Another Case of Sick Individuals

[Res Judicata]

As if Cedar Rapids, IA wasn't down already, someone has to go and kill ducks at the zoo. Some were newborn ducklings. What kind of person do you have to be to enjoy such sick actions?

50 ducks killed at Bever Park Children's Zoo | GazetteOnline.com - Cedar Rapids, Iowa City

[PixieStix]

That's sickening, horrible people. I can't even begin to understand why people would do that. Very sad.

[frashy]

Yeah, it is a very sick thing.

But another thing that bothers me is "All of the birds at the zoo are surgically altered when they're very young so that they can't fly away". That is INCREDIABLY inhumane, all just so they can be used as an exhibit for a profit. I am SO FURIOUS that people can be so arrogant, act like God, and take away such a blessed thing to have, to be able to fly. Especialy since it's not just a blessing, but a way of how they protect themselves. The zoo is just as responsible as the people who did the actual stoning, for taking away their safety like that.

"This shouldn't be a part of life," Smith said. "This is just sick."
And taking birds, surgically disableing them to fly, which is why they couldn't escape from this, IS a part of life? Please! These birds were born instinctively to fly! Taking that away, is acting like God.

I would love to surgically alter the people's legs who support this, so they are unable to walk..he..he..heeee.

But no, for real, all of that just makes me sick. And, deeply angered.

[AbsLoveSnicks]

I completely agree with Frashy, I hate when anybody get's their birds winged clipped, becuase they were born to fly! We never clipped our cockatiels wings and we never will either.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by frashy

Yeah, it is a very sick thing.

But another thing that bothers me is "All of the birds at the zoo are surgically altered when they're very young so that they can't fly away". That is INCREDIABLY inhumane, all just so they can be used as an exhibit for a profit. I am SO FURIOUS that people can be so arrogant, act like God, and take away such a blessed thing to have, to be able to fly. Especialy since it's not just a blessing, but a way of how they protect themselves. The zoo is just as responsible as the people who did the actual stoning, for taking away their safety like that.

"This shouldn't be a part of life," Smith said. "This is just sick."
And taking birds, surgically disableing them to fly, which is why they couldn't escape from this, IS a part of life? Please! These birds were born instinctively to fly! Taking that away, is acting like God.

I agree, and we do such things across our world constantly in order to keep animals in exhibits for us to be amused by. The word arrogance there is key. Pure arrogance.

We are all Michael Vick.

[Res Judicata]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I agree, and we do such things across our world constantly in order to keep animals in exhibits for us to be amused by. The word arrogance there is key. Pure arrogance.

If I may play devil's advocate. In that case keeping pets is nothing short of pure arrogance. Why do we keep pets? Because it pleases us to. While I do not agree with the surgical alteration of birds' wings, I see nothing wrong with a properly run zoo. Good zoos keep their animals in proper environments, make sure they have the right care and stimulation, and help critically endangered animals through breeding programs. I know, in most cases breeding is not a good thing, and I'd rather that a species be allowed to do its own breeding in the wild, but after we've decimated an species' population, we need to do something to pump it back up and let nature take over again. That means allowing the breeding of tigers, pandas, bongos and other animals that are rare in their natural environments. And having well-kept zoo animals along with education about these animals helps boost their chances for survival. It helps to actually see that animal in person and learn about the trials its species is going through just to survive in the wild. If you only see one in pictures, it is not as effective. Its alot like the pieces of paper I work with everyday. I'm helping out with litigation. Behind those pieces of paper are people with emotions who are just trying to get some justice. But it's hard to really care about pieces of paper or the people they represent because I do not know the people, just like it's hard to care about a picture of a tiger compared to real live one.

[Biscuit]

I don't know how I feel about zoos right now, but I will tell you if there were no more guinea pigs for me to adopt I would be happy for them. What's done is done, I am just cleaning up the mess we made domesticating them. I would like to read further if the situation with zoos is really the same.

[frashy]

Originally Posted by Res Judicata

If I may play devil's advocate. In that case keeping pets is nothing short of pure arrogance. Why do we keep pets? Because it pleases us to.

Well, yes, SOME people, also known as the arrogant people DO own pets for their pure pleasure.

But for some people, "owning" (though some people believe that is not the proper term to put it) a pet is about guiding/helping that animal and giving it a fair life as it deserves with respect. That can mean many things, such as just because I DO have the ability to breed animals, doesn't mean I SHOULD. I also don't sit here and say I OWN this animal, I see it as another living being that deserves a fair life-who am I to say I am any less or more worthy? (it may sound silly, but it's true)

To some of these people it isn't about what is easiest for them, or the most convienent. Many people have gone WAY out of their way, to do the right thing, and save an animal's life rather than contribute to condeming them(such as going out and going to a petstore and create more of an over population problem). People that own rescues, do not enjoy the fact they have to do what they do. They all share one dream, and that is to never have to run a rescue in the first place. But selflessly, they devote their time/money/work for these animals. Complete opposite of arrogance. Same goes for the people who rescue the animals. They hope to never have to be there for the animal. Going to a petstore, because it's convient for YOU, because YOU need a pet, is arrogance.

Though, in some cases, having an animal live with you can be benefical for the BOTH of you. Afterall, you have the power to care/guide that animal, and with being responsible you can be there for that pet the way they are there for you for companionship. Companionship can be offered for the both you, and the pet as well.


And for the zoo part, I TOTALY understand if it's for helping the animal, but in this case of clipping the birds wings - well, they should of been less arrogant and thought since these birds can fly away, and have no benefit being here, than they don't belong here. THAT is about the BIRDS best interest. In this case it was about the Zoo's best interest. They decided they need these birds, surgically altered them so we can have them here. I find that not only completely disrespecting that species, but humans that are abusing their abilities with pure arrogance. Zoos cannot offer any kind of life the way the wild could for them. We can try as much as we can, but we cannot ever fully substitute the way they were naturally supposed to live. Though, in cases, where the wild will only hurt them, such as cause them to go instinct, or threaten their lives elsehow, I am compeltely for rehabilitating them. It's a different story when a Zoo buys animals, breeds them, without the sake of the animals best interest in mind, but ONLY to use them as an attraction for money - a zoo like that is not a good zoo.

Sorry for my long post..it's my longest yet thus far!

[Res Judicata]

Out of curiosity, I went to our local zoo and asked what questions I could about animal care and other such subjects. Our zoo has a pair of trumpeter swans who were given to the zoo to rehabilitate and now just hang around because they know they'll get fed. This year they even hatched some babies. That's exciting because the swan population around here is very low. A Brahman bull was bought from a livestock auction so that's one less bull going to slaughter. The bongos are being bred for future release into Africa. I think the grandchildren of the current adult generation are going to be released. It's going to be a long process to pump up the bongo populations because these animals are going to have to be taught what predators are and how to avoid them if this is to be successful. Most of the zoo animals are captive bred to help prevent to capture of wild animals for zoos. And it would take a lot of time and effort to rehab all the captive-bred zoo animals. I appreciate that the zoo here is interested in the welfare of the animals, conservation, and education. I remember when it was just an ugly little place full of small cages and animals who were not leading quality lives.

I don't like a couple of zoos in the surrounding states. One breeds white tigers to sell to other zoos. Business booster for all involved. One makes money off the cubs, the others get an attraction that'll bring in more customers. Not that getting more people in the door is always a bad thing, but are they doing it for the money or to actually educate people about animals and conservation? Another zoo is what our local zoo used to be back when I was a little kid and it just made cringe to see animals in small pens or pastures. Had I known, we wouldn't have gone there. Luckily it's a free zoo so I didn't contribute any funds to their poor environment.

[frashy]

Its great to hear when there is a Zoo that can actually do something for the animals. The zoos around here are mainly small zoos, but there is this one zoo where a single lion is kept in an area the about the size of a big pool. It's kept in the same size cage as these little roden creature like animals, so it's pretty pathetic. I am not really sure why, after all it is just a free zoo so I can only imagine they have the animals in mind, rather than profits. It's kind of like the one Res is talking about, but I wonder why those zoos exist? How can zoos make anything when it's free? Do they serve as some kind of breeding ground? Something I am curious to figure out..

[Alusdra]

I don't know if this is true of the species in question at this particular zoo- but many zoos breed waterfowl for conservation and re-release through the Species Survival Plan and other similar programs. I understand why people are against the pinioning of the birds (keeping them from flying) and am not sure where I stand on the matter myself. For a bird that primarily flies, such as a finch, dove or parrot it seems much more cruel than waterfowl which spend much of their time swimming. And pinioning is the only way to keep the waterfowl from migrating and being subject to all the dangers inherent there. Supposing, of course, that they are in their native land.

Perhaps the future zoo will only have ponds where wild birds come and visit, but for right now the work that zoos are doing is helping preserve many species and in most cases pinioning gives a zoo the ability to give the animals a much more spacious enclosure. If flighted one needs to build an aviary- much more expensive then fencing in a big pond.

I would imagine a free zoo survives like anything else that doesn't charge admissions- making money on concessions, donations, advertizing or being supported by a large private or other institution.

[Res Judicata]

This zoo is owned by the city, and suggests donations of like a couple of dollars per person.