A Buenos Aires zoo to close after 140 years, claiming "Captivity is degrading." Do you think zoos are degrading to animals?

  • Zoos are not where the animals are meant to be.

    Animals are meant to live in the wild. Sadly, in the world we live in, it might be the safest choice for some animals. Of course, it is possibly the easiest way to show children the beauty of creatures of the wild, but it is a bit degrading of the animals' lives. We should instead set up more wildlife refuges instead of these closed enclosures in which these animals are being kept.

  • Yes, captivity is degrading.

    Yes, zoos are degrading to animals. Locking up animals of all types solely for the enjoyment of humans is something that not only should not be legal, but should not be enjoyable. Sure, the animals may be cute walking around the zoo, but they'd be much happier not living in confinement.

  • Yes, animals should be left to stay in the wild.

    The report on Buenos Aires zoo closure, is a sweet music in the ears of animal lovers. Animals have the right to stay in their natural habitat and holding them in an enclosed place is indeed degrading them. Maximum protection should be offered to this animals when they are in their natural habitat.

  • Zoos aren't the best choice for animals

    No animal should be forced to live in a zoo: it is not their natural habitat. When animals live in zoos, they are degraded to be simply entertainment for gawking humans. The Buenos Aires zoo that is closing has made the right choice: it is best to let animals roam free in their natural homes.

  • Zoos can be a safe haven for some animals.

    Even though it is easy for one to see how placing animals in "captivity" can be deemed as degrading to animals, in some instances it could certainly be a safe haven for some of those same animals. Think about those animals that are on the brink of extinction due to poaching and other human influences such as building homes and occupying their territories/homes. Would we rather that these animals all die or would we rather preserve them in our zoos?

  • With many exceptions, Zoos tend to be a viable source of income and rehabilitation for misplaced or endangered animals.

    Well you can't just sit down and ask a animal his feelings! Scientist would figure out it's cortisol count, to see if it is stressed with being placed in captivity. There are some exceptions, like Orcas or elephants for example should never be in captivity, because often we can not simulate a proper environment for them to thrive in. There is also possible relocation of endangered or hurt animals while also providing tourism income, at the same time of rehabilitating a animal. You think the wild isn't degrading? A lot of these animals live longer in captivity and enjoy being put off their local food chain. I guess it also depends on what zoo, 1st world zoos tend to be well kempt, in exception of San Antonio. I heard horrid stories of overseas zoos like one in the Philippines where zoo keepers put formaldehyde in a tiger's food to put it asleep, which I clearly don't agree with. There is also the educational component, as well as biosphere ecology development research.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.