Should Animals Be Kept In Zoos
The debate of whether or not confining of animals is right in zoos is a popular one that attracts both opponents and proponents. The increased interests in science and natural history saw the introduction of zoos in 1763, which facilitated up close animal studies and would provide a chance for entertaining and educating the public. Nevertheless, confining the animals into small spaces in unnatural habitats, the constant staring from people and loss of their freedom makes zoos the worst homes for animals.
Zoos provide unnatural habitats for the animals. Animals are naturally born and bred to live and die in wilderness habitats. However, despite the numerous efforts and good intentions by zoo management, it is impossible to provide the perfect environment for various animals. For instance, animals like the wilder beasts live in groups that migrate over long distances while elephants on average walk for over 50 km a day in packs. However, zoos can only provide minimal acres of land for the animals to walk about thereby making the environments unnatural and uncomfortable for the animals.
Zoos are a premise of captivity for animals that makes them crazy. Imprisoning of animals in small cages housed in poorly managed zoos that fail to meet the necessary standards, averts them from behaving naturally. As a result, suffer from zoochosis condition, which elicits stress, strange behavior of hurting themselves due to frustration and boredom; they become inactive and increasingly pace around. Moreover, the animals adopt aggressive behavior that results in them lashing out and injuring or killing people.
Zoos are not educational. Zoos operate on the premise that they provide an opportunity for the public to learn about animals. However, this is untrue, as keeping animals in confined and unnatural environments tend to alter their natural behavior, character, and responses. Thus, persons visiting the zoos observe the altered behavior marred by boredom, stress, and loneliness. Moreover, keeping animals in zoos teach people that it is okay to lock up and make animals miserable for their personal gain. Therefore, by gaining pleasure and entertainment from making animals suffer is a horrible lesson to learn.
Proponents of keeping animals in zoos argue that zoos offer the best forms of protection for animals. According to them, animals receive protection from poaching and predators that are out to kill them. Additionally, by engaging in breeding programs, zoos believe they protect various species from becoming extinct, therefore, making them positive institutions to exist. However, this is untrue as some zoos keep the animals in deplorable environments whey they lack food and adequate medical care. Moreover, based on research, endangered animals living in zoos are only about five species and only a few species undergo breeding.
Proponents also believe that zoos provide the opportunity for people to see a wide array of animals while benefiting children with lessons about the environment and animals. Nevertheless, this is not the case as zoos only house few species of animals as compared to those an individual can observe in the wild. Also, zoos expose animals to neglect and stress that alter their behavior hence impeding true learning for children.
In conclusion, animals just as humans enjoy rights to freedom, protection from abuse, stress, neglect and lack of privacy. There is no denying that zoo violates all these rights by introducing them to unnatural habitats and caging the animals. Hence, in promoting health and happiness of the animals, animals should not be kept in zoos.
Essay on Are Zoos Inhumane?
2034 Words9 Pages
In the film, Madagascar, zoos are depicted as a sanctuary in which all the exotic animals are kept safe and are open for the public to view. But many would argue that zoos are inhumane, the caging of animals for our personal entertainment is unjustifiable. Those who believe that zoos are wrong and should be destroyed are animal rights activist; they believe that animals should be allowed to choose their own destiny. Those that believe that zoos are an important part of our lives are scientist and zoologist. This debate has gone on for generations and average folk are stuck in the middle, not knowing which side to stand on. The animals being kept in captivity could not be interviewed; their side of the story will be based on interpretation…show more content…
Due to the massive amounts of interbreeding the zoos have in order to provide the customers with a “cute” and loveable attraction; the habitats in the zoos are becoming smaller. This calls for more habitat construction in the zoo, but with the amount of people wanting to see the new born attraction, instead of providing a habitat for these animals, a new parking lot to accommodate the customers are made. The animals that are viewed as expandable are sold to “circuses, canned hunting facilities, and even for slaughter.” (Doris 2) For those animals that are kept by the zoos their lives are cut in half. It is estimated that elephants in the wild live up to 56 years of age, compared to elephants in captivity that live estimated up to 17 years of age. This age difference is astronomical. Animal rights activists predict that this number is due to the stress, loneliness, and zoochosis that these animals go through. With the short life span and illness that these animals go through animal activist argue that zoos are no longer education for both the researcher and the customer. Based on the information gathered by the animals rights group, they could infer that the researches can not study the natural functions of these animals based on their interactions in captivity and the illness brought open them by captivity. Furthermore, since these animals are dying at such a young age and the lack of predation and hunting