Adam 1

Chase Adam

Shannon Sanchez

English 1010

April 5 2019

Are zoos worth the hassle?

Are zoos and aquariums really providing enough meaningful services to justify staying

open? Ethical treatment of animals should definitely be a priority for the institutions that house

them, and some people feel that certain standards aren’t being met. Many zoological institutions

make the animals overall health their first priority, but there are unfortunately some institutions

that put profit before the animal’s wellbeing. Zoos and aquariums allow scientists to do extended

research animals in a more controlled environment, and also act as havens for environmental

education. Much of the money that these organizations raise goes to conservation, but some

animal rights activists and organizations argue that these efforts are doing very little to

counteract the destruction of natural habitats. This debate is mostly grounded in the moral

values of each viewpoint, and arguments made for either side are often emotional.

“10 Facts About Zoos.” ​Freedom for Animals,​

www.freedomforanimals.org.uk/blog/10-facts-about-zoos.

This is a list of cons against zoos published by Freedom For Animals. The article starts

out by straight up claiming that animals should not be kept in zoos fully for our entertainment.

The first point they make is that zoos are miserable places for animals, citing a few choice

undercover investigations of zoos which showed poor conditions for animals. The second
 Adam 2

argument is that zoos can’t provide sufficient space for their animals. This article then goes on

to claim that animals in zoos show signs of behavioral problems, and die prematurely (this claim

is backed up by statistics of elephants and lions lifespans in and out of captivity). The next claim

is more developed and emphasized than the rest; it claims that surplus animals are claimed. It

refers to several instances and information around animals that have been killed because they

were in excess. There is also a claim that zoos are connected to circuses and train animals to

do tricks for entertainment. The article then uses statistics about animals that are still being

taken out of the wild to be put into zoos. Finally, they accuse zoos and aquariums of missing

their marks for conservation and education.

I don’t really know how reliable this article is, because it seems that a lot of what they

reference as evidence is small scale undercover investigations, on only a few zoos. While it

does link to several articles throughout, a majority of them are on their own website, and many

of them don’t include any more information, or outside sources to support their claims. It’s

definitely important to have this opposing viewpoint, but it feels maybe slightly uninformed and

based more in a moral disposition than it is in facts. This article suffers by not including as much

information that is globally relevant to zoos everywhere, instead opting to reference individual

institutions, but it is still useful to use this as a viewpoint. This article definitely appeals to pathos

more than anything else, using very emotionally striking images and word choices; making an

effort to sway the opinion of the reader before they provide evidence. The article does use logos

by referencing other sources, although it does seem that they pick and choose which

information is relevant to their argument.

Harris, Moira, et al. ​THE WELFARE, HOUSING AND HUSBANDRY OF ELEPHANTS IN

 Adam 3

UK ZOOS​. University of Bristol, 10 Nov. 2008,

czaw.org/resources/welfare-housing-and-husbandry-elephants-uk-zoos.

“The Welfare, Housing and Husbandry of Elephants in UK Zoos​” ​is a summary of the

findings of a study conducted by Dr Moira Harris, Dr Chris Sherwin, and Prof. Stephen Harris of

bristol university. This is a study performed on elephants in the UK, including both African and

Asian elephants. The study is prefaced by a statement that this study was not made in support

or in oppositions of zoos, but is instead an effort to provide more statistical information in a field

where there is very little comprehensive research. The study aimed to identify several points of

welfare in the elephants, primarily focusing on the weight, feet, and potential injuries existing on

the animals.

The study concluded that for each elephant, there was at least some concern for their

welfare by one of the researchers. However, the study also notes that most of these concerns

are minor, and the elephants’ caretakers are already aware of and are managing the potential

problems. The study also concludes that many of the elephants surveyed are overweight, and

have some sort of foot problems. However, the researchers believe that it is important to note

that they saw elephants in zoos with widely varying conditions, and some were much more well

kept than others.

This is a legitimate research study and mostly appeals to logos in use of their actual

scientific findings. It successfully avoids appealing pathos, as it should. It is a very good source,

and shows just how widespread and varied this issue can be; as it accentuates how varying

levels of care in zoos can affect animals. Since elephants are considered one of the “flagship”

species that zoos house, it seems that some research on their conditions in captivity might offer
 Adam 4

some insight into other animals. While it does remain very unbiased, and doesn’t represent any

particular viewpoint, it provides valuable scientific information, which is in short supply for this

topic.

Mather, Jennifer A, and Roland C Anderson. “Ethics and Invertebrates: a Cephalopod

Perspective.” ​DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS,​ vol. 75, 4 May 2007, pp.

119–129., ​www.int-res.com/articles/dao_oa/d075p119.pdf​.

This journal begins by introducing the idea that humans have varied opinions of different

groups of animals, favoring some over others. In particular, this article claims that many people

have a specific fear of invertebrates, based mostly in fear of arthropods (arachnids, insects,

etc.). We are then introduced to three basic philosophical judgements of animals, defined as

Contractarian/Kantian, Utilitarian, and rights-based. Contractarian/Kantian reflects the mindset

that animals are mindless automata, and that only humans matter; this philosophy is nearly

nonexistent today. Utilitarian philosophy centers around balancing consequences. It is the idea

that we are able to justify causing harm if it provides enough of a benefit in turn. This philosophy

usually looks at populations as a whole, rather than individuals. Rights-based philosophy states

that all animals have a right to fair treatment, and should not be treated cruelly. This philosophy

focuses on individuals, and still widely puts values on animals based on their cognitive

awareness. This philosophy also raises and interesting question, “whether we should consider

the host or the parasite, when their interests differ.” The journal then states that these

philosophical debates are useless if we do not first understand that animal they’re discussing.

The journal then moves on to evaluating several points that they hope will shed some

light on the self awareness of invertebrates. The first is the assessment of suffering. The journal
 Adam 5

cites research that shows that invertebrates have physically similar stress response systems in

humans, and exhibit similar behaviors in response to distress (increase heart rate, pain

avoidance). The next assessment is the assessment of learning. The journal states that

unfortunately, a majority of these studies have only been conducted of cephalopods, particularly

octopi. Studies on octopi show that they have bilateral brain organization (similar to mammals),

recognize patterns, and show characteristics of playing and boredom. The assessment of self

awareness, as the journal recognizes, is too difficult to measure, as there is no standard that fits

every species, and no measure of a species’ thought process. The journal finally goes into the

ethical implication of the findings previously summarized. The Journal stresses once more the

importance of enrichment and play opportunities for these animals, and shows that there is

some benefit to aquariums who properly employ ethical housing practices.

This is a great source, and is exactly what I’ve been looking for. Most of the arguments

I’ve encountered are about zoos and mammals, and largely ignore other animals. Humans tend

to have a mammal-centric view of conservation, and it is important to look at other groups of

animals. This article seems like it is making an argument against aquariums, but actually

advocates for aquariums provided that they properly handle animals. This is a very logically

driven journal, but also refers to the credibility of many other books and studies. Overall, it

remains balanced and effectively communicates its message.

Public Benefits of Zoos and Aquariums.​ Association of Zoos and Aquariums,

www.aza.org/public_benefits_of_zoos_and_aquariums.
 Adam 6

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums published this article, which is a short list of

some of the benefits that zoos and aquariums provide. The article claims that zoos and

aquariums are economically beneficial, creating $22.5 billion global industry, and employing

more than 208,000 people. The article provides some information about public support for

aquariums, citing an online survey that showed 79% of Americans agreeing that zoos and

aquariums are good for their local economy, and 80% believing that zoos and aquariums should

be government funded.

Education is also a big factor. In the last 10 years, AZA claims to have trained over

400,000 teachers, and cite a study that shows education in zoos and aquariums significantly

attribute to people’s knowledge and interest in science. The article claims that zoos and

aquariums are the leading groups for conservation, providing plans for breeding, habitat

preservation, field conservation, and supporting research that helps drive conservation. More

than 60,000 people spend over 300,000 hours annually volunteering for their local zoos and

aquariums. The final point that the article makes is that AZA accredited zoos have to meet very

high standards of ethical animal care, research, safety, veterinary practices, conservation,

education, safety, etc.

I think this article is great, it provides a list of pros from the viewpoint of zoos and

aquariums together. I’m not necessarily looking for a pros/cons list, but this article provides

plenty of pertinent information on the subject. It cites the sources of its statistics, while providing

ample information in support of these institutions. This is one of (if not the most) methodical and

statistically supported claim I’ve found so far. I realize that it is biased towards the support of

zoos and aquariums, but that doesn’t really matter in the context that I plan to use it. The article
 Adam 7

logically presents it’s arguments, and has credibility as an official institution in favor of zoos and

aquaria.

Street, Bill. “The Roles of Zoos and Aquaria in Connecting Children with Nature.” ​IZE

Journal,​ no. 46, 2010, pp. 6–8.,

eds.a.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu:2048/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=5819a77

a-5209-495e-8555-4ca1996b21c9@sdc-v-sessmgr04&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxp

dmU=#AN=66331477&db=edb.

This article was published to Ize Journal (the international zoo educator

associations) by Bill Street in 2010. The article begins by discussing how children are becoming

less and less connected to nature as technology begins to take over our society. Children used

to spend most of their leisure time outside with friends, but now increasingly spend time inside

with their devices. Street claims that children’s lives are now becoming out of balance,

behavioral problems increased tenfold, and children are becoming overscheduled to the point

that they have almost no down time. Most importantly, Street claims that children are now not

developing a proper environmental ethic, which is critical to our future.

Street acknowledges that it is hard to measure direct and lasting behavior change as a

result of education in zoos, but there are many studies that show attitude changes between

those who have visited zoos vs. non visitors. The article states that nearly all zoological facilities

have a strong emphasis on raising awareness for conservation of animal habitats, but there is

still some work to be done to encourage children to take action and help the environment. Street

suggests that in order to accomplish this, zoos should focus on demonstrating local, backyard

habitats. The National Wildlife Federation assists homeowners in landscaping their yards in
 Adam 8

ways which benefits local wildlife, and helps homeowners register their homes as official wildlife

habitats. Street thinks zoos should focus on displaying these types of habitats to inspire children

to build them at home. Another way Street suggests we engage children is that we involve them

in grassroots conservation programs. Street claims that in one instance of a program, involving

the planting seeds in a wetland nursery, 50% of families involved gladly returned for a follow up

program six months later. Almost none of the families had been in a conservation group before.

This is a great viewpoint closer to the center of the argument. While it accepts the

educational benefits of zoos as a given, it also recognizes that zoos could be doing a lot more.

This is an especially effective argument coming from Bill Street, who is an environmental

educator himself. Street uses some nostalgic elements of his childhood to successfully appeal

to the audience’s emotions; giving them a desire for today’s children to relive their same

childhood experiences. Street knows there is a lack of research toward the effects of education

provided by zoos, but emphasizes that there is positive outcomes in the few studies that have

been conducted; effectively using what ground he has.

Ward, Samantha. “ In Defence of Zoos: How Captivity Helps Conservation.” ​The

Conversation,​ 2 June 2016,

theconversation.com/in-defence-of-zoos-how-captivity-helps-conservation-56719.

Samantha Ward, a lecturer on zoo animal biology at Nottingham Trent university, begins

her article by briefly telling the story of how a gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo was put down after a child

entered into his enclosure. Ward uses this story as an example to explain why there is an

outrage against zoos, and a push to close them permanently. Ward then recognizes that while it
 Adam 9

would be ideal for all animals to be left to live in their natural habitats, this isn’t always a realistic

expectation.

Ward then goes on to claim that zoos provide necessary conservation efforts, while

striving to maintain the captive animal’s health, and ensuring that their habitats feel as natural

as possible. Ward refutes claims made by animal rights groups, which assert that zoos house

animals in small cages and only serve to entertain us. Ward counters these claims by explaining

how zoos have come a long way throughout history, and habitats improve constantly; while also

pointing out that many of these animals were bred in captivity, and don’t even know a life in the

wild. The article also explains how money raised by zoos directly goes to preserving wildlife in

their natural habitats. The final claim that Ward makes in favor zoos, is that they serve as places

for scientists to research animals long term. In fact, in the UK, it is required for zoos to have

some sort of research component.

I think this article seems fairly credible. Samantha Ward seems to know what she is

talking about. She has actual credentials in the field, and has written other relevant articles for

The Conversation. She is able to put up an argument against the opposing side, while

consistently trying to remain balanced and see their point of view, which she is able to swiftly

counter with the use of relevant information. The article appeals ethos in maintaining a

professional tone, refraining from making an emotional argument or attacking the viewpoints of

others. Logos is appealed by the use of logical arguments, and evidence presented in favor of

zoos.

Zoos: Pitiful Prisons​. PETA,

 Adam 10

www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/animals-used-entertainment-factsh

eets/zoos-pitiful-prisons/​.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is one of the largest, if not the very

largest, animal rights organization. ​Zoos: Pitiful Prisons​ is an article published by PETA to

explain some of the reasons they do not support zoos.

They claim that zoos have little investment in animal care. Zoo attendance was

reportedly down about 3% nationwide in 2003, and some zoos were forced to make cutbacks.

PETA alleges that in an effort to offset these losses, zoos are allocating money away from

animal care and toward cosmetic improvements to entertain guests. PETA also claims that zoos

favor entertainment over education, saying that many zoos often provide very limited

information on the animals they house. The article says that many zoo attendees treat the

animals like wallpaper, and simply watch and move on without learning. Additionally, the article

claims that zoos are only focused on breeding animals that bring in the most visitors, while they

sell and rent animals to other zoos rather than focus on conservation.

PETA is just about as big of a name that you can find in the animal rights movement, so

their words definitely carry weight. They, like most animal rights groups, rely primarily on

emotional arguments. However, this article does use some solid logic and statistics that prove

their point pretty well. This article is definitely symbolic of an opposing viewpoint to zoos and

aquariums.