Zoos have sparked debates over their merits in the modern era. Many people are inclined to advocate that zoos necessitate abolishment. In fact, this form of amusement raises certain issues, citing the adverse effects on animals’ lives and their instincts as the primary factors, and there are three substitutes which are assumed to outperform zoos.
To begin with, critics put emphasis on the decreasing life quality of animals and the gradual loss of instincts to advocate the closure of zoos. The primary rationale for the former effect is that only entertainment and profit purposes have zoos served, their monthly income relying heavily on selling tickets. Hence, if the demand of residents declines, the sums of money spent for the basic needs of animals will be insufficient. To illustrate, during the quarantine period, Saigon Zoo and Botanical Gardens suffered from severe financial hardship due to a lack of visitors and had to make a desperate appeal for funding in search of animal survival. Regarding the latter problem, it is evident that animals in captivity are unable to thrive as well as those living in their natural habitats. For instance, lions in jungles are capable of learning how to chase after and hunt their prey, while those in cages find difficulty running fast, not to mention feeding themselves. Although hunting is deemed an instinct of some predators, especially lions, a massive amount of time spent in zoos has significantly deteriorated their fundamental abilities. The escalating prevalence of the two adverse effects has prompted the recommendation for zoo abandonment.
Given the urgency of the matter, finding viable alternatives to zoos, which are national parks, sanctuaries, and natural environment reintroductions, is imperative. First of all, the first two options are perceived to be ideal substitutes for zoos since they always prioritize all the fauna. Not only do animals flourish in an environment that closely resembles their homes, but those organizations are also ensured by nation-funded revenues. Secondly, it is of vital importance to reintroduce animals to their real habitats. The purpose put forth in support of this option is that all of them are allowed to regain freedom. Furthermore, when developing in their true houses, animals are able to gradually retrieve and maintain an enormous number of inherent skills such as hunting, self-protection, migration, and so forth. With those merits, the three alternatives are distinctly superior to zoos.
In conclusion, there are a wide range of noticeable issues, two of which are negative consequences for animals and instinct loss arising from keeping animals caged. In order to minimize those implications, the three choices, which are national parks, sanctuaries, and natural environment reintroduction, are suggested to replace zoos.