discuss some of the arguments for and against the maintenance of zoos

The question of conserving animals in the zoo remains controversial. Some people suggest wild life be raised in manmade environments. The opposing view means liberate them to the outback. I personally believe that the former idea is more reasonable and these benefits are twofold. Firstly, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries will provide endangered species with sufficient survival needs and solid protection. As a matter of fact, inferior species in the wild have to struggle for limited food sources as well as survive from their natural nemesis. For example, food source will no longer be their main concern as nutritious and diverse rations that fit with different species are served every day. More importantly, only humans are capable of protecting wildlife from ourselves, which means hunters and pollution. This method will prolong animals' life expectancy, especially those who are on the edge of extinction in the near future like rhinos or pandas. Nevertheless, building zoos for personal purposes impacts the spirit of the animals. All around the world, the percentage of confined animals has extremely risen over the past decade. They lost their freedom defined by wild creatures. Thus, a balanced ecosystem will be out of control, ruining the diversity of nature. More importantly, brick by brick, some animals are raised to serve human amusement demands, they not only live in terrible conditions but suffer from punishment when disobeying their owners. For instance, the circus elephants are separated from their parents since they were young to live on circus trains. Also, risky performances will severely bring detrimental effects to their skeletal system. Both sides examined, I find it hard to absolutely agree with either of the above views. It is my view that not keeping the animals in the prison' will bring strict consequences to the ecosystem.