Keeping Animals in Captivity is Inherently Wrong - Essay Example

Keeping Animals in Captivity is Inherently Wrong People keep animals in captivity in various places, ranging from circuses, zoos, pets at home, and other performing environments. They do so for many purposes such as entertaining tourists and visitors, having a companion, and for prestige. In return, the caregivers try to make the environment suitable for their existence by preventing suffering, playing with them, and providing food and water. They also attempt to provide them with other animals of their kind for mating and companionship. However, the animals need more than what people could provide. It is impossible for people to provide everything that a natural habitat could do. Keeping animals in captivity is not only ethically wrong and cruel, but also proves challenging to mimic the exact elements as in the animals’ natural environments. Keeping animals in captivity is unethical because people abuse and exploit them (Bostock 127). Most people who keep animals in captivity use them in many wrong purposes. Scientists and researchers may want to carry out genetic, behavioral, and many other researches. They may also wish to test medicinal or other products. They use the animals they have kept captive to carry out the studies or observe any reaction of test products to the animal. They occasionally do this by forcing samples of substances and products to the animal’s body for instance through injections, feeding, and rubbing. In many cases, the animals end up developing complications from the test samples and even die. The entertainment industry is another area where animals receive many kinds of mistreatment. Animals get tired and disturbed by the many activities and performances they have to do. As people come to view the animals and their activities, they may disturb their peace. For instance, the men’s children may make noises, give them unsolicited foodstuffs, throw destructive objects at them, and force them to play or perform. The animals thus find it hard to eat, take some rest, or do other biologically important activities in the presence of tourists. The use of animals in exotic pet trade is also another unethical issue. The animals mostly end up having discomforts; pain/tiredness due to changing ownership and the environment, unsuitable handling during the trading, and long distance traveling. Production of fur, blood, milk and other products cannot be left behind since it causes discomfort and pain in the wild animals. The animals may end up developing cold, becoming weak, and unable to feed their young ones. It is inherently cruel act to keep animals in captivity as this denies them the chance to move freely in the natural habitat. Bostock asserts that animals have instinctive behaviors that require them to engage freely in their natural habitat (128). Keeping them in captivity restricts their freedom of movement and exercising their natural behaviors. For instance, many predators instinctively get pleasure in hunting down, teasing and eating their prey. They may thus find it strange and cruel when their prey is readily available, as is the case in the captivity, without much effort. Some predators thus end up losing their natural instinct and abilities and become inactive. Keeping animals in captivity also denies them the chance and pleasure to look for, choose and secure their mating partners, territory, food variety, and other things inherent to their natural existence. Captivity either forces these things on animals without considering their preferences or does not provide at all. As such, the animals find it hard to live according to the nature. The animals may end up becoming domesticated since they eventually develop familiarity with people and the artificial environment. The negative results may have far-reaching effects on many other animals. For instance, holding an individual species of animals may make an animal get used to artificially provided food. It may thus abandon its natural food supply. The species that used to be its main food may increase and cause havoc to lower animals. The next animals in higher levels of food hierarchy may have to look elsewhere for food supply. The overall result is an imbalance in the ecosystem. Consequently, some animals may end up being extinct, migrating, or even succumbing to pressures on the ecosystem. Providing all the natural requirements of the animals kept in captivity is a very challenging attempt. No matter the knowledge, skill, and money put to ensure that the animals in captivity get access to all natural requirements, man cannot achieve the exact environment as the animals’ natural habitat. As said earlier, predators instinctively get pleasure in hunting down their prey. Most if not all animals have preferences when it comes to food, home for their families, playing and reproduction mates, watering spots, and other requirements. The problem is that man cannot sufficiently meet all these requirements. Man cannot have all the knowledge of the particular needs since he has never interacted with animals in a natural setting. Rarely does man and animals eat the same food, use the same methods to hunt down prey, build same inhabitants, or drink from the same water points. Lack of knowledge thus renders man incapable when it comes to required skills in meeting all the natural requirements. A significant amount of money channeled towards providing a suitable environment for these animals thus goes into waste. The lack of provision for all the needs will end up perpetuating the stress, inability to perform biological activities, death, and even extinction of some animals. Animals can get their particular requirements met only in natural habitats, through natural interactions among the animals in terms of the many natural relationships. The relationships include food chains, symbiosis, sheltering, parasitism, protection, parenting, predator/hunting groups, and mating. Those who advocate keeping animals in captivity argue that the natural habitat has been utterly destroyed, and thus, animals are under threat of extinction. It is ironical because the same humans who keep animals in captivity are the ones who destroy their habitat. They clear large tracts of forests to make more room for crop production, construction of transport systems and buildings, and other modern developmental projects. In many cases, people fail to see any importance of having a variety of animals. The animals are left with nothing as their natural environments become destroyed (Bostock 132). The solution for the destruction is not getting animals into artificial habitats. Instead, humans should be mindful of the importance of being environmentally responsible for ensuring the preservation of wild habitats. Man should properly fence the inhabitants and implement harsh anti-poaching rules to prevent conflicts between man and animals. He should abolish the sale of wild animal body parts. Putting efforts in conserving animal habitats will produce far much better results in preserving animals than captivity may do. Animals are better off in the wild habitat than in captivity. It will ensure that animals are free to move around to fulfill their instinctual behaviors. The free movement will ensure they live according to their preferences in terms of food, mates, shelter, territory, and water points. Additionally, the wild habitat does not impose much cruelty and mistreatment of animals as the man does. It does not force them perform strange activities and performances that are unnatural to their existence. Man’s effort in keeping the animals comfortable in an artificial habitat cannot bear significant fruits. The best contribution that man can make in preserving the animals is to conserve their natural environment. His developmental endeavors should not be a reason for him to do away with natural habitats of animals. Works Cited Bostock, Stephen S. C. Zoos and Animal Rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 1200. Print. Read More