Animals and birds should never be kept in cages. What's your opinion?
Animal welfare has become a hot topic in recent years. Animal lovers have raised their voices many times to defend for the rights of their loved ones. The act of using animals as a commodity for human's purposes has been strongly criticized. Keeping them in cages is also included. While supporters believe that animals and birds should never be caged, I oppose that sometimes animals and birds should be caged for the following reasons.
Firstly, animals and birds bring considerable medical benefits such as bear gall and bird nest. According to scientists, bear bile contains ursodeoxycholic acid, which is believed to reduce fever, protect the liver, improve eyesight and break down gall stones. Meanwhile, edible bird nest is known to have anti-aging and immune-enhancing properties. Therefore, in such cases, they should be caged for experiments and researches, which then contribute to the medical development of mankind.
Secondly, captivity virtually brings them necessary safety at times as some kinds of birds will be protected from their predators once they are in cages. For instance, the baby birds can be easily killed by only one swift bite of the pet dogs, especially in spring and summer. To add on, red and gray squirrels are considered a great menace to the bird houses and the birds themselves. In the case of the chicken, some should be caged so that their eggs can be controlled for agricultural activities. Occasionally, when bird flu is widespread, chicken must be caged so that the disease can be managed so that no serious social impact will result.
On the other hand, the defenders argue that animals and birds should be given freedom. Cages will deprive them of their instinct features. They are unable to move about to search for the food and drink, create their own shelters and enjoy playing in their territories. All they do is sitting in the cages and eating the manufactured food their masters bring. For example, domesticated dogs become less aggressive and less skillful at hunting compared to the wild dogs in the forests. However, the dangerous animals and birds cannot be let free as they are likely to harm the people and other species that they encounter. Since man recently destroyed a vast amount of forests, some kinds like tigers, lions, elephants and so on lost their habitats. As a result, they roam and run around, even into the residential areas and threaten mankind. A typical example is the case of a wild elephant killing a young male adult in Dong Nai, Viet Nam, which aroused apprehension in Vietnamese community. Therefore, keeping these animals in cages is for the sake of their survival as well as the other's safety.
In conclusion, I think that animals and birds naturally should be let free except for the cases I just explained above. It is not that they should never be kept in cages, but that sometimes they have to be caged.
1. so many examples...I can't remind anyone when writing :( but in my opinion, it's too many
2. the last sentance in first paragraph seems opposite to the last conclusion.
3. you main idea should be against, but you put your focus on support
4. a new line is suggested between paragraphes
My answer would be like this:
--disadvantages:
cruel to take away the freedom, it's the right of any creature
devoid the nature:how tigers can be recognized as tigers if they can't hunt
--advantages:
protect species from extinction
neccissary for researches: like medical
--my opinion:
should be kept in cages unless in some extreme conditions, like experiment and cure. even though, they should be well raised and released afterwards
for protection, we can build wild reservations instead of simple cages
While supporters supporters of what? You should just say this: While animal rights activists believe that animals and birds should never be caged, I oppose assert that sometimes animals and birds should be caged for the following reasons.
I think you did a great job with this. I especially like the argument about caging them for the protection of humans. But it is a weak argument when you begin the essay by talking about their use for medical advancement, because the topic of the essay is a moral argument, so... I don't think is good to begin with an argument about using them for medical research.
You write very well!
Well, it is a moral argument about whether or not we ever have the right to put them in cages. It does not have to be about medical research. You have a good argument: to protect them or protect people from them. That is a good argument.
What other reasons would we have to justify putting them in cages? There are not many reasons to justify putting a human in a cage, so it is hard to justify putting any other animal in a cage...
:-)
