Are Zoos Pornographic?

Ralph Acampora describes our current means of cross-species encounters, specifically zoos, as pornographic in his essay Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices. I agree with his position for many reasons: first, many humans want to observe nonhuman animals behaving in their natural setting, or in an environment that closely approximates their natural habitat. However, these humans also wish to remain safe while observing these animals. In reality, if many animals encountered a human, they would attack, and possibly kill, it since the animals perceive the intruding human as a threat to its own safety. But in zoos, animals encounter humans everyday and they are restricted from exhibiting natural behaviors (i.e. protecting themselves by attacking the unknown being).

Furthermore, in zoos, animals are given food which they would typically consume in the natural environment. However, it is the means by which they obtain this food that they are deprived; they are restricted from searching and fighting for food. These natural and daily behaviors are denied because many humans wish not see predatory behaviors while visiting a zoo. Therefore, humans who work at zoos decide the events that the captive animals may encounter as well as the environment in which they live. Additionally, many humans are, above all else, consumers. Their desire for control and possession overrides many other aspects of their lives. Some individuals express this control through their interest in pornography, and others in their blatant denial of animal rights.

What are the implications of the creating such a zoo like Animal Kingdom? And what does its name imply? Who is the king/ruler of these animals?

Does the television channel Animal Planet promote accurate views of animals? What sorts of relationships do hosts of shows on Animal Planet create with the animals they encounter?