i need someone to write me a paper and an outline, about Aquariums and Zoos: Harmful or Helpful? i cant send u the sorce but im gonna copy it for u to use and im gonna cite it by myself and i need it comparing paper, 1 and half to 2 and half papers. im an international student so leave some mistakes please. please no copy from the internet. THE DUE IS AFTER 12 HOURES . . the sorce . . Newspaper University Wire Sep 28, 2015, n.p. Copyright Sep 28, 2015 UWIRE, a division of Uloop. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. Aquariums and Zoos: Harmful or Helpful? By Savannah N. Miller, Senior Staff Columnist The Tiger, Clemson University, Clemson SC Last week, a zookeeper at Hamilton Zoo in New Zealand was attacked and killed by a 11-year-old male Sumatran tiger named Oz. Samantha Kudeweh, the Hamilton Zoo employee, had worked at the zoo for 10 years and was married with two children. Kudeweh took a risk when she accepted the position of a zookeeper, and she was certainly aware of the dangers involved in caring for a captive tiger, but this horrific news brings up serious concerns--are zoos and aquariums ethical? Is it okay to keep animals in captivity, away from their natural habitats, for public enjoyment? It's the responsibility of the institution and its employees to provide animals with enough enrichment to keep them healthy and happy. However, even under the best care possible, animals do not behave the same in captivity as they do in the wild; they're often unpredictable. No earthly being is meant to live in a bordered enclosure. It's simply not natural. They get bored without visual and mental stimulation, and as a result can become aggressive. Though I haven't visited the Hamilton Zoo in New Zealand myself, it is plausible that lack of enrichment or general boredom led to Oz's aggressive behavior. However, as a previous aquarium employee, I don't believe zoos, aquariums and similar institutions are black and white or right or wrong, for keeping animals captive. For example, when an animal is born in captivity, intentionally or not, it shouldn't be released into the wild. From the first minute of life, animals born in captivity are exposed to humans and captive-animal care customs. Because of brain development patterns and learned behaviors during infancy, captive infants do not have the ability to survive in their natural habitats. Release creates anxiety for the animal, as they cannot acclimate to the "foreign" environment, and eventually they perish either by predation or exposure. By keeping them in captivity we save them from certain death. Other times, animals are rescued from the wild during extreme sickness or after injury. They do not have the capabilities to sustain life without outside help, and in captivity they are given medical treatments and closely monitored. Situations like these cause populations of captive animals in zoos and aquariums to grow. The exposure of captive animals to the public through shows or observatories raises awareness to the general public. Public awareness, in turn, leads to funding from donations. Without these funds, organizations would not be able to continue animal research, and there would be virtually no regulation for animal protection in the wild or in captivity. In this way, animal captivity is a "necessary evil" for the wellbeing of certain species that are threatened or endangered. There are still concerns about the ethics behind animals in captivity. In many places they aren't treated fairly or are deprived of mental stimulation via lack of enrichment. So, is it fair for a few animals to suffer in captivity for the wellbeing of a whole species? There may not be a definite answer for questions like this, but at least we can continue to fund programs that protect wild animals through these institutions.

i need someone to write me a paper and an outline, about Aquariums and Zoos: Harmful or Helpful? i cant send u the sorce but im gonna copy it for u to use and im gonna cite it by myself and i need it comparing paper, 1 and half to 2 and half papers. im an international student so leave some mistakes please. please no copy from the internet. THE DUE IS AFTER 12 HOURES . . the sorce . . Newspaper University Wire Sep 28, 2015, n.p. Copyright Sep 28, 2015 UWIRE, a division of Uloop. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. Aquariums and Zoos: Harmful or Helpful? By Savannah N. Miller, Senior Staff Columnist The Tiger, Clemson University, Clemson SC Last week, a zookeeper at Hamilton Zoo in New Zealand was attacked and killed by a 11-year-old male Sumatran tiger named Oz. Samantha Kudeweh, the Hamilton Zoo employee, had worked at the zoo for 10 years and was married with two children. Kudeweh took a risk when she accepted the position of a zookeeper, and she was certainly aware of the dangers involved in caring for a captive tiger, but this horrific news brings up serious concerns--are zoos and aquariums ethical? Is it okay to keep animals in captivity, away from their natural habitats, for public enjoyment? It's the responsibility of the institution and its employees to provide animals with enough enrichment to keep them healthy and happy. However, even under the best care possible, animals do not behave the same in captivity as they do in the wild; they're often unpredictable. No earthly being is meant to live in a bordered enclosure. It's simply not natural. They get bored without visual and mental stimulation, and as a result can become aggressive. Though I haven't visited the Hamilton Zoo in New Zealand myself, it is plausible that lack of enrichment or general boredom led to Oz's aggressive behavior. However, as a previous aquarium employee, I don't believe zoos, aquariums and similar institutions are black and white or right or wrong, for keeping animals captive. For example, when an animal is born in captivity, intentionally or not, it shouldn't be released into the wild. From the first minute of life, animals born in captivity are exposed to humans and captive-animal care customs. Because of brain development patterns and learned behaviors during infancy, captive infants do not have the ability to survive in their natural habitats. Release creates anxiety for the animal, as they cannot acclimate to the "foreign" environment, and eventually they perish either by predation or exposure. By keeping them in captivity we save them from certain death. Other times, animals are rescued from the wild during extreme sickness or after injury. They do not have the capabilities to sustain life without outside help, and in captivity they are given medical treatments and closely monitored. Situations like these cause populations of captive animals in zoos and aquariums to grow. The exposure of captive animals to the public through shows or observatories raises awareness to the general public. Public awareness, in turn, leads to funding from donations. Without these funds, organizations would not be able to continue animal research, and there would be virtually no regulation for animal protection in the wild or in captivity. In this way, animal captivity is a "necessary evil" for the wellbeing of certain species that are threatened or endangered. There are still concerns about the ethics behind animals in captivity. In many places they aren't treated fairly or are deprived of mental stimulation via lack of enrichment. So, is it fair for a few animals to suffer in captivity for the wellbeing of a whole species? There may not be a definite answer for questions like this, but at least we can continue to fund programs that protect wild animals through these institutions.