I would eliminate the small roadside zoos without a doubt, but the major zoos with professional staff may be the best hope for many endangered species.

Only if the animals could all be moved to sanctuaries to live out the rest of their days, as they are no longer equipped to survive in the wild. If that were possible, then yes, absolutely.

Difficult question. On the one hand I dont' think the animals are happy to be in zoos, but on the other hand I think zoos can have some educational value, and in some cases zoos may be the only safe place for animals endangered with extinction.

mixed feelings here. more and more zoos are eschewing cages for more natural habitats, but captivity is still captivity. then again, there tend not to be hunters in zoos, and some species can only be protected that way. traditional zoos with cages just have to go, sorry, BYE zoos! but the free range type you mention are necessary. it is also important for kids especially but people in general to have access to what they otherwise would not be able to experience, without exploitation of course.

g

They need to have national standards for zoos. Look at the better zoos and base your standards on those zoos. Comply or get closed down.

No. It would result in the immediate extinction of numerous species, and the loss of facilities devoted to preserving same.

I would not be opposed to having the open range type of parks to save endangered animals. Texas has a couple of these if I am not mistaken. However to catch wild animals and place them in cages in areas where they are not used to climate or food I feel is inhumaine.We often see animals displaying mental problems from the way they are imprisoned.It is cruel to continue this practice just for our enjoyment.

The best zoos are about the only hope of preventing extinction of some species.

If money was no object, I'd turn them into wildlife sanctuaries with no humans allowed.

Yes, and make more animal sanctuaries.

I would prevent zoos from having animals who could live on their own and fend for themselves.

[leidenlawblog.nl]

Here is a Law blog that directly addresses this question. Interesting how many animals are killed each year because of stupid, avoidable behavior by visitors to the zoo.

Tradional zoos are no better than prisons. "Living Space - Natural Habitat " zoos are a little better. but not perfect. Two positive aspects of a zoos remains; 1) opportunity to preserve an endangered species prior to extinction; 2) research benefiting the organism that otherwise would not be possible.

Outside of that, the only purpose they serve is to allow one species (humans) the opportunity to see animals not familiar to them in an artifcial environment. Humans are vain in their desire to own everything they see and control everything they touch.

I dislike seeing caged animals, or animals kept in special place primarily for human entertainment. If I ran the world, I'd discourage zoos. I'd need more information on current zoo regulations to decide whether I'd outright ban zoos and the sort, but I personally am not fond of caging animals in confined spaces.

I am not so opposed to animals kept in a wildlife preserve, if the enclosure truly preserves them and gives them a life as close to nature, but without the threat of predators they would have in their natural habitat.

I'd rather see animals in their real natural habitat, without disturbing them, and am actually fine just with videos from nature documentaries rather than seeing them in person, in their country of origin.

I just returned from a week's visit to DisneyWorld's Animal Kingdom, where we had a "preserve" right outside our hotel window, with zebras, giraffes, ostriches and many more exotic animals wandering around.

While it was cool to see them, and their life is likely not horrible, it's hard to draw the line between what is "living in a fishbowl" and what is "living in a protected but close to natural habitat" and this seemed somewhat humane for them being a spectacle for the visitors.

We also did a "safari" through the larger preserve. While more preferable to a zoo, I often wonder if humans are doing these animals a favor or a disservice by protecting them on a preserve. I'm "on the fence" regarding animal preserves.

Yes, wildlife sanctuaries, preservation efforts, and animal hospitals, no.

No, in some cases they have the only remaining individuals of a species; they may save such species.

Allowing people to view, learn, and interact with animals is a way to keep people engaged with survival of animals. Proper zoos focus on education and conservation, and if we were to remove them or even move all animals to sanctuaries, those animals are then out of sight, out of mind. I fear that in less than a couple of generations, we will lose so many species. Zoos aren't perfect, but we need to try to do better by animals. I do my part personally and hope people will continue to care about conservation.

If they were safe in the wild without a doubt

Hot take: We're not the same as other animals.

I love animals, for the most part, but I'm also not a fool. They're not our equal. They do not deserve anything from me.

This sounds selfish, and it is. Existence is selfish. Humanity will not cede progress and expansion to benefit the endangered whatever. Forget that dream.

Zoos serve a fantastic purpose. They're both more humane than the wild and help us preserve species we deign to keep around for entirely selfish reasons (usually because we think they're cute).

More, modern zoos are not roadside attractions with animals kept in cages (anymore). Animals do not have the same space they'd have in the wild, but then, we're in the middle of repurposing their habitat for our use. Some animals adapt to this, others die. Besides, it is a scientific fact that animals at zoos today live longer, more richly and healthier than their wild counterparts.

These are not sapient creatures, saying "what if humans" is a non-starter. Not only should we not get rid of zoos, but if we truly care for the various species on Earth, we will expand them. Make more.

Yes, for selfish reasons, but also because it's what's best for those animals.

Of course. Humans have NO RIGHT to imprison other beings for amusement, study, profit, exploitation, etc.

If you want to know if something is ethical just ask yourself "is it ok to do this to humans?"

Yes all of them. But we have to also build habitats for the former zoo animals. Reality is that zoos get less and less profitable in many part of the world and many animals often just get left behind with no care. There are even cases where the owners just left animals to starve.
Caging animals for our entertainment is wrong even without the cruel treatment they often receive there, just stop it.

I like the idea of the San Diego Zoo Safari Park.

No but would try to find a way so the animals could not see the people but people can still see the animals. The San Francisco zoo back in the 50, 60s was horrible then they decided to make it a world class zoo.

Im not sure it would be the first thing on my mind. What else does this power come with? How did I obtain this power?