zoos

Thank you:) "this is actually the minimum required amount." I realize that. The fact is, the minimum is what most people feel is the right amount. If you are told to write a research paper, of a minimum of seven pages, are you likely to do 17? No, it's a pain for you to write and a pain for the teacher to grade. Likewise, larger spaces and better accommodations require more money, which is a put-off for many companies, especially smaller ones. Here are a few excerpts from the source my opponent provided:http://www.arbeitssprache-englisch.com... "Almost every large city in the world and lots of smaller towns have zoos." "Many large zoos are owned and operated by local governments." Especially in this recession, how high on the list is zoo animal comfort for local governments? When governments are given a minimum, they stick to it. The point is, the current standards for zoos are too low and not challenging enough. another source mentioned in my opponent's argument: http://www.physorg.com... "To wit, dozens of zoos across North America participate in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' (AZA) Species Survival Plan (SSP) Program," Dozens of zoos? When there are hundreds in North America? http://www.stevebaginski.com... How many animals are not on a 'Survival Plan'? "the Department of Agriculture licenses 2,400 "animal exhibitors," of which 212 are members of the AZA, an organization that requires high standards of animal care, science, and conservation" http://www.howstuffworks.com... "This may be true, but if they are mistreating animals, they really must not care about breaking the law (since mistreating animals is against the law anyways) so if we were to close all zoos, who's to say that they wouldn't continue their "service"? These zoos will go on no matter what kind of laws we pass." We may assume that the owners would continue mistreating animals, but we cannot predict that. If there are laws prohibiting zoos, think how hard it would be for the owners to get animals on a black market. You don't have to break too many laws to mistreat animals, depending on your definition of 'mistreat'. (to treat badly; Abuse http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) I consider stuffing a tiger in a 12 by 12 by 12 box is mistreatment. If zoos were gradually stricken from society, then the rules concerning public display of animals would all but disappear. "These zoos will go on no matter what kind of laws we pass." The zoos will not go on if laws are passed banning them. Zoos make money off of visitors. If zoos are illegal, families won't be so inclined to take Tommy and Jane to the zoo. What a way to introduce your children to an unlawful life! With no visitor remuneration, operating debts will soar and close down the business. I apologize if parts of my argument were not clear. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. "yes, but can you explain to me what you were meaning by this? (I am sorry, I just don't understand how this pertains to zoos. I know you have a reason, I just don't think you made it clear) ;)" My reason was to enforce the idea that since civilized countries, such as Germany mistreat animals in their zoos, that makes the USA a possible target for such violence coming from inside zoos. If Germany, a country with the same rules for maintaining animal well-being, is slaughtering animals (in one of its largest and most popular zoos!), how vicious can America get? "This is sad, and not every zoo does this, but isn't this what we do with cattle? Why should exotic animals be treated any differently that cattle?" (exotic: foreign, not native to current location http://www.merriam-webster.com... ) If we are paying good money to import these animals and maintain their health in an environment that must be synthetically altered, we are not likely to kill them. If we kill cattle, it is because people eat meat, and beef is a common staple in an American's diet. Penguin is not. Cows are plentiful, and what's even better, we don't have to worry about shipping them for days across a rough sea, not knowing how many are alive or dead. Even the reproductive system is flawed. Most of the animals you see in zoos do not multiply well in unnatural habitats. Let's take a look at pandas, some of the most commonly sought after animals for zoos. "6. How many cubs does a female panda have in its lifetime? Usually five to eight babies in the wild." Notice in the Wild--natural habitat. 7. What is the maximum number of pandas that a single panda has given birth to in captivity? The panda that has had the most cubs in captivity was Jing Ji, from the Baoxing region of Sichuan. She gave birth to 14 pandas but sadly, none of her cubs survived." Hm...14 cubs and the zoo couldn't save one? Perhaps it had something to do with the unnatural habitat. "Yes, but this happens to pets and cattle as well, so it is not just from zoos." True, but most zoos are government property (see above). The government should be as flawless as possible. Cattle serve a necessary purpose for humans. Zoos do not. Pets are personal property and should be treated and taken care of as such. Reproductive systems in the wild are natural; animals follow their own cycles and natural predators keep the population in check while feeding part of another population. Animals are born with different reproductive systems. Some animals are designed to have many babies in one pregnancy, like fish, because there is a small chance of survival. If the animal produces more, the higher the chance is that more will survive. However, when we take these animals out of their natural habitats, we not only mess with their physical/psychological well-being, but also the natural forces that weed out the weak and keep populations in check. "when you have a pet hamster or guinea pig, are they not held against their wills and held captive? Yes, they are. Have you ever (and I know you have at least once), picked up some random animal on the side of the road, in your backyard, etc, (whether it be a turtle or a frog, etc) put it in a box or jar and kept it? This is just the same thing." This is not the same thing. I, as a child, did not have a collection of live animals to take care of and watch. I may have picked up a ladybug or two, but I let them go after a short while. I never kept a live animal for very long. Also, those animals which I might find outside are usually not the endangered kinds, the ones which need to be protected. By thrusting myself into the mix, I confuse the normal pattern, and populations start mutating. As for the nightclub acts, the point is, that animals were being used as entertainment and no good came of it. True, there will be many job losses. However, that doesn't mean change is a bad thing. We do have other jobs opening up, jobs which can take trained/non-trained people. It may take a while but in the long run, we'll even ourselves out and our unemployment rate will go back down. We do not need to do a clean sweep and eliminate all the zoos in the USA. We need to slowly faze out zoos, offering up jobs to ex-employees, and provide a better lifestyle for all animals. 1) captive breeding is not successful if the animals are a new species to the zoo, or the zoo is having trouble conceiving babies. Also, this may lead to over-population of the wild animals, and less instinctive patterns in the new babies' customs. 2) Can we afford to be testing animals in our zoos? Is it worth it? How detrimental is it to the zoos operating procedure? Animals in the zoo are not the best subjects to be tested upon, especially if they have been bred in captivity. 3) the animals have a safer environment, but it's artificial. out of characters, sry thx!