Wildlife Parks are they a good thing.

[Marc Meakin]

I've always been torn about zoos and Wildlife parks as its a little cruel to cage or pen any wild animal but the flipside is children (and adults) have an opportunity to see animals they wouldn't otherwise see.
Plus the wildlife park I went to was effectively a rescue centre for Lions and Monkeys from circuses and Animal test centres respectively.
Most of the animals seemed happy and well cared for and I was impressed with the staff too.
Definitely better to go during termtime as I don't like it when kids bang on the glass etc.
Will go again as it's only a 10 minute drive away.

[Mark James]

They've improved I think as they are more about conservation and animal rescue these days.

[Callum Todd]

Good topic. Historically zoos have been bad; they started as little more than circuses. Nowadays most of them are improving and have better standards. But a lot of them are still quite bad, and there's a softer less utilitarian objection one might have to even the best of them. There's a chapter in a really interesting book about animal ethics that I'm reading at the moment that covers captivity scenarios quite well. Will probably post about it in one of the many animal-y threads that now exist on here.

[Marc Meakin]

Good topic. Historically zoos have been bad; they started as little more than circuses. Nowadays most of them are improving and have better standards. But a lot of them are still quite bad, and there's a softer less utilitarian objection one might have to even the best of them. There's a chapter in a really interesting book about animal ethics that I'm reading at the moment that covers captivity scenarios quite well. Will probably post about it in one of the many animal-y threads that now exist on here.

I like the idea of a park being mainly rescued animals from Circuses or animal testing centres as they could never really cope in the wild anymore.
I did speak to the owner about why they don't keep elephants and he said that the enclosure needed would be too vast to make it (financially) viable that jarred me a bit as I always assumed owners were philanthropists.
But the owner is very good with the experience packages, Zoo keeper for the day or a talk on each species and an opportunity to spend time with your favourite animal for a fee.
I rather fancy having a couple of hours with the Giant tortoises

[Callum Todd]

I did speak to the owner about why they don't keep elephants and he said that the enclosure needed would be too vast to make it (financially) viable that jarred me a bit as I always assumed owners were philanthropists.

If I'm correcting in reading this as you thinking that "philanthropists" would be more concerned about animal wellfare than financial viability, then I think they probably are so (to the extent possible while operating a zoo!) based on this. The reason an elephant enclosure would need to be vast is that the only ethical space to house elephants in would need to be large enough for many elephants (as they are a very social species that live in large groups - mature males excluded) and have enough space for them to roam (which they do a lot). "Enough space" in this context equates to many hundreds (or thousands) of square miles. So yeah, not exactly viable!

And if I have read your use of the word "philanthropist" correctly then I'm amused that it's being used to mean concern for non-human animals. It's quite literally an anthropocentric word!

[Marc Meakin]

It's extra funny as I am a bit of a malapropist and often conflate philander Er with philanthropist (see also thrift and Spendthrift)