# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Not a subscriber? Sign up today for a free preview.

Visit our web page to learn more about FactCite.

FactCite features content from the
Students may copy text and images on this site for use in homework assignments.
Commercial use or resale of content from this site is prohibited.
By entering FactCite you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2007-2021 the Lincoln Library Press, Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not a subscriber? Sign up today for a free preview. Visit our web page to learn more about FactCite. FactCite features content from the Students may copy text and images on this site for use in homework assignments. Commercial use or resale of content from this site is prohibited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dominic Jermey, ZSL's Director General, explains why zoos like ZSL London Zoo play an important role in bringing wildlife back from the brink.
Last week, four northern bald ibis bred at ZSL London Zoo travelled to Spain to be released into the wild, as part of a global conservation project for the Endangered species.

It's exciting news, as the birds, which were once widespread across Europe, haven't had a wild population on the continent since the 1700s.

Quite rightly, we're thrilled to be part of this project, which embodies one of ZSL's core aims: bringing wildlife back from the brink.

Although it's not the first time we've released animals into the wild, it is - as has often been levelled as a criticism towards zoos - a fairly rare occurrence.

So why don't good zoos - engaged in multiple global breeding programmes, caring for populations of Critically Endangered birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals from all over the world - then routinely take the next step of boosting threatened populations in their original habitats?

One simple answer is that what we call the wild doesn't always live up to its name.

Many of the world's most threatened species are living in poor habitats degraded by agriculture, threatened by disease or hemmed into tiny areas with no way of reaching potential mates without coming into conflict with humans.

The 2018 Living Planet Index, produced by ZSL for WWF, showed that the population of monitored mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish have, on average, dropped by more than half in little more than 40 years.

Poachers are targeting pangolins, tigers, elephants and rhinos as part of the illegal wildlife trade, while PCB pollution in our oceans is having a dramatic effect on marine life.

The truth is that many 'wild' areas are no longer viable habitats for animals to survive in - and reintroduction is much more complicated than people might realise.

Well-planned reintroductions should always be a last resort, as it is better to enable wild populations to grow and expand their range naturally. Good conservationists will make sure all other avenues have been explored - such as creating habitat connections or carrying out wild-to-wild translocations.

And before reintroductions can happen, we must ensure habitats are healthy enough to sustain a growing population and are free from risks of poaching, conflict with humans, or wildlife disease.

But it's not all bad news - and being part of global breeding programmes is just one facet of our work for wildlife.

We are thinking bigger, broader, more laterally: we see a future for the world's wildlife and are working all over the world to tackle the root issues threatening it.

We're working closely with the South Sumatra government in Indonesia on a landscape management project to try and address some of the issues wildlife are facing, including creating wildlife corridors to allow tigers safe passage through larger ranges. Where palm oil plantations and unsustainable practices such as peatland drainage for industrial timber are rapidly changing the landscape for tigers, elephants, rhinos and orangutan, we're working to develop alternative sustainable income streams for public and private land managers.

Thousands of people in the Philippines are benefitting from Net-Works, ZSL's innovative approach to coastal biodiversity conservation: creating community income streams that reduce plastic pollution and replenish fish stocks.

In Africa, ZSL's professional law enforcement training is helping authorities combat the increasingly well-financed criminal gangs that control the illegal wildlife trade. Last year in Benin, we supported the arrest of four ivory dealers and the confiscation of half a tonne of pangolin scales - Africa's largest ever pangolin scale seizure.

ZSL's wildlife health research is focussed on detecting, understanding and treating disease, as well as addressing their causes and training and supporting wildlife health professionals around the world.

These kinds of interventions protect biodiversity and provide sustainable livelihoods, helping people and wildlife to co-exist.

All of which makes ZSL's role - and the role of all good conservation organisations - much bigger than reintroduction.

But we still need good zoos. Not only to provide a critical haven for Endangered species but also as a unique environment to learn both from and about animals - learnings which are shared with other zoos across the world and with conservationists in the field, who use this critical information to carry out their work in the wild.

Zoos are also vital for education and inspiration: over a million visitors are inspired by visits to ZSL London Zoo every year, while many notable conservationists have recounted how a visit to a zoo started them on their path to preserving the planet. Sir David Attenborough's earliest expeditions were with ZSL London Zoo, filming for the BBC series Zoo Quest in the 1950s.

If the crux of our work is improving the relationship between people and wildlife, simply releasing animals into the wild - while undoubtedly an achievement - should not be our only goal.

Our four ibis arriving in Spain are the culmination of 20 years of work with the species at ZSL London Zoo: caring for the population, learning more about their mating habits and ultimately breeding a healthy flock able to survive in the wild.

In the meantime, we must continue to preserve healthy animal populations in responsible zoos, while also continuing to work in the wild to make habitats truly habitable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dominic Jermey, ZSL's Director General, explains why zoos like ZSL London Zoo play an important role in bringing wildlife back from the brink. Last week, four northern bald ibis bred at ZSL London Zoo travelled to Spain to be released into the wild, as part of a global conservation project for the Endangered species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Bridget M. Kuehn

Is the idea of the zoo as an ark archaic? Are zoos exploiting animals for profit? Are they prisons for wild animals? Does the need for species conservation outweigh the costs to individual animal welfare? These are some of the question zoos face as they try to respond to the criticism from animal rights groups and justify their existence to a public increasingly concerned about the welfare of captive animals.

Michael Hutchins, PhD, director and William Conway Chair of the Department of Conservation and Science for the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, addressed these questions in his presentation "In defense of zoos and aquariums: The ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity" at the 2002 AVMA Animal Welfare Forum in Milwaukee Oct.11. The forum was co-sponsored by the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians.

According to Dr. Hutchins, one of the problems reputable zoos and aquariums face is guilt by association. He explained that there are really two kinds of zoos: AZA-accredited zoos, and zoos that don't meet AZA standards. Of the 2,400 animal exhibitors licensed by the Department of Agriculture, fewer than 10 percent meet AZA standards for accreditation, Dr. Hutchins said.

A question of ethics

Despite the high standards of AZA zoos and aquariums, some individuals object to zoos on an ethical basis.

Some people believe that animals have an intrinsic right to liberty and, therefore they conclude all zoos are inherently wrong, Dr. Hutchins said. Others are concerned that living in a zoo diminishes animals' quality of life, that captive breeding is of limited value, or that entertainment is not a sufficient justification for keeping animals in captivity.

To satisfy these concerns, zoos and aquariums have to weigh the costs and benefits.

"The central question we need to answer as caring people is: do the benefits of accredited zoos to society outweigh cost to individual animal welfare?" Hutchins said.

The primary benefits zoos provide to society are education and conservation of species and habitats, he said.

"I think the central ethical justification for zoos and aquariums in the modern world is their commitment to conservation," Dr. Hutchins said.

He explained that, during the past decade, zoos have shifted their focus from preserving species through captive breeding programs to preserving habitats and species in the wild.

Zoos support conservation by educating the public, raising money for conservation programs, developing technology that can be used to track wild populations, conducting scientific research, advancing veterinary medicine, and developing animal handling techniques.

By studying animals in captivity and applying that knowledge to their husbandry, zoos can provide valuable and practical information that may be difficult or impossible to gather in the wild.

"We need to know about the biology of animals to conserve," Dr. Hutchins said.

Zoos also help by participating in collaborative efforts with other zoos and conservation groups, or directly supporting a wildlife reserve by contributing expertise, training, funding, and other resources.

The AZA tracks the conservation efforts of member zoos with biennial reports on conservation science. According to the most recent report, AZA members participated in or supported 1,400 field conservation projects worldwide, and over 300 projects in North America between 1999 and 2000.

Putting welf​are first

Conservation alone is not enough to justify the existence of zoos, Dr. Hutchins said, "A strong commitment to individual animal welfare is equally important."

To improve animal welfare, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums must ensure quality care, promote natural behaviors and natural environments, assess and improve their training and education programs, and address the problem of surplus animals, Dr. Hutchins said. They also must reach out to nonaccredited zoos and promote high-quality care for all captive animals, he said.

The AZA is taking a number of steps to promote improved animal welfare at accredited and nonaccredited zoos and aquariums, including:

Developing species-specific resource manuals and standards for animal care

Requiring AZA zoos and aquariums to develop and implement enrichment programs.

Training USDA-APHIS inspectors

Lobbying the government for more funding for APHIS

Reducing the number of surplus animals by giving "do not breed" recommendations

Developing a system to track animals and setting policies that forbid the transfer of animals to substandard facilities and hunting ranches

Outreach to substandard zoos has been a priority; in fact, the AZA Roadside Zoo Task Force helped develop model state and local legislation to close the worst facilities.

"By reaching out in this way, AZA zoos and aquariums are demonstrating their concern for animal welfare outside their realm," Dr. Hutchins explained.

Dr. Hutchins concluded his presentation by stressing the importance of advancing both conservation and animal welfare.

"I think having these dual goals of animal welfare and conservation provides a strong ethical justification for zoos and aquariums."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Bridget M. Kuehn Is the idea of the zoo as an ark archaic? Are zoos exploiting animals for profit? Are they prisons for wild animals? Does the need for species conservation outweigh the costs to individual animal welfare?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Zoos are premises for the captivity of animals, often in urban areas where many of the animals would not otherwise be found, with the intention of studying the animals and displaying them to the public at large. The predecessor of the zoo was the menagerie, which involved the captivity of birds typically for the entertainment of the aristocracy, and has a long history running back to ancient times. The first modern zoo evolved out of an aristocratic menagerie in Vienna in 1765. Many types of zoo now exist, from the petting zoos that encourage the public to get up and close with the animals to the large nature reserves that provide space for the animals to roam around within and most famously the large, urban zoos like the London Zoo which include elephants, lions and penguins and are usually notable tourist drawcards for the cities concerned. Proponents argue that zoos are beneficial both to the animals themselves, protecting endangered species with specific breeding programs, and the public, as an educational tool to increase both awareness and understanding. Opponents respond that the removal of wild animals from their habitat is wrong, that they should be left in their natural surroundings and not used as tools for public entertainment. (shamelessly taken from our sister site idebate.org)

All the Yes points:

1. Entertainment and Health at its best

2. Human understanding can help animals

3. By observing animal behaviour we can help those in the wild

4. Keeping animals in zoos can stop them becoming extinct in the wild.

All the No points:

1. Wild Animals Are Not Domesticated

2. The means is not proportionate to what is achieved

3. Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer.

4. People visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for our own ends.

5. Problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species

6. Animal research may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context of confinement and human entertainment.

7. Animals should be left in the wild

Entertainment and Health at its best

Human understanding can help animals

By observing animal behaviour we can help those in the wild

Keeping animals in zoos can stop them becoming extinct in the wild.

While ideally animals should be free to live in the wild, on occasion their survival as a species becomes threatened, either naturally or artificially. Whatever the reason, zoos have been a major method of preventing animal species from becoming extinct. While it may be the case that some species' extinction has only been delayed by zoos, in others the zoos have been pivotal in breeding new generations and protecting a gene pool while the animal is re-introduced into a more natural environment.

While protecting natural habitat should take precedent over zoos, many of these regions are politically unstable or financially destitute. It is hard to blame someone who values his own families survival over that of an animal. Because many zoos are in wealthy, stable nations, a secure and nurturing environment can be artificially created to help the most endangered animals survive and continue to breed. A "Noahs Ark", if you will.

----

Rebuttal to "Yes" remark.

Some animals can be successfully released into the wild. See the efforts in New Zealand to have the national bird, the Kiwi, living wild in some protected areas and uninhabited islands, both of which have been largely successful. This has also happened/is happening with a number of other native birds on the brink of extinction.

Wild Animals Are Not Domesticated

The means is not proportionate to what is achieved

It is cruel and inhumane to keep animals in cages purely for human entertainment.

We visit the zoo maybe one day in a year for a few hours and we may gain some trivial sense of joy out of it. However, the animals have to stay in that zoo all year round; against their natural instincts to roam free.

They have no reprieve from their environment. Why should humans think that they can keep animals out of their homes and in glass houses just for human entertainment?

It is neither fair nor proportionate.

Humans get food and medical treatment in jails; does that mean that prisoners are happy or that confinement is not punitive? Freedom for all living things.

This argument assumes that a) The harm suffered by these animals is tremendous and that b) the only value gained from zoos is human entertainment.

a) Zoo keeping is a trained profession. Animals in the zoo have the regular access to good food and they have vets on standby should they fall ill. This is a far more luxurious lifestyle than they would have in the jungle.

b) As stated above, zoos animals have many benefits that wild animals are deprived of. From human understanding to biological study. To see zoos as pure entertainment is myopic.

Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer.

People visiting zoos will be given the subliminal message that it is OK to use animals for our own ends.

Problems with the claim that zoos are beneficial because they help to conserve endangered species

Animal research may be valuable, but it does not need to happen in the context of confinement and human entertainment.

Animals should be left in the wild

Animals are not made for captivity. They long to roam in the long grass of Africa, they long to chase other animals, and they long to play in large groups. No matter how we may try to replicate their surrounding in a zoo, we will never achieve the full result. Therefore, these animals will never be as happy as they would be in the wild.

We are fighting with animals natural desires to be wild, and this is a battle that humans cannot win without destroying animals at the core.

Predators need to hunt and taking from them their ability to do so; by taming/caging/drugging them is beyond cruel. Excessive human involvement(both hunters/poachers that sell animals to zoos/safaris and those who kill them for their skin/tusks/etc) in the food cycle; has disrupted it considerably(extinction and endangerment of species). Let nature take its course.

How can we measure animal happiness? Would humans be better off in the wild? There are poachers/hunters/animal-predators/other-animals-fighting-for-limiting-resources in the wild at least with animal captivity comes animal security, food is always on the table and there's free medical.

Would 'we' prefer the wild?

The truth is that these claims are based around the logically-skewed ideas of neo-classical animal rights groups. But their arguments have little or no factual basis/merit. We cannot measure animal happiness. We cannot really say that they would be best left in the wild.

All we can do is review at the information at hand. Domesticated animals; treated well, would you say they were unhappy? Well then how can we argue that taking animals out of the wild is wrong? We cannot. So rather than banning zoos, we should ensure that relevant safety measures are in place to ensure that these animals are as well looked after as possible.

Species have come and gone from time immemorial( Dinosaurs are extinct without our interference); Human beings are part of the animal kingdom thus food cycle and our involvement is part of nature.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos? - DebateWise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many ethical, moral and practical arguments for and against zoos. Learn the benefits and disadvantages and decide what to think.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here are ten facts about zoos that you need to know...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We, as emotional beings, place a high value on happiness and joy. Happiness is more than a feeling to us - it's something we require and strive for. We're so fixated on happiness that we define the pursuit of it as a right. We seek happiness not only for ourselves and our loved ones, but also for our planet and its creatures.

Sure, campaigns for Animal Liberation take this to the extreme. They believe that all animals "deserve to lead free, natural lives." But extreme animal activists aren't the only ones who think animal happiness is important. They're not even the only ones that think animals have some level of right to be free. Many people are against zoos because they feel it's wrong to keep animals in captivity. I've even heard arguments for hunting as an alternative to farming livestock, because at least the wild animals lived happily prior to their death, while the poor cows or chickens suffered because they are never allowed to be free. And let's be honest: who didn't watch Free Willy and feel, at least for a moment, that every animal we have ever put in a cage or a tank should be let go?

The core idea behind all of this is the belief that animals in nature are truly happier than animals in captivity, even than domesticated ones. But are they? I mean, really?

Happiness is hard enough to define in people, let alone in an animals. You can't just ask them how they are feeling. Instead, we tend to qualify happiness in animals as a lack of chronic stress. Stress, unlike happiness, is very easy to measure. You can look for decreases in overall health in just about any kind of creature. You can keep an eye out for neurotic behaviors, and measurements of hormone levels of cortisol, norepinephrine, adrenaline and other "stress" hormones provide a quantified means of measuring stress. Though lack of stress doesn't guarantee "happiness", it's the closest we can get.

The idea, in particular, that livestock could be happier than wild animals is a hard thing to grasp, because as people, we can't imagine being kept simply to be used. The idea of having no control over how we are used by another, even if we're given everything we want now, seems unbearably cruel - but it's not the same for animals. Domesticated animals don't feel stress about the future, because they don't have an understanding of their future in the same way we do. A cow doesn't live a more stressed or unhappy life than a dog or a deer because it is destined to be killed for its meat. Cows aren't upset that they will end up as steaks because, as Michael Pollan phrased it, "in a bovine brain the concept of nonexistence is blissfully absent."

So the real question becomes whether a domesticated or captive animal is more, less, or as happy in the moment as its wild counterpart. There are a few key conditions that are classically thought to lead to a "happy" animal by reducing undue stress. These are the basis for most animal cruelty regulations, including those in the US and UK. They include that animals have the 'rights' to:

- Enough food and water

- Comfortable conditions (temperature, etc)

- Expression of normal behavior

Now, the factory farm industry isn't known for its strict adherence to these standards. But many farms do care for their animals well, and the vast majority of pet owners do, too. Domesticated and other captive animals, by and large, live lives where they are well fed, free of curable diseases, in comfortable conditions where they are able to be themselves, at least to a certain extent.

When it comes to wild animals, though, only the last is guaranteed. They have to struggle to survive on a daily basis, from finding food and water to another individual to mate with. They don't have the right to comfort, stability, or good health. Moreover, when the 'expression of normal behavior' encroaches upon people, whether it be raiding trash cans or attacks, that last one gets thrown out the window, too. By the standards our governments have set, the life of a wild animal is cruelty.

But even still - are they happier? First and foremost, it's important to realize that not all animals are the same. Domesticated animals are fundamentally different from their wild counterparts: they are not just wild animals that have been raised in captivity; they have undergone evolutionary changes through artificial selection that have altered their bodies, brains and behaviors.

We have no evidence whatsoever that wild animals are, in any way, happier than domesticated ones which are treated well. One of the consequences of domestication is a decrease in stress across the board. Studies have shown that domesticated animals are less stressed to begin with, and freak out less in response to stressful things like unfamiliar habitats or predators. Guinea pigs, for example, have serum epinephrine and norepinephrine concentrations that are four to eight times lower than their wild counterparts, cavies. They also have a reduced response when intentionally stressed by being placed in an unfamiliar cage. Similar results have been found in cats, rats, ducks and even fish. In fact, a decreased stress response compared to wild counterparts has been found in every single domesticated species that has been studied.

It's more than just how they were raised, too. A similar study raised cavies in captivity for 30 generations and compared their behavior and hormone levels to wild-raised cavies and domesticated guinea pigs. They found that the behavioral differences between domesticated and wild animals held even after 30 generations of captive rearing. Just like before, the wild animals had both a higher basal stress levels and stress responses. Even the captive-raised cavies had higher levels of norepinephrine and epinephrine from the get-go. Furthermore, both the wild and captive-raised cavies showed a markedly higher stress response to an unfamiliar environment than the domesticated guinea pigs.

When we domesticated animals, we forever altered how they respond to their environment. We reduced their sensitivity to things that are otherwise very upsetting to their wild relatives - like interacting with us. The side effect of this is that domesticated animals are predisposed to being happier than their wild counterparts, in spite of captivity.

"To think of domestication as a form of enslavement or even exploitation is to misconstrue the whole relationship, to project a human idea of power onto what is, in fact, an instance of mutualism between species," Pollan explains - and he's right.

Stress is important for surviving in the wild. Stress tells you you're in danger, and provides your body with the boost of performance needed to get out of the situation. The attenuated stress response exhibited by domesticated species doesn't just make them easier to keep happy in captivity, it makes them less fit to live outside of it. The vast majority of domesticated animals wouldn't survive in the wild, period. As the 19th century philosopher Leslie Stephen put it, "The pig has a stronger interest than anyone in the demand for bacon. If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at all."

Releasing a domesticated animal into the wild isn't 'freeing' it - it's placing a mostly defenseless creature in an unfamiliar and uninviting habitat that it is simply not equipped to deal with. Whether you want to morally condemn the people who domesticated animals in the first place is up to you, but 'liberating' them now simply isn't in their best interests.

These data also suggest something that might seem a bit radical: if we follow the guidelines of care that provide food, water, comfort, and necessary items for behavioral expression, domesticated animals are not only likely to be as happy as their wild relatives, they're probably happier. This applies to livestock as much as it does to a guinea pig, in spite of the fact that we raise the livestock solely to be killed and eaten.

But what about captive animals from non-domesticated lineages? Are animals that haven't undergone the evolutionary changes of domestication happier in the wild?

That's a much harder question to answer, in part because we don't have good baselines for wild animals. Until recently, studying stress hormone levels meant drawing blood - which, as you can image, is a stressful event in and of itself for a wild animal. However, newer methods have been developed that can measure the stress hormone levels in scat and urine left by wild animals, so it's now possible to get an assessment of stress that doesn't involve capturing the animal first.

What we do know so far is that evidence suggests wild animals can be as happy in captivity as they are in nature, assuming they are treated well. Confinement alone doesn't mean an animal is automatically worse off. If we give an animal all the good things they would have in the wild (food and water, fellow members of their species, a certain amount of space) and take away that stresses or hurts them (predators, parasites, extreme weather), then it can live just as happily in an enclosure. Zoo animals with proper care and enrichment, for example, have similar hormone profiles, live longer, eat better, and are healthier than their wild counterparts. Why? Because life in the wild is hard. In captivity, it's easy.

We also know that when we change our care of an animal to try to decrease stress, we succeed. Stress hormone levels drop, for example, when leopards are given a larger enclosure or things to play with. This means we are able to modify our standards of care to ensure that any animals we place in captivity, domesticated or wild, are as happy as they can be.

So overall, are wild animals happier? While there is a lot more science that can be done to answer that question, the answer seems to be: no, not if they're cared for well in captivity. The more we study animal behaviors, the better we get at figuring out what they need to pursue their own happiness, even when they are not allowed to be 'free.'

I want to be clear that this doesn't mean I'm making any moral judgements about zoos, farming, hunting, animal testing, veganism, or anything else this information might apply to. For all of those topics, the suffering or lack thereof during life is only one of many considerations that factors into morality. I have my own personal feelings about these topics, but that's not the point of this post. I'm just stating the facts about what we know of animal happiness in different conditions - how you interpret their meaning on a broader level is up to you.

However, I will inject a little of my own opinion. I believe this whole idea that wild animals are happier is due to what I call our 'natural bias'. What do I mean by that? Well, we tend to idealize nature. When we picture the wild world, we see lush forests full of brightly-colored, singing birds, with monkeys swinging from branch to branch. We imagine vast prairies with herds of antelope and zebra grazing peacefully while a pack of lions naps lazily in the shade. Even when we do imagine the more gruesome aspects of the wild, we see them as OK or better than what we do because it's "natural."

This bias for what is "natural" is pervasive, affecting our judgement on everything from sexual orientation and medical care to farming practices and clothing fibers. But there is nothing inherently better about something being natural, and the idea that something that occurs in nature without us is somehow better than something we have altered or taken part in is a dangerous fallacy (the use of Rotenone by organic farms, a natural but unbelievably awful pesticide that was still usable in Europe until 2009, is a prime example). I love the natural world. I became a biologist because of my passion for all kinds of creatures, and conservation is one of the core tenants of what I do on a daily basis. But while I appreciate and fight for the beauty and brilliance that is our planet, I firmly believe we need to see ourselves as a part of it, not above or below it. We are, after all, "natural," too.
Image of Bambi, via Wikimedia Commons. Resources:
1. Franklin D. McMillan (2008). Chapter 16. Do Animals Experience True Happiness? Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals DOI: 10.1002/9780470384947.ch16

2. Möstl E, & Palme R (2002). Hormones as indicators of stress. Domestic animal endocrinology, 23 (1-2), 67-74 PMID: 12142227

3. Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place" The New York Times Magazine, Nov 10, 2002 PDF

4. Künzl, C. (1999). The Behavioral Endocrinology of Domestication: A Comparison between the Domestic Guinea Pig (Cavia apereaf.porcellus) and Its Wild Ancestor, the Cavy (Cavia aperea) Hormones and Behavior, 35 (1), 28-37 DOI: 10.1006/hbeh.1998.1493

5. MARTIN, J. (1978). Embryonic Pituitary Adrenal Axis, Behavior Development and Domestication in Birds Integrative and Comparative Biology, 18 (3), 489-499 DOI: 10.1093/icb/18.3.489

6. Lepage O, Overli O, Petersson E, Järvi T, & Winberg S (2000). Differential stress coping in wild and domesticated sea trout. Brain, behavior and evolution, 56 (5), 259-68 PMID: 11251318

7. Künzl, C. (2003). Is a wild mammal kept and reared in captivity still a wild animal? Hormones and Behavior, 43 (1), 187-196 DOI: 10.1016/S0018-506X(02)00017-X

8. Hill, S., & Broom, D. (2009). Measuring zoo animal welfare: theory and practice Zoo Biology DOI: 10.1002/zoo.20276

9. BROWN, J. (2006). Comparative endocrinology of domestic and nondomestic felids Theriogenology, 66 (1), 25-36 DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.03.011

About the Author: Christie Wilcox is a science writer who moonlights as PhD student in Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Follow Christie on her blog, Observations of a Nerd, or on Facebook or Twitter.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bambi or Bessie: Are wild animals happier?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We, as emotional beings, place a high value on happiness and joy. Happiness is more than a feeling to us - it's something we require and strive for. We're so fixated on happiness that we define the pursuit of it as a right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'll start by saying that personally I'm fundamentally against zoos but I do understand some of the arguments why they should exist. My main reason for being against zoos is because I don't agree with caging animals for our entertainment.

I've disliked zoos since I was a small child. The memory of a polar bear pacing back and forth in a very small enclosure in a Yorkshire zoo has stuck with me. Many zoos now provide more space for their wild animals but it could hardly be described as equivalent to what they have in the wild. Keeping animals in climates that are not suited to them seems even more cruel.

Why Zoos Should Exist

Bearing all of the above in mind, some zoos do actually carry out important conservation work. The arguments for zoos are many and varied...

The arguments for zoos

Zoos can help to save endangered species by keeping them in a 'safe' environment. Safe as in protected from poachers, predators, habitat loss and even starvation.

If a zoo has a breeding programme, this is another way to protect endangered species which may have trouble finding suitable mates in the wild.

Zoos have an educational aspect. It's easier to learn about an animal by seeing them in person.

Fostering empathy... By seeing an animal up close, the public might be encouraged to be more empathetic to a species that is facing extinction in the wild. They might put 2 and 2 together and realise the orangutan they saw is in jeopardy due to the products they buy (read about Palm Oil here).

Good zoos have high standards of welfare for their animals. Visiting an accredited zoo is better than visiting one which isn't. For example, BIAZA 'members are dedicated to achieving the highest standards of animal care, conserving the natural world through research and conservation, and educating and inspiring their visitors.'

A few zoos take in abandoned exotic pets and rehabilitate wildlife.

Zoos are a traditional family activity.

What is BIAZA?

" BIAZA is the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums; the professional body representing the best zoos and aquariums in Britain and Ireland. We have over 100 zoo and aquarium members who pride themselves on their excellent animal welfare, education and conservation work."

"BIAZA contributes approximately £24 million to conservation projects a year."

Why Zoos Shouldn't Exist

Just like there are quite a few arguments for the existence of zoos, whether you agree with them or not, there are also a lot, if not many more, arguments against zoos.

The arguments against zoos

Like the polar bear that's haunted me for over 35 years, animals in captivity often suffer from boredom and stress. Captivity can in no way compare to being free in the wild.

What gives humans the right to capture, confine or breed other species? If an animal is endangered does that justify us removing its freedom?

Most captive breeding programmes don't release animals into the wild. More often than not they become part of a never-ending chain of zoos, safari parks, circuses, canned hunting facilities and even the exotic pet trade. There are more tigers in American backyards than there are in the wild!

Baby animals bring the visitors in in droves, but this often leads to zoos having too many animals. Surplus animals can be sold onto other zoos (or safari parks, circuses etc) but many are just killed. You might remember back in 2014 when the Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark killed Marius the giraffe. 'Young giraffe unsuitable for breeding was shot, dissected in public and then fed to lions despite offers of a new home.' The Guardian

Bonds between animals are broken when they are sold to alternative facilities which exploit animals, causing further stress to them.

The wild populations of different endangered species may become less genetically diverse due to the removal of individuals from the wild, causing them to become even more endangered.

If you want to see wild animals behaving normally they should be seen in the wild. Watching a dolphin performing tricks at Sea World in no way compares to a dolphin naturally jumping out of the water in the ocean.

If you can't afford to see animals in their natural habitat visit a wildlife sanctuary that does not buy, sell or breed animals. Sanctuaries take in injured wildlife, unwanted exotic pets or surplus animals from zoos.

Wildlife encounters at zoos might be an unforgettable experience for children or adults but they are stressful and can be harmful to the animals.

Zoo animals can escape. Not only is this dangerous for people and native wildlife, but the animals are often killed rather than tranquilised.

Zoo visitors often don't act responsibly and put the animals lives in danger due to their stupidity or lack of care. When a toddler fell into an enclosure at Cincinnati Zoo in 2016 there was a worldwide outcry that Harambe, the gorilla whose enclosure the toddler fell into, was shot and killed.

The Difference Between Zoos, Safari Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries

What is a Zoo? "an area in which animals, especially wild animals, are kept so that people can go and look at them or study them"

What is a Safari Park? "a large park where wild animals are kept and can move freely, and can be watched by visitors driving through in their cars"

What is a Wildlife Sanctuary? "a place where birds or animals can live and be protected, especially from being hunted or dangerous conditions"
Definitions from the Cambridge English Dictionary
The "Conservation Con"

One of the arguments for zoos is that they help to conserve species which may otherwise go extinct. Others argue that this is the 'conservation con', which is explained by freedomforanimals.org.uk

"Zoos in the UK hold tens of thousands of animals captive. One of the main ways they justify this captivity is to say that they need to protect animals who are endangered in the wild. (...)

By focusing on zoos in Wales, we carried out research which unearthed that just 9% of animals held captive are endangered and 17% are threatened in the wild. This means the vast majority of animals kept in zoos are not threatened in the wild, so why are they held captive?"

They go on to say...

"Whilst we do not believe keeping endangered species in zoos actually contributes to conservation, we really would expect zoos that claim to focus on this issue to not be holding so many animals captive who are not of conservation concern. It is time zoos were honest with the public and stopped using conservation claims as a veil for animal exploitation."

Peta also weighs in on the issue of the conservation con...

"Most animals confined in zoos are not endangered, nor are they being prepared for release into natural habitats. In fact, it is nearly impossible to release captive-bred animals, including threatened species like elephants, polar bears, gorillas, tigers and chimpanzees into the wild. Zoos aren't breeding animals with the intent of replenishing threatened populations: Babies bring visitors through the gates, and captive breeding gives the public a false sense of security about a species' survival. But that belief undermines support for and diverts resources from in-situ conservation efforts."

'Conservation' is frequently used in defence of trophy hunting as well.

So, Should Zoos Still Exist?

I don't think that zoos should need to exist. For those that do actually rehabilitate wildlife and protect endangered species I think there is an argument for them in todays world. However it would be far better if they were to become wildlife sanctuaries and they stopped buying and selling animals. What we should be doing is protecting the habitats of wild animals and ensuring their survival in the wild. Until people around the world care more about life than money I'm afraid there's little chance of certain species surviving without a helping hand from zoos.

That's not to say that I think all existing zoos should still exist or that most of them are adequate. I believe there are many zoos that should be shut down immediately. As far as I'm concerned the majority of 'good zoos' still need to make massive improvements to their facilities. In my opinion, a zoos major function should not be to make money for its owner. The profits from ticket prices should go toward increasing animal welfare standards and increasing enclosure sizes. Most importantly the money should go toward protecting the natural habitats of wild animals.

I hope that in the not too distant future we see the end of zoos. Sadly I don't feel like it'll happen in my lifetime... We have too many people in power around the world for whom animal welfare and conservation is of little concern.

Even some wildlife charities are not what they seem.

In these times of lockdown ...
If you like what I do and want to support this website, you can buy me a 'coffee' which helps with the running costs of the website. Alternatively come and say hello on facebook, twitter or pinterest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Zoos Still Exist or Not? The Arguments For & Against Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'll start by saying that personally I'm fundamentally against zoos but I do understand some of the arguments why they should exist. My main reason for being against zoos is because I don't agree with caging animals for our entertainment. I've disliked zoos since I was a small child.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Laws That Protect Captive Wildlife

Few federal laws protect the millions of wild animals who live in captivity in aquariums, circuses, theme parks and zoos in the U.S.

The Animal Welfare Act: The Animal Welfare Act, or AWA, is the primary piece of federal legislation regulating captive wild animals. Zoos and circuses are among those who fall under this act.

The AWA only applies to some captive wild animals. The law, adopted by Congress in 1966, protects so-called "warm-blooded" animals who are bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially or publicly exhibited, like in a zoo or circus. Tigers, lions, elephants, bears and nonhuman primates are all included in this law. But the law excludes protection for birds, rats and mice, farmed animals and "cold-blooded" animals such as reptiles, amphibians and fish.

This is only one of the Act's limitations. Its protections are minimal as well. The AWA establishes only baseline standards of care for licensing exhibitors. These standards set a low bar and are widely considered to be sub-par in protecting animals. For example, the law does not restrict the display or private ownership of captive wild animals or prohibit the use of controversial bullhooks, whips, electrical shock or other devices commonly used in circuses. For animals in zoos, the AWA sets low requirements as to housing, food and sanitation, and, as is commonly noted, no requirements for mental stimulation of animals other than primates.

Another serious problem is that the chronically-understaffed USDA conducts inspections infrequently. A common criticism is that the inspectors are often inadequately trained to look for sign of problems such as abuse and neglect.

The Convention On International Trade In Endangered Species Of Wild Fauna And Flora (CITES): CITES is an international treaty that regulates the trade of wildlife for nations that are signatories to the treaty. Some 5,800 species of animals are covered by the treaty (along with 30,000 species of plants). CITES does not directly address living conditions for captive animals.

The U.S. became a signatory to CITES in 1975. Today, nearly every country in the world is a member of CITES. The fewer than two dozen non-participants include North Korea, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Turkmenistan.

This treaty is credited with helping foster international cooperation to protect some endangered and vulnerable species. A criticism is that protections are less robust for species that are economically valuable, and that CITES is not as transparent in its decision-making or enforcement as would be ideal.

The Endangered Species Act: The Endangered Species Act, the ESA, is a federal law that protects fish, mammals, birds and plants listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S. and beyond. The ESA outlines procedures for federal agencies to follow regarding listed species, as well as criminal and civil penalties for violations.

In 2014, the Animal Legal Defense Fund successfully brought a lawsuit under the Endangered Species Act against a roadside zoo called the Cricket Hollow Animal Park, that was mistreating protected animals. This was the first time that the ESA has successfully been used to protect captive wild animals. In 2018, the Eighth Circuit issued a unanimous decision in Cricket Hollow's appeal of that case, that it can be a violation of the Endangered Species Act when captive animals aren't given proper care.

In several cases, animals held in poor conditions at roadside zoos have been transferred to sanctuaries, after the Animal Legal Defense Fund brought lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act.

State And Local Laws: Strong state laws and even local laws have historically been a useful way to protect exotic and wild animals. There is considerable variation from state to state and among cities and counties, as to how much legal protection is offered to captive wild animals.

Here are some of the major ways that these jurisdictions are protecting wild captive animals under the law:

Restricting Private Parties From Keeping Wild Animals: Some states ban the keeping of wild and exotic animals. Others allow private parties to keep animals like tigers or primates with a permit. Fewer and fewer states are allowing residents to keep captive wild animals without a permit. There were five such states until 2017, when South Carolina passed a law banning wild and exotic animals to be kept as pets. (This law does not affect zoos or circuses.)

In states without tight enough regulation, local jurisdictions oftentimes adopt ordinances that ban or restrict the display of captive wild animals. Local laws are often most effective in governing the private possession of exotic animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Captive Animals - Most states have no laws governing captive wild animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More tigers live in cages in this country, than exist in all the wild. They are just some of the millions of wild animals living in captivity across the United States. Some are in aquariums, circuses, theme parks and zoos, others live caged at private homes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible-often in small, cramped conditions-the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals-even in efforts to fend off extinction-cannot be justified.

A Brief History of Zoos

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens. Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, when scientific interest in zoology, as well as the study of animal behavior and anatomy, came to the fore.

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

Arguments for Zoos

By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.

Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation, and predators.

Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.

Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.

Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees that the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."

A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.

Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary and is more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward animals.

Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or are no longer able to care for.

Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for animal care.

Arguments Against Zoos

From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals-even if those species are endangered. Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.

Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen-no matter how humane-or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild.

Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.

Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to circuses and hunting facilities. Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.

Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos.

Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also a challenge.

If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary. (A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.)

The federal Animal Welfare Act establishes only the most minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.

Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.

Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

The Last Word on Zoos

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public-yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
both

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Zoos have existed in some form since at least 2500 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia, where records indicate giraffes, bears, dolphins, and other animals were kept by aristocrats. The oldest still operating zoo in the world, Tiergarten Schönbrunn in Vienna, opened in 1752.

The contemporary zoo evolved from 19th century European zoos. Largely modeled after the London Zoo in Regent's Park, these zoos were intended for "genteel amusement and edification," according to Emma Marris, environmental writer and Institute Fellow at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. As such, reptile houses, aviaries, and insectariums were added with animals grouped taxonomically, to move zoos beyond the spectacle of big, scary animals.

Carl Hegenbeck, a German exotic animal importer, introduced the modern model of more natural habitats for animals instead of obvious cages at his Animal Park in Hamburg in 1907. That change prompted the shift in zoo narrative from entertainment to the protection of animals. In the late 20th century, the narrative changed again to the conservation of animals to stave off extinction.

Controversy has historically surrounded zoos, from debates over displaying "exotic" humans in exhibits to zookeepers not knowing what to feed animals. A gorilla named Madame Ningo, the first gorilla to arrive in the United States in 1911 who was to live at the Bronx Zoo, was fed hot dinners and cooked meat despite gorillas being herbivores, for example.

The contemporary debate about zoos tends to focus on animal welfare on both sides, whether zoos protect animals or imprison them.

Should Zoos Exist?

Pro 1

Zoos educate the public about animals and conservation efforts.

As of Apr. 2021, there are 241 accredited zoos in the United States. The zoos attract over 181 million visitors annually, which is more than the approximately 131 million yearly spectators of the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB combined.

According to a study of 26 zoos worldwide published in Conservation Biology, visitors to zoos increased their knowledge of biodiversity and specific individual actions to protect biodiversity.

Robin Ganzert, PhD, President and CEO of American Humane, stated, "zoos provide people, especially impressionable children, with the opportunity to see these remarkable animals up close. People won't protect what they don't love, and they can't love what they don't know. No matter how closely programs like Planet Earth depict animals, nothing will match the bond of seeing them in real life. Just look at a child's eyes at the zoo when he or she encounters a tiger or similarly majestic animal."
Read More

Pro 2

Zoos produce helpful scientific research.

228 accredited zoos published 5,175 peer-reviewed manuscripts between 1993 and 2013. In 2017, 173 accredited US zoos spent $25 million on research, studied 485 species and subspecies of animals, worked on 1,280 research projects, and published 170 research manuscripts.

Because so many diseases can be transmitted from animals to humans, such as Ebola, Hantavirus, and the bird flu, zoos frequently conduct disease surveillance research in wildlife populations and their own captive populations that can lead to a direct impact on human health. For example, the veterinary staff at the Bronx Zoo in New York alerted health officials of the presence of West Nile Virus.
Read More

Pro 3

Zoos save species from extinction and other dangers.

Corroboree frogs, eastern bongos, regent honeyeaters, Panamanian golden frogs, Bellinger River snapping turtles, golden lion tamarins, and Amur leopards, among others, have been saved from extinction by zoos.

Zoos are also working to save polar bears, tigers, and wild African elephants from habitat loss, apes and rhinos from poachers, dolphins and whales from hunters, and bees and butterflies from population declines, among many other efforts to help many other animals.

Przewalski's horses, the last wild horses, were declared extinct in the wild in the 1960s when about 12 lived in zoos. By 2018, breeding programs at zoos increased the number to 2,400 horses, and 800 were reintroduced to the wild.
Read More

Con 1

Zoos don't educate the public enough to justify keeping animals captive.

A review published in Animal Studies Repository concluded, "to date there is no compelling or even particularly suggestive evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, and interest in conservation in visitors." Even a study widely cited to justify the argument that zoos educate the public stated, "there was no overall statistically significant change in understanding [of ecological concepts] seen" because visitors know a lot about ecology before going to the zoo.

TV shows such as Planet Earth bring wild animals into living rooms, allowing people to see the animals in their natural habitats without causing harm to animals such as the endangered snow leopard. Romesh Ranganathan, a British comedian, stated, "It still slightly surprises me that anybody thinks that we should have zoos at all. The animals always look miserable in captivity... [T]he idea that kids only get excited about things they can see in the flesh is ridiculous. My kids are obsessed with dinosaurs that no longer exist, and Skylanders, which have never existed."
Read More

Con 2

Zoos are detrimental to animals' physical health.

A study of 35 species of carnivores, including brown bears, cheetahs, and lions, found that zoo enclosures were too small for the animals to carry out their normal routines, which led to problems such as pacing and more infant deaths. Polar bears, for example, had an infant mortality rate of 65% due to small enclosures.

About 70% of adult male gorillas in North America have heart disease, the leading cause of death among gorillas in captivity, although the condition is almost completely absent in the wild. Other great apes have similar health problems in captivity.

Captive elephants live about half as long as wild elephants: 18.9 years v. 41.7 years for Asian elephants and 16.9 years v. 35.8 years for African elephants. Of 77 elephants in 13 zoos, 71 were overweight and spent 83% of their time indoors, contributing to early death.
Read More

Con 3

Zoo confinement is psychologically damaging to animals.

A study of captive chimpanzees found that "abnormal behaviour is endemic in the population," and includes behaviors such as eating feces, twitching, rocking back and forth, plucking hair, pacing, vomiting, and self-mutilation, among others. The study concluded that the cause of such behavior could be mental health issues.
Read More

Discussion Questions
1. Should zoos exist? If you believe they should, consider whether they should remain the same or change. If you believe they should not, consider how else to accomplish zoo's conservation efforts.

2. Extend the debate to other human-made animal habitats, such as safari parks and animal sanctuaries.

3. What other conservation efforts are important to saving wildlife? Explain your answer(s).
Take Action
1. Analyze " Eight Reasons Zoos Are Good for Conservation " from conservation scientist James Borrell.

2. Consider the pros and cons with a video from Above the Noise.

3. Explore conservationist Damian Aspinall's opinion that zoos are "outdated and cruel."

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say zoos educate the public about animals. Opponents say wild animals should never be kept captive.

# data[].attributes.body
Code 9F46AN
Sign in with Google

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instructional videos & more for all core content subjects (school access only)

Biographies, Mythology, American History, Science, Countries & Cultures, & general encyclopedia

Current events, the arts, science, health, people, government, history, sports & more

MLA citations and e-notecards

Opinions, primary sources, videos, news, & more on today's most pressing issues

Download the free app to read & listen on your preferred device! Use your EPSD log-in.

Library card needed for home access; Consumer Health Complete & more

News articles, videos, primary sources, & info for all core content areas

News articles, videos, primary sources, & encyclopedia entries for all scientific fields

Videos & e-books on people, places, nature, history, and science with read-aloud options

Wonderful for all research topics; great starting point

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BookFlix (via POWER Library) Fiction & nonfiction e-book pairings, with read-aloud & Spanish options BrainPop Instructional videos & more for all core content subjects (school access only) FactCite Biographies, Mythology, American History, Science, Countries & Cultures, & general encyclopedia Gale

# data[].attributes.headline
Background info: FactCite, Science in Context, World Book

# data[].attributes.subject
Background info: FactCite, Science in Context, World Book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Instructional videos & more for all core content subjects (school access only)

Biographies, Mythology, American History, Science, Countries & Cultures, & general encyclopedia

Current events, the arts, science, health, people, government, history, sports & more

MLA citations and e-notecards

Opinions, primary sources, videos, news, & more on today's most pressing issues

Download the free app to read & listen on your preferred device! Use your EPSD log-in.

Library card needed for home access; Consumer Health Complete & more

News articles, videos, primary sources, & info for all core content areas

News articles, videos, primary sources, & encyclopedia entries for all scientific fields

Videos & e-books on people, places, nature, history, and science with read-aloud options

Wonderful for all research topics; great starting point

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BookFlix (via POWER Library) Fiction & nonfiction e-book pairings, with read-aloud & Spanish options BrainPop Instructional videos & more for all core content subjects (school access only) FactCite Biographies, Mythology, American History, Science, Countries & Cultures, & general encyclopedia Gale

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints

Find overviews, news, and opinions on hundreds of today's important social issues.

Don't know how to login?

Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password. If you don't know how to log in, please contact your library or school directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints Find overviews, news, and opinions on hundreds of today's important social issues. Don't know how to login? Depending on this location's preferences, the log-in process could include your library card number, a student or user ID, or another provided password.