nintendofan61
Senior Member
I think no, but, what is your thoughts and why?
Should animals be used for entertainment purposes?
- Thread starter nintendofan61
- Start date
Colour Bandit
Senior Member
No, animals should not be used for entertainment. The closest to entertainment that animals should get are aquariums and zoos which are more aimed at education.
We take our dog to classes for dog agility and where we take him has often been sabotaged by animal rights groups. While we often take part in the Dog Agility club's displays we do this to raise awareness to dog owners who rarely exercise their dogs that exercise can be fun, we also take our dog to the Dog Agility club as our dog is a bundle of energy and Agility wears him out. Though it's really annoying when people claim we are just 'using' our pets- No we are providing him with a more challenging (and more entertaining for our dog) form of exercise.
We take our dog to classes for dog agility and where we take him has often been sabotaged by animal rights groups. While we often take part in the Dog Agility club's displays we do this to raise awareness to dog owners who rarely exercise their dogs that exercise can be fun, we also take our dog to the Dog Agility club as our dog is a bundle of energy and Agility wears him out. Though it's really annoying when people claim we are just 'using' our pets- No we are providing him with a more challenging (and more entertaining for our dog) form of exercise.
Last edited:
Garrett x50 cal
Veteran AC Player
Interesting question. Are you talking about movies like Air buddies with the dogs? Or circus animals?
For the dog movies and the such, the dog is fine and all they really have to do is move where the trainer commands them. Plus all the animal protective services are constantly there to watch over the animals.
As for circus animal performers
The real "correct" answer is "no." I mean no animal wants to perform constantly or at all it's not natural. As ruby stated about abusing the animals I highly doubt any performing animals have to deal with 0 abuse.
But all-in-all I don't care. At all. If you want to put a bear on a ball, go for it.
For the dog movies and the such, the dog is fine and all they really have to do is move where the trainer commands them. Plus all the animal protective services are constantly there to watch over the animals.
As for circus animal performers
The real "correct" answer is "no." I mean no animal wants to perform constantly or at all it's not natural. As ruby stated about abusing the animals I highly doubt any performing animals have to deal with 0 abuse.
But all-in-all I don't care. At all. If you want to put a bear on a ball, go for it.
nintendofan61
Senior Member
Yeah, I think no. Some zoos and marine parks always tell us not to touch wildlife or feed them, to leave them in their natural habitat. Well, how did they get their animals in the facility? The same thing..
Last edited:
Garrett x50 cal
Veteran AC Player
...What? Are you saying you don't understand why the public can't feed the animals but the zookeepers can? Same with touching.
nintendofan61
Senior Member
No, no they always say leave them in their natural habitat, etc. But, they sure didnt leave them in their natural habitat, they put them behind a cage and glass.. So, they're contradicting themselves.
Last edited:
Colour Bandit
Senior Member
Normally they tell people not to feed the animals for the public's and the animal's safety. I'm not well-versed in how animals get in to a zoo, but I know that my local zoo, Colchester zoo, and many other zoos now take part in animal conservation and some animals bred in the zoo get released to their in-situ conservation sites and many zoos now trade animals with other zoos instead of capturing New animals- this also improves breeding programs as it allows for more genetic variety. Though if we didn't have zoos educating people about conservation and actually about the many disappearing species would be a lot more difficult.
This should help you understand the benefits of zoos and their breeding/conservation programs:
http://www.colchester-zoo.com/index.cfm?fa=content.list&page=199?ion=5
http://www.colchester-zoo.com/index.cfm?fa=content.list&page=187§ion=5
http://www.colchester-zoo.com/index.cfm?fa=content.list&page=33§ion=5
http://www.colchester-zoo.com/index.cfm?fa=content.list&page=442§ion=5
Garrett x50 cal
Veteran AC Player
If you actually heard someone say "leave them in their natural habitat" It was probably just some teenager or any uneducated worker, working at a zoo who has zero credibility. I've never heard someone say that because it's simply false and most peoiple would know that. If you DID hear that don't pay it any mind because it was spoken by an idiot.
nintendofan61
Senior Member
Actually, I went to a marine facility that gave us an orientation on how we should leave animals in their natural habitat. Then, they take us outside to interact with the mammals in the water. I mean, the water is their natural habitat, but not just a couple of feet to swim in..
Garrett x50 cal
Veteran AC Player
A. Sorry I'm not trying to be rude but you very well could have made that up as this is the internet after all.
B. If you didn't then as you said that guy is a hypocrite and a moron I mean what normal person (In the example of a marine facility) goes out into the ocean and swipes a bunch of angler fish or manatees or whatever.
nintendofan61
Senior Member
I just wanted you guy's opinions on this. I mean, how can you give an orientation on protecting animals and leaving them, but then take us right outside to interact with the animals in some caged-in water?
^^ I didn't make it up. I just went there 2 weeks ago as a birthday present. I even have a picture to prove it...
^^ I didn't make it up. I just went there 2 weeks ago as a birthday present. I even have a picture to prove it...
Last edited:
Colour Bandit
Senior Member
Most likely they took you to interact with the animals in a safe environment so that you wouldn't go and interact with them in their natural environment which you would then disturb.
As I said, read the links in my previous post to see why zoos that take part in conservation are a good thing!
nintendofan61
Senior Member
Thanks! Yes, it is a safe environment for the mammals. The only thing I don't understand is why give an orientation on why we should leave them in their natural habitat, then use them as entertainment purposes.?
Brabus E73
Booker, catch!
Colour Bandit
Senior Member
Basically zoo=less harm to animals and environment. By making rare and exotic animals more safely accessible to the public means that people are less likely to go out to the animals natural environment, where they could potentially damage the environment and harm the animals maybe without even knowing! One example I heard is that people visit all these coral reefs and break off pieces of coral to take home, ultimately causing the destruction of entire reefs! By then having smaller reefs at an aquarium the public can then see the reefs and can often get a piece of imitation coral to take home, all of which causing a lesser impact on the environment. This example can also be matched up to zoos and safari parks.
nintendofan61
Senior Member
That is a good point. however, that just means these animals will be kept in confinement to make it better for other animals.
Colour Bandit
Senior Member
The problem is we could easily release all the captive animals into their natural environment, but they wouldn't survive! They are reliant on humans bringing them food as well as the animals not being immune to diseases that we may not know about in the wild, that's why only young animals are sent to in-situ conservation sites as they are less dependent on humans and have a longer breeding span to quickly bring in the immunities to the next generations. And with the majority of animals in the zoo system have been born in to the zoo's, often whole families of zoos have only known zoos! The problem is we release these animals and a very tiny amount may survive and we also lose our main animal education source which could potentially lead the next generation or so of humans to unknowingly kill off entire species as they did not learn that those species were endangered!
nintendofan61
Senior Member
Yes, i understand that if they were released the wouldn't survive. However, maybe they should have thought about that before taking them into confinement 
Colour Bandit
Senior Member
I can see your point. Unfortunately I threw away all my biology notes on this subject, but I'll go with what I can remember.Yes, i understand that if they were released the wouldn't survive. However, maybe they should have thought about that before taking them into confinement
Zoos were original owned by private collectors and animals were kept in tiny cages. When zoos first opened to the public animals were often used for entertainment, one example being early photographs of a 'chimp tea party'.
Recently zoos are being more proactive with providing education before entertainment. Animals are rarely brought in from the wild to a zoo and are more often sent out of zoos. Again I could point out the conservation side but I don't have much else to add to that. To own a zoo you have to have lots of licences so if a zoo was abusing its 'power' it would be shut down.
So if you think zoos are all for entertainment, you would be very shocked if you could visit a Victorian zoo with their dressed up animals.
TLDR; It is extremely rare for animals to be brought in from the wild to a zoo. Mostly all animals in a zoo have been zoo born and bred for generations.
Similar threads
