Chang 1

Project #3 (Refuting the Elimination of Zoos) by Derrick Chang

AREA 1: Attack Significance (Harms)
Spencer argued against zoos by providing two harms. The first harm he demonstrated
how zoos are detrimental to the animals health and well-being by providing two facts:
elephants are deprived of exercise in a zoo and how animals are pulled from their
families for our entertainment. He explained in the second harm how zoos are becoming
an amusement park by listing an example of how the loud noises are detrimental to the
animals. There is no direct citation. The fact that the lifespan of animals increases in zoos
needs to be accounted for. The Common Sense for Animals homepage, located on
commonsenseforanimals.org, states, Since proper feeding and diets are being developed
through research, and proper veterinary care is provided, animals are living much longer
than in the wild. Most zoos are not turning into amusement parks. Just because In 2006,
the Columbus zoo and aquarium bought a nearby water park and golf course does not
mean that every zoo is working against animals. Many zoos help and protect animals as
well as grow the local economy if managed properly with respect to animals.
AREA 2: Attack Inherency
Spencer explained that the status quo is flawed because of how humans are responsible
and forced the situation upon the animals. He did not explicitly state the of inherency.
The problems do not exist for every zoo, and many zoos work for the welfare of the
animals. For example, according to the Scientific American homepage, located at
scientificamerican.com, many zoos participate in the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (AZAs) Species Survival Plan (SSP) Program which aims to manage the


Chang 2
breeding of specific endangered species in order to help maintain healthy and self-
sustaining populations that are both genetically diverse and demographically stable.
AREA 3: Attack Plan
This plan will not work because it requires Congress to terminate zoos nationwide. This
issue is not a federal issue because it is irrelevant to the United States Constitution. Also,
he is calling for termination of zoos state-by-state with no exceptions. The new location
for the animals is not specified, and there are possibilities that poachers and hunters can
attack these species. Additionally, endangered animals are left to fend for themselves,
and our species diversity can be wiped. There is no staffing specified in order to enforce
this plan.
AREA 4: Attack Solvency
For harm 1, Spencer states that Freeing the animals that are captive would greatly
increase their health. However, he only provided a statistic for the well being of
elephants and only a general notion of the impact of stress on animals. This fact does not
apply to all the animals, especially considering the fact since most animals live longer in
captivity. Spencer also makes the point that most animals will be happier due to the fact
that they will reunite with their families, but this is not the case since this is highly
unlikely due to the vast nature of nature. Lastly, he states that putting them back into their
natural habitat will reverse the trauma caused to the animals. Many animals are suffering
due to pollution, deforestation, and other manmade harms to the environment. According
to the National Wildlife Foundation, located at nwf.org, As climate change melts sea
ice, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by
2050. Putting polar bears, a common zoo animal, back to their natural habitat only
proves further destruction.
For harm 2, Spencer makes the assumption that new attractions will arise to replace zoos
as they are closed. This is not always the case. Additionally, he states, The dollars spent
on zoos will be transferred to research on curing animal disease, adoption centers, and
preserving natural habitats. Research on curing animal disease is happening in zoos, so


Chang 3
to eliminate zoos mean eliminating a field of research. Adoption centers do not apply for
most of the animals in the zoos; one cannot adopt a giraffe for his or her home.
AREA 5: Attack Advantages
We will see less disease and poor animal health.
This is not true. As stated earlier, animals live longer in captivity, and in proper
conditions, animals live healthier in zoos than in the wild.
Animals will have control of when they can breed or not, unlike in the zoos system.
It is critical for endangered animals to breed in order for their existence to be
preserved. This is actually a disadvantage to the world as a whole because animal
diversity is important.
No dangerous risks take place such as getting bitten or dealing with escapees.
The risks accentuate when dangerous animals are in the wild. Since humans have
become so dominant over the land, many animals still wander off into human
territory. By having them free, the risk of them posing a threat to us is greater than
in the zoo than in the wild.
The unhygienic surrounding of the zoos become eliminated.
Not all zoos are unhygienic. Zookeepers carry the responsibility of keeping the
zoo facilities clean and safe for the animals to live in. Irresponsible zoos that are
unhygienic should not be the reason to close all the zoos.
AREA 6: Offer Disadvantages
1. Endangered species will have a much higher rate of extinction. As stated earlier,
many zoos have enrolled in the program to prevent the extinction of endangered animals.
If zoos were eliminated and endangered animals were forced to fend for themselves, their
chances of going extinct are much higher which can be detrimental to the global
ecosystem because aspects such as the natural food chain can be disrupted.


Chang 4
2. Animals will have shorter lifespans. Most animals live longer in captivity with
proper caring provided by zoos. More animals, especially the ones that are not on the top
of the food chain, will face greater stress in the wild and live shorter lives. Though some
animals, such as the elephant, live longer in the wild, it does not apply to all animals.
Additionally, many of the animals natural habitats are poor for their well being due to
manmade problems, such as global warming.
3. Local and regional economies will be damaged. According to the Association of
Zoos & Aquariums, located at aza.org, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums enhance
local and regional economies, collectively generating $16 billion in annual economic
activity and supporting more than 142,000 jobs. In todays hard economic times, the last
thing this country needs is jobs being eliminated. For genuine zookeepers who truly
protect and help the animals, eliminating zoos is detrimental for everyone.