Many are critical for conservation and research efforts. It is an unfortunate byproduct of their existence that people want to see animals housed there, some of which certainly cannot ethically be part of the public spectacle. There are some species you can ethically provide all of the needs for and still display without major disruption to the animals’ lives
Many of those working in ‘conservation’ also kidnap the animals they breed from the wild in the first place and have a profit incentive to create as many babies as they possibly can to pass around to other zoos owned by the same people. The Portland, OR Zoo method of killing elephants and selling them to traveling circuses.
I mean I definitely understand where you are coming from, but if you can successfully start a breeding program which removes the profit incentive of removing wild animals from their natural habitat, while also supplying other zoos with that animal so that they too do not have to remove them from the wild, that is an objectively good thing.
Selling to a circus is a different story, as is using elephants as an exhibit animal, since, as I stated previously, there are no circumstances which you can ethically display such an animal
If it objectively lowers the demand to harvest wild animals from their natural habitats, which necessitates increased human encroachment and habitat fragmentation, then yes actually it genuinely is objectively good.
At the very least, it’s an objective improvement so long as your goal is alleviating animal suffering at large. Human pressure on any given biosphere not only puts more animals at risk of falling into the category of animal agriculture for the sake of preservation, it also is the greatest single threat and suffering indicator for wildlife in observable history.
I’m not familiar enough with institutions outside the US, but I wouldn’t assume any better in general. Focusing back on the US, I like to remind people that Seaworld was and is still AZA accredited. People like to point to that as some sort of stamp of quality. It’s “we must sell hunting tags to generate the revenue we need to conserve the animals being hunted” type shit. We need state-funded sanctuaries.
Many are critical for conservation and research efforts. It is an unfortunate byproduct of their existence that people want to see animals housed there, some of which certainly cannot ethically be part of the public spectacle. There are some species you can ethically provide all of the needs for and still display without major disruption to the animals’ lives
Many of those working in ‘conservation’ also kidnap the animals they breed from the wild in the first place and have a profit incentive to create as many babies as they possibly can to pass around to other zoos owned by the same people. The Portland, OR Zoo method of killing elephants and selling them to traveling circuses.
I mean I definitely understand where you are coming from, but if you can successfully start a breeding program which removes the profit incentive of removing wild animals from their natural habitat, while also supplying other zoos with that animal so that they too do not have to remove them from the wild, that is an objectively good thing.
Selling to a circus is a different story, as is using elephants as an exhibit animal, since, as I stated previously, there are no circumstances which you can ethically display such an animal
creating new forms of animal agriculture is not an objectively good thing
If it objectively lowers the demand to harvest wild animals from their natural habitats, which necessitates increased human encroachment and habitat fragmentation, then yes actually it genuinely is objectively good.
At the very least, it’s an objective improvement so long as your goal is alleviating animal suffering at large. Human pressure on any given biosphere not only puts more animals at risk of falling into the category of animal agriculture for the sake of preservation, it also is the greatest single threat and suffering indicator for wildlife in observable history.
Is this a thing in current year in other settler nations like Australia and New Zealand? I’m not even going ask about Britain.
I’m not familiar enough with institutions outside the US, but I wouldn’t assume any better in general. Focusing back on the US, I like to remind people that Seaworld was and is still AZA accredited. People like to point to that as some sort of stamp of quality. It’s “we must sell hunting tags to generate the revenue we need to conserve the animals being hunted” type shit. We need state-funded sanctuaries.