Should zoos be banned for the sake of animals?

(*) Arguments:
1. Zoos are conducting valuable research
- Zoos are key for research. Being able to observe and study animals is crucial if
we want to contribute to help them and repair the ecosystems. They also help in
reducing human-animal conflicts and in better understanding the needs and
psychology of animals. Zoos serve as laboratories to learn more about how to
fight animal diseases and develop effective animal anaesthetics and other
treatments to help more animals in the future. Because so many diseases can be
transmitted from animals to humans, such as COVID-19, 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. If zoos are banned, we might not be able to conduct such
research anymore, negatively influencing our ability to find cures to diseases and
tackle issues.
2. Any species of animals living in zoos or wildlife parks to have a quality of life as
high as, or higher than, in the wild. When animals live in the wild, they may not
get all the nutrients they need with the food they can find. They might spend too
much time hunting prey or searching for fruits and need more than they find.
Environmental factors affecting their food supply, like natural disasters or
overhunting, will also change how the animals eat and develop. Animals in good
zoos get a varied and high-quality diet with all the supplements required, and any
illnesses they might have will be treated. Their movement might be somewhat
restricted, but they have a safe environment in which to live, and they are spared
bullying and social ostracism by others of their kind. They do not suffer from the
threat or stress of predators, or the irritation and pain of parasites or injuries. The
average captive animal will have a greater life expectancy compared with its wild
counterpart, and will not die of drought, of starvation or in the jaws of a predator.
A lot of very nasty things happen to truly ‘wild’ animals that simply don’t happen
in good zoos, and to view a life that is ‘free’ as one that is automatically ‘good’ is,
an error.
3. Zoos all across the world have embraced the purpose Anof saving endangered
species since ecological conservation first became a topic of public awareness in
the 1970s. The brutal animal management of the middle ages is not like zoos.
Although they seek to entertain, they care deeply about the preservation and
protection of animals and their natural environments. In addition to giving
endangered animals a haven, they support conservation programs and research
projects by increasing public awareness and funding. As a result, zoos inform the
public about animals while also doing their part to preserve a variety of species.
Additionally, in zoos, they are secure and don't have to worry about poachers.
Zoos shouldn't be outlawed, but rather measures should be implemented to
expand the size of the enclosures and create a forest-like environment so that
 the animals can adapt more easily like the San Diego zoo. In reality, many
species would already be extinct if zoos were prohibited.
4. There are numerous breeding efforts for endangered animals in specialized zoos
which help these individuals find partners and avoid becoming extinct. I want to
mention 2 examples of this. Firstly, according to Wild Welfare, Los Angeles Zoo
and San Diego Zoo were able to increase the endangered California condor
population from less than two dozen birds to about 170 after ten years of hard
work to do so. The Pere David's deer was formerly thought to be extinct but was
saved by effective breeding operations. Secondly, the same organization stated
that despite the fact that this Asian deer went extinct in the wild, Chinese and
European zoo initiatives allowed for the 1985 release of four of these animals,
where they now thrive. Therefore, zoo is not only the destination for amusement,
this is a ideal place to help some endangered species rehabilitate which
contributes to biodiversity.
5. Zoos can be a safer place for animals that have been mistreated in circus. At the
zoos, they could have a better living conditions, receive good care from
zookeepers and even have the chance to be adopted. The ZSL London Zoo and
Whipsnade Zoo in United Kingdom launched an adoption programme which
allow people to adopt various types of animals including elephants, sloths, tigers
etc. By adopting an animal, visitors support ZSL’s conservation efforts.
Additionally, adopters can upgrade their adoption to receive a ticket to the zoo or
a cuddly soft toy. This means so much to wildlife as it has been under such
threat, with threats including deforestation, habitat destruction, illegal wildlife
trade and poaching. Therefore, animal adoptions are a great way to give a win-
win which helps wildlife, as well as helps ZSL to remain good care for animals in
the zoo. With such intriguing adoption programs from zoos, I think zoos should
not be banned as animals could still take advantages from them.

(*) Counter arguments:

1. Zoos can be detrimental to the animals' psychological health.
2. Zoos make wild animals lose their natuaral distinction.
3. Being imprisoned can affect animal’s behavior.