Introduction
The ethical, economic, and scientific issues related to the life of animals in zoos have been at the center of debate for the past several decades. On the one hand, zoos might be described as good places that provide favorable conditions for animals and save them from death in the wild nature. On the other hand, they impose prison-like life for animals and impose cruel treatment for amusing people.
The captivation of animals in zoos is commonly perceived by the general public as a positive feature. It is believed that zoos should exist because they help educate people about nature, save endangered species from extinction, and entertain people. In such a manner, the topic of animals’ life in zoos is perceived as one containing an array of advantages for both people and the animal world. However, the reality behind this perception is supported by validated scholarly evidence and demonstrates that zoos hurt animals. They endanger animals by harming their wellbeing, exploiting animals for financial profit, and violating fundamental animal rights. Therefore, zoos should be banned because the captivity in them adversely affects animals’ physical health and wellbeing, expose species to inhumane treatment and life in unnatural conditions, and constraint individual animals’ rights to freedom, dignity, and choice.
The Issue of Zoos as Perceived by the General Public
Common ideas that support the existence of zoos are mainly derived from the claims made by zoo managers who tend to validate the legitimacy and positive impact of their work. Wildlife parks authorize their activities by referring to efforts that provide favorable living conditions for exotic animals, as well as claim to be of educational and scientific usefulness to both the general public and academic circles. The perception of the problem, therefore, might be presented by three main conceptions.
Conservation Saves Endangered Species
Under the circumstances of the elevated criticism of zoos during the last several decades, the public tends to adhere to the idea that zoos persuade a noble goal of saving endangered specimens. It has been found that approximately one million species of plants and animals face difficulties surviving in the wild nature and are exposed to a high level of extinction risk (Ganzert). Accordingly, humans need to help nature restore endangered animals by conserving them in artificially created environments. It is regarded to be an influential effort that provides multiple opportunities to foster the increase of a particular species’ population before letting them live in the wild environment.
Such species as emperor penguins, southern rockhopper penguins, giraffes, and many others are recognized to be in danger of extinction within less than a century (Ganzert). Therefore, people need to collaborate, initiate funds, and provide the necessary support to launch new zoos and save animals from death in the wild.
This plan of action with the anticipated result of increasing the population of rare species has its reasons. According to Ganzert, such a significant increase in endangered animals and plants is rooted in the negative effect on humans. Indeed, as it is stated in the article, “the earth is becoming increasingly inhospitable thanks to irresponsible land and water use, climate change, pollution, and other man-made causes” (Ganzert par. 2). Consequently, people believe that they must save the planet’s habitat of animals by placing them in zoos and breeding them.
Zoos Educate the Public About Nature
The second way people perceive the problem concerns the educational and scientific potential of wildlife parks. People commonly perceive zoos as places where they can gain new knowledge about the natural world, see the animals, and interact with them for educational purposes (“21 Pros and Cons of Zoos”). The opportunity to observe how animals behave, how they interact with each other, and respond to human contact tends to encourage people to visit zoos. Moreover, the representatives of zoos initiate special educational programs, within which they “ravel to local schools to make presentations” and offer community-based collaboration to expand educational potential (“21 Pros and Cons of Zoos” par. 7). It is believed that the way animals behave in captivation reflects their natural behavior and provides a solid basis for research.
Zoos Exist to Entertain People
Importantly, many people perceive zoos as a type of amusement park which they can use for recreational purposes. For many years, visits to zoos have been associated with entertainment, pursuing which people take their children to amuse them and spend quality time by reuniting with nature. According to Gross, one of the most attractive features of zoos is the ability to watch beautiful or funny animals (391-392). Children, who are mostly drawn to zoos, like to take pictures and usually react positively to zoo attractions.
The Reality Behind Zoos’ Captivity of Animals
Despite the omnipresent claims perceived as the supporting evidence for the existence of zoos, there are particular pieces of evidence articulated by academics and scholars that provide a solid basis for claiming the opposite. The ongoing research in the field of biology, ethics, and bioethics, justifies the wrongful direction of zoos’ operations. Scholars present valid and relevant statements that refute the perceived side of the problem and draw on the reality and facts supported by proper evidence. It is important to present these facts when responding to the perception claims.
Zoos Endanger Animals
Although zoos emphasize their contribution to the process of saving nature, the methods they use do not necessarily ensure the protection of animals at the risk of extinction. As Wickins-Drazilova states, although zoos commonly claim their achievements in saving the populace of rare species by improving their “physical health, long life, and reproduction,” the effect is insufficient (27). Indeed, zoos fail to create a replica of a natural environment for different species. Due to the artificial surroundings and unnatural feeding, animals suffer from physical illnesses. This fact contradicts the claimed noble goal of zoos to protect animals.
Moreover, the species bred and raised in unnatural conditions encounter significant problems reintegrating wildlife after they are released. When in zoos, animals are exposed to such unnatural stressors as interaction with humans and closeness to species, which induce stress (Wickins-Drazilova 30). Also, zoos cannot provide such an element of wildlife as “climate, migration, or hunting” (Wickins-Drazilova 30). Thus, zoos endanger animals rather than save them from danger.
Another fact deals with such perceived determinants of animals’ wellbeing as reproduction. It is believed that if animals reproduce, they are treated well in captivity. However, it is not the truth because “there are species such as mountain gorillas, Sumatran rhinoceros, and giant pandas” that reproduce very rarely even when placed in good zoo conditions (Wickins-Drazilova 29). Thus, it is impossible to increase the population of such species by means available from zoos. Since the reason for animals’ extinction lies inhumane destructive behavior, it is more important to minimize harmful effects on the environment and, in such a way to help endangered species.
Zoos Promote Animal Exploitation
The demonstration of animals in an artificially created environment does not possess educational value. According to Browning, zoos do not present a valid basis for educational activities due to the unnatural existence conditions, in which animals are forced to live (487-488). It is inappropriate to educate new generations about nature using harmful means. Captivity and animal exploitation teach cruelty and do not provide grounds for learning about nature.
Importantly, the knowledge one can obtain from observing animal behavior in a zoo is biased due to the human-made environment and living conditions. Most animals do not demonstrate their natural behavioral patterns due to suffering and psychological illnesses. Indeed, it has been found that repetitive and compulsive behaviors animals demonstrate in captivity are the signs of so-called Zoochosis (Ramos). Therefore, animals should not be researched via zoos because it is not their natural environment; they cannot live in captivity the same way they would in the wild.
Zoos Violate Animals’ Rights
One of the most crucial facts that serve as a basis against zoos is their violation of animals’ rights to choice, freedom, and dignity. Being placed in an artificially created setting, exposed to unnatural interaction with humans and other species, as well as the continuous exposure to “management euthanasia” of the surplus populace, imposes significant ethical considerations (Browning 484). The main basis for such claims is that zoos and natural attractions centers treat animals as groups of species, whose number might be endangered and needs to be increased. On the contrary, animal rights activists treat animals as individual creatures that have their respective rights, which must be respected and thoroughly preserved (Cohn 659).
Within this realm, when animals are forced against their will to entertain people, their rights of choice and dignity are significantly violated. Moreover, the economic aspect that implies making a profit using animals as an attraction is unethical. Cruel treatment, euthanasia, continuous captivity in the unnatural environment cause significant harm to animals’ well—being and should be considered a substantial basis to ban zoos.
Conclusion
In summation, despite the overall positive public perception of animals in zoos, the real facts demonstrate that there are significant adverse effects zoos have on the representatives of fauna. Zoos refer to their activities as conservation efforts with the help of which they try to save endangered species. They unsuccessfully imitate the natural environment to keep animals imprisoned to educate and entertain the public.
However, animals should not be exploited and suffer from living in stressful conditions for the sake of the selfish desires of humans. Several scientifically validated facts serve to prove the inability of zoos to protect animals. Moreover, they demonstrate that the representatives of fauna suffer in captivity. It is vital to ban zoos as the places that endanger the populace, health, and wellbeing of animals. Different species should be treated with equal respect for their rights to dignity and freedom. Ultimately, banning the confinement of animals in zoos will help fight against injustice and will raise the public’s awareness concerning the needs of the environment and animals.
Works Cited
Browning, Heather. “No Room at the Zoo: Management Euthanasia and Animal Welfare.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 31, 2018, pp. 483-498.
Cohn, Jeffrey P. “Decisions at the Zoo.” BioScience, Vol. 42, No. 9, 1992, pp. 654-659.
Ganzert, Robin. “How Zoos and Aquariums Can Help Save 1 Million Species from Extinction.” USA Today, 2019. Web.
Gross, Michael. “Can Zoos Offer More than Entertainment?” Current Biology, vol. 25, no. 10, 2015, pp. 391-394.
“21 Pros and Cons of Zoos.” Vittana, 2020. Web.
Ramos, Jessica. “Zoochosis: The Disturbing Thing That Happens to Animals in Captivity.” Care2 Causes. Web.
Wickins-Drazilova, Dita. “Zoo Animal Welfare.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 19, 2006, pp. 27-36.