Animal rights

Great Debates
1

Let me first say I’m not an animal rights crusader. I’m not a vegetarian, steak is my favorite food; I’ll eat any once living thing (except for veal and lamb – it just seems so wrong), and I have no problem with leather clothing and furniture. I think PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) can be a little ridiculous at times, and I think ALF (Animal Liberation Front) are borderline terrorists. My bottom line is that people come first. As a once student of biology that has dissected grasshopper, crawfish, shark, frog, pigeon, cat, pig, and human I can attest that the study and dissection of animals is an invaluable tool for any person wishing to enter a medical career, there is no better way, book, software or otherwise to gain intimate knowledge of anatomy and evolution. Frankly, I wouldn’t want a surgeon who had never dissected a frog. I also agree with animal medical testing (even involving pain and death). I don’t feel that the current regulations are strict enough, but I think testing a cure for cancer on animals before humans is ethical and necessary.

Now after my long tirade on what rights I don’t think animals have, here’s what I do think they deserve. IMO, circuses and zoos should be outlawed. Animals are not here for our amusement, we are their evolutionary ancestors, and they should be respected as living beings capable of pain, joy, happiness, and sadness. I think that appreciation from a distance in large preserves and parks is acceptable, but storing wild animals in cement cages to be gawked at or forced to perform tricks is cruel and offensive. The only purpose I can see for a zoo of any kind is to protect endangered species or injured animals. This is my take on the animal rights issue, I know there are a lot of dissenting opinions out there and there’s no better place to hear them than the sdmb.

2

Hmmm.

We can’t put animals in zoos. Check.

We can’t put animals in circuses. Check.

We can smear toxins into their skin and eyes.

We can raise them in a box and take a sledgehammer to them.

Hmmm.
Nope, I guess I don’t get it. Where do you draw the line, and why?

3

What’s being done to the animals isn’t as important to me as why its being done. Killing animals for food, clothing, or medical advancement is acceptable to me. Abusing animals for entertainment purposes is not.

4

Many animals in zoos are endangered species, who are being kept from certain extinction.

And besides, aren’t they, for the most part, treated fairly well, if not out right spoiled?

5

The thing that bothers me is all of the breeding and selling of dogs. Disney should have put out an information booklet with “101 Dalmations”. I had two friends who ran out and paid several hundred dollars for dalmation puppies for thier kids without learning anything about the breed. They are notoriously bad with children. They end up on a 6 foot chain in the back yard if they are lucky. Dalmations are stable dogs suited for working with horses and such. They are not a dog for your children usually. It is beyond me how someone could watch a friggin cartoon and decide they want a dog. Our local animal shelter gased over 800 dogs last year. Consider adoption. It is cheaper and you can walk away knowing you saved a dog from the gas chamber.

6

Well, I think circuses are probably bad, but not zoos. It is my (possibly incorrect) understanding that zoos don’t exist solely for our amusement. Endangered animals are bred in zoos, legitimate research is done on animals that is beneficial to animals, zoos are involved in various conservation efforts, and zoos are useful in educating both the general population about animals and students from the preschool level on up to the post-graduate level.

Now, like I said, I could be wrong on this stuff. According to the propaganda, though, zoos are a good thing. I guess I tend to buy into the propaganda. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

7

Such as?

8

Like I said, I have no problem whatsoever with keeping endangered or injured animals in captivity for their own good. Nor do I object to legitimate research and education being conducted at zoos. However, even at the finest zoos, you can still walk around and find large mammals living in a space no larger than a small backyard. I just can’t imagine an African lion, Indian elephant, or a polar bear can be happy living a pathetic existence, without hunting, without a natural breeding cycle, without an ecosystem to interact with… in the Bronx, San Diego, or any other metropolitan area simply so it is convenient for us to take our kids to see creatures from far away places. That is what airplanes, tv, and the net are for.

But, I’m glad there appears to be some consensus that the circus is condemnable; if a thinking person chooses a career of death defying stunts that’s their prerogative. But, capturing a wild bear and training it to ride a unicycle for our amusement is barbaric beyond words.

As for medical testing, from what I’ve heard from individuals opposed to animal testing there is a lot of research going on that isn’t looking for the cure for cancer; a lot of research where animal testing is unnecessary. I would like the laws to more narrowly define when animal testing is permissible.

9

[quote]
I just can’t imagine an African lion, Indian elephant, or a polar bear can be happy living a pathetic existence, without hunting, without a natural breeding cycle, without an ecosystem to interact with… in the Bronx, San Diego, or any other metropolitan area simply so it is convenient for us to take our kids to see creatures from far away places. That is what airplanes, tv, and the net are for.[/q

10

Harrumph.

:shrug: Okeedoke. I disagree.

11

I did a little googling, and i found this link on animal suffering in zoos published by an organization called CAPS

According to CAPS there is a spectrum of abnormal behaviors that result from zoo life including overgrooming and mutilation, chewing and bar biting, hyperaggression, abnormal maternal behavior, and feeding disorders.

At another anti-captivity site called Born Free, I found the presumed causes of these disorders:

It goes without saying that my sources aren’t the most objective. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any scholarly data to corroborate the information on CAPS and Born Free, but their claims strike me as reasonable. Animals my not be human but they know the difference between freedom and confinement.

12

Try to find more objective sources or at least some specific allegations.

The vast majority of biomedical research in the US is funded by the NIH. In order to recieve funding for research that involves animals, a comprenhensive set of very stringent conditions must be met. You need to descibe how many animals you will need, what experiments need to be performed on them, how the animals will cared for, how they will be killed, etc. All of this information must be approved and if a lab receiving NIH grant money fails to meet these standards at any time, " the Director of NIH shall suspend or revoke such grant or contract under such conditions as the Director determines appropriate." In other words, funding is at stake, so even a hypothetic animal hating scientist would tend to comply.

Aside from that, using animals for research is a huge pain in the ass. The animals themslves can be very expensive and the cost and manpower involved in maintaining an adequate animal care facilty is a huge burden on the scientist and their instiution. And keep in mind that many lab workers are reluctant to work with animals. Plus, it’s just easier to deal with cells in a dish than a monkey.

In general, you’re not going to see a publicly funded biomedical laboratory go through all this crap if its not absolutely necessary. I’d be curious to hear of any examples to the contrary though.

13

cainxinth said:

Really? At every zoo? Have you checked?

I think this is an exaggeration based more on a gut-reaction and reading of anti-zoo propaganda than on actual information about how zoos work. Most institutions may place an injured or sick animal in a small space for a time, but there are regulations regarding how most are housed, at least in the USA. There’s this thing called the Animal Welfare Act. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? The upstart of this Act, as it applies to zoologic institutions, is that any institution housing and displaying animals must have a license and must conform to certain standards. To ensure compliance, the USDA performs random, unannounced inspections on all institutions licensed to display animals. Each institution with an exhibitors license can expect to be inspected at least once every two years. USDA inspectors are looking at things such as appropriate housing conditions, veterinary care programs, enrichment of captive animals, and record-keeping. Penalties for non-compliance can range from a fine (and most zoos and aquariums aren’t exactly rolling in cash…ask folks at the Denver Aquarium which is closing April 2 due to debt) to license revocation.

In addition, respectable zoologic institutions in the US are accredited by the AZA (American Zoo and Aquarium Association…yes, they need to add another A to their initialism). Since you’ve read and linked to the anti-zoo propaganda sites, perhaps you’d now like to see what the other side has to say? Try The AZA. The AZA has even more stringent rules for what they want to see in an accredited institution. They perform very extensive inspections (sometimes lasting several days) every 5 years. And, unlike the USDA, which is primarily concerned with mammals and birds (since these are specifically covered by the AWA), the AZA is concerned about housing conditions and treatment of all animals.

And what, exactly, do you propose we do with all the animals in these institutions now? Set them free? Most of them would die of starvation or be easy targets of predation. Realize that many of the mammals and birds and a significant proportion of the reptiles and amphibians currently in zoo and aquarium collections not only have spent their whole life in captivity but come from a long line of animals that have spent their lives in captivity. Even wild-caught animals, once they’ve been in captivity for a significant period, often become non-releasable. They simply do not know how to survive in the wild. Or, in the case of some of the so-called “higher” mammals, have realized that it’s a hell of a lot easier to be fed a steady diet by people than go back to having to scrounge food for themselves. I suggest you do some research on Keiko the orca, former star of the Free Willy movies. They tried to release him; he’s not having any of it.

Animals are NOT humans. Many of them don’t give a rat’s ass about concepts such as “freedom”. They DO care about a steady diet, protection from predators, and sex. Though the latter is regulated for a variety of reasons, most captive-bred animals get as much of the other two as they desire. Moreover, they receive routine veterinary care. Many captive animals live significantly longer and healthier lives than their wild-living conspecifics. That’s not to say that there isn’t a problem with stress and/or stereotypic behaviors in many captive animals. But it’s certainly not being ignored. Check out The Shape of Enrichment website. Animal enrichment in captive settings has become a big thing in recent years. The goal of enrichment is to try and mimic natural settings and provide opportunities for animals to exhibit/perform their natural behaviors as much as possible. If you’ve been to some of the more modern zoos, or some that have had recent renovations, you’ll notice that there’s a lot more to the animal enclosures than concrete and steel bars. By the way, that abnormal behavior cited by CAPS is not restricted to zoo animals. Horses (cribbing & other assorted chewing) and pet birds (feather plucking) are notorious for stereotypical behaviors as well. Perhaps keeping these animals as pets should be outlawed, too?

But why should we keep these animals in the first place? Well, some of the other posters have already addressed the fact that zoos (and aquariums!) do a lot more than just display animals. Captive-breeding is a big deal. Many zoos and aquariums worldwide are linked into the The International Species Information System (link may be slow) which provides inventory and breeding tracking software and provides a database of who has what. The AZA and similar organizations in many countries sponsor studbook keepers and various committees concerned with the conservation of a variety of species. There really are not a lot of mammals and birds still being collected from the wild for zoos and aquariums [at least American ones, and probably not Canadian & Western European & Australian ones, either] --most are captive-bred and traded and sold between institutions all the time. Captive-breeding of reptiles and amphibians (especially poison dart frogs) is on the rise, though fish for exhibits (and your home aquarium) are still primarily wild-caught.

But I think the most important justification for zoos and aquariums is education. Frankly, I don’t think most people would care about any of these animals if they hadn’t ever had a chance to see them. I don’t think most Americans would care about African or Asian or Australian animals if they’d never come here. Nor would they care about such things as, say, the deforestation of the rain forest or the destruction of coral reefs if they’d never had a chance to see what exactly calls these places home. Captive animals serve as ambassadors for their species. It’s kind of ironic that the very goodwill these animals and the institutions that house them have fostered is a significant part of what drives people nowadays to criticize them.

For one thing, these are all relatively new inventions. Zoos predate these by centuries. And, frankly, most people in developed nations are not going to travel to the wilds of Africa or the Amazon to seek out these animals. But that doesn’t mean that they can’t appreciate them or even help them out from the comforts of their own home. There are a number of pro-animal organizations that have probably benefited from contributions received from people who never saw an elephant or a giraffe outside of their municipal zoo. Not to mention the fact that most of the conservation, research, and captive-breeding done by zoos and aquariums is funded by the money people who just want to gawk at the cool animals pay when they walk in the front door/gate.

And now that my “Zoos: Good” testimonial is done, I’ll also take a brief moment to address the issue of animal research.

Only if you get that research proposal past the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Yes, research animals fall under the USDA’s purview as well. Okay, maybe not rodents, which are what the majority of medical research is done on. But all other mammals are. While that doesn’t mean they don’t still get killed or injured in the course of experiments, it does mean that there has to be a scientifically-justifiable reason to do so and that the researcher has checked into whether or not similar experiments have been done; has researched the possibility of using alternatives to live animals; has provided justification for the number of animals to be used; and is using the appropriate pain mediation, housing, and post-procedural care. Researchers usually have to submit a protocol to their institutions IACUC and most research institution’s IACUCs perform unannounced semi-annual inspections to make sure researchers are following procedures. In addition, the USDA comes around periodically to make sure of the same thing. The system certainly isn’t perfect, and a lot of things are still done to animals that would make sensitive people upset, but there are attempts to find a balance between insuring humane treatment of animals and allowing necessary research to go forward.

Of course, this only applies to scientific/medical research. Research on animals for other reasons (e.g. cosmetics) to me isn’t really justifiable.

Okay, that’s long enough. Gotta get back to work!

Michele
Medical Assistant and Animal Registrar
National Aquarium in Baltimore

14

I’m in a hurry, so this will be quick, but I know that one researcher at my University had to go through 4 YEARS of paperwork to be allowed to experiment on changing certain nutrients in a cows diet to see its effect on milk production! Also, about testing on cosmetics - I agree it isn’t necessary NOW, but for those of you who do wear make-up, aren’t you glad they tested to see if that ingredient in mascara would blind you or not, way back when? There is a certain justification to these experiments having been done in the past, although I agree that its totally unnecessary today. It’s just an issue of context.

Gotta go to an exam now, but I just HAD to comment :slight_smile:

15

In a fairly widely reprinted essay, ethicist and philosopher, Dale Jamieson, roundly criticizes zoos on a number of fronts.

Jamieson first offers what he thinks are the four basic justifications for having zoos in the first place.

  1. Amusement
  2. Education
  3. Opportunities for Scientific Research
  4. Help in Preserving Species

Each of these justifications is, according to Jamieson insufficient in terms of overriding the basics of liberty that animals are owed. His argument proceeds this way.

Amusement “Most curators and administrators reject the idea that the primary purpose of zoos is to provide entertainment” (Jamieson, 1985). In this regard, amusement may occur but it is only incidental to other benefits. So Jamieson says that you can’t argue that zoos should be kept open for amusement reasons when those who own and operate them currently don’t agree with this.

Education"Despite the pious platitudes that are often uttered about the educational efforts of zoos, however, there is little evidence that zoos are very successful in educating people" (Jamieson, 1985). So apparently zoo administrators do cite education as a valuable component of their mission, but they are largely failures at achieving this.

Opportunities for Scientific Research Jamieson outlines three failures of this justification. First, he says, “very few zoos support any real scientific research. Fewer still have staff scientists with full-time research appointments.” So the research they say is being done really doesn’t amount to much. Secondly and thirdly, Jamieson says that the research which is conducted is either flawed or simply perpetuates the existence of zoos. Flawed research focuses on animal behavior. It is flawed because captive behavior cannot be a proxy for animal behavior in the wild. Other research focuses on animal anatomy and pathology and these results are almost always tied to making zoos better for their animals and, hopefully, offspring. So in this respect, why have zoos at all if the research being done is only to make zoos better so that more research can be done to make zoos better, etc.

Help in Preserving Species “The lack of genetic diversity among captive animals also means that surviving members have traits very different from their conspecifics in the wild.” Jamieson also points to the far higher than normal infant mortatlity rates of animals reared in captivity versus those reared in the wild. Shortly, zoos fail to protect species in any real sense, since they force the gene pool through a bottleneck whereby it may not be able to recover.

These are Jamieson’s arguments against zoos. I don’t happen to agree with all of them or to the degree that Jamieson does, but I offer this as a means to flesh out the logic a bit more.

16

Hi Michele (see, I spelled it right), welcome to the Straight Dope. Great post.

While I understand that animal testing is thoroughly regulated (I put my SO through grad school in neuropsych), the simple fact remains that animals are harmed in medical and nonmedical testing–sometimes horribly.

I myself have few problems with this.

But since the OP stated that he/she feels animals testing is acceptable as long as there is a benefit to mankind (just as it’s acceptable to breed and slaughter animals for meat), I’m running with it.

So, cainxinth, how much benefit to humanity is required? And how immediately?

Sure, eating cows provides a direct benefit to us in the way of protein and fat. No worries, and most places don’t really use sledgehammers anymore anyway. Jackhammer spikes, yes, but not sledges.

How about cosmetic testing? Night of the Mary Kay Commandoes and all that? It provides a direct benefit to humanity, after all. (And none of the “we don’t need makeup.” We don’t need meat either.)

How about psychology and neuroscience research (since it’s a field I know)? Grad students are killing rats by the thousands, putting electrodes in their heads, cutting their brains open . . . and there’s no immediate benefit from it. Hell, most of those lines of research will never show a direct benefit to humanity, that’s just the nature of the beast.

Let’s expand that a little to all basic research. Is animal testing even acceptable in basic research at all? Basic research after all rarely results in a direct benefit to mankind (that’s pretty much the definition of basic research). You mentioned dissection as a learning tool, and I understand where you’re coming from there. But what about basic research involving live animals, which may never provide a direct benefit to humans?

17

It might be more helpful to link to his essay or provide some of the data he uses to justify his arguments. I don’t disagree that he doesn’t have some points, but what he fails to address is the the fundamental fact that zoos DO exist and that there are already animals there that cannot be humanely released except to other captive situations.

I have particular questions/concerns about the following:

Assuming that animals need/desire liberty is anthropomorphism. Liberty in and of itself is not necessarily more beneficial to animals than captivity. This is certainly true in some cases, especially in situations when those assuming to hold the animals are ignorant of their fundamental habitat, nutritional, and behavioral needs. But not necessarily in all. For every cite showing a situation where an animal or species was harmed by captivity, one could probably find examples to the contrary. And in many cases, especially regarding the relative lifespan of captive versus wild animals, there’s just not enough data on the wild populations to make an accurate assessment. This is especially true in the case of marine mammals. We have a male grey seal that’s nearly 30 years old. How many of his conspecifics in the wild are still alive at that age?

Really? How do you assess this? The ideal test would be to compare a population of individuals raised in a society where zoos are prevalant to those raised in a society comparable in every other aspect but lacking zoos and ask them how much they know about non-native species. This is, of course, impossible. I think we take for granted how much those of us interested in"foreign" animals know about them and why we care in the first place. I also think zoos and aquariums can certainly educate folks about what lives right in their own regions. And, by proxy, about how their activities affect these animals. For example, our Aquarium sponsors a Marine Animal Rescue Program a component of which is outreach education. Program participants go to festivals in Ocean City and at Assateague Island and take animal artifacts, posters, and educational pamphlets about marine mammals and sea turtles and talk to passersby about what they have and how simple activities such as improperly discarding a plastic bag can impact native wildlife. The sea turtle shell full of slashes from a speedboat propeller (one of which bisected the animal’s spine and led to its death) is a very effective educational tool about the dangers boating poses to endangered/threatened species. Most folks in the mid-Atlantic area probably aren’t aware that these animals even pass through local waters but this is one Aquarium-sponsored activity that might help raise that awareness.

I could also talk more in-depth about how our Animal Health Department’s veterinary student program helps train vets who want to work with wildlife and exotic pets or how our involvement in Project Piaba is helping a developing nation improve their techniques for collecting tropical fish (a major industry in that area and a source of revenue), or how we have collected money to purchase rain forest and protect it from destruction via “parking meters” that collect money from kids who come to oggle the sharks, but it’s lunch time and I have to run.

Cheers,
Michele

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dr.One-L *
**

It might be more helpful to link to his essay or provide some of the data he uses to justify his arguments.**

I don’t think the essay can be found on-line, but the full citation is Jamieson, Dale. 1985. Against zoos. In In Defense of Animals. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.

In reference to your second suggestion, that’s probably my biggest critique of Jamieson, he has no primary data and precious little secondary data to support his contentions.
I don’t disagree that he doesn’t have some points, but what he fails to address is the the fundamental fact that zoos DO exist and that there are already animals there that cannot be humanely released except to other captive situations.

Well, I’m not Jamieson, but I’ll take a crack at how he might respond to this. Certainly, zoos do exist, but that is not a valid justification for their continued existence. This is akin to the naturalistic fallacy where we determine an ‘ought’ from some ‘is’ out in the world. No one would argue that simply because slavery was the norm in the mid 19th century, that it should be continued. Note, I am not in any way equating slavery with the practice of putting non-human animals into captivity. I use this simply to illustrate the problem with assuming that if this is the way things are, then it must be okay to go along this same path.

Additionallly, I think Jamieson would allow zoos to be phased out to address just that kind of problem you suggested. Allowing the captive critters to live out their worry-free lives in zoos may be preferable to turning them loose in the wild where they’re likely to become some other thing’s next meal.
**Assuming that animals need/desire liberty is anthropomorphism. **

No, I disagree here. Let me preface this by stating clearly that I do not necessarily buy into all of Jamieson’s arguments. And his ultimate conclusion (that non-human animals do have rights to freedom) is one I have trouble with. Anyway, I don’t believe assuming animals need/desire liberty is simply anthropomorphising. I think a hypothetical example would support my point here. Imagine if we were to turn loose all the captive animals. Of course we’d make sure to do this in a way that would be safe for both the animals themselves and humans living nearby. One might presume that those animals that didn’t leave their confines for a life of freedom would be an argument against a preference for liberty. On the other hand, those animals that took to the hills running far away from their cages would be evidence against a preference for captivity. In this somewhat simple example, I tend to think that the overwhelming majority of animals would take their chance at freedom if it was presented. Habituation may occur with some individual animals and they might choose to return or simply fail to leave at all. Yet, I don’t see this as support for a preference for captivity.

Liberty in and of itself is not necessarily more beneficial to animals than captivity. This is certainly true in some cases, especially in situations when those assuming to hold the animals are ignorant of their fundamental habitat, nutritional, and behavioral needs. But not necessarily in all. For every cite showing a situation where an animal or species was harmed by captivity, one could probably find examples to the contrary. And in many cases, especially regarding the relative lifespan of captive versus wild animals, there’s just not enough data on the wild populations to make an accurate assessment. This is especially true in the case of marine mammals. We have a male grey seal that’s nearly 30 years old. How many of his conspecifics in the wild are still alive at that age?

This boils down to one of my own main counter-critiques of zoos. I disagree with the justification that longevity should be the only or even primary measure of value of anything’s life. Measuring life in terms of quantity rather than quality, I think misses much.

Consider a human example. Here’s Jane and Jane loves to live life on the edge. Pick any extreme sport and you’ll likely find her trying it out: bungee jumping, whitewater kayaking, wilderness camping, etc. Now many, if not all, of Jane’s preferred pursuits involve some element of risk/danger. But it is the exposure to that risk/danger that Jane so thoroughly enjoys. Now consider that Jane’s life takes one of two turns. Either she continues to live her life participating in extreme sports or she is wrongfully convicted of murder and sentence to spend the rest of her days behind bars. Under the first scenario she may well meet her end at a young age, but she arguably lived life fully and without regret: High quality. Under the second scenario, she ends up living longer, but unable to do those things that make her feel most alive: Low quality. If it were me, I’d opt for quality over quantity every time. I don’t think it is too much of a leap to presume that many (all?) higher, non-human animals have the ability to express, through behavior choices, preferences. And as I outlined in the previous paragraph, a preference for freedom over captivity seems quite probable. I doubt it matters much if the choice for quality over quantity is a rational choice or not, either way it is an expressed preference.
**Really? How do you assess this? **

I don’t know why my previous quote was snipped out, but you were referring to Jamieson’s contention and my summary that zoos, in general, fail in their objectives to educate the public. This is one instance where Jamieson relies on secondary data to support his position. He cites a study by Stephen Kellert (1979) which concluded that “zoo-goers are much less knowledgeable about animals than backpackers, hunters, fishermen, an others who claim an interest in animals, and only slightly more knowledgeable than those who claim no interest in animals.”

Now in my mind, this finding may be true, but I don’t think it reveals much. I would have opted to measure some variable other than knowledge, specifically positive attitudes about animals. The attitudes may be more telling about how people truly feel with regards to non-human animals than simple knowledge of some species. I can easily envision a situation where someone scores very low on a knowledge test about some animal, but they score quite highly on their attitude towards that animal. Attitudes are considered approximate predictors of behavior. In this way, low knowledge scores tell us little, but high attitude scores give some evidence that that person may be concerned with that species of animal. And it is in this regard that I think zoos can succeed–in promoting positive attitudes about animals if not increasing knowledge about them.

Also, I agree with your contention that zoos can perform some eduation particularly in reference to endangered species, but on the whole I disagree that zoos should be used as refugia for those species in danger of going extinct.

19

obligatory nitpick…More like distant cousins (i.e., humans did not evolve from modern animals…we share a common ancestor).

Sorry - please continue.

20

Phobos, i was misspoke entirely, i meant to say we are their evolutionary decedents…or they are out evolutionary ancestors.

To address the new issues. I agree it would be wrong to release captive animals who can no longer fend for themselves. So, instead zoos could be phased out…no new breeding or acquisitions. I don’t see this happening anytime soon if ever, but its possible in theory.

Are not the abnormal behaviors that zooed animals develop evidence that they are not satisfied with a captive existence? Animals in the wild should have a more stressful life, worrying about survival of the fittest and all, but they don’t exhibit the same symptoms of stress.

Michelle, i realize that I am trying to make a case against your livelihood here, and i hope you can understand i have nothing against you or your profession personally; im just discussing alternative views.

Zoo’s can be places to educate, but so can schools, community centers, the web, and many other places. Zoos are not a prerequisite for animal education. With the exception of the exhibition of animals there doesn’t seem to be one activity at zoos whether conservation activities, research, veterinary training, or education that couldn’t be transferred to a non-zoo environment.

We apparently hold different views on the value of basic research. I have a strong belief that scientific and technologic advancement are of high importance even at the expense of animal suffering. So how much benefit is required? Its difficult to say, but speaking informally, I would agree to any research that is seeking to cure an ailment or improve the quality of and/or extend human life. Cosmetic testing does not meet that criteria. And, as I’ve stated, I see nothing wrong with harming animals for educative purposes, and that includes painful activities like inserting electrodes into living animals brains.