Most zoos in large cities are funded by either a government sanctioned program, nonprofit organization, or a hybrid of both. The funding for zoos (especially Metropolitan zoos) comes from taxpayer money and revenue. Some are supported 100% by nonprofit groups. Money isn't the driving force behind most zoos.IRONCHEF wrote:
How bout NOT having zoos at all? Research? lol It's called "money." SOmeone mentioned that since there's a zoo in pretty much EVERY metro area in the world, it's clearly not for studying. If they want to study animals, why then profit from the public? Why make animals "perform?"
I've been to a zoo with my kids. It's not entertaining to them. They thought it was sad that they were captive. That's all I needed to realize that zoo's are not only unnatural, but that they are highly hypocritical of our so-called civilized nature. Sure it's not like gladiatorial games with humans dying or anything - and i'm not saying humans are less than animals, but dang..if little children can understand that it's bad for animals to be in cages when they realize there's a natural habitat..then how much more sadistic is it to have full scale zoos for making money?
And for what it's worth, there is an animal museum in a neighboring city that takes in wounded or otherwise incapacitated animals that are treated and released when they're capable. The museum has stuffed animals in mock habitats. Nothing wrong with this solution for both the entertainment and research fields.
I go to the San Diego Zoo as much as I can. I find it incredibly entertaining, especially the Ape exhibits. If your kids don't like find the zoo entertaining, don't take them. There are plenty of people who do find it entertaining, as evidenced by the fact that there were people at a zoo on Christmas. Maybe your little kids don't understand entertainment?
If an animal is 'caged' humanely, fed and taken care of, I have no problem with a zoo. There has probably been more benefit for the animal kingdom from zoos than any other human institution.