zoos are unethical essay

• 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.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public—yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

• University of Southern California

• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Brandeis University
• Northeastern University
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

A Brief History of Zoos

Arguments for zoos, arguments against zoos, the last word on zoos.

A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible—often in small, cramped conditions—the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many  animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals—even in efforts to fend off extinction—cannot be justified. Let's dive into whether zoos are ethical and if they truly encourage education and conservation.

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2,500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens.  Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment when scientific interest in zoology and the study of animal behavior and anatomy came to the fore.

Early zoos were a dismal affair. Animals were kept in small enclosures with little if any, greenery. With a scant understanding of what the various animals needed, many perished relatively quickly. In accredited zoos in the United States and globally, things are better. Primates have gone from barren cages with little furniture to naturalistic and sometimes semi-free-ranging designs. But is it enough?

• By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.
• Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment for protection from poachers , habitat loss, starvation, and predators.
• Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species . In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.
• Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.
• Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."
• A good zoo provides an enriched habitat where the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.
• Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary. People are more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward animals.
• Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or can no longer care for.
• Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for animal care.
• From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals— even if those species are endangered . Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.
• Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen—no matter how humane—or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild .
• Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.
• Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new babies leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold to other zoos, circuses , and hunting facilities . Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.
• Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild . The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos .
• Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also challenging. 
• If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary . (A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.)
• The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) establishes minimal standards for cage size, shelter, healthcare, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.
• Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla , was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo . While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.
• Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

In making a case for or against zoos and whether zoos are ethical, both sides argue that they're saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they do make money. As long as demand remains, zoos will continue to exist.

Since zoos are likely inevitable, the best way to move forward is to ensure zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished but denied any future access to animals.

One day we may look back at zoos and marvel at their barbarity. Or, one day we may look back at zoos and be grateful for the species they saved from extinction. Of these two scenarios, only time will tell.

Hosey, Geoff, et al. Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and Welfare . Oxford University Press. 2013.

Hosey, G. (2023). The History of Primates in Zoos . In: Robinson, L.M., Weiss, A. (eds) Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Springer, Cham.

“ Species Survival Plan Programs .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

“ Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Meagher, Rebecca K., Georgia J. Mason. “ Environmental Enrichment Reduces Signs of Boredom in Caged Mink .” PLoS ONE , vol. 7, 2012, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049180

Kleiman, Devra G., et al. Wild Mammals In Captivity: Principles And Techniques For Zoo Management, Second Edition . University of Chicago Press. 2010.

Gunasekera, Crystal Allen. “ The Ethics of Killing “Surplus” Zoo Animals .” Journal of Animal Ethics , vol. 8, 2018, doi:10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0093

Brichieri-Colombi, Typhenn A., et al. “ Limited Contributions of Released Animals from Zoos to North American Conservation Translocations .” Conservation Biology , vol. 33, 2019, pp. 33-39., doi:10.1111/cobi.13160

Krasnec, Michelle O., et al. “ Mating Systems in Sexual Animals .” Nature Education Knowledge, vol. 3, no. 10, 2012, p. 72.

“ 9 CFR § 3.128 - Space Requirements .” Cornell University Legal Information Institute .

“ Animal Welfare Act Enforcement .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Conrad, Cheyenne C. Conrad et al. " Farm Fairs and Petting Zoos: A Review of Animal Contact as a Source of Zoonotic Enteric Disease ." Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, vol. 14, 2017, pp. 59-73., doi:10.1089/fpd.2016.2185

• Arguments for and Against Hunting
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• How Animal Rights Activists View Zoos Keeping Endangered Species
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• Horse Racing and Animal Rights
• Key Facts About Animal Abuse
• Is Pet Ownership Ethical?
• Overview of Animal Cruelty
• Overview of the Animal Welfare Act
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• Police Search and Rescue Dogs: The Animal Rights Debate
• Historical Timeline of the Animal Rights Movement
• The Argument for Animal Rights

The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Stress and boredom, no right to protection and safety, ‘surplus’ animals, works cited.

Albert Einstein once said: “Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty” (Popova). This statement may be understood if one considers people’s usual efforts to support animals and nature. Deforestation, water pollution, and other processes harm the environment and all living creatures because humans only have compassion for themselves, not for nature as a whole. Zoos are daily examples of people’s indifference and cruelty towards other species. Although zoos are often seen as significant in today’s society, they are actually a way of imprisoning animals while harming them in doing so. This opinion is proved by the fact that living creatures in captivity suffer from boredom and stress, cannot protect themselves or escape danger, and are killed instantly if considered to be ‘surplus’ individuals.

The first argument against zoos to discuss is the lack of interesting activities, joy, and ways to get rid of stress that animals can access in the wild. Such circumstances make living creatures in captivity stressed, bored, and confined. First, according to Bashaw et al., who examined behavior patterns of captivated and wild tigers and lions, animals in zoos tend to be more pessimistic, passive, and indifferent (95). Bashaw et al. notice that “in captivity, they spend the most time on exhibit sleeping or pacing,” not being able to hunt or socialize properly, and the way most zoos are projected also contributes to animals’ boredom and reduced activity (95). Thus, chain-link fencing may be a source of uncontrolled sensory contact for many animals, interfering with their behavior patterns.

Further, it is well-known that humans experiencing deprivation are at risk of developing various mental issues, like anxiety or depression, and losing their interest in life. The same happens to many captivated animals: “Elephants, orcas and other animals with large brains are likely to react in similar ways to life in a severely stressful environment” (Jacobs). Moreover, the term ‘zoochosis’ describes how living creatures in zoos perform unhealthy activities like swaying, rocking, self-mutilation, and others. It happens because they are held in captivity without any possibility of being engaged in common for their actions.

The second argument that highlights unethical zoo practices refers to the fact that animals are deprived of any opportunity to protect themselves or escape danger. One may wonder what kind of danger animals in a zoo can be exposed to in the first place. Unfortunately, most cases are related to humans’ foolishness and irresponsibility: for example, many zoos are unable or unwilling to make sure that no contact between animals and visiting people is possible.

As service providers, zoos have an obligation to keep people and animals safe, but their protection mostly covers the former. For instance, if a person accidentally falls into an animal’s enclosure, even a not curious or aggressive animal can be killed by the zoo staff in order to save the person. One terrible story of a gorilla named Harambe being murdered after a boy fell in its cage is told by Gambone. Unfortunately, since “we prioritize the entertainment or even the education of humans first, rather than the needs, especially the need for freedom, of self-aware, autonomous nonhuman beings like Harambe, they will continue to die” (Gambone). In situations like this, the creature cannot defend itself or escape. Moreover, with inadequate behavior of visitors, the animal may try to attack for self-defense but will also suffer.

Finally, there is also a shocking and unethical practice when zoos get rid of animals that are considered excess or ‘surplus.’ Statistics are terrifying: according to Bekoff, “European zoos kill as many as 5,000 healthy animals every year” merely because these individuals are no longer useful, pretty, or profitable. This inhumane practice again proves the need to apply stricter control over zoos or eliminate such places. When zoos need more room for younger animals to attract more visitors or reproductive animals to become more profitable, they terminate healthy individuals and may sometimes even make it a show in front of the audience (Shuchat). In other words, these terminations are not euthanasia but actual murders because there is no mercy in them (Bekoff). This practice also demonstrates that animals are considered property that can be thrown away when no longer needed.

To draw a conclusion, one may say that zoos are not a significant and ethical part of the modern world but places where animals are imprisoned and deprived of their rights. In the wild, different species have more opportunities to engage in their common activities, and in captivity, they suffer from boredom, stress, and depression. Moreover, animals in zoos are valued and protected less than visitors, and they cannot even escape when facing danger. In cases when they try to defend themselves, animals merely get killed. Finally, there are also situations when they are cruelly murdered because of being considered ‘surplus.’ Therefore, it is recommended that people get more information about the zoos they visit and avoid such unethical places.

Bashaw, Meredith J., et al. “Environmental Effects on the Behavior of Zoo-Housed Lions and Tigers, with a Case Study of the Effects of a Visual Barrier on Pacing.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science , vol. 10, no. 2, 2007, pp. 95-109.

Bekoff, Mark. “ Zoothanasia: The Cruel Practice of Killing Healthy Zoo Animals .” Salon, Web.

Gambone, Emily. “ Why We Fight for Nonhuman Rights: Harambe’s Story .” Nonhuman Rights Project, Web.

Jacobs, Bob. “The Neural Cruelty of Captivity: Keeping Large Mammals in Zoos and Aquariums Damages Their Brains.” AP News , Web.

Popova, Maria. “ Einstein on Widening Our Circles of Compassion .” The Marginalia , Web.

Shuchat, Shimon. “ Honoring Animals Purposely Killed by Zoos on World Zoothanasia Day .” In Defense of Animals , Web.

• Social and Behavioral Science: Animals in Society
• Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages
• The Effectiveness of Sustainable Practices, Plans, Programs and Initiatives Implemented by Australian Zoo
• The Analysis of Siamangs’ Behavior in a Zoo Setting
• Negotiating: Pandas in San Diego Zoo Case
• Happy Cows Case: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Kitties
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry
• Wearing Clothes Made of Animal Fur
• Animal Sentience: Impact on Animal Welfare Movement
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 9). The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/

"The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals." IvyPanda , 9 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals'. 9 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals." January 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals." January 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals." January 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/.

• Designers + Brands
• Style + Trends
• Watches + Jewelry
• Founders Picks
• Wine + Spirits
• Destinations
• Hotels + Resorts
• Travel Guides
• Environment
• Transportation
• Bath + Body
• Skincare + Makeup
• Psychedelics
• Gender-Neutral

Is it ever ethical to visit a zoo? And what about sanctuaries, are they any better? The truth is the waters are a little bit murky on the issue.

Zoos have been around for so long, it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when the first one opened its doors. But we do know it was likely in ancient times. In Egypt, tourists can visit the archeological site of Nehken, where the remains of old mummified captive animals, like hippos, an elephant, and baboons, lie. But the modern zoo industry in the U.S., of course, started many centuries later — in late 1800s Philadelphia. Since then, the business of keeping animals captive has exploded. 

Right now, IBISWorld notes there are 384 zoos and aquariums in the U.S. alone. But the actual number is likely much higher because unaccredited roadside zoos are also rife across the country. Tigers in America reports there are more than 3,000 roadside zoos — which are essentially just small private menageries with wild animals — in the U.S., all of which are unregulated.

Are zoos ethical? 

If we break the “are zoos ethical?” question down into a black-and-white answer then, no, zoos are not ethical. They hold animals captive, restrict their natural behaviors, and exploit them for profit. On the face of it, it all seems quite clear: zoos are bad for animals. It could also be argued that they’re bad for humans, too, by perpetuating a narrative that we are entitled to continue exerting oppressive behavior over others.

This is the view of most animal rights organizations and activists. “Many animals suffer in captivity as zoos can never recreate the complex environment [animals] are adapted to live in,” notes Frankie Osuch, policy support officer for U.K. nonprofit Born Free, noted in a blog post. “Deprived of their natural habitat and social structures, zoo animals can often suffer physical and psychological ailments not experienced by their wild counterparts.”

This is true. Zoochosis is a psychological condition that refers to stereotypical behaviors displayed by animals in captivity. It involves stress-induced behaviors that are “highly repetitive, invariant, and functionless” according to Born Free. So think of things like pacing, licking, or swaying, for example. PETA, the largest animal rights organization in the world, also agrees that zoos are wrong. But the group’s recent actions also indicate that the situation surrounding zoos and ethics isn’t black and white, and actually, it is perhaps more of a sliding scale.

Enter: The grey area 

In 2022, PETA rescued more than 60 animals from a roadside zoo in Maryland, called Tri-State Zoological Park. According to the animal rights organization, a legal settlement forced the facility to close “after years of violations” including chronic neglect. But inevitably, it needed somewhere to place these animals. So it looked not just to reputable sanctuaries, but also accredited, trusted zoos, like Oakland Zoo in California. 

“We are incredibly grateful to our zoo and sanctuary partners for helping us,” said PETA’s general counsel for captive animal law enforcement Brittany Peet. “If we didn’t have reputable zoos, such as Oakland Zoo, these animals would have to stay with neglectful owners, like Bob Candy [the owner of Tri-State Zoological Park], where they would be mistreated for years.” Unlike roadside zoos, Oakland Zoo is accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA), which means it has certain animal welfare standards it must uphold. It also has the expertise, finances, and infrastructure to give rescued animals a decent place to recover from abuse and neglect.

Does accredited mean ethical?

While it is still a zoo, Oakland Zoo also aims to encompass the values of a sanctuary, in the sense that it actively prioritizes the safe rescue and care of vulnerable animals. Not all zoos behave this way, even if they are accredited. Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, for example, is accredited by AZA, but the establishment has been named on In Defense of Animals’ “Worst Zoos for Elephants” list more than once.

“Cincinnati Zoo’s current elephant exhibit is a mere single acre and houses four Asian elephants. It deceptively claims renovations to its “Elephant Trek,” scheduled to be completed in 2024, will increase the space by five times from its current miserly 1 acre. This adds up to just 5 acres, but only 4 acres are for the elephants, which is still tiny,” notes the nonprofit. “The rest of the space goes to ticket holders as paths, picnic areas and gardens, and an event space that can accommodate 250 people,” it continues. “If the zoo’s breeding plans work, the elephants’ space will get even smaller.”

This brings up another tricky point: breeding. While many zoos claim they have animal conservation intentions with their breeding programs, bringing more animals into captivity instead of spending money to support vulnerable populations in the wild, is controversial. “The world is in the midst of an extinction crisis, but zoos do not offer a viable solution,” notes Osuch. “We must aspire to protect wild animals where they belong – in the wild.”

The bottom line: avoid zoos and support sanctuaries, where possible

The zoo issue is complicated. Sometimes they offer the necessary space and conditions for vulnerable animals, and sometimes they are nothing but exploitative. But as visitors, we can keep things very simple. Before you visit or give money to an establishment or organization, first, do your research. If a zoo keeps animals in small cages, it’s an immediate no-go. The same if it offers any form of paid interactions with animals (like holding tiger cubs, for example). These are likely roadside zoos, and they are not only cruel and exploitative to animals, but dangerous to people too. (See: Tiger King .) But you should also be wary of bigger zoos, even if they are accredited, as is the case with the Cincinnati Zoo, for example. Read reviews, news reports, and there’s something to be said for following your animal instincts: if it doesn’t feel right to you, it probably isn’t.

But this doesn’t mean you should avoid seeing animals completely. The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) accredits real, reputable rescue centers and sanctuaries that are doing their best for abandoned, injured, and displaced animals. But be wary of facilities that use the word “sanctuary” without accreditation or evidence to back it up, as these may be roadside zoos in disguise. “GFAS’ definition of “sanctuary” is any facility providing temporary or permanent safe haven to animals in need while meeting the principles of true sanctuaries,” it notes. “[This means] providing excellent and humane care for their animals in a non-exploitative environment and having ethical policies in place.”

For more guidance on the best animal facilities to visit, you can find all of the sanctuaries accredited by GFAS here . 

Related on Ethos:

• Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Will Return. The Animals Won’t.
• ‘Mesoscale’ Ocean Sanctuaries May Be the Best Hope for Saving Coral Reefs
• Is Cotton Fabric Sustainable? Turns Out, It’s Complicated
• Fur May Be Out of Style, But Animal Cruelty In Fashion Hasn’t Gone Anywhere
• Human-Wildlife Conflicts Are Rising, and, Spoiler Alert: It’s Because of the Climate Crisis

Miu Miu: the Luxury Fashion Brand of the Moment

The homeware brands bringing comfort and ethics to every room of the house.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > From Farm to Zoo - The Quest for Animal Welfare [Working Title]

The Value and Ethical Status of Zoos

Submitted: 20 November 2023 Reviewed: 15 December 2023 Published: 30 April 2024

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.114119

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

From Farm to Zoo - The Quest for Animal Welfare [Working Title]

Dr. Jaco Bakker and Dr. Melissa Delagarza

Chapter metrics overview

52 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Ethical concerns surrounding the existence of zoos have recently come to the fore. Some argue for the complete phasing-out of zoos, citing concerns about the limitations they impose on animal liberty and dignity, coupled with perceived minimal benefits to both humans and animals. However, these arguments tend to downplay the potential value that zoos offer in terms of human enjoyment, educational opportunities, research initiatives, and conservation efforts. Moreover, they overlook other significant benefits zoos provide such as the positive impact of human-animal interactions and opportunities to appreciate nature’s beauty. Finally, zoo critics often emphasize the negative effects of zoos on animals while neglecting the substantial efforts made by zoos toward animal welfare research and implementation. By accurately recognizing the multifaceted values that zoos can provide and ensuring the highest standards of animal care, a strong case can be made for their continued existence and importance.

• animal welfare
• human-animal interactions
• esthetic value of nature

Author Information

Alan vincelette *.

• Pretheology, St. John’s Seminary, Camarillo, California, USA

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Institutions that place animals in captivity have increasingly come under attack of late, including circuses, aquariums, zoos, research laboratories, factory farms, and, in some cases, animal sanctuaries and domestic households. Critics have argued that holding animals in captivity violates their right to autonomy or dignity, or is harmful to their overall welfare [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Such claims have been especially common in regard to highly intelligent mammals such as elephants, polar bears, lions, and primates. Given their needs for intellectual stimulation and freedom of exploration, various ethicists have alleged that such creatures do not belong in captivity [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Philosophers have even written legal briefs alleging mistreatment of such mammals in zoos and aquariums [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].

This paper examines the arguments against maintaining captive animals in zoos, especially mammals [ 14 ], and responds to them. Some critics allege that zoos fail to provide for animal welfare to a sufficient degree to justify their existence, at least for sentient beings [ 15 ]. Others [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]) argue that in depriving animals of liberty and a natural way of life zoos are unable to furnish them a satisfying life. Finally, there are critics who claim that zoos are fundamentally oppressive in unauthentically offering up animals for display for human pleasure [ 19 , 20 , 21 ].

Against these critiques, this paper asserts that such authors exaggerate the harm done by zoos and the degree to which zoos are unable to provide for animal welfare. It looks at the extensive research on and changes made in zoos to provide satisfying lives for zoo creatures by allowing for a great degree of species-specific behavior and minimizing the presence of deleterious stereotypies. In addition, there are several values which, if properly understood, justify the holding of animals in captivity in zoos. Zoo critics often inaccurately minimize the ability of zoos to provide for research, education, and conservation. And the ability of zoos to offer human entertainment, foster human-animal interactions (a good for both parties), and allow for esthetic appreciation of nature is significant. With an accurate assessment of the welfare of animals in zoos, and an appreciation of the diverse values zoos can provide, there is every reason to see zoos as important cultural and conservational institutions that can and should continue to exist.

2. The ethical critique of zoos

Various philosophers have argued that the confinement of animals in zoos, or at least certain mammalian species, cannot be morally justified. Typically such a view is based either upon utilitarian grounds and a concern for animal welfare, or upon animal rights and a concern for animal freedom or dignity [ 14 ]. While noting that zoos have much improved in their ability to care for animals and not cause them overt physical or psychological harm, nevertheless many critics assert that it is still problematic to confine animals in zoos due to their being deprived of a fundamental right to liberty or of dignity [ 22 ]. It is not enough for zoos to provide for animal welfare (often cached in terms of the freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, or disease, fear and distress [ 23 , 24 ]), nor a satisfying mental state, nor even to have large and naturalistic enclosures; rather zoos must enable the animals in them to enact the same (or very similar) behaviors that they do in the wild. This is something, however, that zoos, by their very nature, are often unable to do.

One of the earliest such critics was Dale Jamieson. Jamieson argued in his essays “Against Zoos” (1985) and “Zoos Revisited” (1995) that zoos involve “taking animals out of their native habitats, transporting them great distances, and keeping them in alien environments in which their liberty is severely restricted” ([ 17 ], p. 167). Consequently, zoos deprive animals of the good of behaving in ways natural to them, including the seeking and gathering of food, interacting with members of the same species in complex ways, and developing a social order. There is thus a moral presumption against keeping animals captive in zoos, as it deprives them of their interest in liberty; and such captivity would still be illicit even if zoo animals led overall less painful and more pleasant lives than their wild counterparts. Nor are the overall contributions zoos make to entertainment, education, research, and conservation enough to overcome this moral presumption, and indeed these ends could be accomplished in other ways, such as through films. Zoos, wherein human beings treat animals as “there for our pleasure, to be used for our purposes” ([ 17 ], p. 175), ought then to be abolished.

Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce argue along similar lines regarding zoo life that “Good welfare is not and can never be good enough … [as] the animals on display suffer from huge losses of freedom” ([ 16 ], p. 94). For even if zoos furnish naturalistic and enriched habitats (with varied and unpredictable environments with some capacity for exploration and play), and the animals there do not display any behaviors suggestive of poor physical or mental health, zoos still deprive animals of important freedoms, namely freedom of control and the ability to engage in the full range of behaviors indicative of their species. There are always limits on the behavioral choices available to zoo creatures. Coupled with the fact that visitors often do not learn much about animals at zoos, visiting each exhibit for a short period, nor leave the zoo much more likely to get involved in conservation efforts, zoos should be replaced with more enlightened animal sanctuaries that are either closed to the public or allow very limited access [ 25 ].

Tzachi Zamir, while defending the ethical legitimacy of companion and farm animals on the basis of their being able to live qualitatively satisfying lives, argues that placing animals in zoos cannot be similarly justified [ 18 ]. Just as it would be unwarranted to confine humans to cages, or to remove human infants from their parents, even in order to improve their overall wellbeing or extend their lives, so too placing animals in zoos is impermissible, even were their welfare to be enhanced. For most species of animals in the zoo (unlike companion and farm animals who owe their very existence to being placed in paternal relationships with humans) are capable of living in the wild apart from human interventions. Placing such creatures in zoos, therefore, whose exhibits can place severe restrictions on their movements (especially with birds, canines, felines, and primates), and are contraindicative to behaviors they would naturally engage in in the wild, is not in their best interest [ 18 ].

Other critics stress the inauthentic and imperialistic nature of zoos [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Zoos involve the “praxis of imperialism,” opines Randy Malamud, wherein animals are taken out of their natural environments, confined, and exploited as “subalterns,” that is to say, placed on convenient display and subject to the gaze of countless spectators ([ 21 ], pp. 58-59). In addition, zoos are inauthentic as they fundamentally misrepresent and oversimplify the nature of the animals on exhibit ([ 21 ], p. 29). Visitors to zoos are duped into believing that the animals housed there show the full scale of behaviors they possess in the wild. Zoos, in the end, are unethical speciest institutions that unjustly confine animals and pander to base human interests. It is no wonder that Malamud thinks we should shutter zoos, when he describes them as “prisons for kidnapped, alienated, tortured specimens who are forced to live their lives in vastly unsuitable compounds for the titillation of ignorant crowds brought in by marketing and advertising campaigns that promise highbrow ecological experiences but actually pander to audiences’ less noble cravings for amusement parks, or even freakshows” ([ 30 ], p. 397).

Ralph Acampora highlights this deceptive nature of zoos ([ 19 ], p. 77). Zoos present as wild (animals exhibiting the natural behaviors they would perform in the wild as if visitors were not there) what is captive (animals as spectacle and exhibition in a “zoopticon” where they are subject to the gaze of humans). Indeed, zoos undermine the very conditions of encounter with a wild animal that they claim to provide. Zoo creatures are displayed as if at liberty, whereas, in reality, they “are incapable of living the lives they are purported to enjoy; they are prevented from participating in behavior presented as their defining characteristics. Precisely because they are unable to elude the gaze of others, to associate or refuse to associate with human beings, they are prevented from living the lives they are supposed to have” ([ 19 ], p. 78). Zoos then should be replaced with institutions that present animals more authentically such as certain types of animal orphanages or wildlife sanctuaries.

The zoo critic Lori Gruen [ 20 ], along with others [ 31 , 32 ], has more recently taken up the same hammer and wedge. Gruen argues that zoos deprive animals of autonomy and dignity. Even the best zoos, those with naturalistic enclosures, are often dignity denying as they place animals under constant surveillance, deny them privacy or any hiding place to which they can retreat, and force them to be spectacles on display for humans ([ 20 ], pp. 240-245). Zoos, in fact, “are designed to create a relationship between the human observer and the object of the observation that obscures the individuality and dignity of the animals. The enclosures are designed to satisfy human interests and desires, even though they largely fail at this. At worst the experience creates a relationship in which the observer, even a child, has a feeling of dominant distance over those being observed” ([ 20 ], p. 242). Zoos also deprive animals of autonomy for Gruen [ 33 , 34 ]. Zoo animals do not have the freedom to follow their own interests and engage in the behaviors typical of their species but instead are under the almost complete control of humans. They cannot choose where to dwell, nor the individuals with whom to spend time or to mate. Nor are zoo animals allowed to engage in ritualized combat to determine social hierarchies or territories. Zoos may not strictly speaking harm animals physically or psychologically, but, on account of their violating the dignity and autonomy of animals, they should be replaced with animal sanctuaries utilized primarily for conservation purposes.

While not rejecting the propriety of zoos altogether, several ethicists have proclaimed that they should be greatly modified in nature or limited in scope. For such thinkers, zoos should ideally only house animals that otherwise could not survive in the wild, or those that can be temporarily bred and reintroduced into the wild, and should generally be closed to the public [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].

Emma Marris, for example, holds that the keeping of large mammals in zoos should definitely be phased out [ 40 ]. According to Marris, the fact that many large animals, such as elephants and lions, display stereotypies in the zoo and will escape from their cages when possible, indicates that they are not happy there. Moreover, the effectiveness of zoos in conservation is minimal. Though there have been a few successful reintroductions of species into the wild, the vast majority of zoo animals will spend their entire lives in captivity. Nor is there unambiguous evidence of the educational contribution of zoos to promoting conservation. People, in fact, says Marris, “do not go to zoos to learn about the biodiversity crisis or how they can help. They go to get out of the house, to get their children some fresh air, to see interesting animals. They go for the same reason people went to zoos in the ninetieth century: to be entertained” [ 40 ]. Indeed, suggests Marris, most animals in zoos should be put in refugees or allowed to live out their natural lives without being replaced. In the end zoos should house just a few animals–namely, endangered species with a real chance of being released back into the wild and some rescues, and the rest of their space dedicated to botanical gardens.

A similar view is found in the well-known philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who builds her case to limit the species kept in zoos on a capabilities approach [ 41 ]. In order for animals to flourish, argues Nussbaum, they must be able to manifest the capacities of life, health, integrity, sense, imagination, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, relations with other species, play, and control over their environment ([ 41 ], pp. 95-108). On a capabilities approach then it is not enough for zoos to ensure the absence of pain and presence of pleasure in captive animals (an area in which zoos have greatly improved, admits Nussbaum), zoos must also provide environs in which animals can lead the particular “form of life” characteristic of their species, including activities such as play, self-direction, affiliation, sensory stimulation, and even predation. A confined space is justifiable “if and only if the animals within it have access to their characteristic form of life, spatially, sensorily, nutritionally, socially, emotionally” ([ 41 ], p. 239). Nussbaum grants that zoos often support valuable research, and conservation efforts. Yet it is not clear how, for many species, they can provide for a “social life and free movement in a group-typical space” ([ 41 ], p. 239). In the end Nussbaum favors the continued presence in zoos of small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, non-migratory birds, monkeys, and some apes, but is less confident that zoos can provide the necessary environments for large mammals such as rhinos, giraffes, elephants, polar bears, cheetahs, hyenas, lions, and tigers–unless temporarily and where there are no other alternatives for a species facing extinction in the wild.

Finally, Stephen Bennett recently advanced a utilitarian argument against the keeping of sentient animals in zoos (Bennett allows the keeping of non-sentient animals, however) [ 15 ]. Bennett claims that sentient animals will suffer from frustration and unhappiness if prevented from moving about and acting upon their natural desires as they could do in the wild. Hence they experience pain under the constraints on freedom imposed by zoos ([ 15 ], pp. 178-179). Furthermore, Bennett argues, invoking the antinatalism of David Benatar [ 42 ], that, all things being equal, it is better for a sentient being not to have come into existence at all, thereby avoiding the experience of any pain, than it is to come into existence and experience pleasure. That is to say, other things being equal, the harms that occur while existing outweigh the benefits. Now if it could be shown that zoos actively promote conservation efforts then this could compensate for the harms that occur during captivity; however, zoos have achieved few successful reintroductions of animals into the wild. Thus captive breeding programs, which merely bring into existence sentient creatures who are bound to suffer some things by the very fact of their existence, and whose prospects for successful reintroduction into the wild are minimal, should be done away with and sentient animals moved out of zoos ([ 15 ], pp. 182-183).

3. Getting accurate about the contributions zoos make to research, education, and conservation

The confinement of animals in zoos has traditionally been justified on four grounds: entertainment, education, research, and conservation [ 43 , 44 ]. The continued existence of zoos is said to be defensible if zoos can accomplish these goals, assuming that animals can be kept in a state of good physical and psychological health [ 45 ].

As we have seen, however, zoo critics often allege the failure of zoos to accomplish these goals, or to do much in their regard. Yet they often exaggerate these failures and so downplay the goods generated by zoos. This makes it easier to argue for their elimination. An important first step in the defense of zoos then is to accurately assess the ability of zoos to meet these four goals.

Several of the above critics have professed that zoos do not contribute much to academic research, or at least to research supporting conservation efforts ([ 24 ], p. 170, 40). Partly the claim is made that researchers are better off studying animals in the wild than in the artificial habitats found in zoos. Partly the claim is made that most of the research done in zoos involves studies on how to provide for zoo animal welfare, which would not be necessary if zoos did not exist, and little of it is solid peer-reviewed work that can assist in conservation.

While it is true that in the past zoos did not do as much as they perhaps could have to foster research, it is harder to make that case today. One study noted that from 1993 to 2013 North American AZA zoo and aquarium members contributed 5175 publications to peer-review journals, with 31.6% of those focused on veterinary science (some of which, of course, related to zoo animal welfare), 31.9% on zoology, 13.3% on ecology, and 7.3% on biodiversity conservation [ 46 ]. A similar study on German zoos, all member of ‘Verband der Zoologischen Gaerten’, described how between 2008 and 2018 such institutions produced 1058 peer-review articles, of which 13.9% were related to veterinary science, 25.1% to zoology, 7.6% to ecology, and 5.2% to biodiversity conservation [ 47 ]. And from 1998 to 2018 European EAZA zoo members produced 3345 peer-reviewed manuscripts, of which 29.1% were in veterinary science, 31.6% in zoology, 16.4% in ecology, and 12.7% in biodiversity conservation [ 48 ]. If we just limit ourselves to the areas of ecology and biodiversity conservation, zoos contributed over 2300 articles over the past 20 or so years (and the rate of publication has been increasing over time) [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. So, although zoos may not be research institutions to the same degree that universities are, and may employ few full-time researchers, they can provide for significant research in animal biology and behavior (often partnering with university researchers), and, in particular, help inform conservation efforts involving both in-situ and ex-situ programs.

Nor is it true that studies done on zoo animals are necessarily less revelatory than those done on animals in the wild. A careful biologist recognizes that animals in zoos may not behave in ways identical to those in the wild, and hence that complementary studies in the field can be very important. Yet a lot of information about animal biology and behavior can be gleaned from research on zoo animals, who do, in fact, replicate some of the behaviors observed in the wild. Indeed, zoo animals are often more accessible and easier to isolate and interact with than animals in the wild. Hence zoos can host a lot of valuable studies on zoology and animal behavior, whether via their own employees or outside investigators. For example, investigations on the breeding behavior of the Japanese Giant Salamander undertaken at Asa Zoological Park in 1989 subsequently led to the development of artificial nests to help the species propagate in the wild [ 54 ]. And in the field of primate cognition alone over 1000 papers have been published in the new century involving research done at zoos [ 55 , 56 ].

Similarly, in regard to the goal of education, critics have charged that zoos do little to change people’s behaviors in a way that make them more likely to actively support conservation efforts in the world ([ 15 ], p. 181), ([ 16 ], p. 112-115), ([ 18 ], p. 200), ([ 20 ], p. 241, 40). Moreover, they assert that most of the purported educational benefits of zoos could be arrived at equally well through other mediums, such as lectures, documentaries, books, or museums ([ 24 ], p. 169, 15, p. 181, 16, 18, p. 200).

Now the critics here are on somewhat solid ground. It is tough to demonstrate the effect of zoos on conservation attitudes or behavioral changes. In fact, critics have pointed to various studies showing that the average zoo-goer spends little time at each exhibit and leaves the zoo with views on conservation closely resembling those with which they entered [ 57 , 58 , 59 ]. As one author notes, “zoos seem to be successful in promoting feelings of caring and connection with wildlife, although efforts to increase visitor knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors appear to have been less effective. This may be the case because despite zoos’ efforts to position themselves as sites of conservation, research, and education, the reality is that by and large the public still views them as places of entertainment” ([ 60 ], p. 376).

However, we cannot ignore various studies that find zoos can have an impact on a visitor’s attitudes towards and behaviors involving conservation. One study noted that over fifty percent of zoo visitors found that their zoo experience reinforced their attitudes towards conservation and prompted them to reflect on their future role in its regard [ 61 ]. And while the validity of this study has been challenged [ 62 ], and responded to [ 63 ], similar studies have described small but positive impacts of zoos on conservation attitudes and behaviors, often based on feelings of connectedness with the animals rather than time spent reading exhibit signs [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]. The bulk of these studies though are based on survey results rather than post zoo data about actual increases in conservation behavior or spending, so more investigation needs to be done. All the same zoos can continue to refine their educational programs, and experiment with providing ways to donate or volunteer for conservation activities on site, as some have already done [ 73 ].

In any case, most modern thinkers assert that the primary value provided by zoos, and what most justifies their continued relevance, is their ability to provide for the conservation of endangered species [ 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ]. Keulartz, for example, wants zoos to make sure that their core tasks are “all geared to wildlife conservation and the species collection clearly reflects the zoo’s conservation goals. A shift towards small species, which generally experience less welfare problems in captivity and fewer behavioral problems that make return to the wild difficult than large animals, would certainly tip the scales in favor of the zoo” ([ 85 ], p. 349).

Now how do zoos fare in conservation work? Are zoos able to assist in bringing back species from the brink of extinction? Here again there is mixed success, as critics have pointed out ([ 21 ], pp. 44-45, 24, pp. 172-173, 40). It is true that zoos contain many species that are not endangered (somewhere around 8000 out of 9000 species there, in fact), and that some of the zoo populations of endangered species are quite low and so there is a danger of deleterious genes being expressed due to inbreeding. It is also true that there have been a very limited number of successful reintroductions (around 20 with 40 ongoing) and that the overall success rate has been estimated at anywhere between 10 and 40% [ 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 ].

Still, the successful reintroductions that have occurred should not be disregarded. Captive-breeding programs in zoos have helped in the restoration to the wild of such endangered or threatened species as the California Condor, Przewalski’s Horse, Arabian Oryx, Red Wolf, Golden Lion Tamarin, Black-Footed Ferret, Bison, Iberian Lynx, Asian Crested Ibis, and Whooping Crane. Moreover, even when not directly involved in captive-breeding programs zoos provide personnel, know-how, and funding (up to $350 million each year) for conservation efforts [ 87 , 89 , 92 ]. Recently zoos have done a lot of work in assisting in the restoration of endangered reptile and amphibian species [ 54 , 92 ]. As has been noted, zoos help preserve threatened animal species generation after generation, by redirecting money spent on entertainment, and fostering an attitude of concern for the zoo animals who serve as ambassadors for their kin in the wild [ 74 , 93 , 94 , 95 ].

Moreover, with advancing biotechnology (CRISPR and cloning) and monitoring technology (drones, cameras, artificial intelligence, data loggers) increased success in reintroductions of endangered species via captive breeding might be possible in the future [ 95 , 96 ]. In any case, zoos can at least be important storehouses of genetic information and diversity wherein the gene pool of endangered species are maintained throughout the world through cooperative breeding programs (though here perhaps future technology might make this less necessary) [ 97 , 98 ].

4. Zoos as vehicles for esthetic appreciation of, interaction with, and enjoyment of/for animals

Zoos have sponsored important research studies on animal biology and conservation, aided in a few successful reintroductions of endangered species into the wild, and made some contributions to education and changing behavioral patterns of people vis-à-vis conservation. One traditional value of zoos, however, has yet to be discussed–zoos as providing entertainment.

Zoo critics on the whole have found the least amount of support for the existence of zoos in their ability to provide for human entertainment [ 19 , 21 ]. Jamieson finds it hard to see how providing entertainment to humans could possibly justify keeping wild animals in captivity ([ 24 ], p. 168). And several critics have found the very putting of animals on display in zoos to be demeaning and undignified. In the words of Gruen, “Thinking of animals as things to be looked at and believing that doing so makes for an enjoyable weekend outing, precludes seeing animals as having dignity” ([ 20 ], p. 242). For in such a case, argues Malamud, zoo life becomes merely “an amusement, a display, a spectacle in a menagerie,” where human visitors are deceived into thinking animals are exhibiting their “natural” behaviors ([ 21 ], p. 1). Tafalla expresses similar concerns in writing that “Zoos reduce animals to bodies, to a mere physical presence, to ornamental objects that can be exhibited and contemplated, to pleasant appearances we like to watch, but the true identity of an animal is much more than her body. They are subjects with different capacities, who develop and express their identity in complex behavior and through multiple relations with their environment, and with all the other individuals of the same and different species who inhabit it. This is the core of the problem. At a zoo, we cannot appreciate in a serious and deep way the esthetic qualities of wild species because zoos are not showing us wild animals on their own terms” ([ 99 ], p. 7).

Whence it might be thought that entertainment is the least important factor for those seeking to justify the existence of zoos. Yet it turns out that this, when fully explicated, is a vastly underemphasized value of zoos. Zoos can do a lot of good educating humans about animals and the environment, fostering conservation programs, and promoting research. However, zoos are primarily good as zoos , that is as a place where living creatures are kept in confinement for the purpose of being viewed and appreciated by humans. Indeed, the joy found in observing animals in the zoo is a driver of education, motivator of research, and foundation for conservation.

There is, in fact, great value in humans being able to view and be amazed by living creatures from around the world. Experiencing such animals in person allows humans to appreciate the grandeur of creation, the physical qualities, adaptations, beautiful forms, colors, and great variety of creatures living in the world. Indeed, humans can encounter species in zoos that they would not likely encounter anywhere else, such as bears, tigers, and wolverines, unless they were seasoned world travelers and expeditionists. Indeed, in very few places (perhaps one exception being the African Savannah) can one encounter such a diversity of life forms at once. Yes, it is true that one can also appreciate wildlife in films or magazines. But there is something worthwhile about seeing something in person that is hard to capture in other ways. Watching a live jazz jam session, or an orchestral performance in person, is quite different than watching the same thing on film. There are aspects of the experience that arguably cannot be duplicated virtually and the very aspect of being present at an event or occurrence encourages active engagement (though as technology develops and virtual three-dimensional presentations of material can occur there may be fewer overall differences).

So appreciation of the nature and beauty of zoo life is something that can and does occur in spite of the (mis)construals of zoo critics. If one has a conception that animals in zoos are presented in an undignified manner it may well be difficult to appreciate them esthetically. But this need not be the case (and one may be mistaken in one’s assessment of the situation–in thinking of zoo mammals as being put on display in an undignified manner). If, on the other hand, one is open to the beauty and magnificence of animals, it is there to be seen even in a zoo. Hence the fame of tigers, zebras, peacocks, toucans, and parrots. In addition, part of what makes animals esthetically appealing is their physical nature being adapted for a particular function, and this would certainly be visible in zoo creatures, and is often highlighted on informational displays [ 100 , 101 , 102 ]. Zoos provide a special diet for flamingos in giving them the canthaxanthin that they would normally eat in the environment to maintain their pink color but there is no reason to let this “artificiality” spoil one’s appreciation of their grace, long legs, and beauty.

Critics of zoos have asserted that one cannot have a deep appreciation of animals there as such creatures do not behave as they would in the wild. But the former in no way follows from the latter, and it is not even clear the latter follows. In a large enclosure, zoo animals can manifest many of the behaviors they do in the wild, including ones that humans can find esthetically pleasing. A lion in a zoo may not behave exactly as it does in the wild, but it can still display its magnificence as it walks with its piercing eyes, chest out, and powerful steps. So, too the plodding walk of elephants and their dexterity with their trunks, the speed of a cheetah, as well as the pacing gait and maneuverable tongue of giraffes can all be marveled at in a zoo. Zoos then can provide significant “entertainment” (perhaps “spectacle” might be a better term) for humans by allowing the aesthetical experience and appreciation of animals.

Moreover, in zoos visitors can interact with animals in various ways, such as by feeding and petting them. Many zoo critics find this artificial and problematic [ 25 , 41 ]. But why? Yes, training animals to perform in ways contrary to how they normally behave may look odd (as with bears riding bicycles), and we can debate its propriety. But animal training and human-animal interactions can take various forms. Animal species (such as rhinoceroses, giraffes, tigers, wolves, parrots, and hawks) can be socialized and trained to behave or interact with humans in different ways in encounters or shows. Giraffes and rhinoceroses or parrots can be trained to happily take food from the hands of humans and birds to fly to and fro in an animal show. And animals are often able to adapt to different environments, including interacting with invasive species or new species encountered as their environment expands or contracts. Wild animals, notes Learmonth, do not just interact with members of their own species, but also with those of other species, sometimes in mutually beneficial ways. Thus “human-animal interactions could actually be considered natural in a way, and notwithstanding, be very important to animals that initiate these interactions, especially for ‘a life worth living’” [ 103 ]. At the wildland-urban interface, where farmland, field, or forest meets city, wild animals such as birds, squirrels, rabbits, or deer interact with humans in visiting feeders or salt licks or gardens. Indeed, many animals adapted to the wild may become pets in human homes (though breeding in captivity seems best for the most positive adjustment to a domestic life).

Therefore, to completely disallow animal-human interactions in a zoo and claim that these are artificial, has itself the air of drawing an artificial boundary. Nussbaum does grant the legitimacy of human relationships with parrots and chimpanzees as such interactivity is consistent with their form of life ([ 41 ], p. 238). But the ability of animals to interact positively with humans is much broader than this. Certainly most mammals that live in social groups or form pair bonds seem quite capable of forming meaningful relationships with humans, but so do some more solitary species. It does not seem possible to draw an a priori boundary but rather let such a boundary arise from seeing how different human and animal species interact in a zoo and the benefits that arise therefrom.

Zoo creatures, it could be argued, even have the unique opportunity, one lacking with wild animals, of being able to have interactions with human visitors (such as being fed or petted). This human-animal interrelationality allows for novel but positive experiences not necessarily observed in the wild, but which one might call “seminatural.” Researchers have just begun to appreciate how such animal-visitor interactions [AVIs] enhance the life of zoo creatures and of humans as well [ 64 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 ]. For such human-animal interactions, if done appropriately, can be of great importance to zoo animals and enhance their mental well-being. Many animals seem to take delight in interacting with humans, and seek out such forms of contact, especially if trained or with known individuals. Indeed, zookeepers and caregivers and veterinarians are typically quite loving and kind and thoughtful when it comes to how to interact with zoo animals. Though she generally favors private and public animal sanctuaries over zoos, Rudy is quite right when she states that “some animals are generally better off when they are enmeshed with and connected to humans who work with them, advocate for their well-being, and love them” ([ 113 ], p. 112). Such rich and engaging relations with animals can in turn help humans bond with them, feel connected to them, experience great joy, and perhaps reinforce conservation activities. And such interactions are carefully subscribed, regulated, and evaluated for welfare impacts on the zoo creatures.

Thus, as Cochrane has argued, zoo animals are, in a way, neither wild nor domestic [ 114 ]. They live in miniature worlds, are provided with food and medicine, monitored, and moved around. They are somewhat adapted to living with humans, either being born in captivity and raised from youth with humans, and/or being extensively trained by zookeepers (indeed this is one reason why they often fail to do well when reintroduced into the wild). For these reasons, Cochrane labels zoo animals “biotic artifacts,” or creatures of “immaturation” [ 114 ]. In any case many zoo animals seem to value human interactions and such interactions can also provide positive experiences for humans and enhance their valuing of nature.

5. Some reflections on animal welfare in zoos

Still even the ability to make important contributions to research, education, conservation, and human entertainment, may not be enough to justify the placing of animals in zoos if their welfare is compromised. Most zoo critics are well aware that zoos have changed in their philosophy, and have devoted much time, energy, resources, and study to animal welfare [ 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 ]. They are also typically aware that zoos are accredited on the basis of various standards by such agencies as the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), the Zoological Association of American (ZAA), the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIZA), have dedicated nutritionists, animal caregivers, and veterinary staff, and have expansive enclosures that feature naturalistic and enriched environments [ 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]. Hence it is much harder to attack zoos for their failure to provide for the core physical and mental needs of creatures in their care (though there may still be issues with particular zoos, or with certain practices such as the culling of surplus animals in overpopulated zoo enclosures, removing animals from the wild and transferring them to zoos, or questions as to whether certain species can lead fully satisfactory lives in a zoo [ 134 , 135 ]).

Yet zoo critics still argue that zoos are unsatisfactory as zoo animals lack complete freedom in captivity and cannot duplicate the full scale of their activities in the wild [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 41 , 136 , 137 ]. It is worthwhile exploring these issues in more detail.

Firstly, this appeal to “naturalness” is misleading, and commits the Moorean fallacy of asserting that what is “natural” is good. Producing a carbon-copy version of life in the wild in a zoo may not be optimal as far as welfare goes [ 138 ]. Browning even argues that natural functioning is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for animal welfare, and he puts forward instead the criteria of behavioral preference and enjoyment. For some natural behaviors may decrease welfare and some unnatural behaviors increase it [ 139 ]. In the wild, animals experience predation, are challenged or attacked in social dominance conflicts, and may suffer from malnutrition, harsh environments, or disease. In captivity zoo animals are given highly nutritious food, continually monitored, provided with veterinary care, and though they may suffer from some issues not observed in the wild, in general face less overall threat to their welfare. As some have noted, in terms of comparable quality of life, zoo animals often have it better than their kin in the wild ([ 115 ], pp. 180-183, 141).

Secondly, the “natural” environment of animal species can change over time and animals may be quite adaptive, often (though not always) able to alter their behavior in response to environmental differences and do quite well. Animals such as crows and pigeons seem to flourish in cities and they are not the only species to do so.

Thirdly, zoos today continually evaluate and seek to bring about positive mental states in animals, and hence to provide them with outlets for exercise of many of their natural behaviors including habitat choice, locomotory opportunities, shelter, and foraging options [ 45 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 ]. Indeed, I would assert that by nearly all measures the vast majority of animals in accredited zoos lead happy and fulfilling lives. Moreover, it seems that even large mammals such as elephants, giraffes, bears, tigers, and lions, can lead satisfactory lives in a zoo with an appropriate environment [ 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 ]. Critics point out that many zoos no longer house elephants and attribute this to increased recognition that they do not belong in zoos. Now it is true that the welfare needs of elephants are harder to meet than for many other mammals. But it is also true that elephants get a lot of press and have motivated a lot of protests [ 12 , 13 ]. Hence some of the zoos that have dropped elephants may have simply found it better from a public relations point of view to no longer house elephants rather than holding there is anything fundamentally wrong with it. In any case it does not seem there is a pressing need for zoos to switch from housing large charismatic species to insects, gastropods, amphibians, and reptiles as some have claimed ([ 16 ], p. 13) and [ 113 , 157 ].

It is worth noting that determination of animal “happiness” or welfare is difficult. Animals cannot communicate their mental states as humans can and humans might falsely interpret it by misreading certain behaviors. Zoo personnel seek to make sure animals are not exhibiting signs of fear, discomfort, pain, or distress, noticeable through verbal or locutory or behavioral cues [ 23 , 24 , 120 , 123 , 141 , 145 , 157 ]. New techniques are even being developed for assessment of positive emotional states in animals and their connection to indicators such as facial expressions, vocalizations, behavior, and engagement in play and affiliation [ 142 , 144 ]. It is recognized that the enclosures of zoo animals must provide places for shelter, rest, and access to water and food. Efforts are taken in order that zoo animals do not become “bored,” but can actively engage with their environment, and exhibit the bulk of their natural behaviors and socialize with members of their own kind [ 23 , 24 , 45 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 137 , 143 , 149 ].

There are also ongoing studies and debates about the degree to which cortisol levels in the body or stereotypic behaviors are reflective of poor welfare. Though there seem to be definite links of cortisol levels with stress, in certain cases there can be high levels of cortisol with little obvious stressors or low levels of cortisol in spite of fairly clear signs of stress. Again, stereotypic behaviors, such as pacing, can be indicative of boredom and stress and linked to higher cortisol levels, though such behaviors may also be anticipatory (linked to expected arrival of a keeper or the opening of a door to a new location) or compensatory (a means of reducing stress) [ 144 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 ]. Research continues in these areas. And other questions arise. Is inability to reproduce a sign or poor welfare or not? Animals often adjust reproductive rates due to match environmental size, so it may not be. Is proclivity to flee cages a sign of distress? Perhaps, or it may merely reflect the natural curiosity of certain species and individuals. Such questions can and are being studied. Much work remains to be done to determine the best markers of optimal and poor welfare among zoo animals. Further study, of course, might suggest requirements for the wellbeing of certain animal species in captivity that some (or even all) zoos are not capable of meeting. And if the evidence suggests some species are just not capable of a quality life in a particular zoo (or zoos in general) then modifications should be made or the animal species moved to more appropriate locations such as sanctuaries.

It is true that zoo animals have less freedom than their kin in the wild, but the question is whether or not zoo animals, including mammals, suffer as a result. Is freedom a true value for non-human species or sentient ones? Arguably not. Freedom only seems to be an overriding value for a creature that can know it is not free. Freedom must be missed for absence of freedom to be a true deficit. Yet most animals have no conception of such a thing. They cannot contrast their current state of life with that of a life in the wild and regret missing out on the latter. So, it is not clear that zoo animals perceive enclosures as a restriction of freedom or their zoo home as a limitation of their own choices [ 162 , 163 ]. As Cochrane notes: “Most animals cannot frame, revise and pursue their own conceptions of the good. This is not to say that sentient animals do not have different characters, nor is it to deny that they can make choices. It is simply to make the point that most animals cannot forge their own life plans and goals. Given this, restricting the freedom of these animals does not seem to cause harm in the same way that it does for humans. … As autonomous agents, most human beings have a fundamental interest in being free to pursue their own life plans, forge their own conception of a good life and not to have a particular way of life forced upon them” ([ 164 ], p. 669). There is a sense for sure, as Jamieson notes, that it is morally preferable to be free rather than captive ([ 24 ], p. 180). Hence taking animals out of the wild and placing them in captivity does come with a certain “cost” and must be done for an appropriate reason [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Nature may offer opportunities for exploration and socialization not available in captivity. Yet nature also offers challenges and potential suffering, and a life in captivity may be just as fulfilling as one in the wild for many animal species. Thus, placing animals in zoos, where they can lead happy lives, even if they lack certain opportunities found in the wild, does seem justifiable if done for the reasons noted above, human appreciation and interaction, education, research, and conservation. Such captive animals need not see lack of freedom as a disvalue and may find all the requirements they need for a good and satisfying life in a captive situation, and indeed find unique opportunities not available in the wild (such as forming animal-human relationships). In any case ongoing studies and efforts are being undertaken to make sure animal species in zoos are receiving the “liberty” needed to lead quality lives. Animals are not as intelligent as humans, or as aware of their environment and possibilities of choice, and so arguably do not require the same level or range of freedoms as humans; still some level of freedom to explore their environment and behave as they want to does seem necessary for zoo animals [ 164 ]. The challenge is to understand what level of freedom is necessary. Placing animals in zoos does seem valid as long as animals are provided a certain level of freedom and important values can be met by placing them in captivity.

6. Defenders of zoos

In short, zoos overall have great value and should continue to exist. They provide for human entertainment, human appreciation of creation, interspecific interactions between humans and animals, education, research, and conservation. They should, all the same, continue to monitor and improve in their ability to maintain animal welfare, impart education, and contribute to conservation activities.

Similar sentiments are found in a few other philosophers [ 98 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 ]. Bostock, for example, in his Zoos and Animal Rights (1993), argues that zoos are very valuable in terms of safeguarding the genetic information of various species and reintroducing these species into the wild if and when necessary [ 169 ]. Bostock finds zoos particularly important in allowing humans to observe wildlife, something that millions of people could never do by visiting the wild, without irreparably changing it for the worse. Bostock points out that zoo animals are partially domesticated and so do not require the same range of behaviors to be satisfied as completely wild animals do, and that, in turn, domestic animals themselves have retained a large number of the behaviors they had in the wild. Zoos can and should maintain their exhibits and programs in conservation and education as long as they can provide for the well-being of captive animals in terms of health and ability to engage in a variety of natural behaviors.

DeGrazia also defends the existence of zoos as long as they are able to provide their captive residents with at least as good a life as they would otherwise have in the wild ([ 170 ], pp. 294-297), ([ 171 ], pp. 759-760). For life in the wild is often nasty, brutish, and short, to use the words of Hobbes, and full of hunger, disease, and pain. Conversely zoos, though they confine animals, are able to provide them with a good life as long as they can meet their basic needs and furnish enough opportunities for fulfilling their typical behaviors; indeed, with their advanced veterinary care zoos may furnish longer life spans for animals than in the wild. According to DeGrazia, zoo exhibits which allow for a good life for captive creatures, while also allowing for humans to admire them, contrary to what critics have claimed, do show the animals respect. Being subject to the observation of humans need not deprive animals of dignity. DeGrazia, though, is not a fan of capturing wild animals and transferring them to zoos (especially intelligent species such as birds and mammals), but instead favors breeding them in captivity.

Finally Gray, in her Zoo Ethics (2017) argues that zoos can increase the likelihood of humans taking action to preserve animal species by enhancing people’s appreciation and understanding of biotic communities ([ 172 ], pp. 181-182]). Zoos can help keep the remaining representatives of endangered species alive as they work to secure populations in the wild for these species in the future. Gray, however, does push for compassionate conservationism and the need to carefully provide for the welfare of each animal in the zoo.

7. Conclusion

Animal rights ethicists and activists have criticized the treatment of animals in zoos of late. We can be grateful for some of their efforts. For it has given impetus to the investigation and improvement of the welfare of animals in zoos. At the same time, many of their critiques are based on dubious philosophical grounds, such as the premise that the best life for a creature is one that mimics its life in the wild, that zoo animals suffer harm from a lack of freedom, or that animals in zoos are merely there as cute artifacts for the eyes of visitors and that putting them on display denies them dignity. Critics of zoos also tend to exaggerate the mistreatment of animals and zoos or devalue the positive contributions zoos can make to research, education, and conservation.

In modern zoos great effort is put into maintain the welfare of the creatures there (at least with institutions accredited through prominent associations such as the AZA, BIZA, EAZA, and ZAA). Zoo animals are well cared for, given fairly large and enriched environments, and offered a variety of foods and activities. Indeed, zoo animals can interact with other members of their species, as well as members of other species including humans. Thus, animals in zoos are provided with a broad array of activities, some even going beyond those afforded in the wild. Moreover, zoo animals will typically enter into such activities voluntarily and find pleasure in them. They can take pleasure in being fed or petted by humans. This is reflective of the adaptivity of animals living in the wild and the extent to which they are able to interact with members of their own, other species, or new “invasive” or encountered ones. Such novel interactions need not be considered unnatural or artificial or improper. Just as parrots or pigs or monkeys can come to find value and satisfaction living in humans’ homes, so too can other species that are typically restricted to the wild. All of which is to say that zoos can furnish a quality life to the animals in them, including even large mammals if provided with a proper enclosure.

While taking care of and providing positive forms of existence for the creatures in them, zoos can also achieve several other goods. They can provide for an enjoyable day for human visitors, help humans appreciate the grandeur and diversity of creation, and allow for mutually positive interactions between humans and zoo animals. Zoos can, in addition, help educate humans about animals and their danger of extinction, connect people to animals and motivate conservational attitudes and behavior, promote research into zoology, animal welfare, and conservation, and help to preserve the gene pools of species and prevent them from going extinct in the future. This paper is thus a call for zoo critics, or at least those of them with open minds, to reconsider their positions, and to recognize there is no reason that zoos should not exist long into the future.

• 1. Schmidt AT. Why animals have an interest in freedom. Historical Social Research. 2015; 40 (4):92-109
• 2. Giroux V. Animals do have an interest in liberty. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2016; 6 (1):20-43
• 3. Delon N. Animal agency, captivity, and meaning. The Harvard Review of Philosophy. 2018; 25 :127-146
• 4. Streiffer R, Killoren D. Animal confinement and use. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2019; 49 (1):1-21
• 5. Wilcox MG. The intrinsic value of liberty for non-human animals. Journal of Value Inquiry. 2020; 55 (4):685-703
• 6. Abbate C. On the ill-being of animals: From factory farm to forever home. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 2022; 46 (1):325-353
• 7. Hancocks D. Most zoos do not deserve elephants. In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 259-284. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 8. Ross SR. Captive chimpanzees. In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 57-76. ISBN: 978-0199978007
• 9. Doyle C. Elephants in captivity. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 181-206. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 10. Jacobs B, Rally H, Doye C, O’Brien L, Tennison M, Marino L. Putative neural consequences of captivity for elephants and cetaceans. Reviews in the Neurosciences. 2021; 33 (4):e100
• 11. Andrews K, Comstock G, Crozier G, Donaldson S, Fenton A, John T, et al. The Philosophers’ Brief on Chimpanzee Personhood. New York State Court of Appeals. 2018. Case Number 2018-268
• 12. Comstock G, Crozier GKD, Fenton A, John T, Johnson LSM, Jones RC, et al. The Philosophers’ Brief on Elephant Personhood. New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. 2020. Case Number 2020-02581
• 13. Nussbaum MC. Amicus brief. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2023; 66 (1):15-28
• 14. Emmerman K. Moral arguments against zoos. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 381-393. ISBN: 9781138095069
• 15. Bennett S. Are zoos and aquariums justifiable? A utilitarian evaluation of two prominent arguments. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2019; 9 (2):177-183. at 178-179
• 16. Bekoff M, Pierce J. Zooed animals. In: The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Beacon Press; 2017. pp. 91-116. ISBN: 9780807045206
• 17. Jamieson D. Against zoos (1985) and zoos revisited (1995). In: Morality’s Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press; 2002. pp. 166-175 and 176-189. ISBN: 9780199251445
• 18. Zamir T. The welfare-based defense of zoos. Society and Animals. 2007; 15 (2):191-201
• 19. Acampora R. Zoos and eyes: Contesting captivity and seeking successor practices. Society and Animals. 2005; 13 (1):69-88
• 20. Gruen L. Dignity, captivity, and an ethics of sight. In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 231-247. ISBN: 9780199978007
• 21. Malamud R. Exhibiting imperialism. In: Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity. New York, New York, USA: New York University Press; 1998. ISBN: 978-0814756034
• 22. Regan T. Are zoos morally defensible? In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 38-51. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 23. Demartoto A, Soemanto RB, Zunariyah S. Zoo agent’s measure in applying the five freedoms principles for animal welfare. Vet World. 2017; 10 (9):1026-1034
• 24. Miller LJ, Chinnadurai SK. Beyond the five freedoms: Animal welfare at modern zoological facilities. Animals. 2023; 13 (11):e1818
• 25. Bekoff M. Zoos, wildlife theme parks, and aquariums: Should humans hold animals captive? In: Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambala; 2007. pp. 90-103. ISBN: 9781590305225
• 26. Bradshaw GA, Smuts B, Durham D. Open door policy: Humanity’s relinquishment of ‘right to sight’ and the emergence of feral culture. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 151-170. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 27. Rollin BE. Through a frame darkly: A phenomenological critique of zoos. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 57-66. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 28. Tyson E. Speciesism and zoos: Shifting the paradigm, maintaining the prejudice. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 165-179. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 29. Tyson L, O’Brien N. What zoos teach us: Speciesism, colonialism, racism, and capitalism in the captive animal industry. In: Trzak A, editor. Teaching Liberation: Essays on Social Justice, Animals, Veganism, and Education. New York, New York, USA: Lantern Books; 2019. pp. 73-88. ISBN: 978590565926
• 30. Malamud R. The problem with zoos. In: Kalof L, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2017. pp. 397-410. ISBN: 978-0199927142
• 31. Pepper A. Glass panels and peepholes: Nonhuman animals and the right to privacy. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 2020; 101 :628-650
• 32. Loder RE. Animal dignity. Animal Law. 2016; 23 :1-64
• 33. Gruen L. Dilemmas of Captivity. Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011. pp. 140-176. ISBN: 9781108986571
• 34. Gruen L. Incarceration, liberty and dignity. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 153-164. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 35. Kemmerer L. Nooz: Ending the exploitation of zoos. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 37-56. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 36. Milstein T. Somethin’ tells me it’s all happening at the zoo: Discourse, power, and conservationism. Environmental Communication. 2009; 3 :25-48
• 37. Fitzgerald AJ. Zoos and aquaria: Species conservation, education, or unethical imprisonment? In: Animal Advocacy and Environmentalism: Understanding and Bridging the Divide. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2018. pp. 85-110. ISBN: 9780745679341
• 38. Palmer C, Morrin H, Sandøe P. Defensible zoos and aquariums. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 394-406. ISBN: 9781032474953
• 39. Fischer B. Zoos. In: Animal Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction. London, UK: Routledge; 2021. pp. 170-188. ISBN: 9781138484436
• 40. Marris E. Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost. The New York Times; 2021. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/zoos-animal-cruelty.html [Accessed: November 5, 2023]
• 41. Nussbaum MC. Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility. New York, New York, USA: Simon and Schuster; 2023. ISBN: 9781982102500
• 42. Benatar D. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006. ISBN: 9780199549269
• 43. Conway WG. Zoos: Their changing roles. Science. 1969; 163 :48-52
• 44. Carr N, Cohen S. The public face of zoos: Images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoös. 2011; 24 (2):175-189
• 45. Rose PE, Riley LM. Expanding the role of the future zoo: Wellbeing should become the fifth aim for modern zoos. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13 :e1018722
• 46. Loh TL, Larson ER, David SR, Souza LS, Gericke R, Gryzbek M, et al. Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. FACETS. 2018; 3 (1):287-299
• 47. Kögler J, Barbosa Pacheco I, Dierkes PW. Evaluating the quantitative and qualitative contribution of zoos and aquaria to peer-reviewed science. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2020; 8 (2):124-132
• 48. Hvilsom C, Åhman Welden HL, Stelvig M, Nielsen CK, Purcell C, Eckley L, et al. The contributions of EAZA zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2020; 8 (2):133-138
• 49. Mendelson JR, Schue GW, Lawson DP. Krogh’s principle and why the modern zoo is important to academic research. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 586-617. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 50. Hosey G, Harley J, Ward S. Research and research training in BIAZA zoos and aquariums. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2019; 7 (4):210-217
• 51. Rose PE, Brereton JE, Rowden LJ, Figueiredo RL, Riley LM. What’s new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output. Palgrave Communications. 2019; 5 :e128
• 52. Escribano N, Ariño AH, Pino-del-Carpio A, Galicia D, Miranda R. Global trends in research output by zoos and aquariums. Conservation Biology. 2021; 35 (6):1894-1902
• 53. Anzai W, Ban K, Hagiwara S, Kako T, Kashiwagi N, Kawase K, et al. Quantifying the 60-year contribution of Japanese zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Animals. 2022; 12 (5):e598
• 54. Hopper LM. Cognitive research in zoos. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2017; 16 :100-110
• 55. Perdue BM. Comparative cognitive research in zoos. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 490-510. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 56. McEwen ES, Warren E, Tenpas S, Jones B, Durdevic K, Munro ER, et al. Primate cognition in zoos: Reviewing the impact of zoo-based research over 15 years. American Journal of Primatology. 2022; 84 (10):e23369
• 57. Skibins JC, Powell RB. Conservation caring: Measuring the influence of zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biology. 2013; 32 (5):528-540
• 58. Spooner SL. Evaluating the effectiveness of education in zoos [dissertation]. York, UK: University of York; 2017
• 59. Ojalammi S, Nygren NV. Visitor perceptions of nature conservation at Helsinki zoo. Anthrozoös. 2018; 31 (2):233-246
• 60. Staus N. The educational value of zoos: An empirical perspective. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 367-380. ISBN: 9781138095069
• 61. Falk JH, Reinhard EM, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K, Deans NL, Heimlich JE. Why Zoos and Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Silver Springs, Maryland, USA: Association of Zoos and Aquariums; 2007
• 62. Marino L, Lilienfeld SO, Malamud R, Nobis N, Broglio R. Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Society and Animals. 2010; 18 :126-138
• 63. Falk JH, Heimlich JE, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K. Critique of a critique: do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? Society and Animals. 2010; 18 (4):415
• 64. Clayton S, Fraser J, Saunders CD. Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (5):377-397
• 65. Packer J, Ballantyne R. The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2010; 127 :e378
• 66. Swanagan JS. Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. Journal of Environmental Education. 2010; 31 (4):26-31
• 67. Clayton S, Fraser J, Burgess C. The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology. 2011; 3 (2):87-96
• 68. Moss A, Jensen E, Gusset M. Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi biodiversity target 1. Conservation Biology. 2015; 29 (2):537-544
• 69. Hacker CE, Miller LJ. Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego zoo Safari Park. Zoo Biology. 2016; 35 (4):355-361
• 70. Clayton S, Prévot AC, Germain L, Saint-Jalme M. Public support for biodiversity after a zoo visit: Environmental concern, conservation knowledge, and self-efficacy. Curator: The Museum Journal. 2017; 60 (1):87-100
• 71. Jensen EA, Moss A, Gusset M. Quantifying long-term impact of zoo and aquarium visits on biodiversity-related learning outcomes. Zoo Biology. 2017; 36 (4):294-297
• 72. Moss A, Jensen E, Gusset M. Probing the link between biodiversity-related knowledge and self-reported proconservation behavior in a global survey of zoo visitors. Conservation Letters. 2017; 10 (1):33-40
• 73. Godinez AM, Fernandez EJ. What is the zoo experience? How zoos impact a visitor’s behaviors, perceptions, and conservation efforts. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 30 (10):e1746
• 74. Clifford-Clarke MM, Whitehouse-Tedd K, Ellis CF. Conservation education impacts of animal ambassadors in zoos. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2022; 3 (1):1-18
• 75. Hancocks D. A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and their Uncertain Future. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press; 2001. ISBN: 9780520236769
• 76. Mazur N. After the Ark? Environmental Policy-Making and the Zoo. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press; 2001. ISBN: 9780522849479
• 77. Zimmermann A, Hatchwell M, Dickie L, West C, editors. Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. ISBN: 9780521618588
• 78. Bowkett AE. Recent captive-breeding proposals and the return of the ark concept to global species conservation. Conservation Biology. 2009; 23 (3):773-776
• 79. Conde DA, Flesness N, Colchero F, Jones OR, Scheuerlein A. An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science. 2011; 331 :1390-1391
• 80. Monfort SL, Christen CA. Sustaining wildlife populations in human care: An existential value proposition for zoos. In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 313-319. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 81. Iwuchukwu CS, Ajang AJ, Bassey SA. Confinement for conservation: An ethical overview of zoos. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences: Zoology. 2020; 39 (2):327-337
• 82. Minteer BA, Collins JP, Raschke AB. Zoos and conservation. In: Hale B, Light A, Lawhon L, editors. Routledge Companion to Environmental Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2022. pp. 554-568. ISBN: 9781138784925
• 83. Keulartz J. Towards a futureproof zoo. Animals. 2023; 13 (6):e998
• 84. Spooner SL, Walker SL, Dowell S, Moss A. The value of zoos for species and society: The need for a new model. Biological Conservation. 2023; 279 :e109925
• 85. Keulartz J. Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2015; 28 (2):335-351
• 86. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter LW, Reed C. Translocation as a species conservation tool: Status and strategy. Science. 1989; 245 (4917):477-480
• 87. Beck BB, Rapaport LG, Stanley Price MR, Wilson AC. Reintroduction of captive-born animals. In: Olney PJS, Mace GM, Feistner A, editors. Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals. London, UK: Chapman and Hall; 1994. pp. 264-286. ISBN: 9780412495700
• 88. Price MRS, Fa JE. Reintroductions from zoos: A conservation guiding light or a shooting star? In: Zimmermann A, Hatchwell M, Dickie L, West C, editors. Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 155-177. ISBN: 9780521618588
• 89. Jule KR, Leaver LA, Lea SEG. The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis. Biological Conservation. 2008; 141 (2):355-363
• 90. Alroy J. Limits to captive breeding of mammals in zoos. Conservation Biology. 2015; 29 (3):926-931
• 91. Che-Castaldo JP, Grow SA, Faust LJ. Evaluating the contribution of north American zoos and aquariums to endangered species recovery. Scientific Reports. 2018; 8 :e9798
• 92. Brichieri-Colombi TA, Lloyd NA, McPherson JM, Moehrenschlager A. Limited contributions of released animals from zoos to north American conservation translocations. Conservation Biology. 2019; 33 (1):33-39
• 93. Conway W. Zoo conservation and ethical paradoxes. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 1-8. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 94. Miranda R, Escribano N, Casas M, Andrea Pino-del-Carpio A, Villarroya A. The role of zoos and aquariums in a changing world. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 2022; 11 :287-306
• 95. Berger-Tal O, Saltz D. Using the movement patterns of reintroduced animals to improve reintroduction success. Current Zoology. 2014; 60 (4):515-526
• 96. Friese C. Cloning in the zoo: When zoos become parents. In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 267-278. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 97. Hobbs RJ, O’Brien JK, Spindler RE. Strategic gene banking for conservation: The ins and outs of a living bank. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 112-146. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 98. Hutchins M, Smith B, Allard R. In defense of zoos and aquariums: The ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003; 223 (7):958-966
• 99. Tafalla M. The aesthetic appreciation of animals in zoological parks. Contemporary Aesthetics. 2017; 15 :1-14
• 100. Parsons G. The aesthetic value of animals. Environmental Ethics. 2007; 29 :151-169
• 101. Hettinger N. Animal beauty, ethics, and environmental preservation. Environmental Ethics. 2010; 32 :115-134
• 102. Hanson E. Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press; 2018. ISBN: 9780691117706
• 103. Learmonth JM. Dilemmas for natural living concepts of zoo animal welfare. Animals. 2019; 9 (6):e318
• 104. Claxton AM. The potential of the human-animal relationship as an environmental enrichment for the welfare of zoo-housed animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2011; 133 :1-10
• 105. Palmer A, Park J, Malone N. Caregiver/orangutan relationships at the Auckland zoo. Society and Animals. 2016; 24 (3):230-249
• 106. Rossman ZT, Padfield C, Young D, Hart LA. Elephant-initiated interactions with humans: Individual differences and specific preferences in captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2017; 4 :e60
• 107. D’Cruze N, Khan S, Carder G, Megson D, Coulthard E, Norrey J, et al. A global review of animal-visitor interactions in modern zoos and aquariums and their implications for wild animal welfare. Animals. 2019; 9 (6):e332
• 108. Learmonth MJ. Human-animal interactions in zoos: What can compassionate conservation, conservation welfare and duty of care tell us about the ethics of interacting, and avoiding unintended consequences? Animals. 2020; 10 (10):e2037
• 109. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, et al. The 2020 five domains model: Including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals. 2020; 10 :e1870
• 110. Escobar-Ibarra I, Mota-Rojas D, Gual-Sill F, Sánchez CR, Baschetto F, Alonso-Spilsbury M. Conservation, animal behaviour, and human-animal relationship in zoos: Why is animal welfare so important? Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology. 2021; 9 (1):e21011
• 111. Learmonth MJ, Chiew SJ, Godinez A, Fernandez EJ. Animal-visitor interactions and the visitor experience: Visitor behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and learning in the modern zoo. Animal Behavior and Cognition. 2021; 8 (4):632-649
• 112. Fraser J, Switzer T. The Social Value of Zoos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2021. ISBN: 9781108731812
• 113. Rudy K. Where the wild things ought to be: Sanctuaries, zoos, and exotic pets. In: Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press; 2013. pp. 111-152. ISBN: 9780816674688
• 114. Cochrane A. Born in chains? In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 156-173. ISBN: 9780199978007
• 115. Maple TL, Purdue BM. Zoo Animal Welfare. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2013. ISBN: 9783642359545
• 116. Maple TL, McManamon R, Stevens E. Defining the good zoo: Animal care, maintenance and welfare. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 219-234. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 117. Wickins-Dražilová D. Zoo animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2006; 19 :27-36
• 118. Donahue J, Trump E. The Politics of Zoos: Exotic Animals and their Protectors. DeKalb, Illinois, USA: Northern Illinois University Press; 2008. ISBN: 9780875806136
• 119. Hill SP, Broom DM. Measuring zoo animal welfare: Theory and practice. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (6):531-544
• 120. Melfi VA. There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: A case for evidence-based zoo animal management. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 :574-588
• 121. Kleiman DG, Thompson KV, Baer CK. Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management. 2nd ed. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2010. ISBN: 978-0226440101
• 122. Brando S, Buchanan-Smith HM. The 24/7 approach to promoting optimal welfare for captive wild animals. Behavioural Processes. 2018; 156 :83-95
• 123. Shepherdson D, Mellen JD, Hutchins M, editors. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1998. ISBN: 9781560983972
• 124. Swaisgood RR, Shepherdson DJ. Scientific approaches to enrichment and stereotypies in zoo animals: What’s been done and where should we go next? Zoo Biology. 2005; 24 (6):499-518
• 125. Shyne A. Meta-analytic review of the effects of enrichment on stereotyped behavior in zoo mammals. Zoo Biology. 2006; 25 (4):317-338
• 126. Mason GJ, Clubb R, Latham N, Vickery S. Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behavior? Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :163-188
• 127. Clubb R, Mason G. Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How analysing species differences could help zoos improve enclosures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :303-328
• 128. Markowitz H. Enriching Animals’ Lives. Pacifica, California, USA: Mauka Press; 2011. ISBN: 9780983357919
• 129. Fàbregas MC, Guillén-Salazar F, Garcés-Narro C. Do naturalistic enclosures provide suitable environments for zoo animals? Zoo Biology. 2012; 31 (3):362-373
• 130. Braverman I. Zooland: The Institution of Captivity. Stanford, California, USA: Stanford University Press; 2013. ISBN: 9780804783583
• 131. Mellor DJ. Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for positive affective engagement. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2015; 63 :3-8
• 132. Azevedo CS, Cipreste CF, Pizzutto CS, Young RJ. Review of the effects of enclosure complexity and design on the behaviour and physiology of zoo animals. Animals. 2023; 13 (8):e1277
• 133. Englund MD, Cronin KA. Choice, control, and animal welfare: Definitions and essential inquiries to advance animal welfare science. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023; 10 :e1250251
• 134. Kagan R, Allard S, Carter S. What is the future for zoos and aquariums? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2018; 21 :59-70
• 135. Clay AS, Visseren-Hamakers IJ. Individuals matter: Dilemmas and solutions in conservation and animal welfare practices in zoos. Animals. 2022; 12 (3):e398
• 136. Leotti LA, Iyengar SS, Ochsner KN. Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Science. 2010; 14 :457-463
• 137. Pierce J, Bekoff MA. Postzoo future: Why welfare fails animals in zoos. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2018; 21 :43-48
• 138. Swaisgood RR. Current status and future directions of applied behavioral research for animal welfare and conservation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :139-162
• 139. Browning H. The natural behavior debate: Two conceptions of animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2019; 23 :325-337
• 140. Whitham JC, Wielebnowski N. New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2013; 147 :247-260
• 141. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior. 2007; 92 (3):375-397
• 142. Green TC, Mellor DJ. Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2011; 59 :263-271
• 143. Mellor DJ. Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2015; 63 :17-23
• 144. Wolfensohn S, Shotton J, Bowley H, Davies S, Thompson S, Justice WSM. Assessment of welfare in zoo animals: Towards optimum quality of life. Animals. 2018; 8 (7):e110
• 145. Veasey JS. Differing animal welfare conceptions and what they mean for the future of zoos and aquariums: Insights from an animal welfare audit. Zoo Biology. 2022; 41 (4):292-307
• 146. Hutchins M, Smith B, Keele M. Zoos as responsible stewards of elephants. In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 285-306. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 147. Mellen JD, Barber JCE, Miller GW. Can we assess the needs of elephants in zoos? Can we meet the needs of elephants in zoos? In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 307-324. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 148. Mason GJ. Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2010; 25 :713-721
• 149. Mason GJ, Veasey J. How should the psychological well-being of zoo elephants be objectively investigated? Zoo Biology. 2010; 29 (2):237-255
• 150. Shepherdson D, Lewis KD, Carlstead K, Bauman J, Perrin N. Individual and environmental factors associated with stereotypic behavior and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels in zoo housed polar bears. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2013; 147 :268-277
• 151. Meehan CL, Mench JA, Carlstead K, Hogan JN. Determining connections between the daily lives of zoo elephants and their welfare: An epidemiological approach. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (7):e0158124
• 152. Vaz J, Narayan EJ, Kumar RD, Thenmozhi K, Thiyagesan K, Baskaran N. Prevalence and determinants of stereotypic behaviours and physiological stress among tigers and leopards in Indian zoos. PLoS One. 2017; 12 (4):e0174711
• 153. Veasey JS. Can zoos ever be big enough for large wild animals? A review using an expert panel assessment of the psychological priorities of the Amur Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) as a model species. Animals. 2020; 10 :e1536
• 154. Finch K, Sach F, Fitzpatrick M, Masters N, Rowden LJ. Longitudinal improvements in zoo-housed elephant welfare: A case study at ZSL Whipsnade zoo. Animals. 2020; 10 (11):e2029
• 155. Bandeli M, Mellor EL, Kroshko J, Maherali H, Mason GJ. The welfare problems of wide-ranging Carnivora reflect naturally itinerant lifestyles. Royal Society Open Science. 2023; 10 :e230437
• 156. Rose P. Identifying essential elements of good giraffe welfare: Can we use knowledge of a species’ fundamental needs to develop welfare-focused husbandry? Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2023; 4 (3):549-566
• 157. Palmer C, Kasperbauer TJ, Sandøe P. Fourteen bears or butterflies? How should zoos make value-driven decisions about their collections? In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 179-191. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 158. Watters JV. Searching for behavioral indicators of welfare in zoos: Uncovering anticipatory behavior. Zoo Biology. 2014; 33 (4):251-256
• 159. Cless IT, Lucas KE. Variables affecting the manifestation of and intensity of pacing behavior: A preliminary case study in zoo-housed polar bears. Zoo Biology. 2017; 36 (5):307-315
• 160. Rose PE, Nash SM, Riley LM. To pace or not to pace? A review of what abnormal repetitive behavior tells us about zoo animal management. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2017; 20 :11-21
• 161. Cambrelen D, Slater MN. Case study: Modifying repetitive behavior in a polar bear (Ursus maritimus). Zoo Biology. 2023; 42 (3):390-396
• 162. Tidière M, Gaillard JM, Berger V, Müller DWH, Lackey LB, Gimenez O, et al. Comparative analyses of longevity and senescence reveal variable survival benefits of living in zoos across mammals. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6 :e36361
• 163. Browning H, Veit W. Freedom and animal welfare. Animals. 2021; 4 (11):e1148
• 164. Cochrane A. Do animals have an interest in liberty? Political Studies. 2009; 57 (3):660-679
• 165. Keekok L. Zoos: A Philosophical Tour. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. ISBN: 9781403986245
• 166. Taylor MA. Zootopia: Animal welfare, species preservation and the ethics of captivity. Poultry, Fish, and Wildlife Science. 2014; 2 :1-4
• 167. York T. The End of Captivity?: A Primate’s Reflections on Zoos, Conservation, and Christian Ethics. Eugene, Oregon, USA: Cascade Books; 2015. ISBN: 9781625647535
• 168. Rees P. Ethics, zoos, and public attitudes. In: Zoo Studies: Living Collections, their Animals and Visitors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2023. pp. 120-139. ISBN: 9781108566049
• 169. Bostock SSC. Zoos and Animal Rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals. London, UK: Routledge; 1993. ISBN: 9780415755566
• 170. DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Washington, DC, USA: George Washington University Press; 1996. ISBN: 9780521561402
• 171. DeGrazia D. The ethics of confining animals: From farms to zoos to human homes. In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 738-768. ISBN: 9780199351978
• 172. Gray JH. Zoo Ethics: The Challenges of Compassionate Conservation. Ithaca, New York, USA: Cornell University Press; 2017. ISBN: 9781501714429

© 2024 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: [email protected]

Quick links

• Make a Gift
• Directories

"Moral Arguments Against Zoos"

Given advancements in animal welfare science and public opinion, zoos can no longer justify holding non-human animals captive for entertainment purposes alone. It is now suggested that zoos are justifiable sites of animal captivity because they serve the dual public service of education and species conservation. This paper examines these two justifications and offers moral arguments against zoos through the lens of utilitarian, rights, and ecofeminist theories.

•   Twitter
•   YouTube
•   Facebook
•   Newsletter
•   More ways to connect

• Invertebrates
• Best Dog Collar
• Best Smart Dog Collar
• Halo Dog Collar
• Spoton vs Halo Collar
• Wagz Freedom Dog Collar
• SpotOn Dog Collar
• Best Dog Fence
• Best Invisible Dog Fence
• Dog Accessories
• Dog Training
• Dog Harness
• Dog Leashes
• Dog Grooming
• CBD for Dogs
• Dog Age Calculator
• Dog BMI Calculator
• Dog Chocolate Toxicity Calculator
• Dog Food Calculator
• Dog Harness Size Calculator
• Dog Life Expectancy Calculator
• Puppy Weight Calculator
• Dog Water Intake Calculator
• Dog Crate Size Calculator
• Dog Onion Toxicity Calculator
• Dog Raisin Toxicity Calculator
• Pet Sitter Rates Calculator
• Dog Groomer Tip Calculator
• Dog Quality of Life Calculator
• Cost of Owning a Dog Calculator
• Raw Dog Food Calculator
• Dog Dad Shirts
• Dog Mom Shirts
• Automatic Litter Box
• Cat Accessories
• Cat Collars
• Cat Grooming
• Cat Mom Shirts
• Animal Abuse
• Animal Laws
• Animal Rights
• Animal Testing
• How to Help
• Facts & Stats
• Our Campaigns

Why Are Zoos Bad? Why Animals Should not be Kept in Zoos?

Alexander Laybourne

March 7, 2023.

WorldAnimalFoundation.org is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More

To many people, a trip to the zoo is a fun day out for the family. Visiting a zoo is a chance for many people to see exotic animals they would otherwise be unable to see.

However, few people stop and actively consider why zoos are bad.

In this article, we will take a look at why zoos teach children the wrong lesson about captive animals.

As a late Gen-Xer-cum-early-Millenial, my childhood was rich with trips to visit zoos. However, looking back as an adult with a world-savvy eye, there is far more to animal captivity than meets the eye.

So Why are Zoos Bad?

While zoos can definitely be exciting places for families to visit, the fact remains that they are bad for animals. In most cases, animals in zoos lead very unhappy lives.

We say zoos are bad because animals are forced to live in unnatural, stressful, boring environments, leading to a lack of mental and physical stimulation. They are removed from their natural habitats and confined to small limited spaces and often forced to perform tricks or entertain visitors.

Zookeepers also often may neglect their healthcare needs. As a result, many animals at zoos may die prematurely from stress or illness.

You can surely help these animals by refusing to visit zoos and instead supporting sanctuaries where animals live in natural habitats.

What Are the Negative Effects of Zoos on Animals?

There are a great many negative effects of zoos on animals.When we visit zoos, we can see they often go to great lengths in order to recreate the animals’ natural habitats.

However, this is often not much more than an illusion for the customer. A small exhibit is never going to truly capture the vastness of the open world.

The common negative effects of zoos on animals are listed below.

• Animals often suffer in captivity
• Animals are removed from their natural habitats.
• Many zoos fail to provide the required minimum standard of care
• Healthy animals are killed
• Zoos don’t replicate animals’ natural habitats
• Zoos teach children the wrong lessons
• Zoos teach people that animal captivity is acceptable
• Animal protection laws are not strong enough
• Zoos are largely unethical
• Many visitors disturb and disrespect the animals
• Zoo animals are often drugged to be kept calm
• Euthanasia practices
• Zoos often have insufficient knowledge of animals.
• Increased risk of disease
• Zoos contribute to the exotic pet trade

What’s Bad About Zoos Overall?

Let’s get into the nitty-gritty details of why keeping animals in zoos is bad:

Animals Often Suffer in Captivity

Wild animals often suffer in captivity because they were meant to be free. Zoo owners go to great lengths to build enclosures that have a wild aesthetic and give paying visitors a taste of the wild world.

However, the truth is that no enclosure can come close to matching the vastness of an animal’s natural environment. Animals in zoos can sense this, and over time their confinement can lead to worrying behavioral changes.

Animals Are Removed From Their Natural Habitats

Many zoo animals are forcefully removed from their natural habitat. This relocation alone can come as a large shock and wreak havoc on the animals’ mental health. For some animals in zoos, the shock of their relocation alone can be fatal.

In addition, when animals are removed from their natural habitats, they are also removed from their family structure and social hierarchy. For many wild animals, this is a vital part of their life, and they can struggle to redefine their footing.

Once again, a change of this magnitude can cause captive animals to exhibit changing behaviors, which include self-destructive acts and unrelenting restlessness.

Many Zoos Fail To Provide the Required Minimum Standard of Care

The required standard of care for wild animals, such as those held by zoos, is wide-ranging and nigh on impossible for zoos to provide.

Outside of providing sufficient space to allow natural behaviors to develop, issues such as climate, diet, and the formation of a social hierarchy – where appropriate – make running a zoo a difficult task.

Even the best zoological park cannot fully capture the wild, and many smaller zoos fail to take effective measures to ensure the health and well-being of their animals.

A study by Bristol University found that many British zoos fail to provide animals with the required minimum standard of care.

Healthy Animals Are Killed

Running a successful zoo is about drawing in visitors as much as it is caring for animals. As a result, many zoos breed animals. Unfortunately, this is done under the guise of conservation and to protect endangered species .

However, only a certain number of each species are really needed, and so should breeding result in a sharp increase, these numbers are reduced via various methods.

Healthy animals in zoos are killed because they are not needed. In addition, baby animals that are deemed excess to requirements find their way into black market sales. This support of the exotic pet trade also results in a lot of preventable animal deaths .

Zoos Don’t Replicate Animals’ Natural Habitats

Many zoos create attractive enclosures to attract visitors. However, the vast majority don’t do enough to accurately replace an animal’s natural habitat. There is more to natural environments than just looks.

Most zoos or animal sanctuaries don’t have the space or the facilities to truly recreate the wild. Especially not for the broad spectrum of species they have in their park.

Animals need physical stimulation and a level of interaction with nature that we, as humans, cannot understand, let alone interpret and recreate.

Zoos Teach Children the Wrong Lessons

Many zoos give children the wrong lessons about wild animals and how to protect animals. Many zoos and aquariums offer behind-the-scenes tours and informative talks on animal welfare.

These tours often pretend to talk about their animals’ natural habitat and inclinations. However, they are really just teaching children about caring for animals in captivity.

Children leave most zoos with a misconception about how animals behave in the wild and what it takes to truly care for endangered animals.

Zoos Teach People That Animal Captivity Is Acceptable

In normalizing captivity zoos, and teaching animals to perform tricks for human entertainment, zoos and animal sanctuaries are spreading the message that animal captivity to normal, healthy, and fully acceptable.

The truth is there is a vast difference between genuine conservation efforts and endangered species protection and running a zoo. Many zoos claim to be helping preserve dwindling populations.

This may be true to some extent; however, many zoos are running breeding programs for their own benefit and have no interest in releasing their animals back into the wild.

Animal Protection Laws Are Not Strong Enough

Existing animal protection laws do not actually consider the true ramifications of captivity. Many animals in zoos are not used to confinement. Their natural habitat extends far beyond anything captivity zoos could provide.

For example, Orcas are migratory animals with a vast range. Being placed into a small tank, away from their family units, might not break existing animal protection laws.

The same applies to elephants. In zoos, elephants are often given a small outside enclosure and an internal ‘house.’ This is nowhere near enough space to provide an elephant with a life comparable to that of its wild counterparts.

However, that does not stop the silent damage that captivity delivers to such roaming animal species.

Zoos Are Largely Unethical

At the end of the day, Zoos are largely unethical places that are built under the pretense of habitat conservation but really are there to earn money and entertain people who want to be able to say they saw real-life wild animals.

The truth is that zoos are a prison for animals. They are contained in small spaces, often made docile through drugs and other medications, and slowly strip away all autonomy and freedom from all animals.

Most animals are taught to perform tricks and go against the grain of nature purely for human entertainment.

Zoos often do more harm than good, creating unnatural environments that look realistic enough to make any potential return to the wild all but impossible.

Many Visitors Disturb and Disrespect the Animals

Many visitors will disturb and disrespect the animals in a zoo simply because they feel as though they are owed a performance of some sort. They bought tickets, and the wild creatures should behave accordingly.

When in their natural environments, wild animals are not used to being confronted by humans. However, in a zoo, the boundaries between the wild and captivity are rearranged.

Visitors will hammer on the glass or clamor around an animal enclosure, calling and shouting for the creature to perform for their pleasure.

Zoo Animals Are Often Drugged To Be Kept Calm

Animals in captivity can struggle to adapt to their new environment. Animals begin to display erratic behaviors, self-mutilation, and an inability to settle.

Many zoos will then resort to drugging animals in order to keep them docile and ‘normal’ for the pleasure of the viewing public. Drugs given to animals include sedatives and antipsychotic drugs.

Euthanasia Practices

An animal’s worth is only equal to the attraction it offers to visitors. Zoos are expensive to run, often have a very tight budget, and cannot afford to maintain and support animals that do not ‘pull their weight’ in terms of attraction.

Once an animal has served its purpose, many zoos will either sell them or euthanize them.

Zoos also have the power to euthanize their animals when they themselves deem it permissible.

If an animal cannot be given sufficient space or is suffering from stress and not behaving as expected, the zoo is within its right to kill the animal(s).

Zoos Often Have Insufficient Knowledge of Animals

Zoo keepers are often trained and specialize in a particular breed or species. However, the truth remains that zoos often have insufficient knowledge of the animals they are housing.

It is not possible to have zookeepers versed in a detailed understanding of every single species.

Instead, they will hire generalists with a degree of knowledge specificity and run with that. This goes to the detriment of the animals in zoos and puts them at risk of receiving inadequate care.

Increased Risk of Disease

Zoos are home to many animals. Non-native animals are held in conditions that vary greatly from what they are used to living in. This alone increases the risk of disease, as animals are exposed to viruses they have never encountered before.

When factoring in the number of zoos breeding animals and the risk posed to baby animals, the change of disease skyrockets further.

There have also been reported cases of zoos not properly disposing of dead bodies when animals die on their premises. Some surplus animals or injured animals are even fed to predators as a means of life-cycle maintenance.

There is no end to the risk of cross-contamination and disease spread, especially when considering the fact that lots of zoos fail to provide the correct standard of care.

Zoos Contribute to the Exotic Pet Trade

When zoos find themselves with surplus animals, they need to find ways to reduce their numbers. One way that is rarely documented is the sale of other animals into the exotic pet trade.

Private individuals with the financial means use their money to procure rare or exotic animals from zoos to add to their own private collections. The sale of excess animals to traveling roadside zoos is another big problem.

What Are the Better Alternatives to Zoos?

The better alternatives to zoos are the options that don’t result in animals being held in conditions that are unsuitable and forced to live in natural environments.

Most people visit the zoo to see the big draw animals. Elephants, lions , tigers, rhinos, and such. All of these animals are well studied and have a plethora of documentaries and video footage of them in the wild.

Watching these is a much healthier and more educational way to learn about wild animals than visiting a local zoo.

In addition, a costlier but more educational option is to make arrangements to view animals in the wild. Nature reserves, bird watching, going on a safari. All of these options afford you a close view of nature exactly as it was intended.

Final Thoughts

We’ve discussed the reasons and can surely all now answer the question of why are zoos bad. The real question is, how can we change things?

Zoos are a part of culture across the world. If you go on holiday to any major destination, the chances are high that there will be at least one zoo and/or one aquarium nearby.

Personally speaking, I’ve been to zoos in Sydney, Australia, and all over the UK. I’ve been to zoos and aquariums in Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Vancouver Island, not to mention those in the Netherlands, Belgium, and France.

However, it does not change the fundamental fact that as the world changes, we must also become more aware of the darker side of such animal sanctuaries.

Will we ever see all zoos closed down? No, most likely not. However, through education and informative motions for change, we can make change the way zoos are run.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Latest Posts

7 Best Dog Breeds to Protect Against Bobcats

10 Quiet Guard Dog Breeds That Offer Peaceful Protection

10 Most Toughest Dog Breeds in the World

7 Best Dog Breeds To Protect Against Home Invasions

7 Most Active Guard Dog Breeds to Help Protect Your Family

Poaching Statistics & Facts in 2024

Pet Adoption Statistics – Animal Surrender And Shelter Intake

Dog Attacks by Breed 2024 – Dog Bite Statistics & State Fatality Data

How Many Animals Are in the World in 2024

Pitbull Attack Statistics – Exposing Half-Truths & Great White Lies!

Get updates on the latest posts and more from World Animal Foundation straight to your inbox.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Themed Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• About ILAR Journal
• About the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, debating the moral standing of animals and the environment, the ethical complexity of zoo and aquarium conservation, rapid global change and the evolving ethics of ex situ research, conclusions, acknowledgments.

• < Previous

Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change

Ben A. Minteer, PhD, is the Maytag Professor in the Center for Biology and Society and School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. James P. Collins, PhD, is the Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the Environment, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ben A. Minteer, James P. Collins, Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change, ILAR Journal , Volume 54, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 41–51, https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilt009

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Ethical obligations to animals in conservation research and management are manifold and often conflicting. Animal welfare concerns often clash with the ethical imperative to understand and conserve a population or ecosystem through research and management intervention. The accelerating pace and impact of global environmental change, especially climate change, complicates our understanding of these obligations. One example is the blurring of the distinction between ex situ (zoo- and aquarium-based) conservation and in situ (field-based) approaches as zoos and aquariums become more active in field conservation work and as researchers and managers consider more intensive interventions in wild populations and ecosystems to meet key conservation goals. These shifts, in turn, have consequences for our traditional understanding of the ethics of wildlife research and management, including our relative weighting of animal welfare and conservation commitments across rapidly evolving ex situ and in situ contexts. Although this changing landscape in many ways supports the increased use of captive wildlife in conservation-relevant research, it raises significant ethical concerns about human intervention in populations and ecosystems, including the proper role of zoos and aquariums as centers for animal research and conservation in the coming decades. Working through these concerns requires a pragmatic approach to ethical analysis, one that is able to make trade-offs among the many goods at stake (e.g., animal welfare, species viability, and ecological integrity) as we strive to protect species from further decline and extinction in this century.

Responsibilities to wildlife in field research and conservation projects have always been complicated because ethical duties to animals, populations, and ecosystems can pull wildlife scientists and managers in different directions ( Minteer and Collins 2005a , 2005b , 2008 ). In recent years, this situation has been made even more complex by the impacts of global change (especially climate change), which, in many quarters, has forced a reassessment of research practice and conservation policy. Scientists and managers wrestle with understanding and protecting species and ecosystems in a rapidly changing environment ( Hannah 2012 ; Marris 2011 ). In parallel, conservation ethics and values are being reexamined and adapted to fit dynamic ecological and institutional contexts in which traditional models of protecting the environment are being replaced by more pragmatic and interventionist approaches less wedded to historical systems and static preservationist ideals ( Camacho et al. 2010 ; Minteer and Collins 2012 ). Furthermore, as we acknowledge the history and extent of human influence and impact on ecological systems—even for the most remote parts of the planet—we are confronted with a changing vision of nature. Instead of a stark contrast between “wild” and “managed,” we now encounter a continuum of systems more or less impacted by human activity, a scale of degrees and increments (rather than absolutes) of anthropogenic influence that upends many customary divisions in conservation science, policy, and ethics (see, e.g., Dudley 2011 ).

A case in point is the weakening division between ex situ, or zoo- and aquarium-based research and conservation, and in situ, or field-based biological research and conservation practice. Global climate change, along with other drivers of rapid environmental transformation (e.g., accelerating habitat loss and the spread of invasive species and infectious diseases), is increasingly being viewed as requiring a more proactive and intensive philosophy of conservation and ecological management ( Hobbs et al. 2011 ). One consequence of this shift is that the conceptual and empirical boundaries separating “the field” from “the animal holding facility” are growing hazy: zoos and aquariums are becoming more engaged in field conservation programs, while preserves and natural areas are becoming more intensively managed and designed for a diverse mix of conservation and resource management outputs ( Cole and Yung 2010 ; Dickie et al. 2007 ; Pritchard et al. 2011 ).

At the same time, there are new calls within conservation science and management circles to think differently about the connections between captive and wild populations. Indeed, many wildlife scientists are recognizing that captive and wild populations should be seen not as separate biological and management domains but viewed instead as linked metapopulations (e.g., Lacy 2012 ). They argue that the sustainability of the former requires exchange of animals and DNA from the wild, whereas the viability of the latter may require contributions from ex situ populations as well as the refinement of small-population research and management techniques ( Lacy 2012 ; Redford et al. 2012 ). Such techniques, however, may only be feasible in the controlled environment of the zoo or aquarium.

The softening of the distinction between ex situ and in situ, the quickening pace of biodiversity loss, and the parallel rise of a more interventionist ecological ethic have significant implications for how we understand and make trade-offs among values and responsibilities in conservation research and practice. These include the concerns of animal welfare and animal rights as well as species-level and ecosystem-level conservation values. Although all of these obligations remain an important part of the ethical landscape of conservation research and practice, they are being reshaped by the need to respond to rapid environmental change as well as by the research demands of a more interventionist conservation effort.

A good example of this trend is the Amphibian Ark Project (AArk), a global consortium of zoos, aquariums, universities, and conservation organizations that has organized itself around the goal of slowing global amphibian declines and extinctions, which by all accounts have reached historic levels over the last several decades ( Collins and Crump 2009 ; Gewin 2008 ; Zippel et al. 2011 ). Zoos and aquariums in the AArk serve as conservation way stations for amphibian populations facing possible extinction because of the combined forces of habitat loss, infectious disease, and climate change. But they also function as centers of research into the drivers of population decline, the possibilities of disease mitigation, and the prospect of selecting for biological resistance to a lethal amphibian pathogen ( Woodhams et al. 2011 ). With the mission of rescuing, housing, and breeding hundreds of amphibian species to return them eventually to native localities, the AArk is emerging as a hybrid or “pan situ” approach to biodiversity protection, a project that integrates (and blurs the borders between) ex situ and in situ conservation ( Dickie et al. 2007 ; Gewin 2008 ).

In addition, the breeding and research activities within the AArk evoke questions of animal welfare and conservation ethics, including the tensions between and within these commitments. Amphibian research can be invasive and even lethal to individual animals, raising significant and familiar welfare and rights-based concerns in zoo and aquarium research. Moreover, infectious disease research, a significant part of the AArk research portfolio, carries the risk of an infected host or the pathogen itself infecting other animals in a captive-breeding facility or even escaping into local populations. In fact, just such a case occurred when the often-lethal pathogen the amphibian chytrid fungus moved from a common species in a captive-breeding facility to an endangered species. When the latter was introduced into Mallorca to establish a population in the wild, subsequent research revealed that animals were infected by the pathogen from the breeding facility before transfer ( Walker et al. 2008 ). Still, it is clear that many amphibian species will experience further declines or go extinct in the wild if dramatic measures such as the AArk are not pursued until a sustainable recovery and conservation strategy is developed.

In what follows, we examine the ethical and policy-level aspects of research and conservation activities that involve captive wildlife in zoos and aquariums, focusing on some of the implications of accelerating biodiversity decline and rapid environmental change. As we will see, the most pressing ethical issues surrounding zoo- and aquarium-based wildlife in this era of rapid global change are not best described as traditional animal rights versus conservation dilemmas but instead concern what we believe are far more complicated and broad-ranging debates within conservation ethics and practice. These debates include devising an ethically justified research and recovery strategy for wildlife across evolving in situ and ex situ conservation contexts that may require a more interventionist approach to biodiversity management. Zoo and aquarium researchers in a time of rapid global change must find creative ways to integrate and steer the expanding biodiversity research efforts of their facilities. In doing so, they will need to provide the ethical justification and scientific guidance for responding to the plight of those globally endangered species that can benefit from controlled and often intensive analysis in ex situ centers.

Ethicists and environmental advocates have often found themselves deeply divided over the moral status of and duties owed to nonhuman animals—a division that has existed despite the common effort among environmental and animal philosophers to expand societal thinking beyond a narrow anthropocentrism (e.g., Callicott 1980 ; Regan 2004 ; Sagoff 1984 ; Singer 1975 ). The dispute is usually attributed to different framings of moral considerability and significance. Animal welfare and animal rights approaches prioritize the interests or rights of individual animals, whereas environmental ethics typically embraces a more holistic view that focuses on the viability of populations and species and especially the maintenance of ecological and evolutionary processes. The difference between these two views can be philosophically quite stark. For example, animal-centered ethicists such as Peter Singer believe that it makes little sense to talk about nonsentient entities such as species, systems, or processes as having their own “interests” or a good of their own (as environmental ethicists often describe them), although they can be of value to sentient beings and thus objects of indirect moral concern.

In the view of ecocentric ethicists such as J. Baird Callicott and Holmes Rolston, however, an ethics of the environment is incomplete if it does not accord direct moral status to species and ecosystems and the evolutionary and ecological processes that produced and maintain them. Most environmental ethicists are sensitive to animal welfare considerations and are certainly aware that many threats to populations, species, and ecosystems impact animal welfare either directly or indirectly. Typically, however, they advocate focusing moral concern and societal action on such ends as the protection of endangered species and the preservation of wilderness rather than reducing the pain and suffering (or promoting the rights or dignity) of wild animals. Domestic animals are even further outside the traditional ambit of environmental ethicists; indeed, their comparative lack of wildness and autonomy has for some suggested a lower moral status as “artifacts” of human technology rather than moral subjects (see, e.g., Katz 1991 ).

It is important to point out here that although “animal rights” is often used as a blanket term for ethical and advocacy positions defending the humane treatment or rights of animals, philosophers and others often make an important distinction between animal rights and animal welfare arguments. The former is generally seen as a nonconsequentialist view of an animal's moral status (i.e., a view on which the covered class of individuals is entitled to fair treatment following ascriptions of moral personhood or inherent worth similar to the logic of entitlement we ideally accord individual human persons). Alternatively, the welfare position is traditionally rooted in consequentialist moral reasoning whereby the impacts of decisions and actions affecting the interests or good of the animal are weighed against other goods (including the interests and preferences of humans), and decisions are made based on an assessment of the aggregate good of a particular action, all things being equal. What this means is that, although in many cases both animal rights and animal welfare philosophies will justify similar policy and practical outcomes, in some instances the welfare position may be more accommodating to animal harms when these are offset by the net benefits produced by a particular action or rule. It bears emphasizing, however, that calculations of these benefits and harms must be fair and consistent; they cannot give arbitrary weight to human preferences simply because they are anthropocentric in nature, and all interests—including those of the animal—must be considered.

Not surprisingly, these different approaches to moral consideration have often produced sharp disagreements at the level of practice, especially in wildlife management and biological field research. For example, animal rights proponents regularly condemn wildlife research and management practices that inflict harm or even mortality upon individual animals, such as the lethal control of invasive species, the culling of overabundant native wildlife, and the use of invasive field research techniques; practices that have for decades been widely accepted among wildlife and natural resource managers (e.g., Gustin 2003 ; Smith 2007 ). Controversial cases such as the reduction of irruptive whitetail deer populations threatening forest health in New England ( Dizard 1999 ), amphibian toe clipping in capture–mark–recapture field studies ( May 2004 ), the hot branding of sea lions for identification in marine research projects ( Minteer and Collins 2008 ), and the culling of black-throated blue warblers for an ecological field experiment ( Vucetich and Nelson 2007 ) illustrate the ethical conflicts characterizing much of the environmental/conservation ethics and animal welfare/rights debate in wildlife field research.

Despite attempts by some ethicists and scientists to find common ground between animal- and environmental-centered values at either the philosophic or pragmatic level (e.g., Jamieson 1998 ; Minteer and Collins 2008 ; Minteer 2012 ; Perry and Perry 2008 ; Varner 1998 ), many observers believe that the gulf separating ethically individualistic, animal-centered commitments and conservationists’ more holistic commitment to promoting the viability of populations and communities is simply too wide to bridge, even in cases where animal-centered and biodiversity-centered advocates have common cause ( Hutchins 2008 ; Meffe 2008 ).

This division has recently been reinforced by public stances taken by wildlife conservation organizations such as The Wildlife Society (TWS), which in 2011 released a position statement on animal rights and conservation that underscored what the organization described as the incompatibility between these two ethical and policy orientations ( http://wildlife.org/policy/position-statements ). Animal-centered views perceived as more moderate in nature, such as the commitment to the humane treatment of animals in research and management (i.e., a weaker animal welfare position) are ostensibly accepted by TWS, although the organization's position here probably still falls short of what animal welfare ethicists such as Singer would argue is demanded by a principled concern for animal well-being in research and management contexts.

The practice of keeping animals in zoos and aquariums is one of the more intriguing areas of conflict within the animal ethics–conservation ethics debate. The presumption that the keeping of animals in captivity in zoos and aquariums is morally acceptable has long been questioned by animal rights–oriented philosophers who believe that such facilities by definition diminish animals’ liberty and dignity as beings possessing inherent worth (e.g., Jamieson 1985 , 1995 ; Regan 1995 ). Such critiques either implicitly or explicitly evoke the unpleasant history (from both the contemporary welfare and wildlife conservation perspective) of zoos as wildlife menageries designed primarily for public titillation and entertainment, including notorious cases of animal abuse and the exploitation of captive wildlife for profit. Zoo advocates, however, argue that modern zoos and aquariums have a vital societal mission to educate zoo visitors regarding the necessity of wildlife conservation and the dilemma of global biodiversity decline and that they contribute (and could contribute even more) significantly to fundraising efforts to support conservation projects in the field (e.g., Christie 2007 ; Hutchins et al. 1995 ; Zimmerman 2010 ).

This broad ethical debate over zoos and aquariums in society and the various trade-offs it evokes regarding animal welfare, conservation, scientific research, and entertainment have been complicated by particular high profile cases, such as the keeping of elephants or large carnivores in zoos ( Clubb and Mason 2003 ; Wemmer and Christen 2008 ) and whales or dolphins (cetaceans) in aquariums and marine parks ( Bekoff 2002 ; Grimm 2011 ; Kirby 2012 ). Among other issues, these cases often reveal disagreements among scientists about conditions for housing some of the more charismatic, large, and popular animals in zoos away from in-range conditions as well as differences in assessments of species-specific welfare impacts and requirements across a range of taxa ( Hosey et al. 2011 ). They also exemplify the welfare–entertainment–education–conservation nexus that forms much of the normative and ethical discourse around zoos in modern society ( Hancocks 2001 ; Hanson 2002 ).

Zoos and aquariums therefore raise a number of ethical issues, from the basic question of the moral acceptability of keeping animals in captivity to more specific arguments and debates over practices such as captive (conservation) breeding, zoo-based research, wild animal acquisition, habitat enrichment, and the commercialization of wildlife (see, e.g., Davis 1997 ; Kreger and Hutchins 2010 ; Norton et al. 1995 ). Clearly, these practices provoke a set of complicated questions about our responsibilities to captive animals and the conservation of species and habitats in the wild.

Perhaps one of the strongest conservation-based arguments supporting housing animals in zoos and aquariums today is that these facilities provide the ability to create “captive assurance populations” through ex situ breeding, with the goal of reintroducing some individuals back into the wild to restore or expand lost or declining populations ( Beck et al. 1994 ; Reid and Zippel 2008 ). This technique, described earlier in our discussion of the AArk, has produced some notable conservation successes in recent decades, including the recovery of (among other species) the Arabian oryx, the black-footed ferret, and the California condor. On the other hand, many animal rights–oriented critics of conservation breeding and the reintroduction efforts of zoos, such as the advocacy organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), argue that captive breeding efforts are biased toward the breeding of “cute” animals of value to the public (rather than breeding for conservation purposes) and that such practices create surplus animals that are subsequently transferred to inferior facilities and exploited ( www.peta.org/about/why-peta/zoos.aspx ). PETA questions as well the broader goal of releasing captive-born and raised animals to the wild, pointing out the inherent difficulties surrounding reintroductions, including the risks they pose to the reintroduced animals and other wildlife in situ. Although these sorts of challenges have also been noted by wildlife biologists and biodiversity scientists, many advocates of conservation breeding and reintroduction programs have argued that further research and improved biological assessment and monitoring efforts can improve the likelihood of success for the release or reintroduction of captive animals to the wild ( Earnhardt 2010 ; Fa et al. 2011 ).

The data suggest that zoos and aquariums are playing an increasingly significant role in field conservation programs and partnerships. In its 2010 Annual Report on Conservation Science, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) lists zoos engaged in more than 1,970 conservation projects (i.e., activities undertaken to benefit in situ wildlife populations) in over 100 countries ( www.aza.org/annual-report-on-conservation-and-science/ ). The AZA coordinates taxon advisory groups and species survival plans to manage conservation breeding, develop in situ and ex situ conservation strategies, and establish management, research, and conservation priorities ( www.aza.org/ ). These experts (which include biologists, veterinarians, reproductive physiologists, and animal behaviorists, among other researchers) also contribute to the development of taxon-specific animal care manuals that provide guidance for animal care based on current science and best practices in animal management ( www.aza.org/animal-care-manuals ).

As part of their expanding efforts in field conservation, ex situ wildlife facilities are also becoming more significant players in biodiversity research. As Wharton (2007) notes, systematic, zoo-based research on reproduction, behavior, genetics, and other biological dimensions has made many important contributions to the improvement of animal husbandry practice over the past three decades. Moreover, ex situ animal research conducted to inform field conservation is seen as a growing priority for zoos and aquariums, especially in light of worrying trends in global biodiversity decline and the widely acknowledged potential of the extensive zoo and aquarium network to carry out studies that can provide conservation-relevant knowledge for field projects ( WAZA 2005 ; MacDonald and Hofer 2011 ).

Applied research in zoological institutions (i.e., research motivated by the goal of improving conservation and/or veterinary science) is not the only research contribution of zoos and aquariums, however. Basic research on captive wildlife is also conducted throughout the system and is highly valued by many wildlife scientists, both within and outside of zoological institutions. At Zoo Atlanta, for example, researchers are presently conducting a number of studies designed to inform our understanding of wildlife biology, including the biomechanics of sidewinding locomotion in snakes, social behavior and acoustic communication in giant pandas, and taxonomic and phylogenetic studies of frogs, among other taxa (J. Mendelson, Zoo Atlanta, personal communication, 2012). Such research is often impossible to conduct in the wild, and thus captive populations can hold great value as specimens for basic scientific study.

Although not every zoo and aquarium has the capacity to conduct extensive animal research (focused on either veterinary/animal care or conservation purposes), the larger and better-equipped facilities such as the Bronx Zoo, the San Diego Zoo, Zoo Atlanta, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the St. Louis Zoo have become active wildlife and conservation research centers in addition to being popular educational and entertainment facilities. For all these reasons, zoos, aquariums, and other ex situ facilities (e.g., botanic gardens) are being championed by organizations such as the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums as potential models of “integrated conservation” given their ability to participate in a wide range of conservation activities, from ex situ research, education, and breeding of threatened species to field projects in support of animals in the wild to serving (in the case of the AArk) as temporary conservation rescue centers to protect animals threatened by rapid environmental change ( WAZA 2005 ; Zippel et al. 2011 ). Whether these facilities can develop successful reintroduction programs that will lead to the ultimate recovery of populations they are holding temporarily (such as the AArk program) or whether these “temporary” efforts become de facto and permanent ex situ “solutions” to particular wildlife conservation problems in the field, however, remains to be seen.

For many wildlife biologists and conservationists, then, breeding and conservation-oriented research on captive wildlife are seen as essential activities that should not be halted on the basis of animal welfare and animal rights objections. The ethical imperative to save threatened species from further decline and extinction in the wild has for them a priority over concerns regarding individual animal welfare. Humane treatment of animals (both ex situ and in the field), however, remains a clear ethical obligation of zoo-based scientists and professionals as well as field researchers. It is an obligation formalized in the ethical codes of the major professional and scientific societies, such as the AZA and the Society for Conservation Biology.

Yet not everyone is convinced that this reinvigorated conservation justification for keeping animals in captivity is a compelling rationale for such facilities. For example, some critics have argued in the past that actual conservation-relevant research conducted in or by zoos and aquariums is, in fact, a relatively minor part of their mission and that it cannot justify keeping animals in captivity (see, e.g., Jamieson 1995 ). Such criticisms are, however, slowly losing their bite as we witness the more recent growth of zoo-based research for conservation purposes ( Stanley Price and Fa 2007 ). Still, it is true that much of the research conducted by zoos today remains focused on animal husbandry rather than conservation of animals in the wild ( Fa et al. 2011 ).

This situation may be changing, however. Indeed, research on captive wildlife in zoos and aquariums (including that driven by conservation concerns) is predicted to continue to grow in significance in the coming decades. Perhaps the most obvious reason for this is access. As mentioned above, scientists in ex situ facilities have the ability to carry out potentially high-impact research projects on captive animals that may be too costly, risky, or logistically impossible to perform on small, wild populations in situ ( Barbosa 2009 ). This research can be valuable for improving animal husbandry in zoos and aquariums, but it can also be useful for augmenting field conservation projects because biological data from captive animals is incorporated in the planning and implementation of field interventions ( Wharton 2007 ). Data collected from animals drawn from populations that only exist in small numbers in the wild are particularly valuable; therefore, captive populations afford important opportunities to collect data on rare species in a controlled and safe environment.

To the degree that research on zoo and aquarium wildlife is used to inform and improve efforts to conserve and manage vulnerable wildlife populations in the field, it may be defended as an ethically justified activity according to the more holistic obligation to promote species viability and ecosystem health—even if it includes techniques that disrupt or harm captive wildlife in the process. Yet, these activities could still be challenged by more animal rights–based arguments that claim that such harms, including the fundamental loss of freedom and the degradation of an animal subject's dignity associated with captivity, can never be offset by the production of beneficial biological consequences at the population or species level (i.e., “good consequences” in the aggregate cannot justify the violation of the moral duty to respect the worth of the individual animal).

For an animal welfare proponent willing to take a more pragmatic position, however, unavoidable harms or disvalues in zoo and aquarium research projects that directly lead to the promotion of the good of the species in the wild may be viewed as ethically tolerable in light of the collective benefit for sentient animals. This view could follow from the utilitarian principle to evaluate an action based on its consequences for all sentient beings impacted by the action or from a more integrated ethical system in which both animal welfare and conservation ethics are operant in moral decision making (see, e.g., Minteer and Collins 2005a , 2005b ). Indeed, we suspect that most informed animal welfare supporters also see the value of wildlife conservation and landscape protection (or at least are not opposed to these activities). Therefore, they should not dismiss the real population, species, and ecosystem benefits of research on captive wildlife, especially in a time of global change.

The ethical evaluation of research on captive wildlife, however, can become even more complicated, especially if one holds the foundational view that it is wrong to place animals in captivity in the first place. Research undertaken primarily to improve animal care in ex situ facilities, for example, would appear to be a morally justifiable activity, especially if it produces results than can help zoo managers enrich habitats and improve the health and well-being of wildlife in their care. That is, the research would seem to produce a positive value that deserves to be weighed against any disvalue produced by harming or stressing an animal during the research process. And yet, this research could still be seen as morally unacceptable even if it improves the welfare of captive animals because it destroys the animal's freedom or treats them as a “mere means” to some anthropocentric end. Therefore, according to this abolitionist position, zoo and aquarium wildlife research conducted under the banner of improving animal care or husbandry makes the mistake of assuming that keeping animals in zoos and aquariums is itself defensible, a stance that many arguing from a strong animal rights framework flatly reject (e.g., Jamieson 1985 , 1995 ; Regan 1995 ).

But what about the case where research on captive wildlife is demonstrated to be necessary to obtain information relevant to the conservation and management of threatened populations in the wild? In such situations, strong ethical objections to the keeping of animals in ex situ facilities, to interfering in their lives, and so forth arguably have comparatively less normative force. To reject this claim, one would have to argue that the well-being of captive animals is and should be a completely separate moral issue from the welfare of wild populations—a position that, as mentioned earlier, is difficult to hold in our increasingly integrated conservation environment. This does not entail the rejection of animal welfare considerations in research design and conduct; these remain compelling at all stages of the research process. But it provides a powerful and morally relevant consideration for undertaking that research rather than ruling it out on moral grounds.

We should underscore that this conclusion does not hold for poorly designed or weakly motivated research projects that promise to shed little new scientific light on wildlife biology and behavior relevant to conservation or that appear to essentially reproduce studies already performed on either captive or wild animals in the field ( Minteer and Collins 2008 ). Determining the conservation value of the proposed research and its scientific necessity is thus a critical activity bearing on the welfare and conservation of animals across in situ and field settings. Yet it is an analysis that necessarily contains a measure of uncertainty that can complicate evaluations and proposed trade-offs among animal welfare, scientific discovery, and the potential for the research to produce results with a direct application to the conservation, management, or recovery of populations in the wild ( Parris et al. 2010 ).

Improved husbandry and conservation value in the field are not the only potential benefits of zoo and aquarium research for wildlife, however. As Lewis (2007) notes, research on captive animals in ex situ facilities may also yield results that can pay dividends in the form of improved animal welfare in field research projects. This is especially true in the case of zoos and aquariums with extensive veterinary departments with the capacity to develop equipment and protocols that minimize research impacts on wildlife in field studies. Such projects might include research on novel, less-invasive animal marking and sampling techniques, the development of safer forms of darting and the use of anesthesia, and the creation of new breeding techniques for recovering particular wild animal populations ( Lewis 2007 ). Although it is not always entirely clear which interventions should be considered invasive in the animal research context or what exactly constitutes harm in these analyses (see, e.g., Goodrowe 2003 ; Parris et al. 2010 ; Pauli et al. 2010 ), it does seem to be the case that wildlife researchers in both ex situ and field study environments are increasingly adopting noninvasive sampling and study techniques for wildlife research, signifying, perhaps, a growing sensitivity to animal welfare in field biology and conservation ( Robbins 2009 ).

If ex situ research on animals can lead to the development of less-invasive technologies and research protocols, then some of the welfare concerns raised by the manipulation or harm of zoo and aquarium animals in the research process that produces these technologies may be offset, at least to a degree and at the aggregate (i.e., population, species, and ecosystem) level, by the net welfare benefits of adopting these less-invasive tools and techniques in biological field research. It is important to note once again, however, that this judgment will likely still not satisfy strict animal rightists who typically resist such attempts at “value balancing” (see e.g., Regan 2004 ). Furthermore, and as mentioned above, acceptance of animal harms in such research should hold only as long as the research in question is judged to be scientifically sound and well-designed (i.e., as long as it does not run afoul of the “reduction, refinement, and replacement” directives of the use of animals in the life sciences, which are designed to minimize the impact of research activities on animal welfare and screen out research designs that are not ethically justified, scientifically necessary, or efficient ( Russell and Burch 1959 ).

It is clear that ex situ facilities such as zoos and aquariums will continue to increase in importance as centers of scientific research and conservation action in the 21st century ( Conde et al. 2011 ; Conway 2011 ; Fa et al. 2011 ). The forces of global environmental change, including climate change, accelerating habitat loss, and the spread of infectious diseases and invasive species, along with the synergies among these and other threats, are currently exerting great pressure on wild species and ecosystems. This pressure is expected to only increase in the coming decades ( Rands et al. 2010 ; Stokstad 2010 ; Thomas et al. 2004 ). These dynamics have suggested to many zoo scientists and conservationists an expanding role for many zoos and aquariums in wildlife protection. They can function as safe havens for the more vulnerable species threatened in the wild, as research institutions seeking to understand the impact of global environmental change on wildlife, and as active players in the increasingly intensive process of wildlife conservation in situ, including population management and veterinary care ( Conway 2011 ). As Swaisgood (2007) points out, with the requirement of more intensive managerial interventions in the field because of human encroachment, habitat modification, and other changes, many of the issues central to zoo research and conservation (including animal welfare, the impacts of human disturbance on wildlife, and the consequences of the introduction of animals into novel environments) are increasingly drawing the interest of wildlife researchers and managers in natural areas and in situ conservation projects.

All of these conditions speak to the necessity of wildlife research in zoos and aquariums for informing conservation science under conditions of rapid environmental change, including (most notably) research on the effects of climate change on animal health ( MacDonald and Hofer 2011 ). For example, aquariums can simulate climate change impacts such as shifts in temperature and salinity, the effects of which can be studied on fish growth, breeding, and behavior ( Barbosa 2009 ). Such research could contribute to our understanding of the stresses exerted by global change on wildlife and consequently inform and improve conservation and management efforts in situ.

Another line of research in the domain of global change biology (and wildlife adaptation to environment change) includes studies of captive animals’ responses to pathogens and emergent diseases, such as the work undertaken as part of the aforementioned AArk ( Woodhams et al. 2011 ). Notably, these investigations could allow scientists to gain a better grasp of the consequences of temperature variations and disease transmission for the health of wild populations before any effects take hold ( Barbosa 2009 ). The AArk example illustrates the kind of ethical balancing that needs to be performed for claims surrounding animal and species-level welfare and the health and historic integrity of ecosystems. For many amphibian species, AArk is a place of last resort. Once the amphibian chytrid enters an ecosystem, at least some susceptible species will not be able to return to their native habitats without an intervention strategy such as selective breeding for infectious-disease tolerance. An alternative tactic is managed relocation (i.e., the translocation of populations from their native habitat to novel environments that may be well outside their historic range) (e.g., Schwartz et al. 2012 ). Both approaches, however, involve ethical decisions that balance the welfare of individual frogs and salamanders against that of populations and species as well as the historic integrity of ecosystems (i.e., the particular mix of species and communities that have evolved in these systems over time) ( Winston et al. in press ).

Health- and disease-oriented wildlife research in zoos and aquariums may not only be targeted at wildlife conservation. The public health community, for example, may also have a significant role to play in zoo research in the near term. Epidemiologists and others have noted the value of zoo collections for biosurveillance (i.e., as biological monitoring stations that can be studied to understand and plan for the emergence of future infectious diseases posing public health risks) ( McNamara 2007 ). This proposal raises two further interesting ethical questions regarding the evaluation of zoo- and aquarium-based research under global change: ( 1 ) the acceptability of wildlife health research motivated by improving field conservation of the species and ( 2 ) wildlife health research that enlists captive wildlife as “sentinels” ( McNamara 2007 ) to provide an early warning system for infectious diseases that might impact human welfare. Both research projects could be pursued under the banner of “wildlife, health, and climate change,” yet each would differ in its underlying ethical justification. One program would likely be more species-centered or nonanthropocentric (wildlife health research for conservation purposes), whereas the other would presumably be defended on more anthropocentric grounds, given the focus on safeguarding public health. This philosophic division, however, is not always that well defined, especially if wildlife health research in zoos and aquariums has benefits for both in situ conservation and more human-centered interests (e.g., the provision of ecosystem services). Still, the different research foci would be expected to evoke some differences in ethical analysis regarding their implications for animal welfare, conservation, and human welfare ethics.

For a swelling number of cases, then, scientific study and refinement of conservation breeding techniques, wildlife health research, and so forth will likely be necessary to save focal species in the wild under dynamic and perhaps unprecedented environmental conditions ( Gascon et al. 2007 ). Ethical objections to conservation breeding or to the impacts of high-priority conservation research on captive wildlife motivated by animal welfare and rights concerns will, we believe, become less compelling as the need for captive assurance populations increases (because of the impacts of global change). These ethical objections will also weaken as we see the rise of additional partnerships between ex situ and field conservation organizations and facilities and especially as the former become more directly engaged in recovery and reintroduction efforts that benefit animals in the wild. It is one thing to evaluate captive-breeding programs designed to provide a steady supply of charismatic animals for zoo display. These have rightly drawn the ire of animal advocacy organizations as discussed earlier. It is another thing to assess those activities with the goal of recovering wildlife populations threatened in the field because of accelerating environmental change.

This does not mean that the ethical challenges of recognizing and promoting animal welfare concerns in ex situ research and conservation will or should be swept aside but rather that the more significant (and often more demanding) ethical questions, at least in our view, will take place on the species conservation side of the ethical ledger. These challenges will include the task of accommodating a philosophy of scientific and managerial interventionism in wildlife populations and ecological systems as rapidly emerging threats to species viability and ecosystem health move wildlife researchers and biodiversity managers into a more aggressive and preemptive role in conservation science and practice ( Hobbs et al. 2011 ; Minteer and Collins 2012 ). The risks attached to this shift include creating further ecological disruption by intervening in biological populations and systems, and a more philosophic consequence—the transgression of venerable preservationist ideals that have long inspired and motivated the efforts of conservationists and ecologists to study and protect species and ecosystems.

For example, ethical dilemmas surrounding the translocation of wildlife populations from native habitats to new environments, including temporary relocations to ex situ facilities such as zoos and aquariums, raise a set of difficult technical, philosophic, and ethical questions for conservation scientists and wildlife biologists ( Minteer and Collins 2010 ). Beyond the animal welfare or animal rights concerns about handling and moving animals that may experience considerable stress (or even mortality) during this process, such practices will also have implications for (1) the original source ecosystems (i.e., the community-level impacts of removing individuals from populations stressed by climate change), (2) the temporary ex situ facility that houses the animals (including shifts in resources and collection space as well as risks of disease transmission) (e.g., Greenwood et al. 2012 ), and (3) the native species present in the eventual “recipient” ecosystems once the wildlife are introduced ( Ricciardi and Simberloff 2009 ).

Another example is the practice of ecological engineering for species conservation in the wild, which can involve the significant modification (and even invention) of habitat to improve field conservation efforts. Along these lines, Shoo et al. (2011) have proposed considering and testing a number of interventionist approaches to the conservation of amphibian populations threatened by climate change. These include activities such as the manipulation of water levels and canopy cover at breeding sites as well as the creation of new wetland habitat able to support populations under variable rainfall scenarios. The investigators suggest employing an adaptive management protocol to experimentally determine whether and to what extent such manipulations are effective in the field.

Such conservation challenges and others like them ultimately compel us to rethink our responsibilities to safeguard declining species and promote ecosystem integrity and health in an increasingly dynamic environment. We believe that this analysis will also require a reassessment of wildlife research priorities and protocols (including the relative significance of animal welfare concerns in research and conservation) for some time to come.

The ethical terrain of zoo and aquarium research and conservation is experiencing its own rapid and unpredictable shifts that mirror the accelerating pace of environmental and societal change outside these facilities. What is required, we believe, is a more concentrated engagement with a range of ethical and pragmatic considerations in the appraisal of animal research under these conditions. The growing vulnerability of many species to the often lethal combination of climate change, habitat degradation, emerging infectious diseases, and related threats has created a sense of urgency within the biodiversity science community. We need to respond with research agendas that can help to understand and predict the impact of these forces on the viability of populations and species in the wild and to inform actions and policies designed to conserve these populations and species.

Part of this ethical appraisal will require asking some hard questions of zoos and aquariums regarding their priorities and abilities to assume this more demanding position in conservation science, especially because some observers have suggested a need for greater planning and research capacity in these facilities ( Anderson et al. 2010 ; Hutchins and Thompson 2008 ). Zoological institutions are idiosyncratic entities, and thus there is often a great deal of variability in how particular zoos and aquariums interpret their conservation mission (J. Mendelson, Zoo Atlanta, personal communication, 2012). The divide between mission and practice can produce significant challenges for these institutions as they take on a more aggressive conservation role. For example, and as mentioned above, many would argue that it is critical for zoos and aquariums to avoid becoming the final stop for species threatened in the wild. Instead, they should be true partners in what we have called an integrated, pan situ conservation management strategy across captive, wild, and semiwild contexts. The development by zoos and aquariums of more explicit reintroduction plans in such cases would therefore help ensure that their conservation ethic remains compatible with that of the wider community, which generally favors the maintenance of wild populations (i.e., in situ conservation) whenever possible.

One implication of this move by zoos and aquariums toward a more expanded research and conservation mission is that it will likely affect other zoo programs that have long dominated the culture and activities of zoo keeping. The display of exotic animals for public entertainment, for example, may be impacted as zoos and aquariums attempt to carve out more space for research and conservation activities, both in their facilities and in their budgets. On this point, Conway (2011) proposes that zoos will need to commit to creating more “conservation relevant zoo space” as they make wildlife preservation (and not simply entertainment and exhibition) their primary public goal. Yet such a shift in mission and programs could undercut public support for zoos, especially to the extent that the traditional displays of charismatic wildlife are reduced to accommodate a stronger conservation and research agenda.

An increased emphasis on climate change and its biodiversity impacts, too, could pose a challenge to zoos and aquariums wary of promulgating a negative or doom-and-gloom message to their visitors. Although some facilities are embracing this challenge and making climate change a part of their conservation education programming, some zoos and aquariums are struggling to incorporate this message within their more traditional educational and entertainment aims. For example, the Georgia Aquarium has apparently assured visitors that they will not be subjected to material about “global warming,” a concession, according to the aquarium's vice president for education and training to the conservative political leanings of many of the facility's guests ( Kaufman 2012 ). This example speaks to the larger challenge of moving zoos and aquariums into a stronger position of global leadership in conservation education, research, and practice under global change and other major threats to habitat and population viability in the coming decades.

Animal rights and welfare concerns will continue to be relevant to the evaluation of research and conservation activities under global change, but ultimately a more sophisticated and candid analysis of the trade-offs and the multiple imperatives of conservation-driven research on captive populations is required. Our understanding of these responsibilities—and especially the requirement of balancing animal well-being in practice in wildlife management and conservation policy—must evolve along with rapid climate change, extensive habitat fragmentation and destruction, and related forces threatening the distribution and abundance of wildlife around the globe. Unavoidable animal welfare impacts produced as a result of high-priority and well-designed conservation research and conservation activities involving captive animals will in many cases have to be tolerated to understand the consequences of rapid environmental change for vulnerable wildlife populations in the field. It will allow recovery and promote the good of vulnerable species in the wild more effectively under increasingly demanding biological conditions. Inevitably, these changes will continue to blur the boundaries of in situ and ex situ conservation programs as a range of management activities are adopted across more or less managed ecological systems increasingly influenced by human activities.

We thank Dr. Joseph Mendelson (Zoo Atlanta) and Dr. Karen Lips (University of Maryland) for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Author notes

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1930-6180
• Print ISSN 1084-2020
• Copyright © 2024 Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Tired of all the hyper-partisanship? Let's do something about it!

Our national conversation.

Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.

Education or Exploitation? Rethinking the Role of Zoos

For generations, zoos have been places of environmental education. Seeing unique animals up close is undeniably impactful, but at what cost? The ethical issue of confining animals in enclosures for our own entertainment needs to be addressed.

Animals have very limited space in zoos - tigers and lions have around 18,000 times  less space in zoos than they would in the wild. This restriction leads to health problems like muscle atrophy and obesity. Furthermore, artificial environments and lack of stimulation contribute to chronic stress in captive animals, shown through repetitive behaviors like pacing. Disrupting natural social structures by separating families or housing incompatible groups adds to the stress, leading to aggression and difficulty breeding. Animals should not be forced into these environments when there are clear signs of deteriorating health.

Moreover, the focus on entertainment overshadows animal welfare. Overbearing exhibits, interactive shows and concession stands generate money, but they make zoos money-oriented organizations that neglect animals. Studies  revealed that visitors prioritize zoo aesthetics and amenities over the actual animals, which inevitably makes the zoo focus more on those aspects instead of animal welfare.

Proponents of zoos often mention their role in animal rehabilitation and species recovery. However, the effectiveness of captive breeding programs is statistically questionable. Reintroducing captive-born animals can be challenging due to a lack of necessary hunting skills and predator avoidance instincts. Resources dedicated to zoo breeding could be better directed towards more impactful initiatives like anti-poaching efforts and habitat protection, directly benefitting endangered species.

Instead of prioritizing zoos, we should invest more in wildlife conservation centers. They offer a more ethical and effective approach to animal care that is not clouded by the need to make money. These centers prioritize animal welfare, focusing on rescuing injured or orphaned animals, providing the necessary care and rehabilitation and, whenever possible, effectively reintroducing animals into their natural habitats. Unlike zoos, they are not open to the public, eliminating the entertainment factor and associated stress of constant visitors.

While zoos have traditionally played a role in environmental education, captive and ill-treated animals are not necessary to form a connection with nature. Documentaries, immersive virtual reality experiences and interactive online resources can also raise awareness about conservation issues without compromising animal welfare. Supporting reliable conservation organizations working to protect animals in their natural habitats is another way for the public to make a positive impact.

The future of wildlife interaction lies in a collective effort. Consumers can support groups that prioritize animal well-being and advocate for stricter regulations on animal captivity. Zoos themselves can also change their goals from entertainment to rehabilitation and conservation. This could involve repurposing existing infrastructure for larger, more realistic enclosures and using the expertise of zookeepers for such rehabilitation efforts. Finally, policymakers can play a role by enacting stronger animal welfare legislation and funding wildlife conservation initiatives. A future where zoos are not money-oriented animal jails is entirely possible if only we stop finding joy in seeing animals in cages.

Acknowledgment: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author.

• OpEd - Science, Environment & Tech

Recent Posts

Kids Online Safety Act: Protecting the Youth or Perpetuating Unreasonable Censorship? 

The Presidential Race and the Inflation Reduction Act

America Needs Biden’s Proposed Reforms to the Supreme Court

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

• Food & Farming Media Network
• How to Pitch Us
• Freelance Charter
• Work With Us

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

Perspective

Zoos Cause Animals Far More Harm Than Good

While zoos masquerade as prime exemplars of wildlife conservation efforts, when closely examined they cause the captive animals in modern zoos significantly more suffering and deprivation than well-being and life enrichment.

Perspective • Entertainment • Policy

Words by Zoe Rosenberger

Even though zoos are non-profits, they still focus on the bottom line. The ethical implications of wildlife conservation efforts have gone unexamined.

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AWA) has accredited 233 zoos and aquariums. Including the 233, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has given licenses to about 2,400 “animal exhibitors.” Animal exhibitors use their licenses to operate roadside zoos and petting zoos , which are both notorious for animal abuse.

Zoos claim to save wild animals, but wild animals in zoos are reduced to commodities and given inadequate habitats. Many animals in zoos are “ charismatic megafauna ,” such as lions and elephants, because they attract visitors. Charismatic megafauna are wild animals that interest humans, such as giraffes and tigers. And on the whole, at an institutional level, zoos paint overly simplistic views of biodiversity and ecosystems by only promoting exotic animals that are well-known, and are often at the apex of their particular food chain.

Zoos engage in animal exploitation by profiting from the visitor attention and conservation grants they garner while providing the captive animals with a poor quality of life . Since 1995, zoos have turned to antidepressants, tranquilizers, and antipsychotic drugs to alleviate depression and aggression among zoo animals across America.

Only baby chimpanzees are taken from the wild. And when captured, baby chimps experience unforgettable trauma since their mothers are shot to death in front of them. Many infant chimps are wounded while captured and die before they reach market.

Breeding captive animals is the only alternative to capturing wild animals. Yet, successful captive breeding programs produce what zoos deem “surplus animals.” A surplus animal has “made its genetic contribution to a managed population and is not essential for future scientific studies or to maintain social-group stability or traditions.” When selling them to other zoos or private collectors, zoos don’t consider the trauma of separating the animals from their families and communities. The existence of surplus zoo animals perpetuates canned hunting ranches , which facilitate wealthy clients shooting drugged animals and having them stuffed as trophies.

Serious conservation efforts begin with humans’ commitment to stop encroaching on and destroying wild animals’ habitats because we are pushing many species to extinction. According to the World Wildlife Fund’s 2018 Living Planet Report , between 1970 and 2014, humanity has been responsible for wiping out 60 percent of the global wildlife population, which encompasses mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles. This report corroborates that the planet is undergoing its sixth mass extinction , which scientists warn will have grave consequences for humans.

Why is it admirable to “save” animals whose natural habitats are disappearing due to humans? Because in a sense, we are playing God by keeping wild animals captive and forcing them to reproduce, in the hope that our children will be able to see them alive, in-person. There is an irony that in conservationists’ pursuit to save a species, individual animals suffer in captivity in zoos, and are forced to use their reproductive systems to bring new wild animals into existence to add to zoos’ populations. This debate can be framed as the conservation versus rights approach.

Even if zoos have become experts at keeping captive animals alive, and forcing them to reproduce, the ethics of keeping wild animals is problematic . Granted, zoos, on occasion, have successfully reintroduced animal species into the wild, but this does not justify the grounds of their captivity. Zoos’ commitment to wildlife conservation is called into question since many are guilty of profiting from the sale of extra animals to third parties instead of returning surplus animals to their environment.

A 2008 study from researchers at the University of Exeter in the U.K. found that most captive-bred carnivores released into the wild do not survive the transition, which raises questions about the efficacy of captive-based conservation efforts for carnivores, such as tigers, cheetahs, and brown bears. The study reviewed 45 carnivore reintroductions worldwide and found that only 33 percent survived. Their low survival rates have been attributed to their lacking fear toward humans and crucial hunting skills.

Visiting zoos doesn’t send the right message to children about wildlife conservation and animal ethics. Most children visit zoos for entertainment, while some focus on education. Americans can learn more about wild animals from National Geographic than zoos, which often entertain children with playgrounds and videos anyway. Zoos teach children to value animals as property, rather than individuals that deserve compassion and fundamental rights, such as the right to bodily integrity and dignity. And the right to bodily integrity and dignity are both violated through zoos’ implementation of forced breeding programs and selling “surplus” animals to canned hunts.

Zoos exploit captive animals by causing them more harm than good. And their wildlife conservation efforts are misguided at best, and pernicious at worst. While zoos claim to champion conservation efforts, they sell surplus animals, such as male lions, to roadside zoos or private collectors. Concentrating on anti-poaching efforts would greatly help wild animals facing extinction. Another solution is international policy efforts to conscientiously end the encroachment and appropriation of these animals’ habitats in the wild. These solutions can meet the conservation needs that zoos are trying to meet, without zoos.

Boycotting zoos, and other exhibits that display captive animals is a powerful way to stand up to a system more concerned with profits than the animals under their care. If a species is unfortunately unable to survive in the wild, either because of poaching or the destruction of habitats, are we really giving individuals of the species a fair chance at survival in captivity? Even if basic needs are met, zoos force wild animals to endure the psychological trauma of unnatural and unstimulating confinement. In an environment completely determined by humans, e.g., community members, food, habitat, it’s no wonder zoo animals will never have a chance to thrive.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Zoe Rosenberger holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Legal Theory from Hampshire College, and is an incoming M.A. student in philosophy at Columbia University.

• The Best & Worst Countries for Animal Welfare Are Difficult to Measure

Law & Policy • 7 min read

More Law & Policy

Investigation

Why Rodeos Are Still Popular When Marine Parks and the Circus Are Declining

Justice • 9 min read

How the Meat Industry Shapes U.S. Politics (and Vice-Versa)

A big question, answered briefly.

Law & Policy • 11 min read

The Loss of Chevron Could Also Be a Major Loss for Animals

A new Supreme Court ruling effectively guts the regulatory power of federal agencies.

Law & Policy • 6 min read

How Ecotourism Became an Unexpected Climate Solution in an At-Risk Guatemalan National Park

Climate • 3 min read

Is Organic Food Better for You?

Food • 9 min read

Why the Fiber Industry Needs People to Eat Too Much Meat

Health • 5 min read

Book Review: ‘Meet the Neighbors’ by Brandon Keim Compassionately Complicates the Narrative about Animals

Science • 8 min read

Most Read Today

• What Does Noninvasive Wild Animal Research Look Like?
• How Many Animals Are Killed for Food Every Day?
• The Blood of Pregnant Mares Fuels Factory Farming – Literally
• Organic Farming: What It Is — and Isn’t — Explained
• What a Vegan Is and Isn’t, Explained
• Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained
• Overfishing Threatens More Than Ocean Life. It’s Also Fueling Emissions.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• LISTEN & FOLLOW
• Apple Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• Amazon Alexa

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

The Ethics of the Zoo

Melissa Block

Melissa Block talks with Jeffrey Hyson, an assistant professor of history at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Hyson is writing a book on the cultural history of zoos. We ask him about the modern interest and opposition to zoos. He says there is a tension between the desire to see the animals one would never get to see naturally in the wild, and the feeling of pity for them as they are held in captivity.

Related NPR Stories

Zoo deaths in chicago prompt public protests, role of zoos debated.

Copyright © 2005 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

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

Dr. Karlyna PhD

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 / 813 words

3 pages / 1281 words

1 pages / 518 words

1 pages / 488 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 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 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 concept of a "zoo" and the plural form "zoos" may appear straightforward and self-explanatory at first glance. However, an in-depth exploration reveals significant distinctions between them that extend beyond mere numerical [...]

In recent years, immigration has become an increasingly polarizing topic in the United States. T.C. Boyle’s novel, The Tortilla Curtain, offers a powerful and complex exploration of this contentious issue. The story centers [...]

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 [...]

The ethical debate surrounding the issue of whether animals should be kept in zoos has gained significant traction in recent years, spurred by a series of tragic incidents and ongoing discussions regarding animal welfare and [...]

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

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Agriculture and the Environment
• Case Studies
• Chemistry and Toxicology
• Environment and Human Health
• Environmental Biology
• Environmental Economics
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Ethics and Philosophy
• Environmental History
• Environmental Issues and Problems
• Environmental Processes and Systems
• Environmental Sociology and Psychology
• Environments
• Framing Concepts in Environmental Science
• Management and Planning
• Policy, Governance, and Law
• Quantitative Analysis and Tools
• Sustainability and Solutions
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Ethics of the zoo.

• Jozef Keulartz Jozef Keulartz Department of Social Sciences, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.162
• Published online: 27 February 2017

The animal world is under increasing pressure, given the magnitude of anthropogenic environmental stress, especially from human-caused rapid climate change together with habitat conversion, fragmentation, and destruction. There is a global wave of species extinctions and decline in local species abundance. To stop or even reverse this so-called defaunation process, in situ conservation (in the wild) is no longer effective without ex situ conservation (in captivity). Consequently, zoos could play an ever-greater role in the conservation of endangered species and wildlife—hence the slogan Captivity for Conservation .

However, the integration of zoo-based tools and techniques in species conservation has led to many conflicts between wildlife conservationists and animal protectionists. Many wildlife conservationists agree with Michael Soulé, the widely acclaimed doyen of the relatively new discipline of conservation biology, that conservation and animal welfare are conceptually distinct, and that they should remain politically separate. Animal protectionists, on the other hand, draw support from existing leading accounts of animal ethics that oppose the idea of captivity for conservation, either because infringing an individual’s right to freedom for the preservation of the species is considered as morally wrong, or because the benefits of species conservation are not seen as significant enough to overcome the presumption against depriving an animal of its liberty.

Both sides view animals through different lenses and address different concerns. Whereas animal ethicists focus on individual organisms, and are concerned about the welfare and liberty of animals, wildlife conservationists perceive animals as parts of greater wholes such as species or ecosystems, and consider biodiversity and ecological integrity as key topics. This seemingly intractable controversy can be overcome by transcending both perspectives, and developing a bifocal view in which zoo animals are perceived as individuals in need of specific care and, at the same time, as members of a species in need of protection.

Based on such a bifocal approach that has lately been adopted by a growing international movement of “Compassionate Conservation,” the modern zoo can only achieve its conservation mission if it finds a morally acceptable balance between animal welfare concerns and species conservation commitments. The prospects for the zoo to achieve such a balance are promising. Over the past decade or so, zoos have made serious and sustained efforts to ensure and enhance animal welfare. At the same time, the zoo’s contribution to species conservation has also improved considerably.

• Anthropocene
• captivity for conservation
• One Plan Approach
• animal welfare
• animal ethics
• environmental ethics
• wildlife conservation
• compassionate conservation

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 22 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

• Is Keeping Wild Animals In Zoos Unethical?: Arguments For And Against

A zoo is an establishment that displays animals typically for recreation and education. Extensive collections of animals that were maintained in antiquity cannot be considered as zoos. Such ancient collections were not held for exhibition in public parks or maintained for purposes of education and recreation. For example, the Romans kept collections of wild animals for ancient games. After the conquest of Dacia, Emperor Trajan  held 123 days  of games in celebration, during which thousands of animals were slaughtered, including elephants, lions, rhinoceroses, tigers, giraffes, crocodiles, bulls, hippopotami and stags. Major cities often had arenas and animals in stock for the games. In the fifth century, France had 26 such arenas, and the tradition held on until at least the 8th century. Large animal collections were also kept as a sign of power. The first modern zoos were established in the 18th century in Madrid, Vienna, and Paris. The cities of Berlin and London later founded zoos in the nineteenth century. The first American zoos were established in the 1970s in the cities of Cincinnati and Philadelphia. Today there are hundreds of zoos in the US that are visited by millions of people every year.

Arguments In Favor Of Zoos

The role played by zoos in educating the public is the most popular argument in favor of establishing and maintaining zoos. In 1898, the  reason was cited  by the New York Zoological Society when it resolved to inform the public of the continued decline in animal populations, to stimulate sentiment in favor of animal protection, and to cooperate with scientific organizations to ensure the preservation of species. Modern zoos play a critical role in the education of children and families about the various animals found on our planet. Staff from the zoo also travels to schools to make presentations or to offer special programs in the zoo to educate visitors. Zoos also partner with local communities to extend the knowledge of animals and conservation to a wider audience.

Protection Of Endangered Animals

In the course of history, various species have been wiped-out or pushed to the brink of extinction. Currently, several animal species are classified as endangered, vulnerable, and near-extinct by the IUCN. Placing such animals in zoos, especially those hunted and poached, provides them with a safe environment where the species can thrive. With the dangers of climate change fast approaching, such measures are proving extremely important for the conservation of species. Recently Australia has had to face an unprecedented wave of bush fires that have been blamed on climate change. The fires have destroyed vast areas of habitat and killed millions of of animals, including Kangaroos, koalas, and other species unique to the continent. Experts believe that such fires are expected to occur more frequently and at a higher intensity. It is, therefore, essential to have animals in zoos and other areas where they can be accorded extra protection from such unpredictable events.

Captive Breeding

Zoos provide areas where captive breeding can be carried out for release into the wild. For example, in 1945, about  13 Przewalski horses  were captured and placed in a zoo before they disappeared from the wild in 1966. Extensive breeding programs at the zoo and reintroduction into wild habitats helped in saving the species from extinction. Today there are over 1,500 Przewalski horses that are descendants of the 13 horses that were placed in a zoo at the end of WWII. Other animals that have been preserved in protected areas such as zoos include the Golden Lion Tamarin, Arabian Oryx, Freshwater mussels, and the Puerto Rican Parrot.

Economic Benefits To The Community

In addition to providing residence to animals, zoos create jobs and tourism opportunities that generate revenue for the local community. For example, Woodland Park Zoo, situated in Seattle, pays $17 million in wages annually. The zoo also pays $5.2 million for vendor contracts. The zoo generates 70% of its revenue from zoo visits and contributions.

Specialized care

Today zoos are staffed with highly trained personnel having specialized knowledge on the animals they are tasked to care for. Animals in the zoo are therefore guaranteed the best care that is available outside their native environment. Many zoos also have veterinarians, pathologists, and technicians who can provide specialized care to animals, including parasite removal and other forms of treatment. Zoo personnel are also aware of the physical and dietary requirements that each species needs to maintain them in a healthy state. The animals are involved in activities that help them remain, among other things, mentally alert and fit. Activities do not adequately replace migration and hunting requirements for animals, but they do eliminate deterioration and boredom at the zoo.

Scientific Research

 Zoos support scientific research by allowing scientists easy access to specimens or species under study. Research that is conducted in zoos is mainly in the fields of behavioral studies, anatomy, and pathology. Such studies create models that help improve zoo conditions so that animals can live longer, breed more successfully, and be happier. Many zoos currently work in collaboration with universities that research the facilities and train professionals such as veterinarians who can then help care for animals.

Arguments Against Zoos

Today most zoos have become recreation facilities where people can go and view animals for entertainment and amusement. Taking an animal from its natural habitat for the sole reason of human entertainment raises several moral and ethical issues. Most experts agree that the pleasure we take from viewing animals is not a good enough reason for holding animals in captivity. Since visits to zoos will, in most instances, be for amusement, some zoos are addressing the moral dilemma by allocating revenues earned to further research and preservation efforts of various wildlife species.

Animal Welfare Overlooked

In some zoos, animal welfare is often overlooked, leaving captive animals to suffer under conditions that are psychologically and physiologically damaging. For example, lions and a black bear that used to live in Magic World Zoo in Aleppo, Syria, were  abandoned at the  zoo to face starvation and injury when the Syrian Civil war broke out. Once they were rescued, they were found to be suffering from malnutrition, kidney, and cardiac problems, as well as trauma from living in a war zone. There are also numerous instances of animal cruelty in zoos. Another example is that of a lion named Cameroon and a tiger named Zabu that were  rescued from a  rundown roadside zoo in 2004 and transferred to a Florida Sanctuary. At their previous home, the two animals were kept captive by their owners, who tried to make them make produce liger cubs. 

Adverse Effects Of Unnatural Conditions

Even if the zoos where the conditions are okay, holding some animal species in captivity can adversely affect their wellbeing. For example,  orcas do poorly  in captivity. Wild orcas live for up to 100 years but live for less than 30 years when kept in captivity. Zoos are also unable to create exact replicas of the natural environment. For example, it is impossible to replicate the natural environment for elephants, which are known to travel 30-50 kilometers each day in the wild. The Alaska Zoo, for example, was struggling to maintain Maggie, the elephant, due to the weather conditions. The elephant was often forced to stay inside in a tiny enclosure to escape the conditions. The zoo eventually bought her a treadmill to help her get some exercise, but she refused. Due to a lack of activity, the elephant's feet began to deteriorate to a point where it became difficult for her to walk.

Breeding Programs Create Dependencies

Zoos that practice breeding programs face challenges when reintroducing animals back into the wild. Predators bred in zoos, for example, grow accustomed to life in the zoo and have  trouble adapting  to a change in the environment when they are sent back to the wild. In some cases, the animals die after being released from captivity due to a lack of necessary survival skills.

Change In Animal Behavior Due To Captivity

Restriction of some animals such as elephants adversely affects their migratory instincts leading to aggressive behavior. About  75 elephants  in various zoos have had to be euthanized before reaching the age of 40. Aggressive behavior, particularly among predatory species, can pose a significant risk to zookeepers and visitors.

Overpopulation

Baby animals are a major attraction in many zoos. Some zoos continuously breed animals to get new-borns to keep visitors coming and revenue streams flowing. In addition to raising ethical and moral questions on such breeding, frequent births  lead to overpopulation  in a zoo with limited space. Zoos sometimes sell surplus animals to other zoos or circus rings and hunting facilities. In some cases, the animals are euthanized. Regardless of the way they are disposed, animals end up depressed when separated from one another. Mothers whose new-borns are ripped away from them become stressed and depressed for the remainder of their lives.

Animals And Liberty

There are  two main points  of view when considering animal liberty. The legal standpoint where animals are considered property and the ethical perspective where it is deemed to be unethical to force animals to remain in a small enclosure. It is essential to know that the issue of animal rights has been factored into various national and international laws indicating that there is a need to protect animal welfare. The inclusion of legislation on animal rights, however, does not adequately address the question of  animal liberties . To that extent, experts have suggested that we have to consider whether we have duties to animals or not. By acknowledging that we have obligations to animals, we should, therefore, respect their interests, needs, wants, and rights.

More in Feature

Are Former Soviet Member Countries More Religious Today?

5 Facts To Know About The Future Of Buddhism

Reasons Why Muslims Are The World’s Fastest-growing Religious Group

The Uprising At Sobibor Extermination Camp

How Many People Have Ever Lived On Earth?

Fact Check – Are No Two Snowflakes Exactly Alike?

The Smithsonian Natural History Museum: Beyond The Public View

The Three Rs Of Animal Testing: A More Humane Approach To Animal Experimentation

Zoos are sometimes seen as necessary but poor alternatives to a natural environment. Discuss some of the arguments for and against keeping animals in zoos as an IELTS topic and give your own opinion.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Include an introduction and conclusion

A conclusion is essential for IELTS writing task 2. It is more important than most people realise. You will be penalised for missing a conclusion in your IELTS essay.

The easiest paragraph to write in an essay is the conclusion paragraph. This is because the paragraph mostly contains information that has already been presented in the essay – it is just the repetition of some information written in the introduction paragraph and supporting paragraphs.

The conclusion paragraph only has 3 sentences:

• Restatement of thesis
• Prediction or recommendation

To summarize, a robotic teacher does not have the necessary disciple to properly give instructions to students and actually works to retard the ability of a student to comprehend new lessons. Therefore, it is clear that the idea of running a classroom completely by a machine cannot be supported. After thorough analysis on this subject, it is predicted that the adverse effects of the debate over technology-driven teaching will always be greater than the positive effects, and because of this, classroom teachers will never be substituted for technology.

Start your conclusion with a linking phrase. Here are some examples:

• In conclusion
• To conclude
• To summarize
• In a nutshell

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

• Check your IELTS essay »
• Find essays with the same topic
• View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
• Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

People from cities go to university more often than those who live in the country. Some people think that the government should make it easier to enter universities for people who live outside of cities and towns by setting lower entry requirements and tuition fees. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Some people think that the modern communication technology is having a negative effect on a social relationships. to what extent do you agree or disagree, some people prefer to spend their lives doing the same things and avoiding change. others, however, think that change is always a good thing. discuss both these views and give your own opinion. give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. you should write at least 250 words., universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject. to what extent do you agree or disagree, some university students want to learn about other subjects in addition to their main subjects. others believe it is more important to give all their time and attention to studying for a qualification. discuss both views and give your own opinion..