for and against essay of zoos

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

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

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained

Debates about the ethics of zoos abound — but when it comes to animal welfare, there are certainly more cons than pros.

Explainer • Entertainment • Policy

Words by Björn Ólafsson

For many people, zoos are the only chance they’ll have in their entire lives to see beautiful animals native to far-flung ecosystems — lions, elephants, pandas, lemurs — the list goes on. And they’re popular — over 181 million people visit a U.S. zoo every year . But zoos face criticism from animal welfare organizations and environmental activists for inhumane treatment of the animals they claim to protect. Zoos maintain that they are important aspects of conservation and education. 

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of zoos ?  Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of these controversial organizations. 

What Are Some Pros and Cons of Zoos ?

First, not all zoos are created equal. While it is easy to imagine animal ethics as a binary of evil and moral, zoos can vary widely on how they treat their animals, how much space they are given and how the animals are obtained. Still, most zoos tend to have the same positives and negatives overall. 

Arguments Against Zoos

Poor conditions for animals.

Animals Often Only Have Quite Limited Space

Many zoos’ enclosures are too small, especially for animal species that are used to roaming, flying or swimming large distances in the wild. For example, polar bears are used to home ranges of about 1,000 square kilometers in the wild — large swaths of land and ice they enjoy exploring . In zoos, they get a couple hundred square feet. 

Zoos Are  Crowded

In addition to limited space, many zoos cram in as many animals as possible into the enclosures. Many visitors prefer seeing animals up close, instead of peering at them from afar, hidden in their dens or nests. This encourages zoos to increase the number of animals per exhibit,  increasing the likelihood of visitors seeing animals on the move near the boundaries of the enclosure. 

Animals Are Trapped in Unnatural Environments

Anyone who has visited a zoo knows the exhibits are a far cry from the natural landscape they are trying to imitate. Nearly all zoo enclosures contain fences, glass or other barriers for visitors to look through, which are inherently artificial. And the natural-seeming landscapes can sometimes be made out of astroturf, concrete or plastic.

Confinement May Alter the Behavior of Animals

The lack of space, unnatural environments and crowded conditions can directly affect the behavior of animals ; most notably in the form of what’s known as “stereotypy.” Stereotypy is a condition in which non-human animals engage in repetitive behaviors with no apparent purpose, such as pacing for hours on end, wagging tails abnormally or picking their own fur. 

The structure of zoos increases the likelihood of stereotypic behavior due to a lack of enrichment, mundane environments and boring, repetitive schedules. This prevalence of stereotypy in zoos even has its own name: “zoochosis,” or psychosis caused by zoos . 

‘Surplus’ Animals Can Be Killed

After an animal has reproduced successfully and the zoo no longer requires the animal to maintain an exhibit, the animal is deemed “surplus.” At this point, the animal’s welfare is no longer profitable . Zoos can sell the animal to private owners (who may keep the animal in tiny cages for amusement or kill the animal for taxidermy purposes), sell the animal to other zoos or enclosures, or “euthanize” the animal. 

Animals Are Often Mistreated 

Animal mistreatment is much more than hitting or beating an animal. It also includes harmful training techniques, separation from family members and forcing animals to behave in abnormal ways. 

In a report from World Animal Protection, three-fourths of zoos include human-animal interactions , many of which can be very stressful or physically harmful for animals. In some extreme cases, visitors rode on the backs of animals (causing injury) or encroached on the animals’ enclosure (causing stress).

Investigations into popular zoos sometimes reveal that caretakers don’t always clean the exhibits frequently , leaving the animals to live near their feces. The research also reveals many zookeepers hitting animals who “misbehave,” and not helping animals with injuries sustained in the enclosures. While not all animal caretakers behave this way, the reporting suggests many zoos around the world are lax with animal welfare. 

Animals Don’t Like Being Visited

The mere presence of human beings can negatively affect wild animals, especially in massive crowds that are common at zoos. Being bombarded by the sounds, smells and appearances of swaths of humans can trigger the stress responses of some animals . Some studies show that the number of visitors correlates with the amount of stress hormones in many animal species. 

Animals Struggle to Form Connections

Many animals are highly social creatures. Elephants, lions, pigs, cows and many more species are shown to have complex connections, hierarchies and relationships with members of their own kind — especially with friends and family. However, zoo animals rarely stay with the same herd or family for their entire lives. Instead, zoos opt to transfer, sell, buy or relocate animals throughout their lifespans, making it difficult for animals to form social connections . This lack of bonding can harm the animals emotionally. 

Zoos Are for Humans, Not Animals

Most zoos are for-profit enterprises, meaning they have one goal in mind: maximizing revenue. It is easy to see how making more money can come at the expense of animal welfare. For example, a zoo is unlikely to fund an exhibit expansion if it isn’t cost-effective, regardless of its benefits for the animals inside. While many zookeepers form real bonds with their animal companions, the animals still exist under a for-profit, human-centered organization. 

Zoos Promote Human Superiority

The aesthetic nature of zoos — animals in panopticon-like enclosures, viewed 24/7 by members of a different species — can reinforce human superiority. As moral philosopher Lori Gruen writes in her book, “visitors leave the zoo more convinced than ever of human superiority over the natural world.” Of course, zoos also reinforce the idea that humans have a right to take away animals’ freedom and bodily autonomy.

Zoos Don’t Always Help with Conservation — Some Wild Animals Have to Be Caught to Bring Them to Zoos

Many animals in zoos are born in captivity, but that’s not the case for all. Many animals are taken directly from the wild , often when they are babies, to make the transition to captivity a bit easier. At times, this is done in the name of conservation, or when a wild animal is very ill. But many zoos will take animals from the wild, or buy animals from unethical animal traders. 

It’s Often Not Possible to Return Animals to the Wild

Releasing an animal into the wild isn’t always successful, especially if the animal has spent time in climates different from their native regions, like jungles, savannas or ice caps. Properly preparing animals for success in the wild is a multi-stage process that can require thousands of dollars — and it doesn’t always work . Captive-born predator species — disadvantaged by being born and raised in an artificial environment — only have a survival rate after being released into the wild of 33 percent , according to one study. As a result, re-release is not a priority for many zoos.

Zoos Are Poorly Regulated

While there exist many laws that protect animals, such as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Endangered Species Act , they only offer minimum protections . For example, the AWA excludes entire species of animals, like mice, farmed animals, birds and all cold-blooded animals. Its “minimum” standards of care usually ensure the animals’ safety, not their welfare or happiness. Many animal law experts say these regulations don’t go far enough . 

What Are the Pros of Having Zoos?

They Can Be Important for Researchers

Biologists and zoologists can benefit from studying animals in zoos. Some breakthroughs in animal behavior and treatment, like why elephants swing their trunks or how gorillas develop heart disease, have been made possible because of zoos’ ease of access . However, not all animals behave the same in captivity as they do in the wild, so not all research is possible in zoos. 

Zoos Are Educational — People May Behave “Eco-friendlier” After Going To the Zoo

Zoos can kickstart individuals’ interest in biodiversity, which is a critical aspect of environmental protection. Many zoos include calls to action in their exhibits, highlighting how endangered animals are being poached, driven away, or otherwise killed by human activity. This can inspire some people to behave more conscientiously. One limited survey found that 35 percent of eco-friendly people learned sustainable behavior from zoos . ‘

Zoos Can Help Educate Children About Animals

Zoos are a quintessential school experience for many young people. Children love learning about animals up-close in a safe environment — in fact, education is possibly the biggest advantage of modern zoos. Many programs, like school presentations, guided tours, informational exhibits, and talks with zookeepers can trigger a lifelong love of animals in children .  

But zoos aren’t perfect in this regard. According to a study of zoo visitors in the UK, only 34 percent of children learned more about animals at zoos (the result was slightly better when the children were given  a guided tour). Worse, children did not feel empowered to help with conservation efforts after visiting a zoo. This suggests that if zoos care about education, they need to more actively reach out to schoolchildren for empowerment and education. 

Going to the Zoo Is Affordable

More ethical ways of engaging with animals without removing them from their natural habitats — like whale watching, safaris, hikes, or excursions — are usually expensive or inaccessible for many people. Zoos tend to be relatively cheap for the average family that wants to learn about animals. 

Conservation

Zoos Can Protect Endangered Species from Extinction

Zoos often claim they can protect entire species from extinction through conservation programs that involve breeding more animals in captivity and then releasing them into the wild. This is especially important for endangered species like pandas. 

While these conservation efforts are truly important, they don’t represent the majority of a zoo’s activities, nor are zoos leaders in conservation worldwide. At the National Zoo, for example, only one-fifth of animals are endangered . In North America, zoos only contribute about 14 percent of all animals reintroduced into the wild as part of a conservation program. Zoos also tend to focus on headline-grabbing endangered animals to bring in visitors, like pandas, elephants or tigers, as opposed to lesser-known but crucial species, like tamarins, kakapos or wombats. 

Are Zoos Good or Bad for the Environment?

Zoos claim to support global biodiversity through conservation efforts like protecting endangered animals. This is somewhat true, although it varies greatly from zoo to zoo. 

On the other hand, zoos are big polluters and use up lots of resources , especially energy and water . Aquariums in particular use tons and tons of water. Zoo animals also generate waste that may or may not be composted or disposed of correctly.

Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?

Given the many ways that zoos are unethical to animals, the flawed attempts to contribute to conservation, and the positioning of humans as superior to animals, many animal ethicists believe zoos should not exist — or at least, not exist in their current form . 

For example, animal philosopher Dale Jamieson says in his book Ethics on the Ark that zoos primarily “alleviate our sense of guilt for what we are doing to the planet, but they do little to help the animals we are driving to extinction.” He continues to argue that zoos exist for humans alone , and that it is very difficult to wave away the inherent immorality of depriving animals their liberty for the sake of human amusement. 

Instead, private conservation programs can benefit endangered animals without showcasing them to the public. Animal sanctuaries, which are  areas of land in which endangered and other animals are protected by humans, are also advantageous for both individual animals and global biodiversity . 

Zoos do have advantages — fostering curiosity and education chief among them. But experts believe there are other ways of accomplishing these goals without resorting to zoos with tiny enclosures. Excursions, nature documentaries, safaris, local gardens, hikes, boat tours and other ways of interacting with nature don’t involve taking animals out of their natural habitats. 

The Bottom Line

If you do choose to visit a zoo, opt for zoos that have certifications from independent animal welfare organizations. If you are interested in animal conservation, you’d be more impactful donating to a non-zoo animal protection organization instead. And if you do want to visit animals, consider an animal sanctuary or an ethical safari, where you can see animals in their native environments.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Björn Jóhann Ólafsson is a science writer and journalist who cares deeply about understanding the natural world and her inhabitants through stories and data. He reports on the environmental footprint of the meat industry, the alternative protein sector and cultural attitudes around food. His previous bylines include the EU Observer and Elemental. He lives in Spain with his two lovebirds.

• Which States Are Banning Lab Meat, and Why?

Future of Food • 7 min read

More Law & Policy

Democratic vs. Republican Farm Bill Proposals: a Comparison

Law & Policy • 8 min read

A Tyson Exec Wrote Kentucky’s Ag-Gag Law. What Could Go Wrong?

Lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto in order to ban drone investigations in the state.

Law & Policy • 4 min read

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

What you need to know about how these laws seek to censure whistleblowers.

Law & Policy • 11 min read

Inside Florida’s Ban on Lab-Grown Meat

Climate • 11 min read

To Improve Fish Welfare, a Startup Blends AI With an Ancient Japanese Fishing Method

Aquaculture • 6 min read

How Overconsumption Affects the Environment and Health, Explained

Climate • 9 min read

• The 30 Most Intelligent Animals in the World Might Surprise You

Science • 13 min read

Most Read Today

• Amazon Deforestation — How Much of the Rainforest Is Left?
• Are Eggs Good for You?
• What Is Climate Change and How Do We Solve It?
• Animals Are Going Extinct—But It’s Not Too Late
• Can Permaculture Help Us Build More Resilient Communities?
• Why Eating Meat Is Bad for the Environment and Climate Change, Explained

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 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/.

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

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

• University of Southern California

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

A Brief History of Zoos

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

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

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens.  Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, when scientific interest in zoology, as well as the study of animal behavior and anatomy, came to the fore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• How Animal Rights Activists View Zoos Keeping Endangered Species
• 6 of the Saddest Zoos in the World
• Zoos and Endangered Species Conservation
• What Is a Puppy Mill? Why Are They Bad for Dogs?
• Arguments for and Against Humane Meat
• Park vs. Refuge: What's the Difference?
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• Overview of the Animal Welfare Act
• 20 Pygmy Animal Species From Around the World
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
• Expedia Stops Selling Tickets to Dolphin and Whale Shows
• Pet Tiger Seen Roaming in Houston Is Now in a Sanctuary
• Best of Green Awards 2021: Eco Pets
• What Is Sustainable Tourism and Why Is It Important?

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!

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.

• 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

Should You Give Up Fish?

Why Buy Peat Free Compost?

Why Are Wasps Important?

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.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Conservation — Animals in Zoos: Ethical and Conservation Perspectives

Animals in Zoos: Ethical and Conservation Perspectives

• Categories: Conservation Ethics

About this sample

Words: 828 |

Published: Jun 6, 2024

Words: 828 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

The role of zoos in conservation, ethical considerations of animal captivity, balancing ethical concerns and conservation goals.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment Philosophy

+ 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

1 pages / 673 words

3 pages / 1486 words

4 pages / 1844 words

1 pages / 488 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 Conservation

In the modern world, recycling stands as a critical solution to address the mounting environmental challenges we face. The discourse surrounding recycling, however, is not limited to its benefits alone. This essay delves into [...]

As the world grapples with environmental challenges and the need for sustainable practices, conserving natural resources emerges as a paramount concern. Natural resources, the invaluable elements of the Earth that provide us [...]

In the vast savannah of the African pride lands, a remarkable story unfolds. The Lion King, an animated masterpiece, not only entertains audiences with its vibrant characters, stunning visuals, and unforgettable music, but also [...]

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

Conservation biology is the scientific field that focuses on documenting biodiversity, studying human impact on species, genetic variation, and ecosystems. The field focuses on studying methods to prevent extinction of species, [...]

Nowadays there are huge arguments between city development and conserving the past: some say old buildings should be replaced with modern buildings and shopping malls, because more money can be made from these developments. Some [...]

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

Are Zoos Good For Animals? Argument For And Against Zoos

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

Are Zoos Good For Animals- A Brief History Of Zoos

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

Arguments For Are Zoos Good For Animals

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

Arguments Against Zoos

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

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

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

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

Conclusion On Are Zoos Good For Animals

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

Recent Posts

Trending Posts

10 Smartest Predators of the World

Some Beautiful Species Went Extinct In 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion.

Understanding the Question

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

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

But look at this bit carefully:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoo Essay Sample

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

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

Write at least 250 words.

Zoo Essay Model Answer

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

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

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

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

(299 Words)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Discuss Two Opinion Essays:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IELTS Essay Becoming Independent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animal Rights Essay: Should animals be exploited for humans?

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

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Band 7+ eBooks

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

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 30% Discount Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

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

Recent Articles

IELTS Bundle Writing eBooks: 30% Off

Jun 01, 24 09:55 AM

House Sitting

May 31, 24 03:59 AM

Key Phrases for IELTS Speaking: Fluency and Coherence

May 26, 24 06:52 AM

Important pages

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

Connect with us

Before you go...

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

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

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

Essay on Zoo for Students and Children

500 words essay on zoo.

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

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

Benefits of Zoo

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages of Zoo

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

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

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

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

FAQs on Zoo

Q.1 List the advantages of Zoo

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

Q.2 How are zoos harmful to animals?

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

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App

• Elementary School
• Reading & Speaking
• External Independent Testing
• Grammar Exercises

Argumentative essay: Are you for or against zoos?

Writing an argumentative essay

Some people think that zoos are out-of-date and cruel institutions that should be closed down. Do you agree? Write an argumentative essay (for/against a statement)

At the moment zoos are very popular. Many people think that animals should be in zoos, although there are some arguments both for and against them.

One of the arguments for zoos is the fact they are educational because they provide visitors with lots of educational programmes. What is more, a zoo can be the only place where rare or disappearing animals could be saved.

As far as I am concerned, I am against zoos.

Firstly, it is cruel to keep animals in uncomfortable cages where they live under bad conditions.

Secondly, animals feel a lack of freedom and physical activity and they live under the lack of healthy food.

Thirdly, zoos break a natural animals lifestyle and change it upside-down. Animals which normally hunt for their food are fed, and most have to live in a climate very different from that of their natural habitat.

Moreover, animals suffer from foredoom and this can result in their aggressive behavior.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that zoos have no place in modern society, but I don’t mind safari parks because they are protecting animals, so they don’t become extinct.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Related posts.

English Lessons

Modern Gadgets

Moving in Search of Another Place

My Dream House

Become Vegetarians

Future Plans

Extended Family Living

Teenagers’ Spare Time

Using Mobile Phones at School

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Internet in Education

I agree with your opinion but zoos can be useful, for example: the number of bisons was restored with the help of few remaining in zoos and and it is also interesting to watch the animals.

Thank you for the interesting fact, Diana!

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

• Grammar Tests
• Grammar Exercisers

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

Why should we learn a new language?

Lifelong Learning Speaking Exam

• Aviso Legal
• Política de Privacidad
• Política de Cookies

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!

The 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 are protecting endangered species.

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

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

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

In fact, should zoos be banned, many species would have gone extinct already. A good example are narwahls .

2. Zoos are educating the public about animals

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

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

Ultimately, zoos provide an affordable opportunity to see (exotic) animals , giving everyone an equal chance to experience wildlife first-hand and learn about nature. 

No matter what a person’s socioeconomic status may be, there is a chance to learn something new because of the work of a zoo. By educating about animals, z oos are also raising awareness about our environmental problems like climate change and illustrate how these impact ecosystems worldwide.

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

3. Zoos help in fighting animal extinction

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

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

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

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 are conducting valuable research

Zoos are key for   research . Being able to observe and study animals is crucial if we want to contribute to help them and repair the ecosystems. They also help in reducing human-animal conflicts and in better understanding the needs and psychology of animals. 

Zoos serve as laboratories to learn more about how to fight animal diseases and develop effective animal anaesthetics and other treatments to help more animals in the future.

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

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

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

5. Zoos provide income for many communities

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

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

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

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 previous positive points above. Let’s take a closer look at the arguments why zoos should be banned!

1. Zoos entertain humans at the expense of animals

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

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

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

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

Here are the worst zoos in America .

2. Holding animals in captivity has questionable ethics

Haven’t we learned from our shameful history with “human zoos”? 100 years ago, people accepted that other humans are exhibited in “human zoos”, which everyone would protest against nowadays. 

Who knows how humanity will look back and judge our present animal zoos in 100 years… If we look back at the dark history of zoological institutions, zoos should be banned!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROBERT BRAULT

5. lack of regulation & control in many zoos.

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

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

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

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

• @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.

This claim is being brought forward by PETA. However, the animal rights organization experienced a surge in hate after communicating their negative stance against zoos . So it seems that the public opinion is still positive about zoos.

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 zoological institutions in California which are treating their animals at least as good as they can:

• Best Zoos in California
• Best Aquariums in California

Are zoos ethical? What about aquariums?

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

What are the pros and cons of zoos?

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

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

Are zoos good or bad?

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

Are zoos morally wrong?

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

Are zoos bad or good?

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

Are zoos safe for animals?

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

Are zoos for profit?

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

Why should zoos be banned?

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

Why should zoos not be banned?

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

What are alternatives to zoos?

You can learn about animals without visiting or supporting zoos.

Here is a list of ethical alternatives to zoos:

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

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.

10 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.

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

How Sad are Zoo Animals? The Tragedy of Sad Animals in Zoos

The sight of exotic creatures entertains visitors, but behind the bars and glass enclosures lies the reality of sad animals in zoos. These majestic beings, meant to roam vast landscapes, find themselves confined to artificial Read more…

5 Ways How Zoos Are Saving Endangered Species

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

Five of the Strongest Arguments Against Zoos

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

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

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

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

Common Problems With Zoos

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

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

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

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

2. Zoos are just for entertainment.

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

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

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

Here’s how:

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

3. Zoo keepers are cruel.

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

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

Hey, I agree! Great!

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

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

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

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

5. None of the money from zoos goes towards conservation

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

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

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

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

One more thing…

6. A little note about branding and hypocrisy….

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

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

A few more articles on the topic:

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

B ook James for a speaking event:

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

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

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

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

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

The NYPD Is About To Take Action Against Donald Trump Following Conviction

General Assignment Reporter, HuffPost

Donald Trump lost his right to possess guns after his hush-money conviction, and now the New York City Police Department is reportedly doing something about it.

A senior police official told CNN on Wednesday that the NYPD is set to annul the former president’s license to carry a firearm.

An investigation by the department’s legal bureau “will likely lead to revocation of his license,” the official said. But Trump could challenge the ruling.

The New York Times also confirmed the department’s intentions.

According to the newspaper, Trump had a concealed carry permit in New York with three registered pistols. He surrendered two of them to the NYPD when he was criminally charged in the New York case in April 2023. The third gun was previously transferred legally to Florida.

Federal and state law in both states dictate that convicted felons cannot possess a firearm, according to the Times.

HuffPost previously reported that Trump, as a person convicted of crimes, could face up to a year in prison for owning or buying firearms, according to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Trump’s recent conviction for concealing hush-money payments to a porn star before the 2016 election carries a sentence that could be years behind bars, but that is not likely.

Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung was asked about the NYPD’s revocation and offered this instead to NYT: “Biden’s cronies in the Democrat Party are panicked and have chosen to continue to abuse our once great justice system to pursue their number one political opponent and interfere in the coming election.”

Trump, who opposes gun safety reform, has Secret Service protection, so the action would likely not affect him so much.

However, in early 2016, when he already had Secret Service with him as a presidential candidate, he claimed, “ I always carry a weapon on me .”

Popular in the Community

From our partner, more in politics.

Complaint alleges Tony Wied's nomination papers presented as support for homeless

WASHINGTON – Republican Tony Wied is facing accusations of misrepresenting his nomination papers while collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot in the northeastern Wisconsin House race to replace retired Rep. Mike Gallagher. 

A former Green Bay alderman filed a complaint Thursday with the state elections board alleging petitioners for Wied at a farmers market in Green Bay late last month asked people to sign papers to help the homeless, though the documents were Wied’s nomination papers.

Tony Theisen, the former alderman who has also volunteered to collect signatures for one of Wied’s primary opponents, state Sen. Andre Jacque, said two petition circulators for Wied on the morning of May 25 asked shoppers to sign Wied’s papers by presenting them as a petition for “housing for the homeless.”

Theisen in the complaint identified one of the circulators by name and challenged 425 signatures collected by that circulator between the nomination papers for both the special and regularly scheduled election for the district. 

While the potential removal of the signatures would not drop Wied below the threshold to qualify for the ballot, Theisen in his challenge asked the elections commission to “conduct a thorough investigation into all of the nominating petitions” submitted by Wied.

“These fraudulent signature-gathering tactics violated Wisconsin law and affronted the Republican Party’s commitment to the rule of law and election integrity,” he wrote in the petition.

Wied’s campaign on Thursday called the challenge “nothing more than dirty political games,” adding that Wisconsin voters will “see right through it.”

“Career politicians will do anything to stay in power,” Wied’s campaign said in a statement. “Just like the Democrats are trying to do to President Trump, Andre Jacque and his allies are trying to remove the Trump-endorsed conservative from the ballot.”

Still, another attendee at the Green Bay farmers market the same morning — separate from Theisen — told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel she also witnessed two petition circulators for Wied present the nomination papers as supporting homeless people.

Maureen Hughson, a De Pere resident who was at the market with her husband, said a woman approached her and asked if she would sign a petition “to help get funding for homelessness on the ballot.” 

Hughson said the documents were clearly marked as Wied’s nomination papers and made no mention of homelessness, but she noted people appeared to sign them “without reading the petition.”

“I’m still pissed,” said Hughson, a self-described Independent voter who posted about the incident on Facebook later that day. “I think if somebody is starting out — even though he may not know the people who are circulating the petition — when someone is starting out with misrepresentation to get their name on the ballot, that’s a bad start.” 

Theisen, who served on the Green Bay city council from 1984 to 2012, told the Journal Sentinel he volunteered to collect signatures for Jacque last month but said he is not getting paid for his help.

Theisen similarly said people appeared to be “readily signing” the petition without asking questions. He claimed he walked around the market shortly after encountering two women circulating the petitions and returned about 20 minutes later to find two men had taken their place. 

“They were holding up Tony Wied flyers, and they are straightforward saying, ‘Please sign for Tony Wied for Congress,’” Theisen said. “I’m thinking, these people are doing it the right way. … It was just a night and day difference.”

Wied, Jacque and former state Sen. Roger Roth are competing in the Republican primary for the 8th Congressional District, set for Aug. 13. De Pere OB-GYN Kristin Lyerly is the only Democrat in the race.

Candidates in the district needed to submit two sets of nomination papers after Gov. Tony Evers last month called for a special election to fill the vacancy left by the early retirement of Gallagher . 

Evers set the 8th Congressional District special election for the same dates as the regularly scheduled partisan primary and general elections, meaning candidates for the seat will appear twice on the same ballot . 

More: Donald Trump Jr. blasts congressional candidate Andre Jacque over IVF stance

The Wisconsin Elections Commission this week recommended for approval well over the required minimum of 1,000 valid signatures needed to qualify for both ballots for each of the four candidates.

A WEC spokesman declined to comment on the Thursday complaint. But the commission will review challenges and formally vote to approve candidates for the Aug. 13 and Nov. 5 elections during a meeting on June 10.

Wied can file a response to the challenge in the next three days, according to guidance from WEC . 

The strength of the challenge to Wied signatures, however, is uncertain. 

Theisen’s complaint challenges 228 signatures collected by one of the circulators on the special election nomination papers and 197 signatures on the regular papers. Wied collected 1,667 for the special election ballot and 1,647 signatures for the regularly scheduled election ballot, records show.

Under Wisconsin law , nomination paper signatories must have “signed the paper with full knowledge of its content.” 

Both Hughson and Theisen told the Journal Sentinel that the papers circulated at the farmers market last month were clearly marked as Wied’s nomination papers. 

But Wied’s opponents were quick to seize on the allegations Thursday.

Will Terry, Jacque’s campaign manager, called the complaint an “extremely serious charge.”

“It’s vital that our elections are secure and the process to get on the ballot has integrity and accountability,” Terry said.

And Roth had this to say: “Anyone who talks to voters in the 8th District understands the importance of election integrity, which is why I am proud of how our campaign collected our signatures — through hard work and grassroots volunteers — to get on the ballot."

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases

By Jamie Raskin

Mr. Raskin represents Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District in the House of Representatives. He taught constitutional law for more than 25 years and was the lead prosecutor in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Many people have gloomily accepted the conventional wisdom that because there is no binding Supreme Court ethics code, there is no way to force Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from the Jan. 6 cases that are before the court.

Justices Alito and Thomas are probably making the same assumption.

But all of them are wrong.

It seems unfathomable that the two justices could get away with deciding for themselves whether they can be impartial in ruling on cases affecting Donald Trump’s liability for crimes he is accused of committing on Jan. 6. Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in the Jan. 6 “stop the steal” movement. Above the Virginia home of Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, flew an upside-down American flag — a strong political statement among the people who stormed the Capitol. Above the Alitos’ beach home in New Jersey flew another flag that has been adopted by groups opposed to President Biden.

Justices Alito and Thomas face a groundswell of appeals beseeching them not to participate in Trump v. United States , the case that will decide whether Mr. Trump enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, and Fischer v. United States , which will decide whether Jan. 6 insurrectionists — and Mr. Trump — can be charged under a statute that criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing an official proceeding. (Justice Alito said on Wednesday that he would not recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases.)

Everyone assumes that nothing can be done about the recusal situation because the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards — no binding ethics code or process outside of personal reflection. Each justice decides for him- or herself whether he or she can be impartial.

Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could choose to recuse themselves — wouldn’t that be nice? But begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.

The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.

The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals.

The constitutional and statutory standards apply to Supreme Court justices. The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “ supreme law of the land ,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices as it does other judges: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.

This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.

When the arguments are properly before the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor will have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory obligation to enforce recusal standards.

Indeed, there is even a compelling argument based on case law that Chief Justice Roberts and the other unaffected justices should raise the matter of recusal on their own, or sua sponte. Numerous circuit courts have agreed with the Eighth Circuit that this is the right course of action when members of an appellate court are aware of “ overt acts ” of a judge reflecting personal bias. Cases like this stand for the idea that appellate jurists who see something should say something instead of placing all the burden on parties in a case who would have to risk angering a judge by bringing up the awkward matter of potential bias and favoritism on the bench.

But even if no member of the court raises the issue of recusal, the urgent need to deal with it persists. Once it is raised, the court would almost surely have to find that the due process clause and Section 455 compel Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. To arrive at that substantive conclusion, the justices need only read their court’s own recusal decisions.

In one key 5-to-3 Supreme Court case from 2016, Williams v. Pennsylvania, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained why judicial bias is a defect of constitutional magnitude and offered specific objective standards for identifying it. Significantly, Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the majority’s ruling.

The case concerned the bias of the chief justice of Pennsylvania, who had been involved as a prosecutor on the state’s side in an appellate death penalty case that was before him. Justice Kennedy found that the judge’s refusal to recuse himself when asked to do so violated due process. Justice Kennedy’s authoritative opinion on recusal illuminates three critical aspects of the current controversy.

First, Justice Kennedy found that the standard for recusal must be objective because it is impossible to rely on the affected judge’s introspection and subjective interpretations. The court’s objective standard requires recusal when the likelihood of bias on the part of the judge “is too high to be constitutionally tolerable,” citing an earlier case. “This objective risk of bias,” according to Justice Kennedy, “is reflected in the due process maxim that ‘no man can be a judge in his own case.’” A judge or justice can be convinced of his or her own impartiality but also completely missing what other people are seeing.

Second, the Williams majority endorsed the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct as an appropriate articulation of the Madisonian standard that “no man can be a judge in his own cause.” Model Code Rule 2.11 on judicial disqualification says that a judge “shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This includes, illustratively, cases in which the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” a married judge knows that “the judge’s spouse” is “a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding” or the judge “has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result.” These model code illustrations ring a lot of bells at this moment.

Third and most important, Justice Kennedy found for the court that the failure of an objectively biased judge to recuse him- or herself is not “harmless error” just because the biased judge’s vote is not apparently determinative in the vote of a panel of judges. A biased judge contaminates the proceeding not just by the casting and tabulation of his or her own vote but by participating in the body’s collective deliberations and affecting, even subtly, other judges’ perceptions of the case.

Justice Kennedy was emphatic on this point : “It does not matter whether the disqualified judge’s vote was necessary to the disposition of the case. The fact that the interested judge’s vote was not dispositive may mean only that the judge was successful in persuading most members of the court to accept his or her position — an outcome that does not lessen the unfairness to the affected party.”

Courts generally have found that any reasonable doubts about a judge’s partiality must be resolved in favor of recusal. A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” While recognizing that the “challenged judge enjoys a margin of discretion,” the courts have repeatedly held that “doubts ordinarily ought to be resolved in favor of recusal.” After all, the reputation of the whole tribunal and public confidence in the judiciary are both on the line.

Judge David Tatel of the D.C. Circuit emphasized this fundamental principle in 2019 when his court issued a writ of mandamus to force recusal of a military judge who blithely ignored at least the appearance of a glaring conflict of interest. He stated : “Impartial adjudicators are the cornerstone of any system of justice worthy of the label. And because ‘deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges,’ jurists must avoid even the appearance of partiality.” He reminded us that to perform its high function in the best way, as Justice Felix Frankfurter stated, “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”

The Supreme Court has been especially disposed to favor recusal when partisan politics appear to be a prejudicial factor even when the judge’s impartiality has not been questioned. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. , from 2009, the court held that a state supreme court justice was constitutionally disqualified from a case in which the president of a corporation appearing before him had helped to get him elected by spending $3 million promoting his campaign. The court, through Justice Kennedy, asked whether, quoting a 1975 decision, “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” the judge’s obvious political alignment with a party in a case “poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.”

The federal statute on disqualification, Section 455(b) , also makes recusal analysis directly applicable to bias imputed to a spouse’s interest in the case. Ms. Thomas and Mrs. Alito (who, according to Justice Alito, is the one who put up the inverted flag outside their home) meet this standard. A judge must recuse him- or herself when a spouse “is known by the judge to have an interest in a case that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts assured America that “judges are like umpires.”

But professional baseball would never allow an umpire to continue to officiate the World Series after learning that the pennant of one of the two teams competing was flying in the front yard of the umpire’s home. Nor would an umpire be allowed to call balls and strikes in a World Series game after the umpire’s wife tried to get the official score of a prior game in the series overthrown and canceled out to benefit the losing team. If judges are like umpires, then they should be treated like umpires, not team owners, fans or players.

Justice Barrett has said she wants to convince people “that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.” Justice Alito himself declared the importance of judicial objectivity in his opinion for the majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overruling Roe v. Wade — a bit of self-praise that now rings especially hollow.

But the Constitution and Congress’s recusal statute provide the objective framework of analysis and remedy for cases of judicial bias that are apparent to the world, even if they may be invisible to the judges involved. This is not really optional for the justices.

I look forward to seeing seven members of the court act to defend the reputation and integrity of the institution.

Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, represents Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District in the House of Representatives. He taught constitutional law for more than 25 years and was the lead prosecutor in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

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

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .