I keep reading 'zoos are bad because they lock animals up'. Okay fine. But let me say something.

1) Most of the animals in zoos nowadays are in the zoo specifically for their protection. To save them from extinction, or if they are to injured to function properly in 'the wild'. The other animals are there because they were bred there. 

2) All you people who still insist that the only point of a zoo is to entertain people need to poen your eyes. And go to a zoo. The purpose of a zoo has not been to entertain for a long time. The modern purpose is to remind people of the beaty we are missing. They are saying: Look! Look at this amazing animal, who, because of you, is suffering. Zoos are meant to educate, inspire, and motivate people aboutthe protection of our worlds animals.

3)My last point is on cages. It's ironic how one way thinking can affect the meaning of this point. You say cages keep you in. I say cages keep bad things out. Or that is the intention for this kind of cage. As I mentioned earlier, many of the animals at zoos have a reason to be there:they need protection, or help, from something that is ultimately humanity's fault. The cage is a protection, a safe haven for animals who need it. It includes shelter, food, water, space and anything else the animal needs without the dangers. And in time, when it is safe for the animals to go back to 'the wild' we will do it. 

As I see it a zoo is like a bandaide. As soon as we don't need it anymore we'll take it off. Though I guess we will always need someplace safe for permanently injured animals to go. We'll probably also always need a place to educate people too, because humans never seem to learn. 

The above is how some zoos are and how all zoos should be. If you see something in a zoo that does not fit within 'good zoo', get off your complaintive backside and do something about it. Quit arguing and act.

Exactly, and often times, zoos are saving the animal's they take in, either because they are endangered, they may be no longer able to survive in the wild because of an injury or because when some idiot decides they no longer want an animal they never should have gotten in the first place and give it to the zoo. Zoo's are a safe haven for many animals and, if they are a well run facility, they are always trying to educate people on how they can help more animals by protecting habitats (or something along those lines) so they don't have to go in zoos. At least that's waht the zoos in Chicago do.

I know that not all animals in zoos are under the conditions stated above, but a lot of them are, or they simply were born in captivity. Good zoos try very hard to do what's right for the animal, so the only thing people should complain about is if the zoo isn't up to that standard.

Why is everyone saying that it is inhumane to keep animals in captivity? Look at it from the animal's point of veiw. Not yours. You are looking in through the fence/glass. You're thinking as if it was you. Well, animals don't think the same way as you.

To the animals it's just their home. It's not "captivity". They don't even know what "the wild" is. And I doubt they're missing much. They have everything they need: food, water, safety, shelter, space, a much better chance of being healthy than they would have in the wild, and a very good chance of getting a mate. What more could an animal want? Freedom? What's that? Animals don't desire freedom. They desire space. People desire freedom. As long as animals have enough space, they don't feel confined.

I feel that anyone who wants to make this argument, especially about animals that were born in captivity, must first go release their dog/cat/hamster/fish/guinea pig/rabbit/chinchilla into the wild.

Well hang on a sec. I agree with the beginning of your post (Dart's post), but... for one, what's wrong with teaching animals tricks? Who here teaches their dog tricks? What's the difference? As long as it's not something dangerous, or they don't be mean like cracking a whip or something.

I do agree with your other point. Zoos are very educational. If I had only seen giraffes in picture books or on TV, they wouldn't exactly seem real, would they?

Although I don't quite understand your bias against nature films. Those are educational too, right? And there's no such thing as "invading" nature. I saw the show on how they made Planet Earth. These people are very discreet and don't disrupt the animals' lives. They often get their shots from very far away or travel very far or wait a long time to get their shots. Again, though, I don't know what you mean by "invading" nature. There's no such thing.

I completely agree with this article - thank you for writing it! I am also a zoo volunteer, and I can sympathize.

There are bad zoos. Cruel, inhumane ones. Usually, those are more along the lines of circuses.  I just don't understand how so many people can be blatantly anti-Zoo, when the people who do work at (good) zoos have spent so many years studying animals, know more about animals, and care more about animals than them. It's like saying an astronaut hates and knows nothing about space! It's absurd and disrespectful.

Those are not facts.

Now, there are bad zoos. I'm not talking about those. Those are akin to circuses and should be eliminated. A good zoo's goal is to educate the public and breed animals. Grouping those in with bad zoos is insulting and disrespectful.

Many animals were born in captivity, many were injured in the wild and were rescued from certain death. Few animals are taken from the wild anymore, and they shouldn't be, unless they are hurt. That is something that should be stopped, I agree. And it is cruel to put animals in cages or small enclosures, and that should be put to a stop, just like making animals perform tricks should be. But many zoos spend millions of dollars building expansive habitats, have scientists who have studied animals and animal behavior for years working on developing the ecosystem perfectly. Animals are the center of the world for these people, and you accuse them of only doing it for profit?

Zoos - once again, good zoos - are commercialized to educate the public, and that is all. How else would people learn? If there are no zoos for people to see animals up close, for them to learn about them and learn about environmental problems, how will they ever feel empathetic toward them? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather there be zoos with captive-born animals and keepers who care for them there to teach people than documentaries or shows on TV where people directly invade nature to film animals.

Plus have you ever seen animals in the zoo? most of them laze around or flirt with the tourists. They LOVE it! At Busch Gardens in Tampa, there is an Australian exhibit where the kangaroos and walabys are allowed to run wild and they love the attention they're given from the people.

And most animals in zoos (unless they're brought in due to injury) are bred in captivity, which means they don't know any different and it would be inhumane to release these animals into the wild because they wouldn't know how to survive and would die.

Great article! I completely agree with you!! :D Well written also!