zoos

Thank you, for the enjoyable debate. You are a good debater too. I shall abstain from voting, if you prefer. "Look at it this way: pounds hold dogs, cats, and other types of animals. These pens are very small. Most of the small town pounds don't get the money they need or do not have volunteers to play with the animals. Their pens do not even mimic their environment. Zoos do mimic the animals' environment." 1 : to imitate closely : ape 2 : to ridicule by imitation 3 : simulate http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] 'To mimic' is not a good way for animals to be treated. I shall assume my opponent is referring to the first and third definition, and I hope not to the second, but it is still no comparison to the real thing. Pounds do not even attempt to imitate the animals' natural environments, but they are temporary stops along the way for animals. Animals do not stay in a pound forever. "Pound -A facility established by local ordinance in which stray, abandoned and lost animals are held, or "impounded" for a period of time. The purpose of impoundment is to allow time for owners to claim lost pets or to find new homes for the animals. Animals neither claimed nor adopted at the end of this period are put to death. " http://www.mismr.org... Animals in zoos are a) not going to be 'found' by their owners and set free b) naturally wild and undomesticated (e.g. lions, and tigers, and bears) c) permanently placed in the zoo These are some reasons why zoos are not like pounds, but as the debate is not about the effectivity of pounds, I shall continue with my arguments. "There are laws prohibiting drugs and murder, but you still find drugs and body parts on the black market." This is true, but how many people do you know who can openly purchase drugs and body parts and wave them at the cops? Not many. They will be sent to jail, or severely fined, or reprimanded in some other way. I did not say that it would be impossible for owners to get animals illegally, just that it would be much harder. I did not notice a counter argument for my statement that maintaining these animals would be even more difficult because of the lack of everyday income when the zoos close. The owners would not be able to cover the costs produced by housing these animals illegally. "But then what will they do with the animals? Kill them? [illegally] sell them? set them free? All three of these seem very horrible to me. {I will talk about why setting them free is horrible whenever I get to my arguments :) thanks}" This may sound horrible, but there are always those who slip through the cracks. The ones who have to give up comfort and perhaps even life for the long term benefit of the rest. If all the zoos were closed down (in North America, to start), and the animal protective services documented all the animals found, their conditions and so forth, we would have fewer problems with illegal marketing. The ones who could not return to the wild, could be held in captivity or a reserve. They do not need to be killed or sold. We can slowly phase out the cycle of trying to domesticate wild animals. Clearly, we cannot monitor the closing of every single zoo and/or animal exhibit. That is what I mean by having to let some slip through the cracks. However, this cannot be helped and will lead to a better future for the animals in the long run. "This is why we need better control over who takes care of the animals. It is very sad that it happens, and many zoos like this are closed down." The Berlin Zoo is still open. http://www.planetware.com... We may pretend to be taking action but we are simply shoving the crimes away so as not to think about them. "Killing of these animals goes on even in their environment. It is less likely to happen, however, if they are in the zoo." This is very true. However, you bring up my following argument too: overpopulation. "This is sad, but zoos do not need fourteen cubs in captivity anyways. This would, of course, lead to overpopulation in the zoos." In the wild, the populations are naturally kept in check. In the zoo, they are allowed to breed and domesticate infinitely. Death can be a good thing; we can't all live forever. Animals who are struggling to survive in the wild could be taken into a reserve or protected area until they multiply and then put back into the wild, but not fenced into zoos for life and taken away from their natural habitats. "It's not so much the goverments fault as it is the workers. Like I mentioned before, they do need to be more careful about who they hire, but this is not what we are debating." The workers are only liable to a certain point. It is part of the employer's job to oversee the total aspects of the work. The workers are there to produce the result, the employer's are there to see it done in a stable manner. "Captive breeding is actually better than getting them from the wild. (animals born in captivity do not know 'how' to live in the wild. Thus, they will not be bothered mentally as much as animals that are from the wild and turned captive.)" However, this means we are slowly taking the animal and mutating it into a domesticated species, unlike its wild cousins. We are not simply erasing the 'bothered mentality' but all connotations to the real world. In some ways, it is like a lobotomy, without the physical tools. "Some of his patients became calmer, some did not. Moniz advised extreme caution in using lobotomy, and felt it should only be used in cases where everything else had been tried. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on lobotomy in 1949. He retired early after a former patient paralyzed him by shooting him in the back. " http://webspace.ship.edu... Not very popular. Perhaps the animals bred in captivity will be docile. Perhaps not. Remember the chimpanzee, Travis, in Connecticut? He ate like a human, lived like a human and behaved like a human. However, one day, his geniality snapped and he attacked, brutally mauling a woman. "The thing about chimpanzees is, we sort of look at them through our rose-colored cultural glasses of the cute little chimp in the 'Tarzan' movie. Those are very young chimps. Chimps grow up, they become very powerful. They are very complex in their behavior. They have a whole range of emotions, including violence and anger." http://www.cnn.com... The point is, that even away from their natural domain, animals still retain enough instinct to be dangerous, but not enough habits to be useful for experiments and research. "Actually, it is a great idea. Researchers get to see up close how animals will act, and this is how we know which animals will or will not make good house pets." I would hope that no animal in a zoo will be made a house pet. "But they don't have to worry about "protecting" thier territory." Again, we have the problems of overpopulation, decreased instinct, and fewer habits of a wild animal. "1. --Zoo animals are safer and have help that they do not have in the wild." The point is, they either survive on their own or die. It keeps the population in check. Unlike humans, who are multiplying rapidly and we have no where to put all of us. If an animal is in such dire straits that it needs open heart surgery to survive, why should it struggle to stay alive when there are more than enough just waiting to take its place? That sounds harsh, but it's the natural order of life. Survival of the fittest. "If zoos were to be closed, what would we do with the remaining animals?" We would watch/take care of them until they die, with no more coming in. http://www.dooyoo.co.uk... please, read it for yourself. There are two cons to leaving animals in the wild and five pros. the numbers speak for themselves. In fact, the article is well written, but not favoring zoos. Thank you =)