Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_bug87
I feel very strongly for conservation. But there are a lot of zoos that do things wrong. I'm lucky to have visited zoos and serpntariums in 3 different countries. Some good some bad,
The zoos that work with wildlife conservation trying to replenish natural populations, or strive to keep animals in captivity that would otherwise be extinct usually do a good job of ethical care, they have the resources the private sector does not. The ones that don't (SeaWorld for example) should have licenses revoked.
So its clear for you mikoh
I don't lump captivity for pleasure in with captivity for conservation. For me the context of why the animal is in captivity holds just as much ethical weight as the care itself.
|
But by the notion of what you have mentioned in previous posts, what is the point of preventing an animal from becoming extinct, just to keep it in captivity (for the ones that are maintained in captivity, rather than bred to release the young)? Most of these are kept in "zoo" settings. If they only remain captives, is that not selfish and for human purpose only?
Not disagreeing with you, just playing devil's advocate based on what's been said so far in this thread.
Threaded Mode