Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Justin Aranda
25 February 2019
Imagine, you and your family visit your local zoo and decide to check out the polar bear
exhibit. As you watch the polar bear behind the large glass panes, you notice it starts to pace
back and forth in its enclosure. Bored by the bear’s unamusing and repetitive behavior, you usher
your family to move on to the next exhibit. Next up is the tiger exhibit, and when you see their
enclosure, it’s filled with luscious grass, a big pool, and a plethora of different toys. Yet, you see
the tigers doing the same thing as the polar bear, pacing back and forth in their enclosure. You
might see this and start to wonder why you wasted fifteen dollars on a trip to see a bunch of
boring animals. But in actuality, you paid to witness the long-term effects of captivity on a wild
animal. Since the establishment of zoos in the 18th century, they were built with the intent to
help human beings develop a better understanding of animal’s anatomy and behavior. But doing
so has come at the expense of the animals being studied. Improper treatment of captive animals
has led to thousands of animals experiencing injury or death every year since the dawn of the zoo
(NPR). Even worse, most animals kept in modern zoos lack adequate housing space and
amenities. The zoos are built based on the needs of the guests, not the animals, so the design of
the enclosures don’t properly replicate their natural habitats. This causes animals in zoos to not
develop naturalistic behaviors and instead develop stereotypical behaviors such as pacing. Zoos
have tried to provide solutions for these issues but there have never been any major changes to
zoos that have improved the lives of the captive animals they hold. There is no improvement in
Aranda 2
animal welfare because the biggest issue with zoos isn’t a systematic issue, it’s an ethical issue.
Zoos are constructed around the idea of captivating sentient beings, sentient beings that capable
of consciousness and emotions. These animals are living creatures that are able to think and feel,
yet humans have deemed it just to throw them in cages and observe them for our pleasure. To
end the suffering of animals within zoos, I propose that we ban all of the zoos and similar
organizations in America.
Yet, not everyone agrees with this solution because zoo advocates believe that zoos have
made great progress in conservation efforts and that they provide the public with a unique
learning experience. These arguments for zoos speak some truth but the captive breeding
programs in zoos aren’t very successful, and there are other ways to learn about animals that
don’t involve entrapping them into a life of suffering. Only a very small percentage of zoos
actually do positively impact the animals they care for resulting in most animals facing awful
living conditions and treatment. But by revising the Animal Welfare Act, one of the only pieces
of legislation that protects animal rights, we can put an end to the act of publicly displaying
animals. However, to even get legislators to consider this revision of the act, awareness of the
issues within zoos needs to be spread. This can be done by utilizing the power of social media
and documentaries. If people can become more aware of the true horrors that go on in zoos, more
people will support the idea of banning zoos. To help convince you the reader to support my
idea, let me explain to you some of the major issues with zoos.
Drawbacks of Zoos
A lack of care and respect for animals has been a reoccurring practice in most zoos since
their creation. The notion that humans were better than animals was an accepted way of thought
Aranda 3
and resulted in human’s disregarding the welfare of animals. Against Zoos is a report written by
Dale Jamieson in 1985 that gives a brief history of the creation of zoos and analyses the
arguments for and against zoos. Jamieson is currently a professor of environmental studies and
philosophy at New York University and has orientated his research towards those two subjects
since the beginning of his professional career (NYU). Against Zoos begins by detailing how zoos
were inspired by the animal collections held by emperors to flaunt their status. According to
Jamieson, zoos were inspired by the Romans who had a fascination with capturing exotic
animals and having them compete in gladiator arenas. This led to the collection and slaughter of
tens of thousands of animals over hundreds of years. The history that inspired zoos reveals why
animals lack an ethical or moral code in place to protect them from physical or psychological
harm. Animals were seen and treated more as a utility rather than a living creature, and as a
result, the practice of mistreating animals was continued and accepted. But now that humans are
no longer ignorant and accept that animals are conscious, emotional beings, we have learned that
we need to show animals more respect and compassion. The article progresses and Jamieson
begins to critique the ethics behind zoos. He makes the claim that since zoos lack any real
benefits for the animals, keeping them in captivity is a moral injustice due to all the negatives
that come with captivating a wild animal. This proves to be true because when observing the
functionality of a zoo, they are meant to benefit humans’ understanding of animals’ behavior and
anatomy. Zoos were created to improve the well-being of humans, not the well-being of the
animals.
Animals suffer in zoos because they aren’t able to develop naturalistic behavior patterns
and lack adequate living space. These negative effects that plague zoo animals all stem from the
fact that they are captive animals. Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores is a 2003 study
Aranda 4
conducted by Ros Clubb and Georgia Mason that explains the effects of captivity on carnivorous
animals. Clubb, a scientific officer at the RSPCA, and Mason, a professor at the University of
Guelph, began the report by addressing the dangers of not allowing animals to develop
naturalistic behavior patterns. Without proper development of these patterns, animals can
experience stress, frustration, or have an impairment of the development of certain brain areas.
The report establishes that this lack of development in naturalistic behavior patterns is due to the
fact that animals are put in captivity, especially carnivorous animals with wide-ranging lifestyles.
To prove this theory, Clubb and Mason conducted a study that observed the mean frequency of
pacing, a stereotypic behavior seen in caged animals that is believed to be induced by the small
confinements of enclosures. They took this data from 35 different species of captive carnivores
along with their infant-mortality rates and compared it to data from the same 35 species of
carnivores, but ones that were not held in captivity. The results of the study revealed that
observing the home range size of enclosures compared to the natural home range size of
carnivores could predict the development of the pacing behavior. An example of a carnivore
lacking adequate living space can be seen below in Figure 1. The figure shows the size of the
polar bear enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo, one of the most accredited urban zoos in America.
Although the enclosure seems large, the size of this bear’s enclosure is about one millionth the
Figure 1. Image shows a polar bear from the San Francisco Zoo in his enclosure. A polar bear, whose natural habitat
is the Arctic Circle, is instead given a cement-filled enclosure with a tiny pool.
The Living New Deal. “San Francisco Zoo - San Francisco CA.” Living New Deal, 2018, livingnewdeal.org/projects/san-francisco-
zoological-gardens-san-francisco-ca/.
The study concluded that carnivores with typical large home ranges in the wild will
develop habits of pacing due to their small confinements and lack of development of naturalistic
behavior patterns. This would mean that carnivores kept in zoos or similar structures would
suffer greatly because their enclosures won’t be able to provide the animals with enough space.
Looking at what this study found, these larger animals will never be happy in any type of modern
enclosure because they weren’t meant to live their life entrapped by walls. No change to the
aesthetic or content within an enclosure will match the positive changes of simply expanding the
size of the enclosures. These animals are built to travel miles upon miles every day, but instead,
Current solutions that are meant to improve the welfare of animals in zoos have been
focused on addressing problems within the zoos, rather than focusing on the problems with zoos.
Aranda 6
Minor improvements are implemented in zoos and it leads to a lack of any noticeable positive
changes to the welfare of animals. This was supported in the paper, A Postzoo Future: Why
Welfare Fails Animals in Zoos, written by Jessica Pierce and Marc Bekoff. Pierce, a professor at
the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities, and Bekoff, an emeritus
professor at the University of Colorado, wrote this article in October of 2018 (University of
Colorado). The paper discusses the current improvements made to help the welfare of animals
within zoos and calls for a complete reform or ban of them. The article begins with a discussion
on freedom and the effects of captivity. They believe that the main problem with captivity is
“captivity itself” (Pierce and Bekoff). They point out that numerous studies have revealed that
effects in an animal. From a moral standpoint too, zoos are immoral because “captivity imposes
suffering and it is wrong to deliberately impose suffering on a sentient creature.” The evidence
and statements made in this paper allude to the simple fact that -- zoos aren’t beneficial for
animals. Humans are the only ones that benefit from taking animals from their home and putting
them on display in cages. Additionally, this paper shares similar arguments with Against Zoos,
and the papers were written more than 30 years apart. This indicates that the changes and fixes
made within zoos since the release of the first paper have proven to have little to no effect on the
animals. All of these issues about zoos that I’ve discussed are rooted from systematic issues
within zoos, but one major issue with zoos is the ethics supporting zoos.
When observing zoos and similar organizations, one begins to realize that the relationship
between humans and non-human animals is exploitative. Throughout history, we as humans have
Aranda 7
consciousness and emotions. This belief that humans are superior to non-human animals has
been used to justify our immoral treatment of them. Yet this belief is no longer rational due to
the release of the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness written by Philip Low of Stanford
University. This declaration states that “non-human animals have the neuroanatomical,
neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to
exhibit intentional behaviors” (Low). This statement acts as scientific proof that non-human
animals are sentient beings and as sentient beings, they should be entitled to the intrinsic right to
liberty. Additionally, being that these animals can feel pain and suffering, they shouldn’t be
allowed to be exploited for the sake of human benefits. Peter Singer, an influential professor of
bioethics, also believes in a similar idea and posses the question, “If possessing a higher degree
of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it
entitle humans to exploit non-humans?” (Singer). The question Singer poses highlights the
contradictory in the reasoning that justifies the existence of zoos. Humans may have brains that
give them an intellectual advantage over non-human animals, but that doesn’t mean that those
animals can’t feel pain or sadness. These non-human animals don’t deserve to be locked in a
cage and examined for the entirety of their life. They deserve to be able to roam freely and be
Although there are many systematic and ethical issues with zoos, there are still
individuals that support the existence of them. One of the main argument for zoos is that they
have transitioned their focus away from entertainment and more towards conservation believes
Aranda 8
Drs. Scott Larsen, president of the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians (AVMA). For
example, according to data from zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums,
“SSPs (Species Survival Plans) have helped bring black-footed ferrets, California condors, red
wolves and several other endangered species back from the brink of extinction over the last three
decades” (Scientific American). This progress made by these programs is evidence that certain
zoos have truly changed their focus towards conservation efforts and have been successful doing
so. But the issue with this is the lack of amount of zoos that are actually focusing on conserving
endangered species.
Figure 2. There is a very small proportion of zoos that met the strict requirements of the AZA and the rest of them
that aren’t accredited lack proper care for animals in some way.
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. About AZA Accreditation. Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Oct. 2018, www.aza.org/what-is-
accreditation.
As you can see in Figure 2, of the about 10,000 zoos in America, only about 200 of those
zoos have been accredited by the AZA and about 2,400 have been accredited by the USDA
(AZA). This data reveals that 76% of zoos in America are functioning without proper licensing
to display animals, meaning that these zoos aren’t being regulated by the USDA and are able to
treat their animals as they please. More so, only about 2% of all zoos in America have been
Aranda 9
given accreditation for providing animals with proper treatment and care. The other 98% of zoos
lack either proper living spaces, healthcare, nutrition, or social groupings for animals which
result in the zoos being ill-fit for housing wild animals. Even worse, it has been found that “only
16 of 145 reintroduction programs worldwide ever actually restored any animal populations to
the wild” (National Geographic). Through analyzation of this data, it should be understood that
only a small percentage of zoos do benefit animals through conservation, but a vast majority of
them cause more harm than good. However, if all zoos were to be terminated, the money and
effort put towards conversing certain species in zoos, could be redirected towards funding the
restoration of natural habitats. Organizations like The Nature Conservancy and Natural
Resources Defense Council are the two leading advocacy groups that have put major effort into
conserving and protecting our planet. Using the money that would go towards zoos and investing
it into groups like these will greatly beneficial to animals and natural habitats all around the
world.
The other major argument in favor of zoos is that they provide the public with a unique
educational opportunity because they enable the public to observe exotic animals that they could
never see in their daily lives. According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, “Studies
have shown that AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums enhance the public’s understanding of
wildlife.” (AZA). These accredited zoos work hard to try to make experiences within a zoo
educational, but there are so few zoos that actually do this that most people end up going to zoos
for entertainment rather than education. If zoos really wanted to educate the public about
animals, wouldn’t the public learn best by observing animals in their natural habitat performing
naturalistic behavior? What do people learn by watching a wild animal pace mindlessly around
its tiny enclosure for hours? The answer is, zoo-goers learn at the zoos, but they learn about
Aranda 10
captive animals that are suffering and misrepresent how an ordinary wild animal acts and looks.
To remedy this problem, zoos should be abolished and in its place, organizations should
introduce virtual reality zoos. With the rapid progression being made in the virtual reality
industry, programs have been created that display detailed, 3D images of animals that you can
see at zoos (GeekWire). Yes, people won’t be able to see exotic animals in person anymore, but
people will be able to learn about them in virtual reality and no animals need to suffer or be
forced into captivity to make this solution a reality. Unfortunately, before this solution can be
implemented, a bill needs to be passed that bans zoos and similar organizations.
Proposed Solution
To put an end to the suffering on animals kept in zoos, I believe that zoos and similar
organizations should be banned by adding a revision to the Animal Welfare Act. Currently, there
is only one major piece of legislation in the United States that protects the well-being of animals
in zoos and that is the Animal Welfare Act which was enacted in 1966 (USDA). Its purpose was
to “set standards for the humane care and treatment for certain animals that are exhibited to the
public, sold for use as pets, used in research, or transported commercially” (USDA) It was the
first law of its kind that forced organizations to treat animals with respect by making them
provide animals with proper housing, food, veterinary care, and more. The law is enforced by the
Department of Agriculture and they conduct investigations that ensure that organizations are
abiding by the law’s set standards. This law has done a great deal for animals, but it can be
improved by simply adding on a ban of publicly exhibiting animals which would consequently
put an end to zoos, circuses, and aquariums. Doing this would force organizations like zoos,
circuses, and aquariums to shut down their facilities and release all the animals they hold captive.
Aranda 11
Now in order for this alteration to the bill to even be considered by legislators, many changes
raised. If we can convince the public that zoos and similar organizations are actually harming the
animals they care for, more people will advocate support for stricter policies on zoos. This can be
done in a multitude of ways but the most effective way to inform the public is through the use of
social media and entertainment outlets. Animal rights advocacy groups such as Freedom for
Animals and Humane Society of the United States are focused on helping aid captive animals and
have been able to spread awareness about this through the utilization of social media and the
internet. For example, Freedom for Animals has a twitter account that they use to inform their
audience about information related to their issues and ways they can contribute to their relief
effort. Since Freedom for Animals has a following of over 23,000 people, their organization is
able to spread their message and ideas to a large number of people who have the power to spread
that message even further. Applications like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and more have
developed into some of the most influential forms of communication in our modern society. And
with over 3 billion people logging into some form of social media every month, the internet is a
documentaries. Blackfish, for example, is an infamous 2013 documentary that exposes the
improper treatment and handling of the orcas used at SeaWorld. The film had such a profound
impact on its audience that it caused Seaworld’s profits to drop by 84%, pressured Seaworld to
cancel all future orca shows, and influenced California’s Governor Jerry Brown to sign a bill
banning the breeding of orcas in captivity (Time; National Geographic; NBC). The advantage of
Aranda 12
creating films like Blackfish is that they are able to provide the public with a different
perspective of what is ordinarily heard and seen. Blackfish was able to uncover the truth and
expose Seaworld, resulting in both their business to suffer greatly and increase awareness of the
issue. This use of film and social media combined allow for almost instantaneous connectivity
which is why they are the two best ways to spread awareness about the poorly treated zoo
animals. By spreading awareness of these issues, it will hopefully convince the public to consider
and eventually support the ban of zoos and similar organizations. I know that my goal of banning
zoos is the most effective way to end the suffering of captive animals, but it is a goal that will be
To conclude this paper, I’d like to offer you some different options that can help further
your understanding of the issues with zoos and hopefully encourage you to support my proposed
solution. I’d first recommend that you check out animal rights advocacy groups such as Freedom
for Animals, Mercy for Animals, and Humane Society of the United States. Before, I mentioned
how one of these groups utilizes social media as a form of spreading their message, but all of
these groups actually have incredible websites that are chalked full of information on an array of
animal rights topics and ways you can help with their cause. These groups organize boycotts for
zoos, protests, investigations and more to expose what zoos try to hide from the public (Freedom
for Animals). Below I will include the website links to these groups so that you can check them
out after reading this paper. I’d also like to recommend that you check out some informative
documentaries like Blackfish, Earthlings, Speciesism, and Food Inc. What’s great about these
documentaries is that they don’t just focus on the problems within zoos, they also cover an array
of different animal rights topics. I encourage you to watch these films so that you can expose
yourself to a different perspective on animal rights topics that is contrary to what mass media
Aranda 13
likes to portray. Finally, it is important that people witness the truth and understand how animals
are really being treated in zoos and a multitude of different industries. If we as humans want to
continue living on this planet, we are going need to rethink how we treat animals and develop a
Links to:
● Freedom for Animals - https://www.freedomforanimals.org.uk/
● Mercy for Animals - https://mercyforanimals.org/
● Humane Society of the United States - https://www.humanesociety.org/
Works Cited
Associated Press. “California Governor Signs Bill Banning SeaWorld Orca Shows.”
NBC 7 San Diego, NBC Universal Media, 14 Sept. 2016,
www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/California-Governor-Signs-bill-banning-seaworld-
orca-shows-393317951.html.
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. About AZA Accreditation. Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, Oct. 2018, www.aza.org/what-is-accreditation.
Katie Burns is one of the managing editors for JAVMA, Journals of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, and she wrote an article titled “Role of zoos is conservation,
zoo veterinarians say.” Throughout this article, Burns utilizes multiple resources and quotes from
credible doctors and organizations to describe the conservation efforts being made by accredited
zoos in America. She also briefly mentions other reasons why zoos are beneficial to both animals
and human. I used this source because she gives a counterargument to my main argument but
also because she sites a lot of important people. Her argument is backed up by people who are
infamous in the zoo business which makes her report very credible.
Cless, Isabelle T., et al. “Defining Pacing Quantitatively: A Comparison of Gait Characteristics
between Pacing and Non-Repetitive Locomotion in Zoo-Housed Polar Bears.” Applied
Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 169, 16 Apr. 2015, pp. 78–85.,
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.002.
Isabelle Cless and 3 other researchers conducted a study that analyzed the condition of
pacing with 11 different captive polar bears. Being that the most common stereotypical behavior
for an animal in captivity is pacing, I wanted to find a study that backed up what was being said
by Mason and Clubb. In the report, they found that 10 of the 11 polar bears had developed
pacing behavior and they also define the term pacing. I actually ended up using this source to
inspire the anecdote I used at the beginning of my essay. This source helps solidify the idea that
if you see animals pacing within their enclosure, they are suffering from the confinements of
their enclosure because they need a lot more space to roam around.
Clubb, Ros, and Georgia J Mason. Animal Welfare: Captivity Effects on Wide-Ranging
Carnivores, vol. 425, Nov. 2003, p. 473.,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9069205_Animal_Welfare_Captivity_effects_o
n_wide-ranging_carnivores.
Ros Clubb and Georgia J. Mason wrote the report, Animal Welfare: Captivity effects on
wide-ranging carnivores in 2003. Clubb, a scientific officer at the RSPCA, and Mason, a
professor at the University of Guelph, constructed a report that revealed the alarming effects of
captivity on carnivores animals, specifically captive animals within zoos. The authors of the
report are the ones that conducted the experiment that is analyzed in the report, so they
thoroughly explain the study they conducted and its results in the report. This source is an
example that shows the negative effects of zoos on animals. The data and analysis found in this
source support the reasoning against zoos in the other two sources I am going to analyze. This
source is essentially an example of the main different sources that have used to reveal this issue
within zoos.
Aranda 15
Freedom for Animals. “Boycott Mobile Zoos!” Freedom for Animals, 1 Nov. 2019,
www.freedomforanimals.org.uk/mobile-zoos-take-a-pledge.
Howard, Brian Clark. “Controversial SeaWorld Orca Shows End in California, but
Continue Elsewhere.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 4 Jan. 2017,
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/seaworld-final-orca-show-california-killer-
whales/ .
Jamieson, Dale. “In Defense of Animals.” Against Zoos, 1985, pp. 108–117.,
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/jamieson01.htm.
Dale Jamieson, a professor at the University of New York wrote the paper “Against
Zoos” which was published in 1985 in Peter Singer’s book called “In Defense of Animals.” The
piece details the negative effects of zoos on the welfare of animals and discusses how through
the abolition of zoos, animals won’t have to suffer any longer in zoos. The piece refers to a
multitude of credible sources to support his article and some of those sources are “International
Journal for the Study of Animal Problems” or “New York Zoological Society.” This piece is
very important to the issue I am researching because this paper serves as proof that the
mistreatment of animals in zoos was a struggle in the past and is still a struggle now. It shows
how the problem was addressed in 1980s, yet in the 2010s, the problem still persists.
Jessica Pierce & Marc Bekoff (2018) A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in
Zoos, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 21:sup1, 43-48, DOI:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888705.2018.1513838.
The article A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in Zoos written by Jessica
Pierce and Marc Bekoff. Pierce, a professor at the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics
and Humanities, and Bekoff, an emeritus professor at the University of Colorado, wrote this
article in October of 2018. The article discusses why zoos are failing the animals they house and
it suggests different fixes and changes that could be made by zoos to better the welfare of the
animals they have. This article lists numerous credible pieces of evidence that it uses to support
their arguments and suggest solutions. Some of those sources are Nobel Prize-winning economist
Amartya Sen, or the Fourth Global Animal Welfare Congress in May 2017. This source connects
mainly with first source because this source discusses a lot of the same issues as the other source.
Having two sources that support and address the same problem 40 years apart shows the lack of
concern and care for the issue. Additionally, the second source acts as evidence that supports the
reasoning in this article.
Aranda 16
Kemp, Simon. “Digital in 2018: World's Internet Users Pass the 4 Billion Mark.” We Are
Social, We Are Social LTD, 30 Jan. 2018, https://wearesocial.com/blog/2018/01/global-
digital-report-2018.
King, Barbara J. “Why Do European Zoos Kill Healthy Animals?” NPR, NPR, 14 Oct. 2015,
www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/10/14/448527516/why-do-european-zoos-kill-healthy-
animals.
New York University School of Law. “Dale Jamieson.” NYU l Law, New York
University School of Law, 2019,
https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=
25471.
Philips, Keri. “The Ethical Evolution of Zoos.” ABC News, Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, 21 Oct. 2015,
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-ethical-history-of-
zoos/6869776.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice Hall, 1989.
Rhodan, Maya. “Seaworld's Profits Drop 84% After 'Blackfish' Documentary.” Time,
Time, 6 Aug. 2015, http://time.com/3987998/seaworlds-profits-drop-84-after-blackfish-
documentary/ .
Schlosser, Kurt. “Seattle Zoo Turns to Virtual Reality and Beacon Technology to Give Visitors a
Closer Look at Animals.” GeekWire, GeekWire, 12 July 2018,
www.geekwire.com/2018/seattle-zoo-turns-virtual-reality-beacon-technology-give-
visitors-closer-look-animals/.
USDA. “Animal Welfare Act.” USDA APHIS | Animal Welfare Act, USDA, 30 Jan. 2019,
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/SA_AWA.