Aranda 1

Justin Aranda

Professor Greg McClure

Writing 39C - Animal Rights

25 February 2019

Proposal to Abolish Zoos

Imagine, you and your family visit your local zoo and decide to check out the polar bear

exhibit. As you watch the polar bear behind the large glass panes, you notice it starts to pace

back and forth in its enclosure. Bored by the bear’s unamusing and repetitive behavior, you usher

your family to move on to the next exhibit. Next up is the tiger exhibit, and when you see their

enclosure, it’s filled with luscious grass, a big pool, and a plethora of different toys. Yet, you see

the tigers doing the same thing as the polar bear, pacing back and forth in their enclosure. You

might see this and start to wonder why you wasted fifteen dollars on a trip to see a bunch of

boring animals. But in actuality, you paid to witness the long-term effects of captivity on a wild

animal. Since the establishment of zoos in the 18th century, they were built with the intent to

help human beings develop a better understanding of animal’s anatomy and behavior. But doing

so has come at the expense of the animals being studied. Improper treatment of captive animals

has led to thousands of animals experiencing injury or death every year since the dawn of the zoo

(NPR). Even worse, most animals kept in modern zoos lack adequate housing space and

amenities. The zoos are built based on the needs of the guests, not the animals, so the design of

the enclosures don’t properly replicate their natural habitats. This causes animals in zoos to not

develop naturalistic behaviors and instead develop stereotypical behaviors such as pacing. Zoos

have tried to provide solutions for these issues but there have never been any major changes to

zoos that have improved the lives of the captive animals they hold. There is no improvement in
 Aranda 2

animal welfare because the biggest issue with zoos isn’t a systematic issue, it’s an ethical issue.

Zoos are constructed around the idea of captivating sentient beings, sentient beings that capable

of consciousness and emotions. These animals are living creatures that are able to think and feel,

yet humans have deemed it just to throw them in cages and observe them for our pleasure. To

end the suffering of animals within zoos, I propose that we ban all of the zoos and similar

organizations in America.

Yet, not everyone agrees with this solution because zoo advocates believe that zoos have

made great progress in conservation efforts and that they provide the public with a unique

learning experience. These arguments for zoos speak some truth but the captive breeding

programs in zoos aren’t very successful, and there are other ways to learn about animals that

don’t involve entrapping them into a life of suffering. Only a very small percentage of zoos

actually do positively impact the animals they care for resulting in most animals facing awful

living conditions and treatment. But by revising the Animal Welfare Act, one of the only pieces

of legislation that protects animal rights, we can put an end to the act of publicly displaying

animals. However, to even get legislators to consider this revision of the act, awareness of the

issues within zoos needs to be spread. This can be done by utilizing the power of social media

and documentaries. If people can become more aware of the true horrors that go on in zoos, more

people will support the idea of banning zoos. To help convince you the reader to support my

idea, let me explain to you some of the major issues with zoos.

Drawbacks of Zoos

A lack of care and respect for animals has been a reoccurring practice in most zoos since

their creation. The notion that humans were better than animals was an accepted way of thought
 Aranda 3

and resulted in human’s disregarding the welfare of animals. Against Zoos is a report written by

Dale Jamieson in 1985 that gives a brief history of the creation of zoos and analyses the

arguments for and against zoos. Jamieson is currently a professor of environmental studies and

philosophy at New York University and has orientated his research towards those two subjects

since the beginning of his professional career (NYU). Against Zoos begins by detailing how zoos

were inspired by the animal collections held by emperors to flaunt their status. According to

Jamieson, zoos were inspired by the Romans who had a fascination with capturing exotic

animals and having them compete in gladiator arenas. This led to the collection and slaughter of

tens of thousands of animals over hundreds of years. The history that inspired zoos reveals why

animals lack an ethical or moral code in place to protect them from physical or psychological

harm. Animals were seen and treated more as a utility rather than a living creature, and as a

result, the practice of mistreating animals was continued and accepted. But now that humans are

no longer ignorant and accept that animals are conscious, emotional beings, we have learned that

we need to show animals more respect and compassion. The article progresses and Jamieson

begins to critique the ethics behind zoos. He makes the claim that since zoos lack any real

benefits for the animals, keeping them in captivity is a moral injustice due to all the negatives

that come with captivating a wild animal. This proves to be true because when observing the

functionality of a zoo, they are meant to benefit humans’ understanding of animals’ behavior and

anatomy. Zoos were created to improve the well-being of humans, not the well-being of the

animals.

Animals suffer in zoos because they aren’t able to develop naturalistic behavior patterns

and lack adequate living space. These negative effects that plague zoo animals all stem from the

fact that they are captive animals. Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores is a 2003 study
 Aranda 4

conducted by Ros Clubb and Georgia Mason that explains the effects of captivity on carnivorous

animals. Clubb, a scientific officer at the RSPCA, and Mason, a professor at the University of

Guelph, began the report by addressing the dangers of not allowing animals to develop

naturalistic behavior patterns. Without proper development of these patterns, animals can

experience stress, frustration, or have an impairment of the development of certain brain areas.

The report establishes that this lack of development in naturalistic behavior patterns is due to the

fact that animals are put in captivity, especially carnivorous animals with wide-ranging lifestyles.

To prove this theory, Clubb and Mason conducted a study that observed the mean frequency of

pacing, a stereotypic behavior seen in caged animals that is believed to be induced by the small

confinements of enclosures. They took this data from 35 different species of captive carnivores

along with their infant-mortality rates and compared it to data from the same 35 species of

carnivores, but ones that were not held in captivity. The results of the study revealed that

observing the home range size of enclosures compared to the natural home range size of

carnivores could predict the development of the pacing behavior. An example of a carnivore

lacking adequate living space can be seen below in Figure 1. The figure shows the size of the

polar bear enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo, one of the most accredited urban zoos in America.

Although the enclosure seems large, the size of this bear’s enclosure is about one millionth the

size of a polar bear’s average home range in the wild.

 Aranda 5

Figure 1. Image shows a polar bear from the San Francisco Zoo in his enclosure. A polar bear, whose natural habitat
is the Arctic Circle, is instead given a cement-filled enclosure with a tiny pool.
The Living New Deal. “San Francisco Zoo - San Francisco CA.” Living New Deal, 2018, livingnewdeal.org/projects/san-francisco-
zoological-gardens-san-francisco-ca/.

The study concluded that carnivores with typical large home ranges in the wild will

develop habits of pacing due to their small confinements and lack of development of naturalistic

behavior patterns. This would mean that carnivores kept in zoos or similar structures would

suffer greatly because their enclosures won’t be able to provide the animals with enough space.

Looking at what this study found, these larger animals will never be happy in any type of modern

enclosure because they weren’t meant to live their life entrapped by walls. No change to the

aesthetic or content within an enclosure will match the positive changes of simply expanding the

size of the enclosures. These animals are built to travel miles upon miles every day, but instead,

they are forced to live a life without purpose or nuances.

Current solutions that are meant to improve the welfare of animals in zoos have been

focused on addressing problems within the zoos, rather than focusing on the problems with zoos.
 Aranda 6

Minor improvements are implemented in zoos and it leads to a lack of any noticeable positive

changes to the welfare of animals. This was supported in the paper, A Postzoo Future: Why

Welfare Fails Animals in Zoos, written by Jessica Pierce and Marc Bekoff. Pierce, a professor at

the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities, and Bekoff, an emeritus

professor at the University of Colorado, wrote this article in October of 2018 (University of

Colorado). The paper discusses the current improvements made to help the welfare of animals

within zoos and calls for a complete reform or ban of them. The article begins with a discussion

on freedom and the effects of captivity. They believe that the main problem with captivity is

“captivity itself” (Pierce and Bekoff). They point out that numerous studies have revealed that

captivity can lead to negative behavioral, physiological, psychological, and neurobiological

effects in an animal. From a moral standpoint too, zoos are immoral because “captivity imposes

suffering and it is wrong to deliberately impose suffering on a sentient creature.” The evidence

and statements made in this paper allude to the simple fact that -- zoos aren’t beneficial for

animals. Humans are the only ones that benefit from taking animals from their home and putting

them on display in cages. Additionally, this paper shares similar arguments with Against Zoos,

and the papers were written more than 30 years apart. This indicates that the changes and fixes

made within zoos since the release of the first paper have proven to have little to no effect on the

animals. All of these issues about zoos that I’ve discussed are rooted from systematic issues

within zoos, but one major issue with zoos is the ethics supporting zoos.

Ethical Dilemma with Zoos

When observing zoos and similar organizations, one begins to realize that the relationship

between humans and non-human animals is exploitative. Throughout history, we as humans have
 Aranda 7

asserted ourselves as superior to non-human animals because of our ability to experience

consciousness and emotions. This belief that humans are superior to non-human animals has

been used to justify our immoral treatment of them. Yet this belief is no longer rational due to

the release of the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness written by Philip Low of Stanford

University. This declaration states that “non-human animals have the neuroanatomical,

neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to

exhibit intentional behaviors” (Low). This statement acts as scientific proof that non-human

animals are sentient beings and as sentient beings, they should be entitled to the intrinsic right to

liberty. Additionally, being that these animals can feel pain and suffering, they shouldn’t be

allowed to be exploited for the sake of human benefits. Peter Singer, an influential professor of

bioethics, also believes in a similar idea and posses the question, “If possessing a higher degree

of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it

entitle humans to exploit non-humans?” (Singer). The question Singer poses highlights the

contradictory in the reasoning that justifies the existence of zoos. Humans may have brains that

give them an intellectual advantage over non-human animals, but that doesn’t mean that those

animals can’t feel pain or sadness. These non-human animals don’t deserve to be locked in a

cage and examined for the entirety of their life. They deserve to be able to roam freely and be

given the respect they are rightfully entitled to.

Arguments in Favor of Zoos

Although there are many systematic and ethical issues with zoos, there are still

individuals that support the existence of them. One of the main argument for zoos is that they

have transitioned their focus away from entertainment and more towards conservation believes
 Aranda 8

Drs. Scott Larsen, president of the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians (AVMA). For

example, according to data from zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums,

“SSPs (Species Survival Plans) have helped bring black-footed ferrets, California condors, red

wolves and several other endangered species back from the brink of extinction over the last three

decades” (Scientific American). This progress made by these programs is evidence that certain

zoos have truly changed their focus towards conservation efforts and have been successful doing

so. But the issue with this is the lack of amount of zoos that are actually focusing on conserving

endangered species.

Figure 2. There is a very small proportion of zoos that met the strict requirements of the AZA and the rest of them
that aren’t accredited lack proper care for animals in some way.
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. About AZA Accreditation. Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Oct. 2018, www.aza.org/what-is-
accreditation.

As you can see in Figure 2, of the about 10,000 zoos in America, only about 200 of those

zoos have been accredited by the AZA and about 2,400 have been accredited by the USDA

(AZA). This data reveals that 76% of zoos in America are functioning without proper licensing

to display animals, meaning that these zoos aren’t being regulated by the USDA and are able to

treat their animals as they please. More so, only about 2% of all zoos in America have been
 Aranda 9

given accreditation for providing animals with proper treatment and care. The other 98% of zoos

lack either proper living spaces, healthcare, nutrition, or social groupings for animals which

result in the zoos being ill-fit for housing wild animals. Even worse, it has been found that “only

16 of 145 reintroduction programs worldwide ever actually restored any animal populations to

the wild” (National Geographic). Through analyzation of this data, it should be understood that

only a small percentage of zoos do benefit animals through conservation, but a vast majority of

them cause more harm than good. However, if all zoos were to be terminated, the money and

effort put towards conversing certain species in zoos, could be redirected towards funding the

restoration of natural habitats. Organizations like The Nature Conservancy and Natural

Resources Defense Council are the two leading advocacy groups that have put major effort into

conserving and protecting our planet. Using the money that would go towards zoos and investing

it into groups like these will greatly beneficial to animals and natural habitats all around the

world.

The other major argument in favor of zoos is that they provide the public with a unique

educational opportunity because they enable the public to observe exotic animals that they could

never see in their daily lives. According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, “Studies

have shown that AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums enhance the public’s understanding of

wildlife.” (AZA). These accredited zoos work hard to try to make experiences within a zoo

educational, but there are so few zoos that actually do this that most people end up going to zoos

for entertainment rather than education. If zoos really wanted to educate the public about

animals, wouldn’t the public learn best by observing animals in their natural habitat performing

naturalistic behavior? What do people learn by watching a wild animal pace mindlessly around

its tiny enclosure for hours? The answer is, zoo-goers learn at the zoos, but they learn about
 Aranda 10

captive animals that are suffering and misrepresent how an ordinary wild animal acts and looks.

To remedy this problem, zoos should be abolished and in its place, organizations should

introduce virtual reality zoos. With the rapid progression being made in the virtual reality

industry, programs have been created that display detailed, 3D images of animals that you can

see at zoos (GeekWire). Yes, people won’t be able to see exotic animals in person anymore, but

people will be able to learn about them in virtual reality and no animals need to suffer or be

forced into captivity to make this solution a reality. Unfortunately, before this solution can be

implemented, a bill needs to be passed that bans zoos and similar organizations.

Proposed Solution

To put an end to the suffering on animals kept in zoos, I believe that zoos and similar

organizations should be banned by adding a revision to the Animal Welfare Act. Currently, there

is only one major piece of legislation in the United States that protects the well-being of animals

in zoos and that is the Animal Welfare Act which was enacted in 1966 (USDA). Its purpose was

to “set standards for the humane care and treatment for certain animals that are exhibited to the

public, sold for use as pets, used in research, or transported commercially” (USDA) It was the

first law of its kind that forced organizations to treat animals with respect by making them

provide animals with proper housing, food, veterinary care, and more. The law is enforced by the

Department of Agriculture and they conduct investigations that ensure that organizations are

abiding by the law’s set standards. This law has done a great deal for animals, but it can be

improved by simply adding on a ban of publicly exhibiting animals which would consequently

put an end to zoos, circuses, and aquariums. Doing this would force organizations like zoos,

circuses, and aquariums to shut down their facilities and release all the animals they hold captive.
 Aranda 11

Now in order for this alteration to the bill to even be considered by legislators, many changes

will need to be made towards the way people view zoos.

To change people’s perception of zoos, awareness of issues pertaining to zoos needs to be

raised. If we can convince the public that zoos and similar organizations are actually harming the

animals they care for, more people will advocate support for stricter policies on zoos. This can be

done in a multitude of ways but the most effective way to inform the public is through the use of

social media and entertainment outlets. Animal rights advocacy groups such as Freedom for

Animals and Humane Society of the United States are focused on helping aid captive animals and

have been able to spread awareness about this through the utilization of social media and the

internet. For example, Freedom for Animals has a twitter account that they use to inform their

audience about information related to their issues and ways they can contribute to their relief

effort. Since Freedom for Animals has a following of over 23,000 people, their organization is

able to spread their message and ideas to a large number of people who have the power to spread

that message even further. Applications like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and more have

developed into some of the most influential forms of communication in our modern society. And

with over 3 billion people logging into some form of social media every month, the internet is a

great place to promote ideas and spread awareness (Kemp).

Moreover, another effective way of spreading awareness is through film, mainly

documentaries. Blackfish, for example, is an infamous 2013 documentary that exposes the

improper treatment and handling of the orcas used at SeaWorld. The film had such a profound

impact on its audience that it caused Seaworld’s profits to drop by 84%, pressured Seaworld to

cancel all future orca shows, and influenced California’s Governor Jerry Brown to sign a bill

banning the breeding of orcas in captivity (Time; National Geographic; NBC). The advantage of
 Aranda 12

creating films like Blackfish is that they are able to provide the public with a different

perspective of what is ordinarily heard and seen. Blackfish was able to uncover the truth and

expose Seaworld, resulting in both their business to suffer greatly and increase awareness of the

issue. This use of film and social media combined allow for almost instantaneous connectivity

which is why they are the two best ways to spread awareness about the poorly treated zoo

animals. By spreading awareness of these issues, it will hopefully convince the public to consider

and eventually support the ban of zoos and similar organizations. I know that my goal of banning

zoos is the most effective way to end the suffering of captive animals, but it is a goal that will be

very hard to achieve that I believe is worth the effort.

To conclude this paper, I’d like to offer you some different options that can help further

your understanding of the issues with zoos and hopefully encourage you to support my proposed

solution. I’d first recommend that you check out animal rights advocacy groups such as Freedom

for Animals, Mercy for Animals, and Humane Society of the United States. Before, I mentioned

how one of these groups utilizes social media as a form of spreading their message, but all of

these groups actually have incredible websites that are chalked full of information on an array of

animal rights topics and ways you can help with their cause. These groups organize boycotts for

zoos, protests, investigations and more to expose what zoos try to hide from the public (Freedom

for Animals). Below I will include the website links to these groups so that you can check them

out after reading this paper. I’d also like to recommend that you check out some informative

documentaries like Blackfish, Earthlings, Speciesism, and Food Inc. What’s great about these

documentaries is that they don’t just focus on the problems within zoos, they also cover an array

of different animal rights topics. I encourage you to watch these films so that you can expose

yourself to a different perspective on animal rights topics that is contrary to what mass media
 Aranda 13

likes to portray. Finally, it is important that people witness the truth and understand how animals

are really being treated in zoos and a multitude of different industries. If we as humans want to

continue living on this planet, we are going need to rethink how we treat animals and develop a

mindset that puts Earth’s needs before our own.

Links to:
● Freedom for Animals - https://www.freedomforanimals.org.uk/
● Mercy for Animals - https://mercyforanimals.org/
● Humane Society of the United States - https://www.humanesociety.org/

Works Cited

Associated Press. “California Governor Signs Bill Banning SeaWorld Orca Shows.”
NBC 7 San Diego, NBC Universal Media, 14 Sept. 2016,
www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/California-Governor-Signs-bill-banning-seaworld-
orca-shows-393317951.html.

Association of Zoos and Aquariums. About AZA Accreditation. Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, Oct. 2018, www.aza.org/what-is-accreditation.

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums is an organization that is conservation orientated

and gives out accreditations to certain zoos and aquariums for fulfilling their rigorous
requirements. This AZA has a board full of experts and professionals that reviews different zoos
and aquariums and evaluates how good or bad certain locations are. This article that they wrote
essentially explains how zoos and aquariums are recognized by their organization. I used this
source because most zoos that are accredited by the AZA actually take very good care of most of
their animals, but they are a very small amount. I took this data and should how small of a
percentage of zoos are actually doing their job correctly and helping the animals they keep
captive.
 Aranda 14

Association of Zoos and Aquariums. “Conservation Education.” Association of Zoos and

Aquariums, AZA, 2018, www.aza.org/conservation-education.

Burns, Katie. “Role of Zoos Is Conservation, Zoo Veterinarians Say.” Avma.org,

American Veterinary Medical Association, 28 June 2017,
www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/170715a2.aspx.

Katie Burns is one of the managing editors for JAVMA, Journals of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, and she wrote an article titled “Role of zoos is conservation,
zoo veterinarians say.” Throughout this article, Burns utilizes multiple resources and quotes from
credible doctors and organizations to describe the conservation efforts being made by accredited
zoos in America. She also briefly mentions other reasons why zoos are beneficial to both animals
and human. I used this source because she gives a counterargument to my main argument but
also because she sites a lot of important people. Her argument is backed up by people who are
infamous in the zoo business which makes her report very credible.

Cless, Isabelle T., et al. “Defining Pacing Quantitatively: A Comparison of Gait Characteristics
between Pacing and Non-Repetitive Locomotion in Zoo-Housed Polar Bears.” Applied
Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 169, 16 Apr. 2015, pp. 78–85.,
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.002.

Isabelle Cless and 3 other researchers conducted a study that analyzed the condition of
pacing with 11 different captive polar bears. Being that the most common stereotypical behavior
for an animal in captivity is pacing, I wanted to find a study that backed up what was being said
by Mason and Clubb. In the report, they found that 10 of the 11 polar bears had developed
pacing behavior and they also define the term pacing. I actually ended up using this source to
inspire the anecdote I used at the beginning of my essay. This source helps solidify the idea that
if you see animals pacing within their enclosure, they are suffering from the confinements of
their enclosure because they need a lot more space to roam around.

Clubb, Ros, and Georgia J Mason. Animal Welfare: Captivity Effects on Wide-Ranging
Carnivores, vol. 425, Nov. 2003, p. 473.,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9069205_Animal_Welfare_Captivity_effects_o
n_wide-ranging_carnivores.

Ros Clubb and Georgia J. Mason wrote the report, Animal Welfare: Captivity effects on
wide-ranging carnivores in 2003. Clubb, a scientific officer at the RSPCA, and Mason, a
professor at the University of Guelph, constructed a report that revealed the alarming effects of
captivity on carnivores animals, specifically captive animals within zoos. The authors of the
report are the ones that conducted the experiment that is analyzed in the report, so they
thoroughly explain the study they conducted and its results in the report. This source is an
example that shows the negative effects of zoos on animals. The data and analysis found in this
source support the reasoning against zoos in the other two sources I am going to analyze. This
source is essentially an example of the main different sources that have used to reveal this issue
within zoos.
 Aranda 15

Fravel, Laura. “Critics Question Zoos' Commitment to Conservation.” National

Geographic, National Geographic Society, 2 Oct. 2018,
www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2003/11/news-zoo-commitment-conservation-
critic/.

Freedom for Animals. “Boycott Mobile Zoos!” Freedom for Animals, 1 Nov. 2019,
www.freedomforanimals.org.uk/mobile-zoos-take-a-pledge.

Howard, Brian Clark. “Controversial SeaWorld Orca Shows End in California, but
Continue Elsewhere.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 4 Jan. 2017,
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/seaworld-final-orca-show-california-killer-
whales/ .

Jamieson, Dale. “In Defense of Animals.” Against Zoos, 1985, pp. 108–117.,
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/jamieson01.htm.

Dale Jamieson, a professor at the University of New York wrote the paper “Against
Zoos” which was published in 1985 in Peter Singer’s book called “In Defense of Animals.” The
piece details the negative effects of zoos on the welfare of animals and discusses how through
the abolition of zoos, animals won’t have to suffer any longer in zoos. The piece refers to a
multitude of credible sources to support his article and some of those sources are “International
Journal for the Study of Animal Problems” or “New York Zoological Society.” This piece is
very important to the issue I am researching because this paper serves as proof that the
mistreatment of animals in zoos was a struggle in the past and is still a struggle now. It shows
how the problem was addressed in 1980s, yet in the 2010s, the problem still persists.

Jessica Pierce & Marc Bekoff (2018) A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in
Zoos, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 21:sup1, 43-48, DOI:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888705.2018.1513838.

The article A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in Zoos written by Jessica
Pierce and Marc Bekoff. Pierce, a professor at the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics
and Humanities, and Bekoff, an emeritus professor at the University of Colorado, wrote this
article in October of 2018. The article discusses why zoos are failing the animals they house and
it suggests different fixes and changes that could be made by zoos to better the welfare of the
animals they have. This article lists numerous credible pieces of evidence that it uses to support
their arguments and suggest solutions. Some of those sources are Nobel Prize-winning economist
Amartya Sen, or the Fourth Global Animal Welfare Congress in May 2017. This source connects
mainly with first source because this source discusses a lot of the same issues as the other source.
Having two sources that support and address the same problem 40 years apart shows the lack of
concern and care for the issue. Additionally, the second source acts as evidence that supports the
reasoning in this article.
 Aranda 16

Kemp, Simon. “Digital in 2018: World's Internet Users Pass the 4 Billion Mark.” We Are
Social, We Are Social LTD, 30 Jan. 2018, https://wearesocial.com/blog/2018/01/global-
digital-report-2018.

King, Barbara J. “Why Do European Zoos Kill Healthy Animals?” NPR, NPR, 14 Oct. 2015,
www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/10/14/448527516/why-do-european-zoos-kill-healthy-
animals.

New York University School of Law. “Dale Jamieson.” NYU l Law, New York
University School of Law, 2019,
https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=
25471.

Philips, Keri. “The Ethical Evolution of Zoos.” ABC News, Australian Broadcasting
Corporation, 21 Oct. 2015,
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-ethical-history-of-
zoos/6869776.

Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice Hall, 1989.

Rhodan, Maya. “Seaworld's Profits Drop 84% After 'Blackfish' Documentary.” Time,
Time, 6 Aug. 2015, http://time.com/3987998/seaworlds-profits-drop-84-after-blackfish-
documentary/ .

Schlosser, Kurt. “Seattle Zoo Turns to Virtual Reality and Beacon Technology to Give Visitors a
Closer Look at Animals.” GeekWire, GeekWire, 12 July 2018,
www.geekwire.com/2018/seattle-zoo-turns-virtual-reality-beacon-technology-give-
visitors-closer-look-animals/.

Traw, Kelly. “How Do Zoos Help Endangered Animals?” Scientific American,

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 2019, www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-zoos-
help-endangered-animals/.
University of Colorado Boulder. “Marc Bekoff.” History, University of Colorado
Boulder, 16 Apr. 2015, https://www.colorado.edu/ebio/marc-bekoff.

USDA. “Animal Welfare Act.” USDA APHIS | Animal Welfare Act, USDA, 30 Jan. 2019,
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/SA_AWA.