Many people advocate to shut down zoos concerning its cruelty, whereas others hold the opposite view that it serves the animal’s best interests by providing them excellent living conditions in the zoo. I personally agree with the latter view because animals are better protected and fed in this circumstance. It is worthwhile to investigate and compare both standpoints.
The idea for shutting down the zoo is backed by the logic that in doing so animal’s freedom is largely constrained. For animals, having been taken into captivity and locked up in the zoo, it is no difference than incarceration since they cannot implement their their free will to move, explore and endeavor in the wild nature. According to Memphis Zoo in the US, hundreds of thousands of animals from leopard to African lion have attempted to escape which shows their reluctance to be concentrated in the confine space.
Although there is rationale in considering putting animals in the zoo as grim, one must not forget that offering animals a peaceful living space is a positive undertaking. The zoo acts like a safe haven which not only provides shelter and protect them from dangerous predators in the wild, but also feeds them with high nutrient food that cannot be accessed in the nature. A study conducted by University of Chicago suggests that compared to those who live in the wilderness, animals including giraffe and Siberian tigers in average live 8 to 10 years longer in the zoo.
To conclude, albeit rounding up animals in the zoo refrains their liberty which seems to be an inhumane act, it is generally better off for them to reside in the zoo since they are safer and better nurtured.