# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why do animals hate zoos? Gorillas, elephants, and polar bears need lots of things zoos simply can't provide... Subscribe to get the latest Daily Mail videos: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=MailOnlineVideo Visit the Daily Mail website: https://www.dailymail.co.uk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DailyMail Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dailymail/ And on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MailOnline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Christmas Day tiger mauling at the San Francisco Zoo that killed a 17-year-old boy and severely injured two men has ignited a national debate about whether wild animals should be held in captivity.

When a 350-pound Siberian tiger named Tatiana killed Carlos Sousa, it wasn't the first time that the animal had attacked someone. On Dec. 22, 2006, the animal attacked a zoo keeper, who survived.

Police are investigating whether the three victims provoked the tiger to scale a 20-foot wall and jump over a moat.

"If you go across a barrier at a NASCAR race and go on to the track, you get hurt," said Jack Hanna, director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo, on "Good Morning America" today.

But Adam Roberts, senior vice president of the animal protection advocacy group Born Free USA, said caging animals can create problems for both humans and the animals.

"It's not good for the animals," Roberts said on "GMA" today. "It's not good for humans either. First, the animals are put in unnatural settings. They're taken out of their biological comfort zone and the way they actually live in the wild and forced into these artificial enclosures on concrete, behind bars."

Roberts argued that having animals in unnatural environments provides no educational value.

"You're not getting the right education about what animals are like in the wild. That's why we believe that you should keep wildlife in the wild. That's best for animals and it's best for the people," Robert said.

"We're not getting an educational benefit from zoo-going or from circus-going, and more importantly, as you unfortunately have seen recently, there is the potential for attack," he added.

But Hanna vigorously disagreed, saying millions of dollars had been spent to ensure the health of animals and education of people.

"I take great offense to anyone saying there's no education done there," Hanna said. "Most of these animals live better than people in the world. You have to have the love for animals in order to save animals, and that's what we teach. ... We're doing the best we can to provide habitat for these animals."

For zoos that are lacking suitable animal habitats and settings, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and others are working to close them down, Hanna said.

But those actions haven't appeased objectors.

"It's not enough to say we're pouring money into education or conservation without quantifying exactly what that means," Roberts said. "It's very easy to say we're doing it, but we have to see the results. AZA's [Association of Zoos and Aquariums] own research has suggested that we don't know whether the results on educational values of zoos are conclusive or not."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Christmas Day tiger mauling at the San Francisco Zoo that killed a 17-year-old boy and severely injured two men has ignited a national debate about whether wild animals should be held in captivity. When a 350-pound Siberian tiger named Tatiana killed Carlos Sousa, it wasn't the first time that...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Behind the Scenes at the Zoo. Nile Hippos!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Baby Trent from the viral video 'Lioness tries to eat baby at the zoo' is back at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo (Colorado Springs, CO) for a behind the scenes tour of the Nile Hippo Exhibit. These are some of the most dangerous animals in all of Africa and we get an up close and personal to feed them watermelons and even pet them!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The zoo has come a long way, transforming from a place of public entertainment, to the modern zoo, which many see as a centre for conservation. So why do we even need modern zoos? In this episode, David explores this very question. --- Special thanks to Chester Zoo!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We hear a lot of things to justify keeping animals in zoos. But are these justifications based on fact, or are they simply what zoos would have us believe? Here's 5 things we hear about animals in zoos, and why we should think twice about them.

Whilst some zoos may contribute in small ways to conservation projects, the vast majority of animals in zoos are not on the endangered species list, and the ones who are will likely never be rehabilitated to their natural habitat. A study conducted by Captive Animal Protection Society (CAPS) found that almost half of the animals in breeding programs in the EU were not even endangered in the wild.

The truth is that zoos exist primarily for profit. One of the biggest draw cards for zoos is baby animals. Babies will often be bred even when there isn't enough room to keep them, inevitably resulting in "surplus" animals in zoos. Surplus management strategies are one of the best-kept secrets of modern zoos. In 2014, the world reacted with shock and outrage when a healthy 2 year old giraffe named Marius was killed and cut up in front of spectators at Copenhagen Zoo. His body was then fed to the lions.

In response to widespread criticism, Copenhagen Zoo's Scientific Director Bengt Holst defended the decision, saying that the zoo had a surplus of giraffes and that this is something that's " done every day", just not in the public eye. Just a short time later, Copenhagen Zoo was in the news again for killing four healthy lions to make room for a new male lion they wanted to breed. The relevant zoo standards in Australia would allow a similar judgement to be made about 'surplus animals' in zoos here, but these 'management' decisions are rarely made public.

Zoos also routinely trade and relocate animals who they deem to have outlived profitability or who no longer fit into breeding schemes. Trading animals with other zoos can be extremely stressful for the animals who are relocated, as they leave behind social bonds and surroundings they have grown accustomed to.

Just like SeaWorlds and other marine parks, for zoos the interests of animals usually comes second to attracting visitors and making money.

FACT: Zoos exist for profit.

Much to their (zoo's) embarrassment, death is a constitutive part of life, something they produce not only accidentally ... but at the very core of their functioning.Dr Matthew Chrulew, Curtin University academic and zoo expert

A zoo can teach you a lot about how animals behave in captivity but will teach you very little about the behaviour of animals in the wild. Even though most modern zoos make efforts to offer animals a more natural environment, most captive animals in zoos are unable to live in a way that they would naturally and some may even be on medication to alter their behaviour. (See point 4.)

Perhaps those who visit zoos recognise this. A study of visitor behaviour at four zoos in the U.S. found that only 6% of visitors said they go to a zoo to learn more about animals, while 86% of visitors said they went to the zoo for "social or recreational purposes".

In the early days of zoo popularity, television was far from an everyday reality for people. Today, with enlightening and informative nature documentaries, interactive online educational tools and the increasing ease and affordability of international travel, we have the opportunity to learn about animals by viewing them in their natural habitat.

"Learning" about animals by keeping them locked up is not only ineffective, it is obsolete. Click here for a list of 10 amazing places to see animals in the wild.

FACT: The best way to learn about animals is in their natural habitat.

There is nothing natural about a penguin, giraffe or elephant living in the middle of an Australian city. We've come to accept this as part of normal society. It's only when things go wrong that we're reminded that a city zoo is no place for an animal.

In 2015, a flood in Georgia destroyed enclosures at the Tbilisi Zoo and saw dozens of zoo animals unleashed on the streets, including lions, bears, wolves and a hippo.

Some 20 wolves, eight lions, white tigers, tigers, jackals, jaguars have either been shot dead by special forces or are missing.Mzia Sharashidze, Tbilisi Zoo spokeswoman

If we look back in history we see that keeping animals in captivity has left a trail of disasters ...

2018: The lions at London Zoo are so inbred that 2 out of 3 lion cubs born are dying.

2018: A Eurasian lynx named Lilith escaped Borth Wild Animal Kingdom in Wales and was shot dead by order of the local authority. A second lynx, Nilly, died the week earlier when she was asphyxiated by the catch pole during handling.

2017: A white rhino named Vince was shot dead and his horns hacked off by intruders at Thoiry Zoo near Paris.

2017: Government inspectors found that nearly 500 animals had died in less than 4 years at South Lakes Safari Zoo in Cumbria, UK. The inspectors cited "overcrowding, poor hygiene, poor nutrition, lack of suitable animal husbandry and a lack of any sort of developed veterinary care" as welfare concerns and recommended that the zoo's license renewal be refused.

2016: A 17 year old gorilla named Harambe was shot dead at Cincinnati Zoo when a four year old boy climbed into the enclosure. Opinions are divided as to whether the boy was in any danger from Harambe before he was killed by zookeepers.

2015: A female gorilla named Julia, who had lived at Melbourne Zoo for 20 years, was attacked and killed by a younger male gorilla named Otana who had been transferred to the zoo from the UK.

2015: Keepers at Duisburg Zoo in Germany shot dead a male orangutan who tried to escape, saying that a sedative would have taken too long to take effect.

2015: Dozens of animals - including lions, tigers, monkeys and crocodiles - died from hunger or thirst at the Khan Younis Zoo in the Gaza Strip when they were left without care during the Palestinian and Israeli conflict.

2012: A polar bear in Buenes Aires Zoo overheated and died. (Another heat-stressed and depressed polar bear named Arturo is currently held at an Argentinian zoo and, despite public pressure, the zoo Director has refused to have him relocated.)

2008: A leaked memo revealed that a zookeeper at Melbourne Zoo had stabbed an elephant, Dokkoon, more than a dozen times with a sharp metal spike. The same memo exposed that a male gorilla, Rigo, had been kept in isolation for 16 years and four seals suffered partial blindnessfrom the chlorine in the tiny pool they were kept in for up to three years while a $20 million dollar enclosure was built.

2007: A kangaroo was euthanised after being hit by a train that runs through the Cleveland Zoo.

2004: A 13 year old male gorilla, Jabari, escaped from Dallas Zoo and was shot and killed by police.

2002: Flooding enclosures in Prague Zoo led to an elephant and hippopotamus being euthanised to 'save' them from drowning.

2000: An 18 year old sloth bear named Medusa died of dehydration when Toledo Zoo officials locked her in a den to hibernate, not knowing that her species does not hibernate.

We have been born into a society that accepts animals in zoos as commonplace but the invention of the zoo dates back thousands of years - to an era when people who looked different were also put on display. We now have unlimited options for entertainment, not to mention a greater understanding of animal sentience and needs. In today's society, ogling at animals in zoos behind glass seems crudely outdated. Certainly it's unnecessary and rarely (if ever) in the animals' best interests.

Costa Rica has recognised this and in 2013 declared that it would be closing all its zoos and releasing the animals who are able to be rehabilitated to the wild. (The others would be cared for in sanctuaries or live out their lives in nature parks.) Which will be the next country to make this compassionate decision?

FACT: There is nothing "normal" about animals in zoos. Wild animals belong in the wild, not captive in cities.

The only creature on earth whose natural habitat is a zoo is the zookeeper.Robert Brault

Animals in captivity across the globe have been documented displaying signs of anxiety and depression. In fact, psychological distress in zoo animals is so common that it has its own name: Zoochosis.

Zoochosis can include rocking, swaying, excessively pacing back and forth, circling, twisting of the neck, self-mutilation, excessive grooming, biting, vomiting and copraphagia (consuming excrement).

These traits are largely uncommon amongst healthy and happy animals in the wild. When kept in captivity, animals are deprived of the ability to express their natural desires and the effect this can often have on their mental and emotional health is tragically clear in the form of zoochosis. Such behaviour, when exhibited by confined or disturbed animals in other situations, is often referred to as 'stereotypic behaviour' and is recognised by scientists as a clear indicator of severe animal welfare issues.

What's even sadder, is that to counter these problems, zoos internationally have been known to give drugs to affected animals. In her book Animal Madness, Laurel Braitman says that the practice of putting animals on anti-depressants is surprisingly common. "At every zoo where I spoke to someone, a psychopharmaceutical had been tried." One case Braitman shares is of a polar bear named Gus who lived at Central Park Zoo. Gus began compulsively swimming figure eights in his pool for up to 12 hours per day.

An animal psychologist determined that Gus was bored. And not surprisingly, given that his enclosure was less than 0.00009% of what his range in the Arctic would be. Despite being born in captivity, he would still have felt predatory impulses. In fact, when he was first moved to the zoo, he would entertain himself by stalking small children. But the zoo did not want children getting frightened so they built a barrier to stop this.

Gus was given thousands of dollars worth of behavioural therapy, the nickname " bipolar bear" and ... a prescription of Prozac. His compulsive swimming eased off but never really went away. Gus died in captivity in 2013 at age 27.

Similarly, it has been revealed that SeaWorld (U.S.) trainers give psychoactive drugs and anti-depressants to some of its marine animals. Since the 'Blackfish' documentary exposed the truth about keeping highly active and social animals like orcas in captivity, SeaWorld has seen a significant decline in attendance. Society is recognising that there's nothing fun about sad animals.

FACT: Living in captivity has been found to lead some animals to neurosis and depression.

Zoos care about one thing above all else: profit. Former zoo director David Hancocks estimates that less than 3% of a zoo's budget goes to conservation, while the majority goes towards "hi-tech exhibits and marketing efforts to lure visitors." Zoos exist primarily to put animals on show and make money from doing so. In this, zoos have more in common with an animal circus or marine park than they do with a sanctuary or natural habitat.

Humans have a great capacity for kindness towards our fellow species. When we see an animal suffer, we jump to their aid, ( just like the awesome humans in this video did).
If zoos had the best interests of animals at heart, would they keep them in captivity at all? And if we as individuals have the best interests of animals at heart, will we continue to pay money to see them behind bars and glass walls?
We have the choice to show our respect for animals by letting them live a natural life, rather than contributing to an institution that breeds them for a life in captivity. You can make a difference in the lives of animals in zoos by choosing animal-friendly alternatives to zoos, such as admiring animals in the wild, at sanctuaries or on television.

NOTE: We acknowledge that every organisation has different animal welfare policies and this article is intended to inform the public about existing zoo practices and may not apply to all zoological parks. We hope that it will encourage people to ask questions and to seek out organisations that align with their own values about the treatment of animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 things we need to stop telling ourselves about animals in zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We hear a lot of things to justify keeping animals in zoos. But are these justifications based on fact, or are they simply what zoos would have us believe? Here's 5 things we hear about animals in zoos, and why we should think twice about them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are all well aware that capturing wild animals and placing them in captivity is not an enjoyable experience for animals. Having their freedom literally ripped away and being locked into a cage for an indefinite period of time, these animals don't know how to cope with their newfound feelings of stress, anxiety, and boredom. And rightly so, being in enclosed spaces that can only feign an attempt to recreate a wild habitat is a little bit like if someone picked you up and put you in a doll house for the rest of your life.

Unsurprisingly, scientists are beginning to observe the psychological impact that this sort of confinement is having on zoo animals and the results aren't good. The term " zoochosis " was coined in 1992 by Bill Travers to characterize the obsessive, repetitive behaviors exhibited by animals kept in captivity.

The documentary film "Zoochosis" digs into the underlying causes of these abnormal, seemingly mindless behaviors. The behaviors displayed by zoo animals range from pacing, to rocking and swaying, all the way to aggressive self-directed behavior like self-mutalation, over-grooming, and vomitting.

The documentarians cover the history and development of the study of zoochosis in animals asserting theories on how stress can cause brain dysfunction leading to mindless behaviors that serve as a coping mechanism.

While there is little consensus over what the specific trigger of zoochosis is, the prevailing theme shows that many animals are just not meant to live in captivity. From an evolutionary stand point, these wild animals never developed so they could sit and watch people stare at them all day.

We like to project our own ideas and beliefs onto animals, especially those in captivity, be them positive or negative. This documentary adds a very important, rather unbiased voice to the zoo debate and I highly recommend watching with an open mind.
Image source: Wikipedia Commons
Disclosure: One Green Planet accepts advertising, sponsorship, affiliate links and other forms of compensation, which may or may not influence the advertising content, topics or articles written on this site. Click here for more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoochosis: What Really Happens to Animals in Captivity (VIDEO) - One Green Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are all well aware that capturing wild animals and placing them in captivity is not an enjoyable experience for animals. Having their freedom literally ripped away and being locked into a cage for an indefinite period of time, these animals don't know how to cope with their newfound feelings of stress, anxiety, and boredom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Proponents of zoos point to the fact that they educate the general public, are beneficial for scientific research, and work toward conservation efforts and captive breeding. At the San Francisco Zoo, there are educational programs for children ages 1-17. From camps, to mobile programs that bring smaller animals to schools, to family activities that look at local wildlife near the zoo, the public is able to get hands-on education about animals they may not be able to meet and learn about otherwise. The Lindsay Wildlife Experience in Walnut Creek, California, offers similar experiences to connect locals with wildlife and educate people on how they can do small things to help benefit wildlife in urban areas. Zoos can also be beneficial for scientific research. Studies are sometimes better able to be completed in zoos because of the controlled environment of a zoo. Lastly, zoos help endangered populations by using captive breeding and release. The AZA's Species Survival Plan Program is a long-term plan that incorporates conservation breeding, preservation of habitat, education and research to support the survival of threatened and endangered species. Many zoos also work on local conservation efforts to maintain local wildlife populations.

On the other hand, many would say that wild animals should not be held in captivity. It has been argued that captive breeding isn't always effective, zoos do not provide natural habitats, and that zoos put unnecessary stress on animals. Some studies have shown that reintroduced animals have high mortality rates because they are poorly adapted and lack the skills needed to survive in the wild. Since an animal's well-being is dependent on their environment, some contend that zoos do not provide healthy habitats for animals. Enclosures--even when designed to mimic an animal's natural habitat--are still not really natural. And, zoos can't really provide the space that large or wide-ranging animals, like elephants, are used to. Due in part to unnatural enclosures, animals in zoos are under stress . Animals are often bored and, as a result, some become aggressive and can lash out at other animals or zookeepers. In done on 40 chimpanzees in six different zoos, all of the chimps exhibited behavior their counterparts in nature did not. Some of these behaviors included rocking back and forth, tearing out their hair, self-mutilation, and the drinking of their urine. This behavior is not seen in their wild counterparts suggesting that being in the zoo is causing these chimps to develop mental illness due to stress.

What do you think? Should animals be kept in zoos? Why or why not?

More Resources

Video: DNews
The Pros & Cons of Zoos
Hear about some of the benefits zoos and some of negative effects that they have on animals.

Horizon: Should We Close Our Zoos?
This clip briefly examines the history of zoos, and questions experts and professionals about keeping animals in small enclosures.

Audio: WNYC
A Passionate Call to Leave Animals Alone and Zoos Behind
Not everyone enjoys their visit to the zoo. Hear why Tim Zimmerman believes we should reconsider our arguments for keeping zoos open. He offers an alternative to traditional zoos that can make both animals and human visitors happy.

Article: The Washington Post
At Zoos, Not Every Resident is a Spring Chicken
From protecting elderly animals to preserving endangered species, read more about the benefits of holding animals in captivity.

Find best practices for using Do Now, using Twitter for teaching, and using other digital tools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? | KQED Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents of zoos point to the fact that they educate the general public, are beneficial for scientific research, and work toward conservation efforts and captive breeding. At the San Francisco Zoo, there are educational programs for children ages 1-17.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Extinction of the Passenger Pigeon and Why We Need Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On September 1st, 1914 the last Passenger Pigeon Died at the Cincinnati Zoo. Once upon a time, Passenger Pigeons flew in flocks billions strong, now the skies are empty. Over 100 years later many species are endangered, including some that are extinct in the wild.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Banding together to save animals around the world. We are a non-profit organization whose goal is to provide funding to organizations and raise awareness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
| Written by PETA

Animals held captive in roadside zoos are denied their fundamental right to freedom and everything else that makes their lives meaningful. Removing them from established social groups and forcing them to adjust repeatedly to new routines, different caretakers, and unfamiliar cagemates is disruptive and traumatic for them. Many people still hold misconceptions about zoos, but after you read this, we're sure that you'll change your mind. Here are our top three reasons never to visit a roadside zoo or any other place that exhibits wild animals in barren enclosures:

1. They breed animals because babies sell tickets.

When roadside zoos breed animals, the babies are often torn from their mothers shortly after birth to be used in encounters and photo ops with the public, and roadside zoos charge visitors to interact or take photos with them. One calculation estimates that a single tiger cub could yield $65,000 of profit over one summer season. The mothers are repeatedly impregnated, and the cubs-who can be used for these encounters only for a short time-are typically relegated to tiny cages for the rest of their lives or shipped off to other roadside zoos or private owners to languish in awful conditions. This breeding also contributes to the overpopulation of many species in captivity, especially tigers.

2. Captivity drives animals crazy.

Many animals in captivity suffer from what The New York Times described as "severe psychic suffering" and may even be given Prozac or other antidepressants and mood stabilizers. In response to their small enclosures, loneliness, and frustration, captive animals often exhibit stereotypic behavior, such as pacing, circling, and other repetitive actions. This condition is called "zoochosis."

3. They maintain very low standards of animal welfare.

The federal regulations for procuring an "animal exhibition" license are pathetically low. Enclosures need to be barely large enough for an animal to stand up and turn around inside them. It's been estimated that inspectors who are hired to enforce the federal Animal Welfare Act visit these facilities only about once a year. Roadside zoos are often cited for violations, including failing to provide animals with adequate veterinary care, dirty and unsanitary water receptacles, and other poor or dangerous living conditions.
Check out this article to learn more about animal neglect and mistreatment at horrific roadside zoos.
What can you do to help animals? Never visit a roadside zoo, and tell your friends and family members to avoid them, too. Report poor conditions to authorities, leave informative leaflets at roadside zoos, and write letters to the editor of your local newspaper.

Share this article on Facebook and Twitter to help spread the word:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 3 Reasons Never to Go to a Roadside Zoo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Written by PETA Animals held captive in roadside zoos are denied their fundamental right to freedom and everything else that makes their lives meaningful. Removing them from established social groups and forcing them to adjust repeatedly to new routines, different caretakers, and unfamiliar cagemates is disruptive and traumatic for them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should we ban the keeping of animals in zoos?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hear the thoughts of others about banning animals in zoos. Give your thoughts about whether you believe that animals should be held captive in zoos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The zoo has come a long way, transforming from a place of public entertainment, to the modern zoo, which many see as a centre for conservation. So why do we even need modern zoos? In this episode, David explores this very question. --- Special thanks to Chester Zoo!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Don Winstel was a young zookeeper trimming trees in the giraffe yard when he had one of his first encounters with the new Columbus Zoo director.

Jack Hanna approached Winstel and thanked him for the job.

It was a simple gesture. But it was one of many that signaled change was coming to the Columbus Zoo in the late 1970s, when 31-year-old Hanna arrived from Knoxville, Tennessee, determined to put the foundering Columbus Zoo on the map.

Hanna quickly learned the scope of his challenge. Even people he encountered during his first trip to central Ohio, to interview for the position, didn't realize Columbus had a zoo because its reputation was so poor, he said.

So in the early days, he focused on making people feel appreciated, excited and proud of their jobs.

To do that, Hanna met with every employee he could. He cleaned animal cages, swept walkways and picked up trash with his wife, Suzi, and three daughters. He insisted that every structure be painted the same color.

"You could have Bigfoot out there, but it doesn't matter," Hanna said, suggesting that alone wouldn't draw crowds. "The people are what make the Columbus Zoo."

Eventually, morale rose, and Hanna was able to shift his focus toward marketing his product. He solicited donations to improve animal enclosures, even through some unusual means - such as taking a trained chimpanzee named Emily to wealthy businessmen to deliver a letter asking them for money at Christmastime.

Hanna "shook things up," and did it with infectious enthusiasm, said Winstel, who retired as assistant director of the zoo in 2008.

"He did it in a goofy way, and it was kind of paradoxical how it happened," said Winstel, who is now 66. "He didn't come off as somebody from Wall Street or anything like that. He was just a really nice guy."

The zoo has grown considerably in size and reputation since Hanna first arrived. A public celebration at the zoo is planned for next Saturday and Sunday, about a week before the date of Hanna's 40th anniversary.

The zoo's nearly 10,000 animals represent more than 600 species, and the zoo complex spans 588 acres. When Hanna started, it had less than half as many animals and only about 90 acres of land. The zoo now has 366 full-time employees on its properties, compared to 36 in 1978. And it collects $4 million in donations annually to send to more than 70 conservation projects worldwide. Before Hanna arrived, those efforts didn't exist.

Since 1978, more than 51 million people have walked through its turnstiles.

Hanna's international stardom spring-boarded from his zany TV appearances with animals in the 1980s. In time, his say-it-like-it-is attitude and larger-than-life personality, coupled with his vast knowledge of wild animals, made him a household name.

Hanna also credits much of the zoo's turnaround to its gorillas.

Like many zoo animals of that era, the primates were kept in indoor enclosures and had no contact with the outside world. In his first year, Hanna collected enough funds to renovate an old, unused elephant exhibit into a state-of-the-art outdoor habitat for the gorillas that opened in 1979.

It was the first of many renovations that gave the zoo's animals more accommodating, natural-looking habitats, a growing trend.

"That's when attendance started increasing," Hanna recalled. "Everything just took off."

In 1978, about 358,000 people visited the zoo. That number swelled to nearly 524,000 visitors in 1979, a 46 percent increase. Last year, the zoo welcomed 2.3 million visitors. Just a handful of accredited zoos and aquariums in the U.S. welcome more visitors, according to self-reported data from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

But not all of Hanna's plans went over as well as the habitat renovations.

Some, such as bringing ambassador animals into the community or hiring entertainers to walk a tightrope over tigers (which happened only once, in 1982), drew criticism from others in the zoo industry. Hanna was often as unpredictable as the animals he brought on TV, with "far-out" ideas requiring a little reigning in, recalled Norma Dodge, 93, whose late husband, Mel Dodge, a former Columbus Recreation and Parks director, hired Hanna in 1978.

He rarely turned down an opportunity, even a woman's plea to rescue a cat trapped on a concrete ledge of the O'Shaugnessy Dam, near the zoo, in 1979.

Perhaps even crazier: Hanna's strategies eventually worked, bolstering the zoo's reputation locally and worldwide.

"After a few years, every zoo wished they had Jack," Winstel said.

IN THE SERIES:
Jack Hanna's antics on TV put Columbus Zoo in national spotlight The life and career of Jack Hanna Columbus Zoo's animal ambassadors bring need for conservation efforts to life
In a sense, they now do.

Today, collaboration among zoos is a primary focus of members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit group of more than 230 accredited members in the United States and abroad. Despite a busy schedule, it's a responsibility Hanna takes seriously.

He's always willing to offer advice, speak at an event or promote a fundraiser.

When the director of the Niabi Zoo in Coal Valley, Illinois, for instance, was looking to upgrade its elephant habitat in the mid-1990s, he came to the Columbus Zoo looking for tips. He met Hanna, who had inspired him as a boy to become a zookeeper and that day to travel the world. That young director was Tom Stalf, now 50, the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium's president and CEO since 2013.

"He said, 'To inspire people to care about animals, you need to be an expert, and the only way you can be an expert is to go see the wild,'" Stalf said.

Jack Hanna walks with a penguin as he records a TV segment with the help of animal programs specialist Katie Stevens, rear, and CBS video crew member Jimmy Kimmons beside the Africa exhibit at the the Columbus Zoo & Aquarium on May 29, 2018. [Adam Cairns / Dispatch]

A couple of Greater kudus watch an African Lion at the Columbus Zoo & Aquarium on Thursday, November 2, 2017. [Jonathan Quilter/Columbus Dispatch]

Hanna stepped down from the Columbus Zoo's top job in 1992 to become director emeritus and focus on public appearances and his TV career.

Despite that, the zoo keeps expanding and transforming and now spans six habitat-themed areas: Congo Expedition, Australia & the Islands; Shores & Aquarium; Asia Quest, Heart of Africa and North America. The zoo also offers Zoombezi Bay water park and Jungle Jack's Landing, an amusement park.

Another renovation, Adventure Cove, is set to open in 2020 near the zoo's entrance. It will include a new exhibit featuring seals and sea lions and an Animal Encounters Village.

Through all the changes, the central Ohio community has embraced the zoo and Hanna's passion and commitment to wildlife conservation, said Ed Hansen, CEO of the American Association of Zookeepers.

"It's a struggle sometimes to get people passionate about the zoo or aquarium in their community," Hansen said. "That's where Mr. Hanna excels."

He hasn't outgrown Columbus, even though he easily could have, said Brian Ross, the president and CEO of Experience Columbus, the city's tourism and convention bureau.

Instead, he's become one of its biggest champions on an international stage. Whenever there is a public issue involving wildlife or zoos, Hanna is typically called upon as an expert on the matter.

"When we're out talking to clients, there are two things everybody knows: the Ohio State University, and Jack Hanna and our zoo," Ross said.

Hanna traces his inspiration back to St. Louis Zoo director Marlin Perkins, who hosted the revered TV program "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom" from 1963 to 1985. It was the first program to bring wildlife into the homes of viewers, including Hanna, who watched it as a teen.

"I dreamed of getting out of Tennessee and traveling the world," he said.

Even Perkins' stepdaughter, Marguerite Garrick, 67, says it's probably too generous to credit Perkins with much of Hanna's success.

"Maybe my dad paved the way," Garrick said. "But Jack more than succeeded on his own because he had the talent and determination to do it, and such a sincere passion for conservation."

Charles H. Hoessle, 87, director emeritus of the St. Louis Zoo, was hired by Perkins as a reptile keeper in 1963. He said people like Perkins and Hanna have made being a zoo director an honorable profession.

"I'm sure he's inspiring young people today, just as Marlin did to us," he said.

So who will inspire the next generation of zookeepers and promote the Columbus Zoo after Hanna's time in the spotlight is over?

Zoo officials say they aren't too worried about replacing Hanna when he retires, because he's one of a kind. They're instead focused on continuing his mission and ensuring that his legacy lives on.

Stalf joked that you'll never see him walking around in khakis and a safari hat.

"There's no question about it, I'm in the shadows of the jungle," Stalf said. "That's perfectly fine, as long as I have an opportunity to speak about Jack's legacy and his passion for animals. It's an honor."

Others in the zoo profession agree with that approach.

IN THE SERIES:
Q&A | Jack Hanna answers your burning questions John Switzer: Reporting on Jack Hanna was never boring Jack Hanna remembers beaver bite on Letterman show
Instead of having one iconic spokesperson, zookeepers everywhere can work together every day to continue conserving wildlife, Hansen said.

"It doesn't mean the passion is gone," he said. "It means it has spread out."

In that spirit, the zoo established a Jack and Suzi Hanna Fund this year to help support wildlife conservation, education and innovative habitats. At a surprise "Hanna-versary" celebration in June attended by 370 guests, officials announced they'd already collected $1.5 million to support the fund.

Hanna called the occasion the "greatest honor he's ever been given."

When he talks seriously about retirement, Hanna, 71, says the Columbus Zoo is the one aspect of his career he'll likely never pull himself away from completely. Staff members tell him to slow down, both to preserve his health and so he can enjoy things outside of work, including his six grandchildren.

"The zoo is my life, our family's life," Hanna said.

Hanna said he'll continue to support the Columbus Zoo as long as he can, but whenever his time comes, its successes will certainly continue without him.

"This zoo has been built by people, not Jack Hanna," he said.

Like what you're reading?

Stories that inspire. Coverage that informs. Investigations that affect change. This is real news just when it's needed most. Subscribe today. Subscribe

Jack Hanna pets 15-year-old koala Wruwallin at the the Columbus Zoo & Aquarium on May 29, 2018. [Adam Cairns / Dispatch]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jack Hanna transformed zoo from nothing to really something

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The zoo's nearly 10,000 animals represent more than 600 species, and the zoo complex spans 588 acres. When Hanna started, it had less than half as many animals and only about 90 acres of land. The zoo now has 366 full-time employees on its properties, compared to 36 in 1978.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The killing of Harambe, the silverback gorilla, at the Cincinnati Zoo has sparked a massive debate.

John Minchillo / AP

Over the Memorial Day weekend, a 4-year-old boy climbed the guardrail at the Cincinnati Zoo and into the enclosure of a 17-year-old silverback gorilla named Harambe. By now, most people know how this played out. The boy's mother had lost track of him, long enough that he crawled over a wall and fell 10 feet into a moat at the bottom. Harambe stood over the child, as if protecting him from the people yelling above, then grabbed the boy's arm and jerked him through the water. Tranquilizing the gorilla wasn't an option, the zoo director would later say, because the sedative takes time. And no one could predict how a drugged animal that weighs 450 pounds would react. So they shot Harambe dead.

Zoos have changed a lot in the past 50 years. The openness of Harambe's enclosure, the cliffs separated by a moat, were designed to lend it a more natural feel for viewers, and to simulate wild environment for the gorillas. It is a departure from the bars and sanitized tile floors of past zoo design. As people become more sensitive to the lives of these animals, they've understood how flat concrete and tight confinement can cause depression, even phobia, in everything from donkeys to snow leopards.

Recommended Reading

Someone at the Cincinnati Zoo caught much of what happened on video (not the shooting), and immediately afterward people blamed both the mother -why wasn't she watching her son?-and the zoo director-was there no other option?

Few people have asked why a zoo, full of dangerous, or not-so dangerous animals, is even necessary. That might be because calling for an end to zoos has typically been the cause of poets and animal-rights activists. M ost past arguments against zoos have focused on the insensitivity toward animals. A s Benjamin Wallace-Wells wrote two years ago in a piece for New York magazine titled, "The Case for the End of the Modern Zoo":

I realize that to even raise this issue makes you sound like some kind of sour, rule-bound vegetarian, so let me make clear my position up front: I love zoos. My daughter is not quite 2, and the zoo brings out all of her best and least complicated emotions - awe, delight, empathy.

But concern for caged animals has caught enough mainstream interest that New York and California introduced bills that would outlaw killer whales kept in captivity. Their focus on killer whales is in large part owed to a 2013 documentary called Blackfish, but it proves that it has become a concern for more than a fringe of animal-rights advocates. So much so, that last March, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment said it would stop breeding captive killer whales. And if keeping an orca in large tank is unethical, then why not an elephant, a tiger, or a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla?

The argument for zoos is often that they serve to educate the public, they give people who can't afford to travel a chance to see the animals, and that zoos serve as important conservation centers. There is a distinction, of course, between good zoos and bad zoos. In the 1980s, a study of animals at the San Diego Zoo found some had died from frequent tranquilizing, malnutrition, and that some had suffered repeated injuries while being transported. Since that report, and with a rise in scientists who study animal behavior, zoos have tried to improve conditions for their caged animals. This was partly the cause for more natural-looking enclosures--like the gorilla exhibit in Cincinnati--because "empty, boring, barren enclosures" can cause depression or aggression in some animals, including primates, according to a study by Plymouth University, in England.

In that regard, the Cincinnati Zoo is by all means a good zoo, providing Harambe a relatively comfortable enclosure. It's not simple to accommodate the world's largest primate. Gorillas are as strong as eight men, they can be aggressive, and they're also endangered. For all those reason, they're fascinating to watch. And unless someone planned to visit the forests of Central Africa, a zoo is the only place a person will likely see one-or for that matter a wolf, a rhino, or a rhinoceros hornbill (a bird kept at the Cincinnati Zoo). Of course, there's TV, "but that really does pale next to seeing a living creature in the flesh, hearing it, smelling it, watching what it does and having the time to absorb details," wrote David Hone, a paleontologist and writer who has defended zoos.

So zoos teach. Or do they?

In 2014, Eric Jensen, a sociologist at the University of Warwick, published a study in the journal Conservation Biology that surveyed 3,000 children before and after a zoo visit and found only one-third had a "positive" learning experience, meaning they'd learned something factual. About 15 percent of the kids picked up incorrect information. But perhaps what pro-zoo people mean, and more in line with what Hone argued in his article, was that zoos are a type of consciousness expander. They expose people young and old to something they'd never otherwise be able to see. For example, a child's parents may take her to the Cincinnati Zoo and years afterward she might remember that moment and dream of a job working alongside animals- and achieve that goal.

Obviously, children are not the only group to learn from zoos. Researchers visit them, observe and study the animals, and help animal conservation. In this case, zoos act like temples of sanctuary, where human intervention inside protects a species from human threats outside. This happened with the California condor, of which there were only 23 left in 1982. By 1987 researchers and conservationists had captured every last one and moved them into a captive-breeding program. Today, thanks in part to the Los Angeles Zoo, there are hundreds of condors living in captivity, and about 75 have been released back into the wild.

It is true zoos have played a massive role in conserving, and in the recovery of, some species, but this is a relatively small portion of the animals zoos work with. As Tim Zimmerman pointed out in an article for Outside magazine last year, the Association of Zoos & Aquariums reported that of all the animals at the 228 zoos it accredits, only 30 species are being worked with for recovery. And of those 30 cases, most can't be re-introduced into the wild. So the species will exist, but never as they once did.

Humans have always caught and caged animals, either for entertainment, or as an assertion of power. The Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia did it more than 4,000 years ago. Later, Alexander the Great was said to take special care of his menagerie of bears and monkeys. The Aztecs in the Americas, the early Chinese--both caged animals. The first modern zoos emerged in the 19 th century, but have changed drastically since, slowly becoming more hospitable toward animals as people's empathy toward them grows.

Now, in Denmark, the human/animal role of zoos is already being reversed. At Zootopia, BIG, the architecture firm, designed a 300-acre zoo without bars, fences or glass, which it said makes for the "best possible and freest possible environment for the animals." The first phase is scheduled to open in 2019. It's not a preserve--as those who want zoos shut down have called for--but it is an advancement in how people think of holding captive animals. Zootopia's layout would let animals roam land that encircles a doughnut-hole observation center. And though people can walk through tunnels and poke their heads up for a closer look, in this design it's not dangerous animals like the silverback gorilla that are caged, it's the humans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
enclosure of a 17-year-old silverback gorilla

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The killing of Harambe, the silverback gorilla, at the Cincinnati Zoo has sparked a massive debate. Over the Memorial Day weekend, a 4-year-old boy climbed the guardrail at the Cincinnati Zoo and into the enclosure of a 17-year-old silverback gorilla named Harambe. By now, most people know how this played out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reading 1:

Should Animals Be Entertainers?

Is it ethical to keep in captivity animals that are normally found in the wild? In recent years, the debate around this question has been heating up, with animal rights advocates convincing an increasing percentage of the public to reconsider its attitudes about zoos, circuses, and theme parks featuring water animals. In the summer of 2016, after a long campaign by animal rights groups, Barnum and Bailey's announced that it would be retiring its elephant performers. Similarly, the marine mammal park SeaWorld announced that it would be phasing out the use of orcas (or killer whales) as performing animals.

In 2013, SeaWorld came under fire for its killer whale program after the release of the documentary Blackfish. The film raised questions about the ethics and safety of holding captive orcas for entertainment. Orcas, which are considered to be among the most intelligent species on Earth and are believed to be capable of complex emotions, are prone to extreme psychological stress as a result of life in captivity and the rigorous training required to perform for audiences. In a January 25, 2013, article for the Los Angeles Times, reporter Amy Kaufman discussed the documentary's argument:

[Samantha] Berg, now 44, is one of eight former park employees who appear in "Blackfish," a documentary that received a strong reception when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival last month and was quickly acquired by Magnolia Pictures and CNN Films. Directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, the movie examines whales in captivity and one in particular, Tilikum - an orca that has killed three people, including veteran SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010.

The film...explores the psychology of Tilikum, who was born in the wild near Iceland in 1983, captured and sent to a marine park near Vancouver before coming to SeaWorld in Orlando. Separated from his family, he was bullied by other whales as a calf in captivity. Older female whales raked his skin constantly, and Tilikum ("friend" in Chinook) was kept in a small, dark tank for more than 14 hours at a time - factors the movie suggests may have contributed to his aggression later....

Berg said she came to realize she told numerous things to park-goers that were not true - including that whales live longer in captivity than in the wild. (Orcas can live as long as 80 years in the wild, according to the Vancouver Aquarium.) When she was hired, she was also unaware of Tilikum's dangerous history or that orcas had injured dozens of trainers over the years.

In response to Blackfish, SeaWorld launched a multi-million dollar public relations campaign to address claims made by the documentary. SeaWorld claimed that its animals were "healthy and passionately cared for" and that seeing them perform left visitors "inspired and enriched by their experience with killer whales" and "more aware of the need to preserve the world around [these animals]." Nevertheless, the impact of the film on SeaWorld's bottom line was significant, as the parks reported reduced attendance and lost revenue. Ultimately, in 2016, SeaWorld announced that it would stop using orcas at all of its locations by 2019.

In a similar move, the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus announced in January 2016 that it would end its use of elephants as performers. Animal rights activists had long argued that keeping elephants in captivity was cruel, since in the wild, the species forms strong familial bonds that are broken in captivity. Further, elephants are accustomed to having vast open spaces in which to roam. While Barnum & Bailey contested the claims of critics, arguing that it treated its elephants humanely, it ultimately bowed to changing public attitudes about seeing animals used for entertainment. As Sandra Pedicini wrote in a March 5, 2015 article, for the Orlando Sentinel, the actions of both SeaWorld and Barnum & Bailey reflect a change in attitude:

The Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus announcement Thursday that it will retire its performing elephants is part of a trend of entertainment companies rethinking their use of animals.

Though they still draw crowds, animals can be a liability. They bring unpredictability and, increasingly, controversy.

"Everybody who deals with animals is very concerned about the precedent that's being set with SeaWorld and killer whales," said Jim Hill, an industry blogger and editor of JimHillMedia.com. "Everyone's quietly sitting back hoping ... 'they [animal-welfare activists] won't come after us.'"...

Americans' attitudes toward animals have changed through the years, theme-park industry experts said. People view them more as companions and pay more attention to their treatment in circuses, zoos and theme parks. Thanks to cable stations such as Animal Planet and Discovery Channel, seeing wild animals in person isn't as exciting now, said Scott Smith, assistant hospitality professor at the University of South Carolina....

Disney's Animal Kingdom, the only Central Florida zoological facility that still keeps elephants, would not comment on Ringling's announcement but said it has not made any changes to its animal exhibits.

Although seeing large animals perform for human entertainment was long considered a thrilling spectacle, it is a practice that is increasingly regarded as inhumane.

For Discussion

1. How much of the material in this reading was new to you, and how much was already familiar? Do you have any questions about what you read?

2. According to the reading, how are public attitudes about animal performers such as orca whales and elephants changing?

3. In response to critics, SeaWorld argued that seeing shows with whales as performers inspired audiences to contribute to conservation efforts that benefit wildlife. Do you think that this argument justifies using captive animals as performers?

4. What do you think? Should animals normally found in the wild be used for circuses and marine theme parks? Explain your position.

Reading 2:
Is it Time to Rethink Zoos?

In May 2016, a young boy at the Cincinnati Zoo climbed into the enclosure that was home to the Western lowland gorilla, Harambe. Zoo workers were compelled to shoot and kill the gorilla in order to save the boy. While killing Harambe was widely seen as justified, his death has ignited a debate about the place of zoos in our society.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a well-known animal rights organization, staunchly opposes zoos. PETA argues that zoos contribute to unhealthy attitudes toward animal life, and that enclosures for captive animals restrict their instinctive, natural behavior. The organization's public statement on zoos reads:

PETA opposes zoos because cages and cramped enclosures at zoos deprive animals of the opportunity to satisfy their most basic needs. The zoo community regards the animals it keeps as commodities, and animals are regularly bought, sold, borrowed, and traded without any regard for established relationships. Zoos breed animals because the presence of babies draws zoo visitors and boosts revenue. But the animals' fate is often bleak once they outgrow their "cuteness." And some zoos still import animals from the wild.

In general, zoos and wildlife parks preclude or severely restrict natural behavior, such as flying, swimming, running, hunting, climbing, scavenging, foraging, digging, exploring, and selecting a partner. The physical and mental frustrations of captivity often lead to abnormal, neurotic, and even self-destructive behavior, such as incessant pacing, swaying, head-bobbing, bar-biting, and self-mutilation....

Proponents of zoos like to claim that zoos protect species from extinction-seemingly a noble goal. However, wild-animal parks and zoos almost always favor large and charismatic animals who draw large crowds of visitors, but they neglect less popular species that also need to be protected. Most animals in zoos are not endangered, and while confining animals to zoos keeps them alive, it does nothing to protect wild populations and their habitats.

Returning captive-bred animals to the wild is, in most cases, impossible because animals who are reared in zoos are denied the opportunity to learn survival skills, can transmit diseases to their wild counterparts, and often have no natural habitat left to return to because of human encroachment. Breeding programs simply produce cute baby animals to attract zoo patrons and generate revenue, creating a surplus of unwanted adult animals. As a result, zoos often become extremely crowded, and older animals may be "warehoused" behind the scenes or shuffled off to shabby roadside zoos, animal dealers, or auctions.

Defenders of zoos argue that these institutions are critical to the protection of endangered species, allowing millions of people to see animals up close and to develop an appreciation for the importance of protecting them. As zookeeper and frequent TV guest Jack Hanna argued in a May 15, 2015, article for , opponents of zoos can underestimate the challenges to animals living in the "wild." Hanna wrote:

More than 175 million people visit zoos and aquariums accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) each year. Zoos and aquariums play a critical role in the survival of endangered species and allow people from all walks of life to experience and learn about the animal world. Animals in zoos are ambassadors to their cousins in the wild-they educate people about the importance of wildlife. After a visit to the zoo-listening, seeing, smelling- people often leave with a newfound understanding and compassion for wildlife.

AZA accreditation requires excellence in animal care and welfare, conservation, education and scientific studies. There are more than 200 accredited institutions, and in 2013, they donated nearly $160 million to support about 2,450 conservation projects in more than 120 countries. Species such as the black-footed ferret, California condor, Mexican wolf, scimitar-horned oryx, and Przewalski's horses have overcome near-extinction in part because of zoos' commitment to conservation.

Critics say the only place animals belong is in the wild, but those boundaries are shrinking each day. Having traveled the world, the only places I consider truly "wild" are Antarctica, parts of the Amazon and some places in Africa. Even in Africa, the "wild" places tend to be national parks with guarded boundaries. Animals face many challenges, including habitat loss, poaching, severe weather, and war. The "wild" is not necessarily the idyllic place people imagine. Poaching has decimated the northern white rhino population-the last known male has his own personal 24-hour security to ensure he isn't poached for his horn....

Every aquarium and zoo I work with believes its mission includes raising awareness about the challenges faced by animals around the world. We know animals have the power to touch our hearts, and when this happens, it opens the door to education that can inspire people to participate in protecting animals and conserving their environments.

For people on both sides of the debate about zoos, the tragedy in Ohio raised difficult questions. The death of Harambe led New York Times science and environmental writer Andrew C. Revkin to wonder in a June 2, 2016, article about the moral costs of keeping in captivity animals capable of complex thought and emotions, like gorillas. Revkin wrote:

There are plenty of arguments in favor of [gorilla] exhibits, which engage urban audiences with an extraordinary species and educate people about the threats gorillas face from deforestation, disease and poaching. They also sustain a pool of genetic diversity for a species that is considered critically endangered and at risk of extinction in the wild.

But I've also come to see substantial merit in the emerging concept of nonhuman personhood....

As a result, I've become convinced that it's time for a fresh look at zoos....

Captive apes don't all die from a gunshot; but almost all die having never really experienced what it is to be a gorilla. Harambe was born in a zoo in Brownsville, Texas.

This issue was compellingly explored in Scientific American this week by Marc Bekoff, who studies animals' behavior and awareness and is a proponent of what he calls "compassionate conservation":

"While some might say Harambe had a 'good life' in the zoo, it doesn't come close to the life he would have had as a wild gorilla, with all its attendant risks. Indeed, one might argue that the animal people were seeing was not really a true western lowland gorilla, surely not an ambassador for his species."

[Bekoff] calls for an end to captive breeding of gorillas and an eventual shift from zoos to sanctuaries, with money saved going to conservation of species in the wild.

For Discussion

1. How much of the material in this reading was new to you, and how much was already familiar? Do you have any questions about what you read?

2. According to the reading, what are some of PETA's arguments for opposing zoos?

3. How do zoo defenders like Jack Hanna respond?

4. Zoo defenders contend that their institutions raise millions of dollars for conservation and habitat protection for wild animals. What do you think of this argument?

5. How do you think that seeing animals in captivity affects our perceptions about animal life? Do you think that these encounters are positive or do they distort our understanding of how animals naturally live and behave? Explain your position.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoos, Circuses & Theme Parks: Should We Cage Animals for Our Entertainment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading 1: Should Animals Be Entertainers? Is it ethical to keep in captivity animals that are normally found in the wild? In recent years, the debate around this question has been heating up, with animal rights advocates convincing an increasing percentage of the public to reconsider its attitudes about zoos, circuses, and theme parks featuring water animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
i Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images

Capturing killer whales is a bloody and horrific endeavor, according to David Kirby, author of "Death at SeaWorld." Upon spotting a pod of whales, the hunters surround it, drop drift nets into the sea, pick off the youngest whales and drag them away from their pods. Pods develop incredibly strong social bonds and, when forced apart, their suffering is evident in their cries, shrieks and wails. The Marine Mammal Protection Act mandates that whales be captured humanely, but Ric O'Barry, an expert in the field of marine mammals, says that's not possible. Many whales die within a year of being captured, suggesting stress and poor animal husbandry skills are to blame for their deaths.

Dr. Naomi Rose, an outspoken marine mammal advocate, contends that placing an orca in a cement pool renders the whale both deaf and dumb since its echolocation skills are thwarted by the concrete. The sound waves, instead of traveling through the water, bounce off the walls. Furthermore, there are no enhancements such as fish, algae, reefs or other "texture" they can use their echolocation to detect. Orcas are placed in holding pens and must learn to get along with animals from other pods. Aggression among strange whales also contributes to captive orca mortality rates.

Putting an orca in a concrete pool is like keeping a human being in a bathtub, according to Ric O'Barry, former "Flipper" trainer and producer of the award-winning movie "The Cove." Whales are highly social, more so than people, he says, and when forced to live in captivity their mental and physical health quickly deteriorates. In the wild, whales travel up to 100 miles a day with family units that stay together forever. In captivity, 60 to 90 percent of orcas develop dorsal fin collapse, a pathology directly related to confinement.

In her 2011 report "Killer Controversy: Why Orcas Should No Longer Be Kept in Captivity," Dr. Rose reported there has never been a documented report of a human being killed by a wild orca; four people have been killed by captive whales. Orcas at sea live 30 to 50 years; captive orcas, much less. SeaWorld, a corporation that owns roughly half of the world's captive orcas, has, on average, lost one whale every year for the past 25 years -- most were under 25, and some were younger than half that. Captive orcas die from the stress of boredom, depression, bacterial infections, tainted food and aggression between animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Happens to Orca Whales in Captivity?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first killer whale intended for a marine park was caught in 1961. "Wanda," age 7, died two days later. In 1964, the Vancouver Aquarium sent out a whale hunter with orders to kill a whale for use as a sculpture model. The 5-year-old whale, later named "Moby Doll," and his pod ...