Disadvantages Of Keeping Animals In Captivity

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without zoos? Would animals have more freedom and prosper? From my perspective, they would. Some might say that zoos and captivity organizations help save endangered species and can provide a source of entertainment and education, but the benefits of keeping animals in zoos, circuses, and the like are far outweighed by the disadvantages and drawbacks. In my opinion, animals should not be taken into captivity because of their inhumane treatment, lack of natural freedom, and lackluster regulations to defend them.

First, I believe animals should stay in the wild because of their inhumane treatment while in captivity. This can be seen in many forms. In his article “Zoos: Myth and Reality,” the author

I can remember traveling to a zoo when I was younger and seeing animals in small, confined exhibits. When I asked about the amount of space and freedom they had, I was told that they were living in perfectly realistic natural environments. However, after my research, I am now aware of the truth. The truth is that many animals in captivity do not have adequate space to move and interact with their environment as they would in the wild. Animals need this space so they can live and thrive similar to their wild counterparts. SeaWorld’s orca pools and holding areas are clear examples of this lack of freedom, with the pools being much too small and sterile to fit the orcas’ needs, which has caused boredom, agitation, and violent behavior within the whales there (Blackfish). In addition, Laidlaw also points out that “…many new exhibits are hardly larger than the sterile, barred cages of days gone by.” when referring to the supposed “advances” made in the zoo industry’s enclosures compared to the ones of yesteryear. In summary, the second reason I think animals should not be in captivity is because of their insufficient natural