It is commonly believed that institutions, such as zoos, jeopardise the freedom of many animals and should be transferred back to the forest, Alaska, and deserts. On the other hand, proponents argue that zoos are an amazing place for saving endangered species and may contribute to saving their population. In my essay, I will discuss both views. Personally, I think and firmly agree with the statement that zoos can help sustainable species, which have disappeared from their native environment.
Zoo is looking for such a good tool for saving the life. Climate change contributes to increasing precedents of jeopardising. Many of them after the complication die. For instance, dinosaurs. If zoos existed 2000 years ago, nowadays, we could meet these lovely animals. However, zoos and other defence organisations did not establish, we do not get this chance. As a second example, I can point out a polar bear. This bear was 20 years ago in danger and settled in the Frankfurt Zoo. In contemporary times, many polar bears can run and swim in the Arctic Ocean, because of zoos.
Contradict, many people argue and fight for a free range of wild animals, because zoos should be harmful. Visitors, displaying animals, and a loud environment might have a negative psychological impact on them. For example, the monkey’s reaction. These animals know, how to let you show their moods. If they are overwhelmed, they will start screaming, shouting, and jumping to the glass wall. Before, if you remember, you could touch the monkey. However, the scientist’s research showed that tired monkeys are dangerous for groups. Thus, the opposition uses the argument that these animals should be again free.
In conclusion, in my thesis, I discuss both statements and after a deeper consideration, I believe that zoos should help save many wild animals and can help sustain their species in wild nature for the future.