Well say you were getting thrown into a pit of lions imagine how much pain you would feel well those animals feel the same. I honestly think it's not right at all i think it should be illegal what about you guys so i'm going to say it you still want to feed animals to them huh i'll throw you in a pit of posinous spiders
Feeding live animals is not necessary and only feeds a human's morbid facination. Using carcasses and perhaps simulated live prey scenarios are more humane and less likely to cause injury to the predator. Of course the ultimate in humane treatment is to not use them as a spectator sport and get rid of zoos altogether. Unfortunately that will never happen.
The con argument goes like this: carnivores naturally eat other animals; therefore it is morally good for humans to feed carnivores in captivity other animals. That's a non-sequitur and a fallacious appeal to nature. The first is an observation of fact, in the domain of non-human animals. The second is a moral judgment, not of the behavior of the animal in question but of human behavior, another domain. A simple factual observation can not form the foundation for a moral judgment, especially not if the fact is from one domain and the moral judgment applicable to a different domain. It seems to me that the con side confuse moral evaluation of carnivore behavior (which doesn't make much sense) with moral evaluation of human behavior. The only justification I can come up with for the practice is that the carnivore's life is much more valuable than that of the prey. If the carnivore could solely subsist on oysters, meal worms etc., and if we argue that oysters and meal worms are not sentient, then it's plausible. But if we feed various sentient animals such as mice, pigs, rabbits etc to other sentient animals, it is hard to see how we can come up with a justification for the practice. Assuming equal moral consideration for the interests of all animals involved - predator as well as prey - the only justifiable actions in the absence of appropriate plant-based food is release of the carnivore into its natural domain (if that is possible) or euthanizing the carnivore in question.
Whether something is natural or not is totally irrelevant. We're happy to go against nature when that benefits us, we fight disease, for instance. What matters is only whether this is harmful for the victims. And it is. To start with, there shouldn't be any zoos, in addition, no animal should be made to suffer for the sake of another one.
Aren't zoo lovers animal lovers? Shouldn't they consider the comfort and at the very least a level of good fortune for all animals. The reality of carnivores indeed poses a seeming paradox, for they obviously must be fed "meat." That reality should not give the most powerful element of this equation, mankind, the right to set up a Romanesque stage of blood and horror where the prey have no right to live in THEIR nature-- a setting where their instincts to escape can have equal opportunity. I was once traumatized by seeing a museum's snake pit filled with live chicks walking around in what must of been a horrific and hopeless life-- the equivalent of throwing a human child into a shark pool. Nature's brutality must be respected but not celebrated. We must consider what promoting and allowing such horror in our zoos promotes in the minds of the children we are trying to entertain and educate. It is self evident to me that the effects can only be vastly negative. Once carnivores are given the easy life of captivity, they must learn to eat their meat (meat that is produced under the most compassionate guidelines possible) out of a bowl like the rest of us.
Often the human feel that they are better than the rest of the animals. Offering a live prey is killing, not feeding ! The wild is totally different as the animal in the wild has the power and right to defend his life. Animals think and have sentiments, just like us, the human animals.
I think that except in rare cases where an animal will not eat prey that is not still alive, that it is cruel for a zoo to feed live prey to it's animals. It might be the way animals eat in the wild, but it is unnecessary in this situation. Also, the prey has no chance to outrun it's predator. The prey could be frozen or more humanely gassed ahead of time. Prey animals also attack and hurt predators and could cause them infections or even kill them.
For the most part, I agree that live animals should not be fed to carnivores. Even though it is said that this maintains the hunting instinct, such as in feeding live rabbits to tigers, zoo animals are not usually released into the wild and would have no need to maintain the ability to hunt. Feeding them live animals may also make them more dangerous to zoo personnel who enter the enclosures to maintain them.
In their natural environments, carnivores kill herbivores. The camera crews on a wide range of nature documentaries explain how they would like to save a baby gazelle from a cheetah but can't because it's nature. That is the natural scale. In British zoos, the large majority do not feed live animals to carnivores (save for some insects which are fed to freshwater fish). Therefore, in the UK it doesn't really apply. In other countries (I'm not naming any in particular because I don't know which zoos feed their animals with live feed), we should let nature take its course. Rats are eaten by snakes, which I think is far better than them being shot when they get into kitchens. Whilst it is morbid, it is a better use of them; it's not such a waste.
Feeding live animals to carnivores in zoos is not wrong, it's part of their nature and that's how they will have fed if they were born in the wild, it may seem cruel but it is how nature works, in fact in some cases where there maybe a possibility for an animal to change habitat(a park or nature) it is important for it to know how to hunt
It may seem inhumane, but it's more inhumane to deny animals that happen to be carnivores their natural appetite for live flesh. It is actually better if we accommodate animals to the best of our ability so that they are living in an environment that is not too different from their natural habitat.
I believe it is fine to feed carnivores live animals, if that is what they typically feed on in the wild. Not all animals actively hunt live animals, some seek out food that has already died. Such as vultures. When an animal naturally hunts their food in the wild I think it is important to give them a similar experience if they are housed in a zoo.
There are carnivores in the zoo that need to be fed animals to stay alive. Some of these animals will not eat animals that are already dead but need to kill the animal themself. Feeding carnivores live animals is simply part of the food chain and should not be looked upon negatively.
Carnivores in the wild have to hunt for their food. Although in zoos, they are kept in artificial environments, their living conditions should be as close as possible to what their wild habitats would be. That includes eating live prey. It is also beneficial to the animals to maintain their hunting skills, get some physical activity, and improve their well-being.
Zoos are supposed to create as close to a natural habitat and conditions as possible. Animals spend the majority of their time hunting. Feeding them live animals stimulates their prey drive, gives them exercise, helps them to feel contented and stimulated and much more. It is their main occupation in the wild.