I hate all zoos, circuses and animal amusement parks, such as Sea World.

[naturallyselected]

14. There are some great humane zoos

Circuses and animal shows, agreed, absolutely. But my feelings about zoos are mixed. There are some excellent zoos. And some really, really bad ones.

As a biology professor, when I travel for business, I always try to see any local zoos. Some depress me horribly.

Knoxville, Tennessee: there is (or was - this was several years ago) a white tiger there that does nothing but pace and jump against the fence at visitors. I hated that zoo.

National Zoo in DC: the gorillas and orangs are so bored and miserable that they "regurgitate and re-ingest" just to see the reactions from visitors.

Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago: A good zoo that needs to send their big cats to Brookfield. They should not be in their Lion House with barely any outside space. Cats are a huge problem at zoos; it is so hard to simulate a natural environment for them.

The closest zoos to me are in Boston, and I haven't been to either in decades. Both are truly bad zoos.

But some are very good, both for the visitors and the animals. I always have a clear sense of where the animals are happy and where they are not. And there are places where they are happy.

Cleveland Zoo: A very pleasant surprise for me. Well-cared for, happy animals, in creative environments. After seeing the miserable gorillas in DC, I saw a keeper in Cleveland sitting next to a gorilla (the observation glass separated them), as they read a picture book together. Thee other gorillas had a lot of space and were moving about and freely interacting. The zoo is a great experience for the visitor as well.

Toronto: The first truly good zoo I ever saw. The challenges of keeping these animals in a cold climate forced innovation and creativity.

Syracuse: One of the very few examples of a good small-city zoo. An emphasis on cold-weather animals to match the local climate, although the lemur display is great as well.

San Diego: A truly great zoo. It takes several days to see everything. I do wish they would stop their trained animal shows though.

There are plenty of other good zoos and unfortunately more bad ones. But in this world of disappearing natural populations, the best zoos have active breeding programs and breeding exchanges with other zoos. And they are the only way a lot of people will ever experience wildlife.

To me, the key is choosing the right animals for the budget, facilities, and climate. I don't know if big cats should ever be kept in zoos; they need too much space. And elephants should never be kept unless it can be done right. As a child, I saw an elephant at the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston chained to the floor, just shifting back and forth, side to side. An image seared into my brain forever. But I have no problem with the elephants in San Diego.

I have seen so many great exhibits - from insects to great apes. The great reptile and insect houses in Philadelphia, the innovative Australian area in Cleveland, the butterfly displays in Cleveland (not at the zoo) and Chicago. The way the red pandas are kept in Cleveland, the indoor rain forest exhibit in Toronto. If animals are well cared for in naturalistic exhibits, I just don't think they "miss" something they never knew. And life in the wild has its downside for animals as well; it's not all Garden of Eden.

I understand and respect philosophical objections like yours. But just because someone enjoys the good zoos out there doesn't mean they enable "pure evil". For those of us who can't experience the huge wildlife refuges in Africa (something on my bucket list), good zoos can be enjoyable. I don't know about others, but I have an immediate sense of when I am in a good zoo and when I am in a bad one. Do the bad ones mean that no zoos should exist? I would rather just get rid of the bad ones, and let the good ones prosper.