# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Chemical Recycling Solve The World's Plastic Problem?

# data[].attributes.headline
Pros and Cons of Bottled Water: Is is Good for Your Child?

# data[].attributes.subject
Pros and Cons of Bottled Water: Is is Good for Your Child?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These days you can't go very far without seeing bottled water, whether you're scanning the aisles at your favorite supermarket, cheering on your kids at their latest sporting event, or perhaps packing for a trip to your favorite vacation destination. Our dental office in Erdenheim wants you and your family to stay healthy and hydrated, which may mean drinking more bottled water. There are some extremely excellent benefits to bottled H 2 0 but did you know there are also some cons too, especially for kids?

Pros of Bottled H20: The Good News!

Bottled water is an excellent solution for having delicious drinking water anytime, anywhere. It's portable and travels easily in briefcases, purses, gym bags, backpacks, and more. It's helpful when you're venturing to different places where potable drinking water may not be readily available. Sometimes, given your surroundings (i.e. camping or in a foreign country) it's easier to have a bottle of water with you. It's also able to be purchased conveniently.

In the event of a disaster or other emergency, having bottled water on hand is definitely helpful and it can be a lifesaver depending on the circumstances. Because bottled water does not expire, it's always a good idea to keep some stored away, just in case. Depending on the condition of your tap water, bottled H 2 0 also tends to taste better too. This usually due, in part, to the purification process certain types of bottle water must undergo during the preparation process.

Cons: What's Bad About Bottled Water?

Because there are so many additional necessary steps to ensure bottled water is safe to drink (purification, packaging, transporting, marketing, etc.), it can tend to be a bit more pricey than the water flowing from your tap.

Your children's dentist in Erdenheim wants you to know about the possible health risks associated with bottled water. Did you know commercially produced bottled water does not contain fluoride, while tap water does? Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that helps keep teeth strong and healthy. It's especially important that kids get enough fluoride for their growing teeth. Some plastic bottles also contain the chemical bisphenol A(BPA) which can seep into the water before you drink it. This risk increases significantly if your water is stored somewhere hot in direct sunlight.

Did you know that in some cases bottled water is just filtered tap water? It's really no different than what's coming out of your faucet! Some of the most popular brands of bottled water come from the same factories that produces soft drinks who simply bottle up that water. It's not from a special source or a spring, it's origins start in a factory. Sometimes it just makes more sense to fill your own water bottle from a source that you know is clean. It also helps cut down on waste created by the huge percentage of plastic bottles that end up in our nation's landfills.

We hope you learned a little bit about some of the benefits and some of the potential downfalls to drinking bottled H 2 0! Our Erdenheim dental office knows how important it is that you and your family stay healthy and hydrated. That's why we're here to help. If you have any questions about what we discussed here today, please don't hesitate to give us a call! We look forward to seeing you and your family at your next dental visit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and Cons of Bottled Water.. - Chesheim Dental Associates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These days you can't go very far without seeing bottled water, whether you're scanning the aisles at your favorite supermarket, cheering on your kids at

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States. 2020 revenue for bottled water was $61.326 million by June 15, and the overall market is expected to grow to $505.19 billion by 2028.

Globally, about 20,000 plastic bottles were bought every second in 2017, the majority of which contained drinking water. More than half of those bottles were not turned in for recycling, and of those recycled, only 7% were turned into new bottles.

In 2013, Concord, MA, became the first US city to ban single-serve plastic water bottles, citing environmental and waste concerns. Since then, many cities, colleges, entertainment venues, and national parks have followed suit, including San Francisco, the University of Vermont, the Detroit Zoo, and the Grand Canyon National Park.

Should Bottled Water Be Banned?

Pro 1

Banning bottled water would reduce waste and protect the environment.

About 70% of plastic water bottles bought in the United States were not recycled in 2015, which means the majority end up in landfills or in the oceans, harming the ecosystem and poisoning animals.

Almost all plastic water bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the raw materials for which are derived from crude oil and natural gas. The Pacific Institute found that producing enough plastic for the bottles of water consumed by Americans in 2006 took about 17 million barrels of oil. Since 2006, American consumption of bottled water has increased 65% from 8.3 billion gallons in 2006 to 13.7 billion gallons in 2017, increasing the need for more plastic water bottles and thus more oil and gas.

Between 2012 and 2016, a ban on plastic water bottles in 23 US National Parks prevented (per year) up to 2 million plastic water bottles being purchased and up to 111,743 pounds of PET being produced.

A nationwide ban on bottled water would lead to an estimated 68 billion fewer plastic water bottles being manufactured, purchased, used, and discarded.
Read More

Pro 2

Banning bottled water is good for your health.

Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and requires weekly testing; tap water is more stringently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through multiple daily tests.

A study published in Environmental Science & Technology found that the chemical antimony (Sb) can leach from plastic PET bottles into the water within. After six months storage at room temperature antimony (Sb) concentrations increased on average 90% in 48 brands of water from 11 countries. Exposure to antimony (Sb) can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, higher blood cholesterol, and low blood sugar.

Banning bottled water would reduce the number of plastic bottles manufactured via a process that emits harmful chemicals. Studies indicate that communities living close to PET factories suffer from increased levels of chronic illness and birth defects. In Corpus Christi, TX, where the US' largest PET factory is located, birth defects are 84% higher than the state average.
Read More

Pro 3

Banning bottled water would save money, and public water fountains are convenient and plentiful.

Mathematicians at Penn State University estimate that spending $20 on a reusable water bottle can save the average American up to $1,236 a year. For a family of four that amounts to nearly $5,000.

In San Francisco, where single-use plastic water bottles are banned, 31 water fountains have been added to public areas with 20 more planned. New York City, where Mayor Bill DeBlasio banned single-use water bottles via executive order in Feb. 2020, has 51 water fountains, with another 500 planned by 2025. With public fountains easily available, people can refill reusable water bottles.
Read More

Pro 4

Banning bottled water would protect local water supplies.

Almost 64% of the water being bottled comes from municipal supplies, which can drain water sources relied upon by local communities.

In Michigan, the state allowed Nestlé to pump and bottle clean water from the state's reserves while local residents in Flint fought for access to clean water.

In Pakistan, groundwater levels were depleted in a village neighboring a Nestlé bottled water production plant, resulting in the local water supply turning to sludge.

According to Matthew Davis, PhD, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire, "during droughts, bottling plants could dry up wells and wetlands or deplete the streamflows in the immediate area."
Read More

Con 1

Banning bottled water removes a healthy choice and leads to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.

Increased consumption of zero-calorie bottled water in place of high-calorie juices and sodas has cut trillions of calories from American diets.

Michael C. Bellas, Chairman and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corporation, says "Imagine a person cutting 161 hot dogs, 126 chocolate doughnuts or 87 cheeseburgers from their diet last year. That's the kind of difference we're talking about when we quantify the number of calories saved due to this widespread shift to bottled water."

In Aug. 2017, the National Park Service discontinued its policy that encouraged national parks to ban sales of plastic water bottles stating that, "The ban removed the healthiest beverage choice... while still allowing sales of bottled sweetened drinks."

The International Bottled Water Association noted, "research shows that if bottled water isn't available, 63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink - not tap water."

In Spring 2013, the University of Vermont banned the sale of single use plastic water bottles on campus. The ban resulted in increased sales of higher calorie beverages in place of zero-calorie water; sales of low-calorie (10-50 calorie) beverages increased 12%, juices increased 11%, and sugar-sweetened beverages increased 10%.
Read More

Con 2

Other types of beverages have plastic containers that are more harmful than plastic water bottles, and bans don't necessarily reduce waste.

Plastic water bottles contain much less polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic than soft drink bottles that require a thicker plastic container due to the drinks' carbonation - 9.89 grams of PET v. 23.9 grams for a 16.9oz bottle.

A study by Quantis found that between 2007 and 2015, bottled water providers reduced the amount of material used in 8oz-2.5 gallon plastic water bottles by 42.8% - PET plastic is the most common material used in these bottles.

Another study by Quantis, commissioned by Nestlé Waters, found that the packaging and distribution of "sports drinks, enhanced waters and soda produce nearly 50% more carbon dioxide emissions per serving than bottled water."

Plastic water bottles make up 3.3% of all drink packaging in US landfills, which is less than both plastic carbonated soft drink containers (13.3%) and aluminum cans (7.9%).

A study on the University of Vermont's ban on selling single-use plastic water bottles found that total shipments of plastic bottles actually increased 20% as consumers increased their consumption of less healthy bottled beverages rather than switching to using reusable bottles and drinking from water fountains.
Read More

Con 3

Bottled water is a practical emergency water supply.

If tap water is not drinkable, then bottled water is a necessary replacement, making its availability essential to public health.

Ready.gov, the Department of Homeland Security's preparedness website on how to prepare for natural and man-made disasters, recommends everyone "buy commercially bottled water and store it in the sealed original container in cool, dark place."

In Apr. 2014, officials in Flint, MI, changed the city's water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River. Flint River water is highly corrosive - it eroded water pipes delivering tap water to residents' homes resulting in iron and lead leaching into the water, poisoning those who drank and bathed in it. Between Jan. 2016 and Apr. 2018, the state distributed free 16oz bottles of water to residents for use instead of tap water - it was estimated that a family of three used 151 of these water bottles a day.
Read More

Con 4

Banning bottled water restricts consumers' access to a product they want, and negatively affects small businesses.

A survey by Harris Poll for the International Bottled Water Association found that 93% of Americans think "bottled water should be available wherever drinks are sold," with 31% saying that they only, or mostly only, drink bottled water.

Research by Kantor Panel Worldwide found that "40% of all water servings come in the form of bottled water."

As one blogger said, "everyone tells me that I'm wasting away money and harming the environment, but if it weren't for bottled water I honestly wouldn't drink any water at all... My personal choice is just not tap. I don't like it."

Daniel Kenn, owner of Sudbury Coffee Works in Sudbury, MA, where a plastic water bottle ban was enacted, said, "people want water, it's probably the biggest money maker in that cooler... almost every other town still allows plastic water bottle sales, which will put Sudbury Coffee Works at a competitive disadvantage when the ban takes effect."
Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Should single-use plastics, such as water bottles, be banned? Why or why not?

2. Should other single-use beverage bottles (soda, sports drinks, etc) be banned? Why or why not?

3. What other ways might we prevent plastic from ending up in the ocean? Explain your answer(s).

Take Action
1. Consider the argument that single-use plastic is a " serious climate change hazard."

2. Explore which cities and states have single-use plastic bag bans.

3. Evaluate the argument that bottled water bans harm the environment and public health.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources More Environmental Debates
Should the United States Continue Fracking? - Proponents say natural gas is a bridge fuel to 100% clean energy. Opponents say we need to immediately move away from all fossil fuels.

Should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Be Grown? - Proponents say GMO foods have been proven safe. Opponents say studies have not confirmed the safety of GMOs.

Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels? - The pros and cons of the alternative and renewable energies debate include arguments for and against solar, wind, and nuclear powers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bottled Water Bans - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say bottled water bans protect the environment. Opponents say bans lead to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instantly access over 40,000 of the best books & videos for kids on Epic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get unlimited access to 40,000 of the best books, audiobooks, videos, & more for kids 12 and under. Try it free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Read Follow that Bottle!: A Plastic Recycling Journey on Epic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read Follow that Bottle!: A Plastic Recycling Journey on Epic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instantly access Follow that Bottle!: A Plastic Recycling Journey plus over 40,000 of the best books & videos for kids.

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic Pollution: How Humans are Turning the World into Plastic

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic Pollution: How Humans are Turning the World into Plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Zoos are great, right? You get to be up close and personal with some amazing animals that you'd pretty much never get to see in the wild. Clearly, zoos are a win for people. But when it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

TEACHERS: Guide your students to practice civil discourse about current topics and get practice writing CER (claim, evidence, reasoning) responses. Explore lesson supports.

How did zoos become a thing?
Humans have been capturing and displaying exotic animals for thousands of years. The earliest known collections date back to 3500 BCE in Egypt, where rulers kept hippos, elephants, baboons, and different species of large cats. Now back then, that didn't mean that your average Egyptian could go check any of that awesomeness out. These early zoos were really just a way for kings to flex on other kings. Modern zoos, where the public can come and watch animals exhibiting their natural behavior, didn't really become a thing until the early 1800s. The longest continuously operating zoo in the world is the Vienna Zoo, which has been going strong for more than 260 years.

What are the arguments in favor of having zoos?
Zoos may be great entertainment, but their big goal is to educate the public about wildlife and what we can do to protect them. Zoo animals are sort of like ambassadors for their counterparts in the wild. Zoos also contribute to scientific research. "Zoo" is short for zoological park, and zoology is the scientific study of animal biology and behavior. In addition, zoos work really hard to save animals that are threatened in the wild. Zoos can take at-risk animals, breed them in captivity, and then reintroduce them back into the wild.

What are the arguments for NOT having zoos?
Zoos have their problems. Not all zoos are created equal. Some are clean and well staffed, others aren't. There are some in the richest cities in the world, and there are some in conflict zones. What this means is that not all zoos have the resources to properly care for the animals they house. And for many critics, no amount of education or research justifies keeping animals captive. That captivity can be REALLY bad for both physical AND psychological health. And while zoos have been really helpful is saving endangered animals, it doesn't work out for certain species. For example, most large carnivores like lions and tigers that are bred in captivity die when released into the wild. It turns out that they haven't developed the natural behaviors they need when they're out on their own and have to fend for themselves.

SOURCES:
Do we need zoos? (The Atlantic)
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/harambe-zoo/485084/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos are great, right? You get to be up close and personal with some amazing animals that you'd pretty much never get to see in the wild. Clearly, zoos are a win for people. But when it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why it is Unacceptable to Confine Marine Mammals for Public Display

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you feel about keeping animals in zoos? Read both sides of the argument to help you decide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Whale Sanctuary Project | Back to Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new study, "Tooth Damage in Captive Orcas", is the first comprehensive, peer-reviewed, quantitative assessment of how extensive tooth damage is among orcas at entertainment facilities. It documents the effects of living in concrete tanks on their teeth, and consequently on their overall health and wellbeing.

It's already well-known that orcas in entertainment facilities wear down their teeth and break them by chewing on the concrete walls and on the gates that separate their pools. Eventually, these teeth have to be drilled out and then flushed daily to prevent infection.

For the new study, former SeaWorld trainers John Jett and Jeff Ventre and fellow researchers examined photos of the mouths of 29 orcas and scored the teeth for coronal wear, wear at or below the gum line, fractures, bore holes and missing teeth. Among their conclusions:

Dental damage was commonly observed across all captive whale cohorts, with damage beginning early in a whale's captive life.

Forty five percent of whales exhibited "moderate" mean mandibular coronal wear, and an additional 24 percent exhibited "major" to "extreme" wear.

Sixty-one percent of the orcas who were studied had endured a "modified pulpotomy," in which a hole is drilled into the tooth and the soft pulpy tissue inside is removed in an effort to prevent a deadly abscess forming in the jaw.

Taima (left) and Corky, showing damage to teeth and jaw. Photos from Orca Project.

When humans have a similar procedure (a root canal), the drilled-out hole is filled and capped. But for the orcas, it's kept open for the rest of their lives and requires daily flushing with chemicals to prevent infection.

"These fractured and worn-down teeth are indicators of serious, chronic psychological stress."
- Lori Marino

The whole procedure makes the teeth weaker and subject to further fracture in the stressful conditions of life in a concrete tank.

The various pathologies begin at a young age and are likely the direct result of fighting and biting on the hard surfaces of their captive environment as a result of stress from their confinement.

Ventre and Jett say they suspect that two well-known whales, Tilikum and Kasatka, who were featured in the movie Blackfish, died prematurely due, in part, to antibiotic resistant infections brought on by the need for constant medication.

Neuroscientist and President of the Whale Sanctuary Project Dr. Lori Marino says that just as dental pathology is associated with increased infection rate in humans and all other animals, it likely contributes to the infectious pathologies and shortened lifespan that's commonly seen in captive orcas. She adds:
These fractured and worn-down teeth are indicators of serious chronic psychological stress and pathology. So, above and beyond the physical problems associated with poor dentition, the condition of these orcas' teeth makes it clear that there is considerable psychological stress in orcas held in entertainment parks.
The complete study is available with subscription or for individual purchase at Science Direct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dental Damage and Decay Among Orcas at Marine Parks - The Whale Sanctuary Project | Back to Nature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study, "Tooth Damage in Captive Orcas", is the first comprehensive, peer-reviewed, quantitative assessment of how extensive tooth damage is among orcas at entertainment facilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A satellite is a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star. For example, Earth is a satellite because it orbits the sun. Likewise, the moon is a satellite because it orbits Earth. Usually, the word "satellite" refers to a machine that is launched into space and moves around Earth or another body in space.

Earth and the moon are examples of natural satellites. Thousands of artificial, or man-made, satellites orbit Earth. Some take pictures of the planet that help meteorologists predict weather and track hurricanes. Some take pictures of other planets, the sun, black holes, dark matter or faraway galaxies. These pictures help scientists better understand the solar system and universe.

Still other satellites are used mainly for communications, such as beaming TV signals and phone calls around the world. A group of more than 20 satellites make up the Global Positioning System, or GPS. If you have a GPS receiver, these satellites can help figure out your exact location.

Why Are Satellites Important?

The bird's-eye view that satellites have allows them to see large areas of Earth at one time. This ability means satellites can collect more data, more quickly, than instruments on the ground.

Satellites also can see into space better than telescopes at Earth's surface. That's because satellites fly above the clouds, dust and molecules in the atmosphere that can block the view from ground level.

Before satellites, TV signals didn't go very far. TV signals only travel in straight lines. So they would quickly trail off into space instead of following Earth's curve. Sometimes mountains or tall buildings would block them. Phone calls to faraway places were also a problem. Setting up telephone wires over long distances or underwater is difficult and costs a lot.

With satellites, TV signals and phone calls are sent upward to a satellite. Then, almost instantly, the satellite can send them back down to different locations on Earth.

What Are the Parts of a Satellite?

Satellites come in many shapes and sizes. But most have at least two parts in common - an antenna and a power source. The antenna sends and receives information, often to and from Earth. The power source can be a solar panel or battery. Solar panels make power by turning sunlight into electricity.

Many NASA satellites carry cameras and scientific sensors. Sometimes these instruments point toward Earth to gather information about its land, air and water. Other times they face toward space to collect data from the solar system and universe.

How Do Satellites Orbit Earth?

Most satellites are launched into space on rockets. A satellite orbits Earth when its speed is balanced by the pull of Earth's gravity. Without this balance, the satellite would fly in a straight line off into space or fall back to Earth. Satellites orbit Earth at different heights, different speeds and along different paths. The two most common types of orbit are "geostationary" (jee-oh-STAY-shun-air-ee) and "polar."

A geostationary satellite travels from west to east over the equator. It moves in the same direction and at the same rate Earth is spinning. From Earth, a geostationary satellite looks like it is standing still since it is always above the same location.

Polar-orbiting satellites travel in a north-south direction from pole to pole. As Earth spins underneath, these satellites can scan the entire globe, one strip at a time.

Why Don't Satellites Crash Into Each Other?

Actually, they can. NASA and other U.S. and international organizations keep track of satellites in space. Collisions are rare because when a satellite is launched, it is placed into an orbit designed to avoid other satellites. But orbits can change over time. And the chances of a crash increase as more and more satellites are launched into space.

In February 2009, two communications satellites - one American and one Russian - collided in space. This, however, is believed to be the first time two man-made satellites have collided accidentally.

What Was the First Satellite in Space?

Sputnik 1 was the first satellite in space. The Soviet Union launched it in 1957.

What Is the History of NASA Satellites?

NASA has launched dozens of satellites into space, starting with the Explorer 1 satellite in 1958. Explorer 1 was America's first man-made satellite. The main instrument aboard was a sensor that measured high-energy particles in space called cosmic rays.

The first satellite picture of Earth came from NASA's Explorer 6 in 1959. TIROS-1 followed in 1960 with the first TV picture of Earth from space. These pictures did not show much detail. But they did show the potential satellites had to change how people view Earth and space.

How Does NASA Use Satellites Today?

NASA satellites help scientists study Earth and space.

Satellites looking toward Earth provide information about clouds, oceans, land and ice. They also measure gases in the atmosphere, such as ozone and carbon dioxide, and the amount of energy that Earth absorbs and emits. And satellites monitor wildfires, volcanoes and their smoke.

All this information helps scientists predict weather and climate. The information also helps public health officials track disease and famine; it helps farmers know what crops to plant; and it helps emergency workers respond to natural disasters.

Satellites that face toward space have a variety of jobs. Some watch for dangerous rays coming from the sun. Others explore asteroids and comets, the history of stars, and the origin of planets. Some satellites fly near or orbit other planets. These spacecraft may look for evidence of water on Mars or capture close-up pictures of Saturn's rings.

More About Satellites

Play "Missions to Planet Earth"!
Orbits 'R' Us!
Be Spuzzled! Game
Eyes on Earth 3-D
Space Place Live!: How can a satellite stay put over the same spot on Earth?
Read the transcript

Read What Is a Satellite? (Grades K-4)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is a Satellite? (Grades 5-8) - NASA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A satellite is a moon, planet or machine that orbits a planet or star. For example, Earth is a satellite because it orbits the sun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back to Animals

A zoo can be an awesome place to see animals first hand and learn about what they eat, their habits, environment, and all sorts of other interesting facts about animals. Another name for a zoo is zoological garden.

Today zoos are becoming better and better places for animals. In the past some zoos were somewhat cruel to animals. Placing animals in environments they were not suited for and often not keeping the animal's best interest in mind. However, today many zoos do wonderful work in animal research and take great care of their animals.

Photo by Ducksters

Some good things that many Zoos do today include:

Acting as sanctuaries for endangered animals. They provide a safe environment for animals that are being threatened by changes in the environment. Often zoos will work to breed and maintain endangered animal populations. Sometime animals are nearly extinct in the wild and the only place they survive is in zoos.

Education on wildlife. Zoos provide a great opportunity for us to learn more about creatures from distant lands.

Research on wildlife and how we can help animals survive radical changes. Zoos do veterinary medicine research as well.

Today's modern zoos house animals in enclosures that are similar to the animal's natural habitat. This can include buildings made for nocturnal animals where they are bright at night, so the animals can sleep, and dark during the day, so zoo visitors can see the animals moving about. Also, climates are controlled in some zoo enclosures for animals like penguins and polar bears. Many zoos have great open spaces as well where animals may graze together. Some zoos have an area where you can take a mini-safari or ride around in a truck or bus to hopefully see the animals up close.

Perhaps the most famous zoo is the San Diego Zoo in Southern California. Many modern zoo practices were pioneered at the San Diego Zoo. The largest zoo in number of animals is the Bronx Zoo with over 6000 animals. The largest zoo in land size is the North Carolina Zoo with 535 acres.

Photo by Ducksters

Seeing an elephant, giraffe, lion, polar bear, penguins, seals, or other incredible creatures at the zoo can be an amazing experience. Be sure to check out your local zoo and get the opportunity to see some awesome animals and learn more about nature.

Another great place to see animals, similar to a zoo, is at an aquarium. Most states have an aquarium where they display all sorts of fish and some sea mammals.More on endangered species:
Amphibians in Danger
Endangered Animals
How Animals Become Extinct
Wildlife Conservation
Zoos

Back to Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the zoo. History and types of zoological gardens. List of Zoos with interesting animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Orca Encounter (Full Show) - SeaWorld Orlando - April 8, 2021

# data[].attributes.headline
New York Times: One Thing You Can Do: Know Your Plastics 

# data[].attributes.subject
New York Times: One Thing You Can Do: Know Your Plastics 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One Thing You Can Do: Know Your Plastics (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Also this week, how it feels to stand on a melting glacier.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever been to a zoo? There are lots of zoos. Some take better care of animals than others, but no zoo can make animals feel like they are at home.

Some people think it's OK to keep animals in zoos; others say that it's wrong to take animals from their homes in the wild.
A zoo supporter might say

"The zoo is a great place to learn about animals."

"If kids don't see animals up close like they do at the zoo, they won't like them, appreciate them or want to help them."

"Zoos help animals make babies (called "breeding") so they won't become extinct."

"Zoos take good care of animals. When animals get hurt or sick, an animal doctor called a vet makes them better straight away. In the wild, sick animals would die."

"Animals are safe in zoos. They won't starve or be killed by other animals."

A person who thinks it's not fair to keep animals in zoos might say

"Zoos don't teach us much about animals because the animals there don't act the way they would in the forest, jungle or ocean, where they belong. We can learn more about animals by reading books or watching wildlife programmes on TV."

"Zoos that help animals breed just keep the babies or sell them. If they cared about stopping animals from becoming extinct, they would set the babies free in the wild."

"Animals are not happy in zoos. They want to be free to walk, run, fly, climb, hunt and have families. They don't want their babies to be taken away from them and put in a different cage or sold to a different zoo. They get angry and frustrated because they cannot leave the zoo, which makes them do strange things like pace up and down, lick the bars of their cages, rock back and forth and bob their heads. Scientists know that these things mean that the animals are very unhappy."

"When a zoo doesn't want an animal anymore, the animal gets killed or sold to another zoo and might have to travel far away in a lorry or aeroplane."

Talk About: Topics to Chat About!
1. Would you rather live in a zoo or in your home with your family? Why?
2. What kinds of things do animals need to be happy? Do you think animals in zoos get all these things? Why or why not?
3. Think about animals you've seen at the zoo. Do you think there is somewhere else they would rather be? Something else they would rather be doing? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever been to a zoo? There are lots of zoos. Some take better care of animals than others, but no zoo can make animals feel like they are at home. Some people think it's OK to keep animals in zoos; others say that it's wrong to take animals from their homes in the [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How SeaWorld is changing since killer whale controversies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A number of travel companies announced they will no longer sell SeaWorld tickets after the theme park chain came under fire for its use of orcas, also known as killer whales, in entertainment shows. The brand pledged to stop breeding orcas and now says that it's changing those shows to be less about tricks and dancing and more about education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Read Plastic Sea: A Bird's-Eye View on Epic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read Plastic Sea: A Bird’s-Eye View on Epic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instantly access Plastic Sea: A Bird’s-Eye View plus over 40,000 of the best books & videos for kids.

# data[].attributes.headline
Whole Foods is making eco-friendly changes to their packaging

# data[].attributes.subject
Whole Foods is making eco-friendly changes to their packaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whole Foods announced Monday it would take more steps to reduce the amount of plastic packaging found in stores nationwide.

The grocery chain said by July it would make three changes: switching to smaller plastic bags in the produce department, replacing plastic rotisserie chicken containers with bags that use less plastic, and getting rid of all plastic straws. Cafes and juice bars inside Whole Foods stores will now give customers a paper compostable straw with their drinks (unless a plastic one is requested to accommodate a disability).

Whole Foods estimates the changes will reduce the company's plastic packaging by 800,000 pounds per year, but not all environmentalists are satisfied.

"It's good to see Whole Foods acknowledging its role in the plastic pollution crisis and making some changes, but retailers must go much further than phasing out plastic straws and cutting down on the amount of plastic used in select packaging," said Greenpeace spokesperson David Pinsky in a statement.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Trader Joe's made similar changes recently, announcing it had replaced plastic produce bags with biodegradable and compostable options and replaced styrofoam trays (that were used in produce packaging) with compostable trays.

Since China has drastically cut the amount of recycling waste it purchases for processing in recent years, environmentalists have been placing more emphasis on the "reduce" part of "reduce, reuse, recycle." Much of the world's plastic waste never ends up getting recycled, instead finding its way to landfills or the ocean. San Francisco's "Zero Waste" initiative leads the country in this regard - the city diverts more than 80 percent of its waste away from landfills.

In a press release, Whole Foods president A.C. Gallo seemed to indicate this wouldn't be the end of its efforts to reduce waste: "We recognize that single-use plastics are a concern for many of our customers, team members and suppliers, and we're proud of these packaging changes ... We will continue to look for additional opportunities to further reduce plastic across our stores."

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Whole Foods making eco-friendly changes to packaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whole Foods announced Monday it would take more steps to reduce the amount of plastic...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades 5-8) - NASA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apollo was the NASA program that resulted in American astronauts’ making a total of 11 spaceflights and walking on the moon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Real sanctuaries are safe, comfortable places for animals to live after they've been rescued from not-so-nice places like circuses or laboratories. People can sometimes visit these sanctuaries, which is an awesome way to learn about and see animals without supporting businesses that hurt them, like roadside zoos or wildlife parks. Roadside zoos and wildlife parks use animals to make money. It's confusing because they sometimes call themselves "sanctuaries" or "rescues" to bring in more customers, because they know that people don't want to visit roadside zoos, but they're being dishonest when they do that.

It's important not to get these horrible places confused with actual sanctuaries. But how can you tell the difference? It's easy! There are a few simple questions you can ask about a place to figure out whether it's helping or hurting animals the animals who live there.

You can find answers to these questions by browsing a facility's website and social media pages (your parents can help):

1. How are animals housed?

Real sanctuaries make sure that an animal's living space is as close to their natural habitat as possible. Animals should live with others of their own kind so they can have friends. It's mean to keep them all alone in small, dirty pens with concrete floors and nothing to do-and you should stay away from places like that.

2. What kinds of activities do the animals get to do?

The animals' living area should have lots of ways for them to play and enjoy themselves! For example, there should be a large structure for chimpanzees to climb on, water for bears to soak and splash in, and large fields for roaming and exploring. Animals need these things if they're going to be healthy, happy, and comfortable.

Animals should also live with others of the same species so they can communicate with each another easily and form relationships and groups. In many sanctuaries, the animals who already live there help teach the newcomers how to get back in touch with their natural instincts and enjoy life again.

3. How big is the facility?

Animals should be given enough space to explore, roam, climb, and forage. And a real sanctuary NEVER takes the animals out of the facility to show them off.

4. Are visitors allowed to touch or hold the animals?

True wild-animal sanctuaries (with big cats, bears, primates, or wolves) NEVER allow visitors to touch or hold the animals, even babies, and that includes taking photos with them. This would be scary for the animals and dangerous to the visitors, too!

5. Where did the animals come from?

The animals who live there probably came from a place where they were mistreated, so they have a sad and painful past. The staff will want to share each animal's story so that visitors can learn about the various places that hurt animals (like laboratories, circuses, and roadside zoos). Real sanctuaries provide animals with a permanent home for the rest of their life. They NEVER trade, borrow, or loan animals.

6. Does the facility breed animals?

Sanctuaries NEVER breed animals, meaning that they don't make any of the animals have babies. Places that do breed animals are using them to make money-that's not right, and that's not a sanctuary.

7. What is it like to visit a sanctuary?

Most sanctuaries only allow very limited visits. Usually a guide takes people on a small tour of the place and doesn't let them walk around by themselves.

8. Is it accredited?

True sanctuaries are accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS), a group that makes sure sanctuaries follow strict rules to protect the animals who live there, like the ones listed above.
*****
All living, feeling beings deserve a comfortable place to live where people aren't always staring at them. A true sanctuary puts the needs and wants of the animals first. So if you care about animals, NEVER visit a roadside zoo or a wildlife park, and explain to your friends and family why places like that are bad for animals!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways to Tell a REAL Sanctuary From a Roadside Zoo | PETA Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roadside zoo or animal sanctuary? This list will explain the difference-so you can figure out if a place is hurting or helping animals.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.brainpop.com/technology/scienceandindustry/plastic/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amitai Etzioni says there are bigger priorities than a new push for manned exploration in space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These photos of unexpected animal friendships will melt your heart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SeaWorld releases video of 2006 killer whale attack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pack your bags, cuz today’s episode is a trip. It’s spaceships vs. submarines!

# data[].attributes.headline
Giant Panda Cubs Give Hope to Endangered Species

# data[].attributes.subject
Giant Panda Cubs Give Hope to Endangered Species

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic Pollution: How Humans are Turning the World into Plastic

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic Pollution: How Humans are Turning the World into Plastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What's Inside

SuperSTEM makes it easy to infuse STEM learning into any instructional block and curriculum-all year long. Aligned to the NGSS and other standards, our interdisciplinary lessons build content-area knowledge, academic and domain vocabulary, and cross-curricular skills.

Deepen knowledge with fascinating videos, build skills with interactive activities, and support every reader with rich multigenre texts and robust differentiation tools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic SuperSTEM | Where Stories Power Problem Solving in Grades 3-6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scholastic's SuperSTEM magazine captures the excitement of science, technology, engineering, and math in your classroom with powerful blended-learning resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people dismiss space exploration as a luxury, but this attitude is not only wrong, it's dangerous .

Satellite technology has revolutionized our planet in almost every way. Weather satellites help us track developing hurricanes, allowing meteorologists to warn people days in advance. That saves thousands of lives. Communication satellites allow us instant access to information all over the world using radio, television, and phones. Some people credit in part the fall of the Soviet Union to ease of information access; the people in those countries saw what the rest of the world was doing, accelerating the process of reform. GPS satellites allow us to track ships, airplanes, and even people who may be lost or in need of help.

Reaching outward into space has helped us in other ways as well. A fleet of satellites (YOHKOH, SOHO and others) study the Sun so that we can better understand it. Huge solar eruptions can damage satellites and cause power blackouts (like in Quebec in 1989), and the Sun directly influences our environment. Understanding the Sun is a critical use of space technology.

Exploring the other planets helps us put the Earth in context. Why is Mars dry, cold, nearly airless, and dead? Why is Venus covered in thick clouds and suffering a runaway greenhouse effect? Why do hurricanes on Jupiter last for centuries? All these questions (and thousands more) help us understand our own planet, and allow us to see how humans are affecting it. Certainly understanding asteroids is important-- we need to learn how to move them in case one is heading our way; an asteroid impact could wipe out all humans on Earth, so our very future is tied to space travel.

There are simple technological reasons for space exploration as well. Some estimates say that for every dollar invested in the Apollo program, more than 20 have been returned. That's a huge payoff! Computer tech, communications, rocketry, and many other fields have benefited hugely from space exploration.

And there is one more reason. Humans strive to learn, to explore, to push boundaries, to see what's around the corner. This is in many ways a fundamental need, and space exploration is a fantastic manifestation of that. The Universe is huge, beautiful, mysterious, and, ultimately, knowable . Even if the other reasons were not there, this alone should be enough for us pursue our exploration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For centuries, people dreamed about leaving Earth and travelling to other worlds. Then, in 1957, the Soviet Union made the first small step into space by launching a small satellite, called Sputnik. The Space Age had begun.

Early space activities were dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. However, as time went by, Europe and Japan also learned how to build their own satellites and rockets. Today, countries such as China, India, South Korea, Israel and Brazil are developing their own space industries.

During the last 60 years, unmanned probes have been sent towards all of the planets in the Solar System, as well as many satellites, asteroids and comets. Spacecraft have soft-landed on half a dozen worlds, while rovers have driven over the surfaces of the Moon and Mars. The Sun has also been explored in great detail by a fleet of spacecraft.

Many space observatories, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, have been launched to look at the distant Universe. They have sent back some amazing pictures taken in visible light. But they can also observe stars and galaxies at wavelengths that are invisible to human eyes - radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. The flood of discoveries has changed the way we look at the Universe.

More than 500 people have also flown in space since Yuri Gagarin paved the way in 1961. 20 people have travelled to the Moon and 12 of them have walked on the Moon. Space stations have been built, and astronauts have learned to live and work in space for many months, or even years.

Last modified 26 January 2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For centuries, people dreamed about leaving Earth and travelling to other worlds. Then, in 1957, the Soviet Union made the first small step into space by launching a small satellite, called Sputnik. The Space Age had begun.

# data[].attributes.headline
California’s bag ban hurting the job market?

# data[].attributes.subject
California’s bag ban hurting the job market?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California’s bag ban hurting the job market? | Fox Business Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am convinced that if NASA were to disappear tomorrow, if we never put up another Hubble Space Telescope, never put another human being in space, people in this country would be profoundly distraught. Americans would feel that we had lost something that matters, that our best days were behind us, and they would feel themselves somehow diminished. Yet I think most would be unable to say why.

There are many good reasons to continue to explore space, which most Americans have undoubtedly heard. Some have been debated in public policy circles and evaluated on the basis of financial investment. In announcing his commitment to send the country back to the moon and, later, on to Mars, President Bush quite correctly said that we do it for purposes of scientific discovery, economic benefit, and national security. I've given speeches on each of those topics, and these reasons can be clearly shown to be true. And presidential science advisor Jack Marburger has said that questions about space exploration come down to whether we want to bring the solar system within mankind's sphere of economic influence. I think that is extraordinarily well put.

But these are not reasons that would make Americans miss our space program. They are merely the reasons we are most comfortable discussing. I think of them as "acceptable reasons" because they can be logically defended. When we contemplate committing large sums of money to a project, we tend to dismiss reasons that are emotional or value-driven or can't be captured on a spreadsheet. But in space exploration those are the reasons-what I think of as "real reasons"-that are the most important.

When Charles Lindbergh was asked why he crossed the Atlantic, he never once answered that he wanted to win the $25,000 that New York City hotel owner Raymond Orteig offered for the first nonstop aircraft flight between New York and Paris. Burt Rutan and his backer, Paul Allen, certainly didn't develop a private spacecraft to win the Ansari X-Prize for the $10 million in prize money. They spent twice as much as they made. Sergei Korolev and the team that launched Sputnik were not tasked by their government to be the first to launch an artificial satellite; they had to fight for the honor and the resources to do it.

I think we all know why people strive to accomplish such things. They do so for reasons that are intuitive and compelling to all of us but that are not necessarily logical. They're exactly the opposite of acceptable reasons, which are eminently logical but neither intuitive nor emotionally compelling.

First, most of us want to be, both as individuals and as societies, the first or the best in some activity. We want to stand out. This behavior is rooted in our genes. We are today the descendants of people who survived by outperforming others. Without question that drive can be carried to an unhealthy extreme; we've all seen more wars than we like. But just because the trait can be taken too far doesn't mean that we can do without it completely.

A second reason is curiosity. Who among us has not had the urge to know what's over the next hill? What child has not been drawn to explore beyond the familiar streets of the neighborhood?

Finally, we humans have, since the earliest civilizations, built monuments. We want to leave something behind to show the next generation, or the generations after that, what we did with our time here. This is the impulse behind cathedrals and pyramids, art galleries and museums.

Cathedral builders would understand what I mean by real reasons. The monuments they erected to the awe and mystery of their God required a far greater percentage of their gross domestic product than we will ever put into the space business, but we look back across 600 or 800 years of time, and we are still awed by what the builders accomplished. Those buildings, therefore, also stand as monuments to the builders.

The return the cathedral builders made on their investment could not have been summarized in a cost/benefit analysis. They began to develop civil engineering, the core discipline for any society if it wishes to have anything more than thatched huts. They gained societal advantages that were probably even more important than learning how to build walls and roofs. For example, they learned to embrace deferred gratification, not just on an individual level, where it is a crucial element of maturity, but on a societal level, where it is equally vital. The people who started the cathedrals didn't live to finish them. The society as a whole had to be dedicated to the completion of those projects. We owe Western civilization as we know it today to that kind of thinking: the ability to have a constancy of purpose across years and decades.

It is my contention that the products of our space program are today's cathedrals. The space program satisfies the desire to compete, but in a safe and productive manner, rather than in a harmful one. It speaks abundantly to our sense of human curiosity, of wonder and awe at the unknown. Who can watch people assembling the greatest engineering project in the history of mankind-the International Space Station-and not wonder at the ability of people to conceive and to execute the project? And it also addresses our need for leaving something for future generations.

Of course the space program also addresses the acceptable reasons, and in the end this is imperative. Societies will not succeed in the long run if they place their resources and their efforts in enterprises that, for whatever reason, don't provide concrete value. But I believe that projects done for the real reasons that motivate humans also serve the acceptable reasons. In that sense, the value of space exploration really is in its spinoffs, as many have argued. But it's not in spinoffs like Teflon and Tang and Velcro, as the public is so often told-and which in fact did not come from the space program. And it's not in spinoffs in the form of better heart monitors or cheaper prices for liquid oxygen for hospitals, although the space program's huge demand for liquid oxygen spurred fundamental improvements in the production and handling of this volatile substance. The real spinoffs are, just as they were for cathedral builders, more fundamental.

Anyone who wants to build spacecraft, who wants to be a subcontractor, or who even wants to supply bolts and screws to the space industry must work to a higher level of precision than human beings had to do before the space industry came along. And that standard has influenced our entire industrial base, and therefore our economy.

As for national security, what is the value to the United States of being involved in enterprises which lift up human hearts everywhere? What is the value to the United States of being a leader in such efforts, in projects in which every technologically capable nation wants to take part? The greatest strategy for national security, more effective than having better guns and bombs than everyone else, is being a nation that does the kinds of things that make others want to do them with us.

What do you have to do, how do you have to behave, to do space projects? You have to value hard work. You have to live by excellence, or die from the lack of it. You have to understand and practice both leadership and followership. You have to build partnerships; leaders need partners and allies, as well as followers.

You have to accept the challenge of the unknown, knowing that you might fail, and to do so not without fear but with mastery of fear and a determination to go anyway. You have to defer gratification because we work on things that not all of us will live to see-and we know it.

We now believe that 95 percent of the universe consists of dark energy or dark matter, terms for things that we as yet know nothing about. Is it even conceivable that one day we won't learn to harness them? As cavemen learned to harness fire, as people two centuries ago learned to harness electricity, we will learn to harness these new things. It was just a few years ago that we confirmed the existence of dark matter, and we would not have done so without the space program. What is the value of knowledge like that? I cannot begin to guess. A thousand years from now there will be human beings who don't have to guess; they will know, and they will know we gave this to them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ambition, curiosity, and a reason the NASA Administrator admits has nothing to do with economic benefit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the most widely used AZA statistics, updated annually.

Annual Survey Results

AZA members (Individual Professional category members and Primary Contacts of Conservation Partner, Commercial, Related Facility and Institution Members) may log in and download the results of the most recent AZA Annual Survey of Members.

Accreditation

237 accredited zoos and aquariums in 13 countries (Updated September 2023)

USA: 213 in 46 states and the District of Columbia

Canada: 7

Mexico: 4

Bahamas: 1

Bermuda: 1

Dominican Republic: 1

Argentina: 1

Colombia: 1

Spain: 1

Hong Kong: 1

Singapore: 2

South Korea: 2

United Arab Emirates: 2

15 accredited related facilities
Accreditation occurs every 5 years
Approximately 25 facilities undergo the accreditation process every 6 months

Types of Accredited Facilities

134 zoos

59 aquariums

9 both zoo and aquariums

16 safari and theme parks

15 science and nature centers

2 aviaries

2 butterfly houses

54% non-profit

35% public

11% for-profit

Animals in AZA-Accredited Facilities

Over 780,000 animals in the care of AZA-accredited zoo and aquarium professionals

Over 8,600 species

Over 800 Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and Extinct In The Wild species as categorized by the IUCN Red List

Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Programs

42 Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGs)

Nearly 500 Species Survival Plan Programs

AZA Reproductive Management Center

Supports SSP ® programs by monitoring the safety and efficacy of contraceptives used for all mammalian species and helping bring new contraceptive methods to the zoo, aquarium, and wildlife community

AZA Population Management Center

Population planning for 500 species for the next 100 years

Conservation

$252.2 million was spent on field conservation in 119 countries in 2022

232 species and subspecies that benefited are listed as Endangered or Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

$29 million was spent on AZA SAFE: Saving Animals From Extinction species programs in 2022

AZA's Conservation Grants Fund

Over $8.7 million supporting over 470 conservation projects since 1991

Economy

In the most recent survey in 2018, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums:

Contributed more than $22.5 billion to U.S. economy

Supported more than 198,000 full-time jobs in the U.S.

Served more than 200 million annual visitors worldwide (183 million in the U.S.)

Informal Science Education

Based on the Education Programs survey data from 2019,

AZA members provided teacher professional development, curriculum resources and free planning visits that reached more than 96,000 teachers

5.5 million individuals were reached through field trips, outreach programs and education resources targeted to K-12 students

124 facilities reported more than 1,200 education programs that include content about connecting to nature, reaching more than 33 million.

(Updated April 2023)

Over 785 zoo and aquarium professionals have completed in-person AZA courses from 2020-present

Almost 250 zoo and aquarium professionals participated in virtual AZA courses from 2021-2022

AZA offers 18 in-person courses that are team-taught by professionals in the field, designed to develop a variety of animal management, education, and leadership skills

AZA's Executive Leadership Development Program prepares the next generation of executive leaders to successfully advance the zoo and aquarium movement in the future. More than 80 leaders have completed the program since 2014, with 27 having been promoted to the role of Executive Director or CEO.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about the Association for Zoos and Aquariums' members, educational programs, and conservation efforts, as well as the kinds of facilities we support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The owner of this domain has not yet uploaded their website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About this film

The Story of Bottled Water, released on March 22, 2010 (World Water Day), employs the Story of Stuff style to tell the story of manufactured demand-how you get Americans to buy more than half a billion bottles of water every week when it already flows virtually free from the tap. Over five minutes, the film explores the bottled water industry's attacks on tap water and its use of seductive, environmental-themed advertising to cover up the mountains of plastic waste it produces. The film concludes with a call for viewers to make a personal commitment to avoid bottled water and support public investment in clean, available tap water for all.

Share

Movie Resources

Credits

The Story of Bottled Water was co-created and released by The Story of Stuff Project and a coalition of partners, including Corporate Accountability International, Food & Water Watch, Polaris Institute, Pacific Institute and Environmental Working Group. The movie was produced by Free Range Studios.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Story of Bottled Water - Story of Stuff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About this film The Story of Bottled Water, released on March 22, 2010 (World Water Day), employs the Story of Stuff style to tell the story of manufactured demand-how you get Americans to buy more than half a billion bottles of water every week when it already flows virtually free from the tap.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take an orbit around this space flight movie and learn the two basic types of rocket, how they get the thrust to launch from Earth, and about NASA’s shuttles and satellites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Animal Enrichment & Training

Animal training and enrichment go hand-in-hand here at the Saint Louis Zoo. Both have to do with an animal's behavior and how they act and react to different situations.

With animal enrichment, keepers create environments that provide a stimulating life for our animals, with opportunities to engage in natural behavior, be more active and have more control over their environment. Enrichment helps satisfy both the physical and psychological needs of animals and allows them to make choices.

Enriching an animal's environment comes in many forms, including altering the physical environment, modifying animal care, creating social groupings and increasing sensory stimulation. You may have seen our bears playing with boomer balls and our apes playing with plastic crates. These are examples of adding "furniture" for an animal to play with. Other examples of animals enrichment include:

Providing live and artificial plants for shade and barriers

Creating vertical dimensions using trees, ropes or rock work to increase and enhance living space

Using puzzle feeders that offer a challenging and time-consuming method of obtaining food

Housing a variety of compatible animals from the same habitat together

Applying scents (spices, perfumes, food, dung) around a habitat

Simulating or using real prey items in predator habitats to encourage stalk-and-chase behaviors

Animal training is another form of enrichment as well as an animal management technique.

The animals at the Saint Louis Zoo are trained through positive reinforcement. Through training animals voluntarily participate in doctors' visits, allow general housekeeping in their area and work with keepers while getting a pedicure or shower. Achieving these tasks through trained behaviors requires a devoted trainer, a well-prepared plan and a motivated "student." The motivation (or the reinforcement) can be food such as produce, bread or browse, or it can be tactile, such as brushing or scratching. Many animals are also motivated by the mental exercise and special attention during training sessions.

Training allows keepers and veterinarians to do their jobs more safely and easily. It also allows animals to receive the best care possible through their own willing involvement in the process. While training is often used to perform husbandry tasks, it is also enriching for the animals. It provides a challenge for them and offers them the opportunity to earn a reward that they find worthwhile. Training is rapidly becoming a vital tool in animal care.

Support Animal Enrichment

Guests can view the Zoo's animal enrichment "wish list" to learn more about what they can give to help animals at the Zoo.

Explore the list on Amazon or click below to view the PDF.

Animal Enrichment Wish List PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Saint Louis Zoo is dedicated to saving species and bringing people and wildlife together. Home to over 16,000 animals, many of which are endangered, entry is free every day for everyone, an important part of our commitment to people and animals - always.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smart, Social and Erratic in Captivity (Published 2013)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A film, a book and a trainer’s death have renewed debate among scientists and animal advocates on the wisdom and morality of keeping killer whales in marine parks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Toronto is banning plastic shopping bags in stores.

Starting in January 2013, you'll have to bring your own reusable bag to the store to cart your goods away.

More than 250 million bags end up in landfill every year, never breaking down into compost, according to a report by CBC News.

Plastic bags can also clog drainage systems and, when they are washed out to sea, can hurt fish and other marine animals.

Plastic bags are banned or restricted in about a quarter of the countries in the world, according to online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Countries including Italy and South Africa have banned plastic bags. Many large cities have also banned them.

Toronto currently charges five cents per bag-for instance, for people who want a plastic bag to carry their groceries home.

The five-cent fee was put in place to discourage people from using the non-environmentally friendly product. Instead, people are encouraged to bring their own reusable bags to stores.

After Ireland put a fee on plastic bags in 2002, 90 per cent fewer bags were used. In 2010 Washington D.C. began charging five cents per plastic bag and that city's consumption of them went down from 22.5 million to three million in the first month.

In Toronto, the plastic bag fee has cut down on the number of plastic bags used by half, according to Metro newspaper.

A ban was not exactly what Toronto mayor Rob Ford had in mind when he brought up the subject at City Council on Wednesday. In fact, he wanted to end the five-cent fee on bags.

However, Councillor David Shiner proposed a very different motion. He suggested Toronto do away with plastic bags altogether.

That motion passed, 24 to 20. Starting on Jan. 1, 2013, retailers in Toronto will not be allowed to give out or sell any plastic shopping bags, including ones that claim to be "compostable or biodegradable."

According to Metro, "Ford appeared upset after the vote, blinking rapidly." Ford said council's decision didn't make any sense, and said he felt the motion will be overturned.

Council also voted to stop the five-cent fee for plastic bags, from July 1 until the ban takes effect. That means stores will be able to hand out plastic bags free in Toronto for six months.

Ford later told a news radio station that he would like to see Torontonians come down to City Hall to protest the ban. He said he thinks the ban is the dumbest thing Toronto council has ever done.

CURRICULUM CONNECTIONS
By Jonathan Tilly

Writing/Discussion Prompt
What do you think should be done about plastic bags. Should they be free of charge, cost 5 cents, or be banned altogether. Make a jot list of reasons to support your answer.

Reading Prompt: Purpose
Use the information in today's article to write a letter to Toronto's City Counsel. OK, now go ahead... and send send it. Let them know what you think!

Primary, Junior, & Intermediate
Identify a variety of purposes for reading and choose reading materials appropriate for those purposes (OME, Reading: 1.2).

Grammar Feature: Verbs
Verbs are action words. Every sentence includes at least one verb. The verbs authors choose help readers understand the text. Underline the "key" verbs in today's story that help you understand it. How do these verbs affect your understanding?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mayor Ford is furious that Toronto's city council voted to ban all plastic bags in 2013. Read the facts and form your own opinion! Kids News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When a kid in Malibu, California forced the rest of her classmates to miss out on a day at SeaWorld because she was misled by Blackfish, it made national news.

Ever since that girl forced the radical agenda of animal rights groups like PETA, The Dodo and others, they have claimed that children are rejecting accredited zoological organizations in favor of a debunked documentary.

However, we are learning this isn't the case, and in fact quite the opposite is happening nationwide!

Children of all ages are rejecting the radical agenda being shoved in their faces and asking for alternatives. Not only are they analyzing the source material the school is presenting to them, they're demanding they be allowed to think critically by hearing both sides of the issue, which is a victory for anyone interested in education.

Here we have a few stories of kids who are standing up to radical activists and demanding that they hear the full story and learn the truth:

Austin and Goliath in San Antonio, Texas

When one of Austin's teachers announced that they would be required to watch Blackfish in school, Austin stood up and demanded that they allow a SeaWorld trainer from SeaWorld San Antonio to come in afterwards to comment about the film.

The teacher responded, "We don't have time for that." Austin quickly countered, "Then we don't have time for Blackfish." The teacher agreed and the class was spared 80 minutes of out-of-context YouTube clips and propaganda.

Chris Brings Keiko to Texas

When Chris learned about the new book "Killing Keiko" by Mark Simmons, he went straight to his school's library. When he found out it wasn't available, but other radical animal rights books were, he kindly asked if "Killing Keiko" could be included. The librarians happily agreed and ordered the book. It is now available to all the students at his high school.

We have begun to learn that students in Florida, California, Idaho, Utah, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and more are all requesting that their libraries stock Killing Keiko.

Nikki vs. The Debate Team in New York, New York

When Nikki learned that her debate team would have to debate "Pro: SeaWorld should be closed" she had to fight other class members to represent the "Con" which was to defend SeaWorld in the debate. After days of research and preparation, she ended the debate convincing numerous audience members from the rival school that SeaWorld does incredible good in the world and should NOT be closed!

These 3 stories are just the tip of the iceberg. There has been so much interest in SeaWorld's real story that SeaWorld has been piloting an education program that would allow their trainers to virtually talk with any classroom about the amazing animal care their animals receive.

It is a new era and children around the country are demanding that they get to hear both sides and learn the truth!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kids Nationwide Reject the Blackfish Agenda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids of all ages are rejecting the radical agenda being shoved in their faces and asking to be allowed to think critically about the issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why it is Unacceptable to Confine Marine Mammals for Public Display

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
So many ways to reuse plastic bags - Bag the Ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic bags can be reused again and again. Plastic bags aren’t just 100% recyclable — they’re reusable, too! More than 90% of Americans say they reuse their plastic bags at least once, for everything from lining trash cans to packing lunches and picking up after pets.1 In fact, Recyc-Quebec, a Cana…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the past few years, there has been a lot of talk about the captivity of animals and whether it is a good or a bad thing. With the instant reach of social media, people can be quick to jump on the bandwagon of "All zoos are bad" and "free all of the animals". However, many people do not take the time to educate themselves on the issues, the reasons for captive animals, and the good that the best of these institutions can do. Yes, there are many poorly run zoos/aquariums/sanctuaries, but there are also those who fight hard against extinction, reintroduce species on the brink of extinction, and work with governments and communities to protect species and house animals during rehabilitation and recovery. Such institutions can have a critical role in helping preserve our planet, saving some species, recovering habitats, and educating our youth about the ecosystem and its importance in our plight for survival. So, how do we recognize which is which?

About Our Guest Author: Samantha Sullivan

Biology with a wildlife conservation focus at the Miami University in partnership with San Diego Zoo Global. Sam's interest is to work within communities to inspire coexistence with wildlife through education and awareness. Sam is currently studying for a master in She is passionate about conservation which we witnessed firsthand when we met her in 2015 in the context of a conservation volunteering project in Costa Rica.

Here Sam shares with us a few comments about zoos in our modern world, and how to recognize the good from the bad institutions. Remember that when it comes to animals in captivity, the picture is rarely all black or white. The key is to understand the shades of gray, identify the definite bad ones, and help the well-intended ones to do the right thing. In the end, we are all responsible and accountable for what happens in those institutions, because we are the ones visiting and therefore endorsing them. As concerned humans, we have the power to help zoo institutions get to better standards for the benefit of their non-human guests.

There are many ways to educate ourselves and make better-informed choices. A little research goes a long way and might help to answer some questions and provide clarity to our concerns around these institutions. Every zoo and aquarium are different from each other and just because one is smaller, older, or ends up attracting media attention, it does not mean that they do not have the best interest of the species in mind. The knowledge in the animal world is constantly changing. Therefore good zoos and aquariums are constantly changing. They make upgrades to better suit the artificial environment to the natural habitats of their guests; they change diets to better match their wild diet or to provide essential nutrients; they add new programs; under careful monitoring, they bring new animals in for the public to learn about. These changes may affect the appearance or marketing tactics of a zoo and this does not mean it is a bad place or only out to turn a profit. Again how do you know? There are a few little things that we can do to better grasp if one institution is worth our visit and attention. And here are some helpful tips to get us started.

What is the Zoo Accreditation?

An important way to learn about the legitimacy of a zoo or aquarium here in the United States is to ensure it is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). This accreditation process includes reviews and inspections to assess candidates and member institutions against mandated standards. You can get a complete list of AZA-accredited institutions at . If they are not accredited, it may be best to stay away. [If you are in another country you can check the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums , which is the worldwide and unifying organization for the world zoo and aquarium community.]

Is the Zoo a Nonprofit?

I am constantly hearing from people who claim that zoos just exist to make a profit. Let's stop right there. Take a look and see what their status is. If it is a nonprofit, there must be (and please do check those) programs in place to benefit the animals, the community, and education. True non-profits are not there to make a profit and get rich. Many zoological institutions and aquariums are non-profit organizations. Not sure how to find this out? Just look for the institution online. If you are interested in learning more about their programs, which should be described on their website. There is a good chance that there are educational brochures and/or volunteers on site that can talk to you more about the different zoo programs that support the community, education, species reintroduction, and more.

What is the Zoo's Mission?

This can get you started, but it is not as simple as whether or not they draw in a profit or not. Now look deeper. What is their mission statement? What do they stand for? Any zoo will (and should) state its mission, vision, and current projects on its website. Read them, and educate yourself. What do you think? Do they seem genuine? Do your values align with theirs? You may be surprised at just how many legitimate zoos out there are doing hard work to help save our planet and the amazing species we share it with. Additionally, check out the educational programs that the institution offers. Are there fun and educational ways -yet respectful towards the animals- to get your children involved in nature and excited about animal welfare and conservation? Are there programs for adults to bring awareness to serious conservation issues?

Are there Indicators of Good Welfare Practices?

Another topic to consider is the state of the enclosures where the animals live. Of course, it is hard to have a sense just by looking at their website, so this is more pertinent when you are on the premises. Then, what do the enclosures look like? Do they seem to mimic natural habitats (light, sound, substrates) with opportunities to hide away from the public eye? What about enrichment such as treats, activities, and other items to engage the animal? What about the size of the enclosure: does it seem fitting for the animal (if you don't know then research the topic beforehand)? Keep in mind many enclosures are actually much larger than what you can see; often a public enclosure is smaller so that the visitors can have the opportunity to see the animal (yet again they need to provide withdrawal areas), but the behind-the-scenes area may be larger. Having a conversation with a zookeeper or volunteer may answer some of your questions about the enclosures and the well-being of the animals, for instance, ask them about the private enclosure's size and quality, as well as ask how it compares to the natural habitat of the animal.

By no means do these tips constitute an exhaustive list of the questions that we should ask ourselves before going to a zoo? But again they offer a good and minimal start. As concerned and responsible humans, we need to be able to identify reliably legitimate good zoos, praise those for what they do well, and call upon the bad instances so that we can push altogether for better standards. That comes with knowledge, and knowledge starts with us doing our homework...

Samantha's Wild Q&A about zoos is a great introduction to the EwA Zoo Evaluation tool. The EwA Zoo Evaluation tool is a short and easy guide for visitors to help discern animal welfare conditions in captive environments. That is, it enables zoogoers to deepen their understanding of (and therefore their ability to gauge and help) institutions exhibiting captive wildlife. By understanding what we are looking at, we can push and support better captive conditions. That's the least we can do for the millions of animals that we are forced into captivity.

And if you are planning to visit a facility with captive animals, please take the time to check our short Etiquette for the Zoogoer.

by Samantha Sullivan

The photos used in this article are the property of the author.

✒️️ What you think is important to us. Feel free to engage us and leave a courteous message below. Thanks!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not ALL Zoos Are Bad... But How Do You Know?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past few years, there has been a lot of talk about the captivity of animals and whether it is a good or a bad thing. With the instant reach of social media, people can be quick to jump on the bandwagon of "All zoos are bad" and "free all of the animals".

# data[].attributes.headline
Zoologists explain benefits of captivity

# data[].attributes.subject
Zoologists explain benefits of captivity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoologist explains benefits of orcas captivity

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic Bags are the Healthier Option – for Families and the Environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic Bags are the Healthier Option – for Families and the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Bags are the Healthier Option – for Families and the Environment - Bag the Ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recyclable plastic bags don’t pose the potential health risks associated with alternative bags. Hundreds of millions of petroleum based, polypropylene reusable bags are imported from China and other countries each year.1 These are, by far, the dominant type of reusable bags, and some have been found…

# data[].attributes.headline
Plastic Bag Recycling and Manufacturing Supports Thousands of Jobs

# data[].attributes.subject
Plastic Bag Recycling and Manufacturing Supports Thousands of Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bag taxes hurt struggling families and take money away from working families.

Food prices continue to skyrocket, and people don't need their grocery bills increased with an extra tax.¹

The USDA reported that in 2018 there were 14.3 million U.S. households that were food insecure. The focus of our elected officials should be on solving the issue of food insecurity - not hurting the economy and making groceries more expensive by banning or taxing bags. ²

Banning and taxing plastic bags threatens American jobs.

Nationwide, thousands of hardworking men and women are employed and supported by the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling industry.³ At a time when many communities around the nation suffer from unemployment and a struggling economy, we can't afford to implement misguided policies that threaten jobs, economic recovery and American competitiveness. Bag bans and taxes also hurt local businesses and struggling families by adding another cost to every grocery trip.

Bans and taxes on plastic bags hurt America's working class and kill jobs.

Proposed ordinances to ban and tax plastic bags threaten nearly 30,000 American manufacturing and recycling jobs in 344 plants across the country.

Low-income workers have complained publicly³ that such policies are "discriminatory," especially for those who rely on public transportation to get to low-wage jobs, and there has even been a lawsuit⁴ filed saying a ban discriminates against the disabled.

American plastic bag manufacturers provide jobs with competitive salaries and benefits. In addition, manufacturers invest in innovative green technologies that are revolutionizing the plastics recycling industry.

Plastic bag bans and taxes threaten this industry and its workers and stymie technology investments that impact America's global competitiveness.

Plastic bag bans and taxes hurt small businesses.

A 2012 study by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) found that banning plastic bags negatively impacted retail sales and employment in the ban area, shifting business to stores just outside the bag ban region.⁵
Connecticut's 2019 plastic bag tax resulted in shoppers crossing state lines to avoid the fee.⁶

Bag bans can lead to small business layoffs. In Los Angeles County, stores inside the ban area were forced to terminate staff, sometimes by as much as 10%. In contrast, stores outside the ban area reported increased employment by 2.4%.⁵

Following Seattle's ban on plastic bags, nearly 40% of surveyed store owners reported seeing their costs for carryout bags increase between 40% and 200%. Added costs directly impact a store's bottom line and cannot be taken lightly in this economy.⁷

Under threat of fines or penalties, bans and taxes on plastic bags force local businesses to comply with government regulations that mandate measuring, counting, reporting and maintaining records related to enforcement of these unnecessary laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Bag Recycling and Manufacturing Supports Thousands of Jobs - Bag the Ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bag taxes hurt struggling families and take money away from working families. Food prices continue to skyrocket, and people don't need their grocery bills increased with an extra tax.¹ The USDA reported that in 2018 there were 14.3 million U.S. households that were food insecure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I would like to begin by defining “zoo.” It is a park-like area in which live animals are kept in cages or large enclosures for public exhibit. Hold on, large enclosures? More like tiny cages. As zoo funds are cut, cages become smaller wi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

The N.C. Zoo is one of only two state-operated zoos in the country. While more than 60 percent of its operating budget comes from the state, all of its conservation, research and education programs - and even the animals exhibited at the park - are purchased with private funds raised by the North Carolina Zoological Society.

Karen Brown with the Zoo Society says the "Adopt an Animal" program features a list of animals that can be "adopted" for a year.

Those who "adopt" an animal get a certificate, a photo of the animal and a fact sheet about the species.

Funds raised through the program benefit the Zoo's Animal Enrichment Program, which allows the Zoo to pay for additional training for zookeepers as well as purchase treats for the animals.

Some of the most popular animals for "adoption" are the African elephant, the polar bear, the zebra, the giraffe and the chimpanzee.

For more information about "adopting" zoo animals, visit nczoo.com or call the Zoo Society at (336) 879-7250.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NC Zoo's 'adoption' program benefits animals, zookeeper training

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The N.C. Zoo is one of only two state-operated zoos in the country. While more than 60 percent of its operating budget comes from the state, all of its conservation, research and education programs - and even the animals exhibited at the park - are purchased with private funds raised by the North Carolina Zoological [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What should you do with your leftover plastic grocery bags? Reuse or recycle them!

Plastic bags are 100% recyclable. Recycling is easy and makes a real difference. Since 2005, there has been a 54% increase in plastic film recycling.¹

Bring your plastic bags, sacks, and wraps to participating retail stores and drop them into plastic bag recycling bins. From there, the bags and wraps are picked up for recycling.
Don't forget to include bread bags, dry cleaning bags, newspaper bags, product overwrap (plastic wrap around packages of toilet paper, paper towels, napkins, etc.), or any plastic film marked with a #2 HDPE or #4 LDPE recycling sign. All of these can be included with your plastic bags in the store recycling bin!

Your recycled plastic bags may get a new life as eco-friendly raw material for playgrounds, construction materials, and new plastic bags.

Plastic bag recycling supports American manufacturing jobs. In 2017, 81% of plastic retail bags and film returned for recycling were reclaimed by U.S. and Canadian recyclers.¹

More Recycling, "2017 National Post-Consumer Plastic Bag & Film Recycling Report," July 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Bags are 100% Recyclable - Bag the Ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What should you do with your leftover plastic grocery bags? Reuse or recycle them! Plastic bags are 100% recyclable. Recycling is easy and makes a real difference. Since 2005, there has been a 54% increase in plastic film recycling.¹ Bring your plastic bags, sacks, and wraps to participating retail stores and drop them into plastic [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neil deGrasse Tyson - We Stopped Dreaming (Episode 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This piece is a response to "The Modern Zoo" from the May 2008 issue of Teen Ink. I volunteer at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and have gotten to know its keepers, veterinary staff, and other workers. According to the writer of "The Modern Zoo," staff torture animals, do not provide adequate living space, and keep the animals merely to entertain. In my three years of volunteering, I have never seen, nor had any reason to suspect, any foul play at my zoo. The allegations in "The Modern Zoo" that all zoos are inhumane and cruel is false, I believe.

According to the article in Teen Ink, "Zoos claim to educate visitors. Yet we've all seen the one-sentence signs that describe monkeys. What can be learned from this? Certainly not enough to justify inhumane captivity." One-sentence signs are not the end of zoos' efforts to educate. At my zoo an entire department is devoted to educating the public about conservation of animals and our planet. If zoos didn't care about education, why would they have this? While exhibits may display signs with brief information, staff work daily at the zoo to educate visitors about conservation and other critical topics.

Some zoo employees visit schools and businesses to educate the public about how to be more responsible with our environment. This department even organizes conservation projects around Ohio, such as the community effort to remove waste from Big Creek. Volunteers spent a day restoring the creek to a more healthy ecosystem. The zoo is also part of a national conservation campaign called Year of the Frog, dedicated to saving amphibian species from extinction. Zoos put forth tremendous effort to educate people, and to say that they do not is just not true in my experience.

"Zoo animals endure inadequate living conditions with no space," claims the article. It's not fair to make this generalization. My own zoo, for example, is planning a one-of-a-kind, spacious exhibit for its elephants. The exhibit encompasses many acres, and will be large enough to support a breeding population. If zoos didn't care about adequate space for their animals, why would they waste time raising millions of dollars to build this type of exhibit? Also, my zoo cares a lot for its animals; it houses the second oldest hippo in North America and its polar bears are twice the age of those in the wild.

I witnessed a life-saving surgery on a 13-year-old wolf. Veterinarians worked for two hours to save his life. Thirteen is very old for a wolf. Zoos do care for their animals, and do what they can to keep them strong and healthy.

"These animals are simply meant to entertain," claims "The Modern Zoo." That too is false. At the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, animals are never forced to do anything for the sake of visitors' entertainment. We believe in positive animal/ human interaction. Zoo staff never force or coerce an animal due to this policy.

The author of "The Modern Zoo" is obviously very passionate in his opinion about zoos. I am also very passionate. I have not written this to personally attack him. Rather, I am simply stating facts. "The Modern Zoo" paints zoos as cruel, inhumane facilities, but it is both unfair and untrue to claim this about all of them. Many have state-of-the-art veterinary facilities and work hard to save endangered species.

I hope that readers will see that zoos seek to protect and save endangered species, as well as educate and encourage the public to do the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This piece is a response to "The Modern Zoo" from the May 2008 issue of Teen Ink. I volunteer at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and have gotten to know its keepers, veterinary staff, and other workers. According to the writer of "The Modern Zoo," staff torture animals, do not provide adequate living space, and keep the animals merely to entertain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smithsonian's National Zoo: We Save Species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout. They're 100% recyclable and highly reused. Studies show that alternatives which seem "greener" actually place a greater burden on the environment because they require more natural resources to produce and transport, they emit more carbon throughout their lifecycles and they need more energy to recycle - if they're recyclable at all. On top of that, studies show bag bans and taxes haven't meaningfully reduced overall litter or waste anywhere they've been tried. ¹

ENERGY SAVINGS: Plastic bags require 70% less energy to manufacture and consume 96% less water than what's used to make paper bags.

DISPOSAL ADVANTAGES: Once disposed, reusable bags take up to 9.3% more space than plastic bags in landfills.

REUSABLE COTTON BAGS AREN'T REUSED ENOUGH: Standard reusable cotton grocery bags must be reused at least 131 times "to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than" a plastic bag used only once.² In fact, one study found that organic cotton bags need to be reused 20,000 times to have the same environment performance of a plastic bag reused once.³

NO OIL INVOLVED: American-made plastic bags are produced from byproducts of natural gas, not oil.⁴

The results are in: Bag bans and taxes don't help to reduce waste, litter, or marine debris.
Ban and tax ordinances have never been successful at meaningfully reducing litter, waste or marine debris. Not anywhere. What they have been shown to do is heap unfair costs on low and fixed-income families and add more red tape to local businesses. The environment doesn't benefit, and neither do people.

LANDFILL WASTE INCREASES: According to the EPA, "plastic bags and sacks" account for 0.3% of municipal solid waste.⁵ Plastic retail bags are a fraction of this number. Without plastic grocery bags, people purchase replacement bags - often made of thicker, heavier plastic - and then send those bags to the landfill instead.⁶
In Austin, landfill waste increased after a bag ban because shoppers used and disposed of thicker plastic reusable bags in the place of standard plastic grocery bags.⁷

LITTLE TO NO IMPACT ON OVERALL LITTER: Plastic retail bags comprise a very small portion of litter - typically less than 1% - making bans and taxes ineffective when it comes to reducing overall litter.⁸

In Washington, D.C., a bag tax hasn't improved litter or reduced bag use at all.⁹ According to a Washington Post investigation, D.C. collected roughly $10 million since 2010 without making any environmental progress. And the tax revenue keeps growing every year.¹⁰

A year after California implemented a statewide ban on plastic bags in 2016, an Ocean Conservancy survey showed a negligible 0.2% decrease in plastic bag litter as a percentage of overall litter.¹¹

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES:

California's plastic bag ban led to an increase in carbon emissions due to a surge in trash bag purchases (which use more plastic than traditional retail bags) as well as an increase in paper bag usage.¹²

In Thurston County, Washington, a bag ban resulted in double the use of more resource-intensive paper bags.¹³

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic Bags and the Environment - Bag the Ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout. They're 100% recyclable and highly reused. Studies show that alternatives which seem "greener" actually place a greater burden on the environment because they require more natural resources to produce and transport, they emit more carbon throughout their lifecycles and they need more energy to [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever went to a zoo and saw a polar bear in a small cage, a small swimming pool to where it can't even go fully underwater, and the fur of the creature wasn't even white anymore? If you think this is okay, then you are not realizing that these animals that they hold in zoos are becoming depressed because they don't have enough space to live a life they deserve. Many people think zoos are a learning opportunity, I agree in a way but there are many different opportunities that you can take instead of viewing animals through a small cage because these animals aren't even acting like themselves. They are being forced to live in such a small environment, some backgrounds are different from others, most are taken from their mothers as babies and others were injured and have to be looked after for the rest of their life because they can't live fully on their own. I agree to the extent that zoos are good assistance to injured animals but they shouldn't be forced into such a small cage, they should be put in sanctuaries that has millions and millions of acres of land where they can roam free as they are being looked after at the same time. Many people do not see this different for what is right or wrong, they look past all of the depressed animals behind bars, because they are too excited to think from the animal's point of view because they have never seen such a mysterious creature and they are blindsided. Zoos are prisons for animals. Do we go to a prison just to view the inmates or would that be weird? Exactly. That is the same concept I am making at this point. You wouldn't view your own species behind bars, then why should you force other species into cages just so that you can see them behind bars for your own use. Its not benefitting all of the animals, some in a way but there are better options than putting animals in zoos.

There are many reasons why animals shouldn't be placed in zoos, according to the article 5 Reasons You Should Boycott the Zoo by Abigail Geer, makes great points on why people should help boycott zoos. The first reason is that zoos cannot provide enough space for each animal. In the wild, these animals have a tremendous amount of space that is never ending. In zoos they are placed on an acre or two per animal. That isn't enough for a wild animal to live on. Second, animals suffer from abnormal behaviors. People come to zoos hoping to experience the whole package of what it feels like being in a different country as if watching these animals in their natural habitat. In reality, most of the animals you see behind the fences are depressed because they are kept in captivity. Zoos do provide the animals with anti-depressants, but is this what people think is right? If this hasn't convinced you then this next reason that Geer states will. Surplus animals are killed. Most zoos state that they are helping animals that are becoming extinct in the wild so they are trying to help reproduce species. Truth is that all the extra animals that are unwanted because zoos were overbreeding, they are killed because they don't have enough space to take care of these animals. Another reason why zoos should be banned is because most animals that are presented at the zoo were once taken from their mother at a small age. They never lived in the wild, so they are not even a good representation of how that animal should act because they didn't grow up in a free environment because they were forced to be in a zoo. So technically the animals that take up the cages at zoos they don't serve an educational purpose because that is not how the animal acts when they are in their actual environment. The fifth reason that will convince you to boycott zoos is that zoos don't serve conservation. Zoos try o hard to make the public believe that when a baby is born that when it grows old it will be released into the wild, but should we really believe them? The answer is no. The baby never knows how to live on its own so they could never just let the baby go on its own even when it does get older. It would know how to take care of itself because zoos do all of it for them, they bring them food and water. In the wild they would have to go hunt for their own food which they would end up starving and dying because they don't know how to do so.

Most people who are pro zoos are blindsided by the excitement of zoos. They never seen a wild creature like this before so they looked passed the sadness in the animal's eyes. An article on the PETA website The reality of Zoos written by Michelle Carr, is an article that supports the reason why zoos are bad for all animals. Carr states that, "I thought being able to see them in person would be neat. But once I saw them "up close and personal," I realized that the animals were miserable. It instantly became very clear to me that the animals imprisoned in zoos are sad and don't want to be kept in artificial environments, have people gawk at them, listen to children who bang on the windows of their enclosures, or have cameras flashing in their faces. To put it simply, zoos are imprisoning animals who want to be free." In this statement, it instantly made me feel guilty from going to zoos when I was little. People need to face up to reality because I know for a fact that everyone has had an experience like Michelle Carr and they need to live up to it and help close zoos down because they are just torturing these animals for their own beneficial use. If everyone became aware of these conditions, then they would proudly help shut them down. Haven't you realized that when you go to zoos you stand there for ten to fifteen minute but they don't move a bit? It's because they don't want to be there. They will never be with their blood family which the animals depend on for their whole life in the wild. They will never know the true meaning of life as if they were in the wild, they will be forced to live in the zoo for the rest of their life with sadness and boredom.

The world needs to come to realize that zoos are bad for animals, PETA explains to us that the animals are on anti-depressants, once an animal outlives their usefulness they are killed, animals are instantly killed if they escape their cages, they transport animals from other countries to satisfy the human eye, surplus animals are mistreated and killed, they will sell animals to circuses or to livestock auctions, they don't have the appropriate veterinarian service they need, and some animals are starved to death. If any one thinks that this is okay in anyway they definitely need to see the difference of zoos and animals in their natural habitat. We need to take action and educate the public before its too late and before they bring in any other animals into their exhibits where they will never be able to step free into the wild ever again. Last Chance for Animals explains to us, "Animals in zoos are forced to live in artificial, stressful, and downright boring conditions. Removed from their natural habitats and social structures, they are confined to small, restrictive environments that deprive them of mental and physical stimulation. While zoos claim to provide conservation, education, and entertainment, their primary goal is to sustain public support in order to increase profits." This is inhumane, there is nothing right about this situation.

There are many problems with zoos because once an animal gets brought in, it can never go out into the wild on their own ever again. Zoos claim they are saving the lives of these animals but they're not, they are torturing them because they don't have a big enough cage to run around and live in a natural way. Zoos take in animals to make money. If we shut down zoos there will be nowhere for these animals to go, unless sanctuaries take them in. Sanctuaries are a good resource when and if zoos go out of business because they are non profit and they promise to take care of the animals till the end of their life. They rescue these animals from abuse and rehabilitate these animals so that they can live a long happy life. Sanctuaries are inspected and they have to meet the guidelines of a true sanctuary according to Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. So this proves that if zoos are forced to shut down they will have somewhere to go, they will have an enormous area to roam free and be taken care because zoos took them from their natural habitat before and can no longer be let back into the wild on their own so they need a back up environment where they wont be in small cages and will not be displayed to the public for others entertainment. A National Geographic article Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals? Written by Rachel Shea states that sanctuaries don't have a sign saying to come in to view our tigers, they don't want to make money, they are just trying to protect these animals so they can have an enjoyable life. Zoo do not try at all to protect these animals, all they want to do is make money off of these animals. We need to find a way to convince the public that there are other ways to view these animals whether it is in person or on television. We do not need to keep these animals hostage so we can satisfy our own entertainment.

Yes, some animals are truly saved by joining zoos because they are in bad shape but they don't deserve to be in a small cage getting viewed by the public as they are making their way to recovery. They deserve to be in sanctuary so that they are protected by the ones who actually want to help and not make money off of them, instead they are protect their rights as animals and doing anything in their power to make sure they are living a life they deserve.

Here are some ways that you could learn about exotic animals without going to zoos, you watch documentaries or travel around the world volunteering at animal sanctuaries. You are not invading their space, you are helping them but not to the point to where they are depressed. They have a lot of open space, they are able to run freely, but they still receive the help they need. If you watch a documentary you are watching them from a screen in their natural habitat without taking them from their home, you see how they truly act and you'll get a more valuable experience from watching them from a TV because they are happy and energize instead of in a corner suffering because they are not with their family living the life they truly deserve.

Animals deserve to live free. They do not deserve to live in a small cage their whole life. No one on earth could stand being in a cage everyday of their life, being viewed by others to satisfy others. They don't get to roam free anymore. Their freedom is taken away from them at such a young age, so young they never experienced the true life as a regular wild animal. So lets put a stop to this and boycott Zoos.

Work Cited

Geer, Abigail. "5 Reasons You Should Boycott the Zoo." 5 Reasons You Should Boycott The Zoo | Care2 Causes. Care 2, 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Carr, Michelle. "The Reality of Zoos." PETA. PETA, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Editors of the Site. "Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Shea, Rachel. "Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

User, Super. "Last Chance for Animals - Zoos." Last Chance for Animals - Zoos. LCA, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

@peta. "13 Times Zoos Were Bad for Animals." PETA. PETA, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

Healy, Patrick. "Giraffes, Towering and Otherworldly, Are 'Vulnerable' to Extinction." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Dec. 2016. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

"Zoos." Animal Cruelty - Zoos. Vegan Peace, 2015. Web. 15 Dec. 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever went to a zoo and saw a polar bear in a small cage, a small swimming pool to where it can't even go fully underwater, and the fur of the creature wasn't even white anymore? If you think...