The Ethics of Zoos

Should all animals be free?

Editor's Note: This is a student journalism piece from our 2026 Voices of the Next Generation issue.

Since the 19th century, animals have captivated audiences as circus performers and zoo attractions. But in the present day, animal captivity is a much more controversial and nuanced topic.

Investigations by animal rights groups, zoo closures, new laws, and public concern have prompted many visitors to research facilities more carefully before attending. And when it comes to the ethical treatment of animals in captivity, there are those who champion safe zoos as places of research and rehabilitation, while others believe all animals should be free.

Born Free

Devan Schowe is a campaign associate from Born Free USA, an animal rights organization that campaigns for “keeping all wild animals in the wild.” Born Free advocates against all types of animal captivity, such as circuses, exotic pets, and zoos, regardless of accreditation status.

“In terms of our work, we kind of don’t really discriminate between grouping zoos into accredited zoos vs non-accredited zoos, because for us at Born Free, zoos are all kind of the same in the fact that they can’t provide wild animals with what they would need to achieve a happy or healthy life in captivity just because of the natural constraints there are at zoos,” Schowe says.

Some of these constraints are the sizes of enclosures, unnatural social groupings that the animals may be placed in, and incorrect diets that don’t match what animals would typically consume in the wild. Some of the main animal welfare concerns that Born Free sees in zoos are cleanliness, access to veterinary care, and safety.

“We’ve seen instances where animals have been living on inches of their own filth … or [zookeepers] just don’t have the staffing or the time or the resources to keep up with a hygienic cleaning schedule,” Schowe explains. “We see animals that don’t have consistent veterinary care regularly scheduled throughout the year. Even if they have something like an injury or an illness, sometimes these zoos don’t have the funding to have a veterinarian come in and treat these animals.”

Born Free has seen multiple instances where animal encounters such as photo ops, feeding, or even playing tug of war with a big cat pose serious safety threats to humans and have resulted in injury or death from humans getting too close to animals with improper barriers.

Not only are these experiences dangerous to humans, but they also have significant effects on the animals. To habituate animals to human interaction, they are often taken from their mothers when they are much too young, especially in roadside zoos where there aren’t many regulations against this. (See more on roadside zoos below.) Exposing baby animals to these experiences is exhausting, stressful, and they often get ill as a result.

The Benefits of Zoos

On the other side of the coin, Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) argues that accredited zoos provide measurable conservation, research, and education benefits.

According to the AZA, its accredited institutions contribute more than $341 million annually to field conservation, support Species Survival Programs that manage genetically healthy populations, and partner globally to restore habitats and repopulate endangered species.

The AZA maintains that animals in accredited facilities are given “choice and control” within habitats designed to reflect their native environments, with on-site veterinary teams and structured enrichment that allows them to express natural behaviors. The organization also points to research conducted in accredited zoos and aquariums—from coral propagation projects to medical advancements addressing diseases such as EEHV in elephants—as evidence that managed care settings can generate data and tools that benefit wild populations.

In the AZA’s view, these combined efforts in conservation funding, scientific research, and public education demonstrate that properly accredited zoos do more than display animals; they actively contribute to species survival and foster public understanding of how to protect wildlife and wild places.

Clinch Park Zoo

While national organizations emphasize accreditation as the benchmark for ethical animal care, former staff at the now-closed Clinch Park Zoo say smaller municipal zoos can also provide meaningful education and welfare-focused care.

Clinch Park Zoo was city-run under the governance of Traverse City, operating under municipal oversight with the support of a board of directors and a nonprofit zoological society established in the 1980s. The zoo hired an executive director with a background in wildlife biology, and its structure meant accountability to local government and the community rather than a private owner. The zoo housed only native Michigan wildlife that could not survive independently in the wild.

“All the animals at Clinch Park were native to Michigan and injured or orphaned in some way,” says former zookeeper Jen Loup, who worked her way up from seasonal staff to full-time keeper. She describes written animal-care protocols, earned levels of staff responsibility, and annual U.S. Department of Agriculture inspections that evaluated enclosure cleanliness and food preparation. In Loup’s time at the zoo, there were never any citations given by the USDA.

“Because of knowledgeable staff, we provided a good deal of enrichment for most of the species,” Loup says, adding that when the zoo closed, staff traveled significant distances to ensure animals were placed in facilities that met their standards of care.

At the same time, Loup acknowledges structural limitations. Located in a busy downtown park, the zoo faced increasing pressure as the city grew and large events drew crowds nearby.

“Cherry Festival and other downtown activities put a lot of pressure on the area as Traverse City grew,” she admits. “That did add stress to the animals’ lives.”

Limited physical space also restricted the ability to expand enclosures over time. Ultimately, the city commissioned a feasibility study to determine whether it should continue operating a municipal zoo. Questions about funding, long-term sustainability, and whether the zoo should relocate led to its closure, even though population surveys indicated many residents supported keeping it open. The zoo closed for good in 2007.

Roadside Zoos

As a municipal zoo, Clinch Park bridged the size gap between large zoos like those you’d visit in Detroit or San Diego and smaller animal facilities. The latter are where more issues can pop up.

Roadside zoos are typically small, private facilities that operate in mostly rural areas. Often found off highways, these unaccredited facilities have limited oversight and often don’t have the resources to properly provide the animals with necessary care and conditions.

Ethically, these facilities raise concerns, as living conditions are often well below what animals need to thrive. While many label themselves as sanctuaries, they lack accreditation from the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS), known as the gold standard for animal welfare. GFAS maintains strict, species-specific regulations to ensure animals live as naturally as possible.

These zoos are also not accredited by the AZA or the Zoological Association of America (ZAA). Zoos, aquariums, and other nature centers accredited by the AZA have regulations that only about 10 percent of the world’s zoos and aquariums can meet according to Sarah Fedele, vice president of communications for the AZA.

In many cases, these facilities prioritize profit over rehabilitation, conservation, or ethics, often leading to harmful public interactions between wildlife and people. Any opportunity for holding, petting, feeding, or taking pictures with animals is not only harmful to the animals, but is dangerous for people as well. Consequently, roadside animals often experience “zoochosis,” engaging in repetitive behaviors like pacing or self-mutilation due to a lack of enrichment.

USDA Loopholes

Legally, roadside zoos need to follow USDA regulations that are laid out in the Animal Welfare Act. Under this act, they must obtain a USDA exhibitor license, follow the minimum standards of care, and are subject to routine inspections. However, it is very easy for a facility to remain within the legal limits of the USDA while still being harmful to the animals’ welfare. The Animal Welfare Act sets minimum standards, not best practices.

For example, the Animal Welfare Act’s requirements for primates only stipulate “sufficient space” for normal postural adjustments. However, normal postural adjustments are just sitting, standing, turning around, etc. This means that the actual space requirements are very small.

Furthermore, there aren’t specific details regarding animal enrichment. Additionally, there are some species fully excluded from the act, and it doesn’t outright prohibit public interactions such as petting or feeding. The USDA has authority to enforce these regulations, but the department has often faced criticism for inconsistencies with enforcement.

With a limited number of inspectors, facilities are typically checked only once a year. Violators may face fines or license suspension/revocation, but many accumulate multiple citations before facing serious consequences. Even then, fines are sometimes reduced through settlements, and licenses are rarely permanently revoked.

When a roadside zoo is shut down, there is also the question of where the animals will be rehomed.

“If the animals are lucky, they will go to a sanctuary,” Schowe of Born Free USA says. “However, a lot, if not all of the sanctuaries right now are almost always at full capacity.” Other than the lucky few sent to sanctuaries, the animals may be euthanized or transferred to another zoo.

The Future of Zoos

As the debate over animal captivity continues, experts and advocates alike agree on one point: visitors have more power than they may realize.

Before buying a ticket, consumers can research whether a facility is accredited by organizations such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, review inspection reports from the USDA, look into a zoo’s conservation commitments and animal care standards, and check online reviews from other visitors.

Visitors can also observe conditions firsthand. Are enclosures clean and spacious? Do animals have enrichment and space to retreat from crowds? Are there opportunities for unsafe public interactions?

Ultimately, deciding whether to visit a zoo requires weighing conservation claims, animal welfare standards, and ethical concerns. In an era of growing transparency and public scrutiny, informed choices by visitors may shape the future of how—or whether—wildlife is displayed in captivity.

Pictured: A Clinch Park Zoo Pamphlet, circa 2000, from the TADL Local History Collection.

View On Our Website