I have always been anti zoo; I just don't believe that animals should be forced into confinement if they don't need to be. My belief is that every living creature has the right to live the way that they see fit and us as humans don't have the right to manipulate their quality of life. The only exception I have to this issue is if there is no possible way that that animal can survive in the wild or it is getting medical attention in order to improve its quality of life. Growing up I always had an interest in animals, my dad and I would always watch animal documentaries and he would bring me to a local movie theater that used to play all of the animal movies from discovery and animal planet. Documentaries like Blackfish, Food Inc., and The Cove were all films that greatly impacted my position on animals in captivity. The reason that i sent behind the fight against zoos because I don't see any living creature more important than another so i believe that we all deserve an equal chance.I believe that many people around the world follow the motto that ignorance is bliss. What they don't know won't hurt them. Yet what they don't know is hurting other mammals. I believe that I am qualified to write on this subject because I have a clear stance on the issue, I have done my research and believe that I have the power to convey an appealing argument to why industries like zoos and aquariums should no longer exist. 

PETA article: The central claim of this article is to fight against the zoo industries. Throughout the article they take arguments for zoos and objectify them by using examples of zoos throughout history. They support all of their claims with evidence in order to help prove the cruelty that these animal are put through. They make claims like life expectancy in the wild vs captivity, the living conditions the animals have vs what they were meant to have, and how zoo's main claim of educational purposes is not justifiable. The author of this article is PETA, they are a well known animal rights organization that fights for the ethical treatment of animals. Due to this article coming from such a well-known and followed organization and their reputation as a reliable source of information it makes them credible. By writing this article PETA is trying to stop the funding for zoos and help inform people of what it truly happening in zoos. 

This article published by national geographic is about the life expectancy of wild elephants versus the life expectancy of elephants in zoos. Maryann Mott talks about the conditions that these elephants are put in and how that affects the lifespan of these large animals. Elephants in the wild are recorded to live twice as long as those in the zoo's going to show that something needs to change. I think that this article supports its claims with research and it presents the idea that this topic needs to be studied further. There should be changes in order to fix this problem of the vast difference in life expectancy. Having this article published in National Geographic I think that it proves its credibility. Throughout the article she uses quotes from other reputable scientists and prior research on the subject to support her claim. National Geography is definitely a source that is biased toward preserving the wildlife and nature so I believe its purpose is to educate its audience on the negative things occurring in our society. 

This article posted on National Geographic starts off with a quick summary of the history of zoos and how they came about. Once a representation of power, then for scientific purposes, to entertainment. The article then goes on to talk about the different types of zoos. She describes urban vs suburban zoos, safari parks, game reserves, petting zoos, specialization zoos and conservation zoos. The article does not take a stance of the topic of zoos, it just states basic facts and points out the critiques of both sides of the argument. The purpose of the article is to inform people of the different types of zoos and the conditions that vary because of them. This article was posted on National Geographic and is stated that it came from an encyclopedia. I believe that this proves its credibility due to the articles location and the fact that it came from an encyclopedia that had been peer reviewed. 

Many people have different opinions on the zoo industry, some people hate it while some people love it. I think by looking into the past and what needs to be done in order to preserve animal rights will benefit our society. I think that I am have a bias against zoos so I look for articles that do the same. I do think that I have some repeating source locations so I should start to get information from other places. I also think that I need to read more articles that are pro zoo so that I have a better understanding of both sides of the argument. I am still not exactly sure what aspect of zoos I want to focus on but I do want to look at the past stories on zoos and how we can use them to help our society today. 

