To zoo or not to zoo?

Well the story of the tiger at Nandankanan zoo which "tried life in a zoo for a month and then broke out later" is back in the news. This time the tiger has returned to the zoo in search for love. But now the question arises what the future holds for him now- if he'll spend the rest of his days in the zoo (if the zoo-keepers can manage to contain him, or if he'll be out in the wild?

This dilemma is nothing new. The debate of whether keeping animals in zoos goes back a long way. Here I try to bring forward my opinion, on which some of you might disagree on.

I am strongly in favour of keeping individuals of highly endangered species in zoos, but for the primary purpose of captive breeding. Entertainment should only be a by-product which funds the project.

Yes, spending a life in captivity is a tormenting experience, but I feel the needs of a species come before the needs of an individual. Also, if we want to see certain highly endangered species in the future, we will need to have captive breeding programmes for them. There are many species which have been reintroduced into the wild after almost being hunted to extinction, like the Pere David's deer, Arabian oryx and Perzewalski's horse.

But at the same time it is also true that my support  for zoos arises as our failure to protect animals in wildlife sanctuaries and national parks (take for example the Sariska tiger reserve which was cleared of tigers!). The only safe place for animals currently, in my opinion, are zoos.

We also have to make sure that the individuals feel most at home, with large and nature-identical enclosures. And most of all, the offspring should be acclimatised to the wild as soon as possible for release.

And yes, we wont need zoos if we learn to respect other species' right to live.

Your views on this are always invited in the comments. You might also want to take the poll below to find what others think

Is keeping animals in zoos ethical for captive breeding programmes?

• Yes
• No