Are animals better off at the zoo then in the wild? why?

Question

it is 4 sch wrk pls help me

Answer 1

depends on the animal.

a zoo enclosure provides everything an animal needs in a condensed area. hence an animal in the wild is just as well off as an animal in the zoo if it has a territory in which food, water,shelter, and perhaps a mate are provided.

Answer 2

PRO's:

Animals belong in their natural habitat in the wild. It is a breach of their natural rights to take them by force into captivity for our own purposes.   Animals do not have rights. In any case, zoos, as we will see below, exist to protect endangered species and to help us understand and protect our animal cousins more successfully. One of the reasons animals are taken into captivity in zoos is because they are under threat if they stay in their natural habitat (see point 4).  

  

Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer. They are inevitably confined in unnaturally small spaces, and are kept from the public by cages and bars. They suffer psychological distress, often displayed by abnormal or self-destructive behaviour. Aquatic animals do not have enough water, birds are prevented from flying away by having their wings clipped and being kept in aviaries.   There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should be shut down.  

  

Adults and children visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for our own ends, however it impinges on their freedom or quality of life; thus zoos will encourage poor treatment of animals more generally. People do not go to zoos for educational reasons they simply go to be entertained and diverted by weird and wonderful creatures seen as objects of beauty or entertainment. As a form of education the zoo is deficient: the only way to understand an animal properly is to see it in its natural environment – the zoo gives a totally artificial and misleading view of the animal by isolating it from its ecosystem.   Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education. Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation. Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a direct experience of other species that will increase ecological awareness.  

  

There are two problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species. First, they do not have a very high success rate – many species are going extinct each week despite the good intentions of some zoos. This is partly because a very small captive community of a species is more prone to inter-breeding and birth defects. Secondly, captive breeding to try to stave off extinction need not take place in the context of a zoo, where the public come to look at captive animals and (often) see them perform tricks. Captive breeding programmes should be undertaken in large nature reserves, not within the confines of a zoo.   One of the main functions of zoos is to breed endangered animals in captivity. If natural or human factors have made a species' own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention. There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them. And as long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo. There is also, of course, a valid role for breeding in different environments such as large nature reserves.  

  

As above, research into animals (when it respects their rights and is not cruel or harmful) may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context of confinement and human entertainment. Also, the only way really to understand other species is to study them in their natural habitat and see how they interact socially and with other species of flora and fauna.   As above we should take a 'both-and' approach rather than an 'either-or' approach. Animals can and should be studied in the wild but they can be studied more closely, more rigorously, and over a more sustained period of time in captivity. Both sorts of study are valuable and, as in point 4, there is no reason why this should not be done in the context of a cruelty-free zoo as well as in other contexts

CON's:

Animals do not have rights. In any case, zoos, as we will see below, exist to protect endangered species and to help us understand and protect our animal cousins more successfully. One of the reasons animals are taken into captivity in zoos is because they are under threat if they stay in their natural habitat (see point 4).

There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should be shut down.

Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education. Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation. Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a direct experience of other species that will increase ecological awareness.

One of the main functions of zoos is to breed endangered animals in captivity. If natural or human factors have made a species' own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention. There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them. And as long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo. There is also, of course, a valid role for breeding in different environments such as large nature reserves.

As above we should take a 'both-and' approach rather than an 'either-or' approach. Animals can and should be studied in the wild but they can be studied more closely, more rigorously, and over a more sustained period of time in captivity. Both sorts of study are valuable and, as in point 4, there is no reason why this should not be done in the context of a cruelty-free zoo as well as in other contexts.

Answer 3

yes, they`re better in the zoo because in the wild they have more chances of being killed and the zoo provides evryting they need !

Answer 4

I used to be an Animal Keeper in a very prominent zoo in the USA, so I can tell you first hand that zoos are no place for animals.  Zoos exist for one reason, and one reason only:  for the public, NOT for the animals.  The animals in zoos come "second" and always will.  If a zoo has extra money, it will spend that money on new benches for the people, before it will spend that money on expanding the Rhino exhibit to keep the male from killing the female because she can't get away from him.  I know, 'cause I saw it happen.

Wild animals belong in the wild, and only in the wild.  These animals play an important roll in the environment, and without them there would be no balance and the earth would not survive.  The biggest problem is, that these same wild animals need to be "left completely alone" in the wild, and man will probably never do that.  Mans desire to breed, with no regard for the consequences of overpopulation, will destroy himself and the world anyway.  And, is pushing many of these poor animals out of their territories and into extinction.

Answer 5

i guess for the endangered they are better off in the zoos,,,till their numbers increases b4 releasing into the wild....but if not better in the wild....

Answer 6

In many ways, yes, animals are better off in zoos. In captivity they do not have to contend with the constant dangers of the wild - disease, injury, predation, starvation, etc. Consider that in the wild, in many species only around half of all offspring born make it to adulthood, whereas in captivity all offspring usually survive. This is especially important when you consider how endangered some species are.

Zoos are vital for educating people about animals and conservation, and for preserving and breeding endangered species. Without captive breeding, many endangered species would now be extinct - for example, the golden lion tamarin, red wolf and Przewalski's horse. Of course we should also protect animals' natural habitats, but if endangered species were to become extinct in the wild (which sadly seems quite likely in the near future), zoos and wildlife parks will have preserved them for future generations, with enough genetic diversity that the possibility for reintroduction to the wild exists.

Whilst captive conditions in the past were often cruel, the animals being kept in cramped cages and so on, today's zoos are carefully regulated - the animals are kept in conditions as close as possible to their natural habitat, with plenty of space, good diets and immediate medical care if they need it. Species which need mental stimulation are given toys or are fed in a way which requires the animal to use its brain in order to obtain the food.

Captive-bred animals have known nothing else, so it is not as if they miss the wild - if they were unhappy in captivity zoos would not achieve the breeding success they do (unhappy and unhealthy animals do not breed). If they were released into the wild they would not know how to survive, and would either be killed by predators or suffer a slow death from starvation.

I don't know what sort of establishment YourOuthouse worked in, but all zoos I am familiar with in civilized countries are there primarily for the animals, which always take precedence over the public.