for and against essay of zoos

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

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

• University of Southern California

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

A Brief History of Zoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages Essay

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

The expediency of zoos and similar institutions is controversial since no artificially created conditions correspond to the natural range of animals’ origin. However, people seek to tame or at least be closer to animals. Therefore, the emergence of zoos, detention centers, or theme parks is an obvious decision. Instead, it is worth determining the expediency of keeping wild animals in captivity and outlining possible compromises.

Today, zoos follow the trend of creating conditions similar to animals’ natural habitats. Thus, one can observe an improved diet, natural plant species of the respective region, and an expanded area of maintenance enclosures. Moreover, children really like zoos because there, one can see animals not native to the region, take cute photos, and have a good time. Unfortunately, no artificial environment will make animals as happy as they could be in the wild. They are unable to make seasonal migrations, some are unable to mate to have offspring, and predators are unable to hunt. In addition, not all zoos follow elementary sanitary standards or the appropriate temperature regime. Thus, animals cannot live freely and happily while in captivity.

Summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of zoos, one can find a compromise regarding the conditions for keeping wild animals in artificial conditions. The only optimal option is to keep only those animals unable to function normally in wild conditions. Thus, the employees of the relevant institutions must ensure the capture and treatment of those animals that need it. If continued captivity under the supervision of specialists is a better option than release into the wild, this option should be chosen. In this way, animals will live in the comfort they deserve, and visitors to zoos will enjoy the beauty of the wild world.

• The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals
• Animal Experimentation: Key Aspects
• The Effectiveness of Sustainable Practices, Plans, Programs and Initiatives Implemented by Australian Zoo
• Animal Behavior in San Diego Zoo
• The Analysis of Siamangs’ Behavior in a Zoo Setting
• Social and Behavioral Science: Animals in Society
• Happy Cows Case: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Kitties
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry
• Wearing Clothes Made of Animal Fur
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 11). Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/

"Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages." IvyPanda , 11 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages'. 11 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages." February 11, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

1. IvyPanda . "Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages." February 11, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages." February 11, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

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

Pro and Con: Zoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should animals be kept in zoos?

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

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

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

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

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

Pros and cons of zoos

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

Pros of zoos

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

Cons of zoos

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

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

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

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

Voting results

New to netivist?

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

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

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

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

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

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

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

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

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

Posting Comment

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

Error Posting Comment

  error.

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

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

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

Found a technical issue?

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

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

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

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

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

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

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

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

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

You just leveled up!

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

Together we can make a difference

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

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > From Farm to Zoo - The Quest for Animal Welfare [Working Title]

The Value and Ethical Status of Zoos

Submitted: 20 November 2023 Reviewed: 15 December 2023 Published: 30 April 2024

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.114119

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

From Farm to Zoo - The Quest for Animal Welfare [Working Title]

Dr. Jaco Bakker and Dr. Melissa Delagarza

Chapter metrics overview

69 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Ethical concerns surrounding the existence of zoos have recently come to the fore. Some argue for the complete phasing-out of zoos, citing concerns about the limitations they impose on animal liberty and dignity, coupled with perceived minimal benefits to both humans and animals. However, these arguments tend to downplay the potential value that zoos offer in terms of human enjoyment, educational opportunities, research initiatives, and conservation efforts. Moreover, they overlook other significant benefits zoos provide such as the positive impact of human-animal interactions and opportunities to appreciate nature’s beauty. Finally, zoo critics often emphasize the negative effects of zoos on animals while neglecting the substantial efforts made by zoos toward animal welfare research and implementation. By accurately recognizing the multifaceted values that zoos can provide and ensuring the highest standards of animal care, a strong case can be made for their continued existence and importance.

• animal welfare
• human-animal interactions
• esthetic value of nature

Author Information

Alan vincelette *.

• Pretheology, St. John’s Seminary, Camarillo, California, USA

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Institutions that place animals in captivity have increasingly come under attack of late, including circuses, aquariums, zoos, research laboratories, factory farms, and, in some cases, animal sanctuaries and domestic households. Critics have argued that holding animals in captivity violates their right to autonomy or dignity, or is harmful to their overall welfare [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Such claims have been especially common in regard to highly intelligent mammals such as elephants, polar bears, lions, and primates. Given their needs for intellectual stimulation and freedom of exploration, various ethicists have alleged that such creatures do not belong in captivity [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Philosophers have even written legal briefs alleging mistreatment of such mammals in zoos and aquariums [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].

This paper examines the arguments against maintaining captive animals in zoos, especially mammals [ 14 ], and responds to them. Some critics allege that zoos fail to provide for animal welfare to a sufficient degree to justify their existence, at least for sentient beings [ 15 ]. Others [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]) argue that in depriving animals of liberty and a natural way of life zoos are unable to furnish them a satisfying life. Finally, there are critics who claim that zoos are fundamentally oppressive in unauthentically offering up animals for display for human pleasure [ 19 , 20 , 21 ].

Against these critiques, this paper asserts that such authors exaggerate the harm done by zoos and the degree to which zoos are unable to provide for animal welfare. It looks at the extensive research on and changes made in zoos to provide satisfying lives for zoo creatures by allowing for a great degree of species-specific behavior and minimizing the presence of deleterious stereotypies. In addition, there are several values which, if properly understood, justify the holding of animals in captivity in zoos. Zoo critics often inaccurately minimize the ability of zoos to provide for research, education, and conservation. And the ability of zoos to offer human entertainment, foster human-animal interactions (a good for both parties), and allow for esthetic appreciation of nature is significant. With an accurate assessment of the welfare of animals in zoos, and an appreciation of the diverse values zoos can provide, there is every reason to see zoos as important cultural and conservational institutions that can and should continue to exist.

2. The ethical critique of zoos

Various philosophers have argued that the confinement of animals in zoos, or at least certain mammalian species, cannot be morally justified. Typically such a view is based either upon utilitarian grounds and a concern for animal welfare, or upon animal rights and a concern for animal freedom or dignity [ 14 ]. While noting that zoos have much improved in their ability to care for animals and not cause them overt physical or psychological harm, nevertheless many critics assert that it is still problematic to confine animals in zoos due to their being deprived of a fundamental right to liberty or of dignity [ 22 ]. It is not enough for zoos to provide for animal welfare (often cached in terms of the freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, or disease, fear and distress [ 23 , 24 ]), nor a satisfying mental state, nor even to have large and naturalistic enclosures; rather zoos must enable the animals in them to enact the same (or very similar) behaviors that they do in the wild. This is something, however, that zoos, by their very nature, are often unable to do.

One of the earliest such critics was Dale Jamieson. Jamieson argued in his essays “Against Zoos” (1985) and “Zoos Revisited” (1995) that zoos involve “taking animals out of their native habitats, transporting them great distances, and keeping them in alien environments in which their liberty is severely restricted” ([ 17 ], p. 167). Consequently, zoos deprive animals of the good of behaving in ways natural to them, including the seeking and gathering of food, interacting with members of the same species in complex ways, and developing a social order. There is thus a moral presumption against keeping animals captive in zoos, as it deprives them of their interest in liberty; and such captivity would still be illicit even if zoo animals led overall less painful and more pleasant lives than their wild counterparts. Nor are the overall contributions zoos make to entertainment, education, research, and conservation enough to overcome this moral presumption, and indeed these ends could be accomplished in other ways, such as through films. Zoos, wherein human beings treat animals as “there for our pleasure, to be used for our purposes” ([ 17 ], p. 175), ought then to be abolished.

Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce argue along similar lines regarding zoo life that “Good welfare is not and can never be good enough … [as] the animals on display suffer from huge losses of freedom” ([ 16 ], p. 94). For even if zoos furnish naturalistic and enriched habitats (with varied and unpredictable environments with some capacity for exploration and play), and the animals there do not display any behaviors suggestive of poor physical or mental health, zoos still deprive animals of important freedoms, namely freedom of control and the ability to engage in the full range of behaviors indicative of their species. There are always limits on the behavioral choices available to zoo creatures. Coupled with the fact that visitors often do not learn much about animals at zoos, visiting each exhibit for a short period, nor leave the zoo much more likely to get involved in conservation efforts, zoos should be replaced with more enlightened animal sanctuaries that are either closed to the public or allow very limited access [ 25 ].

Tzachi Zamir, while defending the ethical legitimacy of companion and farm animals on the basis of their being able to live qualitatively satisfying lives, argues that placing animals in zoos cannot be similarly justified [ 18 ]. Just as it would be unwarranted to confine humans to cages, or to remove human infants from their parents, even in order to improve their overall wellbeing or extend their lives, so too placing animals in zoos is impermissible, even were their welfare to be enhanced. For most species of animals in the zoo (unlike companion and farm animals who owe their very existence to being placed in paternal relationships with humans) are capable of living in the wild apart from human interventions. Placing such creatures in zoos, therefore, whose exhibits can place severe restrictions on their movements (especially with birds, canines, felines, and primates), and are contraindicative to behaviors they would naturally engage in in the wild, is not in their best interest [ 18 ].

Other critics stress the inauthentic and imperialistic nature of zoos [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Zoos involve the “praxis of imperialism,” opines Randy Malamud, wherein animals are taken out of their natural environments, confined, and exploited as “subalterns,” that is to say, placed on convenient display and subject to the gaze of countless spectators ([ 21 ], pp. 58-59). In addition, zoos are inauthentic as they fundamentally misrepresent and oversimplify the nature of the animals on exhibit ([ 21 ], p. 29). Visitors to zoos are duped into believing that the animals housed there show the full scale of behaviors they possess in the wild. Zoos, in the end, are unethical speciest institutions that unjustly confine animals and pander to base human interests. It is no wonder that Malamud thinks we should shutter zoos, when he describes them as “prisons for kidnapped, alienated, tortured specimens who are forced to live their lives in vastly unsuitable compounds for the titillation of ignorant crowds brought in by marketing and advertising campaigns that promise highbrow ecological experiences but actually pander to audiences’ less noble cravings for amusement parks, or even freakshows” ([ 30 ], p. 397).

Ralph Acampora highlights this deceptive nature of zoos ([ 19 ], p. 77). Zoos present as wild (animals exhibiting the natural behaviors they would perform in the wild as if visitors were not there) what is captive (animals as spectacle and exhibition in a “zoopticon” where they are subject to the gaze of humans). Indeed, zoos undermine the very conditions of encounter with a wild animal that they claim to provide. Zoo creatures are displayed as if at liberty, whereas, in reality, they “are incapable of living the lives they are purported to enjoy; they are prevented from participating in behavior presented as their defining characteristics. Precisely because they are unable to elude the gaze of others, to associate or refuse to associate with human beings, they are prevented from living the lives they are supposed to have” ([ 19 ], p. 78). Zoos then should be replaced with institutions that present animals more authentically such as certain types of animal orphanages or wildlife sanctuaries.

The zoo critic Lori Gruen [ 20 ], along with others [ 31 , 32 ], has more recently taken up the same hammer and wedge. Gruen argues that zoos deprive animals of autonomy and dignity. Even the best zoos, those with naturalistic enclosures, are often dignity denying as they place animals under constant surveillance, deny them privacy or any hiding place to which they can retreat, and force them to be spectacles on display for humans ([ 20 ], pp. 240-245). Zoos, in fact, “are designed to create a relationship between the human observer and the object of the observation that obscures the individuality and dignity of the animals. The enclosures are designed to satisfy human interests and desires, even though they largely fail at this. At worst the experience creates a relationship in which the observer, even a child, has a feeling of dominant distance over those being observed” ([ 20 ], p. 242). Zoos also deprive animals of autonomy for Gruen [ 33 , 34 ]. Zoo animals do not have the freedom to follow their own interests and engage in the behaviors typical of their species but instead are under the almost complete control of humans. They cannot choose where to dwell, nor the individuals with whom to spend time or to mate. Nor are zoo animals allowed to engage in ritualized combat to determine social hierarchies or territories. Zoos may not strictly speaking harm animals physically or psychologically, but, on account of their violating the dignity and autonomy of animals, they should be replaced with animal sanctuaries utilized primarily for conservation purposes.

While not rejecting the propriety of zoos altogether, several ethicists have proclaimed that they should be greatly modified in nature or limited in scope. For such thinkers, zoos should ideally only house animals that otherwise could not survive in the wild, or those that can be temporarily bred and reintroduced into the wild, and should generally be closed to the public [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].

Emma Marris, for example, holds that the keeping of large mammals in zoos should definitely be phased out [ 40 ]. According to Marris, the fact that many large animals, such as elephants and lions, display stereotypies in the zoo and will escape from their cages when possible, indicates that they are not happy there. Moreover, the effectiveness of zoos in conservation is minimal. Though there have been a few successful reintroductions of species into the wild, the vast majority of zoo animals will spend their entire lives in captivity. Nor is there unambiguous evidence of the educational contribution of zoos to promoting conservation. People, in fact, says Marris, “do not 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 ninetieth century: to be entertained” [ 40 ]. Indeed, suggests Marris, most animals in zoos should be put in refugees or allowed to live out their natural lives without being replaced. In the end zoos should house just a few animals–namely, endangered species with a real chance of being released back into the wild and some rescues, and the rest of their space dedicated to botanical gardens.

A similar view is found in the well-known philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who builds her case to limit the species kept in zoos on a capabilities approach [ 41 ]. In order for animals to flourish, argues Nussbaum, they must be able to manifest the capacities of life, health, integrity, sense, imagination, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, relations with other species, play, and control over their environment ([ 41 ], pp. 95-108). On a capabilities approach then it is not enough for zoos to ensure the absence of pain and presence of pleasure in captive animals (an area in which zoos have greatly improved, admits Nussbaum), zoos must also provide environs in which animals can lead the particular “form of life” characteristic of their species, including activities such as play, self-direction, affiliation, sensory stimulation, and even predation. A confined space is justifiable “if and only if the animals within it have access to their characteristic form of life, spatially, sensorily, nutritionally, socially, emotionally” ([ 41 ], p. 239). Nussbaum grants that zoos often support valuable research, and conservation efforts. Yet it is not clear how, for many species, they can provide for a “social life and free movement in a group-typical space” ([ 41 ], p. 239). In the end Nussbaum favors the continued presence in zoos of small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, non-migratory birds, monkeys, and some apes, but is less confident that zoos can provide the necessary environments for large mammals such as rhinos, giraffes, elephants, polar bears, cheetahs, hyenas, lions, and tigers–unless temporarily and where there are no other alternatives for a species facing extinction in the wild.

Finally, Stephen Bennett recently advanced a utilitarian argument against the keeping of sentient animals in zoos (Bennett allows the keeping of non-sentient animals, however) [ 15 ]. Bennett claims that sentient animals will suffer from frustration and unhappiness if prevented from moving about and acting upon their natural desires as they could do in the wild. Hence they experience pain under the constraints on freedom imposed by zoos ([ 15 ], pp. 178-179). Furthermore, Bennett argues, invoking the antinatalism of David Benatar [ 42 ], that, all things being equal, it is better for a sentient being not to have come into existence at all, thereby avoiding the experience of any pain, than it is to come into existence and experience pleasure. That is to say, other things being equal, the harms that occur while existing outweigh the benefits. Now if it could be shown that zoos actively promote conservation efforts then this could compensate for the harms that occur during captivity; however, zoos have achieved few successful reintroductions of animals into the wild. Thus captive breeding programs, which merely bring into existence sentient creatures who are bound to suffer some things by the very fact of their existence, and whose prospects for successful reintroduction into the wild are minimal, should be done away with and sentient animals moved out of zoos ([ 15 ], pp. 182-183).

3. Getting accurate about the contributions zoos make to research, education, and conservation

The confinement of animals in zoos has traditionally been justified on four grounds: entertainment, education, research, and conservation [ 43 , 44 ]. The continued existence of zoos is said to be defensible if zoos can accomplish these goals, assuming that animals can be kept in a state of good physical and psychological health [ 45 ].

As we have seen, however, zoo critics often allege the failure of zoos to accomplish these goals, or to do much in their regard. Yet they often exaggerate these failures and so downplay the goods generated by zoos. This makes it easier to argue for their elimination. An important first step in the defense of zoos then is to accurately assess the ability of zoos to meet these four goals.

Several of the above critics have professed that zoos do not contribute much to academic research, or at least to research supporting conservation efforts ([ 24 ], p. 170, 40). Partly the claim is made that researchers are better off studying animals in the wild than in the artificial habitats found in zoos. Partly the claim is made that most of the research done in zoos involves studies on how to provide for zoo animal welfare, which would not be necessary if zoos did not exist, and little of it is solid peer-reviewed work that can assist in conservation.

While it is true that in the past zoos did not do as much as they perhaps could have to foster research, it is harder to make that case today. One study noted that from 1993 to 2013 North American AZA zoo and aquarium members contributed 5175 publications to peer-review journals, with 31.6% of those focused on veterinary science (some of which, of course, related to zoo animal welfare), 31.9% on zoology, 13.3% on ecology, and 7.3% on biodiversity conservation [ 46 ]. A similar study on German zoos, all member of ‘Verband der Zoologischen Gaerten’, described how between 2008 and 2018 such institutions produced 1058 peer-review articles, of which 13.9% were related to veterinary science, 25.1% to zoology, 7.6% to ecology, and 5.2% to biodiversity conservation [ 47 ]. And from 1998 to 2018 European EAZA zoo members produced 3345 peer-reviewed manuscripts, of which 29.1% were in veterinary science, 31.6% in zoology, 16.4% in ecology, and 12.7% in biodiversity conservation [ 48 ]. If we just limit ourselves to the areas of ecology and biodiversity conservation, zoos contributed over 2300 articles over the past 20 or so years (and the rate of publication has been increasing over time) [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. So, although zoos may not be research institutions to the same degree that universities are, and may employ few full-time researchers, they can provide for significant research in animal biology and behavior (often partnering with university researchers), and, in particular, help inform conservation efforts involving both in-situ and ex-situ programs.

Nor is it true that studies done on zoo animals are necessarily less revelatory than those done on animals in the wild. A careful biologist recognizes that animals in zoos may not behave in ways identical to those in the wild, and hence that complementary studies in the field can be very important. Yet a lot of information about animal biology and behavior can be gleaned from research on zoo animals, who do, in fact, replicate some of the behaviors observed in the wild. Indeed, zoo animals are often more accessible and easier to isolate and interact with than animals in the wild. Hence zoos can host a lot of valuable studies on zoology and animal behavior, whether via their own employees or outside investigators. For example, investigations on the breeding behavior of the Japanese Giant Salamander undertaken at Asa Zoological Park in 1989 subsequently led to the development of artificial nests to help the species propagate in the wild [ 54 ]. And in the field of primate cognition alone over 1000 papers have been published in the new century involving research done at zoos [ 55 , 56 ].

Similarly, in regard to the goal of education, critics have charged that zoos do little to change people’s behaviors in a way that make them more likely to actively support conservation efforts in the world ([ 15 ], p. 181), ([ 16 ], p. 112-115), ([ 18 ], p. 200), ([ 20 ], p. 241, 40). Moreover, they assert that most of the purported educational benefits of zoos could be arrived at equally well through other mediums, such as lectures, documentaries, books, or museums ([ 24 ], p. 169, 15, p. 181, 16, 18, p. 200).

Now the critics here are on somewhat solid ground. It is tough to demonstrate the effect of zoos on conservation attitudes or behavioral changes. In fact, critics have pointed to various studies showing that the average zoo-goer spends little time at each exhibit and leaves the zoo with views on conservation closely resembling those with which they entered [ 57 , 58 , 59 ]. As one author notes, “zoos seem to be successful in promoting feelings of caring and connection with wildlife, although efforts to increase visitor knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors appear to have been less effective. This may be the case because despite zoos’ efforts to position themselves as sites of conservation, research, and education, the reality is that by and large the public still views them as places of entertainment” ([ 60 ], p. 376).

However, we cannot ignore various studies that find zoos can have an impact on a visitor’s attitudes towards and behaviors involving conservation. One study noted that over fifty percent of zoo visitors found that their zoo experience reinforced their attitudes towards conservation and prompted them to reflect on their future role in its regard [ 61 ]. And while the validity of this study has been challenged [ 62 ], and responded to [ 63 ], similar studies have described small but positive impacts of zoos on conservation attitudes and behaviors, often based on feelings of connectedness with the animals rather than time spent reading exhibit signs [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]. The bulk of these studies though are based on survey results rather than post zoo data about actual increases in conservation behavior or spending, so more investigation needs to be done. All the same zoos can continue to refine their educational programs, and experiment with providing ways to donate or volunteer for conservation activities on site, as some have already done [ 73 ].

In any case, most modern thinkers assert that the primary value provided by zoos, and what most justifies their continued relevance, is their ability to provide for the conservation of endangered species [ 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ]. Keulartz, for example, wants zoos to make sure that their core tasks are “all geared to wildlife conservation and the species collection clearly reflects the zoo’s conservation goals. A shift towards small species, which generally experience less welfare problems in captivity and fewer behavioral problems that make return to the wild difficult than large animals, would certainly tip the scales in favor of the zoo” ([ 85 ], p. 349).

Now how do zoos fare in conservation work? Are zoos able to assist in bringing back species from the brink of extinction? Here again there is mixed success, as critics have pointed out ([ 21 ], pp. 44-45, 24, pp. 172-173, 40). It is true that zoos contain many species that are not endangered (somewhere around 8000 out of 9000 species there, in fact), and that some of the zoo populations of endangered species are quite low and so there is a danger of deleterious genes being expressed due to inbreeding. It is also true that there have been a very limited number of successful reintroductions (around 20 with 40 ongoing) and that the overall success rate has been estimated at anywhere between 10 and 40% [ 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 ].

Still, the successful reintroductions that have occurred should not be disregarded. Captive-breeding programs in zoos have helped in the restoration to the wild of such endangered or threatened species as the California Condor, Przewalski’s Horse, Arabian Oryx, Red Wolf, Golden Lion Tamarin, Black-Footed Ferret, Bison, Iberian Lynx, Asian Crested Ibis, and Whooping Crane. Moreover, even when not directly involved in captive-breeding programs zoos provide personnel, know-how, and funding (up to $350 million each year) for conservation efforts [ 87 , 89 , 92 ]. Recently zoos have done a lot of work in assisting in the restoration of endangered reptile and amphibian species [ 54 , 92 ]. As has been noted, zoos help preserve threatened animal species generation after generation, by redirecting money spent on entertainment, and fostering an attitude of concern for the zoo animals who serve as ambassadors for their kin in the wild [ 74 , 93 , 94 , 95 ].

Moreover, with advancing biotechnology (CRISPR and cloning) and monitoring technology (drones, cameras, artificial intelligence, data loggers) increased success in reintroductions of endangered species via captive breeding might be possible in the future [ 95 , 96 ]. In any case, zoos can at least be important storehouses of genetic information and diversity wherein the gene pool of endangered species are maintained throughout the world through cooperative breeding programs (though here perhaps future technology might make this less necessary) [ 97 , 98 ].

4. Zoos as vehicles for esthetic appreciation of, interaction with, and enjoyment of/for animals

Zoos have sponsored important research studies on animal biology and conservation, aided in a few successful reintroductions of endangered species into the wild, and made some contributions to education and changing behavioral patterns of people vis-à-vis conservation. One traditional value of zoos, however, has yet to be discussed–zoos as providing entertainment.

Zoo critics on the whole have found the least amount of support for the existence of zoos in their ability to provide for human entertainment [ 19 , 21 ]. Jamieson finds it hard to see how providing entertainment to humans could possibly justify keeping wild animals in captivity ([ 24 ], p. 168). And several critics have found the very putting of animals on display in zoos to be demeaning and undignified. In the words of Gruen, “Thinking of animals as things to be looked at and believing that doing so makes for an enjoyable weekend outing, precludes seeing animals as having dignity” ([ 20 ], p. 242). For in such a case, argues Malamud, zoo life becomes merely “an amusement, a display, a spectacle in a menagerie,” where human visitors are deceived into thinking animals are exhibiting their “natural” behaviors ([ 21 ], p. 1). Tafalla expresses similar concerns in writing that “Zoos reduce animals to bodies, to a mere physical presence, to ornamental objects that can be exhibited and contemplated, to pleasant appearances we like to watch, but the true identity of an animal is much more than her body. They are subjects with different capacities, who develop and express their identity in complex behavior and through multiple relations with their environment, and with all the other individuals of the same and different species who inhabit it. This is the core of the problem. At a zoo, we cannot appreciate in a serious and deep way the esthetic qualities of wild species because zoos are not showing us wild animals on their own terms” ([ 99 ], p. 7).

Whence it might be thought that entertainment is the least important factor for those seeking to justify the existence of zoos. Yet it turns out that this, when fully explicated, is a vastly underemphasized value of zoos. Zoos can do a lot of good educating humans about animals and the environment, fostering conservation programs, and promoting research. However, zoos are primarily good as zoos , that is as a place where living creatures are kept in confinement for the purpose of being viewed and appreciated by humans. Indeed, the joy found in observing animals in the zoo is a driver of education, motivator of research, and foundation for conservation.

There is, in fact, great value in humans being able to view and be amazed by living creatures from around the world. Experiencing such animals in person allows humans to appreciate the grandeur of creation, the physical qualities, adaptations, beautiful forms, colors, and great variety of creatures living in the world. Indeed, humans can encounter species in zoos that they would not likely encounter anywhere else, such as bears, tigers, and wolverines, unless they were seasoned world travelers and expeditionists. Indeed, in very few places (perhaps one exception being the African Savannah) can one encounter such a diversity of life forms at once. Yes, it is true that one can also appreciate wildlife in films or magazines. But there is something worthwhile about seeing something in person that is hard to capture in other ways. Watching a live jazz jam session, or an orchestral performance in person, is quite different than watching the same thing on film. There are aspects of the experience that arguably cannot be duplicated virtually and the very aspect of being present at an event or occurrence encourages active engagement (though as technology develops and virtual three-dimensional presentations of material can occur there may be fewer overall differences).

So appreciation of the nature and beauty of zoo life is something that can and does occur in spite of the (mis)construals of zoo critics. If one has a conception that animals in zoos are presented in an undignified manner it may well be difficult to appreciate them esthetically. But this need not be the case (and one may be mistaken in one’s assessment of the situation–in thinking of zoo mammals as being put on display in an undignified manner). If, on the other hand, one is open to the beauty and magnificence of animals, it is there to be seen even in a zoo. Hence the fame of tigers, zebras, peacocks, toucans, and parrots. In addition, part of what makes animals esthetically appealing is their physical nature being adapted for a particular function, and this would certainly be visible in zoo creatures, and is often highlighted on informational displays [ 100 , 101 , 102 ]. Zoos provide a special diet for flamingos in giving them the canthaxanthin that they would normally eat in the environment to maintain their pink color but there is no reason to let this “artificiality” spoil one’s appreciation of their grace, long legs, and beauty.

Critics of zoos have asserted that one cannot have a deep appreciation of animals there as such creatures do not behave as they would in the wild. But the former in no way follows from the latter, and it is not even clear the latter follows. In a large enclosure, zoo animals can manifest many of the behaviors they do in the wild, including ones that humans can find esthetically pleasing. A lion in a zoo may not behave exactly as it does in the wild, but it can still display its magnificence as it walks with its piercing eyes, chest out, and powerful steps. So, too the plodding walk of elephants and their dexterity with their trunks, the speed of a cheetah, as well as the pacing gait and maneuverable tongue of giraffes can all be marveled at in a zoo. Zoos then can provide significant “entertainment” (perhaps “spectacle” might be a better term) for humans by allowing the aesthetical experience and appreciation of animals.

Moreover, in zoos visitors can interact with animals in various ways, such as by feeding and petting them. Many zoo critics find this artificial and problematic [ 25 , 41 ]. But why? Yes, training animals to perform in ways contrary to how they normally behave may look odd (as with bears riding bicycles), and we can debate its propriety. But animal training and human-animal interactions can take various forms. Animal species (such as rhinoceroses, giraffes, tigers, wolves, parrots, and hawks) can be socialized and trained to behave or interact with humans in different ways in encounters or shows. Giraffes and rhinoceroses or parrots can be trained to happily take food from the hands of humans and birds to fly to and fro in an animal show. And animals are often able to adapt to different environments, including interacting with invasive species or new species encountered as their environment expands or contracts. Wild animals, notes Learmonth, do not just interact with members of their own species, but also with those of other species, sometimes in mutually beneficial ways. Thus “human-animal interactions could actually be considered natural in a way, and notwithstanding, be very important to animals that initiate these interactions, especially for ‘a life worth living’” [ 103 ]. At the wildland-urban interface, where farmland, field, or forest meets city, wild animals such as birds, squirrels, rabbits, or deer interact with humans in visiting feeders or salt licks or gardens. Indeed, many animals adapted to the wild may become pets in human homes (though breeding in captivity seems best for the most positive adjustment to a domestic life).

Therefore, to completely disallow animal-human interactions in a zoo and claim that these are artificial, has itself the air of drawing an artificial boundary. Nussbaum does grant the legitimacy of human relationships with parrots and chimpanzees as such interactivity is consistent with their form of life ([ 41 ], p. 238). But the ability of animals to interact positively with humans is much broader than this. Certainly most mammals that live in social groups or form pair bonds seem quite capable of forming meaningful relationships with humans, but so do some more solitary species. It does not seem possible to draw an a priori boundary but rather let such a boundary arise from seeing how different human and animal species interact in a zoo and the benefits that arise therefrom.

Zoo creatures, it could be argued, even have the unique opportunity, one lacking with wild animals, of being able to have interactions with human visitors (such as being fed or petted). This human-animal interrelationality allows for novel but positive experiences not necessarily observed in the wild, but which one might call “seminatural.” Researchers have just begun to appreciate how such animal-visitor interactions [AVIs] enhance the life of zoo creatures and of humans as well [ 64 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 ]. For such human-animal interactions, if done appropriately, can be of great importance to zoo animals and enhance their mental well-being. Many animals seem to take delight in interacting with humans, and seek out such forms of contact, especially if trained or with known individuals. Indeed, zookeepers and caregivers and veterinarians are typically quite loving and kind and thoughtful when it comes to how to interact with zoo animals. Though she generally favors private and public animal sanctuaries over zoos, Rudy is quite right when she states that “some animals are generally better off when they are enmeshed with and connected to humans who work with them, advocate for their well-being, and love them” ([ 113 ], p. 112). Such rich and engaging relations with animals can in turn help humans bond with them, feel connected to them, experience great joy, and perhaps reinforce conservation activities. And such interactions are carefully subscribed, regulated, and evaluated for welfare impacts on the zoo creatures.

Thus, as Cochrane has argued, zoo animals are, in a way, neither wild nor domestic [ 114 ]. They live in miniature worlds, are provided with food and medicine, monitored, and moved around. They are somewhat adapted to living with humans, either being born in captivity and raised from youth with humans, and/or being extensively trained by zookeepers (indeed this is one reason why they often fail to do well when reintroduced into the wild). For these reasons, Cochrane labels zoo animals “biotic artifacts,” or creatures of “immaturation” [ 114 ]. In any case many zoo animals seem to value human interactions and such interactions can also provide positive experiences for humans and enhance their valuing of nature.

5. Some reflections on animal welfare in zoos

Still even the ability to make important contributions to research, education, conservation, and human entertainment, may not be enough to justify the placing of animals in zoos if their welfare is compromised. Most zoo critics are well aware that zoos have changed in their philosophy, and have devoted much time, energy, resources, and study to animal welfare [ 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 ]. They are also typically aware that zoos are accredited on the basis of various standards by such agencies as the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), the Zoological Association of American (ZAA), the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIZA), have dedicated nutritionists, animal caregivers, and veterinary staff, and have expansive enclosures that feature naturalistic and enriched environments [ 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]. Hence it is much harder to attack zoos for their failure to provide for the core physical and mental needs of creatures in their care (though there may still be issues with particular zoos, or with certain practices such as the culling of surplus animals in overpopulated zoo enclosures, removing animals from the wild and transferring them to zoos, or questions as to whether certain species can lead fully satisfactory lives in a zoo [ 134 , 135 ]).

Yet zoo critics still argue that zoos are unsatisfactory as zoo animals lack complete freedom in captivity and cannot duplicate the full scale of their activities in the wild [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 41 , 136 , 137 ]. It is worthwhile exploring these issues in more detail.

Firstly, this appeal to “naturalness” is misleading, and commits the Moorean fallacy of asserting that what is “natural” is good. Producing a carbon-copy version of life in the wild in a zoo may not be optimal as far as welfare goes [ 138 ]. Browning even argues that natural functioning is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for animal welfare, and he puts forward instead the criteria of behavioral preference and enjoyment. For some natural behaviors may decrease welfare and some unnatural behaviors increase it [ 139 ]. In the wild, animals experience predation, are challenged or attacked in social dominance conflicts, and may suffer from malnutrition, harsh environments, or disease. In captivity zoo animals are given highly nutritious food, continually monitored, provided with veterinary care, and though they may suffer from some issues not observed in the wild, in general face less overall threat to their welfare. As some have noted, in terms of comparable quality of life, zoo animals often have it better than their kin in the wild ([ 115 ], pp. 180-183, 141).

Secondly, the “natural” environment of animal species can change over time and animals may be quite adaptive, often (though not always) able to alter their behavior in response to environmental differences and do quite well. Animals such as crows and pigeons seem to flourish in cities and they are not the only species to do so.

Thirdly, zoos today continually evaluate and seek to bring about positive mental states in animals, and hence to provide them with outlets for exercise of many of their natural behaviors including habitat choice, locomotory opportunities, shelter, and foraging options [ 45 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 ]. Indeed, I would assert that by nearly all measures the vast majority of animals in accredited zoos lead happy and fulfilling lives. Moreover, it seems that even large mammals such as elephants, giraffes, bears, tigers, and lions, can lead satisfactory lives in a zoo with an appropriate environment [ 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 ]. Critics point out that many zoos no longer house elephants and attribute this to increased recognition that they do not belong in zoos. Now it is true that the welfare needs of elephants are harder to meet than for many other mammals. But it is also true that elephants get a lot of press and have motivated a lot of protests [ 12 , 13 ]. Hence some of the zoos that have dropped elephants may have simply found it better from a public relations point of view to no longer house elephants rather than holding there is anything fundamentally wrong with it. In any case it does not seem there is a pressing need for zoos to switch from housing large charismatic species to insects, gastropods, amphibians, and reptiles as some have claimed ([ 16 ], p. 13) and [ 113 , 157 ].

It is worth noting that determination of animal “happiness” or welfare is difficult. Animals cannot communicate their mental states as humans can and humans might falsely interpret it by misreading certain behaviors. Zoo personnel seek to make sure animals are not exhibiting signs of fear, discomfort, pain, or distress, noticeable through verbal or locutory or behavioral cues [ 23 , 24 , 120 , 123 , 141 , 145 , 157 ]. New techniques are even being developed for assessment of positive emotional states in animals and their connection to indicators such as facial expressions, vocalizations, behavior, and engagement in play and affiliation [ 142 , 144 ]. It is recognized that the enclosures of zoo animals must provide places for shelter, rest, and access to water and food. Efforts are taken in order that zoo animals do not become “bored,” but can actively engage with their environment, and exhibit the bulk of their natural behaviors and socialize with members of their own kind [ 23 , 24 , 45 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 137 , 143 , 149 ].

There are also ongoing studies and debates about the degree to which cortisol levels in the body or stereotypic behaviors are reflective of poor welfare. Though there seem to be definite links of cortisol levels with stress, in certain cases there can be high levels of cortisol with little obvious stressors or low levels of cortisol in spite of fairly clear signs of stress. Again, stereotypic behaviors, such as pacing, can be indicative of boredom and stress and linked to higher cortisol levels, though such behaviors may also be anticipatory (linked to expected arrival of a keeper or the opening of a door to a new location) or compensatory (a means of reducing stress) [ 144 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 ]. Research continues in these areas. And other questions arise. Is inability to reproduce a sign or poor welfare or not? Animals often adjust reproductive rates due to match environmental size, so it may not be. Is proclivity to flee cages a sign of distress? Perhaps, or it may merely reflect the natural curiosity of certain species and individuals. Such questions can and are being studied. Much work remains to be done to determine the best markers of optimal and poor welfare among zoo animals. Further study, of course, might suggest requirements for the wellbeing of certain animal species in captivity that some (or even all) zoos are not capable of meeting. And if the evidence suggests some species are just not capable of a quality life in a particular zoo (or zoos in general) then modifications should be made or the animal species moved to more appropriate locations such as sanctuaries.

It is true that zoo animals have less freedom than their kin in the wild, but the question is whether or not zoo animals, including mammals, suffer as a result. Is freedom a true value for non-human species or sentient ones? Arguably not. Freedom only seems to be an overriding value for a creature that can know it is not free. Freedom must be missed for absence of freedom to be a true deficit. Yet most animals have no conception of such a thing. They cannot contrast their current state of life with that of a life in the wild and regret missing out on the latter. So, it is not clear that zoo animals perceive enclosures as a restriction of freedom or their zoo home as a limitation of their own choices [ 162 , 163 ]. As Cochrane notes: “Most animals cannot frame, revise and pursue their own conceptions of the good. This is not to say that sentient animals do not have different characters, nor is it to deny that they can make choices. It is simply to make the point that most animals cannot forge their own life plans and goals. Given this, restricting the freedom of these animals does not seem to cause harm in the same way that it does for humans. … As autonomous agents, most human beings have a fundamental interest in being free to pursue their own life plans, forge their own conception of a good life and not to have a particular way of life forced upon them” ([ 164 ], p. 669). There is a sense for sure, as Jamieson notes, that it is morally preferable to be free rather than captive ([ 24 ], p. 180). Hence taking animals out of the wild and placing them in captivity does come with a certain “cost” and must be done for an appropriate reason [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Nature may offer opportunities for exploration and socialization not available in captivity. Yet nature also offers challenges and potential suffering, and a life in captivity may be just as fulfilling as one in the wild for many animal species. Thus, placing animals in zoos, where they can lead happy lives, even if they lack certain opportunities found in the wild, does seem justifiable if done for the reasons noted above, human appreciation and interaction, education, research, and conservation. Such captive animals need not see lack of freedom as a disvalue and may find all the requirements they need for a good and satisfying life in a captive situation, and indeed find unique opportunities not available in the wild (such as forming animal-human relationships). In any case ongoing studies and efforts are being undertaken to make sure animal species in zoos are receiving the “liberty” needed to lead quality lives. Animals are not as intelligent as humans, or as aware of their environment and possibilities of choice, and so arguably do not require the same level or range of freedoms as humans; still some level of freedom to explore their environment and behave as they want to does seem necessary for zoo animals [ 164 ]. The challenge is to understand what level of freedom is necessary. Placing animals in zoos does seem valid as long as animals are provided a certain level of freedom and important values can be met by placing them in captivity.

6. Defenders of zoos

In short, zoos overall have great value and should continue to exist. They provide for human entertainment, human appreciation of creation, interspecific interactions between humans and animals, education, research, and conservation. They should, all the same, continue to monitor and improve in their ability to maintain animal welfare, impart education, and contribute to conservation activities.

Similar sentiments are found in a few other philosophers [ 98 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 ]. Bostock, for example, in his Zoos and Animal Rights (1993), argues that zoos are very valuable in terms of safeguarding the genetic information of various species and reintroducing these species into the wild if and when necessary [ 169 ]. Bostock finds zoos particularly important in allowing humans to observe wildlife, something that millions of people could never do by visiting the wild, without irreparably changing it for the worse. Bostock points out that zoo animals are partially domesticated and so do not require the same range of behaviors to be satisfied as completely wild animals do, and that, in turn, domestic animals themselves have retained a large number of the behaviors they had in the wild. Zoos can and should maintain their exhibits and programs in conservation and education as long as they can provide for the well-being of captive animals in terms of health and ability to engage in a variety of natural behaviors.

DeGrazia also defends the existence of zoos as long as they are able to provide their captive residents with at least as good a life as they would otherwise have in the wild ([ 170 ], pp. 294-297), ([ 171 ], pp. 759-760). For life in the wild is often nasty, brutish, and short, to use the words of Hobbes, and full of hunger, disease, and pain. Conversely zoos, though they confine animals, are able to provide them with a good life as long as they can meet their basic needs and furnish enough opportunities for fulfilling their typical behaviors; indeed, with their advanced veterinary care zoos may furnish longer life spans for animals than in the wild. According to DeGrazia, zoo exhibits which allow for a good life for captive creatures, while also allowing for humans to admire them, contrary to what critics have claimed, do show the animals respect. Being subject to the observation of humans need not deprive animals of dignity. DeGrazia, though, is not a fan of capturing wild animals and transferring them to zoos (especially intelligent species such as birds and mammals), but instead favors breeding them in captivity.

Finally Gray, in her Zoo Ethics (2017) argues that zoos can increase the likelihood of humans taking action to preserve animal species by enhancing people’s appreciation and understanding of biotic communities ([ 172 ], pp. 181-182]). Zoos can help keep the remaining representatives of endangered species alive as they work to secure populations in the wild for these species in the future. Gray, however, does push for compassionate conservationism and the need to carefully provide for the welfare of each animal in the zoo.

7. Conclusion

Animal rights ethicists and activists have criticized the treatment of animals in zoos of late. We can be grateful for some of their efforts. For it has given impetus to the investigation and improvement of the welfare of animals in zoos. At the same time, many of their critiques are based on dubious philosophical grounds, such as the premise that the best life for a creature is one that mimics its life in the wild, that zoo animals suffer harm from a lack of freedom, or that animals in zoos are merely there as cute artifacts for the eyes of visitors and that putting them on display denies them dignity. Critics of zoos also tend to exaggerate the mistreatment of animals and zoos or devalue the positive contributions zoos can make to research, education, and conservation.

In modern zoos great effort is put into maintain the welfare of the creatures there (at least with institutions accredited through prominent associations such as the AZA, BIZA, EAZA, and ZAA). Zoo animals are well cared for, given fairly large and enriched environments, and offered a variety of foods and activities. Indeed, zoo animals can interact with other members of their species, as well as members of other species including humans. Thus, animals in zoos are provided with a broad array of activities, some even going beyond those afforded in the wild. Moreover, zoo animals will typically enter into such activities voluntarily and find pleasure in them. They can take pleasure in being fed or petted by humans. This is reflective of the adaptivity of animals living in the wild and the extent to which they are able to interact with members of their own, other species, or new “invasive” or encountered ones. Such novel interactions need not be considered unnatural or artificial or improper. Just as parrots or pigs or monkeys can come to find value and satisfaction living in humans’ homes, so too can other species that are typically restricted to the wild. All of which is to say that zoos can furnish a quality life to the animals in them, including even large mammals if provided with a proper enclosure.

While taking care of and providing positive forms of existence for the creatures in them, zoos can also achieve several other goods. They can provide for an enjoyable day for human visitors, help humans appreciate the grandeur and diversity of creation, and allow for mutually positive interactions between humans and zoo animals. Zoos can, in addition, help educate humans about animals and their danger of extinction, connect people to animals and motivate conservational attitudes and behavior, promote research into zoology, animal welfare, and conservation, and help to preserve the gene pools of species and prevent them from going extinct in the future. This paper is thus a call for zoo critics, or at least those of them with open minds, to reconsider their positions, and to recognize there is no reason that zoos should not exist long into the future.

• 1. Schmidt AT. Why animals have an interest in freedom. Historical Social Research. 2015; 40 (4):92-109
• 2. Giroux V. Animals do have an interest in liberty. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2016; 6 (1):20-43
• 3. Delon N. Animal agency, captivity, and meaning. The Harvard Review of Philosophy. 2018; 25 :127-146
• 4. Streiffer R, Killoren D. Animal confinement and use. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2019; 49 (1):1-21
• 5. Wilcox MG. The intrinsic value of liberty for non-human animals. Journal of Value Inquiry. 2020; 55 (4):685-703
• 6. Abbate C. On the ill-being of animals: From factory farm to forever home. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 2022; 46 (1):325-353
• 7. Hancocks D. Most zoos do not deserve elephants. In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 259-284. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 8. Ross SR. Captive chimpanzees. In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 57-76. ISBN: 978-0199978007
• 9. Doyle C. Elephants in captivity. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 181-206. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 10. Jacobs B, Rally H, Doye C, O’Brien L, Tennison M, Marino L. Putative neural consequences of captivity for elephants and cetaceans. Reviews in the Neurosciences. 2021; 33 (4):e100
• 11. Andrews K, Comstock G, Crozier G, Donaldson S, Fenton A, John T, et al. The Philosophers’ Brief on Chimpanzee Personhood. New York State Court of Appeals. 2018. Case Number 2018-268
• 12. Comstock G, Crozier GKD, Fenton A, John T, Johnson LSM, Jones RC, et al. The Philosophers’ Brief on Elephant Personhood. New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. 2020. Case Number 2020-02581
• 13. Nussbaum MC. Amicus brief. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2023; 66 (1):15-28
• 14. Emmerman K. Moral arguments against zoos. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 381-393. ISBN: 9781138095069
• 15. Bennett S. Are zoos and aquariums justifiable? A utilitarian evaluation of two prominent arguments. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2019; 9 (2):177-183. at 178-179
• 16. Bekoff M, Pierce J. Zooed animals. In: The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Beacon Press; 2017. pp. 91-116. ISBN: 9780807045206
• 17. Jamieson D. Against zoos (1985) and zoos revisited (1995). In: Morality’s Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press; 2002. pp. 166-175 and 176-189. ISBN: 9780199251445
• 18. Zamir T. The welfare-based defense of zoos. Society and Animals. 2007; 15 (2):191-201
• 19. Acampora R. Zoos and eyes: Contesting captivity and seeking successor practices. Society and Animals. 2005; 13 (1):69-88
• 20. Gruen L. Dignity, captivity, and an ethics of sight. In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 231-247. ISBN: 9780199978007
• 21. Malamud R. Exhibiting imperialism. In: Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity. New York, New York, USA: New York University Press; 1998. ISBN: 978-0814756034
• 22. Regan T. Are zoos morally defensible? In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 38-51. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 23. Demartoto A, Soemanto RB, Zunariyah S. Zoo agent’s measure in applying the five freedoms principles for animal welfare. Vet World. 2017; 10 (9):1026-1034
• 24. Miller LJ, Chinnadurai SK. Beyond the five freedoms: Animal welfare at modern zoological facilities. Animals. 2023; 13 (11):e1818
• 25. Bekoff M. Zoos, wildlife theme parks, and aquariums: Should humans hold animals captive? In: Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambala; 2007. pp. 90-103. ISBN: 9781590305225
• 26. Bradshaw GA, Smuts B, Durham D. Open door policy: Humanity’s relinquishment of ‘right to sight’ and the emergence of feral culture. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 151-170. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 27. Rollin BE. Through a frame darkly: A phenomenological critique of zoos. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 57-66. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 28. Tyson E. Speciesism and zoos: Shifting the paradigm, maintaining the prejudice. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 165-179. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 29. Tyson L, O’Brien N. What zoos teach us: Speciesism, colonialism, racism, and capitalism in the captive animal industry. In: Trzak A, editor. Teaching Liberation: Essays on Social Justice, Animals, Veganism, and Education. New York, New York, USA: Lantern Books; 2019. pp. 73-88. ISBN: 978590565926
• 30. Malamud R. The problem with zoos. In: Kalof L, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2017. pp. 397-410. ISBN: 978-0199927142
• 31. Pepper A. Glass panels and peepholes: Nonhuman animals and the right to privacy. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 2020; 101 :628-650
• 32. Loder RE. Animal dignity. Animal Law. 2016; 23 :1-64
• 33. Gruen L. Dilemmas of Captivity. Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011. pp. 140-176. ISBN: 9781108986571
• 34. Gruen L. Incarceration, liberty and dignity. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 153-164. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 35. Kemmerer L. Nooz: Ending the exploitation of zoos. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 37-56. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 36. Milstein T. Somethin’ tells me it’s all happening at the zoo: Discourse, power, and conservationism. Environmental Communication. 2009; 3 :25-48
• 37. Fitzgerald AJ. Zoos and aquaria: Species conservation, education, or unethical imprisonment? In: Animal Advocacy and Environmentalism: Understanding and Bridging the Divide. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2018. pp. 85-110. ISBN: 9780745679341
• 38. Palmer C, Morrin H, Sandøe P. Defensible zoos and aquariums. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 394-406. ISBN: 9781032474953
• 39. Fischer B. Zoos. In: Animal Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction. London, UK: Routledge; 2021. pp. 170-188. ISBN: 9781138484436
• 40. Marris E. Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost. The New York Times; 2021. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/zoos-animal-cruelty.html [Accessed: November 5, 2023]
• 41. Nussbaum MC. Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility. New York, New York, USA: Simon and Schuster; 2023. ISBN: 9781982102500
• 42. Benatar D. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006. ISBN: 9780199549269
• 43. Conway WG. Zoos: Their changing roles. Science. 1969; 163 :48-52
• 44. Carr N, Cohen S. The public face of zoos: Images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoös. 2011; 24 (2):175-189
• 45. Rose PE, Riley LM. Expanding the role of the future zoo: Wellbeing should become the fifth aim for modern zoos. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13 :e1018722
• 46. Loh TL, Larson ER, David SR, Souza LS, Gericke R, Gryzbek M, et al. Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. FACETS. 2018; 3 (1):287-299
• 47. Kögler J, Barbosa Pacheco I, Dierkes PW. Evaluating the quantitative and qualitative contribution of zoos and aquaria to peer-reviewed science. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2020; 8 (2):124-132
• 48. Hvilsom C, Åhman Welden HL, Stelvig M, Nielsen CK, Purcell C, Eckley L, et al. The contributions of EAZA zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2020; 8 (2):133-138
• 49. Mendelson JR, Schue GW, Lawson DP. Krogh’s principle and why the modern zoo is important to academic research. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 586-617. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 50. Hosey G, Harley J, Ward S. Research and research training in BIAZA zoos and aquariums. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2019; 7 (4):210-217
• 51. Rose PE, Brereton JE, Rowden LJ, Figueiredo RL, Riley LM. What’s new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output. Palgrave Communications. 2019; 5 :e128
• 52. Escribano N, Ariño AH, Pino-del-Carpio A, Galicia D, Miranda R. Global trends in research output by zoos and aquariums. Conservation Biology. 2021; 35 (6):1894-1902
• 53. Anzai W, Ban K, Hagiwara S, Kako T, Kashiwagi N, Kawase K, et al. Quantifying the 60-year contribution of Japanese zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Animals. 2022; 12 (5):e598
• 54. Hopper LM. Cognitive research in zoos. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2017; 16 :100-110
• 55. Perdue BM. Comparative cognitive research in zoos. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 490-510. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 56. McEwen ES, Warren E, Tenpas S, Jones B, Durdevic K, Munro ER, et al. Primate cognition in zoos: Reviewing the impact of zoo-based research over 15 years. American Journal of Primatology. 2022; 84 (10):e23369
• 57. Skibins JC, Powell RB. Conservation caring: Measuring the influence of zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biology. 2013; 32 (5):528-540
• 58. Spooner SL. Evaluating the effectiveness of education in zoos [dissertation]. York, UK: University of York; 2017
• 59. Ojalammi S, Nygren NV. Visitor perceptions of nature conservation at Helsinki zoo. Anthrozoös. 2018; 31 (2):233-246
• 60. Staus N. The educational value of zoos: An empirical perspective. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 367-380. ISBN: 9781138095069
• 61. Falk JH, Reinhard EM, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K, Deans NL, Heimlich JE. Why Zoos and Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Silver Springs, Maryland, USA: Association of Zoos and Aquariums; 2007
• 62. Marino L, Lilienfeld SO, Malamud R, Nobis N, Broglio R. Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Society and Animals. 2010; 18 :126-138
• 63. Falk JH, Heimlich JE, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K. Critique of a critique: do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? Society and Animals. 2010; 18 (4):415
• 64. Clayton S, Fraser J, Saunders CD. Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (5):377-397
• 65. Packer J, Ballantyne R. The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2010; 127 :e378
• 66. Swanagan JS. Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. Journal of Environmental Education. 2010; 31 (4):26-31
• 67. Clayton S, Fraser J, Burgess C. The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology. 2011; 3 (2):87-96
• 68. Moss A, Jensen E, Gusset M. Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi biodiversity target 1. Conservation Biology. 2015; 29 (2):537-544
• 69. Hacker CE, Miller LJ. Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego zoo Safari Park. Zoo Biology. 2016; 35 (4):355-361
• 70. Clayton S, Prévot AC, Germain L, Saint-Jalme M. Public support for biodiversity after a zoo visit: Environmental concern, conservation knowledge, and self-efficacy. Curator: The Museum Journal. 2017; 60 (1):87-100
• 71. Jensen EA, Moss A, Gusset M. Quantifying long-term impact of zoo and aquarium visits on biodiversity-related learning outcomes. Zoo Biology. 2017; 36 (4):294-297
• 72. Moss A, Jensen E, Gusset M. Probing the link between biodiversity-related knowledge and self-reported proconservation behavior in a global survey of zoo visitors. Conservation Letters. 2017; 10 (1):33-40
• 73. Godinez AM, Fernandez EJ. What is the zoo experience? How zoos impact a visitor’s behaviors, perceptions, and conservation efforts. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 30 (10):e1746
• 74. Clifford-Clarke MM, Whitehouse-Tedd K, Ellis CF. Conservation education impacts of animal ambassadors in zoos. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2022; 3 (1):1-18
• 75. Hancocks D. A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and their Uncertain Future. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press; 2001. ISBN: 9780520236769
• 76. Mazur N. After the Ark? Environmental Policy-Making and the Zoo. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press; 2001. ISBN: 9780522849479
• 77. Zimmermann A, Hatchwell M, Dickie L, West C, editors. Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. ISBN: 9780521618588
• 78. Bowkett AE. Recent captive-breeding proposals and the return of the ark concept to global species conservation. Conservation Biology. 2009; 23 (3):773-776
• 79. Conde DA, Flesness N, Colchero F, Jones OR, Scheuerlein A. An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science. 2011; 331 :1390-1391
• 80. Monfort SL, Christen CA. Sustaining wildlife populations in human care: An existential value proposition for zoos. In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 313-319. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 81. Iwuchukwu CS, Ajang AJ, Bassey SA. Confinement for conservation: An ethical overview of zoos. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences: Zoology. 2020; 39 (2):327-337
• 82. Minteer BA, Collins JP, Raschke AB. Zoos and conservation. In: Hale B, Light A, Lawhon L, editors. Routledge Companion to Environmental Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2022. pp. 554-568. ISBN: 9781138784925
• 83. Keulartz J. Towards a futureproof zoo. Animals. 2023; 13 (6):e998
• 84. Spooner SL, Walker SL, Dowell S, Moss A. The value of zoos for species and society: The need for a new model. Biological Conservation. 2023; 279 :e109925
• 85. Keulartz J. Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2015; 28 (2):335-351
• 86. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter LW, Reed C. Translocation as a species conservation tool: Status and strategy. Science. 1989; 245 (4917):477-480
• 87. Beck BB, Rapaport LG, Stanley Price MR, Wilson AC. Reintroduction of captive-born animals. In: Olney PJS, Mace GM, Feistner A, editors. Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals. London, UK: Chapman and Hall; 1994. pp. 264-286. ISBN: 9780412495700
• 88. Price MRS, Fa JE. Reintroductions from zoos: A conservation guiding light or a shooting star? In: Zimmermann A, Hatchwell M, Dickie L, West C, editors. Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 155-177. ISBN: 9780521618588
• 89. Jule KR, Leaver LA, Lea SEG. The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis. Biological Conservation. 2008; 141 (2):355-363
• 90. Alroy J. Limits to captive breeding of mammals in zoos. Conservation Biology. 2015; 29 (3):926-931
• 91. Che-Castaldo JP, Grow SA, Faust LJ. Evaluating the contribution of north American zoos and aquariums to endangered species recovery. Scientific Reports. 2018; 8 :e9798
• 92. Brichieri-Colombi TA, Lloyd NA, McPherson JM, Moehrenschlager A. Limited contributions of released animals from zoos to north American conservation translocations. Conservation Biology. 2019; 33 (1):33-39
• 93. Conway W. Zoo conservation and ethical paradoxes. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 1-8. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 94. Miranda R, Escribano N, Casas M, Andrea Pino-del-Carpio A, Villarroya A. The role of zoos and aquariums in a changing world. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 2022; 11 :287-306
• 95. Berger-Tal O, Saltz D. Using the movement patterns of reintroduced animals to improve reintroduction success. Current Zoology. 2014; 60 (4):515-526
• 96. Friese C. Cloning in the zoo: When zoos become parents. In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 267-278. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 97. Hobbs RJ, O’Brien JK, Spindler RE. Strategic gene banking for conservation: The ins and outs of a living bank. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 112-146. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 98. Hutchins M, Smith B, Allard R. In defense of zoos and aquariums: The ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003; 223 (7):958-966
• 99. Tafalla M. The aesthetic appreciation of animals in zoological parks. Contemporary Aesthetics. 2017; 15 :1-14
• 100. Parsons G. The aesthetic value of animals. Environmental Ethics. 2007; 29 :151-169
• 101. Hettinger N. Animal beauty, ethics, and environmental preservation. Environmental Ethics. 2010; 32 :115-134
• 102. Hanson E. Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press; 2018. ISBN: 9780691117706
• 103. Learmonth JM. Dilemmas for natural living concepts of zoo animal welfare. Animals. 2019; 9 (6):e318
• 104. Claxton AM. The potential of the human-animal relationship as an environmental enrichment for the welfare of zoo-housed animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2011; 133 :1-10
• 105. Palmer A, Park J, Malone N. Caregiver/orangutan relationships at the Auckland zoo. Society and Animals. 2016; 24 (3):230-249
• 106. Rossman ZT, Padfield C, Young D, Hart LA. Elephant-initiated interactions with humans: Individual differences and specific preferences in captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2017; 4 :e60
• 107. D’Cruze N, Khan S, Carder G, Megson D, Coulthard E, Norrey J, et al. A global review of animal-visitor interactions in modern zoos and aquariums and their implications for wild animal welfare. Animals. 2019; 9 (6):e332
• 108. Learmonth MJ. Human-animal interactions in zoos: What can compassionate conservation, conservation welfare and duty of care tell us about the ethics of interacting, and avoiding unintended consequences? Animals. 2020; 10 (10):e2037
• 109. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, et al. The 2020 five domains model: Including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals. 2020; 10 :e1870
• 110. Escobar-Ibarra I, Mota-Rojas D, Gual-Sill F, Sánchez CR, Baschetto F, Alonso-Spilsbury M. Conservation, animal behaviour, and human-animal relationship in zoos: Why is animal welfare so important? Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology. 2021; 9 (1):e21011
• 111. Learmonth MJ, Chiew SJ, Godinez A, Fernandez EJ. Animal-visitor interactions and the visitor experience: Visitor behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and learning in the modern zoo. Animal Behavior and Cognition. 2021; 8 (4):632-649
• 112. Fraser J, Switzer T. The Social Value of Zoos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2021. ISBN: 9781108731812
• 113. Rudy K. Where the wild things ought to be: Sanctuaries, zoos, and exotic pets. In: Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press; 2013. pp. 111-152. ISBN: 9780816674688
• 114. Cochrane A. Born in chains? In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 156-173. ISBN: 9780199978007
• 115. Maple TL, Purdue BM. Zoo Animal Welfare. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2013. ISBN: 9783642359545
• 116. Maple TL, McManamon R, Stevens E. Defining the good zoo: Animal care, maintenance and welfare. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 219-234. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 117. Wickins-Dražilová D. Zoo animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2006; 19 :27-36
• 118. Donahue J, Trump E. The Politics of Zoos: Exotic Animals and their Protectors. DeKalb, Illinois, USA: Northern Illinois University Press; 2008. ISBN: 9780875806136
• 119. Hill SP, Broom DM. Measuring zoo animal welfare: Theory and practice. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (6):531-544
• 120. Melfi VA. There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: A case for evidence-based zoo animal management. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 :574-588
• 121. Kleiman DG, Thompson KV, Baer CK. Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management. 2nd ed. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2010. ISBN: 978-0226440101
• 122. Brando S, Buchanan-Smith HM. The 24/7 approach to promoting optimal welfare for captive wild animals. Behavioural Processes. 2018; 156 :83-95
• 123. Shepherdson D, Mellen JD, Hutchins M, editors. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1998. ISBN: 9781560983972
• 124. Swaisgood RR, Shepherdson DJ. Scientific approaches to enrichment and stereotypies in zoo animals: What’s been done and where should we go next? Zoo Biology. 2005; 24 (6):499-518
• 125. Shyne A. Meta-analytic review of the effects of enrichment on stereotyped behavior in zoo mammals. Zoo Biology. 2006; 25 (4):317-338
• 126. Mason GJ, Clubb R, Latham N, Vickery S. Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behavior? Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :163-188
• 127. Clubb R, Mason G. Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How analysing species differences could help zoos improve enclosures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :303-328
• 128. Markowitz H. Enriching Animals’ Lives. Pacifica, California, USA: Mauka Press; 2011. ISBN: 9780983357919
• 129. Fàbregas MC, Guillén-Salazar F, Garcés-Narro C. Do naturalistic enclosures provide suitable environments for zoo animals? Zoo Biology. 2012; 31 (3):362-373
• 130. Braverman I. Zooland: The Institution of Captivity. Stanford, California, USA: Stanford University Press; 2013. ISBN: 9780804783583
• 131. Mellor DJ. Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for positive affective engagement. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2015; 63 :3-8
• 132. Azevedo CS, Cipreste CF, Pizzutto CS, Young RJ. Review of the effects of enclosure complexity and design on the behaviour and physiology of zoo animals. Animals. 2023; 13 (8):e1277
• 133. Englund MD, Cronin KA. Choice, control, and animal welfare: Definitions and essential inquiries to advance animal welfare science. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023; 10 :e1250251
• 134. Kagan R, Allard S, Carter S. What is the future for zoos and aquariums? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2018; 21 :59-70
• 135. Clay AS, Visseren-Hamakers IJ. Individuals matter: Dilemmas and solutions in conservation and animal welfare practices in zoos. Animals. 2022; 12 (3):e398
• 136. Leotti LA, Iyengar SS, Ochsner KN. Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Science. 2010; 14 :457-463
• 137. Pierce J, Bekoff MA. Postzoo future: Why welfare fails animals in zoos. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2018; 21 :43-48
• 138. Swaisgood RR. Current status and future directions of applied behavioral research for animal welfare and conservation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :139-162
• 139. Browning H. The natural behavior debate: Two conceptions of animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2019; 23 :325-337
• 140. Whitham JC, Wielebnowski N. New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2013; 147 :247-260
• 141. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior. 2007; 92 (3):375-397
• 142. Green TC, Mellor DJ. Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2011; 59 :263-271
• 143. Mellor DJ. Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2015; 63 :17-23
• 144. Wolfensohn S, Shotton J, Bowley H, Davies S, Thompson S, Justice WSM. Assessment of welfare in zoo animals: Towards optimum quality of life. Animals. 2018; 8 (7):e110
• 145. Veasey JS. Differing animal welfare conceptions and what they mean for the future of zoos and aquariums: Insights from an animal welfare audit. Zoo Biology. 2022; 41 (4):292-307
• 146. Hutchins M, Smith B, Keele M. Zoos as responsible stewards of elephants. In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 285-306. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 147. Mellen JD, Barber JCE, Miller GW. Can we assess the needs of elephants in zoos? Can we meet the needs of elephants in zoos? In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 307-324. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 148. Mason GJ. Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2010; 25 :713-721
• 149. Mason GJ, Veasey J. How should the psychological well-being of zoo elephants be objectively investigated? Zoo Biology. 2010; 29 (2):237-255
• 150. Shepherdson D, Lewis KD, Carlstead K, Bauman J, Perrin N. Individual and environmental factors associated with stereotypic behavior and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels in zoo housed polar bears. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2013; 147 :268-277
• 151. Meehan CL, Mench JA, Carlstead K, Hogan JN. Determining connections between the daily lives of zoo elephants and their welfare: An epidemiological approach. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (7):e0158124
• 152. Vaz J, Narayan EJ, Kumar RD, Thenmozhi K, Thiyagesan K, Baskaran N. Prevalence and determinants of stereotypic behaviours and physiological stress among tigers and leopards in Indian zoos. PLoS One. 2017; 12 (4):e0174711
• 153. Veasey JS. Can zoos ever be big enough for large wild animals? A review using an expert panel assessment of the psychological priorities of the Amur Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) as a model species. Animals. 2020; 10 :e1536
• 154. Finch K, Sach F, Fitzpatrick M, Masters N, Rowden LJ. Longitudinal improvements in zoo-housed elephant welfare: A case study at ZSL Whipsnade zoo. Animals. 2020; 10 (11):e2029
• 155. Bandeli M, Mellor EL, Kroshko J, Maherali H, Mason GJ. The welfare problems of wide-ranging Carnivora reflect naturally itinerant lifestyles. Royal Society Open Science. 2023; 10 :e230437
• 156. Rose P. Identifying essential elements of good giraffe welfare: Can we use knowledge of a species’ fundamental needs to develop welfare-focused husbandry? Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2023; 4 (3):549-566
• 157. Palmer C, Kasperbauer TJ, Sandøe P. Fourteen bears or butterflies? How should zoos make value-driven decisions about their collections? In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 179-191. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 158. Watters JV. Searching for behavioral indicators of welfare in zoos: Uncovering anticipatory behavior. Zoo Biology. 2014; 33 (4):251-256
• 159. Cless IT, Lucas KE. Variables affecting the manifestation of and intensity of pacing behavior: A preliminary case study in zoo-housed polar bears. Zoo Biology. 2017; 36 (5):307-315
• 160. Rose PE, Nash SM, Riley LM. To pace or not to pace? A review of what abnormal repetitive behavior tells us about zoo animal management. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2017; 20 :11-21
• 161. Cambrelen D, Slater MN. Case study: Modifying repetitive behavior in a polar bear (Ursus maritimus). Zoo Biology. 2023; 42 (3):390-396
• 162. Tidière M, Gaillard JM, Berger V, Müller DWH, Lackey LB, Gimenez O, et al. Comparative analyses of longevity and senescence reveal variable survival benefits of living in zoos across mammals. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6 :e36361
• 163. Browning H, Veit W. Freedom and animal welfare. Animals. 2021; 4 (11):e1148
• 164. Cochrane A. Do animals have an interest in liberty? Political Studies. 2009; 57 (3):660-679
• 165. Keekok L. Zoos: A Philosophical Tour. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. ISBN: 9781403986245
• 166. Taylor MA. Zootopia: Animal welfare, species preservation and the ethics of captivity. Poultry, Fish, and Wildlife Science. 2014; 2 :1-4
• 167. York T. The End of Captivity?: A Primate’s Reflections on Zoos, Conservation, and Christian Ethics. Eugene, Oregon, USA: Cascade Books; 2015. ISBN: 9781625647535
• 168. Rees P. Ethics, zoos, and public attitudes. In: Zoo Studies: Living Collections, their Animals and Visitors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2023. pp. 120-139. ISBN: 9781108566049
• 169. Bostock SSC. Zoos and Animal Rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals. London, UK: Routledge; 1993. ISBN: 9780415755566
• 170. DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Washington, DC, USA: George Washington University Press; 1996. ISBN: 9780521561402
• 171. DeGrazia D. The ethics of confining animals: From farms to zoos to human homes. In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 738-768. ISBN: 9780199351978
• 172. Gray JH. Zoo Ethics: The Challenges of Compassionate Conservation. Ithaca, New York, USA: Cornell University Press; 2017. ISBN: 9781501714429

© 2024 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: [email protected]

Science & Breakthroughs Science

Resources for Journalists

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

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

5 Arguments for Zoos, Fact-Checked and Unpacked

Why many of the arguments for zoos need fact-checking and caveats.

Explainer • Research • Science

Words by Seth Millstein

Zoos are one of the oldest forms of entertainment on Earth, with the earliest records of their existence dating back to 1,000 BC. They’re also incredibly polarizing and controversial. Proponents for zoos argue these institutions have a positive impact on humans, animals and the environment. But the full picture is far more complicated, and it’s worth unpacking the arguments for zoos in order to understand why.

Before getting into the weeds, it’s crucial to point out that not all zoos are created equal. Around 235 zoos worldwide are accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), out of the many thousands that exist around the globe ( 10,000 according to a widely cited AZA figure , though that figure is at least a decade old). The AZA requires its zoos to regularly study their animals for research purposes and abide by strict animal welfare standards . These standards include, but aren’t limited to:

• Providing enclosures that promote the physical, psychological and social wellbeing of the animals
• Grouping members of a species together in a manner that reflects their natural social tendencies
• Providing multiple different areas within each animal’s environment
• Providing enough shade to avoid direct sunlight on sunny days
• Regular observation of animals’ physical health
• A 24/7 veterinary program directed by a qualified veterinarian that focuses on disease prevention and animal welfare

Because of these standards, animals seem to be treated much better in AZA-accredited zoos than other zoos, and better conditions for zoo animals tend to be found mainly or entirely in those with AZA accreditation.

Unfortunately, just 10 percent of zoos in the U.S. are accredited by the AZA according to the organization, and as such, the vast majority of zoo animals are vulnerable to mistreatment.

Argument 1: “Zoos rehabilitate sick and injured animals”

It’s true that some zoos provide sanctuary and rehabilitation for animals  who are sick , injured or otherwise unable to survive on their own, and that AZA-accredited zoos work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to care for sea animals. In addition, because zoos are predator-proof, prey species that aren’t even part of zoos will sometimes seek refuge in them.

But if we’re going to talk about animal welfare in zoos, we have to look at the entire equation, not just a single element — rehabilitation programs — that happens to benefit animals.

A 2019 report from World Animal Protection found that hundreds of zoos actively abuse their animals in order to provide entertainment for visitors. Animals were forced to undergo extensive and painful “training” in order to learn how to perform activities that visitors find amusing. Examples of such activities include dolphins being forced to act as surfboards, elephants being forced to swim underwater and wild cats being forced to perform in gladiator-style shows .

Zoo animals can suffer physically in more indirect ways as well. For instance, an estimated 70 percent of gorillas in North America — all of whom are in captivity — have heart disease, which is alarming, given that heart disease is nearly non-existent among wild gorillas. The culprit for heart disease in gorillas may be a diet of biscuits that doesn’t address the specific nutritional needs and  ease of digestion met by their diet in the wild, which tends to be mostly leafy fibrous greens. African elephants live three times longer in the wild  than in zoos, and there are countless stories of zoo animals being killed or maimed due to irresponsible humans around them.

We also have to look at the psychological effects zoos have on animals. Many zoo animals don’t have nearly enough space to live comfortably, and this can drive them insane; captive polar bears, for instance, are given just one-millionth of the space they’d normally have in the wild. Severe space restrictions like this cause zoo animals to engage in unnatural , repetitive and often harmful behaviors, such as pacing in circles, plucking out their own hair, biting the bars of their cages and even eating their own vomit or feces.

This affliction is so common that it has a name: zoochosis, or psychosis caused by zoos . Some zoos attempt to combat it by providing animals with toys or puzzles to occupy their time, while others reportedly respond by giving their animals Prozac and other antidepressants .

Finally, there is the fact that zoos often kill “surplus” animals that they no longer have use for. Specifically, zoo animals are killed when they’re no longer profitable , or when they don’t have a place in the zoo’s breeding programs. It has to be stressed that these are often healthy animals. Although zoos generally don’t release their euthanization numbers, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria estimates that between 3,000 and 5,000 zoo animals are killed every year in Europe alone.

Argument 2: “Zoos bring nearly-extinct species back from the brink”

Some zoos have bred endangered species in captivity and then released them into the wild, thus preventing them from going extinct. Many of these efforts have been quite successful: the California condor, the Arabian oryx, Przewalski’s horse, the Corroboree Frog, the Bellinger River snapping turtle and the Golden Lion tamarin were on the brink of extinction before being saved by zoos .

Make no mistake: these are positive developments, and the zoos that helped bring these species back deserve credit for their work. But it’s also relevant to note that, while some species have been saved from extinction by zoos, other species have actually gone extinct in zoos. The last remaining Carolina parakeet died in a zoo for instance, as did the last dusky seaside sparrow and the last quagga . The thylacine, a fox-like marsupial native to Tasmania, went extinct in a zoo due to suspected neglect by the zookeepers.

In addition, one zoo in Zimbabwe has been found to poach elephants from the wild , often when they’re newborns. Ultimately, most animals that are born in zoos are never released into the wild.

Argument 3: “Zoos encourage children and the public to take a stronger influence in animal welfare and conservationism”

Although it’s difficult to measure this in any scientific sense, some researchers have argued that coming face-to-face with animals in zoos results in attendees forming closer emotional bonds with animals , and that this may prompt some of them to enter fields related to animal care or conservation. Many zoos offer education programs , for children and adults alike, that can further encourage people to play a more active role in animal care, conservation and environmentalism.

This claim is controversial, however. It comes in part from a 2007 study released by the AZA , which concluded that “ going to AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums in North America does have a measurable impact on the conservation attitudes and understanding of adult visitors. ” However, the overwhelming majority of zoos in the world are not AZA-accredited, so even if the study’s findings were accurate, they’d only apply to a small minority of zoos.

Furthermore, a subsequent third-party analysis concluded these findings might not be accurate in the first place, due to multiple methodological flaws in the AZA study . That analysis concluded that “there remains no compelling evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, or interest in conservation in visitors.”

However, subsequent research has suggested that the AZA’s initial study may have had some truth to it, with some studies offering evidence that people who visit zoos display higher levels of sympathy for animals and conservation efforts than non-visitors. This conclusion is hampered, however, by a correlation-causation problem; it’s possible that people who choose to visit zoos are already more animal-friendly than those who don’t, and that the zoo itself played no role in shaping their attitudes. Studies on this topic frequently note that more research is needed to draw a firm conclusion.

Argument 4: “Zoos contribute scientific research into animal welfare and conservationism”

According to the organization’s website, all AZA-accredited zoos in the U.S. are required to observe, study and research the animals they house in order to advance our knowledge of how to best conserve and protect them. Between 1993 and 2013, AZA-accredited zoos published 5,175 peer-reviewed studies , mostly focused on zoology and veterinary science, and the organization publishes a comprehensive report every year on the research efforts its member organizations have funded .

Still, only a small percentage of zoos are AZA-accredited. Many zoos have no such programs, and the majority of zoos aren’t required to have them.

It’s also a bit ironic to credit zoos with advancing scientific knowledge of animals when many zoos, in practice, actively ignore such knowledge. For example, zoos don’t allow their animals to maintain the complex, natural social hierarchies that they’ve evolved to survive. Due to their confinement, zoo animals can’t develop relationships with one another in the way they would in the wild, and are often abruptly removed from their social groups or families and shipped to other zoos (if they aren’t born in confinement). When a new animal arrives at a zoo, they are often “rejected” by other members of their species , which can often lead to violence between them .

Argument 5: “Zoos help track diseases before they reach the public”

This did happen, exactly once, 25 years ago. In the early stages of a West Nile virus outbreak in 1999 , public health officials first became aware that the virus had reached the Western hemisphere when staff at the Bronx zoo informed them that they’d detected it in the zoo’s birds.

This is anything but typical. What’s much more common, in fact, is humans catching diseases from zoo animals . E. coli, Cryptosporodium and Salmonella are among the most common; these are known as zoonotic diseases, or diseases that can be passed from non-humans to humans. According to the CDC, there were 100 outbreaks of zoonotic diseases between 2010 and 2015 that originated in zoos, fairs and educational farms.

The Bottom Line

Zoos are certainly more oriented towards animal welfare now than they were at their inception many centuries ago, and there are some efforts to continue that progress. One is the “unzoo” concept , an attempt to invert the traditional zoo model by creating enclosed areas for humans in animals’ natural habitats , rather than the other way around. In 2014, a tasmanian devil conservation park was converted into the world’s first unzoo.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that a great number of animals suffer daily as a result of standard zoo practices, and while the accrediting body for zoos — the AZA — has some stringent requirements for its member zoos, the overwhelming majority of zoos aren’t part of the AZA, and have no independent oversight and no educational, research or rehabilitation requirements.

In an ideal world, all zoos would have humane policies on the books, and all zoo animals would enjoy long, healthy and happy lives. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in, and as it stands, any claims as to the virtue of zoos need to be taken with a heavy grain of salt.

Update: This piece has been updated to note that an account regarding Gus the polar bear being fed Prozac was reported in some (but not all) news outlets that covered the animal.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Seth Millstein is a writer and musician living in the Bay Area. He has helped launch several early-stage journalism startups, including Bustle and Timeline, and his work has been published in Bustle, Huffington Post, The Daily Dot and elsewhere.

Animals Can Work Together, and Here Are a Few Notable Examples

Research • 8 min read

More Science & Breakthroughs

Plants and Their Pollinators Are Increasingly Out of Sync

Research • 7 min read

What Does Noninvasive Wild Animal Research Look Like?

Veganized scent lures and camera traps are two tools scientists can use to minimize human impact on wildlife.

Research • 6 min read

AI Animal Communication Breakthroughs Could Revolutionize Our Relationship With Animals

Advances in AI are paving the way for two-way communication with animals, with profound ethical implications.

The Top U.S. Cities with Climate-Friendly Food Policies

Climate • 9 min read

The Word ‘Vegan’ Is Still More Reviled Than ‘Plant-Based’ But…Why?

Food • 9 min read

Why Vegan Restaurants Going Un-Vegan Isn’t Necessarily a Long-Term Problem

Diet • 5 min read

FBI Records Reveal Ironic Accusations Against Animal Activists

Law & Justice • 6 min read

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

Science • 8 min read

Most Read Today

• What a Trump or Harris Win Means for the Future of the Farm Bill
• Where Does Kamala Harris Stand on Meat and Factory Farming? Her Record Holds Clues
• Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained
• Amazon Deforestation — How Much of the Rainforest Is Left?
• 13 Animals Going Extinct — in Large Part Thanks To Humans
• These Food Labels and Symbols Don’t Mean What You Think
• Which Animals Are Monogamous Rather Than Mating For Life?
• What Are Food Deserts and Why Do They Exist?

• 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.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

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

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

• Is Keeping Wild Animals In Zoos Unethical?: Arguments For And Against

A zoo is an establishment that displays animals typically for recreation and education. Extensive collections of animals that were maintained in antiquity cannot be considered as zoos. Such ancient collections were not held for exhibition in public parks or maintained for purposes of education and recreation. For example, the Romans kept collections of wild animals for ancient games. After the conquest of Dacia, Emperor Trajan  held 123 days  of games in celebration, during which thousands of animals were slaughtered, including elephants, lions, rhinoceroses, tigers, giraffes, crocodiles, bulls, hippopotami and stags. Major cities often had arenas and animals in stock for the games. In the fifth century, France had 26 such arenas, and the tradition held on until at least the 8th century. Large animal collections were also kept as a sign of power. The first modern zoos were established in the 18th century in Madrid, Vienna, and Paris. The cities of Berlin and London later founded zoos in the nineteenth century. The first American zoos were established in the 1970s in the cities of Cincinnati and Philadelphia. Today there are hundreds of zoos in the US that are visited by millions of people every year.

Arguments In Favor Of Zoos

The role played by zoos in educating the public is the most popular argument in favor of establishing and maintaining zoos. In 1898, the  reason was cited  by the New York Zoological Society when it resolved to inform the public of the continued decline in animal populations, to stimulate sentiment in favor of animal protection, and to cooperate with scientific organizations to ensure the preservation of species. Modern zoos play a critical role in the education of children and families about the various animals found on our planet. Staff from the zoo also travels to schools to make presentations or to offer special programs in the zoo to educate visitors. Zoos also partner with local communities to extend the knowledge of animals and conservation to a wider audience.

Protection Of Endangered Animals

In the course of history, various species have been wiped-out or pushed to the brink of extinction. Currently, several animal species are classified as endangered, vulnerable, and near-extinct by the IUCN. Placing such animals in zoos, especially those hunted and poached, provides them with a safe environment where the species can thrive. With the dangers of climate change fast approaching, such measures are proving extremely important for the conservation of species. Recently Australia has had to face an unprecedented wave of bush fires that have been blamed on climate change. The fires have destroyed vast areas of habitat and killed millions of of animals, including Kangaroos, koalas, and other species unique to the continent. Experts believe that such fires are expected to occur more frequently and at a higher intensity. It is, therefore, essential to have animals in zoos and other areas where they can be accorded extra protection from such unpredictable events.

Captive Breeding

Zoos provide areas where captive breeding can be carried out for release into the wild. For example, in 1945, about  13 Przewalski horses  were captured and placed in a zoo before they disappeared from the wild in 1966. Extensive breeding programs at the zoo and reintroduction into wild habitats helped in saving the species from extinction. Today there are over 1,500 Przewalski horses that are descendants of the 13 horses that were placed in a zoo at the end of WWII. Other animals that have been preserved in protected areas such as zoos include the Golden Lion Tamarin, Arabian Oryx, Freshwater mussels, and the Puerto Rican Parrot.

Economic Benefits To The Community

In addition to providing residence to animals, zoos create jobs and tourism opportunities that generate revenue for the local community. For example, Woodland Park Zoo, situated in Seattle, pays $17 million in wages annually. The zoo also pays $5.2 million for vendor contracts. The zoo generates 70% of its revenue from zoo visits and contributions.

Specialized care

Today zoos are staffed with highly trained personnel having specialized knowledge on the animals they are tasked to care for. Animals in the zoo are therefore guaranteed the best care that is available outside their native environment. Many zoos also have veterinarians, pathologists, and technicians who can provide specialized care to animals, including parasite removal and other forms of treatment. Zoo personnel are also aware of the physical and dietary requirements that each species needs to maintain them in a healthy state. The animals are involved in activities that help them remain, among other things, mentally alert and fit. Activities do not adequately replace migration and hunting requirements for animals, but they do eliminate deterioration and boredom at the zoo.

Scientific Research

 Zoos support scientific research by allowing scientists easy access to specimens or species under study. Research that is conducted in zoos is mainly in the fields of behavioral studies, anatomy, and pathology. Such studies create models that help improve zoo conditions so that animals can live longer, breed more successfully, and be happier. Many zoos currently work in collaboration with universities that research the facilities and train professionals such as veterinarians who can then help care for animals.

Arguments Against Zoos

Today most zoos have become recreation facilities where people can go and view animals for entertainment and amusement. Taking an animal from its natural habitat for the sole reason of human entertainment raises several moral and ethical issues. Most experts agree that the pleasure we take from viewing animals is not a good enough reason for holding animals in captivity. Since visits to zoos will, in most instances, be for amusement, some zoos are addressing the moral dilemma by allocating revenues earned to further research and preservation efforts of various wildlife species.

Animal Welfare Overlooked

In some zoos, animal welfare is often overlooked, leaving captive animals to suffer under conditions that are psychologically and physiologically damaging. For example, lions and a black bear that used to live in Magic World Zoo in Aleppo, Syria, were  abandoned at the  zoo to face starvation and injury when the Syrian Civil war broke out. Once they were rescued, they were found to be suffering from malnutrition, kidney, and cardiac problems, as well as trauma from living in a war zone. There are also numerous instances of animal cruelty in zoos. Another example is that of a lion named Cameroon and a tiger named Zabu that were  rescued from a  rundown roadside zoo in 2004 and transferred to a Florida Sanctuary. At their previous home, the two animals were kept captive by their owners, who tried to make them make produce liger cubs. 

Adverse Effects Of Unnatural Conditions

Even if the zoos where the conditions are okay, holding some animal species in captivity can adversely affect their wellbeing. For example,  orcas do poorly  in captivity. Wild orcas live for up to 100 years but live for less than 30 years when kept in captivity. Zoos are also unable to create exact replicas of the natural environment. For example, it is impossible to replicate the natural environment for elephants, which are known to travel 30-50 kilometers each day in the wild. The Alaska Zoo, for example, was struggling to maintain Maggie, the elephant, due to the weather conditions. The elephant was often forced to stay inside in a tiny enclosure to escape the conditions. The zoo eventually bought her a treadmill to help her get some exercise, but she refused. Due to a lack of activity, the elephant's feet began to deteriorate to a point where it became difficult for her to walk.

Breeding Programs Create Dependencies

Zoos that practice breeding programs face challenges when reintroducing animals back into the wild. Predators bred in zoos, for example, grow accustomed to life in the zoo and have  trouble adapting  to a change in the environment when they are sent back to the wild. In some cases, the animals die after being released from captivity due to a lack of necessary survival skills.

Change In Animal Behavior Due To Captivity

Restriction of some animals such as elephants adversely affects their migratory instincts leading to aggressive behavior. About  75 elephants  in various zoos have had to be euthanized before reaching the age of 40. Aggressive behavior, particularly among predatory species, can pose a significant risk to zookeepers and visitors.

Overpopulation

Baby animals are a major attraction in many zoos. Some zoos continuously breed animals to get new-borns to keep visitors coming and revenue streams flowing. In addition to raising ethical and moral questions on such breeding, frequent births  lead to overpopulation  in a zoo with limited space. Zoos sometimes sell surplus animals to other zoos or circus rings and hunting facilities. In some cases, the animals are euthanized. Regardless of the way they are disposed, animals end up depressed when separated from one another. Mothers whose new-borns are ripped away from them become stressed and depressed for the remainder of their lives.

Animals And Liberty

There are  two main points  of view when considering animal liberty. The legal standpoint where animals are considered property and the ethical perspective where it is deemed to be unethical to force animals to remain in a small enclosure. It is essential to know that the issue of animal rights has been factored into various national and international laws indicating that there is a need to protect animal welfare. The inclusion of legislation on animal rights, however, does not adequately address the question of  animal liberties . To that extent, experts have suggested that we have to consider whether we have duties to animals or not. By acknowledging that we have obligations to animals, we should, therefore, respect their interests, needs, wants, and rights.

More in Feature

Are Former Soviet Member Countries More Religious Today?

5 Facts To Know About The Future Of Buddhism

Reasons Why Muslims Are The World’s Fastest-growing Religious Group

The Uprising At Sobibor Extermination Camp

How Many People Have Ever Lived On Earth?

Fact Check – Are No Two Snowflakes Exactly Alike?

The Smithsonian Natural History Museum: Beyond The Public View

The Three Rs Of Animal Testing: A More Humane Approach To Animal Experimentation

Hot topic: is it time for zoos to be banned?

​A hangover of the Victorian sideshow or an integral part of wildlife conservation? We ask if zoos should be consigned to the history books along with the bearded lady.

1 June 2017, 15:23 BST — The polar bears in Winnipeg have disco poo. Their droppings look like little glitterballs.

Before anyone starts sprinkling the stuff on their cornflakes, this isn't the hottest new beauty trend nor is it a natural phenomenon: Assiniboine Park Zoo's keepers use coloured glitter in the bears' feed to identify their droppings.

Why? Well, scat reveals all sorts of things about individual animals; information the keepers share with the scientific community. Many zoos conduct such studies, and also run captive breeding programmes for endangered species. However, critics say this doesn't justify their existence.

"Zoos are prisons for animals, camouflaging their cruelty with conservation claims," Mimi Bekhechi, director of international programmes at PETA, explains. "Animals in zoos suffer tremendously, both physically and mentally. They often display neurotic behaviour, like repetitive pacing, swaying, and bar biting. Not surprising, perhaps, considering the typical polar bear enclosure is one million times smaller than the area they would naturally roam."

PETA isn't alone. In April, ethical tour operator Responsible Travel — after consultation with wildlife charity Born Free Foundation — axed trips that include zoo visits. It's the first travel company to publicly make such a move.

"Only 15% of the thousands of species held in zoos are considered 'threatened'," says Will Travers OBE, president of Born Free. "An even smaller proportion are part of captive breeding programmes and, of those, a tiny fraction have been released back into the wild. That's not a record that justifies tens of millions of wild animals kept in zoos."

PETA's Bekhechi adds, the aim of breeding programmes is just "to produce baby animals to attract visitors."

Some, however, argue that children benefit from zoos. "We engage huge audiences with wildlife, inspiring the conservationists of tomorrow," argues zoological director of ZSL London and Whipsnade Zoos, Professor David Field. That claim is up for debate. A 2014 study by the Society for Conservation Biology found that of over 2,800 children surveyed following visits to London Zoo, 62% showed no positive learning outcomes.

But, for every story that casts zoos in a bad light — from Vince the rhino's poaching at Paris' Thoiry Zoo in March; Cincinnati Zoo shooting endangered gorilla, Harambe, last year after a child fell into his enclosure; or Copenhagen Zoo killing and publicly dissecting Marius, a two-year-old giraffe in 2014 — there are heart-warming tales too.

Zoos across the US can take credit for reviving the wild Arabian oryx, golden lion tamarin and Californian condor populations, among many others. And Steve Irwin's Australia Zoo has an on-site Wildlife Hospital to save sick and injured native species.

In the age of social media, high profile culls have sparked heated debates. The shooting of Harambe the gorilla spawned the most-shared meme of 2016 and caused a hounded Cincinnati Zoo to suspend its social media accounts. When it comes to lethal force and animal welfare, at least, public opinion swiftly sides against zoos.

But whether recent events have triggered a profound shift in public consciousness is harder to quantify. Regardless of the merits or ethics of zoos, one thing's for certain: they're going to be around for some years yet.

How can you tell a zoo from a sanctuary?

The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) operates an accreditation system for sanctuaries, rescue centres and rehabilitation centres. Look out for the GFAS seal of approval.

So it's better to have 'close encounters' with animals in the wild, right?

Wrong! Step away from the selfie stick. Don't be suckered into supporting companies that offer experiences like hugging a tiger, swimming with dolphins, riding elephants, or kissing sharks. These experiences are often harmful to wildlife and dangerous for you.

How do we save wildlife if not by breeding programmes?

PETA says: "People who care about protecting endangered species should donate to organisations that safeguard them in their natural habitats — if a species' native environment has been destroyed, there's nowhere left for the animals to go."

Published in the June 2017 issue of National Geographic Traveller (UK)

Follow us on social media

Twitter | Facebook | Instagram

Related Topics

• ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
• WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
• WILDLIFE ORGANIZATIONS

You May Also Like

Bears, wolves and rewilding in Romania's Southern Carpathian mountains

There’s a new way to tour the Amazon rainforest—by crane

Extremely rare spotless giraffe born in U.S. zoo

5 wildly underrated natural escapes for 2023

Hot topic: does carbon offsetting really make a difference?

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

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

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

• Post last modified: December 7, 2023

Should Zoos Still Exist?

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

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

Why Zoos Should Exist

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

The arguments for zoos

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

What is BIAZA?

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

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

Why Zoos Shouldn’t Exist

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

The arguments against zoos

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

The Difference Between Zoos, Safari Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries

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

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

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

Definitions from the Cambridge English Dictionary

The “Conservation Con”

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

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

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

They go on to say…

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

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

“Should We Close Our Zoos?”

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

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

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

So, Should Zoos Still Exist?

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

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

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

Even some wildlife charities are not what they seem .

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

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

Share this:

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

You Might Also Like

Use Less Oil, Reduce Weekly Costs & Be Eco-Friendly

The UK has declared a Climate Emergency, what does that mean?

Greenwashing, What Is It?

This post has 80 comments.

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

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

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

Same doing a essay about it

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

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

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

yah totally

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

great job!!!!!!

love the article kate

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

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

Very much so.

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

they shall not exist PERIOD

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

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

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

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

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

That’s why they don’t

Release them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think zoos should not exist :]

i disagree with you

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

AND THAT’S SOME FACTS

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

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

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

I agree but for different reasons.

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

like bruh get this in your brain

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

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

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

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

I think that zoos should stay open.

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

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

there should not be anymore zoos

so zoos should not exist

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

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

just imagine being stuck in a cage watched and wiped

I think they should keep zoos for the hurt animals

zoo’s shouldn’t exsist

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

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

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

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

I am with you!

Zoos do not WHIP animals!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have a point there

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

they do not WHIP the animals😡💢

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

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

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

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

NO ZOOS FOR LIFE✊

Good ZOOS need to stay and bad Zoos need to leave

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

Comments are closed.

Are Zoos Good For Animals? Argument For And Against Zoos

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

Are Zoos Good For Animals- A Brief History Of Zoos

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

Arguments For Are Zoos Good For Animals

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

Arguments Against Zoos

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

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

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

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

Conclusion On Are Zoos Good For Animals

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

Recent Posts

Trending Posts

10 Smartest Predators of the World

5 Astonishing Facts On Wildlife Sanctuaries Conservation- Famous Sanctuaries Around The World

Some Beautiful Species Went Extinct In 2020

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Saving Animals & Helping The Planet

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

You May Also Like…

Are Mountain Gorillas Endangered?

Animals Endangered

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

7 Amazing Snow Leopard Cool Facts

Endangered Species

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

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

Join Our Newsletter

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

Pin It on Pinterest

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.

13 Comments

Romy · February 8, 2024 at 8:23 am

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

EcoCation · February 8, 2024 at 8:30 am

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

Olivia · April 13, 2024 at 6:46 pm

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

EcoCation · April 13, 2024 at 6:52 pm

That’s great to hear!

Jack · May 4, 2024 at 6:50 pm

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

EcoCation · May 4, 2024 at 6:53 pm

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

Jake · May 11, 2024 at 8:05 am

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

EcoCation · May 11, 2024 at 8:08 am

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

Sarah · May 18, 2024 at 5:52 am

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

EcoCation · May 18, 2024 at 5:54 am

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

• Next »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Related Posts

5 Ways How Zoos Are Saving Endangered Species

Modern zoos have evolved beyond their not so glamorous history and traditional roles of showcasing 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…

Quick links

• Make a Gift
• Directories

"Moral Arguments Against Zoos"

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

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

Zoos. For and Against Essay.

• Post author: faixav
• Post published: 17 January 2022
• Post category: Abilities

How long no see!

I have been very busy with my exams and I will be taking the final very soon. So I’ll take the opportunity to leave something interesting here. How about an essay?

Task . B1 level.

Write a for and against , about 120-150 words.

Some people think that zoos are an excellent place to learn about the animal kingdom, but others, on the contrary, believe that zoos should be banned. Discuss their advantages and disadvantages.

Every year more and more people visit zoos around the world. It is a good way to know different kinds of animals from all the countries without moving or taking risk. But zoos can have both, advantages and disadvantages.

One of the advantages of the zoos is that it is the opportunity to see wild animals in a safe environment for people. In addition, it can be an educational activity you can enjoy with family and children love. Another advantage is that vets can learn about animals and their habitats. Furthermore , zoos help endangered species to avoid their extinction.

On the other hand , there are also some disadvantages. Firstly , lack of freedom, animals are sad because they are not free and live in an unnatural habitat. Secondly , animals have a high rate of reproductive problems due to their confinement. And additionally , taking care of the natural habitats of these animals would actually cost less than caring for them in a zoo.

To sum up , zoos are suitable places where children can also learn about animal kingdom. However, some people say that they should be banned. Then , we should make ourselves the following question, are zoos really necessary?

PS ; This is just an example of a writing and not always they express what I really think. You should know that sometimes some topics are really controversial. Although I recommend you to personalize your works such as, speakings, writings and so on. You will find it easier to do them.

Structure of an Essay

A discursive essay is a piece of formal writing which is focused on discuss a particular situation or problem and you may find three types of discursive essays:

• For and Against essays which present both sides of an issue or situation discussing points in favour of a particular topic as well as those against.
• Opinion essays which present the writer’s personal opinion concerning the topic given.
• Essay suggesting solutions to problems, in which the writer analyses the problems associated with a particular issue or situation.

An essay generally consists of :

• A short introductory paragraph , maybe two or three lines, a brief summary of what the essay will show, but you only could express your opinion in this point, if it is an opinion essay.
• A main body with different ideas separated into paragraphs, giving examples or reasons, pros and cons, suggestions and solutions and so on. There are a lot of interesting connectors to use such as, on the one hand, on the other hand, in addition, furthermore, besides, apart from, however, nevertheless, the fact that and so on.
• A closing paragraph summarising the main points of the essay to reaffirm the ideas, giving your opinion using connector such as, in conclusion, on balance, to sum up, it is my belief, I firmly believe, etc.

Here , you will find more examples or click on  Tag Cloud , on the right side of the screen.

Please Share This Share this content

• Opens in a new window X
• Opens in a new window Facebook
• Opens in a new window WhatsApp

You Might Also Like

Do you know what low emission zones are?

Blog entry. Travelling website.

Could we be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel in Spain?

• Aviso Legal
• Política de Privacidad
• Política de Cookies

Search within the TIB website or find specialist literature and information in the TIB Portal.

The TIB Portal allows you to search the library's own holdings and other data sources simultaneously. By restricting the search to the TIB catalogue, you can search exclusively for printed and digital publications in the entire stock of the TIB library.

Book Review Article (English)

• ISSN: 1035-8811 , 1757-6547
• Article (Journal)  /  Electronic Resource

How to get this title?

Show citation formats, export, share and cite, pricing information, please choose your delivery country and your customer group.

*   Mandatory field

More details on this result

• Title: Book Review Article
• Published in: The Australian Journal of Anthropology ; 11, 1 ; 59-77
• Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• New search for: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• Publication date: 2000-04-01
• Size: 19 pages
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-9310.2000.tb00263.x
• Type of media: Article (Journal)
• Type of material: Electronic Resource
• Language: English
• Source: Wiley

Table of contents

Table of contents – volume 11, issue 1.

Show all volumes and issues

The tables of contents are generated automatically and are based on the data records of the individual contributions available in the index of the TIB portal. The display of the Tables of Contents may therefore be incomplete.

Similar titles

Here's what's in the Sean 'Diddy' Combs indictment

The rapper faces charges of racketeering and sex trafficking.

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday unsealed a sweeping indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs , which charges him with racketeering, sex trafficking by force and transportation to engage in prostitution.

The indictment accuses Combs of being the ringleader of a criminal "enterprise" that allowed him to sexually, physically, emotionally and verbally abuse his victims for years.

Combs "abused, threatened, and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct," the indictment states. He also stands accused of narcotics offenses, arson, bribery, kidnapping, forced labor and other offenses.

MORE: Sean 'Diddy' Combs hit with sex trafficking, racketeering charges in sprawling indictment

The rapper's attorney, Marc Agnifilo, told reporters Tuesday that Combs "knew this was coming" ever since the raids on his homes in Miami and Los Angeles in March. In a previous statement, Agnifilo called the charges against Combs "unjust" and said his client was "an innocent man with nothing to hide" who "looks forward to clearing his name in court." Diddy pleaded not guilty Tuesday afternoon.

Here's what to know about the indictment against Combs.

Alleged sexual violence and drug-fueled 'Freak Offs'

Combs, along with his staff and associates who made up his alleged enterprise, "wielded the power and prestige" of Combs' name in order "to intimidate, threaten, and lure female victims into Combs' orbit, often under the pretense of a romantic relationship," according to the indictment.

Some of the alleged sexual abuse by Combs occurred in the form of so-called "Freak Offs," which prosecutors described as "elaborate and produced sex performances that Combs arranged, directed, masturbated during, and often electronically recorded."

The indictment says "Freak Offs" "occurred regularly, sometimes lasted multiple days, and often involved multiple commercial sex workers," who were at times allegedly transported across state lines or internationally.

Combs allegedly distributed drugs during these sexual performances in part to keep them "obedient and compliant," according to the indictment.

Before a "Freak Off," enterprise members -- Combs' staff and associates, the indictment said -- would allegedly arrange travel for the alleged victims, deliver Combs "large sums of cash" to pay the commercial sex workers and schedule the delivery of IV fluids, which both Combs and the women typically received afterward "to recover from the physical exertion and drug use," according to the indictment.

The indictment also alleges Diddy would have his hotel rooms stocked with supplies, including drugs, baby oil, lubricant, linens and lighting. According to the indictment, searches of Combs' homes in Miami and Los Angeles turned up narcotics and "more than 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant."

If the alleged victims resisted participating in a "Freak Off," Combs would allegedly threaten their careers and livelihoods, at times using "sensitive, embarrassing, and incriminating recordings" of them taken during "Freak Offs" "as collateral to ensure the continued obedience and silence of the victims," prosecutors said.

"Victims believed they could not refuse Combs' demands without risking their financial or job security or without repercussions in the form of physical and emotional abuse," the indictment states.

Agnifilo, Diddy's lawyer, said rather than evidence of sex trafficking, the defense said the "Freak Offs" were evidence of consenting adults experiencing intimacy "in a way that two adults want to be intimate."

Alleged physical abuse and firearms

Combs physically abused his victims on numerous occasions, the indictment alleges, at times "striking, punching, dragging, throwing objects at, and kicking them."

The physical abuse was allegedly "recurrent and widely known" among the staff and associates who made up his alleged enterprise, prosecutors said.

At times, Combs' alleged victims were "required to remain in hiding" for days at a time in order to recover from their physical injuries without being seen, according to the indictment.

In addition to the alleged physical violence, the indictment alleges Combs allegedly maintained control over his alleged victims with "promises of career opportunities, granting and threatening to withhold financial support, and by other coercive means, including tracking their whereabouts, dictating the victims' appearance, monitoring their medical records, controlling their housing, and supplying them with controlled substances."

The indictment specifically references a March 2016 incident -- which was captured on hotel security footage, which publicly surfaced in May -- when Combs was seen beating his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. According to the indictment, Combs "kicked, dragged, and threw a vase" at Ventura as she attempted to flee, and alleges he tried to bribe a hotel security worker who intervened in order to ensure silence.

Combs has consistently denied the allegations against him. Ventura's suit, filed in November, was settled shortly thereafter with no admission of wrongdoing.

After the hotel surveillance footage was made public in May, Combs issued an apology , saying he "hit rock bottom."

On multiple occasions, the indictment also alleges Combs "carried or brandished firearms to intimidate and threaten others," including alleged victims and witnesses.

Law enforcement officers who searched Combs' residences seized "three AR-15s with defaced serial numbers, as well as a drum magazine," according to the indictment.

MORE: Diddy apologizes after video of alleged assault surfaces: 'I hit rock bottom'

A culture of silence.

Combs' alleged enterprise -- which prosecutors say involved security personnel, household staff, personal assistants, supervisors and other associates -- was formed for the purposes of "preserving, protecting, promoting, and enhancing the power" Combs held, according to the indictment.

Combs' enterprise allegedly relied on "securing absolute loyalty" from his associates in order to maintain their silence.

The indictment says the enterprise served to protect Combs' alleged crimes from being revealed and prosecuted through threats of violence, abuse and retaliation. Those who "demonstrated loyalty to Combs and willingness to conceal his crimes" were rewarded, including with bribes, it states.

At times when Combs believed he might be facing law enforcement action -- including less than a year ago when the video of his alleged assault on Ventura surfaced -- Combs and alleged enterprise members "pressured witnesses and victims, including through attempted bribery, to stay silent and not report what they experienced or knew to law enforcement," prosecutors wrote.

As part of this campaign, Combs and his associates allegedly made phone calls to victims and witnesses -- at least two of which Combs recorded -- in which they offered up "a false narrative of events in an effort to conceal Combs' crimes," the indictment said.

Related Topics

• Sean 'Diddy' Combs

Popular Reads

Ballet dancer, mom die 1 day apart

• Sep 17, 3:52 PM

Whistleblower testifies in Titan implosion hearing

• Sep 17, 5:56 PM

Alleged stalker of UConn star found with ring

• Sep 17, 2:50 PM

US dealing with 'heightened threat environment'

• Sep 17, 2:00 PM

Man charged in murder of wife, man

• Sep 17, 6:15 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

Exploding pagers: How Israel is suspected of using technology against its enemies

A wave of deadly explosions across Lebanon and parts of Syria has targeted Hezbollah officials whose handheld pagers have blown up. One bomb expert suggests high explosives could have been planted into pagers.

Security and Defence Editor @haynesdeborah

Wednesday 18 September 2024 06:15, UK

Israel is accused of carrying out an audacious, high-tech and targeted attack on Hezbollah.

The unprecedented mass explosion of handheld pagers used by Hezbollah fighters came after the military group switched from mobile phones as a means of communication to reduce the risk of being tracked by Israel .

No one has claimed responsibility but Lebanese officials have accused Israel, which has not commented on the blasts.

There is a long history of Israel being accused of using inventive methods to eliminate its enemies.

Pager explosions: Middle East latest

How pagers could be deployed as bombs

A security expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Sky News someone could have tampered with these devices before they were distributed - such as by hiding explosives inside them that could be detonated remotely when a certain signal is sent to the pager.

More on Israel

Deadly Hezbollah pager explosions will cause immense embarrassment and sow chaos

Ballistic missile fired by Houthis in Yemen hits central Israel for first time sparking 'panic'

Israel-Hamas war: Tunnels under children's bedrooms and silent streets - Sky News witnesses flattened city in Gaza

Related Topics:

• Israel-Hamas war

Pagers pre-date mobile phones and are now uncommon in most Western countries, but were widely used in the 1980s and 1990s. They are a one-way communications device, allowing people to send a short message via radio signal to the pager. Often, in the past, it would have been a phone number inviting people to call back.

The source said the "general view I am hearing is that this was an impressive attack" which required a certain amount of co-ordination.

"It looks likely that the pagers they [Hezbollah] purchased may have been compromised and turned into remote bombs," the security expert said, stressing that this was just speculation based on his expertise.

"[It] seems too coordinated and powerful an explosion to just be malfunction," adding it was less likely to have been caused by the batteries overheating.

Injuries 'consistent' with high explosives

Bomb disposal expert and former British army officer Chris Hunter said: "We've seen this sort of similar MO [particular method] with mobile devices before."

In 1996, Hamas master bomb maker Yahya Ayyash "was assassinated using a mobile phone with a small amount of explosives in it," he said.

Mr Hunter says his initial theory - based on injuries - suggests the blasts are "consistent with 1 to 2 ounces of high explosive. And you could certainly get that amount in a pager.

"We've seen ETA [a separatist group operating in Spain], we've seen the Colombian groups, we've seen the provisional IRA use pagers as explosive devices," he said.

Israel's long history of high-tech warfare

Israel's spy agencies have a long history of being linked to assassinations and covert activities using high-tech bombs and devices. Here is a summary of some of them:

1972: Bassam Abu Sharif

He was injured in Beirut when he opened a package containing a book implanted with a bomb which exploded. He was the spokesperson for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

He survived but lost several fingers, was left deaf in one ear and blind in one eye.

1972: Mahmoud Hamshari

A representative from the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was killed in Paris in 1972 when a bomb was planted under a telephone and remotely detonated.

1996: Yahya Ayyash

He earned the nickname "The Engineer" and apparently helped develop suicide bombs used in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2000: Samih Malabi

A Fatah activist from the Kalandia refugee camp outside Ramallah, was killed when a booby-trapped mobile phone exploded next to his head.

2007: Stuxnet

A powerful computer worm designed by US and Israeli intelligence that is believed to have disabled a key part of the Iranian nuclear program.

Stuxnet was designed to destroy the centrifuges Iran used to enrich uranium as part of its weapons programme.

It is reported the worm was delivered to the facility on a thumb drive by an Iranian double agent working for Israel.

2020: Mohsen Fakhrizadeh

An Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated in Iran by a remote-controlled machine gun mounted on a car.

Mr Fakhrizadeh was travelling in a bulletproof vehicle alongside three security personnel vehicles when he heard what sounded like bullets hitting his car.

After he reportedly left the vehicle, a Nissan fitted with a remote-controlled machine gun then opened fire killing him.

Related Topics

Ryan Routh was camped out for 12 hours and didn't have Trump in his line of sight when Secret Service fired at him

The man arrested in connection with an apparent attempt to assassinate Donald Trump is a former supporter who turned against the former president in part for foreign policy reasons and later traveled to Ukraine , where he made an ill-fated attempt to raise a volunteer force to fight the Russians.

The revelations about Ryan Wesley Routh emerged Monday, a day after a Secret Service agent rousted him from a hiding place at the West Palm Beach, Florida, golf course where Trump had been playing. Sheriff’s deputies later took him into custody.

Routh, it was revealed in court papers, had been camped out in a wooded area with a loaded SKS-style rifle near the course for 12 hours before he was spotted, raising new questions about whether the Secret Service was doing enough to protect a politician who had already survived one assassination attempt.

Trump was on the fifth fairway and not in Routh’s line of sight when the agent “engaged” the suspect, said Ronald Rowe, acting director of the Secret Service. Routh also never fired his weapon.

But Routh, 58, was equipped to kill, the criminal complaint said. 

In addition to a digital camera and two bags, investigators found a loaded SKS-style 7.62x39 caliber rifle with a scope that had an “obliterated” serial number and a black plastic bag containing food likely to sustain Routh while he waited in the wooded area.

Routh was arraigned Monday at the Paul G. Rogers Federal Court House in West Palm Beach on charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

The FBI has confirmed it is investigating “an apparent attempted assassination” of Trump on Sunday, but so far Routh has not been charged with trying to kill him.

Body camera video released by the Martin County Sheriff’s Office shows Routh wearing sunglasses and a pink T-shirt pulled over his head, exposing his midsection. He had been told to pull his shirt up to show he had no concealed weapons, Martin County Sheriff William Snyder told NBC News. He was arrested without incident.

The next day, Routh appeared unruffled, dressed in prison scrubs during his brief court appearance. He said he has a 25-year-old son, and he told the judge he has no money but owns two trucks in Hawaii, where he now lives, that are worth about $1,000 each.Represented by a public defender, Routh was given a Sept. 23 return court date and was then sent back to jail.

There was no discussion of a possible motive. In a self-published book, Routh said he voted for Trump in 2016 and came to regret it after Trump made what he called a “tremendous blunder” in 2018 and withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal.

“I must take part of the blame,” he wrote in “Ukraine’s Unwinnable War: The Fatal Flaw of Democracy, World Abandonment and the Global Citizen-Taiwan, Afghanistan, North Korea and the end of Humanity,” which was published last year. He added that Trump “ended up being brainless, but I am man enough to say that I misjudged and made a terrible mistake and Iran I apologize.” 

“You are free to assassinate Trump as well as me for that error in judgement and the dismantling of the deal,” Routh wrote.

Then he added, “No one here in the U.S. seems to have the balls to put natural selection to work or even unnatural selection.”

Federal investigators released a criminal complaint that said Routh had been staking out Trump International Golf Club for about 12 hours, starting at 1:59 a.m. Sunday, until 1:31 p.m. Sunday, when a Secret Service agent walking the perimeter saw what appeared to be a rifle poking out of a tree line.

The agent, the complaint says, fired in the direction of the rifle and flushed out a man, later identified as Routh, who was seen getting into a Nissan SUV and driving away, according to a witness. Officers located the vehicle and pulled Routh over on Interstate 95 less than an hour later, and the witness who saw him leaving the golf course identified him.

Trump survived an attempted assassination in July when a bullet grazed one of his ears while he was addressing supporters at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, was killed, and so far investigators have not divulged a motive.

Routh has, of late, been living in a small town outside Honolulu with his son, according to public records and statements made in court. But he had spent most of his life in Greensboro, North Carolina, where he ran a roofing business, according to public records. Records show he had more than 100 run-ins with the law but never did any time. 

In 2002, court records show, Routh was convicted of illegally possessing a machine gun.

Court records for a person named Ryan Routh also show a 2003 divorce, along with multiple civil judgments after contractors and individuals sued a roofing company he helped run.

Routh still has kin in Greensboro, according to a public records search. His relatives were reluctant to speak with reporters Monday.

A former neighbor, Kim Mungo, said Routh lived next door to her for 18 years and never brought up politics or Ukraine with her. She described him as “gorgeous” and said the house belonged to his ex-wife. 

Mungo said she had been watching over the house while Routh was moving permanently to Hawaii.

Asked whether she ever saw weapons in the residence, Mungo said she had seen some rifles — and one very large animal.

Routh was active on social media. In 2020, he posted on Twitter (now X) that he had supported Trump in 2016 but was deeply disappointed in him. He also used X to signal his support for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who was then running for the Democratic presidential nomination. And like Trump, he disparaged President Joe Biden as “Sleepy Joe.”

While he was living in Hawaii, Routh made several contributions, from $1 to $25, to the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue in 2019 and 2020, according to Federal Election Commission records.  

In his 291-page tome, Routh bristled at being pinned down as a political partisan.

“I get so tired of people asking me if I am a Democrat or Republican as I refuse to be put into a category and I must always answer independant,” he wrote.

Routh disparaged Trump as a “fool” and a “buffoon,” but he credited him for reaching out to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Biden “has yet to be man enough to make that phone call and do the right thing,” Routh wrote.

Routh was also a vocal supporter of Ukraine and visited it in 2022. That summer, NBC News spoke with Routh, who said in a message that the West’s “limited response” to the Russia-Ukraine war was “extremely disappointing” and called the moment “an indictment of the entire human race.” There was never any formal interview, and Routh’s comments were not included in NBC News’ coverage of the war.

In an interview with Newsweek Romania in 2022 , Routh said he had volunteered to fight for the International Legion for the Defense of Ukraine but was turned down because of his age and lack of combat experience.

Instead, Routh claimed, he opted to help with military recruitment efforts in Kyiv. A representative of the International Legion told NBC News on Monday that Routh never served in its military.

In his book, Routh appeared to be unhappy with how the government in Kyiv treats foreigners who joined its fight against Russia.

“Sadly Ukraine does not roll out the red carpet for foreign fighters and volunteers, nor do they celebrate their sacrifices and help,” he wrote.

Corky Siemaszko is a senior reporter for NBC News Digital.

• Israel-Gaza War
• War in Ukraine
• US Election
• US & Canada
• UK Politics
• N. Ireland Politics
• Scotland Politics
• Wales Politics
• Latin America
• Middle East
• In Pictures
• BBC InDepth
• Executive Lounge
• Technology of Business
• Women at the Helm
• Future of Business
• Science & Health
• Artificial Intelligence
• AI v the Mind
• Film & TV
• Art & Design
• Entertainment News
• Arts in Motion
• Destinations
• Australia and Pacific
• Caribbean & Bermuda
• Central America
• North America
• South America
• World’s Table
• Culture & Experiences
• The SpeciaList
• Natural Wonders
• Weather & Science
• Climate Solutions
• Sustainable Business
• Green Living

Scotland's papers: Trump 'assassination' attempt and child support cuts 'fail'

The Scotsman

Daily record, the scottish sun, scottish daily express, the telegraph, the national, the courier, the p&j, glasgow times, edinburgh news.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Animal Welfare — Why Should Zoos Be Banned

Why Should Zoos Be Banned

• Categories: Animal Welfare

About this sample

Words: 516 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 516 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Animal welfare, conservation.

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. Karlyna PhD

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

4 pages / 1958 words

4 pages / 1656 words

3 pages / 1670 words

4 pages / 1662 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Animal Welfare

Owning exotic animals as pets has been a subject of controversy and concern for decades. This essay explores the detrimental impacts of keeping exotic animals as pets on animal welfare, emphasizes the promotion of animal rights, [...]

This topic is to create awareness among the people about the care, management and nutrition of pets as well as stray animals (street animals). I believe that animals have feelings like humans too so, caring about animal welfare [...]

Paraveterinary workers play a crucial role in the veterinary field, providing support to veterinarians and ensuring the well-being of animals. This career path offers a unique opportunity to work closely with animals and make a [...]

The meat industry has long been a subject of controversy, with debates ranging from its environmental impact to animal welfare concerns. In recent years, the rise of veganism has brought a new perspective to this age-old [...]

“Elephants in the wild travel up to 50 miles every day” and hundreds of those elephants are captured and bred into captivity (Dahl 1). Keeping them would be inherently cruel, for they would have to live the rest of their lives [...]

The majestic tiger, once revered and admired, now finds itself on the brink of extinction, facing numerous threats to its survival. As one of the most iconic and endangered animals in the world, the tiger's plight serves as a [...]

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