Why zoos are good for animals?

S

SylviaHoward

New Member
Hi everybody,
Surely everyone has visited the zoo at least once. I personally do the same and I have always thought that animals should live in the natural environment rather than living in a zoo. However, I see people saying that they should live in the zoo. Can anyone tell me why it is better to let animals live in the wild than in the wild?
Thank you very much.
 
SylviaHoward said:
Yes
Click to expand...

Ok then I'll take your question in good faith and try to answer why zoos are necessary from a conservation perspective.

You stated :

SylviaHoward said:
Hi everybody,
Surely everyone has visited the zoo at least once. I personally do the same and I have always thought that animals should live in the natural environment rather than living in a zoo.
Click to expand...

That value judgement that you have that animals should ideally live in their natural habitats rather than living in the artificial conditions of zoos is one that I share but it presupposes the condition that there is actually habitat or sufficient habitat left for a species to occupy.

In the case of many species habitat is either too fragmented or hemmed in by the growth of human populations and as such species therefore survive very precariously and move closer to extinction which will be inevitable sooner or later if there isn't the intervention of conservation (and zoos form part of this intervention).

There are dangers under these kinds of situations from inadequate nutrition because of alterations to the composition of the environment,inbreeding depression and genetic bottlenecks because of inability to disperse, greater susceptibility to disease or risk of predation or hybridization from invasive species and the problem of human-wildlife conflict or poaching arising from the proximity of humans.

The endangered pied tamarin monkey here in Brazil is a prime example of almost all of the problems described above that result from this lack of habitat due to deforestation and for this reason a large part of its conservation necessarily involves ex-situ conservation in zoos (which is complemented by in-situ conservation with the last wild populations).

In a few extreme cases like that of many of the pupfish species of Mexico and the USA like the Potosi pupfish for example there isn't even any natural habitat left at all because it has been totally destroyed by anthropogenic activity so the last populations are kept within zoos.

It is worth mentioning that with climate change worsening these situations will only become more common for all kinds of species and will very likely even include many charismatic mammal species so it will not be a problem just limited to obscure desert fish.

SylviaHoward said:
However, I see people saying that they should live in the zoo.
Click to expand...

I don't know what people you are referring to that you say you have heard suggest that animals should be living in zoos as that is an odd sort of thing to say.

However, I imagine that these people that you mention are specifically referring to endangered species that are very threatened in the wild and that need captive insurance populations in zoos to avoid future extinction.

SylviaHoward said:
Can anyone tell me why it is better to let animals live in the wild than in the wild?
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say "better to let animals live in zoos than in the wild", right?

Because if a threatened species in the situations that I've described above is to avoid extinction then for many of these animals zoos are the last option.

Of course in a perfect world the captivity of zoos is not a solution and should only be a temporary provisional measure for these species while conservationists work to improve the situation in the wild and reduce the threats or causes of decline.

However, the sad reality is that conservation is very complicated and it take a long time to try to tackle these challenges and despite our best efforts in many cases the problems facing species continue to get worse because most of human society have not addressed underlying causes of biodiversity loss.

Some people / animal rights activists would make the argument that it is "better" / "kinder" to let a species go extinct "with dignity" in the wild rather than for animals to be brought into captivity.

Personally I don't agree at all with that "argument" or the people making it because I do think we have a strong moral / ethical imperative to try to conserve species and for many reasons which are probably too complicated to explain in this already massive reply.

SylviaHoward said:
Thank you very much
Click to expand...

Your welcome :)
 
Last edited:
To add on to what OC said, being able to see species is great for education, and thus, conservation. Think of all of the popular animals you know, the ones featured in books and cartoons, the ones people say are their favorite, the ones a random person on the street might be able to say something about. Other than a few outliers that are well known because of specific reasons, like blue whales and great white sharks, every single one of those animals is well known because people have seen them in zoos. Seeing them in captivity causes interest, which leads to money and education for saving those species' wild habitats. It also helps further laws and other protections for those species.

If you go to the WWF website, an organization most have heard of, The species mentioned on the drop-down "wildlife" tab are tigers, elephants, gorillas, pandas, polar bears, rhinos, sea turtles, and whales. All but whales are either common in captivity and have been for the last 100+ years, or are well-known from captive individuals (pandas). The WWF works with a lot of species, but those are the ones people donate money to, those are the faces of conservation as a whole. Without zoos bringing those species in to public view worldwide, people would likely care much less about them.
 
TinoPup said:
To add on to what OC said, being able to see species is great for education, and thus, conservation. Think of all of the popular animals you know, the ones featured in books and cartoons, the ones people say are their favorite, the ones a random person on the street might be able to say something about. Other than a few outliers that are well known because of specific reasons, like blue whales and great white sharks, every single one of those animals is well known because people have seen them in zoos. Seeing them in captivity causes interest, which leads to money and education for saving those species' wild habitats. It also helps further laws and other protections for those species.

If you go to the WWF website, an organization most have heard of, The species mentioned on the drop-down "wildlife" tab are tigers, elephants, gorillas, pandas, polar bears, rhinos, sea turtles, and whales. All but whales are either common in captivity and have been for the last 100+ years, or are well-known from captive individuals (pandas). The WWF works with a lot of species, but those are the ones people donate money to, those are the faces of conservation as a whole. Without zoos bringing those species in to public view worldwide, people would likely care much less about them.
Click to expand...

Good points @TinoPup ! well said !
 
I should make it clear that my argument is mostly going to be in support of accredited zoos by the AZA, EAZA, CAZA, WAZA, and other accrediting organizations. I can’t really support many non-accredited zoos though there are certainly a few good ones out there. I’m also going to be referencing my local zoo since that is the one I’m most familiar with.

Zoos often support and fund in situ conservation programs. For instance, my local zoo runs an Endangered Species Fund that helps conservation programs that aid elephants in Botswana and pangolins in Nepal. The AZA as a whole spent 231.5 million dollars on conservation in 2019 alone. That money benefited 900+ species and subspecies with 200+ of them being species and subspecies listed under the US Endangered Animals Act.

In addition to that, my local zoo also helps breed the endangered Mexican Gray Wolf, Guam Kingfisher, Togo Slippery Frog, Panamanian Golden Frog, and several other endangered species. Some of these species, like the Mexican Gray Wolf, are currently being released to the wild whereas others like the Guam Kingfisher don’t have a safe wild to return to just yet.

My local zoo also conducts one of the longest running research programs on wild Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins which has been helpful research for extrapolating information and techniques to help other Dolphin species around the world. Zoos can act as hubs for knowledge and expertise that can benefit wild and captive species.

One of the most important aspects to zoos in my opinion are that they can appeal to people who aren’t very passionate about conservation. A family can come to a zoo for entertainment, but the money they spend can be used on animals and conservation. That’s money that the family may not be willing to simply donate to wildlife conservation. Zoos can also provide those people who haven’t had connections with nature with an experience that will hopefully foster a love for wildlife and nature in a way that a documentary can’t.

As mentioned previously, zoos can make stars out of animals that haven’t previously been in the spotlight. This is very clearly seen with the exhibiting of the pangolin in my local zoo. At first, people were utterly confused about this new species no one had heard of before, sometimes confusing the name with penguins. However, over time, more and more people began to learn and care about the pangolin and the conservation threats the pangolin faces. People were actively discussing the pangolin just before the pandemic. In part, this was certainly aided by the media as pangolins popped up more frequently in news stories but I think having pangolins on exhibit for people to see solidified the relationship.

As for the animal welfare argument, it can be a little more complex and I’m in no way an expert. There are certainly some practices today in zoos that would likely be frowned upon 10 or 20 years down the road. However, I think that the good a zoo can do outweighs these potentially damaging animal care practices. On the whole, I believe accredited zoos provide animals with the generally good care. That’s not to say that we should ignore those damaging techniques. I think you’ll find that many of us on this forum have critiques for just about every zoo on the planet. Zoos are certainly not perfect, but they seem like the best choice in an imperfect world and are constantly trying to improve.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure whether the discussion above answers the initial question. When you consider the individual in the enclosure, does it have benefits?

And I think it's quiet easy: less pressure. Less pressure to find food, less pressure to hold a territory, no predators, no competition and so on. Also a vet that will prevent disease, ease pain and help recover.

There is no scientific evidence whether this feels better or worse for the individual. One of the reasons is that we don't have individuals that experience both, wild and zoo. The animals only experience the zoo because the are born there.

There is only one very interesting scientific study that gives hints how apes benefit form a zoo environment. It clearly shows that orangutans have better problem solving Skills, more patience, exhibit more creativity and have more complex communication than their wild counterparts. This would suggest that they actually can thrive more in a captive environment.
 
Sophie Brugmann said:
I'm not sure whether the discussion above answers the initial question. When you consider the individual in the enclosure, does it have benefits?

And I think it's quiet easy: less pressure. Less pressure to find food, less pressure to hold a territory, no predators, no competition and so on. Also a vet that will prevent disease, ease pain and help recover.

There is no scientific evidence whether this feels better or worse for the individual. One of the reasons is that we don't have individuals that experience both, wild and zoo. The animals only experience the zoo because the are born there.

There is only one very interesting scientific study that gives hints how apes benefit form a zoo environment. It clearly shows that orangutans have better problem solving Skills, more patience, exhibit more creativity and have more complex communication than their wild counterparts. This would suggest that they actually can thrive more in a captive environment.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of individuals who have experienced both the wild and captivity. These days, they're pretty much all animals that fit into 3 categories, especially in the USA and Europe:
1. Injured in the wild and cannot be safely released
2. Orphaned at a very young age and would die without care
3. Have become too accustomed to humans and would otherwise be killed for public safety

All of those animals would be dead if not for being brought into captivity.

The 4th category would be for the safety of entire species. These cases are usually reptiles, amphibians, and birds whose habitat has been almost completely destroyed or otherwise made uninhabitable for them. The individuals might do okay and live normal lives, but their entire species is down to just a few animals (often less than 30) so the entire population is rounded up and brought into captivity. Animals can be pared up with mates, and they and their offspring receive proper diets and excellent veterinary care, something they wouldn't get in the wild. Once their environment is better, or a suitable new home is found, the captive bred animals can be released back into the wild. Many of these cases are done completely behind the scenes, so there's no risk of animals being stressed from being on display. Some notable examples include the black-footed ferret, red wolf, scimitar-horned oryx, and California condor. All four species get captive-bred animals released at least once a year usually, and all four would be extinct without intervention.
 
Animals of nearly all species held in zoos live longer lives, avoid the stresses of the wild (being it predation, competition for food or mates, disease, severe climate events, human encroachment and hunting, etc.), and have positive relations with their keepers and in many cases the guests that come to see them. Even species that were considered difficult to care for before have become easier and even commonplace in many facilities due to the increase in the quality of care zoos have been able to provide. Keepers are educated professionals in zoology, ecology, and conservation science and are the best people to work with these animals and the animals clearly benefit from it. You are probably never find an actual study that will confirm whether animals thrive more in the wild or in captivity because there are too many variables at play. There is also a lot of anthropomorphizing by people who say that animals want or desire to be free as there is no scientific way to prove that notion. All we can do is look at the empirical evidence we can collect and base the care of the animals on that evidence. I used to tell guests that asked similar questions that I wished zoos did not have to exist as if they are some sort of necessary evil. Working as a keeper, I have come to now have the opinion that in a modern, accredited, well funded zoo is probably the best place an animal can live in.
 
Sophie Brugmann said:
There is no scientific evidence whether this feels better or worse for the individual. One of the reasons is that we don't have individuals that experience both, wild and zoo. The animals only experience the zoo because the are born there.
Click to expand...

Actually there are plenty of examples and behavioural research studies of animals that were wild and that for whatever reason are brought into captivity in zoos.

Some species seem to take to captivity whilst others only do so after long and challenging periods of adaption and others still do not adapt and sicken and die.
 
Zoos have become more focused on wildlife education and teaching the public about animals in their wild habitats rather than entertainment. Though zoos are entertaining, it isn’t their (most at least) primary focus.
Whether people take the time or not to try and learn about wildlife endangerment and conservation is up to them.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Actually there are plenty of examples and behavioural research studies of animals that were wild and that for whatever reason are brought into captivity in zoos.
Click to expand...

I would be very interested in reading some of those! Would you mind sharing a link? As of now the above mentioned orangutan study was the only one I knew that dealt with mental capacities, rather than lifespan, cortisol levels or other stand ins for welfare.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sophie Brugmann said:
I would be very interested in reading some of those! Would you mind sharing a link? As of now the above mentioned orangutan study was the only one I knew that dealt with mental capacities, rather than lifespan, cortisol levels or other stand ins for welfare.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, no problem.

These are all relating to wild animals brought into captivity at Jersey zoo for ex-situ conservation in order to build insurance populations:

"CAPTURE AND SURVEY OF LIVINGSTONE'S FRUIT BATS Pteropus livingstonii IN THE COMOROS ISLANDS: THE 1995 EXPEDITION", Clark et al, 1997 (Journal: The Dodo).

"Social Experience of Captive Livingstone's Fruit Bats (Pteropus livingstonii)", Morgan J. Welch et al, 2020 (Journal: Animals).

"Flight patterns in zoo‐housed fruit bats (Pteropus spp.)", Edward Bell et all , 2019 (Journal: Zoo Biology).

"Husbandry and breeding of the Alaotran gentle lemur: Hapalemur griseus alaotrensis at Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust", J.C. Beattie and A.T.C. Feistner, 1998 (ZSL-International Zoo Yearbook).

"A Study of Enclosure Effect on the Behaviour of the Alaotran Gentle Lemur (Hapalemur griseus alaotrensis) at Jersey Zoo and Implications for Captive Management and Welfare", Elena Mather.

"The design and construction of the Madagascar teal aviary at Jersey Zoo", David Jeggo et al, 2001 (Journal: The dodo).

"Survey and Capture of the Madagascar Teal, Anas bernieri, at Lac Bebamba Madagascar July-August 1992, July 1993.", H. Glyn Young, 1993 (Journal: The Dodo).

"Notes on the Durrell Expedition to Madagascar September-December 1990", Lee Durrell, 1990 (Journal: The Dodo) & "The aye-aye and I", Gerald Durrell, 1990.

"Aye-aye conservation: The Role of the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust", Anna Feistner and Bryan Carroll, 1995 (Book: Creatures of the Night-The Nocturnal Prosimians).

"First captive breeding of the aye-aye", Jane Beattie et al, 1992 (Journal: The Dodo).

"The Work of the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust", Tony Allchurch, 1992(Journal: The Journal of Veterinary Medicine).

"PRELIMINARY NOTES ON BREEDING, MAINTENANCE, AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE MALAGASY GIANT JUMPING RAT Hypogeomys antimena AT JERSEY WILDLIFE PRESERVATION TRUST", Richard H. Veal,1992 (Journal: The Dodo).

"Biology, captive husbandry, and conservation of the Malagasy flattailed tortoise, Pyxis planicauda Grandidier, 1867.", Richard Gibson , 2004 (Journal: Herpetological Review).

"The collection of eight Montserrat orioles Icterus oberi and their establishment at Jersey Zoo.", Andrew Owen, 2000 (Journal: The Dodo).

 
Last edited:
One thing I neglected to mention in my first post is the issue of whether ex-situ within the range country or in zoos outside of the native range are better options.

Animal rights activists often state that Conservation can be done without Zoos but that is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue.

Obviously in-situ Conservation will always be a preferable option to ex-situ and should always be the first consideration.

It is true that most species benefit more directly in conservation terms (whenever this is possible) from ex-situ within the range country than from a presence in western zoos.

Moreover for some of the more fragile species (such as the tarsier) zoos either outside or inside of the range country will never be a viable option for their conservation.

However insurance populations in western zoos are nevertheless very important components of ex-situ Conservation for many species and when well integrated with efforts in the range country are indispensable and vital.
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
There is no scientific way to evaluate what "feels better or worse" to most non-human animals. That is a vague and very human concept. It will require a more rigorous question for science to attempt an answer.
Click to expand...

That isn't strictly true....

PETA certainly know the art of divination and mystical art of communion with the souls of captive animals:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top