Food and clothing are among the most visible ways animals are used for human purposes. However, animals are also widely used for entertainment – in circuses, marine parks, aquariums, and zoos.
From a vegan perspective, the ethical concern is not limited to physical mistreatment alone. It also includes the broader question of whether animals should be confined, displayed, and managed primarily to serve human interests.
While standards and practices vary widely between facilities, the use of animals for entertainment raises important questions about autonomy, and how we balance conserving animals with preserving their rights.
Circuses
Public opposition to the use of wild animals in travelling circuses has increased significantly in recent decades, and many countries have now introduced partial or complete bans.
Wild animals used in circuses, including elephants, big cats, bears, and primates, are typically sourced from private breeders, other facilities, or surplus zoo populations (1). Scientific assessments of circus animal welfare have found that frequent transport, limited space, and social disruption prevent animals from having their behavioural, social or psychological needs met (2).
Studies examining activity patterns show that circus animals spend most of their time confined in transport vehicles or small enclosures, with relatively little opportunity for exercise or to engage in natural behaviours (2).
Veterinary and welfare researchers have also documented high rates of stereotypic behaviour. These are repetitive, functionless movements associated with stress, particularly in elephants and large carnivores (3).
For these reasons, many professional veterinary organisations now oppose the use of wild animals in circuses.
Marine Parks and Orcas
Marine parks remain among the most controversial animal entertainment venues.
In the wild, orcas and dolphins travel long distances, form complex social relationships, and engage in diverse hunting and communication behaviours. Captive environments cannot replicate these conditions.
Research comparing captive and wild orcas has produced mixed findings over time, but multiple studies have identified elevated mortality risks in early captive populations and ongoing welfare concerns related to confinement (4)(5).
Behavioural studies have documented stereotypic swimming patterns, surface behaviours, and signs of chronic stress in captive cetaceans (6). The documentary Blackfish (2013) brought widespread public attention to these issues, contributing to policy changes such as SeaWorld’s decision to end its orca breeding programme.
While some marine parks have improved welfare standards since then, the ethical question remains: Can highly intelligent, wide-ranging marine mammals experience adequate wellbeing in artificial tanks designed primarily for public exhibition and visitor entertainment?
Aquariums
Public aquariums often present themselves as centres for conservation, education, and research. Some participate in breeding programmes, conservation work and public outreach initiatives.
However, many aquarium species are still sourced from the wild (7). Collection for the ornamental fish trade has contributed to localised reef degradation and population decline in some regions (8).
Research into fish cognition and sentience has expanded considerably in recent years. Studies now indicate that many fish species experience pain and display complex learning and social behaviours (9)(10).nThis growing body of evidence challenges earlier assumptions that confinement in tanks poses little ethical concern, or that it does not have any social or psychological impact on the fish who are confined.
As with marine mammals, aquariums raise questions about whether artificial display environments can adequately meet the behavioural and psychological needs of aquatic animals, given the limited space and almost constant public attention.
Zoos: Conservation and Confinement
It was not so long ago when Zoos marketed themselves as purely entertainment venues, but modern accredited zoos increasingly emphasise conservation, research, and education as central elements of their mission.
There is no doubt that zoos have contributed to some genuine conservation successes. Captive breeding programmes have played important roles in the recovery of species such as the California condor and the Arabian oryx (11). Many zoos also contribute funding to habitat protection and field conservation projects (12).
At the same time, the overall impact of zoo-based conservation is debatable. Only a small proportion of zoo species are involved in active reintroduction programmes, and the reintroduction of zoo animals into the wild is both rarely performed and rarely successful (13). Most animals in zoos will live and die in captivity, and many popular exhibit species are not critically endangered (14).
At the root of the issue is that zoos are structurally dependent on ticket revenue and visitor attendance and guest satisfation Their financial model requires public display, which places exhibition and entertainment at the centre of their operation.
As previously mentioned, welfare research has documented stereotypic behaviours and physiological stress indicators in certain captive species, particularly elephants, big cats, and wide-ranging mammals (15)(16), many of which are popular in zoo exhibits. Even large, well-designed enclosures cannot replicate natural territories that may span hundreds or thousands of kilometres.
This creates an ethical tension:
- Zoos contribute to conservation.
- But they do so through systems that involve lifelong confinement for most animals.
Many researchers argue that conservation funding would be more effective if directed toward habitat preservation, anti-poaching initiatives, and community-based protection in the wild (17). Others maintain that zoos play an important educational and fundraising role that supports these same goals.
If you’d like to read a more detailed discussion on the topic of Zoos, you may be interested in this article.
The Core Ethical Question
Animal entertainment industries exist because people are willing to pay to view animals in captivity. For many vegans, the central ethical concern is autonomy and exploitation. Animals are confined not primarily for their own benefit, but so that humans can observe them.
Even where care standards are high, which is increasingly the case in modern, accredited zoos, captivity for display raises questions about whether animals are being treated as individuals with intrinsic value, or as attractions within a commercial system.
This does not require dismissing conservation achievements or ignoring improvements in welfare. It does, however, invite reflection on whether human curiosity and recreation justify restricting the freedom of sentient beings. This is particularly the case when alternative methods of conservation and education are available, such as private breeding programs and the vital work of non-profit conservation organisations.
For many animal advocates, the goal is not to deny the importance of conservation, but to ask whether it can be pursued in ways that place greater emphasis on protecting animals in their natural environments rather than confining them for public display.
Bibliography
- Frost, N. Zoos and Animal Welfare. Oxford University Press, 2011.
https://books.google.com/books?id=a1vev5hf7o8C - Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C., & Harris, S. “Are Wild Animals Suited to a Travelling Circus Life?” Animal Welfare, 2009.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228647419 - Clubb, R., & Mason, G. “Captivity Effects on Wide-Ranging Carnivores.” Nature, 2003.
https://www.nature.com/articles/421473a - Robeck, T. et al. “Survival Analysis of Captive Killer Whales.” Marine Mammal Science, 2015.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mms.12209 - Jett, J., & Ventre, J. “Captive Killer Whale Mortality.” Marine Mammal Science, 2015.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mms.12248 - Waples, K., & Gales, N. “Evaluating and Minimizing Stress in Cetaceans.” Journal of Cetacean Research, 2002.
https://iucn-csg.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/waplesgales.pdf - Rhyne, A. et al. “Ornamental Fish Trade.” PLOS ONE, 2012.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035808 - Wood, E. Collection of Coral Reef Fish. UNEP-WCMC, 2001.
https://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/collection-of-coral-reef-fish - Sneddon, L. et al. “Defining and Assessing Animal Pain.” Animal Behaviour, 2014.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347214003431 - Brown, C. Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2015.
- Snyder, N. et al. “Limitations of Captive Breeding.” Conservation Biology, 1996.
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10040218.x - World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Conservation Strategy, 2020.
https://www.waza.org/priorities/conservation/ - Conde, D. et al. “Zoos and Conservation.” Science, 2011.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1200677 - Balmford, A. et al. “Captive Populations.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2011.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534711000707 - Mason, G. et al. “Stereotypic Behaviour.” Animal Behaviour, 2007.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347207001535 - Clubb, R. et al. “Elephant Welfare in Zoos.” Animal Welfare, 2008.
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2008/00000017/00000003/art00007 - Soulé, M. “Conservation Biology.” BioScience, 1985.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/35/11/727/228244
“My doctrine is this: That if we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and we do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the guilt.”
–Anna Sewell