zoos should not be banned essay

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

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

Should zoos be banned? Are zoos bad or good?

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

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

So let’s dive right in!

Pros & Cons of Zoos

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

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

What are the Pros of Zoos?

1. zoos help protect endangered species.

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

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

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

In fact, should zoos be banned, many species would have gone extinct already.

2. Zoos educate 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 contribute to fight animal extinction

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

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

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

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

4. Zoos conduct 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 generate income for many communities

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

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

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

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

What are the Cons of Zoos?

Unfortunately, the world of zoos is not as bright as you might think after reading the positive points above. 

Let’s take a closer look at the arguments why zoos should be banned!

1. Zoos entertain people at animals' expense

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

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

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

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

Here are the worst zoos in America .

2. Keeping animals in captivity raises ethical concerns

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 harm 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 harm animals' mental health

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROBERT BRAULT

5. zoos are insufficiently regulated & controlled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Brief History of Zoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Zoos be Banned? (Conclusion)

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

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

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

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

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

Are zoos ethical? What about aquariums?

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

What are the pros and cons of zoos?

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

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

Are zoos good or bad?

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

Are zoos morally wrong?

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

Are zoos bad or good?

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

Are zoos safe for animals?

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

Are zoos for profit?

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

Why should zoos be banned?

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

Why should zoos not be banned?

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

What are alternatives to zoos?

You can learn about animals without visiting or supporting zoos.

Here is a list of ethical alternatives to zoos:

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

Michael Anderson

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

16 Comments

Romy · February 8, 2024 at 8:23 am

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

EcoCation · February 8, 2024 at 8:30 am

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

Olivia · April 13, 2024 at 6:46 pm

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

EcoCation · April 13, 2024 at 6:52 pm

That’s great to hear!

Jack · May 4, 2024 at 6:50 pm

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

EcoCation · May 4, 2024 at 6:53 pm

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

Jake · May 11, 2024 at 8:05 am

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

EcoCation · May 11, 2024 at 8:08 am

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

Sarah · May 18, 2024 at 5:52 am

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

EcoCation · May 18, 2024 at 5:54 am

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

• Next »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Related Posts

5 Ways How Zoos Are Saving Endangered Species

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

Top 20 Worst Zoos in America in 2024

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

Top 7 (Ethical) Alternatives to Zoos

Zoos have been popular for wildlife enthusiasts and are famous for their initiatives to save endangered species. However, growing sightings of sad animals in zoos, not only at the worst zoos of America, have led Read more…

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

Why Should Zoos Not Be Banned? (Essay Sample) 2023

Why should zoos not be banned.

Zoos are famous places of recreation for all ages. Inside the zoos are different animals in makeshift habitats that have been imitated from where animals truly live in the wild. For this reason alone, many animal rights advocates call for the banning of zoos because of how it deprives animals from living lives in the wild; where they should actually be. For people who regularly go to the zoos, this is not enough reason because the zoo, as a social space, is already tightly woven to the urban dynamics of the city anchored on recreation. For them, a zoo is a park that offers more especially for families and children. With this mind, it is important to take into consideration a grey area where animal rights advocates would be able to compromise banning of the zoos into an agreement that would be more favorable to the recreational spaces of the city. In light of this, it is important to see the alternatives that are present when it comes to giving animals in the zoo a better life than the seemingly oppressive experiences they have in confined spaces.

One important to consider is the regulation of zoos and how this is done by a city’s parks and recreation department. It is a well-known fact that zoos are very confining especially for wild animals. The same goes for how being subjected to public scrutiny is an unhealthy experience for the animals. With this, it is important to open the idea that wild animals should be prevented from staying in zoos, for their own well-being. If this cannot be prevented; a more comfortable environment should be dedicated to animals in zoos. If this is not followed by zookeepers and the authorities that regulate zoos, this is when banning should be taken into consideration.

In the perspective of the public, zoos are not completely deemed as evil spaces. For children, zoos are a place of entertainment and fun where they can actual witness animals as if they are in the wild. Here is where the problem lies; awareness should also be nourished amongst children regarding the state of zoos. Through this, probably a better regulation among zoos will achieved that would be beneficial to all parties involved.

One of the main reasons why the discourse on banning zoos is still not yet talked about that much is because zoos have already established their social space and actual space within both rural and urban demographics. People perceive zoos as part of their schema: a zoo is a place that would always be readily available to them and the idea of banning zoos still seem to be a far-off idea. With this being said, the idea of banning zoos completely will never be off the table. It is true that some zoos do not treat animals fairly and these are the zoos that should be closed down in order to encourage other city zoos to not do the same.

Children’s experiences will never be complete without going to amusement park or the zoo. Maybe it’s high time to put an innovation towards the functionalities of zoos at present time. Maybe there are ways with which zoos would be friendly to both visitors and animals. Alternatives would always be welcome in order to ensure that animals in captivities are not deprived of the life they should be having. Aside from this, the process of acquiring animals should also be overseen in order to prevent any mishandling that would badly affect the state and condition of animals and zoos. Lastly, the clamor of animal rights advocates would only be called for and hopefully in the future, there would no longer be worrying about the welfare of animals in zoos.

• Share full article

Opinion Guest Essay

Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost

  Credit... Photographs by Peter Fisher for The New York Times

Supported by

By Emma Marris

Ms. Marris is an environmental writer and the author of the forthcoming book “Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World.”

• June 11, 2021

After being captives of the pandemic for more than a year, we have begun experiencing the pleasures of simple outings: dining al fresco, shopping with a friend, taking a stroll through the zoo. As we snap a selfie by the sea lions for the first time in so long, it seems worth asking, after our collective ordeal, whether our pleasure in seeing wild animals up close is worth the price of their captivity.

Throughout history, men have accumulated large and fierce animals to advertise their might and prestige. Power-mad men from Henry III to Saddam Hussein’s son Uday to the drug kingpin Pablo Escobar to Charlemagne all tried to underscore their strength by keeping terrifying beasts captive. William Randolph Hearst created his own private zoo with lions, tigers, leopards and more at Hearst Castle. It is these boastful collections of animals, these autocratic menageries, from which the modern zoo, with its didactic plaques and $15 hot dogs, springs.

The forerunners of the modern zoo, open to the public and grounded in science, took shape in the 19th century. Public zoos sprang up across Europe, many modeled on the London Zoo in Regent’s Park. Ostensibly places for genteel amusement and edification, zoos expanded beyond big and fearsome animals to include reptile houses, aviaries and insectariums. Living collections were often presented in taxonomic order, with various species of the same family grouped together, for comparative study.

The first zoos housed animals behind metal bars in spartan cages. But relatively early in their evolution, a German exotic animal importer named Carl Hagenbeck changed the way wild animals were exhibited. In his Animal Park, which opened in 1907 in Hamburg, he designed cages that didn’t look like cages, using moats and artfully arranged rock walls to invisibly pen animals. By designing these enclosures so that many animals could be seen at once, without any bars or walls in the visitors’ lines of sight, he created an immersive panorama, in which the fact of captivity was supplanted by the illusion of being in nature.

Mr. Hagenbeck’s model was widely influential. Increasingly, animals were presented with the distasteful fact of their imprisonment visually elided. Zoos shifted just slightly from overt demonstrations of mastery over beasts to a narrative of benevolent protection of individual animals. From there, it was an easy leap to protecting animal species.

The “educational day out” model of zoos endured until the late 20th century, when zoos began actively rebranding themselves as serious contributors to conservation. Zoo animals, this new narrative went, function as backup populations for wild animals under threat, as well as “ambassadors” for their species, teaching humans and motivating them to care about wildlife. This conservation focus “ must be a key component ” for institutions that want to be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that sets standards and policies for facilities in the United States and 12 other countries.

This is the image of the zoo I grew up with: the unambiguously good civic institution that lovingly cared for animals both on its grounds and, somehow, vaguely, in their wild habitats. A few zoos are famous for their conservation work. Four of the zoos and the aquarium in New York City, for instance, are managed by the Wildlife Conservation Society, which is involved in conservation efforts around the world. But this is not the norm.

While researching my book on the ethics of human interactions with wild species, “Wild Souls,” I examined how, exactly, zoos contribute to the conservation of wild animals.

A.Z.A. facilities report spending approximately $231 million annually on conservation projects. For comparison, in 2018, they spent $4.9 billion on operations and construction. I find one statistic particularly telling about their priorities: A 2018 analysis of the scientific papers produced by association members between 1993 and 2013 showed that just about 7 percent of them annually were classified as being about “biodiversity conservation.”

Zoos accredited by the A.Z.A. or the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria have studbooks and genetic pedigrees and carefully breed their animals as if they might be called upon at any moment to release them, like Noah throwing open the doors to the ark, into a waiting wild habitat. But that day of release never quite seems to come.

There are a few exceptions. The Arabian oryx, an antelope native to the Arabian Peninsula, went extinct in the wild in the 1970s and then was reintroduced into the wild from zoo populations. The California condor breeding program, which almost certainly saved the species from extinction, includes five zoos as active partners. Black-footed ferrets and red wolves in the United States and golden lion tamarins in Brazil — all endangered, as well — have been bred at zoos for reintroduction into the wild. An estimated 20 red wolves are all that remain in the wild.

The A.Z.A. says that its members host “more than 50 reintroduction programs for species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.” Nevertheless, a vast majority of zoo animals (there are 800,000 animals of 6,000 species in the A.Z.A.’s zoos alone ) will spend their whole lives in captivity, either dying of old age after a lifetime of display or by being culled as “surplus.”

The practice of killing “surplus” animals is kept quiet by zoos, but it happens, especially in Europe. In 2014, the director of the E.A.Z.A. at the time estimated that between 3,000 and 5,000 animals are euthanized in European zoos each year. (The culling of mammals specifically in E.A.Z.A. zoos is “usually not more than 200 animals per year,” the organization said.) Early in the pandemic, the Neumünster Zoo in northern Germany coolly announced an emergency plan to cope with lost revenue by feeding some animals to other animals, compressing the food chain at the zoo like an accordion, until in the worst-case scenario, only Vitus, a polar bear, would be left standing. The A.Z.A.’s policies allow for the euthanasia of animals, but the president of the association, Dan Ashe, told me, “it’s very rarely employed” by his member institutions.

Mr. Ashe, a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, suggested that learning how to breed animals contributes to conservation in the long term, even if very few animals are being released now. A day may come, he said, when we need to breed elephants or tigers or polar bears in captivity to save them from extinction. “If you don’t have people that know how to care for them, know how to breed them successfully, know how to keep them in environments where their social and psychological needs can be met, then you won’t be able to do that,” he said.

The other argument zoos commonly make is that they educate the public about animals and develop in people a conservation ethic. Having seen a majestic leopard in the zoo, the visitor becomes more willing to pay for its conservation or vote for policies that will preserve it in the wild. What Mr. Ashe wants visitors to experience when they look at the animals is a “sense of empathy for the individual animal, as well as the wild populations of that animal.”

I do not doubt that some people had their passion for a particular species, or wildlife in general, sparked by zoo experiences. I’ve heard and read some of their stories. I once overheard two schoolchildren at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington confess to each other that they had assumed that elephants were mythical animals like unicorns before seeing them in the flesh. I remember well the awe and joy on their faces, 15 years later. I’d like to think these kids, now in their early 20s, are working for a conservation organization somewhere. But there’s no unambiguous evidence that zoos are making visitors care more about conservation or take any action to support it. After all, more than 700 million people visit zoos and aquariums worldwide every year, and biodiversity is still in decline.

In a 2011 study , researchers quizzed visitors at the Cleveland, Bronx, Prospect Park and Central Park zoos about their level of environmental concern and what they thought about the animals. Those who reported “a sense of connection to the animals at the zoo” also correlated positively with general environmental concern. On the other hand, the researchers reported, “there were no significant differences in survey responses before entering an exhibit compared with those obtained as visitors were exiting.”

A 2008 study of 206 zoo visitors by some members of the same team showed that while 42 percent said that the “main purpose” of the zoo was “to teach visitors about animals and conservation,” 66 percent said that their primary reason for going was “to have an outing with friends or family,” and just 12 percent said their intention was “to learn about animals.”

The researchers also spied on hundreds of visitors’ conversations at the Bronx Zoo, the Brookfield Zoo outside Chicago and the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. They found that only 27 percent of people bothered to read the signs at exhibits. More than 6,000 comments made by the visitors were recorded, nearly half of which were “purely descriptive statements that asserted a fact about the exhibit or the animal.” The researchers wrote , “In all the statements collected, no one volunteered information that would lead us to believe that they had an intention to advocate for protection of the animal or an intention to change their own behavior.”

People don’t go to zoos to learn about the biodiversity crisis or how they can help. They go to get out of the house, to get their children some fresh air, to see interesting animals. They go for the same reason people went to zoos in the 19th century: to be entertained.

A fine day out with the family might itself be justification enough for the existence of zoos if the zoo animals are all happy to be there. Alas, there’s plenty of heartbreaking evidence that many are not.

In many modern zoos, animals are well cared for, healthy and probably, for many species, content. Zookeepers are not mustache-twirling villains. They are kind people, bonded to their charges and immersed in the culture of the zoo, in which they are the good guys.

But many animals clearly show us that they do not enjoy captivity. When confined they rock, pull their hair and engage in other tics. Captive tigers pace back and forth, and in a 2014 study, researchers found that “the time devoted to pacing by a species in captivity is best predicted by the daily distances traveled in nature by the wild specimens.” It is almost as if they feel driven to patrol their territory, to hunt, to move, to walk a certain number of steps, as if they have a Fitbit in their brains.

The researchers divided the odd behaviors of captive animals into two categories: “impulsive/compulsive behaviors,” including coprophagy (eating feces), regurgitation, self-biting and mutilation, exaggerated aggressiveness and infanticide, and “stereotypies,” which are endlessly repeated movements. Elephants bob their heads over and over. Chimps pull out their own hair. Giraffes endlessly flick their tongues. Bears and cats pace. Some studies have shown that as many as 80 percent of zoo carnivores, 64 percent of zoo chimps and 85 percent of zoo elephants have displayed compulsive behaviors or stereotypies.

Elephants are particularly unhappy in zoos, given their great size, social nature and cognitive complexity. Many suffer from arthritis and other joint problems from standing on hard surfaces; elephants kept alone become desperately lonely; and all zoo elephants suffer mentally from being cooped up in tiny yards while their free-ranging cousins walk up to 50 miles a day. Zoo elephants tend to die young. At least 20 zoos in the United States have already ended their elephant exhibits in part because of ethical concerns about keeping the species captive.

Many zoos use Prozac and other psychoactive drugs on at least some of their animals to deal with the mental effects of captivity. The Los Angeles Zoo has used Celexa, an antidepressant, to control aggression in one of its chimps. Gus, a polar bear at the Central Park Zoo, was given Prozac as part of an attempt to stop him from swimming endless figure-eight laps in his tiny pool. The Toledo Zoo has dosed zebras and wildebeest with the antipsychotic haloperidol to keep them calm and has put an orangutan on Prozac. When a female gorilla named Johari kept fighting off the male she was placed with, the zoo dosed her with Prozac until she allowed him to mate with her. A 2000 survey of U.S. and Canadian zoos found that nearly half of respondents were giving their gorillas Haldol, Valium or another psychopharmaceutical drug.

Some zoo animals try to escape. Jason Hribal’s 2010 book, “Fear of the Animal Planet,” chronicles dozens of attempts. Elephants figure prominently in his book, in part because they are so big that when they escape it generally makes the news.

Mr. Hribal documented many stories of elephants making a run for it — in one case repairing to a nearby woods with a pond for a mud bath. He also found many examples of zoo elephants hurting or killing their keepers and evidence that zoos routinely downplayed or even lied about those incidents.

Elephants aren’t the only species that try to flee a zoo life. Tatiana the tiger, kept in the San Francisco Zoo, snapped one day in 2007 after three teenage boys had been taunting her. She somehow got over the 12-foot wall surrounding her 1,000-square-foot enclosure and attacked one of the teenagers, killing him. The others ran, and she pursued them, ignoring all other humans in her path. When she caught up with the boys at the cafe, she mauled them before she was shot to death by the police. Investigators found sticks and pine cones inside the exhibit, most likely thrown by the boys.

Apes are excellent at escaping. Little Joe, a gorilla, escaped from the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston twice in 2003. At the Los Angeles Zoo, a gorilla named Evelyn escaped seven times in 20 years. Apes are known for picking locks and keeping a beady eye on their captors, waiting for the day someone forgets to lock the door. An orangutan at the Omaha Zoo kept wire for lock-picking hidden in his mouth. A gorilla named Togo at the Toledo Zoo used his incredible strength to bend the bars of his cage. When the zoo replaced the bars with thick glass, he started methodically removing the putty holding it in. In the 1980s, a group of orangutans escaped several times at the San Diego Zoo. In one escape, they worked together: One held a mop handle steady while her sister climbed it to freedom. Another time, one of the orangutans, Kumang, learned how to use sticks to ground the current in the electrical wire around her enclosure. She could then climb the wire without being shocked. It is impossible to read these stories without concluding that these animals wanted out .

“I don’t see any problem with holding animals for display,” Mr. Ashe told me. “People assume that because an animal can move great distances that they would choose to do that.” If they have everything they need nearby, he argued, they would be happy with smaller territories. And it is true that the territory size of an animal like a wolf depends greatly on the density of resources and other wolves. But then there’s the pacing, the rocking. I pointed out that we can’t ask animals whether they are happy with their enclosure size. “That’s true,” he said. “There is always that element of choice that gets removed from them in a captive environment. That’s undeniable.” His justification was philosophical. In the end, he said, “we live with our own constraints.” He added, “We are all captive in some regards to social and ethical and religious and other constraints on our life and our activities.”

What if zoos stopped breeding all their animals, with the possible exception of any endangered species with a real chance of being released back into the wild? What if they sent all the animals that need really large areas or lots of freedom and socialization to refuges? With their apes, elephants, big cats, and other large and smart species gone, they could expand enclosures for the rest of the animals, concentrating on keeping them lavishly happy until their natural deaths. Eventually, the only animals on display would be a few ancient holdovers from the old menageries, animals in active conservation breeding programs and perhaps a few rescues.

Such zoos might even be merged with sanctuaries, places that take wild animals that because of injury or a lifetime of captivity cannot live in the wild. Existing refuges often do allow visitors, but their facilities are really arranged for the animals, not for the people. These refuge-zoos could become places where animals live. Display would be incidental.

Such a transformation might free up some space. What could these zoos do with it, besides enlarging enclosures? As an avid fan of botanical gardens, I humbly suggest that as the captive animals retire and die off without being replaced, these biodiversity-worshiping institutions devote more and more space to the wonderful world of plants. Properly curated and interpreted, a well-run garden can be a site for a rewarding “outing with friends or family,” a source of education for the 27 percent of people who read signs and a point of civic pride.

I’ve spent many memorable days in botanical gardens, completely swept away by the beauty of the design as well as the unending wonder of evolution — and there’s no uneasiness or guilt. When there’s a surplus, you can just have a plant sale.

Emma Marris is an environmental writer and the author of the forthcoming book “Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World.”

Photographs by Peter Fisher. Mr. Fisher is a photographer based in New York.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Advertisement

Five of the Strongest Arguments Against Zoos

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

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

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

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

Common Problems With Zoos

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

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

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

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

2. Zoos are just for entertainment.

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

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

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

Here’s how:

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

3. Zoo keepers are cruel.

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

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

Hey, I agree! Great!

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

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

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

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

5. None of the money from zoos goes towards conservation

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

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

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

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

One more thing…

6. A little note about branding and hypocrisy….

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

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

A few more articles on the topic:

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

B ook James for a speaking event:

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

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

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

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

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

• Animal Rights

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

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

• University of Southern California

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

A Brief History of Zoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Zoos Exist or be Banned?

This essay will debate the existence of zoos. It will discuss the arguments for and against zoos, including conservation efforts, educational benefits, and animal welfare concerns. The piece will explore the ethical considerations of keeping animals in captivity and the potential alternatives to traditional zoos. You can also find more related free essay samples at PapersOwl about Animals.

How it works

 Bang! Boom! Clinking! Rattle! Zoos have millions of animals, but there are kids who bang on the glass of exhibits and shake the animals cages, when the animals are in them. There are also animals dying in zoos. Even zoos with to little space. That’s horrendous for animals who live in zoos. Zoos should be banned for eternity because; the animals have barely any space, zoos are killing innocent animals, people taunt/ abuse them.

To begin, people taunt and abuse these poor animals. Need a custom essay on the same topic? Give us your paper requirements, choose a writer and we’ll deliver the highest-quality essay! Order now

Debbie Monsey noted a sign at the zoo, it said “Don’t make loud noises that bother animals.” Just think if the animals were released the you wouldn’t have to deal with that. You are just going to abuse the animals hearing in the zoos. If you’re trying to sleep or hate noise in general, you probably would be nice and not rude, which would mean you’d let them be. Continuing with that, a gorilla was getting taunted by visitors, so it lunged itself at the glass and pressed its palms and head against the glass. That was after the visitors were calling the gorilla “ugly.” See these visitors are taunting and abusing these furry animals. How would you feel if someone called you “Ugly,” you would probably be angry and probably scare them. That’s what the gorilla did. That’s one reason why zoos should be evacuated.

Furthermore, animals barely have any space in zoos. According to Michael D., “elephants roam as much as 30 miles a day.” Also “he will share 3.7 acres (About 3 Football Fields) with two companions.” So 30 miles is 19,200 acres, that’s a lot of land. What I’m saying is these elephants don’t get nearly enough space. On the other hand, Panda’s need 114.7 square kilometers. Which to be exact, they need 28342.987 acres, that is quite a lot if you ask me.Saint Louis zoo has Red Pandas,and their zoo’s only 89 acres. That means the Pandas don’t get enough space. Last, Tigers need 23 to 39 square miles. That’s 24,960 acres of land, they won’t get at zoos. Columbus Zoo is only 580 acres, and they have Tigers there. These Tigers need our help, we need to give them more space. In fact, all the animals need more space, and that’s another reason why zoos shouldn’t exist.

Additionally, zoos are killing innocent animals. Vin Morabito, stated “a gorilla was shot and killed for supposedly threatening a kid that wandered into its domain.” It wasn’t Harambe fault the kid wandered into its domain. It was the kids and parents fault. Another animal was killed, it was a young Giraffe named Marius. The reason he was killed was to prevent inbreeding. It can cause a problem for infants, it can also cause development of an unhealthy animal breed. LAst, I don’t know if you remember Tatiana, but she was a Siberian Tiger. She was shot and killed at just the age of four years old, weighing in at 450 pounds. This is really sad, and that’s another reason why zoos should be gone forever. You know, it’s quite funny, that people say zoos kill animals because they made a terrible mistake. Let me tell you this, everyone makes mistakes, but we aren’t exactly killed for them. Murderers have too even people in jail/ prison for another reason. They aren’t killed, like these animals, it’s just one mistake. Really zoos should be banned and the animals should be freed, not persecuted.

In essence, zoos should be absent, for eternity. Zoos should be absent, for eternity, because; these poor animals hardly have space, zoos are persecuting them, and visitors taunt/ abuse them. 

Cite this page

Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?. (2021, Mar 25). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/should-zoos-exist-or-be-banned/

"Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?." PapersOwl.com , 25 Mar 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/should-zoos-exist-or-be-banned/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/should-zoos-exist-or-be-banned/ [Accessed: 21 Nov. 2024]

"Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?." PapersOwl.com, Mar 25, 2021. Accessed November 21, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/should-zoos-exist-or-be-banned/

"Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?," PapersOwl.com , 25-Mar-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/should-zoos-exist-or-be-banned/. [Accessed: 21-Nov-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/should-zoos-exist-or-be-banned/ [Accessed: 21-Nov-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Zoo — Reasons Why Animals Should not be Kept in Zoos

Reasons Why Animals Should not Be Kept in Zoos

• Categories: Animal Welfare Zoo

About this sample

Words: 522 |

Published: Feb 8, 2022

Words: 522 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Works Cited

• Bekoff, M. (2009). Should zoos exist? A perspective from animal rights. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 569-585.
• Birke, L. (2017). Ethical concerns about zoos. In P. Boyle & P. Simmonds (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Tourism (pp. 119-131). Channel View Publications.
• Buchholz, R. (2018). Ethics and animals: An introduction (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
• Cusack, J. J., Dickman, C. R., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2017). Wildlife forensics: Methods and applications. Springer.
• Dolphin, K. (2018). Zoos: A contested terrain for human-wildlife relationships. Routledge.
• KQED Education. (2017). Should we keep animals in zoos? https://www.kqed.org/education/453676/should-we-keep-animals-in-zoos
• PeTA. (n.d.). Zoos and aquariums. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/zoos-aquariums/
• Ross, L., & Caro, T. (2020). How do visitors affect captive animal welfare? The importance of understanding human-animal interactions. Animal Welfare, 29(2), 155-163.
• Singh, M., & Singh, B. (2019). The ethics of zoos: Should we be keeping wild animals in captivity? International Journal of Ethics Education, 4(2), 119-129.
• Thompson, P. B. (2018). The ethics of captivity. Oxford University Press.

Cite this Essay

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

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

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 / 786 words

1 pages / 540 words

3 pages / 1465 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 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 concept of a "zoo" and the plural form "zoos" may appear straightforward and self-explanatory at first glance. However, an in-depth exploration reveals significant distinctions between them that extend beyond mere numerical [...]

Zoos have long been a subject of debate among scientists, animal rights activists, and the general public. Proponents argue that zoos serve vital roles in conservation, education, and research, while critics contend that they [...]

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 [...]

You could already have visited a zoo or a safari park at one point of your life or maybe even more than once. Many people argue about animals being kept in zoos. Some people think zoos are a good thing and some people don’t. The [...]

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