Zoos are increasingly criticised as cruel institutions that should be closed altogether. While I share the concern about animal suffering, I only partly agree: the worst zoos deserve closure, but the best ones now play a role in conservation that closing them would destroy.
It is true that many zoos still fail the animals they keep. Wide-ranging species such as elephants and polar bears suffer visibly in small enclosures, developing repetitive behaviours that scientists recognise as signs of distress. Where animals are confined purely for entertainment, with no serious effort at welfare or education, the criticism is fully justified and closure is the right response.
However, condemning all zoos ignores what modern, accredited ones actually do. Leading zoos run breeding programmes that have saved species — the Arabian oryx and California condor survive today largely because of them — and they fund and train fieldwork that protects animals in the wild. They also shape public attitudes: a child who watches a living tiger is far more likely to care about tigers in the wild than one who only sees them on a screen, and hundreds of millions of visitors pass through zoo gates each year. With habitats shrinking rapidly, well-run zoos increasingly serve as an insurance policy for species that may soon have nowhere else to live. The sensible policy is therefore strict licensing that forces zoos up to this standard or shuts them down.
In conclusion, I agree that cruel, purely commercial zoos should close, but I disagree with abolishing zoos altogether. Properly regulated, they are no longer prisons but arks, and the animals they protect cannot afford to lose them.