet parrot. You get feed everyday, you are cared for and you live out you life in peace but you never get to really flap those wings."
I think i would be the parrot
Do you think some animals if they had a choice would want to be in zoos?
So i have come up with a taught experiment "what would you choose: would you prefer to be a wild pigeon, with all that includes, you have to fight for your food, you will die prematurely at the hands of a predator but you have the whole sky to fly in or a pet parrot. You get feed everyday, you are cared for and you live out you life in peace but you never get to really flap those wings."
I think i would be the parrot
You are thinking, as is only possible, like a human being. Captive birds that cannot fly freely or migrate are at an extremely high risk of developing zoochosis. Animals can become depressed if their instincts get suppressed. Lions need to hunt. What the public doesn't realise is that either these animals are fed prepared meats or other animals are baited to the predators when the zoo is closed to the public. What about those animals? In the wild, they would have a chance.
Pigeons don't fight for food. They forage, and there is plenty food to be foraged. As mentioned above, zoo animals often become 'spent' just like many animals (such as dairy heifers, lay hens) in the agriculture industry. Zoos are a business, and most visitors want to see a vital, interesting, active animal in front of them - not an old, decrepit one. Zoo animals are put down, culled, sold. They are prodded and probed, and their choices are taken from them. There is nothing peaceful about the sounds of screaming children, about being shipped from place to place in containers. Exotic animals are treated much like art works - they are loaned from place to place, and the zoo is just as much a voyeuristic gallery than any other.
Children want to know the truth. I once took my younger sisters to see reindeer at Christmas in Covent Garden. I explained to them about the natural habitat of reindeer in Scandinavia, I explained that their antlers had been sawn off for a reason ('human safety') and that, if they looked closely, they would see that the antlers they appeared to be wearing were temporary substitutes that were pinned to the stumps that remained. That there were tags in their ears where they had been pierced without anaesthesia. I reminded them how painful it was to have their own lobes pierced and that was with aid of a local anaesthetic. I explained that there was nothing natural about the journey they had taken to get to the middle of one of the largest cities on earth, and that a bale of hay on the hard concrete provided no comfort to them. That the loud and strange noises of a technological society frightened them.
My sisters didn't cry, they didn't shout at me, they just asked 'how can we help them?' Up until I spoke to them, they ahhed and oooed. When I asked them if they'd rather not have known, that was when I saw a look of pure horror and anger on their faces. It's not an innocence taken away. The real innocence is in seeing the connection and pain for animal suffering in the eyes of a child.
Of course, we're all very sure when it comes to how we want to engage our children with the world.
Last edited by a moderator:
I like to engage in the conversation. Sarcasm not necessary.
You're welcome to start a new thread with a simple poll.
You're welcome to start a new thread with a simple poll.
Hello,
Zoos, for entertainment? No, thank you. Taking animals from the wild or breeding wild animals in captivity and then throwing them behind glass so people can pay too stare and point at them... is expoilation at it's finest. I think zoos are cruel and disturbing... I don't care how well maintained the facilities are or how well they care for the animals. Whether it's a city zoo, Sea world, a Circus... or whatever, animals for entertainment is wrong and I'll never support them.
Zoos, for entertainment? No, thank you. Taking animals from the wild or breeding wild animals in captivity and then throwing them behind glass so people can pay too stare and point at them... is expoilation at it's finest. I think zoos are cruel and disturbing... I don't care how well maintained the facilities are or how well they care for the animals. Whether it's a city zoo, Sea world, a Circus... or whatever, animals for entertainment is wrong and I'll never support them.
As a general rule, I am against zoos. I might hold an exception for zoos that are more like animal sanctuaries and have lots of rescued animals, and hold the wellbeing of the animals as top priority, not money. However, for one, I don't agree with keeping "wild" animals locked up in enclosures, including "natural habitat" enclosures, just for profit, or just for humans to see them or even for so-called "conservation". The wellbeing of individual animals is more important to me than the conservation of species. Don't get me wrong, I love tigers and other endangered animals, but I think that, if we are to protect them, the best way forward is to work at preserving their habitats and stopping the unnecessary killing of these animals.Here's a tricky one...
How do you feel about Zoo's?
Personally... I feel as though as it's wrong to keep wild animals actually any animal caged up for it's whole life for entertainment, you could argue that keeping animals in a zoo is better than poachers killing them in the wild?
What are your views, let's hear them
I have something to say to those who support zoos. Would you like it if human beings were endangered, and a group of aliens captured you and put you in an enclosure with some total strangers for "entertain", "education" and "conservation" reasons? Zoos keep animals locked up. There is no two ways about it. Yes, some of these animals would not survive in the wild, but animal sanctuaries and the zoos that act more like them are the answer, not zoos that just keep animals locked up just for profit or even flawed "conservation" reasons.
Best of luck.
