Edited by: Elle Scord | Graphic by: Mariana Drove
Are zoos important institutions in wildlife conservation, or do they serve as prisons for animals?
Throughout history, humans have been fascinated by everything exotic. According to National Geographic, wealthy aristocrats have kept private collections of animals for thousands of years, establishing the first known variants of zoos. However, as civilizations have developed and zoos have modernized, a lively debate has emerged: is keeping animals in captivity justifiable?
The Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit associated with most US zoos, states that it is “committed to being a global leader in promoting species conservation and animal welfare.” This commitment represents the self-proclaimed mission of many zoos in protecting the animals they capture through conservation.
Walters et al. (2010) describe an example of this conservation from the 1990s, when several zoos and a variety of wilderness organizations collaborated in their efforts to reintroduce California condors back into the wild. Following a period of population decline, only 22 birds remained in the wild. However, zoos and wilderness organizations found success in their captive-breeding program, producing viable condor offspring at the Los Angeles and San Diego Zoos in the early years of their efforts. After years of rehabilitation efforts, the zoos’ collaboration with wildlife organizations resulted in the repopulation of California condors. This success story reflects the overarching goal of zoos of protecting the species they keep.
For many zoos, this conservation represents the main contribution that their organization makes. Other important initiatives include educating the public, rehabilitation, and scientific research.
Despite this success, the morality of keeping wild animals remains a subject of debate. In the case of California’s condors, arguments about the reintroduced birds’ dependence on humans underscore a potential negative effect of human intervention on wild animals. The study also describes how the captive population of birds were found to have developed undesirable behaviors, such as being prone to interacting with humans. This behavioral difference between captive and wild birds has been highlighted as a consequence of zoo interference, raising concerns about the impact of captivity on animals.
Generally, by taking wild animals into captivity, the environmental pressures of living in a zoo change the behavior of these individuals. In turn, animals in captivity will live drastically different lives compared to their wild counterparts.
In their research paper, Escobar-Ibarra et al. (2021) discuss this idea. Important factors to consider while examining animal behavior include relationships with humans, enclosures, and biological tendencies. It is virtually impossible to recreate the natural environment of wild animals in its full scale, which limits what animals can do and how they can behave. A captive natural predator will never be able to chase live prey. A typically isolated species will be exposed to thousands of visitors per day. Although these animals have the opportunity to live a long, healthy life, living like this contradicts their intrinsic behavioral mechanisms that help them survive. According to the study, these natural behaviors contribute to increased animal welfare, indicating that animals are often better-off in their natural environments.
According to Rose et al. (2017), abnormal behaviors usually present themselves in the form of repeated motor function and goal-oriented behaviors. These behaviors are the direct result of changes in environmental pressures, something that is inevitable for animals in zoos. Despite this, the effects of a change in habitat differ species by species and can be eased by enrichment activities. In an ideal world, each species in zoos would have personalized habitats and activities to prevent the development of abnormal behaviors.
However, this is likely unrealistic.
When deciding if zoos contribute more good or harm to animals, it is important to consider the nature of being in captivity and how each individual is treated based on their unique needs. Sometimes, animals benefit from human care. In other cases, more individualized attention is needed.