like from zoos and such do you think the should keep them for educational purposes or conservation? do you think it is right to let people view them?
2006-07-08 01:03:50 · 10 answers · asked by daniel_97202 5 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
what about the exotic pets. i.e. birds, snakes, and etc. that are not native to thier area should people be allowed to keep them
2006-07-08 01:20:24 · update #1
okay just to let everyone know where i stand on this issue. i support the idea of zoos and what they do. i didn't make that clear in my post.
2006-07-08 01:27:14 · update #2
A lot of the animals in today's zoos are captive-bred. For the last hundred years or so, there have been few or no new expeditions to capture wild and exotic animals. The ones currently in zoos would not be able to survive in the wild.
Yes, there are a few exeptions. Most new captures for zoos are of dangerously low populations, and the zoos are trying for a captive breeding program to try to save that particular species.
The zoo also serves another purpose...to educate people, and to get help for the animals. Most of the more exotic animals just don't seem real to people. My grandmother had always heard stories of elephants, and even saw a photograph once, but never believed they were real. She figured they were just fairy tale animals until the local zoo finally got one and she could see it in person.
You also mention above the exotic pets like tropical birds and snakes and lizards. The vast majority of those creatures are also captive bred. The particular animals in those cases will also not survive in the wild. There are a lot of unscrupulous people who do try to capture new exotic pets because they want to make a quick buck. This is how some creatures become endangered too.
People can help stop the trade in these types of animals by insisting on only buying captive-bred exotics. Ask for proof that your new tropical bird, fish or reptile was captive-bred. If the dealer can't provide proof, buy from someone else.
2006-07-08 05:48:19 · answer #1 · answered by devil_bunny_99 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I do not agree. Some zoos, like the San Diego Zoo and the San Diego Wild Animal park serve two major functions.
1. They take a very active role in breeding animals to repopulate endangered species. The San Diego Wild Animal Park alone averages over 400 births each year and the animals roam free in similar environments to their native environments.
2. They try to educate the public about these animals so that they will appreciate these animals in the wild and protect them instead of hunt them.
3. The San Diego Zoo has a Wild Condor project where they have successfully bred wild condors and released them back into the wild.
I am not a fan of most exotic animals being kept as pets in somebodys house. There are a few exceptions. Pot Belly Pigs seem to thrive as house pets. They are very intellegent and very affectionate. When it comes to wild snakes and birds I don't think there is any reason to imprison them for personal satisfaction.
2006-07-08 01:24:28 · answer #2 · answered by mgctouch 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
zoos perform the function of allowing people to see in real life critters that otherwise would never seem quite real to them. they also allow for an increase in out understanding of the animals. their long term health issues, interactions, and requirements are better understood because of the access zoos allow. zoos also act as a lifeboat for endangered species and hold the hope for reintroducing them in the wild. by letting people see strange animals you may also foster a willingness to support wildlife programs such as habitat preservation.
2006-07-08 01:11:10 · answer #3 · answered by glen t 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think wild animals should be just that... But, There are exceptions. Orphaned, hurt, or rescued animals that can't make it on their own...should be the ones in the zoos. I also believe that any circus or show that is found abusing their animals in any way should be shut down. I could go on...
2006-07-08 01:12:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
animals in zoos are kept for conservation, observation, and to educate people. While I dislike enclosures that are to small and non-stimulating, education and observation of the public is the best way to help promote conservation. If no one sees the animals that we are trying to save, less people will help. It is a sad truth
2006-07-08 01:14:24 · answer #5 · answered by clmcanine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, animals came from the wild so they should be kept in the wild.They should be the ones to choose where they want to live in life. In some ways it would protect them in some ways it will not.Because some people kill them for food or they don't know what to do.
2006-07-08 10:01:35 · answer #6 · answered by big foot 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some animals do, but if they're hurt or something I think we should help them. And it they are well enough to go back after we help them, we should put them back where we found them. And I think it's OK for them to be in zoo's.
2006-07-08 05:20:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think the only reason animals should be taken out of the wild is if they are needing help, but as soon as they are okay they should be put back in the wild.
2006-07-08 01:13:30 · answer #8 · answered by Angel247 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
heck yeh....hu are we to take animals from their natural environment and keep them locked up for our amusement. but when u think about the animals that can't survive in the wild, what should we do about them huh? iunno i think it's a good debatable topic =)
2006-07-08 01:08:02 · answer #9 · answered by flaming_ichigo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not dogs...if they got too wild they cud get dangerous
2006-07-08 02:13:09 · answer #10 · answered by corbin909 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋