(MY) zoo

[Guest guest]

Keeping animals caged is old hat _ new straits times*06 Jul 2006*

CHEW SU-JEN Kuala Lumpur <letters

 

------------------------------

*THERE has been much talk about the pathetic state of animals at the

National Zoo in Hulu Klang. Unfortunately, the remarks by A.S. ( " Shutdown

not a solution " — NST, June 27) added nothing new to the debate on how the

zoo should be managed.

*

It is also apparent that the writer is ignorant of the issues concerning

animal welfare. In fact, I doubt A.S. even knows how an animal sanctuary

operates in comparison with a zoo.

 

All over the world, zoos are moving away from their traditional " jailing " of

wild animals and embracing the concept of sanctuaries where exhibits are

kept in conditions that mirror their natural habitats.

 

 

One reason for this shift is the hundreds of scientific studies that prove

beyond doubt that confined animals do suffer serious stress, depression and

anxiety, what more zoo exhibits that are caged for life.

 

 

Obviously, the writer is unaware of this fact, and still believes that

confining wild animals in cages and compounds is the right thing to do.

 

Furthermore, A.S. takes the position that animals in the wild would not

survive for lack of food, and may even succumb to diseases, ignoring the

fact that many wild animals are in danger of extinction today because of

man's encroachment on their territory.

 

 

Most preposterous of all is his claim that in a zoo setting, the animal has

the " privilege " of having its food served on time and medical requirements

met.

 

Is the writer suggesting that caged animals in our zoos should be grateful

for their fate?

 

The writer's comments totally missed the point of Raihana Souket Ali's

original letter ( " Set up animal sanctuaries instead " — NST, June 22),

calling for the setting up of sanctuaries in place of zoos for a good

reason.