A few years ago, I contacted CAPS to dispute some of the statements listed on its website. I received a courteous reply. I have friends who have visited zoos with me and point out issues to do with animal welfare and I feel that animals should be cared for properly in zoos and that Zoochatters should listen to counter-arguments about zoos and accept that some critics have valid points. There are big problems with some of the myths listed in the article, especially those that assume zoo animals are happy or that zoo staff care more about animals than money or conservation.
MYTH 1: ‘Zoos exist for conservation’
The statement mentions conservation projects, but also states that most species in zoos are not on the endangered list and those that are will probably never be rehabilitated to their natural habitat. After visiting several zoos, I must accept that I tend to agree with this statement. Many species in captivity are ‘Not Yet Threatened’ and some of these species are very common in captivity. Very few of the endangered large ABC species are destined for rehabilitation, despite zoos stating that a new, expensive enclosure is required to save the species from extinction.
I find the statement that zoos exist primarily for profit somewhat ambiguous. If zoos didn’t make a profit, they would find it hard to exist, especially if visitor numbers went down over a prolonged period.
I have heard of zoos that have lots of baby animals at Easter and then having a mass cull when the zoo closes after the holiday season is over.
I did not agree with Marius being killed publicly, but I can understand why zoos control population numbers. CAPS doesn’t mention that population control occurs in the wild and this helps create ecological balance. In fact, several species live longer, healthier lives in zoos than they do in the wild.
CAPS is also somewhat ambiguous about complaining that zoos do not send many animals back to the wild and then complaining about relocating animals to other zoos. I agree that relocated animals can suffer stress, ‘as they leave behind social bonds and surroundings they have grown accustomed to’. Wouldn’t that be more true if the animals were returned to the wild?
Myth 2 ‘Zoos are the best place to learn about animals’
I doubt if any zoo makes this statement. Many good zoos pay for staff to travel to find out how animals exist in the wild and many enclosures are more natural than they used to be. Scientists have been confused about the behaviour of zoo animals. Solly Zuckerman made several assumptions from the behaviour of monkeys at London Zoo.
I have been to zoos with people who have little interest in animals. Some colleagues spent practically all their time in the restaurant and bar and I wondered why they had come to the zoo at all. Whilst I would like visitors to become more interested in animals, a zoo can’t force a person to be interested any more than a teacher can force a student to be interested in a subject. I have visited zoos with people who do not like zoos, but who do care about animal welfare and I have found it useful to listen to different views.
I agree that it is better to see animals in the wild, but many people can’t afford to travel to exotic places and some safari tours seem to be very more stressful to animals. Also, many nature documentaries include footage of captive animals.
MYTH 3: Zoos are a ‘normal’ part of society
I don’t really understand what this means. Zoos have been around for centuries, so if they are not a ‘normal’ part of society, then cars, planes, computers etc are not ‘normal’. I remember when practically every shop was closed on a Sunday and when there were no ATMs, so if I ran out of money between Friday afternoon and Monday morning, tough.
While elephants and giraffes are not Australian species, I find it strange that the author doesn’t realise that penguins existed in Australia long before cities did; also, a large majority of Australian cities are on the coast.
I agree that there is a problem with ‘dangerous creatures’ escaping from zoos and I would like zoos to take more care with species that can endanger staff and visitors, although I suspect that many visitors prefer to see dangerous animals rather than docile ones. I would also prefer escaped animals to be sedated rather than killed.
MYTH 4: ‘Animals in zoos are happy’
This is a strange argument. I wonder how many people think that zoo animals are happy or would know about the state of mind of an individual animal. Some animals show little expression of emotions, while some facial signals are confusing – for example a ‘smile’ may be a threat signal.
Humans are not the only animals that show a range of emotions. Some captive animals show signs of anxiety and depression, but then some wild animals show the same emotions, as do many visitors and staff in zoos. Several zoos have improved animal welfare and note when animals show ‘abnormal behaviour’, including information in notices about how they are trying to help the animals. I agree that it is distressing to see an animal with psychological problems. I remember seeing a stump-tailed macaque that tore flesh out of one of its cheeks. The zoo had a notice about this, but I think it would have been better to put the monkey off show.
I accept that the article is about Australian zoos, but it doesn’t mention that many British zoos stopped keeping polar bears after a report detailed mental health problems of the bears. I also wonder if the authors are bothered the causes of neurosis and depression in humans.
MYTH 5: ‘Zoos care’
I wonder if the statement ‘Zoos care about one thing above all else: profit’ really applies to some zoo directors. I know several caring zoo staff, some of whom work unpaid overtime and some who have cared for zoo animals in their homes. I don’t know about the finances of various zoos, but I agree with CAPS that it would be better to spend millions of pounds to save species in the wild, rather than in expensive enclosures, which often lead to a diminished collection.
Many years ago, Gerald Durrell said he would like to live in an age where zoos were not needed, as animals were safe in the wild. This time has not been reached. When London Zoo was threatened with closure, I was told that a high-profile member of Zoo Check had been seen crying about what would happen to the animals if the zoo were closed. As Zoo Check was set up to try and close London Zoo, I found this behaviour to be hypocritical.
I can understand why some people are upset about the way animals are kept in zoos and agree that animal welfare should be improved in some zoos, while there are zoos that show little care for animals. Several Zoochatters have mentioned and condemned such collections. The problem is that several protagonists on both sides of the argument tend to treat all zoos as the same – wonderful or awful. People visit zoos for various reasons – some learn about animals; some show little interest and can try and harm animals. Many people cannot afford to see exotic animals in the wild and a zoo may be the closest they get to this. There is a difference between seeing a live animal in a zoo, rather than seeing a TV programme. Some people pay a lot of money to see sports or concerts, even though they can see if on the TV.
]