Wildlife parks play a significant role in preserving and researching various species. While some individuals think that all zoological parks should be closed, opponents argue that they have a positive impact. While closing zoos may help increase the animals’ lifespan through healthier food, it also disrupts their eating patterns. In this essay, I will explain both sides of the statement with relevant examples and provide my opinion.
On the one hand, in zoos, animals lose their natural habitat, which profoundly affects their eating patterns. This is because a zoo is an artificial and confined space that has fewer food sources than a natural habitat. Most of the animals are fed processed meats and supplements. For instance, in a forest or jungle, they can hunt and eat a variety of animals to satisfy their appetite. This maintains a prey predator relationship. However, as a result of captivity, it severely affects their health and natural behaviors.
On the other hand, it is a better option to preserve their lifespan. Animals in zoos receive healthy food, nutritional supplements and continuous medical checkups that protect them from diseases such as viral infections, which are common in the wild. For example, recently in Australia, a widespread bushfire killed a large number of koalas, which are on the verge of extinction. So, zoos can serve as a safe haven for endangered species.
In my opinion, zoos should be closed because they play a crucial role in preserving and researching various species. However, efforts should be made to improve the natural behaviors and eating patterns are maintained as much as possible .
To conclude, many people argue that zoos should be closed, others believe that they have a positive impact. In zoos, animals may not have access to their natural food, which can disrupt their eating patterns and prey-predator relationships. However, zoos also provide a safe environment, nutritious food, and medical care that can help protect endangered species and contribute to their conservation.