The innovation is too early

According to David Hancocks in his article, “The right and wrong ways to zoo it,” the author directed the zoos for more than 30 years, but he doesn’t like zoos. The author believes people need zoos that are better than the typical zoos. The needs of animals are most important is the best attitude. The spaces that feel like the natural habitats for the animals and innovations are needed for the zoos. Zoos always boast about their good environment for the animals, but that is not true. The goals of zoos are attract and entertain visitors. Breeding is the only way to protect animals for most zoos. “In truth, government and non-government agencies are most successful in restoring habitat and reintroducing wild species,” but zoos think that all the glory belongs to them. If zoos thought their goal was animal welfare, they would be very effective leaders in protecting animals. Zoos can make more contributions, if they have new attitudes and philosophies for the animals.

The author is an architect of zoos, and he gives us a lot of interesting ideas to change the zoos. He thinks animals’ needs are above everything and zoos should have spaces like natural habitats. These are very good ideas but I think they are also too impractical to do. He thinks zoos only breed their animals for conservation. I think this is the basic way to protect animals.

First, the author thinks animals’ needs are above everything, but I think this is impossible. People all know that we should protect animals, but can we put the animals’ need first? I don’t think so. For example, if the animals need more space to make the zoos innovative, can people give an area for the animals? I think the answer is no. There are so many countries that face population problems. People don’t have enough space to live in; that is why so many high buildings were built in the world. How can people give some space to the animals? Many people still don’t have quality of life; how can we give animals high standards? I’m not saying that people are more important than animals, but if people don’t have high quality of life, how can we put the needs of animals above all others?

Second, the author said the spaces that feel like natural habitats to animals are needed in the zoos. I want say that is great idea, but how? To make a natural habitat with large and complex natural landscapes is very difficult to do. The animals are living in the different environments; we cannot make all the different natural habitats in the same zoo. Also, there are many plants that cannot grow in other places. That is why there are so many concrete landscapes and false plants. I don’t think this is the zoos’ deception; they just don’t have the ability to recreate environments. I think the zoos did their best to give a natural habitat to the animals.

Finally, the author thinks, “conservation for most zoos just means breeding.” I don’t agree with him, because breeding is the foundation of protecting animals. To breed animals is not a business for the zoos, it’s the mission for the zoos. If zoos don’t breed animals, many species will disappear in the world. Maybe the zoos are not successful in reintroducing wild species, but at least they protect the species. When some wild species have disappeared, you can still find them in the zoos. That’s why we need zoos.

In conclusion, people still cannot put the animals’ needs first without losing their high quality of life. The natural habitats are too different to make in the different zoos. Breeding is necessary for the animals. As I said before, these are great ideas, but people cannot do that. I hope all the ideas can be used, but I don’t think people can do those right now.

Reference

Hancocks, D. (2007, June 20). The right and wrong ways to zoo it. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database.