write an essay on animals in captivity

• The Magazine
• Stay Curious
• The Sciences
• Environment
• Planet Earth

How Does Captivity Affect Wild Animals?

Most experts agree it depends on the species, but much evidence shows large mammals suffer under even the best human care..

For much of the past year and a half, many of us felt like captives. Confined mostly within monotonous walls, unable to act out our full range of natural behavior, we suffered from stress and anxiety on a massive scale. In other words, says Bob Jacobs, a neuroscientist at Colorado College, the pandemic gave us a brief taste of life as lived by many animals.

Though anthropomorphism is always suspect, Jacobs observes that “some humans were quite frustrated by all that.” This is no surprise — we understand the strain of captivity as we experience it. But how do animals fare under the same circumstances? Putting aside the billions of domesticated livestock around the world, some 800,000 wild or captive-born animals reside in accredited American zoos and aquariums alone . Many people cherish these institutions, many abhor them. All want to know: Are the creatures inside happy?

Signs of Stress

Happiness is hard to judge empirically, but scientists do attempt to quantify welfare by measuring chronic stress, which can arise as a result of restricted movement, contact with humans and many other factors. The condition reveals itself through high concentrations of stress hormones in an animal's blood. These hormones, called glucocorticoids, have been correlated with everything from hair loss in polar bears to reproductive failure in black rhinos . 

That said, it’s difficult to say what a normal level of stress is for any given animal. An obvious baseline is the captive’s wild counterpart (which surely has its own troubles, from predation to starvation). But the problem, says Michael Romero, a biologist at Tufts University, “is that there’s just not enough data.” Given the challenge of measuring a wild animal’s stress — the requisite capture isn’t exactly calming — few such studies have been undertaken, especially on large animals.

Besides, hormones may be an imperfect gauge of how agitated an animal really feels. “Stress is so complicated,” Romero says. “It’s not as well characterized as people think.” So researchers can also look for its more visible side effects. Chronic stress weakens the immune system, for example, leading to higher disease rates in many animals. Opportunistic fungal infections are the leading cause of death in captive Humboldt penguins , and perhaps 40 percent of captive African elephants suffer from obesity, which in turn increases their risk of heart disease and arthritis.

Another sign of stress is decline in reproduction, which explains why it’s often difficult to get animals to breed in captivity. Libido and fertility plummet in cheetahs and white rhinos, to name two. (A related phenomenon may exist in humans, Romero notes: Some research suggests that stress, anxiety and depression can reduce fertility. ) 

Even when breeding does succeed, high infant mortality rates plague some species, and many animals that reach adulthood die far younger than they would in the wild. The trend is especially poignant in orcas — according to one study , they survive just 12 years on average in American zoos; males in the wild typically live 30 years, and females 50.

Big Brains, Big Needs

Our wild charges don’t all suffer so greatly. Even in the above species there seems to be some variability among individuals, and others seem quite comfortable in human custody. “Captive animals are often healthier, longer-lived and more fecund,” writes Georgia Mason , a behavioral biologist at the University of Ontario. “But for some species the opposite is true.” 

Romero emphasized the same point in a 2019 paper : the effect of captivity is, ultimately, “highly species-specific.” In many ways it depends on the complexity of each species’ brain and social structure. One decent rule of thumb is that the larger the animal, the worse it will adjust to captivity. Thus the elephant and the cetacean (whales, dolphins and porpoises) have become the poster children of the welfare movement for zoo animals. 

Jacobs, who studies the brains of elephants, cetaceans and other large mammals, has described the caging of these creatures as a form of “ neural cruelty .” He admits they are “not the easiest to study at the neural level” — you can’t cram a pachyderm into an MRI machine. But he isn’t bothered by this dearth of data. In its absence, he holds up evolutionary continuity: the idea that humans share certain basic features, to some degree, with all living organisms. “We accept that there’s a parallel between a dolphin’s flipper and the human hand, or the elephant’s foot and a primate’s foot,” Jacobs says. 

Likewise, if the brain structures that control stress in humans bear a deep resemblance to the same structures in zoo chimps — or elephants, or dolphins — then it stands to reason that the neurological response to captivity in those animals will be somewhat the same as our own. That, Jacobs says, is borne out by a half century of research into how impoverished environments alter the brains of species as varied as rats and primates.

Abnormal Behavior

Not all forms of captivity are equally impoverished, of course. Zookeepers often talk about “enrichment.” Besides meeting an animal’s basic material needs, they strive to make its enclosure engaging, to give it the space it needs to carry out its natural routines. Today’s American zoos generally represent a vast improvement over those of yesteryear. But animal advocates contend they will always fall short of at least the large animals’ needs. “No matter what zoos do,” Jacobs says, “they can’t provide them with an adequate, stimulating natural environment.”

If there is any doubt as to a captive animal’s wellbeing, even the uninformed zoogoer can detect what are perhaps the best clues: stereotypies. These repetitive, purposeless movements and sounds are the hallmark of a stressed animal. Elephants sway from side to side, orcas grind their teeth to pulp against concrete walls. Big cats and bears pace back and forth along the boundaries of their enclosures. One survey found that 80 percent of giraffes and okapis exhibit at least one stereotypic behavior. “Stress might be hard to measure,” Jacobs says, “but stereotypies are not hard to measure.” 

Proponents are quick to point out that zoos convert people into conservationists, and occasionally reintroduce endangered species to the wild (though critics question how effective they truly are on these fronts). Considering their potential to bolster the broader conservation movement, Romero suggests an ethical calculation might be in order. “Maybe sacrificing a few animals’ health is worth it,” he says.

Wherever these moral arguments lead, Jacobs argues that “the evidence is becoming overwhelming” — large mammals, or at least many of them, cannot prosper in confinement. The environmental writer Emma Marris concludes the same in Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World . “In many modern zoos, animals are well cared for, healthy and probably, for many species, content,” she writes, adding that zookeepers are not “mustache-twirling villains.” Nevertheless, by endlessly rocking and bobbing, by gnawing on bars and pulling their hair, “many animals clearly show us that they do not enjoy captivity.”

• brain structure & function

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Environment Animal Welfare

Should Animals be Kept in Captivity: an Ethical Dillema

Table of contents, benefits of captivity: conservation and education, ethical considerations: animal welfare and natural behavior, alternatives to captivity: ethical conservation, striking a balance.

• Berger, J. (2003). The last mile: how to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 183-185.
• Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2015). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. John Wiley & Sons.
• Griffin, D. R. (2001). Animal minds: Beyond cognition to consciousness. University of Chicago Press.
• Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
• Lindemann-Matthies, P., & Bose, E. (2008). How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology, 36(5), 731-742.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Water Scarcity
• Environment Problems
• Fast Fashion
• Wildlife Conservation

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

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

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? Essay

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.

• 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/.

• 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
• Which Material Withstand a Fire
• Prospect Reservoir and Surrounding Areas: An Australian National Heritage Site
• South Wales Region: Energy and Economy
• History of the Great Chicago Fire

In defence of zoos: how captivity helps conservation

Lecturer Zoo Animal Biology, Nottingham Trent University

Disclosure statement

Samantha Ward does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Nottingham Trent University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

The death of Harambe the gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo, shot to protect a child who had fallen into his cage, has caused outrage. Some of the anger has now turned from “trigger-happy” staff towards zoos in general. Why, some are asking , is an endangered gorilla behind bars in the first place?

In an ideal world, Harambe would live peacefully in Central Africa. There would be no deforestation, no poachers, and no diseases transmitted by humans and our livestock.

But in the real world, fewer than 900 mountain gorillas are left in the wild. And zoos are a necessary and vital part of efforts to conserve them and other endangered animals.

Modern zoos aim to promote animal conservation, educate people, and support further wildlife research. The three are entwined to ensure the animals are housed to the highest possible standards of welfare. Staff are dedicated to providing species-specific housing, appropriate diets and husbandry to ensure that the animals’ lives are as natural as possible within captivity.

Anti-zoo and animal rights groups such as CAPS , PETA or the Born Free foundation claim that zoos are inherently cruel. They highlight animals housed in small cages for “our entertainment” and claim all should be released back into the wild.

But zoo design has moved a long way since the bad days of bare, concrete cages, and indeed innovative enclosures these days can closely replicate an animal’s wild habitats.

In fact, most zoo animals, including Harambe the gorilla, have been born and bred in captivity. They have never experienced “the wild”, which many people assume is a wonderful and safe place, despite destruction of natural habitats for palm oil , threats from climate change or the increase in poaching .

Two ways capturing animals helps conserve them

Zoo conservation work can be “in-situ”, where money, expertise and sometimes staff are provided to protect animals and their habitats in the wild.

Large, charismatic animals such as pandas, tigers or elephants draw the crowds . These flagship species help to raise the profile and funds for in-situ conservation efforts for the not so well known species. For example, there aren’t many visitors who would be passionate about protecting frogs or other amphibians yet zoos have been instrumental in preventing the loss of a large part of the world’s frog fauna .

“Ex-situ” conservation, meanwhile, takes place outside of the animals’ natural habitats, usually back at the zoo and often involving international captive breeding programmes. These studbooks can outline suitable genetic matches for breeding, to maintain a sustainable captive population of a certain species and ensure genetic variation.

Species such as the golden lion tamarin, Arabian oryx, Przewalski’s horse , the European bison, and even the common dormouse have at some point been reliant upon captive breeding so as not to become as dead as the Dodo.

Education & research

In the UK at least, zoos must have a written education strategy and an active education programme. If you have been to an accredited zoo recently you will have noticed they use games and technology to go way beyond these basic requirements.

Research within zoos often looks at animal behaviour or welfare, helping to ensure the animals are well housed and fed. Other research investigates the impact humans have on the zoo animals, from the visitor effect to the relationships which can be formed between the animals and their keepers. I recently investigated the human-animal relationship between zoo animals and the keepers.

Research also focuses on biological functioning of animals. Much of this is work that cannot be conducted in the wild if the animals live in remote or inhospitable areas. To take one recent example: Italian scientists who wanted to investigate the Vocal Repertoire of the African Penguin made recordings of a captive colony in a Turin zoo.

Overall, zoos provide opportunities to observe and engage with exotic animals, many of which may be threatened with extinction in the wild. Seeing them up close can spark a passion for biology, conservation and the environment.

So next time you decide to visit a zoo, take a deeper look at the animal care and information that is provided for you. You may become a defender of zoos and the vital work they do. But please: don’t enter their enclosures.

• Wildlife conservation
• Przewalski’s horse

Content Coordinator

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

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.

Ag-Gag Laws, and the Fight Over Them, Explained

Law & Policy • 10 min read

More Law & Policy

Are Lawsuits Against Big Meat the Next Path to Climate Justice?

Justice • 4 min read

Investigation

Australia Wants to Cull Crocodiles – But Farm Them for Leather, Too

Inside the crocodile farming industry’s dark calculations.

Investigations • 6 min read

Emissions From Ag Are a Big Part of Climate Change — But Government Funding Lags Behind

Millions in federal research dollars are going to ineffective solutions like regenerative agriculture.

Policy • 5 min read

The Magical Math of Climate-Friendly Meat

Climate • 10 min read

Can You Trust a ‘Certified Humane’ Pet Food Brand?

Food • 6 min read

In New York City Hospitals, Over 1 Million Vegan Meals Served

Diet • 4 min read

Why We Still Test on Animals, Explained

Research • 15 min read

Most Read Today

• How California’s Prop 12 Could Kickstart a Lagging Global Pork Market
• Why Eating Meat Is Bad for the Environment and Climate Change, Explained
• Are Eggs Good for You?
• Amazon Deforestation — How Much of the Rainforest Is Left?
• The 30 Most Intelligent Animals in the World Might Surprise You
• What Foods to Avoid If You Are Lactose Intolerant
• Animals Are Going Extinct—But It’s Not Too Late

Animal Captivity: Justifications for Animal Captivity in the Context of Domestication

• First Online: 22 September 2016

Cite this chapter

• Bernice Bovenkerk 5  

Part of the book series: The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics ((LEAF,volume 23))

1700 Accesses

3 Citations

The central question of this chapter is whether keeping animals in captivity is morally justified. Captivity could be considered inherently wrong when animals are perceived to have an interest in liberty. I argue that this is the case to a certain extent, provided that we use a less stringent notion of autonomy than we do for humans. Next, I address two possible general moral justifications for keeping animals in captivity: (1) it is in the interest of humans to keep animals in captivity and (2) it is in the interest of the animals themselves. Whether these justifications are successful is to a large extent an empirical matter. In general, however, we could say that either animals of a specific species do not have sufficient adaptive capacity to be able to deal with conditions of captivity—in which case harm to the animals’ welfare occurs—or they do have this capacity, but this means that their genetic make-up changes over the generations, and they ultimately become domesticated. This aspect of domestication raises a whole new set of questions regarding the justifiability of animal domestication. I argue that the questions raised by animal domestication cannot be completely dealt with within traditional animal ethical approaches, that take individual animals as the sole unit of moral concern. Objections that people voice regarding animal captivity and in particular regarding the often resulting domestication and interfering with an animal’s genetic make-up, are more properly directed at the species-level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

This at least was the outcome of interviews I held with stakeholders in the Netherlands about pedigree dog breeding in 2015 and 2016.

Cochrane ( 2009 , 662) follows Feinberg ( 1984 ) in taking interest to mean “to have some kind of stake” in something. One has a stake in something when one’s well-being is affected by it. Well-being is taken to be a prudential value, in other words, “well-being relates to how well things are going for the individual whose life it is ” (italics in original).

This marginal cases argument has been criticized, for example by Carruthers ( 1992 ) for leading to a slippery slope where in the end we cannot attribute moral status to any human beings either and by Cohen ( 1986 ) and Scruton ( 2000 ) who argue that regardless of their mental capacities humans are the ‘kinds’ of beings who deserve moral status. These arguments have successfully been countered by Tanner ( 2006 , 2009 ).

There are notable exceptions, such as Frey ( 1988 ).

Thanks to Jeroen Hopster for pointing this out to me.

This is supported by current thinking by biologists who posit the idea of ‘inclusive inheritance’. Still, one can wonder, of course, whether the distinction between qualitative and quantitative differences is itself not one of degrees. Thanks to Jeroen Hopster for bringing this point to my attention.

Of course, another argument against this view is simply that we are making an is/ought fallacy if we are basing normative conclusions about the moral status of humans on the fact that we feel more sympathy towards other humans. See also Palmer ( 2010 , 51–54) for a critical discussion of the care ethical move to base obligations on affection.

A study has shown, for example, that gorillas in zoos that are confronted with many visitors are more likely to show stereotypic behaviour—consisting of autogrooming, abnormal behaviour (such as teeth clenching, body rocking, and more banging on the separation barrier) taking less rest, and aggression towards other gorillas—than those who are confronted with low visitor density. This indicates that visitor density leads to stress in the animals. See Wells ( 2005 ), who also cites other studies with similar conclusions.

Despite claims to the contrary. For example, as the documentary Blackfish shows, Sea World advertises that orcas live up to the age of 40 in captivity, while they live much shorter lives in the wild. In fact, male orcas live up to 50 years in the wild and female ones can even live up to 90 years.

Disagreement is possible about the question whether this premature killing of captive animals can count as a harm and the question rises how to offset lifespan against other benefits that the animals may enjoy by being held in captivity. Some (for example Haynes 2008 ) argue that killing should be regarded a welfare problem while others argue that shortening an animal’s life in itself is not problematic (for example Singer 2011 ).

The theory of learned helplessness was first put forward by psychologist Seligman ( 1972 ), who showed that dogs that have been given electric shocks become so passive that they fail to avoid further adverse stimuli, even if there is an easy possibility of escape. They are in effect conditioned to believe that harm is inescapable.

I am assuming here that the animals’ welfare is not violated in either of the three views on welfare. If it’s genetic make-up is altered to the extent that it can cope well with loss of freedom, that it experiences no negative feelings from this lack of freedom, and its natural behavioral repertoire is changed so that it can carry out its ‘new’ natural behavior in captivity, there is no clear welfare problem.

Needless to say, there is disagreement about this. For example, Singer ( 1975 ) argues that freedom is more important to animals than the protections offered by domestication, but Budiansky ( 1992 ) takes the opposite position.

Think for example of experiments with rats that could self-administer drugs and stopped eating entirely.

This depiction of the domestication of dogs is disputed by Coppinger and Coppinger ( 2001 ) who argue that ‘the canid family tree split, and wolves and dogs went along their separate branches. The wolf displays specialized adaptation to wilderness, and the dog displays specialized adaptations to domestic life’.

It should be noted that while this is a difference between (most) humans and animals, according to most animal ethical theories this is a morally irrelevant difference; it is no adequate basis for treating animal and human interests differently (see Sect 3 ). After all, marginal cases cannot give informed consent as free equals either. Only for contractarian theories this would be a morally relevant difference between humans and animals, but they cannot give an adequate answer to the marginal cases argument.

Cited by Palmer ( 1997 ).

One could wonder why ‘the wild’ should be the reference point for how animals should be treated. The assumption that social contract theories make is that tacitly agreeing to a hypothetical contract marks the transition from a state of nature to a state of culture and the ‘wild’ here refers to the situation before animals were domesticated.

It should be noted that the inability to survive in the wild is often the result of the lack of an apt environment or of a careful rewilding process, and is not always irreversible. Thanks to Franck Meijboom for pointing this out to me. Yet, in the case of pedigree dogs, they would most likely not be able to survive in the wild or be able to go back to a wild dog-like state.

Macnaghten ( 2001 ) reports on research into public attitudes towards animals and biotechnology and finds that for example the argument that genetic modification is unnatural is raised. This unnaturality seems to refer more to changing a whole species than only an individual animal.

We could make judgments about whether the animal’s life is worth living in absolute terms, but as long as the animal’s life is deemed worth living we cannot consistently object to harms done to the animal before it was born. Utilitarians could argue that from an impersonal viewpoint we could say that for example a world with a group of dogs with welfare problems due to inbreeding is worse than a world without. However, this would only justify certain objections to interferences with animals. If enhancements would reduce the total amount of suffering in the world, a utilitarian would not object.

Robert and Baylis ( 2003 ) discuss the difficulties of demarcating species boundaries.

Johnson ( 1992 ), for example, argues that species have interests separate from its members, and he illustrates this by stating that while it is in the interest of a species (or more properly: population) of deer that weaker animals are killed by predators, this is obviously not in the interest of the individual animals that are killed. However, this does not show in itself that the species has a separate moral standing that is not derived from the moral standing of its members now and in the future.

In chapter “ The Flights of the Monarch Butterfly: Between In Situ and Ex Situ Conservation ” of this volume Marcel Verweij and I actually argue that there are collective dimensions to groups that exceed that of the aggregation of all the individuals of the group. However, these dimensions do not lead us to attribute direct moral status to groups.

What I am suggesting here is a type of biocentric outlook as Taylor ( 2011 ) has proposed. However, Taylor only considers individual natural entities to be morally relevant and my proposal would see ourselves not only as part of a group of individuals in nature, but as but one species between the species.

Bovenkerk, B., and F.L.B. Meijboom. 2012. The moral status of fish. The importance and limitations of a fundamental discussion for practical ethical questions in fish farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25(6): 843–860.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bovenkerk, B., and F.L.B. Meijboom. 2013. Fish welfare in aquaculture: explicating the chain of interactions between science and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26(1): 41–61.

Budiansky, S. 1992. The covenant of the wild: why animals chose domestication: with a new preface . London: Yale University Press.

Google Scholar  

Callicott, J.B. 1992. Animal rights and environmental ethics: back together again. In The animal rights/environmental ethics debate: the environmental perspective , ed. E. Hargrove, 249–261. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Carruthers, P. 1992. The animals issue . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Carruthers, P. 2005. Consciousness: essays from a higher-order perspective: essays from a higher-order perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clutton-Brock, J. 1989. The walking larder: patterns of domestication, pastoralism, and predation . London: Unwin Hyman Inc.

Cochrane, A. 2009. Do animals have an interest in liberty? Political Studies 57: 660–679.

Cochrane, A. 2012. Animal rights without liberation . New York: Columbia University Press.

Cohen, C. 1986. The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. The New England Journal of Medicine 315(14): 865–870.

Coppinger, R., and L. Coppinger. 2001. Dogs: a startling new understanding of canine origin, behavior and evolution . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Dombrowski, D.A. 1997. Babies and beasts: the argument from marginal cases . Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Feinberg, J. 1984. The moral limits of the criminal law, volume 1: harm to others . New York: Oxford University Press.

Fiby, M. 2012. The future of wild animals in 50 to 100 years. Future of zoos symposium. Buffalo, NY: Canisius College.

Francione, G. 2010. Introduction to animal rights: your child or the dog? . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Fraser, D. 2003. Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12(4): 433–443.

Frey, R.G. 1988. Moral standing, the value of lives, and speciesism. Between the Species 4(3): 191–201.

Greene, J.D. 2007. The secret joke of Kant’s soul . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gruen, L. 2009. Ethics and animals. An introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haynes, R.P. 2008. Animal welfare: competing conceptions and their ethical implications . Dordrecht: Springer.

Hribal, J. 2011. Fear of the animal planet. The hidden history of animal resistance . Oakland, CA: AK Press.

Hutchins, M., B. Smith, and R. Allard. 2003. In defense of zoos and aquariums: the ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 223(7): 958–966.

Johnson, L.E. 1992. Toward the moral considerability of species and ecosystems. Environmental Ethics 14(2): 145–157.

Kaldewaij, F.E. 2013. The animal in morality. Justifying duties to animals in Kantian moral philosophy. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht.

Macnaghten, P. 2001. Animal futures. Public attitudes and sensisbilities towards animals and biotechnology in contemporary Britain. Report by the Institute for Environmental, Philosophy and Public Policy for the Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission.

Narveson, J. 1983. Animal rights revisited. In Ethics and animals , ed. H.B. Miller, and W.H. Williams, 45–60. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Noddings, N. 1984. Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral education . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Norton, B., M. Hutchins, E. Stevens, and T. Maple (eds.). 1995. Ethics on the ark: zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation . Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Palmer, C. 1997. The idea of the domesticated animal contract. Environmental Values 6(4): 411–425.

Palmer, C. 2009. Harm to species-species, ethics, and climate change: the case of the polar bear. Notre Dame Journal of Law Ethics & Public Policy 23: 587–603.

Palmer, C. 2010. Animal ethics in context . New York: Columbia University Press.

Palmer, C. 2011. Animal disenhancement and the non-identity problem: a response to Thompson. NanoEthics 5(1): 43–48.

Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Regan, T. 1995. Are zoos morally defensible. In Ethics on the ark: zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation , ed. B. Norton, et al., 38–51. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Robert, J.S., and F. Baylis. 2003. Crossing species boundaries. American Journal of Bioethics 3(3): 1–13.

Rolston III, H. 1991. Environmental ethics: values in and duties to the natural world. In Ecology, economics, ethics: the broken circle , ed. F.H. Borman, and S.R. Kellert, 73–96. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Scruton, R. 2000. Animal rights and wrongs . London: Demos.

Seligman, M. 1972. Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine 23(1): 407–412.

Shriver, A. 2009. Knocking out pain in livestock: can technology succeed where morality has stalled? Neuroethics 2(3): 115–124.

Singer, P. 1975. Animal liberation . New York: Avon Books.

Singer, P. 2011. Practical ethics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swart, J.A.A., and J. Keulartz. 2011. Wild animals in our backyard. A contextual approach to the intrinsic value of animals. Acta Biotheoretica 59(2): 185–200.

Tanner, J. 2006. Marginal humans, the argument from kinds and the similarity argument. Facta Universitatis - Series Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology 5(1): 47–63.

Tanner, J. 2009. The argument from marginal cases and the slippery slope objection. Environmental Values 18: 51–66.

Taylor, P.W. 2011. Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

VanDeVeer, D. 1979. Interspecific justice. Inquiry 22(1–4): 55–79.

Wells, D.L. 2005. A note on the influence of visitors on the behaviour and welfare of zoo-housed gorillas. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93(1): 13–17.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Franck Meijboom, Frederike Kaldewaij, Aaron Simmons , and Joel Anderson for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Bernice Bovenkerk

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernice Bovenkerk .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Wageningen, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Jozef Keulartz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Bovenkerk, B. (2016). Animal Captivity: Justifications for Animal Captivity in the Context of Domestication. In: Bovenkerk, B., Keulartz, J. (eds) Animal Ethics in the Age of Humans. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44206-8_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44206-8_10

Published : 22 September 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-44205-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-44206-8

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home / Essay Samples / Science / Animal Welfare / Conservation Debate: Wild Animals Should Be Kept In Captivity

Conservation Debate: Wild Animals Should Be Kept In Captivity

• Category: Science
• Topic: Animal Welfare

Pages: 2 (880 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Machu Picchu Essays

Microbiology Essays

Brain Essays

Natural Selection Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

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

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->