My thoughts on zoos & aquariums

Yet another totally non-controversial opinion on a totally non-controversial subject from DRJ

I end up having this discussion quite a bit with friends and colleagues, both within and from beyond the conservation sector. I want to share my thoughts on the ethics, pros and cons of captive wildlife in zoos and aquariums, a pretty hot topic these days with the airing of Tiger King and the earlier finding of mistreatment of whales and dolphins at water-parks.

Firstly, I should note my bias of having spend many years working at (reputable) zoos and wildlife rescue centers. In all of these cases, I experienced first hand the dedication and commitment of the zookeeper staff and the conservation researchers that rely upon the understandings gained on wildlife in captivity. To be clear, wildlife is, in almost every case, better off in nature. However having worked at zoos myself, I think I have a deeper understanding on the complexities of the “wildlife in zoos” debate.

For those unfamiliar, many animal rights advocates, vegans, tree-huggers, and bunny-huggers, as they are known, abhor the concept of zoos of any form. They see them as nothing more than animal exploitation for our entertainment and the profits of those running such institutions. I should admit that of course there are countless examples of zoos, traveling shows and circus acts, both reputable and illicit, that do not maintain high standards of animal care. I will never defend this, or any form of animal abuse. However plenty of reputable zoos and aquariums do put in the extra effort to make sure their creatures are well cared for to the best of their ability.

I also should confess that I have a bias as a conservationist, meaning I do tend to be more concerned for the survival of the species and the ecosystems where they life as a whole than an individual animal. This is not to say I don’t support animal rights. Of course enrichment, proper zookeeping practices, veterinary care and spacious, natural enclosures are all critical. But I will in fact put the greater good first, when applicable.

The idea that some activists have: that there should be no zoos is simply illogical, as my favorite Vulcan might say. The first argument I hear is that wild animals should not be taken out of the wild and kept in captivity. And in most cases I would fully agree with them. Removing wildlife from nature is almost always done for the benefit of people, either to keep them as pets or exploit them for meat, animal parts, trophies or entertainment. However these same animal rights activities might believe that zoos recruit hunters to capture wildlife for their exhibits. In the modern day and age, at reputable zoological institutions, this is very much not the case. Most zoos today, at least those that are members of AZA, do not get their wildlife from the wild.

Most wildlife in captivity today, at well established institutions, is bred in captivity and traded through the AZA network to make sure captive populations around the world do not become inbred, reducing genetic diversity. This is part of the Species Survival Plan (SSP), which turns the worlds captive wildlife into something of a genetic ark, a vital structure to help save species on the brink of extinction. Look no further than the story of the przewalski’s wild horse, brought back from the brink by an injection of new individuals bred in captivity.

Of course, there will be occasional situations where wild animals must be removed from an area or face extinction, such as is common in the case of damn construction or land clearing. I ask those who do not agree with any form of captive wildlife if these critically endangered creatures should be left to die beneath their felled or flooded forest homes. Of course not. Translocation, wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centers, and zoos and aquariums will always have a roll to play in the housing of homeless wildlife, for injured animals or for those precious few individuals vital to maintain a stable breeding population in captivity. There will always be a need to maintain captive wildlife populations, for one reason or another, however painful this might be for those who want nothing more than rainbows and unicorns.

Then comes the discussion of animal stress in captivity. This is a serious problem, and something that every zookeeper I know fights to combat every day at work. It is the job of the zookeeper to do their best to keep their animals healthy, stimulated, and stress-free. These people do this because they love their animals. They certainly are not doing it for money. A zookeeper’s starting salary can be as little as $32,000 per year, rough if you live in New York City like me. Of course, building large, natural enclosures that are suitable, providing the correct mental and physical stimulus, keeping animals suited to the regional climate should be much higher priorities in many zoos. However I don’t know a single zookeeper who doesn’t work tireless to keep their animals mentally stable, healthy and happy. And it’s also important to note that some zoos, especially those in urban centers, simply do not have the space to expand and rebuild higher quality enclosures for their creatures given limited space, funding and the fact that they are working with what they have.

Wildlife stress in zoos is a real issue, and a serious one, but NOT one that zoos are unaware of. In fact, quite the opposite. Zoos and zookeepers are leading the research on animal behavior in captivity, understanding the negative impacts of stress and pushing for higher ethical standards. I myself conducted research on stress in lowland gorillas at the Bronx Zoo. This sort of research helps wildlife rescue centers and in-situ conservation projects around the world. We would know next to nothing about the biology and ecology of these exotic spices without the research carried out with captive populations. In-situ conservation work, species research and field research all depend heavy on ex-situ work. And when done with good intentions to the best of their ability, such endeavors should be applauded.

To clarify, none of these ideas relate to people or organizations like Tiger King, who do not follow WAZA or AZA standards. Such institutions represent the worst of humanity in regards to our exploitation of nature. Elephant rides, wildlife performances, circuses and wildlife pet trading are harmful in many cases (though there are some examples of ethical pet trading for non-endangered wildlife that can survive in captivity without stress). Most of these practices also do little or nothing to support conservation. In a perfect world, we could close all such operations and arrange to have their animals transferred to programs that will provide proper care. Individuals profiteering from the exploitation of wildlife should be fined, with the funds raised supporting conservation efforts for the species they abused.

Another point I want to bring up concerns the release of wildlife back into nature. I have now been involved with several wildlife reintroduction programs for various species, though most often with primates. IUCN sets strict reintroduction guidelines and best practices for release. These are very, very hard to follow. I have yet to see a reintroduction program that followed their procedures to any extent. To simplify the problem, you can’t just release wildlife back into their natural environment if they have been living in captivity. It is far more complex than that.

Wildlife reintroduction is incredibly challenging, and depends on a host of conditions, funding, time and energy that is often needed elsewhere. The animals history, genetics, location, rehabilitation and pre-release preparation all come into play.

Monitoring and follow up to measure the success of a reintroduction is complicated and incredibly time consuming and expensive. To do it properly, every individual animal would need a full genetic work up and health check prior to release, making sure that genetic disorders or diseases are not introduced from the captive population back into the wild one, which may be severely threatened or at risk. There are cases of wildlife reintroductions causing local extinctions as a result of poor monitoring and pre-release practices. And of course, more often than not there is simply no safe place to release the animals where they would have any hope of survival. The costs and complexities of proper rehabilitation, pre-release training and preparation, and follow-up protection make wildlife reintroduction prohibitively inefficient. Sadly, euthanasian is often the best available solution for rescued wildlife in situations where a a genuine reintroduction program would be impossible. Any many organizations opt for this solution if they can.

Finally, and most importantly in my opinion, is the contribution zoos make to wildlife conservation efforts in the field, both financially and through public awareness and support. The amount of funds for conservation that stems from zoos and aquariums measures in the billions of dollars annually. Funding for conservation of nature, which is already miniscule when compared to most other sectors of our global economy, simply cannot afford to lose that support.

Then there is the indirect support given to conservation by improving public opinion, knowledge and attitudes. Zoos help educate, inform and inspire the public to love and care for nature. Without zoos, people would be far less likely to care about nature or give any concern for wildlife in distant places that are far away from their daily lives. Zoos help bring people into closer contact with the wonders of the natural world in ways that would be impossible for hundreds of millions of people. How much further behind would the environmental movement be today if we were all raised without any exposure to wild creatures and natural wonders from distant lands. Where would our passions have come from?

Many westerners working in conservation do not fully appreciate the privilege that led us down the conservation career path. How likely would your life choices have been if you did not spend your childhood hiking in national parks, watching nature films on TV, or visiting zoos, aquariums or science museums. How lucky are you that your public school system was aware of natural sciences and provided you with a basic curriculum allowing you to grasp fundamental science topics. For the vast majority of the world, such constant exposure and availability to nature, and wildlife education is unheard of.

In my opinion, the benefits of zoos & aquariums far outweigh the costs. While many, if not most captive wildlife institutions are imperfect, the good ones try very hard to do their jobs well, to support real conservation, and to provide the best lives for their animals. And they do it all with an incredibly limited budget. The animals they keep are, for the most part, bred in captivity as part of a united effort to preserve species diversity, or provide a breeding program for those on the brink of extinction. Most importantly, zoos, aquariums and nature centers build public awareness and support for conservation around the world. Without them, conservation would be handicapped by a great reduction in funds and the loss of widespread public interest. Wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centers will always be a fact of life, and when done well, zoos and aquariums can play a critical role in helping to save the biodiversity of our incredible world.

Long story short, yeah, it would be great if wildlife could remain free in the wild in every case, and that all zoos and aquariums could shut down and never need to re-open again, and all their animals could go prancing off into the forest, and the forests and rivers and oceans would be preserved for the benefit of the species that live there, and no one would ever want a wild pet again. And world hunger was solved to reduce bushmeat hunting. And schools and churches taught science about the use of animal parts as traditional medicines.

But bruh, that aint very likely.