If you visit a zoo, chances are the staff will likely tell you some version of the following stories: that your admission ticket goes directly towards conservation efforts in the wild; that the new babies just born help boost wild population numbers; and that the animals are happy and healthy.
Zoos Do Not Support Wildlife Conservation
In fact, very little money from zoos goes towards genuine conservation efforts that functionally improve an animal’s conservation status in the wild. The “reserve populations” of animals kept and bred in captivity are almost never introduced into the wild, especially species non-native to the location of the zoo. In fact, in 1990, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) identified survival action plans for 1370 species (418 of which were Endangered). Only 1.4% (19 species) were identified as being candidates for reintroduction of captive bred animals. Facilities located near natural habitats remain the best alternative to zoo breeding/release, which would incorporate preparation for eventual reintroduction to optimize chances of survival following release into their daily lives while held in captivity.
According to Benjamin Beck, former associate director of biological programs at the National Zoo in Washington DC, in the last century, “only 16 of 145 reintroduction programs worldwide ever actually restored any animal populations to the wild. Of those, most were carried out by government agencies, not zoos.” Further, financial, spatial, logistical, and biological factors frequently prevent breeding that allows for highly diversified gene pools within the captive populations that are also self-sustaining. For example, due to such unsuccessful captive breeding efforts, zoos take Asian elephants from their wild homes to maintain the current numbers at zoos in the United States; consequently depleting the very populations they claim to be protecting.
Animals in Zoos Are Not “Better Off” Than Their Wild Counterparts
Zoos often proclaim that animals are “better off” in captivity because they are “protected” from threats like poaching, habitat loss, health issues, and starvation. We argue that these benefits, however, are not worth what these animals are denied living in a zoo, including having the freedom of choice, movement, adequate space, autonomy, ability to reproduce, raise their young, socialize naturally, escape stressors, or engage in species-specific behaviors, like swimming or sun-bathing. When more resources are allocated toward in-situ conservation, perhaps both protection from threats and increasing wild population numbers could occur simultaneously, without having to keep hundreds of thousands of animals captive.
The long-term effects of these psychological and physical restrictions can be manifested in the form of stereotypies, or abnormal repetitive behaviors that develop from experiencing chronic levels of stress, boredom, or trauma. The demonstration of stereotypies often indicates a state of previous or current poor welfare, which zoo visitors can observe directly from elephants seen swaying, head-bobbing, pacing, and circling at zoos. Sadly, some zoos have resorted to using psychopharmaceutical medication to treat animals with stereotypies deemed too distracting or troubling by visitors.
Zoo Lies Are Aided and Amplified by the Media
Zoos are not always responsible for perpetuating these captive wildlife fables single-handedly. The media, including major news outlets and websites, often publicize research findings from projects conducted at zoos that are misleading, ambiguous, or just plain false. For example, an article published by BBC News in 2023 claimed that a recent study demonstrated that elephants, among other animals, “enjoyed” the presence of zoo visitors. The study quantified the impact of visitors in 252 non-primate species, based on 105 papers found in the literature. The study concluded that the most frequent animal response to visitors was neutral (observed in 26 orders), and the least frequent response was positive (observed in 2 orders). Overall, the impact from visitors was interpreted to be: 53% neutral, 21% negative, and 21% “unclear.” Only 4% of visitor impact observed was considered to be positive for the animals.
The study proceeded to confirm that Proboscidea (elephants) and Psittaciformes (parrots) were the only two orders who displayed positive responses to visitors more frequently than would be expected by chance; a far cry from BBC’s claim that elephants “enjoyed” visitor presence. The authors speculated that elephants may demonstrate non-negative responses due to elements of their enclosure design which prevent humans from getting too close to them and thus act as a natural disturbance buffer, or the idea that animals with a smaller body size are more likely to be negatively affected by the presence of zoo visitors. Because elephants are the largest land mammals, this could have led to a reduced observable effect of zoo visitors. Further, elephants also had some of the smallest sample sizes compared to the other animals included in the study, and as a result, the authors reiterated that “it is not possible to extrapolate these data to state with certainty that zoo visitors will have positive, negative or neutral effects on all species within these orders in all collections.”
Cherry-Picking Data Creates Pro-Zoo Narratives
Unfortunately, this cherry-picking of data is not a one-off and there are other instances of research being “spun” in attempts to continue justifying the existence of zoos; especially when the data confirms that zoos often harm the welfare of the animals and fail to accomplish the conservation and education objectives they claim to achieve. A similar situation occurred several years ago when the zoo industry commissioned a paper which claimed to demonstrate that zoos were great educational tools for children. The data of the article completely contradicted these findings, however, and instead showed that most children did not learn anything of value and some even experienced “negative learning outcomes” after visiting a zoo.
The study found that just 41% of educator-guided visits and 34% of unguided visits resulted in conservation biology-related learning in 7 to 15-year-old children, and negative changes in children’s understanding of animals and their habitats occurred more frequently in unguided zoo visits. The extent of negative learning taking place in unguided zoo visits suggests that zoos’ standard unguided interpretive materials are grossly insufficient for achieving the best outcomes for educating visiting children.
Be an Advocate for Animals by Not Falling for Zoo Lies
To be a real advocate for wild animals, ensure that you do not fall for the misinformation presented by zoos and other popular platforms. Statistics—numbers informing qualitative data to produce proper analysis—are key to understanding the big picture of wild animal welfare and conservation. The numbers do not lie, but zoos? So long as their need to make money trumps the needs of the animals in their care, we can never be too sure.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Devan
