Personally, ideally, I wouldn't mind it if zoos specifically only took in rescue animals (and many rescue places HAVE started to allow people in for educational purposes like a zoo would), but I can't rightly support taking a well-adjusted, healthy animal out of it's natural environment except in the specific case of it being seriously endangered and needing to be cautiously protected and/or used as part of a breeding program.

Would you guys rather live in a prison for 25 years or free for 10 years? It's not a hard decision if you think about it. Time isn't important, quality of life is. What's the meaning of breathing if you're not living?

this is how i feel about birds in cages, they haven't ever known any different and have no survival skills, they would starve. Rikard has no idea, it wouldn't be 10 years in the wild, it would be ten days.. if they were lucky. the polar bear would probably be shot because it is too comfortable around humans how and would wander into a town looking for food. these aren't animals plucked out of the wild they are rescued or bred in captivity, and have zero survival skills. its not like seaworld and their whales who are forced to perform and their tiny bathtub cement enclosures echoing back any sound they make

You make an excellent point Pam! Most of these animals would not make it out in the wild. They have no idea that what they are experiencing isn't the norm for their wild brethren. All most Zoos try to do is recreate their environment as much as they can in order to make the animal comfortable and happy. Which is why I donate to exotic animal rescues, zoos, and sea world.

That is exactly how I view zoos. A necessary, and even enjoyable, evil.

her point is that they aren't neglected just because of the weather