http://wanttoknowit.com/disadvantages-of-keeping-animals-in-zoos/ A zoo is a facility in which animals are kept in captivity and put on display for the public.

Zoos often bred animals and carry out research to help endangered species to survive in the wild. The word zoo comes from the word zoology, which is the study of animals. There are now over 1000 zoos in the world and 80% of those zoos are in cities. Zoos are now often referred to as wildlife conservation parks and bioparks. Most zoos attempt to replicate an animals natural environment and diet and have large spaces available for those animals that require them. Zoos are taking on many different forms now and are more committed to help animals survive in natural habitats. Disadvantages of Zoos One of the biggest disadvantages to animals in zoos is that they start to lose some of their natural instincts and abilities. This can make it difficult for them if a zoo chooses to release them back into a natural habitat after a period of captivity. In some cases the habitat areas are too small for the animal making it difficult for them to live healthily and naturally. It may be difficult for an animal to adjust to a different environment particularly if steps are not taken to create a habitat that is suitable It may be difficult to get the correct type of food to provide for their diets. Large animals consume a lot of food putting financial stress on the zoo that may then choose cheaper less healthy options. The cost to the community may be high due to training of staff and resource costs. The animals have limited choice in habitats and mates. The animals may become domesticated to some degree due to their close contact with humans. In poorer countries zoos do not have a large budget and sometimes the animals are not cared for as well as they should be. This leads to unhygienic living conditions and poor treatment of the animals. http://www.ehow.com/info_8138762_disadvantages-zoo.html At the zoo, guests get to learn about various species of animals they wouldn't otherwise get to see up close in the wild. Visitors to zoos have the ability to get close to animals that might be dangerous or so rare that seeing them in their natural habitat might be impossible. Many zoos also incorporate other family attractions into their parks, such as children's playgrounds, rides and food vendors, making it a destination for educational entertainment. But not everything about the zoo is positive; in fact, there are those who feel the zoo's disadvantages outweigh their benefits. Lack of Freedom Zoos are prisons for animals who long to be free in their own habitats, according to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals website. Although many modern zoos go to great lengths to make the animals in their care comfortable, they are unable to provide the freedom associated with the animal's natural world. Animals are not able to communicate properly with zookeepers, but supports of organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, claim that the animals are very unhappy in their virtual jail cells and that the conditions are often dirty and unhealthy, both physically and psychologically, for the animals contained in the zoo enclosures. Unnatural Habitats Try as they might, a zoo cannot accurately duplicate the natural habitat of the animals within the enclosures. The best enclosures may seem impressive to guests of a zoo, but they pale in comparison to the freedom and space the animals have in the wild. There are far less diverse plant and animal interactions, if any at all, and this can lead to extreme boredom and loneliness for the animals. Rarely Helps Endangered Survive One of the common focuses of zoos is an attempt to help protect endangered species. To increase numbers of a particular species, they obviously need to breed. Zoos try to arrange breeding for these animals, but according to the Wildlife New Zealand website, very few endangered species are successfully bred in captivity. Of 1,370 species involved in a survival plan by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, only 1.4 percent of the species were likely to be reintroduced to the wild after captive breeding in zoos. More Expensive Than Conservation Zoos are considered one method of wildlife conservation, but taking care of the natural habitats of these animals would actually cost less in many instances than caring for them in a zoo. According to the Wildlife New Zealand Zoo Watch website, the average cost to care for a Black Rhino in captivity is about $16,000 per year, while the cost of protecting a wild habitat for one rhino would be around $1,000 per year. Zoos provide a rare and unique opportunity to peer into the wild without actually traveling to distant locations around the world, searching for often very rare animals. Zoos contain a range of animals, depending on the size; some contain tons of large animals, such as giraffes, elephants, lions and even large and venomous snakes. Advantage: Education

One of the central advantages --- at least in terms of human advantages --- lay in the education that people receive when visiting a zoo. They receive firsthand knowledge of how animals behave and act. Most zoos also provide interactive shows with some of the animals during specific times throughout the week. Surrounding the exhibits, zoos usually have information describing the animal, its history and natural location. Learning about animals also brings empathy to many people, raising awareness about their endangerment in the wild, which can often be attributed to human causes. Advantage: Breeding Zoos often take an active approach in helping animal populations. For dwindling species, many zoos breed captive species in an attempt to increase the numbers. After raising sufficient numbers of the populations, the animals can then be released into the wild in an attempt to encourage population growth. Many animals have been tremendously helped this way, including famous zoo residents such as the white tiger and panda bear. Disadvantage: Captivity The downside to keeping animals in a zoo is the captivity they face. No matter how nice the zoo is, room is limited for zoo animals, which can be especially troublesome for large animals that are prone to roaming. Taking animals out of their habitat serves as an ethical issue because of its focus on human benefit as opposed to animal benefit, with the exceptions of captive breeding and freeing animals from an otherwise dangerous situation. Disadvantage: Upkeep Issues Keeping animals in a zoo in most circumstances and within most countries is acceptable because of the respect given to the animals and their environment; however, not all zoos are created equal. Although most zoos are built as nice abodes, others lacking proper maintenance can create poor living conditions for animals. More common in developing countries, these zoos' poor upkeep can encourage disease and poor animal health. Zoological gardens have become the last refuge for many animal species which have become endangered through deforestation, poaching and habitat fragmentation. Zoos have a responsibility to educate the public about our fragile world and about the interdependence of all life on Earth. Natural habitats show zoo visitors how animals live in the wild. These habitats do, however, pose a number of problems for zoo personnel, as they can be difficult to clean and make it more difficult to manage the diet and health of the animals that are housed within them. Advantage: Benefits for the Public Visitors to modern zoos are much better informed about the natural history of animals than they were years ago. Excellent documentaries have shown the general public how animals live in nature and what their habitat looks like. Natural habitats in zoo enclosures are an important way of further educating the public about ecosystems and the interdependence of living creatures. Natural habitats are proof that zoos have evolved from the menageries they once were, with bars and sterile cement floors. Advantage: Benefits for the Animals Natural habitats have the advantage of making zoo animals feel more at home. Water holes and living trees allow animals in captivity to live a life as close to that in the wild as possible. Natural habitats assist in reducing stress in zoo animals, by offering them an environment that suits their needs. Monkeys should therefore be provided with trees, while buffaloes and rhinoceros should be offered a mud wallow and earth mound for scratching. Disadvantage: Animal Husbandry Problems Natural habitats in zoo enclosures frequently make it difficult to keep the enclosure clean to manage the animals. It is difficult to catch small animals and birds in an enclosure which has been heavily planted with trees and shrubs. It is also difficult to always see the animals; an individual that is ill can easily hide without being detected. Animals which have retreated into burrows or are sheltering in thick foliage will not be easily be counted during the daily or regular census, and zoo personnel will have a distorted idea of population sizes. Disadvantage: Maintenance Problems Many animals will eat or play with living vegetation. Parrot species, in particular, will clamber about in living trees and feed on their fruit and berries. Great apes and monkeys will pull bark from trees and eat the leaves, and large animals, such as elephants, can uproot or knock over the sturdiest of trees. Antelopes graze on and trample grass in their enclosures, and warthogs and other burrowing species dig substantial holes and tunnels. http://www.animal-rights.com/arsec9q.htm Question 69: Don't zoos contribute to the saving of species from extinction? Zoos often claim that they are "arks", which can preserve species whose habitat has been destroyed, or which were wiped out in the wild for other reasons (such as hunting). They suggest that they can maintain the species in captivity until the cause of the creature's extirpation is remedied, and then successfully reintroduce the animals to the wild,

resulting in a healthy, self-sustaining population. Zoos often defend their existence against challenges from the AR movement on these grounds. There are several problems with this argument, however. First, the number of animals required to maintain a viable gene pool can be quite high, and is never known for certain. If the captive gene pool is too small, then inbreeding can result in increased susceptibility to disease, birth defects, and mutations; the species can be so weakened that it would never be viable in the wild. Some species are extremely difficult to breed in captivity: marine mammals, many bird species, and so on. Pandas, which have been the sustained focus of captive breeding efforts for several decades in zoos around the world, are notoriously difficult to breed in captivity. With such species, the zoos, by taking animals from the wild to supply their breeding programs, constitute a net drain on wild populations. The whole concept of habitat restoration is mired in serious difficulties. Animals threatened by poaching (elephants, rhinos, pandas, bears and more) will never be safe in the wild as long as firearms, material needs, and a willingness to consume animal parts coincide. Species threatened by chemical contamination (such as bird species vulnerable to pesticides and lead shot) will not be candidates for release until we stop using the offending substances, and enough time has passed for the toxins to be processed out of the environment. Since heavy metals and some pesticides are both persistent and bioaccumulative, this could mean decades or centuries before it is safe to reintroduce the animals. Even if these problems can be overcome, there are still difficulties with the process of reintroduction. Problems such as human imprinting, the need to teach animals to fly, hunt, build dens, and raise their young are serious obstacles, and must be solved individually for each species. There is a small limit to the number of species the global network of zoos can preserve under even the most optimistic assumptions. Profound constraints are imposed by the lack of space in zoos, their limited financial resources, and the requirement that viable gene pools of each species be preserved. Few zoos, for instance, ever keep more than two individuals of large mammal species. The need to preserve scores or hundreds of a particular species would be beyond the resources of even the largest zoos, and even the whole world zoo community would be hard-pressed to preserve even a few dozen species in this manner. Contrast this with the efficiency of large habitat preserves, which can maintain viable populations of whole complexes of species with minimal human intervention. Large preserves maintain every species in the ecosystem in a predominantly self-sufficient manner, while keeping the creatures in the natural habitat unmolested. If the financial resources (both government and charitable), and the biological expertise currently consumed by zoos, were redirected to habitat preservation and management, we would have far fewer worries about habitat restoration or preserving species whose habitat is gone. Choosing zoos as a means for species preservation, in addition to being expensive and of dubious effectiveness, has serious ethical problems. Keeping animals in zoos harms them, by denying them freedom of movement and association, which is important to social animals, and frustrates many of their natural behavioral patterns, leaving them at least bored, and at worst seriously neurotic. While humans may feel there is some justifying benefit to their captivity (that the species is being preserved, and may someday be reintroduced into the wild), this is no compensating benefit to the individual animals. Attempts to preserve species by means of captivity have been described as sacrificing the individual gorilla to the abstract Gorilla (i.e., to the abstract conception of the gorilla). JE Question 70: Don't animals live longer in zoos than they would in the wild? In some cases, this is true. But it is irrelevant. Suppose a zoo decides to exhibit human beings. They snatch a peasant from a less-developed country and put her on display. Due to the regular feedings and health care that the zoo provides, the peasant will live longer in captivity. Is this practice acceptable? A tradeoff of quantity of life versus quality of life is not always decided in favor of quantity. DG

Question 71: How will people see wild animals and learn about them without zoos? To gain true and complete knowledge of wild animals, one must observe them in their natural habitats. The conditions under which animals are kept in zoos typically distorts their behavior significantly. There are several practical alternatives to zoos for educational purposes. There are many nature documentaries shown regularly on television as well as available on video cassettes. Specials on public television networks, as well as several cable channels, such as The Discovery Channel, provide accurate information on animals in their natural habitats. Magazines such as National Geographic provide superb illustrated articles, as well. And, of course, public libraries are a gold-mine of information. Zoos often mistreat animals, keeping them in small pens or cages. This is unfair and cruel. The natural instincts and behavior of these animals are suppressed by force. How can anyone observe wild animals under such circumstances and believe that one has been educated? JLS All good things are wild, and free. Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet) see also question 69-70

Question 72: What is wrong with circuses and rodeos?

To treat animals as objects for our amusement is to treat them without the respect they deserve. When we degrade the most intelligent fellow mammals in this way, we act as our ancestors acted in former centuries. They knew nothing about the animals' intelligence, sensitivities, emotions, and social needs; they saw only brute beasts. To continue such ancient traditions, even if no cruelty were involved, means that we insist on remaining ignorant and insensitive. But the cruelty does exist and is inherent in these spectacles. In rodeos, there is no show unless the animal is frightened or in pain. In circuses, animals suffer most before and after the show. They endure punishment during training and are subjected to physical and emotional hardships during transportation. They are forced to travel tens of thousands of miles each year, often in extreme heat or cold, with tigers living in cramped cages and elephants chained in filthy railroad cars. To the entrepreneurs, animals are merely stock in trade, to be replaced when they are used up. DVH David Cowles-Hamar writes about circuses as follows in his "The Manual of Animal Rights": Not surprisingly, a considerable amount of "persuasion" is required to achieve these performances, and to this end, circuses employ various techniques. These include deprivation of food, deprivation of company, intimidation, muzzling, drugs, punishment and reward systems, shackling, whips, electronic goads, sticks, and the noise of guns...Circus animals suffer similar mental and physical problems to zoo animals, displaying stereotypical behavior...Physical symptoms include shackle sores, herpes, liver failure, kidney disease, and sometimes death...Many of the animals become both physically and mentally ill. DG The American rodeo consists of roping, bucking, and steer wrestling events. While the public witnesses only the 8 seconds or so that the animals perform, there are hundreds of hours of unsupervised practice sessions. Also, the stress of constant travel, often in improperly ventilated vehicles, and poor enforcement of proper unloading, feeding, and watering of animals during travel contribute to a life of misery for these animals. As half a rider's score is based on the performance of the bucking horse or bull, riders encourage a wild ride by tugging on a bucking strap that is squeezed tightly around the animal's loins. Electric prods and raking spurs are also used to stimulate wild behavior. Injuries range from bruises and broken bones to paralysis, severed tracheas, and death. Spinal cords of calves can be severed when forced to an abrupt stop while traveling at 30 mph. The practice of slamming these animals to the ground during these events has caused the rupture of internal organs, leading to a slow, agonizing death. Dr. C. G. Haber, a veterinarian with thirty years experience as a meat inspector for the USDA, says: "The rodeo folks send their animals to the packing houses where...I have seen cattle so extensively bruised that the only areas in which the skin was attached was the head, neck, legs, and belly. I have seen animals with six to eight ribs broken from the spine and at times puncturing the lungs. I have seen as much as two and three gallons of free blood accumulated under the detached skin." JSD Question 73: But isn't it true that animals are well cared for and wouldn't perform if they weren't happy? Refer to questions #72 and #74 to see that entertainment animals are generally not well cared for. For centuries people have known that punishment can induce animals to perform. The criminal justice system is based on the human rationality in connecting the act of a crime or wrongdoing with a punishment. Many religions are also based, among other aspects, on a fear of punishment. Fear leads most of us to act correctly, on the whole. The same is true for other animals. Many years of unnecessary and repetitive psychology experiments with Skinner boxes (among other gadgets) have demonstrated that animals will learn to do things, or act in certain ways (that is, be conditioned) to avoid electric shocks or other punishment. Animals do need to have their basic food requirements met, otherwise they sicken and die, but they don't need to be "happy" to perform certain acts; fear or desire for a reward (such as food) will make them do it. JK see also question 14, 51, 72, 74 Question 74: What about horse or greyhound racing?

Racing is an example of human condition of the animals. The some punters express an interest the animals but in betting; options became available.

abuse of animals merely for entertainment and pleasure, regardless of the needs or pleasure derives primarily from gambling on the outcome of the race. While in the animal side of the equation, most people interested in racing are not interested in attendance at race meetings has fallen dramatically as off-course betting

While some of the top dogs and horses may be kept in good conditions, for the majority of animals, this is not the case. While minimum living standards have to be met, other factors are introduced to gain the best performances (or in some cases to fix a race by ensuring a loss): drugs, electrical stimuli, whips, etc. While many of these practices are outlawed (including dog blooding), there are regular reports of various illegal techniques being used. Logic would suggest that where the volume of money being moved around is as large as it is in racing, there are huge temptations to massage the outcomes. For horses, especially, the track itself poses dangers; falls and fractures are common in both flat and jump races. Often, lame horses are doped to allow them to continue to race, with the risk of serious injury. And at the end of it all, if the animal is not a success, or does not perform as brilliantly as hoped, it is disposed of. Horses are lucky in that they occasionally go to a home where they are well treated and respected, but the knackery is a common option (a knackery is a purveyor of products derived from worn-out and old livestock). (Recently, a new practice has come to light: owners of race horses sometimes murder horses that do not reach their "potential", or which are past their "prime", and then file fraudulent insurance claims.) The likely homes for a greyhound are few and far between. JK Race horses are prone to a disease called exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH). It is characterized by the presence of blood in the lungs and windpipe of the horse following intense exercise. An Australian study found 42 percent of 1,180 horses to be suffering from EIPH. A large percentage of race horses suffer from lameness. Fractures of the knee are common, as are ligament sprain, joint sprain, and shin soreness. Steeple chasing is designed to make the horses fall which sometimes results in the death of the horse either though a broken neck or an "incurable" injury for which the horse is killed by a veterinarian.