Zoos do more harm than good

I'd like to refute my opponent's points First off, my opponent stated that animals are taken into zoos because they're endangered- Even if these zoos DID help the animals, imagine what would happen when they got put back into the wild? They probably wouldn't be used to the danger, because they're so used to the environment where they're fed food! This makes the help from zoos completely pointless, because the animals will most likely die in the end anyways. Only 1% of those animals are put back into the wild Source-Born Free Foundation Also, the animals that are usually saved are animals that are clichï¿½d or have immense popularity over other animals. The zoos often don't take in animals that are as popular, because they're afraid that they won't make enough money or attract enough visitors. Definitions: zoo-the facility where wild animals are housed for exhibition. exhibition-organized presentation and display of a selection of items S:wordnetweb.princeton.edu Right in the definitions, it clearly states that zoos are the facility where wild animals are housed for presentation and display. They are basically items used for display. To start off my own arguments, I would like to have you picture something, judge. Imagine going to the zoo on a class field trip as a little kid. Now you may be thinking that it is a very happy situation, but think of it in the animal's points of view. They are trapped in metal cages, usually without enough room, in an unreal environment. Since my opponent brought up that this is for the animal's own good, then I'd like to take that point to my own side. See, if my opponent is really THINKING about the animals themselves and how the animals would feel being taken out of the wild and away from their families, then they would leave them be. The guarantee rate of these animals actually surviving with the zoo's care is not 100%, and wouldn't it be better to die with those you love, rather than die in a care center or a zoo by yourself? Now I will resume onto my own points I'd like to start with my first point, that although the animals are being put in zoos for educational purposes, this is not an effective system to do so Source:J.Whyville.net First off, animals do not behave naturally or act as they would in their natural habitats. This is often due to stress and hunger. The stress of being photographed all the time, or having to stay in a cage that is woefully undersized is HUGE. The opposition may also state that there are descriptions of each animal in front of the cages, but how many little kids do you know that will stop to look at the tiny description box in front of them, rather than seeing the animals themselves? Another effect of the unnatural behavior is that it gives the wrong impression to kids and adults alike. The animal may be more aggressive, since they're under stress, which may lead them to attacking the visitors. This gives the visitors a false impression of the the animals, that they're too aggressive and they're really dangerous. Wouldn't it be easier if the person read the information online or on the TV than to have these false impressions/ That leads me to my second point, that there are better options than zoos Source for this argument : European Captive Breeding Programs;Born Free Foundation;Wiki.answers.com According to US Television Households as of December 2006 - 111,300,000 people have/own TVs in the US. Imagine how much greater this number has grown in a 3-4 year time period! HD (High Definition) TVs are currently sold throughout the US and feature realistic and great videos of these animals in their NATURAL habitat. I'm stressing the word NATURAL because the animals BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY as I have said before in my previous argument. There is a far greater number of people that would watch a documentary like Planet Earth in stunning HD and great video than people who want to go to the zoo! TV's nowadays give the real impression of the animals.