People who keep wild animals as pets

[MasterJ16]

Can anybody tell me why people buy wild animals like tigers, buffalos, elephants etc. as pets because they should know those animals are not made for pets to keep at home they are made for the wild, and then the next thing that animal turns on them and kills them. Does anybody know why some people do this in the United States?

[hjkjr2]

Sometimes just because they are rich, bored, and they CAN. And sometimes they are just into risky behavior.

But I think that it's often because they have unrealistic views of the animals. If they would study real info about them, they would realize that animals will always do what their instincts dictate, and revert back to wild behaviors. Very few animals can be truly tamed, and it takes many generations to do so.

Dogs & cats have been domesticated for a very long time, and you notice that even they are happiest & healthiest when their humans are mindful of their natural instincts & behaviors. Ever see Cesar Milan's show "The Dog Whisperer", on the National Geographic channel? All of those who are any type of animal "whisperer", dog, horse, etc. ARE very aware of this. Therein lies their success.

[TUN3R]

They buy even elafunts? Umm anyway...

For the same reason why they buy 4.000.000$ supercars, private islands and other people: cause they can.

[MasterJ16]

They buy even elafunts? Umm anyway...

For the same reason why they buy 4.000.000$ supercars, private islands and other people: cause they can.
But their wild animals they were not ment to be a family pet, they were just ment to be in their natural habitat.

[TUN3R]

But their wild animals they were not ment to be a family pet, they were just ment to be in their natural habitat.

Tell that to them... anyway dogs, cats, sheep, cows, horses they were all wild animals once.

I'm not defending these people but I'd probably buy myself a Bengal tiger too if I were rich.

[Black_Barook!]

Don't forget camels!

Now you can even bring them to university! Shameless Self-Promotion (http://blackbarook.deviantart.com/gallery/28527763#/d3a1sgm)

[MasterJ16]

Don't forget camels!

Now you can even bring them to university! Shameless Self-Promotion (http://blackbarook.deviantart.com/gallery/28527763#/d3a1sgm)
Really they buy camels also? :blink:

[Black_Barook!]

Really they buy camels also? :blink:

Yes. You can buy camels, but why the hell would you keep it as a pet? They're mostly like horses or cows, except we keep them away from the horses and cows.

People keep pigeons as pets...Even more shameless self-promotion! (http://blackbarook.deviantart.com/gallery/28527763#/d38q5dd)

[PharaohHound]

I think it stems from the "romance" of a wild animals. They appeal deeply to everyone, but some people just can't be happy with looking at pictures of them. That, and books/films like Born Free and White Fang have given people ridiculous ideas of the way wild animals act. These books make people think that wild animals are "noble", "brave", "virtuous", "compassionate" and other crap that just isn't true. Animals do what they think they need to, the life of a wild animal is brutal, without morals, and short.

A more interesting question, imho, is the line between "exotic pet" and "wild animal being kept as a pet". Is a ferret a wild animal? Or a Sugar Glider, or a snake, or a hedgehog? What about domesticated Silver Foxes? Camels and pigeons have actually been domesticated for at least 5000 years, surely they don't count as wild?

[Black_Barook!]

Camels and pigeons have actually been domesticated for at least 5000 years, surely they don't count as wild?

True as that maybe, we have to agree on what we mean by domesticated and wild. There are a lot of cats in Kuwait, as well as pigeons and dogs. Yet there is a difference between the ones that live with humans and those who roam the streets of both the city and the suburbs.

[MdMaxx]

People who keep wild animals as pets are stupid!

Seriously. It never fails that when a wild animal acts wild people get up in arms and then want to kill the animal. Well duh, smartass! A lion acts like a lion. It isn't a short haired tabby. Even worse is when an innocent bystander is disfigured or even killed because of someone else's stupidity. Case in point: Charla Nash.

[TUN3R]

People who keep wild animals as pets are stupid!

Seriously. It never fails that when a wild animal acts wild people get up in arms and then want to kill the animal. Well duh, smartass! A lion acts like a lion. It isn't a short haired tabby. Even worse is when an innocent bystander is disfigured or even killed because of someone else's stupidity. Case in point: Charla Nash.

1st of all people who buy wild animals keep them on private property. They don't take them for a walk around the neighborhood. Otherwise they would get shot (both the owner and the animal).

2nd unlike the average idiot who goes to the zoo to point and laugh at the caged lions, people who own them are actually conscious of the danger.

More people get killed by animals in zoos than anywhere else. Fact.

[PharaohHound]

True as that maybe, we have to agree on what we mean by domesticated and wild. There are a lot of cats in Kuwait, as well as pigeons and dogs. Yet there is a difference between the ones that live with humans and those who roam the streets of both the city and the suburbs.

Good points. However, there is a third distinction to make, and that is feral animals, which all street cats and dogs are, as well as many pigeons.

The way I see it, a "domesticated" animal is one that has been selectively bred to be physically and behaviourally distinct from its wild progenitor. A "feral" animal is a domesticated animal that has escaped or been set free, and subsequently lives in the wild (offspring of feral animals born into the wild also qualify as "feral" if they retain the characteristics of domestic animals). A "wild" animal may or may not be kept by humans, but it has not undergone significant changes due to human influence.

At any rate we can't just consider the danger to humans of wild animals, there is a huge possibility of bad husbandry and neglect traumatizing, injuring or otherwise harming innocent animals. A lion is not easy to look after, let alone something like a non-human primate.

[Robodl95]

Besides really exotic, huge, dangerous animals (such as lions, tigers, bears, OH MY!) which we all seem to agree are a REALLY BAD IDEA what do you think of "safe" animals? Like what if I went out in my backyard and caught a deer? Would it be okay to own? (Oh and trust me they're back there too, they scared the crap out of me one day when I was walking out to the bus and 4 of them charged right past me!)

2nd unlike the average idiot who goes to the zoo to point and laugh at the caged lions, people who own them are actually conscious of the danger.
I have to disagree with this. It depends on the people, there are two "types" of people who would own a wild animal
1. Researchers, conversationalists, zookeepers, etc., people who are helping wild animals due to injury, breeding, etc. or run a conservation project of some kind. These people more then likely have the know how to care for the animals properly.
2. People who go "look at how cute the monkey is!" and buy one totally unprepared for how dangerous and destructive they can be, these animals are more then likely not kept properly.

[anothereyjana]

A lion acts like a lion. It isn't a short haired tabby.
Interesting fact: Out of the entire feline family, the common house cat is actually considered the "most vicious" as it is the only known type of cat which hunts/kills for fun, or just "plays with it's food," like when it screws with a mouse by pretending to let it go only to pounce on it once again. If house cats were the size of lions, we'd all be fucked.

As for the part about owning wild animals as pets, well, I personally think that the laws should be more strict (internationally, not just in the US) regarding keeping and selling wild animals. I feel that it's alright for a conservationist to have them, they understand animals and know what they're doing, but people who are just bored and have overly romantic notions about this or that creature (not to mention waaay too much money) shouldn't be allowed to have them.
If you have enough money to purchase one of the larger (and often dangerous, like the large cats or animals like chimps, for example) animals (often illegally) and build an enclosure for it, as well as whatever food it needs and crap like accessories (animals aren't meant to wear clothes, damn it! Just because your Chihuahua needs a blanket or sweater for the winter cold outside doesn't mean you need to risk giving the poor thing heatstroke and degrading it's dignity by putting it in a sundress in the summer!), then you have more than enough money to contribute to charities which ensure their protection in the wild, where they belong!

I also think that there should be more ways to raise awareness about the true nature of many of these animals, which will hopefully persuade some against trying to keep/raise them as pets. Like wolves for instance. Wolves are actually rather sweet animals, and it's been proven that most "wolf" attacks against humans were actually wolf-domesticated dog hybrids (this does not mean, however, that I think that wolves should be kept as pets!). Hybrids of wild and domesticated animals are typically unstable in behavior, so you should never get a dog-wolf hybrid thinking that it's "safer" than an actual wolf!

Also, about "safer" animals such as deer, well, they usually aren't. Deer can still gouge you with their antlers, and their kicks can pack a major punch too. Sometimes enough of one to rupture organs. It's not widely known, but cute little koala and panda bears are actually incredibly strong, and koalas can be rather territorial. An attack from a koala or panda can screw you up just as much as an attack from something like a wolverine or lion respectively. Oh, and, within the rural areas of the US, you have to watch out for opossums too. I have heard that they are supposedly really docile in places like Australia, but the ones in the US will try to freaking eat your face off if you get too close! Wild rabbits can also be surprisingly aggressive and territorial as well, and can pack a nasty bite (to say nothing of the diseases you can get from them).
Point is, a wild animal is still a wild animal, even if it's in the "cute and fluffy" category, and should be treated with respect, and people should keep their distance unless they know what they're doing.

[PharaohHound]

Interesting fact: Out of the entire feline family, the common house cat is actually considered the "most vicious" as it is the only known type of cat which hunts/kills for fun, or just "plays with it's food," like when it screws with a mouse by pretending to let it go only to pounce on it once again. If house cats were the size of lions, we'd all be fucked.


I agree with pretty much all of the rest of your post (pandas and koalas can be nasty little buggers, from what I've heard), but I have to take contention with this "fact".

House cats don't do this because they're vicious beasties who like torturing mice, they do this because cats (like most animals with a long history of being kept as pets) exhibit neotenous behaviour. Adult cats literally behave like a juvenile wild cat, we have bred them to be this way. They are simply discovering the world as any juvenile animal does: through play. Lion cubs behave the exact same way, they will repeatedly release and recatch small prey.

[iCad]

I keep "wild" animals, namely llamas and alpacas. No, they have not been "domesticated," at least not in the sense of being selectively bred to be docile as have, say, the cattle that we keep for milk and food. (An aurochs, the non-domesticated progenitor of modern domesticated cattle, was a huge and quite fearsome critter. My hat is off to the people who first said, "Yeah. I'mma pen me one of those and turn it into captive beef." *laughs*) Llamas are "domesticated" in the sense that they have been collected and captively bred for generations, but one of my llamas behaves pretty much the same way as a "wild" one behaves, the only difference being that mine are used to being around humans and so won't run away from them in terror...but this does not override their other natural instincts. The difference between keeping a llama and keeping a tiger, of course, is that the llama will not generally be able to kill you...although one could, if it really wanted to. They are large and sometimes...cantankerous. :) The alpacas, on the other hand, are fluffy mushballs.

In any case, even "domesticated" animals can kill. Dogs, for instance, maim and kill people fairly regularly. Horses can do serious damage if they get it in their heads to do so. A stampeding cattle herd is a truly frightening thing that you don't want to be in the path of. And so forth. Really, it's a question of relative damage combined with the animal's general temperament. Some "wild" animals can coexist with humans very well, even if not "domesticated." Raptors have long been used for hunting, although they are not domesticated and could do damage to a human being quite easily. Cheetahs have a history of being kept and trained for hunting as well -- coursing, specifically -- and so were much used in Asia the way that Europeans use/used greyhounds. This is not so much the case anymore, given their relative rarity and limited range, but all indications were that they could be kept and were not especially aggressive when kept. Leopards and jags and lions and tigers, on the other hand, are killers and are not really "trainable" for useful functions like hunting. Asian elephants take well to training and "domestication"; African elephants do not. Large snakes kept as pets can, of course, kill people but they generally do not do so even though they are not "domesticated." And, as has been said, if the "domestic" cat was large enough, it could and probably would kill people; they really are not truly "domesticated" in that sense. They coexist with humans because they find it beneficial, and they don't eat humans because they aren't large/powerful enough to do so.

But as to the original question: People do it because they think it's cool to have a tiger as a pet, or they "forget" that that adorable little tiger cub will grow up to be a killer...until said "pet" does major property damage, much less physical damage. This sort of person obviously should not have that kind of animal, but it happens rather often. On the other hand, some people CAN handle "wild" animals as pets well. I have friends who have many large snakes as pets; they have no problems with them. They also have a permit to keep venomous snakes and do so; they know how to handle them, and no one in their family has ever been bitten. A neighbor of ours has a mountain lion that she rehabilitated after it had been hit by a car; the cat had to have a leg amputated and so couldn't be released back into the wild, so she decided to get a permit and keep her. She is not domesticated by any means, but she tolerates being petted and, so far, has not done any major damage to life or property.

So...I don't know. I have mixed feelings. It disturbs me that endangered species such as, for instance, big cats are bred as "pets," and I don't think it should be allowed...but on the other hand I think it's fine for responsible people to have a pet alligator or a pet rattlesnake or anaconda if they want one, if they have the proper permits to do so, if they are truly committed to properly caring for the animal when it grows up and becomes nasty/dangerous, and IF they are really willing to accept the risks, to themselves, to their property, and of course, to anyone who ventures onto their property, since they are liable for any damage that their "pets" do. Of course, all of those are very big "ifs".

[TUN3R]

Llamas pwn.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Tell that to them... anyway dogs, cats, sheep, cows, horses they were all wild animals once.

I'm not defending these people but I'd probably buy myself a Bengal tiger too if I were rich.

you dont have to, any more. (http://www.toygers.org/breeders.html)

[Saturnfly]

No animals had initially evolved to be captive and controlled at the hands of one species.
But then evolution has created an environment where this is possible, so it wrong or is it right?
I think it's stupid, keeping these wild beasts as pets. One could never have as much space as the wild offers, so why should we take them out of their natural habitat? If all we're going to do is watch them. If we truly loved them we would do what's right.
Same goes for marine life dying prematurely in tanks for human enjoyment. It's slavery, IMO, and just because we don't share the same language and the same knowledge and the same appearance, it doesn't mean we have any right or justification to control and take away the free will of an innocent creature.

[TUN3R]

you dont have to, any more. (http://www.toygers.org/breeders.html)

That.. is... too... QOOT!!

[Tempscire]

I think it's stupid, keeping these wild beasts as pets. One could never have as much space as the wild offers, so why should we take them out of their natural habitat? If all we're going to do is watch them. If we truly loved them we would do what's right.
It is stupid for people to try adopting wild animals as pets, but what about rescue and conservation groups? Animals that are somehow crippled and would be quickly killed if they were (re-)released? Animals that are endangered and if left completely in the wild would soon be extinct (whether by hunting or habitat loss or whatever)?

Are house cats and dogs slaves? Am I a terrible person for overriding their free will to, say, take them to the vet (scary!) to get important vaccinations they need to stay healthy (owie!)? I mean, it always took at least 10 extra minutes to wrangle my cat into a carrier when it was time to go to the vet, never mind trying to get her back out again so she could be examined...she made her will known very clearly that she wanted to stay home. :p

[Robodl95]

No animals had initially evolved to be captive and controlled at the hands of one species.
But then evolution has created an environment where this is possible, so it wrong or is it right?
I think it's stupid, keeping these wild beasts as pets. One could never have as much space as the wild offers, so why should we take them out of their natural habitat? If all we're going to do is watch them. If we truly loved them we would do what's right.
Same goes for marine life dying prematurely in tanks for human enjoyment. It's slavery, IMO, and just because we don't share the same language and the same knowledge and the same appearance, it doesn't mean we have any right or justification to control and take away the free will of an innocent creature.

Well it's a bit late for that. Have you looked at any endangered species lists recently? So many species are almost extinct it's sickening. Without conservation efforts a lot of those species would be dead real soon (if not already). In a couple of years the only place you'll be able to find a tiger or a panda is in a zoo. And also how do you explain the fact that most species live longer in captivity? A squirrel in the wild lives about 2-3 while a squirrel in captivity can live up to 12. If I was the squirrel I wouldn't be complaining.....

Oh and I don't understand how putting a fence around an animal takes away their freewill, most animal confinements are of suitable possibly a little smaller size then what they need however the reason they need so much room is because of food supply and if your food is being provided for you then you don't need all that room. Animals don't roam around aimlessly......

[iCad]

Reading over some of the responses in this thread, I feel I have to point out that we humans tend to erroneously think that other creatures think like us. That, for instance, they cherish their "freedom." But really, what animals "cherish" is survival. They want to eat and they want to live long enough to pass on their genes. That's pretty much it.

Sure, some animals exhibit "like us" behavior. African elephants (my favorite animal :) ), for instance, mourn their dead for years. They will as a herd return to a location where a member of their herd died, for the sole purpose, so it appears, of remembering and mourning that individual. I don't know of any other animal, besides humans, that does this, not even the great apes. Elephants also form life-long close friendships, complete with greeting rituals, with unrelated same-sex elephants of the same age, and it's been recently observed that young male elephants, after leaving their herd of birth, establish mentoring relationships with older, unrelated bulls in the area, in order to learn from them. (This is new because it used to be thought that bulls were solitary "lone wolves"...but recent studies have shown that they are not.) In any case, these are all complex and human-like behaviors that not even chimps, the animal "most like us," genetically-speaking, display.

Still, do elephants, as intelligent and as "like us" as they are in some ways, long to be "free?" I suppose that we cannot know for sure since we cannot have a discussion with one and the concept of "freedom" is an abstract one...but it doesn't appear that way. Captive elephants, if properly cared for and properly stimulated to avoid boredom, seem quite content. (Some of them end up with art careers (http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/) . :) ) And of course they live longer, healthier lives than those in the wild because they are not at the mercy of the elements when it comes to food and water, they have access to medical care, and they are protected from predation and, particularly, poachers. So long as they are not abused, the only disadvantage, as far as I can see, is a much smaller social network, and that could be detrimental to them because they are very social creatures, very "family-oriented"...but perhaps the plentiful food and water makes up for it.

Because, you know, animals don't roam because they want to, because they have some "savage noble" desire to explore and be free and all that romantic, anthropomorphic nonsense. No, they roam because they have to, mostly to find food/water. (And to find mates, but that's a different thing.) Generally, "roaming free" for them is like a trip to the grocery store for us, something that they don't necessarily want to do, that requires energy that they do not necessarily have in abundance, but that they have to do or else they won't get dinner. In captivity, food (and mates, actually) are provided to them, so there's no need to waste energy roaming around. To extend the analogy, captivity is like having a pizza or Chinese food or whatever delivered every night. Guaranteed food, delivered right to your door, no energy expenditure required except that needed to walk to the door to collect your pizza. Captive animals are also, of course, protected from predation. It is, in a sense, "the good life."

In captivity, the real enemy is boredom. Boredom is what causes the unnatural behaviors that you see some animals displaying in zoos, like the cats pacing endlessly. But it should be noted that isn't because they want to be "free" or even because they're "unhappy." It's because they simply don't know what else to do. Their instinctive "programming" tells them that they need to be out roaming to find something to eat...but on the other hand they are also quite aware that they actually don't have to do that because they know that feeding time is 3PM (or whatever), every day, and they also know that they won't even have to chase down and kill the meal, that it will be delivered to them all nicely butchered. But they don't have any "programming" to fill in those gaps in their routine...so they pace.

Of course, it could be argued that the boredom is torturous for them, but we don't really know that. In general, I think the PETA-type people, when it comes to their ranting about (well-treated) captive animals, ascribe far too many human qualities to animals, use charged words like "slavery," and then they go and empathize with those qualities...which the animals don't have in the first place. I do think that zoos (or people who keep "exotic" animals as pets) need to do all they can to provide stimulation for their captive animals, if the animal in question requires such. This is even more important for the "pets;" an intelligent-but-bored animal is a very destructive one, whether you're talking about your pet toy poodle or your pet tiger. On the other hand, your average captive antelope (or llama, for that matter :) ) doesn't need much stimulation, as she can do the things she would do in the wild just as easily in captivity; in a zoo, she just won't need to run for her life on a regular basis, which is probably a relief. (Mine still have to run sometimes, though, since we have mountain lions in the area. :) ) Even your average highly-intelligent orangutan can and will do much the same in captivity as he would do in the wild, if given the proper environment that simulates his natural habitat.

But your average tiger, no matter how good you make its environment, will still have a large gap in his instinctive daily routine that will need filling. Most mammalian predators (including domestic dogs) have the same problem. It's why pet dogs (particularly those without the company of other dogs) who are not walked tend to have problems with nuisance barking and destructive behavior. They are bored because they have an instinctive need to engage in roaming behavior, but captivity makes the roaming unnecessary and they do not have a proper alternative to/outlet for the roaming instinct. So, something needs to be provided to replace that behavior. In a way, it's the same for retired humans who no longer do the daily go-to-work thing; usually they take up some sort of hobby or do volunteer work or expand their social lives or else the boredom ends up driving them crazy because they've been conditioned all their adult lives to work a certain number of hours a day. I think it's much the same for some captive wild animals, whether they're in a zoo or owned by a (responsible, non-abusive, etc.) private citizen.

So, anyway, I don't have a problem with zoos, public or private, so long as the animals are properly cared-for and are not abused. Especially since most zoos are now more about education and conservation than just a place to go and gawk at exotic creatures, as they were in Victorian times. For instance, if the genetically-bottlenecked cheetah can and will be saved, it will likely be due to the extremely careful captive breeding program that zoos world-wide are involved in, the intent of which is to add as much diversity as possible to the extremely shallow cheetah gene pool by releasing extremely-carefully-bred cheetahs into the wild. On the other hand, they also have a tendency to intentionally breed "novelty" mutants like white tigers and alligators in order to attract visitors, and I'm not sure that I like that. On the other other hand, those mutants do bring in the money that funds the educational/conservation work that the zoos do, so as long as those strengthened mutant genes don't get out into the wild... Well, anyway, zoos are generally good, in my book.

Circuses with trained animal acts, however... Don't even get me started on that.

[harmonee_el]

I think these people are absolutely nuts!and to have these animals around their kids should be child abuse.There is no way you can tame the wild,because one day it will turn on you.I hope they pass a law to ban them because this is just downright negligent?

[Robodl95]

Reading over some of the responses in this thread, I feel I have to point out that we humans tend to erroneously think that other creatures think like us. That, for instance, they cherish their "freedom." But really, what animals "cherish" is survival. They want to eat and they want to live long enough to pass on their genes. That's pretty much it.

Sure, some animals exhibit "like us" behavior. African elephants (my favorite animal :) ), for instance, mourn their dead for years. They will as a herd return to a location where a member of their herd died, for the sole purpose, so it appears, of remembering and mourning that individual. I don't know of any other animal, besides humans, that does this, not even the great apes. Elephants also form life-long close friendships, complete with greeting rituals, with unrelated same-sex elephants of the same age, and it's been recently observed that young male elephants, after leaving their herd of birth, establish mentoring relationships with older, unrelated bulls in the area, in order to learn from them. (This is new because it used to be thought that bulls were solitary "lone wolves"...but recent studies have shown that they are not.) In any case, these are all complex and human-like behaviors that not even chimps, the animal "most like us," genetically-speaking, display.

Still, do elephants, as intelligent and as "like us" as they are in some ways, long to be "free?" I suppose that we cannot know for sure since we cannot have a discussion with one and the concept of "freedom" is an abstract one...but it doesn't appear that way. Captive elephants, if properly cared for and properly stimulated to avoid boredom, seem quite content. (Some of them end up with art careers (http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/) . :) ) And of course they live longer, healthier lives than those in the wild because they are not at the mercy of the elements when it comes to food and water, they have access to medical care, and they are protected from predation and, particularly, poachers. So long as they are not abused, the only disadvantage, as far as I can see, is a much smaller social network, and that could be detrimental to them because they are very social creatures, very "family-oriented"...but perhaps the plentiful food and water makes up for it.

Because, you know, animals don't roam because they want to, because they have some "savage noble" desire to explore and be free and all that romantic, anthropomorphic nonsense. No, they roam because they have to, mostly to find food/water. (And to find mates, but that's a different thing.) Generally, "roaming free" for them is like a trip to the grocery store for us, something that they don't necessarily want to do, that requires energy that they do not necessarily have in abundance, but that they have to do or else they won't get dinner. In captivity, food (and mates, actually) are provided to them, so there's no need to waste energy roaming around. To extend the analogy, captivity is like having a pizza or Chinese food or whatever delivered every night. Guaranteed food, delivered right to your door, no energy expenditure required except that needed to walk to the door to collect your pizza. Captive animals are also, of course, protected from predation. It is, in a sense, "the good life."

In captivity, the real enemy is boredom. Boredom is what causes the unnatural behaviors that you see some animals displaying in zoos, like the cats pacing endlessly. But it should be noted that isn't because they want to be "free" or even because they're "unhappy." It's because they simply don't know what else to do. Their instinctive "programming" tells them that they need to be out roaming to find something to eat...but on the other hand they are also quite aware that they actually don't have to do that because they know that feeding time is 3PM (or whatever), every day, and they also know that they won't even have to chase down and kill the meal, that it will be delivered to them all nicely butchered. But they don't have any "programming" to fill in those gaps in their routine...so they pace.

Of course, it could be argued that the boredom is torturous for them, but we don't really know that. In general, I think the PETA-type people, when it comes to their ranting about (well-treated) captive animals, ascribe far too many human qualities to animals, use charged words like "slavery," and then they go and empathize with those qualities...which the animals don't have in the first place. I do think that zoos (or people who keep "exotic" animals as pets) need to do all they can to provide stimulation for their captive animals, if the animal in question requires such. This is even more important for the "pets;" an intelligent-but-bored animal is a very destructive one, whether you're talking about your pet toy poodle or your pet tiger. On the other hand, your average captive antelope (or llama, for that matter :) ) doesn't need much stimulation, as she can do the things she would do in the wild just as easily in captivity; in a zoo, she just won't need to run for her life on a regular basis, which is probably a relief. (Mine still have to run sometimes, though, since we have mountain lions in the area. :) ) Even your average highly-intelligent orangutan can and will do much the same in captivity as he would do in the wild, if given the proper environment that simulates his natural habitat.

But your average tiger, no matter how good you make its environment, will still have a large gap in his instinctive daily routine that will need filling. Most mammalian predators (including domestic dogs) have the same problem. It's why pet dogs (particularly those without the company of other dogs) who are not walked tend to have problems with nuisance barking and destructive behavior. They are bored because they have an instinctive need to engage in roaming behavior, but captivity makes the roaming unnecessary and they do not have a proper alternative to/outlet for the roaming instinct. So, something needs to be provided to replace that behavior. In a way, it's the same for retired humans who no longer do the daily go-to-work thing; usually they take up some sort of hobby or do volunteer work or expand their social lives or else the boredom ends up driving them crazy because they've been conditioned all their adult lives to work a certain number of hours a day. I think it's much the same for some captive wild animals, whether they're in a zoo or owned by a (responsible, non-abusive, etc.) private citizen.

So, anyway, I don't have a problem with zoos, public or private, so long as the animals are properly cared-for and are not abused. Especially since most zoos are now more about education and conservation than just a place to go and gawk at exotic creatures, as they were in Victorian times. For instance, if the genetically-bottlenecked cheetah can and will be saved, it will likely be due to the extremely careful captive breeding program that zoos world-wide are involved in, the intent of which is to add as much diversity as possible to the extremely shallow cheetah gene pool by releasing extremely-carefully-bred cheetahs into the wild. On the other hand, they also have a tendency to intentionally breed "novelty" mutants like white tigers and alligators in order to attract visitors, and I'm not sure that I like that. On the other other hand, those mutants do bring in the money that funds the educational/conservation work that the zoos do, so as long as those strengthened mutant genes don't get out into the wild... Well, anyway, zoos are generally good, in my book.

Circuses with trained animal acts, however... Don't even get me started on that.

THANK YOU! Back in another debate we had a long winded argument about vegetarianism and it was driving me crazy because people were acting like eating a shrimp or a fish or a deer would be like killing a small child when really that small child has probably had more thoughts and feelings then a fish will in it's entire life.