IGCSE/GCSE/O & A Level/IB/University Student Forum
Teachers and Students => Debates => Topic started by: nid404 on February 22, 2010, 10:24:39 am
-
As we all know, most of our animals are in the brink of extinction...
The Indian Cheetah is no more and the leopard and tigers have reduced in number in past few decades
Considering that they are no more safe in the wild, is it ok to keep them in captivity???
I believe animals have their right to freedom but with excessive poaching, their freedom is their greatest nemesis, as they end up losing their lives to poachers and farmers/tribes who encroach and make their homes well within their habitat.
For their safety, I think they should be bred in captivity.
What r your views??
-
It is awful to red what we have done. We should if only so we can learn more about them.
-
I got this from a site....supports my idea
Length of life: Generallly speaking, animals live longer in captivity than in the wild, because keepers and veterinarians are available to look after their health and diet. If an animal sickens, there are people available to help it and, if the animal dies, post-mortems can be used to help other members of the animal's group. The disadvantage of living in a zoo is that zoos may not have enough space to keep increased numbers of animals, so may have to choose which animals to put down. I have heard of zoos promoting baby animals for the summer season, before having them put down in the winter, because of insufficient space and the popularity of an elderly zoo favourite.
The advantage of living in the wild is that the animal can 'rise through the ranks' and play an important role within a group, if it belongs to a social species. When it no longer has a useful role, it may go to live on its own and may die soon afterwards. This avoids it competing for with other members of its species for limited resources. The disadvantages of living in the wild are due to animals dying before they can reproduce, sometimes due to human activities. For example, overfishing, where nets catch immature animals, as well as mature ones. Also, hunters may prefer to hunt large, impressive individuals, which may play dominant roles in their groups. This can lead to great turmoil within the animals' society.
2. Food: Good zoos provide a balanced diet, including necessary medicines. This helps the animal to be as healthy as possible. Unfortunately, it is often a far from natural diet and it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to train an animal to find food by itself before being released into the wild. Also, some animals become habituated to feeding times and are inactive between feeding times, so may become overweight. Some zoos overcome this by hiding food or placing it in containers, where the animal has to expend energy to obtain it. European zoos are not allowed to feed live vertebrates to zoo animals, so it is very difficult to release a predator into the wild, especially if the animal is more likely to attack people and livestock due to a shortage of natural prey. Animals in the wild have a potentially more varied diet and develop feeding strategies to obtain food. The downside is that solitary species have to feed themselves. If they cannot find food, they must do without and may starve. For example, cheetahs have a low success rate when hunting. The vast majority of their sprinting runs are unsuccessful. Even when they catch a gazelle, or other prey, another predator may steal the food from the cheetah, so the cheetah must hunt again. Compare this to the situation at zoos, where keepers can ensure that all the animals receive food. Due to decreasing wild habitats, animals may come into competition with people by feeding on crops, livestock or people. This leads to people hunting the species, decreasing their populations.
3. Safety: Generally speaking, animals are safer in zoos than in the wild. Vulnerable animals are brought in at night to protect them from predators. The down side is that people know where zoos are and can break in and capture or kill some species. Some zoo animals, such as macaws, are very valuable, so a person can make a lot of money by breaking into a zoo and stealing animals from enclosures. Also, during times of poverty and warfare, zoos may be desecrated for food or fun - you may remmeber what happened at zoos in Kuwait and Kabul. In the wild, animals find various places for shelter and may be protected by dominant animals, but predators may still capture individuals.
4. Health: Good zoos have veterinarians who can help injured or sick animals, which would die in the wild. Recent research indicates that chimpanzees and other animals know about 'healing' plants and other medicants, which help them survive injuries. These medicants are often unavailable in zoos, where animals may die until appropriate cures are found.
5. Reproduction: Many species are represented in several zoos around the world. A zoo with an animal old enough to reproduce can contact other zoos, so that the animal has access to an unrelated mate. This will help prevent potential offspring from inheriting harmful genes from both parents. The disadvantage concerns animals poorly represented in zoos, especially when the only other examples of the species are close relatives. Several years ago, I visited Kilverstone Zoo. The zoo had four olingos, relatives of raccoons. These were a mated pair and their son and daughter. Few zoos keep olingos, so the zoo kept the adult male with his daughter and the adult female with her son. Definitely not an ideal situation for breeding, but if potential mates are in short supply, what can a zoo do? Also, even if unrelated mates are found, there is no guarantee that the animals will mate. This is often true for giant pandas, which are popular zoo animals, but have a poor breeding record in many zoos. Colin Tudge, in 'Last Animals at the Zoo' stated that females are more likely to mate if there is male competition, but with the Chinese government charging $1 million dollars a year to hire out each panda, how many zoos can afford $3 million a year for two male pandas and a female?
I should also mention that zoos may send sampls of sperm to other zoos, so that females can be artifically inseminated. This has helped raise populations of some species, while removing the stress associated with moving animals between zoos. Another way zoos can help increase reproduction is by removing eggs from birds, so that the birds lay another batch, while the first batch is incubated by bantams or in special incubators. Zoos can also help preserve endangered species by placing embryos of one species into the bodies of a more abundant species. For example, domestic cattle have 'given birth' to rare species. Zoos are also looking at cloning techniques to increase populations of endangered species. Zoos also use various techniques to look after abandoned babies. These include glove puppets, resembling the animal's parents, for feeding the infant, or keepers looking after the animals at home. Many keepers are very dedicated people, often on relatively low wages, and really do care about the welfare of their animals.
Obviously, wild animals have more scope in the wild and may travel great distances to find a mate, but fragmentation of habitats prevents migration of small animals. This means that they are more likely to mate with relativs, leading to the problems associated with inbreeding.
6. Mental well-being: This is a relatively recent field of interest. Some animals adapt well to captivity and can show the same kinds of behaviour, which they would show in the wild. For example, London Zoo won an award for their dwarf mongoose enclosure. Unfortunately, some animals do not adapt well to captivity. They show stereotyped behaviour, for example by rocking from side to side, and may suffer great stress. Polar bears and some other species seem to be prone to these problems. There are far fewer polar bears in British zoos than there were 20 years ago. I have seen stressed animals, including a stump-tailed macaque, picking at a wound in its face. Such behaviours are obviously distressing to the animals and should not be seen by visitors.
Some people think that animals do not suffer stress in the wild. This is not true - animals are hunted, they compete with other group members for food, territory or mates and have to adapt to changing environments. They are also at risk from hunters and habitat destruction. As I stated at the start, it is better for animals to live in a natural environment, but this does not mean they have an idyllic life.
7. Interaction with humans: Zoo visitors vary greatly. Some are interested in animals, while others may make fun of animals or try and injure them. Despite regulations in many zoos, some visitors still try to feed animals, sometimes with batteries and other inappropriate food, or pester animals by copying their alarm calls or by prdding them. This impairs the mental health of the animals. Zoos can help people become interested in animals, which can lead to studing animals in the wild or promoting conservation. It is better to study animals in the wild, as the animals are more likely to show natural behaviour than most show in captivity, but some 'safaris' are very expensive, well outside the price range of poor people. 'Wild animals' in safari parks may also be put under stress. I have heard of cases where one cheetah has been surrounded by several landrovers. This can create problems for the cheetah escaping from the landrovers, never minding catching prey. Also, due to habitat destruction and hunting, many species are becoming harder to find. It should be noted that it takes time to study an animal's behaviour. Jane Goodall has been studying chimpanzees for 40 years, but it took her a lot of time to be accepted by chimpanzee groups and she had to be extremely patient, gradually leaving hiding places to spend more time near the chimpanzees. A zoologist cannot expect to find out much about a species from a week's holiday.
8. Biodiversity: Traditonally zoos have kept animals in single species enclosures, often near related species. This means that an African lion may be kept near an Asiatic tiger and a South American jaguar. This helps vistors to compare related species, but does not help people understand how animals interact with other species in the wild. Some zoos, such as Munich, keep animals in areas connected with zoogeography, so that African or European animals are kept nar each other. Some zoos keep a range of unrelated species in the same enclosure. This is a more natural situation, but care is taken to avoid prey animals coming into contact with potential predators. There is far greater biodiversity in the wild and this is a far better situation to promote natural behaviour. Unfortunately, hunting of predators, or of 'bushmeat' species may lead to an increase of some species over others, leading to an imbalance or to competition between various species for resources. Unsuccessful species may become far scarcer, unless conservation strategies come into force.
-
Species come and go. We ware killing them wholesale now though. We are vandals.
-
neither. Should be kept in specially protected (in terms of the no. of tourist allowed and activities) nature parks.
-
If you sanitize nature you will destory the food chain and then we will all suffer. Poor people the most, cos countires like china are buying up lots of farmland to grow food to feed their own people, not the locals. Rich countires can afford to destroy their environment if there are poor people around who can be pushed off their land.
The animals were puxhed off by people, now those people are being pushed off by more powerful people.
-
neither. Should be kept in specially protected (in terms of the no. of tourist allowed and activities) nature parks.
Safaris*
and yes thats what i think too
-
To have safaris you need wide open spaces, and pressure on land is such that at some point all land will be either desert or famland or paved or used to build on. There wont be much grssland left for animals
-
If we can force animals in captivity, then why not humans?
-
The wild is comparatively a better option. Some animals should be kept in captivity (zoos) because it allows the government to earn money and spend them on better projects, especially if the country is naturally gifted with beautiful animals. Private zoos can also be established just like theme parks.
-
If we can force animals in captivity, then why not humans?
Humans are superior. We are the movers and the shakers of the world, not the animals.
I am not saying that all animals should be kept in captivity. That is ridiculous. Only some in state owned and private zoos and nature parks.
-
You never know what you've lost til it's gone.
In London we are nostalgic about clean air.
-
I meant that only SOME (a very small percentage of a species population) animals should be kept in captivity (zoos) because it allows the government and those of us who own private zoos to earn money. This will not cause any negative impact in the whole animal population. The majority of them will still be leading a life full of freedom in the wild. The natural ecosystem will continue over there, enabling us to earn money over here.
-
Zoos will exist anyway.
Did you know there is a seedbank being built to contain seeds from every type of vegetation? Just in case.
We might need to do something like that for anymals and insects.
-
Zoos will exist anyway.
Did you know there is a seedbank being built to contain seeds from every type of vegetation? Just in case.
We might need to do something like that for anymals and insects.
I did not know that. Thank you. :)
But I cannot understand how can animals become extinct if we keep only a small portion of them in zoos. I know that already quite some animals are on the verge of extinction like the panda. But that is the result of deforestation and dumping of toxic wastes here and there. Not zoos or nature parks.
Of course, deforestation and dumping toxic waste like that is never justified.
-
I got this from a site....supports my idea
Length of life: Generallly speaking, animals live longer in captivity than in the wild, because keepers and veterinarians are available to look after their health and diet. If an animal sickens, there are people available to help it and, if the animal dies, post-mortems can be used to help other members of the animal's group. The disadvantage of living in a zoo is that zoos may not have enough space to keep increased numbers of animals, so may have to choose which animals to put down. I have heard of zoos promoting baby animals for the summer season, before having them put down in the winter, because of insufficient space and the popularity of an elderly zoo favourite.
The advantage of living in the wild is that the animal can 'rise through the ranks' and play an important role within a group, if it belongs to a social species. When it no longer has a useful role, it may go to live on its own and may die soon afterwards. This avoids it competing for with other members of its species for limited resources. The disadvantages of living in the wild are due to animals dying before they can reproduce, sometimes due to human activities. For example, overfishing, where nets catch immature animals, as well as mature ones. Also, hunters may prefer to hunt large, impressive individuals, which may play dominant roles in their groups. This can lead to great turmoil within the animals' society.
2. Food: Good zoos provide a balanced diet, including necessary medicines. This helps the animal to be as healthy as possible. Unfortunately, it is often a far from natural diet and it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to train an animal to find food by itself before being released into the wild. Also, some animals become habituated to feeding times and are inactive between feeding times, so may become overweight. Some zoos overcome this by hiding food or placing it in containers, where the animal has to expend energy to obtain it. European zoos are not allowed to feed live vertebrates to zoo animals, so it is very difficult to release a predator into the wild, especially if the animal is more likely to attack people and livestock due to a shortage of natural prey. Animals in the wild have a potentially more varied diet and develop feeding strategies to obtain food. The downside is that solitary species have to feed themselves. If they cannot find food, they must do without and may starve. For example, cheetahs have a low success rate when hunting. The vast majority of their sprinting runs are unsuccessful. Even when they catch a gazelle, or other prey, another predator may steal the food from the cheetah, so the cheetah must hunt again. Compare this to the situation at zoos, where keepers can ensure that all the animals receive food. Due to decreasing wild habitats, animals may come into competition with people by feeding on crops, livestock or people. This leads to people hunting the species, decreasing their populations.
3. Safety: Generally speaking, animals are safer in zoos than in the wild. Vulnerable animals are brought in at night to protect them from predators. The down side is that people know where zoos are and can break in and capture or kill some species. Some zoo animals, such as macaws, are very valuable, so a person can make a lot of money by breaking into a zoo and stealing animals from enclosures. Also, during times of poverty and warfare, zoos may be desecrated for food or fun - you may remmeber what happened at zoos in Kuwait and Kabul. In the wild, animals find various places for shelter and may be protected by dominant animals, but predators may still capture individuals.
4. Health: Good zoos have veterinarians who can help injured or sick animals, which would die in the wild. Recent research indicates that chimpanzees and other animals know about 'healing' plants and other medicants, which help them survive injuries. These medicants are often unavailable in zoos, where animals may die until appropriate cures are found.
5. Reproduction: Many species are represented in several zoos around the world. A zoo with an animal old enough to reproduce can contact other zoos, so that the animal has access to an unrelated mate. This will help prevent potential offspring from inheriting harmful genes from both parents. The disadvantage concerns animals poorly represented in zoos, especially when the only other examples of the species are close relatives. Several years ago, I visited Kilverstone Zoo. The zoo had four olingos, relatives of raccoons. These were a mated pair and their son and daughter. Few zoos keep olingos, so the zoo kept the adult male with his daughter and the adult female with her son. Definitely not an ideal situation for breeding, but if potential mates are in short supply, what can a zoo do? Also, even if unrelated mates are found, there is no guarantee that the animals will mate. This is often true for giant pandas, which are popular zoo animals, but have a poor breeding record in many zoos. Colin Tudge, in 'Last Animals at the Zoo' stated that females are more likely to mate if there is male competition, but with the Chinese government charging $1 million dollars a year to hire out each panda, how many zoos can afford $3 million a year for two male pandas and a female?
I should also mention that zoos may send sampls of sperm to other zoos, so that females can be artifically inseminated. This has helped raise populations of some species, while removing the stress associated with moving animals between zoos. Another way zoos can help increase reproduction is by removing eggs from birds, so that the birds lay another batch, while the first batch is incubated by bantams or in special incubators. Zoos can also help preserve endangered species by placing embryos of one species into the bodies of a more abundant species. For example, domestic cattle have 'given birth' to rare species. Zoos are also looking at cloning techniques to increase populations of endangered species. Zoos also use various techniques to look after abandoned babies. These include glove puppets, resembling the animal's parents, for feeding the infant, or keepers looking after the animals at home. Many keepers are very dedicated people, often on relatively low wages, and really do care about the welfare of their animals.
Obviously, wild animals have more scope in the wild and may travel great distances to find a mate, but fragmentation of habitats prevents migration of small animals. This means that they are more likely to mate with relativs, leading to the problems associated with inbreeding.
6. Mental well-being: This is a relatively recent field of interest. Some animals adapt well to captivity and can show the same kinds of behaviour, which they would show in the wild. For example, London Zoo won an award for their dwarf mongoose enclosure. Unfortunately, some animals do not adapt well to captivity. They show stereotyped behaviour, for example by rocking from side to side, and may suffer great stress. Polar bears and some other species seem to be prone to these problems. There are far fewer polar bears in British zoos than there were 20 years ago. I have seen stressed animals, including a stump-tailed macaque, picking at a wound in its face. Such behaviours are obviously distressing to the animals and should not be seen by visitors.
Some people think that animals do not suffer stress in the wild. This is not true - animals are hunted, they compete with other group members for food, territory or mates and have to adapt to changing environments. They are also at risk from hunters and habitat destruction. As I stated at the start, it is better for animals to live in a natural environment, but this does not mean they have an idyllic life.
7. Interaction with humans: Zoo visitors vary greatly. Some are interested in animals, while others may make fun of animals or try and injure them. Despite regulations in many zoos, some visitors still try to feed animals, sometimes with batteries and other inappropriate food, or pester animals by copying their alarm calls or by prdding them. This impairs the mental health of the animals. Zoos can help people become interested in animals, which can lead to studing animals in the wild or promoting conservation. It is better to study animals in the wild, as the animals are more likely to show natural behaviour than most show in captivity, but some 'safaris' are very expensive, well outside the price range of poor people. 'Wild animals' in safari parks may also be put under stress. I have heard of cases where one cheetah has been surrounded by several landrovers. This can create problems for the cheetah escaping from the landrovers, never minding catching prey. Also, due to habitat destruction and hunting, many species are becoming harder to find. It should be noted that it takes time to study an animal's behaviour. Jane Goodall has been studying chimpanzees for 40 years, but it took her a lot of time to be accepted by chimpanzee groups and she had to be extremely patient, gradually leaving hiding places to spend more time near the chimpanzees. A zoologist cannot expect to find out much about a species from a week's holiday.
8. Biodiversity: Traditonally zoos have kept animals in single species enclosures, often near related species. This means that an African lion may be kept near an Asiatic tiger and a South American jaguar. This helps vistors to compare related species, but does not help people understand how animals interact with other species in the wild. Some zoos, such as Munich, keep animals in areas connected with zoogeography, so that African or European animals are kept nar each other. Some zoos keep a range of unrelated species in the same enclosure. This is a more natural situation, but care is taken to avoid prey animals coming into contact with potential predators. There is far greater biodiversity in the wild and this is a far better situation to promote natural behaviour. Unfortunately, hunting of predators, or of 'bushmeat' species may lead to an increase of some species over others, leading to an imbalance or to competition between various species for resources. Unsuccessful species may become far scarcer, unless conservation strategies come into force.
Nice topic! who ever started it :lol: I did not saw the author of the thread! :-[
Difficult to type your name. so i will call you Mr. X. i to some extent agree with all you have written. But tell me one thing, 50-40 years ago.. there was not a scene of extinction of animals like we have today. this is because we human did not interfere in their atmosphere and they were happy in their eco-environment. there was not any proper plan or program of capturing these animals just to save their lives.! Concept of "in-captivity or in wild" is in just now.. because we are interfering in their lives. What i think is that they should be in wild. No capturing so that they nurture their generation in a wild and natural atmosphere. Only duty of us is then just to take care of extinct creatures where ever they, who ever they are i mean plants or animals! :)
-
I'm the one who strtd the topic and you can call me nid :)
Well, 40-50 years ago,we weren't as many as we are now. With increasing population and increasing demand for houses, furnishing, etc, deforestation is the trend, I condemn that completely, cause we encroaching upon their land, which is just not tolerable.
But with the kind of population, you won't expect anything. They are least concerned about environment. So, we, as global citizens who wish to see these splendid animals and forests proliferate , should provide them with homes where they do not have to fear for their lives, like in the wild.
Practically speaking,today, we may all fight for their freedom, for them to be in the wild, but the fact is, their freedom lies in captivity, very sad but true.
-
Hmm.. Agreed.. with the increasing population and their demands we have to clear off the forests and their habitat. Not even considering the fact that they also have a right to live but we humans are so "_______" that we started snatching peace form their lives :lol:
And if this continues, then today we are losing these creatures, tomorrow then we will be going from the same situation, from which they are going!
Strong point there, Nid! :)
-
They are animals after all. We should not care about their 'feelings' or 'pain' because it does not make any difference to us. They were created for serving us humans.
A SMALL number of animals should be captivated by means of nature parks and zoos. They will provide us with a good income source by means of possible private zoos and parks. It shouldn't cause extinction or whatsoever. It will be of benifit to both them and us. They will be benifitted too because they receive greater protection when they are in captivity.
This is not to say that deforestation is justified.
-
This was kinda selfish :P
Sorry to say, agree that they were made to serve humans, if that's true then whats the point of saving them. they served us as long as they live. now they have totally served us, their role is over. we don't need them. simple :P
-
Saving them is of our benefit, at least, to some extent. Zoos make money. So does safari parks. Animals are used for numerous other purposes. They entertain us, like pets and circuses. As their supply becomes limited in the future due to the gradual destruction of their habitat, their price will increase, dramatically. If there were 50 dodos in the world now, each one would cost $100m. Think of the benefit if someone had secretly captivated dodos back in 1690s in Mauritius. Good business.
-
They were made to serve us :o :o :o
No dear no!!! Who told you?? :P
-
i quote Stylish's comment and reply on what he said Nid.
Stylish Sir, Other than business we have to admit the fact that We have to save them for any reason what so ever! For business, for our eco system, for you Safari Parks, for our Entertainment. For sometime we have to keep them in our control and in the mean time, have to alarm the people, so that they can go back to their natural habitat then. we cant keep them for long. they have a right to live! You are right, its a business.. but for the extinct features we have to do so that we can make sure that they are reproducing new ones! Its not that easier to do but at least we can spread this, we can educate the world. we humans are very selfish! :(
-
Yes we are very selfish and we have good examples here to prove that.....
It's the fact, all people think about is how to make profit
-
Yes we are very selfish and we have good examples here to prove that.....
It's the fact, all people think about is how to make profit
Is it me? You make nice compliments indirectly! :D
-
Is it me? You make nice compliments indirectly! :D
::) :P
it's human tendency, I can be selfish at times too....
-
::) :P
it's human tendency, I can be selfish at times too....
Good.
-
i quote Stylish's comment and reply on what he said Nid.
Stylish Sir, Other than business we have to admit the fact that We have to save them for any reason what so ever! For business, for our eco system, for you Safari Parks, for our Entertainment. For sometime we have to keep them in our control and in the mean time, have to alarm the people, so that they can go back to their natural habitat then. we cant keep them for long. they have a right to live! You are right, its a business.. but for the extinct features we have to do so that we can make sure that they are reproducing new ones! Its not that easier to do but at least we can spread this, we can educate the world. we humans are very selfish! :(
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not all animals of a species should be captivated. This is ridiculous. Only some of them should be captivated - to serve us.
They have a right to live. But we are superior to them. We control them. We should not kill them - but use them for our benefit - whatever it may be. If it means we have to captivate them and restrict their movements - we should do it without any hesitation.
-
what about their benefit?
-
Their benefit or loss does not matter to us. What we care is whether something is of our benefit, directly or indirectly.
-
Yeah, in that benefit we have lost many of them! and this will continue in this way :)
-
Their benefit or loss does not matter to us. What we care is whether something is of our benefit, directly or indirectly.
We the root cause of everything. We consider ourselves superior....whoever told you so?? We are not.
"We" is generalized....A few people(im being nice, not using an adjective for the kind of people they are) in this world don't care about them but there are a lot of them who do.
We need to stop thinking about our benefits for once. We have everything, yet we want more.....greedy humans=stupid humans.
God made us not to harm these majestic creatures and their habitat, it's what humans think they are meant to do, which is by all means a stupid assumption which leads to very impractical actions and cause a lot of harm to our environment, indirectly us.
We are all in mutualism, one species gone, the whole chain takes a turn, we suffer indirectly, but some ppl don't realize...It's a shame!
-
M saying it again
Yeah, in that benefit we have lost many of them! and this will continue in this way
-
Captivating animals for our benefit will not cause their extinction. Because we normally captivate only a small proportion of a whole species population for any purpose like drug testing, zoos, parks and experiment. We regularly eat chicken and beef burgers. This doesn't mean than chickens and cows are becoming extinct.
-
Captivating animals for our benefit will not cause their extinction. Because we normally captivate only a small proportion of a whole species population for any purpose like drug testing, zoos, parks and experiment. We regularly eat chicken and beef burgers. This doesn't mean than chickens and cows are becoming extinct.
compare the population of beef and chicken to the other animals.....You don't domesticate a lion like a cow....
Not a good comparison mate!
And that's what i exactly said, whether a small proportion or one specie....a little here and there in the chain....it jst causes us harm indirectly
And point one....i don't think any of us said captivating animals will cause extinction...
The point is what you do with them after captivation....they're not public entertainers
-
Dude. same happened to Dodo Bird. i hope you know the story! :)
what i am saying is that Keeping those animals for our benefit will eventually die. Because we are keeping away from their environment! from their habitat! I hope you also know the story of white tiger! People their used to kill them for many reason! Not even knowing that they are no more
Talking about chickens, those poultry chickens will never because we are breeding them with artificial sense. if you can treat other animals in the same way, they will never! :P
-
we treat them as they are our entertainers! they are not public figures!
we never treat them nicely after they are in our control. Just compare your children how you treat 'em and the children of animals :P
-
A couple of weeks ago, I went to Bangkok with my dad on his short business trip. We watched elephants playing football. I even posed with a leg upon a seemingly 'tame' tiger. It was good fun for the last day.
I don't think captivating these 5 elephants and one tiger have done any significant damage to the whole elephant or tiger population.
-
And ASH, I don't have any children. Doing A levels.
-
I don't think captivating these 5 elephants and one tiger have done any significant damage to the whole elephant or tiger population.
Every one think it in the same way, and thus every one is contributing their role! Every one thinks that if i will capture 4 lions for my benefit. it will not going to harm them much... But as i said every one is contributing! it will eventually in the end! :P
-
And ASH, I don't have any children. Doing A levels.
Even i'm doing Alevels, i dont have children too. it was just an example Dude! :)
-
A couple of weeks ago, I went to Bangkok with my dad on his short business trip. We watched elephants playing football. I even posed with a leg upon a seemingly 'tame' tiger. It was good fun for the last day.
I don't think captivating these 5 elephants and one tiger have done any significant damage to the whole elephant or tiger population.
That's what you think :)
And captivating animals does not mean interacting with humans, until really required(say medical purposes)
Captivating can be of different ways....in zoos or sanctuaries or just having wardens and regulations in the already existing habitats for animals.(wildlife reserves)
I am not much for zoos, but sanctuaries and reserves do good.
Taming animals is the worst thing u should do.....cause it's not the real them....they are born to be in the wild and BE WILD....
Once tamed, they find it difficult to survive in the wild.....
-
And rightly said by ash....you're one of the ppl who thinks that way....there may a lot out there who think like you........and then we a few more elephants and few more tiger, playing with humans!!
Tigers do not play with humans, they're not meant to...
They hunt....
With all these tigers here, the population of it's prey would rise.....
And I repeat again...We're all in a mutual relationship....which should not be altered...a little alteration, the chain goes haywire and WE ALL SUFFER
-
Agree with you Nid.
We have to realize the harsh truth that we humans are selfish and greedy! :P
they have a right to live, enjoy, reproduce in Their habitat. For example, if we humans are animals for other creatures, and they did same with us! what you will going to do. you can only serve them for their benefit! and they like us will want so called benefit without even realizing our worth! :P
-
were*
-
@Nid:
The sick will die.
@Ash:
We humans are not animals. This is the fact. Doesn't matter what would happen if we were them. Because we ARE not them. What matters is how can we put them to our use for various purposes.
And captivating animals does not mean we are killing them. As soon as their purpose is served, they will be set free.
-
@Nid:
The sick will die.
Random much??
-
@Ash:
We humans are not animals. This is the fact. Doesn't matter what would happen if we were them. Because we ARE not them. What matters is how can we put them to our use for various purposes.
And captivating animals does not mean we are killing them. As soon as their purpose is served, they will be set free.
Depends on the one who is taking care of them
-
We are treating nature with contempt if we think we can control it. We will be hit full in the face by our arrogance when the ecosystem collapses. Did you read about the bee population collapsing? It means no flowers and fruit at some point if it continues.
-
Finally someone gets the point.
Thank you sir
-
Thats what we were discussing. As long as this Eco-system is here we are here. and when it will collapse, and so we will! :P
-
(http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs114.snc3/16133_199006304733_199006104733_2947125_858197_n.jpg)
Its called KARMA! and it just smashed you in the face!
It's a group on fb....This is what happens when u f around
-
I did not get it :S
when you f around? :S
-
We are treating nature with contempt if we think we can control it. We will be hit full in the face by our arrogance when the ecosystem collapses. Did you read about the bee population collapsing? It means no flowers and fruit at some point if it continues.
I don't think the ecosystem will collapse as a result of captivating animals. Maybe due to killing animals like in hunting, but definitely not just by captivating them.
-
The ecosystem will be destroyed because we are cutting down the trees and killing all the animals. Imagine the whole earth like Haiti.
-
i seriously feel that this kinda cruelty should all stop.
We have no right to kill all these animals and behave such like a monster with them..!!
People say that i get to hyper when it comes to eating non-veg.
you guys tell do we have any right to kill them just for our fun??? ??? ???
-
Thats what we are saying
we are really killing them for no reason. we capture them and what them to serve us thats really very bad
@ Nid. what did you post about Karma. i did not get it according to the topic. pls reply
-
Karma: In Indian religions is the concept of "action" or "deed", understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect.
Something like what goes around comes back around....When u treat animals like slaves, there'll be a day you will face something even worse....
-
Hmm.. okay :)
-
The ecosystem will be destroyed because we are cutting down the trees and killing all the animals. Imagine the whole earth like Haiti.
Yes, Mr. Paul Smith, its true. Each animal is dependent on all others in the ecosystem. And we are dependent on it.
But the ecosystem will definitely not be destroyed due to us captivating animals and putting them to various uses.
-
The thing is we are not to determine what to use them for..
They have a life they wish to live in their terms. We cannot dictate terms and impose on them
-
Yeah rights for animals. They were here before us.
-
Yeah rights for animals. They were here before us.
It couldn't have been better said! :)
-
We do determine what animals should do. We have the power to control them and put them to various uses. Not vice versa for obvious reasons.
I don't think its immoral to captivate animals. Sure, they have feelings too. But we captivate them for our use and benefit like zoos, circus and pets. Its not that we are captivating them pointlessly. So, its alright to captivate animals.
-
I am the servant of my cat
-
Leave animals, we do not even have the power to determine what we, ourselves, do sometimes.
-
Leave animals, we do not even have the power to determine what we, ourselves, do sometimes.
*NODS* ::)
-
GO VEGANS!!!!(actually includes VEGETARIANS as well!!!)
U THE BEST!!! :-*
-
I am not a vegan. When my cat dies I Will cool and eat it.... Maybe.
-
thanks for this valuable information.