Keeping animals in Zoos attracts both pros and cons. The proponents (Zoos) hold that zoos help preserve endangered species and enhance public education (Mintee & Collins, 2013). The opponents (animal rights activists) see more cons than pros since the costs surpass the benefits alongside animals’ rights violation. Opponents disagree with the proponents’ reasoning about the enhanced treatment of animals. They do not see any justification for confining the animals’ rights for education or amusement. Arguments For The exposure and education, has motivated individuals to protect the animals as zoos encourage public education making people appreciate the animals.
Zoos assist in saving the endangered species as animals are kept in the safer environment. This prevent poachers as animals are adequately fed to avoid starvation and predation. The difficulty of endangered species finding mates in the wilderness has also been eliminated through zoos’ breeding programs. Therefore, zoos greatly assist in the rehabilitation of wildlife as well as take in exotic pets that would suffer in the hands of individuals.
Arguments Against From the perspective of animals’ rights, opponents argue that zoos lack the right to capture, confine and breed animals whether they are endangered. The animals should continue to enjoy equal rights even if they are endangered. Animals in zoos have increased stress, confinement as well as boredom (Keulartz, 2015). Moreover, zoos break the animals’ intergenerational bonds when traded to other zoos or sold. Animals’ freedom is essential, and no treatment in zoos can substitute freedom. Also, many surplus animals are killed in zoos as a population control mechanism.
Measures such as releasing the animals back to the wild after a certain duration or ensuring that zoos’ environment do not show variation with the wild will help create a win win solution.