Are zoos ethical? The pros, cons, and nuances of keeping animals in zoos
The question “Are zoos immoral?” relies on several faulty assumptions.
To name a few, it assumes that:
- All zoos are the same.
- All zoos acquire their animals in the same way.
- All zoo staff have the same roles, levels of expertise, and follow the same protocols (or lack thereof).
Here’s why that’s a problem.
Differing Intents and Compositions of Zoos
Zoos are composed in many ways, with a broad range of intentions. These motivations shape the design and functions of different zoological exhibitions (also called zoological gardens) throughout the country.
For example, consider San Diego Zoo in San Diego, CA. It’s known worldwide for its extensive involvement in conservation. Their work famously includes breeding programs for endangered species persistence. Some of their greatest hits include:
San Diego Zoo Global’s Frozen Zoo®: Over 70 researchers collaborated to sequence more than 250 placental mammal genomes spanning roughly 110 million years.
The project is headed by individuals such as Oliver Ryder, Ph.D., Kleberg Endowed Director of Conservation Genetics at the San Diego Zoo Institution for Conservation Research, and Megan Owen, Ph.D., Corporate Director of Wildlife Conservation Science. Owen said,
“Genome sequences for endangered species can help identify a species’ extinction risks and steer conservation efforts…. They also give wildlife officials tools to apprehend poachers and wildlife trackers.”
“Elizabeth Ann,” the first-ever black-footed ferret clone: Since March of 1967, the black-footed ferret has been recognized as an endangered species in the United States.
Yet, genetic innovation born from a collaboration between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Diego Zoo Global, and other organizations led to the “groundbreaking” birth of “Elizabeth Ann,” a black-footed ferret born from the cells of “Willa,” who lived over 30 years ago.
Noreen Walsh, Director of the USFWS Mountain-Prairie region, called the feat a “promising tool for continued efforts to conserve the black-footed ferret.”
Saving the California Condor species from extinction: The California condor is one of the most famous conservation success stories of all time.
They once lived throughout the United States, but as settlers moved West, they were shot, poisoned, and captured. Then, of course, contamination from the pesticide, DDT, prevented condor eggs’ hatching, plummeting their population to only 27 birds.
With the help of the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the Los Angeles Zoo, scientists were able to collect wild eggs and a few birds to save the species from imminent demise.
This is a drop in the bucket of what institutions like SDZ have done for the world of conservation. Apart from this work, they’re also a shining example of proper humane treatment of animals in captivity, again shattering mainstream perceptions of what it means to care for wildlife in zoos.
San Diego Zoo’s “Five Freedoms” Policy
Apart from these works, the San Diego Zoo is generally known for its dedication to fiercely defending animal welfare.
For example, the organization adheres to a program called the “Five Freedoms” in all aspects of supporting the animals in its care. The philosophy holds that all SDZG animals deserve:
- Freedom from hunger and thirst: All animals will receive a well-balanced diet, designed with their species’ life history in mind and carefully maintained with detailed records.
- Freedom from discomfort: Animals will have the opportunity to self-maintain their comfort in shelters designed with their behavior in mind.
- Freedom from pain, injury, or disease: To maintain optimal health, SDZG animals receive regular health checks and are monitored with regular documentation.
- Freedom to express normal behavior: All animals under the care of SDZG are welcome to express “species-typical behavior,” access native foods, natural enrichment, and more.
- Freedom from fear and distress: The animals will always have “choice and control” in their interaction with and use of zoo environments.
By these standards alone, it is clear that the San Diego Zoo — like many organizations, especially those with accreditation from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums — holds itself to stunningly high standards in its treatment of wildlife and protection of animal rights.
All this considered, it is problematic to pose the question, “Are zoos ethical?” without taking such programs into account.
How a Zoo Gets Its Animals
Another common point of concern presented by zoo opposition is an institution’s methods of obtaining animals. And for good reason.
One institution that catapulted this matter into the limelight was Sea World. In 1992, Erich Hoyt wrote for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society,
“Orca capture methods have changed somewhat since the capture of Corky and the others in the late 1960s. The sharp learning curve occurred after the first whales were caught in 1961 and 1964. In those early years, several orcas died accidentally in the nets after becoming entangled, and at least one died after being tranquilized with a dart…. The first collectors to “perfect” a successful catching method, by the late 1960s, were Ted Griffin and Don Goldsberry. Goldsberry continued to catch orcas in Puget Sound in the 1970s, becoming Sea World’s director of collecting and moving on to Iceland by 1976.”
Capturing the animals would also entail trapping them as they circled fishing boats looking for “spillage.” Some were even harpooned.
As horrific as this is, it’s not representative of all zoological institutions.
Consider Santa Barbara Zoo in Santa Barbara, CA. Years ago, when I was a student of the University of California, Santa Barbara inquiring to volunteer as a zoo docent, I learned that their animals have mostly been orphaned, rescued from injuries rendering them incapable of surviving in the wild, or they were born at the zoo.
You May Be Interested In: Conservation-Themed Mouse Pad on Black Flower Writing Services & Supplies
Animals that cannot be safely released once rehabilitated due to human-assisted upbringing are best kept in human care, particularly in a sanctuary or zoo like that in Santa Barbara.
In such circumstances, the animals live the rest of their lives with consistent enrichment and support, as ambassadors for educational and outreach purposes.
Then, there are sanctuaries such as Big Cat Rescue in Tampa, FL, which takes in big cats from another form of illegal zoos. These illegal zoological exhibitions are known as “roadside zoos.”
The Roadside Zoo Problem
Roadside zoos are the result of people either bypassing the state exotic animal licensing process or using their state’s lack of stringent laws to obtain endangered or dangerous animals for private possession.
Big cats and other animals at these institutions are typically confiscated by law enforcement, and due to past living conditions, are unable to be released back into the wild, leading them to seek another home in which they can live out the remainder of their lives in captivity.
(Let’s address the elephant in the room: Big Cat Rescue’s ethical standing has been called into question with recent public attention on Carole Baskin emerging from the “Tiger King” documentary. Yet, the organization has a decades-long history of fighting against the abuse of big cats.)
Sanctuaries such as Big Cat Rescue behave like zoos, in the sense that they host viewing of their animals either for educational purposes or for funding, as they’re often non-profit.
Still, many people might still mistake one for the other due to appearance alone. That said, it’s important to consider the history of the legal standing of the zoological institutions you’re visiting before passing judgment on their ethical nature.
Now that these distinctions have been defined, there is more to consider in defense of, and against, the morality of zoos.
Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy, Dale Jamieson, outlines the four most used arguments in defense of zoos as amusement, education, scientific research, and species preservation.
“Amusement” as Justification to Hold Animals in Captivity in Zoos
“Amusement” is not a valid defense for zoos, in and of itself.
To keep wild animals in captivity for the amusement of humanity alone is an extremely anthropocentric set of ethics to uphold. It denies animals’ moral considerability and their sentience.
This ideology rejects the concept that non-human animals could have any “interest” in the evolutionary good that is allotted to them through a natural habitat.
When considered in combination with education, however, amusement gains a new importance. This is because, as Jamieson points out, in order to educate someone on a topic, they have to be interested in that topic.
If the primary goal of a zoo is to educate the public, then the zoo is responsible for getting the zoo visitors excited about, and interested in, topics such as animal welfare, conservation, habitat degradation, etc. to achieve that goal.
That said, amusement is vital from a business perspective as well. Not all zoo-like establishments are non-profit, but most zoos have to pay their staff, and all of them have to feed their animals and pay for maintenance of the property.
Entertaining guests to establish regular visitation rates (and thus, regular income) partially justifies the argument of amusement as a defense of keeping animals in captivity.
“Education” as a Defense of Zoological Exhibits
Jamieson recalls that in 1898, the New York Zoological Society stated that the goal of its zoological exhibitions would be to take…
“…measures to inform the public of the great decrease in animal life, to stimulate sentiment in favor of better protection, and to cooperate with other scientific bodies… [in] efforts calculated to secure the perpetual preservation of our higher vertebrates.”
Despite this admirable goal, there is very little existing scientific evidence showing that this aspiration has come to fruition. Jamieson claims that very few zoos have made substantial effort at developing an effective education program.
Where this is not the case, he claims that the issue lies not in a lack of effort, but in an “apathetic and unappreciative public,” and even that studies conducted by Stephen Kellert found that zoo guests leave even less educated about wildlife than they were before.
Yet, Jamieson poses an interesting question: what, exactly, are zoos attempting to educate the public on? Are zoo staff trying to teach the public about the ecology of a given species? How to change guests’ lifestyle to mitigate their impact on climate change?
He asks further, “To what degree does education require keeping wild animals in captivity?”
In the publication, Misconceptions About Zoos, zoologist Brian Bertram asserts that the mission statement of “most” British zoos, at least, is to “[contribute] to conservation, education and research, while providing a good day out for visitors.”
Bertram refutes the misconception that zoos “give the wrong messages — ” and, by doing so, are not actually educational — by stating that zoos serve to “broaden the mind” of guests.
Many claim that zoo habitats are misleading, in that they show the animal outside of its natural context.
Bertram argues that, although no enclosure can fully convey the animal’s entire natural habitat, increasing efforts in zoos to the enclosures belonging to animals in captivity by adding such elements as small water bodies and compatible flora serve to provide guests with “at least some” information about the animal’s ecology and associated conservation issues.
The Ethics of Culling Domestic and Captive Animals
Bertram doesn’t deny that culling is a part of zoo management. Yet he argues that curators “go to enormous lengths” to avoid culling animals in captivity, primarily by searching for suitable homes for surplus animals.
When this search is unsuccessful, Bertram defends the practice by comparing this to animal shelters euthanizing unwanted pets or livestock owners culling their herds.
It is an action only taken after a great deal of deliberation, and no different from what is happening naturally in the wild.
To Bertram’s arguments, Jamieson would ask,
“[If] it is really true that we are inevitably moving towards a world in which [animals] can survive only in zoos, then we must ask whether it is really better for them to live in artificial environments of our design than not to be born at all?”
Scientific Researchers May Need to Keep Some Animals in Captivity
Jamieson believes that very few zoos support substantive scientific research. For those that do, he says, that research focuses primarily on behavioral studies and anatomy and pathology.
Regarding behavioral research, some have argued that captive animals are more interesting study subjects because animals behave differently in captivity than in the wild.
Some even claim that, since these animals are free of natural ecological interactions such as competition for resources or predation pressures, they are available to express the “full range of their genetic possibilities.”
Is it a viable scientific rationale, to maintain zoo animal populations to study how animals behave in zoos?
Anatomy and pathology studies typically focus on improving zoo conditions for the animals’ quality of life, using animal models for human health care studies, and generally learning more about wild animals.
Again, Jamieson asks, is it worth it, to maintain zoos so that scientists can conduct research on the conditions of zoos?
On the other hand, if the animals are there as test subjects, as models for research in human ailments, then is the zoo really for the well-being and conservation of the animals? Lastly, couldn’t the research to learn more about the animal for its own sake be conducted in the field, in the animal’s natural habitat?
Bertram defends scientific research in zoos, acknowledging that the artificial nature of the zoo environment renders results “inapplicable” to wild animals, there is still useful knowledge taken from this research.
For example, field practices used by wildlife managers, including “immobilization, identifying, veterinary, pregnancy testing, etc.” are all techniques which have been developed using zoo animals.
For this reason, Bertram asserts that field-based conservation science has been greatly improved with reference to scientific research which has been conducted using animals in captivity.
So, Are Zoos Ethical?
It is difficult to answer this question. The quality, intentions, and structure of zoos throughout the world differ dramatically.
Most zoos set out to save their animals, support scientific research, and educate the public. A handful are involved in efforts to reintroduce a select few of their animals into the wild.
The morality and success of a given zoo depends on its methods of acquisition of species, goals, support, and effectiveness of conservation and/or scientific research, treatment of its animals and so much more.
Unfortunately, it is not a clean-cut, yes-or-no question. Yet, it is one that will need to more attention as the human population grows, and we are faced with the problem of how (and where) to preserve the species being displaced.
Jazmin “Sunny” Murphy is a freelance science writer and the owner of Black Flower Writing Services & Supplies. She writes science-based content for a broad range of industries, including pet care, cannabis, and sustainable living. Jazmin earned a B.S. Zoology from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and so far has completed 21 units of the M.Sc. Environmental Policy and Management program at American Public University System. Since 2015, she’s written science communication web content for laypeople.
