h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have visited a lot of Zoo,s in my time,in the U.K. and abroad and I agree,a lot of places leave a lot to be desired.
If I go to a Zoo and can see the animals are not cared for I would never visit again and try to spread the word, even though this is not enough without publicity.
I would just like to recommend the last Zoo I visited,which is in Fuengirola,Spain.
The animals are not in cages with bars,the compounds are large and the animals have a great deal of space,the public can view from a lot of vantage pionts and all of the walls have veiwing points behind perspex windows,as well as from above the compounds.
The Zoo is well kept and very clean,and is made up of different zones,showing the wildlife in "as close to natural surroundings" as possible,the information boards are very good giving a lot of detail instead of just the usual name of the animal.
Spain is not known for it's fine treatment of animals by any means, but I was very happy with the conditions at this Zoo.
Attractions all over the world are regulated by different bodies,but mainly in the interests of the visitor (theme parks ect.) and I think all Zoo's should be given the same criteria in the interest of the animals,not the visitor.
I would recommend this Zoo and as it is the only one on the Costa Del Sol and well worth a visit.
If anyone has visited this Zoo I would like to hear your views,good,bad or otherwise.

whammy1

Hiya, Whammy!
Personally I don't like zoos and don't see the point of them in this day and age when we can find out virtually anything we want about an animal and see creatures in their natural habitat on the Internet. But I want to say that I agree with you totally that zoos throughout the world need to be regulated according to the needs of the animals rather than the visitors. The main justification for zoos nowadays seems to be for educational purposes - but how can a zoo be educational if the animals are not living in something as close to their natural environment as possible?
But what you say about the zoo at Fuengirola sounds positive. Hopefully more will follow their example. As part of my work I've visited zoos in places like Rome and Bucharest, which are just depressing beyond belief. So it's good to know that some zoos are taking a more responsible attitude.

The best (and only) zoo I've been to is the Perth Zoo in Western Australia. Here it seems that they take very, very good care of the animals, giving them lots of space, etc. Recently, they've installed a new home for the chimpanzees, that is massive, and a lot like their original environments. Another thing they do is a lot of breeding programs for endangered animals, and release the breeded animals into the wild. I believe strongly in animal rights, and would refuse to go into any zoo that mistreated their animals.

DV.

Interesting talking point - this has made me sit back and analyse my views on zoos and animals in captivity in general.

It's a very difficult issue. On the one hand, I've never seen many of these animals in the wild - so zoos are the only chance I've ever had to see them, hear them, even smell them . On the other hand, I am torn by the fact that they are in captivity, and I feel guilty for being a part of keeping them there. However, I suppose you have to weigh up the pros and cons, both for the animals and for us.

In the 'bad old days', animals were kept in zoos for the amusement of the viewing public, displayed as curious exhibits in a similar way to how mental asylums paraded their human charges to visitors. Little consideration (if any) was given to the physical, mental and emotional needs of the animals, and the conditions they were kept in were cramped, unstimulating and often cruel.

Thankfully, these days zoos have moved on towards a more pro-active view, where captive breeding programmes and education of visitors about the animals' (often endangered) relatives in the wild are the most important aspects, and where the animals' health and lifestyle are given much more consideration. This is the ideal - of course there are still zoos where the conditions are not up to scratch, and in those cases we should complain/boycott/protest/make the relevant animal protection organisations aware.

I am a firm believer that animals can suffer, feel pain, happiness and depression just as humans do. I also think, however, that they are much better than humans at looking at what they've got and dealing with it. I think for certain species of animal, if they are living in a zoo where they are fed a species-appropriate diet, where they have as much space as possible and an interesting environment, where they can interact with each other (to a certain extent), where they have physical and mental stimulation and where they can escape from the gaze of humans when they need to... then I believe they are able to 'make the best of it'. Especially if they are bred in captivity. You'll never be able to create a truly 'natural environment', but you can do your best to imitate the stimulations the animals would get in the wild.

For other species, I don't believe they should ever be kept in captivity. Orca (killer whales) for example, in places like Sea World, who are taken from the wild, out of close-knit family groups, and kept in cramped conditions where they would usually swim for miles and miles every day, simply to do 'shows' to entertain people. As much as animals can cope (and these animals cope with a lot), you can't possibly recreate anything like a natural environment for sea mammals like these. Thank goodness, in the UK we don't have dolphinariums any more.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need zoos - we'd be able to see animals in the wild and they would be just part of our environment. But in a world where we are destroying whole species at a terrifying rate, zoos may turn out to be the only places left where we can see some of these amazing creatures. The internet and TV are fantastic for images and information, but to get a real idea of the size, the heaviness and the sheer prehistoric-ness of a rhinoceros, nothing beats seeing one in real life. It's essential that children appreciate how important these animals are and how we humans have the power to save or destroy them in the future.

I don't know how many zoos have captive breeding programmes which aim to release animals into the wild - I know Jersey zoo does - and I also know there are programmes doing this which aren't zoos and which keep human contact to a minimum. But even if zoos breed animals to keep in captivity, provided this is done in a controlled way, and the animals' needs are always paramount, these animals will not just be pictures on a page to the future guardians of the environment. We need some way of hanging onto the precious species which are endangered in the wild, and not just the exciting or interesting ones we see in the zoos. If zoos can spark peoples' interest in the animals they see there, perhaps the less 'sexy' animals such as the rare insects, fish, and other creatures who are a vital part of our environment, will benefit from the notion that animals are amazing and we should protect them from ourselves.

Sorry if that sounds like a bit of a soapbox thing. I'm also aware, even as I write, that I contradict myself, but its a subject where I feel at odds with myself in many ways and I'm not quite sure what the best solution is. This also makes it difficult to put across exactly how I feel.

Lbclaire

I agree with the points made by Lbclaire.

I think there are plenty of good zoo's if you can find them. There are many animals that are nearly extinct and onlky live in zoo's and they are being reintroduced into the wild, I think if all zoos hads this as a prioty rather than showing off animals at there expense then it would be inportant to have them. Also its good for people who can not travel to see the animals of the world up close and in the flesh, if the animals are looked after well.

It is our duty as humans to help stop animals from coming extinct when it is other humans that are killing them, such as elephants and rhinos for measly profit, or have destroyed there habitat, such as with some groups of monkeys. As long as Zoo's are helping in the prevention of extinction of species destroyed by man in a humane way then they are a good thing such as Dudly zoo which breeds mained wolves i believe.

An what about wild life parks?
Where most of the animals roam about free within the park walls. Do youclassify them as Zoos when people says zoos should be closed down?

Adib

Hi Adib,

Ironically, my worst memories of zoos are of Dudley Zoo, with its pathetic-looking elephant in a tiny outdoor yard. Sounds as if it's better now - I hope so.

Lbclaire

Well it was ok the last time I went.

But I do know that they are part of the breeding program for animals nearly extinct.

There should be a proper watch body set up that makes sure that zoo's are all looking after the animals in the best way possible.

Adib

Most zoos today are doing a very important function: that of preserving the endangered species which we have almost wiped out. This is surely the primary purpose of zoos, caring for the animals that we have almost driven into extinction and restoring them to their rightful place in the wild.

All this costs money, so the zoos have to open their doors to the paying public. But putting animals on display is only a part of what the zoos are actually doing.

I feel that 'some' zoos are good as they help with breeding programs and reintroduction into the wild, but I hate to see lions, tigers, bears and other large animals in crampt cages i feel it is cruel.

Well that is cruel. Thtas why i prefer the wildlife parks over zoos as the animals usually have plenty of space to roam in. Some zoo's though do have big living inclosures for animals too.

Adib

Wildlife Parks are better I agree, some of the cages and enclosers are very crampt at London Zoo.

To be fair, London has for some considerable time been sending it's larger animals to outlying wildlife parks and concentrating increasingly on smaler mammals that it can keep in a sensible way in the limited space they have.

It's new, interactive Insect House is a triumph, for example, and is very user friendly and allows the public to observe the work being done the zoo's scientific staff.

I once went to alot of zoo's and found them facinating. I would not like to stop any human from having this experience. But the animals deserve the best Possible treatment.

Zoo's can be good in that they can be used to protect species and preserve living breathing DNA to stop hunters or destruction of habitat wiping them out.

So I think having some zoos is definatly good but with so many good reasonably animal friendly zoo's wich should be closed.

Zoos also seem to waste lots of space on the consumer alowing us to circle ther enclosures why not have a string of fenced off paths with the animals around you.

I went to a french Zoo in Aug 2004. and to my horror found animal shut out of there houses on a hot day with no shade so the people could see then. Geraffs had forced themselves against buildings for the two foot of shade provided. but as I went round it got worse lions and tigers were kept in pits and people were throwing popcorn and sweats that matted their fur. I only wish I could remember the name so i could tell you alll not to go.

Animals born into captivity, or brought into it very young don't know anything but that enclosure as their habitat, so it's really doing them no harm, so long as the zoo keeps the enclosures suited for the animal.

Someone said that we can learn almost anything we want to know about an animal off the internet, I'm curious as to where they think people who made the website learned what they wrote... Hmm, I wonder.

Now you must understand, I love animals quite a bit, but so long as it's a well kept and made zoo, the animals are done no injustace by being there.

~`Skiv

Not sure whether or not I approve of zoos...
currently reading life of pi...puts forward a very good argument for zoos being around...animals get used to their own territory, not like people in prison...needs not wants.
Worth reading, I think.

i went to a hyderabad zoo there was nit a single cage all animals were in their natural habitat

Yes, even though places such as India and Pakistan and other eastern countrise have bad press with animal rights (amoungst other things) in reality thier zoo's or wild life parks are much more unrestrictive on animals there.

Of course abuse of animals do happen by some people.... but that should not reflect on the good of other peole there in presserving animal species.

Adib