arguments against zoos essay

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.

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2500 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, as well as 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 U.S. zoos (and elsewhere) things are better now, fortunately. Primates, for example, 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, where they are protected 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 that 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 in which 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 more memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary and is 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 are no longer able to 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 baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to 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 a challenge. 
• 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 establishes only the most minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care, 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, 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.

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

• How Animal Rights Activists View Zoos Keeping Endangered Species
• Zoos and Endangered Species Conservation
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
• Pet Tiger Seen Roaming in Houston Is Now in a Sanctuary
• Expedia Stops Selling Tickets to Dolphin and Whale Shows
• 10 Women Who Changed the Way We See Nature
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• 8 Fascinating Facts About the Axolotl
• Rescuer Saves and Rehabs Hundreds of Wild Animals in Peru
• 18 Famous Animal Conservationists
• Why Animal Rights Activists Are Against the AKC
• 9 Uncanny Facts About Crows
• 8 Things You Didn't Know About Boa Constrictors

Five of the Strongest Arguments Against Zoos

A while ago I wrote an article about some of the good things zoos do for conservation . Now I hadn’t realized how vehemently some people hated zoos (and sadly, how afraid many great zoos are about sticking up for their work). Suddenly, it became one of my most read articles.

Every time something bad happened, like the gorilla that escaped (but didn’t) , journalists call around looking for someone on each side of the argument. Luckily for them, Born Free and PETA are all to happy to point out the negatives. Meanwhile, everyone closely involved with zoo’s seems to keep a low profile, and a little stuck, journalists end up asking me for a comment.

Now, I’ve never worked in a zoo, but I do believe in balance – in seeing both sides of an argument. So I’m very happy to advocate good zoos, and only good zoos from a conservation perspective ( my article about the great stuff they do is here). But all that doesn’t mean that zoos can’t improve.

I thought I’d take the chance to highlight some of the things I think they could do better – starting with the very arguments used against them.

Common Problems With Zoos

1. keeping animals in cages is cruel, and we don’t have the right..

Yep, captivity is certainly cruel to an extent. But for me it depends greatly on scale, and how well you can replicate the natural environment. It’s a lot harder to make a nice environment for a lion, than it is for a critically endangered crayfish or snail that’s extinct in the wild .

I’d definitely like to see bigger zoo enclosures, with fewer, if any, really large animals (I’m thinking lions, tigers, elephants). But at the same time, where a species is seriously endangered – for example the Amur leopard (~200 in captivity), Asiatic Lion (<400), I think there’s a great argument for captivity and captive breeding programmes too.

It depends, I suppose, which you think is worse: captivity or extinction? I believe it’s the latter, but of course I can see how some people feel it’s the former.

2. Zoos are just for entertainment.

I’d agree that some folks go to zoo’s for entertainment, whilst some folks go to learn. But by far the biggest group, is the grey area in between.

Now the difference between the good zoos and bad, is that good zoos work harder and harder towards making those experiences educational – or at least they say they do . What isn’t debated, is the fact that 24 million people visit zoos in the UK every year. So like it or lump it, let’s make those visits worthwhile.

Zoos deliver what the public wants. So the best way to influence the zoo experience is to be a discerning customer. Be fussy, if you don’t agree with them, don’t go. But in the same vein, if there’s parts you do like, then speak about that too.

Here’s how:

• People go to see animals. So the bigger the enclosure, the harder it is for those exhibits to be seen. The public needs to tolerate that much better (how often to you overhear people moaning that an animal isn’t out on display?)
• Big animals draw in visitors. So embrace the little stuff too – that’s arguably where zoos are doing some of their most worthwhile work .
• Don’t read those rubbish alarmist stories about Gorillas that I deliberately havn’t linked to, because if you read them, newspapers will keep writing them.
• And don’t go rushing to a zoo just because it’s had a baby panda/polar bear/tiger. Because it doesn’t help encourage responsible behavior.

3. Zoo keepers are cruel.

This is a weird one, that I don’t agree with. Yet the stories come up again and again . Most people ‘like’ animals and wildlife – especially folks that work at zoos. In my experience, zoo keepers have been some of the most passionate conservationists I know.

4. If you want to see animals, you should go see them in the wild.

Hey, I agree! Great!

Ecotourism, in it’s many flavours – if done right – can be a great force for conservation .

But lots of people can’t, don’t or wont. Perhaps for many, it’s the zoo or not at all? Or maybe if there were no zoos it really would make more of us embark on that once in a lifetime trip to Africa… It’s hard to know.

In any case, when it comes to zoos I’d turn to science, and ask the question: Does seeing animals in a zoo, make you more engaged with conservation in the wild? Fortunately, there’s lots and lots of literature on this, and it seems like they do .

But here’s the most important point: If you want to see the biggest most exciting mammals, then you really should go to the wild – your experience would be all the richer for it. Put it this way, would you rather see a caged tiger a dozen times in your life, or just once, wild, after a long arduous journey in the breathtakingly beautiful Ranthambore wetlands with the birds singing and sun setting. I know which I’d choose.

5. None of the money from zoos goes towards conservation

Here’s my take: I’d like to see more spent on overseas conservation of the species they exhibit. At the same time, I’d like to see a much clearer link between the two. Visiting a zoo should support conservation not just in captivity, but in the wild – and it should be crystal clear. That’s the aspiration.

The good news is that many zoos are doing this already, but perhaps it slips under the radar for the casual visitor. London Zoo work all over the world , Colchester Zoo runs Action for the Wild , I’ve even won a grant to work in Mozambique from WWCT , which run Paignton Zoo.

But is it enough? On this topic, I’d recommend this excellent article . The jist of which is:

“A few years ago Los Angeles Zoo spent $42 million on a new, six-acre enclosure for Asian elephants…” meanwhile… “…at many zoos, Boyle says, only 1 percent of the budget goes to conservation. He says AZA is pushing members to get to 3 percent, but there’s no minimum required donation for AZA accreditation by the association. A boost to 10 percent would send $800 million a year to wildlife”

One more thing…

6. A little note about branding and hypocrisy….

Whilst I often hear people lambasting zoos, animal sanctuaries seem to be the greatest thing since slices bread. But I’d say for many, there’s little difference except branding.

One of the ironic things, is that PETA even has a list of criteria for a ‘good sanctuary’ , which funnily enough matches, more or less, the characteristics of a good zoo.

A few more articles on the topic:

• Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?
• How Captivity Helps Conservation
• Introducing the Modern Zoo
• Arguments For and Against Zoos
• When You Walk Into a Zoo, Are You Helping Animals or Hurting Them?

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.

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

“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.”

National Geographic content straight to your inbox—sign up for our popular newsletters here

Our guide to the UK & Ireland

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

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.

Beagles Are Bred by the Thousands on Factory Farms, and It’s Perfectly Legal

Justice • 4 min read

More Law & Policy

New Supreme Court Case Threatens Legal Protections for Animals

Law & Policy • 7 min read

‘The Smell of Money’ Film Is Bringing Together Environmental and Food Justice Advocates

A new documentary chronicles the damage hog farm pollution has caused communities of Eastern North Carolina.

Justice • 5 min read

5 Ways Taxpayers Bail Out Factory Farms

The way we produce meat and dairy is responsible for all sorts of damage, and taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Law & Policy • 6 min read

New Climate Research Shows How Plants and Animals Face New Pressures in a Warming World

Climate • 6 min read

Why Plant-Based Burgers at Fast Food Chains Get So… Mushy

Diet • 8 min read

How Much Protein You Need to Be Healthy, Explained

Diet • 10 min read

Fish Feel Pain, Science Shows — But Humans Are Reluctant To Believe It

Science • 9 min read

Most Read Today

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!

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Are Zoos Immoral?

A guest opinion essay argues that modern zoos are harmful to the health and well-being of animals. Do you agree? Is it time to rethink the zoo, and perhaps even end them?

By Jeremy Engle

Do you like going to the zoo? Do you have a favorite?

Have you ever stopped to consider the possible harmful effects zoos might have on the animals?

In “ Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost ,” Emma Marris, an environmental writer, asks the reader to reconsider the value of zoos and the effects of captivity on the animals we visit:

After being captives of the pandemic for more than a year, we have begun experiencing the pleasures of simple outings: dining al fresco, shopping with a friend, taking a stroll through the zoo. As we snap a selfie by the sea lions for the first time in so long, it seems worth asking, after our collective ordeal, whether our pleasure in seeing wild animals up close is worth the price of their captivity. Throughout history, men have accumulated large and fierce animals to advertise their might and prestige. Power-mad men from Henry III to Saddam Hussein’s son Uday to the drug kingpin Pablo Escobar to Charlemagne all tried to underscore their strength by keeping terrifying beasts captive. William Randolph Hearst created his own private zoo with lions, tigers, leopards and more at Hearst Castle. It is these boastful collections of animals, these autocratic menageries, from which the modern zoo, with its didactic plaques and $15 hot dogs, springs.

Ms. Marris describes how the “educational day out” model of zoos endured until the late 20th century, when zoos began actively rebranding themselves as serious contributors to conservation, functioning as “ambassadors” for their species and teaching humans to care about wildlife.

However, she writes, while species such as the Arabian oryx, the California condor and Black-footed ferrets were saved from extinction by the concerted efforts of zoos, these popular public institutions remain largely about entertainment and family outings:

A fine day out with the family might itself be justification enough for the existence of zoos if the zoo animals are all happy to be there. Alas, there’s plenty of heartbreaking evidence that many are not. In many modern zoos, animals are well cared for, healthy and probably, for many species, content. Zookeepers are not mustache-twirling villains. They are kind people, bonded to their charges and immersed in the culture of the zoo, in which they are the good guys. But many animals clearly show us that they do not enjoy captivity. When confined they rock, pull their hair and engage in other tics. Captive tigers pace back and forth, and in a 2014 study, researchers found that “the time devoted to pacing by a species in captivity is best predicted by the daily distances traveled in nature by the wild specimens.” It is almost as if they feel driven to patrol their territory, to hunt, to move, to walk a certain number of steps, as if they have a Fitbit in their brains. The researchers divided the odd behaviors of captive animals into two categories: “impulsive/compulsive behaviors,” including coprophagy (eating feces), regurgitation, self-biting and mutilation, exaggerated aggressiveness and infanticide, and “stereotypies,” which are endlessly repeated movements. Elephants bob their heads over and over. Chimps pull out their own hair. Giraffes endlessly flick their tongues. Bears and cats pace. Some studies have shown that as many as 80 percent of zoo carnivores, 64 percent of zoo chimps and 85 percent of zoo elephants have displayed compulsive behaviors or stereotypies. Elephants are particularly unhappy in zoos, given their great size, social nature and cognitive complexity. Many suffer from arthritis and other joint problems from standing on hard surfaces; elephants kept alone become desperately lonely; and all zoo elephants suffer mentally from being cooped up in tiny yards while their free-ranging cousins walk up to 50 miles a day. Zoo elephants tend to die young. At least 20 zoos in the United States have already ended their elephant exhibits in part because of ethical concerns about keeping the species captive.

Ms. Marris concludes her essay with some ways to reimagine and transform the zoo:

What if zoos stopped breeding all their animals, with the possible exception of any endangered species with a real chance of being released back into the wild? What if they sent all the animals that need really large areas or lots of freedom and socialization to refuges? With their apes, elephants, big cats, and other large and smart species gone, they could expand enclosures for the rest of the animals, concentrating on keeping them lavishly happy until their natural deaths. Eventually, the only animals on display would be a few ancient holdovers from the old menageries, animals in active conservation breeding programs and perhaps a few rescues. Such zoos might even be merged with sanctuaries, places that take wild animals that because of injury or a lifetime of captivity cannot live in the wild. Existing refuges often do allow visitors, but their facilities are really arranged for the animals, not for the people. These refuge-zoos could become places where animals live. Display would be incidental.

Students, read the entire article , then tell us:

Do you like going to the zoo? Do you have a favorite one? Tell us about a memorable experience you had at a zoo.

What impact have zoos had on you? Have they helped you to develop what some zoos call a “conservation ethic?” Do you look at the animals with a “sense of empathy for the individual animal, as well as the wild populations of that animal,” as Dan Ashe, a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hopes? Have zoos made you care more about conservation or take any action to support it?

What is your reaction to Ms. Marris’s essay? Which details on the harmful effects of captivity on animals, such as the physical and emotional toll on elephants, stand out? What do they make you think or feel?

How persuasive is Ms. Marris’s argument? Are zoos immoral or wrong? Is our pleasure in seeing wild animals up close worth the price of their captivity? What do you see as the benefits and harms of zoos, both for the human visitors and the animals who live in them?

What do you think of Ms. Marris’s recommendations for transforming the zoo? Do you think her idea of the “refuge-zoo,” a place where animals live and displays are incidental, is a good one? What other ideas do you have to improve or reform the modern zoo?

Do you think you will visit zoos in the future? Why or why not?

Want more writing prompts? You can find all of our questions in our Student Opinion column . Teachers, check out this guide to learn how you can incorporate them into your classroom.

Students 13 and older in the United States and Britain, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Jeremy Engle joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2018 after spending more than 20 years as a classroom humanities and documentary-making teacher, professional developer and curriculum designer working with students and teachers across the country. More about Jeremy Engle

Do We Need Zoos?

The killing of Harambe, the silverback gorilla, at the Cincinnati Zoo has sparked a massive debate.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, a 4-year-old boy climbed the guardrail at the Cincinnati Zoo and into the enclosure of a 17-year-old silverback gorilla named Harambe. By now, most people know how this played out. The boy’s mother had lost track of him, long enough that he crawled over a wall and fell 10 feet into a moat at the bottom. Harambe stood over the child, as if protecting him from the people yelling above, then grabbed the boy’s arm and jerked him through the water. Tranquilizing the gorilla wasn’t an option, the zoo director would later say, because the sedative takes time. And no one could predict how a drugged animal that weighs 450 pounds would react. So they shot Harambe dead.

Zoos have changed a lot in the past 50 years. The openness of Harambe’s enclosure, the cliffs separated by a moat, were designed to lend it a more natural feel for viewers, and to simulate wild environment for the gorillas. It is a departure from the bars and sanitized tile floors of past zoo design. As people become more sensitive to the lives of these animals, they’ve understood how flat concrete and tight confinement can cause depression, even phobia , in everything from donkeys to snow leopards.

Someone at the Cincinnati Zoo caught much of what happened on video (not the shooting), and immediately afterward people blamed both the mother —why wasn’t she watching her son?—and the zoo director—was there no other option?

Few people have asked why a zoo, full of dangerous, or not-so dangerous animals, is even necessary. That might be because c alling for an end to zoos has typically been the cause of poets and animal-rights activists. M ost past arguments against zoos have focused on the insensitivity toward animals. A s Benjamin Wallace-Wells wrote two years ago in a piece for New York magazine titled, “The Case for the End of the Modern Zoo”:

I realize that to even raise this issue makes you sound like some kind of sour, rule-bound vegetarian, so let me make clear my position up front: I love zoos. My daughter is not quite 2, and the zoo brings out all of her best and least complicated emotions — awe, delight, empathy.

But concern for caged animals has caught enough mainstream interest that New York and California introduced bills that would outlaw killer whales kept in captivity. Their focus on killer whales is in large part owed to a 2013 documentary called Blackfish , but it proves that it has become a concern for more than a fringe of animal-rights advocates. So much so, that last March, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment said it would stop breeding captive killer whales. And if keeping an orca in large tank is unethical, then why not an elephant, a tiger, or a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla?

The argument for zoos is often that they serve to educate the public, they give people who can’t afford to travel a chance to see the animals, and that zoos serve as important conservation centers.  There is a distinction, of course, between good zoos and bad zoos. In the 1980s, a study of animals at the San Diego Zoo found some had died from frequent tranquilizing, malnutrition, and that some had suffered repeated injuries while being transported. Since that report, and with a rise in scientists who study animal behavior, zoos have tried to improve conditions for their caged animals. This was partly the cause for more natural-looking enclosures––like the gorilla exhibit in Cincinnati––because “empty, boring, barren enclosures” can cause depression or aggression in some animals, including primates, according to a study by Plymouth University , in England.

In that regard, the Cincinnati Zoo is by all means a good zoo, providing Harambe a relatively comfortable enclosure. It’s not simple to accommodate the world’s largest primate. Gorillas are as strong as eight men, they can be aggressive, and they’re also endangered. For all those reason, they’re fascinating to watch. And unless someone planned to visit the forests of Central Africa, a zoo is the only place a person will likely see one—or for that matter a wolf, a rhino, or a rhinoceros hornbill (a bird kept at the Cincinnati Zoo). Of course, there’s TV, “but that really does pale next to seeing a living creature in the flesh, hearing it, smelling it, watching what it does and having the time to absorb details,” wrote David Hone, a paleontologist and writer who has defended zoos.

So zoos teach. Or do they?

In 2014, Eric Jensen, a sociologist at the University of Warwick, published a study in the journal Conservation Biology that surveyed 3,000 children before and after a zoo visit and found only one-third had a “positive” learning experience, meaning they’d learned something factual. About 15 percent of the kids picked up incorrect information. But perhaps what pro-zoo people mean, and more in line with what Hone argued in his article, was that zoos are a type of consciousness expander. They expose people young and old to something they’d never otherwise be able to see. For example, a child’s parents may take her to the Cincinnati Zoo and years afterward she might remember that moment and dream of a job working alongside animals— and achieve that goal .

Obviously, children are not the only group to learn from zoos. Researchers visit them, observe and study the animals, and help animal conservation. In this case, zoos act like temples of sanctuary, where human intervention inside protects a species from human threats outside. This happened with the California condor, of which there were only 23 left in 1982. By 1987 researchers and conservationists had captured every last one and moved them into a captive-breeding program. Today, thanks in part to the Los Angeles Zoo, there are hundreds of condors living in captivity, and about 75 have been released back into the wild.

It is true zoos have played a massive role in conserving, and in the recovery of, some species, but this is a relatively small portion of the animals zoos work with. As Tim Zimmerman pointed out in an article for Outside magazine last year, the Association of Zoos & Aquariums reported that of all the animals at the 228 zoos it accredits, only 30 species are being worked with for recovery. And of those 30 cases, most can’t be re-introduced into the wild. So the species will exist, but never as they once did.

Humans have always caught and caged animals, either for entertainment, or as an assertion of power. The Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia did it more than 4,000 years ago . Later, Alexander the Great was said to take special care of his menagerie of bears and monkeys. The Aztecs in the Americas, the early Chinese––both caged animals. The first modern zoos emerged in the 19 th century, but have changed drastically since, slowly becoming more hospitable toward animals as people’s empathy toward them grows.

Now, in Denmark, the human/animal role of zoos is already being reversed. At Zootopia , BIG, the architecture firm , designed a 300-acre zoo without bars, fences or glass, which it said makes for the “best possible and freest possible environment for the animals.” The first phase is scheduled to open in 2019. It’s not a preserve––as those who want zoos shut down have called for––but it is an advancement in how people think of holding captive animals. Zootopia’s layout would let animals roam land that encircles a doughnut-hole observation center. And though people can walk through tunnels and poke their heads up for a closer look, in this design it’s not dangerous animals like the silverback gorilla that are caged, it’s the humans.

Quick links

• Make a Gift
• Directories

"Moral Arguments Against Zoos"

Given advancements in animal welfare science and public opinion, zoos can no longer justify holding non-human animals captive for entertainment purposes alone. It is now suggested that zoos are justifiable sites of animal captivity because they serve the dual public service of education and species conservation. This paper examines these two justifications and offers moral arguments against zoos through the lens of utilitarian, rights, and ecofeminist theories.

•   Twitter
•   YouTube
•   Facebook
•   Newsletter
•   More ways to connect

An Argument Against Zoos

Free B., Joe H., Sean R.

Professor Aikens

English 202

April 20, 2018

An Argument to be Made About Zoos

What better way to spend a Saturday afternoon than a day trip to the zoo with loved ones?  Zoos are great, right? They are the middle ground where the urban meets the wild, allowing city slickers from all over to encounter the wild beasts that otherwise only exist in faraway places.  Imagine being face to face with a five hundred pound lion, where the only thing keeping you from death is a slim piece of glass. A sheet of glass that both separates inquisitive people from their television and their favorite animals.  But at what cost do we face as a society for us to have this connection? More specifically, what costs do these animal celebrities face because of their incarceration? The entertainment that zoo visitors receive is contrasted by the burden that these animals must face.   The zoo keeps wild animals in a prison locked away from their natural habitat.  In some cases, animals receive no attention to their physical or mental well-being, so it is pertinent that we identify their mistreatment and promote the preservation of wild habitats.

Zoos have been around for a long time, dating as far back as Ancient Egypt.  Although they have been around for awhile, contemporary society fails to effectively act upon and protect animals in need.  In the past, animals were kept in cages to display wealth and satisfy curiosity.  Views on the matter have changed greatly. People no longer wish to see an animal pacing in circles behind bars.  Instead, they wish for more open and natural habitats. The animals in these zoos are considered property, but there are laws in place to regulate and protect them (Grech).  Although, they currently lack effective protection and enforcement to ensure that animals are treated well. Laws are made at the international, federal, state and local levels.  Zoo animal welfare protections are only found in the state and federal levels for anti-cruelty. These laws are meant to ensure that a species is not wiped out completely in trade, and to protect the species as a whole rather than a specific animal.  Although these laws are in place, zoos usually only adhere to them when it affects their more popular animals like lions or dolphins (Grech). This is only because these animals can bring in more visitors and money. The laws are only minimal standards to protect the animals, and there would be much more benefit to implementing stricter control.  Without strict control, the black market for animal trade will prosper (Grech). In a lot of cases, if a zoo has an excess of a species then they will sell it to the black market to make money. These laws provide a facade, since zoos actually care little about the welfare of the animals.

Zoos ar e murderous businesses.   A huge obstacle that zoos run into is dealing with animals after they age.  Some of the zoos with little to no ethics take a few different paths to this problem.  Zoos have been known to ship older, less attractive animals to smaller “roadside” zoos with atrocious conditions. These animals become “ neglected castoffs” of some of the seemingly better quality zoos. One zoo that does this is the Rosamond Gifford Zoo in Syracuse, N.Y. (Stachell). While the Rosamond Gifford Zoo has been recognized for its higher quality living spaces for animals, the zoo sends many of their animals to die in smaller zoos. These zoos are where “inhabitants often exist in cramped compounds and tiny cages with poor protection from the elements, marginal food, and spotty veterinary care.  They typically get little psychological enrichment beyond a tire swing, a plastic ball, and a few dead tree branches” (Satchell). These poor conditions are no way for any creature to live. These animals are thrown to the wayside simply because they fail to attract as many visitors. Sadly, there are even worse fates for some older animals in zoos: “Zoos often kill healthy animals considered surplus to their needs….This isn’t euthanasia, or mercy killing, but ‘zoothanasia’” (Bekoff). Zoos try to justify their murder by claiming to control either a surplus of animals or fear of inbreeding,  This fatal, unethical decision making is something that should not be tolerated by any means. A horrifying example, “Members at the Copenhagen Zoo surprised many people by shooting a healthy young giraffe, dissecting it in public, and then feeding its remains to lions” (Parker). Moreover, using the term “surplus” to describe living creatures is creating the notion that they are just capital and not actually meaningful. Marc Bekoff from Psychology Today also supports this by saying, “There are no surplus animals if you consider each and every individual to have some value” (Bekoff). Giving animals the right to live is essential if we has humans want to think of our ourselves as an ethical species.

Zoos use for animals is to make money, and do whatever it takes to maximize their profits. Animals in zoos are like models on runways as they are forced to stroll around in circles and provide entertainment for any person nearby. It is apparent that these poor creatures appear to be depressed because this behavior they are conditioned to express is unnatural. This is a problem for zoos, just like managers of a runway show, if their prospects appear to be sad. So, what do zoos do? Some are known to feed their animals antidepressants to boost the animals’ moods (Rawlinson). Ultimately, zoos want to make money, so they need their animals to be happy. Another example of this is the experience with Gus the polar bear at the Central Park Zoo. Zookeepers determined that Gus was bipolar due to his awkward behavior. They then proceeded to give Gus prozac in order to make him behave normally for people who are wanting to see Gus (Medlock).  The Gaza Zoo, for example, painted stripes on donkeys so they resembled zebras, where the kids would enjoy riding these donkeys (Associated Press). These naturally occurring animals are being taken out of the wild and being altered to fit the demands of society.

A main proponent for zoos are that they serve a purpose as a mechanism to prolong the lives of endangered species.  Zoos do not provide any enhancements to the lives of such species whatsoever.  The animals that are found in a zoo are most likely not endangered, nor are they being prepared for release into the wild.  It is actually almost impossible to release captive-bred animals back into the wild since they have become so used to a domestic lifestyle.  A 2015 study published in the Journal of Applied Ecology instead states that, “Captive breeding can reduce motivation and resources for conservation in the wild, with disastrous consequences” (UEA).  This actually works more as a way out of the real problem, since z oos usually only breed animals because babies that will attract more people to visit them.  Without protecting animals in the wild, captive-breeding will likely make no difference (UEA).  Paul Dolman says, “Our research challenges the assumption that when a species is perilously close to extinction in the wild, it is always a good idea to set up a captive breeding population” (UEA).  Their models showed that there was little to no chance of captive breeding proving to be useful. The zoos must focus their efforts in other places if wildlife is to survive. If we would like to preserve wildlife, then there has to be a shift from captive breeding to the larger problems at hand: habitat destruction, poaching, and exotic animal trade.  Simply claiming that zoos provide preservation and entertainment is detrimental to the welfare of the animals which suffer in zoos.

Zoos can be quite beneficial for kids, but the cons outweigh the pros. A child’s first encounter at a zoo can be considered a life-changing experien ce. While many children’s first time at a zoo could be exposed to by a family trip, children’s first time at a zoo could be exposed to by a school field trip. Zoos do a great job at advertising their claim of saying zoos intent is to educate young students. Ettlin from the Oregon Zoo says, “A zoo exists to educate. Research happens, recreation happens, but above all is the intent to educate” (Ettlin). Ettlin points out the fact that zoos can be educational because teachers can bring their students and have a lecture with visuals of actually seeing the animals. This in-person experience cannot be beat and is far better than learning inside the walls of a classroom. The problem with this is that though we may be benefiting children by changing their learning environment, the altered and entrapping environment the animals are in does not resemble their natural habitat. Children learn about different kinds of species and get an idea of what their environment is like by observation. Not only does a disservice to the teachers and children as these zoo environments are not entirely accurate, but it is not ethical to trap these animals in the man-made environment. Going beyond, zoos have been referred to as more of an entertainment gallery than an educational experience. “Over the course of five summers, a curator at the National Zoo followed more than 700 zoo visitors and found that ‘it didn’t matter what was on display … people [were] treating the exhibits like wallpaper’” (PETA). This curator goes on to say that signs are not given hardly enough information about the animal such as its diet, species, and natural habitat.

So what are these inhuman, unjust prisons really like close up? Between the three of us, we have had previous positive experiences in the zoo environment, but after research and further thought our perceptions of zoos have changed and evolved.  Our group consensus of our early childhood zoo visits were filled with pleasant memories and exciting events. Each of us had experiences where we were in awe of being up close and personal with huge animals, or sticking our hands out to feed smaller animals.  While our memories remain the same, we now understand the cost at which these memories come. At first glance we saw a window into the actual wild, a common ground between the civilized world and the unknown barbaric realm. In reality this window is actually a locked door that imprisons animals into habitats that are not their home. Now we view zoos for what they really are, cold hearted prisons. Zoos try to give the impression that they are a beneficial organization for all, but the captivity is harmful the the stars of the show, the animals. We hope that since our perceptions have changed, yours will change too.

Animals are deprived of their freedoms when they are kept in zoos.  The small habitats, harsh treatment, and unethical fatalities are just a few of the reasons that these so-called parks are more like prisons. There are arguments that zoo proponents can make: that they help educate children, help save endangered species, or provide a safe form of family entertainment.  These arguments seem very promising on the outside, but through deeper inspection it is found that none prove true. Animals suffer from mental illness when they are kept in small cages the majority of their lives. These animals, which would otherwise be thriving in the wild, are unable to reintegrate with their wild counterparts.  Once an animal is taken out of the wild, it is impossible to put them back. If zoos truly wanted to prolong the lives of endangered species, then they would promote the conservation of wild habitats. Do not go to zoos if you care about animals. Instead, help educate others about the harmful consequences that zoos can have on animals.  We hope that in the future we will be able to see the abolishment of these ideas that inhibit animal welfare.

Bibliography

Associated Press. “Gaza Zoo Replaces Zebras with Painted Donkeys.” NBCNews.com,

NBCUniversal News Group, 12 Oct. 2009, www.nbcnews.com/id/33278616/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/gaza-zoo-replaces-zebras-painted-donkeys/#.Ws4SmdPwYgo. Accessed 8 Apr. 2018.

Bekoff, Marc. “Killing Healthy Animals in Zoos: ‘Zoothanasia’ is a Reality.” Psychology Today, 2017, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201701/killing-healthy-animals-in-zoos-zoothanasia-is-reality. Accessed 12 Apr. 2018.

Ettlin, Rex. “A Zoo Is a Great Educational Tool.”   A Resource Journal of Environmental and

Place-Based Education , 9 June 2009, clearingmagazine.org/archives/767. Accessed 10 Apr. 2018.

Grech, Kali S. “Detailed Discussion of the Laws Affecting Zoos.”  Michigan State University

College of Law, 2004, https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion -laws-affecting-zoos#id-7.  Accessed 10 Apr. 2018.

Medlock, Katie. “Polar Bears Are Getting Dosed with Prozac to Keep Them Calm in Captivity.”

Inhabitat Green Design Innovation Architecture Green Building , Inhabitat, 13 Jan. 2016, inhabitat.com/polar-bears-are-getting-dosed-with-prozac-to-keep-them-calm-in-captivity/.

Accessed Apr. 15 2018.

Parker, Ian. “The Culling.” The New Yorker , 2017. EBSCO, http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=050f9d97-6a11-4d37-92ac-11bc31513afe%40sessionmgr401. Accessed 12 Apr. 2018.

PETA “Zoos: Pitiful Prisons.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,

www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/animals-used-entertainment-factsheets/zoos-pitiful-prisons/ . Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.

Rawlinson, Kevin. “Rain-Lashed Penguins at Scarborough Sanctuary Given Antidepressants.”

The Guardian , Guardian News and Media, 6 Feb. 2014, www.theguardian.com/world/the-northerner/2014/feb/06/penguins-prescribed-antidepressants-scarborough-rain . Accessed 9 Apr. 2018.

Satchell, Michael. “Cruel and Unusual.” U.S. News & World Report. Vol. 133 no. 5, 2002. EBSCO, http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid= 8&sid=919c5b6a-c2b0-420c-9aee-589dc8255323%40sessionmgr4009&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=7069391&db=aph. Accessed 12 Apr. 2018.

University of East Anglia. “Critically endangered species should be left to breed in the wild.”

ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily , 4 June 2015.

Four Years Here Will Change Your Life. Seriously.

Are Zoos Good For Animals? Argument For And Against Zoos

A zoo is a location where caged animals are displayed for human viewing. If you are wondering “Are zoos good for animals?” we are here to present you the truth. Well, zoos are focused on showing as many unique species as possible—often in small, cramped spaces—most current zoos’ primary goal is conservation and teaching. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many animal rights activists believe that the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits and that violating individual animals’ rights—even in the name of preventing extinction—can not be justified. So, let’s know a brief history of zoos, before jumping right into the are zoos good for animals topic.

Are Zoos Good For Animals- A Brief History Of Zoos

For thousands of years, humans have maintained wild animals. Around 2500 BCE, monarchs in Mesopotamia and Egypt began keeping wild and exotic animal collections for non-utilitarian purposes in enclosed cages. Modern zoos emerged throughout the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment when scientific interest in zoology and the study of animal behavior and anatomy grew.

Arguments For Are Zoos Good For Animals

• Zoos educate the public and promote respect for different species by bringing people and animals together.
• Zoos preserve endangered animals by relocating them to a secure location where they are safe from poachers, habitat degradation, hunger, and predators.
• Many zoos have endangered species breeding programmes. These individuals may have difficulty finding partners and reproducing in the wild, and species may become extinct.
• The Association of Zoos and Aquariums holds reputable zoos to rigorous standards for the welfare of its resident animals. According to AZA, certification ensures that the organisation has been subjected to a rigorous examination by acknowledged specialists to assure the highest standards of animal management and care, including living conditions, social groupings, health, and nutrition.
• A good zoo provides an enriching environment in which the animals are never bored, are properly cared for, and have ample room.
• Zoos are a tradition, and going to the zoo is a fun family activity, an answer for who asks are zoos good for animals.
• Seeing an animal in person is a far more intimate and lasting experience than watching it in a nature documentary, and it is more likely to create a compassionate attitude toward animals.
• Some zoos assist in the rehabilitation of animals and accept exotic pets that people no longer desire or are able to care for.
• The federal Animal Welfare Act, which defines standards for animal care, governs both licenced and unaccredited animal exhibitors.

Arguments Against Zoos

• Humans do not have the right, under animal rights law, to breed, capture, and confine other creatures, even if those species are endangered. Individual animals should not be denied rights because they are members of an endangered species.
• Captive animals suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. Are zoos good for animals?, no matter how compassionate, and no drive-through safari can compete with the freedom of the wild.
• Visitors and money are brought in by newborn animals, yet the urge to produce additional young animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold to circuses and hunting establishments in addition to other zoos. Some zoos just slaughter their surplus animals.
• When individuals are sold or traded to other zoos, intergenerational ties are destroyed.
• The great majority of captive breeding operations do not allow animals to be released back into the wild. The children are inextricably linked to the cycle of zoos, circuses, petting zoos, and the exotic pet trade, which buys, sells, barters, and otherwise abuses animals. For example, an Asian elephant named Ned was born in a licenced zoo, but he was subsequently taken from an abusive circus trainer and placed in a sanctuary.
• Individual specimens being removed from the outdoors endangers the wild population because the surviving individuals will be less genetically varied and may have a more difficult time finding mates. It is extremely difficult to maintain species variety inside captive breeding facilities.
• People who wish to view wild animals in person can do so by observing wildlife in the wild or visiting a refuge. (A genuine sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals; instead, it accepts abandoned exotic pets, excess zoo animals, or damaged wildlife that can no longer live in the wild.)
• The federal Animal Welfare Act sets just the most basic requirements for cage size, housing, health care, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. Enclosures, for example, must give enough room for each animal to make typical postural and social changes while yet allowing for enough movement. Evidence of hunger, poor health, debility, stress, or aberrant behaviour patterns may suggest a lack of room.
• Animals occasionally escape from their cages, putting themselves and others at risk. Similarly, people disregard warnings or inadvertently go too near to animals, resulting in tragic results. Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, was shot in 2016 when a youngster fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. The youngster survived and was not seriously harmed, but the gorilla was slain.

Are Zoos Good For Animals? Where Zoos Go In The Future?

However, zoos are not without flaws. Should they keep huge predators or intellectual primates in captivity? Probably not in the next several decades. Should huge new creatures be caught in the wild? No, unless a strong argument can be shown for developing a captive breeding program. But how are zoos adapting and evolving? Yes! Good zoos are more conscious than ever of their changing role in conservation and are responding to it.

Would I prefer to have a species in captivity than none at all? Yes, a hundred times. We don’t require hasty replies to catastrophic occurrences.

Conclusion On Are Zoos Good For Animals

When arguing for or against zoos, both sides say that they save animals. Zoos generate money whether or if they assist the animal community. Zoos will remain as long as there is a need for them. Since zoos are almost certainly unavoidable, the best way to proceed is to ensure that zoo conditions are as good as possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care, health, and safety regulations are not only punished but also denied future access to animals.

Recent Posts

Trending Posts

10 Smartest Predators of the World

Some Beautiful Species Went Extinct In 2020

1 Big Reason Why Is It Cruel To Have Pet Bird!

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Saving Animals & Helping The Planet

We make the world better by saving caring and loving animals. Join our mission and help us!

You May Also Like…

Are Mountain Gorillas Endangered?

Animals Endangered

Are Mountain Gorillas Endangered? If yes, what can be done to save them from extinction?

7 Amazing Snow Leopard Cool Facts

Endangered Species

Do you want to know about some amazing and cool snow leopard facts? We have listed some of the best facts.

What species went extinct in 2020, know here in detail.

Join Our Newsletter

Join our newsletter to get access to premium discounts in our store, and updates any time we publish a new blog post.

Pin It on Pinterest

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Rights — Zoos Should Be Banned

Zoos Should Be Banned

• Categories: Animal Rights Conservation

About this sample

Words: 685 |

Published: Mar 25, 2024

Words: 685 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Review of the key topic, development of the topic.

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. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues 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

2 pages / 1124 words

3 pages / 1576 words

2 pages / 847 words

2 pages / 858 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 Animal Rights

Animal testing has been a common practice in scientific research and testing for decades. The use of animals, however, remains a highly controversial issue. Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. [...]

The practice of keeping animals in captivity, whether in zoos, aquariums, circuses, or other forms of confinement, has long been a subject of ethical debate and controversy. While some argue that captivity serves educational and [...]

Animal research has long been a contentious issue, with proponents touting its benefits to scientific progress and detractors decrying its ethical implications. This essay explores both sides of the debate and offers a [...]

The question of whether zoos help or harm animals is a contentious and complex issue that has sparked widespread debate among animal rights advocates, conservationists, and the general public. On one hand, zoos are touted as [...]

The banning of pit bulls based on their breed is an unjust and ineffective approach to addressing dog-related incidents. It unfairly stigmatizes a specific breed, ignores the importance of individual responsibility, and fails to [...]

Animals kept in zoos, aquariums, and circuses are treated poorly by humans and inevitably suffer of disease, pain, starvation, and fear so they will perform seamlessly for the public. Animals are forced by their owners to carry [...]

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

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Judge rejects Trump request to dismiss classified documents prosecution

Federal prosecutors chided the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case in Florida, warning her off potential jury instructions that they said rest on a “fundamentally flawed legal premise.”

This image, contained in the indictment against former President Donald Trump, shows boxes of records stored in a bathroom and shower in the Lake Room at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. The classified documents investigation of Donald Trump appeared to have clear momentum in 2022 when FBI agents who searched the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate recovered dozens of boxes containing sensitive documents. But each passing day brings mounting doubts that the case can reach trial this year. The judge has yet to set a firm trial date despite holding two hours-long hearings with lawyers this month. (Justice Department via AP)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge refused Thursday to throw out the classified documents prosecution of Donald Trump , turning aside defense arguments that a decades-old law permitted the former president to retain the sensitive records after he left office.

Lawyers for Trump had cited a 1978 statute known as the Presidential Records Act in demanding that the case, one of four against the presumptive Republican nominee , be tossed out before trial. That law requires presidents upon leaving office to turn over presidential records to the federal government but permits them to retain purely personal papers. Trump’s lawyers have said he designated the records as personal, making them his own property, and that that decision can not be second-guessed in court.

Donald Trump is facing four criminal indictments, and a civil lawsuit. You can track all of the cases here .

Prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team countered that the law had no relevance to a case concerning the mishandling of classified documents and said the files Trump is alleged to have hoarded at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida were unquestionably presidential records, not personal ones, and therefore had to be returned to the government when Trump left the White House.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon , who heard arguments on the dispute last month, permitted the case to proceed in a three-page order that rejected the Trump team claims. She wrote that the indictment makes “no reference to the Presidential Records Act” nor does it “rely on that statute for purposes of stating an offense.” The act, she said, ”does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss” the case.

The ruling is the second time in three weeks that Cannon has rebuffed defense efforts to derail the case. It represents a modest win for Smith’s team, which has been trying to push the prosecution forward to trial this year but has also expressed mounting frustration, including earlier this week, with Cannon’s oversight of the case.

Other Trump motions to dismiss the indictment remain unresolved by the judge, the trial date is in flux , and additional legal disputes have slowed the progress of a case that prosecutors say features voluminous evidence of guilt by the former president.

In Thursday’s ruling, Cannon also defended an order from last month that asked lawyers for both sides to formulate potential jury instructions and to respond to two different scenarios in which she appeared to be continuing to entertain Trump’s presidential records argument.

The order puzzled legal experts and drew a sharp rebuke from Smith’s team , with prosecutors in a filing this week calling the premises the judge laid out “fundamentally flawed” and warning that they were prepared to appeal if she pushed ahead with jury instructions that they considered wrong.

“The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case,” Cannon wrote. “Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression.”

Still, she said, if prosecutors were demanding that jury instructions be finalized prior to trial and the presentation of evidence, “the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust.”

In addition to affirming the indictment Thursday, she also rejected a separate motion to dismiss last month that argued that the Espionage Act statute underpinning the bulk of the charges was unconstitutionally vague and should be struck down.

Cannon has yet to rule on other Trump efforts to dismiss the case, including arguments that presidential immunity shields him from prosecution and that he has been subject to “selective and vindictive prosecution.”

Trump is facing dozens of felony counts related to the retention of classified documents, according to an indictment alleging he improperly shared a Pentagon “plan of attack” and a classified map related to a military operation. Authorities say the records were stowed in dozens of boxes haphazardly warehoused at Mar-a-Lago, which was searched by the FBI in August 2022 in an escalation of the investigation.

The case was initially set for trial on May 20, but Cannon heard arguments last month on a new date without immediately setting one. Both sides have said they could be ready for trial this summer, though defense lawyers have also said Trump should not be forced to stand trial while the election is pending.

Smith’s team has separately charged Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election , a case delayed by a Supreme Court review of his arguments that he is immune from federal prosecution. Prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia , have also charged Trump with trying to subvert that state’s election, though it remains unclear when that case will reach trial.

Jury selection is set for April 15 in Trump’s hush money criminal trial in New York.

That case centers on allegations that Trump falsified his company’s internal records to hide the true nature of payments to his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who helped Trump bury negative stories during his 2016 presidential campaign. Among other things, Cohen paid porn actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to suppress her claims of an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump years earlier.

Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels.

Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.