Animal Zoos Argumentative Essay Example

Introduction

Lately, zoos have become popular around the world due to a plethora of reasons including the need to protect endangered species of animals, climate change, destruction of natural habitats and to provide entertainment to visitors. However, the zoos also face some significant practical constraints including expertise, resources, space, and capacity. More often, zoos have to balance their conservation priorities against the entertainment goals in order to gain the financial resources required to maintain the facilities. Considering the background and using specific cases, this paper will outline the arguments for and against zoos as opposed to leaving animals in their natural habitat.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Background

The issue of zoos is a complex one and conservationists and animal rights activists have never agreed on the right way of going about the conservation agenda. On the one hand, zoos have played an important role in aiding in the survival of some of the endangered species in the past. However, having zoos means that the animals are inherently held captive away from their natural environment. Whichever the case, today, a significant population of the world's animals live in the hundreds and possibly thousands of zoos around the world, meaning that the debate between animal rights activists and animal conservationists is not about to end any time soon.

Discussion

Argument for Zoos

Zoos play an important conservation role, particularly in regards to endangered species because they provide a safe environment for the animals where they are safe from predators, starvation, elements of weather, habitat loss and poachers among others. Wildlife protection goes deep in the history of Zoos. Ben Minteer (2014), an associate professor of environmental ethics and conservation in Arizona state university explains that Bronx Zoo in New York led the captive breeding and reintroduction efforts that saved the American bison from extinction over a century ago. He observes that the development of Species Survival Plans in the 80s was important in creating a "healthy and genetically diverse animal population" of an endangered species across the zoo community (Minteer, 2014). Despite zoos' mixed track record, Minteer is right because the likes of black-footed ferret and the Arabian oryx have been saved largely due to the conservation efforts of the zoos.

Secondly, having animals in zoos is a good way of educating the public about wild animals as well as fostering a deeper appreciation of the animals. Today, the vast majority of people live in urban centers, away from the natural habitat of most of the animal species (Gray & Sartore, 2017). For those who cannot afford the expensive safaris to Africa and Asia, without the zoos, they might never encounter a wild animal elsewhere. Zoos expose the public to the animals and the resulting curiosity makes the people want to understand the animal and often this helps in the protection of the animal. Most of the zoos need money for their conservation agendas and it is only by making the animals accessible to the public that they can get donations and the cases like the killing of a giraffe in Copenhagen Zoo should not be used to undermine the educational importance of zoos around the world (Eriksen & Maev, 2014).

Argument against Zoos

It is a basic injustice to keep the animals in confined spaces, often for the amusement of the people. Most animals in the wild have a wide range in which they patrol in search of mates and prey. According to Van (2008), when in captivity, these animals are confined into small spaces, an aspect that is contrary to their natural behavior. Some animals like lions and tigers control very wide ranges in the wild but in the zoos, iron bars and concrete walls are all they get to know all their lives. Moreover, some of the decisions taken by zoo management are unethical. For example, Marius, a young and healthy giraffe was considered a surplus in the Copenhagen Zoo (Eriksen & Maev, 2014). The managers ordered that he should be killed on the grounds that his genes were well represented in the zoo system and hence, a surplus with no conservation value. As Eriksen and Maev observe, the Copenhagen zoo had in the past conducted the "public dissection of snakes, zebras, and goats, but the giraffe was a first" (Eriksen & Maev, 2014). That ability to decide when an animal should live or die should not be placed in the hands of people in the first place to the people, all that is amusement because it is not their lives in the line.

Conclusion

The paper has outlined some of the major arguments for and against zoos as opposed to leaving animals in their natural habitat. As examined, keeping animals in the zoo is essential for educational and conservation agendas. As revealed, some of the animal species today owe their survival to the zoos' conservation efforts. However, it has also been revealed that zoos hold the animals in captivity and some of the zoos implement unethical decisions that determine whether an animal should live or die, a decision that should not be made by man.

References

Eriksen, L., & Maev, K. (2014, Feb 9). Marius the giraffe killed at Copenhagen zoo despite worldwide protests. The Guardian.

Gray, J., & Sartore, J. (2017). Zoo ethics: The challenges of compassionate conservation. New York: Comstock Publishing Associates, a division of Cornell University Press

Minteer, B. (2014, Oct 31). How zoos can save our animals. World Economic Forum.

Van, T. C. (2008). Zoos and animal welfare. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.