Is it fair to keep animals in zoos?

Answer 1

Better than keeping them in the bathroom.

Answer 2

Good question. I went to Marwell Zoo (in Plymouth, England) for four days as part of my uni degree and spent the time discussing this very question

It goes without saying that 'bad' zoos that are only there to make a profit should not be allowed to continue. Marwell however, and many others, have a primary aim to conserve species, in particular the scimitar-horned oryx. This is an endangered species that Marwell is leading a breeding programme for. Furthermore, I can vouch that the animals at Marwell are kept in excellent naturalistic surroundings, with all their needs provided for, and so are a lot better of than they'd be in the wild, where they're being hunted to extinction by man! More often than not, it's our encroachment on their environment that is actually causing extinction.

Mankind has spelled the end for so many species on this planet, it has a moral obligation to try to bring back as many species as possible from the brink of exinction. No one can therefore say 'all zoos are bad' - there are many that are doing excellent work to stop us losing any more of the valuable species on this planet. There are plenty of zoos that are there for the benefit of the animals, not for people.

I don't think anyone would argue that it's OK to capture animals from the wild and put them in cages for the entertainment of visitors. This practice is outlawed in England - it is forbidden to capture animals from the wild unless they're ill or in danger. These animals are treated, or moved to a safer location rather than put in a zoo. Breeding programmes ultimate aim is to release animals into the wild that have been bred in zoos, and so boost the numbers of these species in the wild. This has to be done under controlled conditions - the animals must not be allowed to become tame in the zoo, and must be kept in as natural conditions as possible so they are capable of surviving when they're released.

So I say good PROPER zoos - yay. Admirable work is being done.
Bad zoos that are there for people's entertainment - very bad. This is how zoos started out, but this practice is gradually being outlawed - the reputation of zoos is changing.

Chalice

Answer 3

The best place for animals is nature, but nature is being destroyed by human.
Sometimes there is no other solution than to keep some of the endangered species in zoos, but the best thing to do is to make the place as similar as possible as nature or the natural environment of the animal.
Zoos are not good if they endangered species, they are a fair place if they help to save them.

Answer 4

Hmmm .... that's a tough question. Fair to the animals ? If they are housed decently and treated and fed well, it would be ok. As long as housing these animal creates an appreciation for their breeds .... and allows us to learn about them ... I think it's good ...

Answer 5

To the animals that are held captive, probably not. But, it the overall scheme of things, yes. These animals are in a sense ambassadors for their species to the human race. Humans tend to kill things they don't understand. By exposing people to the wonders of these animals, humans are far less likely to destroy them.

Answer 6

Definately NO. They belong in their natural habitat. How would we like to be on display in a human zoo. We humans need to learn to leave our fellow animals in their habitats.
How would we like it if animals put us in a zoo for other animals to look at us.

Answer 7

yes because alot of animals brot to zoos are bread there, orfand, abused, or unable to live in the wild and would die

Answer 8

no i wouldn't say so because the animals are not in their natural habitat . but i don't mind wildlife perserves or trying to bring back a species that is almost extict.

Answer 9

Yes, it is better than them being extinct or having people invade what is left of their natural enviorment

Answer 10

yes ı thınk