# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are a lot of animals that are killed by poachers every year. Poaching is still common on most parts of the world. In Africa and Asia, a lot of animals are killed for their meat and other parts. (Research source: Save the Rhinos)

Poaching in Asia:

Javan Rhinoceros: This species was once widespread across Southeast Asia, but now only a few individuals remain in Java, Indonesia due to poaching for their horns.

Sumatran Tige r: The Sumatran tiger is critically endangered and has been heavily targeted by poachers for their skin and bones which are used for traditional medicine.

Asian Elephant: These majestic creatures have been hunted for their ivory tusks which are highly valued in some cultures.

Saola: This rare and elusive species is found only in the Annamite Mountains of Vietnam and Laos where it is threatened by hunting and habitat loss due to logging.

Pangolin: These scaly anteaters are prized for their meat and scales which are used in traditional medicine, leading to severe population declines throughout Asia.

Poaching in Africa:

Black Rhino: This species was once widespread across Africa, but today only a few thousand individuals remain due to poaching for their horns which are highly valued in some cultures.

African Elephant: These majestic creatures have been hunted for their ivory tusks which are highly valued in some cultures leading to severe population declines throughout Africa.

Mountain Gorilla: These critically endangered animals are found only in the highlands of East and Central Africa where they have been threatened by hunting and habitat loss due to logging, mining, and agriculture.

Lion: While not yet extinct, lions have seen significant population declines in recent years due to habitat loss, human-wildlife conflict, and poaching for their bones and other body parts which are used in traditional medicine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHAT POACHING DOES TO THE ENVIRONMENT Poaching is the illegal hunting, killing, or capturing of wildlife. This can refer to any animal that is being hunted or captured illegally, including endangered species, game animals, and fish. WHY POACHING IS A PROBLEM Poaching is a

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elephant poaching: Why it’s a big problem | IFAW

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We’re exploring what poaching is, why elephants are targeted, and what IFAW is doing to help protect elephants from poachers and wildlife cybercrime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wild animals are being poached on a massive scale, with millions of individual animals of thousands of species worldwide killed or captured from their native habitats. Poaching poses a growing threat to elephants, rhinos, and other charismatic animals, as well as to smaller and more obscure creatures, like certain lizards and monkeys.

Poachers sometimes kill or capture animals to sell them locally or for the global trade in wildlife. Wildlife trading is a major black market that has increased alongside rising wealth in Asia-a major consumer of wildlife-and the advent of e-commerce and social media websites.

Some animals, such as birds, reptiles, and primates, are captured live so that they can be kept or sold as exotic pets. Slaughtered animals,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wild animals are being poached on a massive scale, with millions of individual animals of thousands of species worldwide killed or captured from their native habitats. Poaching poses a growing threat to elephants, rhinos, and other charismatic animals, as well as to smaller and more obscure creatures, like certain lizards and monkeys.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic, Paper or Cotton: Which Shopping Bag is Best?

On March 1, New York State instituted its plastic bag ban, joining seven other states in an attempt to lessen litter, garbage in landfills, ocean pollution, and harm to marine life. March 1 was also the day that New York acknowledged its first coronavirus case. And despite the fact that California was the first state to ban plastic bags in 2014, San Francisco has reversed its plastic bag ban because of the coronavirus, outlawing the use of reusable shopping bags, which are capable of spreading viral and bacterial diseases. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Oregon and Maine have also banned reusable bags or delayed their plastic bag bans for now as have a number of cities.

Given the concerns pulling us in different directions-our health, the environment, climate change-what's an environmentally responsible, health-conscious shopper to do? Let's compare the main bag choices-plastic, paper and cotton-to try to answer that question.
Life Cycle Analysis
To understand the full spectrum of impacts and benefits of a particular bag, we need to analyze its life cycle. A life cycle analysis (LCA) looks at how much energy is used and how many environmental impacts a product is responsible for at every stage of its life, from cradle to grave. This includes extracting the raw materials, refining them, manufacturing the product, packaging it for shipment, transporting and distributing it, its use and possible reuse, recycling and final disposal.

In any LCA, the total environmental impact also depends on how efficient each process is, and how many protective environmental measures are implemented at every stage. Energy use is also subject to variables such as the source of raw materials, the location of manufacturing and processing, how long a product is used and the final disposal method.

Life cycle studies done in Europe and North America have determined that, overall, plastic bags are better for the environment than paper or reusable bags unless the latter are used many times. Most, however, did not consider the problem of litter, which we know is a major drawback of plastic bags.
Plastic bags
Plastic bags were invented in 1967, but only became widely used in stores in the 1970s. The most commonly found thin plastic shopping bags given out at cash registers are usually made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), but some are made of low-density polyethylene plastic (LDPE).

The energy embodied in plastic bags comes initially from the mining of the raw materials needed to make them-natural gas and petroleum-whose extraction requires a lot of energy. The raw materials must then be refined, which requires yet more energy. Once at a processing facility, the raw materials are treated and undergo polymerization to create the building blocks of plastic. These tiny granules of polyethylene resin can be mixed with recycled polyethylene chips. They are then transported by truck, train or ship to facilities where, under high heat, an extruder shapes the plastic into a thin film. The film is flattened, then cut into pieces. Next, it is sent to manufacturers to be made into bags. The plastic bags are then packaged and transported around the world to vendors. While polyethylene can be reprocessed and used to make new plastic bags, most plastic bags are only used once or twice before they end up being incinerated or discarded in landfills. The Wall Street Journal estimated that Americans use and dispose of 100 billion plastic bags each year; and the EPA found that less than five percent are recycled.

A 2014 study done for the Progressive Bag Alliance, which represents the U.S. plastic bag manufacturing and recycling industry, compared grocery bags made from polyethylene (HDPE), compostable plastic, and paper with 30 percent recycled fibers. It found that the HDPE bags ultimately used less fuel and water, and produced less greenhouse gas gases, acid rain emissions, and solid waste than the other two. The study, which did not consider litter, was peer-reviewed by Michael Overcash, then a professor of chemical engineering at North Carolina State University. Because the carrying capacity of a plastic and a paper bag are not the same, the study used the carrying capacity of 1,000 paper bags as its baseline and compared their impacts to the impacts of 1,500 plastic bags. The plastic bags used 14.9kg of fossil fuels for manufacturing compared to 23.2kg for paper bags. Plastic bags produced 7kg of municipal solid waste compared to 33.9kg for paper, and greenhouse gas emissions were equivalent to 0.04 tons of CO2 compared to paper's 0.08 tons. Plastic bags used 58 gallons of fresh water, while paper used 1,004 gallons. Energy use totaled 763 megajoules for plastic, and 2,622 megajoules for paper.

Sulfur dioxide, a type of sulfur oxide, and nitrogen oxide emitted from coal-fired power plants that produce the energy for processing bags contribute to acid rain. The plastic bag produced 50.5 grams of sulfur oxides compared to 579 grams for the paper bag; and 45.4 grams of nitrogen oxides, compared to 264 grams for paper.

A 2011 U.K. study compared bags made of HDPE, LDPE, non-woven polypropylene, a biopolymer made from a starch polyester, paper and cotton. It assessed the impacts in nine categories: global warming potential, depletion of resources such as fossil fuels, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, fresh water toxicity, marine toxicity, terrestrial toxicity and smog creation. It found that HDPE bags had the lowest environmental impacts of the lightweight bags in eight of the nine categories because it was the lightest bag of the group.

But because they are light and easily blown around, plastic bags are difficult to dispose of properly. They litter streets and trees, and wash into the ocean where they entangle and are consumed by marine life. They are rarely recyclable and can take 20 to 1,000 years to break up into pieces. Over time, sun and heat do break plastics into smaller and smaller pieces, forming microplastics under five millimeters long. These have been found everywhere-in the guts of marine animals and in waterways and on beaches around the world. So while these life cycle studies have not considered litter as an impact, the world recognizes that the omnipresence and persistence of plastic waste is an enormous environmental problem.

In terms of bag choice, Steve Cohen, director of the Research Program on Sustainability Policy and Management at the Earth Institute, said that it's very hard to predict whether plastic, paper or cloth bags are the best in terms of net energy or carbon, because they all use carbon. "But once a product that's made of fossil fuels, like a plastic bag, hits the waste stream, it's there forever," he said. "That's the biggest problem with the plastic."

Which is not to say that plastic has no value. In this time of coronavirus, most of the personal protective equipment is made of plastic. "That's what you should be using it for," said Cohen, "But the idea that you need it to carry around your grapefruits is kind of silly. It's unnecessary."

Non-woven polypropylene cloth-like plastic totes that are often given away free as publicity are stronger and more durable than HDPE and LDPE plastic bags, and thus can be used multiple times.

They are made from polypropylene polymers derived from fossil fuels, and can include recycled material. The polymers are spun into threads then pressed together between heated rollers to produce a fabric that feels similar to canvas. According to a California State University, Chico study, if comparing one-time use, the non-woven polypropylene bags use considerably more non-renewable energy and fresh water than single-use plastic bags. Moreover, they are not biodegradable and need to be washed to avoid contamination-COVID-19 has been found to survive on polypropylene for three days.
Paper bags
Paper bags are made from a renewable resource and are biodegradable. In the U.S., over 10 billion paper bags are consumed each year, requiring the felling of 14 million trees.

Once the trees are cut down, the logs are moved to a mill where they can wait up to three years until they dry out. Once ready, bark is stripped off and the wood is chipped into one-inch cubes that are subjected to high heat and pressure. They are then mixed with limestone and sulfurous acid until the combination becomes pulp. The pulp is washed with fresh water and bleach then pressed into paper, which is cut, printed, packaged and shipped. As a result of the heavy use of toxic chemicals in the process, paper is responsible for 70 times more air pollution and 50 times more water pollution than plastic bag production according to a Washington Post analysis, resulting in more toxicity to humans and the environment than HDPE bags. And while 66 percent of paper and paperboard are recycled, the recycling process requires additional chemicals to remove the ink and return the paper to pulp, which can add to paper's environmental impact.

A 2005 Scottish study also found that paper bags scored more poorly than plastic on water consumption, atmospheric acidification and the eutrophication of water bodies, which can lead to growth of algae and depletion of oxygen.

A Danish study comparing LDPE, polypropylene, bleached and unbleached paper, and cotton bags, and a few others, found that LDPE bags had the lowest environmental impact. Unbleached paper bags were found to equal the LDPE bags in terms of global warming potential. But the environmental impacts of bleached paper were considerably higher than those of unbleached paper-a bleached paper bag would need to be reused 43 times to equal the LDPE's environmental impact.

A portion of paper bags' environmental impact results from their being six to 10 times heavier than plastic bags, so transporting and distributing them requires more fuel and costs more. One estimate maintained that it would take seven trucks to transport the same number of paper bags as can be transported by a single truck full of plastic bags. Their bulk also takes up more space in inventories and landfills.

The extent of impacts from paper bags, however, depends on whether the forest is sustainably managed and also on the environmental measures used in the paper processing plant.
Cotton totes
Cotton bags are made from a renewable resource and are biodegradable. They are also strong and durable so they can be reused multiple times.

Cotton first needs to be harvested, then cotton bolls go through the ginning process, which separates the cotton from stems and leaves. Only 33 percent of the harvested cotton is usable. The cotton is then baled and shipped to cotton mills to be fluffed up, cleaned, flattened and spun. The cotton threads are woven into fabric, which then undergoes a chemical washing process and bleaching, after which it can also be dyed and printed. Spinning, weaving and other manufacturing processes are energy intensive. Washing, bleaching, dyeing, printing and other processes use large amounts of water and electricity.

The Danish and U.K. studies and several others found that cotton totes have the worst environmental impacts of all bags. Cotton requires land, huge quantities of water, and chemical fertilizers and pesticides to grow. The use and production of fertilizer contribute significantly to eutrophication. Harvesting, processing, and transporting cotton to market all require large amounts of energy; and since cotton totes are heavy and bulky, they cost more to ship. In addition, they are difficult to recycle since textile recycling in the U.S. is limited-only 15.2 percent of all textiles were recycled in 2017. As a result, a cotton bag needs to be used 7,100 times to equal the environmental profile of a plastic bag.

Bags made from organic cotton, grown without pesticides, fare even worse environmentally. Because organic cotton yields are 30 percent less than conventional cotton, they need 30 percent more water and land to produce the same amount as conventional cotton. Organic cotton bags need to be used 20,000 times to equal the environmental impact of plastic bags.

Today, another critical factor to consider is that cotton and other reusable shopping bags can carry bacteria and transfer it from home to grocery carts and checkouts and back again. One study of reusable bags discovered that they were rarely washed and as a result, bacteria were found in almost all the bags studied, with 12 percent containing E. coli. While most reusable bags are made of polypropylene, upon which COVID-19 has been shown to survive three days, so far there are no scientific findings about how long the coronavirus can survive on clothing or textiles. However, in a 2005 study of the SARS virus, another coronavirus, it survived on cotton for five minutes to one hour depending on the amount of exposure.

To be safe, wash reusable bags in warm or hot water after shopping, which can reduce the bacteria by 99.9 percent and kill COVID-19. Only use the bags for groceries and ideally, put meats into a separate bag since meat juices left in bags can enable bacteria to grow quickly. Don't leave reusable bags in the car because when it gets hot, bags become an ideal place for bacteria to grow.
The final outcome
Generally speaking, bags that are intended to last longer are made of heavier materials, so they use more resources in production and therefore have greater environmental impacts. To equal the relatively low global warming impact of plastic bags, paper and cotton bags need to be used many times; however, it's unlikely that either could survive long enough to be reused enough times to equal the plastic bag's lower impact.

Ultimately, the single use of any bag is the worst possible choice. The key to reducing your environmental impact is to use whatever bags you have around the house as many times and in as many ways as possible. It's understandable if, during this time of COVID-19, you've reverted to plastic bags to protect yourself and are probably discarding them after a one-time use. But when the risk of COVID-19 abates, remember to try to use whatever bag you choose as many times as possible. HDPE or LDPE bags can be used to store food, line wastebaskets, pick up dog poop, pack lunches, pad packages, stash wet umbrellas and in many more ways.

Cohen believes that the important issue isn't so much the specific environmental impact of the packaging you use, however, but what it is doing to your behavior pattern. "What's key is to get people conscious of packaging and to start thinking about closing the loop from production to consumption," he said. "We're trying to build a set of consumer behaviors that are environmentally conscious, so I wouldn't just look narrowly at the specific environmental impact of the form of packaging. I would be thinking more about what it is teaching people about being conscious of how their goods are moving around and being packed and disposed of."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plastic, Paper or Cotton: Which Shopping Bag is Best?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On March 1, New York State instituted its plastic bag ban, joining seven other states in an attempt to lessen litter, garbage in landfills, ocean pollution, and harm to marine life. March 1 was also the day that New York acknowledged its first coronavirus case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reusable vs Single-Use Water Bottles: What’s Better for The Environment? - Plastic Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Will a reusable water bottle lower your environmental footprint? In this post I will answer three main questions: The basics of comparing single-use vs reusable water bottles Before answering any questions it’s important to have context around this question of disposable vs reusable. Varying opinions on whether single-use bottles are worse or better for the … Continue reading “Reusable vs Single-Use Water Bottles: What’s Better for The Environment?”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons to Opt for Reusable Water Bottles – Project Clean Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reusable Water Bottles – Understanding the Reasons Why To Use Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of us are trying to do the right thing by constantly carrying water or stopping to buy water along our busy daily route; but we need to stop drinking water from plastic bottles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Explainer

Debates about the ethics of zoos abound - but when it comes to animal welfare, there are certainly more cons than pros.

For many people, zoos are the only chance they'll have in their entire lives to see beautiful animals native to far-flung ecosystems - lions, elephants, pandas, lemurs - the list goes on. And they're popular - over 181 million people visit a U.S. zoo every year. But zoos face criticism from animal welfare organizations and environmental activists for inhumane treatment of the animals they claim to protect. Zoos maintain that they are important aspects of conservation and education.

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of zoos? Let's take a look at the pros and cons of these controversial organizations.

What Are Some Pros and Cons of Zoos?

First, not all zoos are created equal. While it is easy to imagine animal ethics as a binary of evil and moral, zoos can vary widely on how they treat their animals, how much space they are given and how the animals are obtained. Still, most zoos tend to have the same positives and negatives overall.

Arguments Against Zoos

Poor Conditions for Animals
Animals Often Only Have Quite Limited Space
Many zoos' enclosures are too small, especially for animal species that are used to roaming, flying or swimming large distances in the wild. For example, polar bears are used to home ranges of about 1,000 square kilometers in the wild - large swaths of land and ice they enjoy exploring. In zoos, they get a couple hundred square feet.
Zoos Are Crowded
In addition to limited space, many zoos cram in as many animals as possible into the enclosures. Many visitors prefer seeing animals up close, instead of peering at them from afar, hidden in their dens or nests. This encourages zoos to increase the number of animals per exhibit, increasing the likelihood of visitors seeing animals on the move near the boundaries of the enclosure.
Animals Are Trapped in Unnatural Environments
Anyone who has visited a zoo knows the exhibits are a far cry from the natural landscape they are trying to imitate. Nearly all zoo enclosures contain fences, glass or other barriers for visitors to look through, which are inherently artificial. And the natural-seeming landscapes can sometimes be made out of astroturf, concrete or plastic.
Confinement May Alter the Behavior of Animals
The lack of space, unnatural environments and crowded conditions can directly affect the behavior of animals; most notably in the form of what's known as "stereotypy." Stereotypy is a condition in which non-human animals engage in repetitive behaviors with no apparent purpose, such as pacing for hours on end, wagging tails abnormally or picking their own fur.

The structure of zoos increases the likelihood of stereotypic behavior due to a lack of enrichment, mundane environments and boring, repetitive schedules. This prevalence of stereotypy in zoos even has its own name: "zoochosis," or psychosis caused by zoos.
'Surplus' Animals Can Be Killed
After an animal has reproduced successfully and the zoo no longer requires the animal to maintain an exhibit, the animal is deemed "surplus." At this point, the animal's welfare is no longer profitable. Zoos can sell the animal to private owners (who may keep the animal in tiny cages for amusement or kill the animal for taxidermy purposes), sell the animal to other zoos or enclosures, or "euthanize" the animal.
Animals Are Often Mistreated
Animal mistreatment is much more than hitting or beating an animal. It also includes harmful training techniques, separation from family members and forcing animals to behave in abnormal ways.

In a report from World Animal Protection, three-fourths of zoos include human-animal interactions, many of which can be very stressful or physically harmful for animals. In some extreme cases, visitors rode on the backs of animals (causing injury) or encroached on the animals' enclosure (causing stress).

Investigations into popular zoos sometimes reveal that caretakers don't always clean the exhibits frequently, leaving the animals to live near their feces. The research also reveals many zookeepers hitting animals who "misbehave," and not helping animals with injuries sustained in the enclosures. While not all animal caretakers behave this way, the reporting suggests many zoos around the world are lax with animal welfare.
Animals Don't Like Being Visited
The mere presence of human beings can negatively affect wild animals, especially in massive crowds that are common at zoos. Being bombarded by the sounds, smells and appearances of swaths of humans can trigger the stress responses of some animals. Some studies show that the number of visitors correlates with the amount of stress hormones in many animal species.
Animals Struggle to Form Connections
Many animals are highly social creatures. Elephants, lions, pigs, cows and many more species are shown to have complex connections, hierarchies and relationships with members of their own kind - especially with friends and family. However, zoo animals rarely stay with the same herd or family for their entire lives. Instead, zoos opt to transfer, sell, buy or relocate animals throughout their lifespans, making it difficult for animals to form social connections. This lack of bonding can harm the animals emotionally.
Zoos Are for Humans, Not Animals
Most zoos are for-profit enterprises, meaning they have one goal in mind: maximizing revenue. It is easy to see how making more money can come at the expense of animal welfare. For example, a zoo is unlikely to fund an exhibit expansion if it isn't cost-effective, regardless of its benefits for the animals inside. While many zookeepers form real bonds with their animal companions, the animals still exist under a for-profit, human-centered organization.
Zoos Promote Human Superiority
The aesthetic nature of zoos - animals in panopticon-like enclosures, viewed 24/7 by members of a different species - can reinforce human superiority. As moral philosopher Lori Gruen writes in her book, "visitors leave the zoo more convinced than ever of human superiority over the natural world." Of course, zoos also reinforce the idea that humans have a right to take away animals' freedom and bodily autonomy.

Zoos Don't Always Help with Conservation - Some Wild Animals Have to Be Caught to Bring Them to Zoos

Many animals in zoos are born in captivity, but that's not the case for all. Many animals are taken directly from the wild, often when they are babies, to make the transition to captivity a bit easier. At times, this is done in the name of conservation, or when a wild animal is very ill. But many zoos will take animals from the wild, or buy animals from unethical animal traders.
It's Often Not Possible to Return Animals to the Wild
Releasing an animal into the wild isn't always successful, especially if the animal has spent time in climates different from their native regions, like jungles, savannas or ice caps. Properly preparing animals for success in the wild is a multi-stage process that can require thousands of dollars - and it doesn't always work. Captive-born predator species - disadvantaged by being born and raised in an artificial environment - only have a survival rate after being released into the wild of 33 percent, according to one study. As a result, re-release is not a priority for many zoos.
Zoos Are Poorly Regulated
While there exist many laws that protect animals, such as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Endangered Species Act, they only offer minimum protections. For example, the AWA excludes entire species of animals, like mice, farmed animals, birds and all cold-blooded animals. Its "minimum" standards of care usually ensure the animals' safety, not their welfare or happiness. Many animal law experts say these regulations don't go far enough.
What Are the Pros of Having Zoos? They Can Be Important for Researchers
Biologists and zoologists can benefit from studying animals in zoos. Some breakthroughs in animal behavior and treatment, like why elephants swing their trunks or how gorillas develop heart disease, have been made possible because of zoos' ease of access. However, not all animals behave the same in captivity as they do in the wild, so not all research is possible in zoos.

Zoos Are Educational - People May Behave "Eco-friendlier" After Going To the Zoo

Zoos can kickstart individuals' interest in biodiversity, which is a critical aspect of environmental protection. Many zoos include calls to action in their exhibits, highlighting how endangered animals are being poached, driven away, or otherwise killed by human activity. This can inspire some people to behave more conscientiously. One limited survey found that 35 percent of eco-friendly people learned sustainable behavior from zoos. '
Zoos Can Help Educate Children About Animals
Zoos are a quintessential school experience for many young people. Children love learning about animals up-close in a safe environment - in fact, education is possibly the biggest advantage of modern zoos. Many programs, like school presentations, guided tours, informational exhibits, and talks with zookeepers can trigger a lifelong love of animals in children.

But zoos aren't perfect in this regard. According to a study of zoo visitors in the UK, only 34 percent of children learned more about animals at zoos (the result was slightly better when the children were given a guided tour). Worse, children did not feel empowered to help with conservation efforts after visiting a zoo. This suggests that if zoos care about education, they need to more actively reach out to schoolchildren for empowerment and education.
Going to the Zoo Is Affordable
More ethical ways of engaging with animals without removing them from their natural habitats - like whale watching, safaris, hikes, or excursions - are usually expensive or inaccessible for many people. Zoos tend to be relatively cheap for the average family that wants to learn about animals.
Conservation Zoos Can Protect Endangered Species from Extinction
Zoos often claim they can protect entire species from extinction through conservation programs that involve breeding more animals in captivity and then releasing them into the wild. This is especially important for endangered species like pandas.

While these conservation efforts are truly important, they don't represent the majority of a zoo's activities, nor are zoos leaders in conservation worldwide. At the National Zoo, for example, only one-fifth of animals are endangered. In North America, zoos only contribute about 14 percent of all animals reintroduced into the wild as part of a conservation program. Zoos also tend to focus on headline-grabbing endangered animals to bring in visitors, like pandas, elephants or tigers, as opposed to lesser-known but crucial species, like tamarins, kakapos or wombats.
Are Zoos Good or Bad for the Environment?
Zoos claim to support global biodiversity through conservation efforts like protecting endangered animals. This is somewhat true, although it varies greatly from zoo to zoo.

On the other hand, zoos are big polluters and use up lots of resources, especially energy and water. Aquariums in particular use tons and tons of water. Zoo animals also generate waste that may or may not be composted or disposed of correctly.
Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?
Given the many ways that zoos are unethical to animals, the flawed attempts to contribute to conservation, and the positioning of humans as superior to animals, many animal ethicists believe zoos should not exist - or at least, not exist in their current form.

For example, animal philosopher Dale Jamieson says in his book Ethics on the Ark that zoos primarily "alleviate our sense of guilt for what we are doing to the planet, but they do little to help the animals we are driving to extinction." He continues to argue that zoos exist for humans alone, and that it is very difficult to wave away the inherent immorality of depriving animals their liberty for the sake of human amusement.

Instead, private conservation programs can benefit endangered animals without showcasing them to the public. Animal sanctuaries, which are areas of land in which endangered and other animals are protected by humans, are also advantageous for both individual animals and global biodiversity.

Zoos do have advantages - fostering curiosity and education chief among them. But experts believe there are other ways of accomplishing these goals without resorting to zoos with tiny enclosures. Excursions, nature documentaries, safaris, local gardens, hikes, boat tours and other ways of interacting with nature don't involve taking animals out of their natural habitats.
The Bottom Line
If you do choose to visit a zoo, opt for zoos that have certifications from independent animal welfare organizations. If you are interested in animal conservation, you'd be more impactful donating to a non-zoo animal protection organization instead. And if you do want to visit animals, consider an animal sanctuary or an ethical safari, where you can see animals in their native environments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debates about the ethics of zoos abound - but when it comes to animal welfare, there are certainly more cons than pros.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animals exhibited in these facilities are subject to complete control and live in very different conditions from those in which they…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans go through hundreds of billions of plastic bags each year. In an effort to curb the number of bags being used once and then thrown away, cities around the world have instituted bans or taxes on plastic bags. But are paper or reusable bags much better for the environment? Science shows that there is not a clear answer.
Plastic Bags
A major advantage of plastic bags is that, when compared to other types of shopping bags, producing them carries the lowest environmental toll. The thin, plastic grocery store bags are most commonly made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Although production of these bags does use resources like petroleum, it results in less carbon emissions, waste, and harmful byproducts than cotton or paper bag production. Plastic bags are also relatively sturdy and reusable. Many of the studies about different bagging options that show plastic bags production demands less resources assume plastic bags are used at least twice-once coming home and once as a trash bag-and factor this into the calculations about which bags are more sustainable.

Plastic bags are recyclable, though few people recycle them. Recycling plastic bags is a difficult task; they fly away in the recycling plant and get stuck in machinery. Because of this, many cities do not offer curbside recycling for plastic bags. Instead, large-scale retailers offer bag recycling services. However these services are dependent on the consumer bringing the plastic bags back to the store.

Bags that are not recycled end up becoming litter, because they do not biodegrade. In addition to filling up landfills and becoming eyesores, plastic bags that become litter endanger many facets of the environment, including marine life and the food chain. This is because plastic bags, like all plastic materials, eventually break up into microscopic pieces, which scientists refer to as microplastics. Microplastics have been found nearly everywhere: in marine animals, farmland soil, and urban air.

Though scientists have only just begun studying the consequences of microplastic proliferation, and we do not yet know their effect on animals, humans, and the environment, scientists are concerned about how this level of plastic pollution could change our planet. The studies that found plastic bags to be less harmful to the environment than paper and reusable bags did not take effects of litter into account and instead assumed that the plastic bags would be recycled or used as trash bags.
Paper Bags
Paper bags have some advantages over plastic bags when it comes to sustainability. They are easier to recycle, and, because they are biodegradable, they can be used for purposes like composting. However, paper is very resource-heavy to produce: Manufacturing a paper bag takes about four times as much energy as it takes to produce a plastic bag, plus the chemicals and fertilizers used in producing paper bags create additional harm to the environment.

Studies have shown that, for a paper bag to neutralize its environmental impact compared to plastic, it would have to be used anywhere from three to 43 times. Since paper bags are the least durable of all the bagging options, it is unlikely that a person would get enough use out of any one bag to even out the environmental impact.

Still, the fact that paper is recyclable helps lessen its impact. In 2018, 68.1 percent of paper consumed in the United States was recovered for recycling, a percentage that has been rising in the last decade. However, because paper fibers become shorter and weaker each time the recycling process takes place, there is a limit to how many times paper can be recycled.
Reusable Bags
Reusable bags are made from many different materials, and the environmental impact of producing those materials varies widely. One study from the United Kingdom (U.K.) found that, regarding bag production, cotton bags have to be reused 131 times before they reduce their impact on climate change to the same extent as plastic bags. To have a comparable environmental footprint (which encompasses climate change as well as other environmental effects) to plastic bags, a cotton bag potentially has to be used thousands of times. Materials other than cotton, however, perform much better in sustainability metrics. Nonwoven polypropylene (PP) is another popular option. Made from a more durable kind of plastic, these bags need to be reused around eleven times to break even with the impact of conventional plastic.

In addition to varying widely in their eco-friendliness, there is the chance that reusable bags go unused, because consumers have to remember to bring the bags with them to the store. The biggest positive of reusable bags is that their use cuts down on the amount of litter on land and in the ocean. Studies have found that bans on plastic bags in cities in the United States and Europe have decreased the amount of plastic litter in nearby waters.
Things to Consider
Because reusable and paper bags have a huge environmental cost upfront, and plastic bags create greater negative effects after being used, it is hard to determine which type of bag is truly the most sustainable. Regardless of whether the bag is plastic, paper, or another material, the most sustainable choice is the bag you already have. In every study and for every type of bag, it was clear that reusing the bag as many times as you can reduces its impact on the environment. Overall, making the effort to reuse any bag that comes into your possession, and disposing of the bag responsibly, is key.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Though you may have heard reusable bags are always best, recent studies show a much more complicated picture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Poaching is illegal hunting, killing, capturing or taking of wildlife violating local or international wildlife conservation laws. Animal poaching endangers not only the population of targeted animals but also other animals in their ecosystem, as it often disrupts the essential balance of nature within a healthy biome.

Poaching can cause populations to drastically plummet, ultimately resulting in extinction. The ripple effect can also imperil other flora and fauna existing within the same biome. Humans are the stewards of the natural world. It is our responsibility to protect wild areas and the animal and plant life that live within their boundaries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poaching is illegal hunting, killing, capturing or taking of wildlife violating local or international wildlife conservation laws. Learn what you can do to help us stop the poaching of wildlife.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wildlife crime is one of the largest criminal enterprises in the world. Poaching, which is one form of wildlife crime, is one of the biggest threats many animals around the world face. Some well-known examples of animals that are poached are elephants for their ivory tusks and rhinos for their horns, but there are many lesser-known examples as well.

The definition of poaching is not always made clear. In simple terms, poaching is defined as the illegal hunting or capture of animals that are not one's own. Let's take a deeper dive into what poaching is and how it impacts animals around the world.

What does poaching mean?

Poaching is the illegal hunting or capture of animals that are not one's own. In many cases, poaching involves killing animals with the intent to acquire their meat, horns, scales, or other body parts. In other cases, poaching involves the live capture of animals, which are then trafficked for the illegal exotic pet trade, for use in entertainment or tourism, and for other exploitative purposes such as the extraction of bile from bears.

Any species that is protected by law or belongs to someone could be a victim of poaching. It's not just animals that are poached-plants can be poached, too. Some trees are poached for their timber, and some smaller plants, like Venus flytraps, are poached and traded commercially for decorative purposes.

Poaching can also include fish and other aquatic or marine animals. In maritime law, poaching refers to illegal fishing or hunting in the water. Fishing may be illegal in certain areas due to restrictions placed in territorial waters by specific nations, or it may be illegal to hunt certain fish species at specific times of the year or in numbers greater than determined quotas.

Why does poaching happen?

There are a number of reasons why poaching exists. Demand for animals and their parts is at the root of the issue-if no one sought out poached species, there would be no reason for poachers to hunt or capture them in the first place.

This demand arises for several reasons. First of all, many animals are poached for bushmeat, which is defined as the meat from wildlife species that are hunted for human consumption. Bushmeat comes from a variety of sources, including apes, monkeys, pangolins, snakes, and giraffes. In some remote areas, bushmeat is the only reliable source of protein for people. This means many communities rely on the hunting of wild animals. This hunting is often done illegally, so it is considered poaching.

Poaching also happens in the ocean for similar reasons. Many fish species have depleted populations that won't rebound if they continue to be hunted in large numbers, so countries place restrictions on hunting them at certain times of the year or above a certain quota. However, fish are an important protein source in many communities, so illegal fishing is a common occurrence. Sea turtle eggs are also often taken illegally for food.

There is also demand for animal and plant parts in traditional medicine. In some cultures, certain animal parts-such as elephant ivory or tiger bone-are believed to hold medicinal value. They are often ground into powders and combined with other ingredients, and these substances are used to treat various ailments. Animal parts may also be used as aphrodisiacs or as dietary supplements for other purposes.

Many animals are poached so their parts can be used for decorative or ceremonial purposes. Tiger skins, for example, are considered a luxury decorative item in some cultures. Ivory from elephants is used in dagger handles, carvings, and other types of ornamentation-in the past, it has also been used to make piano keys. Some species of fish, mammals, and reptiles are poached to make clothing, shoes, and handbags. Often, the use of animal parts in luxury items is considered a symbol of high status.

The poaching of live animals is often driven by the exotic pet trade. Many wild animals, including primates, big cats, turtles, birds, frogs, and others, are prized highly as pets, despite the dangers they pose to humans. Because they are not domesticated, these animals have needs that typically cannot be met in captivity. Their care is expensive, and they can easily outlive a dog or cat, with some exotic pets even outliving their owners. In trade, these animals are often badly treated, and many die in the process. Many animals are poached for the pet trade when they are very young, and this often involves the slaughter of their parents, such as in the case of orangutans.

Besides demand, another cause of poaching is the needs of poachers themselves. It's a complex issue, as many poachers rely on it as a source of income, especially in places that are impacted by drought, poverty, and human-wildlife conflict.

Compounding the issue, there is often a lack of funding for measures that could prevent poaching, such as the creation and maintenance of protected areas and a lack of support for wildlife rangers.

How is poaching done?

Poaching is done through a variety of means. It is typically a highly organized crime involving large international networks of people. Animals and their parts are trafficked similarly to how drugs, weapons, and people are trafficked.

Some poachers use weapons to directly attack animals, while others set traps or snares. Often, traps and snares impact animals that aren't the direct targets of poachers. The live capture of animals often results in the deaths of non-target animals, such as a young ape's parents.

What is the history of poaching?

Before the 20th century, in feudal Europe, the upper-class landowners banned hunting on their properties for all individuals except themselves. Lower-class peasants, who typically did not have any land, illegally hunted on these properties for subsistence, meaning they relied on it as a protein source. Poaching became a serious crime with harsh punishments, as the landowners did not want their game supply depleted.

Nowadays, poaching is typically done for sport or for profit. Rather than individuals hunting for subsistence, poaching is most often performed by large, highly-organized international criminal networks. Poached animals and their parts are trafficked around the world, and since the rise of the Internet, wildlife trafficking now occurs online, too.

Why is poaching an issue?

Poaching becomes a major problem when it reaches unsustainable levels, meaning more animals are being killed or taken out of the wild than can be replaced. This threatens the survival of animal and plant species, many of which are already vulnerable or endangered.

Not only does poaching pose an existential threat to individual species, but it also threatens global biodiversity. We need biodiversity to have a healthy planet and to support the strength and functioning of ecosystems everywhere. As humans, we also rely on biodiversity, as animals, plants, and other organisms to provide vital ecosystem services like food, water, soil, and clean air. Preserving biodiversity is crucial for capturing carbon and mitigating climate change.

Poaching is also an animal welfare issue. It's incredibly painful and traumatizing for an animal to have its tusks or antlers cut off, to be ripped away from its family, or to witness the death of its parents. Experiences like these, even if the animal does survive, can affect it for the rest of its life.

Poaching doesn't just kill individual animals. It also destroys the lives of non-target animals, harms their ecosystems, and threatens the wildlife rangers who work to protect them.

How can we stop poaching?

Ending poaching requires the participation of governments, parks, corporations, international organizations, and communities.

Strengthening enforcement is one key way to stop poaching. IFAW works with local communities and wildlife rangers, providing training, mentorship, equipment, and infrastructure to wildlife authorities, border agents, and other law enforcement officials. We also gather and analyse information about criminal networks and support the planning of law enforcement operations by government officials.

In the long term, it's also necessary to reduce demand for wild animals and their parts. We do so by educating communities about the illegal wildlife trade, the dangers of exotic pets, and how to avoid the products that result from poaching.

Additionally, IFAW works to disrupt wildlife cybercrime. This can only be done with the cooperation of large technology companies and governments. We're working to catch cybercriminals and make it more difficult for them to trade wildlife and their parts online.

We also work to shape policy surrounding wildlife protection around the world. Many countries may have laws or protected areas in place to protect animals, but they don't direct enough funds towards enforcing these protections. In addition to working in source countries, we also perform policy work in trafficking hubs and consumer countries to deter the demand for poached animals.

As one root cause of poaching is a need for income, IFAW also works with communities to find alternative, wildlife-friendly livelihoods, and we educate communities on the importance of wildlife and biodiversity.

Lastly, we support those who work on the front lines to combat poaching before it occurs. Wildlife rangers have incredibly dangerous jobs. They do the necessary work to prevent animals from being hunted or caught in snares. IFAW provides support to wildlife rangers to improve their lives, which in turn saves the lives of countless wild animals.

every problem has a solution, every solution needs support.

The problems we face are urgent, complicated, and resistant to change. Real solutions demand creativity, hard work, and involvement from people like you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poaching, which is one form of wildlife crime, is one of the biggest threats many animals around the world face.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here’s how many times you need to reuse your reusable grocery bags | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you using a cotton tote or heavy-duty plastic bag for your shopping? The answer to what’s the greenest replacement for a single-use plastic bag isn’t straightforward but it boils down to this: Reuse whatever bags you already have, as many times as you can.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
G7-R-Information-Telling Plastic to Bag It (2015)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no denying that plastic has become demonised. What must've been hailed as a miracle product when it went mainstream in the 1950s is now an environmental nightmare. And quite rightly so - we're all aware of the downsides to the convenience culture of plastic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are Some Advantages of Bottled Water?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While some people might argue that it’s silly to spend money on something you can get for…

# 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.headline
Are there animal care problems at National Zoo?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are there animal care problems at National Zoo?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ CBS News

WASHINGTON - The National Zoo has a reputation as a leader in animal care, science and cute photo opportunities such as the naming of Bao Bao the baby panda earlier this month.

But a CBS News investigation has learned that behind the scenes, there are insider allegations of mismanagement involving animal care. Five sources with more than 35 years' combined experience at the National Zoo have raised concerns to CBS News about recent animal injuries, deaths and escapes.

The sources don't want to be identified for fear of retaliation. They say problems began last year when the zoo decided to double the population of the Cheetah Conservation Station, adding a half dozen new species but no extra space. Besides cheetahs, the CCS also houses zebras, gazelles and other species.

CBS News asked animal biologist and ethicist Marc Bekoff to look at the complaints. He was an independent reviewer of a 2005 National Academy of Sciences investigation of the zoo that found "systemic problems at the highest levels."

Of the newly raised issues, Bekoff said: "I call it 'fetch and pray.' You get the animals and then you pray that the project will work out."

The CCS' new animal mix didn't always work out. Issues identified by the zoo sources include two newly acquired hornbill birds that were kept in an indoor shack for seven months because their exhibit yard wasn't ready. Only after a volunteer complained were the birds allowed in an outdoor space. But the wallaby that had to share its yard with these new arrivals became frightened, according to sources, bloodied its nose and spent much of its time frightened and hiding.

One of two new red river hogs quickly became malnourished and died of an infection. The other hog, along with oryxes and sitatungas (two types of antelopes), sometimes became overly aggressive when mixed together, and some were injured in vicious fights.

It's not unusual for animals to spar, but the zoo sources say management failed to predict easily foreseeable conflicts between species and genders, and had ineffective backup plans for separating and protecting the animals when the conflicts arose.

"It's no surprise to me as a field biologist that so many of them do not work out," Bekoff told CBS News. "They're just too hastily put together and they're not well thought through."

Zoo spokeswoman Pamela Baker-Masson says the National Zoo meets the highest industry standards and the animals always receive the best care.

"We take great care in introducing our animals to these various habitats and transitioning them. Ideally, these things wouldn't happen, of course," said Baker-Masson. "I think my colleagues were very well aware and they know these species and they know how to take care of these species. ... Every single animal has a very specific course of action and a plan."

Bekoff says the zoo's plans appear to have been inadequate. "They should only be able to get the animals when it can be shown that they can properly house them and care for them."

Two animals in the CCS, a Dama gazelle and a pregnant kudu (another type of antelope), died when they got spooked on separate occasions and ran into barriers in their confined spaces, breaking their necks.

The gazelle death happened last month after a zebra attacked a veteran zookeeper. The commotion apparently frightened the gazelle, which is on the endangered species list. Zoo sources say it wasn't found for hours. The pregnant kudu died last June. Zoo sources say as the animal lay suffering with a broken neck, workers were unable to quickly locate necessary veterinary records.

Baker-Masson says Dama gazelles and kudus are skittish animals by nature and were housed in adequate spaces that met the requirements of the American Zoological Association, which recently re-accredited the facility.

As for the hornbill birds that were keep indoors for eight months, Baker-Masson says the space was "more than adequate and it gave the staff a very good amount of time to prepare and work with the hornbills" but "ideally they would have [had] access to their outdoor yard space more quickly."

Bekoff calls the lengthy indoor confinement "totally unacceptable."

"There's not one single excuse that I would accept," he said. "Basically this is a form of animal abuse and animal neglect. ...They get an 'F' in this project.'

Zoo sources also expressed concern about two escapes from the CCS: a vulture whose wings were allegedly not properly clipped and a red panda who managed to climb out of its exhibit. Both animals were later recaptured and zoo officials say the failures that allowed the escapes have been fixed.

CBS News has learned that the zoo convened a task force last summer to investigate the internal complaints about animal care at the CCS. The task force made findings last August and Baker-Masson says some of its recommendations are already being implemented.

Zoo officials refused CBS News' repeated requests to release the task force report even though, under public records law, it's considered public material.

As to why the National Zoo is withholding the information, Baker-Masson provided a number of rationales. First, she said that the task force report was still only a draft, four months after it was scheduled to be completed. However, when CBS News asked for the draft, she would not provide that either.

Later, in an interview, Baker-Masson said that the task force report is finished, but that the zoo isn't ready to release it.

"We're more than happy to [release the task force report]," Baker-Masson told CBS News. "But we have to do it in a thorough and process-oriented way that makes sense."

She acknowledged that some of the concerns investigated were founded.

"Absolutely," Baker-Masson said. "Anytime a concern is raised, it's looked at very seriously and we have to examine, you know, what changes are appropriate for that particular species, what changes are appropriate for the staff, what changes are appropriate for the facility itself. So yes, absolutely, some changes have been made."

Another incident the zoo is keeping mum about is the November zebra attack on the zookeeper. Baker-Masson says that AZA standards require that there always be a barrier between a keeper and zebras, which can inflict serious bite wounds. But the zoo says three weeks after the attack, it still has not identified how the zebra got to the keeper and it would not release the incident report or other public information about it. The injured zookeeper was recently released after several weeks in the hospital.

Sharyl Attkisson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are there animal care problems at National Zoo?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Behind the scenes, there are insider allegations of mismanagement involving animals at famed D.C. facility

# 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
Smithsonian's National Zoo: We Save Species

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