7 ms·

There's no doubt that people want to see exotic animals. Reputable zoos made a transition from entertainment to conservation, but many still have issues. There'

There's no doubt that people want to see exotic animals. Reputable zoos made a transition from entertainment to conservation, but many still have issues. There's no way circuses could ever do that. It's just antithetical to what they are. Animal issues aside, it's a very dated form of entertainment. Frankly, I'm surprised it made it as far as the 1960s.

knieveltech 10y ago
I'm guessing you don't have children? Edit: hit a nerve there did I?
- freshyill 10y ago
  What the hell are you talking about?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hashkb 10y ago
Go to Africa or India and see an elephant or lion where it lives. The zoos are only slightly less horrible than the circus.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  It's debatable whether introducing humans into wild animal habitats causes less harm than introducing wild animals into human habitats. Certainly better for the individual animals, but I'd imagine that having a bunch of jeeps running around on safari in the middle of virgin wilderness has all sorts of negative effects on the ecosystem.
  - apathy 10y ago
    Nice theory but there are a lot of people in Africa without a lot of money who are looking for things to eat. No safaris etc. means no justification for some of these pristine parks, least of all for enforcement. Witness the scores of elephant poisonings in Zimbabwe for poaching purposes. If you view people as contradictory to Nature, your efforts on the largest of continents will come to naught. It's so easy to argue for ideological purity when it doesn't directly affect you or your family (abstract you, for all I know you may live down the road from Kruger). Ultimately though there has to be an incentive for the people affected to part with the resources and opportunity offered by the big animals. Safaris are one (not terribly effective) compromise that at least justifies economically why big animals need to be preserved (no animals means no safaris means a lot less rich visitors).
  - hashkb 10y ago
    Sure, but it's the only option. Without safari parks, it'd all be farms/cities. Conservation doesn't make sense unless it makes dollars.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      Not sure why the downvotes for this; maybe it was the way it was said? Ultimately, I feel that conservation that balance some of the local interests in mind will run into much fewer problems than those that don't. I also feel that you need some of the natural habitat to remain humanly accessible, in part so that people can experience nature and thus get behind preservation efforts. Creating walled off territory where no one but a few Specially Approved Scientists and deep backpackers can enter does not seem to be the best way to build public support. For portions of land, it may be necessary (hence the wilderness preserve designation in many places) but for much of the land, there is a fine balance between preservation and accessibility. Safari parks are imperfect but in my opinion fall into this category. Even in the US, the politics of parks can be contentious. (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/why-it-so-hard-create-national-park http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/storie...) I can only imagine what a developing country would be like. That said regarding an earlier comment, I don't view all zoos as 100% horrible these days. A lot are making genuine efforts to try and improve animal welfare as much as possible.
- madiathomas 10y ago
  I hope you aren't assuming animals are roaming streets of Africa. I live 60km away from Kruger National Park but have never seen an elephant strolling down a street. Majority of us also go to the zoo to see elephants, just like everyone else.
  - hashkb 10y ago
    I was just in Kruger last month. Why on earth would you go to a zoo if you live so close to it?
    - madiathomas 10y ago
      I keep on postponing the trip. I always tell myself that I will go next year. Been postponing for 20 years now. People who stay closer to something rarely values it. Most people closer to the national parks will pick Eiffel Tower over going to the national park anyday. Vice versa.
VLM 10y ago
Its interesting that for everyone involved its unthinkable to transition from "performance" jumping thru flaming hoops and the like to being a traveling zoo. Better to close than not jump thru hoops of fire. I'd expect there to be a larger faction of the population who are cool with Tigers and want to see one, but flaming hoops don't light their fire. I would imagine a pivot to traveling zoo would take major business changes to move away from the stadium experience and towards more of an amusement park or zoo like experience.

knieveltech 10y ago

I'm guessing you don't have children? Edit: hit a nerve there did I?

freshyill 10y ago
What the hell are you talking about?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

hashkb 10y ago

Go to Africa or India and see an elephant or lion where it lives. The zoos are only slightly less horrible than the circus.

nostrademons 10y ago
It's debatable whether introducing humans into wild animal habitats causes less harm than introducing wild animals into human habitats. Certainly better for the individual animals, but I'd imagine that having a bunch of jeeps running around on safari in the middle of virgin wilderness has all sorts of negative effects on the ecosystem.
- apathy 10y ago
  Nice theory but there are a lot of people in Africa without a lot of money who are looking for things to eat. No safaris etc. means no justification for some of these pristine parks, least of all for enforcement. Witness the scores of elephant poisonings in Zimbabwe for poaching purposes. If you view people as contradictory to Nature, your efforts on the largest of continents will come to naught. It's so easy to argue for ideological purity when it doesn't directly affect you or your family (abstract you, for all I know you may live down the road from Kruger). Ultimately though there has to be an incentive for the people affected to part with the resources and opportunity offered by the big animals. Safaris are one (not terribly effective) compromise that at least justifies economically why big animals need to be preserved (no animals means no safaris means a lot less rich visitors).
- hashkb 10y ago
  Sure, but it's the only option. Without safari parks, it'd all be farms/cities. Conservation doesn't make sense unless it makes dollars.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    Not sure why the downvotes for this; maybe it was the way it was said? Ultimately, I feel that conservation that balance some of the local interests in mind will run into much fewer problems than those that don't. I also feel that you need some of the natural habitat to remain humanly accessible, in part so that people can experience nature and thus get behind preservation efforts. Creating walled off territory where no one but a few Specially Approved Scientists and deep backpackers can enter does not seem to be the best way to build public support. For portions of land, it may be necessary (hence the wilderness preserve designation in many places) but for much of the land, there is a fine balance between preservation and accessibility. Safari parks are imperfect but in my opinion fall into this category. Even in the US, the politics of parks can be contentious. (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/why-it-so-hard-create-national-park http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/storie...) I can only imagine what a developing country would be like. That said regarding an earlier comment, I don't view all zoos as 100% horrible these days. A lot are making genuine efforts to try and improve animal welfare as much as possible.
madiathomas 10y ago
I hope you aren't assuming animals are roaming streets of Africa. I live 60km away from Kruger National Park but have never seen an elephant strolling down a street. Majority of us also go to the zoo to see elephants, just like everyone else.
- hashkb 10y ago
  I was just in Kruger last month. Why on earth would you go to a zoo if you live so close to it?
  - madiathomas 10y ago
    I keep on postponing the trip. I always tell myself that I will go next year. Been postponing for 20 years now. People who stay closer to something rarely values it. Most people closer to the national parks will pick Eiffel Tower over going to the national park anyday. Vice versa.

VLM 10y ago

Its interesting that for everyone involved its unthinkable to transition from "performance" jumping thru flaming hoops and the like to being a traveling zoo. Better to close than not jump thru hoops of fire. I'd expect there to be a larger faction of the population who are cool with Tigers and want to see one, but flaming hoops don't light their fire. I would imagine a pivot to traveling zoo would take major business changes to move away from the stadium experience and towards more of an amusement park or zoo like experience.