Some people think that man-made Zoos should not exist in the 21st century. Do you agree or disagree?
There are several arguments against confining animals to cages and other small enclosures just for the sake of keeping human visitors entertained. Animal rights activists have always insisted that zoos should be banned. I certainly agree with this view.
It is true that zoos provide education and entertainment. Both children and adults enjoy visiting zoos because they provide an opportunity to see wild animals without having to go the jungle. After all, not everybody can go on an African safari to see lions, rhinoceros or hippopotamuses. But this is hardly a justification for keeping animals in zoos. Man has no right to capture them and imprison them in small enclosures.
Wild animals thrive in the wilderness. Any attempt to remove them from their natural habitat for keeping people entertained is unethical. Instead of building zoos, the government should develop wild life sanctuaries and national parks. The general public interested in seeing animals can go on guided jungle safaris. The thrill that one experiences when one sees a lion or tiger in the jungle cannot be explained in words. Zoos do not provide that kind of excitement or adrenaline rush.
Zoos do not help animals in any way. Yes, there are people who believe that zoos are required to protect endangered animals and birds; however, I don’t think that this argument holds water. When African wild animals are brought to zoos in India or Europe, they have to struggle hard to adapt to the different climate and ecosystem.
To conclude, I certainly agree with the view that zoos should not exist in this century. It is true that they provide some entertainment, but we have absolutely no right to confine animals to small enclosures for our amusement.