yes π
With the caveat that zoo animals cannot simply be dumped in the wild. Zoos should simply be forbidden from acquiring more animals whether through breeding or purchase until they stop functioning as zoos.
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
1396 readers
4 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
This. Some animals with disabilities or that were raised in captivity would have awful lives if suddenly released. And yet reducing incentives for capturing wild animals sounds great.
There are no incentives for capturing wild animals because that is poaching⦠something already internationally prohibited by every UN signatory.
And there are never incentives for doing illegal things.
You and I both seem to dislike poaching. But I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying. To understand where you're coming from, what does an incentive mean to you? Are you saying that there are truly absolutely no incentives for poaching? If so, why is poaching still a thing? I understand pangolins, rhinos, and other animals are still poached quite a bit.
Zoos are already prohibited from purchasing animals to prevent poaching snd animal smuggling.
Animal breeding is also tightly regulated and not done to create more βtoysβ, but for the express purpose of releasing the new members back into the wild.
There's a lot of private owners of exotic animals that are problematic too. Zoos at least we can observe.
Sanctuaries can fulfill a similar role to zoos (safe civilian observation of wild animals). Even if animal trafficking is completely eradicated, there'll still always be the occasional wild animals in need of rescue and sanctuary. I wasn't even aware that banning circus animals wasn't a worldwide phenomenon by now.
Absolutely. Pet ownership should also be phased out.
Marxists when they introduce a concept so wildly unpopular and then question why no one takes animal liberation seriously.
I would want to hear from a zoologist on the subject (e.g. a take backed by a scientific understanding of animals and their habitats and so on).
I listen to this podcast called Tooth and Claw co-hosted by a real bear biologist that Iβd recommend. His take is that zoos (but definitely not circuses or petting zoos or any of that shit) are a net positive for society and science. Gorilla Radio Show is hosted by primatologists and have probably talked about it as well. Would highly recommend both.
Circuses: absofuckinglutely, like right now. Zoos maybe not outright closed but definitely should be remade into something less abusive and be under scrutiny.
Animal sanctuaries really don't need to be entertainment places. Zoos tie these animals' lives with the capital.
Most state operated zoos are free and operate without a capital producing incentive necessitated by driving ticket sales.
Key examples are the American Smithsonian Zoo and Beijing National Zoo. Both entities have trusts that fund conservation, daily operation, and expansion while tickets are free and widely available.
You could have animal sanctuaries off limits to humans using drones or cameras for live feedback.
Anyways despite loving the circus, both should not exist.
we should have sanctuaries not zoos.
No, zoos provide invaluable services as breeding and research facilities for endangered animals that might not even be able to reproduce at sustainable levels in the wild anymore, while also providing people education on something not commonly encountered in life.
Abusive zoos that are nothing but capitalist spectacle are disgusting and a stain.
Circuses that use love animals are vile.
Zoos and aquariums, provided theyβre held to rigorous standards and audited constantly, can directly fund important conservation projects and produce scientific data. They also keep the public informed and invested in wildlife. After all, how many workers and scientists found their calling visiting zoos as kids?
Circuses/sideshows that use live animals should definitely be banned though. Making an animal do tricks for our amusement is a far cry from holding them in an environment designed to safely contain them whilst making sure all their needs are met so they can form a solid routine.
what habitats?
zoo's are actually uniquely beneficial in america because they are a part of several animal rights agreements. Other places like Japan who aren't part of these groups treats their animals far less humanely. If you visit any zoo in Japan I guarantee you'll feel horrible for the animals.
So Zoo's should be focused on population restoration and animal study and use public viewing as a means to generate revenue for such. But as we know capitalism prioritizes revenue above all else
Zoos, for the most part, are conservation programs. It is not just the animals, plants, and such you see behind glass that are in some cases the last of their species kept alive by people with the passion to do so, but also the wealth of data and samples and collections that are used for research and medicine.
In a world where climate change is going to render large parts of the world uninhabitable as we know it, these will be some of the only places left on earth that have any forms of biodiversity.
Circuses, yes. Zoos, not ban, but strictly regulate. There do exist many zoos who hold animals that would not survive in the wild, as well as zoos that are conserving species that are extinct in the wild. There are also unethical zoos that treat the animals as spectacles for humans.