should we have zoos essay

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

• Food & Farming Media Network
• How to Pitch Us
• Freelance Charter
• Work With Us

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials
• Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained

Debates about the ethics of zoos abound — but when it comes to animal welfare, there are certainly more cons than pros.

Explainer • Entertainment • Policy

Words by Björn Ólafsson

For many people, zoos are the only chance they’ll have in their entire lives to see beautiful animals native to far-flung ecosystems — lions, elephants, pandas, lemurs — the list goes on. And they’re popular — over 181 million people visit a U.S. zoo every year . But zoos face criticism from animal welfare organizations and environmental activists for inhumane treatment of the animals they claim to protect. Zoos maintain that they are important aspects of conservation and education. 

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of zoos ?  Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of these controversial organizations. 

What Are Some Pros and Cons of Zoos ?

First, not all zoos are created equal. While it is easy to imagine animal ethics as a binary of evil and moral, zoos can vary widely on how they treat their animals, how much space they are given and how the animals are obtained. Still, most zoos tend to have the same positives and negatives overall. 

Arguments Against Zoos

Poor conditions for animals.

Animals Often Only Have Quite Limited Space

Many zoos’ enclosures are too small, especially for animal species that are used to roaming, flying or swimming large distances in the wild. For example, polar bears are used to home ranges of about 1,000 square kilometers in the wild — large swaths of land and ice they enjoy exploring . In zoos, they get a couple hundred square feet. 

Zoos Are  Crowded

In addition to limited space, many zoos cram in as many animals as possible into the enclosures. Many visitors prefer seeing animals up close, instead of peering at them from afar, hidden in their dens or nests. This encourages zoos to increase the number of animals per exhibit,  increasing the likelihood of visitors seeing animals on the move near the boundaries of the enclosure. 

Animals Are Trapped in Unnatural Environments

Anyone who has visited a zoo knows the exhibits are a far cry from the natural landscape they are trying to imitate. Nearly all zoo enclosures contain fences, glass or other barriers for visitors to look through, which are inherently artificial. And the natural-seeming landscapes can sometimes be made out of astroturf, concrete or plastic.

Confinement May Alter the Behavior of Animals

The lack of space, unnatural environments and crowded conditions can directly affect the behavior of animals ; most notably in the form of what’s known as “stereotypy.” Stereotypy is a condition in which non-human animals engage in repetitive behaviors with no apparent purpose, such as pacing for hours on end, wagging tails abnormally or picking their own fur. 

The structure of zoos increases the likelihood of stereotypic behavior due to a lack of enrichment, mundane environments and boring, repetitive schedules. This prevalence of stereotypy in zoos even has its own name: “zoochosis,” or psychosis caused by zoos . 

‘Surplus’ Animals Can Be Killed

After an animal has reproduced successfully and the zoo no longer requires the animal to maintain an exhibit, the animal is deemed “surplus.” At this point, the animal’s welfare is no longer profitable . Zoos can sell the animal to private owners (who may keep the animal in tiny cages for amusement or kill the animal for taxidermy purposes), sell the animal to other zoos or enclosures, or “euthanize” the animal. 

Animals Are Often Mistreated 

Animal mistreatment is much more than hitting or beating an animal. It also includes harmful training techniques, separation from family members and forcing animals to behave in abnormal ways. 

In a report from World Animal Protection, three-fourths of zoos include human-animal interactions , many of which can be very stressful or physically harmful for animals. In some extreme cases, visitors rode on the backs of animals (causing injury) or encroached on the animals’ enclosure (causing stress).

Investigations into popular zoos sometimes reveal that caretakers don’t always clean the exhibits frequently , leaving the animals to live near their feces. The research also reveals many zookeepers hitting animals who “misbehave,” and not helping animals with injuries sustained in the enclosures. While not all animal caretakers behave this way, the reporting suggests many zoos around the world are lax with animal welfare. 

Animals Don’t Like Being Visited

The mere presence of human beings can negatively affect wild animals, especially in massive crowds that are common at zoos. Being bombarded by the sounds, smells and appearances of swaths of humans can trigger the stress responses of some animals . Some studies show that the number of visitors correlates with the amount of stress hormones in many animal species. 

Animals Struggle to Form Connections

Many animals are highly social creatures. Elephants, lions, pigs, cows and many more species are shown to have complex connections, hierarchies and relationships with members of their own kind — especially with friends and family. However, zoo animals rarely stay with the same herd or family for their entire lives. Instead, zoos opt to transfer, sell, buy or relocate animals throughout their lifespans, making it difficult for animals to form social connections . This lack of bonding can harm the animals emotionally. 

Zoos Are for Humans, Not Animals

Most zoos are for-profit enterprises, meaning they have one goal in mind: maximizing revenue. It is easy to see how making more money can come at the expense of animal welfare. For example, a zoo is unlikely to fund an exhibit expansion if it isn’t cost-effective, regardless of its benefits for the animals inside. While many zookeepers form real bonds with their animal companions, the animals still exist under a for-profit, human-centered organization. 

Zoos Promote Human Superiority

The aesthetic nature of zoos — animals in panopticon-like enclosures, viewed 24/7 by members of a different species — can reinforce human superiority. As moral philosopher Lori Gruen writes in her book, “visitors leave the zoo more convinced than ever of human superiority over the natural world.” Of course, zoos also reinforce the idea that humans have a right to take away animals’ freedom and bodily autonomy.

Zoos Don’t Always Help with Conservation — Some Wild Animals Have to Be Caught to Bring Them to Zoos

Many animals in zoos are born in captivity, but that’s not the case for all. Many animals are taken directly from the wild , often when they are babies, to make the transition to captivity a bit easier. At times, this is done in the name of conservation, or when a wild animal is very ill. But many zoos will take animals from the wild, or buy animals from unethical animal traders. 

It’s Often Not Possible to Return Animals to the Wild

Releasing an animal into the wild isn’t always successful, especially if the animal has spent time in climates different from their native regions, like jungles, savannas or ice caps. Properly preparing animals for success in the wild is a multi-stage process that can require thousands of dollars — and it doesn’t always work . Captive-born predator species — disadvantaged by being born and raised in an artificial environment — only have a survival rate after being released into the wild of 33 percent , according to one study. As a result, re-release is not a priority for many zoos.

Zoos Are Poorly Regulated

While there exist many laws that protect animals, such as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Endangered Species Act , they only offer minimum protections . For example, the AWA excludes entire species of animals, like mice, farmed animals, birds and all cold-blooded animals. Its “minimum” standards of care usually ensure the animals’ safety, not their welfare or happiness. Many animal law experts say these regulations don’t go far enough . 

What Are the Pros of Having Zoos?

They Can Be Important for Researchers

Biologists and zoologists can benefit from studying animals in zoos. Some breakthroughs in animal behavior and treatment, like why elephants swing their trunks or how gorillas develop heart disease, have been made possible because of zoos’ ease of access . However, not all animals behave the same in captivity as they do in the wild, so not all research is possible in zoos. 

Zoos Are Educational — People May Behave “Eco-friendlier” After Going To the Zoo

Zoos can kickstart individuals’ interest in biodiversity, which is a critical aspect of environmental protection. Many zoos include calls to action in their exhibits, highlighting how endangered animals are being poached, driven away, or otherwise killed by human activity. This can inspire some people to behave more conscientiously. One limited survey found that 35 percent of eco-friendly people learned sustainable behavior from zoos . ‘

Zoos Can Help Educate Children About Animals

Zoos are a quintessential school experience for many young people. Children love learning about animals up-close in a safe environment — in fact, education is possibly the biggest advantage of modern zoos. Many programs, like school presentations, guided tours, informational exhibits, and talks with zookeepers can trigger a lifelong love of animals in children .  

But zoos aren’t perfect in this regard. According to a study of zoo visitors in the UK, only 34 percent of children learned more about animals at zoos (the result was slightly better when the children were given  a guided tour). Worse, children did not feel empowered to help with conservation efforts after visiting a zoo. This suggests that if zoos care about education, they need to more actively reach out to schoolchildren for empowerment and education. 

Going to the Zoo Is Affordable

More ethical ways of engaging with animals without removing them from their natural habitats — like whale watching, safaris, hikes, or excursions — are usually expensive or inaccessible for many people. Zoos tend to be relatively cheap for the average family that wants to learn about animals. 

Conservation

Zoos Can Protect Endangered Species from Extinction

Zoos often claim they can protect entire species from extinction through conservation programs that involve breeding more animals in captivity and then releasing them into the wild. This is especially important for endangered species like pandas. 

While these conservation efforts are truly important, they don’t represent the majority of a zoo’s activities, nor are zoos leaders in conservation worldwide. At the National Zoo, for example, only one-fifth of animals are endangered . In North America, zoos only contribute about 14 percent of all animals reintroduced into the wild as part of a conservation program. Zoos also tend to focus on headline-grabbing endangered animals to bring in visitors, like pandas, elephants or tigers, as opposed to lesser-known but crucial species, like tamarins, kakapos or wombats. 

Are Zoos Good or Bad for the Environment?

Zoos claim to support global biodiversity through conservation efforts like protecting endangered animals. This is somewhat true, although it varies greatly from zoo to zoo. 

On the other hand, zoos are big polluters and use up lots of resources , especially energy and water . Aquariums in particular use tons and tons of water. Zoo animals also generate waste that may or may not be composted or disposed of correctly.

Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?

Given the many ways that zoos are unethical to animals, the flawed attempts to contribute to conservation, and the positioning of humans as superior to animals, many animal ethicists believe zoos should not exist — or at least, not exist in their current form . 

For example, animal philosopher Dale Jamieson says in his book Ethics on the Ark that zoos primarily “alleviate our sense of guilt for what we are doing to the planet, but they do little to help the animals we are driving to extinction.” He continues to argue that zoos exist for humans alone , and that it is very difficult to wave away the inherent immorality of depriving animals their liberty for the sake of human amusement. 

Instead, private conservation programs can benefit endangered animals without showcasing them to the public. Animal sanctuaries, which are  areas of land in which endangered and other animals are protected by humans, are also advantageous for both individual animals and global biodiversity . 

Zoos do have advantages — fostering curiosity and education chief among them. But experts believe there are other ways of accomplishing these goals without resorting to zoos with tiny enclosures. Excursions, nature documentaries, safaris, local gardens, hikes, boat tours and other ways of interacting with nature don’t involve taking animals out of their natural habitats. 

The Bottom Line

If you do choose to visit a zoo, opt for zoos that have certifications from independent animal welfare organizations. If you are interested in animal conservation, you’d be more impactful donating to a non-zoo animal protection organization instead. And if you do want to visit animals, consider an animal sanctuary or an ethical safari, where you can see animals in their native environments.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Björn Jóhann Ólafsson is a science writer and journalist who cares deeply about understanding the natural world and her inhabitants through stories and data. He reports on the environmental footprint of the meat industry, the alternative protein sector and cultural attitudes around food. His previous bylines include the EU Observer and Elemental. He lives in Spain with his two lovebirds.

Investigation

Why Rodeos Are Still Popular When Marine Parks and the Circus Are Declining

Justice • 9 min read

More Law & Policy

How the Meat Industry Shapes U.S. Politics (and Vice-Versa)

Law & Policy • 11 min read

The Loss of Chevron Could Also Be a Major Loss for Animals

A new Supreme Court ruling effectively guts the regulatory power of federal agencies.

Law & Policy • 6 min read

How the Amy’s Kitchen Boycott Worked, and What It Might Mean for Other Labor Organizers

The two-year call to action finally persuaded the company to come to the table.

Justice • 5 min read

How Ecotourism Became an Unexpected Climate Solution in an At-Risk Guatemalan National Park

Climate • 3 min read

Is Organic Food Better for You?

Food • 9 min read

Why the Fiber Industry Needs People to Eat Too Much Meat

Health • 5 min read

• Book Review: ‘Meet the Neighbors’ by Brandon Keim Compassionately Complicates the Narrative about Animals

Science • 8 min read

Most Read Today

• What Does Noninvasive Wild Animal Research Look Like?
• How Many Animals Are Killed for Food Every Day?
• The Blood of Pregnant Mares Fuels Factory Farming – Literally
• What a Vegan Is and Isn’t, Explained
• Organic Farming: What It Is — and Isn’t — Explained
• Overfishing Threatens More Than Ocean Life. It’s Also Fueling Emissions.

• Post last modified: December 7, 2023

Should Zoos Still Exist?

I’ll start by saying that personally I’m fundamentally against zoos but I do understand some of the arguments why they should exist. My main reason for being against zoos is because I don’t agree with caging animals for our entertainment.

I’ve disliked zoos since I was a small child. The memory of a polar bear pacing back and forth in a very small enclosure in a Yorkshire zoo has stuck with me. Many zoos now provide more space for their wild animals but it could hardly be described as equivalent to what they have in the wild. Keeping animals in climates that are not suited to them seems even more cruel.

Why Zoos Should Exist

Bearing all of the above in mind, some zoos do actually carry out important conservation work. The arguments for zoos are many and varied…

The arguments for zoos

• Zoos can help to save endangered species by keeping them in a ‘safe’ environment. Safe as in protected from poachers, predators, habitat loss and even starvation.
• Some zoos have breeding programmes. This is another way to protect endangered species which may have trouble finding suitable mates in the wild.
• Zoos have an educational aspect. It’s easier to learn about an animal by seeing them in person.
• Fostering empathy… By seeing an animal up close, the public might be encouraged to be more empathetic to a species that is facing extinction in the wild. They might put 2 and 2 together and realise the orangutan they saw is in jeopardy due to the products they buy. ( Read about Palm Oil here ).
• Good zoos have high standards of welfare for their animals. Visiting an accredited zoo is better than visiting one which isn’t. For example, BIAZA ‘members are dedicated to achieving the highest standards of animal care, conserving the natural world through research and conservation, and educating and inspiring their visitors.’
• A few zoos take in abandoned exotic pets and rehabilitate wildlife.
• Zoos are a traditional family activity.

What is BIAZA?

“ BIAZA is the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums; the professional body representing the best zoos and aquariums in Britain and Ireland. We have over 100 zoo and aquarium members who pride themselves on their excellent animal welfare, education and conservation work.”

“BIAZA contributes approximately £24 million to conservation projects a year.”

Why Zoos Shouldn’t Exist

Just like there are quite a few arguments for the existence of zoos, whether you agree with them or not, there are also a lot, if not many more, arguments against zoos.

The arguments against zoos

• Like the polar bear that’s haunted me for over 35 years, animals in captivity often suffer from boredom and stress. Captivity can in no way compare to being free in the wild.
• What gives humans the right to capture, confine or breed other species? If an animal is endangered does that justify us removing its freedom?
• Most captive breeding programmes don’t release animals into the wild. More often than not they become part of a never-ending chain of zoos, safari parks, circuses, canned hunting facilities and even the exotic pet trade. There are more tigers in American backyards than there are in the wild !
• Baby animals bring the public in in droves, but this often leads to zoos having too many animals. Surplus animals can be sold on to other zoos (or safari parks, circuses etc) but many are just killed. You might remember back in 2014 when the Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark killed Marius the giraffe. ‘Young giraffe unsuitable for breeding was shot, dissected in public and then fed to lions despite offers of a new home.’  The Guardian
• Bonds between animals are broken when they are sold to alternative facilities which exploit animals, causing further stress to them.
• The wild populations of different endangered species may become less genetically diverse due to the removal of individuals from the wild, causing them to become even more endangered.
• If you want to see wild animals behaving normally they should be seen in the wild. Watching a captive dolphin performing tricks at Sea World in no way compares to seeing a wild dolphin in the ocean.
• If you can’t afford to see animals in their natural habitat visit a wildlife sanctuary that does not buy, sell or breed animals. Sanctuaries take in injured wildlife, unwanted exotic pets or surplus animals from zoos.
• Wildlife encounters at zoos might be an unforgettable experience for children or adults but they are stressful and can be harmful to the animals.
• Zoo animals can escape. Not only is this dangerous for people and native wildlife, but the animals are often killed rather than tranquilised .
• Zoo visitors often don’t act responsibly. They can put the animals lives in danger due to their stupidity or lack of care. When a toddler fell into an enclosure at Cincinnati Zoo in 2016 there was a worldwide outcry that Harambe , the gorilla whose enclosure the toddler fell into, was shot and killed.

The Difference Between Zoos, Safari Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries

What is a Zoo? “an area in which animals, especially wild animals, are kept so that people can go and look at them or study them”

What is a Safari Park? “a large park where wild animals are kept and can move freely, and can be watched by visitors driving through in their cars”

What is a Wildlife Sanctuary? “a place where birds or animals can live and be protected, especially from being hunted or dangerous conditions”

Definitions from the Cambridge English Dictionary

The “Conservation Con”

One of the arguments for zoos is that they help to conserve species which may otherwise go extinct. Others argue that this is the ‘conservation con’, which is explained by freedomforanimals.org.uk

“Zoos in the UK hold tens of thousands of animals captive. One of the main ways they justify this captivity is to say that they need to protect animals who are endangered in the wild. (…)

By focusing on zoos in Wales, we carried out research which unearthed that just 9% of animals held captive are endangered and 17% are threatened in the wild. This means the vast majority of animals kept in zoos are not threatened in the wild, so why are they held captive?”

They go on to say…

“Whilst we do not believe keeping endangered species in zoos actually contributes to conservation, we really would expect zoos that claim to focus on this issue to not be holding so many animals captive who are not of conservation concern. It is time zoos were honest with the public and stopped using conservation claims as a veil for animal exploitation.”

‘Conservation’ is frequently used in defence of trophy hunting as well.

“Should We Close Our Zoos?”

Back in 2016, there was an episode of Horizon (a BBC 2 documentary series focussed on science and philosophy), called “Should We Close Our Zoos?” Although the episode is not available to watch in full on the BBC website, you can watch some clips from the programme. In one of these short clips there are some disturbing facts and figures (which have hopefully improved since it aired).

• Between 3000 – 5000 healthy animals are culled by European zoos each year.
• Elephants in zoos live only half as long as wild elephants.
• Less than 10% of  zoo species are endangered in the wild.
• Around 400 pandas have been bred in captivity, just 5 have been released and only 3 survive.

Should We close Our Zoos? – 5 minute clip from the Horizon documentary.

So, Should Zoos Still Exist?

I don’t think that zoos should need to exist. For those that do rehabilitate wildlife and protect endangered species I think there is an argument for them. However it would be far better if they were to become wildlife sanctuaries and they stopped buying and selling animals. What we should be doing is protecting the habitats of wild animals and ensuring their survival in the wild. Until people around the world care more about life than money I’m afraid there’s little chance of certain species surviving without a helping hand from zoos.

That’s not to say that I think all existing zoos should still exist or that most of them are adequate. I believe there are many zoos that should be shut down immediately. As far as I’m concerned the majority of ‘good zoos’ still need to make massive improvements to their facilities. In my opinion, a zoos major function should not be to make money for its owner. The profits from ticket prices should go toward increasing animal welfare standards and increasing enclosure sizes. Most importantly the money should go toward protecting the natural habitats of wild animals.

I hope that in the not too distant future we see the end of zoos. Sadly I don’t feel like it’ll happen in my lifetime… We have too many people in power around the world for whom animal welfare and conservation is of little concern.

Even some wildlife charities are not what they seem .

The pictures below make me very sad, tweet posted during lockdown…

If you like what I do and want to support this website, you can  buy me a ‘coffee’ which helps with the running costs of the website. Alternatively come and say hello on facebook , twitter or pinterest .

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

You Might Also Like

Is Bamboo Fabric Eco-Friendly?

Glyphosate, what’s the deal?

The Truth About Soy

This post has 80 comments.

Who is the author of this piece? I need to citate this souce for some school work and so this would be useful.

Hi my names Kate, but I’d prefer you link to this page as the citation

i agree with you so much, the pictures made me cry and do you know if zoos are going to shut down

Same doing a essay about it

Yes of course, We were asked to reference an author as well as the website. However if you’re uncomfortable with that, I’ll stick to just the page 🙂

I’ve always had a strong stance against zoos as well. Thank you so much for writing this piece. It’s nice to know that there are people who are passionate about these issues too.

That’s really good, some very vaild points made!

yah totally

Pingback: Environment and climate crisis reference materials and articles 2021 – constantly updating - The Digital Conversationalist

great job!!!!!!

love the article kate

Pingback: #42 Weekend reads - remember 12 months ago? What a year - The Digital Conversationalist

1) I think zoos should be allowed, because it helps injured animals

Very much so.

zoos should be allowed they help some animals who are hurt :/

they shall not exist PERIOD

Periods can have a sentence after them so I propose the idea that zoos shall exist because of many different reasons. Above all, they prevent the extinction of an animal species.

In making a case for or against zoos, both sides argue that they’re saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they certainly do make money. As long as there is demand for them, zoos will continue to exist. Since zoos are likely an inevitability, the best way to move forward is to ensure that zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished, but denied any future access to animals.

I like zoo’s but now i see the pro’s and con’s.

ZOOS are important! There protecting endangered animals. Giving them a place to live, a place to be safe in. they don’t have to FIGHT to survive. they are given food to

Yes you said they don’t have to fight to survive-but guess what if the animal forget how to hunt and gather food when they release them back in the wild they will not remember how to hunt and SURVIVE because the zoo people just fed them everyday and they were used to that. Also It has been proven by researchers that some animals become violent in a zoo or aquarium because they are bothered by all the noise people make or they don’t have enough space to move around-like in the wild where they are free to move around wherever they want. I also believe there was a orca like 6-7 years ago that actually KILLED (literally bit the woman’s pony tail and was dragging her underwater to drown her)because it didn’t have enough space to move around.

That’s why they don’t

Release them

Animals that are going to get released, do have to fight for their food.

Zoos release some animals, but the animals they do release, they made them hunt for themselves.

Im doing a balanced argument writing exam to see which level of class I’ll be in during high-school. And this helped so much!

Looks good but i would check some of your grammar. It’s “zoos” not “zoo’s”, zoo’s implies something belongs to the zoo. Good points, and well written :]

If you are considering a visit to the zoo, decide whether you are willing to empathise with the animals afterwards by going home, locking the front door, and not leaving the house for the next 10 years. If you are uneasy with the thought of doing that, you might like to reconsider a visit to the zoo.

i wrote this and i am 11 Do you think zoos should exist? You don’t, well I hope this changes your mind. Because first of all zoo’s help inform people how to help save animals. Secondly, zoo’s help animal species grow and repopulate. Thirdly if animals are in zoos they cant get hurt if they are in the wild they can die of climate change, pouching and litter. Just like everything else, zoos have their pros and cons. I think that it’s important for people to realise that from a conservation point of view zoos are critical for certain species especially those that are captive bred. Many animals cannot and will not be able to live in the wild depending on circumstances. At the same time, zoos can be the only place where humans can protect them against poachers and the like. We have to make the difference between conservation zoos and the places where animals are stocked for their body parts.We can stop this masamune right here and right now but people won’t stop littering and poaching. You know how it always says save the manatees and stuff well have you ever heard save the white rhinos before. I don’t think so. So jone in and help not just the manatees but every animal. Some people question whether zoos are a good thing or a bad thing. Believe that zoos are good because they help animals and educate people.

First of all zoo’s help inform the public on how to help animals thrive in the wild. By studying animals so we can help them. Because it takes over a few years for a zoologist to find out their behavior and what they eat and stuff like that. If they were moving all the time it would take forever. Like if I was studying a cheta it is going to take probably a few years to know everything about them if they are in the wild. But if they were in a zoo then they would be able to study them better. By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of the other species. The last female white rhino went extinct a few months ago in the san diego zoo. I got to see it when I was little but no one else ever saw a little baby white rhino which is sad but it lived longer in a zoo then it would in the wild. So yeah i was lucky to even see one.

Next up, zoo’s also help animals repopulate. Zoos save endangered species. By bringing them into a safe environment. Where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation, and predators . I watched a video on if zoos should exist i think yes in it it said who wants to go see animals locked up in cages i thought gosh yay animals hate there cages with food, toys and a habitat built just for them they hate it ( said sarcastically ) take the california condor for example in 1982 there was alone 22 of them left but thanks to Now there are hundreds of these huge birds in the Californian skies. Thanks to the dedicated conservation efforts of San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo. Well over three hundred of them. We can also thank zoos for bissen, black foot wesile, golden footed monkey last but certainly not least red foxes.

Thirdly if animals are in zoos they cant get hurt if they are in the wild they can die of climate change, pouching and litter. These are a few animals that are almost extinct but there are a few in zoos The Arabian Oryx was hunted to extinction in the wild. However, from just a handful of animals in captivity the species was brought back from the brink thanks to the conservation efforts of Phoenix zoo and others.Through this incredible work, there are now over 1,000 of these magnificent animals back in the wild and thousands more looked after by zoos worldwide. Przewalski’s horse is the only truly wild horse species left in the world. It comes from the grasslands of Central Asia, but was once declared completely extinct in the wild. But Paderewski’s Horse has made an incredible comeback. Zoos have been working together to create a stable population across the world and now the horse is now returning to their natural habitat. That is just two of a ton of animals that alone exist in zoos. There are 39 animal species currently listed by the IUCN as Extinct in the Wild. These are species that would have vanished totally were it not for captive populations around the world, many of which reside in zoos or, for plants, botanic gardens So enough of that. Im going to talk about why zoos are critical to conservation. For species whose survival in the wild looks in doubt, zoos often set up ‘insurance’ populations, captive groups of animals that could in a worst-case scenario assist in reintroduction to the wild should the original population become extinct. The Zoological Society of London, as an example, participates in more than 160 of these programmed. Re introductions. It is often argued that zoos are bad because so few reintroductions actually happen. I would argue that it’s not the zoos that are at fault – a reintroduction can’t occur if the reason a species was driven to extinction in the first place hasn’t been resolved. In 2014, 700 million people visited zoos worldwide. Not all zoos are good at engagement, and indeed not all zoos are good full stop. However, surely that number of visits created some sort of connection with the natural world that might not have occurred otherwise. Zoos are a living museum. What we learn about wild animals in captivity can help us manage and conserve them in the wild – from animal behaviour, to reproductive rates, to dietary requirements. Zoos raise money for conservation efforts. It’s difficult to engage people with conservation taking place half a world away. But by enabling people to experience wildlife first hand, we can increase participation in international conservation activities. They remind us that we can succeed. Conservation is full of bad news stories, yet on many occasions I have stood peering through glass at a species that shouldn’t exis

i think zoos should not exist :]

i disagree with you

Hmmm I just did some reading and zoo animals actually suffer from depression and stress because their habitats aren’t natural. Also what do you think about the polar bears that have to live in warm conditions when God made them to live in COLD conditions. I think you have some good points, but i still don’t think that the animals should be on display for our entertainment. I think that they should only be in a zoo if they are injured, not just for display.

AND THAT’S SOME FACTS

I would like if there something to do, nobody talks about this anywhere. Sanctuarys is one thing, help animals and not show to the people. If someone want to see and animal just turn on the TV, if there is anything to pay to see an animal, that’s just making profit from the animal. If it is to help and rescue the animal, then there must be NO PEOPLE, NOTHING TO SEE OR PAY, only the workers or helpers. For the one who likes animals, just go and be a veterinarian

This really helped with this unit i was doing on in school, my group was about zoos and if we should ban them or leave them as is. This article really helped with gathering evidence for being against zoos. Have a good day ^^!

I think zoos should exists because people get to see animals up close and in person

I agree but for different reasons.

animals need to be free and not in a cage for their whole life

like bruh get this in your brain

That is a con however, zoos make a habitat super big and it is just like in the wild.

Enjoyed this as I have recently published a book called ‘The Second Level of Extinction’ where modern zoos are exposed as charlatans and fraudsters who make absolutely no contribution to the conservation of wild animals or environment but then as charities claiming to do so rake in millions of dollars from gullible people. It is available on Amazon and elsewhere. Author is AP Wolf.

yes zoos are fun and exciting but the animals shouldn’t be displayed for our entertainment zoos should be helping endangered animals and animals that are in risk of dying if staying in the wild and when they are grown enough to take care of themselves you could then send them back into the wild

Zoos’ are not made for our entertainment. They are made for animals. They just let us come for teaching us about the animals.

I think that zoos should stay open.

If zoos etc did not exist, our children’s children will never, ever see some wild animals. Some species are not safe in their natural environment. There are rogue zoos, these are the ones that should not be supported. However there are, fortunately more zoos that are more responsible and maintain a healthy wild animal population.

I believe zoos should close. It is bad to keep animals cooped up in small spaces, let alone alien environments. The quotidan stress and boredom the animals receive is unfathomable. So, I feel it is essential for us to eliminate zoos (by that, I mean the bad zoos).

there should not be anymore zoos

so zoos should not exist

If zoos etc did not exist, our children’s children will never, ever see some wild animals. Some species are not safe in their natural environment. There are rogue zoos, these are the ones that should not be supported. However there are, fortunately more zoos that are more responsible and maintain a healthy wild animal population.

That was worded amazingly! Thank you so much. I am looking for reasons for zoos to stay for research.

just imagine being stuck in a cage watched and wiped

I think they should keep zoos for the hurt animals

zoo’s shouldn’t exsist

sorry miss clicked zoos shouldn’t exist because they hold animals against free will

If animals had the option they would most likely choose zoos.

where i live our zoos a amazing and the enclosures are huge and none of the animals look at all depressed tbh all of them look happy and none of them looked over feed

I think they should keep the zoo for the endangered animals,the Abandon Yong,and the injured to save more animals. The zoos are not hurting the animals one zoo saves almost 200 animals per year well have more animal on this plaint

I am with you!

Zoos do not WHIP animals!!!!

I am finding research for a topic in school and I found great reasons from you guys! Thank you so much!

I think zoos should exist but they also have wrongdoings. I think they should exist because they can protect animals and if an animal population is going down they can breed animals there is a lot that zoos do good but there are also things they don’t do good, they sometimes use animals just for the public and the money. They also just capture the animals even if they are perfectly healthy. The animals can also forget how to function on their own. So my opinion it’s a 50/50.

I did a topic in school about this topic and I will share it with you guys. DO NOT COPY MY WORK!!!! Many people argue about whether or not there should be zoos. After conducting research, it is obvious that we should have zoos. Zoos help animals in many different ways. In the text, it says, “Zoos save species from extinction and other dangers.”(procon.org) Since zoos save animals from extinction, they can likely help animals repopulate. Zoos take in animals that are hurt and can’t fend for themselves. The animals’ Zoos do release, are still wild. Zoos just monitor animals that they are going to release. They make them hunt for themselves. In conclusion, Zoos help animals survive so they should exist. People think zoos should exist however, zoos help animals in many different ways. One of those ways is animals in zoos produce helpful scientific research. In the text, it states, “Zoos produce helpful scientific research”(procon.org) This means by having animals in zoos, we can look at them and notice how they act to different things. Additionally, “nine species like California condors, black-footed ferrets, Przewalski’s horse, golden lion tamarins, American red wolves, and more from the brink of extinction.”This shows that zoos save animals from extinction and reintroduced them to the environment. Clearly, zoos are more helpful than harmful. Therefore zoos should exist. It is argued zoos don’t educate the public enough to prove there should be animals in captivity. For example, people say no one learns anything at a zoo. Expert Claim, “Zoos don’t educate the public enough to justify keeping animals captive.”(procon.org) Zoos don’t educate people if people don’t read or see what the zoos have to give them.However, If people listen to what the tour guide has to say or read what a sign says people learn a lot.Studies show, “Zoos and aquariums do teach the public about the delicate balance between animal species and their habitats, a new international study shows. More than 6,000 visitors to over 30 zoos and aquariums across the world took part in this landmark study. Participants filled out pre- and post-visit surveys to evaluate their biodiversity understanding and knowledge of how to help protect biodiversity. The study found there was an increase from pre-visit (69.8%) to post-visit (75.1%) in respondents demonstrating some positive evidence of biodiversity understanding.”(Sciencedaily.com) Going to zoos actually benefits animals and humans. Humans get to see animals and learn about the animals. Animals get to have lots of visitors and have a nice safe home. While some may argue that zoos do not provide education to people, zoos give you the opportunity of a lifetime to see amazing animals and learn all about them.

Kate, although Maurice’s death was injustice, it was in Europe, not America!

Are you referring to Marius when you say Maurice? If so I clearly state that was in Copenhagen in Denmark, The Guardian link underneath links to an article talking about Marius.

Some zoos are beneficial, while others are only to make money and entertain. Many zoos take exotic species from the wild simply to attract visitors, but others breed endangered animals whose habitat is disappearing. So some zoos should stay, but others need to go.

You have a point there

Zoos are not needed When the school announces that they are planning a field trip, most of the students would think about a one word, zoo. Likewise, zoo has been a famous choice for children or students to visit whether it is a school field trip or not. Zoo has a lot of species of animals such as penguins and bears. Not only do people watch animals performing tricks but they can take a closer look on animals. These actions can eventually increase the people’s interest on animals and may be interested in learning about that. Moreover, zoos can save endangered species such as polar bear by providing them with an artificial habitat and food. However, nowadays, most of the people view zoo as a prison for animals. Zoos have limited freedom and made animals perform tricks in order to earn more money. Such, in personal opinion, zoos are not needed. As mentioned in the first paragraph, zoos can be viewed as an animal’s prison. Many people make animals to perform tricks even if that is not what the zoos should actually do. During the process of how animals learned the tricks to perform to the audience in order for the zoo to earn more money, they would be very likely to suffer and receive a lot of pain. Animals are not actors or performers on stage to be watched or to entertain the audience. There are a lot of occasions around the world that involve animals such as gorillas or bears to draw paintings that may be used to attract more consumers. Moreover, animals have the primary object for experiments. These experiments may include experiments for cosmetics or products used when cleaning one’s body, and a perfume. Likewise, just as the name “prison of the animals” state, animals would have no freedom while being in the zoo. In addition, animals would not be able to choose foods that they want to eat. They will be only eating foods that their keeper would give them to. These are some cases that may happen when animals lose their freedom. Additionally, just like a prison for people, animals would be assigned to a habitat which would be about 1,000 times smaller than the natural habitat that they actually live in. Such, captivity may be the worst that the animals have actually faced. Not only does the small area of the habitat may bother them, the attention and the intervention of the people, may bother them as well. Most of the viewer especially children would be most likely to knock on the glass or the wall which separate the people from the animal. Also, the sound of people running and screaming at a strange animal, can also be one of the biggest worries for the animal. The daily stress would lead to strange behavior known as the zoochosis. This behavior would include pacing, swaying, and other conditions. These behaviors are only apparent to animals which are located inside the zoo but never in animals living in the wild. This would eventually decrease the lifespan of some animals. Additionally, zoo is made by human and can differ greatly from the animal’s natural habitat. The factors that contribute to this difference may include the size of the zoo, and how the foods are provided. Most of the zoo’s size is considerably smaller than the natural habitat. This can decrease an animal’s freedom. Furthermore, from the current status, one may realize that the foods are provided as nonliving to the animals. This can mean that the animals do not have the need to hunt for food but rather just consume it. These factors combined can have the animals to lose their natural ability or instinct. For example, many of the animals freed from the zoo and out to the wild would have to have more time and effort to hunt and adapt to the natural surroundings. Thus, animals kept in zoos would naturally not survive in the wild with other of its species. Also, from the fact that the size of the artificial habitat is about 1,000 times smaller than the actual natural habitat, most predatory animals such as cheetah or a tiger would lose their natural instinct or ability to run or be aware of danger that might lurk in the nature when it is freed. Together, animals from the zoo, would be most likely to lose their natural instinct or not be able to survive in the wilderness even if they are freed from the zoo, “the prison of the animals”. Zoos are not needed because it can be a prison for animals and the fact that zoos are made by humans. Many zoos exist primary to help the endangered species. However, since zoos are an artificial place, it cannot help the animals directly. Some of the animals that are freed may have trouble adapting to the wild, and animals still in the zoo may suffer a lot due to people’s attention, limitation of freedom, and other factors. In conclusions, zoos are not needed for people but it is still necessary in order for the caring of diseased animals, and many others.

they do not WHIP the animals😡💢

I believe that we should dedicate time, resources and federal lands for ALF for our Animals all kinds. Assisted living facilities , to protect and serve . Equality . Humanitarian efforts.

I think that there are pro and cons to zoos and I can see everyones point of view.

I have a frog and a leopard gecko and they live in plenty of space and are happy they also bring me a lot of joy.

Thank you for reminding us of the power of human connection and empathy.

NO ZOOS FOR LIFE✊

Good ZOOS need to stay and bad Zoos need to leave

Zoos have to exist because imagine if zoos didn’t exist wild animals would go extinct because animals are getting injured and dying or they can’t find food because they’re injured. That is why zoos exist to save animals. To save animals from going extinct. To feed animals when they’re hungry to make sure that they are never hungry. they might not have a lot of room but at least they have a place where they are never hungry never tired and not always having to be on the look out for predators. So thank God that they’re zoos around here I like that better than having animals going extinct wouldn’t you? or would you rather animals go extinct?

Comments are closed.

Zoos – Top 3 Pros and Cons

• Pro/Con Arguments

Discussion Questions

Take Action

Zoos have existed in some form since at least 2500 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia, where records indicate giraffes, bears, dolphins, and other animals were kept by aristocrats. The oldest still operating zoo in the world, Tiergarten Schönbrunn in Vienna, opened in 1752. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

The contemporary zoo evolved from 19th century European zoos. Largely modeled after the London Zoo in Regent’s Park, these zoos were intended for “genteel amusement and edification,” according to Emma Marris, environmental writer and Institute Fellow at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. As such, reptile houses, aviaries, and insectariums were added with animals grouped taxonomically, to move zoos beyond the spectacle of big, scary animals. [ 40 ]

Carl Hegenbeck, a German exotic animal importer, introduced the modern model of more natural habitats for animals instead of obvious cages at his Animal Park in Hamburg in 1907. That change prompted the shift in zoo narrative from entertainment to the protection of animals. In the late 20th century, the narrative changed again to the conservation of animals to stave off extinction. [ 40 ]

Controversy has historically surrounded zoos, from debates over displaying “exotic” humans in exhibits to zookeepers not knowing what to feed animals. A gorilla named Madame Ningo, the first  gorilla  to arrive in the United States in 1911 who was to live at the  Bronx Zoo , was fed hot dinners and cooked meat despite gorillas being  herbivores , for example. [ 3 ] [ 4 ]

The contemporary debate about zoos tends to focus on animal welfare on both sides, whether zoos protect animals or imprison them.

Should Zoos Exist?

Pro 1 Zoos educate the public about animals and conservation efforts. As of Apr. 2021, there are 241 accredited zoos in the United States. The zoos attract over 181 million visitors annually, which is more than the approximately 131 million yearly spectators of the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB combined. [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 9 ] [ 41 ] According to a study of 26 zoos worldwide published in Conservation Biology, visitors to zoos increased their knowledge of biodiversity and specific individual actions to protect biodiversity. [ 11 ] Robin Ganzert, PhD, President and CEO of American Humane, stated, “zoos provide people, especially impressionable children, with the opportunity to see these remarkable animals up close. People won’t protect what they don’t love, and they can’t love what they don’t know. No matter how closely programs like Planet Earth depict animals, nothing will match the bond of seeing them in real life. Just look at a child’s eyes at the zoo when he or she encounters a tiger or similarly majestic animal.” [ 12 ] Read More

Pro 2 Zoos produce helpful scientific research. 228 accredited zoos published 5,175 peer-reviewed manuscripts between 1993 and 2013. In 2017, 173 accredited US zoos spent $25 million on research, studied 485 species and subspecies of animals, worked on 1,280 research projects, and published 170 research manuscripts. [ 13 ] [ 14 ] Because so many diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans, such as Ebola, Hantavirus, and the bird flu, zoos frequently conduct disease surveillance research in wildlife populations and their own captive populations that can lead to a direct impact on human health. For example, the veterinary staff at the Bronx Zoo in New York alerted health officials of the presence of West Nile Virus. [ 15 ] Zoo research is used in other ways such as informing legislation like the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, helping engineers build a robot to move like a sidewinder snake, and encouraging minority students to enter STEM careers. [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] Read More

Pro 3 Zoos save species from extinction and other dangers. Corroboree frogs, eastern bongos, regent honeyeaters, Panamanian golden frogs, Bellinger River snapping turtles, golden lion tamarins, and Amur leopards, among others, have been saved from extinction by zoos. [ 16 ] Zoos are also working to save polar bears, tigers, and wild African elephants from habitat loss, apes and rhinos from poachers, dolphins and whales from hunters, and bees and butterflies from population declines, among many other efforts to help many other animals. [ 17 ] [ 18 ] [ 19 ] [ 20 ] 23% of birds and 47% of small mammals (weighing less than about 2.2 pounds) are negatively impacted by climate change. By keeping populations of animals and conducting wild repopulation, zoos can help preserve species in danger from climate change. There were only nine California condors in the wild in 1985. A joint conservation effort between the San Diego and Los Angeles Zoos with other organizations resulted in a population of 276 California condors in the wild and another 170 in captivity by 2016. [ 21 ]   [ 22 ] [ 23 ] Przewalski’s horses, the last wild horses, were declared extinct in the wild in the 1960s when about 12 lived in zoos. By 2018, breeding programs at zoos increased the number to 2,400 horses, and 800 were reintroduced to the wild. [ 24 ] [ 25 ] Read More

Con 1 Zoos don't educate the public enough to justify keeping animals captive. A review published in Animal Studies Repository concluded, “to date there is no compelling or even particularly suggestive evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, and interest in conservation in visitors.” Even a study widely cited to justify the argument that zoos educate the public stated, “there was no overall statistically significant change in understanding [of ecological concepts] seen” because visitors know a lot about ecology before going to the zoo. [ 26 ]   [ 27 ] TV shows such as Planet Earth bring wild animals into living rooms, allowing people to see the animals in their natural habitats without causing harm to animals such as the endangered snow leopard. Romesh Ranganathan, a British comedian, stated, “It still slightly surprises me that anybody thinks that we should have zoos at all. The animals always look miserable in captivity… [T]he idea that kids only get excited about things they can see in the flesh is ridiculous. My kids are obsessed with dinosaurs that no longer exist, and Skylanders, which have never existed.” [ 28 ] Read More

Con 2 Zoos are detrimental to animals' physical health. A study of 35 species of carnivores, including brown bears, cheetahs, and lions, found that zoo enclosures were too small for the animals to carry out their normal routines, which led to problems such as pacing and more infant deaths. Polar bears, for example, had an infant mortality rate of 65% due to small enclosures. [ 29 ] About 70% of adult male gorillas in North America have heart disease, the leading cause of death among gorillas in captivity, although the condition is almost completely absent in the wild. Other great apes have similar health problems in captivity. [ 4 ] Captive elephants live about half as long as wild elephants: 18.9 years v. 41.7 years for Asian elephants and 16.9 years v. 35.8 years for African elephants. Of 77 elephants in 13 zoos, 71 were overweight and spent 83% of their time indoors, contributing to early death. [ 30 ] Read More

Con 3 Zoo confinement is psychologically damaging to animals. Animal behaviorists often see zoo animals suffering from problems not seen in the wild, such as clinical depression in clouded leopards and gibbons, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in brown bears, and anxiety in giraffes. The animals experience these issues due to smaller enclosures, changes in diet and activities, and the introduction of things not seen in the wild, such as medical exams and people with cameras. The Toledo Zoo ran a psychiatric program in which a gorilla with premenstrual depression was prescribed Prozac. To ease them into new habitats, an agitated tiger was given Valium, and anxious zebras and wildebeests were given Haldol. [ 31 ]   [ 32 ] [ 33 ] A study of captive chimpanzees found that “abnormal behaviour is endemic in the population,” and includes behaviors such as eating feces, twitching, rocking back and forth, plucking hair, pacing, vomiting, and self-mutilation, among others. The study concluded that the cause of such behavior could be mental health issues. [ 34 ] About 24% of captive orcas have “major” to “extreme” tooth wear and 60% had tooth fractures as a result of stress-induced teeth grinding. As a result of the 2013 documentary Blackfish, which exposed the psychological damage done to orcas by SeaWorld, California outlawed captive orca breeding. [ 35 ] [ 36 ]   [ 36 ] Read More

1. Should zoos exist? If you believe they should, consider whether they should remain the same or change. If you believe they should not, consider how else to accomplish zoo’s conservation efforts.

2. Extend the debate to other human-made animal habitats, such as safari parks and animal sanctuaries.

3. What other conservation efforts are important to saving wildlife? Explain your answer(s).

1. Analyze “ Eight Reasons Zoos Are Good for Conservation ” from conservation scientist James Borrell.

2. Consider the pros and cons with a video from Above the Noise .

3. Explore conservationist Damian Aspinall’s opinion that zoos are “outdated and cruel.”

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives .

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Pros and cons of zoos: Should animals be kept in zoos?

Source: This image was created for netivist.org. If you want to use it you simply need to  attribute it by linking  to this page or to  https://netivist.org . Thanks

Animal cruelty or protection? Learn about the pros and cons of zoos and join our debate and poll: Should there be zoos? Should animals be kept in captivity? Vote and explain your view on whether zoos are necessary or should be banned.

Should animals be kept in zoos?

Over 181 million people visit zoos and aquariums every year in the United States, and 25 million in the United Kingdom. Zoos have more visitors than the combined attendance of the four major sports leagues ( NFL , NBA , MLB and NHL ). Despite their immense popularity , zoos have become increasingly controversial institutions. An increasing number of animal rights advocates and animal protection organizations are questioning the role of zoos in modern societies. The shocking evidence of animal abuse in some circuses , dolphinariums and zoos have pushed many environmental and wildlife activist groups to campaign for the closure of many of the institutions that keep wild animals in captivity.

To the question "should animals be kept in captivity?" the initial reaction of most people is rejection. Why should animals be kept in zoos? In an ideal world that would not be necessary, wild animals would roam freely in their natural habitats and we, humans, would find ways to observe them and learn about them without disrupting their lives. However, today on Earth due to population growth and urbanization many animal species are endangered and most people have very few opportunities to observe and learn from animals.

Jane Goodall , the famous British primatologist and one of the most important experts in chimpanzees in the world, has defended the role of zoos in helping us understand and preserve the life of wild animals (see video below). On the other hand, organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Animal Aid and Born Free have initiated campaigns for the closure of zoos, arguing that most zoos deprive animals from their most basic needs and that animal abuse and suffering should not be a source of entertainment.

Do you think that zoos are an effective way to increase awareness about animal life? Do they really help preserve endangered species or it is more a business and a cruel source of entertainment? Is keeping animals in captivity a good way to ensure their future? Let's take a closer look at the advantages and disadvantages of zoos before we make up our minds.

Watch this video with Jane Goodall on the role of zoos in saving animals

Pros and cons of zoos

These are the most common arguments in favor and against zoos.

Pros of zoos

• After the famous wildlife conservationist Geral Durrell opened a zoo in Jersey in 1959, zoos all over the world have embraced the mission of saving endangered species in the world. Zoos are not like the exotic animal menageries from the middle ages. They want to provide entertainment but they are greatly concerned with the protection of animals and their natural habitats. Zoos help raising awareness and funding for wildlife initiatives and research projects.
• Animals are not always caged in zoos. Edinburgh was the first British zoo to follow the idea of displaying animals without bars. The Chester and Whipsnade zoological parks where the first two non-urban zoos without cages and larger enclosures. They opened in 1931. In the 1960s The drive-through safari parks became very popular. Ever since there has been an increasing public concern about animal welfare in zoos.
• Zoos are monitored and follow strict regulation in most developed countries. There is less room for animal cruelty in zoos than ever before in history.
• Most people working in zoos are true animal lovers. Veterinary doctors, zoologist, voluntary staff, etc. chose to work in zoos because they like animals, and wanted to work closely with them and help them thrive.
• Education is another positive feature of zoos. Many children and adults in cities can only see wild animals in TV or the Internet. Zoos offer them the unique experience of contemplating real animals. They can smell them, see how they move and listen their sounds. This is a much more vivid and enriching experience than the one you can get through a screen. Thanks to zoos kids and adult develop empathy toward animals.
• Zoos are key for research . Being able to observe and study animals is crucial if we want to contribute to help them and repair the ecosystems. They also help redice human-animal conflicts and better understand the needs and psychology of animals. Zoos serve as laboratories to learn more about how to fight animal diseases and develop effective animal anaesthetics and other treatments to help more animals in the future.
• Another pro of zoos is their role in animal reproduction. Zoos study animal breeding and thanks to them many wild animals in captivity can reproduce. This is particularly important in the case of endangered species. Due to the low density of the population of some animals in their natural ecosystems they struggle to find partners. Some populations in the wild are weakened by endogamy too. In zoos vets and biologist help to prevent inbreeding.

Cons of zoos

• Animal cruelty in zoos continues to be extremely common. There are continuous cases of animals abused by visitors and zoo workers. Many of them are reported every week in the media, however, the large majority are kept secret and those responsible are never held accountable or punished.
• Animals in captivity are deprived of many things that are important to them, as a result they become lonely and bored. Many of them suffer from "zoochosis" , a psychological condition characterized by repetitive and obsessive behaviors including vomiting, excessive grooming, coprophagia and self-mutilation. 
• Most animals in zoos still live in small enclosures and cages . There are Safari Parks and large zoos in which animals have more space and live in an enviroment slightly more similar to their natural habitat .however, the large majority of zoos in the world are much smaller and have less economic means than the big zoos we often see in the media such as the San Diego Zoo, the Berlin Zoological Garden, the San Louis Zoo, etc. 
• In zoos many animals sicken and die because they contract diseases from other animals and species. Zoos usually group animals from many different parts of the world with very distinct immunological systems. People also have been sickened from diseases contracted from animals in zoos.
• Many zoos do little for research or animal protection. They are simply businesses run with the sole purpose of making money . Their concern for animals is secondary. Cost efficiency often means they move animal welfare down in the list of priorities. 
• Zoos and aquariums have incentivized the illegal hunt of animals . Historically poachers have hunted and sold wild animals for zoos all over the world. Although this practice is increasingly prosecuted in most countries, there are still small zoos and aquariums which acquire their animals without paying much attention to their origin. 
• From an ethical point of view zoos are also questionable. Zoos are a typical form of family entertainment, but associating leisure and fun with the contemplation of animals in captivity can send the wrong signals to our children. Zoos can be construed as a sadistic pleasure .

Do you think zoos are necessary? Do the cons of zoos outweight their benefits? Should we boycott or ban zoos? Vote and join our debate (see below)

Watch this video on "zoochosis" and the living conditions of animals in captivity

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public—yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

• University of Southern California

• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Brandeis University
• Northeastern University
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

A Brief History of Zoos

Arguments for zoos, arguments against zoos, the last word on zoos.

A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible—often in small, cramped conditions—the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many  animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals—even in efforts to fend off extinction—cannot be justified. Let's dive into whether zoos are ethical and if they truly encourage education and conservation.

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2,500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens.  Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment when scientific interest in zoology and the study of animal behavior and anatomy came to the fore.

Early zoos were a dismal affair. Animals were kept in small enclosures with little if any, greenery. With a scant understanding of what the various animals needed, many perished relatively quickly. In accredited zoos in the United States and globally, things are better. Primates have gone from barren cages with little furniture to naturalistic and sometimes semi-free-ranging designs. But is it enough?

• By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.
• Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment for protection from poachers , habitat loss, starvation, and predators.
• Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species . In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.
• Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.
• Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."
• A good zoo provides an enriched habitat where the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.
• Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary. People are more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward animals.
• Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or can no longer care for.
• Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for animal care.
• From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals— even if those species are endangered . Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.
• Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen—no matter how humane—or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild .
• Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.
• Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new babies leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold to other zoos, circuses , and hunting facilities . Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.
• Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild . The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos .
• Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also challenging. 
• If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary . (A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.)
• The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) establishes minimal standards for cage size, shelter, healthcare, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.
• Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla , was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo . While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.
• Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

In making a case for or against zoos and whether zoos are ethical, both sides argue that they're saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they do make money. As long as demand remains, zoos will continue to exist.

Since zoos are likely inevitable, the best way to move forward is to ensure zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished but denied any future access to animals.

One day we may look back at zoos and marvel at their barbarity. Or, one day we may look back at zoos and be grateful for the species they saved from extinction. Of these two scenarios, only time will tell.

Hosey, Geoff, et al. Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and Welfare . Oxford University Press. 2013.

Hosey, G. (2023). The History of Primates in Zoos . In: Robinson, L.M., Weiss, A. (eds) Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Springer, Cham.

“ Species Survival Plan Programs .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

“ Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Meagher, Rebecca K., Georgia J. Mason. “ Environmental Enrichment Reduces Signs of Boredom in Caged Mink .” PLoS ONE , vol. 7, 2012, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049180

Kleiman, Devra G., et al. Wild Mammals In Captivity: Principles And Techniques For Zoo Management, Second Edition . University of Chicago Press. 2010.

Gunasekera, Crystal Allen. “ The Ethics of Killing “Surplus” Zoo Animals .” Journal of Animal Ethics , vol. 8, 2018, doi:10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0093

Brichieri-Colombi, Typhenn A., et al. “ Limited Contributions of Released Animals from Zoos to North American Conservation Translocations .” Conservation Biology , vol. 33, 2019, pp. 33-39., doi:10.1111/cobi.13160

Krasnec, Michelle O., et al. “ Mating Systems in Sexual Animals .” Nature Education Knowledge, vol. 3, no. 10, 2012, p. 72.

“ 9 CFR § 3.128 - Space Requirements .” Cornell University Legal Information Institute .

“ Animal Welfare Act Enforcement .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Conrad, Cheyenne C. Conrad et al. " Farm Fairs and Petting Zoos: A Review of Animal Contact as a Source of Zoonotic Enteric Disease ." Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, vol. 14, 2017, pp. 59-73., doi:10.1089/fpd.2016.2185

• Arguments for and Against Hunting
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• How Animal Rights Activists View Zoos Keeping Endangered Species
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• Horse Racing and Animal Rights
• Key Facts About Animal Abuse
• Is Pet Ownership Ethical?
• Overview of Animal Cruelty
• Overview of the Animal Welfare Act
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• Police Search and Rescue Dogs: The Animal Rights Debate
• Historical Timeline of the Animal Rights Movement
• The Argument for Animal Rights

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer
• Saved Articles
• Newsletters

Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals?

Please try again

Zoos are great, right? You get to be up close and personal with some amazing animals that you’d pretty much never get to see in the wild. Clearly, zoos are a win for people. But when it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

TEACHERS: Guide your students to practice civil discourse about current topics and get practice writing CER (claim, evidence, reasoning) responses. Explore lesson supports.

How did zoos become a thing? Humans have been capturing and displaying exotic animals for thousands of years. The earliest known collections date back to 3500 BCE in Egypt, where rulers kept hippos, elephants, baboons, and different species of large cats. Now back then, that didn’t mean that your average Egyptian could go check any of that awesomeness out. These early zoos were really just a way for kings to flex on other kings. Modern zoos, where the public can come and watch animals exhibiting their natural behavior, didn’t really become a thing until the early 1800s. The longest continuously operating zoo in the world is the Vienna Zoo, which has been going strong for more than 260 years.

What are the arguments in favor of having zoos? Zoos may be great entertainment, but their big goal is to educate the public about wildlife and what we can do to protect them. Zoo animals are sort of like ambassadors for their counterparts in the wild. Zoos also contribute to scientific research. “Zoo” is short for zoological park, and zoology is the scientific study of animal biology and behavior. In addition, zoos work really hard to save animals that are threatened in the wild. Zoos can take at-risk animals, breed them in captivity, and then reintroduce them back into the wild.

What are the arguments for NOT having zoos? Zoos have their problems. Not all zoos are created equal. Some are clean and well staffed, others aren’t. There are some in the richest cities in the world, and there are some in conflict zones. What this means is that not all zoos have the resources to properly care for the animals they house. And for many critics, no amount of education or research justifies keeping animals captive. That captivity can be REALLY bad for both physical AND psychological health. And while zoos have been really helpful is saving endangered animals, it doesn’t work out for certain species. For example, most large carnivores like lions and tigers that are bred in captivity die when released into the wild. It turns out that they haven’t developed the natural behaviors they need when they’re out on their own and have to fend for themselves.

SOURCES: Do we need zoos? (The Atlantic) https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/harambe-zoo/485084/

Why zoos are good (The Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/aug/19/why-zoos-are-good

The case for the end of the modern zoo (New York Magazine) http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/07/case-for-the-end-of-the-modern-zoo.html?gtm=bottom

Zoos and their discontents (New York Times Magazine) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/magazine/zoo-animals-and-their-discontents.html

Stress and lack of exercise are killing elephants, zoos warned (The Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/dec/12/elephants-animal-welfa re

Most Captive-Born Predators Die If Released (National Geographic) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2008/01/predators-captivity-habitat-animals/

Captive Breeding Success Stories (PBS) https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-loneliest-animals-captive-breeding-success-stories/4920/

Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research (Facets Journal) https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/facets-2017-0083

Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums (Conservation Biology) https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/jensen/ericjensen/moss_jensen_and_gusset_2015-evaluating_the_contribution_of_zoos_and_aquariums_to_aichi_biodiversity_target_1_final_published_version.pdf

To learn more about how we use your information, please read our privacy policy.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Pro and Con: Zoos

To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether zoos should exist, go to ProCon.org .

Zoos have existed in some form since at least 2500 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia, where records indicate giraffes, bears, dolphins, and other animals were kept by aristocrats. The oldest still operating zoo in the world, Tiergarten Schönbrunn in Vienna , opened in 1752.

The contemporary zoo evolved from 19th century European zoos. Largely modeled after the London Zoo in Regent’s Park, these zoos were intended for “genteel amusement and edification,” according to Emma Marris , environmental writer and Institute Fellow at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. As such, reptile houses, aviaries, and insectariums were added with animals grouped taxonomically, to move zoos beyond the spectacle of big, scary animals.

Carl Hegenbeck, a German exotic animal importer, introduced the modern model of more natural habitats for animals instead of obvious cages at his Animal Park in Hamburg in 1907. That change prompted the shift in zoo narrative from entertainment to the protection of animals. In the late 20th century, the narrative changed again to the conservation of animals to stave off extinction.

Controversy has historically surrounded zoos, from debates over displaying “exotic” humans in exhibits to zookeepers not knowing what to feed animals. A gorilla named Madame Ningo, the first gorilla to arrive in the United States in 1911 who was to live at the Bronx Zoo, was fed hot dinners and cooked meat despite gorillas being herbivores, for example.

The contemporary debate about zoos tends to focus on animal welfare on both sides, whether zoos protect animals or imprison them.

• Zoos educate the public about animals and conservation efforts.
• Zoos save species from extinction and other dangers.
• Zoos don't educate the public enough to justify keeping animals captive.
• Zoos are detrimental to animals' physical health.
• Zoo confinement is psychologically damaging to animals.

This article was published on August 13, 2021, at Britannica’s ProCon.org , a nonpartisan issue-information source.

Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?

Zoos are premises for the captivity of animals, often in urban areas where many of the animals would not otherwise be found, with the intention of studying the animals and displaying them to the public at large. The predecessor of the zoo was the menagerie, which involved the captivity of birds typically for the entertainment of the aristocracy, and has a long history running back to ancient times. The first modern zoo evolved out of an aristocratic menagerie in Vienna in 1765. Many types of zoo now exist, from the petting zoos that encourage the public to get up and close with the animals to the large nature reserves that provide space for the animals to roam around within and most famously the large, urban zoos like the London Zoo which include elephants, lions and penguins and are usually notable tourist drawcards for the cities concerned. Proponents argue that zoos are beneficial both to the animals themselves, protecting endangered species with specific breeding programs, and the public, as an educational tool to increase both awareness and understanding. Opponents respond that the removal of wild animals from their habitat is wrong, that they should be left in their natural surroundings and not used as tools for public entertainment. (shamelessly taken from our sister site idebate.org)

All the Yes points:

Entertainment and health at its best, human understanding can help animals, by observing animal behaviour we can help those in the wild, keeping animals in zoos can stop them becoming extinct in the wild., all the no points:, wild animals are not domesticated, the means is not proportionate to what is achieved, whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer., people visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is ok to use animals for our own ends., problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species, animal research may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context of confinement and human entertainment., animals should be left in the wild, yes because….

Its a win win situation really. Zoo Keepers take good care of animals and people get to view animals at their own pleasure (Which funds the zoo keepers with the money to take care of the animals further). No, not animals are endangered because we destroyed their habitat. For instance, The Tasmanian Devil is endangered as of recent years. For an unknown reason, the Devils have had a wide spread of cancer. However, this is only true for wild Tasmanian Devils. Domesticated Devils have not had this caner problem. They may be in cages and not tied to what we’d think of as the “ideal” home for these animals, but lets face it, these animals are cleaned, fed nutritiously and even given a roof over their head, usually with a “piece of their own environment”. Its like being taken off the street as a hobo and living in a luxurious suite, fed meals every day, bathed, regular doctor visits to make sure you’re in good shape. Would you complain if this happened to you?

No because…

By taking our children to zoos, by educating them and showing them how beautiful animals are, we are entrusting the animal future to them. If they have had a first hand experience of these animals then they will be more likely to take heed of animal needs in the long run. They will be less likely to buy animal furs or elephant tusks. In turn, they will be more likely to buy animal friendly produce and be more likely to campaign for these animals. Even if a few animals are harmed in the process, the outcome outweighs that harm; more animals will be saved in the future.

We would not tolerate this view if it were placed on humans. We would not force a human to be subjected to inhumane treatment and captivity with the reasoning that they would be saving future humans. We have something that is called integrity. Everyone has it and there is no reason why animals should not be given this grace as well. We cannot subject an animal, against it wishes to captivity and rationed foods by citing the future good for all animals. We should respect every animal, even those in zoos and not offer them up as sacrifice.

Knowledge is our only aid in the fight against global warming and animal protection. We need to know exactly what’s going to happen and how animals will respond in these situations. By sending in specialist animal observers to zoos we can begin to unravel the mystery of how to save these animals for the future events to come. We can discover ways to protect them, we can learn which habitats they can survive in, and we can learn which foods they would be willing to supplement their nutrition from. By learning this, we can help wild animals of the future survive the changing environment.

While ideally animals should be free to live in the wild, on occasion their survival as a species becomes threatened, either naturally or artificially. Whatever the reason, zoos have been a major method of preventing animal species from becoming extinct. While it may be the case that some species’ extinction has only been delayed by zoos, in others the zoos have been pivotal in breeding new generations and protecting a gene pool while the animal is re-introduced into a more natural environment. While protecting natural habitat should take precedent over zoos, many of these regions are politically unstable or financially destitute. It is hard to blame someone who values his own families survival over that of an animal. Because many zoos are in wealthy, stable nations, a secure and nurturing environment can be artificially created to help the most endangered animals survive and continue to breed. A “Noahs Ark”, if you will. ———- Rebuttal to “Yes” remark. Some animals can be successfully released into the wild. See the efforts in New Zealand to have the national bird, the Kiwi, living wild in some protected areas and uninhabited islands, both of which have been largely successful. This has also happened/is happening with a number of other native birds on the brink of extinction.

I fail to see how keeping animal in captivity is going to directly affect the population of the wild animals. You qualify your own argument when you say these endangered animals are bred and then released into a ‘more’ natural environment. But once bred in captivity, you can allow an animal back into the wild. Either they will go searching for humans and kill in their dismay or they will simply die in the wild for not knowing what to do. Once again, the only benefit in having endangered animals in captivity is that they will never become extinct because we will always have some in zoos, but this is not how endangered animals should be; they would behave differently in a zoo to such an extent that I would not even classify them as the same animal.

Wild animals have not been domesticated by humans. Simply possessing them for the sake of breeding in the case of an endangered specie really solves nothing. Most of these animals are endangered because of severe devastation to their natural habitat. Even if you repopulate them, where will they go? It’s a fools errand. The technology exists to collect genetic information and store embryos and sperm. Breeding them at this point is unfair, unless the intention is to increase zoo’s population. Lastly, many of these exotic endangered species are from developing societies where the alternatives created by wealth simple don’t exist. It’s easy to complain about the destruction of the environment, but most of these people are simply supporting themselves and their families with the only means available to them.

Yes unfortunately as they are protected and saved from humans in zoos.Cant be hunted and cant be killed off with deforestation.I fear they will be in majority in zoos soon enough.As governments of world dont give a damn.But at least not extinct.

It is cruel and inhumane to keep animals in cages purely for human entertainment. We visit the zoo maybe one day in a year for a few hours and we may gain some trivial sense of joy out of it. However, the animals have to stay in that zoo all year round; against their natural instincts to roam free. They have no reprieve from their environment. Why should humans think that they can keep animals out of their homes and in glass houses just for human entertainment? It is neither fair nor proportionate. Humans get food and medical treatment in jails; does that mean that prisoners are happy or that confinement is not punitive? Freedom for all living things.

This argument assumes that a) The harm suffered by these animals is tremendous and that b) the only value gained from zoos is human entertainment. a) Zoo keeping is a trained profession. Animals in the zoo have the regular access to good food and they have vets on standby should they fall ill. This is a far more luxurious lifestyle than they would have in the jungle. b) As stated above, zoos animals have many benefits that wild animals are deprived of. From human understanding to biological study. To see zoos as pure entertainment is myopic.

Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer. They are inevitably confined in unnaturally small spaces, and are kept from the public by cages and bars. They suffer psychological distress, often displayed by abnormal or self-destructive behaviour. Aquatic animals do not have enough water, birds are prevented from flying away by having their wings clipped and being kept in aviaries.

There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should be shut down.

Adults and children visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for our own ends, however it impinges on their freedom or quality of life; thus zoos will encourage poor treatment of animals more generally. People do not go to zoos for educational reasons they simply go to be entertained and diverted by weird and wonderful creatures seen as objects of beauty or entertainment. As a form of education the zoo is deficient: the only way to understand an animal properly is to see it in its natural environment – the zoo gives a totally artificial and misleading view of the animal by isolating it from its ecosystem.

Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment – they are places of education. Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education – the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation. Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a direct experience of other species that will increase ecological awareness.

There are two problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species. First, they do not have a very high success rate – many species are going extinct each week despite the good intentions of some zoos. This is partly because a very small captive community of a species is more prone to inter-breeding and birth defects. Secondly, captive breeding to try to stave off extinction need not take place in the context of a zoo, where the public come to look at captive animals and (often) see them perform tricks. Captive breeding programmes should be undertaken in large nature reserves, not within the confines of a zoo.

One of the main functions of zoos is to breed endangered animals in captivity. If natural or human factors have made a species’ own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention. There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them. And as long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo. There is also, of course, a valid role for breeding in different environments such as large nature reserves.

As above, research into animals (when it respects their rights and is not cruel or harmful) may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context of confinement and human entertainment. Also, the only way really to understand other species is to study them in their natural habitat and see how they interact socially and with other species of flora and fauna.

As above we should take a ‘both-and’ approach rather than an ‘either-or’ approach. Animals can and should be studied in the wild but they can be studied more closely, more rigorously, and over a more sustained period of time in captivity. Both sorts of study are valuable and, as in point 4, there is no reason why this should not be done in the context of a cruelty-free zoo as well as in other contexts.

Animals are not made for captivity. They long to roam in the long grass of Africa, they long to chase other animals, and they long to play in large groups. No matter how we may try to replicate their surrounding in a zoo, we will never achieve the full result. Therefore, these animals will never be as happy as they would be in the wild. We are fighting with animals natural desires to be wild, and this is a battle that humans cannot win without destroying animals at the core. Predators need to hunt and taking from them their ability to do so; by taming/caging/drugging them is beyond cruel. Excessive human involvement(both hunters/poachers that sell animals to zoos/safaris and those who kill them for their skin/tusks/etc) in the food cycle; has disrupted it considerably(extinction and endangerment of species). Let nature take its course.

How can we measure animal happiness? Would humans be better off in the wild? There are poachers/hunters/animal-predators/other-animals-fighting-for-limiting-resources in the wild at least with animal captivity comes animal security, food is always on the table and there’s free medical. Would ‘we’ prefer the wild? The truth is that these claims are based around the logically-skewed ideas of neo-classical animal rights groups. But their arguments have little or no factual basis/merit. We cannot measure animal happiness. We cannot really say that they would be best left in the wild. All we can do is review at the information at hand. Domesticated animals; treated well, would you say they were unhappy? Well then how can we argue that taking animals out of the wild is wrong? We cannot. So rather than banning zoos, we should ensure that relevant safety measures are in place to ensure that these animals are as well looked after as possible. Species have come and gone from time immemorial( Dinosaurs are extinct without our interference); Human beings are part of the animal kingdom thus food cycle and our involvement is part of nature.

I think that people shouldn’t keep animals in zoos. This is because how would you enjoy it if all you do is sit around, maybe walk for a bit before going to sleep in your cage. Wouldn’t the animals also want to roam around, learn how to hunt for food and then become the strong selves their parents that lived in the wild once were.

the zoo is animal prison. how would you like it if you were put in a cage somewhere with the wrong climate and no other of your kind for enjoyment of others. it protects you from extinction, but you can have that in a preserved park roaming around with others like you. zoos are cruel

Animals should have the same rights as humans and it’s not fair for them because they are living things also and they deserve better than the life in the zoo that the animals are treated wrong by giving them weird food or making them learn how to do a backflip and that is wrong. Imagine you are in your house and a monkey comes and takes you and put you in a box, they dress you up give you food that you may not like, then after they make you train by hitting you and forcing you to do horrible things after that stressful day of working you go back to this small uncomfortable box and they give you the same thing to eat again, the next day you wake up in this horrible box and they take you out of the box by hitting you and you go out to this bright were lots of animals are watching at you they all look impressive and they hit you for you to make the trick the animals clap and you are carried to the box again that is your life for the rest of the time you have. just imagine you all red by the marks of the hits you have gotten and I would like you to rethink before hitting an animal what if it’s you. This is a real problem and actually, people enjoy watching animals do fun stuff and I don’t blame you it’s fun watching a monkey juggle but have you ever thought what happens backstage how much did the monkey suffered to hold a ball in his hand did they give him proper care? That’s what I want to talk to you about today I want for you to see that we humans have no right to captive animals for the use of “entertain us” it’s okay to help animals and take care of them in the wild but using animals is wrong. Animals should have the same rights

i think zoo are the perfect thing we need. Zoos are not anything like a prison in fact it is the apposite. It helps injured animals. What if we don’t have zoos how will later generations be able to learn about animals. It’s not like you can walk in your backyard and see a lion. Animals get enough food they never have to worry about their predators.

Yeah I agree with the fact that zoos are a prison for animals but it keeps them from being extinct from the wild if animals are left behind in the wild it can leave them to extinction which is very bad so it is good that most zoos can look after the animals properly and at least the zoos can let kids and adults observe the animals up close without getting harmed to know its behaviour. It is at least one way to preserve endangoured species, due global warming, humans invading their territory to build new cities or expanding farm land, also killing them for their own profitable pleasure, like hunting, to keep the animal as a trophy.

if you want them to not go extinct 1. do not kill them 2. put them in a preserved park where they can roam free!

Should Animals be Kept in Zoos? Animals should not be kept in zoos! Zoo life in prevents the animals ability to think for itself. In zoos humans are feeding them at the same time every day. Humans use zoos for entertainment and money. Animals need to think for themselves. Animals that do not think for themselves are useless animals that dont know how to hunt. Animals lose their instinct by sitting around with human things and eating foods that are specially made for the certain type of animal. Animals need their instinct to help them hunt and to be careful of their surroundings. Animals are supposed to hunt for their food not beg like domesticated animals. People need to let the animals hunt their own food. People would put bunnies and watch them be eaten and it would be done for entertainment. Animals need to learn independence and hunt for themselves not beg like animals. If animals were in the wild, they would hunt for themselves and not be under stress.

Zoos are basically the same things as prisons. And once the animals are inside their cage, what do they do then? Walk in circles? Explore their new habitat? Would they do the same thing for the rest of their lives. I’m no zoo animal but I know damn well that id rather live in the woods than being locked in a cage

that’s true in some cases but there not in much danger as they were in the wild!

but they have instinct for that. if they die that is the circle of life, but i am sure the animals would want to be free and at risk (which is what they are born to do) then locked up and safe.

No! They belong in the wild and they deserve to have a home in the wid because they are just wild animals.

Zoo’s should be banned from taking animals from their habitat in the wild just for entertainment. Even though zoo’s may be educational to kids and adults, many animals in the zoos are tortured and not feel at home. Elephants will sway their trunks back and forth while in their home at the zoo. When elephants sway, it means they’re bored. All animals should be kept in their original habitat with their pack and their mother. Animals in the zoo are closed in a small space, there’s no room to run around and have fun. Zoo’s should be taken away, only if they’re violating rules for PETA.

Animals should NOT be kept in zoo’s. Although, zoo’s say that they show children the type of environment that the specific animals live in they are wrong. Animals used in the zoo have lack of space, privacy, physical exercise, and mental stimulation. Water tanks that they keep the marine animals in are not at all the same as open waters. Animals that are in the zoo do NOT have he same atmosphere of those that still live in the wild nor do they have the same mind set.

i completely agree

me to. we should not cage them for our selfish entertainment at the expense of their freedom.

We should not have animals in the zoos because they deserve a better life in the wild and having a good life also.

Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Cover Letter

Works cited.

This essay explores the dilemma of keeping animals in zoos. In this essence, the legitimacy of restricting the animals is investigated.

Moreover, the essay seeks to establish harmony between advocacy for abolition of zoos and the need to preserve some species of animals. In addition, there is the necessity to control the interaction between animals and human beings.

I have observed that there is no solution to such dilemmas. Any observer has to establish a middle ground and maintain balance between the arguments. This is because it is not possible to take a radical action on the issue at hand.

I had an experience of arguing over the issue, which has two equal sides while writing the paper. I was able to examine both sides of the argument and analyze the arguments.

While it seemed appropriate to me that people should keep animals in the zoos prior to this assignment, my perception changed after analyzing both sides of the argument. I had to take a middle ground and analyze the perceptions as a neutral observer.

When writing the arguments in the paper, it became difficult to make an objective analysis of the arguments due to the influence of personal opinion. It is difficult to establish a middle ground that does not favor either side.

The topic of the essay generates significant interest in me because most people assume that animals have their specific places in the ecosystem, which are subject to manipulation by human beings at will.

On the other hand, liberal people advocate that fair competition can exist between animals and people naturally. This article proves that neither case is entirely true.

Throughout the history of humanity, interaction with animals has been inevitable. Superiority of human beings has made them highly competitive. Other living things have to adapt to new environments or leave their natural habitat to create space for human beings and their activities.

The human population is evenly distributed around the world. On the other hand, animal population is partially distributed, with different species occupying different parts of the world. Since animals have always fascinated people, there has always been the urge to observe animals and their behavior.

In addition, all living organisms on earth survive through competition for resources with each other (McKinley & Shepard 65). This has led to endangerment of some species of animals. Generally, animals are considered important to human beings, regardless of the material value of each species.

Gradually, it has become important to protect animal species that are facing the danger of extinction, either due to encroachment of their immediate space in the ecosystem, or due to competition with other organisms whose lives depend on common resources.

For this reason, zoos have been built, and animals are kept inside for the sole purpose of preservation of animal life or for entertainment (Norton 42). It is true that the zoos protect a small number of animals from the competition that exists in their natural habitat.

In this way, they protect the species from extinction, and satisfy human being’s curiosity as people go for sightseeing at zoos as a recreational activity (Norton 21).

Most zoos keep wild animals, and majority of the animal population at the zoos is made up of animals that are rarely seen by human beings in their immediate environment. These animals are used to roaming in the jungle and forests.

Others are used to swimming freely in the seas and rivers. However, due to limited space, zoos keep the animals in a much smaller and controlled environment. Obviously, there is restriction of freedom for the animals in order to contain them in the zoo.

For most of their lives, the animals in the zoo do not lead a normal life like other wild animals. They are protected from the competition in the ecosystem due to their perceived importance to human beings. However, this is a serious impediment to their freedom too.

Animals are not allowed to roam freely during the day or night, as they would have done in a free environment. On the other hand, the rigors of competing with other wild animals are eliminated from their lives.

Moreover, the animals receive special treatment as they are provided with veterinary care, a service that other animals in the jungle and sea do not normally get (Robinson 53).

It is arguable that the setting of a zoo is analogous to a prison were felons are incarcerated to protect the society from their potentially harmful tendencies.

One might easily conclude that the animals in the zoo are in some kind of psychological distress due to disruption of their normal course of life and their detainment.

This view assumes that animals, like human beings, have the ability to discern the importance of freedom. Furthermore, the notion argues that animals have thoughts and feelings just like human beings.

It is difficult to establish these arguments as facts due to the limited emotional interaction between animals in the zoo and their keepers.

Thus, the idea that animals perceive physical freedom in a similar way as human beings is subject to debate (Mullan & Marvin 75).

Zoos are not primarily intended to curtail the freedom of an animal, but are designed to protect the animal from harsh environment. Normally, there are efforts to create an environment similar to the particular animal’s habitat in the zoo.

It is also difficult to assess whether the artificial environment created by zookeepers is identical to the natural habitat suitable for the animals.

This observation means that it is not entirely true that the zoos are aimed at curtailing the freedom of the animals (Brooman & Legge 85). Consequently, the animals may be better off at the zoo.

Moreover, it is not true that zoos completely change the normal course of life for the animals within it since there is an effort to simulate their natural habitat.

Some people are of the opinion that animals are inferior to human beings. This suggests that zoos are meant to restrict the animals within the zoo environment to protect human beings’ interest.

Some animals are dangerous to human life, while others compete against human being for resources. This is an obvious observation that has been under scientific study.

On the other hand, animals could be perceived to be equal to human beings. This means that the animals can compete for resources fairly against human beings.

Some people use this perspective to argue against establishment of zoos, which in their perspective, are the making of an unfair competition between animals and human beings.

The highlighted perceptions and observations present the dilemma of the existence of zoos. In a critical analysis of all radical perceptions, no single argument is proved entirely appropriate for the issue of zoos.

If zoos were to be eliminated as a way of protecting and preserving animal life, there would be dire consequences for humans and the animals themselves (Acampora 45).

It is an obvious observation that some animals would become extinct due to predation and competition from other animals in the natural habitat. People could also be affected by the interactions and conflicts between the animals and human beings.

While some animals would pose direct danger to human beings, others would affect the creations of human beings such as organized agriculture. It is thus obvious that a conflict will result from the freedom of animals.

However, this presents another question for argument since there is fairness in sharing of natural resources by living organisms in such a situation.

Although a relatively small number of animals are kept in the zoo, majority of animals are free and live in the wilderness. This brings up the issue of the scale of restriction of animals within zoos.

Keeping all animals in the zoo and eliminating them from their natural environment is an extreme action. This kind of an action would present a situation of extreme interference with nature. It is only logical that a balance between freedom of animals and existence of zoos has to be established.

Animals could be kept in an open environment that is similar to their natural habitat as much as possible. This would eliminated the problem of having animals in a zoo were cages similar to prison cells are used to contain the animals.

On the issue of competition, it would be unfair to let animals live free and compete against human beings in the natural environment. People would eliminate animals from the ecosystem due to their superiority in terms of logical reasoning.

This makes it necessary to provide some kind of protection for the animals. In this essence, zoos can neither be justified nor completely denounced.

Acampora, Ralph R.. Metamorphoses of the zoo: animal encounter after Noah . Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2010. Print.

Brooman, Simon, and Debbie Legge. Law relating to animals . London: Cavendish, 1997. Print.

Mullan, Bob, and Garry Marvin. Zoo culture . 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Print.

Norton, Bryan G.. Ethics on the ark: zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation . Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995. Print.

Robinson, Phillip T.. Life at the zoo: behind the scenes with the animal doctors . New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Print.

Shepard, Paul, and Daniel McKinley. The subversive science; essays toward an ecology of man, . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969. Print.

• Hazard Adjustments in Alaska
• Sustainable Development of Toronto
• The Effectiveness of Sustainable Practices, Plans, Programs and Initiatives Implemented by Australian Zoo
• The Analysis of Siamangs’ Behavior in a Zoo Setting
• Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages
• Structural and Non-Structural Mitigation
• Prospect Reservoir and Surrounding Areas: An Australian National Heritage Site
• South Wales Region: Energy and Economy
• History of the Great Chicago Fire
• The Environmental Sustainability Concept in the Hospitality Industry
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 8). Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/

"Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" IvyPanda , 8 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos'. 8 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" April 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" April 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" April 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Should Animals Be Kept In Zoos (Argumentative Essay)

Should animals be kept in zoos.

The debate of whether or not confining of animals is right in zoos is a popular one that attracts both opponents and proponents. The increased interests in science and natural history saw the introduction of zoos in 1763, which facilitated up close animal studies and would provide a chance for entertaining and educating the public. Nevertheless, confining the animals into small spaces in unnatural habitats, the constant staring from people and loss of their freedom makes zoos the worst homes for animals.

Zoos provide unnatural habitats for the animals. Animals are naturally born and bred to live and die in wilderness habitats. However, despite the numerous efforts and good intentions by zoo management, it is impossible to provide the perfect environment for various animals. For instance, animals like the wilder beasts live in groups that migrate over long distances while elephants on average walk for over 50 km a day in packs. However, zoos can only provide minimal acres of land for the animals to walk about thereby making the environments unnatural and uncomfortable for the animals.

Zoos are a premise of captivity for animals that makes them crazy. Imprisoning of animals in small cages housed in poorly managed zoos that fail to meet the necessary standards, averts them from behaving naturally. As a result, suffer from zoochosis condition, which elicits stress, strange behavior of hurting themselves due to frustration and boredom; they become inactive and increasingly pace around. Moreover, the animals adopt aggressive behavior that results in them lashing out and injuring or killing people.

Zoos are not educational. Zoos operate on the premise that they provide an opportunity for the public to learn about animals. However, this is untrue, as keeping animals in confined and unnatural environments tend to alter their natural behavior, character, and responses. Thus, persons visiting the zoos observe the altered behavior marred by boredom, stress, and loneliness. Moreover, keeping animals in zoos teach people that it is okay to lock up and make animals miserable for their personal gain. Therefore, by gaining pleasure and entertainment from making animals suffer is a horrible lesson to learn.

Proponents of keeping animals in zoos argue that zoos offer the best forms of protection for animals. According to them, animals receive protection from poaching and predators that are out to kill them. Additionally, by engaging in breeding programs, zoos believe they protect various species from becoming extinct, therefore, making them positive institutions to exist. However, this is untrue as some zoos keep the animals in deplorable environments whey they lack food and adequate medical care. Moreover, based on research, endangered animals living in zoos are only about five species and only a few species undergo breeding.

Proponents also believe that zoos provide the opportunity for people to see a wide array of animals while benefiting children with lessons about the environment and animals. Nevertheless, this is not the case as zoos only house few species of animals as compared to those an individual can observe in the wild. Also, zoos expose animals to neglect and stress that alter their behavior hence impeding true learning for children.

In conclusion, animals just as humans enjoy rights to freedom, protection from abuse, stress, neglect and lack of privacy. There is no denying that zoo violates all these rights by introducing them to unnatural habitats and caging the animals. Hence, in promoting health and happiness of the animals, animals should not be kept in zoos.

Our academic writers are animal lovers, so you can trust them and buy essay papers about animals in our essay writing service.

Should Zoos be Banned? Pros & Cons of Zoos – UPDATED 2024

Published by michael anderson on may 3, 2024 may 3, 2024.

Should zoos be banned? Are zoos bad or good?

This question is heavily debated and there is no definite answer for it.  Shutting down all zoos goes against saving animals. But, stopping them from keeping certain animals or doing certain types of research isn’t wrong. It really boils down to how zoos use the money and what they teach people who come and donate.

Nevertheless, we are going to look at the pros and cons of zoos and explore whether or not zoos should be banned .

So let’s dive right in!

The Pros & Cons of Zoos

Let’s first discover the pros and cons of zoos , evaluating both their positive and negative impact!

Let’s first take a look at the arguments for zoos.

What are the Pros of Zoos?

1. zoos are protecting endangered species.

When ecological conservation emerged as a matter of public interest in the 1970s , zoos all over the world have embraced the mission of   saving endangered species   in the world. Zoos are not like the cruel animal menageries from the middle ages. 

They want to provide entertainment, but they are greatly concerned with the protection and conservation of animals and their natural habitats. Environmental protection is one of the biggest reasons why zoos should not be banned.

Zoos provide a protected environment for endangered animals, and also help in raising awareness and funding for wildlife initiatives and research projects. Therefore, zoos educate the public about animals and are contributing their part to the conservation of many endangered species . 

In fact, should zoos be banned, many species would have gone extinct already. A good example are narwahls .

2. Zoos are educating the public about animals

Environmental education   is definitely among the pros of zoos. Many children and adults in cities can only see wild animals in TV or the internet. Zoos offer them the unique experience of contemplating real animals. They can smell them, see how they move and listen their sounds in real life. 

Visiting a zoo is a much more vivid and enriching experience than the one you can get through a screen. Thanks to zoos, kids and adults develop empathy towards animals . In addition, people don’t need to travel to exotic places to see the animals, which is beneficial to the environment. 

Ultimately, zoos provide an affordable opportunity to see (exotic) animals , giving everyone an equal chance to experience wildlife first-hand and learn about nature. 

No matter what a person’s socioeconomic status may be, there is a chance to learn something new because of the work of a zoo. By educating about animals, z oos are also raising awareness about our environmental problems like climate change and illustrate how these impact ecosystems worldwide.

Should zoos be banned, an important educational resource would dissapear, which might lead to less future knowledge about animals and nature.

3. Zoos help in fighting animal extinction

Given that the mass destruction of wildlife habitats across the globe continues unabated and species such as elephants, big cats, birds, primates, rhinos, reptiles, and many others are at real risk of extinction, larger zoos have now stepped in with the hopes of stopping or at least  slowing the decline of these endangered species .

Zoos study  animal breeding  and thanks to them many wild animals in captivity can reproduce. Should zoos be banned, we would certainly loose some species. This is particularly important in the case of endangered species. Due to the low density of the population of some animals in their natural ecosystems they struggle to find partners. 

Some populations in the wild are weakened by endogamy too. In zoos vets and biologist help to prevent inbreeding. Fighting extinction is surely among the pros of zoos!

One of the most powerful images in the world. The Northern white rhinoceros would've already been extinct if it wasn't for zoo conservation. With only 2 females left in the world, conservation efforts have never been more needed. Hope n pray we save this species from extinction. pic.twitter.com/mVCXucZnbP — Francois Boonzaaier (@Fransuchus) May 4, 2024

4. Zoos are conducting valuable research

Zoos are key for   research . Being able to observe and study animals is crucial if we want to contribute to help them and repair the ecosystems. They also help in reducing human-animal conflicts and in better understanding the needs and psychology of animals. 

Zoos serve as laboratories to learn more about how to fight animal diseases and develop effective animal anaesthetics and other treatments to help more animals in the future.

Between 1993 and 2013, 228 accredited zoos published 5,175 peer-reviewed manuscripts. In 2017, 173 accredited US zoos spent $25 million on research, studied 485 species and subspecies of animals, worked on 1,280 research projects, and published 170 research manuscripts.

Because so many diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans, such as COVID-19, ebola, hantavirus, and the bird flu, zoos frequently conduct disease surveillance research in wildlife populations and their own captive populations that can lead to a direct impact on human health.

Should zoos be banned, we might not be able to conduct such research anymore, negatively influencing our ability to find cures to diseases and tackle issues like climate change .

5. Zoos provide income for many communities

Finally, the pros of zoos include their economic importance. Zoos play an important economic role , especially in the less developed areas of the world, where they are an important income source for many communities. Zoos do more than just providing a place for animals to reside. 

They are a place that provides jobs, creates tourism opportunities, and can even be an economic nexus for a community . 

Should zoos be banned, we would need to find other economic resources for these communities. As of 2022, there are  27,267 people  employed in the Zoos & Aquariums industry in the US only. Just imagine how many jobs they provide worldwide, especially in less developed countries.

Nowthat we know the arguments for zoos, let’s take a look at the arguments against zoos.

What are the Cons of Zoos?

Unfortunately, the world of zoos is not as bright as you might think after reading the previous positive points above. Let’s take a closer look at the arguments why zoos should be banned!

1. Zoos entertain humans at the expense of animals

Environmental activists  insist that zoos should be banned, despite their noble intentions. They argue that zoos are inherently immoral and primarily serve to entertain humans at the expense of animals. In fact, zoos exploit animals for the sake of profit generation .

Furthermore, zoos don’t educate the public enough to justify keeping animals captive. In fact, even a study widely cited to justify the argument that zoos educate the public stated that “there was no overall change in understanding of ecological concepts seen” because visitors know a lot about ecology before going to the zoo.

On top of that, there have been cases where zoos killed baby animals, for the sake of controlling the animal population of the zoo. For example, in 2014 the Copenhagen Zoo killed a young giraffe and four lions   on the grounds of genetic purity and breeding.

We should ask ourselves whether the entertainment provided by zoos (especially by animals shows and similar activities) does really justify the price that the animals pay for.

Here are the worst zoos in America .

2. Holding animals in captivity has questionable ethics

Haven’t we learned from our shameful history with “human zoos”? 100 years ago, people accepted that other humans are exhibited in “human zoos”, which everyone would protest against nowadays. 

Who knows how humanity will look back and judge our present animal zoos in 100 years… If we look back at the dark history of zoological institutions, zoos should be banned!

There is no doubt that zoos are questionable from an ethical point of view . Zoos are a typical form of family entertainment, but associating leisure and fun with the contemplation of animals in captivity can send the wrong signals to our children. Zoos can be construed as a  sadistic pleasure . There may be educational value in a zoo, but keeping animals in captivity offers an ethical dilemma . 

Some animals, like the average house cat, will thrive in a captive environment.  Others, like orcas, do very poorly when living in captivity. An orca in the wild may live up to 100 years in the wild, but the average age at a captive orca is less than 30 years – and it’s 17 years for a male orca. For many, this is a strong argument to ban zoos.

3. Zoos can be detrimental to the animals' physical health

Depending on the conditions at-hand, zoos can be detrimental to the animals’ physical health. There are still many animal welfare issues recorded everyday, and animals often have to live in poor conditions , especially in less-developed, poorer countries. And all of that even though zoos are legally required to follow the Animal Welfare Act .

In addition, most animals that are exhibited in zoos are wild exotic animals (such as tigers and lions) who naturally need lots of space and even change their habitat over time. Due to the limited space in zoos, these animals cannot move as they naturally would, which inevitably leads them to develop health issues.

Furthermore, animal cruelty in zoos   continues to be extremely common. There are continuous cases of animals   abused by visitors   and zoo workers. Many of them are reported every week in the media, however, the large majority are kept secret and those responsible are never held accountable or punished. In fact, many zoos are greenwashing themselves, by saying they have high animal welfare standards although they haven’t.

4. Zoos can be detrimental to the animals' mental health

It is proven that zoo confinement is psychologically damaging to animals . Another reason why zoos should be banned. 

As illustrated in Zooicide , animals in captivity are deprived of many things that are important to them, as a result they become lonely and bored. Many of them suffer from  “ zoochosis “ , a psychological condition characterized by repetitive and obsessive behaviors including vomiting, excessive grooming, coprophagia and self-mutilation.

Animal behaviorists see zoo animals suffering from problems not seen in the wild, such as clinical depression in clouded leopards and gibbons, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in brown bears, and anxiety in giraffes. 

The animals experience these issues due to smaller enclosures, changes in diet and activities, and the introduction of things not seen in the wild, such as medical exams and people with cameras.

Even keeping domicile animals such as alpacas and llamas in a restricted or caged environment can cause huge distress to them. In fact, alpacas and llamas tend to spit more in zoos , as they are irritated more frequently there compared to when they are left alone in nature.

The only creature on earth whose natural habitat is a zoo is the zookeeper.

ROBERT BRAULT

5. lack of regulation & control in many zoos.

Another issue with zoos is that there is only insufficient regulation of zoos in many countries. In fact, many zoos are free to treat their animals however they want. In some countries, animals are even considered as property instead of living organisms that need proper regulatory protection. Another reason why zoos should be banned!

Especially in countries with lax   regulations   related to zoos, animals will be treated poorly and in those countries, governments should introduce stricter regulations in order to protect these animals. Even if there is some form of regulation in place, most countries’ abilitiy to control zoos for animal welfare is very limited, meaning that zoos can basically treat animals however they want.

Putting aside these opposing views, it does remain a sad reality that the  welfare of zoo animals varies widely depending on where you are . While many zoos have been working hard to improve their animal enclosures to better fit the needs of captive animals, constraints such as limited space and funds can seriously hinder this process. 

Smaller, poorer zoos simply do not have the luxury of hiring well-trained zoological staff or expanding their breeding programs and facilities to maintain the ethos of conservation. A ban of these smaller, less well-funded zoos could be seen as a reasonable strategy for reducing harm to wildlife.

• @kerstinbrueller ZOOS & AQUARIUMS ARE ANIMAL PRISONS ✽ One of the most normalized forms of public animal cruelty, where people pay to meet victims eye-to-eye, happens in zoos and aquariums. Zoos and aquariums claim to be dedicated to conserving and protecting endangered pic.twitter.com/ffWf5EUBCC — Rob Cardella (@RobertoCardel18) November 8, 2023

After all, something we must consider too when talking about the pros and cons of zoos is their not-so-glamorous history!

A Brief History of Zoos

Until the early 19th century, the only purpose of zoos was to demonstrate the power of royalty and indulge their extravagant tastes. Up until this time, people paid no attention to science or animal conservation . Zoos were just used to symbolize the superiority of humans over animals .

Evidence of the existence of zoos and menageries can be traced all the way back to ancient Egypt, circa 3500 BC. Many Roman emperors kept private zoo collections. Sometimes these captive animals were used for study, but most of the time they were simply used for entertainment in the arena, which invariably ended in a cruel death.

At some point during  the history of zoos , humans even tried to emphasize the supposed inferiority of other human cultures, and implied the superiority of Western society, through so-called “human zoos” . There have been plenty of “human zoos” in many European countries, which tried to symbolize the superiority of the Western culture over the culture of their former colonies, by visualizing how primitive black people behaved. 

In fact, “human zoos” are one of Europe’s most shameful secrets. When trying to find an answer to the question: “Should zoos be banned?”, there’s no way around reminding ourselves with our history.

This claim is being brought forward by PETA. However, the animal rights organization experienced a surge in hate after communicating their negative stance against zoos . So it seems that the public opinion is still positive about zoos.

The modern zoo that we know today emerged in the 19th century in the United Kingdom. It was only then that the transition was made from royal menageries designed to entertain the elite to public zoological gardens aiming to educate the wider population . 

Growing urbanization and industrialization led to heightened demand for new forms of public entertainment. This need for entertainment, as well as the requirements of scholarly research , came together in the founding of the first modern zoos. During that time nobody even thought about the question of should zoos be banned.

According to the   Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) by 2020, the USA boasts 230 accredited zoos and aquariums , accommodating nearly 800,000 animals and 6,000 species with around 1,000 of these species being on the endangered species   list. These zoos provide 200,000 jobs with an annual budget of $230 million set aside for wildlife conservation . They attract more than 200 million visitors per year, with special educational programs designed specifically for school groups.

Over the past 30 years, many established zoos have endeavored to improve the level of care for animals and rehabilitate the public perception of zoos . However, despite many good intentions and considerable financial effort, the concept of zoos is nonetheless fraught with many serious problems. 

So much so that calls to ban zoos are still loud and persistent from many activist groups even now…

But what’s the verdict now? Should zoos be banned or not? Are zoos good or bad?

Should Zoos be Banned? (Conclusion)

A zoo can be an integral part of our community and world with the right approach . There are several pros and cons of zoos, and there is no definite answer to whether zoos are supporting a positive human environment interaction or not. Each point deserves consideration. If wanted, zoos can be more than entertainment and provide a positive value to both, humans and animals. 

The pros and cons of zoos often come from two very different points of view. From a legal standard, animals are often treated as property . That means they have less rights than humans, so a zoo seems like a positive place to maintain a high quality of life. For others, the forced enclosure of any animal feels like an unethical decision.

Wild animals, as it is said, are meant to be wild!

In order to avoid the negative side of zoos, you could try out alternatives to zoos .

But in any case, here are the best zoological institutions in California which are treating their animals at least as good as they can:

• Best Zoos in California
• Best Aquariums in California

Are zoos ethical? What about aquariums?

The ethics of zoos and aquariums are a subject of debate. While some argue that they play a crucial role in education, conservation, and research, others believe that keeping animals in captivity is inherently unethical and compromises their welfare and natural behaviors.

What are the pros and cons of zoos?

The pros of zoos include their contribution to endangered species conservation, public education about wildlife, research opportunities, and economic benefits for communities.

However, the cons involve concerns about animal welfare, ethical considerations, potential negative effects on animals’ physical and psychological health, and the lack of regulation in some cases.

Are zoos good or bad?

The question of whether zoos are good or bad is subjective and depends on one’s perspective. Some people see the positive aspects of zoos, such as their educational and conservation efforts, while others emphasize the negative impact on animal welfare and argue for their abolition.

Are zoos morally wrong?

The morality of zoos is a matter of personal opinion and ethical beliefs. Some individuals consider zoos morally wrong due to the captivity and potential harm inflicted on animals, while others see them as a necessary means to protect species and educate the public.

Are zoos bad or good?

The question of whether zoos are bad or good depends on your ethical stance. Whereas zoos are good for wildlife conservation, education, and research, they sometimes involve negative impacts on animal welfare and ethical concerns about keeping animals in captivity.

Are zoos safe for animals?

The safety of animals in zoos can vary widely depending on the specific zoo and its practices. While many accredited zoos prioritize animal welfare and provide appropriate care, there have been instances of poor conditions and mistreatment. The overall safety of animals in zoos depends on the commitment to high standards of care, sufficient enclosure sizes, and proper veterinary attention.

Are zoos for profit?

Zoos are typically not for profit. Though, they need to generate revenue and contribute to the local economy through visitor fees, donations, and tourism. However, the pursuit of profit should not compromise the welfare of animals. Ethical and responsible zoos prioritize animal care and conservation over profit-making, ensuring that financial resources are allocated appropriately for the well-being of the animals and their conservation efforts.

Why should zoos be banned?

There are many reasons why zoos should be banned. As outlined by PETA , Zoos should be banned due to ethical concerns about animal welfare. Keeping animals in captivity leads to physical and psychological harm. Zoos fail to replicate natural habitats, negatively impacting the well-being of the animals. Zoos provide entertainment, not education! And this entertainment comes at the cost of animal welfare.

Why should zoos not be banned?

Zoos should not be banned because they play a vital role in wildlife conservation, offering sanctuary for endangered species. They are important for educational purposes, providing firsthand wildlife experiences that foster public awareness and interest in conservation. Zoos also contribute to scientific research on animal behavior and biology, aiding in broader conservation efforts. Additionally, they support global biodiversity through breeding programs for rare and endangered species.

What are alternatives to zoos?

You can learn about animals without visiting or supporting zoos.

Here is a list of ethical alternatives to zoos:

• Wildlife sanctuaries : They provide a natural and ethical habitat for animals, focusing on rescue and rehabilitation, thus ensuring animal welfare and mimicking their natural living conditions more closely than zoos.
• Conservation parks : These large, protected areas conserve wildlife in their native ecosystems, promoting ethical animal treatment and natural biodiversity without the constraints of captivity. 
• Virtual zoos : Utilizing technology, they offer an ethical and educational way to learn about animals through interactive and immersive experiences, without any impact on the animals’ natural living conditions.
• National Parks : These are protected areas that preserve natural environments and wildlife in their native habitats. They offer an ethical alternative by allowing animals to live freely and undisturbed, promoting biodiversity and ecological balance without the need for captivity.
• Public Parks : While primarily designed for human recreation, public parks can also serve as urban sanctuaries for local wildlife. They provide a small-scale, ethical alternative for experiencing nature and wildlife in a more controlled environment, contributing to urban biodiversity and environmental education.
• Wildlife documentaries : They educate and raise awareness about animals and their habitats ethically, using filming techniques that minimize human interference with wildlife.

Michael Anderson

Michael is a dedicated veterinarian and the owner of a thriving animal hospital. With a passion for animal welfare, he sees himself as an ambassador for animals, advocating for their health and well-being. Michael regularly publishes expert articles on a variety of animal health topics, sharing his extensive knowledge and experience with a broader audience. His writings are a valuable resource for pet owners and animal lovers, offering insights into best practices for animal care. Through his work at the hospital and his contributions to the field of veterinary science, Michael is committed to enhancing the lives of animals and promoting compassionate care.

13 Comments

Romy · February 8, 2024 at 8:23 am

Thank you so much for providing this article. It’s super helpful to make up a realistic and argument-based opinion about the ethics of zoos and whether zoos should exist or not. Something I personally wasn’t aware about is the fact that zoo animals can get or are) depressed when held in captivity. Will definitely check the living conditions of the animals before visiting any zoo from now on.

EcoCation · February 8, 2024 at 8:30 am

Thanks a lot for your nice comment! We are glad that this article was helpful and that it made its impact on you. That’s our goal at EcoCation: Providing information that help to make the world a better place.

Olivia · April 13, 2024 at 6:46 pm

I’ve always been strongly against zoos because of animal cruelty reasons. There is a lot of animal abuse going on behind the scenes.Thank you for writing this piece; it’s great to know that others share a passion for these issues too. Very helpful and informative.

EcoCation · April 13, 2024 at 6:52 pm

That’s great to hear!

Jack · May 4, 2024 at 6:50 pm

I’ve worked in a zoo (don’t want to share the name for legal reasons) for over 5 years and have experienced all things mentioned in this article (positive and negative). People think zoos are a good place for animals to live at. But that’s not the case. Once the visitors are gone, ethics are gone too. It all comes down to the money. Those that provide the financial support for the zoo are free to decide how the zoo is managed, even if that means hitting/abusing wild animals… It’s a sad world we live in…

EcoCation · May 4, 2024 at 6:53 pm

Thanks for sharing your personal experiences as someone who has worked in a zoo.

Jake · May 11, 2024 at 8:05 am

Thank you so much for creating this piece of value! I read the entire article and I have to say that it has changed my opinion about zoos quite considerably. Also, your other articles about this topic are super good: easy to follow, but still filled with expertise. Whereas zoos maybe shouldn’t be banned altogether, policy enforcement needs to change to put more pressure on zoos to treat their animals properly, all around the globe.

EcoCation · May 11, 2024 at 8:08 am

Thanks for your nice feedback. It is great to hear that all the effort we are putting into creating articles like this one are liked. And indeed, law enforcement must be increased to put more pressure on zoos to treat their animals appropriately.

Sarah · May 18, 2024 at 5:52 am

I have to write an essay about should zoos be banned and you helped me a lot. Thank you!

EcoCation · May 18, 2024 at 5:54 am

Thank you. We are glad to hear that. It’s nice to hear that topics like the ethics of zoos are now being integrated into education.

• Next »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Posts

5 Ways How Zoos Are Saving Endangered Species

Modern zoos have evolved beyond their not so glamorous history and traditional roles of showcasing (sad) animals; they have become critical sanctuaries and breeding grounds for endangered species. Through innovative breeding programs, reintroduction initiatives, cutting-edge Read more…

Top 20 Worst Zoos in America in 2024

Welcome to our comprehensive guide to the 20 Worst Zoos in America. Our team of animal experts, which includes: veterinarians, ethologists, mammalogists, and ornithologists, have personally visited each of these zoos to provide you with Read more…

5 Reasons Why People Hate PETA

Why is PETA hated so much? Are these people right in not supporting PETA? Theoretically, everyone who loves animals should support PETA, a group that opposes animal abuse, but that isn’t the reality. Many people Read more…

8 Reasons that Zoos are Critically Important for Conservation

A couple of weeks ago, there was an accident at Cincinnati zoo . A child fell into an enclosure with a gorilla named Harambe , and to protect the child the gorilla was shot. I’m not going to recount the story, for three reasons:

• Dozens and dozens of articles have poured over the minutia of the events already.
• I very much doubt I have anything new I could add.
• This one event, however tragic, simply doesn’t interest me very much, when there are vastly more important things to write about.

Yet what this events has done, is reignite the debate over the role of zoos (and aquaria). Whilst much of attention that generates is unfortunately negative, it does give folks like me an opportunity to shout about the great and critically important work zoos do for conservation (and how they might get better at it in the future).

Normally, one would hope that zoos themselves would be proudly showcasing their work, but as I discovered last week on Al Jazeera given the barrage of attacks that Cincinnati experienced, many zoos are reluctant to speak up. So with the debate being a little one-sided, here’s some of the reasons zoos are critical to conservation.

The Role of Zoos in Conservation

1. There are 39 animal species currently listed by the IUCN as Extinct in the Wild. These are species that would have vanished totally were it not for captive populations around the world, many of which reside in zoos. For me, this is the single most important role zoos can play. Incidentally, it’s the same for botanic gardens too, but no-one seems to care about those!

2. For species whose survival in the wild looks in doubt, zoos often set up ‘insurance’ populations. These are captive groups of  animals that could in a worst case scenario assist in reintroduction to the wild, should the original population go extinct. The Amur leopard, for example: There are perhaps 35-65 left in the wild, a species teetering right on the brink. But fortunately there is a long running breeding program with over 200 surviving in captivity. The Zoological Society of London , as an example, participates in over 160 of these programmes.

3. Reintroduction. It is often argued that zoos are bad because so few reintroduction actually happen. I would argue that it’s not the zoos at fault, it’s that a reintroduction can’t occur if the reason they went extinct in the first place hasn’t been resolved. Amongst the most well known and successful reintroductions are:

• The Scimitar-Horned Oryx , having become extinct in Africa in the 1980s, zoos around the world maintained a captive population and at last this year, a reintroduction led by the Sahara Conservation Fund has begun .
• The Californian Condor , only 23 existed in the wild in the early 1980s. The last of the wild population was taken into captivity in a last ditched attempt to save the species, with chicks being reared at San Diego zoo . It worked. There are now more than 400 in the wild.
• The Golden Lion Tamarin , perhaps the most famous of all reintroductions. In 2003, the Golden Lion Tamarin was downlisted from Critically Endangered to Endangered after thirty years of tireless conservation efforts involving the Smithsonian National Zoological Park and the Associação Mico-Leao-Dourado in Rio de Janeiro. More than one-third of the wild population are descendants of the reintroduction program which has contributed significantly not only to the numbers of living in the wild, but also to the protection 3,100 ha of forests within their range.

Indeed the very idea of reintroducing species is new, and fraught with difficulties. It’s risky and hard. No-one wants it to go wrong, so give them your support.

4. In 2014, 700 million people visited zoos worldwide. OK, not all zoos are good at engagement. Indeed not all zoos are good full stop. But, surely that number of visits had to create some sort of connection with the natural world that might not have occurred otherwise.

5. Zoos are a living museum. What we learn about wild animals in captivity can help us manage and conserve them in the wild. From animal behaviour, to reproductive rates to dietary requirements.

6. Zoos raise money for conservation efforts. It’s difficult to engage people with conservation efforts taking place half a world away, believe me, I know. But by enabling people to experience wildlife first hand, and using that as a vessel in which to tell a story, we can I hope increase participation in international conservation efforts.

7. Helping respond to emergencies. In the last 20 years, an estimated 168 amphibian species have gone extinct. In addition to habitat loss, chytrid fungus has emerged as a deadly threat to worldwide amphibian populations. Responding to threats such as this, especially in small or medium sized vertebrates is surely one of the greatest uses of zoos around the world. In fact, many zoos have set up specialist amphibian centers and are pioneering treatment and breeding programmes.

8. They remind us that we can succeed. Conservation is full of bad news stories, yet on many occasions I have stood peering through glass at a species that shouldn’t exist. At WWT Barnes on the outskirts of London I have stood on a wet Winter day watching Nene , which was once the world’s rarest goose (now, incidentally, successfully reintroduced). In Antsohihy, Madagascar I have peered through the mesh fence at the world’s only population of Malagasy pochard , a duck thought to be extinct for years and then rediscovered. In the UK I’ve stood while a Bali Myna flew over my head, a bird numbering less than 100 in the wild (but thankfully more than 1000 in captivity). For me at least, zoos remind us that conservation does work, we just need more of it.

So where Do Zoos Go In the Future?

But zoos are not perfect. Should they continue to keep large predators, or intelligent primates? Over the next few decades, probably not. Should large new animals be collected from the wild? No, unless there is a compelling case to develop a captive breeding program. But are zoos changing and developing? Yes! More than ever, good zoos are aware of their evolving role in conservation and responding to it.

Would I rather have a species in captivity, than not at all. One hundred times, yes. What we don’t need is knee-jerk reactions to tragic accidents.

It’s easy to attack zoos

It’s absolutely right that there are bad zoos too , both in the UK and around the world. But I would argue that it’s easy to criticise something with a visible and physical presence. What is much, much harder is taking action to support conservation in the field, to reduce the impact of climate change or tackle pollution.

These things are a lot less tangiable, a lot harder to get to grips with. It’s difficult for one individual to feel that they have made much of a difference, and so often we don’t get the same feeling of satisfaction or achievement. That I think is why so many animal rights groups attack zoos, when instead I would argue that they could achieve a much greater net good by working together and protecting natural habitats.

Zoos are run by people who love animals, but as with any passion project, we might differ in our views on how best to achieve what we want. So I would urge you to support the good ones, improve the bad ones, don’t tar them all with the same brush and remember: The focus should be on protecting natural habitats and that zoos can help achieve that.

Live Debate on Al Jazeera

Yet despite zoos popularity with the public, it seems that finding someone willing to defend and support zoos work on live TV is difficult. In fact the zoos themselves were reluctant to send their own representatives for fear of going head to head with vocal animal rights activists. And so instead, I volunteered to voice my views. Let me know what you think!

Photo: Jeroen Kransen

B ook james for a speaking event:.

James is a highly acclaimed public speaker, delivering keynotes, lectures and debates to a wide range of audiences including students, the public, conservation practioners and scientists. Rather than further polarizing already divisive conservation topics, James aims to explain the complexity and nuance of conservation. What we choose to do over the next five decades, will profoundly influence the diversity of life on eath for the next 5 million years. It’s never been a more important, or more exciting time to be a conservationist.

“Interesting, informative and pitched at exactly the right level for our students.”

“You had the audience hanging off your every word.”

“You gave a splendid talk – cogent, passionate, clear and compelling.”

“It was refreshing to have a speaker who talked with such passion”

• Elementary School
• Reading & Speaking
• External Independent Testing
• Grammar Exercises

Argumentative essay: Are you for or against zoos?

Writing an argumentative essay

Some people think that zoos are out-of-date and cruel institutions that should be closed down. Do you agree? Write an argumentative essay (for/against a statement)

At the moment zoos are very popular. Many people think that animals should be in zoos, although there are some arguments both for and against them.

One of the arguments for zoos is the fact they are educational because they provide visitors with lots of educational programmes. What is more, a zoo can be the only place where rare or disappearing animals could be saved.

As far as I am concerned, I am against zoos.

Firstly, it is cruel to keep animals in uncomfortable cages where they live under bad conditions.

Secondly, animals feel a lack of freedom and physical activity and they live under the lack of healthy food.

Thirdly, zoos break a natural animals lifestyle and change it upside-down. Animals which normally hunt for their food are fed, and most have to live in a climate very different from that of their natural habitat.

Moreover, animals suffer from foredoom and this can result in their aggressive behavior.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that zoos have no place in modern society, but I don’t mind safari parks because they are protecting animals, so they don’t become extinct.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Related posts.

English Lessons

Modern Gadgets

Moving in Search of Another Place

My Dream House

Become Vegetarians

Future Plans

Extended Family Living

Teenagers’ Spare Time

Using Mobile Phones at School

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Internet in Education

I agree with your opinion but zoos can be useful, for example: the number of bisons was restored with the help of few remaining in zoos and and it is also interesting to watch the animals.

Thank you for the interesting fact, Diana!

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

• Grammar Tests
• Grammar Exercisers

I have an only child. Our small family saves money, and traveling is much easier.

• I've only ever wanted one child and am happy with my decision.
• Having one child means our life is easier and cheaper.
• With one child, we get to do more activities and experiences as a family.

" Are you having another one?" is the question every mother is asked after they've had their first child .

"No, I'm one and done," was, and continues to be, my answer. After you say it a few times, people usually get the hint.

I know that for many parents, having one child is not a choice; they would love to add to their family but cannot.

But for me, having one child has been perfect, and I don't regret it. My partner is also happy with our family of three and the life we've created together.

I know my limits

I've always thought that if I did have kids, I would just have one. And after having my daughter 7 years ago, the thought was cemented.

While my pregnancy went OK, giving birth is not an experience I want to repeat. Years on, I'm still recovering physically from issues brought upon by having a baby. With one child, I have the time to exercise and the money to invest in physiotherapy to get my body functioning properly so I can run around after my daughter.

I'm also aware of my parenting limitations. I could probably have another child , but I know I would feel overwhelmed, have less patience, and not be the calm and present mother I want to be.

Our life is easier

In many ways, having an only child is easier.

My partner, daughter, and I love traveling , and not only is it cheaper with just one child, but the logistics are also easier to plan. We all fit together nicely on just one row of a plane and in the back of a cab. We can squeeze into a hotel room or small Airbnb, and the three of us fit easily around a table for two in a café.

Participating in activities or weekend adventures, such as going to the theater, a sports game, or the zoo, is more straightforward and cheaper for our small family.

Related stories

We also save money on things like the weekly grocery bill , school fees, and clothes. The extra money we have allows us to travel and do more things together, creating amazing experiences and memories.

Having siblings isn't a guarantee against loneliness

I know there are many arguments for having more children. They will play together, look after each other, and have a bond for life. Having more children also means extra help as you age , and they'll be there to sort out your house when you die.

These things are all true, but there are counterarguments to them, too.

Having siblings doesn't guarantee help with older parents or funeral arrangements. I've heard many examples of the responsibility falling to one child anyway due to different relationship dynamics, adult responsibilities, and families scattered across the globe.

I have a friend who doesn't have children, and her response to questions about aging and death is that they will pay to put arrangements in place. Similarly, we will put in plans to ensure not all of the burden falls on our daughter.

We get to play, too

I don't agree with the argument that you should have another child just so they have a playmate. My daughter is lucky to have cousins, family friends, sports teams, and schoolmates.

And we get the chance to play with her, too: reading, drawing Lego, puzzles, and board games. We also love cooking and gardening together.

We make a big effort to ensure she's surrounded by other kids and families, and that we get involved in lots of activities.

Having one child is more common now

Back when my parents had children, having two or more was seen as the normal thing to do. Nowadays, I feel less societal pressure to have another kid, and it's more common to see families like ours around.

For us, having an only child was a conscious decision and one that has made our lives easier, cheaper, but also incredibly fun and rewarding.

• Main content

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Zoo — Zoos Should Be Banned: The Reasons

Zoos Should Be Banned: The Reasons

• Categories: Animal Welfare Zoo

About this sample

Words: 531 |

Updated: 20 December, 2023

Words: 531 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Video Version

Works Cited

• Bostock, S. (2016). Zoos and animal welfare. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford University Press.
• Carr, N., & Cohen, S. (2011). Banning zoos: Can animals be liberated from captivity? Anthrozoös, 24(4), 449-461.
• Fuentes, A. (2018). Zoos and conservation: On the need for evidence-based decision-making. Cambridge University Press.
• Gusset, M., & Dick, G. (2011). The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology, 30(5), 566-569.
• Mason, G., & Latham, N. (2004). Can’t stop, won’t stop: Is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Animal Welfare, 13(1), 57-69.
• Marino, L. (2017). Thinking chickens: A review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 127-147.
• Marino, L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2007). Dolphin captivity: A review of the evidence. In E. J. Capaldi (Ed.), The psychology of animal behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 217-243). ABC-CLIO.
• Melfi, V., & Ward, S. J. (2014). The role of zoos in contemporary society: A conservation perspective. International Zoo Yearbook, 48(1), 7-28.
• Sandøe, P., Palmer, C., & Corr, S. (Eds.). (2018). Companion animal ethics. John Wiley & Sons.
• Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation. Harper Perennial.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 550 words

3 pages / 1281 words

1 pages / 552 words

1 pages / 488 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Zoo

The concept of zoos has long been a topic of debate, raising questions about the ethical implications of confining animals for human entertainment and conservation purposes. This essay delves into the multifaceted discussion [...]

For centuries, zoos have been a popular way for people to observe and learn about exotic animals from all over the world. However, the debate over the ethics and morality of keeping animals in captivity has been a contentious [...]

The concept of a "zoo" and the plural form "zoos" may appear straightforward and self-explanatory at first glance. However, an in-depth exploration reveals significant distinctions between them that extend beyond mere numerical [...]

Endangered species are those plants and animals that are at significant risk of extinction. This alarming status results from various factors, most notably human activities such as habitat destruction, pollution, overhunting, [...]

I went to the zoo a few weeks ago, and I was watching the Rainforest Fights Back Show. You can tell if the animal is happy or not by looking at their facial expression and how they behave. The animals that were performing didn’t [...]

As a child, I cherished the fond memories of visiting the zoo during school holidays, where I marveled at the magnificent creatures on display. However, those joyful experiences were overshadowed by a growing [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Want to See Coral Reefs Grow? Freeze Them.

By Carly D. Kenkel

Dr. Kenkel is a marine biologist who has been studying Caribbean coral reefs since 2006.

Since 2018, my lab has transplanted hundreds of coral specimens to reefs in Florida to study what makes them grow. We have albums of photos documenting their lives, starting from branches no bigger than your finger to beautiful treelike adults as big as beach balls.

In June 2023, as water temperatures in Florida skyrocketed, my team rushed to our field sites — and found extreme bleaching (the loss of color signaling that corals are starving) and death already underway. Throughout the Florida Keys, corals were disappearing in an ocean that had become too hot for them to survive. We left our experiment running to find out what would happen. By November, 98 percent of our corals were dead.

This severe bleaching was just the latest blow to reefs already battered by storms, disease and the loss of other animals. In the 18 years I’ve studied reefs in the Florida Keys and the Caribbean, coral populations have continued to decline such that they can no longer recover naturally; I worry that even those few survivors from our project won’t last another summer in which water temperatures soar past 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Caribbean reefs are now in such dire condition that lifelong coral biologists are considering calling them a total loss and trying to replace native coral with species imported from the Pacific Ocean. I have a different take. I believe we can still stave off the complete collapse of Caribbean reefs. But we must act quickly to bank living coral in aquariums and stockpile their eggs and sperm in cryostorage for future I.V.F. efforts. If we abandon them in an increasingly inhospitable ocean, we put them at risk of extinction.

The goal is to buy time while we wait for the world to slow, and hopefully, one day reverse climate change. Banking and freezing coral may sound extreme, but it’s necessary — many of the remaining wild corals represent unique genetic combinations. Lose too many and the rest could go extinct just by chance. If we can’t rescue them, we could face the extinction of an entire ecosystem.

Last summer, there wasn’t a roster of emergency workers to help evacuate corals , much less aquariums fully prepared to receive them. Organizations such as Mote Marine Laboratory and the Florida Aquarium swiftly mobilized what tanks and teams they could. Those teams worked themselves to the breaking point.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

• Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
• Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.

We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?

On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.

For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.

Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .

We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Research and Publication
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics