[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I went for a run this weekend that took past the entrance to the Denver Zoo. There were half a dozen people standing in front of it with protest signs that essentially said that the animals were being held prisoner. I think one of the signs said something like, "Confinement is not conservation."

It's kind of an interesting debate in my mind, because yeah, the animals in zoos are being confined. They're not running free in the grassland or the ocean or the swamp or whatever. One can argue that even if they're getting regular food and health care and other things that aren't available to animals living in the wild, this is still not what the animal would prefer. (As a human, would you take this deal?)

But on the other hand, get real. If not for zoos, I think a lot of species would be at greater risk. I presume that zoos do good work in understanding animals that helps conservation in the wild, and I figure they're vital with keeping some species alive that are endangered. Plus, I suspect that most people would never see these animals outside a zoo, so there'a public relations, awareness, and fundraising element that zoos provide.

Thoughts? I guess one could argue that the current animals in zoos are sacrificing their freedom for the good of their species. I'm not sure that they're that thoughtful, though. I'm pro-zoo in the big scheme of things.

In the context of Henry Doorly (and I'm sure most major zoos) the animals are not in cages per se. They are in habitats, albeit artificial. It does indeed raise awareness of animals, educates the public about them, and conservation efforts are strengthened by them. I'd say that most animals wouldn't "prefer" it (if it's possible for an animal that runs on instinct can prefer anything) but they adapt to it and are fine. All they know is that they are fed, cared for, and they have a pretty nice little spot to live in. I don't think they know they are in a zoo nor do they pine for the wilderness. JMO.