Few animals in zoos and aquariums are from the wild. They are conceived in captivity and in most cases, can't survive in the wild. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need zoos or aquariums. But in a world where every attempt at saving the environment and endangered species is a huge battle, if we don't have zoos and aquariums, there won't be places where people can relate to the animals and if people don't relate to animals, they won't feel they need to save them.
In the case of the WCS, the moneys raised from admissions, etc., go to conserve species in the wild. Nothing is perfect.
12
A shark raised in captivity would survive just fine in the wild. Sharks do not have to be taught to survive like mammals do. Taking a animal that ranges 1500 miles and putting it in a tank is cruel. How would you like to spend your life in a closet?
1
I agree with every comment. Animals deserve their right to a natural life. I am so happy to see that so many people understand that animals are not ours for entertainment, food, or fashion. Keep spreading the word! Traditionally I am sure the New York Aquarium means to care for their wildlife but the time has come to educate people in other ways, such as all the wonderful documentaries that are available.
6
No more zoos or aquariums, please.
Enough.
6
Give it a rest, wouldja? How else are children to learn about wildlife, the earth, science, etc?
8
I am opposed to displaying animals for unvoluntary minstrel shows. It's so... 18th century, and inhuman.
10
no animals in cages or tanks for that matter....sharks belong in the ocean
8
I have no doubt that aquarium personnel strive to treat aquatic creatures humanely but the only truly humane thing to do is not capture them and remove them from their natural habitats. We have plenty of wonderful shows on television that film animals where they should be.
13
I love how the shark returns to the water once finally released -- like a baller!
3
How do you move a shark? You don't. Sharks belong in the ocean, living their lives. They don't exist to provide a profitable source of entertainment for humans.
14
AB, In an ideal world, I support your thesis. Leave other animals and their environment alone, so they can live their lives as they evolved to live...compliments of Mother Nature. But, we live in a flawed and not in an ideal world.
As is the case for nearly any human or other animal population, sometimes a few animals' lifestyle may be compromised to improve the long-term survival of the remainder of the animals. In human war, a few soldiers may become casualties, so the larger civilian population remains safe and protected.
Among the questions that comes to my mind are: Are we humans justified in capturing and displaying other species in aquariums, zoos, etc. so our fellow humans may appreciate them and understand why it is so important to protect their (and our) environment... so these other species will be allowed to pursue their lives in the wild? As we humans observe wild animals in an aquarium or zoo, aren't we also learning and upgrading our own knowledge? To me, entertainment is secondary but influential in gaining the support of other humans to protect the wild animals and their environment. No easy answers or solutions, eh?
As improvements in documentary media etc. continue, perhaps, it will NOT be necessary to capture and to display other species. Perhaps, the current efforts for "realistic" environments where other species are displayed are intermediate steps towards gradually downsizing display venues and showing media rather than the live animals?
10
aeg, I appreciate your reply. I think education/conservation is a convenient rationalization for people who want to profit from the captivity of other species, or who simply want someplace to take their kids on a Saturday afternoon. There are already more than enough excellent documentaries that show animals in their natural habitats (many with breathtaking cinematography) to make the need for zoos and aquariums obsolete.
1