essay should zoos be banned

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

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

Regardless of the merits or ethics of zoos, one thing's for certain: they're going to be around for some years yet.

The polar bears in Winnipeg have disco poo. Their droppings look like little glitterballs.

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

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

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

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

Read more: Should I worry about chemtrails?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can you tell a zoo from a sanctuary?

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

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

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

How do we save wildlife if not by breeding programmes?

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

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

Follow us on social media

Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Instagram

• Environment and Conservation

Should Zoos be Banned? Pros & Cons of Zoos

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

Should zoos be banned? Are zoos bad or good?

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

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

So let’s dive right into the topic!

The Pros & Cons of Zoos

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

What are the Pros of Zoos?

1. zoos are protecting endangered species.

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

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

2. Zoos are educating the public about animals

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

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

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

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

3. Zoos help in fighting animal extinction

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

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

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

4. Zoos are conducting valuable research

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

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

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

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

5. Zoos provide income for many communities

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

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

What are the Cons of Zoos?

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

1. Zoos entertain humans at the expense of animals

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

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

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

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

2. Holding animals in captivity has questionable ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Lack of regulation & control in many zoos

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

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

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

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

A Brief History of Zoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Zoos be Banned?

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

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

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

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

• Best Zoos in California
• Best Aquariums in California

Are zoos ethical? What about aquariums?

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

What are the pros and cons of zoos?

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

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

Are zoos good or bad?

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

Are zoos morally wrong?

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

Are zoos bad or good?

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

Are zoos safe for animals?

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

Are zoos for profit?

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

Why should zoos be banned?

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

Why should zoos not be banned?

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

What are alternatives to zoos?

You can learn about animals without visiting or supporting zoos.

Here is a list of ethical alternatives to zoos:

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

Related Posts

Top 25 Ugly Animals on the Planet (+Pictures)

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

15 BEST Aquariums in California (Ultimate Review 2024)

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

Animal Abuse on Snapchat & How to Stop It

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

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Debating the Morality and Value of Zoos

Some readers decry keeping animals in captivity while others tout the educational benefits.

To the Editor:

Re “ The Case Against Zoos ,” by Emma Marris (Sunday Review, June 13):

Ms. Marris argues that leading zoos and aquariums spend an outsized amount on “operations and construction” compared with their expenditures on “conservation projects.”

The reason modern zoos spend so much on operations is simple — effective, science-based zoological institutions focus on the welfare of animals in their care, a moral obligation that does not come cheap. American Humane , the country’s first national humane organization, certifies the humane treatment of animals in more than 60 zoos and aquariums around the globe. These zoological institutions receive our Humane Certified seal as they meet or exceed a science-based set of criteria evaluated by independent auditors who have no stake in the outcome of their decision.

Money spent on proper veterinary care, enrichment activities and nutritious food is not money wasted but rather an investment in the social, and moral, contract we have with animals. To pressure zoos and aquariums to spend less on their animals would lead to inhumane outcomes for the precious creatures in their care.

Robin R. Ganzert Washington The writer is president and chief executive of American Humane.

I am a veterinarian who was a zoo and wildlife park employee for years before obtaining my veterinary degree. Both the wildlife park and zoo claimed to be operating for the benefit of the animals and for conservation purposes. This claim was false. Neither one of them actually participated in any contributions to animal research or conservation. They are profitable institutions whose bottom line is much more important than the condition of the animals.

Animals such as African lions that bred in captivity were “culled” (killed) when their numbers exceeded the financial capability of the zoo to feed them. Baby bears, seals, beavers and other animals were taken in and used by the zoos for financial profit until they were no longer useful, and then either “culled” or released into the wild without the ability to survive. I was taught to recite a spiel on conservation to zoo visitors that was false.

Animals despise being captives in zoos. No matter how you “enhance” enclosures, they do not allow for freedom, a natural diet or adequate exercise. Animals end up stressed and unhealthy or dead.

It’s past time for transparency with these institutions, and it’s past time to eliminate zoos from our culture.

Teri Byrd Vashon Island, Wash.

As a zoology professor and, thanks to my kids, a frequent zoo visitor, I agree with Emma Marris that zoo displays can be sad and cruel. But she underestimates the educational value of zoos.

She cites studies showing that most zoo visitors do not closely read educational signs, arguing that few people experience the zoo other than as a simple family outing. However, those few who gain a serious interest in conservation add up to a lot, given that millions of people visit zoos.

The zoology program at my State University of New York campus attracts students for whom zoo visits were the crucial formative experience that led them to major in biological sciences. These are mostly students who had no opportunity as children to travel to wilderness areas, wildlife refuges or national parks. Although good TV shows can help stir children’s interest in conservation, they cannot replace the excitement of a zoo visit as an intense, immersive and interactive experience. They also get to meet adults who have turned their love for animals into a career, and with whom they can identify.

Surely there must be some middle ground that balances zoos’ treatment of animals with their educational potential.

Karen R. Sime Oswego, N.Y.

Emma Marris briefly mentions sanctuaries. Sanctuaries are a growing and ethical alternative to animals kept in captivity and “on display.” The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries is the accrediting body for sanctuaries, with 200 members in the United States and abroad. One hundred percent of the focus of our organization and its member sanctuaries is on the humane care of their animals.

Unlike zoos, sanctuaries receive no government or municipal funding, rely on small staffs supplemented by volunteers, and operate on shoestring budgets. They also take on the additional cost of providing lifetime care for every animal. They do not buy, sell or trade animals and restrict access to the animals, forgoing the lucrative revenue of general admission and attractions. Instead, they rely primarily on public donations for support.

For wild animals that cannot be returned to their natural habitats, true sanctuaries offer the best alternative. It’s what animals deserve and is the moral choice.

Valerie Taylor Phoenix The writer is the executive director of the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.

“The Case Against Zoos” is an insult and a disservice to the thousands of passionate, dedicated people who work tirelessly to improve the lives of animals and protect our planet. Ms. Marris uses outdated research and decades-old examples to undermine the noble mission of organizations committed to connecting children to a world beyond their own.

I’ve specialized in zoo and aquarium marketing as a consultant for 20 years, working directly with animal keepers and their animals to produce commercials that feature everything from sharks to lemurs. I’ve never met more dedicated people in my life. They care for their animals as a parent would care for a child.

Zoos and aquariums are at the forefront of conservation and constantly evolving to improve how they care for animals and protect each species in its natural habitat. Are there tragedies? Of course. But they are the exception, not the norm that Ms. Marris implies. A distressed animal in a zoo will get as good or better treatment than most of us at our local hospital.

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums has been on a continual path of improvement, constantly examining its practices related to animal care and conservation throughout the world.

Most important, Ms. Marris glosses over the true value of zoos and aquariums. When a child looks a gorilla or otter or shark in the eye, something wondrous takes place. A connection is made to a world beyond our own that will live with them forever.

Greg Newberry Cincinnati The writer is president of Animal Instinct Advertising.

I quite agree with Emma Marris. Having lived in Kenya, driving in the Nairobi National Park early in the morning as the animals were beginning to move around, and experiencing the thrill of a black mane lion lying in the middle of the road as if he owned the kingdom, I do not go to zoos. To see the animals no longer able to roam, pacing in small areas, is too cruel to watch.

Frances McClure Oxford, Ohio

As a fellow environmentalist, animal-protection advocate and longtime vegetarian, I could properly be in the same camp as Emma Marris on the issue of zoos. But I believe that well-run zoos, and the heroic animals that suffer their captivity, do serve a higher purpose. Were it not for opportunities to observe these beautiful, wild creatures close to home, many more people would be driven by their fascination to travel to wild areas to seek out, disturb and even hunt them down.

Zoos are, in that sense, akin to natural history and archaeology museums, serving to satisfy our need for contact with these living creatures while leaving the vast majority undisturbed in their natural environments.

Dean Gallea Tarrytown, N.Y.

Emma Marris selectively describes and misrepresents the findings of our research . Our studies focused on the impact of zoo experiences on how people think about themselves and nature, and the data points extracted from our studies do not, in any way, discount what is learned in a zoo visit.

Zoos are tools for thinking. Our research provides strong support for the value of zoos in connecting people with animals and with nature. Zoos provide a critical voice for conservation and environmental protection. They afford an opportunity for people from all backgrounds to encounter a range of animals, from drone bees to springbok or salmon, to better understand the natural world we live in.

John Fraser Susan Clayton Wesley Schultz Dr. Fraser is the author of “The Social Value of Zoos.” Dr. Clayton and Dr. Schultz are professors of psychology.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Zoo — Zoos Should Be Banned: The Reasons

Zoos Should Be Banned: The Reasons

• Categories: Animal Welfare Zoo

About this sample

Words: 531 |

Updated: 20 December, 2023

Words: 531 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Video Version

Works Cited

• Bostock, S. (2016). Zoos and animal welfare. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford University Press.
• Carr, N., & Cohen, S. (2011). Banning zoos: Can animals be liberated from captivity? Anthrozoös, 24(4), 449-461.
• Fuentes, A. (2018). Zoos and conservation: On the need for evidence-based decision-making. Cambridge University Press.
• Gusset, M., & Dick, G. (2011). The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology, 30(5), 566-569.
• Mason, G., & Latham, N. (2004). Can’t stop, won’t stop: Is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Animal Welfare, 13(1), 57-69.
• Marino, L. (2017). Thinking chickens: A review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition, 20(2), 127-147.
• Marino, L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2007). Dolphin captivity: A review of the evidence. In E. J. Capaldi (Ed.), The psychology of animal behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 217-243). ABC-CLIO.
• Melfi, V., & Ward, S. J. (2014). The role of zoos in contemporary society: A conservation perspective. International Zoo Yearbook, 48(1), 7-28.
• Sandøe, P., Palmer, C., & Corr, S. (Eds.). (2018). Companion animal ethics. John Wiley & Sons.
• Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation. Harper Perennial.

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

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 792 words

2 pages / 868 words

1 pages / 562 words

4 pages / 1970 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Zoo

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

The practice of keeping animals in zoos has sparked a passionate debate that revolves around ethical considerations and conservation goals. This essay explores the multifaceted arguments for and against the existence of zoos, [...]

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

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

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

It is important to study how animals utilize their enclosures to know how to better design healthier and more effective exhibits. This study attempted to determine if the otters in the Lost Forest mixed-species exhibit at the [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Should zoos be banned?

Alison benjamin : where’s the enjoyment in seeing magnificent creatures behind bars.

Whether the parents of the four-year-old or inadequate safety standards were to blame, the real problem is that this gorilla , like all zoo animals, was living in captivity, incarcerated in a small enclosure supposedly for our entertainment and education.

I know most children find days out at the zoo an amazing experience, where they can get up close to animals large and small from far-flung places that they may have only seen in picture books or on TV.

But they are a relic of the Victorian age, before David Attenborough documentaries and nature programmes such as Springwatch brought animals into our front room in all their glory, in real time and living in the wild. The reality is not always pretty or cute, but these shows are educational – unlike gawking at animals that are often pacing up and down in their cages in boredom or frustration or sitting in a corner, lonely and depressed. I was shocked to learn a few years ago that zoos were prescribing Prozac to some of the animals. Zoos are sad places for animals. As an animal lover, I don’t understand why anyone finds enjoyment in seeing magnificent creatures such as tigers or lions behind bars.

Even with those that look as though they might be having fun – the monkeys and penguins – just think how much more exciting it would be to see them swinging in the jungle, rather than in a cage, or hunting on the ice caps instead of being thrown fish at feeding time.

And it’s not as if you can touch the animals – that’s deemed too dangerous. You can’t get that close to most of them, not even by squashing your face against the glass of an enclosure, certainly not as close as those television cameras.

As for the conservation argument, surely the human race should be working harder to preserve animals’ natural environments rather than shipping them off to zoos to breed (often unsuccessfully) while continuing to destroy their habitat in the name of progress.

So if it’s about a fun day out for the kids, where they can learn about animals and eat ice-cream, why not take them to a natural history museum followed by a trip to the movies to see an amazing 3D film about the bugs in the Borneo forest or the underwater world of the Great Barrier Reef ?

When I was a child, watching animals doing tricks at a circus was acceptable. Now, in response to growing popular concern about the cruelty of using animals in entertainment, many countries ban using animals in circus acts, and animal-free circuses are becoming more common. I hope it’s only a matter of time before, in the same spirit, we reimagine zoos.

Toby Moses : For those who can’t afford a safari, a reputable zoo is the best alternative

It’s important to start by acknowledging that zoos are far from an ideal home for most animals. If it were as simple as a choice between an animal living wild or living in captivity, then the zoo would be as much of an anachronism as lions jumping through flaming hoops in a circus tent. But that is not the choice we face. No reputable zoo would now snatch an animal from the wild to display for public amusement – and certainly no zoo I would wish to defend.

The modern zoo should act as a place for the preservation of endangered species, a safe house for rescued animals snatched from their habitat by those with malicious intent, and a breeding ground for those that can safely be kept in captivity to help spread a sense of wonder about the natural world to those who would otherwise not have the chance to see anything more interesting than a local labrador.

And this latter point is key. Where else would someone brought up in an inner city get to see a gorilla, a tiger or even a meerkat? While a safari in the plains of the Serengeti may be preferable, the vast majority will never be able to afford such an exotic holiday.

Animal experts may bemoan our anthropomorphising the natural world, but it is important to acknowledge the importance of this in helping to protect species that may otherwise be lost to us. One need only look at the relative difficulties of building a campaign to protect the rights of battery hens – still providing most of our eggs – and the polar bear. One is a bloodthirsty killer, the other a harmless hen – yet the public relate far more to the cuddly, white oversized teddy bear. Public opinion matters, and letting children get up close with a real-life Baloo or King Louie will do as much to foster a sense of conservationism as any Rudyard Kipling story.

Then there is the part zoos play in preserving endangered species – I for one would rather the northern white rhino lived in a San Diego Zoo than ceased to exist entirely .

To ignore the part zoos have to play here would be dishonest, and to pretend that there is any practical source of funds to support this vital work other than paying guests is disingenuous. When government and taxation won’t even pay up to support the poorest in society, it seems unlikely they’ll fork out for the protection of the black-footed ferret . If not you, through your taxes – then the zoo?

• Head to head
• Animal welfare
• Animal behaviour

Most viewed