Some people argue that education justifies the existence of zoos. But is it really acceptable to sacrifice the well-being of animals for the sake of human learning? Is that truly the best way to educate people about wildlife? What about documentaries, safaris, or wildlife sanctuaries? People could visit those places and observe animals in a more natural environment.
Conservation, on the other hand, is an important cause. But instead of keeping animals in small, artificial enclosures, why not house them in large sanctuaries? In such places, animals could receive proper veterinary care from trained professionals. I would suggest transforming zoos into spacious sanctuaries, where animals could live in peace. Some could even be rehabilitated and eventually returned to the wild. That, too, could serve educational purposes—perhaps even more effectively, since the animals would be living more freely.
So the claim that zoos exist for conservation is misleading. Zoos often do more harm than good. Animals in confined spaces suffer; they are not truly being conserved. Sanctuaries, however, could fulfill that role with more compassion and respect for animal welfare.
Research is another reason people use to justify zoos. It’s true that close observation is easier in captivity—but again, a zoo is not a natural habitat. Animals often don’t thrive there. Sanctuaries may not be the wild either, but they provide a far better alternative. With this in mind, we might foster a deeper appreciation for wildlife without compromising animal dignity.