opinion essay zoos

Search form

Are zoos a good thing.

How do you feel about keeping animals in zoos? Read both sides of the argument to help you decide.

Instructions

Do the preparation exercise first. Then read the text and do the other exercises.

Preparation

Zoos are hugely popular attractions for adults and children alike. But are they actually a good thing?

Critics of zoos would argue that animals often suffer physically and mentally by being enclosed. Even the best artificial environments can't come close to matching the space, diversity, and freedom that animals have in their natural habitats. This deprivation causes many zoo animals to become stressed or mentally ill. Capturing animals in the wild also causes much suffering by splitting up families. Some zoos make animals behave unnaturally: for example, marine parks often force dolphins and whales to perform tricks. These mammals may die decades earlier than their wild relatives, and some even try to commit suicide.

On the other hand, by bringing people and animals together, zoos have the potential to educate the public about conservation issues and inspire people to protect animals and their habitats. Some zoos provide a safe environment for animals which have been mistreated in circuses, or pets which have been abandoned. Zoos also carry out important research into subjects like animal behaviour and how to treat illnesses.

One of the most important modern functions of zoos is supporting international breeding programmes, particularly for endangered species. In the wild, some of the rarest species have difficulty in finding mates and breeding, and they might also be threatened by poachers, loss of their habitat and predators. A good zoo will enable these species to live and breed in a secure environment. In addition, as numbers of some wild species drop, there is an increased danger of populations becoming too genetically similar. Breeding programmes provide a safeguard: zoo-bred animals can be released into the wild to increase genetic diversity.

However, opponents of zoos say that the vast majority of captive breeding programmes do not release animals back into the wild. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos but also to circuses or hunting ranches in the US or South Africa, where some people are willing to pay a lot of money for the chance to kill an animal in a fenced enclosure. Often, these animals are familiar with humans and have very little chance of escaping.

So, are zoos good for animals or not? Perhaps it all depends on how well individual zoos are managed, and the benefits of zoos can surely outweigh their harmful effects. However, it is understandable that many people believe imprisoning animals for any reason is simply wrong.

Check your understanding: true or false

Check your vocabulary: gap fill, worksheets and downloads.

What do you think about zoos? Are they a good thing, or is it cruel to keep animals in captivity?

Sign up to our newsletter for LearnEnglish Teens

We will process your data to send you our newsletter and updates based on your consent. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of every email. Read our privacy policy for more information.

Essay on Zoo for Students and Children

500 words essay on zoo.

The world is a huge place to see. It consists of so many living organisms that it is impossible to see each and every one of them. Especially for human beings, who are fascinated very much by animals. For the same reasons, zoos were created so that humans can interact better with animals.

In other words, a zoo is a facility that has animals, birds, and reptiles of all kinds. They are confined to space where they are given food and medical facilities. The government has given strict guidelines to maintain a zoo. This is done keeping in mind the animal’s safety. In addition, zoos are made breeding grounds for animals to protect their species.

Benefits of Zoo

Zoos were made to bring wildlife closer to humans. It gave humans a better and up-close view of them. This allows various researchers and scientists to note the behavioral pattern of the animals. It helps them in their studies and discover new things.

In addition, zoos are a great source of entertainment for kids. They love visiting zoos and interacting with animals. This helps them learn practical knowledge about the animal. It also gives them exposure to wildlife and widens their knowledge.

Furthermore, zoos give us easy access to rare animals. Had it not been for zoos, we would have never been able to see what some animals looked like. We enjoy their behavior and it also creates awareness about the extinction of the rare species.

Similarly, zoos are a safe breeding ground for animals. They ensure the animal breeds so they never go extinct. This helps in creating a good balance. Moreover, the zoos ensure the animals get all the nutrition in their bodies to lead a healthy life. This is beneficial as the animal may not get guaranteed meals in the forests.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Disadvantages of Zoo

While the zoo is a great place for entertainment, it is also very exploitive. It takes advantage of the poor animals to make a profit off them. The zoos keep animals in very bad conditions. It takes unethical methods just to create revenue.

Furthermore, zoos are very unfair to animals. They take the animals out of their natural habitats just for the sake of human entertainment. Why would the animals be put into cages as humans want them to? They are voiceless creatures who are being forced to live in poor conditions. Imagine putting humans into cages so animals could come to see them. It sounds inhumane the other way around but not when we do the same to animals.

Most importantly, zoos do not take proper care of exotic animals. They bring them over in their facility despite knowing that they cannot survive in that climate. Some zoos do not take enough precautionary measures to keep the animals safe. This has resulted in so many deaths of animals that it seems cruel.

In short, though zoos are very helpful to humans and animals to an extent. They must be monitored constantly to ensure the animals are safe. The unethical zoos must be shut down at once to prevent any further loss of animals.

FAQs on Zoo

Q.1 List the advantages of Zoo

A.1 Zoos bring the wildlife close to humans. It helps researchers study them closely and discover new things. It protects rare species and provides a safe breeding ground for them as well.

Q.2 How are zoos harmful to animals?

A.2 Zoos are very harmful to animals. They take them out of their natural habitat for human entertainment. They make them stay in poor conditions due to which they also lose their life and get infections.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App

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

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• Find Student Housing
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

In this IELTS Zoo Essay you have to discuss whether you think zoos are cruel and should be shut down or whether they are useful as they protect some wild animals.

Essays on zoos have appeared in the IELTS test before and this was a question that was recently in the test.

Some people think that zoos are all cruel and should be closed down. Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals.

Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion.

Understanding the Question

You must always read the question carefully and note if there is anything restricting the topic.

You have to discuss both sides of the argument and with this zoo essay question it would be very easy to read it and then simply write about the benefits and drawbacks of zoos.

But look at this bit carefully:

• Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals .

One of the arguments is specifically about protecting animals. So when you discuss the second argument you must be careful not to just write generally about the advantage of zoos. 

You have to focus on how they may protect wild animals . So when you brainstorm your ideas for the zoo essay, you should be thinking about:

• why animals need protecting and
• how zoos can help with this 

And in your other body paragraph you would need to explain why they are also seen as cruel. 

And of course you must remember to give your own opinion. In this essay, the author makes it clear at the beginning that they support the closing down of zoos. 

The opinion you decide on though is of course your choice.

Zoo Essay Sample

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Zoo Essay Model Answer

Zoos remain popular places for people to visit for entertainment and to learn about wild animals. Although some people are of the opinion that zoos can provide a sanctuary for endangered animals and so should be kept open, I believe that the cruelty that animals suffer outweighs this benefit, and that they should be shut down.

These days, animals are under threat from humans in many ways, seen for example in the way that their habitats are being destroyed through the cutting down of rain forests, or through poaching. Following on from this, the argument is that zoos can protect some of these animals that are under threat. The reason is that they are in a safe environment managed by trained staff who can ensure the animals are looked after and can produce offspring. There are examples of successes in this respect, such as with Pandas, which have been endangered for many years but have been protected.

However, there are more convincing arguments for why zoos should be shut down. Firstly, even though some species are under threat, there are lots of animals which do not fall into this category and who are there just for the entertainment of visitors. While it may be fun and educational to see them, animals are not meant to be caged, and their distress can often be seen in the way many of them pace back and forwards all day. Not only this, if the prime reason of zoos is to protect animals, this could be done in other environments such as wild life parks where the animals have more freedom.

In conclusion, animals should be protected but this does not have to be in zoos. Zoos are cruel to animals, not similar enough to their natural habitat, and they should be closed down. 

(299 Words)

Band scores are given for task response, coherence and cohesion, lexis (vocabulary) and grammatical range and accuracy. 

This zoo essay would get a good score for task response as it fully answers the question by discussing both opinions and giving a personal opinion. Ideas are also well explained, extended and supported. 

It would get a good score for coherence and cohesion as it is organised coherently and logically and is easy to follow. The introduction introduces the topic then there is a thesis statement.

One body paragraph discusses one side of the argument, and the other discusses the other side. The second body paragraph is also the writers opinion, and this is summarised again in the conclusion

.There is some interesting vocabulary and phrases. For example:

• sanctuary for endangered animals
• under threat from humans
• habitats are being destroyed
• produce offspring
• successes in this respect
• not meant to be caged
• natural habitat

There are also some good complex grammatical constructions and the grammar is precise. For example, the red words show that some of these are  adverbial clauses ,  noun clauses  and  relative clauses :

• Although  some people are of the opinion  that  zoos can provide a sanctuary for endangered animals...
• ...seen for example  in the way that  their habitats are being destroyed...
• ...the argument is  that  zoos can protect some of these animals who are under threat.
• ...trained staff  who  can ensure the animals are looked after...
• Pandas  who  have been endangered...
• ... even though  some species are under threat...
• ... While  it may be fun and educational...

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Discuss Two Opinion Essays:

IELTS Essay Becoming Independent

This IELTS essay discussed whether people are becoming more independent than they were in the past. This is a question that has come up a few times in the test. This is discussion type essay as you have to discuss both sides of an argument and come to a conclusion.

Childcare Essay: Should family or carers look after young children?

Childcare Essay: In the essay you have to discuss two sides of an argument. The first is that it is better if pre-school children are looked after at home with relatives such as grandparents. The second opinion is that children should be looked after at childcare centres.

Animal Rights Essay: Should animals be exploited for humans?

Animal Rights Essay for IELTS: Learn how to write an essay where you have to discuss two opinions. People who believe in animal rights think that they should not be treated cruelly, for example in experiments or for sport.

Extraterrestrial Life Essay: Should we look for life on other planets?

This extraterrestrial life essay is an IELTS opinion essay where you have to discuss both sides of an issue then give your own opinion.

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay- Model answer for IELTS. Who has had the most influence on our world? In this essay you have to discuss both sides.

Donating Money to Charity Essay: Where should the money go?

Donating Money to Charity Essay: IELTS model answer to an essay on the topic of giving locally or to national and international charities.

IELTS Essays: What is the best way to reduce crime?

IELTS essays online with comments by an IELTS instructor - A writing sample on the topic of reducing crime.

Child Development Essay: What factors influence a child's development?

Child Development Essay for IELTS. The essay is about the factors that affect the way that children develop. It provides you with a model answer and comments on the response to help you know how to improve your band score.

Diet and Health Essay: Who is responsible for diet and health?

Diet and Health Essay for IELTS: This model examines the extent to which individuals or governments should be responsible for health. Read a model answer and useful comments about the essay which will help you to improve your IELTS Score.

Formal and Informal Education Essay: What age should it start?

This formal and informal education essay is about whether it is best for children to begin their formal education at school when they are 7 rather than much younger.

IELTS Writing Example: What are the aims of a university education?

IELTS writing example essays. This is an essay on the aims of university education. In this essay, two opposing opinions need to be discussed. It is important to understand how to answer this type of question in the IELTS exam.

Sources for Stories Essay: Should parents read to their children?

This sources for stories essay asks for your opinion on the best way for children to get stories. Is it from parents reading to them or other ways?

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Student Housing
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Zoo — The Ethics and Controversies of Zoos

The Ethics and Controversies of Zoos

• Categories: Animal Ethics Zoo

About this sample

Words: 824 |

Published: Aug 24, 2023

Words: 824 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Conservation and education, animal welfare and enrichment, research and scientific study, human-animal connection and conservation awareness, ethical concerns and animal rights, alternative approaches: sanctuaries and natural habitats, case studies and success stories, captive breeding and reintroduction, conclusion: navigating the complex landscape of zoos and animal welfare.

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

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1500 words

2 pages / 792 words

2 pages / 868 words

1 pages / 562 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Zoo

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

The existence of zoos serves a broader purpose beyond mere entertainment. The benefits that zoos provide in terms of conservation, education, research, and public engagement are undeniable. Through dedicated efforts, zoos [...]

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

The 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 issue that has been lingering for a long time, why zoos should be banned, is discussed in this essay. “We do not own planet Earth; we belong to it. We must share it with our wildlife” – Steve Irwin. Keeping animals in zoos [...]

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

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

Home Essay Examples Environment Zoo

Good And Bad Sides Of The Zoo System: Opinion Essay

• Category Environment
• Subcategory Environmental Protection
• Topic Wildlife Conservation , Zoo

One of my favorite places to go as a child was the zoo; whether it be class field trips or a Saturday afternoon with my family. I loved seeing the animals and learning about their habitats. More recently, zoos have been the subject of massive controversy over their very existence. Zoos are being questioned about their purpose to the public and whether the animal’s best interests are in mind. This stirred a moral dilemma in me, as I could not make up my mind over whether zoos were beneficial to animals or not, thus prompting me to do further research. Are zoos good or bad? What do people say about zoos? If they are good, what are the major issues? If they are bad, how should we fix them? These questions led me to multiple sources, which I will summarize and analyze as I try to answer the questions I have posed.

The first source called “Are Zoos Bad News?” gives a great overview of the heated debate between zoo officials and animal rights activists. The author tackles the animal rights activists’ perspective first by opening with a tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo. The author writes that the zoo “shot and killed the animal, but the damage had already been done” (“Are Zoos Bad News?”). Figuratively, this is a great word choice because the damage started the backlash from animal rights activists, specifically the treatment of animals in zoos. It does show a slight bias towards the con-side of zoos, as opening an article with a tragedy at a zoo sheds more light on why they should not exist. However, the article does bring up the views of zoo officials and cites, “‘A National Science Foundation Study showed that people who visit zoos actually change their behavior towards animals’” (“Are Zoos Bad News?”). The author’s choice of scientific fact shows the pro-zoo side does know what they are talking about and emphasizes that zoos foster an animal-human connection. This source was created to challenge the reader to choose which side they agree with and why, but it clearly highlights the key differences between the pro-zoo and anti-zoo debate.

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

This source does not offer an obvious opinion, as it asks the audience directly “Are zoos bad for wild animals?” which is similar to the question I am trying to answer (“Are Zoos Bad News?”). Much of the reaction to this source was helping me understand the debate more thoroughly and it gave a clear idea of what it was all about. This source highlighted what to look for throughout my research and allowed me to start developing an answer to my question.

On the zoo perspective, the article “The Last Menageries” by author Greg Miller discusses progressive zoos. At the start, Miller gave some background on zoo history to contrast with current times. Miller notes, “zoos were little more than spectacles that symbolized the might of nations or their rulers” but now, zoos “portray themselves as modern versions of Noah’s ark, rounding up endangered species…until they could be reintroduced to their native habitat.” Miller’s use of logos with having that historical commentary benefits Miller’s larger argument that zoos need to continually change to fit the public appeal. Zoos are realizing their need to “justify their existence” to counter the animal rights activist groups and one way they are doing this is reinventing the conservation efforts (Miller). The Congo Gorilla Forest exhibit at the Bronx Zoo allows “Visitors [to] pay a $3 supplement and then choose which of four conservation projects they’d like their money to go to” (Miller). Miller uses this ethical approach that if the Bronx Zoo can do this, other zoos should follow in their footsteps.

Miller mentions that zoos are helping endangered animals in more ways than we realize. Miller brought up that “Zoos do have one advantage over other [organisations] when it comes to field conservation: their expertise with wild animals.” Miller goes on to explain that the veterinarians at zoos learn how to care for these animals and can conduct studies on them, which is a lot easier than trying to accomplish the same tasks on free-range wildlife. Zoos can discover more about wild animals in a controlled habitat instead of trying to track them down and potentially traumatize them by capturing or anesthetizing them for research purposes. Most importantly, Miller defines what a zoo should be doing, which is to help the patron realize the complexity of nature and how they can improve the environment for the sake of animals.

This article helped to answer my question because it gave concrete evidence over the general scope of zoos. I specifically liked the Bronx Zoo exhibit example, as it targets the idea that zoos offer an animal-human connection. There is more of an obligation to donate to the conservation efforts if the audience can see the animal that is being affected. I know this from a personal standpoint, as I donated to the San Diego Zoo’s Wildlife Conservation effort by purchasing a panda stuffed animal after seeing the pandas at the zoo. Zoos are making an effort to change their reputation, which is more reassuring, and they are coming up with valid conservation methods to back up their conservation claims.

The other pro-zoo article was “The Future of Zoos” by author Justin Worland. This article is helpful towards the zoo debate, as it talks about zoos that have made adaptations to make the lives of animals in captivity easier. Worland talks about how “zoos are finding that balancing the demands of entertainment, education and conservation is increasingly difficult” because of the outrage from animal rights activists, especially with new studies regarding animal emotion. Logically, he contrasts this with zoos that have made successful efforts in making animals in captivity more comfortable. Worland uses Philadelphia Zoo’s progressive Zoo360 program as an example, where animals have trails to follow around the whole park. Not only will the animals have more space, but the article says, “officials hope Zoo360 will provide those moments of connection…‘That moment in a zoo, when a person sees a gorilla look them back in the eye, helps them grasp their role in a greater natural world’” (Worland). Because of these animal-human connections, the public’s interest is still high, suggesting society getting rid of zoos would be very unlikely to happen as “zoos have experienced record attendance” (Worland).

The article furthermore addresses another major criticism by animal rights activists: zoos do not do enough for conservation. Worland provides evidence to prove that wrong, writing, “they advance conservation work by educating patrons and pushing them to donate to the cause. Other zoos tell their visitors to act on climate change to protect animal habitats across the globe.” This idea boils down to “broadening” conservation, which gives zoos more opportunities to make an even bigger change in the world by tackling larger events that impact animal environments. This benefits his claim that zoos are working towards conservation in new ways.

Overall, the article proved to be helpful by addressing that zoos are trying to make a change, so we should do our part to let them. It gave insight on new exhibits being made and the new conservation efforts, similar to Miller’s article. I have personally noticed many zoos have social media pages, like the Franklin Park Zoo in Massachusetts, where they bring in bigger problems in the environment, such as the recent palm oil plantation crisis that affects animals. Zoos are trying to reach people in a variety of ways, but are not receiving recognition.

Regarding the animal rights activist’s opinion on zoos, the viewpoint essay titled “Zoos Are Cruel and Unnecessary” by Liz Tyson is an excerpted commentary off on an interview that provides scathing criticism on the zoo system. When asked if zoos are necessary to educate, Tyson responds, “Not at all..there is a wealth of information out there which someone who is interested in learning about wildlife can access at the touch of a button.” Although we can indeed find out anything on the internet, getting rid of zoos means that society would not get any face value with the animals they are learning about, thus making them less likely to support any conservation efforts. Tyson argues that “zoos show animals out of context” and zoos fail to show children “the urgency of the need for habitat conservation…or the ways in which that child could aid the conservation.” However, it should be noted that children are not the only humans in attendance at zoos. A six-year-old child is not going to grasp habitat conservation, but at least zoos are introducing the animals to them and giving them a good memory so when they come back as adults, they can understand more about why the animals were there. Lastly, the article argues that “Subjecting an animal to a lifetime of captivity, whether to inspire passion for conservation or to entertain are two sides of the same coin” (Tyson). Tyson is suggesting that zoos are not genuine in their motives and are only trying to entertain at the expense of animals’ lives, something she believes is unacceptable.

The first thing I want to note about this source is that because it is excerpted, it caused a lot of confusion. Not having the counterclaims the original source had made Tyson’s argument less effective and made the piece seem overly opinionated. That being said, I still found myself generally disagreeing with this article because the author had a dismissive tone as if she viewed people who liked zoos to be lesser than her, which seemed to lower her credibility in my eyes. Generally, everything Tyson said could be disproved by the other sources I have read on animals in zoos. In regards to her statements that zoos are just trying to entertain, I can agree when it comes to animal shows that zoos are not genuine, but the overall showing off animals to the public is necessary entertainment, thus unhelpful in proving her point. Entertainment is how you inspire and create passion, which I know, as I am a theatre major, film minor. Had I not been entertained by the movies I loved and the plays I attended, there would be no opportunity for inspiration. Very few wake up and say they want to be a veterinarian or a researcher on exotic animals without seeing an animal in a zoo or working with animals firsthand. Getting rid of zoos altogether purely because of the entertainment aspect would be highly controversial and would hurt the wildlife conservation efforts, as fewer people would be interested in the field.

Adding on to the animal rights side, the article “Animals are Persons, Too” by Maureen Mitra goes in-depth into the inner-workings of the activists behind the Nonhuman Rights Project (NHrP). They are pushing to consider chimpanzees as “persons,” meaning their interests and well-being would be protected by U.S. law, thus making it illegal for anyone to own or keep them as property. She gives zoos a negative connotation from the start, criticizing a zoo for housing a Hollywood star chimpanzee without giving it enough space, and then launches into the NHrP case for chimpanzees and other exotic animals. However, the four chimpanzees they are defending in the case are either private pets owned by humans or being used for research (Mitra). None of these animals are owned by zoos or have been negatively affected by zoos, so why paint zoos in a nasty light? Mitra highlights other issues with animal personhood, like the worry of “animal personhood [leading] to the demise of animal research, ranching, and perhaps pet ownership,” but acknowledges that people generally believe the NhRP to be beneficial because it is bringing animal rights to the forefront. The article brings up the point that some people believe “animals have social and emotional lives and deserve to be free” (Mitra). While animals do have feelings similar to human emotions, and there is a whole range of studies on that, zoos are necessary for endangered species. No matter how much an animal wishes to be free, if the species is endangered, it needs to be monitored and presented to the public, especially in cases where the animal is close to extinction. Having an endangered animal housed in a zoo can help create sympathy in the public. Mitra presents other strategies to help the movement, like public opinion and considering animals “living property,” but they all benefit her claim that humans have a moral responsibility to animals. Because we know what they need, we should be providing for them in the wild instead of hindering them in a zoo.

I found that I generally disagreed with this article because of weak evidentiary support. The claims and evidence Mitra used clashed, and a lot of the animal rights movement points she cited had nothing to do with zoos. Mitra bringing up her zoo experience at the beginning of the story clashes with the evidence she provided in the lawsuit. The lawsuit wants animals’ interests protected, which is understandable in the case of animal abuse and private ownership of exotic animals, as the case is trying to do, but zoos with state-of-the-art habitats are not causing these issues. Another example of weak evidence that Mitra used was her citing Lori Marino, the NhRP science director, who said “‘None of them [veterinary schools], I think, now use live animals.’” Mitra’s choice in quote was not strong, as her source used the words “I think”, which is not the most convincing of arguments, nor does it help her establish credibility. I know for a fact that veterinary programs do still use live animals, as Franklin Park Zoo, among others, partners with One Health to invite students training in the medical field to participate in their vet program. They get to practice on live animals in a safe environment and get hands-on experience to apply to the human medical field, which directly contradicts Marino’s statement. The article was not as beneficial as I would have hoped it would be, but it did provide a clear stance on the zoo debate.

Throughout my research, I have learned both the good and bad sides of the zoo system. Zoos do try to educate the public through conservation and providing close encounters with the animals. Zoos do their very best to keep the animals safe and stimulated in natural-like habitats. However, they are not doing enough, as many articles concluded. They need to make bigger exhibits and house fewer animals, regardless of public opinion. Animal welfare should be the forefront of zoos, who’s main purpose besides educating the public is to help endangered wildlife. Critics of zoos do not seem to be changing their opinion any time soon, so zoos will continue to get bad publicity until they start adding more emphasis on the changes they are making and the accreditation process they go through. Are zoos good or bad? I think it is somewhere in the healthy middle. They are not perfect, but they are needed and are trying to make sure they benefit the animals just as much as humans

We have 98 writers available online to start working on your essay just NOW!

Related Topics

Related essays.

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

By clicking "Receive essay" you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

We can edit this one and make it plagiarism-free in no time

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Should Zoos be Banned? Pros & Cons of Zoos

Published by ecocation on october 18, 2023 october 18, 2023.

Should zoos be banned? Are zoos bad or good?

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

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

So let’s dive right into the topic!

The Pros & Cons of Zoos

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

What are the Pros of Zoos?

1. zoos are protecting endangered species.

When ecological conservation emerged as a matter of public interest in the 1970s , zoos all over the world have embraced the mission of   saving endangered species   in the world. Zoos are not like the cruel animal menageries from the middle ages. They want to provide entertainment, but they are greatly concerned with the protection and conservation of animals and their natural habitats. Environmental protection is one of the biggest reasons why zoos should not be banned.

Zoos provide a protected environment for endangered animals, and also help in raising awareness and funding for wildlife initiatives and research projects. Therefore, zoos educate the public about animals and are contributing their part to the conservation of many species . In fact, should zoos be banned, many species would have gone extinct already. A good example are narwahls .

2. Zoos are educating the public about animals

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

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

Ultimately, zoos provide an affordable opportunity to see (exotic) animals , giving everyone an equal chance to experience wildlife first-hand and learn about nature. No matter what a person’s socioeconomic status may be, there is a chance to learn something new because of the work of a zoo. By educating about animals, z oos are also raising awareness about our environmental problems like climate change and illustrate how these impact ecosystems worldwide.

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

3. Zoos help in fighting animal extinction

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

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

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

4. Zoos are conducting valuable research

Zoos are key for   research . Being able to observe and study animals is crucial if we want to contribute to help them and repair the ecosystems. They also help in reducing human-animal conflicts and in better understanding the needs and psychology of animals. Zoos serve as laboratories to learn more about how to fight animal diseases and develop effective animal anaesthetics and other treatments to help more animals in the future.

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

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

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

5. Zoos provide income for many communities

Finally, the pros of zoos include their economic importance. Zoos play an important economic role , especially in the less developed areas of the world, where they are an important income source for many communities. Zoos do more than just providing a place for animals to reside. They are a place that provides jobs, creates tourism opportunities, and can even be an economic nexus for a community . 

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

What are the Cons of Zoos?

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

1. Zoos entertain humans at the expense of animals

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

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

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

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

2. Holding animals in captivity has questionable ethics

Haven’t we learned from our shameful history with “human zoos”? 100 years ago, people accepted that other humans are exhibited in “human zoos”, which everyone would protest against nowadays. Who knows how humanity will look back and judge our present animal zoos in 100 years… If we look back at the dark history of zoological institutions, zoos should be banned!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animal behaviorists see zoo animals suffering from problems not seen in the wild, such as clinical depression in clouded leopards and gibbons, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in brown bears, and anxiety in giraffes. The animals experience these issues due to smaller enclosures, changes in diet and activities, and the introduction of things not seen in the wild, such as medical exams and people with cameras.

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

5. Lack of regulation & control in many zoos

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

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

Putting aside these opposing views, it does remain a sad reality that the  welfare of zoo animals varies widely depending on where you are . While many zoos have been working hard to improve their animal enclosures to better fit the needs of captive animals, constraints such as limited space and funds can seriously hinder this process. Smaller, poorer zoos simply do not have the luxury of hiring well-trained zoological staff or expanding their breeding programs and facilities to maintain the ethos of conservation. A ban of these smaller, less well-funded zoos could be seen as a reasonable strategy for reducing harm to wildlife.

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

A Brief History of Zoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what’s the verdict now? Should zoos be banned or not? Are zoos good or bad? Let’s dive into the pros and cons of zoos.

Should Zoos be Banned?

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

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

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

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

• Best Zoos in California
• Best Aquariums in California

Are zoos ethical? What about aquariums?

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

What are the pros and cons of zoos?

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

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

Are zoos good or bad?

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

Are zoos morally wrong?

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

Are zoos bad or good?

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

Are zoos safe for animals?

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

Are zoos for profit?

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

Why should zoos be banned?

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

Why should zoos not be banned?

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

What are alternatives to zoos?

You can learn about animals without visiting or supporting zoos.

Here is a list of ethical alternatives to zoos:

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

Related Posts

Top 25 Ugly Animals on the Planet (+Pictures)

Welcome to the world of ugly animals, where looks aren’t everything! While they might not win any beauty contests, these creatures are champions in survival and adaptation. They may not have the cuddly appeal of Read more…

15 BEST Aquariums in California (Ultimate Review 2024)

Discover a world beneath the waves as we embark on a journey through the 15 best aquariums in California. From awe-inspiring marine life to immersive education, these aquatic wonders offer more than meets the eye. Read more…

Animal Abuse on Snapchat & How to Stop It

Have you ever seen videos or pictures of animals being abused on social media and wondered what you could do to help? Well, animal abuse on Snapchat is more common than you might think – and there Read more…

• General Reading
• Academic Reading
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• IELTS Writing Task 1

Essay#37 | Zoos

Ielts writing task 2 conclusion.

It is important not to repeat the same words or phrases too often in IELTS Writing Task 2. Using  synonyms  can help. Remember:  synonyms  are different words or phrases that mean the same thing as each other.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Many people believe that zoos have no purpose in today’s world and should be closed. What problems do zoos bring?

What are the alternatives to zoos if they are closed?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

Model answer.

The presence of zoos in our cities and towns has been questioned a lot recently, and opinions differ about whether they provide benefits to people and animals, or whether they should be closed.

Initially, we need to think about the negative issues with zoos. Many people believe it is wrong to take animals out of their natural environment and put them into cages. They believe that this is cruel and is only done to attract visitors and make money. In addition, many people feel that we should not interfere with nature, and if possible, animals should be allowed to stay in their own environment.

In terms of alternatives, there are a few options that we have. Wildlife parks are becoming more popular in today’s world. These provide more space for animals to wander around and they provide a habitat which is more similar to animals’ natural homes. A more permanent solution which would enable us all to see animals in the wild would be for airlines to reduce their ticket prices. If air travel were cheaper, then we would all be able to see wild animals in their natural habitat and there would be no need for zoos in our cities. We should also promote channels on TV such as National Geographic. Here, people can see wildlife as it should be seen.

As we can see, zoos are not the only way for humans to see and learn about wild animals. If there were no zoos, it would still be possible for scientists and ordinary people to preserve and experience nature.

(261 words)

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)

You May Like this

Table#8 | Worldwide Market Share of the Notebook Computer

The table below shows the worldwide market share of the notebook computer market for manufacturers in the years 2006 and 2007.

Table#7 | Teacher Training Qualifications

The table below shows the number of students living in the UK gaining English language teacher training qualifications in 2007/8 and 2008/9, and the proportion of male qualifiers.

Guide 2 IELTS

Visit our YouTube Channel for more content. Contact: [email protected]

Search This Blog

Ielts sample essay -- zoos (cruel or useful) (discuss both views; give opinion).

IELTS Writing Task 2 (Essay) Question

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Some people think that zoos are cruel and all the zoos should be closed. However, others think that zoos are useful to protect rare animals. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

For a step-by-step guide on how to plan and write this essay, visit our YouTube channel: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYptep42Go&t=115s

Sample Essay #1 

(Using 3 points arguing that zoos are useful and 1 point arguing that zoos are cruel; Conclusion: conditionally agree with the opinion that zoos are useful)

Visit to a zoo is part of fond childhood memories of almost everyone. Yet, it has become a contentious subject in recent years whether zoos serve an overall positive purpose.  Since there seem to be valid supporting arguments for both perspectives, this essay will discuss them and reach a logical conclusion based on the presented line of reasoning.

Firstly, these establishments provide a safe place for wild animals from poachers and other risks. This is especially crucial for rare and endangered species. For example, tigers and pandas are kept in different zoos across the globe because of which their numbers have grown manifold over the years.  Secondly, these zoological parks are needed by researchers and scientists to study animals.  Lastly, menageries, such as zoos, are an ideal location for edutainment. That is to say, these establishments are not only an ideal source of entertainment for people of all age groups but they are also a way to impart education to children regarding animals. As a result of visit to such places, children may feel an affinity towards animals. What is more, zoos are a brilliant means of creating awareness about environmental issues.

On the other hand, those who oppose zoos and want them to be closed assert that animals are not treated well in zoos. These animals are caged in confined spaces. The cages and enclosures are tiny compared to the natural habitat of these animals. For instance, a tiger which is one of the fastest animals is sometimes kept in small cages. Similarly, monkeys which can jump from one tree to another in seconds are at times confined to a small area with just 2-3 trees.

In conclusion, my opinion is that zoos have many benefits which have been proven over the years and they should certainly not be closed. We should, however, ensure that the animals in zoos have larger spaces where they can move about.

Sample Essay #2 

(Using 3 points arguing that zoos are useful and 3 points arguing that zoos are cruel; Conclusion: zoos are cruel)

(first two paragraphs are almost the same as the previous essay)

Firstly, these establishments provide a safe place for wild animals from poachers and other risks. This is especially crucial for rare and endangered species. For example, tigers and pandas are kept in different zoos across the globe because of which their numbers have grown manifold over the years.  Secondly, these zoological parks are needed by researchers and scientists to study animals.  Lastly, menageries, such as zoos, are an ideal location for edutainment. That is to say, these establishments are not only an ideal source of entertainment for people of all age groups but they are also a way to impart education to children regarding animals. As a result of visits to such places, children may feel an affinity towards animals. What is more, zoos are a brilliant means of creating awareness about environmental issues.

On the other hand, it is necessary to accept that no creature should be treated as if it is for the entertainment of humankind. Hence, the treatment of wild animals in zoos has to be considered as brutal as their freedom is hampered. What is worse, the animals bred in captivity are incapable of adapting to the wild environment and thus can never be released into the wild. For instance, if a chimpanzee is born in a zoo environment, it would never be able to live in a forest. This chimpanzee would not know how to live with other wild animals or find food for itself.

In conclusion, although it seems that there are quite a few positives of zoos, I strongly believe they are an atrocity and closing is the only ethical recourse.

Sample Essay #3

(Using 3 points arguing that zoos are useful and 3 points arguing that zoos are cruel; Conclusion: zoos are cruel + alternatives to benefits of zoos)

(first three paragraphs are almost the same as the previous essay)

In conclusion, although it seems that there are quite a few positives of zoos, I strongly believe they are an atrocity and closing them is the only ethical recourse. As far as education is concerned, we now have a wide range of audio-visual media for this purpose. A practical example of this is the fact that no child has ever seen a dinosaur but through movies, documentaries, animations, and museums, they are very familiar with these extinct creatures. Similarly, for research and conservation purposes, wildlife sanctuaries and national parks should be encouraged where the focus is the well-being of the animals and not the amusement of human visitors.

Different ways of writing the first paragraph for this essay

• Visit to a zoo is part of fond childhood memories of almost everyone. Yet, it has become a contentious subject in recent years whether zoos serve an overall positive purpose.
• Zoos are looked upon as an important source of edutainment where children can acquire knowledge of a variety of flora and fauna in an entertaining environment. However, in recent times, animal rights activists have raised a question over whether these zoos are in reality proof of cruelty to animals by us humans.
• Since humans are a curious race, they find different means to know about nature. One such method is to visit a zoo and observe animals in a leisurely manner. The problem is that not everyone agrees that zoos are beneficial. Actually, certain sections of society believe zoos to be establishments of cruelty towards the animals which are kept there.
• Should zoos be encouraged because they serve a useful purpose or should they be shut down because animals in zoos are treated inhumanely? This has become a contentious subject in recent times which deserves serious thought and discussion.

Different ways of writing the topic sentence (first sentence of second paragraph)  for this essay

• There are many ways through which zoos are beneficial.
• The useful impact of zoos have long been known.
• The useful benefits of zoos have long been known.
• Many past generations have advocated the benefits of zoos.
• There are a number of useful applications of zoos.

Different ways of writing the conclusion for this essay

• Conditionally agree Both sides have valid arguments in their favour because of which, in my opinion, zoos are important but we need to ensure that the animals there are treated humanely.
• More points for one side than the other Although there are a few reasons to support the closing of zoos, the arguments for the benefits of zoos are more. Therefore, in my opinion, zoos are helpful to society and should remain open. However, it should be ensured that the animals in zoos are treated humanely.  

Step 1: Read & understand the question

Step 2: Plan the answer (points for both views)

Step 3: Think about the vocabulary

Step 4: Write

Step 5: Revise

Basic format/template:

Paragraph 1 : Introduction

•        General statement (optional)

•        Paraphrasing of the question

•        This essay will discuss both the opinions before reaching a conclusion based on the arguments presented.

Paragraph 2 (body paragraph 1): Discuss one viewpoint

•        Topic sentence (E.g., There are a number of reasons to support this opinion)

•        Beginning phrases (Firstly/To begin with); Supporting points (Secondly/Thirdly; Moreover/Furthermore)

Paragraph 3 (body paragraph 2): Discuss the other viewpoint

•        Topic sentence (E.g., On the other hand, the opposing viewpoint can also have valid supporting arguments)

•        Supporting points

Paragraph 4 : Conclusion

Copyright © www.Guide2IELTS.com 2022. All rights reserved.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog, consumerism (part 3--ielts speaking), online reviews (part 3--ielts speaking), letters--writing task 1 ielts general training (templates).

Welcome Guest!

• IELTS Listening
• IELTS Reading
• IELTS Writing
• IELTS Writing Task 1
• IELTS Writing Task 2
• IELTS Speaking
• IELTS Speaking Part 1
• IELTS Speaking Part 2
• IELTS Speaking Part 3
• IELTS Practice Tests
• IELTS Listening Practice Tests
• IELTS Reading Practice Tests
• IELTS Writing Practice Tests
• IELTS Speaking Practice Tests
• All Courses
• IELTS Online Classes
• OET Online Classes
• PTE Online Classes
• CELPIP Online Classes
• Free Live Classes
• Australia PR
• Germany Job Seeker Visa
• Austria Job Seeker Visa
• Sweden Job Seeker Visa
• Study Abroad
• Student Testimonials
• Our Trainers
• IELTS Webinar
• Immigration Webinar

We No Longer Need to have Animals Kept in Zoos – IELTS Writing Task 2

10 min read

Updated On Nov 21, 2023

Share on Whatsapp

Share on Email

Share on Linkedin

Limited-Time Offer : Access a FREE 10-Day IELTS Study Plan!

Agree Disagree essays, like “We No Longer Need to have Animals Kept in Zoos”, are the most common type of questions in IELTS Writing Task 2. In this essay type, you are asked to express clearly whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Once you’ve made up your mind, come up with two or three arguments in favor of it.

The essay topic, “We No Longer Need to have Animals Kept in Zoos” is a classic Agree/Disagree Writing Task 2 question, which will help you acquaint yourself with the format of structuring an IELTS Agree Disagree essays. If you want to practise regularly, check out the  Writing Task 2 practice tests .

Let’s have a look at the  Agree Disagree essay  – We No Longer Need to have Animals Kept in Zoos – with three sample answers.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

We no longer need to have animals kept in zoos, so zoos should be closed. do you agree or disagree, give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experience., you should write at least 250 words., band 7 sample answer (agreement).

In recent times, the question of whether we still need zoos in the 21st century is a topic of debate. While some support the idea that zoos play an important role in conservation efforts and public awareness, I think that animals should not be kept in zoos, supporting the closure of these institutions. I will outline the reasons in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, animal welfare is a moral concern that makes zoo closures a strong argument. The small living space and restricted natural light of a traditional zoo frequently fail to meet the physical and psychological needs of the animals. Due to a controlled environment, they lose their instinct, which negatively affects their health as well as the ecosystem. For example, elephants, known for their vast roaming territories, suffer in cages due to the limited area of the zoo. As a result, reports of situations where animals show distress signals, like pacing, highlight the damaging effects of confinement on an animal’s health.

Additionally, alternatives to standard zoos have appeared, offering more proper ways for wildlife education. Wildlife sanctuaries, online life-like documentaries, and interactive digital platforms provide engaging and educational experiences without subjecting animals to the confines of imprisonment. For instance, online platforms and documentaries like National Geographic and BBC Earth offer detailed insights into wildlife behavior and ecosystems.

In the end, I believe that even though zoos might be a good way to observe animals closely within our reach, the urgent need to prioritize animal welfare and the availability of alternative educational platforms support the argument for closing zoos. (264 words)

Vocabulary 

• Debate (Noun)

Meaning: a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something

E.g.: Winning the inter-school debate competition is a matter of pride for all the participants.

• Psychological (Adjective)

Meaning: mental or emotional rather than physical

E.g.: The war had some psychological effect on the soldiers.

• Instinct (Noun)

Meaning: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned

E.g.: Her motherly instinct helped her to protect her child.

• Ecosystem (Noun)

Meaning: the system of living organisms, their physical environment, and all their interrelationships in a particular unit of space

E.g.: Animals live freely in their own ecosystem.

• Distress (Adjective)

Meaning: a state of extreme sorrow, suffering, or pain

E.g.: She was in distress when we found her.

• Confinement (Noun)

Meaning: the situation in which a person or animal is kept somewhere, usually by force

E.g.: The boy grew up in confinement after his parents died.

• Documentaries (Noun)

Meaning: a film or television or radio programme that gives facts and information about a subject

E.g.: Children should watch more documentaries rather than playing violent games.

• Confines (Noun)

Meaning: the borders or boundaries of a place, especially with regard to their restricting freedom of movement.

E.g.: The baby elephant died in the confines of the zoo.

• Insights (Noun)

Meaning: a clear, deep, and sometimes sudden understanding of a complicated problem or situation, or the ability to have such an understanding

E.g.: The insights of the Principal were very informative.

• Prioritize (Verb)

Meaning: to decide which of a group of things are the most important so that you can deal with them first

E.g.: One should prioritize one’s health before anything else.

Don’t wait to solve your IELTS queries?  Book a free trial & talk to our Experts  NOW!

Band 8 Sample Answer (Disagreement)

The argument that we no longer need animals kept in zoos and that zoos should be closed oversimplifies the varied roles these institutions play in modern society. While some argue that zoos should be closed, as we no longer require animals in captivity for educational purposes, I am of the opinion that zoos remain valuable for both conservation efforts and educational purposes, making their closure potentially damaging. In the upcoming paragraphs, I shall discuss my perspective in detail.

To begin with, zoos have long been a source of fascination and education, providing people with the opportunity to observe and learn about a diverse range of animals. They serve as powerful educational tools, offering an engaging experience that digital alternatives struggle to imitate. Witnessing animals in person promotes a sense of connection and responsibility toward the natural world. To give you an idea, children exposed to wildlife in zoos often develop an increased awareness of conservation issues, laying the foundation for future environmental management.

Moreover, zoos play a decisive role in species conservation. Many zoos actively engage in breeding programs for endangered species, acting as a defense against destruction. The successful reproduction of the black-footed ferret in captivity, a species once on the verge of extinction, demonstrates how zoos contribute significantly to preserving biodiversity. In addition, modern zoos prioritize vast enclosures and conservation initiatives to ensure the physical and psychological well-being of their residents. As a result, the argument of limited spaces to roam affecting the health of the animals is ruled out.

In conclusion, the recommendation to close zoos ignores their contributions to conservation and education. Rather than rejecting these institutions, I believe, a more practical approach would be to improve and enhance the ethical standards of zoos, ensuring that they continue to fulfill their crucial roles in protecting biodiversity and encouraging a deep connection between humans and the animal kingdom. (311 words)

• Oversimplifies (Verb)

Meaning: to describe or explain something in such a simple way that it is no longer correct or true

E.g.: The committee oversimplified his mistakes while led to a wrong decision.

• Potentially (Adverb)

Meaning: with the capacity to develop or happen in the future

E.g.: Robin could potentially become a threat to society if he is not looked after properly.

• Diverse (Adjective)

Meaning: including different types of people or things

E.g.: There are diverse opportunities waiting for you in our company.

• Engaging (Adjective)

Meaning: tending to please; attractive

E.g.: The professor gave an engaging lecture and impressed the students.

• Decisive (Adjective)

Meaning: able to make decisions quickly and confidently, or showing this quality

E.g.: The decisive qualities in him made him the right choice for the post.

• Endangered (Adjective)

Meaning: in danger of being harmed, lost, unsuccessful, etc.

E.g.: Governments should make policy to protect and conserve the endangered species.

• Extinction (Noun)

Meaning: a situation in which something no longer exists

E.g.: Every year more animals and plants are nearing extinction.

• Ruled out (Phrasal Verb)

Meaning: to decide or state that something is impossible or will not happen, or that something or someone is not suitable

E.g.: Roma’s plea for custody was ruled out due to her addiction.

• Ethical (Adjective)

Meaning: relating to beliefs about what is morally right and wrong

E.g.: The decision was taken on ethical grounds and the child was given back to the parents.

• Biodiversity (Noun)

Meaning: all the different kinds of life you’ll find in one area

E.g.: Every community should take responsibility for the biodiversity of that region.

Join us in our IELTS webinars to learn proven tricks to handle IELTS Writing!  Explore Now !

Band 9 Sample Answer (Disagreement)

Unlock Answer

It is often argued that zoos are obsolete and should be closed. However, I completely disagree with this opinion and think that when managed responsibly, zoos are vital components of our society as they contribute significantly to our understanding of the natural world, the conservation of endangered species, and provide a bonding opportunity for families. In subsequent paragraphs, this essay shall illustrate my thoughts on the topic.

Apart from playing an essential role in conservation, zoos contribute substantially to scientific research on animal behavior, reproduction, and health. Studying animals in controlled environments helps scientists gain insights that can be applied to captive and wild populations, aiding in developing effective conservation strategies. The Giant Panda Research Base in China is another notable instance. Scientists at this facility study panda breeding and behavior in captivity, addressing challenges associated with pandas’ notoriously low reproductive rates. Consequently, the resulting observations have contributed to broader initiatives to support wild panda populations in their natural habitat.

Besides contributing to local economies by attracting tourists and creating jobs, zoos offer families a unique and enriching bonding opportunity. Visiting a zoo is not just an outing; it’s an experience that brings family members together in a shared exploration of the wonders of the natural world. When I visited the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago with my family, the engaging conversations I had with my parents and siblings after a long time helped us exchange knowledge and fostered a stronger connection.

To conclude, I would like to point out that the reasoning for closing zoos neglects the invaluable contributions they make to conservation, scientific knowledge, and familial attachment. Rather than dismissing these institutions, we should advocate for responsible and ethical zoo management, ensuring they continue to evolve and serve as catalysts for positive change in protecting our planet’s biodiversity. (299 words)

• Obsolete (Adjective)

Meaning: no longer used or needed

E.g.: Latin has become an obsolete language.

• Subsequent (Adjective)

Meaning: occurring or coming later or after

E.g.: The death of the CEO led to the subsequent changes in the company.

• Substantially (Adverb)

Meaning: to a great or significant extent

E.g.: The teachings of Buddha had substantially affected his thought process.

• Notoriously (Adverb)

Meaning: used to emphasize that a quality or fact, typically a bad one, is well known

E.g.: Mina took charge of the notoriously lowering mortality rate of the region.

• Captive (Adjective)

Meaning: a person or animal whose ability to move or act freely is limited by being kept in a space

E.g.: Even though he was held captive for a long time, he never gave up.

• Breeding (Noun)

Meaning: the mating and production of offspring by animals

E.g.: Proper breeding of animals is important for the development of the species.

• Enriching (Adjective)

Meaning: adding value, either monetary, intellectual, or emotional

E.g.: Visiting the zoo and the museum was an enriching experience for the students.

• Fostered (Verb)

Meaning: to encourage the development or growth of ideas or feelings

E.g.: The Addams family fostered expression of thought and creativity in their children.

• Advocate (Verb)

Meaning: publicly recommend or support

E.g.: The lawyer decided to advocate the judgments of the court.

• Catalysts (Noun)

Meaning: an event or person that causes great change

E.g.: His decisions acted as a catalyst for his career development.

Waiting for an Exclusive Study Material on IELTS Writing Task 2?

Get Your Copy Now !

Elevate Your IELTS Score with Effective Connectors Used in the Sample Answers

Check out the list of connectors used in the above-given sample answers that will help you add coherence to your writing and earn points for your IELTS Writing Task 2.

• I am of the opinion
• For example
• As a result
• Additionally
• For instance
• To begin with
• To give you an idea
• In addition
• In conclusion
• Consequently
• To conclude

Now that you have gone through the sample answers on the topic – We No Longer Need to have Animals Kept in Zoos – it is time for you to try writing on your own. For that, leave your answers as a comment below or you can use our  FREE evaluation service !

Additional Resources

• Companies Should Provide Sport and Social Facilities for Local Communities. To What Extent Do You Agree? Sample Essay
• Do you Agree or Disagree that Celebrities are Paid far Too much Money- IELTS Writing Task 2 
• 7 Mistakes That Kill Your BAND Score
• Local History vs World History – IELTS Writing Task 2
• A Person’s Worth Nowadays Seems To Be Judged According To Social Status And Material Possessions- IELTS Writing Task 2 British Council
• Increase your Speaking & Writing Score with Synonyms and Antonyms
• IELTSMaterial Launches Telegram Channel | Free IELTS Materials, Free IELTS Coaching

Practice IELTS Writing Task 2 based on Essay types

Start Preparing for IELTS: Get Your 10-Day Study Plan Today!

Kasturika Samanta

Kasturika is a professional Content Writer with over three years of experience as an English language teacher. Her understanding of English language requirements, as set by foreign universities, is enriched by her interactions with students and educators. Her work is a fusion of extensive knowledge of SEO practices and up-to-date guidelines. This enables her to produce content that not only informs but also engages IELTS aspirants. Her passion for exploring new horizons has driven her to achieve new heights in her learning journey.

Explore other IELTS Articles

Raajdeep Saha

Janice Thompson

Post your Comments

Recent articles.

Nehasri Ravishenbagam

Our Offices

Gurgaon city scape, gurgaon bptp.

Step 1 of 3

Great going .

Get a free session from trainer

Have you taken test before?

Please select any option

Get free eBook to excel in test

Please enter Email ID

Get support from an Band 9 trainer

Please enter phone number

Already Registered?

Select a date

Please select a date

Select a time (IST Time Zone)

Please select a time

Mark Your Calendar: Free Session with Expert on

Which exam are you preparing?

Great Going!

50 Latest Zoos IELTS Topics

• Unlimited Essay Checks: Practice and perfect your skills.
• Detailed Error Analysis: Spot every mistake.
• In-Built Grammar Checker: Say no to grammatical errors.
• Personalized Suggestions: Know how to boost your score.
• Progress Tracking: View your checked essay history.
• Still thinking? We have a 14-day money-back guarantee. Take a leap of faith!

busybee   teachers

...we'll be there in a buzz

• Oct 27, 2022

Student Opinion: Zoos should be banned

Do you think zoos are nice places for animals to live? If you do, think again. Zoos are actually harmful to animals. There are three main reasons why. First, zoos breed animals inhumanely. Second, they do not help animals return to the wild. Third, they do not take good enough care of the animals. For these reasons, zoos should be shut down and banned, or stopped altogether.

The first reason zoos should be banned is that they breed captive animals. Zoos breed animals so that they will have baby animals to show the public. Most zoo animals are born inside zoos. Many are raised without ever seeing their original, wild homes. When zoos have too many animals, they do not return them to the wild. They simply kill the "extra" animals.

Take this example from 2014. The Copenhagen Zoo is located in Denmark, a country in northern Europe. A giraffe there named Marius was raised as a baby in the zoo. He was loved by the public. Yet, when he became an adult, he was killed. The zoo's staff shot him. They didn't think he would be useful. They had other male giraffes they could breed instead of Marius.

Baby animals attract more visitors than older animals. Killing an adult animal opens up space and resources to bring in a younger animal. That animal can draw bigger crowds and more money. That is the real reason Marius was killed. The zoo made less money as he grew up. People were more interested in Marius when he was a baby than when he became an adult.

The second reason zoos should be banned is that they rarely help endangered animals return to their original habitats. A report by National Geographic found that most zoos do not have any contact with reintroduction programs.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is a nonprofit organization that fights for animal rights. According to them, fewer than one-fifth of the animals in United States zoos are actually endangered. When an animal species is endangered, it is at risk of dying out completely. Zoos spend tons of money building enclosures for animals. Yet, they do almost nothing to restore wild habitats or to stop poaching in wild environments.

Finally, zoos simply do not have enough resources to properly house the creatures that live there. Wild habitats cannot be remade in spaces where animals are held captive. An opinion article called "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned" was published by Vice in 2015. It said polar bears in zoos have up to 18,000 times less space than they do in the wild.

Animals cannot be healthy in zoos. Seventy-five percent of elephants kept in zoos are overweight, according to the article. Forty percent of lion cubs pass away before their full life span. This data supports the argument that zoos do not have the resources to support animals' well-being, health and populations. The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) has reported that around 3,000 to 5,000 animals are killed each year in zoos in Europe. Many more animals show signs of zoochosis. This is a psychological disorder observed in zoo animals that leads to pacing, bar biting and other repeated behaviors.

Zoos should make an effort to reintroduce the animals they own into natural habitats. Some could be returned to the wild. However, many zoo animals would not be able to survive in the wild. These animals should then be sent to sanctuaries where they can live peacefully.

Zoos inhumanely source and breed animals. They do little to improve wildlife populations. Zoos also do little to help the public understand their impact on wildlife. Also, they cannot provide what is needed to support animals' lives. Zoos should reintroduce their animals into the wild or into sanctuary settings. This will have the added benefit of relieving zoos of the burden of keeping these animals alive. Isn't that a win-win?

Megan Zhou is a sixth-grade student at Sycamore Ridge School in San Diego, California.

Recent Posts

The Superstar Author

Student Opinion: Is the Internet teaching young people not to think?

Student Opinion: Android phones are a better deal than Apple's iPhones

Join the Busybee Club

SSubscribe to our newsletter and be the first to know about the latest job opportunities and essential hiring tips. 

Thanks for submitting!

• No category

Zoo opinion essay - Linking words

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

10 books to add to your reading list in April

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Critic Bethanne Patrick recommends 10 promising titles, fiction and nonfiction, to consider for your April reading list.

April’s book releases cover some difficult topics, including Salman Rushdie discussing his 2022 maiming, Leigh Bardugo’s fiction about the dark arts and Ada Limón’s poetry anthology about our fragile world. However, like April, there is also sunshine: Leif Enger’s wild Great Lakes love story, Helen Tworkov’s beautiful memoir of Buddhism and a collection of the inimitable Maggie Nelson’s essays. Happy reading, happy spring!

I Cheerfully Refuse: A Novel By Leif Enger Grove Press: 336 pages, $28 (April 2)

An unusual and meaningful surprise awaits readers of Enger’s latest, which takes place largely on Lake Superior, as a man named Rainy tries to reunite with his beloved wife, Lark. While the world around this couple, a dystopian near-future American where billionaires control everything, could not be bleaker, the author’s retelling of the myth of Orpheus (who went to the underworld to rescue his wife) contains the authentic hope of a born optimist.

The Familiar: A Novel By Leigh Bardugo Flatiron Books: 400 pages, $30 (April 9)

Bardugo departs from novels of dark academia in a standalone to make the hairs on your neck stand up, set in 16th century Spain. A hidden Sephardic Jew and scullery maid named Luzia Cotado matches wits with fellow servant Guillén Santángel. Luzia discovers a secret of Guillén’s, but she’s already fallen in love with him. And because he knows hers, too, they might both avoid the Spanish Inquisition. It’s a gorgeous tale of enchantments both supernatural and earthly.

The Sleepwalkers: A Novel By Scarlett Thomas Simon & Schuster: 304 pages, $28 (April 9)

A couple honeymoons at a Greek resort. What could go wrong? In Thomas’ hands, plenty – especially as the author has never written a comfortable story; her books, from “PopCo ” to “Oligarchy,” crackle with unreliable characters, as well as big philosophical ideas. In this case, the new marriage’s breakdown is chronicled through letters between the spouses, and sometimes bits of ephemera, that ultimately untangle a dark mystery relating to the title.

The Garden: A Novel By Clare Beams Doubleday: 304 pages, $28 (April 10)

Few novels of literary fiction are written as well as “The Garden,” let alone given its sadly relevant retro setting, a 1940s country-estate obstetrical program. Irene Willard walks through its gates having endured five miscarriages; pregnant again, she and her war-veteran husband George desperately hope for a live birth. But as Irene discovers more about the woman who controls all here, Dr. Bishop, she fears carrying to term as much as she once feared pregnancy loss.

Reboot: A Novel By Justin Taylor Pantheon: 304 pages, $28 (April 23)

David Crader, former teen TV heartthrob, just wants to reboot his career when his old show “Rev Beach” has a moment. His life has devolved through substance abuse, divorce and underemployment. But when he and colleagues launch a remake, devolution continues: The protagonist’s struggles are mirrored by climate-change issues, from flooding to wildfires. Despite that darkness, Taylor’s gift for satire might make this a must-read for 2024 beach bags.

You Are Here: Poetry in the Natural World By Ada Limón (Editor) Milkweed Editions: 176 pages, $25 (April 2)

A wondrous artist herself, Limón is currently poet laureate of the United States, and this anthology is part of her signature project, “You Are Here,” which will also feature poetry as public art in seven national parks. Released in conjunction with the Library of Congress, the collection features 50 previously unpublished poems by luminaries including Jericho Brown, Joy Harjo, Carl Phillips and Diane Seuss, each focusing on a piece of regional landscape.

Like Love: Essays and Conversations By Maggie Nelson Graywolf Press: 336 pages, $32 (April 2)

While all of the pieces in Nelson’s new book have previously been published elsewhere, they’re made fresh here both through being collected and through their chronological placement. Readers can practically watch Nelson’s incisive mind growing and changing as she speaks with colleagues such as Hilton Als and Judith Butler, or as she writes about queerness, motherhood, violence, the lyrics of Prince and the devastating loss of a friend.

Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder By Salman Rushdie Random House: 204 pages, $28 (April 16)

On Aug. 12, 2022, the author Salman Rushdie was speaking at upstate New York’s Chautauqua festival when a man rushed the stage and attempted to murder him. Rushdie, a target of Iranian religious leaders since 1989, was permanently injured. In this book, he shares his experience for the first time, having said that this was essential for him to write. In this way, he answers violence with art, once again reminding us all that freedom of expression must be protected.

Lotus Girl: My Life at the Crossroads of Buddhism and America By Helen Tworkov St. Martin’s Essentials: 336 pages, $29 (April 16)

Tworkov, founder of the magazine Tricycle, chronicles her move from a 1960s young-adult interest in Buddhism to travels through Asia and deep study in the United States of the different strands that follow the Buddha’s teachings. Tworkov mentions luminaries such as the artist Richard Serra, the composer Charles Mingus and the Dalai Lama, but she’s not name-dropping. Instead, she’s strewing fragrant petals from her singular path to mindfulness that may help us find ours.

The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War By Erik Larson Crown: 592 pages, $35 (April 30)

Even diehard Civil War aficionados will learn from Larson’s look at the six months between Lincoln’s 1860 election and the surrender of Union troops under Maj. Robert Anderson at Charleston’s Ft. Sumter. Larson details Anderson’s secret Christmas redeployment and explores this individual’s contradictions as a former slave owner who loyally follows Lincoln’s orders. The author also shares first-person perspective from the famous diaries of the upper-class Southerner Mary Chesnut. All together, the book provides a riveting reexamination of a nation in tumult.

More to Read

The week’s bestselling books, April 7

April 3, 2024

3 best mystery books to read this spring

The week’s bestselling books, march 10.

March 6, 2024

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

James Bond’s creator lived a life to rival the spy’s

April 4, 2024

How people of color carry the burden of untold stories

The canonized and vilified Capt. James Cook is ready for a reassessment

April 2, 2024

How many lives can one author live? In new short stories, Amor Towles invites us along for the ride

March 29, 2024

Advertisement

Supported by

Anxiety, Bedtime and Mating: How Animals May React to the Eclipse

When the total solar eclipse happens on Monday, animals at homes, farms and zoos may act strangely. Researchers can’t wait to see what happens when day quickly turns to night.

• Share full article

By Juliet Macur and Emily Anthes

This article is part of The Times’s coverage of the April 8 eclipse , the last time a total solar eclipse will be visible in most of North America for 20 years.

While millions of people are preparing to watch the total solar eclipse that will make its way across North America on Monday, the animals in that affected area — in homes, on farms, in zoos and in the wild — missed the news that the moon will block the sun, briefly turning day into night.

How they react to that swift and unexpected change of light and temperature, which in some places will last as long as four-and-a-half minutes, is anyone’s guess.

Cows may mosey into their barns for bedtime. Flamingoes may huddle together in fear. The giant, slow-motion Galápagos tortoise may even get frisky and mate.

Circadian rhythms might take a noticeable hit, with nocturnal animals mistakenly waking up and starting their day only to realize that, whoa, nighttime is already over. And then there will be some animals, perhaps particularly lazy domestic cats or warthogs focused on foraging, who might not give the dark sky a second thought.

“Everybody wants to see how they are going to react,” said Robert Shumaker, the chief executive and president of the Indianapolis Zoo, which will experience nearly four minutes of darkness. It’s one of several prominent zoos situated along the path of totality, a gentle arc stretching from Texas to Maine, where researchers, animal keepers, volunteers and the public will be studying the animals’ response to the eclipse.

Dr. Shumaker, an expert in animal behavior and cognition, said that “most of the animals, of course, they’re going to notice that there’s something unusual happening.”

Most animals will likely be confused by the darkness and will start their nighttime routines, said Dr. M. Leanne Lilly, a veterinary behaviorist at Ohio State’s College of Veterinary Medicine.

But the way humans react to the eclipse — looking at the sky, expressing excitement or gathering in a group — could affect domesticated animals, like dogs or cats, because pets can act strangely when their humans are acting strangely, Dr. Lilly said.

“That can make any of our domestic animals feel like things are not as safe and predictable as they are supposed to be,” Dr. Lilly said, adding that any unusual human behavior can disturb pets because they are “domesticated to attend to us.”

“We might be the problem,” she said, with a laugh.

How animals will react to solar eclipses can only give hints of animal behavior because the relatively few studies of the topic are often conflicting. One study in 1560 cited that “birds fell to the ground.” Other studies said birds went to roost, or fell silent, or continued to sing and coo — or flew straight into houses. Dogs either barked or whimpered, or did not bark or whimper.

A study of the 1932 eclipse, which was thought to be the first comprehensive research conducted on the subject and included observations from the public, explained that it received “a good deal of conflicting testimony” from people who had observed mammals. It concluded that several animals showed the strongest responses: squirrels ran into the woods and cattle and sheep headed for their barns.

Zoo animals, the study said, showed little or no response, and Dr. Shumaker does not expect the animals at the Indianapolis Zoo to show much of an unusual response, because “they take a lot of things in stride.”

“ We’re thinking that this will be a very casual and easy experience for the animals,” he said, adding that some might experience “a little bit of confusion” about what’s going on. “I certainly don’t anticipate that it will be alarming to them.”

Dr. Shumaker is as curious as anyone to see what the animals will do, and in 2017, Adam Hartstone-Rose, now a professor of biological sciences at North Carolina State University, tried to get some answers. Before that total solar eclipse crossed the United States, he launched a formal study of animals at the Riverbanks Zoo & Garden in Columbia., S.C., and it resulted in what was likely the broadest study of animals during an eclipse since the 1932 effort.

Just as he is doing next week at the Fort Worth Zoo, Dr. Hartstone-Rose assembled a group of researchers, animal keepers and volunteers to observe animals before, during and after totality.

About three-fourths of the 17 species his team studied, including mammals, birds and reptiles, displayed a behavior response to the eclipse, with many of those animals thinking that the change in light meant it was time to prepare for bed. A smaller group of animals, including the giraffes, baboons, gorillas, flamingoes, lorikeets (a type of parrot) and one Komodo dragon showed behavior that was out of the ordinary and could be interpreted as anxiety.

According to the study, the baboons ran around their enclosure as totality approached, and one paced and walked in circles for about 25 minutes. One male gorilla charged the glass. The flamingoes huddled together, encircling their young, vocalizing loudly and looking toward the sky, which is “the kind of thing they might do if they think there’s an aerial predator around,” Dr. Hartstone-Rose said.

The lorikeets grew active and loud just before totality, and during totality flew together to one side of their exhibit. One Komodo dragon rushed to his den but the door was closed, and he “ran erratically” around until daylight returned.

He noted that it was “entirely possible” that the behaviors were triggered not by the eclipse, but by the large crowds and the noises at the zoo, which included fireworks exploding in the distance.

Yet the giraffes’ behavior that day in South Carolina was similar to the animals’ behavior elsewhere during eclipses, including at the Nashville Zoo in 2017, and also in the wild in Zambia during a 2001 eclipse.

“Most of us expected that the giraffes would just kind of be like, ‘Oh, it’s dark,’ so it’s bedtime,’” said Alyson Proveaux, curator of mammals at the Riverbanks Zoo and one of the observers of the giraffes in 2017. But their reaction was much more dramatic.

Normally, the Riverbanks Zoo giraffes chomp on lettuce, chew their cud, mill about or play with their enrichment toys. But when the sky went dark, according to the study, they stopped eating and huddled in the back of their enclosure, with one pacing and swaying. As the daylight slowly returned, several broke into a gallop for several minutes, which was extremely out of character. Giraffes also galloped during the eclipse at the Nashville Zoo and in Zambia.

“They are creatures of habit,” Ms. Proveaux said. “So we just rocked their world.”

In another part of the Riverbanks Zoo, the Galápagos turtles did something even stranger just before totality that the study described as a “novel response.” Instead of moving slowly around their area, as they usually do, they grouped together and two started mating. During totality, all four tortoises moved faster than usual.

Dr. Hartstone-Rose is curious to see if these responses will be repeated by animals at the Fort Worth Zoo, where he will likely be monitoring the bonobos, which are similar to chimpanzees. He said bonobos often exhibit sexual behavior to alleviate anxiety and that it will be fascinating to see their response to the unexpected darkness.

He also is asking the public to formally observe the animals around them during the eclipse and submit those findings to him so he can include them in his study. Those animals include pets, livestock, as well as wild animals, who also are known to alter their behavior during eclipses.

Scientists have used different types of technology to record wild animal responses to an eclipse. For the 2017 solar eclipse, scientists used radar data from weather stations across the country to study how flying animals responded when day turned into night.

As the sky darkened, the amount of biological activity in the atmosphere fell, they found, suggesting that insects were landing and birds were beginning to roost. In some places, there were also brief pulses of activity during totality, when some nocturnal creatures — which may have included bats, some insects and birds that migrate at night — came to life.

Still, the brief bout of darkness did not seem significant enough to completely convince animals that night had descended. “It’s kind of a muted response,” said Andrew Farnsworth, a visiting scientist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology who was an author of the study.

Some animals, including many butterflies, are especially sensitive to temperature. During the 2017 eclipse , Robert Michael Pyle, an ecologist and butterfly expert in southwestern Washington, spent hours carefully logging the conditions in his yard and as the temperature dropped, the woodland skippers, a common butterfly species, disappeared. “Two degrees put the butterflies back to bed,” he said.

Although they have been the focus of less research, plants, which require the sun for sustenance, are also affected by eclipses . “As the sun goes away, photosynthesis goes down,” said Daniel Beverly, an ecophysiologist at Indiana University who documented that slowdown in big sagebrush during the 2017 eclipse. The findings highlight the importance of circadian rhythms beyond the animal kingdom, he said.

And careful observations of what organisms do during an eclipse can yield new insights that extend beyond the event itself. The eclipse “is a sort of natural experiment, manipulating light and temperature on a grand scale,” said Candace Galen, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Missouri who found that bees went quiet during the period of totality in 2017.

In the end, Dr. Hartstone-Rose said, “who knows what’s going through the head of a giraffe.” But his aim is to collect as much data as he can, to try to find out.

He does have one definite answer to a question posed to him again and again: During an eclipse, should you put protective glasses on your dog?

“As a fashion statement, I’m all for it, so go for it,” he said. “But as a safety precaution, no, that’s not something they need to do. Animals do not look at the sun.”

Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic. More about Emily Anthes

Our Coverage of the Total Solar Eclipse

Dress for the Occasion:  What should you wear for the eclipse? Our fashion critic weighs the options , including an unexpected suggestion from scientists.

Free to View:  Six inmates in upstate New York prisons who sued the state won their lawsuit to view the eclipse , arguing it “is a religious event.” But a statewide prison lockdown during the eclipse will remain in place.

Hearing the Eclipse:  A device called LightSound is being distributed to help the blind and visually impaired experience what they can’t see .

Sky-High Hotel Prices: One Super 8 hotel in the eclipse’s path is charging $949 a night . Its normal rate is $95.

Animal Reactions : Researchers will watch if animals at zoos, homes and farms act strangely  when day quickly turns to night.

A Rare Return:  A total solar eclipse happens twice in the same place every 366 years on average. But people in certain areas will encounter April 8’s eclipse  about seven years after they were near the middle of the path of the “Great American Eclipse.”

 No Power Outages:  When the sky darkens during the eclipse, electricity production in some parts of the country will drop so sharply that it could theoretically leave tens of millions of homes in the dark. In practice, hardly anyone will notice  a sudden loss of energy.

Opinion What we have learned about the Supreme Court’s right-wingers

Supreme Court observers frequently refer to its right-wing majority of six as a single bloc. However, differences among those six have become more apparent over time. Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s and Clarence Thomas’s extreme judicial activism, partisan screeds and ethics controversies put them in a category unto themselves. Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has demonstrated surprising independence.

Watch Justice Barrett.

Not all Republican-appointed judges are the same. In Trump v. Anderson (concerning disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump), for example, Barrett, along with Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the maximalist majority opinion, which held that not only could state courts not determine disqualification but that Congress had to act before any candidate could be disqualified from federal office.

Like the so-called liberal justices, Barrett was disinclined to address “the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.” The court decided too much, she agreed. Her complaint with the so-called liberal justices was primarily tonal. (“This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.”)

Likewise, in United States v. Texas (considering the stay on enforcement of Texas’s S.B. 4 immigration law ), Barrett, along with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, offered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit an opening to take up the case promptly, which it did, rather than wade into a procedural fight over a stay in a case concerning Texas’s constitutionally suspect law.

As Supreme Court expert Steve Vladeck put it , “The Barrett/Kavanaugh concurrence went out of its way to nudge the Fifth Circuit — noting not only that the Fifth Circuit should be able to rule on the stay pending appeal ‘promptly,’ but that, ‘If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this Court.’” In essence, Barrett said the Supreme Court would not meddle in a circuit’s administrative business. But if the 5th Circuit actually allowed this constitutional monstrosity to proceed, she would have a different view.

And in Moore v. Harper (the independent state legislature doctrine), Barrett joined in the chief justice’s majority opinion, along with the three Democratic-appointed justices, to bat down the radical notion that state courts have no role in determining alleged violations of state election laws (provided they did “not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review”).

Beyond her opinions in high-profile cases, Barrett also sought to repair the court’s reputation damaged by right-wing partisanship. She has started appearing alongside Sotomayor publicly to insist that the court’s ideological combatants are more collegial than they might appear. Perhaps she is.

Barrett is no Sandra Day O’Connor (a true swing justice). Barrett was just as extreme on Roe v. Wade as the other right-wingers. Nevertheless, her efforts to carve an independent niche on the court should not be ignored.

On the other hand, there is no limit to what Justices Alito and Thomas will do.

In contrast to Barrett, no right-wing theory or activist invitation is too wacky for Alito and Thomas to entertain.

During oral argument on Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (considering the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone), Alito and Thomas took up the right-wing infatuation with the Comstock Act , passed in 1873. Alito, alone among the justices, seemed anxious to speed past the very real “standing” issue to ruminate about a means of banning abortion nationwide.

The Comstock law, which has not been enforced in about a century, bans sending “every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion .” (Also, certainly unconstitutionally, it bans a large category of vaguely defined pornography.) Thomas and Alito seem ready and willing to deploy the law in a way it has never been applied: namely, to states where abortion is otherwise legal, thereby threatening the availability of medical abortions nationwide.

The Post reported , “Some experts and Biden officials fear Alito and Thomas are planning to write a separate opinion focused solely on the Comstock Act, arguing that the law remains viable and providing legal cover to a future administration that seeks to invoke it.” Even if Alito and Thomas do not carry the day, the Hill reported , “access to abortion pills could still very much be at risk if Alito and Thomas succeed in soliciting a Comstock-focused challenge in the future,” abortion rights defenders fear. A future Republican administration might well start trying to employ the law to throw abortion providers in jail.

Fishing for a hook to extrapolate the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling into a nationwide ban on medical abortions epitomizes these justices’ radical disregard for precedent and brazen judicial activism. Indeed, Alito and Thomas increasingly seem like stalking horses for the far-right agenda, be it on guns, abortion or voting.

The Supreme Court’s credibility

Numerous polls show the court’s approval has cratered , likely a function of its ethics scandals, partisan rhetoric and aggressive reversal of precedent. In other words, judicial imperialism and disdain for ethical rules that apply even to members of Congress are unpopular with voters.

Increasingly partisan Thomas and Alito no longer bother to conceal their contempt for ethical restrictions , congressional oversight or judicial temperament . They have repeatedly failed to disclose luxurious gifts (with no sign of remorse) and remain adamant that they will accept no outside oversight.

After a firestorm of protest over financial disclosure lapses, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. released ethical guidelines so weak that they lack an enforcement mechanism. Worse, the guidelines are so porous that they posed no barrier to Thomas sitting on cases involving attempts to overturn the 2020 election that his wife supported.

Unless the rest of the court decides to restrain Thomas and Alito, concerns about ethical lapses and misalignment with contemporary American values will deepen, heightening demands for congressional responses (e.g., mandatory ethics, term limits, court expansion). If that happens, Alito and Thomas will be largely responsible.

• Opinion | A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending. November 30, 2023 Opinion | A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending. November 30, 2023
• Opinion | How to survive another Trump-Biden election April 4, 2024 Opinion | How to survive another Trump-Biden election April 4, 2024
• Opinion | Springtime, in charts April 4, 2024 Opinion | Springtime, in charts April 4, 2024