While one school of thought holds that zoos shouldn’t be opened, others are of the opinion that it is where the wildlife animals are being protected. This essay will closely scrutinize both views before concluding I agree with the latter.
On the one hand, it is understandable why some people acknowledge that zoos are horrible and should be prohibited. The key rationale is that some zoos mistreated many wildlife animals. This means the zoo’s keepers didn’t provide enough food and drink for each animal to grow comprehensively. Proponents of such a ban might also emphasize that when confining these animals in a zoo that is not only narrow but also not the same as their previous habitat, they would easily suffer from stress and depression. Of course, this will have detrimental effects on their health, hence, these animals are not suitable and qualified for study and experiment. In this case, it is justifiable to prohibit zoos in the first place.
On the other hand, I side with those who say that zoos could help us to protect endangered animals. Firstly, the fears about inhuman zoo keepers and narrow space as mentioned before, are actually over-exaggerated. Apparently, this kind of zoo accounts for only a small part. Moreover, this problem actually could be solved by the government’s action. They can impose stringent punishments for those who do things that harm the wild animals or they also can allocate more money to expand the zoo’s space, which also might fuel the overall economy, especially in the tourism sector. In addition to this, these zoos are necessity places to protect animals from many negative effects that lead to their extinction, for example, hunters, and predators.
In conclusion, while there are justifications that zoos should be prohibited, I would contend that it should be opened in terms of protecting endangered animals.