Zoos do more harm than good.

Thank you for your response and sorry for the forfeited round. Here are my contentions: First. My opponent argues that Zoos erase the instincts for survival of an animal and thus they can't be re-introduced into the wild. I'm going to say that this isn't necessarily the case at all. Supporting this argument I'd point to some of the animals that were on extinctions doorway that have been saved by Zoos such as: Black-footed ferrets Przewalski's horses Spix's macaws California condors Guam rails Scimitar-horned oryx Plains Bison While it is occasionally the case that Zoos cannot save animals from extinction it is also often the case that they can. Ultimately though, I'd argue that trying to save them from extinction and failing is better than the alternative of not even trying. Also I'd argue that the instincts my opponent speaks of are often genetically ingrained. Thousands generations of genetics are not usually reversed by a few generations contained in a new habitat. Second, and far more important, is the fact that Zoos often create conservation projects. In fact there are over 460 conservation projects launched by Zoos world wide. These projects protect an animals natural habitat while never taking the animal itself into captivity. This is of a massive benefit because it means that those animals being protected never lose any amount of their instincts. Third, Zoos attract nature fans and people interested in viewing animals. This is also of a massive benefits because it means that those people don't step into the wild habitats as often as they would otherwise. This in turn means less natural environment gets destroyed; less things like Forest Fires occur which also destroy large swaths of animals. Ultimately this also protects animal populations from becoming extinct. Fourth, Zoos create a habitat in which animals can easily be researched. Not only does this help understand the animals and help them in their natural habitat but it also allows humans to find new diseases. Potentially this allows for new remedies and vaccines to be discovered against such diseases. Additionally I'd argue that many zoos also house plant populations. Study of these plants also has the potential to lead to cures for disease and viruses. Fifth, Zoos employ people. In fact, a lot of zoos have received a higher turnout recently because of the recession. People often don't have enough money for long drawn out trips thus they end up going to zoos. Ergo people get paid, it stimulates the economy, and more money is given to the Zoos. The Zoos turn around and use this money to make the artificial habitats better. Additionally Zoos can use this money to fund more conservation projects. Sixth, and finally, Zoos raise awareness. Through Zoos, and the education which they provide, people can often understand and emphasize with the plight of waning populations. My argument is that this can in turn lead to movements by the citizen population in order to preserve habitats. I'd point to events like the Rainforest conservation projects of South America which have spread across the United States. It's often tourists learning about the animal's environments being destroyed, via zoos, which spreads these kinds of movements. Obviously all of my opponents responses will be new next round but I think that's probably only fair. Hope the rest of the debate goes well. Good luck!