The Role of Zoos in Conservation: Ethical Considerations Essay

For many centuries, zoos have served as a way of both educating and entertaining various audiences around the world. However, many ethical and moral concerns have arisen recently regarding the manner in which the animals in these facilities are treated. Zoos disregard the rights of animals because the audiences and employees treat them poorly and animals are unable to thrive in the small enclosures. Journalist Michelle Carr is correct in her claim about the harsh reality of zoos. Even though authors Leslie Kaufman and John Pickrell are accurate when they claim that many zoos serve as educational and conservational institutions, this does not excuse the fact that zoos take advantage of animals in order to make money.

Zoos, rehabilitation institutions, and many other environmental centers provide opportunities for the public to witness animals that cannot be seen on a daily basis. Whether to keep animals in captivity is morally hard to decide, especially for me personally. In the essay, “Against Zoos,” by Dale Jamieson, he writes about the positives zoos provide, and then reiterates them; making positives turn into negatives. Jamieson makes statements about humans being superior over animals, and how we should not be thinking that we are better. We tend to take a lead role over other species, because of our “higher intelligence.” That should not mean that we treat wildlife as if they are something lower than us. In more ways than one, we as humans are

In the article “Zoos Are Cruel and Unnecessary,” Earth Times posed a question, “With the internet, as well as DVDs, 3D TV, etc., are zoos really necessary to teach people about animals in the 21st century?” In the response given by Liz Tyson, director of the Captive Animals’ Protection Society, she argues an animal and its environment in a zoo is “out of context” and there is no substitution for an animal’s natural habitat. Therefore, viewing animals in such environments distorts the message that a zoo’s primary purpose is to conserve these habitats in the wild. By focusing solely on the artificial habitats, Tyson fails to mention the educational opportunities that zoos and zoological parks can provide, such as interactive visitor programs, breeding and rehabilitation programs, and up-close animal encounters.

Zoos have become a very visited place over a person’s lifetime, whether it be for an educational school field trip or for a day of fun. It’s a wonderful experience to be able to see animals up close in a controlled environment, keeping visitors safe from these animals, however do visitors think of what the animals are going through? Zoos are not providing enough space for captivated animals to live causing numerous problems not only involving the animals, but some visitors as well. Zoos should not be allowed to hold animals in captivity unless they significantly increase the size of each cage (change cage into something else).

Zoos are internment camps for animals, and it should be shut down because of all the mistreatment and bad effects it has caused on animals. These bad effects and mistreatment can be summarized to three major points, which are:

Zoos present a certain blend of nature and culture. They have always provided a way to bring natural wildlife and urban Americans together as a means of entertainment. Yet, throughout the years the role of zoos have changed. Though once used for amusement, zoos are now being used for education on preservation and the welfare of endangered species. One may wonder where and how the idea of zoos started and just how they, and the environment around them, have changed throughout history.

Thesis: All zoos should be overhauled and replaced with free-range territories or back into the wild to help these animals avoid the detrimental effects that zoo’s cause on their health and to stop teaching people that is okay to imprison these animals.

The majority of the people in the US have visited a zoo and seen the many creatures within the walls. But is this right to do? To capture animals, injured or not from their natural habitat and confine them to small limited area to which they begin to lose their natural instincts? An article written by Alison Benjamin and Toby Moses named “Should Zoos be Banned?” goes into detail about their opinions on zoosa and whether or not zoos should stay or be banned. Their article argues both point, the pros of staying by Benjamin and the cons of banning by Moses. A few key points they point out are: the educational purpose, animal behavior, breeding and human enjoyment.

Since approximately 1250 B.C., ancient Egyptians had created and practiced the capture and display of animals in what are now known as zoos (Fravel). Records describe such exotic animals as birds, lions, giraffes, and tigers in captivity (Fravel). Since then, zoos have continued to entertain millions with the exciting chance to view exotic animals up close and personal. Even in ancient Greece, exotic animals were on display in fighting arenas, and in enclosed viewing areas. Originally in America, zoos were just created so that royalty and the wealthy could flaunt their exotic animals to the public (Leolupus). Today, with species threatened and habitats disappearing worldwide, zoos are serving a new purpose other than the mere exhibition of

Zoos are often a sore subject amongst many now that in this era a portion of the population considers animals outside of the human race to be moral agents. Since the beginning of the idea of zoos, institutions considering themselves have come to have a different mission behind the captivity of animals. Normally when the word zoo is used, people would probably think of a small enclosure made of cement and steel bars. But did you know that are technically two types of zoos? The terms accredited and non-accredited zoos will be used throughout this essay, but what do those words entail? A zoo is either considered accredited, where they go through habitual inspections to make sure everything about the facility is up to par to ensure the healthy living of the animals taken care of by staff, or nonaccredited, which would most likely fit the idea of a roadside zoo. Accredited zoos are

“This may audio like a respectable objective, but zoo authorities usually advantage unique or popular animals—who entice crowds of people and publicity—rather than confronted or insecure local wildlife.” (Zoos: Miserable Prisons) “The China govt, for example, “rents” pandas to zoos globally for charges of more than $1 thousand per year, but some query whether the earnings are being instructed toward panda-conservation initiatives at all.” (Zoos: Miserable Prisons) “Most animals located in zoos are not insecure, and those who are will likely never be launched into organic settings.” (Zoos: Miserable Prisons) “Choosing zoos as a way for varieties maintenance, moreover to being costly and of uncertain efficiency, has serious moral issues.” (Animals for Entertainment) “Keeping animals in

There are animal preservation groups that don’t require putting these wide ranges of species in captivity. Their sole purpose is to help injured animals or species that are going extinct, and release them back into the wild where they belong. I think that zoos should be abolished unless they change into sanctuaries where injured animals are taken in, helped, and released back into the wild immediately. Zoos would still be allowed to do this in front of public eyes. Animals should never be held captive and “research” is never an excuse. Animals can be researched while in the wild where they are in their most natural and happy state. Zoos do not do this. Zoos claim that they are helping animal species when in reality they’re hurting them and torturing animals to the point of depression and insanity. There is no justification for shooting animals when they act up because they shouldn’t be in those situations in the first place. Animal instincts should not change. Wild animals aren’t meant to be ‘tamed’ in order to provide entertainment to the public. Most zoo visitors say they don’t take away any real connection afterwards so zoos really don’t have any righteous or moral

When people go on a trip to the zoo, it can be assumed that they do not think about much more than what they can see. Signals that make zoos unfair and sometimes unbearable for the captive animals are not visible to most spectators. This essay will explain how zoos are unjust and should not be supported. Animals should not be held captive due their negative behavioral changes, lack of natural habitat and the zoos failure to effectively preserve endangered species.

The main aim of zoos is to protect and conserve global biodiversity and wildlife. To do this they have four roles to play which are; research, conservation, education and welfare.

Given that over five million animals are kept in zoos and aquariums around the world, ethical questions about keeping animals in such environments should be given serious consideration (Garner 2005: 140). In this essay, I shall evaluate the practice of keeping animals in zoos and aquariums from a utilitarian perspective, an approach which I will offer reasons for adopting. In doing so, I will reflect upon what it means to be held captive in such institutions, before critically analysing two principal justifications that are used in support of zoos and aquariums. Namely, that they provide worthwhile benefits in terms of education, and wildlife conservation. But first, I will consider the moral status of animals, and make a case that animals are indeed deserving of moral status, which should prompt us to carefully consider whether we can justify keeping them in zoos and aquariums.