essay animals are always better off in the wild

• Listening Tests
• Academic Tests
• General Tests
• IELTS Writing Checker
• IELTS Writing Samples
• Speaking Club
• IELTS AI Speaking Test Simulator
• Latest Topics
• Vocabularying
• 2024 © IELTS 69

Animals are always better off in the wild

IELTS essay Animals are always better off in the wild

• Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
• ? One main idea per paragraph
• Include an introduction and conclusion
• Support main points with an explanation and then an example
• Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
• Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
• Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
• Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
• Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
• Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
• Check your writing for errors
• Answer all parts of the question
• ? Present relevant ideas
• Fully explain these ideas
• Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
• ? Currently is not available
• Meet the criteria
• Doesn't meet the criteria
• 5 band A growing number of people tend to think that a rise of crime among teenagers is related to violence in media. A growing number of people tend to think that a rise of crime among teenagers is related to violence in media. Much public attention is paid to the growth of juvenile delinquency, though I do not support this opinion, as that problem can be explained by a number of reasons, because of which juvenile ...
• 6.5 band Some believe that the government should prevent crime, while others believe that everyone should have a responsibility to protect themselves from wrongdoing. There are rational arguments on both sides of this topic, which we will discuss in detail, and then my opinion on this matter. Some believe that the government should prevent crime, while others believe that everyone should have a responsibility to protect themselves from wrongdoing. There are rational arguments on both sides of this topic, which we will discuss in detail, and then my opinion on this matter. On the one han ...
• I am always sorry when any language is lost, because languages are the pedigrees of nations. Samuel Johnson
• 6 band statement of purpose of a graduate student Statement of purpose I, Md Mobarok Hosen Omi Am Applying to the University of Kassel For admission to the Master’s Program in Electrical Engineering. In the following, I want to demonstrate my interests step-by-step and give you an impression of my fascination and devotion for the Master’s program. ...
• 5 band the sudden things you have seen On the way somewhere, the boy saw a girl riding a bicycle. Suddenly, her bag fell to the road, and she still went riding and didn't know this. Immediately, the boy picked up the bag and called her so that he could give the girl's bag to her. After hearing someone who called her, she stopped riding t ...
• The joy of knowing a foreign language is inexpressible. I find it really difficult to express such joy in my mother tongue. Munia Khan
• 6.5 band People often think that in most countries, crime rates are higher in urban areas than in rural areas. I People often think that in most countries, crime rates are higher in urban areas than in rural areas. I deem it to be true, and I suggest that unemployment and drug abuse are the most common causes of such differences. First and foremost, unemployment. Unemployment is considered as the main reason ...
• 6 band some people believe that in order to improve driving standards, some drivers should take safety road courses while some opine that giving sever punishments is better. discuss both of this opinion and give out your opinion about it The main concern of the government and the local community is the high rate of mortality from car accidents which endanger many citizens’ lives. With this in mind, two major schemes have been recommended. While many opine that car users should participate in safety road courses, others opt for the p ...
• With languages, you are at home anywhere. Edward De Waal

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

• Food & Farming Media Network
• How to Pitch Us
• Freelance Charter
• Work With Us

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained

Debates about the ethics of zoos abound — but when it comes to animal welfare, there are certainly more cons than pros.

Explainer • Entertainment • Policy

Words by Björn Ólafsson

For many people, zoos are the only chance they’ll have in their entire lives to see beautiful animals native to far-flung ecosystems — lions, elephants, pandas, lemurs — the list goes on. And they’re popular — over 181 million people visit a U.S. zoo every year . But zoos face criticism from animal welfare organizations and environmental activists for inhumane treatment of the animals they claim to protect. Zoos maintain that they are important aspects of conservation and education. 

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of zoos ?  Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of these controversial organizations. 

What Are Some Pros and Cons of Zoos ?

First, not all zoos are created equal. While it is easy to imagine animal ethics as a binary of evil and moral, zoos can vary widely on how they treat their animals, how much space they are given and how the animals are obtained. Still, most zoos tend to have the same positives and negatives overall. 

Arguments Against Zoos

Poor conditions for animals.

Animals Often Only Have Quite Limited Space

Many zoos’ enclosures are too small, especially for animal species that are used to roaming, flying or swimming large distances in the wild. For example, polar bears are used to home ranges of about 1,000 square kilometers in the wild — large swaths of land and ice they enjoy exploring . In zoos, they get a couple hundred square feet. 

Zoos Are  Crowded

In addition to limited space, many zoos cram in as many animals as possible into the enclosures. Many visitors prefer seeing animals up close, instead of peering at them from afar, hidden in their dens or nests. This encourages zoos to increase the number of animals per exhibit,  increasing the likelihood of visitors seeing animals on the move near the boundaries of the enclosure. 

Animals Are Trapped in Unnatural Environments

Anyone who has visited a zoo knows the exhibits are a far cry from the natural landscape they are trying to imitate. Nearly all zoo enclosures contain fences, glass or other barriers for visitors to look through, which are inherently artificial. And the natural-seeming landscapes can sometimes be made out of astroturf, concrete or plastic.

Confinement May Alter the Behavior of Animals

The lack of space, unnatural environments and crowded conditions can directly affect the behavior of animals ; most notably in the form of what’s known as “stereotypy.” Stereotypy is a condition in which non-human animals engage in repetitive behaviors with no apparent purpose, such as pacing for hours on end, wagging tails abnormally or picking their own fur. 

The structure of zoos increases the likelihood of stereotypic behavior due to a lack of enrichment, mundane environments and boring, repetitive schedules. This prevalence of stereotypy in zoos even has its own name: “zoochosis,” or psychosis caused by zoos . 

‘Surplus’ Animals Can Be Killed

After an animal has reproduced successfully and the zoo no longer requires the animal to maintain an exhibit, the animal is deemed “surplus.” At this point, the animal’s welfare is no longer profitable . Zoos can sell the animal to private owners (who may keep the animal in tiny cages for amusement or kill the animal for taxidermy purposes), sell the animal to other zoos or enclosures, or “euthanize” the animal. 

Animals Are Often Mistreated 

Animal mistreatment is much more than hitting or beating an animal. It also includes harmful training techniques, separation from family members and forcing animals to behave in abnormal ways. 

In a report from World Animal Protection, three-fourths of zoos include human-animal interactions , many of which can be very stressful or physically harmful for animals. In some extreme cases, visitors rode on the backs of animals (causing injury) or encroached on the animals’ enclosure (causing stress).

Investigations into popular zoos sometimes reveal that caretakers don’t always clean the exhibits frequently , leaving the animals to live near their feces. The research also reveals many zookeepers hitting animals who “misbehave,” and not helping animals with injuries sustained in the enclosures. While not all animal caretakers behave this way, the reporting suggests many zoos around the world are lax with animal welfare. 

Animals Don’t Like Being Visited

The mere presence of human beings can negatively affect wild animals, especially in massive crowds that are common at zoos. Being bombarded by the sounds, smells and appearances of swaths of humans can trigger the stress responses of some animals . Some studies show that the number of visitors correlates with the amount of stress hormones in many animal species. 

Animals Struggle to Form Connections

Many animals are highly social creatures. Elephants, lions, pigs, cows and many more species are shown to have complex connections, hierarchies and relationships with members of their own kind — especially with friends and family. However, zoo animals rarely stay with the same herd or family for their entire lives. Instead, zoos opt to transfer, sell, buy or relocate animals throughout their lifespans, making it difficult for animals to form social connections . This lack of bonding can harm the animals emotionally. 

Zoos Are for Humans, Not Animals

Most zoos are for-profit enterprises, meaning they have one goal in mind: maximizing revenue. It is easy to see how making more money can come at the expense of animal welfare. For example, a zoo is unlikely to fund an exhibit expansion if it isn’t cost-effective, regardless of its benefits for the animals inside. While many zookeepers form real bonds with their animal companions, the animals still exist under a for-profit, human-centered organization. 

Zoos Promote Human Superiority

The aesthetic nature of zoos — animals in panopticon-like enclosures, viewed 24/7 by members of a different species — can reinforce human superiority. As moral philosopher Lori Gruen writes in her book, “visitors leave the zoo more convinced than ever of human superiority over the natural world.” Of course, zoos also reinforce the idea that humans have a right to take away animals’ freedom and bodily autonomy.

Zoos Don’t Always Help with Conservation — Some Wild Animals Have to Be Caught to Bring Them to Zoos

Many animals in zoos are born in captivity, but that’s not the case for all. Many animals are taken directly from the wild , often when they are babies, to make the transition to captivity a bit easier. At times, this is done in the name of conservation, or when a wild animal is very ill. But many zoos will take animals from the wild, or buy animals from unethical animal traders. 

It’s Often Not Possible to Return Animals to the Wild

Releasing an animal into the wild isn’t always successful, especially if the animal has spent time in climates different from their native regions, like jungles, savannas or ice caps. Properly preparing animals for success in the wild is a multi-stage process that can require thousands of dollars — and it doesn’t always work . Captive-born predator species — disadvantaged by being born and raised in an artificial environment — only have a survival rate after being released into the wild of 33 percent , according to one study. As a result, re-release is not a priority for many zoos.

Zoos Are Poorly Regulated

While there exist many laws that protect animals, such as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Endangered Species Act , they only offer minimum protections . For example, the AWA excludes entire species of animals, like mice, farmed animals, birds and all cold-blooded animals. Its “minimum” standards of care usually ensure the animals’ safety, not their welfare or happiness. Many animal law experts say these regulations don’t go far enough . 

What Are the Pros of Having Zoos?

They Can Be Important for Researchers

Biologists and zoologists can benefit from studying animals in zoos. Some breakthroughs in animal behavior and treatment, like why elephants swing their trunks or how gorillas develop heart disease, have been made possible because of zoos’ ease of access . However, not all animals behave the same in captivity as they do in the wild, so not all research is possible in zoos. 

Zoos Are Educational — People May Behave “Eco-friendlier” After Going To the Zoo

Zoos can kickstart individuals’ interest in biodiversity, which is a critical aspect of environmental protection. Many zoos include calls to action in their exhibits, highlighting how endangered animals are being poached, driven away, or otherwise killed by human activity. This can inspire some people to behave more conscientiously. One limited survey found that 35 percent of eco-friendly people learned sustainable behavior from zoos . ‘

Zoos Can Help Educate Children About Animals

Zoos are a quintessential school experience for many young people. Children love learning about animals up-close in a safe environment — in fact, education is possibly the biggest advantage of modern zoos. Many programs, like school presentations, guided tours, informational exhibits, and talks with zookeepers can trigger a lifelong love of animals in children .  

But zoos aren’t perfect in this regard. According to a study of zoo visitors in the UK, only 34 percent of children learned more about animals at zoos (the result was slightly better when the children were given  a guided tour). Worse, children did not feel empowered to help with conservation efforts after visiting a zoo. This suggests that if zoos care about education, they need to more actively reach out to schoolchildren for empowerment and education. 

Going to the Zoo Is Affordable

More ethical ways of engaging with animals without removing them from their natural habitats — like whale watching, safaris, hikes, or excursions — are usually expensive or inaccessible for many people. Zoos tend to be relatively cheap for the average family that wants to learn about animals. 

Conservation

Zoos Can Protect Endangered Species from Extinction

Zoos often claim they can protect entire species from extinction through conservation programs that involve breeding more animals in captivity and then releasing them into the wild. This is especially important for endangered species like pandas. 

While these conservation efforts are truly important, they don’t represent the majority of a zoo’s activities, nor are zoos leaders in conservation worldwide. At the National Zoo, for example, only one-fifth of animals are endangered . In North America, zoos only contribute about 14 percent of all animals reintroduced into the wild as part of a conservation program. Zoos also tend to focus on headline-grabbing endangered animals to bring in visitors, like pandas, elephants or tigers, as opposed to lesser-known but crucial species, like tamarins, kakapos or wombats. 

Are Zoos Good or Bad for the Environment?

Zoos claim to support global biodiversity through conservation efforts like protecting endangered animals. This is somewhat true, although it varies greatly from zoo to zoo. 

On the other hand, zoos are big polluters and use up lots of resources , especially energy and water . Aquariums in particular use tons and tons of water. Zoo animals also generate waste that may or may not be composted or disposed of correctly.

Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?

Given the many ways that zoos are unethical to animals, the flawed attempts to contribute to conservation, and the positioning of humans as superior to animals, many animal ethicists believe zoos should not exist — or at least, not exist in their current form . 

For example, animal philosopher Dale Jamieson says in his book Ethics on the Ark that zoos primarily “alleviate our sense of guilt for what we are doing to the planet, but they do little to help the animals we are driving to extinction.” He continues to argue that zoos exist for humans alone , and that it is very difficult to wave away the inherent immorality of depriving animals their liberty for the sake of human amusement. 

Instead, private conservation programs can benefit endangered animals without showcasing them to the public. Animal sanctuaries, which are  areas of land in which endangered and other animals are protected by humans, are also advantageous for both individual animals and global biodiversity . 

Zoos do have advantages — fostering curiosity and education chief among them. But experts believe there are other ways of accomplishing these goals without resorting to zoos with tiny enclosures. Excursions, nature documentaries, safaris, local gardens, hikes, boat tours and other ways of interacting with nature don’t involve taking animals out of their natural habitats. 

The Bottom Line

If you do choose to visit a zoo, opt for zoos that have certifications from independent animal welfare organizations. If you are interested in animal conservation, you’d be more impactful donating to a non-zoo animal protection organization instead. And if you do want to visit animals, consider an animal sanctuary or an ethical safari, where you can see animals in their native environments.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Björn Jóhann Ólafsson is a science writer and journalist who cares deeply about understanding the natural world and her inhabitants through stories and data. He reports on the environmental footprint of the meat industry, the alternative protein sector and cultural attitudes around food. His previous bylines include the EU Observer and Elemental. He lives in Spain with his two lovebirds.

Beagles Are Bred by the Thousands on Factory Farms, and It’s Perfectly Legal

Justice • 4 min read

More Law & Policy

New Supreme Court Case Threatens Legal Protections for Animals

Law & Policy • 7 min read

‘The Smell of Money’ Film Is Bringing Together Environmental and Food Justice Advocates

A new documentary chronicles the damage hog farm pollution has caused communities of Eastern North Carolina.

Justice • 5 min read

5 Ways Taxpayers Bail Out Factory Farms

The way we produce meat and dairy is responsible for all sorts of damage, and taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Law & Policy • 6 min read

New Climate Research Shows How Plants and Animals Face New Pressures in a Warming World

Climate • 6 min read

Why Plant-Based Burgers at Fast Food Chains Get So… Mushy

Diet • 8 min read

How Much Protein You Need to Be Healthy, Explained

Diet • 10 min read

Fish Feel Pain, Science Shows — But Humans Are Reluctant To Believe It

Science • 9 min read

Most Read Today

• Environment
• Road to Net Zero
• Art & Design
• Film & TV
• Music & On-stage
• Pop Culture
• Fashion & Beauty
• Home & Garden
• Things to do
• Combat Sports
• Horse Racing
• Beyond the Headlines
• Trending Middle East
• Business Extra
• Culture Bites
• Year of Elections
• Pocketful of Dirhams
• Books of My Life
• Iraq: 20 Years On

The Great Debate: should zoos exist, or are animals better off in the wild?

One animal lover thinks that zoos are a place for noble conservation efforts, but another can't see past them as a place for selfish human entertainment.

Giraffes peek into a safari car at the Al Ain Zoo. Zoos now face tough regulations for enclosures and animal living conditions. Courtesy Al Ain Zoo

Every week, we find two people with opposing (or at least different) views on a topic to discuss the day's big (and small) issues. This week, we're asking two of  The National 's biggest animal lovers whether there is a place for zoos in the 21st century.

Panna Munyal: The Al Ain Zoo website lists an interesting fact about the Arabian oryx: it was brought back from the brink of extinction thanks to a dedicated breeding programme conducted by the Phoenix Z oo in association with others, one of many such initiatives that conscientious zoos invest in.

Hayley Skirka: I didn't know that, that's interesting and I'm pretty sure it's not the first animal that has benefited from the conservation work that takes place in zoos around the world. But why does such conservation work need to take place in zoos, which are essentially entertainment venues for people?

PM: There's no denying that that's purely what they were – once. And while there still exist fly-by-night operators who are more interested in raking in profits, most world-class zoos not only have breeding and conservation programmes in place, but are also affiliated with academic institutes. Entertainment aside, zoos can provide an opportunity to educate people, especially youth, teach them more about animals and spark an interest in their well-being.

HS: I'd like to agree, but find it hard to swallow the conservation card that a lot of zoos play. It's an argument that's been created to appease people and it's not why zoos exist – they exist for human entertainment. Granted, some zoos have amazing programmes through which animals are well looked after, but that's also difficult to regulate. Earlier this year, the owner of St Edouard Zoo in Canada was jailed for animal cruelty despite having run the place for 30 years. And, in England last year, a zoo owner was charged after causing the deaths of more than 500 animals that were in his care.

As for education, do we really need to keep animals in captivity in order to learn about them or spark an interest? Hundreds of kids are still super-interested in dinosaurs or unicorns, despite the fact there are no cages offering an up-close look at these creatures.

PM: Zoos were created for human entertainment, yes, but that's quickly becoming secondary in ones that have animal welfare at their heart – from those in Singapore and San Diego to London, Prague, Berlin and Al Ain. And the "cages" are no longer cramped, unsanitised prisons, but rather species-specific enclosures that keep in mind each animal's need for space, greenery and water resources, with most even providing props and activities to keep the critters as entertained as its distant viewers.

HS: Many do have much better standards than ever before, but the primary function is still entertainment and selling tickets. Otherwise, why wouldn't the animals be kept in rehabilitation centres or open-space wildlife centres where they can roam more freely and have a choice about whether they are gawked at by members of the public on a daily basis? I think in this day and age, it's time to re-examine the existence of zoos. Who are we to decide animals are kept captive?

PM: In some cases, zookeepers are saviours. An unwell or endangered animal is unlikely to survive in the wild, but it can be cured by medical staff in a zoo. Highly qualified professionals and doctors are humans that such animals actually benefit from. Plus, several zoos do have wide, open spaces and most have enclosures fitted with private lairs for an animal to retreat to when it gets too hot or cold, or when it feels uncomfortable with the attention it receives during opening hours.

In fact, current zoo accreditation laws are super-strict when it comes to the size of an enclosure, not to mention food and hygiene quality. An unnatural habitat – with human intrusion – is not better than an animal’s natural habitat, I agree, but unfortunately the wild is not as wonderful a place as it’s made out to be anymore. Poachers exist, as does deforestation, as does climate change, all of which lead to hunted animals or a scarcity of food and water.

HS: I don't doubt for a minute that the people who work in zoos can be saviours and typically care greatly about the animals they look after. But if more resources were put into sanctuaries or animal rehabilitation projects then the qualified staff could do the same job there, without having to have commercial interests as their primary focus. Even in the best instances, zoos cannot begin to replicate natural habitats, as animals often can't fly, forage, hunt, choose a mate, form a pack, and so on, in captivity.

That said, I totally agree that the wild is not as wonderful a place as it used to be, something else that has stemmed from human selfishness and thinking we have “rights” over all the world’s creatures and places. It would be good if we could have a collective focus on efforts to restore animals’ natural habitats, than on scooping up sick or injured animals to fix them up just to stick them in a prison – albeit a large one that comes with a private lair.

Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? Essay

Cover letter, works cited.

This essay explores the dilemma of keeping animals in zoos. In this essence, the legitimacy of restricting the animals is investigated.

Moreover, the essay seeks to establish harmony between advocacy for abolition of zoos and the need to preserve some species of animals. In addition, there is the necessity to control the interaction between animals and human beings.

I have observed that there is no solution to such dilemmas. Any observer has to establish a middle ground and maintain balance between the arguments. This is because it is not possible to take a radical action on the issue at hand.

I had an experience of arguing over the issue, which has two equal sides while writing the paper. I was able to examine both sides of the argument and analyze the arguments.

While it seemed appropriate to me that people should keep animals in the zoos prior to this assignment, my perception changed after analyzing both sides of the argument. I had to take a middle ground and analyze the perceptions as a neutral observer.

When writing the arguments in the paper, it became difficult to make an objective analysis of the arguments due to the influence of personal opinion. It is difficult to establish a middle ground that does not favor either side.

The topic of the essay generates significant interest in me because most people assume that animals have their specific places in the ecosystem, which are subject to manipulation by human beings at will.

On the other hand, liberal people advocate that fair competition can exist between animals and people naturally. This article proves that neither case is entirely true.

Throughout the history of humanity, interaction with animals has been inevitable. Superiority of human beings has made them highly competitive. Other living things have to adapt to new environments or leave their natural habitat to create space for human beings and their activities.

The human population is evenly distributed around the world. On the other hand, animal population is partially distributed, with different species occupying different parts of the world. Since animals have always fascinated people, there has always been the urge to observe animals and their behavior.

In addition, all living organisms on earth survive through competition for resources with each other (McKinley & Shepard 65). This has led to endangerment of some species of animals. Generally, animals are considered important to human beings, regardless of the material value of each species.

Gradually, it has become important to protect animal species that are facing the danger of extinction, either due to encroachment of their immediate space in the ecosystem, or due to competition with other organisms whose lives depend on common resources.

For this reason, zoos have been built, and animals are kept inside for the sole purpose of preservation of animal life or for entertainment (Norton 42). It is true that the zoos protect a small number of animals from the competition that exists in their natural habitat.

In this way, they protect the species from extinction, and satisfy human being’s curiosity as people go for sightseeing at zoos as a recreational activity (Norton 21).

Most zoos keep wild animals, and majority of the animal population at the zoos is made up of animals that are rarely seen by human beings in their immediate environment. These animals are used to roaming in the jungle and forests.

Others are used to swimming freely in the seas and rivers. However, due to limited space, zoos keep the animals in a much smaller and controlled environment. Obviously, there is restriction of freedom for the animals in order to contain them in the zoo.

For most of their lives, the animals in the zoo do not lead a normal life like other wild animals. They are protected from the competition in the ecosystem due to their perceived importance to human beings. However, this is a serious impediment to their freedom too.

Animals are not allowed to roam freely during the day or night, as they would have done in a free environment. On the other hand, the rigors of competing with other wild animals are eliminated from their lives.

Moreover, the animals receive special treatment as they are provided with veterinary care, a service that other animals in the jungle and sea do not normally get (Robinson 53).

It is arguable that the setting of a zoo is analogous to a prison were felons are incarcerated to protect the society from their potentially harmful tendencies.

One might easily conclude that the animals in the zoo are in some kind of psychological distress due to disruption of their normal course of life and their detainment.

This view assumes that animals, like human beings, have the ability to discern the importance of freedom. Furthermore, the notion argues that animals have thoughts and feelings just like human beings.

It is difficult to establish these arguments as facts due to the limited emotional interaction between animals in the zoo and their keepers.

Thus, the idea that animals perceive physical freedom in a similar way as human beings is subject to debate (Mullan & Marvin 75).

Zoos are not primarily intended to curtail the freedom of an animal, but are designed to protect the animal from harsh environment. Normally, there are efforts to create an environment similar to the particular animal’s habitat in the zoo.

It is also difficult to assess whether the artificial environment created by zookeepers is identical to the natural habitat suitable for the animals.

This observation means that it is not entirely true that the zoos are aimed at curtailing the freedom of the animals (Brooman & Legge 85). Consequently, the animals may be better off at the zoo.

Moreover, it is not true that zoos completely change the normal course of life for the animals within it since there is an effort to simulate their natural habitat.

Some people are of the opinion that animals are inferior to human beings. This suggests that zoos are meant to restrict the animals within the zoo environment to protect human beings’ interest.

Some animals are dangerous to human life, while others compete against human being for resources. This is an obvious observation that has been under scientific study.

On the other hand, animals could be perceived to be equal to human beings. This means that the animals can compete for resources fairly against human beings.

Some people use this perspective to argue against establishment of zoos, which in their perspective, are the making of an unfair competition between animals and human beings.

The highlighted perceptions and observations present the dilemma of the existence of zoos. In a critical analysis of all radical perceptions, no single argument is proved entirely appropriate for the issue of zoos.

If zoos were to be eliminated as a way of protecting and preserving animal life, there would be dire consequences for humans and the animals themselves (Acampora 45).

It is an obvious observation that some animals would become extinct due to predation and competition from other animals in the natural habitat. People could also be affected by the interactions and conflicts between the animals and human beings.

While some animals would pose direct danger to human beings, others would affect the creations of human beings such as organized agriculture. It is thus obvious that a conflict will result from the freedom of animals.

However, this presents another question for argument since there is fairness in sharing of natural resources by living organisms in such a situation.

Although a relatively small number of animals are kept in the zoo, majority of animals are free and live in the wilderness. This brings up the issue of the scale of restriction of animals within zoos.

Keeping all animals in the zoo and eliminating them from their natural environment is an extreme action. This kind of an action would present a situation of extreme interference with nature. It is only logical that a balance between freedom of animals and existence of zoos has to be established.

Animals could be kept in an open environment that is similar to their natural habitat as much as possible. This would eliminated the problem of having animals in a zoo were cages similar to prison cells are used to contain the animals.

On the issue of competition, it would be unfair to let animals live free and compete against human beings in the natural environment. People would eliminate animals from the ecosystem due to their superiority in terms of logical reasoning.

This makes it necessary to provide some kind of protection for the animals. In this essence, zoos can neither be justified nor completely denounced.

Acampora, Ralph R.. Metamorphoses of the zoo: animal encounter after Noah . Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2010. Print.

Brooman, Simon, and Debbie Legge. Law relating to animals . London: Cavendish, 1997. Print.

Mullan, Bob, and Garry Marvin. Zoo culture . 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Print.

Norton, Bryan G.. Ethics on the ark: zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation . Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995. Print.

Robinson, Phillip T.. Life at the zoo: behind the scenes with the animal doctors . New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Print.

Shepard, Paul, and Daniel McKinley. The subversive science; essays toward an ecology of man, . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 30). Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/

"Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" IvyPanda , 30 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos'. 30 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

• Zoos: Cruel or Educational?
• Setting Up a Safari Zoo in the UAE
• The Future for Zoos and Aquariums Bibliography
• The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals
• The Role of Zoos in Endangered Species Protection
• The Australia Zoo Rescue Unit Project
• Negotiating About Pandas for San Diego Zoo
• The Effectiveness of Sustainable Practices, Plans, Programs and Initiatives Implemented by Australian Zoo
• The Analysis of Siamangs’ Behavior in a Zoo Setting
• Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages
• Structural and Non-Structural Mitigation
• Which Material Withstand a Fire
• Prospect Reservoir and Surrounding Areas: An Australian National Heritage Site
• South Wales Region: Energy and Economy
• History of the Great Chicago Fire

Essay on Wild Animals

Students are often asked to write an essay on Wild Animals in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Wild Animals

Introduction.

Wild animals are creatures that live freely in nature, without human intervention. They are an essential part of the ecosystem, contributing to the balance of nature.

Types of Wild Animals

Wild animals can be mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish. Examples include lions, eagles, snakes, frogs, and sharks. Each animal plays a unique role in the ecosystem.

Wild Animals and Ecosystem

Wild animals help maintain the ecosystem. Predators control the population of other animals, while herbivores aid in plant dispersion.

Threats to Wild Animals

Wild animals face threats like habitat loss, hunting, and climate change. Protecting them is crucial for a balanced ecosystem.

Also check:

• 10 Lines on Wild Animals
• Paragraph on Wild Animals

250 Words Essay on Wild Animals

Wild animals are an integral part of our planet’s biodiversity. They exist in varied ecosystems, ranging from the freezing Arctic to the scorching Sahara, each species uniquely adapted to its habitat. Their survival and prosperity are crucial for maintaining ecological balance.

Role in Ecosystem

Every wild animal plays a specific role in the ecosystem. Predators control the population of herbivores, preventing overgrazing. Scavengers and decomposers aid in nutrient recycling, ensuring soil fertility. Pollinators, like bees and butterflies, are critical for plant reproduction. Thus, each species’ extinction can trigger a domino effect, disrupting this delicate balance.

Unfortunately, human activities pose substantial threats to wild animals. Habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, and hunting are causing rapid biodiversity loss. Deforestation for agriculture and urbanization displaces animals, leading to conflicts with humans. Poaching for fur, ivory, or medicinal uses also threatens many species.

Conservation Efforts

To mitigate these threats, conservation efforts are underway globally. Protected areas like national parks and wildlife sanctuaries have been established, providing safe habitats for animals. Legal measures against hunting and trade of endangered species are also in place. However, these efforts need to be strengthened, and public awareness about the importance of wild animals must be increased.

In conclusion, wild animals are not just fascinating creatures but also vital for our ecosystem’s health. The threats they face are predominantly anthropogenic, emphasizing the need for human responsibility in their conservation. By understanding and respecting their roles in nature, we can ensure a thriving planet for future generations.

500 Words Essay on Wild Animals

The vitality of wild animals.

Wild animals are an integral part of our ecosystem and biodiversity. They play a crucial role in maintaining the balance of nature, contributing to the health and functionality of the world’s ecosystems. These animals, each with their unique characteristics and behaviors, contribute to the diversity of life forms on Earth.

The Role of Wild Animals in Ecosystems

Wild animals have significant roles in the ecosystem. Predators help control the population of various species, preventing overpopulation and ensuring the balance of the ecosystem. Herbivores, on the other hand, contribute to the propagation of plant species by spreading seeds. Moreover, animals like bees and butterflies play a vital role in pollination, which is essential for plant reproduction.

Despite their importance, wild animals face numerous threats. Habitat loss due to urbanization, deforestation, and climate change is one of the most pressing issues. As humans continue to encroach on their habitats, these animals struggle to survive. Poaching and illegal wildlife trade also pose significant threats. Many species are hunted for their fur, horns, or other body parts, leading to a decline in their populations.

Given the threats to wild animals, conservation efforts are now more critical than ever. Governments, non-profit organizations, and individuals worldwide are implementing various strategies to protect and conserve wildlife. These include establishing and managing protected areas, enforcing anti-poaching laws, and promoting sustainable practices that minimize human impact on wildlife habitats.

The Importance of Education and Awareness

Education and awareness are key to wildlife conservation. By understanding the importance of wild animals and the threats they face, people can make informed decisions that contribute to conservation efforts. This includes adopting sustainable practices, supporting conservation organizations, and advocating for policies that protect wildlife.

In conclusion, wild animals are of immeasurable value to our planet. They play a crucial role in maintaining the balance of ecosystems, contribute to biodiversity, and provide numerous benefits to humans. However, they are under threat due to human activities. Therefore, it is imperative that we take action to conserve these species and their habitats, ensuring the survival and prosperity of our planet’s wildlife. The future of wild animals is in our hands, and we must take responsibility for their protection and preservation.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on My Favourite Animal
• Essay on Pet Animals
• Essay on Animals

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

In this IELTS Zoo Essay you have to discuss whether you think zoos are cruel and should be shut down or whether they are useful as they protect some wild animals.

Essays on zoos have appeared in the IELTS test before and this was a question that was recently in the test.

Some people think that zoos are all cruel and should be closed down. Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals.

Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion.

Understanding the Question

You must always read the question carefully and note if there is anything restricting the topic.

You have to discuss both sides of the argument and with this zoo essay question it would be very easy to read it and then simply write about the benefits and drawbacks of zoos.

But look at this bit carefully:

• Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals .

One of the arguments is specifically about protecting animals. So when you discuss the second argument you must be careful not to just write generally about the advantage of zoos. 

You have to focus on how they may protect wild animals . So when you brainstorm your ideas for the zoo essay, you should be thinking about:

• why animals need protecting and
• how zoos can help with this 

And in your other body paragraph you would need to explain why they are also seen as cruel. 

And of course you must remember to give your own opinion. In this essay, the author makes it clear at the beginning that they support the closing down of zoos. 

The opinion you decide on though is of course your choice.

Zoo Essay Sample

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Zoo Essay Model Answer

Zoos remain popular places for people to visit for entertainment and to learn about wild animals. Although some people are of the opinion that zoos can provide a sanctuary for endangered animals and so should be kept open, I believe that the cruelty that animals suffer outweighs this benefit, and that they should be shut down.

These days, animals are under threat from humans in many ways, seen for example in the way that their habitats are being destroyed through the cutting down of rain forests, or through poaching. Following on from this, the argument is that zoos can protect some of these animals that are under threat. The reason is that they are in a safe environment managed by trained staff who can ensure the animals are looked after and can produce offspring. There are examples of successes in this respect, such as with Pandas, which have been endangered for many years but have been protected.

However, there are more convincing arguments for why zoos should be shut down. Firstly, even though some species are under threat, there are lots of animals which do not fall into this category and who are there just for the entertainment of visitors. While it may be fun and educational to see them, animals are not meant to be caged, and their distress can often be seen in the way many of them pace back and forwards all day. Not only this, if the prime reason of zoos is to protect animals, this could be done in other environments such as wild life parks where the animals have more freedom.

In conclusion, animals should be protected but this does not have to be in zoos. Zoos are cruel to animals, not similar enough to their natural habitat, and they should be closed down. 

(299 Words)

Band scores are given for task response, coherence and cohesion, lexis (vocabulary) and grammatical range and accuracy. 

This zoo essay would get a good score for task response as it fully answers the question by discussing both opinions and giving a personal opinion. Ideas are also well explained, extended and supported. 

It would get a good score for coherence and cohesion as it is organised coherently and logically and is easy to follow. The introduction introduces the topic then there is a thesis statement.

One body paragraph discusses one side of the argument, and the other discusses the other side. The second body paragraph is also the writers opinion, and this is summarised again in the conclusion

.There is some interesting vocabulary and phrases. For example:

• sanctuary for endangered animals
• under threat from humans
• habitats are being destroyed
• produce offspring
• successes in this respect
• not meant to be caged
• natural habitat

There are also some good complex grammatical constructions and the grammar is precise. For example, the red words show that some of these are  adverbial clauses ,  noun clauses  and  relative clauses :

• Although  some people are of the opinion  that  zoos can provide a sanctuary for endangered animals...
• ...seen for example  in the way that  their habitats are being destroyed...
• ...the argument is  that  zoos can protect some of these animals who are under threat.
• ...trained staff  who  can ensure the animals are looked after...
• Pandas  who  have been endangered...
• ... even though  some species are under threat...
• ... While  it may be fun and educational...

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Discuss Two Opinion Essays:

Childcare Essay: Should family or carers look after young children?

Childcare Essay: In the essay you have to discuss two sides of an argument. The first is that it is better if pre-school children are looked after at home with relatives such as grandparents. The second opinion is that children should be looked after at childcare centres.

Diet and Health Essay: Who is responsible for diet and health?

Diet and Health Essay for IELTS: This model examines the extent to which individuals or governments should be responsible for health. Read a model answer and useful comments about the essay which will help you to improve your IELTS Score.

Extraterrestrial Life Essay: Should we look for life on other planets?

This extraterrestrial life essay is an IELTS opinion essay where you have to discuss both sides of an issue then give your own opinion.

Sources for Stories Essay: Should parents read to their children?

This sources for stories essay asks for your opinion on the best way for children to get stories. Is it from parents reading to them or other ways?

Donating Money to Charity Essay: Where should the money go?

Donating Money to Charity Essay: IELTS model answer to an essay on the topic of giving locally or to national and international charities.

IELTS Writing Example: What are the aims of a university education?

IELTS writing example essays. This is an essay on the aims of university education. In this essay, two opposing opinions need to be discussed. It is important to understand how to answer this type of question in the IELTS exam.

IELTS Essay Becoming Independent

This IELTS essay discussed whether people are becoming more independent than they were in the past. This is a question that has come up a few times in the test. This is discussion type essay as you have to discuss both sides of an argument and come to a conclusion.

Formal and Informal Education Essay: What age should it start?

This formal and informal education essay is about whether it is best for children to begin their formal education at school when they are 7 rather than much younger.

IELTS Essays: What is the best way to reduce crime?

IELTS essays online with comments by an IELTS instructor - A writing sample on the topic of reducing crime.

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay- Model answer for IELTS. Who has had the most influence on our world? In this essay you have to discuss both sides.

Animal Rights Essay: Should animals be exploited for humans?

Animal Rights Essay for IELTS: Learn how to write an essay where you have to discuss two opinions. People who believe in animal rights think that they should not be treated cruelly, for example in experiments or for sport.

Child Development Essay: What factors influence a child's development?

Child Development Essay for IELTS. The essay is about the factors that affect the way that children develop. It provides you with a model answer and comments on the response to help you know how to improve your band score.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Pros and cons of zoos: Should animals be kept in zoos?

Source: This image was created for netivist.org. If you want to use it you simply need to  attribute it by linking  to this page or to  https://netivist.org . Thanks

Animal cruelty or protection? Learn about the pros and cons of zoos and join our debate and poll: Should there be zoos? Should animals be kept in captivity? Vote and explain your view on whether zoos are necessary or should be banned.

Should animals be kept in zoos?

Over 181 million people visit zoos and aquariums every year in the United States, and 25 million in the United Kingdom. Zoos have more visitors than the combined attendance of the four major sports leagues ( NFL , NBA , MLB and NHL ). Despite their immense popularity , zoos have become increasingly controversial institutions. An increasing number of animal rights advocates and animal protection organizations are questioning the role of zoos in modern societies. The shocking evidence of animal abuse in some circuses , dolphinariums and zoos have pushed many environmental and wildlife activist groups to campaign for the closure of many of the institutions that keep wild animals in captivity.

To the question "should animals be kept in captivity?" the initial reaction of most people is rejection. Why should animals be kept in zoos? In an ideal world that would not be necessary, wild animals would roam freely in their natural habitats and we, humans, would find ways to observe them and learn about them without disrupting their lives. However, today on Earth due to population growth and urbanization many animal species are endangered and most people have very few opportunities to observe and learn from animals.

Jane Goodall , the famous British primatologist and one of the most important experts in chimpanzees in the world, has defended the role of zoos in helping us understand and preserve the life of wild animals (see video below). On the other hand, organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Animal Aid and Born Free have initiated campaigns for the closure of zoos, arguing that most zoos deprive animals from their most basic needs and that animal abuse and suffering should not be a source of entertainment.

Do you think that zoos are an effective way to increase awareness about animal life? Do they really help preserve endangered species or it is more a business and a cruel source of entertainment? Is keeping animals in captivity a good way to ensure their future? Let's take a closer look at the advantages and disadvantages of zoos before we make up our minds.

Watch this video with Jane Goodall on the role of zoos in saving animals

Pros and cons of zoos

These are the most common arguments in favor and against zoos.

Pros of zoos

• After the famous wildlife conservationist Geral Durrell opened a zoo in Jersey in 1959, zoos all over the world have embraced the mission of saving endangered species in the world. Zoos are not like the exotic animal menageries from the middle ages. They want to provide entertainment but they are greatly concerned with the protection of animals and their natural habitats. Zoos help raising awareness and funding for wildlife initiatives and research projects.
• Animals are not always caged in zoos. Edinburgh was the first British zoo to follow the idea of displaying animals without bars. The Chester and Whipsnade zoological parks where the first two non-urban zoos without cages and larger enclosures. They opened in 1931. In the 1960s The drive-through safari parks became very popular. Ever since there has been an increasing public concern about animal welfare in zoos.
• Zoos are monitored and follow strict regulation in most developed countries. There is less room for animal cruelty in zoos than ever before in history.
• Most people working in zoos are true animal lovers. Veterinary doctors, zoologist, voluntary staff, etc. chose to work in zoos because they like animals, and wanted to work closely with them and help them thrive.
• Education is another positive feature of zoos. Many children and adults in cities can only see wild animals in TV or the Internet. Zoos offer them the unique experience of contemplating real animals. They can smell them, see how they move and listen their sounds. This is a much more vivid and enriching experience than the one you can get through a screen. Thanks to zoos kids and adult develop empathy toward animals.
• Zoos are key for research . Being able to observe and study animals is crucial if we want to contribute to help them and repair the ecosystems. They also help redice human-animal conflicts and better understand the needs and psychology of animals. Zoos serve as laboratories to learn more about how to fight animal diseases and develop effective animal anaesthetics and other treatments to help more animals in the future.
• Another pro of zoos is their role in animal reproduction. Zoos study animal breeding and thanks to them many wild animals in captivity can reproduce. This is particularly important in the case of endangered species. Due to the low density of the population of some animals in their natural ecosystems they struggle to find partners. Some populations in the wild are weakened by endogamy too. In zoos vets and biologist help to prevent inbreeding.

Cons of zoos

• Animal cruelty in zoos continues to be extremely common. There are continuous cases of animals abused by visitors and zoo workers. Many of them are reported every week in the media, however, the large majority are kept secret and those responsible are never held accountable or punished.
• Animals in captivity are deprived of many things that are important to them, as a result they become lonely and bored. Many of them suffer from "zoochosis" , a psychological condition characterized by repetitive and obsessive behaviors including vomiting, excessive grooming, coprophagia and self-mutilation. 
• Most animals in zoos still live in small enclosures and cages . There are Safari Parks and large zoos in which animals have more space and live in an enviroment slightly more similar to their natural habitat .however, the large majority of zoos in the world are much smaller and have less economic means than the big zoos we often see in the media such as the San Diego Zoo, the Berlin Zoological Garden, the San Louis Zoo, etc. 
• In zoos many animals sicken and die because they contract diseases from other animals and species. Zoos usually group animals from many different parts of the world with very distinct immunological systems. People also have been sickened from diseases contracted from animals in zoos.
• Many zoos do little for research or animal protection. They are simply businesses run with the sole purpose of making money . Their concern for animals is secondary. Cost efficiency often means they move animal welfare down in the list of priorities. 
• Zoos and aquariums have incentivized the illegal hunt of animals . Historically poachers have hunted and sold wild animals for zoos all over the world. Although this practice is increasingly prosecuted in most countries, there are still small zoos and aquariums which acquire their animals without paying much attention to their origin. 
• From an ethical point of view zoos are also questionable. Zoos are a typical form of family entertainment, but associating leisure and fun with the contemplation of animals in captivity can send the wrong signals to our children. Zoos can be construed as a sadistic pleasure .

Do you think zoos are necessary? Do the cons of zoos outweight their benefits? Should we boycott or ban zoos? Vote and join our debate (see below)

Watch this video on "zoochosis" and the living conditions of animals in captivity

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals?

Please try again

Zoos are great, right? You get to be up close and personal with some amazing animals that you’d pretty much never get to see in the wild. Clearly, zoos are a win for people. But when it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

TEACHERS: Guide your students to practice civil discourse about current topics and get practice writing CER (claim, evidence, reasoning) responses. Explore lesson supports.

How did zoos become a thing? Humans have been capturing and displaying exotic animals for thousands of years. The earliest known collections date back to 3500 BCE in Egypt, where rulers kept hippos, elephants, baboons, and different species of large cats. Now back then, that didn’t mean that your average Egyptian could go check any of that awesomeness out. These early zoos were really just a way for kings to flex on other kings. Modern zoos, where the public can come and watch animals exhibiting their natural behavior, didn’t really become a thing until the early 1800s. The longest continuously operating zoo in the world is the Vienna Zoo, which has been going strong for more than 260 years.

What are the arguments in favor of having zoos? Zoos may be great entertainment, but their big goal is to educate the public about wildlife and what we can do to protect them. Zoo animals are sort of like ambassadors for their counterparts in the wild. Zoos also contribute to scientific research. “Zoo” is short for zoological park, and zoology is the scientific study of animal biology and behavior. In addition, zoos work really hard to save animals that are threatened in the wild. Zoos can take at-risk animals, breed them in captivity, and then reintroduce them back into the wild.

What are the arguments for NOT having zoos? Zoos have their problems. Not all zoos are created equal. Some are clean and well staffed, others aren’t. There are some in the richest cities in the world, and there are some in conflict zones. What this means is that not all zoos have the resources to properly care for the animals they house. And for many critics, no amount of education or research justifies keeping animals captive. That captivity can be REALLY bad for both physical AND psychological health. And while zoos have been really helpful is saving endangered animals, it doesn’t work out for certain species. For example, most large carnivores like lions and tigers that are bred in captivity die when released into the wild. It turns out that they haven’t developed the natural behaviors they need when they’re out on their own and have to fend for themselves.

SOURCES: Do we need zoos? (The Atlantic) https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/harambe-zoo/485084/

Why zoos are good (The Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/aug/19/why-zoos-are-good

The case for the end of the modern zoo (New York Magazine) http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/07/case-for-the-end-of-the-modern-zoo.html?gtm=bottom

Zoos and their discontents (New York Times Magazine) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/magazine/zoo-animals-and-their-discontents.html

Stress and lack of exercise are killing elephants, zoos warned (The Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/dec/12/elephants-animal-welfa re

Most Captive-Born Predators Die If Released (National Geographic) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2008/01/predators-captivity-habitat-animals/

Captive Breeding Success Stories (PBS) https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-loneliest-animals-captive-breeding-success-stories/4920/

Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research (Facets Journal) https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/facets-2017-0083

Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums (Conservation Biology) https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/jensen/ericjensen/moss_jensen_and_gusset_2015-evaluating_the_contribution_of_zoos_and_aquariums_to_aichi_biodiversity_target_1_final_published_version.pdf

To learn more about how we use your information, please read our privacy policy.

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• 2024 election
• Solar eclipse
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

• Animal Welfare

Zoos aren’t for animals. They’re for us.

Zoos say they’re leaders in protecting wildlife. But is it true?

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Zoos aren’t for animals. They’re for us.

This week, a leading wildlife conservation group declared that zoos play an essential role in protecting wild species from extinction.

“Zoos, aquariums and botanic gardens are critical conservation partners, and their role should not be under-valued, under-recognized or misunderstood,” the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a nonprofit that’s assessed extinction threat levels for more than 150,000 species, announced in a new position statement . “For anyone who questions the value of zoos in the modern age, IUCN’s position is clear — zoos are essential.”

It’s a bold statement from an authoritative voice on wildlife protection, but is it true? An examination of how zoos spend their money suggests that, despite branding themselves as champions of conservation, they devote far more resources to their main, original prerogative: confining animals for entertainment and profit.

Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter

Twice a week, we’ll send you a roundup of the best ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good. Sign up here .

“The way that zoos have been trying to justify their existence for quite a few years now is pointing to conservation,” said Delcianna Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School. “But the reality is that it’s really a very small fraction of their funding that is going to field conservation.” (Disclosure: This summer, I attended a media fellowship program at Vermont Law and Graduate School.)

In 2022, most of the 238 zoos and aquariums accredited by the nonprofit Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) spent a collective $252 million on field conservation — efforts to protect and preserve wildlife habitats. That’s serious money for the broader conservation movement.

“That puts them collectively among the world’s largest contributors to conservation,” Daniel Ashe, president and CEO of the AZA, told Vox. However, it’s just 5 percent of how much zoos and aquariums spent on operations and construction alone in 2018.

Similarly, an analysis of scientific papers published by AZA member institutions from 1993 to 2013 found that only 7 percent were related to biodiversity conservation.

Zoos argue that in addition to their conservation efforts in the field, their very existence contributes to species conservation. By breeding animals in captivity, and preserving their genetic material in “ biobanks ,” the argument goes, they’ve created a stock of animals — known as “insurance populations” — who could be released back into nature if wild populations dwindle to alarming levels.

Emma Marris, an environmental writer and author of Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World , wrote in a 2021 New York Times opinion piece that it’s “as if they might be called upon at any moment to release them, like Noah throwing open the doors to the ark, into a waiting wild habitat. But that day of release never quite seems to come.”

“I’m very skeptical that a lot of these captive breeding programs have any practical relevance to conserving species in their natural habitat, which, in my view, is the point of conservation,” said Mickey Pardo, a behavioral ecologist and postdoctoral research fellow at Colorado State University who studies elephants in the wild. The reason, Pardo says, is because reintroduction stemming from captive breeding programs is incredibly challenging and thus rare , and it’s not the primary goal of most captive breeding programs to begin with.

There are some exceptions , Marris notes, in which zoos have played a starring role in reintroducing threatened and endangered species to the wild, including the California condor, the Arabian oryx, and Black-footed ferrets, among others. Ashe told me zoos have played a role in dozens and dozens of reintroduction programs, though he didn’t have a specific number. It’s important work and should be celebrated, as should zoos’ contributions to field conservation. But, Pardo says, it doesn’t justify AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums keeping wild animals in captivity who are not part of any current reintroduction program nor likely to become part of one in the future.

Currently, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums have about 780,000 animals .

Kira Mileham, IUCN’s global director of strategic partnerships, disagrees with the argument that field conservation is all that matters. Mileham told Vox captive breeding programs at zoos do more than just create insurance populations, and that they contribute to field conservation by providing opportunities for researchers to learn about species’ behavior, nutrition, veterinary needs, and more. Mileham added that zoos also play an important role in temporary rescue and “ head start ” efforts by, say, taking animals and/or their eggs that are facing a serious, temporary threat out of the wild, and then returning them when it’s safe.

Zoos undeniably do some good work for species conservation; however, that work can obscure their dark side: the suffering of animals in captivity.

Life at the zoo

Animals who, in their natural habitats, would travel great distances are resigned to living in film-set versions of lush rainforests and vast savannas while surrounded by city noise. As a result of the lack of stimulation and small environments, some animals will develop “stereotypic” behavior , in which they engage in repetitive motions that are rare in the wild.

Researchers call it “zoochosis,” a play on “psychosis,” though making enclosures a little nicer and providing “enrichment activities” to animals both help, as do pharmaceutical drugs .

There was Gus, the Central Park Zoo polar bear who would swim figure eights in his pool for sometimes up to 12 hours a day (his enclosure was just 0.00009 percent of his range in the wild), and Sukari , the giraffe at Roger Williams Park Zoo in Providence, Rhode Island, who for hours would lick steel cables, walls, and gates. Other animals pace, rock back and forth, and head-bob, or engage in self-harm, like pulling out their hair or biting themselves. There are many stories of escape attempts.

Despite it all, AZA-accredited zoos keep acquiring more animals, either from other zoos, breeding them on their own, taking them from the wild (how 80 percent of animals at AZA-accredited aquariums are acquired, Ashe told me), as rescues, or from a number of other sources, such as private breeders and hunting ranches.

Mileham refutes the notion that many zoos are just acquiring animals at the expense of their welfare, however: “I don’t think [leading zoos] kind of flippantly trade off the welfare of species for the sake of having them in their facilities,” she said. And not every welfare matter is black and white, Mileham said. For instance, some animals in zoos might have come from areas with high levels of conflict with humans. “We can’t pretend that an animal in the wild always has a perfect life and has no welfare compromises just because they happen to not be in human care.”

Ashe assured me that “when you see animals at AZA member institutions, you’re seeing animals that are thriving there.” He went on to say, “I understand some people just don’t like the idea of any animal in a state of confinement, and in those cases, we just have a fundamental disagreement.”

When Marris asked Ashe about the constraints of captivity, Ashe largely shrugged the problem away, saying that, well, everyone has constraints put on them: “We are all captive in some regards to social and ethical and religious and other constraints on our life and our activities.”

I asked Ashe about this quote, and he said, “It’s factually true — we all live with constraint in our social life and we agree to constraint so we have social order.” He’s right, of course, that it’s true for humans, but there’s a glaring omission in his response: Animals can’t agree to the constraints we impose on them.

I can’t think of a more dissatisfying answer to the ethical dilemma of putting hundreds of thousands of wild animals behind glass. But it does reveal that the ideology undergirding earlier zoos and aquariums largely persists today — that animals are here for us, not with us.

Zoos: What are they good for?

Zoos justify their existence not just through conservation, but also by their educational work. Their actual impact in that domain, however, is likely minor.

The AZA says one of the “superpowers” of its 238 accredited zoos and aquariums is that they have “the opportunity to influence and inspire the 200 million people who visit every year.” On its face, it makes sense: If everyone could just see the beauty of the animal kingdom up close and learn about the plight of threatened species, they might be inspired to support or get involved in conservation work. Surely, zoos have that effect on some, but there’s no evidence it’s the case for many.

On the contrary , most people don’t read the educational plaques at zoos, and according to polls of zoo-goers, most go to spend time with friends or family — to enjoy themselves and be entertained, not to learn about animals and their needs. One study found the level of environmental concern reported by attendees before they entered the zoo was similar to those who were polled at the exits.

While the educational value of zoos is dubious, there’s certainly one message zoo-goers receive, if only implicitly: That it’s perfectly fine, even good , to put wild animals on display in tiny enclosures for the public’s leisure. In other words, animals — even if they’re suffering right in front of us — can be objects of entertainment.

“It’s rooted in this notion that yes, we have this privileged right to observe these animals at any cost to [them] or to their species more generally, and it’s deeply troubling,” Winders said.

The idea that we must exploit some animals in order to protect others creates a bizarre false choice, even when there are much more humane paths taken by others in the wildlife protection movement, like animal sanctuaries .

What a more humane zoo could look like

Animal sanctuaries are like zoos in that they’re large properties where animals live in captivity, but they differ in every other way. For one, animals in sanctuaries tend to have far more space than animals in zoos, and they’re there to live on their own terms, not to be put on display for an entrance fee. Some sanctuaries are not open to the public, while others conduct small tours or have much smaller attendance numbers than the typical zoo. (Beware, however, that many operations call themselves sanctuaries but in reality are more like petting zoos .)

The Wild Animal Sanctuary, a 45-minute drive from Denver, Colorado, provides a compelling example of how animals can better coexist with visitors. The 1,214-acre operation, home to rescued bears, tigers, lions, wolves, and other species, was closed to the public for its first 20 years. But in the early 2000s, it began to open up to visitors, who can only see the animals from the sanctuary’s observation decks and more than 1.5 miles of elevated walkways, causing less disturbance than zoo-goers.

Animals typically wind up in sanctuaries — the ethical kind, at least — because they were abandoned or injured, rather than bred, purchased, or taken from the wild. The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, the animal sanctuary world’s equivalent to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, takes the position that captive breeding is only permitted if it’s done for eventual reintroduction into the wild — unlike zoos, which largely breed animals as insurance populations and to keep a steady supply to put on display.

Some critics have called for zoos to phase out keeping animals from species that aren’t either critically endangered or extinct in the wild, or for which there’s no viable reintroduction program. Additionally, they argue, urban zoos should either close down or set limits on how many animals they keep.

I would add one more thing that zoos — and sanctuaries, for that matter — could do: Stop serving meat and dairy in their cafeterias. There’s the painfully obvious point that an institution whose mission is to protect animals probably shouldn’t sell animal meat . But there’s also this: One-third of Earth’s habitable land is devoted to cattle grazing and growing corn and soy to feed farmed animals, which has resulted in mass habitat loss for wildlife and crashing biodiversity levels. Meat production is the leading cause of global deforestation , and thus the leading threat to wildlife habitats.

Reforming zoos won’t be easy, and arguably, a lot of conservation dollars might vanish if zoos looked different. But it says something about the conservation movement, and us, if one of the best ways to raise funds for wild animals is to put them in captivity. I don’t have the answers for how the conservation movement could supercharge its funding in lieu of the significant amount of funding zoos provide, but I think it’s clear, as Marris puts it, that zoos are not worth the moral cost .

As our understanding of animal sentience and their capacity for suffering has grown, our economy has slowly adapted. Fashion designers are replacing leather and fur with animal-free textiles, meat companies are now selling plant-based nuggets and burgers, and in 2018, the traveling circus Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey announced it would stop using animals, such as lions, tigers, and bears, in its shows. Zoos, too, could reinvent themselves for a more enlightened age by focusing on what animals need, not what the public wants to do on a Saturday afternoon.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Future Perfect

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Israel and Iran’s conflict enters a new, dangerous phase

Trump’s jury doesn’t have to like him to be fair to him

What’s behind the latest right-wing revolt against Mike Johnson

Taylor Swift seems sick of being everyone’s best friend

Are there really more things going wrong on airplanes?

It’s impossible to be neutral about Taylor Swift

April 12, 2011

Bambi or Bessie: Are wild animals happier?

By Christie Wilcox

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

We, as emotional beings, place a high value on happiness and joy. Happiness is more than a feeling to us - it’s something we require and strive for. We’re so fixated on happiness that we define the pursuit of it as a right. We seek happiness not only for ourselves and our loved ones, but also for our planet and its creatures.

Sure, campaigns for Animal Liberation take this to the extreme. They believe that all animals "deserve to lead free, natural lives." But extreme animal activists aren’t the only ones who think animal happiness is important. They’re not even the only ones that think animals have some level of right to be free. Many people are against zoos because they feel it’s wrong to keep animals in captivity. I’ve even heard arguments for hunting as an alternative to farming livestock, because at least the wild animals lived happily prior to their death, while the poor cows or chickens suffered because they are never allowed to be free. And let’s be honest: who didn’t watch

Free Willy and feel, at least for a moment, that every animal we have ever put in a cage or a tank should be let go?

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The core idea behind all of this is the belief that animals in nature are truly happier than animals in captivity, even than domesticated ones. But are they? I mean, really ?

Happiness is hard enough to define in people, let alone in an animals. You can’t just ask them how they are feeling. Instead, we tend to qualify happiness in animals as a lack of chronic stress. Stress, unlike happiness, is very easy to measure. You can look for decreases in overall health in just about any kind of creature. You can keep an eye out for neurotic behaviors, and measurements of hormone levels of cortisol, norepinephrine, adrenaline and other "stress" hormones provide a quantified means of measuring stress. Though lack of stress doesn’t guarantee "happiness", it’s the closest we can get.

The idea, in particular, that livestock could be happier than wild animals is a hard thing to grasp, because as people, we can’t imagine being kept simply to be used. The idea of having no control over how we are used by another, even if we’re given everything we want now, seems unbearably cruel - but it’s not the same for animals. Domesticated animals don’t feel stress about the future, because they don’t have an understanding of their future in the same way we do. A cow doesn’t live a more stressed or unhappy life than a dog or a deer because it is destined to be killed for its meat. Cows aren’t upset that they will end up as steaks because, as Michael Pollan phrased it, "in a bovine brain the concept of nonexistence is blissfully absent."

So the real question becomes whether a domesticated or captive animal is more, less, or as happy in the moment as its wild counterpart. There are a few key conditions that are classically thought to lead to a "happy" animal by reducing undue stress. These are the basis for most animal cruelty regulations, including those in the US and UK. They include that animals have the ‘rights’ to:

- Enough food and water

- Comfortable conditions (temperature, etc)

- Expression of normal behavior

Now, the factory farm industry isn’t known for its strict adherence to these standards. But many farms do care for their animals well, and the vast majority of pet owners do, too. Domesticated and other captive animals, by and large, live lives where they are well fed, free of curable diseases, in comfortable conditions where they are able to be themselves, at least to a certain extent.

When it comes to wild animals, though, only the last is guaranteed. They have to struggle to survive on a daily basis, from finding food and water to another individual to mate with. They don’t have the right to comfort, stability, or good health. Moreover, when the ‘expression of normal behavior’ encroaches upon people, whether it be raiding trash cans or attacks, that last one gets thrown out the window, too. By the standards our governments have set, the life of a wild animal is cruelty.

But even still - are they happier? First and foremost, it’s important to realize that not all animals are the same. Domesticated animals are fundamentally different from their wild counterparts: they are not just wild animals that have been raised in captivity; they have undergone evolutionary changes through artificial selection that have altered their bodies, brains and behaviors.

We have no evidence whatsoever that wild animals are, in any way, happier than domesticated ones which are treated well. One of the consequences of domestication is a decrease in stress across the board. Studies have shown that domesticated animals are less stressed to begin with, and freak out less in response to stressful things like unfamiliar habitats or predators. Guinea pigs, for example, have serum epinephrine and norepinephrine concentrations that are four to eight times lower than their wild counterparts, cavies. They also have a reduced response when intentionally stressed by being placed in an unfamiliar cage. Similar results have been found in cats, rats, ducks and even fish. In fact, a decreased stress response compared to wild counterparts has been found in every single domesticated species that has been studied.

It’s more than just how they were raised, too. A similar study raised cavies in captivity for 30 generations and compared their behavior and hormone levels to wild-raised cavies and domesticated guinea pigs. They found that the behavioral differences between domesticated and wild animals held even after 30 generations of captive rearing. Just like before, the wild animals had both a higher basal stress levels and stress responses. Even the captive-raised cavies had higher levels of norepinephrine and epinephrine from the get-go. Furthermore, both the wild and captive-raised cavies showed a markedly higher stress response to an unfamiliar environment than the domesticated guinea pigs.

When we domesticated animals, we forever altered how they respond to their environment. We reduced their sensitivity to things that are otherwise very upsetting to their wild relatives - like interacting with us. The side effect of this is that domesticated animals are predisposed to being happier than their wild counterparts, in spite of captivity.

"To think of domestication as a form of enslavement or even exploitation is to misconstrue the whole relationship, to project a human idea of power onto what is, in fact, an instance of mutualism between species," Pollan explains - and he’s right.

Stress is important for surviving in the wild. Stress tells you you’re in danger, and provides your body with the boost of performance needed to get out of the situation. The attenuated stress response exhibited by domesticated species doesn’t just make them easier to keep happy in captivity, it makes them less fit to live outside of it. The vast majority of domesticated animals wouldn’t survive in the wild, period. As the 19th century philosopher Leslie Stephen put it, "The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all."

Releasing a domesticated animal into the wild isn’t ‘freeing’ it - it’s placing a mostly defenseless creature in an unfamiliar and uninviting habitat that it is simply not equipped to deal with. Whether you want to morally condemn the people who domesticated animals in the first place is up to you, but ‘liberating’ them now simply isn’t in their best interests.

These data also suggest something that might seem a bit radical: if we follow the guidelines of care that provide food, water, comfort, and necessary items for behavioral expression, domesticated animals are not only likely to be as happy as their wild relatives, they’re probably happier. This applies to livestock as much as it does to a guinea pig, in spite of the fact that we raise the livestock solely to be killed and eaten.

But what about captive animals from non-domesticated lineages? Are animals that haven’t undergone the evolutionary changes of domestication happier in the wild?

That’s a much harder question to answer, in part because we don’t have good baselines for wild animals. Until recently, studying stress hormone levels meant drawing blood - which, as you can image, is a stressful event in and of itself for a wild animal. However, newer methods have been developed that can measure the stress hormone levels in scat and urine left by wild animals, so it’s now possible to get an assessment of stress that doesn’t involve capturing the animal first.

What we do know so far is that evidence suggests wild animals can be as happy in captivity as they are in nature, assuming they are treated well. Confinement alone doesn’t mean an animal is automatically worse off. If we give an animal all the good things they would have in the wild (food and water, fellow members of their species, a certain amount of space) and take away that stresses or hurts them (predators, parasites, extreme weather), then it can live just as happily in an enclosure. Zoo animals with proper care and enrichment, for example, have similar hormone profiles, live longer, eat better, and are healthier than their wild counterparts. Why? Because life in the wild is hard. In captivity, it’s easy.

We also know that when we change our care of an animal to try to decrease stress, we succeed. Stress hormone levels drop, for example, when leopards are given a larger enclosure or things to play with. This means we are able to modify our standards of care to ensure that any animals we place in captivity, domesticated or wild, are as happy as they can be.

So overall, are wild animals happier? While there is a lot more science that can be done to answer that question, the answer seems to be: no, not if they’re cared for well in captivity. The more we study animal behaviors, the better we get at figuring out what they need to pursue their own happiness, even when they are not allowed to be ‘free.’

I want to be clear that this doesn’t mean I’m making any moral judgements about zoos, farming, hunting, animal testing, veganism, or anything else this information might apply to. For all of those topics, the suffering or lack thereof during life is only one of many considerations that factors into morality. I have my own personal feelings about these topics, but that’s not the point of this post. I’m just stating the facts about what we know of animal happiness in different conditions - how you interpret their meaning on a broader level is up to you.

However, I will inject a little of my own opinion. I believe this whole idea that wild animals are happier is due to what I call our ‘natural bias’. What do I mean by that? Well, we tend to idealize nature. When we picture the wild world, we see lush forests full of brightly-colored, singing birds, with monkeys swinging from branch to branch. We imagine vast prairies with herds of antelope and zebra grazing peacefully while a pack of lions naps lazily in the shade. Even when we do imagine the more gruesome aspects of the wild, we see them as OK or better than what we do because it’s "natural."

This bias for what is "natural" is pervasive, affecting our judgement on everything from sexual orientation and medical care to farming practices and clothing fibers. But there is nothing inherently better about something being natural, and the idea that something that occurs in nature without us is somehow better than something we have altered or taken part in is a dangerous fallacy (the use of Rotenone by organic farms, a natural but unbelievably awful pesticide that was still usable in Europe until 2009, is a prime example). I love the natural world. I became a biologist because of my passion for all kinds of creatures, and conservation is one of the core tenants of what I do on a daily basis. But while I appreciate and fight for the beauty and brilliance that is our planet, I firmly believe we need to see ourselves as a part of it, not above or below it. We are, after all, "natural," too.

Image of Bambi, via Wikimedia Commons.

1. Franklin D. McMillan (2008). Chapter 16. Do Animals Experience True Happiness? Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals DOI: 10.1002/9780470384947.ch16

2. Möstl E, & Palme R (2002). Hormones as indicators of stress. Domestic animal endocrinology, 23 (1-2), 67-74 PMID: 12142227

3. Pollan, Michael. "An Animal’s Place" The New York Times Magazine, Nov 10, 2002 PDF

4. Künzl, C. (1999). The Behavioral Endocrinology of Domestication: A Comparison between the Domestic Guinea Pig (Cavia apereaf.porcellus) and Its Wild Ancestor, the Cavy (Cavia aperea) Hormones and Behavior, 35 (1), 28-37 DOI: 10.1006/hbeh.1998.1493

5. MARTIN, J. (1978). Embryonic Pituitary Adrenal Axis, Behavior Development and Domestication in Birds Integrative and Comparative Biology, 18 (3), 489-499 DOI: 10.1093/icb/18.3.489

6. Lepage O, Overli O, Petersson E, Järvi T, & Winberg S (2000). Differential stress coping in wild and domesticated sea trout. Brain, behavior and evolution, 56 (5), 259-68 PMID: 11251318

7. Künzl, C. (2003). Is a wild mammal kept and reared in captivity still a wild animal? Hormones and Behavior, 43 (1), 187-196 DOI: 10.1016/S0018-506X(02)00017-X

8. Hill, S., & Broom, D. (2009). Measuring zoo animal welfare: theory and practice Zoo Biology DOI: 10.1002/zoo.20276

9. BROWN, J. (2006). Comparative endocrinology of domestic and nondomestic felids Theriogenology, 66 (1), 25-36 DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.03.011

About the Author: Christie Wilcox is a science writer who moonlights as PhD student in Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Follow Christie on her blog, Observations of a Nerd , or on Facebook or Twitter .

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

What is life like as a wild animal? Probably nicer than you think

Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Southampton

Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol

Disclosure statement

Walter Veit receives funding from the Representing Evolution project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement number 101018533).

Heather Browning does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Bristol provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

University of Southampton provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

If you know anything about the experiences of animals reared in captivity for food, fur or human amusement, you might imagine that the lives of wild animals are idyllic. If nature is conceived as a sort of Garden of Eden then animals which live in it, free of human interference, are presumably living their best possible lives.

Others see life in the wild as far harsher. Nature is “red in tooth and claw” as poet Alfred Tennyson once put it . According to this view, the average life of a wild animal can be best understood as a desperate search for food and shelter, enduring pain and sickness and burdened with the ever-present prospect of a savage death.

This latter view is arguably dominant among those who ponder questions of wild animal ethics and welfare. Scholars like Yew-Kwang Ng and Oscar Horta have aimed in part to debunk the view that wild animals have it pretty good by evoking the prevalence of vicious predators and other sources of harm. Yet this picture may be just as inaccurate.

In our recent paper , we argued that the real experience of wild animal life most likely sits somewhere between these two extremes – though it’s probably a lot better than many researchers think.

The popular view of wild animals being consumed by suffering has been influenced by a preoccupation with their experiences at the time of their deaths. Too little attention has been paid to the range of positive experiences available to wild animals throughout their lives.

Death is fleeting

Consider an antelope pursued by a pack of hungry hyenas: it eventually tires, is captured and eaten alive. The common occurrence of predation like this suggests animal suffering is widespread. But it is worth thinking about these events a little more closely, as they may not cause as much suffering as it first seems.

It is well-documented in humans that major injuries often do not hurt much at first, due to a spike in adrenaline that blocks the immediate sensation of pain. Studies on animals have suggested that similar chemical pathways may activate in their nervous systems when facing fear or injury. This means that many experiences of predation could be more numb than painful.

Even if animals do suffer as they die this should not define their welfare over their entire lives. Death, particularly in the jaws of a predator, is short relative to the length of an animal’s life. Even a slower death, like the antelope’s, lasts minutes rather than hours . Not an experience anyone would want to go through, but not necessarily one that tips the balance of a life into negative.

Some animals follow a breeding strategy in which they produce lots of offspring , most of which will die off very quickly and never make it to maturity. For these animals, with short lives and violent ends, is the balance more likely to be negative? Perhaps, in some cases. But it is important even in these instances not to underestimate the potential for positive experiences in the time they have.

The joy of living

To judge the quality of an animal’s life we must consider the whole experience, not just select the worst parts.

A life contains a range of experiences – many negative ones, as researchers who document wild animal suffering point out – but also a range of positive ones. We could make a list of all the bad things that wild animals encounter: predation, starvation, thirst, disease, parasites, poor weather, aggression from members of their own species. Looking at this list might convince us that their lives must be bad. But we can write an alternative list of the good things they also enjoy: social contact, eating, mating, resting comfortably, playing, exploring, perceiving vistas or sounds or smells that they like.

One concept that may be important here is that of the joy of living . This idea describes the possibility of a baseline experience that all animals have that is itself positive. This could help animals stay motivated.

We can see in cases of human depression that one of the main symptoms is a lack of motivation and an unwillingness to move. For an animal needing to acquire food and other things necessary to live, this could mean death. So for evolutionary reasons it would be logical for the baseline experience of animals to be at least slightly positive. It is plausible that just being alive, perceiving, exploring, and experiencing the world, could itself bring happiness to animals.

Putting the lists side-by-side, it’s no longer so obvious that wild animal lives are, on balance, bad ones. It becomes far more dependent on the interplay of positive and negative experiences, their intensity, how often they occur and for how long, and how the animal weights their importance. Some species might have substantially better lives than others.

A superficial look at the lives of animals in the wild will not allow researchers to draw meaningful conclusions about what this balance is like for them. Instead, empirical research conducted in the field could uncover the intensity and duration of the different experiences wild animals face and how they affect their welfare. Researchers in the emerging field of wild animal welfare research already do this, supported by organisations like the Wild Animal Initiative .

This is not idle musing. Understanding the lives of wild animals could make interventions to alleviate some widespread sources of suffering – such as disease outbreaks or pest control – more accurate and infringe less on positive experiences.

We won’t know for sure until more information is gathered, but we have argued that there are several good reasons to suspect that such research will show that many – if not most – wild animals do in fact have happy lives.

• Animal welfare
• Animal ethics
• Wild animals
• Give me perspective

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Senior Disability Services Advisor

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

Geography Notes

Essay on wild animals: top 12 essays | wildlife | geography.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here is an essay on ‘Wild Animals’ for class 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Wild Animals’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Wild Animals

Essay Contents:

• Essay on Chausingha/Four-Horned Antelope (Tetracerus Quadricornis)

Essay # 1. Lion (Panthera Leo Persica):

It is a gregarious top carnivorous animal leading family life. Though, it has characteristic of territorialism but less than the tiger. It prefers open scrub forest as its habitat but mixed thorny deciduous forest is also liked. The temperature of the habitat should not be more than 45°C in summer and not below 5°C in winter.

It is found presently only in Gir Forest of Gujarat State in our country as well as in the whole Asian continent and, hence, also called as Asiatic Lion. The other race is in Africa in the world. 

Since it is found only in Gir forest, its management requires too much attention. There should be perfect conservation to enhance-its population. The habitat should be improved to raise the carrying-capacity for the prey species to meet the full demand of lion so that population may go up in proper direction.

There should be total control in grazing of the livestock to fulfill the food requirement of herbivorous prey species. The habitat should be manipulated properly to supply basic requirements of the lions. To save from epidemics, it should be introduced in other habitats which will also help in raising population.

Essay # 2. Tiger (Panthera Tigris Tigris):

Tiger is a top carnivorous animal. It is solitary in nature having apparent territory. It is nocturnal predator living in dense forest to get easiness in killing the prey. It lives in all types of forest such as thorny forest, dry and moist deciduous forest, evergreen and semi-evergreen forest.

To raise its population, the habitat-improvement is the most important. Pasture lands should be improved raising the carrying-capacity of the habitat for herbivorous preys which will ultimately enhance the population of the tiger. There should be control-grazing or ban on grazing, as needed, for livestock. Other basic needs of the target species should be improved in the habitat.

Essay # 3. Leopard or Panther (Panthera Pardus):

It lives in almost all types of forest like tiger. Unlike tiger, it kills the small preys. It is unable to hunt big size prey like sambhar, barasingha, nilgai etc. It is nocturnal in habit. By habitat-improvement, its basic requirements should be fulfilled to enhance its population. For the purpose, the number of its prey species should be increased through proper management.

Essay # 4. Elephant (Elephas Maximus):

It is found in plain and hilly forest generally up to 1 500 m elevation but may be up to 3000 m as seen in Burma. Since, it needs lot of water for bathing and drinking, there must be perenniel river, lake etc. in the habitat.

For food, there should be bamboo and grass in sufficient quantity. It is migratory in nature in. search of food. In rainy season, it descends in open grasslands. An adult elephant consumes about 3 quintals green fodder daily and 30-50 gallons (150-250 Its) water.

From management point of view, the habitat should be improved in such a way that it can meet its food and water demands. Sufficient waterholes should be managed and its preferred food species should be planted.

Besides these, there should be forest-strip of required width connecting one forest to another for the movement of the elephant. Elephants prefer hilly, undulshing terrain where bamboo is abundant. They roam extensively. In summer, they retreat to the denser forest where food, water and cover are plentiful.

Essay # 5. Gaur (Bos Gaurus):

It is gregarious animal but of shy nature. It is the largest animal in the world of family Bovidae. It lives in dense forest having meadows. In hilly areas, it is found below 1500-1800 m height. In its habitat, there should be sufficient quantity of grass and fodder trees. Besides these, sufficient quantity of water is also essential in its habitat.

The habitat should be improved as per the need of the animal for food, water, shelter, and salt-licks to enhance its population. Limiting- factor of the habitat should be removed.

Essay # 6. Rhinoceros/One-Horned Rhinocerus (Rhinoceros Unicornis):

It prefers forest areas having marshy land and tall grasses. It feeds mainly on grasses but sometimes water-hyacinth is also eaten. It also likes agricultural crops and so comes out in such fields.

Management of the habitat, in accordance with the needs of the animal, should be done specially in the connection of food (grasses) and water. The habitat should be improved in such a way that its carrying-capacity may bring the animal’s population up to optimum- density.

Essay # 7. Bear:

There are several species of bear in India but the following are important:

(a) Sloth Bear (Melursus Ursinus):

It is widely distributed bear in India found in the forest from Himalayan foot-hills to Sri Lanka in south and Assam in east, it has black or black-brown coat with long and shaggy hair. There is a white V-shaped breast mark. The nails are white.

It is nocturnal in habit and comes, out shortly before sunset and forage for whole night eating honey, insects and fruits as main food but also likes maize. When hungry, it also takes carrion. They generally live in places where fallen boulders and rocky out growth are found to take protection from hot sun.

(b) Himalayan Black Bear (Selenarctos Thibetanus):

It is found in forested areas of Himalayas moving up to 3000 m height. It has shorter and smoother coat than Sloth bear of black colour. It has white or yellowish V-shaped breast mark. The nails are black. It is the most carnivorous in nature and kills sheep, fowl, goats and even cattle; though its main food is honey and fruit. It is expert in climbing the trees and nocturnal in nature. It hibernates in the winter.

(c) Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos):

It is found in the Himalayas above the tree-line. It is a large and heavy animal having coat of hair varying in shades of reddish-brown in accordance with the season. It mainly feeds on grass, roots, insects, fruit and grain but also eats meat killing sheep, goat, fowl, and even cattle.

The management of bears should be as per their required ecological-conditions of the habitats to enhance their population. However, the management of sloth bear can be incorporated with that of the tiger and elephant as it shares their habitat.

Essay # 8. Cheetal (Axis Axis):

Its main habitat is moist deciduous forest but it lives in evergreen and thorny forests also. It feeds on different kinds of grasses, leaves, flowers, fruits etc. It remains near the waterholes and consumes more water in comparison to the other species of deer.

For the necessities of water and shelter; cheetal is restricted to live in the forest area having less than 30″ (762 mm) rainfall and, hence, prefers the habitat of large meadows mixed with dense forest in between for shelter and so found in open forest of secondary-succession.

It prefers large open field in the forest and does not live on hills. Edge-effect and Interspersion of the habitat are very much preferred by this species as it gets favourable natural facilities in such conditions.

It is found in herd and is the main prey of top carnivores. The proper management of food, water and shelter in the habitat are the main components for raising its productivity and population. Salt-licks should also be placed for its proper growth.

Essay # 9. Sambhar (Cervus Unicolor):

It prefers open dry deciduous forest but also found in dry and moist deciduous forest as well as evergreen forest. It is the largest among all deer species found in India. It lives in small herds and territorialism is preferred more than other deer.

Large open field in the forest is less liked by sambhar than the cheetal. Since it is an animal of shy nature, it prefers to live in dense forest and at high hills. It is also the prey of top carnivorous animals. Management components are like that of cheetal as per its required ecological-conditions of the habitat.

Essay # 10. Barasingha/Swamp Deer (Cervus Duvauceli):

It is found in moist open grassy fields mixed with marshy lands. There should be sufficient water in its habitat.

Since this species has come up and returned from verge of extinction, its habitat needs much attention and improvement. Limiting-factor should be removed and proper management, as needed for its growth, must be cared for.

Essay # 11. Blackbuck (Antilope Cervicapra):

It is called as Indian antelope which prefers open grassy fields and, hence, found near agricultural-fields also. It lives generally outside the forest in herds. It feeds on small grasses. It can live without water for several days and requires little water and, thus, it is not compelled to live near the water source.

Though in general; antelopes require little water, but blackbuck consumes very littler water and, therefore, water is not the limiting-factor for this species. It is a gregarious animal and male has its territory. For its proper growth and propagation, the grassy fields of its preferred species should be developed specially in summer season near the boundaries of the forest.

Essay # 12. Chausingha/Four-Horned Antelope (Tetracerus Quadricornis):

It prefers dry and bushy savannah habitat but also lives in open grassy field near the forest. It is a solitary animal and generally lives in pair. It also requires little amount of water and can remain without it for several days but needs more water than the blackbuck. Hence, water is not the limiting-factor for this species also like blackbuck.

Management, in order to enhance its population, should be done in developing the habitat as per its ecological requirements.

Related Articles:

• Essay on the Peninsular Indian Sub-Region | Wildlife | Geography
• Essay on the Conservation of Wildlife: Top 5 Essays | Wildlife | Geography
• Essay on Wildlife Management: Top 7 Essays | Geography
• Essay on Wildlife Population: Top 4 Essays | Geography

Essay , Geography , Natural Resources , Wild Animals , Wildlife

Privacy Overview

• EXPLORE Random Article

How to Write an Expository Essay on an Animal

Last Updated: September 15, 2021

This article was co-authored by Bess Ruff, MA . Bess Ruff is a Geography PhD student at Florida State University. She received her MA in Environmental Science and Management from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2016. She has conducted survey work for marine spatial planning projects in the Caribbean and provided research support as a graduate fellow for the Sustainable Fisheries Group. This article has been viewed 76,311 times.

Expository essays describe a particular topic and provide the reader with relevant information. An expository essay about an animal can take a variety of different directions. Choose a topic that interests you, outline and write your essay, and then proofread your work before turning it in.

Outlining and Researching

• An expository essay is an essay that provides the reader information about a particular topic. To write an expository essay on an animal, you'll have to choose an animal and provide a variety of information on that animal. It would likely include things like what that animal looks like, what it eats, where it lives, and so on.
• Choose an animal that personally interests you. You'll have more fun writing your essay if you are writing about something you enjoy. Pick an animal you like. Your favorite animal could be a good topic for an expository essay on an animal.

• You can review the assignment sheet given to you or ask your teacher in person. If you speak with your teacher, be sure to take notes so you can refer back to them when researching, outlining, writing, and polishing your essay.

• Look for sources that are valid. Major newspapers like the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle are a good place to start. You also might want to find some history behind your topic. Go your school's library and ask a librarian to help you use the card catalogue to locate books and magazines on your topic. An encyclopedia could be a good reference for an expository essay. [1] X Research source
• The Internet is a major source of information and can be extremely helpful when researching. However, you should know how to evaluate sources before relying on the internet for information. Look for current resources so you know the information is up-to-date. Go for websites associated with universities or government organizations, with domains like .edu and .gov, over business or commercial websites.
• Select pages where the author's name is clearly visible and the page is easy to navigate. Personal blogs are not a good resource. Websites for organizations advocating strongly for a particular political cause may have a strong bias. Avoid sites like Wikipedia, as they are user generated and may not have accurate information.
• Take notes while researching. Keep a notebook with you and jot down relevant information. Write down which source you got this information from so you can refer to the source later on. If possible, print out your own copies of library texts so you can underline and write notes in the margins.

• Outlines are usually formed using a series of numbers and letter. You write down main points as headings and then expand upon these points in subheadings.
• For example, you can use Roman numerals as headings and then use letters as subheadings. Say you're writing about potbelly pigs. You can start with “I. Introduction.” Then something like “a. Introduce my topic, including a brief description of potbelly pigs” and “b. briefly state the personality traits and appearance of a potbelly pig.”
• You don't need to use full sentences in an outline. It's just a tool to help you organize your ideas. Don't worry about forming full sentences or thoughts yet. You can get to that during the writing process.

Writing the Essay

• Begin your introduction with a fun opening sentence that gets the reader's attention. You can open with a question, a quote, a joke, or anything that introduces your topic in a creative manner. For example, let's return to the potbelly pig example. Open with something like, "Did you know that not all pigs are farmyard animals? Some pigs are kept domestically as pets." This invites the reader to think about your topic.
• From there, briefly state what you'll be discussing in your paper. You can provide a brief description of a potbelly pig, including things like a brief overview of their appearance and personality traits.

• For example, one paragraph can describe the appearance of a potbelly pig. Another paragraph can then describe the eating habits of a potbelly pig, and another can talk about how to care for potbelly pigs, health problems they're prone to, and so on.
• Make sure you stick to one main topic per paragraph.

• Go to your sources for support of the information you're listing. If you're talking about how potbelly pigs are prone to bacterial infections in the ear, you'll need a source that shows that this is true.

• Certain questions can help guide a good conclusion. Did you think of any new ideas about the animal you're researching? Are there any questions or concerns that need further research? What larger significance does your topic have in the bigger world?
• However, you should not suddenly introduce new information in the conclusion. Instead, you should speculate and reflect on the information provided. Think of a good closing line that will stay in readers' minds. You want to make sure your essay has an impact. [2] X Research source

Reviewing Your Work

• A good way to structure transitions is to make them a bridge between the old paragraph and the new. For example, to connect a paragraph on keeping a potbelly pig as a pet to a previous paragraph about eating habits, you could use something like this: "Although potbelly pigs can eat a variety of things in the wild, if you're keeping a potbelly pig as a pet, you need to be more careful about providing a balanced diet." The word Although sets up a connection between the ideas.
• Focus on clarity. You want to make sure the information is presented in as straightforward means as possible. If you notice any sentences that seem unclear in your first draft, work on rewording them in revision.

Community Q&A

• Pick an animal you would like to know about. This can help you have fun researching and writing. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/552/01/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/685/02/

About this article

Reader Success Stories

SomeOne NamedGoofy

May 27, 2020

Did this article help you?

• About wikiHow
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Essay about Are Zoo Animals Better Than Wild Animals?

Have you ever looked at an animal in your local zoo exhibit and wondered if they were truly better off there than if they were in the wild? A growing number of people are beginning to believe that zoo animals are better off than animals who are left in their natural habitat. To thrive means that an animal is growing and learning to survive in such a way that allows it to flourish. Although animals in captivity are provided with their basic needs to survive and more, wild animals are more likely to thrive and reach their full potential.

Animals in the wild thrive because they face and overcome greater environmental challenges than animals who live in a zoo. An animal living in a zoo most likely has an enclosed area with a consistent climate and nearly everything they need to live comfortably. Wild animals, on the other hand, have to face harsh environmental challenges like droughts, floods, and forest fires. They can also be challenged with heavy rains and rising water levels, which can cause them to lose their homes and shelter from predators (Hiller).

Day in and day out, wild animals have to face or find shelter from these challenges while captive animals don’t have to worry about either of those things since zoos assure that they will have comfortable and safe living conditions (Wilcox). Additionally, animals in the wild are also challenged by changing food sources due to such environmental challenges. When wild animals are faced with forest fires and droughts, this impacts the food chain greatly.

For example, if a herd of gazelles is faced with a long drought or a wildfire in the savanna, their food supply can become awfully limited, which could cause competition among the herd or could become completely depleted. They have to learn how to deal with events like this in order to survive (Bostock). If all the gazelles die off, what are the lions and cheetahs supposed to feed on? What about the hyenas? Hyenas prey on lions and cheetah as one of their larger meals. How will this affect the smaller mammals in this area? Will they hyenas start to prey on the smaller animals?

In contrast, an animal in captivity will never have to worry about these trying conditions because when it becomes hungry, zoo personnel take care of it right away (Wilcox). While both animals can catch sicknesses and become injured, wild animals often have a harder time dealing with these instances because they do not receive human aid like zoo animals do. If a zoo animal becomes sick, veterinarians are there to prescribe medicines or vaccinations they need in order to cure the animal’s problem, but if an animal in the wild catches a sickness from drinking infested waters, that animal simply has to overcome the disease on its own (Hiller).

Wild animals are also more likely to become injured because they encounter predators more often than zoo animals do. They do not receive the same protection as captive animals do, so they learn how to overcome such things on their own (Bostock). Because wild animals have to find a way to deal with environmental challenges, get to their food sources, and deal with predators, they are often much larger than regular zoo animals (O’Regan). Research shows that a gorilla from the zoo can weigh two hundred to three hundred pounds; however, a gorilla in the wild, on average, weighs fifty pounds more than the zoo gorilla.

Why is this? Firstly, zoo animals do not have to search for their food like wild animals do. Secondly, they are enclosed in a smaller area with a few accommodations that keep them entertained and at least active enough to stay fit rather than running free in the wild. Because of this, the zoo animals do not get the same amount of exercise that wild animals get. While zoo animals are able to play on their small playsets and eat their regularly-scheduled meal, wild animals are at play in the trees much like Tarzan was. Many wild animals have to swing, jump, and bound in order to reach their shelter spaces and/or food supply.

Wild animals have a much more active lifestyle that allows them to put their muscles and abilities to the test every day. Since animals in captivity do not have the same opportunities to exercise nor do they have to exercise due to everything being given to them, they do not have the muscle build that wild animals have. Researchers say this lack of exercise, in turn, stunts most zoo animals’ growth (Bostock). It has also been proven that muscle weighs more than fat. Because zoo animals are not exercising their muscles in the same way that wild animals are, they often weigh less and are much smaller than wild animals (O’Regan).

Animals in the wild also thrive because they are not forced to breed with limited choices like zoo animals are forced to breed with. In other words, wild animals have more opportunities to breed among the most dominant pairs. Animals have a much stronger need to restore their populations than humans do, but captive animals often do not feel that they are ready to reproduce due to their captive conditions. Researchers have noted that animals usually have an easier time breeding away from the public eye. Because zoo animals are in front of the public for most of the day, they do not receive the privacy they would prefer.

This forces zoo personnel to make accommodations for these animals such as keep them away from the public and possibly use ‘artificial assistance to get two zoo animals to breed together. However, wild animals can breed with the companion of their choice whenever they like and produce the most dominant offspring possible (Bostock). Finally, since extra stress is put on wild animals to provide and manage many things on their own, wild animals’ cranial volume is usually greater than that of a zoo animal. Zoo animals are provided with every one of their basic needs to survive.

They do not have to deal with harsh environmental changes, search or hunt for food, find shelter from predators, suffer through sicknesses or injuries, or keep in shape because zoos provide them with protection from all of those worries. However, a wild animal has to deal with if not all then most of those challenges at some point in its life; some of them are even daily stresses for these animals. Researchers have proven this by taking young members from a species of the same geographical area, putting half in captivity while leaving the others in their natural habitat.

Then, they ran tests to view their stress levels and brain activity as well as measuring their skull and cranial volume growth. They found that animals in captivity had lower stress levels than animals left in their natural habitat. The animals left in the wild showed higher stress levels, a larger skull, and increased cranial volume than an animal raised in captivity. This is greatly beneficial to wild animals because studies have shown that zoo animals begin to die when their activity levels progressively decrease (O’Regan).

Given this information, one can acknowledge that zoo animals may be given significantly more aid than wild animals are; however, the amount of stress put on wild animals due to lack of assistance from humans is the reason why they thrive. Wild animals have learned to handle the stress of environmental challenges, food shortages, sicknesses and injuries, difficult access to food sources, find shelter from predators, and reproducing with a dominant companion all on their own. While zoo animals have been provided with protection from those worries, wild animals obviously are not.

This allowed the wild animals’ skull and cranial volumes to exceed that of zoo animals’. If an animal does not have to stimulate its brain because it knows everything it needs is going to be given to it, then it can potentially lose its purpose, and the animal will begin to degrade and eventually even die just as someone who does not exercise can lose his muscle strength. Because animals in the wild are continually faced with these stresses their brain will always be stimulated, which, in turn, helps wild animals to thrive and reach their full potential since brain activity is positively correlated with life expectancy.

More Essays

• Wild Animals In Captivity Research Paper
• Essay On Animals In Captivity
• Pros And Cons Of Animals In Captivity Essay
• Essay about The Importance Of Animals In Captivity
• Pros And Cons Of Keeping Animals In Zoos Essay
• Why Do Animals Die In Shelters Essay
• Persuasive Essay On Endangered Animals
• Pros And Cons Of Non Human Animals Essay
• What’s Wrong With Zoos Essay
• Pros And Cons Of Zoos Essay

Should We Change Species to Save Them?

When traditional conservation fails, science is using “assisted evolution” to give vulnerable wildlife a chance.

Credit... Photo illustration by Lauren Peters-Collaer

Supported by

• Share full article

By Emily Anthes

Photographs by Chang W. Lee

This story is part of a series on wildlife conservation in Australia, which Emily Anthes reported from New York and Australia, with Chang W. Lee.

• Published April 14, 2024 Updated April 16, 2024

For tens of millions of years, Australia has been a playground for evolution, and the land Down Under lays claim to some of the most remarkable creatures on Earth.

It is the birthplace of songbirds, the land of egg-laying mammals and the world capital of pouch-bearing marsupials, a group that encompasses far more than just koalas and kangaroos. (Behold the bilby and the bettong!) Nearly half of the continent’s birds and roughly 90 percent of its mammals, reptiles and frogs are found nowhere else on the planet.

Australia has also become a case study in what happens when people push biodiversity to the brink. Habitat degradation, invasive species, infectious diseases and climate change have put many native animals in jeopardy and given Australia one of the worst rates of species loss in the world.

In some cases, scientists say, the threats are so intractable that the only way to protect Australia’s unique animals is to change them. Using a variety of techniques, including crossbreeding and gene editing, scientists are altering the genomes of vulnerable animals, hoping to arm them with the traits they need to survive.

“We’re looking at how we can assist evolution,” said Anthony Waddle, a conservation biologist at Macquarie University in Sydney.

It is an audacious concept, one that challenges a fundamental conservation impulse to preserve wild creatures as they are. But in this human-dominated age — in which Australia is simply at the leading edge of a global biodiversity crisis — the traditional conservation playbook may no longer be enough, some scientists said.

“We’re searching for solutions in an altered world,” said Dan Harley, a senior ecologist at Zoos Victoria. “We need to take risks. We need to be bolder.”

The extinction vortex

The helmeted honeyeater is a bird that demands to be noticed, with a patch of electric-yellow feathers on its forehead and a habit of squawking loudly as it zips through the dense swamp forests of the state of Victoria. But over the last few centuries, humans and wildfires damaged or destroyed these forests, and by 1989, just 50 helmeted honeyeaters remained, clinging to a tiny sliver of swamp at the Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve.

Intensive local conservation efforts, including a captive breeding program at Healesville Sanctuary, a Zoos Victoria park, helped the birds hang on. But there was very little genetic diversity among the remaining birds — a problem common in endangered animal populations — and breeding inevitably meant inbreeding. “They have very few options for making good mating decisions,” said Paul Sunnucks, a wildlife geneticist at Monash University in Melbourne.

In any small, closed breeding pool, harmful genetic mutations can build up over time, damaging animals’ health and reproductive success, and inbreeding exacerbates the problem. The helmeted honeyeater was an especially extreme case. The most inbred birds left one-tenth as many offspring as the least inbred ones, and the females had life spans that were half as long, Dr. Sunnucks and his colleagues found.

Without some kind of intervention, the helmeted honeyeater could be pulled into an “extinction vortex,” said Alexandra Pavlova, an evolutionary ecologist at Monash. “It became clear that something new needs to be done.”

A decade ago, Dr. Pavlova, Dr. Sunnucks and several other experts suggested an intervention known as genetic rescue , proposing to add some Gippsland yellow-tufted honeyeaters and their fresh DNA to the breeding pool.

The helmeted and Gippsland honeyeaters are members of the same species, but they are genetically distinct subspecies that have been evolving away from each other for roughly the last 56,000 years. The Gippsland birds live in drier, more open forests and are missing the pronounced feather crown that gives helmeted honeyeaters their name.

Genetic rescue was not a novel idea. In one widely cited success, scientists revived the tiny, inbred panther population of Florida by importing wild panthers from a separate population from Texas.

But the approach violates the traditional conservation tenet that unique biological populations are sacrosanct, to be kept separate and genetically pure. “It really is a paradigm shift,” said Sarah Fitzpatrick, an evolutionary ecologist at Michigan State University who found that genetic rescue is underused in the United States.

Crossing the two types of honeyeaters risked muddying what made each subspecies unique and creating hybrids that were not well suited for either niche. Moving animals between populations can also spread disease, create new invasive populations or destabilize ecosystems in unpredictable ways.

Genetic rescue is also a form of active human meddling that violates what some scholars refer to as conservation’s “ ethos of restraint ” and has sometimes been critiqued as a form of playing God.

“There was a lot of angst among government agencies around doing it,” said Andrew Weeks, an ecological geneticist at the University of Melbourne who began a genetic rescue of the endangered mountain pygmy possum in 2010. “It was only really the idea that the population was about to go extinct that I guess gave government agencies the nudge.”

Dr. Sunnucks and his colleagues made the same calculation, arguing that the risks associated with genetic rescue were small — before the birds’ habitats were carved up and degraded, the two subspecies did occasionally interbreed in the wild — and paled in comparison with the risks of doing nothing.

And so, since 2017, Gippsland birds have been part of the helmeted honeyeater breeding program at Healesville Sanctuary. In captivity there have been real benefits, with many mixed pairs producing more independent chicks per nest than pairs composed of two helmeted honeyeaters. Dozens of hybrid honeyeaters have now been released into the wild. They seem to be faring well, but it is too soon to say whether they have a fitness advantage.

Monash and Zoos Victoria experts are also working on the genetic rescue of other species, including the critically endangered Leadbeater’s possum, a tiny, tree-dwelling marsupial known as the forest fairy. The lowland population of the possum shares the Yellingbo swamps with the helmeted honeyeater; in 2023, just 34 lowland possums remained . The first genetic rescue joey was born at Healesville Sanctuary last month.

The scientists hope that boosting genetic diversity will make these populations more resilient in the face of whatever unknown dangers might arise, increasing the odds that some individuals possess the traits needed to survive. “Genetic diversity is your blueprint for how you contend with the future,” Dr. Harley of Zoos Victoria said.

Targeting threats

For the northern quoll, a small marsupial predator, the existential threat arrived nearly a century ago, when the invasive, poisonous cane toad landed in eastern Australia. Since then, the toxic toads have marched steadily westward — and wiped out entire populations of quolls, which eat the alien amphibians.

But some of the surviving quoll populations in eastern Australia seem to have evolved a distaste for toads . When scientists crossed toad-averse quolls with toad-naive quolls, the hybrid offspring also turned up their tiny pink noses at the toxic amphibians.

What if scientists moved some toad-avoidant quolls to the west, allowing them to spread their discriminating genes before the cane toads arrived? “You’re essentially using natural selection and evolution to achieve your goals, which means that the problem gets solved quite thoroughly and permanently,” said Ben Phillips, a population biologist at Curtin University in Perth who led the research.

A field test, however, demonstrated how unpredictable nature can be. In 2017, Dr. Phillips and his colleagues released a mixed population of northern quolls on a tiny, toad-infested island. Some quolls did interbreed , and there was preliminary evidence of natural selection for “toad-smart” genes.

But the population was not yet fully adapted to toads, and some quolls ate the amphibians and died, Dr. Phillips said. A large wildfire also broke out on the island. Then, a cyclone hit. “ All of these things conspired to send our experimental population extinct,” Dr. Phillips said. The scientists did not have enough funding to try again, but “all the science lined up,” he added.

Advancing science could make future efforts even more targeted. In 2015, for instance, scientists created more heat-resistant coral by crossbreeding colonies from different latitudes . In a proof-of-concept study from 2020, researchers used the gene-editing tool known as CRISPR to directly alter a gene involved in heat tolerance.

CRISPR will not be a practical, real-world solution anytime soon, said Line Bay, a biologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science who was an author of both studies. “Understanding the benefits and risks is really complex,” she said. “And this idea of meddling with nature is quite confronting to people.”

But there is growing interest in the biotechnological approach. Dr. Waddle hopes to use the tools of synthetic biology, including CRISPR, to engineer frogs that are resistant to the chytrid fungus, which causes a fatal disease that has already contributed to the extinction of at least 90 amphibian species.

The fungus is so difficult to eradicate that some vulnerable species can no longer live in the wild. “So either they live in glass boxes forever,” Dr. Waddle said, “or we come up with solutions where we can get them back in nature and thriving.”

Unintended consequences

Still, no matter how sophisticated the technology becomes, organisms and ecosystems will remain complex. Genetic interventions are “likely to have some unintended impacts,” said Tiffany Kosch, a conservation geneticist at the University of Melbourne who is also hoping to create chytrid-resistant frogs . A genetic variant that helps frogs survive chytrid might make them more susceptible to another health problem , she said.

There are plenty of cautionary tales, efforts to re-engineer nature that have backfired spectacularly. The toxic cane toads, in fact, were set loose in Australia deliberately, in what would turn out to be a deeply misguided attempt to control pest beetles.

But some environmental groups and experts are uneasy about genetic approaches for other reasons, too. “Focusing on intensive intervention in specific species can be a distraction,” said Cam Walker, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth Australia. Staving off the extinction crisis will require broader, landscape-level solutions such as halting habitat loss, he said.

Moreover, animals are autonomous beings, and any intervention into their lives or genomes must have “a very strong ethical and moral justification” — a bar that even many traditional conservation projects do not clear, said Adam Cardilini, an environmental scientist at Deakin University in Victoria.

Chris Lean, a philosopher of biology at Macquarie University, said he believed in the fundamental conservation goal of “preserving the world as it is for its heritage value, for its ability to tell the story of life on Earth.” Still, he said he supported the cautious, limited use of new genomic tools, which may require us to reconsider some longstanding environmental values.

In some ways, assisted evolution is an argument — or, perhaps, an acknowledgment — that there is no stepping back, no future in which humans do not profoundly shape the lives and fates of wild creatures.

To Dr. Harley, it has become clear that preventing more extinctions will require human intervention, innovation and effort. “Let’s lean into that, not be daunted by it,” he said. “My view is that 50 years from now, biologists and wildlife managers will look back at us and say, ‘Why didn’t they take the steps and the opportunities when they had the chance?’”

Emily Anthes is a science reporter, writing primarily about animal health and science. She also covered the coronavirus pandemic. More about Emily Anthes

Chang W. Lee has been a photographer for The Times for 30 years, covering events throughout the world. He is currently based in Seoul. Follow him on Instagram @nytchangster . More about Chang W. Lee

Advertisement

Exploring why we photograph animals – in pictures

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email

A new collection of wildlife photography aims to help understand why people have photographed animals at different points in history and what it means in the present. Huw Lewis-Jones explores the animal in photography through the work of more than 100 photographers in Why We Photograph Animals , supporting the images with thematic essays to provide historical context

• Photography on display at the Cheltenham science festival 4-9 June 2024

Matt Fidler

Mon 15 Apr 2024 07.00 BST Last modified on Mon 15 Apr 2024 23.36 BST

Tree swallow, Grand Teton national park, 2019

Photograph: Xavi Bou/Thames & Hudson

Dalmatian puppies, from the series Dog Gods, 2010

Photograph: Tim Flach/Thames & Hudson

Flora Aiken, of the Iñupiaq, gives thanks to the first bowhead whale of the spring season, from the series People of the Whale, 2017

Photograph: Kiliii Yuyan/Thames & Hudson

A seven-month-old cheetah in the back of an SUV hisses at a rescuer’s outstretched hand, western Somaliland, 2020

Photograph: Nichole Sobecki/Thames & Hudson

Hengifoss sheep, Iceland, 2017

Photograph: John Bozinov/Thames & Hudson

Arctic fox stealing a snow goose egg, Wrangel Island, 2011

Photograph: Sergey Gorshkov/Thames & Hudson

Tiger rangers study photos to identify individuals for conservation efforts and to combat wildlife crime, Thailand, 2010

Photograph: Steve Winter/Thames & Hudson

Honeybees colonise a black woodpecker nest cavity, Germany, 2019

Photograph: Ingo Arndt Photography/Thames & Hudson

Children with orangutans, Denmark, 2016

Photograph: Jo-Anne McArthur/Thames & Hudson

African elephant at the edge of Victoria Falls, Zambia, 2007

Photograph: Marsel van Oosten/Thames & Hudson

The Tweets, a trio of budgerigars, Canberra, Australia, 2018

Photograph: Leila Jeffries/Thames & Hudson

Park ranger and a school of bigeye trevally, Cabo Pulmo, Mexico, 2015

Photograph: Anuar Patjane/Thames & Hudson

The Cobra Feast, Jaipur, India, 2016

Photograph: Claire Rosen/Thames & Hudson

• Photography

More galleries

Most popular.