Should zoos and circuses be banned?

InFront

Given that most zoos contribute very little to scientific research, and that they tend to serve as an entertainment facility rather than conservation projects (except, obviously in a few specific cases) should we allow or encourage the very artificial practice of housing animals from all around the world in cages, enclosures, tanks and sheds in, for example, what is a relatively small parkland accomodation site right here in Dublin, Ireland?

I was at Dublin Zoo recently and started to wonder about how ethical it is to hold animals outside of their natural habitat, in restricted environments without proper freedom to roam or breed or feed or exist as they would in the wilderness that they have been adapted for.

However one positive thing is that zoos do make some effort to compensate for taking animals from their natural environments, and I understand that they try to include variation in their routine and their enclosures. The same cannot be said for circuses, which I personally find totally indefensible and outdated.

Is it about time that circuses were banned, or entertainment zoos, or both?

Bottle_of_Smoke

From what I've seen of the conditions circus animals live in, yes they should be shut down.

InFront wrote:

I was at Dublin Zoo recently and started to wonder about how ethical it is to hold animals outside of their natural habitat, in restricted environments without proper freedom to roam or breed or feed or exist as they would in the wilderness that they have been adapted for.

Well most humans have to go through that too. I see your point & I would agree keeping the likes of Alligators, Crocs, Big Cats, hippos & other large aggressive mammals is very cruel. And the great apes of course.

However if we're going to go down that road, should animal farming be banned? A vegetarian might argue eating meat is entertainment as it's not a requirement for survival. The animals in the zoo are getting a much better deal than the vast majority of chicken eaten every day.

I love the Zoo, I'd be vehemiantly against closing it unless a big safari park was opened to compensate my, admittedly selfish wants.

By the way what sort of conditions are the big cats in now? Has been a while but last time I was in Dublin Zoo it was pretty appauling

nacho libre

I'll never forget the misearble looking Elephant i saw at Dublin Zoo as a child. So my answer is yes for Zoos that are not involved in conservation projects.

Nevyn

I don't support circuses with animals and y kids agree with me.

As for Zoos, dublin zoo was originaly a victroina model and thankfully has been upgraded with larger enclosures.

krankykitty

Of course, in an ideal world there would be no such thing as zoos as they would be all living in their natural habitats, and not under threat from poachers and other such problems. However, it's far from an ideal world and I believe under the circumstances, a *properly run* zoo whose main ethos is conservation and research is very necessary. It can obviously have the spin-off effect of being entertaining and educational, but for many zoos, including Dublin Zoo, that is not the main aim, and the welfare of the animals is always the priority. Dublin Zoo holds the studbook for various endangered species who, if nothing was done, could be extinct by now.

It has changed immensely over the last 10 years, for a zoo which was as Thaedydal said was built in the Victorian times when entertainment and spectacle was the main aim of zoos, to being one where conservation is the goal.

InFront

if we're going to go down that road, should animal farming be banned?

To be honest, I think some forms of it should be, yes. But that's completely impractical and unworkable, of course. Cloding zoos that don't need to be there, and banning circuses seems like a much more achievable step to take, I think it's one which should be explored.

what sort of conditions are the big cats in now?

I wouldn't be able to comment on their emotional state or their health obviously, but I was talking to one guy working there who explained the lengths they go to in creating a stimulating environment with an area to take "time-out" from onlookers, which is good.
Having said that, one tiger was fence walking the whole time, and everything else was just lying off looking bored. Curtailing their natural environment and activities - breeding, feeding, roaming - just seems to pointless, what's it all for? From a humane point of view, are such artificial environments better than extinction?

InFront

krankykitty wrote:

It has changed immensely over the last 10 years, for a zoo which was as Thaedydal said was built in the Victorian times when entertainment and spectacle was the main aim of zoos, to being one where conservation is the goal.

I'm not convinced that conservation or education is the main aim of Dublin Zoo. Sure, kids are taught a little about the zoo animals, but it doesn't really amount to much and isn't anything you couldn't pick up from reading or seeing on the TV or internet.
Dublin's conservation work doesn't seem to be exhaustive, they don't seem to prioritise or focus particularly on animals in order of their danger of extinction. Surely the best thing anyway is to focus on preserving an animal poulation within its natural environment?

aidan24326

Zoos are debatable, circuses aren't. Their treatment of animals is a disgrace and any parent bringing their kids to the circus should really think about what they're doing, though unfortunately most won't. Then again as someone mentioned eating a factory chicken is supporting cruelty that is at least as bad or worse so where do we draw the line?

krankykitty

InFront wrote:

I'm not convinced that conservation or education is the main aim of Dublin Zoo. Sure, kids are taught a little about the zoo animals, but it doesn't really amount to much and isn't anything you couldn't pick up from reading or seeing on the TV or internet.
Dublin's conservation work doesn't seem to be exhaustive, they don't seem to prioritise or focus particularly on animals in order of their danger of extinction. Surely the best thing anyway is to focus on preserving an animal poulation within its natural environment?

Dublin Zoo works alongside other European zoos on breeding programmes and research of endangered species which, if nothing was done could be facing extinction.

It educates people about these animals and maybe more importantly, the reasons WHY they are endangered - for instance, deforestation of the Orang utan's natural habitat is the source of palm oil products and hard woods - which general Joe Public might not know. That information may lead someone to make a more informed choice about what they buy which in turn could have a positive effect on orangs in the wild.

It also runs fundraising for the protection of animals in the wild - there was thousands raised in the current Rhino campaign.

I take the point that the best thing is to focus on preserving animals in their natural habitat - that is obviously the best situation but its a little idealistic when we factor in the amount of destruction capable by the human race.

I don't quite get your point about the zoo's prioritising of animals in the order of extinction?

Gurgle

InFront wrote:

Dublin's conservation work doesn't seem to be exhaustive, they don't seem to prioritise or focus particularly on animals in order of their danger of extinction. Surely the best thing anyway is to focus on preserving an animal poulation within its natural environment?

Its a trade off between what they would like to do and how to pay for it.

Breeding programs are an expensive business, as is providing a suitable environment. Dublin Zoo has become one of the best in the world on both scores, but they need every cent coming in at the gate to pay for it.

I agree about circuses - and tbh I don't understand how they get away with it. There are laws which ban the mistreatement of animals, puppy farms are closed down and pets confiscated if they are being mistreated yet circuses seem to exist outside the law on this.

Check the ISPCA website regarding circuses:
here

The ISPCA believes that circuses which use performing animals are cruel and unnecessary. Please don’t go to them. There are many circuses without animals – try those instead.

But, of course, they don't provide a list.

looksee

I stopped going to circuses many years ago as I cannot justify animals being hauled around the country in the way they are. I don't feel quite so strongly about horses and dogs being used as they are domesticated, but there is no excuse for essentially wild animals. While I can see some value in zoos I think it is overstated and it is not appropriate to keep many animals in small spaces, especially cats and polar bears.

doctor evil

Some wild animals are easier to domesticate than others. I have no problem with zoos and circuses as long as they are run properly.

Tim Robbins

doctor evil wrote:

Some wild animals are easier to domesticate than others. I have no problem with zoos and circuses as long as they are run properly.

Many of the animals contained endangered species and are part of protection programs. So we have to have zoos. They should just be bigger so the animals have more space.
Dublin Zoo has got better, but with the amount of space up in the Phoenix park, it could easily be twice the size it is and I don't think anybody would mind.

pwd

aidan24326 wrote:

Zoos are debatable, circuses aren't. Their treatment of animals is a disgrace and any parent bringing their kids to the circus should really think about what they're doing, though unfortunately most won't. Then again as someone mentioned eating a factory chicken is supporting cruelty that is at least as bad or worse so where do we draw the line?

That sums it up really in my opinion.
Went to both the zoo and the circus in the last few months.
I felt sorry for some of the animals in the zoo, but most seemed comfortable enough.
The circus on the other hand was absolutely sickening.

Animal circuses are funded by the arts council in this country. I consider this to be absurd.

InFront

krankykitty wrote:

I don't quite get your point about the zoo's prioritising of animals in the order of extinction?

The point is that neither the giraffe nor the elephant are two animals that are high up on the danger list, and yet are being bred at Dublin in place of animals which are in immediate danger. I don't think conservation is the raison d'etre for Dublin zoo, I don't think it's the reason people wake up to go and work there or why it is kept there, I think it's an excuse for a zoo for its own sake.
What does Dublin Zoos' insect conservation programme amount to? There are a great many insects of the verge of extinction, in much deeper trouble than elephants, isn't it true that the organisation dedicated to wildlife conservation is just ignoring that in place of less endangered animals, and locking those less endangered animals up in pointless enclosures they'll never be released from anyway?

The elephants who never were elephants, etc.

krankykitty

InFront wrote:

The point is that neither the giraffe nor the elephant are two animals that are high up on the danger list, and yet are being bred at Dublin in place of animals which are in immediate danger.

Asian elephants, which the zoo has recently taken from Rotterdam Zoo, are in fact endangered species. Their African counterparts are not in as much trouble which is where you may be getting the idea that they are not high on the danger list from.

There simply isn't enough space in the zoo to take on EVERY species in danger, however the zoos work together to ensure as much as possible is done. I remember a while back in Edinburgh Zoo a particular very popular species died off (can't remember which) but the point is that the zoo was not allowed to take on more of that species as their conservation status had improved. The zoos association had them take in an endangered species of antelope instead.

I know you do not agree with zoos but I think it is taking it a little too far to say that conservation is not their raison d'etre for Dublin zoo. The little profits they make go to improving the enclosures and looking after the animals. Who else benefits? Why else would they do it?

InFront

krankykitty wrote:

Asian elephants, which the zoo has recently taken from Rotterdam Zoo, are in fact endangered species.

But I understand that they are endangered, they're just nowhere near extinction as other mammals or insects - many of whom are getting wiped out forever on a weekly basis. That suggests that Dublin is not all about the principle of conservation.
It's also fair to say that breeding programmes like such that exist here are never going to have any real impression on the numbers of Asian Elelphants in the wild.
A new calf was born at the zoo a few weeks ago. There is absolutely no plan to place him in a natural habitat. If he's an appropriate breeder, he will be used for fathering a new calf, and another one, and eventually another one, and all will be zoo animals bred to exist in European zoos. The notion of bringing elephants to Europe to breed them and then sending individuals back to Asia piecemeal in tiny numbers, and expecting that to affect change is just ridiculous. Asian Elephant conservation begins and belongs in Asia, that should be the focus.

stovelid

Circuses: I find them degrading so no.

Zoos: Maybe. It's a good thing for people (esp kids) to see animals in the flesh without massive cost but cooped enclosures, bored animals etc are cruel.

Personally speaking as an kid that was crazy about animals; on one hand it was fantastic seeing animals up close without having to go abroad but sometimes upsetting to see agitated animals, cruel conditions etc.

There could hopefully be some balance between the two.

Run_to_da_hills

I have no time at all for the way wild animals are treated in circuses and will refuse to go to them on principal.

However zoos can be both educational and helpful for the protection and research of endangered species. Many animals would be extinct by poachers if it was not for zoos, I visited Dubbo Zoo in Australia in the 1990s, it is a model all zoos should be based on, large open plane design. A Zoo dose not always have to be in cramped conditions and they dont necessarly have to be within a city, people will travel. http://www.zoo.nsw.gov.au/content/view.asp?id=53

here.from.day.1

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

However zoos can be both educational and helpful for the protection and research of endangered species. Many animals would be extinct by poachers if it was not for zoos.

Zoos (obviously if they are run well) I feel can be very useful to society.

Circus's, although I would not go to one, have been a way of life for some people for generations. Just because you do not condone it does not mean it should be banned. Im sure many Circus's treat their animals very well, and for those that dont im all for tighter restrictions/standards. I mean I have a pet dog, at one point dogs were mainly wild animals. Should pets be banned?

Tar.Aldarion

I would like both to be shut down for ethical reasons.

coffee_cake

a zoo always reminds me of the calvin and hobbes quote where calvin goes "hey wanna go to a zoo?" and hobbes replies "can we tour a prison afterwards?"

As for circuses - the best circus I was ever at was one with no animals. years ago. that's how it should be. no animals in circuses, poor things

Run_to_da_hills

here.from.day.1 wrote:

Zoos (obviously if they are run well) I feel can be very useful to society.

Circus's, although I would not go to one, have been a way of life for some people for generations. Just because you do not condone it does not mean it should be banned. Im sure many Circus's treat their animals very well, and for those that dont im all for tighter restrictions/standards. I mean I have a pet dog, at one point dogs were mainly wild animals. Should pets be banned?

The Best circus that I ever went to was one called Archaos, it was all stunts involving cars, motor bikes, chainsaw juggling, a bit of a mad max theme to it and no animals, the way it should be, unfortunitally during their Irish tour a storm destroyed the Marquee in Tallaght along with other problems in the early 90ies and finished them off.

Mawg

Having grown up on annual visits to Dublin Zoo, and having witnessed the horrible psychological damage which many of it's habitants now endure due to having been kept in inadequate enclosures for most of their lives, I have to say that I'm against Zoos. It just doesn't seem as though there are enough regulations put on these places to ensure that the animals lead a relatively "normal" life.

I remember seeing the Polar bears pacing tirelessly in circles around their tiny enclosure, the elephants looking utterly depressed in their exposed grey concrete pen, Gorillas sitting on a hill with their back turned to avoid the stares (which they percieve as a threat) of people surrounding their space and the hippo lying in it's mucky, small pit. Also, in Fota (at least I think it was Fota) the big cats were kept in small cages next to a field of Oryx and other antelope (which in the wild would be the cat's natural prey, and thus seeing them and not being able to hunt them would aggrivate the cats)

In my experience, this sort of maltreatment of captive animals has been exclusive to Irish Zoos and Wildlife Parks. While in Singapore and Australia I visited their national zoos, and found them to be much better than our own. Better designed enclosures, better information presented to the public and in general better know-how on behalf of the zookeepers.


But, while I do disagree with zoos (at least the at the standard they hold now) I think that it's absolutely crucial that people are educated to a relatively high standard about the animals who we share our earth with. I've been through the Irish education system, and my zoological knowledge gained from them didn't stretch far beyond the fact that "dogs say woof and cats say meow." Even in leaving cert biology, no zoology at all is taught.

I know it's easier to grab people's interest in animals and the natural world in a zoo, where they can see the animals face to face, but unless the standard of Zookeeping dramatically rises, I'm all against.

SarahMc

A trip to the circus is wonderful entertainment, affordable theatre brought to the community!

But its up to us to ensure we only visit circuses that have no animals. Fossetts is great imo, and no animals. Not sure about Duffys.

Jackie laughlin

As an animal lover, I try to be outraged by zoos and circuses but I can't become so. None of these creatures are wild animals. Zoo conditions are nothing like they used to be. It seems to me that circus animals have a more varied life than zoo animals. I've seen clearly distressed behaviour in animals in zoos but I've never observed this in a circus animal - and, yes, where possible I've made it a point to go behind the scenes or wander round the site early in the day before showtime.

/Andy\

InFront wrote:

Given that most zoos contribute very little to scientific research, and that they tend to serve as an entertainment facility rather than conservation projects (except, obviously in a few specific cases) should we allow or encourage the very artificial practice of housing animals from all around the world in cages, enclosures, tanks and sheds in, for example, what is a relatively small parkland accomodation site right here in Dublin, Ireland?

I was at Dublin Zoo recently and started to wonder about how ethical it is to hold animals outside of their natural habitat, in restricted environments without proper freedom to roam or breed or feed or exist as they would in the wilderness that they have been adapted for.

However one positive thing is that zoos do make some effort to compensate for taking animals from their natural environments, and I understand that they try to include variation in their routine and their enclosures. The same cannot be said for circuses, which I personally find totally indefensible and outdated.

Is it about time that circuses were banned, or entertainment zoos, or both?

Given that you have been quoted as saying that sometimes stoning to death of a human is sometimes warranted I find your concern for animals laughable

InFront

Yes, it's always been and is still my opinion that stoning is one aspect of the Shariah, as according to various hadith, other traditions, and as related by well respected scholars on the subject of punitive justice. You have another opinion? Don't think it's part of the Shariah?

Because while there's a small chance you want to dispute whether or not stoning is warranted in the Shariah as according to Islamic guidelines, my guess is actually that you read a part of another thread, interpreted it to mean the first thing that came into your head (InFront is in favour of stoning someone, probably some vulnerable woman), saw this thread, and thought of a quick opportunity for an imagined clever retort?

Of course if it is the case that you just don't think stoning is backed up in valid Shariah, you have my apologies, and please start a thread elaborating on it. But I'm not debating anything with someone who invents others' positions to suit themselves in some tangent that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Jackie laughlin

InFront,
This is way off topic but I'm unable to resist asking. Would you oblige by clarifying your position? Are you merely arguing that stoning is legitimate under sharia law or are you saying that you favour the implementation of this law including stoning?

Tar.Aldarion

Please take that to the Islam forum loike.
He is in favour of the law as he believes in that religion, quite simple really.

stovelid

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Please take that to the Islam forum loike.
He is in favour of the law as he believes in that religion, quite simple really.

The row has been done I agree. I think it will go around in circles.

Maybe if InFront feels that his stance is being misinterpreted; perhaps now is the time to issue a simple rebuttal for people like /Andy\.

Personally speaking, I have never needed lengthy how many angels could dance on the head of a pin discourses to state whether or not I agree with bludgeoning people to death for moral infractions.

A simple Yes or No would usually suffice for me but that's just Stovelid.