Jamieson is short sighted in view of zoos

Dale Jamieson, stating that zoos take no initiative to educate and that the public is “apathetic and unappreciative”, is inept in fully understanding the potential zoos have to offer. Jamieson states that zoos are incapable of acting as an institution for knowledge. At any self-respecting zoo, animals are placed on display in their natural habitat. A brief description of the animal, its natural habitat, and other interesting facts can be found affixed to an easily observable information plate. But a zoo offers much more than just plates; since the animal is in its natural environment, the observer can examine the behavior and evolved traits such as mimicry, ect. For science majors, observation is a source of knowledge far more superior than a text book, and since trips across the world are costly and most of the time irrational, zoos are the perfect intermediate for learning about non-native and native species alike. Furthermore, zoos offer an easy look at animals from a world much different from our own. Without them, the public would never see an African lion, or a Gaboon viper, much less tropical birds or Amazonian fish. And what of the fish and jellies of the sea; they would go unseen by much of the general public. This leads to a hole in his view of an “unappreciative public.” The public, not understanding the diversity of the ocean, or the planet for that matter, would shun the idea of species preservation, and would be much less willing to save the environment. Thus, through seeing the animals, the public is more appreciative for the planet as a whole. So Jamieson was wrong that zoos offer no plausible knowledge. Honorable zoos not only care for their animals but also try to enlighten the minds of the general public and scientists alike.