The controversial debate on the captivity of many exotic and intelligent animals has increased in concern throughout the past decade. While some zoos strive for the education and conservation of its species, the majority fails to provide adequate information to its visitors. The treatment and living conditions of the animals are insufficient, and federal legislation that require appropriate environments lack detail and enforcement. Animals are suffering physically and mentally across the nation with no justification. Many are physically abused and forced into performances that depict false characteristics of 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. Definitely inconvenience 

The varying educational impacts animal attractions have on children has become a topic of interest for many animal activist over the past years. Many zoos in particular justify their existence as solely to educate children and adults on biological and conservational issues. Therefore, zoos have a major responsibility and opportunity to engage children with live animals, science and conservation efforts. Conservation and animal education is urgent to teach among adults, but the engagement of children is crucial if protection efforts are going to have a lasting impact. 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. Only 34 -41% of children obtain a positive increase of knowledge after their trip, leaving roughly 65% of children gaining nothing or false depiction of the animals (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, the zoos allow 65% of their visitors to use the parks as a resource for recreation and entertainment. The facilities are then a great ethical issue as they take the animals out of their natural environment purely for human entertainment.  

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. For example, in 2013 the Catoctin Zoo in Thurmont, MD was investigated by the Humane Society of the United State and found to have "tigers living in a crumbling, empty swimming pool, primates who lack adequate environmental enrichment living in crowded or isolated conditions, bears exhibiting neurotic behaviors, dangerous and outdated cages, and attacks and escapes" (Amini 1). Zoos, such as the Catoctin Zoon, lack the space 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 (Negative Effects 1). They become severely depressed and exhibit bizarre, repetitive behaviors such as pacing, swaying, and circling (Negative Effects 1). This can explain the significant number of zoo goers that do not acquire accurate knowledge of the animals they have seen. 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 exotic animals. However, 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 the animals, but also inaccurately educates children on the characteristics of the species. Justification for animal captivity does not exist since there is a lack of education, conservation efforts and poor living conditions. 

The fact that captive animals provide 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 towards the animals is prominent throughout such attractions. The Ringling Bros. Circus trek 30,000 miles for 11 months with their exotic animals. It can be concluded that there is a deprivation of basic comfort living conditions 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 remain 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 (Circuses 2). Terrorizing their animals for amusement is a horrible method for making a profit and the animal's rights must be respected by the 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 2). The act is limited to a broad standard of requirements that only care to the most basic needs of the animals. These standards ignore the mental health of the captive species other than primates. APHIS is also required to conduct a yearly inspection of the facilities, yet there are 104 inspectors and over 2,000 facilities (Grech 3). Inspectors do not fully carry out their duties since they are over-worked and underfunded. The act does not even allow for a citizen suit provision, which would allow citizens to sue the exhibitions the APHIS lack to regulate. To be a member of the Professional Zoo Association, a facility must meet the proper animal conditions. But, zoos are not required to be members (Grech 3). 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 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 major environmental issues. However, existing standards are consistently not met and there has been proven to be minimal educational value, 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 the 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 reprimanded 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 since money is not easily given out. 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 because they lack 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 suffer from zoochosis and the more extensive health assessments will expose this 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 1). 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 1). 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. 

