Because people think that, they support the zoos by giving them money to see these animals instead of going to animal preservations where the enclosures aren’t entirely man made. Animals that can function and survive in the wild should not be kept in zoos because the enclosures do not meet the needs of the animals living in them, zoos restrict animals from their innate behavior and their natural instincts, and zoos are expensive and damage animals homes. Enclosures in zoos do not provide everything the animal needs. In paragraph 6 in the article
Animals need their space to roam and swim and play, but in zoos animals are kept in cages and are restricted and that has a negative impact on animals and could jeopardize their mental health and happiness, also living in a zoo can restrict animals from learning their natural behaviors that they need and is not beneficial to them, also habitats get destroyed every day and instead of putting the surviving animals in zoos, sanctuaries or nature parks are a better alternative, they keep the animals safe and sill give them the opportunity to live the life of a wild animal. If there is a better alternative to putting animals in a zoo where they aren’t forced to do tricks to entertain people or where they aren’t restricted from learning their natural instincts in the wild, why aren’t more animals going
Do you recognize that cute little animal you claim to love, well do you know that you are going more harm than good when you support zoo’s. I know you may think, “how could I hurt animals by going to a zoo” well did you know that a life of confinement doesn't compare to the life that animal would have in their natural habitat. When you support a zoo you are supporting the mistreatment of animals. Animals in zoos are forced to sit in small enclosure and are literally driven insane from frustration and boredom. You call yourself an animal lover but no real animal lover would stand for the mistreatment in zoos.
Animal cruelty is becoming an issue that is too big to ignore. It can be defined as neglect or the infliction of pain or suffering towards animals. One might notice that this is an issue that is becoming more common in zoos and aquariums. These places can be wonderful for the animals, but can also portray an awful life for the captive animals. No animal should have to go through the pain and stress that many are suffering through.
Those animals are there in some cases because they have been harmed, but most cases they are there because they will bring other people money. Saying that its estimated that $17.2 billion was made in 2013 regards to zoos and aquariums(Josephson , Amelia. “The Economics of Zoos.” Smartasset , 25 Sept. 2017,). That was made all out of humans attending these places, these places only do what they do for the money. They aren’t doing it to be close to the animals, or to save them.
In the article "If the zoos didn 't exist, we wouldn 't invent them," the author Camille Labchuck argues that keeping the animals in the zoo is unethical. Labchuck supports this view by pointing out the deprivation that the animals are getting. She supports her claim by noting that the animals are not having the chance to choose their foods, their sleeping place, they are being stripped of their natural lives. The author also points out the limited space that the zoos have. She explains that the zoo spaces are limiting the animal needs.
Animals don’t have the voice to speak up about being exploited involuntarily for entertainment, so is it ethically right to hold them captive? There are over 750,000 types of animals that are held captive in zoos around the world, not to mention, multiple animals per species. (Statistics Brain). For animals to be held in captivity, it is a necessity to ensure that animals receive the reciprocal of their crucial needs, such as the animals having the correct habitat, social abilities or needs, nutrition, and an appropriate confinement. Zoos around the world have recently been under fire for hiding the reality of the zoo’s version of “The Circle of Life” from visitors.
While doing away of zoos completely may be too much of a steep step, a compromise may be able to satisfy both sides. An amendment of zoos may occur where zoos could only be for animals from hazardous environments. Instead of taking animals from their stable and adequate habitats, removing animals that’s home has being destroyed or deemed unlivable for the animal gives it a new place to live. This won’t fix the problems with zoos, but it will at the very least only affect animals with no place to go rather than all animals for the sole purpose of human
Animals in such facilities are prevented from many important advantages such as gathering and hunting their own food, developing their own social orders, breeding in a natural way and generally behaving in ways that are natural to them. These activities require significantly more liberty and freedom than that allowed to animals in zoos, aquariums and circus. Also for animals that were captured in the wild it takes them a long time
The study, on Bengal tigers and leopards in Indian zoos, demonstrated stereotypical behavior of animals in captivity from stress compared to the biological and environmental factors the animals faced. The animals are kept in an enclosed space different than the endless space they would have in the wild. The animals also have to adapt to the new environment they are in which can affect their biological makeup. Animals in zoos at least have an advantage of being kept in relatively the same area and environment while animals in the circus are forced to constantly move around and adapt causing immense stress on the animal. Furthermore according to a PETA article regarding the abuse of circus animals, when the circus is over animals may be housed in small crates or a solitary confinement that can cause harmful psychological effects.