Running Head: ZOOS ARE UNETHICAL TO ANIMALS

Zoos are Unethical to Animals

Name
Institution

Authors Note

Abstract
This paper explores the controversy tied to keeping animals in zoos. It concentrates on
discussing zoos as unethical to animals. For instance, a majority of zoos subject their animals
to unscrupulous practices. Second, zoos regard animals as tradable commodities. Lastly, zoos
offer an unsuitable environment for wildlife no matter the conservatory focus of the
organization. On the contrarily, the proposition views zoos as necessary for conservation,
educational, and entertainment purposes. These perspectives receive strong backing from the
likes of Funk, Fa, & O'Connell (2011), PETA (2015) and Watts (2013). The authors differ as

ZOOS ARE UNETHICAL TO ANIMALS

well as share their opinions on this topic. The overall argument is adequate for proving that
indeed zoos are unnecessary evil animal life.
Keywords: Zoos, Wildlife, Ethics

Zoos are Unethical to Animals

Zoos and conservatory wildlife parks have existed since ancient times. They have
been characteristic of great cities around the world in countries such as China, the US,
Britain, and Egypt. Historically, zoos were a show of power, wealth, and an evidence of the
spread of an empire. However, the very nature of their current existence has been highly
controversial among two major fronts. Proponents state that zoos are an importance of public
education, entertainment, and conservation. Critics note that animals do not belong in solitary
confinement whose practices remain questionable. This paper argues that zoos are unethical
to animals.
First, most zoos subject their animals to unscrupulous practices. According to PETA
(2015), zoo owners engage in questionable practices such as lifting animals from their natural
habitats and dumping unwanted animals. In 2006, the San Diego Zoo, Litchfield Park, and
Lowry among others received criticism for importing monkeys illegally trafficked from
Africa (PETA, 2015). Second, zoo owners regard the animals under their care as sources of
income. Watts (2013) asserts that these entities view animals as tradable commodities. They
will buy, sell, borrow, and transfer them without much concern for the potential psychological
harm. Zoos may also breed animals to draw more visitors and boost revenue. The fate of

ZOOS ARE UNETHICAL TO ANIMALS

individual animals is often short term because owners replace them once they surpass their
usefulness (Watts, 2013).
Third, most animals are not suitable to live in zoos, however, noble the focus of the
organization. According to Watts (2013), it is highly unethical to keep animals such as
elephants in captivity. Their peers in the wild will roam and cover vast distances within their
territory on a daily basis. However, zoo animals have no choice but endure long periods of
standing still in restricted zones. Such restrictions place a severe strain on their feet and
backbones (Watts, 2013). Finally, zoos are notable of limiting natural behavior. Funk, Fa, &
O'Connell (2011)asserts that zoo life means limited flying, running, swimming, climbing,
foraging, gathering, and mating. Their environments are unsuitable for these natural
processes even if available at times. For instance, it would be unethical to allow two caged
lions to mate in public. The psychological and physical strain associated with such practices
often result in neurotic, self-destructive, and abnormal behavior. For instance, frustrated
monkeys sway rhinos pace, leopards bite and claw at rails and baboons mutilate themselves
(Funk, Fa, & O'Connell, 2011).
On the contrary, zoos supporters claim that they protect animals from extinction
associated with their natural habitats. Funk, Fa, & O'Connell (2011) view zoos as perfect and
safe for educational and entertainment purposes. However, note that zoos always target
favorite animals that have the capability of drawing many visitors. They neglect their least
common counterparts that need most attention and protection. In addition, most zoo animals
are not near extinction, and confining them does little if nothing to protect them and their
survival chances. This argument shows that zoos are more of businesses than conservatory
organizations (Funk, Fa, & O'Connell, 2011).
In conclusion, it is true that zoos are vital for entertainment and educational purposes.
They allow members of the public to see animals from all over the world and learn about
their natural habitats. Zoos are also important in raising awareness of the environmental
issues associated with different species of wildlife. However, caging animals is not the only

ZOOS ARE UNETHICAL TO ANIMALS

way of saving them from extinction. It is certainly not the best source of entertainment. Zoos
are equal to animal prisons. Based on this argument, it is adequate to conclude that zoos are
unethical to animals.

References
Funk, S., Fa, J., & O'Connell, D. (2011). Zoo Conservation Biology. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
PETA. (2015). Animal Rights Uncompromised: Zoos. Retrieved April 4, 2015, from People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/zoos/
Watts, J. (2013, November 6). Are Animals in Cages a Necessary Evil? Retrieved April 4,
2015, from CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/06/world/asia/jenni-watts-animalsin-captivity/