Introduction
The growth of animals in captivity is a complex and controversial ethical debate that has many negative impacts on animals, people, and the environment. This is because human attempts to preserve wild animals from destruction disrupt biological processes. Therefore, particular attention should be devoted to the issue of ethical captive breeding, and several arguments against captive farming and the way animals are maintained should be addressed. Thus, it is essential to provide sufficient conditions for the life of animals in zoos and to address the unethical nature of keeping them in captivity.
Arguments Against Animal Captive Growing
It is crucial to emphasize that it is inappropriate to raise animals in captivity because it often causes them to become objects of temptation for people, and the conditions of their care do not meet the requirements, which affects the deterioration of their physical and moral state. Zoos, or, in their original form, zoological gardens, have existed for a very long time.
The oldest one was found in 2009 during the excavations in Egypt, where archaeologists found evidence of a menagerie 3,500 years before Christ (González-Barrio 465). It was only when modern zoos began to appear in London, Dublin, and Paris that the focus shifted to educating and entertaining the public. Accordingly, the animals raised in captivity are confined in tight cages and suffer from the intense attention of humans.
Although changes are being made in zoos, they are not enough to keep wild animals. For example, cages have largely been replaced by moats and glass, and in most cases, zoos have veterinarians (Learmonth 312). A friendly attitude toward animals is now the norm, and dousing animals with a cold water hose is no longer considered an ethical means of enforcing compliance. Tranquilizers are increasingly used less frequently, as they are highly stressful for the animals.
However, there are still significant discrepancies between the conditions in zoos and parks and the animals’ natural habitats. In terms of space, a lion or tiger has, on average, 18,000 times less space in confinement than in the wild (Learmonth 312). Similarly, polar bears in captivity often have smaller living spaces than they need. Hence, it negatively affects not only the physical development of animals but also their morale. As a result, the animals become apathetic and try not to have contact with people.
In addition, there have been cases where the captive breeding and keeping of wild animals have had fatal consequences. For instance, in 2008, a government-funded study in Britain found serious concerns about the welfare of every elephant in the country (Learmonth 317). Seventy-five percent of them were overweight, and only 16 percent could walk normally.
African elephants also live three times longer in the wild than in captivity. Similarly, 40 percent of lions die in zoos, compared to 30 percent in the wild (Learmonth 318). Hence, it indicates that captive breeding of wild animals is bad for them because death in captivity is higher, and no cause would cause their death in the wild.
Counterargument for Captive Animal Breeding
The captivity of rare species in wildlife helps preserve their representatives on the verge of extinction in the wild. It is worth noting that throughout the world, native species of animals and plants are found only in specific regions or are beginning to disappear rapidly (Soulsbury et al., 1164). However, the last few decades have been particularly stressful. With urbanization, climatic transformation, and pollution, the number of wild species living in the wild is shrinking even further (Soulsbury et al., 1164). In addition, the premature development of municipalities, associated with the expanding need for accommodation worldwide, has led to the destruction of natural habitats where rare and original species once flourished.
Rising global temperatures and precipitation shortages from climate shifts have made it almost impossible for natural habitats and feeding sources to function. Moreover, hunting threatens species that already survive in small numbers. Pangolins, for example, are becoming extinct from their traditional areas in South China, Southeast Asia, and Africa, as their unique scales and meat are considered therapeutic benefits in these locations (Soulsbury et al., 1167).
Breeding and keeping wild animals in zoos or nature reserves allows them to avoid extinction. For instance, the Chinese pangolin was born in the Prague Zoo, the first pangolin born in Europe (Soulsbury et al., 1168). In addition, zoo workers try to ensure that the pangolin is treated similarly to its natural counterparts. Consequently, captive breeding permits preserving species on the brink of extinction.
Refutation of Counterargument
One of the primary methods of saving endangered species is captive breeding. Implicating the parents in the most favorable breeding conditions or hand-feeding the cubs increases the chances of survival for the animals’ young. However, as researchers from the Australian National University discovered, a captive birth and a happy childhood are no guarantee of a happy future for the released animals (Fischer 65). They came to these conclusions after studying the phenotype of golden-bellied grass parrots, the objects of one of the largest and most protracted breeding agendas of any Australian species. The annual release of captive-bred animals augments their wild population and hatches young to prevent extinction.
Nevertheless, it has been discovered that young parrots raised in aviaries differ from their wild counterparts in wing shape and feather length, which affects their well-being during annual migrations. Although all young parrots have low migration survival, captive-bred birds with modified wing shapes had 2.7 times lower survival than birds with “wild-type” wings (Fischer, 72). Researchers also determined changes in wing shape in other captive-bred bird species, including threatened reed asters and blue-winged grass parrots. In other words, these changes are not a unique feature of golden-bellied grass parrots specifically but a common characteristic of all captive-bred birds that may affect the success of their breeding programs (Fischer, 76). Thus, the argument that captive breeding is a successful way to ensure the conservation of rare species of animals is not supported.
Conclusion
Therefore, even though zoos and reserves are trying to create the best conditions for the rearing and living of wild animals today, such practices are unethical. The fact that the areas allocated for them are much smaller than natural conditions and the attention of people depresses the morale of animals. In addition, zoos and nature reserves preserve wild animals from extinction. However, this also hurts their adaptability to wild conditions. Accordingly, maintaining wild animals in captivity is unethical and has more disadvantages than advantages.
Works Cited
Fischer, Bob. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. Routledge, 2019.
González-Barrio, David. “Zoonoses and Wildlife: One Health Approach.” Animals, vol. 12, no. 4, 2022, pp.460- 480. Web.
Learmonth, Mark James. “Dilemmas for Natural Living Concepts of Zoo Animal Welfare.” Animals, vol.9, no. 6, 2019, pp. 310- 318. Web.
Soulsbury, Carl D., et al. “The Welfare and Ethics of Research Involving Wild Animals: A Primer.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 11, no. 10, 2020, pp. 1164-1181. Web.