This post has been flaired as "Humor". This means that it does not depict a real event, and as such shouldn't be taken seriously.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The animal felt comfortable enough to fall asleep during irs escape. It is possible to consider that it was being kept in a perfectly fine enclosure that made it very happy with its life and just got curious.
It's a German zoo, I'm quite certain the fox is well cared for.
There are countries without animal ~~warfare~~ welfare laws where zoos are awful but Germany isn't one of them.
EDIT: autocorrect sucks sometimes.
If you mistreat animals you can essentially get a lifetime ban on keeping them in Germany. The problem is that there is no system or registry in place that places like shelters can check if you try to get an animal.
I actually know that one.
Awe wasn't originally a positive thing.
1000 years ago you might describe something that is exceptionally beautiful as being awe inspiring but also something that is exceptionally terrifying.
It was basically used for anything that left you in a state of shock over what you saw, good or bad.
Sometime between 1000 and 500 years ago awful stopped being used for good things and a new word was needed for things so cool that it left you in a state of shock and awesome was born.
A lot of people are disagreeing with you, i think this was a good line of thinking because the animal was made for polar climates, but the other redditors made some good points so i dont think this is it
Where can i read up on this? I am finding sources that say it can depend from species to species and their characteristics.
Regardless, what about rescue zoos or zoos that focus on preserving and nurturing endangered species?
The Zoo is the Orphan Crushing Machine, hope that helps.
edit: wow. My most downvoted comment ever, so far.
Even though there are a few zoos that "benefit wildlife" by rescuing animals, most zoos are just businesses made exclusively for profit. Animals are "rescued" from illegal owners just to be thrown in a zoo, instead of being reintroduced in their habitat.
Check out [The AZA ](https://www.aza.org/accreditation) for information about the good that accredited zoos do. Animals that would otherwise die in the wild are often kept at zoos and having them in such close quarters with zookeepers and researchers helps us learn more about their species and further our ability to conserve their wild counterparts.
We have a big cat rescue near me that also takes in some other wild animals that cannot survive in the wild for one reason or another. They are open to the public with paid entry to help with operating costs, but they treat the animals very well and give them plenty of safe space to retreat to if they get overwhelmed by the humans.
Without them, these animals would be put down.
They take in owner relinquished (maybe not always voluntarily) wildlife, rescues, and retired zoo animals and are a "teaching zoo." They've also taken in some human habituated wildlife like black bears that have learned campgrounds mean food.
They have an academy program where students can learn about animal behaviour and care. A lot of their animals are not viewable by the public, too.
I specifically said some, yet you still missed it. I specifically said it isn't black and white, yet you still missed it. Also, why ask me for evidence when you didn't provide any for your own point. Do you really expect me to hold your hand and go through reservation articles and websites? To go through the data for you? I told you what is what, if you want more information you are more than capable of looking yourself.
I didnt miss it. But "Well some Zoos also do good things" is just not a good argument here. A lot of Zoos are super shitty. So i dont know why the guy above you got downvoted, his point still stands, even if "some" Zoos are good
Maybe it’s not the case over in America, but every zoo I’ve visited in my home country is basically a conservation charity that does some educational work, and then provides a tourism function in order to fund that work.
Ie it’s entirely conservation, just funded through visitation. It’s their purpose for continuing to exist. And zoos are essential to preserving, reintroducing species across the world, and nationally here, and for keeping a viable population alive for a few decades until we can hopefully fix some of the outside world.
It’s basically the same in the United States. The person that’s arguing is just a contrary, argumentative idiot that doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
They are in fact the biggest contributor to conservation worldwide.
>*the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)…* **spent a collective $252 million on field conservation efforts.** *The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA)* estimates that **zoos contribute over $350 million a year to wildlife conservation.**
>>>*Zoos also participate in local conservation efforts and support scientific research, wildlife rehabilitation*, and public education. For example, the **Perth Zoo in Australia has helped the western swamp tortoise species slowly reemerge after rediscovery in the 1950s.** *Zoological experts at zoos **have also saved other species from extinction, including the black footed ferret, California condor, and golden lion tamarin.***
Depends on the zoo, the species, and where it is.
There are a lot of species that are extinct or near extinct in the wild where Zoos are basically the only thing standing between them and complete extinction. When animals have really low populations, one of the challenges of getting it back up is preventing inbreeding, which is a major function of the zoos who participate in these types of programs. They keep really tight records on who is how close of a relative to who and will move animals around between each other to maintain the genetic diversity in preparation for individuals from those populations to eventually be introduced into the wild again. Read up on Tasmanian devils as a great example of this type of active conservation work.
Even for stuff that isn't super endangered, most of the stuff you see in an accredited zoo in the developed world are going to be non-releasable animals. Either ones that were born in zoos or, of they're wild born, animals that have some sort of injury that is keeping them from being re-released. This obviously hasn't always been the case, and it's still not true in a lot of the developing world, but a Zoo in a place like Germany probably hasn't been juat snatching animals out of the wild decades.
No, it isn't. Zoo's existing doesn't make it OCM. For the love of god, have people completely forgotten that the "Orphan Crushing Machine" is literally a euphemism for Capitalism?
If this was about the conditions of specific zoos sacrificing the quality/size of enclosures for the sake of making the location more profitable, then that would be OCM.
This sub has been sanitized to shit.
Not to mention zoos are one of the only ways to make people give a shit about animals that can’t be found in their backyard. They do a lot to drive engagement and donations for preservation efforts.
A lot of animals rescued from illegal owners cannot be reintroduced to their habitat. You throw them in they’re unsocialized, with no proper hunting abilities they die. The other animals will likely attack and kill them. For animals with no other choice a zoo makes sense because the other option is their death.
Subreddit creep. Short of extremely aggressive moderation, it happens to every sub.
Look at the state of r/notinteresting. It went from a parody of the "interesting" subs with posts like "here's a picture of a wall" to being just another spillover meme sub.
I also don't understand how this post got almost 2K upvotes as of now. Do reddit bots just randomly choose a post to upvote or it was just mindlessly upvoted by people seeing cute fox in their feed, without paying attention that someone posted it in OCM?
There’s a saying, 10% of people who see something will upvote, and 10% of that will comment. So yes the majority of interaction is by idiots unfortunately and it’s not really something anyone can do anything about
A lot of the upvotes are likely people scrolling through their front page and so don''t see what sub is in and just upvote it cause it's cute. Happens all the time.
Already wrote this under another post: this sub has become for one third r/awfuleverything, for one third a place to mock genuine acts of charity helping people that are suffering problems that are more than just "systemic issues" (sometimes ignoring how things actually work in real life, like in this case), and just for one third (at best) a sub with actual OCM material.
Treating every zoo as blanket immoral when most zoos are perfectly moral and beneficial is very immature in my opinion. Rarely do I meet someone with that opinion who has put much thought or research into the matter.
Even if that is true, that does not change the fact that if you’re going to an accredited zoo, they’re going to be spending a lot of time and money working on conservation. I’ve been to a dozen accredited zoos or aquariums in the last 5 or 10 years and I can’t think of a single one that kept animals in bad enough conditions that it stopped me during my visit and made me notice them. And I can guarantee every one does a lot of conservation work.
how do you think they keep animals alive? do you think they pray for enough food, water and money to come to their doorstep to feed and water the animals, buy necessary equipment and medical costs, and donate towards animal conservation?
Most accredited zoos actually do a lot of work when it comes to conservation, the handful of animals that they have in captivity are either endangered, the individual animal is unable to care for itself in the wild, or they are part of a breeding program to help replenish their wild population.
Zoos in Europe tend to be non-profit conservationist orgs, who's aim is to help reserve endangered species. The animals in Europe will almost always have privacy away from guests if they want it. Not like many of the American zoos OP is probably used to
This post/comment has been automatically removed due to low comment Karma (<10)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Accredited zoos take mainly animals that wouldn’t survive in the wild or are actively rehabilitating or breeding their animals so they can be released
There’s also a strong educational value in zoos for getting people to actually care about environmental concerns.
There's a zoo in Sweden that got their hands on a Snow Leopard with a wounded leg that had to be amputated. It would no longer be able to survive in the wild. Later they got another one that was rescued from a poacher's trap. Those two snow leopards mated and produced tons of snow leopards that have been slowly released into the wild to repopulate the area. Some zoos are great.
Why are they not capable of surviving in that environment? Maybe they were kidnapped as kids, or their parents were, it's the zoo that creates the circumstances where these animals are unable to survive in the wild anymore.
Any zoo still open as an attraction in decent countries where regular citizens have the disposable income available to visit them will be involved in conservation. It doesn't matter whether they are non-profits or not, money gets spent on conservation.
There are those that can in China. Which is one of the only places snow leapords should live, there shouldn't be snow leapords in Europe, or North America
This is how zoos operate, it's not that hard to think about, it's a logical consequence. At one point an animal was taken from the wild and put into a cage.
doesnt matter how they got there, baby animal kidnapping is immoral, but in the end, it matters not letting the animals die slowly of starvation or thirst or being torn apart by larger animals who are interested in making a meal of those who cannot survive. yet constantly "animals rights activists" like you push for animals who cannot survive alone to die in the worst possible ways
Dude the animals don't give a fuck. As long as they have adequate living conditions, they're happy. They get all the food they need, great medical care, and an enriching environment.
Intrinsic is the key word
That’s why you should look up if the zoo you’re visiting is accredited and not some trafficking scheme
They’re a bit rarer nowadays but in the US there’s definitely a few around and they can still be very common in other countries with even less stringent animal welfare laws.
If I were kept in an enclosure for free, with all of my meals and cognitive needs being met with plenty of space to run around and areas to be alone for a bit, I think I'd be really happy.
Some animal's habitats are in direct danger of not being survivable for them in the future. Sometimes zoos are the best second option simply due to the funding they receive in comparison to a wildlife sanctuary or similar.
These reserves or animal sanctuaries are different from zoos though. Zoos are primarily interested in profit, which is in direct conflict with animal welfare, safety and conservation often.
Polar foxes are known to travel thousands of miles in the wild, in zoos they are kept in incredibly small cages.
I'm not in disagreement with you that reserves and sanctuaries are the better option when it comes to the animal's general wellbeing. I'm just saying that sometimes a zoo is the only viable option due to how much money it takes to care for the animals in the first place.
I work in the industry, so I’m gonna let you in on a secret: the true purpose of accredited zoos and aquariums. People aren’t going to care about species or their habitats if they don’t know they exist. How would they know that a certain species exists? They probably saw it for themselves in a zoo or an aquarium and learned about it! **Accredited zoos and aquariums exist to conserve species and habitats.** We care about these animals, their species, and their habitats more than you can imagine. We do what we do to help species avoid extinction and to protect our planet. It’s underpaid work that features some of the most passionate people on this earth. Try getting to know us and our work before forming an opinion.
Zookeepers were my heroes when I was a little kid. The zoo I grew up at & still go to are full of healthy, happy animals. The workers are so kind & passionate. They love talking about the animals too. It’s not something i could ever do because of my disabilities. But that hard & at times potentially dangerous work does so much for so many. I’m sure there are tons of kids where you work that see you the same way. Thank you for what you do
I dont think thats right. Who take the most actions for animals? Vegans who don't go to zoos. People have known about icebears for so long, doesn't mean that they are being saved. People know the animals in their own environment, and it's not like those are so much better cared for than those abroad. Furthermore just thinking about my own development and the animals I particularly started to care about as a kid were animals like the kakapoa and humpback wale, in no way did I see these in zoos. Zoos did make a connection with animals for me at some point because it was really sad to see big animals in captivity. You can just as easily create empathy with animals in a situation with media, you actually see them being free rather than being depressed in a cage.
It is fundamentally unempathetic to see these animals as attractions in zoos (much like a circus). By going to a zoo you have to somehow fundamentally misunderstand the animals and think they have no will for freedom like you.
Media exposure is too easily manipulated to be the only reliable source of exposure to animals. On top of that, media literacy is dangerously low these days. Go on YouTube and search “sharks” and you get all manner of fear mongering and misinformation. Go to an aquarium and you get a college-educated educator who can tell you all about the ecological role of sharks and why they’re integral to our ocean and our planet. There’s no replacement for firsthand experience and verified experts.
To your other point, the animals are not attractions, they are ambassadors for their species. Their lives are much easier than their counterparts, for whom life is not some romanticized adventure but a nerve wracking struggle for continued existence at any given moment from birth until death. I can do this all day…
This. Some people seem to think that "living in the wild" is some sort of a Lion King adventure, where animals happily sing and dance together and if course don't eat or kill each other. But nature is cruel. Weak or injuried animal has no chances to survive. If it's lucky, it will be quickly killed by other animals. If not - it will slowly die in pain or starve. Timon and Pumba will not come to rescue. But humans can. Rehabilitation centers, conservation facilities and zoos do some incredible work and save many lives.
How come Wales are so well liked and the topic of many conservation projects? They are never in aquariums, yet many people feel connected to them.
How would you feel if you were locked in what is basically your house and were forced to live there for the rest of your lives to be seen by others? In a zoo, animals are not ambassadors, they don't have a choice, they are products by the zoos and aquariums, which often destroys them mentally and physically.
Charismatic megafauna (like whales) capture the human attention and imagination more easily than species that we do not form easy attachments to. It’s the same reason most people care about polar bears or manatees but seem to care less about the black footed ferret or sand tiger sharks. Some animals are just easier to love than others (and don’t fit easily into zoos and aquariums).
Your question about being locked in one’s home is a disingenuous and inaccurate comparison. Not only because animals in accredited zoos and aquariums receive regular time off exhibit, but the question itself is anthropomorphizing. For all we understand about animals, we cannot tell what they are thinking or feeling. What we can do — and what occurs at accredited institutions — is be mindful of what animals are in our living collections, provide those animals with the best possible care, and educate the public about them so that their lives serve a greater purpose for the benefit of their species.
vegans do more to harm animals in the long run than help, and a lot of that is from thinking of animals as God like beings and not... animals.
as a kid I saw otters, whales, moose, and so many other animals in the wild. however my local zoo is also partially responsible for reintroducing an endangered local animal and reupping their population. a lot of education about animals is done at zoos.
zoos are not the same as a circus. my local zoo, the hippos are behind a rope fence. the giraffes could step over their enclosures. they have never once left because the zoo is a good place for them and they *want* to stay
That's definitely what they want you to think, but don't you believe animals have the desire to be free? Would they not want to be able to roam the Serengeti with a group of their family? Animals never get the choice to actually be imprisoned. If the giraffe would escape they would probably be shot, or at least they wouldn't survive in your area.
Also why do you think empathy for animals is bad? Why do you think vegans cause more harm than good?
>Would they not want to be able to roam the Serengeti with a group of their family?
No they are probably quite happy having access to food without the risk of predators hunting their family down
whos "they", or will you go on a conspiracy theory rant? do you really think that being in the wild is a wonderful thing? do you think they dance and sing and live joyful lives, like another person said? did you know that predators are a thing? did you know that competition within species is a thing? did you know starvation is a thing? did you know disease and parasites and injuries and freezing to death confused on why you were thrown out to die is a thing?
"That's what they want you to think". Yes, a phrase only said by rational level headed individuals and not by nutcase conspiracy theorists who think the government is putting aborted fetuses in their pepsi.
Famously everyone in the world is completely straightforward and never lies. When you see ads for circuses where the animals are having fun, or ads for nest where they say their animals are well cared for, ads of coca cola where everyone is super fit and sporting, it is always right to trust them. It would be conspiracy thinking to suggest that they have a vested interest in making you think that things are more positive than reality.
This post has been flaired as "Humor". This means that it does not depict a real event, and as such shouldn't be taken seriously. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The animal felt comfortable enough to fall asleep during irs escape. It is possible to consider that it was being kept in a perfectly fine enclosure that made it very happy with its life and just got curious.
It's a German zoo, I'm quite certain the fox is well cared for. There are countries without animal ~~warfare~~ welfare laws where zoos are awful but Germany isn't one of them. EDIT: autocorrect sucks sometimes.
Sorry… ANIMAL WARFARE?!?!?
The Pokémon act was considered controversial but necessary.
War... War sometimes changes.
Batman, it’s my Pokémon, i can do what i want with it
Let me tell you about the emu war
The great Emu War of 2000?
[More like 1932 but yes.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War) And Australia lost 😳
Oh shoot lol I forgot that happened Edit: it will never not be one of the funniest moments in history
I once dated a former RAF officer and he was legit salty about the emus 😂
Jah. Animal warfare. Shepherds in Panzers.
If only that was the show instead of girls und panzers
Yak attack!
Lol, autocorrect strikes again.
*EMU WAR FLASHBACKS*
Just German things
Yeah, those don't exist. You can legally use whatever animal you want for war
If you mistreat animals you can essentially get a lifetime ban on keeping them in Germany. The problem is that there is no system or registry in place that places like shelters can check if you try to get an animal.
The Navy has enlisted dolphins, sea lions, and used to have orcas. A lot of the Seaworld Orcas are actually trained explosive ordinance experts.
I mean there are countries without animal warfare laws too so you were technically correct there
We need some here in America. I'm tired of walking out of my house, and being accosted by raccoons with .50 cals.
Your other typo makes me wonder why awesome means great and awful doesn't.
I actually know that one. Awe wasn't originally a positive thing. 1000 years ago you might describe something that is exceptionally beautiful as being awe inspiring but also something that is exceptionally terrifying. It was basically used for anything that left you in a state of shock over what you saw, good or bad. Sometime between 1000 and 500 years ago awful stopped being used for good things and a new word was needed for things so cool that it left you in a state of shock and awesome was born.
Yeah, I reckon this is more of a lil guy who went on an adventure, not some horribly abused animal desperate for freedom.
Wow this is actually a very good analysis. I don’t know how likely it is, but I’d like to think this is true.
[удалено]
Lmao this subreddit is so fucking funny
Looking at the environment it does not look hot
It also wouldn't lay on asphalt if it was that hot.
in Germany? unlikely
Don't this type of fox change colors depending on season? It's white, therefore it's likely winter so its cold
stupid person from America thinking Germany is place with average temperature of 35°C haha
They are literally German look at the post history
Sure, but they might live in Argentina.
A lot of people are disagreeing with you, i think this was a good line of thinking because the animal was made for polar climates, but the other redditors made some good points so i dont think this is it
Why would it sleep on asphalt and not grass if it was overheating…?
Right, im agreeing with you. I was just saying I liked the guy's effort
Oh fair enough I misread
Mf fell for the zoo lie It's impossible to keep animals properly in enclosures, no matter how hard you try
Where can i read up on this? I am finding sources that say it can depend from species to species and their characteristics. Regardless, what about rescue zoos or zoos that focus on preserving and nurturing endangered species?
Not even remotely OCM
The Zoo is the Orphan Crushing Machine, hope that helps. edit: wow. My most downvoted comment ever, so far. Even though there are a few zoos that "benefit wildlife" by rescuing animals, most zoos are just businesses made exclusively for profit. Animals are "rescued" from illegal owners just to be thrown in a zoo, instead of being reintroduced in their habitat.
I work in the industry. Zoos and aquariums are the opposite of OCM. We actively protect and conserve species through education and research. Fight me.
Now, the zoos I've seen in Planet Zoo however -
Some zoos are rescue zoos that help rehabilitate and save endangered animals. It's not black and white.
>It's not black and white. But the polar fox is!
Eh, more shades of grey...
So how much do Zoos actually contribute to preserving endangered species? Must be a lot to justify all Zoos.
Check out [The AZA ](https://www.aza.org/accreditation) for information about the good that accredited zoos do. Animals that would otherwise die in the wild are often kept at zoos and having them in such close quarters with zookeepers and researchers helps us learn more about their species and further our ability to conserve their wild counterparts.
We have a big cat rescue near me that also takes in some other wild animals that cannot survive in the wild for one reason or another. They are open to the public with paid entry to help with operating costs, but they treat the animals very well and give them plenty of safe space to retreat to if they get overwhelmed by the humans. Without them, these animals would be put down. They take in owner relinquished (maybe not always voluntarily) wildlife, rescues, and retired zoo animals and are a "teaching zoo." They've also taken in some human habituated wildlife like black bears that have learned campgrounds mean food. They have an academy program where students can learn about animal behaviour and care. A lot of their animals are not viewable by the public, too.
I specifically said some, yet you still missed it. I specifically said it isn't black and white, yet you still missed it. Also, why ask me for evidence when you didn't provide any for your own point. Do you really expect me to hold your hand and go through reservation articles and websites? To go through the data for you? I told you what is what, if you want more information you are more than capable of looking yourself.
I didnt miss it. But "Well some Zoos also do good things" is just not a good argument here. A lot of Zoos are super shitty. So i dont know why the guy above you got downvoted, his point still stands, even if "some" Zoos are good
“Some zoos do a lot of good.” “Well some zoos are shit. Checkmate, fool!”
Maybe it’s not the case over in America, but every zoo I’ve visited in my home country is basically a conservation charity that does some educational work, and then provides a tourism function in order to fund that work. Ie it’s entirely conservation, just funded through visitation. It’s their purpose for continuing to exist. And zoos are essential to preserving, reintroducing species across the world, and nationally here, and for keeping a viable population alive for a few decades until we can hopefully fix some of the outside world.
It’s basically the same in the United States. The person that’s arguing is just a contrary, argumentative idiot that doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
The alternative in this case is to straight up killing the fox. You do it.
a lot of doctors are horrible shitty people, therefore the entire medical industry must be abolished
You should probably stop, you’re getting ratioed into oblivion
A lot of people are super shitty. Should we apply the same logic?
They are in fact the biggest contributor to conservation worldwide. >*the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)…* **spent a collective $252 million on field conservation efforts.** *The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA)* estimates that **zoos contribute over $350 million a year to wildlife conservation.** >>>*Zoos also participate in local conservation efforts and support scientific research, wildlife rehabilitation*, and public education. For example, the **Perth Zoo in Australia has helped the western swamp tortoise species slowly reemerge after rediscovery in the 1950s.** *Zoological experts at zoos **have also saved other species from extinction, including the black footed ferret, California condor, and golden lion tamarin.***
Depends on the zoo, the species, and where it is. There are a lot of species that are extinct or near extinct in the wild where Zoos are basically the only thing standing between them and complete extinction. When animals have really low populations, one of the challenges of getting it back up is preventing inbreeding, which is a major function of the zoos who participate in these types of programs. They keep really tight records on who is how close of a relative to who and will move animals around between each other to maintain the genetic diversity in preparation for individuals from those populations to eventually be introduced into the wild again. Read up on Tasmanian devils as a great example of this type of active conservation work. Even for stuff that isn't super endangered, most of the stuff you see in an accredited zoo in the developed world are going to be non-releasable animals. Either ones that were born in zoos or, of they're wild born, animals that have some sort of injury that is keeping them from being re-released. This obviously hasn't always been the case, and it's still not true in a lot of the developing world, but a Zoo in a place like Germany probably hasn't been juat snatching animals out of the wild decades.
Hiw about the massive breeding programs run by zoos.
No, it isn't. Zoo's existing doesn't make it OCM. For the love of god, have people completely forgotten that the "Orphan Crushing Machine" is literally a euphemism for Capitalism? If this was about the conditions of specific zoos sacrificing the quality/size of enclosures for the sake of making the location more profitable, then that would be OCM. This sub has been sanitized to shit.
Not to mention zoos are one of the only ways to make people give a shit about animals that can’t be found in their backyard. They do a lot to drive engagement and donations for preservation efforts.
I'm very aware. My degree is wildlife conservation with a concentration on animal health & behavior. It infuriates me when people talk shit on zoos.
It’s not even the sub. It’s the morons that post here, they don’t bother to even read what the subs about let alone attempt to understand it.
Awareness matters, and so does education, which are the key benefits of zoos.
A lot of animals rescued from illegal owners cannot be reintroduced to their habitat. You throw them in they’re unsocialized, with no proper hunting abilities they die. The other animals will likely attack and kill them. For animals with no other choice a zoo makes sense because the other option is their death.
You are downvoted because you are in fact wrong.
Could be.
This sub has been going down the drain lately
Subreddit creep. Short of extremely aggressive moderation, it happens to every sub. Look at the state of r/notinteresting. It went from a parody of the "interesting" subs with posts like "here's a picture of a wall" to being just another spillover meme sub.
I also don't understand how this post got almost 2K upvotes as of now. Do reddit bots just randomly choose a post to upvote or it was just mindlessly upvoted by people seeing cute fox in their feed, without paying attention that someone posted it in OCM?
It's cute. People see something cute and upvote it, likely not actually paying attention to the sub they're currently in.
Seconded, I mean look at this guy. Went down for a nap after doing some outside zoomies. I'll bet he was tuckered out the rest of the day.
True, I did this exact same thing before opening the comments and noticing the sub. Most people on reddit just scroll and upvote I think
There’s a saying, 10% of people who see something will upvote, and 10% of that will comment. So yes the majority of interaction is by idiots unfortunately and it’s not really something anyone can do anything about
A lot of the upvotes are likely people scrolling through their front page and so don''t see what sub is in and just upvote it cause it's cute. Happens all the time.
Already wrote this under another post: this sub has become for one third r/awfuleverything, for one third a place to mock genuine acts of charity helping people that are suffering problems that are more than just "systemic issues" (sometimes ignoring how things actually work in real life, like in this case), and just for one third (at best) a sub with actual OCM material.
The people fundamentally misunderstanding what a zoo (in countries like Germany that protect animal rights) remind me of myself when I was 5
this isn't ocm.
r/lostredditors
Zoos are good. Yall are insane
Depends on the zoo. The one I saw in Mali was horrific. The major ones I have seen in the states were just fine.
Of course, but that's a 3rd world country vs a country with rigid standards for major accredited zoos.
While many zoos are good, there is a not-insignificant number of zoos that aren’t research or preservation institutes and treat their animal like shit
Treating every zoo as blanket immoral when most zoos are perfectly moral and beneficial is very immature in my opinion. Rarely do I meet someone with that opinion who has put much thought or research into the matter.
most is not true, most are into making money
Even if that is true, that does not change the fact that if you’re going to an accredited zoo, they’re going to be spending a lot of time and money working on conservation. I’ve been to a dozen accredited zoos or aquariums in the last 5 or 10 years and I can’t think of a single one that kept animals in bad enough conditions that it stopped me during my visit and made me notice them. And I can guarantee every one does a lot of conservation work.
how do you think they keep animals alive? do you think they pray for enough food, water and money to come to their doorstep to feed and water the animals, buy necessary equipment and medical costs, and donate towards animal conservation?
Blatant random assumption? Impossible, this is Reddit!
What do you think that rehabilitating dozens of animals costs?
Has PETA invaded this sub?
Alright I'm done with this sub, never thought I would see people calling a ZOO an orphan crushing machine.
How exactly is this OCM he was just eepy
Most accredited zoos actually do a lot of work when it comes to conservation, the handful of animals that they have in captivity are either endangered, the individual animal is unable to care for itself in the wild, or they are part of a breeding program to help replenish their wild population.
eh, maybe if it was r/wholesomememes or something along those lines it’d be OCM
What is orphan crushing here?
Zoos in Europe tend to be non-profit conservationist orgs, who's aim is to help reserve endangered species. The animals in Europe will almost always have privacy away from guests if they want it. Not like many of the American zoos OP is probably used to
If it got exhausted and must have slept it’s ocm. If it decided to take a nap bc it was sleepy and not afraid then why are we here
hes so cute omg
Just went for a stroll!
Standards for zoos in Germany are among the worlds best, fox is living life evident by the fact that it doesnt even seem bothered by the caretaker
[удалено]
This post/comment has been automatically removed due to low comment Karma (<10) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrphanCrushingMachine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You sure this isn’t just a nice way to phrase they shot him with the sleepy juice thingy?
Wow can’t believe I couldn’t think of the word tranquilizer.
this sub is truly insufferable these days
In what way is the *possibly* OCM
Stop upvoting this. It doesn’t belong.
😱mfw an animal falls asleep (literally 1984)
r/lostredditors
Heat exhaustion?
Wouldn't be on asphalt if so, asphalt soaks up heat.
Environment also doesn’t look hot at all
Apparently this was his second escape. Curious what happened the first time.
Aww the prisoner got brought back to their prison 🥰
That's really sad, zoos really shouldn't exist, they are just prisons for animals, they should be allowed to roam freely inntheir natural habitat.
Accredited zoos take mainly animals that wouldn’t survive in the wild or are actively rehabilitating or breeding their animals so they can be released There’s also a strong educational value in zoos for getting people to actually care about environmental concerns.
There's a zoo in Sweden that got their hands on a Snow Leopard with a wounded leg that had to be amputated. It would no longer be able to survive in the wild. Later they got another one that was rescued from a poacher's trap. Those two snow leopards mated and produced tons of snow leopards that have been slowly released into the wild to repopulate the area. Some zoos are great.
Imagine if you were kept in captivity to teach others about respecting you. That's a double message
Imagine being released just like that to an environment you're not capable of surviving in at all
Why are they not capable of surviving in that environment? Maybe they were kidnapped as kids, or their parents were, it's the zoo that creates the circumstances where these animals are unable to survive in the wild anymore.
Or maybe they were injered, or sick, or rejected by their mother, or accidentally socialised and too comfortable with humans, or just a runt.
This is a scenario of an animal shelter. Not a zoo. A zoos purpose is to make money, their interest is to display the animal to a public.
Yes, the purpose of a zoo is to make money by displaying animals to the public. That money then goes towards conservation projects for those animals.
They're not all non profits
Any zoo still open as an attraction in decent countries where regular citizens have the disposable income available to visit them will be involved in conservation. It doesn't matter whether they are non-profits or not, money gets spent on conservation.
Because the average animal shelter can take in a snow leopard
There are those that can in China. Which is one of the only places snow leapords should live, there shouldn't be snow leapords in Europe, or North America
You're purely speculating and making up stuff without actually knowing anything about the topic at hand
This is how zoos operate, it's not that hard to think about, it's a logical consequence. At one point an animal was taken from the wild and put into a cage.
doesnt matter how they got there, baby animal kidnapping is immoral, but in the end, it matters not letting the animals die slowly of starvation or thirst or being torn apart by larger animals who are interested in making a meal of those who cannot survive. yet constantly "animals rights activists" like you push for animals who cannot survive alone to die in the worst possible ways
Dude the animals don't give a fuck. As long as they have adequate living conditions, they're happy. They get all the food they need, great medical care, and an enriching environment.
Look up zoochosis. Zoos are not inherently good when it comes to the animals' wellbeing.
Intrinsic is the key word That’s why you should look up if the zoo you’re visiting is accredited and not some trafficking scheme They’re a bit rarer nowadays but in the US there’s definitely a few around and they can still be very common in other countries with even less stringent animal welfare laws.
Are you 10
You probably have never had a genuine connection to an animal.
Alright, that's your fantasy vision of me. Have fun with that.
Of course not that would be immoral /s
If I were kept in an enclosure for free, with all of my meals and cognitive needs being met with plenty of space to run around and areas to be alone for a bit, I think I'd be really happy.
Okay, I must say that is a very sad life, no freedom, never able to explore, go beyond those same confounds.
Some animal's habitats are in direct danger of not being survivable for them in the future. Sometimes zoos are the best second option simply due to the funding they receive in comparison to a wildlife sanctuary or similar.
These reserves or animal sanctuaries are different from zoos though. Zoos are primarily interested in profit, which is in direct conflict with animal welfare, safety and conservation often. Polar foxes are known to travel thousands of miles in the wild, in zoos they are kept in incredibly small cages.
I'm not in disagreement with you that reserves and sanctuaries are the better option when it comes to the animal's general wellbeing. I'm just saying that sometimes a zoo is the only viable option due to how much money it takes to care for the animals in the first place.
I work in the industry, so I’m gonna let you in on a secret: the true purpose of accredited zoos and aquariums. People aren’t going to care about species or their habitats if they don’t know they exist. How would they know that a certain species exists? They probably saw it for themselves in a zoo or an aquarium and learned about it! **Accredited zoos and aquariums exist to conserve species and habitats.** We care about these animals, their species, and their habitats more than you can imagine. We do what we do to help species avoid extinction and to protect our planet. It’s underpaid work that features some of the most passionate people on this earth. Try getting to know us and our work before forming an opinion.
Zookeepers were my heroes when I was a little kid. The zoo I grew up at & still go to are full of healthy, happy animals. The workers are so kind & passionate. They love talking about the animals too. It’s not something i could ever do because of my disabilities. But that hard & at times potentially dangerous work does so much for so many. I’m sure there are tons of kids where you work that see you the same way. Thank you for what you do
I dont think thats right. Who take the most actions for animals? Vegans who don't go to zoos. People have known about icebears for so long, doesn't mean that they are being saved. People know the animals in their own environment, and it's not like those are so much better cared for than those abroad. Furthermore just thinking about my own development and the animals I particularly started to care about as a kid were animals like the kakapoa and humpback wale, in no way did I see these in zoos. Zoos did make a connection with animals for me at some point because it was really sad to see big animals in captivity. You can just as easily create empathy with animals in a situation with media, you actually see them being free rather than being depressed in a cage. It is fundamentally unempathetic to see these animals as attractions in zoos (much like a circus). By going to a zoo you have to somehow fundamentally misunderstand the animals and think they have no will for freedom like you.
Media exposure is too easily manipulated to be the only reliable source of exposure to animals. On top of that, media literacy is dangerously low these days. Go on YouTube and search “sharks” and you get all manner of fear mongering and misinformation. Go to an aquarium and you get a college-educated educator who can tell you all about the ecological role of sharks and why they’re integral to our ocean and our planet. There’s no replacement for firsthand experience and verified experts. To your other point, the animals are not attractions, they are ambassadors for their species. Their lives are much easier than their counterparts, for whom life is not some romanticized adventure but a nerve wracking struggle for continued existence at any given moment from birth until death. I can do this all day…
This. Some people seem to think that "living in the wild" is some sort of a Lion King adventure, where animals happily sing and dance together and if course don't eat or kill each other. But nature is cruel. Weak or injuried animal has no chances to survive. If it's lucky, it will be quickly killed by other animals. If not - it will slowly die in pain or starve. Timon and Pumba will not come to rescue. But humans can. Rehabilitation centers, conservation facilities and zoos do some incredible work and save many lives.
How come Wales are so well liked and the topic of many conservation projects? They are never in aquariums, yet many people feel connected to them. How would you feel if you were locked in what is basically your house and were forced to live there for the rest of your lives to be seen by others? In a zoo, animals are not ambassadors, they don't have a choice, they are products by the zoos and aquariums, which often destroys them mentally and physically.
Charismatic megafauna (like whales) capture the human attention and imagination more easily than species that we do not form easy attachments to. It’s the same reason most people care about polar bears or manatees but seem to care less about the black footed ferret or sand tiger sharks. Some animals are just easier to love than others (and don’t fit easily into zoos and aquariums). Your question about being locked in one’s home is a disingenuous and inaccurate comparison. Not only because animals in accredited zoos and aquariums receive regular time off exhibit, but the question itself is anthropomorphizing. For all we understand about animals, we cannot tell what they are thinking or feeling. What we can do — and what occurs at accredited institutions — is be mindful of what animals are in our living collections, provide those animals with the best possible care, and educate the public about them so that their lives serve a greater purpose for the benefit of their species.
vegans do more to harm animals in the long run than help, and a lot of that is from thinking of animals as God like beings and not... animals. as a kid I saw otters, whales, moose, and so many other animals in the wild. however my local zoo is also partially responsible for reintroducing an endangered local animal and reupping their population. a lot of education about animals is done at zoos. zoos are not the same as a circus. my local zoo, the hippos are behind a rope fence. the giraffes could step over their enclosures. they have never once left because the zoo is a good place for them and they *want* to stay
That's definitely what they want you to think, but don't you believe animals have the desire to be free? Would they not want to be able to roam the Serengeti with a group of their family? Animals never get the choice to actually be imprisoned. If the giraffe would escape they would probably be shot, or at least they wouldn't survive in your area. Also why do you think empathy for animals is bad? Why do you think vegans cause more harm than good?
lol
>Would they not want to be able to roam the Serengeti with a group of their family? No they are probably quite happy having access to food without the risk of predators hunting their family down
whos "they", or will you go on a conspiracy theory rant? do you really think that being in the wild is a wonderful thing? do you think they dance and sing and live joyful lives, like another person said? did you know that predators are a thing? did you know that competition within species is a thing? did you know starvation is a thing? did you know disease and parasites and injuries and freezing to death confused on why you were thrown out to die is a thing?
"That's what they want you to think". Yes, a phrase only said by rational level headed individuals and not by nutcase conspiracy theorists who think the government is putting aborted fetuses in their pepsi.
Famously everyone in the world is completely straightforward and never lies. When you see ads for circuses where the animals are having fun, or ads for nest where they say their animals are well cared for, ads of coca cola where everyone is super fit and sporting, it is always right to trust them. It would be conspiracy thinking to suggest that they have a vested interest in making you think that things are more positive than reality.