thesis statement about animal captivity

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility information

• Enlighten Enlighten

Enlighten Theses

• Latest Additions
• Browse by Year
• Browse by Subject
• Browse by College/School
• Browse by Author
• Browse by Funder
• Login (Library staff only)

In this section

The moral justification for keeping animals in captivity

Bostock, Stephen St. Chad (1987) The moral justification for keeping animals in captivity. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.

I attempt a reasoned, qualified defence of zoos, but in full recognition of the moral challenge to them. This challenge is mainly examined in chapters 3 to 7. Animals are indeed free in the wild, and must lose that freedom in some degree in zoos (3)*. However animal captivity need only share with human captivity its being brought about by an external agent, it can and should be captivity in a technical sense only, and at its best can clearly be morally acceptable (3). But there appear to be in all essential respects differences only of degree between animals and humans (4) and no reason therefore why their moral claims upon us should be any different in principle from humans' claims (5). As, in addition, there appears to be a dominating tendency in human nature which, though no doubt useful or even essential in itself, also on occasion allows us to be oblivious to our own cruelty to other humans or animals or, worse, actively to enjoy such cruelty, bad captivity is a real possibility which needs to be vigorously guarded against (6). A comparison of the respective advantages for an animal of free and captive life shows that captivity can have the advantages of longer, more comfortable life with medical attention, but the likely drawback of an absence of the normal problems of living, especially food-seeking, in which animals, adapted to their natural ways of life by selection through millions of years, are likely to find satisfaction (7). However the state of domestication is not normally regarded as morally objectionable, and animals in zoos are in fact slightly domesticated (8). Interestingly, domesticated animals also retain far more of their natural behaviour than is normally appreciated (8) . Certain criteria, such as health, breeding, and occurrence of natural behaviour, enable us both to assess the wellbeing or otherwise of captive animals kept in different ways, and to improve the quality of animal-keeping, as well as providing us with a means of articulating specifically and scientifically which ways of keeping certain animals are morally wrong, and which animals, if any, should not be kept at all (9). Study of an animal's natural behaviour and way of life is here of fundamental importance, as it also is in assessing the moral acceptability of ways of keeping domesticated animals (9). Certain animals in zoos and ways of keeping them are considered in the light of the criteria, and it is suggested that there are clear indications in some cases of animals' wellbeing in captivity (10). There are also undoubted failings in much zookeeping, and it is emphasised that keeping animals should be a continuing process of search for improvements. While traditional expertise is of great value, the importance also of being open to and endeavouring to make the fullest use of new ethological and other scientific knowledge cannot be over-emphasised (10). The major justification for keeping any animals captive must be a demonstration of their wellbeing on the lines above (9 and 10), but there are powerful supplementary justifications which I examine in chapters 11 to 16. I see wildlife conservation as part of a moral attitude of responsibility (or "stewardship") towards anything which may reasonably be regarded as of value (11). Valuing itself I see as a fundamental moral concept, and stewardship, which term I use without any implied religious connotations, as necessarily avoiding any narrowly selfish or purely financial motivation in, especially, management of the natural world (11). Animals themselves have exceptional and remarkable claims for being conserved, aesthetic as well as scientific (12). Respect for their own lives as individuals (as seen in 4 and 5 above) should also be a motive for their conservation (12) . While conservation in the wild must be our primary concern, zoos have a considerable supplementary conservation role to play (13). This role, if zoos can only grasp it responsibly as they should, will transform them from being the independent wildlife consumers of past history into cooperating guardians of centrally managed captive populations of endangered and other species, whose genetic variation will be safeguarded with a view to future reintroductions if and when necessary (13). Zoos' scientific and educational roles (14 and 15 respectively) also have strong conservational connections. Zoos may also assist the protection of natural areas by satisfying much of humans' urge for wildlife contact: zoos are visited by millions of people who could never, in comparable numbers, visit "the wild" without irreparably damaging it. (Abstract shortened by ProQuest.)

Actions (login required)

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

The University of Glasgow is a registered Scottish charity: Registration Number SC004401

Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

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.

• Hazard Adjustments in Alaska
• Sustainable Development of Toronto
• 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
• Prospect Reservoir and Surrounding Areas: An Australian National Heritage Site
• South Wales Region: Energy and Economy
• History of the Great Chicago Fire
• The Environmental Sustainability Concept in the Hospitality Industry
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 8). Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/

"Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" IvyPanda , 8 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos'. 8 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" April 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" April 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?" April 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-kept-in-zoos/.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Themed Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Open Access
• About ILAR Journal
• About the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, debating the moral standing of animals and the environment, the ethical complexity of zoo and aquarium conservation, rapid global change and the evolving ethics of ex situ research, conclusions, acknowledgments.

• < Previous

Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change

Ben A. Minteer, PhD, is the Maytag Professor in the Center for Biology and Society and School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. James P. Collins, PhD, is the Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the Environment, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ben A. Minteer, James P. Collins, Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change, ILAR Journal , Volume 54, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 41–51, https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilt009

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Ethical obligations to animals in conservation research and management are manifold and often conflicting. Animal welfare concerns often clash with the ethical imperative to understand and conserve a population or ecosystem through research and management intervention. The accelerating pace and impact of global environmental change, especially climate change, complicates our understanding of these obligations. One example is the blurring of the distinction between ex situ (zoo- and aquarium-based) conservation and in situ (field-based) approaches as zoos and aquariums become more active in field conservation work and as researchers and managers consider more intensive interventions in wild populations and ecosystems to meet key conservation goals. These shifts, in turn, have consequences for our traditional understanding of the ethics of wildlife research and management, including our relative weighting of animal welfare and conservation commitments across rapidly evolving ex situ and in situ contexts. Although this changing landscape in many ways supports the increased use of captive wildlife in conservation-relevant research, it raises significant ethical concerns about human intervention in populations and ecosystems, including the proper role of zoos and aquariums as centers for animal research and conservation in the coming decades. Working through these concerns requires a pragmatic approach to ethical analysis, one that is able to make trade-offs among the many goods at stake (e.g., animal welfare, species viability, and ecological integrity) as we strive to protect species from further decline and extinction in this century.

Responsibilities to wildlife in field research and conservation projects have always been complicated because ethical duties to animals, populations, and ecosystems can pull wildlife scientists and managers in different directions ( Minteer and Collins 2005a , 2005b , 2008 ). In recent years, this situation has been made even more complex by the impacts of global change (especially climate change), which, in many quarters, has forced a reassessment of research practice and conservation policy. Scientists and managers wrestle with understanding and protecting species and ecosystems in a rapidly changing environment ( Hannah 2012 ; Marris 2011 ). In parallel, conservation ethics and values are being reexamined and adapted to fit dynamic ecological and institutional contexts in which traditional models of protecting the environment are being replaced by more pragmatic and interventionist approaches less wedded to historical systems and static preservationist ideals ( Camacho et al. 2010 ; Minteer and Collins 2012 ). Furthermore, as we acknowledge the history and extent of human influence and impact on ecological systems—even for the most remote parts of the planet—we are confronted with a changing vision of nature. Instead of a stark contrast between “wild” and “managed,” we now encounter a continuum of systems more or less impacted by human activity, a scale of degrees and increments (rather than absolutes) of anthropogenic influence that upends many customary divisions in conservation science, policy, and ethics (see, e.g., Dudley 2011 ).

A case in point is the weakening division between ex situ, or zoo- and aquarium-based research and conservation, and in situ, or field-based biological research and conservation practice. Global climate change, along with other drivers of rapid environmental transformation (e.g., accelerating habitat loss and the spread of invasive species and infectious diseases), is increasingly being viewed as requiring a more proactive and intensive philosophy of conservation and ecological management ( Hobbs et al. 2011 ). One consequence of this shift is that the conceptual and empirical boundaries separating “the field” from “the animal holding facility” are growing hazy: zoos and aquariums are becoming more engaged in field conservation programs, while preserves and natural areas are becoming more intensively managed and designed for a diverse mix of conservation and resource management outputs ( Cole and Yung 2010 ; Dickie et al. 2007 ; Pritchard et al. 2011 ).

At the same time, there are new calls within conservation science and management circles to think differently about the connections between captive and wild populations. Indeed, many wildlife scientists are recognizing that captive and wild populations should be seen not as separate biological and management domains but viewed instead as linked metapopulations (e.g., Lacy 2012 ). They argue that the sustainability of the former requires exchange of animals and DNA from the wild, whereas the viability of the latter may require contributions from ex situ populations as well as the refinement of small-population research and management techniques ( Lacy 2012 ; Redford et al. 2012 ). Such techniques, however, may only be feasible in the controlled environment of the zoo or aquarium.

The softening of the distinction between ex situ and in situ, the quickening pace of biodiversity loss, and the parallel rise of a more interventionist ecological ethic have significant implications for how we understand and make trade-offs among values and responsibilities in conservation research and practice. These include the concerns of animal welfare and animal rights as well as species-level and ecosystem-level conservation values. Although all of these obligations remain an important part of the ethical landscape of conservation research and practice, they are being reshaped by the need to respond to rapid environmental change as well as by the research demands of a more interventionist conservation effort.

A good example of this trend is the Amphibian Ark Project (AArk), a global consortium of zoos, aquariums, universities, and conservation organizations that has organized itself around the goal of slowing global amphibian declines and extinctions, which by all accounts have reached historic levels over the last several decades ( Collins and Crump 2009 ; Gewin 2008 ; Zippel et al. 2011 ). Zoos and aquariums in the AArk serve as conservation way stations for amphibian populations facing possible extinction because of the combined forces of habitat loss, infectious disease, and climate change. But they also function as centers of research into the drivers of population decline, the possibilities of disease mitigation, and the prospect of selecting for biological resistance to a lethal amphibian pathogen ( Woodhams et al. 2011 ). With the mission of rescuing, housing, and breeding hundreds of amphibian species to return them eventually to native localities, the AArk is emerging as a hybrid or “pan situ” approach to biodiversity protection, a project that integrates (and blurs the borders between) ex situ and in situ conservation ( Dickie et al. 2007 ; Gewin 2008 ).

In addition, the breeding and research activities within the AArk evoke questions of animal welfare and conservation ethics, including the tensions between and within these commitments. Amphibian research can be invasive and even lethal to individual animals, raising significant and familiar welfare and rights-based concerns in zoo and aquarium research. Moreover, infectious disease research, a significant part of the AArk research portfolio, carries the risk of an infected host or the pathogen itself infecting other animals in a captive-breeding facility or even escaping into local populations. In fact, just such a case occurred when the often-lethal pathogen the amphibian chytrid fungus moved from a common species in a captive-breeding facility to an endangered species. When the latter was introduced into Mallorca to establish a population in the wild, subsequent research revealed that animals were infected by the pathogen from the breeding facility before transfer ( Walker et al. 2008 ). Still, it is clear that many amphibian species will experience further declines or go extinct in the wild if dramatic measures such as the AArk are not pursued until a sustainable recovery and conservation strategy is developed.

In what follows, we examine the ethical and policy-level aspects of research and conservation activities that involve captive wildlife in zoos and aquariums, focusing on some of the implications of accelerating biodiversity decline and rapid environmental change. As we will see, the most pressing ethical issues surrounding zoo- and aquarium-based wildlife in this era of rapid global change are not best described as traditional animal rights versus conservation dilemmas but instead concern what we believe are far more complicated and broad-ranging debates within conservation ethics and practice. These debates include devising an ethically justified research and recovery strategy for wildlife across evolving in situ and ex situ conservation contexts that may require a more interventionist approach to biodiversity management. Zoo and aquarium researchers in a time of rapid global change must find creative ways to integrate and steer the expanding biodiversity research efforts of their facilities. In doing so, they will need to provide the ethical justification and scientific guidance for responding to the plight of those globally endangered species that can benefit from controlled and often intensive analysis in ex situ centers.

Ethicists and environmental advocates have often found themselves deeply divided over the moral status of and duties owed to nonhuman animals—a division that has existed despite the common effort among environmental and animal philosophers to expand societal thinking beyond a narrow anthropocentrism (e.g., Callicott 1980 ; Regan 2004 ; Sagoff 1984 ; Singer 1975 ). The dispute is usually attributed to different framings of moral considerability and significance. Animal welfare and animal rights approaches prioritize the interests or rights of individual animals, whereas environmental ethics typically embraces a more holistic view that focuses on the viability of populations and species and especially the maintenance of ecological and evolutionary processes. The difference between these two views can be philosophically quite stark. For example, animal-centered ethicists such as Peter Singer believe that it makes little sense to talk about nonsentient entities such as species, systems, or processes as having their own “interests” or a good of their own (as environmental ethicists often describe them), although they can be of value to sentient beings and thus objects of indirect moral concern.

In the view of ecocentric ethicists such as J. Baird Callicott and Holmes Rolston, however, an ethics of the environment is incomplete if it does not accord direct moral status to species and ecosystems and the evolutionary and ecological processes that produced and maintain them. Most environmental ethicists are sensitive to animal welfare considerations and are certainly aware that many threats to populations, species, and ecosystems impact animal welfare either directly or indirectly. Typically, however, they advocate focusing moral concern and societal action on such ends as the protection of endangered species and the preservation of wilderness rather than reducing the pain and suffering (or promoting the rights or dignity) of wild animals. Domestic animals are even further outside the traditional ambit of environmental ethicists; indeed, their comparative lack of wildness and autonomy has for some suggested a lower moral status as “artifacts” of human technology rather than moral subjects (see, e.g., Katz 1991 ).

It is important to point out here that although “animal rights” is often used as a blanket term for ethical and advocacy positions defending the humane treatment or rights of animals, philosophers and others often make an important distinction between animal rights and animal welfare arguments. The former is generally seen as a nonconsequentialist view of an animal's moral status (i.e., a view on which the covered class of individuals is entitled to fair treatment following ascriptions of moral personhood or inherent worth similar to the logic of entitlement we ideally accord individual human persons). Alternatively, the welfare position is traditionally rooted in consequentialist moral reasoning whereby the impacts of decisions and actions affecting the interests or good of the animal are weighed against other goods (including the interests and preferences of humans), and decisions are made based on an assessment of the aggregate good of a particular action, all things being equal. What this means is that, although in many cases both animal rights and animal welfare philosophies will justify similar policy and practical outcomes, in some instances the welfare position may be more accommodating to animal harms when these are offset by the net benefits produced by a particular action or rule. It bears emphasizing, however, that calculations of these benefits and harms must be fair and consistent; they cannot give arbitrary weight to human preferences simply because they are anthropocentric in nature, and all interests—including those of the animal—must be considered.

Not surprisingly, these different approaches to moral consideration have often produced sharp disagreements at the level of practice, especially in wildlife management and biological field research. For example, animal rights proponents regularly condemn wildlife research and management practices that inflict harm or even mortality upon individual animals, such as the lethal control of invasive species, the culling of overabundant native wildlife, and the use of invasive field research techniques; practices that have for decades been widely accepted among wildlife and natural resource managers (e.g., Gustin 2003 ; Smith 2007 ). Controversial cases such as the reduction of irruptive whitetail deer populations threatening forest health in New England ( Dizard 1999 ), amphibian toe clipping in capture–mark–recapture field studies ( May 2004 ), the hot branding of sea lions for identification in marine research projects ( Minteer and Collins 2008 ), and the culling of black-throated blue warblers for an ecological field experiment ( Vucetich and Nelson 2007 ) illustrate the ethical conflicts characterizing much of the environmental/conservation ethics and animal welfare/rights debate in wildlife field research.

Despite attempts by some ethicists and scientists to find common ground between animal- and environmental-centered values at either the philosophic or pragmatic level (e.g., Jamieson 1998 ; Minteer and Collins 2008 ; Minteer 2012 ; Perry and Perry 2008 ; Varner 1998 ), many observers believe that the gulf separating ethically individualistic, animal-centered commitments and conservationists’ more holistic commitment to promoting the viability of populations and communities is simply too wide to bridge, even in cases where animal-centered and biodiversity-centered advocates have common cause ( Hutchins 2008 ; Meffe 2008 ).

This division has recently been reinforced by public stances taken by wildlife conservation organizations such as The Wildlife Society (TWS), which in 2011 released a position statement on animal rights and conservation that underscored what the organization described as the incompatibility between these two ethical and policy orientations ( http://wildlife.org/policy/position-statements ). Animal-centered views perceived as more moderate in nature, such as the commitment to the humane treatment of animals in research and management (i.e., a weaker animal welfare position) are ostensibly accepted by TWS, although the organization's position here probably still falls short of what animal welfare ethicists such as Singer would argue is demanded by a principled concern for animal well-being in research and management contexts.

The practice of keeping animals in zoos and aquariums is one of the more intriguing areas of conflict within the animal ethics–conservation ethics debate. The presumption that the keeping of animals in captivity in zoos and aquariums is morally acceptable has long been questioned by animal rights–oriented philosophers who believe that such facilities by definition diminish animals’ liberty and dignity as beings possessing inherent worth (e.g., Jamieson 1985 , 1995 ; Regan 1995 ). Such critiques either implicitly or explicitly evoke the unpleasant history (from both the contemporary welfare and wildlife conservation perspective) of zoos as wildlife menageries designed primarily for public titillation and entertainment, including notorious cases of animal abuse and the exploitation of captive wildlife for profit. Zoo advocates, however, argue that modern zoos and aquariums have a vital societal mission to educate zoo visitors regarding the necessity of wildlife conservation and the dilemma of global biodiversity decline and that they contribute (and could contribute even more) significantly to fundraising efforts to support conservation projects in the field (e.g., Christie 2007 ; Hutchins et al. 1995 ; Zimmerman 2010 ).

This broad ethical debate over zoos and aquariums in society and the various trade-offs it evokes regarding animal welfare, conservation, scientific research, and entertainment have been complicated by particular high profile cases, such as the keeping of elephants or large carnivores in zoos ( Clubb and Mason 2003 ; Wemmer and Christen 2008 ) and whales or dolphins (cetaceans) in aquariums and marine parks ( Bekoff 2002 ; Grimm 2011 ; Kirby 2012 ). Among other issues, these cases often reveal disagreements among scientists about conditions for housing some of the more charismatic, large, and popular animals in zoos away from in-range conditions as well as differences in assessments of species-specific welfare impacts and requirements across a range of taxa ( Hosey et al. 2011 ). They also exemplify the welfare–entertainment–education–conservation nexus that forms much of the normative and ethical discourse around zoos in modern society ( Hancocks 2001 ; Hanson 2002 ).

Zoos and aquariums therefore raise a number of ethical issues, from the basic question of the moral acceptability of keeping animals in captivity to more specific arguments and debates over practices such as captive (conservation) breeding, zoo-based research, wild animal acquisition, habitat enrichment, and the commercialization of wildlife (see, e.g., Davis 1997 ; Kreger and Hutchins 2010 ; Norton et al. 1995 ). Clearly, these practices provoke a set of complicated questions about our responsibilities to captive animals and the conservation of species and habitats in the wild.

Perhaps one of the strongest conservation-based arguments supporting housing animals in zoos and aquariums today is that these facilities provide the ability to create “captive assurance populations” through ex situ breeding, with the goal of reintroducing some individuals back into the wild to restore or expand lost or declining populations ( Beck et al. 1994 ; Reid and Zippel 2008 ). This technique, described earlier in our discussion of the AArk, has produced some notable conservation successes in recent decades, including the recovery of (among other species) the Arabian oryx, the black-footed ferret, and the California condor. On the other hand, many animal rights–oriented critics of conservation breeding and the reintroduction efforts of zoos, such as the advocacy organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), argue that captive breeding efforts are biased toward the breeding of “cute” animals of value to the public (rather than breeding for conservation purposes) and that such practices create surplus animals that are subsequently transferred to inferior facilities and exploited ( www.peta.org/about/why-peta/zoos.aspx ). PETA questions as well the broader goal of releasing captive-born and raised animals to the wild, pointing out the inherent difficulties surrounding reintroductions, including the risks they pose to the reintroduced animals and other wildlife in situ. Although these sorts of challenges have also been noted by wildlife biologists and biodiversity scientists, many advocates of conservation breeding and reintroduction programs have argued that further research and improved biological assessment and monitoring efforts can improve the likelihood of success for the release or reintroduction of captive animals to the wild ( Earnhardt 2010 ; Fa et al. 2011 ).

The data suggest that zoos and aquariums are playing an increasingly significant role in field conservation programs and partnerships. In its 2010 Annual Report on Conservation Science, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) lists zoos engaged in more than 1,970 conservation projects (i.e., activities undertaken to benefit in situ wildlife populations) in over 100 countries ( www.aza.org/annual-report-on-conservation-and-science/ ). The AZA coordinates taxon advisory groups and species survival plans to manage conservation breeding, develop in situ and ex situ conservation strategies, and establish management, research, and conservation priorities ( www.aza.org/ ). These experts (which include biologists, veterinarians, reproductive physiologists, and animal behaviorists, among other researchers) also contribute to the development of taxon-specific animal care manuals that provide guidance for animal care based on current science and best practices in animal management ( www.aza.org/animal-care-manuals ).

As part of their expanding efforts in field conservation, ex situ wildlife facilities are also becoming more significant players in biodiversity research. As Wharton (2007) notes, systematic, zoo-based research on reproduction, behavior, genetics, and other biological dimensions has made many important contributions to the improvement of animal husbandry practice over the past three decades. Moreover, ex situ animal research conducted to inform field conservation is seen as a growing priority for zoos and aquariums, especially in light of worrying trends in global biodiversity decline and the widely acknowledged potential of the extensive zoo and aquarium network to carry out studies that can provide conservation-relevant knowledge for field projects ( WAZA 2005 ; MacDonald and Hofer 2011 ).

Applied research in zoological institutions (i.e., research motivated by the goal of improving conservation and/or veterinary science) is not the only research contribution of zoos and aquariums, however. Basic research on captive wildlife is also conducted throughout the system and is highly valued by many wildlife scientists, both within and outside of zoological institutions. At Zoo Atlanta, for example, researchers are presently conducting a number of studies designed to inform our understanding of wildlife biology, including the biomechanics of sidewinding locomotion in snakes, social behavior and acoustic communication in giant pandas, and taxonomic and phylogenetic studies of frogs, among other taxa (J. Mendelson, Zoo Atlanta, personal communication, 2012). Such research is often impossible to conduct in the wild, and thus captive populations can hold great value as specimens for basic scientific study.

Although not every zoo and aquarium has the capacity to conduct extensive animal research (focused on either veterinary/animal care or conservation purposes), the larger and better-equipped facilities such as the Bronx Zoo, the San Diego Zoo, Zoo Atlanta, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the St. Louis Zoo have become active wildlife and conservation research centers in addition to being popular educational and entertainment facilities. For all these reasons, zoos, aquariums, and other ex situ facilities (e.g., botanic gardens) are being championed by organizations such as the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums as potential models of “integrated conservation” given their ability to participate in a wide range of conservation activities, from ex situ research, education, and breeding of threatened species to field projects in support of animals in the wild to serving (in the case of the AArk) as temporary conservation rescue centers to protect animals threatened by rapid environmental change ( WAZA 2005 ; Zippel et al. 2011 ). Whether these facilities can develop successful reintroduction programs that will lead to the ultimate recovery of populations they are holding temporarily (such as the AArk program) or whether these “temporary” efforts become de facto and permanent ex situ “solutions” to particular wildlife conservation problems in the field, however, remains to be seen.

For many wildlife biologists and conservationists, then, breeding and conservation-oriented research on captive wildlife are seen as essential activities that should not be halted on the basis of animal welfare and animal rights objections. The ethical imperative to save threatened species from further decline and extinction in the wild has for them a priority over concerns regarding individual animal welfare. Humane treatment of animals (both ex situ and in the field), however, remains a clear ethical obligation of zoo-based scientists and professionals as well as field researchers. It is an obligation formalized in the ethical codes of the major professional and scientific societies, such as the AZA and the Society for Conservation Biology.

Yet not everyone is convinced that this reinvigorated conservation justification for keeping animals in captivity is a compelling rationale for such facilities. For example, some critics have argued in the past that actual conservation-relevant research conducted in or by zoos and aquariums is, in fact, a relatively minor part of their mission and that it cannot justify keeping animals in captivity (see, e.g., Jamieson 1995 ). Such criticisms are, however, slowly losing their bite as we witness the more recent growth of zoo-based research for conservation purposes ( Stanley Price and Fa 2007 ). Still, it is true that much of the research conducted by zoos today remains focused on animal husbandry rather than conservation of animals in the wild ( Fa et al. 2011 ).

This situation may be changing, however. Indeed, research on captive wildlife in zoos and aquariums (including that driven by conservation concerns) is predicted to continue to grow in significance in the coming decades. Perhaps the most obvious reason for this is access. As mentioned above, scientists in ex situ facilities have the ability to carry out potentially high-impact research projects on captive animals that may be too costly, risky, or logistically impossible to perform on small, wild populations in situ ( Barbosa 2009 ). This research can be valuable for improving animal husbandry in zoos and aquariums, but it can also be useful for augmenting field conservation projects because biological data from captive animals is incorporated in the planning and implementation of field interventions ( Wharton 2007 ). Data collected from animals drawn from populations that only exist in small numbers in the wild are particularly valuable; therefore, captive populations afford important opportunities to collect data on rare species in a controlled and safe environment.

To the degree that research on zoo and aquarium wildlife is used to inform and improve efforts to conserve and manage vulnerable wildlife populations in the field, it may be defended as an ethically justified activity according to the more holistic obligation to promote species viability and ecosystem health—even if it includes techniques that disrupt or harm captive wildlife in the process. Yet, these activities could still be challenged by more animal rights–based arguments that claim that such harms, including the fundamental loss of freedom and the degradation of an animal subject's dignity associated with captivity, can never be offset by the production of beneficial biological consequences at the population or species level (i.e., “good consequences” in the aggregate cannot justify the violation of the moral duty to respect the worth of the individual animal).

For an animal welfare proponent willing to take a more pragmatic position, however, unavoidable harms or disvalues in zoo and aquarium research projects that directly lead to the promotion of the good of the species in the wild may be viewed as ethically tolerable in light of the collective benefit for sentient animals. This view could follow from the utilitarian principle to evaluate an action based on its consequences for all sentient beings impacted by the action or from a more integrated ethical system in which both animal welfare and conservation ethics are operant in moral decision making (see, e.g., Minteer and Collins 2005a , 2005b ). Indeed, we suspect that most informed animal welfare supporters also see the value of wildlife conservation and landscape protection (or at least are not opposed to these activities). Therefore, they should not dismiss the real population, species, and ecosystem benefits of research on captive wildlife, especially in a time of global change.

The ethical evaluation of research on captive wildlife, however, can become even more complicated, especially if one holds the foundational view that it is wrong to place animals in captivity in the first place. Research undertaken primarily to improve animal care in ex situ facilities, for example, would appear to be a morally justifiable activity, especially if it produces results than can help zoo managers enrich habitats and improve the health and well-being of wildlife in their care. That is, the research would seem to produce a positive value that deserves to be weighed against any disvalue produced by harming or stressing an animal during the research process. And yet, this research could still be seen as morally unacceptable even if it improves the welfare of captive animals because it destroys the animal's freedom or treats them as a “mere means” to some anthropocentric end. Therefore, according to this abolitionist position, zoo and aquarium wildlife research conducted under the banner of improving animal care or husbandry makes the mistake of assuming that keeping animals in zoos and aquariums is itself defensible, a stance that many arguing from a strong animal rights framework flatly reject (e.g., Jamieson 1985 , 1995 ; Regan 1995 ).

But what about the case where research on captive wildlife is demonstrated to be necessary to obtain information relevant to the conservation and management of threatened populations in the wild? In such situations, strong ethical objections to the keeping of animals in ex situ facilities, to interfering in their lives, and so forth arguably have comparatively less normative force. To reject this claim, one would have to argue that the well-being of captive animals is and should be a completely separate moral issue from the welfare of wild populations—a position that, as mentioned earlier, is difficult to hold in our increasingly integrated conservation environment. This does not entail the rejection of animal welfare considerations in research design and conduct; these remain compelling at all stages of the research process. But it provides a powerful and morally relevant consideration for undertaking that research rather than ruling it out on moral grounds.

We should underscore that this conclusion does not hold for poorly designed or weakly motivated research projects that promise to shed little new scientific light on wildlife biology and behavior relevant to conservation or that appear to essentially reproduce studies already performed on either captive or wild animals in the field ( Minteer and Collins 2008 ). Determining the conservation value of the proposed research and its scientific necessity is thus a critical activity bearing on the welfare and conservation of animals across in situ and field settings. Yet it is an analysis that necessarily contains a measure of uncertainty that can complicate evaluations and proposed trade-offs among animal welfare, scientific discovery, and the potential for the research to produce results with a direct application to the conservation, management, or recovery of populations in the wild ( Parris et al. 2010 ).

Improved husbandry and conservation value in the field are not the only potential benefits of zoo and aquarium research for wildlife, however. As Lewis (2007) notes, research on captive animals in ex situ facilities may also yield results that can pay dividends in the form of improved animal welfare in field research projects. This is especially true in the case of zoos and aquariums with extensive veterinary departments with the capacity to develop equipment and protocols that minimize research impacts on wildlife in field studies. Such projects might include research on novel, less-invasive animal marking and sampling techniques, the development of safer forms of darting and the use of anesthesia, and the creation of new breeding techniques for recovering particular wild animal populations ( Lewis 2007 ). Although it is not always entirely clear which interventions should be considered invasive in the animal research context or what exactly constitutes harm in these analyses (see, e.g., Goodrowe 2003 ; Parris et al. 2010 ; Pauli et al. 2010 ), it does seem to be the case that wildlife researchers in both ex situ and field study environments are increasingly adopting noninvasive sampling and study techniques for wildlife research, signifying, perhaps, a growing sensitivity to animal welfare in field biology and conservation ( Robbins 2009 ).

If ex situ research on animals can lead to the development of less-invasive technologies and research protocols, then some of the welfare concerns raised by the manipulation or harm of zoo and aquarium animals in the research process that produces these technologies may be offset, at least to a degree and at the aggregate (i.e., population, species, and ecosystem) level, by the net welfare benefits of adopting these less-invasive tools and techniques in biological field research. It is important to note once again, however, that this judgment will likely still not satisfy strict animal rightists who typically resist such attempts at “value balancing” (see e.g., Regan 2004 ). Furthermore, and as mentioned above, acceptance of animal harms in such research should hold only as long as the research in question is judged to be scientifically sound and well-designed (i.e., as long as it does not run afoul of the “reduction, refinement, and replacement” directives of the use of animals in the life sciences, which are designed to minimize the impact of research activities on animal welfare and screen out research designs that are not ethically justified, scientifically necessary, or efficient ( Russell and Burch 1959 ).

It is clear that ex situ facilities such as zoos and aquariums will continue to increase in importance as centers of scientific research and conservation action in the 21st century ( Conde et al. 2011 ; Conway 2011 ; Fa et al. 2011 ). The forces of global environmental change, including climate change, accelerating habitat loss, and the spread of infectious diseases and invasive species, along with the synergies among these and other threats, are currently exerting great pressure on wild species and ecosystems. This pressure is expected to only increase in the coming decades ( Rands et al. 2010 ; Stokstad 2010 ; Thomas et al. 2004 ). These dynamics have suggested to many zoo scientists and conservationists an expanding role for many zoos and aquariums in wildlife protection. They can function as safe havens for the more vulnerable species threatened in the wild, as research institutions seeking to understand the impact of global environmental change on wildlife, and as active players in the increasingly intensive process of wildlife conservation in situ, including population management and veterinary care ( Conway 2011 ). As Swaisgood (2007) points out, with the requirement of more intensive managerial interventions in the field because of human encroachment, habitat modification, and other changes, many of the issues central to zoo research and conservation (including animal welfare, the impacts of human disturbance on wildlife, and the consequences of the introduction of animals into novel environments) are increasingly drawing the interest of wildlife researchers and managers in natural areas and in situ conservation projects.

All of these conditions speak to the necessity of wildlife research in zoos and aquariums for informing conservation science under conditions of rapid environmental change, including (most notably) research on the effects of climate change on animal health ( MacDonald and Hofer 2011 ). For example, aquariums can simulate climate change impacts such as shifts in temperature and salinity, the effects of which can be studied on fish growth, breeding, and behavior ( Barbosa 2009 ). Such research could contribute to our understanding of the stresses exerted by global change on wildlife and consequently inform and improve conservation and management efforts in situ.

Another line of research in the domain of global change biology (and wildlife adaptation to environment change) includes studies of captive animals’ responses to pathogens and emergent diseases, such as the work undertaken as part of the aforementioned AArk ( Woodhams et al. 2011 ). Notably, these investigations could allow scientists to gain a better grasp of the consequences of temperature variations and disease transmission for the health of wild populations before any effects take hold ( Barbosa 2009 ). The AArk example illustrates the kind of ethical balancing that needs to be performed for claims surrounding animal and species-level welfare and the health and historic integrity of ecosystems. For many amphibian species, AArk is a place of last resort. Once the amphibian chytrid enters an ecosystem, at least some susceptible species will not be able to return to their native habitats without an intervention strategy such as selective breeding for infectious-disease tolerance. An alternative tactic is managed relocation (i.e., the translocation of populations from their native habitat to novel environments that may be well outside their historic range) (e.g., Schwartz et al. 2012 ). Both approaches, however, involve ethical decisions that balance the welfare of individual frogs and salamanders against that of populations and species as well as the historic integrity of ecosystems (i.e., the particular mix of species and communities that have evolved in these systems over time) ( Winston et al. in press ).

Health- and disease-oriented wildlife research in zoos and aquariums may not only be targeted at wildlife conservation. The public health community, for example, may also have a significant role to play in zoo research in the near term. Epidemiologists and others have noted the value of zoo collections for biosurveillance (i.e., as biological monitoring stations that can be studied to understand and plan for the emergence of future infectious diseases posing public health risks) ( McNamara 2007 ). This proposal raises two further interesting ethical questions regarding the evaluation of zoo- and aquarium-based research under global change: ( 1 ) the acceptability of wildlife health research motivated by improving field conservation of the species and ( 2 ) wildlife health research that enlists captive wildlife as “sentinels” ( McNamara 2007 ) to provide an early warning system for infectious diseases that might impact human welfare. Both research projects could be pursued under the banner of “wildlife, health, and climate change,” yet each would differ in its underlying ethical justification. One program would likely be more species-centered or nonanthropocentric (wildlife health research for conservation purposes), whereas the other would presumably be defended on more anthropocentric grounds, given the focus on safeguarding public health. This philosophic division, however, is not always that well defined, especially if wildlife health research in zoos and aquariums has benefits for both in situ conservation and more human-centered interests (e.g., the provision of ecosystem services). Still, the different research foci would be expected to evoke some differences in ethical analysis regarding their implications for animal welfare, conservation, and human welfare ethics.

For a swelling number of cases, then, scientific study and refinement of conservation breeding techniques, wildlife health research, and so forth will likely be necessary to save focal species in the wild under dynamic and perhaps unprecedented environmental conditions ( Gascon et al. 2007 ). Ethical objections to conservation breeding or to the impacts of high-priority conservation research on captive wildlife motivated by animal welfare and rights concerns will, we believe, become less compelling as the need for captive assurance populations increases (because of the impacts of global change). These ethical objections will also weaken as we see the rise of additional partnerships between ex situ and field conservation organizations and facilities and especially as the former become more directly engaged in recovery and reintroduction efforts that benefit animals in the wild. It is one thing to evaluate captive-breeding programs designed to provide a steady supply of charismatic animals for zoo display. These have rightly drawn the ire of animal advocacy organizations as discussed earlier. It is another thing to assess those activities with the goal of recovering wildlife populations threatened in the field because of accelerating environmental change.

This does not mean that the ethical challenges of recognizing and promoting animal welfare concerns in ex situ research and conservation will or should be swept aside but rather that the more significant (and often more demanding) ethical questions, at least in our view, will take place on the species conservation side of the ethical ledger. These challenges will include the task of accommodating a philosophy of scientific and managerial interventionism in wildlife populations and ecological systems as rapidly emerging threats to species viability and ecosystem health move wildlife researchers and biodiversity managers into a more aggressive and preemptive role in conservation science and practice ( Hobbs et al. 2011 ; Minteer and Collins 2012 ). The risks attached to this shift include creating further ecological disruption by intervening in biological populations and systems, and a more philosophic consequence—the transgression of venerable preservationist ideals that have long inspired and motivated the efforts of conservationists and ecologists to study and protect species and ecosystems.

For example, ethical dilemmas surrounding the translocation of wildlife populations from native habitats to new environments, including temporary relocations to ex situ facilities such as zoos and aquariums, raise a set of difficult technical, philosophic, and ethical questions for conservation scientists and wildlife biologists ( Minteer and Collins 2010 ). Beyond the animal welfare or animal rights concerns about handling and moving animals that may experience considerable stress (or even mortality) during this process, such practices will also have implications for (1) the original source ecosystems (i.e., the community-level impacts of removing individuals from populations stressed by climate change), (2) the temporary ex situ facility that houses the animals (including shifts in resources and collection space as well as risks of disease transmission) (e.g., Greenwood et al. 2012 ), and (3) the native species present in the eventual “recipient” ecosystems once the wildlife are introduced ( Ricciardi and Simberloff 2009 ).

Another example is the practice of ecological engineering for species conservation in the wild, which can involve the significant modification (and even invention) of habitat to improve field conservation efforts. Along these lines, Shoo et al. (2011) have proposed considering and testing a number of interventionist approaches to the conservation of amphibian populations threatened by climate change. These include activities such as the manipulation of water levels and canopy cover at breeding sites as well as the creation of new wetland habitat able to support populations under variable rainfall scenarios. The investigators suggest employing an adaptive management protocol to experimentally determine whether and to what extent such manipulations are effective in the field.

Such conservation challenges and others like them ultimately compel us to rethink our responsibilities to safeguard declining species and promote ecosystem integrity and health in an increasingly dynamic environment. We believe that this analysis will also require a reassessment of wildlife research priorities and protocols (including the relative significance of animal welfare concerns in research and conservation) for some time to come.

The ethical terrain of zoo and aquarium research and conservation is experiencing its own rapid and unpredictable shifts that mirror the accelerating pace of environmental and societal change outside these facilities. What is required, we believe, is a more concentrated engagement with a range of ethical and pragmatic considerations in the appraisal of animal research under these conditions. The growing vulnerability of many species to the often lethal combination of climate change, habitat degradation, emerging infectious diseases, and related threats has created a sense of urgency within the biodiversity science community. We need to respond with research agendas that can help to understand and predict the impact of these forces on the viability of populations and species in the wild and to inform actions and policies designed to conserve these populations and species.

Part of this ethical appraisal will require asking some hard questions of zoos and aquariums regarding their priorities and abilities to assume this more demanding position in conservation science, especially because some observers have suggested a need for greater planning and research capacity in these facilities ( Anderson et al. 2010 ; Hutchins and Thompson 2008 ). Zoological institutions are idiosyncratic entities, and thus there is often a great deal of variability in how particular zoos and aquariums interpret their conservation mission (J. Mendelson, Zoo Atlanta, personal communication, 2012). The divide between mission and practice can produce significant challenges for these institutions as they take on a more aggressive conservation role. For example, and as mentioned above, many would argue that it is critical for zoos and aquariums to avoid becoming the final stop for species threatened in the wild. Instead, they should be true partners in what we have called an integrated, pan situ conservation management strategy across captive, wild, and semiwild contexts. The development by zoos and aquariums of more explicit reintroduction plans in such cases would therefore help ensure that their conservation ethic remains compatible with that of the wider community, which generally favors the maintenance of wild populations (i.e., in situ conservation) whenever possible.

One implication of this move by zoos and aquariums toward a more expanded research and conservation mission is that it will likely affect other zoo programs that have long dominated the culture and activities of zoo keeping. The display of exotic animals for public entertainment, for example, may be impacted as zoos and aquariums attempt to carve out more space for research and conservation activities, both in their facilities and in their budgets. On this point, Conway (2011) proposes that zoos will need to commit to creating more “conservation relevant zoo space” as they make wildlife preservation (and not simply entertainment and exhibition) their primary public goal. Yet such a shift in mission and programs could undercut public support for zoos, especially to the extent that the traditional displays of charismatic wildlife are reduced to accommodate a stronger conservation and research agenda.

An increased emphasis on climate change and its biodiversity impacts, too, could pose a challenge to zoos and aquariums wary of promulgating a negative or doom-and-gloom message to their visitors. Although some facilities are embracing this challenge and making climate change a part of their conservation education programming, some zoos and aquariums are struggling to incorporate this message within their more traditional educational and entertainment aims. For example, the Georgia Aquarium has apparently assured visitors that they will not be subjected to material about “global warming,” a concession, according to the aquarium's vice president for education and training to the conservative political leanings of many of the facility's guests ( Kaufman 2012 ). This example speaks to the larger challenge of moving zoos and aquariums into a stronger position of global leadership in conservation education, research, and practice under global change and other major threats to habitat and population viability in the coming decades.

Animal rights and welfare concerns will continue to be relevant to the evaluation of research and conservation activities under global change, but ultimately a more sophisticated and candid analysis of the trade-offs and the multiple imperatives of conservation-driven research on captive populations is required. Our understanding of these responsibilities—and especially the requirement of balancing animal well-being in practice in wildlife management and conservation policy—must evolve along with rapid climate change, extensive habitat fragmentation and destruction, and related forces threatening the distribution and abundance of wildlife around the globe. Unavoidable animal welfare impacts produced as a result of high-priority and well-designed conservation research and conservation activities involving captive animals will in many cases have to be tolerated to understand the consequences of rapid environmental change for vulnerable wildlife populations in the field. It will allow recovery and promote the good of vulnerable species in the wild more effectively under increasingly demanding biological conditions. Inevitably, these changes will continue to blur the boundaries of in situ and ex situ conservation programs as a range of management activities are adopted across more or less managed ecological systems increasingly influenced by human activities.

We thank Dr. Joseph Mendelson (Zoo Atlanta) and Dr. Karen Lips (University of Maryland) for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Author notes

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1930-6180
• Print ISSN 1084-2020
• Copyright © 2024 Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public—yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

• University of Southern California

• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Brandeis University
• Northeastern University
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

A Brief History of Zoos

Arguments for zoos, arguments against zoos, the last word on zoos.

A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible—often in small, cramped conditions—the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many  animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals—even in efforts to fend off extinction—cannot be justified. Let's dive into whether zoos are ethical and if they truly encourage education and conservation.

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2,500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens.  Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment when scientific interest in zoology and the study of animal behavior and anatomy came to the fore.

Early zoos were a dismal affair. Animals were kept in small enclosures with little if any, greenery. With a scant understanding of what the various animals needed, many perished relatively quickly. In accredited zoos in the United States and globally, things are better. Primates have gone from barren cages with little furniture to naturalistic and sometimes semi-free-ranging designs. But is it enough?

• By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.
• Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment for protection from poachers , habitat loss, starvation, and predators.
• Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species . In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.
• Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.
• Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."
• A good zoo provides an enriched habitat where the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.
• Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary. People are more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward animals.
• Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or can no longer care for.
• Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for animal care.
• From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals— even if those species are endangered . Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.
• Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen—no matter how humane—or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild .
• Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.
• Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new babies leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold to other zoos, circuses , and hunting facilities . Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.
• Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild . The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos .
• Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also challenging. 
• If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary . (A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.)
• The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) establishes minimal standards for cage size, shelter, healthcare, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.
• Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla , was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo . While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.
• Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

In making a case for or against zoos and whether zoos are ethical, both sides argue that they're saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they do make money. As long as demand remains, zoos will continue to exist.

Since zoos are likely inevitable, the best way to move forward is to ensure zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished but denied any future access to animals.

One day we may look back at zoos and marvel at their barbarity. Or, one day we may look back at zoos and be grateful for the species they saved from extinction. Of these two scenarios, only time will tell.

Hosey, Geoff, et al. Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and Welfare . Oxford University Press. 2013.

Hosey, G. (2023). The History of Primates in Zoos . In: Robinson, L.M., Weiss, A. (eds) Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Springer, Cham.

“ Species Survival Plan Programs .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

“ Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Meagher, Rebecca K., Georgia J. Mason. “ Environmental Enrichment Reduces Signs of Boredom in Caged Mink .” PLoS ONE , vol. 7, 2012, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049180

Kleiman, Devra G., et al. Wild Mammals In Captivity: Principles And Techniques For Zoo Management, Second Edition . University of Chicago Press. 2010.

Gunasekera, Crystal Allen. “ The Ethics of Killing “Surplus” Zoo Animals .” Journal of Animal Ethics , vol. 8, 2018, doi:10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0093

Brichieri-Colombi, Typhenn A., et al. “ Limited Contributions of Released Animals from Zoos to North American Conservation Translocations .” Conservation Biology , vol. 33, 2019, pp. 33-39., doi:10.1111/cobi.13160

Krasnec, Michelle O., et al. “ Mating Systems in Sexual Animals .” Nature Education Knowledge, vol. 3, no. 10, 2012, p. 72.

“ 9 CFR § 3.128 - Space Requirements .” Cornell University Legal Information Institute .

“ Animal Welfare Act Enforcement .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Conrad, Cheyenne C. Conrad et al. " Farm Fairs and Petting Zoos: A Review of Animal Contact as a Source of Zoonotic Enteric Disease ." Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, vol. 14, 2017, pp. 59-73., doi:10.1089/fpd.2016.2185

• Arguments for and Against Hunting
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• How Animal Rights Activists View Zoos Keeping Endangered Species
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• Horse Racing and Animal Rights
• Key Facts About Animal Abuse
• Is Pet Ownership Ethical?
• Overview of Animal Cruelty
• Overview of the Animal Welfare Act
• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• Police Search and Rescue Dogs: The Animal Rights Debate
• Historical Timeline of the Animal Rights Movement
• The Argument for Animal Rights

Animal Rights and Captivity in a Non-Ideal World

• First Online: 07 March 2020

Cite this chapter

• Robert Garner 8  

Part of the book series: Advances in Neuroethics ((AIN))

This chapter explores what animal ethics has to say about the issue of captivity. The best-known version of animal rights morally prohibits all use of animals, including confinement. One obvious response is to reject animal rights in favor of a traditional animal welfare ethic. It is argued in this chapter, however, that there are two ways it is possible to justify animal captivity from an animal rights perspective. The first involves the adoption of a more nuanced, interest-based, rights theory. This allows us to claim that animals do not have a strong enough interest in liberty to be accorded a right not to be kept in captivity. The second involves the adoption of a non-ideal theory of animal rights. This allows us to bracket liberty, and therefore the issue of captivity, as a component of an ideal theory and therefore not of immediate ethical concern.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Animal Captivity: Justifications for Animal Captivity in the Context of Domestication

Comment: caring for captive communities by looking for love and loneliness, or against an overly individualist liberal animal ethics.

Animal Rights (See Animal Ethics; Animal Research; Animal Welfare; Vegetarianism; Zoocentrism)

Regan T. The case for animal rights. London: Routledge; 1984.

Google Scholar  

Palmer C. Animal ethics in context. New York: Columbia University Press; 2010.

Donovan J, Adams C, editors. The feminist care tradition in animal ethics. New York: Columbia University Press; 2007.

Donaldson S, Kymlicka W. Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.

Hursthouse R. On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.

Hursthouse R. Ethics, humans and other animals. London: Routledge; 2000.

Cooper D. Other species and moral reason. In: Cooper D, Palmer J, editors. Just environments: intergenerational, international and interspecies issues. London: Routledge; 1995. p. 137–48.

Prichard H. Does moral philosophy rest on a mistake? In: Prichard H, editor. Moral obligation. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1949. p. 1–17.

Foot P. Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1978.

Walker R, Ivanhoe P, editors. Working virtue: virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2007.

Scruton R. Animal rights and wrongs. London: Demos; 2006.

Hursthouse R. Environmental virtue ethics. In: Walker R, Ivanhoe P, editors. Working virtue: virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2007. p. 155–71.

Koller P. Law, morality and virtue. In: Walker R, Ivanhoe P, editors. Working virtue: virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2007. p. 191–205.

Bentham J. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New York: Hafner Press; 1948.

Singer P. All animals are equal. In: Regan T, Singer P, editors. Animal rights and human obligations. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1989. p. 73–86.

Singer P. Animal liberation. 2nd ed. London: Cape; 1990.

Rawls J. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1972.

Regan T. Utilitarianism, vegetarianism and animal rights. Philos Public Aff. 1980;9(4):305–24.

Singer P. Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philos Public Aff. 1980;9(4):325–37.

Regan T. Exploring the idea of animal rights. In: Paterson D, Ryder R, editors. Animal rights: a symposium. Fontwell: Centaur Press; 1979. p. 73–86.

Francione G. Animals as persons. New York: Columbia University Press; 2008.

Cohen C, Regan T. The animal rights debate. New York: Rowman & Littlefield; 2001.

Nozick R. Anarchy, state and utopia. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1974.

Steinbock B. Speciesism and the idea of equality. Philosophy. 1978;53:247–56.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cohen C. The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:865–70.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McCloskey H. The moral case for experimentation on animals. Monist. 1987;70(1):64–82.

Frey R. Autonomy and the value of animal life. Monist. 1987;70:50–63.

McMahan J. The ethics of killing: problems at the margins of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.

Book   Google Scholar  

DeGrazia D. Taking animals seriously: mental life and moral status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.

Dombrowski D. Babies and beasts: the argument from marginal cases. Chicago: University of Illinois Press; 1997.

Kittay EF. At the margins of moral personhood. Ethics. 2005;116(1):100–31.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rachels J. The basic argument for vegetarianism. In: Sapontzis S, editor. Food for thought: the debate over eating meat. New York: Prometheus Books; 2004. p. 70–80.

Spiegel M. The dreaded comparison: humans and animal slavery. New York: Mirror Books; 1988.

Hart HLA. Are there any natural rights? In: Quinton A, editor. Political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1967. p. 53–66.

Steiner H. Working rights. In: Kramer M, Simmonds N, Steiner H, editors. A debate over rights: philosophical enquires. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1998. p. 233–301.

Rachels J. Created from animals: the moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1990.

Feinberg J. The rights of animals and unborn generations. In: Feinberg J, editor. Rights, justice and the bounds of liberty: essays in social philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1980. p. 159–84.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cochrane A. Animal rights without liberation. New York: Columbia University Press; 2012.

Cochrane A. Animal rights and animal experiments: an interest-based approach. Res Publica. 2007;13:293–318.

Farrelly C. Justice in ideal theory: a refutation. Polit Stud. 2007;55:844–64.

Sen A. The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane; 2009.

Dunn J. Reconceiving the content and character of modern political community. In: Dunn J, editor. Interpreting political responsibility. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1990. p. 193–215.

Carens J. Culture, citizenship and community: a contextual exploration of justice and evenhandedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.

Farrelly C. Justice, democracy and reasonable agreement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2007.

Sher G. Approximate justice: studies in non-ideal theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 1997.

Nagel T. What makes a political theory utopian? Soc Res. 1989;56(4):903–15.

Garner R. A theory of justice for animals: animal rights in a nonideal world. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Robert Garner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Garner .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for Bioethics and Humanities, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

L. Syd M Johnson

Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Andrew Fenton

Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Adam Shriver

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Garner, R. (2020). Animal Rights and Captivity in a Non-Ideal World. In: Johnson, L., Fenton, A., Shriver, A. (eds) Neuroethics and Nonhuman Animals. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_11

Published : 07 March 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-31010-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-31011-0

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

EDITORIAL article

Editorial: the science and practice of captive animal welfare.

• 1 Department of Psychology, Agnes Scott College, Decatur, GA, United States
• 2 Zoos Vic, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
• 3 Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, Jacksonville, FL, United States

Editorial on the Research Topic The Science and Practice of Captive Animal Welfare

Animal welfare science is not a new field of study, but has gained immense traction in the past decades ( Wilson, 1982 ; Novak and Suomi, 1988 ; Maple and Perdue, 2013 ; Sherwen et al., 2018 ). The study of animal welfare and wellness from a scientific perspective yields valuable improvements to captive care given the reliance on empirical data rather than anecdote or opinion. This shift to scientifically approaching welfare has been applied to a range of captive animal settings including farms, zoos, laboratories, and personal ownership. The extent to which the principles of animal welfare science are implemented in these settings ranges from strict, highly regulated guidelines such as those followed in research laboratories to the less or unregulated pet ownership or emotional support animals. Nonetheless, there is great potential for synergy across these settings if the data on captive animal welfare is collected in an empirical manner. Here we gather a number of studies spanning different zoo and aquarium settings with a range of species that builds our knowledge of how to adequately assess and ultimately advance animal welfare in captivity.

Exhibit Design and Enrichment

The physical space or enclosure in which an animal lives is a universally important aspect of animal welfare ( Hediger, 1950 ; Hancocks, 2001 ). This includes aspects of the structural design itself as well as components of enrichment that may be permanent or periodically included or removed. Browning and Maple offer novel perspectives on how to measure the actual space available in an animal enclosure beyond the standard measures of area. Spatial volume is rarely calculated when describing useable space, despite the fact that so many species are largely arboreal in their locomotor habits. Browning and Maple provide a methodology to measure complex space, acknowledging that there more sophisticated measurements are available to designers. Beyond the physical space, various forms of enrichment that are either permanently or temporarily added to environment have been found to have a substantial influence on animal welfare ( Bacon, 2018 ). Fernandez and Timberlake offer an overview of how to select enrichment and evaluate its effectiveness in lemurs and find that conducting a preference assessment may be a fairly simple method for identifying food items to be used with enrichment devices. Moving beyond standard forms of enrichment, Regaiolli et al. draw from cognitive research and assess the effectiveness of visual illusions as a form of enrichment for lions. Clark et al. present a technique for providing cognitive enrichment while preserving the naturalistic design of the zoo experience and providing a “screen-free” enrichment experience for gorillas. These findings highlight the range of potential ways to measure and improve upon the physical space and enrichment offerings to captive animals.

Human-Animal Interactions

In addition to the physical component of an animal's experience, it is well-established that social interactions have an important influence on welfare and wellness. Much of the research in this area has focused on social conspecifics, but human interactions can have potentially positive or negative effects on animal welfare and should be evaluated thoroughly ( Sherwen and Hemsworth, 2019 ). An animal might experience contact with a caretaker, researcher, farmer, pet owner, or zoo visitor. These interactions should be carefully evaluated to minimize potential stress and maximize the potential value of these relationships. Clegg et al. investigate how a dolphin's willingness to participate in a form of interaction, specifically positive reinforcement training, might be related to the individual's overall health. Many animals have evolved to hide symptoms of illness, but willingness to participate in interaction may provide a useful metric for identifying at risk animals before other symptoms emerge.

Conversely, interactions with animals can have significant effects on visitor perceptions and attitudes toward animals. Godinez and Fernandez review the literature on how experiences at the zoo can influence perception, behavior, and conservation opportunities both on-site and post-visit. They also highlight the importance of having a true control group of non-zoo visitors in future assessments of this kind. Chiew et al. manipulated aspects of visitor experience, including proximity to animals on exhibit and extent of engagement, to assess the influence on visitor attitudes. Notably, the penguin behavior itself was related to several aspects of visitor attitudes whereas the treatments themselves were less influential in influencing the measured attitudes.

Variety of Species Studied

Historically, a fairly limited range of species have contributed the most to our knowledge of captive animal welfare. For a variety of historical and practical reasons, much of the early research in this domain focused on farm animals such as cows and chickens, lab animals such as rats and mice, as well as non-human primates such as monkeys ( Hill and Broom, 2009 ). More recent animal welfare science has drastically expanded upon the range of species studied. This diversity will yield better insights into the nature and study of animal welfare as well as the development of practical animal welfare guidelines for many different species.

For example, Hill and Nollens summarize the existing research on beluga whale welfare and highlight the importance and value of relationships between universities and zoological facilities. Allard et al. apply principles of welfare assessment and investigate the link between personality assessment in Blanding's Turtles and outcomes of reintroduction efforts. This work illustrates an important effort to bridge the gap between captive animal welfare and conservation. Overall, these articles, together with others in the special edition focusing on lemurs, lions, dolphins, penguins, highlight the potential for great diversity in the questions asked about animal welfare and the wide range of species that have the potential to contribute to this field as well as benefit from the findings.

Conclusions

Animal welfare science is a rapidly growing and critically important field in our society. As illustrated in this special edition, a wide variety of approaches to measuring, improving upon, and implementing welfare exist. The most critical pathway forward is to rely on empirical evidence and strong experimental design. By doing so, we can improve our knowledge and understanding of animal welfare and optimize the lives of the animals in our care.

Author Contributions

BP, SS, and TM shared responsibility of the editorial process and wrote, reviewed, and edited the editorial summary. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Bacon, H. (2018). Behaviour-based husbandry—A holistic approach to the management of abnormal repetitive behaviors. Animals 8:103. doi: 10.3390/ani8070103

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hancocks, D. (2001). A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Google Scholar

Hediger, H. (1950). Wild Animals in Captivity. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hill, S. P., and Broom, D. M. (2009). Measuring zoo animal welfare: theory and practice. Zoo Biol. 28, 531–544. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20276

Maple, T. L., and Perdue, B. M. (2013). Zoo Animal Welfare . Heidelberg; New York, NY; Dordrecht; London: Springer/Verlag.

Novak, M. A., and Suomi, S. J. (1988). Psychological wellbeing of primates in captivity. Am. Psychol. 43, 765–773. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.43.10.765

Sherwen, S. L., Hemsworth, L. M., Beausoleil, N. J., Embury, A., and Mellor, D. J. (2018). An animal welfare risk assessment process for zoos. Animals 8:130. doi: 10.3390/ani8080130

Sherwen, S. L., and Hemsworth, P. H. (2019). The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare. Animals 9:366. doi: 10.3390/ani9060366

Wilson, S. F. (1982). Environmental influences on the activity of captive apes. Zoo Biol. 1, 201–209. doi: 10.1002/zoo.1430010304

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: welfare, animal, captivity, zoo, enrichment

Citation: Perdue BM, Sherwen SL and Maple TL (2020) Editorial: The Science and Practice of Captive Animal Welfare. Front. Psychol. 11:1851. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01851

Received: 23 June 2020; Accepted: 06 July 2020; Published: 14 August 2020.

Approved by:

Copyright © 2020 Perdue, Sherwen and Maple. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Bonnie M. Perdue, bonnie.m.perdue@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Wildlife Conservation

KEEPING WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY -TRADITIONAL ENTERTAINMENT OR MODERN CONSERVATION APPROACH?

• December 2021
• 6(2(11)):109-116

• Trakia University

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Nathan Berry
• Jessica Cayton
• Steve Reichling
• Sally Binding

• Laura Krusin

• David Morgan

• Leah Cuddeback

• Tassika Koomgun

• Elizabeth Tyson
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Essay Service Examples Environment Animal Welfare

Animals in Captivity Essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Animal Welfare

Ethics is a term used to describe what is either right or wrong. It is sometimes referred to as...

• Animal Abuse
• Perspective

The word “Animal abuse” is a word that not many of us seem to like due to most of us having a fond...

In most western countries the demand for organic food is rising (Kearney, 2010). This trend seems...

• Conversation

What will come up in your mind when you think of animals in the zoo? Is it an enormous but tame...

Only 70% of animal testing stay true when made contact with humans according to...

Despite being used interchangeably, the terms animal welfare and animal rights are different. One...

• Animal Ethics

Animal abuse can happen in many shapes and forms, from starvation to beatings and from cats to...

• Animal Cruelty
• Critical Thinking

Circuses are one of the best-known attractions for people. But it’s important to know the truth...

Animal welfare refers to the physical and social well-being of animals or rather the concern for...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Animals In Captivity Essay Sample

The world is full of wild animals. They can be found in nature, at the zoo, or even in your own backyard. Many people enjoy seeing these creatures up-close and personal for many reasons, but not everyone realizes that there are consequences to this interaction with wildlife. When we go to zoos and aquariums we often forget about the reality of what it means when an animal cannot live in its natural habitat because they have been put into captivity.

• Thesis Statement – Animals In Captivity Essay
• Introduction – Animals In Captivity Essay
• Main Body – Animals In Captivity Essay
• Conclusion – Animals In Captivity Essay

Thesis Statement – Animals In Captivity Essay The life expectancy in captivity for many animals is much lower than their life expectancy in the wild. Introduction – Animals In Captivity Essay The life of an animal is drastically different depending on whether the animal is in captivity or in the wild. Animals that are forced into captivity have a lower life expectancy than animals who make their own choices regarding where they live and how they provide for themselves. Get Non-Plagiarized Custom Essay on Animals In Captivity in USA Order Now Main Body – Animals In Captivity Essay The average life expectancy for a Silverback Gorilla is 35 years. A captive gorilla’s lifespan is much shorter, estimated to be about 33 years old. The difference may seem small but the harsh reality of the situation shows that the life expectancy of an animal in captivity is drastically reduced compared to an animal living freely in its natural habitat. Protection from predators and hunting are key factors in the long life expectancy seen by many animals in their natural environment. This allows them to grow older and stronger so they can give birth to larger numbers of offspring who are then afforded this protection as well, ensuring that the population remains large enough that it will continue to survive into future generations. Conversely, there are very few predators available to prey on animals held in captivity, protecting them from natural predators and hunt. This allows animals to grow older but often results in an animal dying of old age before it would have died of predation in the wild. Another factor that affects the life expectancy of captive animals is their ability to provide for themselves. Animals raised by humans are often fed food that they do not recognize as being part of their natural diet, resulting in malnutrition or other health problems that take years off their lives. The limited diversity of food available in captivity also limits the number and kinds of nutrients taken into an animal’s body, making nutritional deficiencies more likely than when the animal is allowed to forage freely for its own food using all parts of a plant to get every possible nutrient it has available. On the other hand, animals raised by humans are protected from many dangers they would face living freely in nature. They do not have to worry about predators or hunting and their nutrition is monitored and controlled to ensure that they receive proper nutrients. This allows animals to live longer but often results in an animal dying of old age before it would have died of predation in the wild. Buy Customized Essay on Animals In Captivity At Cheapest Price Order Now Conclusion – Animals In Captivity Essay Most animals that spend their lives in captivity die long before they would have if they had been left to live free, resulting in shorter life expectancies for animals who are forced into human care than those who are allowed to remain free. Hire USA Experts for Animals In Captivity Essay Order Now

Gain Excellence Essay Writing On Animals In Captivity Essay Sample

The essay sample serves a supreme purpose in the life of students who have no idea about how to start an essay. If you have been assigned with an essay assignment on animals’ captivity then the sample essay on animals in captivity is written here by the Students Assignment Help. It can be considered as the best option to get an idea about how to start such assignments of the coursework. A free essay writing guide for college in the form of the above example is written by the professional essayist and therefore completely research-based. In case you are bothered about the stacks of essays on your table is given by the different professors then online essay writing services of the Students Assignment Help can also be availed easily. Along with the help in writing a college essay by diligent writers, Essay Proofreading Help is also provided to college graduates.

Explore More Relevant Posts

• Nike Advertisement Analysis Essay Sample
• Mechanical Engineer Essay Example
• Reflective Essay on Teamwork
• Career Goals Essay Example
• Importance of Family Essay Example
• Causes of Teenage Depression Essay Sample
• Red Box Competitors Essay Sample
• Deontology Essay Example
• Biomedical Model of Health Essay Sample-Strengths and Weaknesses
• Effects Of Discrimination Essay Sample
• Meaning of Freedom Essay Example
• Women’s Rights Essay Sample
• Employment & Labor Law USA Essay Example
• Sonny’s Blues Essay Sample
• COVID 19 (Corona Virus) Essay Sample
• Why Do You Want To Be A Nurse Essay Example
• Family Planning Essay Sample
• Internet Boon or Bane Essay Example
• Does Access to Condoms Prevent Teen Pregnancy Essay Sample
• Child Abuse Essay Example
• Disadvantage of Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) Essay Sample
• Essay Sample On Zika Virus
• Wonder Woman Essay Sample
• Teenage Suicide Essay Sample
• Primary Socialization Essay Sample In USA
• Role Of Physics In Daily Life Essay Sample
• Are Law Enforcement Cameras An Invasion of Privacy Essay Sample
• Why Guns Should Not Be Banned
• Neolithic Revolution Essay Sample
• Home Schooling Essay Sample
• Cosmetology Essay Sample
• Sale Promotion Techniques Sample Essay
• How Democratic Was Andrew Jackson Essay Sample
• Baby Boomers Essay Sample
• Veterans Day Essay Sample
• Why Did Japan Attack Pearl Harbor Essay Sample
• Component Of Criminal Justice System In USA Essay Sample
• Self Introduction Essay Example
• Divorce Argumentative Essay Sample
• Bullying Essay Sample

Get Free Assignment Quote

Enter Discount Code If You Have, Else Leave Blank

Skip to Main Content

• My Assessments
• My Curriculum Maps
• Communities
• Workshop Evaluation

Share Suggestion

"zoos and animal welfare" argumentative/persuasive writing.

"Zoos and Animal Welfare" Argumentative/Persuasive Writing

Grade levels, course, subject.

• Printer Friendly Version

Apply the appropriate models to show interactions among organisms in an environment.

CHANGE AND CONSTANCY

Explain mechanisms organisms use to adapt to their environment.

Describe how selective breeding and biotechnology can alter the genetic composition of organisms.

Compare and contrast observable patterns in the physical characteristics across families, strains and species.

Explain why the extinction of a species may occur when the environment changes.

Explain that mutations can alter a gene and are the original source of new variations in a population.

• Big Ideas Purpose, topic and audience guide types of writing
• Concepts Focus, content, organization, style, and conventions work together to impact writing quality Persuasive writing attempts to influence the audience by presenting an issue and stating and supporting a position. Various types of writing are distinguished by their characteristics
• Competencies Persuasive Writing: Develop substantial, relevant and illustrative content that demonstrates a clear understanding of the purpose (content). Persuasive Writing: Employ a thoroughly elaborated argument that includes a clear position consistently supported with precise and relevant evidence where rhetorical persuasive strategies are evident (content). Persuasive Writing: Employ effective organizational strategies and structures, such as logical order and transitions, which develop a controlling idea (organization). Persuasive Writing: Use proper conventions to compose in the standard form of the English language (conventions). Persuasive Writing: Write with a sharp, distinct controlling point made about a single topic with evident awareness of task and audience (focus). Persuasive Writing: Write with precise control of language, stylistic techniques, and sentence structures that create a consistent and effective tone (style). Write persuasive pieces, specific to a purpose and audience, which have a clearly stated position or opinion, with convincing and properly cited evidence that anticipates and counters reader concerns and arguments. Write to influence the audience by:• stating and supporting a position with detailed evidence, examples, and reasons. • using persuasive techniques (e.g.: emotional appeal, statistics, description, anecdote, example, expert opinion) to strengthen the argument. • employing a distinct structure to organize the argument and the opposing viewpoints. • acknowledging and refuting opposing arguments. • evaluating sources for validity, perspective, bias, and relationship to topic.• documenting sources of information responsibly and ethically. • using sources to achieve a balanced and authoritative argument. • supporting judgments with relevant evidence and detail. Write to influence the audience by:• stating and supporting a position with detailed evidence, examples, and reasons. • using persuasive techniques (e.g.: emotional appeal, statistics, description, anecdote, example, expert opinion, analogies and illustrations) to strengthen the argument. • employing a distinct structure to organize the argument and the opposing viewpoints. • acknowledging and refuting opposing arguments. • evaluating primary and secondary sources for validity, perspective, bias, and relationship to topic. • documenting sources of information responsibly and ethically. • using sources to achieve a balanced and authoritative argument. • supporting judgments with relevant evidence and detail. • presenting the position in either a deductive or an inductive framework. Focus, content, organization, style, and conventions work together to impact writing quality

Description

The Literacy Design Collaborative teaching task provides a blueprint for seamlessly integrating literacy and content standards in a rigorous, authentic classroom experience. After determining the discipline, course, and grade level, educators use teaching tasks built around predefined template prompts. The teaching task requires students to read, analyze and comprehend written materials and then write cogent arguments, explanations or narratives in the subjects they are studying.

Students will examine the zoo as a facility in which animals are confined within enclosures and displayed to the public. In many cases, animals may also be bred to produce offspring. Although enjoyed by many, some feel zoo conditions are detrimental to the health of animals. Students will explain and support their opinion as to whether or not animals should be kept in zoos.

In this extended writing task, students will read, analyze, and gather relevant information from text(s) and write an argumentative essay. Students will…

• Apply knowledge of the distribution and management of natural resources to a current issue
• Apply knowledge of the relationship between an environment and extinction to a current issue
• Read, analyze and gather relevant information from multiple texts
• Write an evidence-based argumentative essay, and address competing views

enclosure - something that "closes" a space

welfare - a condition of being or doing well

conservation - protection from extinction

zoochosis  - obsessive, repetitve behavior associated with animals kept in prolonged captivity

extinction - dying out or termination of a species. Occurs when a species can no longer reproduce at replacement levels

endangered species - a species existing in such small numbers that it is in danger of becoming extinct

500 minutes/10 periods

"Animal Ark or Sinking Ship?" BornFree.org . Born Free Foundation, July 2007. Web. Apr. 2011. < http://www.bornfree.org.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/files/zoo_check/ publications/Animal_Ark_or_sinking_ship.pdf >.

Dixon, Thomas. "Zoos: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. 06 Apr. 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2011. < http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=1 >.

Horton, Jennifer. "Are Zoos Good or Bad." HowStuffWorks.com . 15 Sept. 2008. Web. Apr. 2011. < http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/zoos-good-or-bad.htm >.

Lin, Doris. "Should Zoos Keep Endangered Species?" About.com . The New York Times Company. Web. Apr. 2011. < http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/EndangeredZoos.htm >.

Van Tuyl, Christine.  Zoos and Animal Welfare . Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. Print.

Related Materials & Resources

Suggested instructional strategies.

Instructional Procedures

Teacher Preparation Prior to launching the teaching task in the classroom, a teacher should consider the following questions:

How much support will students need to successfully complete the task?

What parts of the process can be completed independently (during or outside of class)? What parts of the process represent new learning or substantial challenge and warrant direct instruction or guided practice during class?

What content and vocabulary instruction and activities will be provided so that students are able to successfully complete the task?

How will reading be scaffolded for my students? (Read together? Read in groups? Read independently?)

What note-taking method will students use, and does that method align with the writing task?

How will students make the transition from the reading to the writing? (outline, graphic organizer, etc.)

What writing instruction is needed to help students write their thesis statements, organize their notes, embed quotes, and cite evidence?

How will students receive feedback at various stages of the writing process to make sure they are answering the prompt, their papers are focused, their ideas are fully developed with details, examples, etc.?

Daily Plan The daily plan is flexible based on students' prior knowledge, experience and skills in reading, research and writing as well as their ability to apply subject area knowledge to a new scenario. The amount of time, in class instruction, and scaffolds needed can be increased or decreased to provide the appropriate level of challenge and support for students.

Teaching Task 2 (Argumentative/Analysis L1, L2): Should animals be kept in zoos? After reading informational texts, write an essay that addresses the question and support your position wiht evidence from the text(s). L2  Be sure to acknowledge competing views.

Task Engagement and Analysis The teacher introduces the teaching task to students by linking the task to the class content that has been taught previously and to existing knowledge, skills, and interests. The teacher asks students to read the teaching task and make notes or discuss with peers things they already know about this issue or topic.

The teacher helps the students to understand the expectations of the teaching task by asking students what they think a good response to the task might include and creating a classroom list. The teacher may share examples of the type of texts the students will produce (either actual student samples or commercially published texts). Sharing the rubric with students will clarify the expectations. (Clicking on each performance level of the rubric will enable teacher access to annotated student writing for that level.)

The teacher explains the timetable and supports available for completing the task.

Text Selection The teacher has either preselected the texts or will provide access to research sources for students to select texts. The teacher asks students to begin to record information about the sources (e.g., using notebooks, note cards, technology). The teacher may need to provide models or instruction on creating a bibliography or works cited. The students should identify author, title, publisher, date, and any other needed information (e.g., volume, editor) A discussion about the credibility or merit of sources may be needed.

Preview texts The teacher can provide students with all of the texts or offer students a list of acceptable sources from which to choose. The teacher briefly highlights each text with a summary to assist students in making appropriate text selections. The teacher asks the students to skim through each text to identify the genre, purpose, and text structure. A teacher think-aloud explaining rationale for making certain text selections may be beneficial to students.

Note-taking The teacher provides or suggests that a note-taking method be used that is consistent with the expectations for the task and the type of writing (e.g., argumentative-pro/con t-chart). Students should be encouraged to refer to the teaching task so that their notes are relevant to the prompt. Students should be encouraged to include both textual information and their own connections and implications. Students should continue to add to their bibliography or works cited.

Teachers may need to teach or reinforce practices to promote academic integrity and to help students avoid plagiarism. The ability to use and credit sources appropriately shows respect for the work of others and adds credibility to a student's argument and/or research.

Reading and Research The teacher assigns the reading, research and note-taking to students and provides instruction to support analysis and synthesis of texts. The teacher may ask students to reflect orally or in writing on key questions including:

Which parts of the text provide evidence that relates to the prompt?

What historical or current examples did you notice that relate to the prompt?

What is the text explicitly saying? What gaps or unanswered questions do you see?

What competing arguments have you encountered or thought of based on the text (argumentative)?

How do you know your sources are credible?

Depending upon the needs of students in the classroom, additional scaffolds may be necessary (e.g., whole-group reading and teacher modeling of note-taking, paired in-class reading, talking to the text, small group discussion). The teacher may either provide students with print source options or make electronic texts available to them through the use of Web 2.0 tools (e.g., Wikis, Nings) or online library databases (e.g., EBSCO, ProQuest).

Transition to Writing The teacher uses discussion based strategies such as the Paideia/Socratic seminar or small group discussions to help students make connections between their research and notes and the teaching task.

Developing a Thesis or Claim Students write an opening paragraph that includes a controlling idea and sequences the key points that will be made throughout the writing assignment. The teacher may provide models of opening paragraphs and analyze them with the class. Students may provide feedback to each other on their opening paragraphs. Students should compare their opening paragraph to the teaching task and assess whether the paragraph fully address the main points of the prompt (e.g., define and explain, compare, take a position, etc.)

Organizing Notes/Planning Students organize their notes into a graphic organizer or outline that establish a logical structure for the assignment. An outline begins with the thesis or claim, sequences key points and includes supporting evidence from texts.

Development of rough drafts Students begin writing their rough drafts. The teacher frequently checks in with students to answer questions, offer feedback, and provide writing instruction as needed. Through planning, the teacher embeds opportunities for students to receive feedback on their writing prior to the submission of the final draft either through peer conferencing, teacher conferencing, or written teacher feedback. Students revise their drafts based on the feedback they receive. The amount of time needed for the development of rough draft varies and may include time during and outside of class.

Completion of Final Draft Students either self or peer-edit their papers for conventional errors and complete the final draft.

Assessment and Reflection The teacher uses the LDC rubric to assess the students' writing and provide feedback to help students improve their performance. Patterns in student performance guide further instruction.

Analytic Scoring The rubric is structured to facilitate analytic scoring - the awarding of separate scores by readers for each of the seven scoring elements. Scorers should keep in mind that the description of work quality within any particular "cell" of the rubric may still address more than one idea, and therefore may not match a particular essay perfectly. The scorer must identify the descriptor that is the best match to a paper based on the preponderance of evidence. If the decision is truly a "coin toss," the scorer should feel free to use the "in-between" or "half" scores. A variation of analytic scoring might be used in a situation in which the emphasis of instruction at a particular time might be on a subset of the seven scoring elements. For example, if instruction is focused on development and organization, then a teacher might simply award scores for those two scoring elements.

Holistic Scoring Holistic scoring is assigning a single, overall score to a paper. Analytic and holistic scoring rubrics look much the same. The holistic scorer's job is to pick the single score (1, 2, 3, 4) that corresponds to the set of descriptors for scoring elements that best matches a paper. Again, in-between or half scores can be used. Ideally, holistic scorers are thinking about all the scoring elements as they read papers, but over time they find that they can assign holistic scores very rapidly, yet still fairly accurately. This is one of the advantages of holistic scoring. However, analytic information is not generated by this method.

Score Recording and Feedback It would be good practice for teachers to share the rubrics with students and discuss "criteria for success" relative to the scoring elements. However, it is not intended that a clean scoring rubric would be attached to every paper that is scored in all situations. It might be more appropriate to attach score slips that list the scoring element names with blank spaces after them for the recording of scores (and a space for a total score, too, perhaps). A customized rubber stamp could accomplish the same. Analytic scores do provide useful information to the students since they reference descriptors in the rubric. However, nothing beats descriptive comments that are best written in the margins of the papers where they are most appropriate.

Cut Scores for Proficiency Levels Scorers can readily compute a total score (the sum of the seven element scores) or an average score (that sum divided by 7). If translating scores to performance levels is desired, then the structure of the rubrics lends itself to the use of the following cut scores:

LDC Scores and Grades LDC scores could be translated to grades contributing to students' course grades. How this would be done is an individual teacher's decision. Teachers could establish their own cut scores for letter grades or just re-label the four performance levels as A, B, C, D. They could come up with their own way to convert LDC scores to numerical grades consistent with whatever numerical scale they use for other class work.

Click on each performance level below (Not Yet, Approaches Expectations, Meets Expectations, Advanced) to view annotated student samples.

Sean Houseknecht, Alex Shubert, Monica Cressman - Elizabethtown Area School District

Content Collections

Date published, insert template, information.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Animal Welfare — The Arguments Against Keeping Animals In Captivity

The Arguments Against Keeping Animals in Captivity

• Categories: Animal Cruelty Animal Rights Animal Welfare

About this sample

Words: 1124 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 1124 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Social Issues Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 605 words

4 pages / 1668 words

3 pages / 1387 words

1 pages / 552 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Welfare

As the debate surrounding marine mammal captivity continues to gain traction, the case of Lolita, a captive killer whale at the Miami Seaquarium, serves as a focal point for discussions on animal welfare, conservation, and [...]

Pit bulls, also known as American Pit Bull Terriers, are a breed of dog that has been the subject of much controversy and debate for many years. The breed is often associated with negative stereotypes and misconceptions, leading [...]

From a young age, I have always had a deep love and respect for animals. Whether it was caring for my family's pets or volunteering at local animal shelters, my passion for animals has always been a significant part of my life. [...]

Lolita, a female orca, has been living in captivity at the Miami Seaquarium for over five decades, captivating audiences with her performances and interactions. Yet, behind the spectacle lies a story of captivity and ethical [...]

The documentary "Blackfish" is a powerful exploration of the treatment of orcas in captivity, directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite. The film delves into the emotional and physical toll that captivity takes on these magnificent [...]

Today’s society is a complex system where no individual is the same due to the differences in ideals on various aspects in life. Wildlife must unfortunately put up with humans and their inability to realize that their lives are [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free