The captivity of many exotic and intelligent animals has been rightfully increasing in debate throughout the past decade. While some zoos strive for the education and conservation of its species, the majorities fail to provide adequate information to its visitors. The treatment and living conditions of the animals are insufficient, and federal legislation to require appropriate environments lack detail and enforcement. Animals are suffering physically and mentally across the nation with no justification of a greater cause. Many are physically abused and forced into performances that teach erroneous characteristics of the species. Therefore, to end animal mistreatment and allow for an increase of educational value to public, higher standards of care should be enacted in a new animal's rights policy. 

The controversy of the educational impact animal attractions have on children has increased in concern over the past years. Many zoos in particular justify their existence as solely to educate children and adults on biological and conservational education. Therefore, they obtain a major responsibility and opportunity to engage children with live animals, science and conservation efforts. This knowledge is urgent to teach among adults, but the engagement of children is crucial for protection efforts to have a lasting change. However, public value is not surpassing the welfare cost of keeping the animals in captivity. Recent scientific studies have challenged zoos effectiveness in providing their visitors with an understanding of the habitats they are viewing. It was shown that only 34 -41% of children obtain a positive increase of knowledge after their trip, leaving roughly 65% of children gaining nothing or false depiction (Wagoner 65-76). While zoos claim they aim to inform the public on conservation efforts and provide the information at the habitats, it is left up to the visitor to interact with the resources or pay for a guided tour. Therefore, they allow 65% of their visitors to use the parks as a resource for recreation and pure entertainment, creating the facilities to be a ground of immoral and ethical controversy.

The lack of informative knowledge visitors receive from zoos is also largely explained by the mistreatment and inadequate living conditions the animals are forced into. They spend their lives in artificial enclosures labeled habitats, which by definition is the opposite of a habitat. Instead of exploring the variety and freedom of their natural environment, the animals are bombarded with constant yelling, banging and flashing camera. Most zoos lack the area needed for the animals to be properly stimulated for their entire life, leaving them susceptible to mental disorders such as zoochosis. Zoochosis occurs when an animal is kept in captivity that does not cater to its specific needs. They become severely depressed and exhibit bizarre, repetitive behaviors such as pacing, swaying, and circling. This can explain the significant number of zoo goers that do not acquire accurate knowledge of the animals they have seen (Negative Effects). Their education stems from how the animals react in captivity, which is an inaccurate display of their behaviors. Many people will only stand at the each habitat for roughly five minutes, waiting for the animal to do something exciting rather than gaining a genuine understanding of the species. 

While zoos justify animal captivity with education and conservation efforts, other animal attractions display animal performances. These attractions, such as SeaWorld and circuses, have little to no purpose other than entertainment and profit. They are associated with conservation funds and research, but this involvement can be done without an 8,000-pound whale enclosed in a large pool or a 10,000-pound elephant spending the majority of its life transported across a nation.  These animals are taken from their natural habitats for human display and, although it may allow viewers to acquire a higher regard for the exotic species, the disrespect of animal life that is promoted and advertised by the companies has been overlooked by the excitement and entertainment they provide.  The only educational value these attractions provide is the first hand experience of viewing of exotic animals. However, this value is immediately deterred as the shows create illusions that personify the animals to children. Placing animals in captivity for profitable and entertainment reasons not only supports disrespecting the life of he animals, but also inaccurately educates the children on the characteristics of the species. Animal captivity justification does not exist with an lack of education, conservation efforts and poor living conditions. 

The captive animals providing only profit and entertainment alone is a strong enough warrant for their release; however, the immorality of their captivity does not end there. Physical abuse and neglect to the animals is prominent throughout such attractions. The Ringling Bros. Circus trek 30,000 miles for 11 months with their exotic animals. Deprivation of basic comfort living conditions is concluded since the animals are isolated in small cages for extended periods of time with room to only stand and turn around. Mammals, such as elephants and tigers, are required to roam and exercise to maintain healthy. The physical abuse stems from the intelligent animals of not easily being susceptible to follow absurd demands or can be taught such tricks without a fear of punishment. Circuses have been guilty of aggressively beating their animals into submission with iron rods (PETA). Terrorizing their animals for profit and amusement is a horrible method for a living and the animals' living rights should not be taken away such companies. 

The current legislation of Animals and Zoo regulation fails in its protection purposes. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the only federal policy protecting individual zoo animals in custody of a dealer or exhibitor. Their definition of animals even excludes cold-blooded animals. It states that the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Services (APHIS) are expected to carry out and enforce "minimum requirements for handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, shelter from extremes of weather and temperatures, adequate veterinary care" (Grech). The act is limited to a broad standard of requirements that only care to the most basic needs of the animals. Such standards, other than primates, ignore the mental health of the captive species. APHIS is also required to conduct a yearly inspection of the facilities, yet there are 104 inspectors and over 2,000 facilities. Since inspectors are over-worked and underfunded, they have been proven to not fully carry out their duties. The act does not even allow for a citizen suit provision, which would allow citizens to sue the exhibitions the APHIS lack to regulate. The Professional Zoo Association gives proper revision of animal conditions, yet zoos are not required to even be members (Grech). Therefore, the majority of the highly intelligent animals under the AWA suffer from the minimal policies regarding their welfare. 

The insufficient standards of the federal government and lack of policy on the reasoning for animal captivity leads to low expectations for living conditions and treatment of the animals. If there were adequate living conditions, stimulation, and treatment, in addition to the public accurately learning about ways to improve conservation, the animals' confinement could be benefitting a larger problem. However, existing standards are consistently not being met and the educational value has been proven to be minimal, allowing the animals to suffer for no merited reason. The current legislation completely ignores moral ethics for the respect of animal life. As a result, more legislation should be enacted to justify the captivity of animals. Under an improved policy, all animal sanctions must meet the proper requirements of the Professional Zoo Association for all living beings in their custody, including a mental health exam to diagnose zoochiosis. Animals will not be placed in captivity for display and recreational purposes only  --  there must be warranted scientific, educational or rehabilitation purpose. Those claiming an educational purpose must adequately demonstrate and focus on providing such experience. If such requirements are not met, the facilities will be admitted to appropriate repercussions. 

New legislation would decrease the amount of captive animals and allow those captive to live healthy, happier lives. Enforcing these laws will come at a cost to the federal government and an increase in funding is an unrealistic proposal to make. However, the increase would only be temporary. If the APHIS properly preforms their jobs of carrying out the new policy with higher funding, many zoos will be closed for lacking the capabilities and resources to provide the new standards of care. Those that are able to meet the new requirements would eventually decrease in size, as they cannot purchase animals for display and recreational purposes. The mental exams will also contribute to a decrease in facilities. Many of the animals are subdued to zoochosis and the more extensive health assessments will expose such disease. The animals can then be taken to proper sanctuaries that will properly care for them. Attractions such as circuses and SeaWorld will be closed under the provision that the animals' cannot be placed in captivity for performance and display usage only. The ratio of investigator to facilities would decrease, allowing funding to return to its original level and allow for a greater focus on a smaller number of facilities. 

The large number of improper animal facilities is staggering and placing all the neglected species in safe environments is a problematic job for the federal government. The sanctuaries must be approved under the new policy and transportation would be required for the animals. Also, such sanctuaries must exist. In an ideal situation, the government would provide all the necessities to perfectly execute the new policy. But sadly many of the animals would not be able to be immediately placed in refuges. The government would inform the facilities that the animals they possess would be their last generation and those they are able to transport to sanctuaries would be taken. For the largest and extremely intelligent elephants, sanctuaries are extremely abundant and many zoos have already agreed their own facilities are not adequate. The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee is "the nation's largest natural habitat refuge developed specifically for endangered African and Asian Elephants" (Our Mission). The reserve offers the amendments of the new policy in perfect form, with a mission to allow the elephants the compassion of a heard on a 2,700-acre property. They focus on raising awareness for crisis of their endangerment and the complex needs of the elephants many facilities are not providing (Our Mission). Similar sanctuaries exist for tigers, primates, marine mammals, and other larger intelligent animals. While all individual animals will not be able to be taken out of their neglected environments, the policy will enforce that no new animals will have to suffer. 

If the neglect, mistreatment, and disrespect of life towards animals came to an end, zoos and other facilities can be sought of as a requirement for children to inspire next generations to preserve our earth. It is vital to accurately educate and expose children to the exotic animals that are having their habitats destroyed. It will encourage future biologist, marine scientist and environmentalist to partake in further conservation action. If this new proposal of legislation were to be enacted, a greater respect of animals could be influenced among the public that will lead to an increase in efforts to save their habitats. Protecting the earth is beneficial to all those living, including humans, and the policy would allow for protective works to be enhanced. The increased media coverage of the animal suffering in inadequate facilities is already making this proposal a reality. SeaWorld has announced they are ending the breeding program of Orcas and the ones they obtain now are their last generation. Other facilities are losing their support from the public and therefore, profit. Respect for life may come as a cost for those who highly enjoy these attractions. However, moral obligation to help those suffering is a far greater concern then losing a day trip to the zoo. 

