When we talk about zoos and wildlife, I think I have a little experience with both of them. I have a roommate and a friend who studied wildlife and forestry. So I do have some arguments with them on which is better, wildlife and forestry or agriculture.
So from there, I got to learn that forestry is quite different from wildlife management and it is also different from zookeeping. Talking about the zoo, this is when wild animals are kept in cages and cared for, the purpose of zookeeping is for entertainment and bringing wildlife closer to people.
Wildlife management is quite different from zookeeping. When the animals are conserved in their wild environment, they are free just like they are in their natural habitats but conserved with barriers that keep them in check.
So between both, I think they both come with their advantages and disadvantages. For zookeeping, I can say it will bring wild animals closer to people’s view, but they tend not to live longer than they are in their natural habitat. The risk is also higher because if the animal could cut loose and escape it could be a threat to everyone around.
I remember some time while I was in school and we heard that the chimpanzee in the zoo had escaped. It was funny at first but we thought again, that’s because it was a chimpanzee. What if it were a lion or leopard? Are those within that area safe?
Same thing I heard from @princessbusayo when she made a visit to a zoo recently, she narrated how she was almost attacked by the lion in the cage. It might seem secure with the barricade or fence they surrounded them with, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are wild animals and not domestic animals.
So in cases like this, I think there should be a limit to where people could reach and not trespass. Something like a danger zone. That will keep both the viewers and the animals in check. There was one I also watched where the viewer wanted to give a baboon biscuit but the baboon grabbed the person instead. It could have injured such a person.
About zookeeping, I feel there should also be a way to make those animals feel like they are in the wild. I visited a zoo just because they said the zoo has giraffes as part of its conservation, only to have paid and get there and then hear that the giraffe is no more because it got a broken neck.
For wildlife conservation, I prefer that a lot since those animals will be in their natural habitat and there is a way to just observe them from a distance, relate with their behavior, and learn better. Animals in this condition tend to live longer compared to the restrictions they get in zoos.
There is danger on both ends, but we can't deny the fact that bringing those animals for humans to see them for real is really a good advantage. No one will dare go to the wild to see those animals unless they love to play hide and seek with death.
I can tell how huge a lion is just from my experience at the zoo. I saw how big an ostrich was. This is something I can never imagine from TV shows or textbooks. Seeing those creatures alive is something amazing. One thing I would like to say is that for animals that are dangerous, there should be a limit to how close the distance will be between the viewers and the animals caged or conserved.
This is my response to the HIVE LEARNERS weekly prompt in the hive-learners community for the Week 173 Edition 2, and the topic to be discussed is ALL ABOUT THE ZOO*.
