Throughout the years, the question about animals’ natural habitats and zoo existence sparks debate among people. Some of them support the idea about zoo advantages for animals and society, while zookeepers are strongly convinced that it has a detrimental impact on animal’s living.
From one perspective, according to the natural laws, the flora and fauna are always connected and show the right symbiosis. All species depend on each other, as their natural environment provides them nutrients and habitats for living, whereas animals help to support natural balance among species, saving others from predators. Moreover, it is hard to reject that climate plays a vital role for their survival. It is impossible for them to exist in different climate conditions with higher or lower temperatures. For instance, it is unfeasible to imagine giraffes existence in nothern countries, not only because of temperature difference, but also due to a lack of necessary food.
In contrast, nowadays, zoos are one of the main ways how people can gain more insights about wild world. First of all, animals are provided with enclosures, which allow safe attendence of these places. Furthermore, zoo workers always support animals with enough quantity of fresh food and water, which is prominant for their energy levels. As a result, people who are unable to travel due to financial issues are likely to seize an opportunity and see wild animals firsthand.
Thus, it is a double-edged sword, as keeping animals in captivity will always have beneficial and harmuful outcomes. However, if zoo workers supplied animals with all obligatory resources, such as nutrients, sufficient spacing, and temperature balance, people would have an option to see wild life, even with lack of finacial resources.