ABOVE: One of the two polar bears currently on exhibit at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. (Taken from http://www.ColumbusZoo.com) Yesterday, I took a trip to the Columbus Zoo with my parents to celebrate Father's Day. While I didn't happen to see any cetaceans, I did see many other animals. Some of my favorites included the otters, gorillas, and the polar bears (a new exhibit.)
Seeing all of these wonderful animals was admittedly a bittersweet experience for me. At one point, while exiting the polar bear exhibit, I turned to my dad and asked, "Do you think those polar bears are happy?" He paused a moment and then responded with, "No."
I didn't have to say anything further. His reasoning was clear. Had the polar bears been given a choice, they would probably want to live in their natural habitat. After considering this, my mother then chimed in with another point. The polar bears we had seen were born in captivity. They had never known anything other than the lifestyle that they are currently living.
So, my question is: who is right? ...Or is there a right answer? Are zoos ethical? Is there a gray area where it may be ethical to keep animals in a zoo as long as they were born into captivity?
I'd like to see some comments on the issue!
Please share your opinions!
I think it's a very tough call.
ReplyDeleteI mean, on one hand, zoos allow people to see animals from all around the world that they'd probably never get to see otherwise. It can be a fun learning experience, and, in the case of the Columbus Zoo, the animals seem to be treated very well.
But on the other hand, keeping animals caged up (even in the best of habitats) doesn't seem right. They have as much of a right to be free as we do. It's difficult to justify, and it sucks to say that since I love going to the zoo.
I'm not sure what the solution is... and I'm not totally sure there really is one at all.
I can think of arguments for both sides.
ReplyDeleteZoos can be a very good way of conserving animals, especially when they are in danger (such as the case of polar bears). In some cases, animals that are the last of their kind are kept and bred at zoos, providing the only hope for the future of that species.
However, many animals are not happy in captivity. A lot of times, if you look in their cages, you can see a ring around the outside from their pacing back and forward.
So a zoo can be both good and bad.
Ok, really is this a question of ethics? Well if if it is then we need to break down ethics. Where do you get you're moral authority? If it is religious, which with Brooklyn I think it is, and I really greatly respect that about her, well then do we have a God given right to keep animals in captivity? This question is broken down into two areas, one the idea that God gave us dominion to rule over the animals how we see fit, and two that God gave us a responsibility to properly take care of the resources that He gave to us. If you can't remember where the chapter and verses are that denote these responsibilities well then go read the book (your Bible), start from the beginning, it shouldn't take you too long to find them, its not my job to make it easy for you, and you probably could use the actually experience of reading it. Anyways, the fact that God gave us the charge to rule over nature first off gives us the right to do with the animals, especially the polar bears, as we see fit. This includes keeping them in zoos even if the are unhappy. However this starts to tread into our second point, the charge to take care of our resources (nature) responsibly. Having worked at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, for about a decade, I can vouch for them that they do do their best to care for their animals in a way that can only be described as the "best manner possible" But is that really good enough? Well for animals like the polar bears, who are apparently dying off like crazy when left in the wild, then yes I would say that is. If anything the zoos are allowing them to live longer (the righteousness of that action can be discussed later in an evolutionary debate), and giving them a better chance at surviving the effect that the human race (and time coupled with nature) is having on the environment. So for polar bears, from a religious stand point, I would say that this is ok, but maybe not for white tailed deer or squirrels, who could quite obviously live rather well without us providing a habitat and sustenance for them. Though, I do think that there could be an argument made for keeping any animal in captivity for educational reasons, but only up to a certain number, or percentage. However lets be fair and look at this from a different aspect, evolutionarily polar bears are just not cutting it. It's important to put aside the debate as to weather or not the impact of what humans are doing collectively to nature is evolutionarily positive or negative (evolutionarily human beings are a part of nature, an eventual and undeniable extrapolation of the natural process, and there fore any action or effect that human beings have is just a part of nature itself).
ReplyDeleteIt is more important to focus on what the state of things are and how things are actually happening. And by doing so we see that polar bears are not long for this earth, literally, and now the question becomes; is it ethical for us to preserve a species that is being naturally selected to die off, by preserving it in a zoo. Now a few quick points I want to address, once again here I think it can be easily pointed out that there is a good case to be made that preservation is important, if only for educational purposes, and also that any action (as stated earlier) that human beings make is a part of nature and is therefore an arm of the natural evolutionary natural selection process, and by this if we select to preserve a species, by our own means, then we are participating in the natural selection process as an evolutionary agent. However, that aside, is it ethical for us to save an organism that nature is selecting to eliminate. On that merit alone, I would say no, however when incorporating the gains in education and the fact that human action is a part of nature, I would say that preservation and education is naturally imperative and as the most intelligent branch (that we know of) of nature, and there by evolution, it is in our best interest from a survival stand point and from an original "selfish gene" stand point to ensure that the genetic diversity of these creatures survives even if it can't be in their original natural habitat.
ReplyDelete