It is often held that zoos provide an indispensible service in terms of conservation and public education. While some people agree with this opinion, others believe that maltreatment occuring in zoos cause animals suffer pain and those places should not be allowed to exist. This essay will discuss both these points of view and argue in favour of the former.
On the one hand, it is frequently argued that zoos act as a sanctity for species whose natural habitat has been destroyed due to human activities. In other words, they are safe environment allowing threatened animals rescuing from going extinct and going back to the wild. To illustrate, the majority of zoos offer professionally-run breeding programmes which enable endangered animals to mate and reproduce. In addition, a great number of parents visit zoos with their kids which allow them to expose wildlife and be informed about animals at risk. These experiences may make them more memorable and personal compared to watching animals in a nature documentary. Thus, people can feel more motivated to care about wildlife.
On the contrary, proponents of closing down zoos state that animals suffer pain at the hands of zoo keepers, staff, and visitors. Authorities in zoos prioritise an entertainment of visitors over the well-being of animals to increase their income. Most of zoo staff lack of sufficient knowledge about how to treat with endangered animals. Also, they authorize people to feed animals without checking the safety of food. To curb these actions, zoos should be closed.
After looking at both sides of this argument, it is felt that keeping animals in zoos begets greater benefits than disadvantages as long as there are precautionary measures in place to ensure the safety of these animals.