top of page
  • 執筆者の写真Yuko

Ban the zoo vs The necessity of zoos

It is estimated that there are at least 400 zoos across the globe and almost all of them have been the object of much discussion. However, whether or not zoos should exist is unclear, some claim that zoos don’t support education while others believe that zoos surely could step into the role of conservation of animals on the brink of extinction. I believe that we could live happily without zoos, they are superfluous to our needs and their educational, conservational value could be fulfilled in other ways.

The first text maintains an opposing position towards the presence of zoos and suggests that wild animals should be free to roam in nature and not be bound in limited space. Furthermore, unhappy or mentally unhealthy animals are unsatisfactory objects for academic study. However, the text didn't express unfortunately endangered species on the planet.

By contrast, the second text mainly focuses on those pitiful wild animals which are on the point of extinction due to the irresponsibility of human beings and, consequently, we should take responsibility for keeping zoos, not only to protect that kind of life but also to gather real scientific information. But, disappointingly, it lacks observation concerning how zoos should maintain their standards.

Taking these two texts into consideration, I am of the opinion that neither would zoos positively cultivate our academic field nor should they intentionally invade into the field of wildlife preservation. Considering the enormous amount of labour and money to imitate a perfect natural environment for various kinds of animals in a zoo, wildlife must be in nature. Overwhelming protection is not natural or effective anymore.

Nevertheless, some measures have to be taken to stop acts of destruction against endangered species, for instance, by enforcing laws to protect the natural environment, cracking down on poachers or forbidding tourism.





bottom of page