CELPIP Listening Part 6 Practice Test: Do Zoos Still Belong?

NARRATOR: Few institutions inspire such mixed emotions as the zoo. For generations, a day spent watching elephants and penguins has been a cherished family outing, yet a vocal and growing movement now argues that keeping wild animals in captivity is indefensible, whatever the educational justification. As several Canadian zoos face expensive renovations, the question of whether they deserve public funding at all has moved from the margins to the mainstream. Attendance, meanwhile, remains strong, and many parents cannot imagine childhood without at least one visit.

NARRATOR: Ethicist Daniel Ferreira is among the most uncompromising critics. He contends that no enclosure, however spacious or well designed, can replicate the territory of a wide-ranging animal. Polar bears, he notes, may roam hundreds of kilometres in the wild; in captivity, many develop repetitive behaviours such as pacing, which researchers associate with chronic stress. Ferreira is equally unconvinced by claims that zoos educate the public. Visitors, he observes, typically spend less than two minutes at each exhibit, often more absorbed in their phones than in the animals. He proposes that zoos be gradually phased out, with existing animals relocated to sanctuaries and the savings redirected toward protecting natural habitats.

NARRATOR: Conservation biologist Naomi Whitfield sees things differently, although she concedes that some older facilities deserve the criticism. Modern accredited zoos, she argues, have evolved into something closer to conservation centres. The Vancouver Island marmot, once reduced to fewer than thirty animals in the wild, survives today partly because zoos bred the animals and released them back into their mountain habitat. She also points out that most zoo animals today were born in zoos, not taken from the wild, and would not survive if they were simply set free. Whitfield also disputes the claim that visitors learn nothing. Children who see a living animal, she maintains, form emotional attachments that no documentary can supply, and those attachments often grow into lifelong support for wildlife protection. Closing zoos, in her view, would sacrifice these programs while doing little for animals threatened by habitat loss.

NARRATOR: Both experts agree that the worst facilities, the roadside attractions with concrete cages, should close; few would mourn their loss. Their dispute concerns the rest. Ferreira's argument carries considerable moral force, particularly regarding large, far-ranging species. Yet it is difficult to dismiss Whitfield's record of animals rescued from the brink. Perhaps the more productive question is not whether zoos should exist, but which animals belong in them.