getting rid of zoos argumentative essay

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Pros and cons of zoos: Should animals be kept in zoos?

Source: This image was created for netivist.org. If you want to use it you simply need to  attribute it by linking  to this page or to  https://netivist.org . Thanks

Animal cruelty or protection? Learn about the pros and cons of zoos and join our debate and poll: Should there be zoos? Should animals be kept in captivity? Vote and explain your view on whether zoos are necessary or should be banned.

Should animals be kept in zoos?

Over 181 million people visit zoos and aquariums every year in the United States, and 25 million in the United Kingdom. Zoos have more visitors than the combined attendance of the four major sports leagues ( NFL , NBA , MLB and NHL ). Despite their immense popularity , zoos have become increasingly controversial institutions. An increasing number of animal rights advocates and animal protection organizations are questioning the role of zoos in modern societies. The shocking evidence of animal abuse in some circuses , dolphinariums and zoos have pushed many environmental and wildlife activist groups to campaign for the closure of many of the institutions that keep wild animals in captivity.

To the question "should animals be kept in captivity?" the initial reaction of most people is rejection. Why should animals be kept in zoos? In an ideal world that would not be necessary, wild animals would roam freely in their natural habitats and we, humans, would find ways to observe them and learn about them without disrupting their lives. However, today on Earth due to population growth and urbanization many animal species are endangered and most people have very few opportunities to observe and learn from animals.

Jane Goodall , the famous British primatologist and one of the most important experts in chimpanzees in the world, has defended the role of zoos in helping us understand and preserve the life of wild animals (see video below). On the other hand, organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Animal Aid and Born Free have initiated campaigns for the closure of zoos, arguing that most zoos deprive animals from their most basic needs and that animal abuse and suffering should not be a source of entertainment.

Do you think that zoos are an effective way to increase awareness about animal life? Do they really help preserve endangered species or it is more a business and a cruel source of entertainment? Is keeping animals in captivity a good way to ensure their future? Let's take a closer look at the advantages and disadvantages of zoos before we make up our minds.

Watch this video with Jane Goodall on the role of zoos in saving animals

Pros and cons of zoos

These are the most common arguments in favor and against zoos.

Pros of zoos

• After the famous wildlife conservationist Geral Durrell opened a zoo in Jersey in 1959, zoos all over the world have embraced the mission of saving endangered species in the world. Zoos are not like the exotic animal menageries from the middle ages. They want to provide entertainment but they are greatly concerned with the protection of animals and their natural habitats. Zoos help raising awareness and funding for wildlife initiatives and research projects.
• Animals are not always caged in zoos. Edinburgh was the first British zoo to follow the idea of displaying animals without bars. The Chester and Whipsnade zoological parks where the first two non-urban zoos without cages and larger enclosures. They opened in 1931. In the 1960s The drive-through safari parks became very popular. Ever since there has been an increasing public concern about animal welfare in zoos.
• Zoos are monitored and follow strict regulation in most developed countries. There is less room for animal cruelty in zoos than ever before in history.
• Most people working in zoos are true animal lovers. Veterinary doctors, zoologist, voluntary staff, etc. chose to work in zoos because they like animals, and wanted to work closely with them and help them thrive.
• Education is another positive feature of zoos. Many children and adults in cities can only see wild animals in TV or the Internet. Zoos offer them the unique experience of contemplating real animals. They can smell them, see how they move and listen their sounds. This is a much more vivid and enriching experience than the one you can get through a screen. Thanks to zoos kids and adult develop empathy toward animals.
• 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 redice human-animal conflicts and better understand 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.
• Another pro of zoos is their role in animal reproduction. Zoos study animal breeding and thanks to them many wild animals in captivity can reproduce. This is particularly important in the case of endangered species. Due to the low density of the population of some animals in their natural ecosystems they struggle to find partners. Some populations in the wild are weakened by endogamy too. In zoos vets and biologist help to prevent inbreeding.

Cons of zoos

• Animal cruelty in zoos continues to be extremely common. There are continuous cases of animals abused by visitors and zoo workers. Many of them are reported every week in the media, however, the large majority are kept secret and those responsible are never held accountable or punished.
• Animals in captivity are deprived of many things that are important to them, as a result they become lonely and bored. Many of them suffer from "zoochosis" , a psychological condition characterized by repetitive and obsessive behaviors including vomiting, excessive grooming, coprophagia and self-mutilation. 
• Most animals in zoos still live in small enclosures and cages . There are Safari Parks and large zoos in which animals have more space and live in an enviroment slightly more similar to their natural habitat .however, the large majority of zoos in the world are much smaller and have less economic means than the big zoos we often see in the media such as the San Diego Zoo, the Berlin Zoological Garden, the San Louis Zoo, etc. 
• In zoos many animals sicken and die because they contract diseases from other animals and species. Zoos usually group animals from many different parts of the world with very distinct immunological systems. People also have been sickened from diseases contracted from animals in zoos.
• Many zoos do little for research or animal protection. They are simply businesses run with the sole purpose of making money . Their concern for animals is secondary. Cost efficiency often means they move animal welfare down in the list of priorities. 
• Zoos and aquariums have incentivized the illegal hunt of animals . Historically poachers have hunted and sold wild animals for zoos all over the world. Although this practice is increasingly prosecuted in most countries, there are still small zoos and aquariums which acquire their animals without paying much attention to their origin. 
• From an ethical point of view zoos are also questionable. Zoos are a typical form of family entertainment, but associating leisure and fun with the contemplation of animals in captivity can send the wrong signals to our children. Zoos can be construed as a sadistic pleasure .

Do you think zoos are necessary? Do the cons of zoos outweight their benefits? Should we boycott or ban zoos? Vote and join our debate (see below)

Watch this video on "zoochosis" and the living conditions of animals in captivity

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Should Zoos be Banned? Pros & Cons of Zoos

Published by ecocation on october 18, 2023 october 18, 2023.

Should zoos be banned? Are zoos bad or good?

This question is heavily debated and there is no definite answer for it.  Shutting down all zoos goes against saving animals. But, stopping them from keeping certain animals or doing certain types of research isn’t wrong. It really boils down to how zoos use the money and what they teach people who come and donate.

Nevertheless, we are going to look at the pros and cons of zoos and explore whether or not they should be banned.

So let’s dive right into the topic!

The Pros & Cons of Zoos

Let’s first discover the pros and cons of zoos , evaluating both their positive and negative impact!

What are the Pros of Zoos?

1. zoos are protecting endangered species.

When ecological conservation emerged as a matter of public interest in the 1970s , zoos all over the world have embraced the mission of   saving endangered species   in the world. Zoos are not like the cruel animal menageries from the middle ages. They want to provide entertainment, but they are greatly concerned with the protection and conservation of animals and their natural habitats. Environmental protection is one of the biggest reasons why zoos should not be banned.

Zoos provide a protected environment for endangered animals, and also help in raising awareness and funding for wildlife initiatives and research projects. Therefore, zoos educate the public about animals and are contributing their part to the conservation of many species . In fact, should zoos be banned, many species would have gone extinct already. A good example are narwahls .

2. Zoos are educating the public about animals

Environmental education   is definitely among the pros of zoos. Many children and adults in cities can only see wild animals in TV or the internet. Zoos offer them the unique experience of contemplating real animals. They can smell them, see how they move and listen their sounds in real life. 

Visiting a zoo is a much more vivid and enriching experience than the one you can get through a screen. Thanks to zoos, kids and adults develop empathy towards animals . In addition, people don’t need to travel to exotic places to see the animals, which is beneficial to the environment. 

Ultimately, zoos provide an affordable opportunity to see (exotic) animals , giving everyone an equal chance to experience wildlife first-hand and learn about nature. No matter what a person’s socioeconomic status may be, there is a chance to learn something new because of the work of a zoo. By educating about animals, z oos are also raising awareness about our environmental problems like climate change and illustrate how these impact ecosystems worldwide.

Should zoos be banned, an important educational resource would dissapear, which might lead to less future knowledge about animals and nature.

3. Zoos help in fighting animal extinction

Given that the mass destruction of wildlife habitats across the globe continues unabated and species such as elephants, big cats, birds, primates, rhinos, reptiles, and many others are at real risk of extinction, larger zoos have now stepped in with the hopes of stopping or at least  slowing the decline of these endangered species .

Zoos study  animal breeding  and thanks to them many wild animals in captivity can reproduce. Should zoos be banned, we would certainly loose some species. This is particularly important in the case of endangered species. Due to the low density of the population of some animals in their natural ecosystems they struggle to find partners. 

Some populations in the wild are weakened by endogamy too. In zoos vets and biologist help to prevent inbreeding. Fighting extinction is surely among the pros of zoos!

4. 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.

Between 1993 and 2013, 228 accredited zoos published 5,175 peer-reviewed manuscripts. In 2017, 173 accredited US zoos spent $25 million on research, studied 485 species and subspecies of animals, worked on 1,280 research projects, and published 170 research manuscripts.

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.

Should zoos be banned, we might not be able to conduct such research anymore, negatively influencing our ability to find cures to diseases and tackle issues like climate change .

5. Zoos provide income for many communities

Finally, the pros of zoos include their economic importance. Zoos play an important economic role , especially in the less developed areas of the world, where they are an important income source for many communities. Zoos do more than just providing a place for animals to reside. They are a place that provides jobs, creates tourism opportunities, and can even be an economic nexus for a community . 

Should zoos be banned, we would need to find other economic resources for these communities. As of 2022, there are  27,267 people  employed in the Zoos & Aquariums industry in the US only. Just imagine how many jobs they provide worldwide, especially in less developed countries.

What are the Cons of Zoos?

Unfortunately, the world of zoos is not as bright as you might think after reading the previous positive points above. Let’s take a closer look at the arguments why zoos should be banned!

1. Zoos entertain humans at the expense of animals

Environmental activists  insist that zoos should be banned, despite their noble intentions. They argue that zoos are inherently immoral and primarily serve to entertain humans at the expense of animals. In fact, zoos exploit animals for the sake of profit generation .

Furthermore, zoos don’t educate the public enough to justify keeping animals captive. In fact, even a study widely cited to justify the argument that zoos educate the public stated that “there was no overall change in understanding of ecological concepts seen” because visitors know a lot about ecology before going to the zoo.

On top of that, there have been cases where zoos killed baby animals, for the sake of controlling the animal population of the zoo. For example, in 2014 the Copenhagen Zoo killed a young giraffe and four lions   on the grounds of genetic purity and breeding.

We should ask ourselves whether the entertainment provided by zoos (especially by animals shows and similar activities) does really justify the price that the animals pay for.

2. Holding animals in captivity has questionable ethics

Haven’t we learned from our shameful history with “human zoos”? 100 years ago, people accepted that other humans are exhibited in “human zoos”, which everyone would protest against nowadays. Who knows how humanity will look back and judge our present animal zoos in 100 years… If we look back at the dark history of zoological institutions, zoos should be banned!

There is no doubt that zoos are questionable from an ethical point of view . Zoos are a typical form of family entertainment, but associating leisure and fun with the contemplation of animals in captivity can send the wrong signals to our children. Zoos can be construed as a  sadistic pleasure . There may be educational value in a zoo, but keeping animals in captivity offers an ethical dilemma . 

Some animals, like the average house cat, will thrive in a captive environment.  Others, like orcas, do very poorly when living in captivity. An orca in the wild may live up to 100 years in the wild, but the average age at a captive orca is less than 30 years – and it’s 17 years for a male orca. For many, this is a strong argument to ban zoos.

3. Zoos can be detrimental to the animals' physical health

Depending on the conditions at-hand, zoos can be detrimental to the animals’ physical health. There are still many animal welfare issues recorded everyday, and animals often have to live in poor conditions , especially in less-developed, poorer countries. And all of that even though zoos are legally required to follow the Animal Welfare Act .

In addition, most animals that are exhibited in zoos are wild exotic animals (such as tigers and lions) who naturally need lots of space and even change their habitat over time. Due to the limited space in zoos, these animals cannot move as they naturally would, which inevitably leads them to develop health issues.

Furthermore, animal cruelty in zoos   continues to be extremely common. There are continuous cases of animals   abused by visitors   and zoo workers. Many of them are reported every week in the media, however, the large majority are kept secret and those responsible are never held accountable or punished. In fact, many zoos are greenwashing themselves, by saying they have high animal welfare standards although they haven’t.

4. Zoos can be detrimental to the animals' mental health

It is proven that zoo confinement is psychologically damaging to animals . Another reason why zoos should be banned. 

As illustrated in Zooicide , animals in captivity are deprived of many things that are important to them, as a result they become lonely and bored. Many of them suffer from  “zoochosis” , a psychological condition characterized by repetitive and obsessive behaviors including vomiting, excessive grooming, coprophagia and self-mutilation.

Animal behaviorists see zoo animals suffering from problems not seen in the wild, such as clinical depression in clouded leopards and gibbons, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in brown bears, and anxiety in giraffes. The animals experience these issues due to smaller enclosures, changes in diet and activities, and the introduction of things not seen in the wild, such as medical exams and people with cameras.

Even keeping domicile animals such as alpacas and llamas in a restricted or caged environment can cause huge distress to them. In fact, alpacas and llamas tend to spit more in zoos , as they are irritated more frequently there compared to when they are left alone in nature.

5. Lack of regulation & control in many zoos

Another issue with zoos is that there is only insufficient regulation of zoos in many countries. In fact, many zoos are free to treat their animals however they want. In some countries, animals are even considered as property instead of living organisms that need proper regulatory protection. Another reason why zoos should be banned!

Especially in countries with lax   regulations   related to zoos, animals will be treated poorly and in those countries, governments should introduce stricter regulations in order to protect these animals. Even if there is some form of regulation in place, most countries’ abilitiy to control zoos for animal welfare is very limited, meaning that zoos can basically treat animals however they want.

Putting aside these opposing views, it does remain a sad reality that the  welfare of zoo animals varies widely depending on where you are . While many zoos have been working hard to improve their animal enclosures to better fit the needs of captive animals, constraints such as limited space and funds can seriously hinder this process. Smaller, poorer zoos simply do not have the luxury of hiring well-trained zoological staff or expanding their breeding programs and facilities to maintain the ethos of conservation. A ban of these smaller, less well-funded zoos could be seen as a reasonable strategy for reducing harm to wildlife.

After all, something we must consider too when talking about the pros and cons of zoos is their not-so-glamorous history!

A Brief History of Zoos

Until the early 19th century, the only purpose of zoos was to demonstrate the power of royalty and indulge their extravagant tastes. Up until this time, people paid no attention to science or animal conservation . Zoos were just used to symbolize the superiority of humans over animals .

Evidence of the existence of zoos and menageries can be traced all the way back to ancient Egypt, circa 3500 BC. Many Roman emperors kept private zoo collections. Sometimes these captive animals were used for study, but most of the time they were simply used for entertainment in the arena, which invariably ended in a cruel death.

At some point during  the history of zoos , humans even tried to emphasize the supposed inferiority of other human cultures, and implied the superiority of Western society, through so-called “human zoos” . There have been plenty of “human zoos” in many European countries, which tried to symbolize the superiority of the Western culture over the culture of their former colonies, by visualizing how primitive black people behaved. 

In fact, “human zoos” are one of Europe’s most shameful secrets. When trying to find an answer to the question: “Should zoos be banned?”, there’s no way around reminding ourselves with our history.

The modern zoo that we know today emerged in the 19th century in the United Kingdom. It was only then that the transition was made from royal menageries designed to entertain the elite to public zoological gardens aiming to educate the wider population . 

Growing urbanization and industrialization led to heightened demand for new forms of public entertainment. This need for entertainment, as well as the requirements of scholarly research , came together in the founding of the first modern zoos. During that time nobody even thought about the question of should zoos be banned.

According to the   Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) by 2020, the USA boasts 230 accredited zoos and aquariums , accommodating nearly 800,000 animals and 6,000 species with around 1,000 of these species being on the endangered species   list. These zoos provide 200,000 jobs with an annual budget of $230 million set aside for wildlife conservation . They attract more than 200 million visitors per year, with special educational programs designed specifically for school groups.

Over the past 30 years, many established zoos have endeavored to improve the level of care for animals and rehabilitate the public perception of zoos . However, despite many good intentions and considerable financial effort, the concept of zoos is nonetheless fraught with many serious problems. 

So much so that calls to ban zoos are still loud and persistent from many activist groups even now…

But what’s the verdict now? Should zoos be banned or not? Are zoos good or bad? Let’s dive into the pros and cons of zoos.

Should Zoos be Banned?

A zoo can be an integral part of our community and world with the right approach . There are several pros and cons of zoos, and there is no definite answer to whether zoos are supporting a positive human environment interaction or not. Each point deserves consideration. If wanted, zoos can be more than entertainment and provide a positive value to both, humans and animals. 

The pros and cons of zoos often come from two very different points of view. From a legal standard, animals are often treated as property . That means they have less rights than humans, so a zoo seems like a positive place to maintain a high quality of life. For others, the forced enclosure of any animal feels like an unethical decision.

Wild animals, as it is said, are meant to be wild!

In any case, here are the best zoological institutions in California which are treating their animals at least as good as they can:

• Best Zoos in California
• Best Aquariums in California

Are zoos ethical? What about aquariums?

The ethics of zoos and aquariums are a subject of debate. While some argue that they play a crucial role in education, conservation, and research, others believe that keeping animals in captivity is inherently unethical and compromises their welfare and natural behaviors.

What are the pros and cons of zoos?

The pros of zoos include their contribution to endangered species conservation, public education about wildlife, research opportunities, and economic benefits for communities.

However, the cons involve concerns about animal welfare, ethical considerations, potential negative effects on animals’ physical and psychological health, and the lack of regulation in some cases.

Are zoos good or bad?

The question of whether zoos are good or bad is subjective and depends on one’s perspective. Some people see the positive aspects of zoos, such as their educational and conservation efforts, while others emphasize the negative impact on animal welfare and argue for their abolition.

Are zoos morally wrong?

The morality of zoos is a matter of personal opinion and ethical beliefs. Some individuals consider zoos morally wrong due to the captivity and potential harm inflicted on animals, while others see them as a necessary means to protect species and educate the public.

Are zoos bad or good?

The question of whether zoos are bad or good depends on your ethical stance. Whereas zoos are good for wildlife conservation, education, and research, they sometimes involve negative impacts on animal welfare and ethical concerns about keeping animals in captivity.

Are zoos safe for animals?

The safety of animals in zoos can vary widely depending on the specific zoo and its practices. While many accredited zoos prioritize animal welfare and provide appropriate care, there have been instances of poor conditions and mistreatment. The overall safety of animals in zoos depends on the commitment to high standards of care, sufficient enclosure sizes, and proper veterinary attention.

Are zoos for profit?

Zoos are typically not for profit. Though, they need to generate revenue and contribute to the local economy through visitor fees, donations, and tourism. However, the pursuit of profit should not compromise the welfare of animals. Ethical and responsible zoos prioritize animal care and conservation over profit-making, ensuring that financial resources are allocated appropriately for the well-being of the animals and their conservation efforts.

Why should zoos be banned?

There are many reasons why zoos should be banned. As outlined by PETA , Zoos should be banned due to ethical concerns about animal welfare. Keeping animals in captivity leads to physical and psychological harm. Zoos fail to replicate natural habitats, negatively impacting the well-being of the animals. Zoos provide entertainment, not education! And this entertainment comes at the cost of animal welfare.

Why should zoos not be banned?

Zoos should not be banned because they play a vital role in wildlife conservation, offering sanctuary for endangered species. They are important for educational purposes, providing firsthand wildlife experiences that foster public awareness and interest in conservation. Zoos also contribute to scientific research on animal behavior and biology, aiding in broader conservation efforts. Additionally, they support global biodiversity through breeding programs for rare and endangered species.

What are alternatives to zoos?

You can learn about animals without visiting or supporting zoos.

Here is a list of ethical alternatives to zoos:

• Wildlife sanctuaries : They provide a natural and ethical habitat for animals, focusing on rescue and rehabilitation, thus ensuring animal welfare and mimicking their natural living conditions more closely than zoos.
• Conservation parks : These large, protected areas conserve wildlife in their native ecosystems, promoting ethical animal treatment and natural biodiversity without the constraints of captivity. 
• Virtual zoos : Utilizing technology, they offer an ethical and educational way to learn about animals through interactive and immersive experiences, without any impact on the animals’ natural living conditions.
• National Parks : These are protected areas that preserve natural environments and wildlife in their native habitats. They offer an ethical alternative by allowing animals to live freely and undisturbed, promoting biodiversity and ecological balance without the need for captivity.
• Public Parks : While primarily designed for human recreation, public parks can also serve as urban sanctuaries for local wildlife. They provide a small-scale, ethical alternative for experiencing nature and wildlife in a more controlled environment, contributing to urban biodiversity and environmental education.
• Wildlife documentaries : They educate and raise awareness about animals and their habitats ethically, using filming techniques that minimize human interference with wildlife.

Related Posts

Top 25 Ugly Animals on the Planet (+Pictures)

Welcome to the world of ugly animals, where looks aren’t everything! While they might not win any beauty contests, these creatures are champions in survival and adaptation. They may not have the cuddly appeal of Read more…

15 BEST Aquariums in California (Ultimate Review 2024)

Discover a world beneath the waves as we embark on a journey through the 15 best aquariums in California. From awe-inspiring marine life to immersive education, these aquatic wonders offer more than meets the eye. Read more…

Animal Abuse on Snapchat & How to Stop It

Have you ever seen videos or pictures of animals being abused on social media and wondered what you could do to help? Well, animal abuse on Snapchat is more common than you might think – and there Read more…

Five of the Strongest Arguments Against Zoos

A while ago I wrote an article about some of the good things zoos do for conservation . Now I hadn’t realized how vehemently some people hated zoos (and sadly, how afraid many great zoos are about sticking up for their work). Suddenly, it became one of my most read articles.

Every time something bad happened, like the gorilla that escaped (but didn’t) , journalists call around looking for someone on each side of the argument. Luckily for them, Born Free and PETA are all to happy to point out the negatives. Meanwhile, everyone closely involved with zoo’s seems to keep a low profile, and a little stuck, journalists end up asking me for a comment.

Now, I’ve never worked in a zoo, but I do believe in balance – in seeing both sides of an argument. So I’m very happy to advocate good zoos, and only good zoos from a conservation perspective ( my article about the great stuff they do is here). But all that doesn’t mean that zoos can’t improve.

I thought I’d take the chance to highlight some of the things I think they could do better – starting with the very arguments used against them.

Common Problems With Zoos

1. keeping animals in cages is cruel, and we don’t have the right..

Yep, captivity is certainly cruel to an extent. But for me it depends greatly on scale, and how well you can replicate the natural environment. It’s a lot harder to make a nice environment for a lion, than it is for a critically endangered crayfish or snail that’s extinct in the wild .

I’d definitely like to see bigger zoo enclosures, with fewer, if any, really large animals (I’m thinking lions, tigers, elephants). But at the same time, where a species is seriously endangered – for example the Amur leopard (~200 in captivity), Asiatic Lion (<400), I think there’s a great argument for captivity and captive breeding programmes too.

It depends, I suppose, which you think is worse: captivity or extinction? I believe it’s the latter, but of course I can see how some people feel it’s the former.

2. Zoos are just for entertainment.

I’d agree that some folks go to zoo’s for entertainment, whilst some folks go to learn. But by far the biggest group, is the grey area in between.

Now the difference between the good zoos and bad, is that good zoos work harder and harder towards making those experiences educational – or at least they say they do . What isn’t debated, is the fact that 24 million people visit zoos in the UK every year. So like it or lump it, let’s make those visits worthwhile.

Zoos deliver what the public wants. So the best way to influence the zoo experience is to be a discerning customer. Be fussy, if you don’t agree with them, don’t go. But in the same vein, if there’s parts you do like, then speak about that too.

Here’s how:

• People go to see animals. So the bigger the enclosure, the harder it is for those exhibits to be seen. The public needs to tolerate that much better (how often to you overhear people moaning that an animal isn’t out on display?)
• Big animals draw in visitors. So embrace the little stuff too – that’s arguably where zoos are doing some of their most worthwhile work .
• Don’t read those rubbish alarmist stories about Gorillas that I deliberately havn’t linked to, because if you read them, newspapers will keep writing them.
• And don’t go rushing to a zoo just because it’s had a baby panda/polar bear/tiger. Because it doesn’t help encourage responsible behavior.

3. Zoo keepers are cruel.

This is a weird one, that I don’t agree with. Yet the stories come up again and again . Most people ‘like’ animals and wildlife – especially folks that work at zoos. In my experience, zoo keepers have been some of the most passionate conservationists I know.

4. If you want to see animals, you should go see them in the wild.

Hey, I agree! Great!

Ecotourism, in it’s many flavours – if done right – can be a great force for conservation .

But lots of people can’t, don’t or wont. Perhaps for many, it’s the zoo or not at all? Or maybe if there were no zoos it really would make more of us embark on that once in a lifetime trip to Africa… It’s hard to know.

In any case, when it comes to zoos I’d turn to science, and ask the question: Does seeing animals in a zoo, make you more engaged with conservation in the wild? Fortunately, there’s lots and lots of literature on this, and it seems like they do .

But here’s the most important point: If you want to see the biggest most exciting mammals, then you really should go to the wild – your experience would be all the richer for it. Put it this way, would you rather see a caged tiger a dozen times in your life, or just once, wild, after a long arduous journey in the breathtakingly beautiful Ranthambore wetlands with the birds singing and sun setting. I know which I’d choose.

5. None of the money from zoos goes towards conservation

Here’s my take: I’d like to see more spent on overseas conservation of the species they exhibit. At the same time, I’d like to see a much clearer link between the two. Visiting a zoo should support conservation not just in captivity, but in the wild – and it should be crystal clear. That’s the aspiration.

The good news is that many zoos are doing this already, but perhaps it slips under the radar for the casual visitor. London Zoo work all over the world , Colchester Zoo runs Action for the Wild , I’ve even won a grant to work in Mozambique from WWCT , which run Paignton Zoo.

But is it enough? On this topic, I’d recommend this excellent article . The jist of which is:

“A few years ago Los Angeles Zoo spent $42 million on a new, six-acre enclosure for Asian elephants…” meanwhile… “…at many zoos, Boyle says, only 1 percent of the budget goes to conservation. He says AZA is pushing members to get to 3 percent, but there’s no minimum required donation for AZA accreditation by the association. A boost to 10 percent would send $800 million a year to wildlife”

One more thing…

6. A little note about branding and hypocrisy….

Whilst I often hear people lambasting zoos, animal sanctuaries seem to be the greatest thing since slices bread. But I’d say for many, there’s little difference except branding.

One of the ironic things, is that PETA even has a list of criteria for a ‘good sanctuary’ , which funnily enough matches, more or less, the characteristics of a good zoo.

A few more articles on the topic:

• Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?
• How Captivity Helps Conservation
• Introducing the Modern Zoo
• Arguments For and Against Zoos
• When You Walk Into a Zoo, Are You Helping Animals or Hurting Them?

B ook James for a speaking event:

James is a highly acclaimed public speaker, delivering keynotes, lectures and debates to a wide range of audiences including students, the public, conservation practioners and scientists. Rather than further polarizing already divisive conservation topics, James aims to explain the complexity and nuance of conservation. What we choose to do over the next five decades, will profoundly influence the diversity of life on eath for the next 5 million years. It’s never been a more important, or more exciting time to be a conservationist.

“You had the audience hanging off your every word.”

“Interesting, informative and pitched at exactly the right level for our students.”

“You gave a splendid talk – cogent, passionate, clear and compelling.”

“It was refreshing to have a speaker who talked with such passion”

Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public—yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

• University of Southern California

• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Brandeis University
• Northeastern University
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

A Brief History of Zoos

Arguments for zoos, arguments against zoos, the last word on zoos.

A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible—often in small, cramped conditions—the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many  animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals—even in efforts to fend off extinction—cannot be justified.

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens.  Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment, when scientific interest in zoology, as well as the study of animal behavior and anatomy, came to the fore.

Early zoos were a dismal affair. Animals were kept in small enclosures with little if any, greenery. With a scant understanding of what the various animals needed, many perished relatively quickly. In accredited U.S. zoos (and elsewhere) things are better now, fortunately. Primates, for example, have gone from barren cages with little furniture to naturalistic and sometimes semi-free-ranging designs. But is it enough?

• By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.
• Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat loss, starvation, and predators.
• Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.
• Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.
• Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees that the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."
• A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.
• Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary and is more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward 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 animal care.
• From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals— even if those species are endangered . Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.
• Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen—no matter how humane—or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild.
• Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.
• 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 and hunting facilities. Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.
• Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos.
• Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also a challenge. 
• 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 instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive 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, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.
• Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.
• Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

In making a case for or against zoos, both sides argue that they're saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they certainly do make money. As long as there is demand for them, zoos will continue to exist.

Since zoos are likely an inevitability, the best way to move forward is to ensure that zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished but denied any future access to animals.

One day we may look back at zoos and marvel at their barbarity. Or, one day we may look back at zoos and be grateful for the species they saved from extinction. Of these two scenarios, only time will tell.

Hosey, Geoff, et al. Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and Welfare . Oxford University Press. 2013.

Hosey, G. (2023). The History of Primates in Zoos . In: Robinson, L.M., Weiss, A. (eds) Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Springer, Cham.

“ Species Survival Plan Programs .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

“ Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Meagher, Rebecca K., Georgia J. Mason. “ Environmental Enrichment Reduces Signs of Boredom in Caged Mink .” PLoS ONE , vol. 7, 2012, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049180

Kleiman, Devra G., et al. Wild Mammals In Captivity: Principles And Techniques For Zoo Management, Second Edition . University of Chicago Press. 2010.

Gunasekera, Crystal Allen. “ The Ethics of Killing “Surplus” Zoo Animals .” Journal of Animal Ethics , vol. 8, 2018, doi:10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0093

Brichieri-Colombi, Typhenn A., et al. “ Limited Contributions of Released Animals from Zoos to North American Conservation Translocations .” Conservation Biology , vol. 33, 2019, pp. 33-39., doi:10.1111/cobi.13160

Krasnec, Michelle O., et al. “ Mating Systems in Sexual Animals .” Nature Education Knowledge, vol. 3, no. 10, 2012, p. 72.

“ 9 CFR § 3.128 - Space Requirements .” Cornell University Legal Information Institute .

“ Animal Welfare Act Enforcement .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Conrad, Cheyenne C. Conrad et al. " Farm Fairs and Petting Zoos: A Review of Animal Contact as a Source of Zoonotic Enteric Disease ." Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, vol. 14, 2017, pp. 59-73., doi:10.1089/fpd.2016.2185

• How Animal Rights Activists View Zoos Keeping Endangered Species
• Zoos and Endangered Species Conservation
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
• Pet Tiger Seen Roaming in Houston Is Now in a Sanctuary
• Expedia Stops Selling Tickets to Dolphin and Whale Shows
• 10 Women Who Changed the Way We See Nature
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• 8 Fascinating Facts About the Axolotl
• Rescuer Saves and Rehabs Hundreds of Wild Animals in Peru
• 18 Famous Animal Conservationists
• Why Animal Rights Activists Are Against the AKC
• 9 Uncanny Facts About Crows
• 8 Things You Didn't Know About Boa Constrictors

The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals Essay

Introduction, stress and boredom, no right to protection and safety, ‘surplus’ animals, works cited.

Albert Einstein once said: “Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty” (Popova). This statement may be understood if one considers people’s usual efforts to support animals and nature. Deforestation, water pollution, and other processes harm the environment and all living creatures because humans only have compassion for themselves, not for nature as a whole. Zoos are daily examples of people’s indifference and cruelty towards other species. Although zoos are often seen as significant in today’s society, they are actually a way of imprisoning animals while harming them in doing so. This opinion is proved by the fact that living creatures in captivity suffer from boredom and stress, cannot protect themselves or escape danger, and are killed instantly if considered to be ‘surplus’ individuals.

The first argument against zoos to discuss is the lack of interesting activities, joy, and ways to get rid of stress that animals can access in the wild. Such circumstances make living creatures in captivity stressed, bored, and confined. First, according to Bashaw et al., who examined behavior patterns of captivated and wild tigers and lions, animals in zoos tend to be more pessimistic, passive, and indifferent (95). Bashaw et al. notice that “in captivity, they spend the most time on exhibit sleeping or pacing,” not being able to hunt or socialize properly, and the way most zoos are projected also contributes to animals’ boredom and reduced activity (95). Thus, chain-link fencing may be a source of uncontrolled sensory contact for many animals, interfering with their behavior patterns.

Further, it is well-known that humans experiencing deprivation are at risk of developing various mental issues, like anxiety or depression, and losing their interest in life. The same happens to many captivated animals: “Elephants, orcas and other animals with large brains are likely to react in similar ways to life in a severely stressful environment” (Jacobs). Moreover, the term ‘zoochosis’ describes how living creatures in zoos perform unhealthy activities like swaying, rocking, self-mutilation, and others. It happens because they are held in captivity without any possibility of being engaged in common for their actions.

The second argument that highlights unethical zoo practices refers to the fact that animals are deprived of any opportunity to protect themselves or escape danger. One may wonder what kind of danger animals in a zoo can be exposed to in the first place. Unfortunately, most cases are related to humans’ foolishness and irresponsibility: for example, many zoos are unable or unwilling to make sure that no contact between animals and visiting people is possible.

As service providers, zoos have an obligation to keep people and animals safe, but their protection mostly covers the former. For instance, if a person accidentally falls into an animal’s enclosure, even a not curious or aggressive animal can be killed by the zoo staff in order to save the person. One terrible story of a gorilla named Harambe being murdered after a boy fell in its cage is told by Gambone. Unfortunately, since “we prioritize the entertainment or even the education of humans first, rather than the needs, especially the need for freedom, of self-aware, autonomous nonhuman beings like Harambe, they will continue to die” (Gambone). In situations like this, the creature cannot defend itself or escape. Moreover, with inadequate behavior of visitors, the animal may try to attack for self-defense but will also suffer.

Finally, there is also a shocking and unethical practice when zoos get rid of animals that are considered excess or ‘surplus.’ Statistics are terrifying: according to Bekoff, “European zoos kill as many as 5,000 healthy animals every year” merely because these individuals are no longer useful, pretty, or profitable. This inhumane practice again proves the need to apply stricter control over zoos or eliminate such places. When zoos need more room for younger animals to attract more visitors or reproductive animals to become more profitable, they terminate healthy individuals and may sometimes even make it a show in front of the audience (Shuchat). In other words, these terminations are not euthanasia but actual murders because there is no mercy in them (Bekoff). This practice also demonstrates that animals are considered property that can be thrown away when no longer needed.

To draw a conclusion, one may say that zoos are not a significant and ethical part of the modern world but places where animals are imprisoned and deprived of their rights. In the wild, different species have more opportunities to engage in their common activities, and in captivity, they suffer from boredom, stress, and depression. Moreover, animals in zoos are valued and protected less than visitors, and they cannot even escape when facing danger. In cases when they try to defend themselves, animals merely get killed. Finally, there are also situations when they are cruelly murdered because of being considered ‘surplus.’ Therefore, it is recommended that people get more information about the zoos they visit and avoid such unethical places.

Bashaw, Meredith J., et al. “Environmental Effects on the Behavior of Zoo-Housed Lions and Tigers, with a Case Study of the Effects of a Visual Barrier on Pacing.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science , vol. 10, no. 2, 2007, pp. 95-109.

Bekoff, Mark. “ Zoothanasia: The Cruel Practice of Killing Healthy Zoo Animals .” Salon, Web.

Gambone, Emily. “ Why We Fight for Nonhuman Rights: Harambe’s Story .” Nonhuman Rights Project, Web.

Jacobs, Bob. “The Neural Cruelty of Captivity: Keeping Large Mammals in Zoos and Aquariums Damages Their Brains.” AP News , Web.

Popova, Maria. “ Einstein on Widening Our Circles of Compassion .” The Marginalia , Web.

Shuchat, Shimon. “ Honoring Animals Purposely Killed by Zoos on World Zoothanasia Day .” In Defense of Animals , Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 9). The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/

"The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals." IvyPanda , 9 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals'. 9 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals." January 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals." January 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Harm That Zoos Do to Animals." January 9, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-harm-that-zoos-do-to-animals/.

• Zoos: Cruel or Educational?
• The Future for Zoos and Aquariums Bibliography
• Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?
• Setting Up a Safari Zoo in the UAE
• The Role of Zoos in Endangered Species Protection
• The Australia Zoo Rescue Unit Project
• Negotiating About Pandas for San Diego Zoo
• The Effectiveness of Sustainable Practices, Plans, Programs and Initiatives Implemented by Australian Zoo
• The Analysis of Siamangs’ Behavior in a Zoo Setting
• Negotiating: Pandas in San Diego Zoo Case
• Happy Cows Case: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Kitties
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry
• Wearing Clothes Made of Animal Fur
• Animal Sentience: Impact on Animal Welfare Movement

• Elementary School
• Reading & Speaking
• External Independent Testing
• Grammar Exercises

Argumentative essay: Are you for or against zoos?

Writing an argumentative essay

Some people think that zoos are out-of-date and cruel institutions that should be closed down. Do you agree? Write an argumentative essay (for/against a statement)

At the moment zoos are very popular. Many people think that animals should be in zoos, although there are some arguments both for and against them.

One of the arguments for zoos is the fact they are educational because they provide visitors with lots of educational programmes. What is more, a zoo can be the only place where rare or disappearing animals could be saved.

As far as I am concerned, I am against zoos.

Firstly, it is cruel to keep animals in uncomfortable cages where they live under bad conditions.

Secondly, animals feel a lack of freedom and physical activity and they live under the lack of healthy food.

Thirdly, zoos break a natural animals lifestyle and change it upside-down. Animals which normally hunt for their food are fed, and most have to live in a climate very different from that of their natural habitat.

Moreover, animals suffer from foredoom and this can result in their aggressive behavior.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that zoos have no place in modern society, but I don’t mind safari parks because they are protecting animals, so they don’t become extinct.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Related posts.

English Lessons

Modern Gadgets

Moving in Search of Another Place

My Dream House

Become Vegetarians

Future Plans

Extended Family Living

Teenagers’ Spare Time

Using Mobile Phones at School

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Internet in Education

I agree with your opinion but zoos can be useful, for example: the number of bisons was restored with the help of few remaining in zoos and and it is also interesting to watch the animals.

Thank you for the interesting fact, Diana!

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

• Grammar Tests
• Grammar Exercisers

Why We Should Get Rid Of Zoos

Benjamin Wallace-Wells, a staff writer at New York magazine, recently wrote an essay so sure to be controversial that he began it with a disclaimer.

"Let me make clear my position up front," he writes in the article, The Case for the End of the Modern Zoo . "I love zoos."

Yet he goes on to argue that while zoos do some good for animals and bring a lot of joy to humans, ultimately there is no justifying a life of captivity for so many wild creatures.

He points to "a long-term 1983 study of animal mortality at the San Diego Zoo [that] found cannibalism and infanticide, widespread malnutrition, and frequent deaths from tranquilizer use." He notes that the territory of a wild polar bear is "one million times" the size of their space in a typical zoo. He reviews the evidence against SeaWorld raised by the documentary "Blackfish ," which alleged that their star orca was kept "nearly all the time, alone in a tank that measured twenty feet across."

Related stories

Wallace-Wells takes as a starting point a profile in The New York Times Magazine by Alex Halberstadt, which details the work of Dr. Vint Virga, a skilled veterinarian "whose full-time job is tending to the psychological welfare of animals in captivity." But while the story is a glowing portrait of Virga, it suggests some dark truths about zoos in general. As Wallace-Wells writes:

Most of the issues are hard to imagine arising in the wild. A brown bear develops a form of obsessive compulsive disorder, repeatedly, almost ritually, smashing his head into a metal door in his enclosure. A harbor seal is uneasy about being treated by the vet. A giraffe develops a compulsive fear of men with large cameras. Halberstadt writes, "Disorders like phobias, depression and OCD, documented at zoos, don’t appear to have analogues among animals living in the wild."

Harvard psychologist Irene Pepperberg, renowned for her work with gray parrots, tells Halberstadt that the difference may be because the cushy lives of zoo animals have made them a bit soft. "An animal in the wild can’t afford to be depressed," she says in the Times piece . "It will simply be killed or starve, since its environment requires constant vigilance."

Zoos, Wallace-Wells acknowledges, let animals live with much more safety and security than they would in the wild, with devoted caretakers and medical attention. And they certainly have become more progressive over the years and more responsive to the needs of the animals in their care.

But zoos ask us to pretend that we are observing truly wild animals in an acceptable simulacrum of their natural habitat. That illusion may be crumbling.

So much confinement and artifice is bound to drive the animals crazy, Wallace-Wells argues, even if they've never known anything else.

The whole essay is well worth a read.

Read The Case for the End of the Modern Zoo >>

• Main content

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Rights — Zoos Should Be Banned

Zoos Should Be Banned

• Categories: Animal Rights Conservation

About this sample

Words: 685 |

Published: Mar 25, 2024

Words: 685 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Review of the key topic, development of the topic.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1124 words

4 pages / 1656 words

2 pages / 847 words

2 pages / 1134 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Rights

Animals have been a part of human society for centuries, serving various purposes such as companionship, food, and entertainment. However, the treatment of animals has been a topic of debate for years, with some arguing that [...]

Animal rights have become a pressing topic in modern-day society due to the increased awareness of animal welfare and ethical responsibilities. The concept of animal rights involves the recognition of animals as sentient beings [...]

Animal testing has been a common practice in scientific research and testing for decades. The use of animals, however, remains a highly controversial issue. Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. [...]

Animal research has long been a contentious issue, with proponents touting its benefits to scientific progress and detractors decrying its ethical implications. This essay explores both sides of the debate and offers a [...]

Animals kept in zoos, aquariums, and circuses are treated poorly by humans and inevitably suffer of disease, pain, starvation, and fear so they will perform seamlessly for the public. Animals are forced by their owners to carry [...]

The banning of pit bulls based on their breed is an unjust and ineffective approach to addressing dog-related incidents. It unfairly stigmatizes a specific breed, ignores the importance of individual responsibility, and fails to [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

In this IELTS Zoo Essay you have to discuss whether you think zoos are cruel and should be shut down or whether they are useful as they protect some wild animals.

Essays on zoos have appeared in the IELTS test before and this was a question that was recently in the test.

Some people think that zoos are all cruel and should be closed down. Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals.

Discuss both opinions and give your own opinion.

Understanding the Question

You must always read the question carefully and note if there is anything restricting the topic.

You have to discuss both sides of the argument and with this zoo essay question it would be very easy to read it and then simply write about the benefits and drawbacks of zoos.

But look at this bit carefully:

• Others however believe that zoos can be useful in protecting wild animals .

One of the arguments is specifically about protecting animals. So when you discuss the second argument you must be careful not to just write generally about the advantage of zoos. 

You have to focus on how they may protect wild animals . So when you brainstorm your ideas for the zoo essay, you should be thinking about:

• why animals need protecting and
• how zoos can help with this 

And in your other body paragraph you would need to explain why they are also seen as cruel. 

And of course you must remember to give your own opinion. In this essay, the author makes it clear at the beginning that they support the closing down of zoos. 

The opinion you decide on though is of course your choice.

Zoo Essay Sample

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Zoo Essay Model Answer

Zoos remain popular places for people to visit for entertainment and to learn about wild animals. Although some people are of the opinion that zoos can provide a sanctuary for endangered animals and so should be kept open, I believe that the cruelty that animals suffer outweighs this benefit, and that they should be shut down.

These days, animals are under threat from humans in many ways, seen for example in the way that their habitats are being destroyed through the cutting down of rain forests, or through poaching. Following on from this, the argument is that zoos can protect some of these animals that are under threat. The reason is that they are in a safe environment managed by trained staff who can ensure the animals are looked after and can produce offspring. There are examples of successes in this respect, such as with Pandas, which have been endangered for many years but have been protected.

However, there are more convincing arguments for why zoos should be shut down. Firstly, even though some species are under threat, there are lots of animals which do not fall into this category and who are there just for the entertainment of visitors. While it may be fun and educational to see them, animals are not meant to be caged, and their distress can often be seen in the way many of them pace back and forwards all day. Not only this, if the prime reason of zoos is to protect animals, this could be done in other environments such as wild life parks where the animals have more freedom.

In conclusion, animals should be protected but this does not have to be in zoos. Zoos are cruel to animals, not similar enough to their natural habitat, and they should be closed down. 

(299 Words)

Band scores are given for task response, coherence and cohesion, lexis (vocabulary) and grammatical range and accuracy. 

This zoo essay would get a good score for task response as it fully answers the question by discussing both opinions and giving a personal opinion. Ideas are also well explained, extended and supported. 

It would get a good score for coherence and cohesion as it is organised coherently and logically and is easy to follow. The introduction introduces the topic then there is a thesis statement.

One body paragraph discusses one side of the argument, and the other discusses the other side. The second body paragraph is also the writers opinion, and this is summarised again in the conclusion

.There is some interesting vocabulary and phrases. For example:

• sanctuary for endangered animals
• under threat from humans
• habitats are being destroyed
• produce offspring
• successes in this respect
• not meant to be caged
• natural habitat

There are also some good complex grammatical constructions and the grammar is precise. For example, the red words show that some of these are  adverbial clauses ,  noun clauses  and  relative clauses :

• Although  some people are of the opinion  that  zoos can provide a sanctuary for endangered animals...
• ...seen for example  in the way that  their habitats are being destroyed...
• ...the argument is  that  zoos can protect some of these animals who are under threat.
• ...trained staff  who  can ensure the animals are looked after...
• Pandas  who  have been endangered...
• ... even though  some species are under threat...
• ... While  it may be fun and educational...

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Discuss Two Opinion Essays:

IELTS Essays: What is the best way to reduce crime?

IELTS essays online with comments by an IELTS instructor - A writing sample on the topic of reducing crime.

IELTS Essay Becoming Independent

This IELTS essay discussed whether people are becoming more independent than they were in the past. This is a question that has come up a few times in the test. This is discussion type essay as you have to discuss both sides of an argument and come to a conclusion.

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay

Influence of Scientists or Politicians Essay- Model answer for IELTS. Who has had the most influence on our world? In this essay you have to discuss both sides.

Formal and Informal Education Essay: What age should it start?

This formal and informal education essay is about whether it is best for children to begin their formal education at school when they are 7 rather than much younger.

Extraterrestrial Life Essay: Should we look for life on other planets?

This extraterrestrial life essay is an IELTS opinion essay where you have to discuss both sides of an issue then give your own opinion.

Childcare Essay: Should family or carers look after young children?

Childcare Essay: In the essay you have to discuss two sides of an argument. The first is that it is better if pre-school children are looked after at home with relatives such as grandparents. The second opinion is that children should be looked after at childcare centres.

Animal Rights Essay: Should animals be exploited for humans?

Animal Rights Essay for IELTS: Learn how to write an essay where you have to discuss two opinions. People who believe in animal rights think that they should not be treated cruelly, for example in experiments or for sport.

Donating Money to Charity Essay: Where should the money go?

Donating Money to Charity Essay: IELTS model answer to an essay on the topic of giving locally or to national and international charities.

Diet and Health Essay: Who is responsible for diet and health?

Diet and Health Essay for IELTS: This model examines the extent to which individuals or governments should be responsible for health. Read a model answer and useful comments about the essay which will help you to improve your IELTS Score.

IELTS Writing Example: What are the aims of a university education?

IELTS writing example essays. This is an essay on the aims of university education. In this essay, two opposing opinions need to be discussed. It is important to understand how to answer this type of question in the IELTS exam.

Sources for Stories Essay: Should parents read to their children?

This sources for stories essay asks for your opinion on the best way for children to get stories. Is it from parents reading to them or other ways?

Child Development Essay: What factors influence a child's development?

Child Development Essay for IELTS. The essay is about the factors that affect the way that children develop. It provides you with a model answer and comments on the response to help you know how to improve your band score.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Fillers for IELTS Speaking: Avoid 'Eh', Uhm', 'You know'.

Apr 27, 24 05:48 AM

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Should Animals Be Kept In Zoos (Argumentative Essay)

Should animals be kept in zoos.

The debate of whether or not confining of animals is right in zoos is a popular one that attracts both opponents and proponents. The increased interests in science and natural history saw the introduction of zoos in 1763, which facilitated up close animal studies and would provide a chance for entertaining and educating the public. Nevertheless, confining the animals into small spaces in unnatural habitats, the constant staring from people and loss of their freedom makes zoos the worst homes for animals.

Zoos provide unnatural habitats for the animals. Animals are naturally born and bred to live and die in wilderness habitats. However, despite the numerous efforts and good intentions by zoo management, it is impossible to provide the perfect environment for various animals. For instance, animals like the wilder beasts live in groups that migrate over long distances while elephants on average walk for over 50 km a day in packs. However, zoos can only provide minimal acres of land for the animals to walk about thereby making the environments unnatural and uncomfortable for the animals.

Zoos are a premise of captivity for animals that makes them crazy. Imprisoning of animals in small cages housed in poorly managed zoos that fail to meet the necessary standards, averts them from behaving naturally. As a result, suffer from zoochosis condition, which elicits stress, strange behavior of hurting themselves due to frustration and boredom; they become inactive and increasingly pace around. Moreover, the animals adopt aggressive behavior that results in them lashing out and injuring or killing people.

Zoos are not educational. Zoos operate on the premise that they provide an opportunity for the public to learn about animals. However, this is untrue, as keeping animals in confined and unnatural environments tend to alter their natural behavior, character, and responses. Thus, persons visiting the zoos observe the altered behavior marred by boredom, stress, and loneliness. Moreover, keeping animals in zoos teach people that it is okay to lock up and make animals miserable for their personal gain. Therefore, by gaining pleasure and entertainment from making animals suffer is a horrible lesson to learn.

Proponents of keeping animals in zoos argue that zoos offer the best forms of protection for animals. According to them, animals receive protection from poaching and predators that are out to kill them. Additionally, by engaging in breeding programs, zoos believe they protect various species from becoming extinct, therefore, making them positive institutions to exist. However, this is untrue as some zoos keep the animals in deplorable environments whey they lack food and adequate medical care. Moreover, based on research, endangered animals living in zoos are only about five species and only a few species undergo breeding.

Proponents also believe that zoos provide the opportunity for people to see a wide array of animals while benefiting children with lessons about the environment and animals. Nevertheless, this is not the case as zoos only house few species of animals as compared to those an individual can observe in the wild. Also, zoos expose animals to neglect and stress that alter their behavior hence impeding true learning for children.

In conclusion, animals just as humans enjoy rights to freedom, protection from abuse, stress, neglect and lack of privacy. There is no denying that zoo violates all these rights by introducing them to unnatural habitats and caging the animals. Hence, in promoting health and happiness of the animals, animals should not be kept in zoos.

Our academic writers are animal lovers, so you can trust them and buy essay papers about animals in our essay writing service.

• Social Issues

Should We Get Rid Of Zoos Essay Example

Should we get rid of zoos? Studies have shown that zoos provide less space for animals. They also cause far more harm to animals than good. We should get rid of zoos because animals need to stay in the wild, zoos cannot provide natural experiences for animals, and animals get sick and die.

Animals in the zoos “have way less space”. According to Bartleby, ‘should we get rid of zoos’, states “Big cats have 1,800 times less space as they would in the wild”. At zoos, the enclosure gives us a summary of the life spans, eating habits, and natural habitats of the individual species. If you look closely, you’ll notice how different animals lived from how the plaque told us they should.

Zoo enclosures cause physical and mental harm to the animals. An animal behavioralist has proven that animals can develop different disorders such as Obsessive-compulsive disorder, Obesity, Depression, and Anxiety. “For example, elephants live about 16 - 18 years in captivity, while in the wild they can live upward of 50 years”. This difference is too significant to ignore. (nique.net)

Although zoos can provide a protected environment for rare and endangered species. From an animal standpoint, humans do not have the right to breed, capture and confine other animals. Even if those species are endangered. Many animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that violation of the rights of individual animals.

That’s why I believe we should get rid of zoos. Animals have no space. They cause harm to the animals.

Related Samples

• Police Brutality Essay Sample
• The Impact of Propaganda Essay Example
• Racial Intolerance Essay Example
• Covid-19 Impact on Minorities
• Unrealistic Standards Of Beauty Essay Example
• The Death Penalty Discussion Essay Example
• The Dress Code Should Be Enforced Upon Everyone Argumentative Essay
• Discrimination of Women Contributing to Health Care Essay Example
• Exploratory Essay: Why Cell Phones Should Not Be Banned In Public Places
• Speech Example: How Do We Fix the Roots of Poverty?

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Conflict between activists and zoos shows no sign of going away

Peta says ‘conservation is a con’ but zoos point to their role as educators despite evidence children learn little from them

A great treat for the kids with the gift of species conservation thrown in – or a wildlife prison? Trips to the zoo have become a far less simple day out than they used to be.

Animal rights activists have no doubt where the truth lies: “No one should ever support zoos,” said Peta , the animal rights organisation.

Captivity is a stultifying, daily torment for animals meant to freely wander vast distances, activists argue. Animals are meant to make their own choices about what to eat, where to sleep and who mate with – decisions taken from them in zoos.

Deprived of stimulation, research has found that many animals are trapped in spaces that are all-too-often “living hells”: three-quarters of British zoos, aquariums and petting farms have been found to regularly break minimum animal welfare standards .

Activists also point out that zoos abduct animals from their natural habitats under the guise of “species protection” and get rid of “surplus” animals either by killing them or by selling them to unethical exotic-animal dealers.

Zoos argue they do vital conservation work: they hold, research shows, nearly 15% of the global International Union for Conservation of Nature threatened species – although most zoos are concentrated in temperate regions, whereas most threatened species are tropical.

Activists argue that the vast majority of species kept in zoos are not endangered and nor do most zoos have any involvement with reintroduction programmes. “Conservation is a con,” said Peta.

Zoos argue that their role in educating the public is one their most important roles . A study of children between the ages of seven and 15 who visited London Zoo , however, found that for the majority of them – including those who took an educator-guided tour of the zoo – there were no positive educational outcomes. In many cases, the trip even had a negative impact on their understanding of animals and their habitats.

“And that makes sense,” said Peta. “We wouldn’t go to a prison to learn about typical human society, so why would we try to learn about animals by observing them in captivity?”

• Conservation

Most viewed

• Use Messenger
• Send us an email

Zoos: Natural Alternative?

The word “zoo” was introduced in the 19th century and first served as an abbreviation of the word combination “zoological garden” – the collection of different species of animals taken from the nature. They were created on the basis of many reasons: research making, education, conservation and recreation. In general, zoos are seen as some sort of alternative to a natural environment for the animals. Let’s find out if it’s true by means of examining the pros and cons of the zoos.

It is an important debate whether animals should be kept in the zoos or not . Some say that it is necessary to capture them in order to protect from poachers. Regarding all the efforts to kill animals for ivory , skins and medical aims, zoo is quite a safe place for them. In contrast to this, it is necessary to note that animals have their natural rights and once they are put into cages these rights are broken.

It is known that there are zoos where workers treat animals very cruelly . Fortunately, day by day all the zoos become more and more improved and it wouldn’t be fair to close all the zoos because of the mistakes of some of them. But no matter how good the conditions of the place where animals are kept are, they are still suffering because of the fact that their natural behavior is limited by zoo’s walls .

We can endlessly discuss the issues of zoos. Surely, it is important to take measures to study, protect and preserve endangered species, but it is important to do it without making animals suffer during the process. In my opinion, zoos will never be an alternative to the natural environment no matter how high the quality of the life conditions in there may be.

Can Zoos Be Educative?

There is a lot of discussion about zoos and whether they are necessary in the system of contemporary school education for children to be able to have a closer look at the life of wild animals. Some people consider zoos to be a good educational tool, as they give children a possibility to see an…

How Do Wild Animals Feel in the Zoo?

How would you like the idea of being locked in the cage and having thousands of people looking at you every day for their pleasure? Nobody would like things like that. But that’s an ordinary treatment animals get in the zoos. To my point of view, it is strictly important to forbid such places like…

Ethics of Animal Testing

Animal testing is an extremely controversial topic with people having most divergent views. Some people feel that animals should not be used as guinea pigs for experimentation and that all animal testing should be banned. They feel that animals need to be treated in a humane manner and animal testing is a brutal way of…

Our Services

• Academic ghostwriting
• Admission essay help
• Article writing
• Assignment writing
• College paper writing
• Coursework writing
• Dissertation writing
• Homework writing
• Online classes
• Personal statement writing
• Report writing
• Research paper writing
• Speech writing
• Term paper writing
• Writing tips
• Write my paper

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

The Mostly Persuasive Logic Behind the New Ban on Noncompetes

By Peter Coy

Opinion Writer

The Federal Trade Commission used two very different rationales to get to its near-total ban this week on noncompete agreements. One of them is a no-brainer. The other is provocative but not completely obvious. I guess I’d call it a brainer.

As you might have read, the F.T.C. commissioners on Tuesday voted 3 to 2 on a final rule against noncompete clauses in employment contracts, which limit the ability of an employee to quit and immediately go work for a rival. The commission determined that they are an “unfair method of competition.” The rule takes effect 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, unless a court blocks it before then.

The easy prong of the ban for the F.T.C. to justify is the one that applies to nurses, hairdressers, truck drivers — actually, every kind of worker except for senior executives. For 99 percent of the American work force, the F.T.C. said, requiring workers to sign noncompete agreements as a condition of employment is “coercive and exploitative conduct.” The agency’s 570-page ruling cites articles in The Times and The Wall Street Journal in which workers came forward to say, in the F.T.C.’s words, that noncompete agreements “derailed their careers, destroyed their finances and upended their lives.” I agree. I wrote a piece in 2021 titled , “Why Are Fast Food Workers Signing Noncompete Agreements?”

But the “coercive and exploitative” rationale doesn’t work for senior executives, who aren’t so easy to coerce or exploit. They’re more likely to have lawyers look over contract offers. They typically have some power in the employment negotiation and know how to use it. Many won’t sign a noncompete agreement unless they get something in return, such as a sweetened pay package.

The F.T.C. defined senior executives as people earning more than $151,164 per year who are in a “policy-making position” and estimated that fewer than 1 percent of workers meet the description. Under the rule, existing noncompetes for senior executives can remain in force but most new ones are banned. The rule doesn’t apply to clauses that are related to the sale of a business.

For noncompetes involving senior executives, the F.T.C. fell back on another argument, which is that the agreements are “restrictive and exclusionary conduct” that harms competition in product, service and labor markets. (The F.T.C. says that this second argument also applies to other workers, but for them I think it’s overshadowed by the “coercive and exploitative” argument.)

This is a bit subtle. It requires you to think of the employer and the senior executive as being in cahoots rather than fighting each other. Together they cook up a noncompete that rewards the executive for agreeing to deprive other potential employers of her or his talents and depriving the customers of those other companies of potentially better products and services. In economists’ terms, noncompete signatories are maximizing their bilateral surplus at the expense of others.

The logic is that the company that can’t hire the executive might have better growth prospects, so holding it back is bad for society as a whole. Or, after leaving the old employer, the executive has to be (wastefully) inactive for six months or so to wait out what finance people call the garden leave. Or the new employer has to pay a large sum to buy out the noncompete clause — again, socially wasteful.

“There can be sizable gains from restricting these contracts,” Liyan Shi of Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business wrote in a 2023 article in the journal Econometrica.

As I said, this is an interesting and even persuasive argument. But it’s not simple to make.

“If this becomes the approach,” Sean Heather, the senior vice president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, asked me, will any contract that doesn’t take into account the interests of third parties be “no longer viable”?

Charles Tharp, a professor of the practice at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business, said that while banning the noncompete might benefit a future employer, it harms the current employer, so there’s no net benefit; it’s a wash.

But two other economists I contacted disagreed with Tharp and Heather. Evan Penniman Starr, an associate professor at the University of Maryland’s Smith School of Business who is an expert on noncompete agreements, wrote to me that governments shouldn’t always put third parties first, but shouldn’t ignore them either, citing smoking bans to protect third parties from secondhand smoke. As for Tharp’s point, he wrote, “If match quality is higher at the subsequent firm, it is not a wash. It’s an efficient move that would destroy value if it wasn’t made.”

Sandeep Vaheesan, the legal director of the Open Markets Institute, emailed me that companies could still retain senior executives through higher pay packages and fixed-term contracts. Noncompetes are a “stick,” he wrote. “Public policy should encourage employers to use carrots instead. The F.T.C. noncompete ban does exactly that.”

Vaheesan also sided with the F.T.C.’s argument that companies have other ways to protect themselves when a key employee leaves, such as trade secret protection and agreements that prohibit people from soliciting customers of the companies they used to work for.

There’s precedent for taking into account the interests of third parties, Starr told me. He cited an American Bar Association model rule on professional conduct that forbids restricting attorneys from working elsewhere not only because it harms the attorney but also because it “limits the freedom of clients to choose a lawyer.”

The strongest evidence against noncompete agreements is that Silicon Valley has thrived even though — or maybe even partly because — the state of California has long banned noncompete agreements in most circumstances, under a law passed in 1872. The prohibition does not seem to have discouraged companies from sharing valuable inside information with employees who might leave. And it has enabled the germination of ideas as people flit from company to company like pollinating honeybees.

“Noncompetes are a pain in the neck for us,” Dr. Stephen DeCherney, who is the chair of New York-based Helios Clinical Research, told me. “Overall I won’t be sorry to see them go.”

Still, this is going to be messy for a while. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a lawsuit against the F.T.C. to block the rule, arguing that the agency doesn’t have the power to issue such a ban and that even if it did, a categorical ban isn’t lawful. Eugene Scalia, who was President Donald Trump’s secretary of labor for a year and a half, also filed a lawsuit, this one on behalf of Ryan L.L.C., a tax services firm in Texas whose chief executive, Brint Ryan , is a Republican donor who has advised Trump.

Even if the F.T.C. wins on the legality of its rule, enforcing it is going to be tricky. Let’s say a company gets rid of its noncompete clause, but it imposes a nondisclosure agreement that’s so broad and strict that it has the same functional effect of preventing someone from taking a job elsewhere. According to the F.T.C., “such a term is a noncompete clause under the final rule.”

Arguing over what’s the same functional effect is going to keep a lot of lawyers busy. Same for nonsolicitation agreements and trade secret protection. “‘You can’t work for a competitor for a year’ is a pretty clear rule; ‘you can’t use our secrets at a competitor’ will mean more lawsuits,” Matt Levine, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, wrote Wednesday.

I admire the F.T.C. for looking at the entire economic landscape in evaluating the pros and cons of noncompete agreements, not just the interests of the employer and employee. It’s a bold step, though.

The Readers Write

You wrote that most right-to-work laws were passed in the 1940s and 1950s, when Southern states were solidly Democratic. True, but in the ’60s after the passage of the Civil Rights Act the Southern Democrats were wholly absorbed by the Republican Party. Right-to-work is an anti-union strategy implemented by the same power elite that discouraged workers in this most recent vote. Their failure is significant. When Southerners start thinking for themselves, I view that as a hopeful development.

Rebecca Bartlett Brattleboro, Vt.

I’m a 47-year union member enjoying my retirement with an old-fashioned, union-negotiated pension and lifetime medical coverage. As those Volkswagen workers told you, to a certain degree, it doesn’t matter who the president is when it comes to what union members are paid. But it does matter to all employees who the president appoints to critical agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and many more. Those agencies have real day-to-day impact on workers’ lives and futures.

Jim Griffin King George, Va.

Concerning your newsletter on Donald Trump’s economic agenda: He is clearly advocating an isolationist strategy. One does not have to look far to see that isolationism is a dead-end street. Is there anything to love about North Korea’s economy? How about Brexit?

Bob Kerst San Francisco

Quote of the Day

“Got no diamond, got no pearl Still I think I’m a lucky girl I got the sun in the morning and the moon at night”

— Irving Berlin, “I Got the Sun in the Morning” (1946)

Peter Coy is a writer for the Opinion section of The Times, covering economics and business. Email him at [email protected] . @ petercoy