In recent years, curiosity about our natural surroundings have increased tenfold – noted naturalists, such as Sir David Attenborough, have dedicated their lives to promoting awareness about nature and animals, as well as helping to protect it. It is not often possible for lovers of nature to travel, far and wide to spot a laughing hyena or a Siberian tiger, so a visit to the zoo over the weekend sounds like the ideal quick escape here, whenever your in the mood to spend some time admiring animals and their remarkable nature.
It can be regarded as good debate: do zoos act as efficient homes for all these animals, and is it quite unfair to have animals shipped from Madagascar to London, simply to appetite peoples curiosity regarding animals? I personally perceive zoos to be necessary in a national landscape, not simply because of everyone’s massive interest in the animals kept, and very often, bred there. The London Zoo was the first zoo in the world opened in 1848 to the public branded as a zoological zoo: so just imagine what a wide variety of exotic and charming plants from lands far, far away were exhibited during that time!
Zoos act as a rich source of education for the British public, as well as providing them with a lot of entertainment and the chance to take a leisurely stroll, alongside many animals, some of them, which they have possibly never even heard off! But more importantly, its crucial to note that many species of animals are at the present moment labelled with an “endangered” tag because they are at a risk of being poached and sold, as part of the illegal wildlife trade. This is where a zoo comes in because zoos exist to protect animals facing such harm.
Zoos take part in a sort-of an initiative here by breeding such endangered species in captivity and reintroducing them to the wild, so the criticism that zoos are all about addressing human curiosity I feel is flawed. I would say that I am a big supporter of the idea of “zoos”!