Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: How should we use animals?

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1.1 Eating meat is OK

    45 86.54%
  • 1.2 Eating meat is wrong

    7 13.46%
  • 2.1 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is OK

    42 80.77%
  • 2.2 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is wrong

    6 11.54%
  • 3.1 Testing on animals for medical purposes is OK

    35 67.31%
  • 3.2 Testing on animals for medical purposes is wrong

    11 21.15%
  • 4.1 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is OK

    9 17.31%
  • 4.2 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong

    38 73.08%
  • 5.1 Using animals in circuses is OK

    21 40.38%
  • 5.2 Using animals in circuses is wrong

    24 46.15%
  • 6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK

    36 69.23%
  • 6.2 Keeping animals in zoos is wrong

    13 25.00%
  • 7.1 Hitting pets is OK

    13 25.00%
  • 7.2 Hitting pets is wrong

    29 55.77%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 139

Thread: Animal Rights

  1. #76
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan





    Quote Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
    That's because you haven't tasted my cooking
    Or my wife`s either. hmmmm mmmm good!


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  2. #77
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
    Most vegetarians, and probably most animal rights activists, are not trying to take your meat away.
    That is right to some extent. I sure have never gone up to someone`s plate in a restaurant and tried to take their meat away. But, I have leafleted and tabled the reason to go vegetarian. Vegetarians are usually involved in a battle of getting the vegetarian lifestyle out and to move society to adopt the vegetarian diet through convincing them that a vegetarian diet is the kinder choice.

    However, a part of The AR Movement does consist of direct action against the industry. This can have an affect on prices which is one way of putting the product further from reach.


    For most of us, vegetarianism is a personal choice that we would never force on others.
    It could never be forced. However, it or parts of the meat industry could be legislated to such an extent that the price of production would cause more to chose it as a lifestyle.

    ...I find it unacceptable that you say they should be 'committed'. Please stick to rational argument.
    Well, at least it isn`t as bad as someone saying they would get their gun and go to PETA`s HQs.

  3. #78
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Eating too much meat can definitely damage your health. Heart disease, hypertension, obesity, colon cancer and gout... definitely don't over-do it. I have a tendency toward hyper-hematosis--- too much iron... it clogs up your liver. It is not to say that you can't have any meat... but there are good and/or bad consequences for every action.

    Eating too much candy, while it doesn't cause diabetes... once you hit a certain age, if you have been bathing your system in sugar on a constant basis and have put on some mid-life poundage- the tendency toward insulin resistance or type II diabetes is greatly increased.

    Suddenly, you hit forty thinking everything is honky dory, and this young guy in a lab coat starts telling you not to eat this or that, to lose 25 pound, to excercise and to take these pills. Now you got pills, and monitors for blood pressure and glucose, and this eating plan that cuts out anything and everything you like... It is probably better to have started earlier and stayed healthy.

  4. #79
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
    A vegetarian who lives on lettuce leaves and a meat eater with a 75% meat/25% candy diet are setting themselves up for health problems. Anyone who eats a balanced diet, and cares about what they eat - whether or not that includes meat - is more likely to be in good general health.
    A lettuce sandwich is good for helping you sleep. There is something in it that induces sleep. Another lettuce fact: it takes more energy to eat a lettuce than you get from it.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    That is right to some extent. I sure have never gone up to someone`s plate in a restaurant and tried to take their meat away. But, I have leafleted and tabled the reason to go vegetarian. Vegetarians are usually involved in a battle of getting the vegetarian lifestyle out and to move society to adopt the vegetarian diet through convincing them that a vegetarian diet is the kinder choice.
    Actually I would find this offensive. You do not like Christians coming up to you and doing the same with their leaflets, so why should it be right for you to do it? You are promoting a lifestyle the same way a JW or mormon are promoting their lifestyles. You have chosen to be a vegetarian and you are happy with it. Good for you. I am happy with my omnivorous diet, so let me be. If I wanted to think about vegetarianism I would look it up for myself. Although there is one livestock animal that is safe from me and they are pigs, because I don't like pork. (Tasteless or oversalted, uggh) You already know my views on the human diet, so I'm not going any more into that

  5. #80
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    Actually I would find this offensive. You do not like Christians coming up to you and doing the same with their leaflets, so why should it be right for you to do it?
    You are right in that both are at times bothersome to the targets. But, often the targets are receptive to the message, either be it on Christianity or Vegetarianism.

    Mycernius, I tolerate Christians coming up to me. In fact, when I see a group of them circling about outside a Starbacks, I often place myself in their path so that they talk to me about their superstition. You should see it, after a few minutes they raise eyebrows to others that have not decended upon me yet and soon they are all in a frenzy around me. It is quite fun to see them in that state.

    I don`t find their antics at approaching me causing me to not "like it." I enjoy it. It is entertaining. I am all for freedom of speech and that does include being able to approach people.

    The difference between what vegetarians are offering and what Christians are offering is in non-delivery of the goods that are being offered. That means fraud.

    There is a lot of research and there are many studies that show a vegetarian diet can be quite healthful to many. Land use for animal agriculture often pollutes environment. Factory farming causes paine, misery and suffering. These are all things that can be observed. Choosing to not support this system of meat consumption through the market place decreases demand for the product that causes these problems. All of it is testable.

    Christianity, however, cannot give any evidence to support what it is offering. It is promising something without evidence. It suggests supernatural beings and events without evidence and wants those supernatural things relayed by word of mouth to be trusted. There is that stinking smell of fraud there.

    You are promoting a lifestyle the same way a JW or mormon are promoting their lifestyles.
    Yes, one based on observation and testable/researched data. Not one based on no evidence. There is no reliabel evidence for Christianity that is consistant and besides the point that it is not uncorrupted and has shady origins begun by people whom themselves are not really known.

    You have chosen to be a vegetarian and you are happy with it. Good for you. I am happy with my omnivorous diet, so let me be. If I wanted to think about vegetarianism I would look it up for myself.
    Well, if you wanted to think about buying a new Toyota Landcruiser, I guess you could look that up, too. But, Toyota, is not going to wait for you to get interested, are they? Of course not. They will be coming into your living room through your TV or as ad banners on different sites. Christians will tell you, their success is due to the nature of going out and "telling the Good News." In fact, all marketers and ad agencies will tell you the public is swayable and one`s position can be greatly strengthened if one gets their message out by being pro-active -- not passive.

    So, Mycernius, sorry. You will not be left alone. The V-team will keep pushing and actively making inroads directly to more and more people. And, hey! It has been working. All we`ve done is taken a page right out of the playbook of past advertisers, be it corporate or religio.

    Although there is one livestock animal that is safe from me and they are pigs, because I don't like pork.
    Mr. Cromwell (forgot first name), the actor who starred in the Babe series became a vegetarian during the filming of Babe. He said he was very touched by the story and the plight of factory farmed animals. Good on you Mycernius for not eating pork.

  6. #81
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    My sister and her husband used to "evangelize" her vegetarian lifestyle. I generally ignored her and her husband...But then she would occasionally cheat. There son hated it and chose to sneak out with friends for burgers and pizza all the time. Now he doesn't even hide his carnivorous leanings. My brother in law's health problems- back, joints, losing toe nails... the guy is in constant pain... never really helped to sell me on the overall health benefits. Likewise, my sister has had the normal range of health problems and is no healthier (or unhealthy) than my other sister who used to hunt and raise pigs. I am going to have to agree that a healthy diet is essential, but need not be vegetarian.

    I also had a friend and fellow musician at church that was so forceful and controlling that his entire family finally began ignoring him and then up and left him. He would sit with us and constantly badger us about how we could eat blood and guts, how we could cause so much pain...blah blah blah, and we would go on eating. It was about control and this irritating black and white thinking- bordering on paranoia. He did that to his wife and kids, and she put up with it until eating disorders began to show up in his teenage daughter. She basically proved that he could not control her by not eating at all. Finally his wife shut him out and then left him.

    Too bad however, he was one of the few Nisei on the mountain and a good musician.

  7. #82
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    There are those vegetarians who are not very focused on their diet and do not get all their body's needs to stay healthy. One does have to be focused on their food. But, being focused on food is a good thing.

    I knew a vegetarian once who ate a lot of junk food, didn`t care about B12 or protein intake and she did not fare too well. Like anything, there are stupid people in all categories -- be it sports, vegetarians, flesh eaters, or Christians. No one has a monopoly on stupidity.

    I also knew a Christian, in fact many, who evangelized and turned off many of friends and got devorced. However, during all their talk about the stories of which they believed in, they always failed to point out that vegetarianism was the original plan for man and that meat consumption was brought about after man had entered a state of sin.
    Last edited by Tsuyoiko; 07-02-06 at 12:33.

  8. #83
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Land use for animal agriculture often pollutes environment. Factory farming causes paine, misery and suffering. These are all things that can be observed. Choosing to not support this system of meat consumption through the market place decreases demand for the product that causes these problems.
    Land used for plant agriculture is just as polluting. After all there are all the fertilizers and pesticides that are used on the fields for plant production. Destablisiing the nitrogen content of the soil. Killing of species throuhg poisoning the environment. Plus the fact that a lot more land has to be used for grain production. Imagine the amount of bison that used to roam the plains that are now used for the production of wheat and other crops. Bison might not have been killed for that, but because they are gone man has used it to his advantage. Either way mass food production, whether it is for plant or meat, are both bad for the environment. The argument against pollution is circular. The same argument can be used for or against plant/meat production.

  9. #84
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    The same argument can be used for or against plant/meat production.
    Not quite. Purely from the land use argument, vegetarianism is more environmentally sound. From the link I quoted above (whatever post # that was):
    The amount of land needed to produce a one-year food supply for a person who has to support a meat-eating habit is 3.25 acres. The amount of land needed to produce a one-year food supply for a pure vegetarian is 1/6 acre. As cited by John Robbins in his book Diet for a New America, Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council has estimated that if Americans would reduce their consumption of meat by only 10%, the amount of grain wasted on animal feed that could be diverted for direct human consumption would be sufficient to adequately feed every one of the 60 million people who die from hunger each year.

    Production of meat in developing countries trying to emulate the American lifestyle is a major cause of deforestation as jungle habitats are replaced with large ranches to raise livestock. Those who want to "save the rainforests" should consider giving up meat.

    Production of meat also wastes precious water resources for watering and cleaning livestock animals and their equipment and facilities. Producing one pound of meat requires about 2,500 gallons of water. Those who eat meat require more than twelve times as much water as is needed for a pure vegetarian.

  10. #85
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Okay, I concede on that, but there is still the pesticides and fertilizers used.

  11. #86
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    Okay, I concede on that, but there is still the pesticides and fertilizers used.
    If it takes more crops to feed animals, it is only reasonable to accept that it would take more pesitcides to grow more crops for them. More pesiticides and fertilizer use causes more environmental degredation.

    Choosing to go vegetarian is not about choosing a perfect choice (there will alsways be some environmental degredation) -- it is about choosing the best one available that is practical and allows for the least degredation but still allows for us to consume food products readily available via mass production to support a large population.

  12. #87
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Meat is definitely not as efficient or cost effective as farming. We could feed more people on the planet more food if we limited our meat intake... but the general problem of overpopulation would not be answered. All we would have done in the long run is to increase the planet's carrying capacity and extended our impact on the environment.

  13. #88
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Animal Rights is not some abstract thought about what should or might be -- it is shaping up to and on the road to wiggling into the corridors of courtrooms and law. Just a matter of time.

    The nation`s most prestigious school for cranking out lawyers and future jugdges, Harvard, has greatly increased their offerings of courses specialising in and Animal Rights Law. Just 5 years ago Bob Barker convinced his production company to donate $500,000 to Harvard to develope courses and research into this emerging field where young people have grown up with knowledge and news stories of Peta and other animal rights/welfare groups in the public.

    gHarvard Law School is known for the depth and breadth of its curriculum, which includes approximately 260 different courses and seminars,h said Dean Robert C. Clark. gThis fund will allow our faculty and students to explore in depth an emerging field of law that has ramifications in many traditional legal areas. We are grateful to Pearson Television for this gift\our students will benefit greatly from their generosity and from Bob Barkerfs sensitivity to the issue of animal rights.h

    As students and graduates of such schools where courses are offered gradually infiltrate the court systems, city elected positions, etc... more and more decisions for animals and aggressive legislation will gain momentum.

    Strong Animal Rights legislation is not a question of gIf,h but gWhen.h Time will bear that out. But, like many oppressed people in the past can attest to, change can take a long time in coming. But... it does come.

    [pong]Toward Animal Liberation[/pong]

  14. #89
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I was just thinking about a couple of point for Mycernius and Tsuyoiko: The biggest threat to wildlife, to the disappearance of species- is not hunting, but rather loss of habitat. Development and farming still pose the biggest threat to bio-diversity and long term species survival. Ranching a free range actually has less of an effect-- unless a particular species competes or threatens the rancher's livelyhood. Feedlots on the otherhand create a fairly significant ecological impact.

  15. #90
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    "1.1 Eating meat is OK
    1.2 Eating meat is wrong
    2.1 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is OK
    2.2 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is wrong
    3.1 Testing on animals for medical purposes is OK
    3.2 Testing on animals for medical purposes is wrong
    4.1 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is OK
    4.2 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong
    5.1 Using animals in circuses is OK
    5.2 Using animals in circuses is wrong
    6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK
    6.2 Keeping animals in zoos is wrong
    7.1 Hitting pets is OK
    7.2 Hitting pets is wrong"
    I havn't voted on any of these so far as they have so many more factors to take into consideration than just them being either ok or not ok.
    As far as meat eating is concerned, i agree, its a normal part of our nature- we were evolved and designed to eat a variety of foods including meat and vegetables etc.
    The bit that concerns me, is wether the animal has been raised in a morally correct mannor or not and humanely killed- by morally correct mannor, i mean, the animal has been properly given the basic needs it has to be "happy" i.e.;
    a. A decent amount of space to move about in.
    b. The chance to see the sun at least a couple of times in its life/the ability to go out doors at least a couple of times at least in its life.
    c. At least some of its natural foods given in a naturally prepared mannor i.e if it is a chicken, it should be fed at least some whole grain foods and not just powdered foods, or if it is a cow it should be allowed to eat fresh growing grass etc.
    d. The animal should not be fed animal products.
    e. The animal should be allowed to fullfill some of its social requirements like the ability to interact with its own kind if it is a sociable animal for example.
    f. The animal should be killed effectively and not be forced to go through prolonged suffering.
    g. The animal should not be given chemicals that will cause it suffering throughout its life.
    There are a couple more points, but thats the jist of things.
    I eat meat, but i do not eat battery farmed animal products(including intensively dairy farmed products), at all. Nothing. And rarely ever barn ranged animal products as there is little difference in the upraising of the animal in question. This is partly due to the fact, that in the vast majority of battery farmed animal cases, none of the above factors are even taken into consideration.
    I was born and raised on a farm for most of my life, i also worked for a couple of days in a battery chicken farm- and i can tell you, i never seen anything so horrific in my life as a battery chicken farm.
    I do not eat things like macdonalds, kfc, burger king and similar large company chain product foods due to the fact that all of their animal products are battery farmed.
    I can tell you, that almost every animal that can be farmed, people have found a way to intensively farm it in a cruel mannor;
    Pigs are battery farmed.
    Chickens are battery farmed.
    Ducks are battery farmed.
    Turkeys are battery farmed.
    Cows can be "0 grazing" farmed(i.e. kept in doors their entire life, never see a green feild in their life).
    Etc...The only animal i can think of that i know isn't intensively farmed in a battery-style mannor are sheep, but then again they are a whole different story and can often endure great suffering.
    I strongly disagree with battery farming, intensive dairy farming and 0 grazing farming, so i refuse to financially support it with my money- trust me, you would throw up if you knew what went into half of the food you eat, i know, because i have seen the raising of many animals and delt with food production. Thus i only eat animal products if they are organic and have been raised in a morally correct manner and humanely killed, and ironically, i hardly ever get the chance to eat good meat because its so hard to find with just these basic factors attended to.
    Im against testing on animals purely for cosmetic purposes, and often against testing on animals for "medical purposes"(because you'd be suprised at how many utterly useless and horrible experiments on animals go under the the catagory for medical purposes)- as far as medical testing on animals go, im largely undecided, although i strongly believe its what exactly is tested on the animal in the name of medicine that is the deciding factor.
    Im not against circuses or zoo's as long as the animals are well-treated and happy, but in the case of there being an endangered animal being held in captivity that is the right age and health for breeding, i believe that is must be given a proper chance to breed- if its highly unlikely it will breed in its current enviroment, it should be removed to a reserve where it will be given a proper chance.
    Hitting pets is a grey area...I guess some of it comes down to what type of animal you are hitting, where you are hitting it and how hard. For example, its highly stupid to hit a hamster because it bit you, because hamsters bite when they are not handled enough by their owner, and they honestly do not benifet in anyway from being physically harmed.
    But if a dog bites you, i think its fair enough to hit it back(although gently, i always found that a tap on the nose was more than enough)- dogs are often intelligent enough to register its negative actions with your negative re-actions, and they are often strong enough to never be harmed, but i only i think you should hit a dog for example if it bites you. I always believe that violence should always be a last resort though, because the majority of dogs are very intelligent animals, its almost always more than enough to just somthing else they dont like, like spray some water on them from a water gun( a friend of mine who bought a badly behaved dog actually used this method and the dog turned into an angel within a couple of weeks of getting soaked in water) :) .
    Last edited by Tokis-Phoenix; 09-02-06 at 16:00.

  16. #91
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    In addition to Bob Barker convincing his production company to give $500,000 to Harvard Law School for courses and research focusing on Animal Rights Law, he also donated personally $1,000,000 of his own money to the University of California, law school, to make an endowment for Animal Rights Law there.

    Helping to grow today`s officers of the court for tomorrow`s victories is just one of the multi-pronged strategies being used to wage the battle for winning animal rights.

  17. #92
    K[bg (/ ^^)/ Achievements:
    1 year registered
    -rika- shinya`'s Avatar
    Join Date
    18-12-05
    Age
    31
    Posts
    16


    Country: Hongkong



    But if a dog bites you, i think its fair enough to hit it back(although gently, i always found that a tap on the nose was more than enough)
    Do you mean a stray dog or your own dog? omg if a stray dog is fierce to want to bite me,I won't make it easier by feeding my hand to it just to want to tap its nose But my dog is okay. It will never bite my hand in the first place.

    1.1 Eating meat is OK
    since I am not a vegetarian myself, i chose this. i eat chicken and sometimes pork. I find eating something like whale is wrong though. and for eating things alive is WRONG. and there is also the monkey. I find it digusting and so CRUEL to scrape the brain out and eat it alive. being human doesn't make you superior and earn you the right to do that!

    2.1 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is OK
    I don't see what is wrong to use them. Unless it is eggs or something from protected and near to extinct species.

    3.2 Testing on animals for medical purposes is wrong
    4.2 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong

    cosmetic purposes is definately wrong to me! and to test them on medical purposes..sometimes animals have different reactions as humans.

    5.1 Using animals in circuses is OK
    it is okay if they are treated nicely and not abused

    6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK
    same as above. and sometimes it is necessary to protect the species from dying out.

    7.1 Hitting pets is wrong
    this is just wrong. pets are for you to love them. but last time, i scold my dog for pooping everywhere too. and now it knows always to go the toilet for it's needs. But it's sad to see that some people are hitting/shouting their pets constantly just for something trivial like barking.

    and it is wrong to ignore them too, like always chaining the dog outside the gate/only giving it food and drinks occasionally and the dog is so skinny and sick looking. If you can't take care of it, then why even bother having a pet!
    Last edited by -rika- shinya`; 13-02-06 at 07:49.

    is teh rabu (*^^) m

  18. #93
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I guess the dog has the right to bite my hand. Whether I try to smack it or not might depend on the circumstances and threat level. A strange dog charging me might get a different reaction than a familiar dog, or a dog in its own yard.

    (The only time my dog ever bit my hand was when we were playing and he had enough... ouch!)

  19. #94
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by -rika- shinya`
    6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK
    same as above. and sometimes it is necessary to protect the species from dying out.
    Rika- shinya, could you tell me which animal species have been saved by zoos so that they did not die out? After they were saved, which 'saved species' has ever been reintroduced successfully after all wild populations of them had no longer existed?

  20. #95
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Rika- shinya, could you tell me which animal species have been saved by zoos so that they did not die out? After they were saved, which 'saved species' has ever been reintroduced successfully after all wild populations of them had no longer existed?
    Not that you are asking my opinion, but anyways, thought you and rika would like to check these out;

    Baby zoo tortoise species' 'saviour';

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/4099574.stm

    Breeding success for very endangered zoo snails;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4475654.stm

    But then again, its not all success, so i wether i agree or not on zoo's keeping endangered animal breeding programs depends on the success of them in general and the long run in comparsion to other places and what they are breeding, for example;

    Born free?;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4708066.stm

    What i mainly dont agree about in this in particular is the major difference in budgets that various wildlife reserves and zoo's get. Yes, zoo's have have helped save many animals from the brink of extinction, but at the same time its not always the case for others- its not fair though that some zoo's get far more money to spend per acre than what various wildlife reserves do.

  21. #96
    K[bg (/ ^^)/ Achievements:
    1 year registered
    -rika- shinya`'s Avatar
    Join Date
    18-12-05
    Age
    31
    Posts
    16


    Country: Hongkong



    thanx for those links tokis-phoenix!

    strongvoicesforward, do you accept those?
    Last edited by -rika- shinya`; 14-02-06 at 23:50.

  22. #97
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by -rika- shinya`
    thanx for those links tokis-phoenix!
    strongvoicesforward, do you accept those?
    Glad to help .
    I personally believe that both zoo's and wildlife reserves have their places in wildlife conservation respectively. I completely agree that people should do their best to support wildlife reserves, but on the other hand many wildlife reserves face problems that are often out of the hands of people to help control, for example;
    a. Poaching
    b. Non-native animal species threatening native animal species
    c. Enviromental concerns/issues like lack of water/rain
    Most wildlife reserves face at least one if not all of these problems, and i think that zoo's can often help out in these situations like this when it comes to wildlife conservation. For example, the artifical enviroment of the zoo can often offer a huge amount of protection against poachers or other species of animals threatening the endangered ones; on the other hand the wildlife reserves can offer things that the zoo cannot often offer, like huge expanses of completely natural native habitat which makes it ideal for native endangered animals to breed in. Many species of animals simply cannot breed very easily in zoo enviroments because its often almost imposible to re-create a completely natural habitat in a zoo and many endangered species of animals are often extremely picky about their enviroment when it comes to breeding succesfully and/or rearing young.
    Zoo's can also have other places in wildlife conservation, like getting the public interested in rare or endangered animals, many wildlife reserves or charitys completely rely on the publics funding support to keep them going, and in this respect i think zoo's are very important in educating the public about wildlife not only native to their own country but other parts of the world too and getting them interested in supporting these animals .
    Last edited by Tokis-Phoenix; 15-02-06 at 13:57.

  23. #98
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by -rika- shinya`
    thanx for those links tokis-phoenix!
    strongvoicesforward, do you accept those?
    Yes, I accept them partly in some way, but those are hopes of helping a species for the future based on their endangerment presently.

    I am wondering if a zoo has ever been successful at saving an animal from extinction and then reintroducing it and that the recovery of that species was catagorically due to the zoo`s intervention. I don`t think that has ever happened. I could be wrong and would like to see that. If that has happened many times then I think that zoos have demonstrated their worth as a kind of "ark" for animals. But, if that has not happened, I think they are using that as an excuse to justify their continued existance in the face of declining visitors and more harsh criticism of them in recent years.

    The thing is, with environment for animals disappearing, those animals who are ushered into this "Ark" are on a one way voyage with no hope to dock and go 'ashore.' Are zoos to become their destined existance -- a place to be ogled at by the curious? Will they ever add to the variety of the echosystem again once they have no range to go back to?

    I think in one of the links above it talked about snails. Well fine, make a zoo for snails. Or, if an animal is endangered and close to extinction, make a zoo for that animal only. It is wrong to take an animal that is not endangered and deprive it of its freedom for the curiosity and profit of others. If a zoo can`t survive without the support of people who see no fun in going to see a zoo full of snails and other small animals, then the public is voting with their dollars that they don`t support their efforts. An elephant or a lion (animals not on the verge of extinction), should not be forced to live in prison just to attract crowds to make money simply because a snail would not be a crowd pull.

    As for protecting an animal species because their numbers are threatened because of developement creep on environment and poaching, then large swaths of guarded and enclosed sanctuaries should be created with government and private support.

    For the most part, zoos are about entertainment. Many border on a carnival like atmoshere with cotton candy, rides, and animal shows. They often try to cload themselves in the guise of education, but you still see animals enclosed in small cages and unenriched environments. Simply put, zoos cannot provide for many of the species they seek to exploit because of the complex needs of these species. Even at many of the best zoos you can spot animals with stress, such as pacing, strange and erratic behaviour, threatening gestures, etc... It is quite sad to see many of them in their psychotic mental state.

    What kids are implicitly learning about when they go to the zoo (even if they can`t articulate it) is that it is ok for us to oppress a species and force them into confinement or make them do tricks for our entertainment and amusement.

    One thing I did like about a few zoos I vaguely remember when I had visited when I was young (and read about in other books/mags) is that in some exhibits at the entrance there would be a full body length mirror with a sign above it stating: "You are looking at the most dangerous animal in the world." How true!

  24. #99
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Yes, I accept them partly in some way, but those are hopes of helping a species for the future based on their endangerment presently.
    I am wondering if a zoo has ever been successful at saving an animal from extinction and then reintroducing it and that the recovery of that species was catagorically due to the zoo`s intervention. I don`t think that has ever happened. I could be wrong and would like to see that. If that has happened many times then I think that zoos have demonstrated their worth as a kind of "ark" for animals. But, if that has not happened, I think they are using that as an excuse to justify their continued existance in the face of declining visitors and more harsh criticism of them in recent years.
    The thing is, with environment for animals disappearing, those animals who are ushered into this "Ark" are on a one way voyage with no hope to dock and go 'ashore.' Are zoos to become their destined existance -- a place to be ogled at by the curious? Will they ever add to the variety of the echosystem again once they have no range to go back to?
    I think in one of the links above it talked about snails. Well fine, make a zoo for snails. Or, if an animal is endangered and close to extinction, make a zoo for that animal only. It is wrong to take an animal that is not endangered and deprive it of its freedom for the curiosity and profit of others. If a zoo can`t survive without the support of people who see no fun in going to see a zoo full of snails and other small animals, then the public is voting with their dollars that they don`t support their efforts. An elephant or a lion (animals not on the verge of extinction), should not be forced to live in prison just to attract crowds to make money simply because a snail would not be a crowd pull.
    As for protecting an animal species because their numbers are threatened because of developement creep on environment and poaching, then large swaths of guarded and enclosed sanctuaries should be created with government and private support.
    For the most part, zoos are about entertainment. Many border on a carnival like atmoshere with cotton candy, rides, and animal shows. They often try to cload themselves in the guise of education, but you still see animals enclosed in small cages and unenriched environments. Simply put, zoos cannot provide for many of the species they seek to exploit because of the complex needs of these species. Even at many of the best zoos you can spot animals with stress, such as pacing, strange and erratic behaviour, threatening gestures, etc... It is quite sad to see many of them in their psychotic mental state.
    What kids are implicitly learning about when they go to the zoo (even if they can`t articulate it) is that it is ok for us to oppress a species and force them into confinement or make them do tricks for our entertainment and amusement.
    One thing I did like about a few zoos I vaguely remember when I had visited when I was young (and read about in other books/mags) is that in some exhibits at the entrance there would be a full body length mirror with a sign above it stating: "You are looking at the most dangerous animal in the world." How true!
    If you've ever had to manage a farm(lets say 6-11 hundred acres) you'll understand how pretty much imposible it is to completely protect it from poachers- you simply can't be in every place in every point of time to protect from poachers. Most wildlife reserves already have fencing and guards/people to help out but they are more of a deterant to poachers rather than a real protection- its not just a matter of putting in taller fences and more guards alot of the time, if people are really determined to kill a particular animal for alot of money, they'll find a way. You also have to take into consideration that many countrys that have very endangered animals suffer alot of political unrest and we simply cannot barge into them placing our guards left and right. Many wildlife reserves are completely off-limits to us because of political issues.

    Alot of endangered zoo animals come from countrys or parts of countrys where the governments can barely feed their people let alone look after all the animals. Orang-utangs will most be extinct in the wild in decades because of poaching, enviroment loss and non native animal species threatening them for example, and they will only exist in zoos.
    Most animals that end up in zoo's on breeding programs do so because the reserves can no longer look after them properly or keep them alive- that is why they rarely get introduced completely as a species back into the wild, for example like the turtles, because many threats to native wildlife are practically imposible to get rid of like non native species threatening others. Even though we have been dealing with the grey squirrel/red squirrel crisis for decades in england, red squirels are seriously declining still and i think its safe to say that they may only exist in controlled zoo enviroments one day.


    With the onset of the global climate changes we are facing now, even if you chuck billions of pounds into wildlife researves, you cannot change the weather. Many wildlife reserves in africa for example are struggling even when they can get the funding they need because of the major lack of water/rain destroying all the wildlife.

    You may not like it, part zoo's do have an important part in wildlife conservation for thousands of species of animals- im not saying i agree with every type of animal being in a zoo, for example endangered ones that are obviously not breeding in the zoo enviroment successfully in comparsion to wildlife reserves, but the importance of zoo's will only increase as global warming or natural disasters increase, or even political unrest in countries etc- all these things are inevitable. Im also not saying that every zoo is great, some are still stuck in the victorian exotic animal exhibit stage, but many zoo's now days are doing alot to change their ways to become better places for the animals involved, and i think we should encourage that.

    Do you agree that zoo's help get the public interested in wildlife across the world?

  25. #100
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Oh right...Sorry i forgot that strongvoicesforward is making an effort to ignore what i say since a couple of days ago, anyone else here agree with him that i can chat to about this topic or do most people here agree that zoo's have their place in wildlife conservation?

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-19, 15:12
  2. Animal testing, your feelings?
    By Tokis-Phoenix in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 20-06-06, 08:03
  3. Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty
    By strongvoicesforward in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 17-06-06, 16:28
  4. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 10:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •