> The effect of these laws is that more and more people will not have a personal connection to these animals

IMO not true. Photography / cinematography have historically proven to move people enough to take action (eg. war photography, poached animals, rhinos with their horns cut, etc.). Zoos only provides a little more than a photography. Can you pet the animal? Should you if you could? Would that help to make the point of protecting them?

I don't think this justifies transporting the animal on the other side of the planet into unnatural, prison like conditions where they often suffer both mentally and physically.

Sanctuaries are IMO way better in that they are built in animal's natural environment, further from cities, where the animals can live their lives in peace instead of being stressed by thousands of visitors every day.

> Photography / cinematography have historically proven to move people enough to take action

I think pictures have a much bigger impact on "moving" adults but zoos and aquariums have a greater overall impact for children (just my opinion).

What is the driving force behind moving animals to sanctuaries and protecting them? It's the love and care people have towards the animals and species, right? I'm not saying taking away zoos and aquariums are going to make humans cold blooded but I really think they help overall.

I am wondering if with the upcoming generation this is as true, given that Internet video streaming and picture sharing is so much more prevalent compared to times past. Some of the most recent very popular memes have revolved around animals. The fact that Toys R Us sponsored the recent April the Giraffe phenomenon indicated to me that (beyond the logo idea) at least someone thought there was a significant audience of children watching.

What's nice about new technology is it allows for opportunities to capture animal activity in remote natural environments, with minimal impact. For instance, the Katmai National Park "bear cam" in Brooks Falls, Alaska (where in season people watch grizzlies feed on salmon) is a rather popular webcam. Not only does the webcam reduce human impact, it equalizes: Brooks Falls is very remote, and thus it is very expensive to get there. The webcam brings a side of nature to everyone, that previously only the well-off would see.

I think zoos and aquariums can still exist, but moving to an animal hospital / research / protection model versus the entertainment model of Sea World and the like makes sense. I hope the environmental movement recognizes that the former is still valuable.

> Photography / cinematography have historically proven to move people enough to take action [...] Zoos only provides a little more than a photography.

I disagree with the latter sentence. I think that seeing something in person -- whether an animal or a landscape -- is very different to seeing a photograph or video. That's why it's so different to travel somewhere to see something in person.

Seeing a Lion in caged zoo is nothing like seeing a Lion or a cheetah in the wild. They just look so bored and dead. Being raised in Kenya, when I visited the Seattle Zoo I was saddened. You can see from their eyes that they have lost hope. They just look very depressed. Seeing a Lion in the wild, you can see the pride in their eyes.

Maybe seeing something in person has a greater impact than photography and cinematography, yet there are many ways to see wildlife other than a traditional aquarium or zoo. Whale watching tours are certainly available in coastal communities where whales frequent. Heck, you may even be able to catch a glimpse by simply taking a walk in the right parts of Vancouver at the right time.

(Slightly off topic, but you'd be amazed at the wildlife that you come across in the highly urbanized parts of Vancouver because it is surrounded to the north and east by wilderness and has many rail corridors and parks that animals follow into the city.)

People react to the photos and movies because they have a connection to them. PETA has some pretty horrifying movies about farm animal conditions, but in general there is not a lot of sustained, widespread action because of that.

All of the people I know that had contact with farm animals are the least moved by PETA-like farm cruelty videos. They often shrug and say, "in my farm it's not like that".

On the other hand all of them are against seeing dolphin or whale cruelty even if only a handful of them ever saw any of cetacean (me included).

I know that this is all anecdotal evidence but it the most that I can produce.

PETA aims for maximum exposure, and their actions actually make people support industrialized animal farming just in spite.

Like many extremist organizations, they are effectively preaching to the choir. For somebody sitting on the fence, their approach to getting them on their side is to walk up to the fence, and smash anybody sitting on it with a baseball bat. Really amazing they have as much success as they do.

That reminds me when PETA tried to have whaling removed from Assassins Creed: Black Flag because they felt it glorifies the harming and killing of animals.[0]

My reaction was just like "Yeah, because killing whales on a game makes me want to buy a ship and start whaling myself."

[0] https://www.polygon.com/2013/3/6/4070836/peta-objects-whalin...

There's a more direct impact, too: The Vancouver Aquarium houses animals which have been rescued and nursed back to health after various injuries. This ban will result in many of those animals being left to die instead.

>This ban will result in many of those animals being left to die instead

I think that is hyperbole. They are only banning the whales, not all the other animals that are helped by the aquarium. I was at the aquarium this last summer. There's much more to it than the beluga whales. Sure some people will choose not to go once the whales are gone, but there's still tons of other things to see.

It elides the argument, but it's not hyperbole. Agitating groups like peta want to end animal captivity, completely. They believe humane captivity is a moral contradiction, extending to domestic cats and dogs.

That's the part I find really interesting - the tradeoff between that work and the negative aspects of keeping the animals in captivity. Some would argue that even if a whale won't survive in the wild, that's better than a long life in an aquarium. I'm honestly not sure where I stand at the moment.

Aren't most of these large marine animals in captivity rescues? Like you said, isn't it better than leaving them in the wild to die? Why not make the law so they can only have them for rehabilitation purposes and then release them (if possible) when well? Don't marine biologist learn a great deal being in close contact with these animals that can benefit the animals in the wild?

The belugas were Canadian or Russian caught. The dolphins have tended to be "Japanese Injuries." To the best of my knowledge, only the false killer whale is a local rescue.

http://www.vancouveraquariumuncovered.com/

Typical Vancouver richeousness unfortunately.

I also have the same fears as you. I was raised going to the zoo and aquariums a lot when I was young. Although I don't actively participate in anything to help conserve wildlife (anything substantial at least) I consider myself someone who really cares for wildlife. Although I go to the zoo with my son quite frequently I feel his generation (or the next) may not appreciate wildlife as a whole.

In NL going to the zoo is now prohibitively expensive for most families, it's about as expensive as a day in a theme park and that means fewer people go to the zoo, which in turn leads to higher prices and so on.

Over here, at your neighbor to the east, it IS rather expensive if you visit just once.

But most locations offer a ticket for a year, sometimes even for a family for a year, and become very affordable all of a sudden if you visit four to rive times a year or more.

Since most of the zoos over here also offer mundane attractions for kids (fancy playgrounds, petting zoos and whatnot) it's a decent deal and in my experience something that works quite well.

Good idea, I'll inquire about that. Thank you!

It's expensive to house, take care of, and feed all of those animals. It's way cheaper to hire some teenagers to run a rollercoaster than it is to run a primate house, I'd imagine. It's unfortunate but that's the realities of it.

I understand. But it does start a cycle that is hard to break out of where the zoo will simply disappear.

Camping? Hikes?