Should Zoos Exist?

Everyone remembers the day when they were taken to the zoo as a child.  The feeling of happiness that took hold of us as we gazed at majestic and exotic animals while snacking on cotton candy or ice cream is one that we have held onto tightly.  Zoos and aquariums are considered institutions in our society on par with parks, museums, theaters, and libraries.  This is because we get a great thrill by coming face to face with exotic and rare creatures.  But is the entertainment value of such places enough of a reason for them to exist?  All of these establishments rely on captive animals in order to subsist.  If we are to continue to keep these animals away from their natural habitat and lifestyle then zoos must prove that their existence is necessary to our society.  The question that I would like to explore is thus, do organizations like zoos provide enough positive services to both humans and animals to offset the negative impact placed upon the captive animals that these organizations confine?

I think there are three camps of people when it comes to zoos and like places.  There are those that believe that zoos provide essential services to education and conservation, there are those that believe that zoos are unnecessary institutions that profit off of animal cruelty, and there are those that do not think about the subject except to dreamily remember a warm summer's day spent looking at chimpanzees.  Unfortunately, I think most of the population are in this third category and I think that is unfair to the animals that we have kept away from their native homes.  We owe it to these creatures to really explore this question until we have reached a solid conclusion.

Source: ParentMap

This is a complex issue.  I do not believe that there is a clear or easy answer to the question that I have posed.  At the end of this article I will arrive at a conclusion but I believe that many people will disagree with my answer based on their personal and philosophical beliefs.  Thus I will go into more detail than normal and explore numerous avenues of the influence of zoos.  First I will briefly go over the history of the modern zoo, then I will explore the baseline ethics of keeping captive animals and what care is required, followed by examining the role that zoos play in conservation efforts, and finally I will have information on the educational impact of zoos.

It is hard to question the existence of something deemed so normal in modern society.  It is hard to accept that the source of so many happy memories could be extraneous bastions of cruelty.  But since the happiness and welfare of living creatures is at stake, we cannot merely accept the continuation of such practices without discussion and contemplation.

History

Zoos did not come about in their current form until the 19th century.  However, animals have been kept in captivity for entertainment purposes since ancient times.  It has only been recently that human ideals of ethics and philosophy have been applied to the wellbeing of animals.  Old philosophical and religious thought placed mankind's interests at the center of the moral universe and all other considerations were deemed secondary.  For example, in Judeo-Christian belief systems, the Earth and all of its animal species, plant life, and mineral wealth were placed by a higher power for the benefit of mankind.  With such belief systems in place, influential and wealthy individuals had no qualms with capturing large amounts of animals for their own amusement.

The modern zoos came into existence when the private menageries of the past were opened to the public in the spirit of greater equality.  These first Victorian-era zoos utilized small barred concrete enclosures, gave little thought to animal welfare, and were occupied solely with the enjoyment of the visitor.  There was an extremely short lifespan for any animal contained within and some zoos even exhibited exotic people and cultures behind the same bars that imprisoned hyenas or polar bears.

A cartoon illustrating the small barred enclosures of Victorian Zoos
Source: George du Maurier

At the turn of the century, zoos began to change.  A zoo owner by the name of Carl Hagenbeck started the practice of designing enclosures to resemble, in some manner, the environments that the animals normally inhabit.  He separated patrons and beasts not by bars but by moats and used concrete to create faux natural landscapes for the animals to prowl.  Zoos also started to organize their stock not by taxonomy but by ecological niche.

Despite their advances in enclosure design, zoos remained purely entertainment-focused until the 1970s.  It was during this decade that the organizations began to justify their continuation by becoming active in research and conservation efforts.  This in turn affected the design of the organizations themselves, as Michael Hutchins, a zoo scholar, describes, "The idea was to use that knowledge to design new exhibits that were much more appropriate for the animals and allowed them to express as large a percentage of their behavior as they would in the wild.  There was much more extensive vegetation, the exhibits started to become larger, more complex".

Zoos have come a long way from the depressing menageries of the Victorian Age.  The enclosures are now built with the animals' natural habitats in mind and the basic needs of the animals are understood and taken into account.  But just because the captive animals are treated better does not mean that they should be captive in the first place.  We must examine exactly what the zoos are providing for and taking away from the animals.

Morality and Animal Welfare

I am going to make an assumption about you, the reader.  I am going to assume that you believe that keeping something in captivity against its will is immoral.  I am going to assume that you do not believe that animals were put here for mankind's pleasure and that we cannot do with them as we will without a second thought.  By doing so I have simplified the question that I will explore and I make it necessary for the captivity of these animals to be justified.  I believe that most people today think of animals in an emotional perspective; we find joy in them and empathize with them.  So for now we will assume that captivity in itself is an immoral principle.

The argument for zoos is thus not "keeping animals captive is moral and just" but instead "keeping animals captive is a necessary evil".  Advocates of zoos believe that the state of the world is dangerous for the average animal and that in the enclosures of zoos and aquariums, animals will have a more fruitful life than safe from the treacherous wild.  Dr. Dave Hone provided a good explanation of this theory in his article "Why Zoos are Good", written for The Guardian.

What I would state with absolute confidence is that for many species (but now, not all) it is perfectly possible to keep them in a zoo or wildlife park and for them to have a quality of life as high or higher than in the wild.  Their movement might be restricted (but not necessarily by that much) but they will not suffer from the threat or stress of predators (and nor will they be killed in a grisly manner or eaten alive) or the irritation and pain of parasites, injuries and illnesses will treated, they won't suffer or die of drought or starvation and indeed will get a varied and high-quality diet with all the supplements required.  They can be spared bullying or social ostracism or even infanticide by others of their kind, or a lack of a suitable home or environment in which to live.  A lot of very nasty things happen to truly "wild" animals that simply don't happen in good zoos and to cast a life that is "free" as one that is "good" is, I think, an error.

 Dr. Hone's argument is convincing.  Animals in captivity on average do tend to live longer than in the wild, there is zero threat of predation (unless a zookeeper is careless or hungry), and zoo animals have the benefit of health care.  Dr. Hone obviously believes that such protection offsets any benefits of a "wild" life.  Believers in Animal Rights would disagree.

For an animal's life to be considered fulfilling, biological factors are not the only needs to be met.  Animals also crave psychological and social stimuli.  While zoos may be proficient at providing animals with food and medicine, they will never be able to stimulate the animals comparably to a life spent in the wild.  This fact is where people who believe in maintaining animal welfare and those that believe in animal rights diverge.  Individuals who champion animal welfare look at zoos and see animals that are well-fed, kept safe from predators, and who are cared for by medical professionals; thus their captivity is offset.  Those that adhere to the ideals of animal rights see creatures who are forced to live an unnatural existence, who are denied free range, and are controlled in every aspect of their lives.  Despite the safety and security of a life in captivity, the latter group believes it is not worth the cost.

A pack of Gorillas: an example of an animal that requires a lot of space and social interaction
Source: Penguin Travel

Another consideration for the arguments about the wellbeing of animals in zoos is thus; the arguments of people like Dr. Hone only hold ground if every single zoo and aquarium on Earth adheres to rigorous standards.  But zoos are not well regulated and abuses are shockingly common.  For example, in 2010 Woburn Safari Zoo in the UK was found to keep lions in cramped conditions for 18 hours a day and trained elephants using 4,500-volt electrical goads.  Accreditations from reputable organizations like the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are not required to open a zoo.  And even if such accreditations and standards are better implemented many animals are not suited for a captive lifestyle.  James Nolan, a reporter for Vice, wrote an article titled "All the Reasons Why Zoos Should be Banned" where he explained how zoos cannot provide all for its residents.

On the issue of space, the average lion or tiger has 18,000 times less in captivity than it does in the wild; polar bears a million times less.  To say this adversely affects the animal is an understatement:  In 2008, a government-funded study in the UK discovered there was a welfare concern over every elephant in the country; 75 percent of them were overweight, and only 16 percent could walk normally.  African elephants also live three times longer in the wild than they do in captivity, and 40 percent of lion cubs die in zoos, compared with 30 percent in the wild.  That may sound like a similar figure, but consider that a third of the reasons they die, predators being a big one, in the wild are absent in zoos.

When discussing the basic morality of zoos, I think we must remember that humans are animals just like the creatures that we gawk at from behind plexiglass protection.  These animals have the same basic needs that we do; such as a desire for freedom, a need for social interaction, and drive to explore the world around us.  Dr. Hone's argument for zoos can be applied to humans and his points still ring true.  A person in captivity would be safer from predators, disease, starvation, and injury.  But we do not yearn to lock ourselves in safe padded rooms in order to be safe from an unfair world.  We instead revel in the dangerous and unpredictable life we live.  The wild is a beautiful, dangerous, exciting, and violent place.  Animals have evolved for millions of years to carve an existence and meaning in that place, thus it is perhaps foolish to believe that we can provide a better life for these species just because it is safer.

These lucky prisoners are protected from predators and receive three meals a day!
Source: KQED

Perhaps on their shallowest level, the incarceration of animals at zoos is not justified by the protection they receive.  But as we learned earlier, zoos have developed over the years and claim to provide more than just security for their prisoners and entertainment for their guests.

Conservation Efforts

If you were to visit a zoo today and pay a reasonable fee to watch lions, giraffes, and wolves strut around a fenced-in paddock, you might feel a few pangs of guilt.  You might look around you and see city skylines in the distance and realize that this is not where these animals belong and that your moderate entrance fee is why these species are so far from their home.  But then you'll come across a brightly colored and illustrated sign that says, "Worry not!  Your money is also going towards a great number of conservation efforts that support the wild habitats of these animals!  So go forth and browse our collection guilt-free!"  Should such a revelation ease our shame?  Are zoos using our money to better the wild places of Earth?

An example of how Zoos tie themselves to conservation
Source: Chester Zoo

The well-placed placard that you saw in the zoo was not lying.  Zoos do contribute enormously to conservation efforts, especially in the realm of breeding initiatives.  Zoos like to see themselves as bastions for threatened species and the populations that they hold can be thought of as reservoirs to repopulate the wild.  Dr. Robin Ganzart gives the example of how this can work in an article he wrote for Time, "Consider the Arabian Oryx, a striking breed of antelope from the Arabian Peninsula.  The species was hunted to extinction in the wild nearly four decades ago, when the last wild Arabian Oryx was shot and killed in 1972.  The Phoenix Zoo helped lead the ensuing breeding and reintroduction programs, which ultimately birthed more than 200 calves from just nine individuals.  Now between Oman and Jordan, there are about 1,000 Arabian Oryx living in the wild."  Other species saved thanks to the breeding efforts of zoos include: the European bison, the red wolf, and the Oregon spotted frog.  

An Arabian Oryx
Source: Mother Nature Network

Zoos also provide research opportunities that can benefit wild populations.  Renowned institutions like the Zoological Society of London, the Smithsonian National Zoo, and the San Diego Zoo study diseases that threaten wildlife.  Often, researchers use captive populations at zoos to learn more about the behaviors and habits of elusive species.  Dr. Dave Hone explains why the research done at zoos is so critically important to work done in the wild, 

Being able to study animals in zoos where there is less risk and less variables means real changes can be effected on wild populations with far fewer problems...Things like capturing and moving at-risk or dangerous individuals is bolstered by knowledge in zoos about doses for anesthetics, and experience at handling and transporting animals.  This can make a real difference to conservation efforts and to reduce human-animal conflicts, and collectively provide a knowledge base for helping with the increasing threats of habitat destruction and other problems.

The maintenance of captive populations for repopulation and research is an important endeavor for conservation efforts.  But when we reexamine the roles that zoos play in such projects, their contributions seem less impressive.  For instance, zoos contribute an annual sum of $350 million to environmental projects but this impressive amount is funneled to the most endangered and charismatic animals.  Zoos will spend tons of money on species like panda bears because such cute and popular creatures will bring more visitors to their parks.  Thus the effect of the monetary donation is lessened because its effect is narrowed.  And most of the money mentioned is only from the most popular and venerated organizations.  Only one percent of existing zoos participate in active conservation efforts.

Another impact that is lessened when reexamined is the captive breeding populations that zoos provide.  In actuality, many zoos source their animals from the wild and most individuals that are placed in captivity will never be released back into the wild.  And even if captive populations are wild-source free, they are often inbred and considered poor stock for repopulation purposes.  Zoos will maintain these genetically poor populations to create the illusion that the species is being kept safe, even though these individuals will most likely never be released.  This practice can hurt public participation and donation to natural preservation projects because the population will be deceived by the abundant captive populations that species are thriving.

A final note that hurts the zoos boisterous bragging, is the fact that confined animals are fifty times more expensive to maintain than those in the wild.  Think of all the lions, tigers, and other threatened species that are so common in zoos.  It is a bit maddening to realize that the same number of individuals could be provided for in the wild for a fraction of the cost.  But yet the zoos only donate a small percentage of their profits and think that it is just as well.

When you do visit a zoo and are subsequently bombarded by signs, videos, and presentations exalting the contributions that have been made to wildlife preservation efforts, these heralds are not outright lying.  Zoos do contribute large donations, maintain breeding populations, and allow research to be done at their holdings.  However, the large cost of captive animals, the poor genetic stock of the breeding populations, and the small bottleneck that the donations are pressed through prove that conservation is not the primary motive of zoos.  They only participate for the publicity and to placate the guilt of those who fished out a few bucks to watch dolphins jump through hoops.

But maybe the primary purpose of a visit to a zoo is not for senseless enjoyment.  Going to the zoo could be an opportunity for learning, to acquire valuable education that could inform future decisions that, in turn, shape the greater world around us into a better place.  Could this be why we have accepted such institutions into our hearts?

Education

Many feel that a visit to the zoo is a necessary ingredient for a full and worthwhile childhood.  We believe that a child cannot gain an appreciation for the greater world without seeing exotic creatures first hand.  This is because zoos have promoted themselves successfully as invaluable sources of education.  They provide guided tours with zoologists, interactive presentations, movies, placards, animal encounters, and an overall litany of information so that they may be associated with museums, libraries, planetariums, and other bulwarks of learning.  This does seem a noble cause, to inform future generations of adults about the natural world and to instill respect for animals, but is that the outcome that is achieved?  Do the videos and interactive displays that we come across in zoos actually make a difference?

An example of a program that an average zoo offers
Source: Marwell Zoo

I doubt anyone will dispute that zoos and aquariums excel at providing information; I for one am always overwhelmed by the mountain of paragraphs thrust in front of patrons near enclosures.  But there is a debate going on whether this information actually has a positive impact.  The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums published an article that claimed that their patrons experienced a positive increase in knowledge.  They did this by testing zoo visitors' understanding of animals before and after their visit and found a 5% increase in demonstrable knowledge about biodiversity and a 10% increase in knowledge on actions that can support biodiversity.  It seems that some of the content shoved at us does penetrate the modern attention span.  Yet critics urge us to take these statistics with a gain of salt, a increase in information does not mean an increase in impact.

Anti-zoo proponents believe that the WAZA study is flawed.  They say that just testing factual knowledge does not prove that a visit to the zoo makes any difference on future behavior.  Georgina Allen writing for The Dodo explains why,

Measuring the learning value of zoos is incredibly hard.  The tendency is to measure plain knowledge, 'did you know that...' type questions before and after a visit.  What we are really looking for are positive changes in behavior and attitude towards animals and the environment rather than specific learning outcomes, which is much harder to attain.  And in the main, it's not the zoos' fault.  Incredibly dedicated zoo educators and increasing resources are funneled into providing sophisticated zoo education programs, but a visit to a zoo on a sunny day, lolly and balloon in hand, is so far removed from the real world problems that the animals in these institutions face, it is easy to see how hard the task is.

Zoo visits are informative and children and adults will learn where leopards are from, what polar bears eat, and how penguins lay eggs, but this learning may not change the beliefs of these individuals or inspire them to actively contribute to conservation.  People like Professor Marc Bekoff do not think such a gain is worth it, "I'm surely happy that a zoo visitor may learn something she or he didn't previously know, but if they don't use this information in a meaningful way to do something for the animals, then its knowledge for knowledge's sake and that is not a sufficient reason for keeping animals in cages.  I'm all for knowledge for knowledge's sake in the proverbial ivory tower or elsewhere, but not at the cost of compromising the lives of zoo residents."

In addition, not all that is learned at the zoo may be positive.  There is a general worry that zoos are conditioning the populace to accept the sight of captive wild animals.  Children may be becoming accustomed to the sight of tigers and chimpanzees in cages and this could have negative consequences in the fight against exotic pets, wildlife trading, and the preservation of wild spaces.

So is it the knowledge gained at zoos worth it?  Perhaps not.  Besides, what information learned at a zoo could not be also learned in a classroom, in a book, from a documentary, or even from youtube clips?

Are Zoos Worth It?

Source: Bizzarro.com

If there is one thing that zoos and aquariums should be applauded for, it is their proficiency in branding.  At their core these are businesses that are profiting off of captive animal entertainment, but they have succeeded in marketing themselves as centers for education, safe spaces for endangered species, and leaders in conservation.  For the sake of the lives of those held captive, we have a responsibility to look beyond the spin and slogans and see what the real effect of zoos is.  When we do just that, we find that their actions seem less sincere and more self-serving.  Zoos are woefully under-regulated and there exists a pattern of abuses.  Only one percent of zoos participate in conservation efforts and what is contributed is funneled through a narrow scope that helps the zoos secure charismatic animals.  These donated funds are then stained by the fact that captive populations are multitudes more expensive to maintain than wild ones.  All this is done so that zoos can continue teaching visitors information that has not yet been found to have a significant positive influence and thus cannot be said to be worth the abuses and vast expenses.

So personally, I do not believe that zoos are worth the trouble.  If we are the environmentally-conscious society that we like to perceive ourselves, then we should concentrate on conserving wild populations and only keep captive populations when it is absolutely necessary.  We should utilize the technology available to us and employ movies, documentaries, and the internet to provide the education that we hold so dear.  It is morally unfair to justify the captivity and the unnatural forced lifestyle of so many animals on the pretense that such confinement serves the needs of human or other non-human individuals, especially when such claims are unfounded.

Although I hope that people will turn against zoos and aquariums and treat them as cruel vestigial institutions, I am not certain that this will be how things pass.  Zoos have become social institutions both in government and civic thought.  We hold places like the Smithsonian and the London Zoological Society in high esteem and it would take a massive campaign for these groups to fall from our collective graces.  So perhaps we should focus on merely holding zoos to higher standards.  Stricter regulations and greater oversight would enable us to be assured that zoos are treating their animals with the care and respect that we already expect from them.  Georgina Allen came to the same conclusion, stating, "The zoo community has a contract with society and must rise above the pressures of commercialism to make the right ethical choices based on both societal expectations and the moral obligations they have to the animals they care for.  A compassionate and reasoned voice from the global accredited zoo community would lend significant weight to such and argument, while educating the millions of visitors that not all zoos are created equal."

In the end I merely ask that you be mindful of where you spend your next afternoon at the zoo, if you do decide to go at all.  Does the organization you plan to visit care for its animals and contribute to their conservation?  Or do they simply want you to believe such things so that you can view their stock and purchase their merchandise guilt-free?  As a consumer you have a certain power over these businesses, use it.