This House Believes Wild Animals Should Not Be Kept in Captivity
This House Believes Wild Animals Should Not Be Kept in Captivity
This House Believes Wild Animals Should Not Be Kept in Captivity
CAPTIVITY
Zoos are premises for the captivity of animals, often in urban areas where
many of the animals would not otherwise be found, with the intention of
studying the animals and displaying them to the public at large. The
predecessor of the zoo was the menagerie, which involved the captivity of
birds typically for the entertainment of the aristocracy, and has a long
history running back to ancient times. The first modern zoo evolved out of an
aristocratic menagerie in Vienna in 1765. Many types of zoo now exist, from
the petting zoos that encourage the public to get up and close with the
animals to the large nature reserves that provide space for the animals to
roam around within and most famously the large, urban zoos like the London
Zoo which include elephants, lions and penguins and are usually notable
tourist drawcards for the cities concerned. Proponents argue that zoos are
beneficial both to the animals themselves, protecting endangered species
with specific breeding programs, and the public, as an educational tool to
increase both awareness and understanding. Opponents respond that the
removal of wild animals from their habitat is wrong, that they should be left
in their natural surroundings and not used as tools for public entertainment.
Government:
1. Wild animals in zoos suffer unnecessarily
2. Zoos encourage the use of animals as mere entertainment
3. States can have immigration regulations in place that protect
and conserve the populations of wild animals
4. Wild animals belong in their natural habitat
COUNTERPOINT
Wild animals do not suffer in well-regulated, well-run zoos.
There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is
imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. The Animal Welfare Act,
enacted by the United States in 1970, is a good example of a step that can
be taken to ensure all animals are treated appropriately and not misused or
harmed1. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in
spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged.
Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that
there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all
zoos should be shut down.
environment the zoo gives a totally artificial and misleading view of the
animal by isolating it from its ecosystem.
COUNTERPOINT
Zoos do not encourage the use of animals as mere entertainment. This
argument assumes that both the harm suffered by these animals is
tremendous and the only value gained from zoos is human entertainment.
However, the motives of the general public and the professional zoo keepers
are not one and the same. Zoo keeping is a trained profession. Animals in
the zoo have regular access to good food and vets on standby should they
fall ill. This is a far more luxurious lifestyle than they would have in their
natural habitat. Furthermore, within zoos animals have many benefits that
wild animals are deprived of, from human understanding to biological study.
To see zoos as pure entertainment is myopic.
COUNTERPOINT
Sending the trade underground is not the most effective means to ensure the
protection and conservation of wild animals. A general populace with
previous first-hand exposure to wild animals will not lose their appetite to
them if zoos were closed, fostering a demand for a black market in the trade
of live, wild animals. As such, the most effective means to protect and
conserve the populations of wild animals is regulation of the zoos
themselves, not restrictions on their very entry to the state. Furthermore, the
release of previous-captive animals into their 'natural' habitats is not
advisable, they are not fit to survive in an environment where food is not
provided and predators not kept separate.
Opposition:
1. Zoos act as educational tools
2. Zoos help to protect endangered species
3. Zoos permit longer, more fruitful scientific research
COUNTERPOINT
Zoos do not act as education tools, or if they do, they fail at the role. The
average zoo-goer knows less about animals than those who claim an interest
in animals, like fishermen, and only slightly more than those who claim no
interest in animals at all1. Furthermore, we would not tolerate this view if it
were placed on humans. We would not force a human to be subjected to
inhumane treatment and captivity with the reasoning that they would be
saving future humans. We have something that is called integrity. Everyone
has it and there is no reason why animals should not be given this grace as
well. We cannot subject an animal, against it wishes, to captivity and
rationed foods by citing the future good for all animals. We should respect
every animal, even those in zoos and not offer them up as sacrifice. The
education lessons obtained from zoos could just as easily, and less
inhumanely, be presented in the classroom1.
COUNTERPOINT
Zoos do not permit longer, or more fruitful, scientific research. Behavioural
research, as the research is termed, is felt by some to contribute little due to
the unnatural habitat in which the animals are observed1. Environments are
felt to 'trigger reactions', therefore there is 'no reason to believe that better,
fuller or more accurate data can be obtained in predation-free environments
than in natural habitats.'1As such, the Orangutan study carried out in 2011 is
only relevant to captive populations, and potentially only the population at
the zoos concerned. Research into animals (when it respects their rights and
is not cruel or harmful) may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in
the context of confinement and human entertainment.