Nice precedent

[Boris]

Nice to see these animals getting out of the Zoo. Personally I can't stand zoos and wouldn't mind if they were eliminated completely. I think with the advent of HDTV we could do just as well without animals in captivity.

web page (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040520/us_nm/environment_elephants_dc_2)
Detroit Zoo to Free Elephants on Ethical Grounds

By Michael Ellis

DETROIT (Reuters) - The Detroit Zoo will become the first major zoo to stop exhibiting elephants on ethical grounds because they can develop arthritis and stress-related ailments in captivity, officials said on Thursday.



The Detroit Zoo has one of the largest facilities in the country, but its Asian elephants Winky and Wanda still have recurring foot problems due to the cold weather, Director Ron Kagen told Reuters.


In the wild, elephants roam vast areas, live in large families, and exhibit some of the same social traits as humans such as forming friendships and mourning for their dead.


"Elephants seem to be intelligent and even social in ways that are similar to humans," Kagen said. "Elephants can suffer from similar things to what we suffer from when we're in difficult environments."


Confined to zoos and circuses, elephants develop physical problems and neurotic behaviors such as rocking back and forth and aggressive behavior, he said.


"If we don't feel like we can (keep elephants), then the question is, who can and how?," he said. "For us, there really is a big question about whether elephants should be in captivity at all."


Kagen likens the change to the decision to stop performances by elephants and chimpanzees years ago at the zoo because of the stress it placed on the animals.


The zoo expects to send Winky and Wanda to an animal sanctuary this summer where they can roam with other elephants.


"I think it is an enormously important precedent," Wayne Pacelle, chief executive officer of the Humane Society of the United States, told Reuters. "It should trigger the examination of the treatment of elephants in other zoos and in circuses throughout the country."


Other zoos have also given away their elephants because they had health problems due to inadequate faculties, Pacelle said. But the Detroit Zoo is the first with sizable grounds and adequate care to end its elephant exhibit on ethical grounds, he said.

[andyfox]

I've always felt guilty about liking zoos, but I do like them. It certainly seems the conditions for the animals in zoos are better than they were when I was a kid. While I'm happy for Winky and Wanda, how do we square this with the ethics of, say, eating a chicken? If we're against zoos on ethical grounds, don't we also have to be vegetarians?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree with you on this one Andy. I also feel a bit guilty about liking zoos.

[HDPM]

In a sense yes. I am not a vegetarian and have felt bad when I tried eating vegetarian. Being strict about vegetarianism is damn hard too. But many times we are cruel to animals for no good reason. Circus elephants a prime example. I think the trend will be toward less cruelty which I think is a good thing. I suppose in a sense I am a hypocrite, in that there are things I won't do on animal cruelty grounds, but I am not a vegetarian, let alone a vegan. OTOH, I think the less unnecessary cruelty the better. So maybe it is good that people are more aware of their uses of animals and are starting to curtail unnecessary uses of animals. And it is a touchy subject involving very personal decisions.

[cardcounter0]

Great. I have always hated zoos.
I would rather see a single animal in the wild - then see 10,000 animals at the best zoo.

There is a reason they are called "wild" animals.
And there is a reason some animals are "domesticated".
ie - you aren't eating a wild chicken, you are eating a chicken that is the result of several centuries of breeding specifically for providing food.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
because they can develop arthritis and stress-related ailments in captivity

[/ QUOTE ]
Animals in the wild usually get eaten before they have a chance to develop arthritis.

[Boris]

yes. The free world can be a cruel place for both humans and animals. But it's better than being in a cage.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because they can develop arthritis and stress-related ailments in captivity

[/ QUOTE ]
Animals in the wild usually get eaten before they have a chance to develop arthritis.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty funny. You're still not getting my vote, but for one brief moment in time you managed to make me laugh. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
you aren't eating a wild chicken, you are eating a chicken that is the result of several centuries of breeding specifically for providing food.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what makes them so tasty.

[elwoodblues]

I have a 1 1/2 year old son. Since he was six months old we have taken him to the zoo at least once a month (often times several times a month). At 1 1/2 he can identify, say the names and the sounds they make (where applicable) of: giraffes, zebras, lions, tigers, cougars, monkeys, pigs, cows, sheep, fish, bears, horses, dolphins etc. When we bring him to the zoo he is so attentive. He loves to watch the animals and imitate how them move.

As cool as it is to see a rabbit or squirrel run across the yard, nothing can compare to the education my son will continue to get at the zoo.

[andyfox]

I think, by and large, zoos are less cruel to animals than they were when I was growing up. It's rare for animals to be in the types of cages I remember seeing in the Bronx and Central Park Zoos.

But I think the animal rights activists show favoritism. Why is an elephant more important than an ant?

[Cyrus]

HEADLINE : Detroit Zoo to Free Elephants

WITH SMALLER LETTERS : Makes Room For Dubya And Cabinet Next November

...Just a thought. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[nicky g]

I also have a guilty liking for zoos. Basically I like tigers. But I agree they are immoral (zoos, not tigers).

Anyway sorry to kind of drag the Middle East into this but it is related. I'm not posting this to make a point, I just thought it fit into this thread. Can the bit about the painted horse really be true? I almost burst into tears when I read it.



Ostrich Roams Besieged Gaza Camp from Broken Zoo
Thu May 20, 2004 11:40 AM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS
Top News

By Nidal al-Mughrabi
RAFAH, Gaza Strip (Reuters) - Palestinian boys chased a limping ostrich through a Gaza refugee camp Thursday after an Israeli raid spelled disaster for a zoo that was a rare amusement spot for local children.

The Israeli army, which uprooted over 1,000 Rafah residents by demolishing homes in a hunt for Palestinian militants, denied flattening the zoo and suggested its creatures had escaped because they were not being cared for.

Whatever happened, Palestinian boys made the best of the situation.

Spotting the ostrich on the loose, they gave chase, grabbed the bewildered, mangy-looking African bird and trotted through the streets with it, laughing heartily.

The zoo site was in a neighborhood sealed off by Israeli troops.

Residents said it had been a tiny, spartan affair hosting two ostriches, an array of colorful parrots and other exotic birds, some snakes, one monkey -- and a pony painted with black stripes to make it look like a zebra.

Some 250 families in the camp -- erected in 1949 for Palestinians uprooted by Israel's independence war -- found themselves homeless again and were housed by U.N. relief workers in dingy school classrooms and rows of tents.

The house demolitions were nothing new in the conflict between Israel and Palestinians who launched an uprising in occupied territories three and a half years ago.

But the zoo was something special for Rafah's deprived youngsters. Its reported demise rubbed salt in the wounds of the community as the death toll from the raid rose to 40, several of them children in a protest march that came under tank fire.

"Rafah's zoo was the only place of entertainment for kids here. It's a shame they destroyed it, but no surprise. Those who killed the children can also kill their fun," said Ahmed Hussein, a taxi driver who used to take families to the zoo.

An Israeli army spokesman denied that troops had destroyed the zoo. "It was a very small petting zoo close to a school and the animals just escaped somehow. We didn't hurt them."

The fate of the second ostrich, the monkey and pony was unknown. But children said they saw some of the parrots flying over the neighborhood, in addition to the wandering ostrich.

"The demolished houses made me angry when I heard about it on the news, but the zoo was the only place where I could go with my friends to play and watch these strange animals," said Mohammed, a 12-year-old running after the ostrich.

[jdl22]

Before this thread gets filled with nothing but Palestine v Israel discussion I would like to say that the part of that story that struck me most was that they paint a horse so that it looks like a zebra. Now that is crafty.

[nicky g]

That is what struck me (and upset me). It is so sad and funny at the same time. But I wonder if it's true; it sounds like an urban myth. I promise not to get involved in further discussion about the conflict in this thread.

[Dilbert]

[ QUOTE ]
I also have a guilty liking for zoos. Basically I like tigers. But I agree they are immoral (zoos, not tigers).

[/ QUOTE ]
tigers are immoral too.

haven't you seen that Tony Tiger guy spamming the airwaves for some cereal? totally immoral

[HDPM]

Animal rights activists do show some favoritism in their public pronouncements, but I think it is a strategy. The hardcore ones don't eat honey or wear silk because of cruelty to insects. That is a radical position though, so it is a lot smarter to hook the population on the cruel things done to animals they can sympathize with more. If anything, the animal rights people dont show enough favoritism between species to gain as much politically as they might.

[elwoodblues]

The key is to tarket animals that people name. Some random chicken, who gives a care. Dumbo, now that's a different question.

[jdl22]

I have seen studies that show that funding is much more available to charities that care for vertebrate animals. People are much more willing to donate to save pandas for example than any invertebrate. This is actually bad because the vast majority of animals (both in terms of overall quantity as well as variety of types) are invertebrates. I would also presume that many more species of invertebrates are at risk of extinction than their spine carrying brethren.

[andyfox]

And it's not just some cereal. It's sugar-coated crap.