I was tempted to write a point-by-point rebuttal of what the author is saying, but to me it seems like he has so little actual knowledge about how zoos work that it seems a bit futile. The author is describing more or less the situation before the 'Copernican revolution' in zoos in the 1970s and his perspective is strange and old-fashioned. Concepts like 'integrated conservation' or the 'one-plan approach' are not mentioned at any point. It's as if he's writing an article against vaccines without citing any of the science. There are good and bad policemen, good and bad doctors, and good and bad zoos, but policemen, doctors and zoos are necessary, and you would agree too if you knew what zoos actually did. There are people who are against vaccines, and there are people who are against zoos, and neither have an adequate understanding of the science involved. And finally, any good practicing field conservationist supports zoos, because ex-situ conservation (species conservation that happens outside of an animal's natural habitat) is an essential complement to in-situ conservation, which works to protect population numbers, in many different ways, in their natural habitat. IUCN are the first to insist on this.
I'll switch to a different perspective, which is to give you a positive example, of the zoo that I run. Half of the animals that we work with have been rescued from trafficking, mistreatment or injury. This is an unusual situation. The vast majority of animals in zoos in Europe and the United States were not taken from the wild, but are the offspring of zoo-born animals, and these zoos work towards increasing populations of these animals, in conjunction, complement and cooperation with fieldwork. What exact form that takes depends on the characteristics of each species and the diverse threats they face.
We treat and rehabilitate these animals and release those that can be released. Those that can't, and there are many, go into our breeding and research programs so that we can increase populations and so that we can learn about their breeding, nutrition and health, which goes back to support fieldwork. My zoo is in the Atlantic Rainforest in Brazil, a type of forest of which only 7% remains. 93% has been destroyed. This is a severely endangered biome and we must use all resources, absolutely all, to protect the species endemic to it. Every animal is precious.
I have a species in my zoo that is extinct in the wild. Why are they extinct? Because of poaching and deforestation. People poached this animal to death, and chopped down so much of its native forest that the few individuals that remained had no shelter left. The total world population is 200. This year, we bred 20 animals of this species. We work towards reintroducing these animals into the wild. You have to educate the local population not to poach, secure as large an area as possible of forest, and construct a careful release program and monitoring over decades. This requires a lot of funding, and the visitors to my zoo, alongside learning about a fragile biome, enable us to fund this program.
We breed many other endangered species. We breed many species that are not yet endangered. We give a good life to individual animals whose breeding won't benefit the species, but that can't be released. We work together with many different field conservation projects. We run field conservation projects. The goal is always to think of the needs of the species as a whole, inside and outside of the zoo, to benefit the needs of the species. This is what a good zoo does.
When you work in conservation you are pushing against a massive wave of destruction on this planet. You are fighting heavily against all the forces of consumerism, the dirty politics, the lack of education. It's simply marvellous when, at the same time, people comment from the comfort of their sofa that they 'feel' zoos are bad. Do a little reading, and do your part.
