With the recent development where Tilikum the killer whale kills a trainer it made me think that animals for entertainment and specifically zoos should probably be higher on the list of priorities for animal rights advocates. While many more animals are killed and abused for food the average person does not always make the connection with the abstracted food on their plate. Zoos actually put animals behind bars and how much more of an obvious contradiction is it to take an innocent wild animal and coop them for humans to gawk at? Obviously larger animals have a rougher go at it when enclosed in such an environment for which they were not adapted to thrive but still I think these institutions are the most egregious examples of human oppression of animals.

The proponents of zoos argue that they educate but is the education actually instilling speciesism? We educate (or rather we should) people about other cultures but to do so using human zoos is racist. There are many other compelling ways we can educate people about animals without having to pluck examples out of their native environments. My first experience with empathy for animals came from seeing a tiger behind bars at the Lincoln Park Zoo.

Should zoos be higher on the list of animal advocacy?

Jean-Michel Cousteau weighs in and makes good points on issue of wild captive animals.

Most definitely! A small group of us have been protesting Kelly Miller Circus in the western suburbs for the past 3 years. Usually in August and September. Local school foundations and villages host the circus for a percentage of the gate. I'll post more information about dates and times later in the year.

Taking action in an effort to help one or a few animals means we are turning our backs on opportunities that would help thousands.

I spent my first few years in animal protection protesting animal use across the board, the "do everything, do anything approach." When I was finally ready to address the questions about what good my efforts had achieved, I realized it was time to develop a better plan than "do everything, do anything." Since 99 out of every 100 animals killed by humans is an animal used in food production, and since each person we see makes decisions during their lifetimes that either sentence or spare well over 1000 animals the incredible suffering of modern farming, that is the logical place for us to work if we want to have an impact on decreasing animal suffering. Even if we were magically able to liberate every circus animals in the world, it would not decrease animal suffering more than making a few new vegetarians would.

Taking action in an effort to help one or a few animals means we are turning our backs on opportunities that would help thousands.

I spent my first few years in animal protection protesting animal use across the board, the "do everything, do anything approach." When I was finally ready to address the questions about what good my efforts had achieved, I realized it was time to develop a better plan than "do everything, do anything." Since 99 out of every 100 animals killed by humans is an animal used in food production, and since each person we see makes decisions during their lifetimes that either sentence or spare well over 1000 animals the incredible suffering of modern farming, that is the logical place for us to work if we want to have an impact on decreasing animal suffering. Even if we were magically able to liberate every circus animals in the world, it would not decrease animal suffering more than making a few new vegetarians would.

While we would all surely prefer to see less suffering, I don't think that is necessarily the primary goal of every activist. If your goal is to get people to acknowledge the right of non-human animals to not be used as property, then focusing on the use of animals for entertainment might well be an efficient use of time and effort. Like Dave said, the argument is pretty clear. And most people don't have the same level of resistance to considering animals in entertainment that they do with animals in their diet, since they don't have a lifetime of participating in entertainment-related exploitation under their belt and therefore wouldn't have to renounce any long-held beliefs (such as they hold about their diets) in order to renounce animals in entertainment.

My theoretical problem with narrowly-focused activism is that in a world where nearly all animal use is considered acceptable and normal, singling out one particular use to argue against sends a message of tacit approval of all other uses. And in my very limited experience, the one time that I did participate in a single-issue protest, I was a little surprised and dismayed to see (during a snack break) that I was the only vegan in the group. That was definitely not sending the message that I had hoped to send that day.

If your goal is to get people to acknowledge the right of non-human animals to not be used as property, then focusing on the use of animals for entertainment might well be an efficient use of time and effort. Like Dave said, the argument is pretty clear. And most people don't have the same level of resistance to considering animals in entertainment that they do with animals in their diet, since they don't have a lifetime of participating in entertainment-related exploitation under their belt and therefore wouldn't have to renounce any long-held beliefs (such as they hold about their diets) in order to renounce animals in entertainment.

Well I wasn't even going for the strategic element necessarily but that's a good point about the level of investment. People hardly even recognize food animals as...animals. Most of the time they are just their abstract parts gussied up. Then there's the complex relationships to traverse like domestication and pets.

Zoos showcase wild animals and that is inherently contradictory. I suspect these anachronistic institutions will be the first to go as we start to recognize discriminatory practices waged against other species. If i were to attempt a hyperbolic statement like we've seen previously I'd say let's first advocate for the elimination of zoos from our cultural acceptance. That is the true first step to animal liberation. (<- rhetoric )

My theoretical problem with narrowly-focused activism is that in a world where nearly all animal use is considered acceptable and normal, singling out one particular use to argue against sends a message of tacit approval of all other uses. And in my very limited experience, the one time that I did participate in a single-issue protest, I was a little surprised and dismayed to see (during a snack break) that I was the only vegan in the group. That was definitely not sending the message that I had hoped to send that day.

From an activism standpoint I think a narrow focus is a good thing especially when there are people passionate about that particular focus. I don't think there's a dichotomy there with other issues as long as there's integrity in that focused activism.

I used to think it was very weird for animal advocates not to be vegan but I now understand there is ambiguity and hypocritical practices we all employ. While eating animals and advocating for others seems grossly contradictory all acts that work towards justice should be encouraged. This is gonna get messy but I'm learning to accept that for forward movement. People are crazy monkeys and there's a tendency to act irrationally. This is hard for me to say because rationality is a cause of mine but we should perhaps give this a wider berth and validate movement towards the goal.

I'm wondering if vegan-tinted spectacles are keeping us from seeing the forest for the trees.

Here's an analysis of several studies that have been touted to show an educational effect upon visitors to zoo and aquariums. I still believe that zoos are on the front lines of animal rights and should be amongst the first institutions to be dismantled.

Do Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium Study

Abstract
Modern-day zoos and aquariums market themselves as places of education and conservation. A recent study conducted by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) (Falk et al., 2007) is being widely heralded as the first direct evidence that visits to zoos and aquariums produce long-term positive eff ects on people’s attitudes toward other animals. In this paper, we address whether this conclusion is warranted by analyzing the study’s methodological soundness. We conclude that Falk et al. (2007) contains at least six major threats to methodological validity that undermine the authors’ conclusions. Th ere remains no compelling evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, or interest in conservation in visitors, although further investigation of this possibility using methodologically sophisticated designs is warranted.

When I was little, my parents had a membership to Brookfield zoo. I was there on average 1-2 times a month, maybe more for special events. I can't say I wouldn't be vegan today if it wasn't for my zoo experience but I know it profoundly affected me and I do believe it played a huge role in becoming the person I am today. My moment when things clicked for me was when I was 8 or 9 and I saw lambs in a transport truck and then my Mom told me where they were going and its suddenly dawned on me that farm animals were no different then the animals I loved at the zoo. I became vegetarian as best I could as far as an 8 or 9 year old could manage. Before that moment, directly due to my zoo experience I was aware and adamantly opposed to things such as fur wearing, animal poaching, animal abuse (I thought the zoo was fine but hated the circus) and environmental/habitat conservation. Despite my experience, today I no longer am an advocate for zoos; they are cruel and despite the education/pro-animal nature does not disguise the fact that it is wrong to lock-up wild animals and confine them to live their lives out in artificial settings. However, I believe exposure to animals in person and exposure to the reality of the conditions of factory farming does help facilitate compassion and empathy. This is just my two cents.

When I was little, my parents had a membership to Brookfield zoo. I was there on average 1-2 times a month, maybe more for special events. I can't say I wouldn't be vegan today if it wasn't for my zoo experience but I know it profoundly affected me and I do believe it played a huge role in becoming the person I am today. My moment when things clicked for me was when I was 8 or 9 and I saw lambs in a transport truck and then my Mom told me where they were going and its suddenly dawned on me that farm animals were no different then the animals I loved at the zoo. I became vegetarian as best I could as far as an 8 or 9 year old could manage. Before that moment, directly due to my zoo experience I was aware and adamantly opposed to things such as fur wearing, animal poaching, animal abuse (I thought the zoo was fine but hated the circus) and environmental/habitat conservation. Despite my experience, today I no longer am an advocate for zoos; they are cruel and despite the education/pro-animal nature does not disguise the fact that it is wrong to lock-up wild animals and confine them to live their lives out in artificial settings. However, I believe exposure to animals in person and exposure to the reality of the conditions of factory farming does help facilitate compassion and empathy. This is just my two cents.

Thanks for sharing your experiences Michelle. Truth be told the Lincoln Park Zoo was one of the first times I could remember feeling empathy for a nonhuman animal (other than my dog). Still I think this idea could have been fostered through education rather than an unfortunate experience. I was taught racism was unfair but I didn't need to see slaves being whipped to understand so. I get your point though. Heck, I don't even consider myself an "animal lover" but I do believe in fair treatment and consideration for all species. With the marvels of technology we have at our disposal I think we can bring the rich wonders of the world to people in an even more compelling way than a zoo could ever hope to provide.

Thanks for sharing your experiences Michelle. Truth be told the Lincoln Park Zoo was one of the first times I could remember feeling empathy for a nonhuman animal (other than my dog). Still I think this idea could have been fostered through education rather than an unfortunate experience. I was taught racism was unfair but I didn't need to see slaves being whipped to understand so. I get your point though. Heck, I don't even consider myself an "animal lover" but I do believe in fair treatment and consideration for all species. With the marvels of technology we have at our disposal I think we can bring the rich wonders of the world to people in an even more compelling way than a zoo could ever hope to provide.

Just for the sake of discussion, not to argue...as we are in agreement that zoos and using animals in entertainment are wrong..I wanted to touch upon your statement about racism. Understanding unfairness/injustice is one thing and truly caring/empathizing/standing up to injustice are two very different things. Going off my own experience again...I enjoyed the zoo when I was younger, I loved the animals..and I also enjoyed the crispy chicken fingers my mom would buy me during lunch on our visits while we would walk around and look at the animals in the exhibits. Even at a young age I knew what chicken was, where it came from and that the death of the animal was involved for the making of my lunch. And despite this knowledge I continued and enjoyed this contradiction till the day I saw the lambs jammed in that transport truck. And then defended my vegetarianism for several years until I was exposed to "Meet your Meat" when I was a teenager and promptly went vegan. Before going vegan I knew that when I chose to eat eggs and dairy I was contributing to suffering still...I understood that it was unfair and even contradictory to my own beliefs as a vegetarian but it wasn't until that video that it clicked and I truly empathized and changed my actions. Being exposed to animals and the reality of things like suffering firsthand is what causes people to change, to empathize and stand against injustice. I think that a vast majority of people think killing animals is wrong, animal abuse is wrong and wouldn't kill an animal themselves...and yet a majority of these people that wouldnt stand for someone abusing a companion animal..eat steak and wear leather with the understanding that an animal died for it. They don't change because they don't care and yet they can still believe it is wrong. Zoos aren't the answer but I don't want to deny that exposure to animals isn't a moral lesson/educating tool in itself, it is very powerful. Its more effective to show/experience firsthand then to be told; thats why videos like "Meet your Meat" and pictures of slaughter and abuse are effective..because seeing the reality of it changes and challenges people. I don't know where I am going with this..just a thought that I have been spinning and I am also trying to run the clock at work. He he he!