Seeing exotic animals behind cages or glass walls at the zoo, watching Shamu do flips for a fish at SeaWorld, and laughing as elephants perform tricks at the circus are all entertaining, but is our entertainment worth the suffering these animals endure behind the scenes? The answer is no. The billions of animals that are subjected to abuse outweigh any claimed benefits that can be made of these businesses. The debate of zoos and parks being ethical or unethical has two main arguments, these being the animal abuse involved and the supposed benefits.
Evidence suggests that captive animals suffer both psychological and physical abuse. For example, being confined in small areas with no privacy offers animals little opportunity for mental and physical exercise, thus resulting in “zoochosis” (“Zoos”). Zoochosis characterizes the obsessive and repetitive behaviors shown by animals; these include pacing, swaying, overgrooming, vomiting, and even self-mutilation (Good). Not only does zoochosis cause psychological problems, it can also cause physical abnormalities. Orcas, for example, typically experience dorsal fin collapse from constantly swimming in circles (Bekoff).
In addition to zoochosis, the tiny pools dolphins live in expose them to the excessive concentration of sounds, causing them to become deaf (Choo). Another form of unfair treatment is to animals who naturally live in large herds or family groups. These animals are kept alone or in pairs, making them susceptible to depression as well as neurotic behavior (“Zoos”). Evidence of depression among captive held animals is ubiquitous, but hidden from the public by zoo and park officials. Some businesses, like Scarborough Sea Life Centre, have come to an all time low with their desperate attempt to hide the unhappy animals surrounding them.
It has been reported that penguins there are on antidepressants (“Times”). The most obvious examples of neurotic behavior are the attacks on humans. Most people believe these attacks are due to the animals wild nature, but according to Jeff Ventre, fatal attacks “are manifestations of stress, even madness, in animals forced into miserable, unnatural conditions” (Bekoff). Studies have shown that captive chimps and elephants display behavior similar to PTSD along with depression (Bekoff). Experts, scientists, and researchers say, “taking elephants from the wild is not only traumatic for them, it is also detrimental to their health….
We believe the time has come to consider them as sentient beings and not as so much money on the hoof to be captured and sold and displayed for our own use” (“Zoos”). Because most zoos and parks are accredited by the Animal Welfare Act, one would think this would ensure the safety and fair treatment of the animals; however, it does not. To be approved by the Animal Welfare Act, you must only meet minimum standards, which are very much below what they should be (“Arguments”). For example, a gorilla at the Dallas Zoo escaped from his cage after having rocks thrown at him by teenagers.
The gorilla was then fatally shot (“Zoos”). At the Virginia Zoo, ten prairie dogs were killed when a tunnel in their exhibit collapsed on top of them (“Zoos”). A chimpanzee named Edith from the Saint Louis Zoo was passed to five different businesses after her third birthday; later, she was found hairless in a filthy concrete pit living off of rotten produce and dog food at a roadside attraction zoo in Texas (“Zoos”). At the Toledo Zoo, a bear starved to death after zoo officials locked her up to hibernate without food or water (“Times”).
It is also common for the wings of birds to be clipped so they cannot fly and escape their exhibits (“Zoos”). If the Animal Welfare Act had higher standards and was taken more seriously, these atrocities would not be happening. Zoos and parks are nothing more than big businesses run by people with no concern for the wellbeing of the animals involved; these businesses have been known to trade, sell, loan, barter, and even kill adult animals because once their cuteness runs out, feeding them is just money that could be spent on purchasing a new baby animal (“Zoos”).
There is one report of a giraffe who was killed and then fed to the lions after outliving his “usefulness” (“Times”). It is also fact that the Chinese government rents pandas to zoos worldwide and makes billions of dollars from it, none of which is donated to panda conservations (“Zoos”). Not to mention zoo officials have been pressuring the federal government to adjust the Endangered Species Act to make it easier for them to capture and import animals (“Zoos”). Despite the evidence suggesting the harmful effects of zoo life, people still believe the benefits compensate for the harm.
One of the most known claimed benefits of zoos is that they help protect endangered species through breeding programs (“Arguments”). However, it turns out that most animals kept in zoos are actually not endangered, and the few that are will most likely never be released back into the wild; instead, they will be kept in cages for entertainment along with their inbred children (“Zoos”). Even if zoos or parks tried to release an animal back into the wild, the animal would not survive very long because they are never taught how to hunt for food (Choo).
For example, Willy the orca was captured in Iceland when he was only two years old. After being tossed through several aquariums, he was reintroduced into the ocean, but he died shortly after because he was not taught how to survive (“Killers”). A survey of 4,500 elephants from both the wild and captivity found that the median lifespan of an elephant in the wild is 56 years, but only 16. 9 years for those in captivity (“Zoos”). It is also believed that many other animals in captivity have shorter life spans than those of the same species in the wild (“Zoos”).
Another false claim defending keeping animals in captivity is that zoos and parks educate the public on wild animals (“Zoos”), but is it really a wild animal if it is not in the wild? Wild female chimpanzees learn nurturing skills from their mothers, but chimpanzees in captivity without a mother are unable to do so; instead, they adapt to more human ways (Choo). The only lesson being taught by these businesses is that it is acceptable to remove an animal from its natural habitat and selfishly use it for human entertainment (“Arguments”).
Some have argued that if taking advantage of animals’ intelligence by keeping them in cages and forcing them to do tricks gives any value of education or entertainment, it is ethical because humans are a more superior species (“Arguments”), but what makes humans superior? Professor Maciej Henneberg from the School of Medical Sciences, says, “The fact that they may not understand us, while we do not understand them, does not mean our ‘intelligences’ are at different levels, they are just of different kinds.
When a foreigner tries to communicate with us using an imperfect, broken, version of our language, our impression is that they are not very intelligent. But the reality is quite different” (“Humans”). So, contrary to popular belief, humans are actually not superior to other animals. Given these points, we can conclude that zoos, parks, and other aspects of the animal trading business, are not ethical and should be stopped. The abuse and inhumane tendencies of zoos support the claim that keeping wild animals in captivity is completely unethical and should not be done.
Ending these businesses not only benefits the animals, it also benefits humans; although some don’t like to admit it, humans need these animals, and keeping them in cages is not the way to save them. Animal sanctuaries are a perfect and healthy alternative to zoos. Sanctuaries have shown no evidence of animal abuse, they do not buy, sell, or trade animals for profit, and they keep the animals in better than quality environments while rehabilitating them (“Arguments”). After rehabilitation, animals are reintroduced into the wild with great success of survival.