Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
AT: “Zoos Key to Species Protection”
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: “Zoos Key to Species Protection”
- AT: “Zoos Key to Research for Animal Welfare”
AT: “Zoos Key to Species Protection”ZOOS DON’T CONTRIBUTE MUCH TO PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University, 2003, The Animal Ethics Reader, eds. Armstrong & Botzler, p. 457 Some people who accept a holistic ethic are skeptical of the real contributions zoos make to species protection. It is appropriate for all of us to press this issue since, despite the claims sometimes made on behalf of zoo programs whose purpose is to reintroduce endangered species into their native habitats, for example, the rate of success might be far less than the public is led to believe.
Robert Garner, Professor of Politics, University of Leicester, 2004, Animals, politics and morality, p. 97 Even as a conservation strategy, keeping animals in captivity really only scratches the surface of the problem. Thousands of species are endangered, not primarily because the animals themselves are killed directly but because their habitat is being destroyed. It is therefore unrealistic in most cases to hope that many species bred in zoos (and not all species, in any case, do breed successfully in captivity) can be related into the wild, simply because there is no longer a place for them. Finally, even if it is accepted that captive-breeding programs are a useful conservation strategy, this need not be undertaken by zoos but by special centers which deal with one particular species and are not usually open to the public. CAN MEET CAPTIVE BREEDING MISSION WITHOUT ZOOS Mark Rowlands, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, 2002, Animals Like Us, p. 158 The final reason often used to justify zoos is their role in helping preserve endangered species. Zoo breeding programs have had important successes; without them the Pete David Deer, the European Bison, and the Mongolian Wild Horse would all now be extinct. However, we should not make too much of this role of zoos. First, most zoos do very little breeding, or breed only species that are not endangered. So, at most, this argument could justify the existence of only a tiny number of presently existing zoos. Second, many of the major breeding programs are located in facilities specifically crated for this purpose, and far from the attention of zoo-goers. The Bronx Zoo, for example, operates the Rare Animal Survival Center on St. Catherine’s Island off the coast of Georgia; and the National Zoo runs its Conservation and Research Center in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. Most zoos have neither the staff nor the facilities to pursue any meaningful breeding programs. So, if the purpose of zoos is to help preserve endangered species, then we should replace them with these sorts of large-scale breeding centers.
http://www.personhood.org/main/faq.html One often hears the argument that to condemn zoos would ignore all the educational value they offer. One can consider extinction a very bad thing even if one does not care at all about conservation. But imagine someone making the following statement: "I worry about the Yanomami tribe of the Amazonian Rainforest becoming extinct because it means not only that one of them or two get killed but that all members of their community are wiped out from the face of the earth. This human loss is also loss of genetic biodiversity. We must prevent the absolute disaster for those people, whose existence in the wild is threatened. A zoo in North America, for example, where there is advanced health care and where captive breeding could augment their numbers, might be the only way to save the tribe. Also, many underprivileged children in North American urban areas would not learn about the Yanomami culture in any other way." Toshisada Nishida has compared the cultures of non-human great apes to cultures of aboriginal human groups. The zoo environment is not an appropriate answer to the problem of their dwindling numbers, any more than it is appropriate for threatened human groups.
HUMAN INTERACTION WITH ANIMALS AT PLACES LIKE ZOOS TO NOT FOSTER ENVIRONMENTALISM Joanne Vining, Associate Professor of Science and Chair Human Nature Research Laboratory @ Urbana College. “The Connection to other animals and caring for nature”. Human Ecology Review Vol 10, 2003 http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her102/102vining.pdf Finally, it is important to ask whether the development of caring for an individual of a species translates into caring for the entire species and for the natural world in general. Miller (2002) argued that care for an individual can preclude care for the species and may interfere with management of populations. He mentioned the example of deer in and around urban centers where the public does not accept management of the population by culling and predator control. He argued that the connection from caring for individuals to caring for populations is not being made. Shore (2002) emphasizes that caring for a domesticated species (through neutering, feeding, etc.) does not translate to the proper caring for a wild species. Research is needed to examine whether there is a logical or feeling transition from caring for individuals, to caring for populations, to caring for ecosystems. This requires a careful definition of the dependent variable of “caring.” AT: “Zoos Key to Research for Animal Welfare”ZOOS FAIL AT RESEARCH AND THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO DO IT Dale Jamieson, Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy at New York University, “Against Zoos”. In Defense of Animals. 1985 http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/jamieson01.htm The first point we should note is that very few zoos support any real scientific research. Fewer still have staff scientists with full-time research appointments. Among those that do, it is common for their scientists to study animals in the wild rather than those in zoo collections. Much of this research, as well as other field research that is supported by zoos, could just as well be funded in a different way— say, by a government agency. The question of whether there should be zoos does not turn on the funding for field research which zoos currently provide. The significance of the research that is actually conducted in zoos is a more important consideration. UNNATURAL NATURE OF ZOO ENVIRONMENTS MAKES THEM A POOR PLACE TO CONDUCT RESEARCH Mark Rowlands, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, 2002, Animals Like Us, p. 156 The value of behavioral studies conducted on zoo animals is extremely dubious. The problem is that zoos provide very unnatural environments for their animals, and these unnatural environments inevitably produce unnatural behavior. So if our goal is to learn about the behavior of animals, then it is unclear, to say the least, why the study of captive animals is the way to go. More accurate, hence more important, results can always be obtained from animals in the wild. ARGUMENT THAT ZOOS NECESSARY TO CONDUCT RESEARCH FOR ANIMAL HEALTH IS ILLOGICAL Mark Rowlands, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, 2002, Animals Like Us, p. 156 Anatomical and physiological studies are the most common forms of zoo research. What is the purpose of this research? One goal is to improve the health of animals in zoos. This would be a laudable goal—but only if you accept that animals should be in zoos in the first place. You can’t without being seriously confused, justify keeping animals in zoos on the grounds that they provide useful research subjects for improving the lot of animals in zoos. That would be what, in the philosophy industry, is known as a circular argument; you are assuming the conclusion – that it is legitimate to keep animals in zoos – that you are supposedly arguing for.
Mark Rowlands, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, 2002, Animals Like Us, p. 157-8 A final aim of zoo-based anatomical and physiological research is, allegedly, to gain knowledge about animals for its own sake. I have nothing against knowledge; all things being equal knowledge is a good thing to have. But the end does not justify the means. We would not justify painful experiments on young children on the grounds that the experiments yielded interesting knowledge. Humans, perhaps, are essentially inquisitive creatures. And for some humans, perhaps, a life not dominated by the quest for knowledge is a life not worth living. Perhaps. But there are other channels for our intellectual curiosity, ones that do not require such a high price in terms of animal suffering. VERY FEW ZOOS INVOLVED IN CRITICAL RESEARCH TO BENEFIT THE ANIMALS Robert Garner, Professor of Politics, University of Leicester, 2004, Animals, politics and morality, p. 96 Research involving captive animals is aimed toward arriving at a greater understanding of the behavior and anatomy of animals which would otherwise be unavailable for study. This research can be for its own sake or to improve the life of animals in captivity or to benefit human health. The use of captive animals for research is again, though limited, to very few zoos. In so far as it does take place, it is of limited validity. Obviously, research to improve the quality of life for zoo animals would not be necessarily if the institutions did not exist. As research tools to benefit humans, zoo animals are to continue to be displayed) to undertake invasive procedures. Simply observing them is a poor substitute.
Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|