A List of Arguments For and Against Zoos

A List of Arguments For and Against Zoos Not all animal rights activists love animals. Some respect them because they understand animals have a place in the world. Zoos, especially the ones that are doing everything right, present a special challenge to the animal-loving advocates because they would like to see and interact with the animals. Zoos and Animal Rights Zoo advocates argue that they save endangered species and educate the public, but many  animal rights activists believe the costs outweigh the benefits, and the violation of the rights of the individual animals is unjustifiable. Roadside zoos, petting zoos, and smaller animal exhibitors tend to offer inadequate space for the animals, keeping them in pens or cages. Sometimes, barren concrete and metal bars are all a tiger or bear will know for their entire lives. Larger, accredited zoos try to distance themselves from these operations by touting how well the animals are treated, but to animal rights activists, the issue not how well the animals are treated, but whether we have a right to confine them for our amusement or education. grass-lifeisgood / Getty Images Arguments For Zoos By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of the animals. This exposure and education motivate people to protect the animals.Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation, and predators.Many zoos also have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding.Reputable zoos are accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and are held to high standards for the treatment of the animals. According to the AZA, accreditation means, official recognition and approval of a zoo or aquarium by a group of experts.A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.Zoos are a tradition, and a visit to a zoo is a wholesome, family activity.Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more memorable experienc e than seeing that animal in a nature documentary. Some would argue that humans have little, if any duty to non-human animals because humans are more important, and if keeping animals in zoos serves any educational or entertainment purposes, it serves a purpose to the humans, even if that purpose is not beneficial for the 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 care. Long Zhiyong / Getty Images Arguments Against Zoos From an animal rights standpoint, we do not have a right to breed, capture and confine other animals, even if they are endangered. Being a member of an endangered species doesnt mean the individual animals have fewer rights.Animals in captivity suffer from stress, boredom, and confinement. Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals get sold or traded to other zoos, and no pen or even drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild.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, canned hunting facilities, and even for slaughter.Some zoos just kill their surplus animal outright.The vast majority of captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring are forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, petting zoos, and exotic pet trade that buy, sell and barter animals among themselves and exploit animals. Ned the Asian elephant was born at an accredited zoo, but later confiscated from an abusive circus trainer and finally sent to a sanctuary. Removing individuals from the wild will further endanger the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and will have more difficulty finding mates.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 takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.If zoos are teaching children anything, its that imprisoning animals for our own entertainment is acceptable.The argument that children will have more compassion animals they can see life does not hold water. Not one of todays children has ever seen a dinosaur, yet kids are crazy about them.At least one study has shown that elephants kept in zoos do not live as long as elephants 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, will not free the animals. Sanctuaries also rehabilitate wildlife and take in unwanted exotic pets, without breeding, buying and selling animals like zoos do.Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. There have even been incidents of zoo animals eating other zoo animals. In the case of zoos, both sides will argue that their side saves animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they certainly do make money. As long as there is demand for zoos, they will continue to exist. We can start by making sure that zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals who are confined to them.

Free Essays on Two Observations

â€Å"Two Observations† In the essays â€Å"Observing Wolves† and â€Å"First Observations†, we are taken into the minds of two writer’s perspective on their animal subjects. Though both Farley Mowatt and Jane van Lawick-Goodall have similarly isolated themselves in the wilderness in the hope of achieving a higher understanding, their methods, perspective, and observations show two vastly different approaches. The preceding, in conjunct with their two completely different writing styles, shows us a glimpse of nature from practically opposite angles. The two writers began their examinations differently right away. In â€Å"Observing Wolves†, Farley Mowatt expressed care and caution but trying not to get in the way of the wolves so as not to disturb â€Å"the even tenor of their lives too much† (237). He wanted to completely enter their world - but gradually. However, this respect was not demonstrated further into the essay when he attempted to get the animal’s attention by challenging their boundaries. In Jane van Lawick-Goodall’s â€Å"First Observations†, the narrator approached the chimpanzees more objectively. Her first impression of the primates was of their simplicity, but her reaction as she became familiar with them showed a growing awe for the them. Her portrayal of the animals and the jungle in her essay, as well as her careful observations, further showed her fascination and respect. In both essays, the reader could easily expect a different reaction from the observers based o n their thesis’ but are led somewhere completely different. In â€Å"Observing Wolves†, the narrator focused more on his feelings in relationship to the animals. His observations were more light-hearted, yet there was an underlying intensity shown in his admiration of the wolves and his eagerness to identify with them. The humor and expressiveness of his writing makes the story interesting and exciting; even for a reader with no knowledg... Free Essays on Two Observations Free Essays on Two Observations â€Å"Two Observations† In the essays â€Å"Observing Wolves† and â€Å"First Observations†, we are taken into the minds of two writer’s perspective on their animal subjects. Though both Farley Mowatt and Jane van Lawick-Goodall have similarly isolated themselves in the wilderness in the hope of achieving a higher understanding, their methods, perspective, and observations show two vastly different approaches. The preceding, in conjunct with their two completely different writing styles, shows us a glimpse of nature from practically opposite angles. The two writers began their examinations differently right away. In â€Å"Observing Wolves†, Farley Mowatt expressed care and caution but trying not to get in the way of the wolves so as not to disturb â€Å"the even tenor of their lives too much† (237). He wanted to completely enter their world - but gradually. However, this respect was not demonstrated further into the essay when he attempted to get the animal’s attention by challenging their boundaries. In Jane van Lawick-Goodall’s â€Å"First Observations†, the narrator approached the chimpanzees more objectively. Her first impression of the primates was of their simplicity, but her reaction as she became familiar with them showed a growing awe for the them. Her portrayal of the animals and the jungle in her essay, as well as her careful observations, further showed her fascination and respect. In both essays, the reader could easily expect a different reaction from the observers based o n their thesis’ but are led somewhere completely different. In â€Å"Observing Wolves†, the narrator focused more on his feelings in relationship to the animals. His observations were more light-hearted, yet there was an underlying intensity shown in his admiration of the wolves and his eagerness to identify with them. The humor and expressiveness of his writing makes the story interesting and exciting; even for a reader with no knowledg...

Assisted Suicide Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Assisted Suicide - Essay Example Kevin is in the hospital suffering from mouth cancer and has been told by many doctors that he will not survive for many days. He is suffering from extreme pain which is unbearable without medications. He urges his family members to help him get relieved of the pain. Moreover it is also learned that his cancer is untreatable and he would die soon or late even if the medications are continued. It is in this situation that the possibility of assisted suicide is taken into consideration by the family members and John. Now it is for them to decide as to if to carry out the process or not. John wants the process to go ahead so that he can die easily. In my belief this situation can only be handled by assisted suicide so that his pain can be relieved. In my belief assisted suicide should be made legal for those people who are mentally sound to make decisions. It is the last moments of life which put people in a terrible condition that they are forced to take decisions which would take thei r life. In these conditions it should be analyzed as to if these individuals have a normal state of mind or not. As time passes by it is seen that individual rights have been understood and in my belief it is the right of an individual to decide as to if he has to choose between death and life. It is entirely the decision of the person involved because he feels all the pain and agony. When a person cannot bear this pain he can opt for assisted suicide in my belief. Assisted suicide is the best option for these kinds of patients because they can help in other ways too. The hospital in which these patients are admitted may be on life support for many days before dying naturally. It is better to put them through this phase of life as it would make way for other patients in better conditions to get the quality care. Hence the resources would not be wasted if assisted suicide is opted for in these situations (Quaghebeur et al 2009). However on the other hand I also argue that the patient s who do not have a normal state of mind should not be allowed to undergo this process. The state of mind of the patients can be checked by seeing if the person responds to other things normally too. The critics of Euthanasia have other concerns as they believe that following this practice may divert the professionals from their original line of work. The doctors and physicians were supposedly the ones who saved the lives of people and provided them the hope of living their lives and providing them with the best possible forms of treatment. Their function is not to kill them out of mercy. So if a doctor or physician carries out such a practice then he is disobeying the rules set out for him in this field (Mengal et al 2002). I agree with Wolf’s view after she is considering her views on assisted suicide. She saw her own father’s death and realized the suffering of death. She is right in considering about her opinions on assisted suicide. However if the other point of v iew regarding assisted suicide is taken into consideration it can be concluded that Susan Wolf is wrong in her plea. In many cases it is seen that people after suffering from immense agony and pain do recover. This can be the case for many people and assisted suicide should be discouraged if this view is kept in mind. On the other hand considering the views about civil liberties one can conclude that assisted suicide should be made legal and everyone should be allowed to seek the option if they want to. Susan Wolf has the right to consider her views about assisted suicide as