There is a hot debate around the function and existence of zoos, an extension of the debate on wild animals in captivity. The ethics of bringing wildlife into human care and managing their populations. This is potentially one of the most controversial topics in conservation and animal research.
It is easy to assume that all conservationists agree on a common goal and thus are united. We all want to conserve species. We all want healthy, thriving wild populations in stable habitats. But throughout the conservation community there are a broad range of differences in how to achieve that goal. When do the ends justify the means? When does the detriment of a few outweigh the benefits of the majority?
Many would argue that wild animals are just that – wild. Any situation in which they live outside of their home range in their natural environment is an animal welfare case. There is a certain merit to this belief. Try as captive facilities might, be it in the home region or on the other side of the world, we will not be able to precisely replicate the life of a wild animal. There are, by design, constraints to the natural behaviors of an animal in captivity. There will be a fence or barrier of some sort, that much is inevitable.
But for me, the ethical reasoning that would support or negate the need for bringing a species into human care is the cause for that decision. Animals can be brought into captivity for a myriad of reasons. The justification for this conservation step is the most important aspect to consider.
Bringing animals into captivity for the sake of conservation is usually done due to an inability to adequately protected the species in the wild from a threat that is damaging the population. This could be because of habitat destruction, disease, human-wildlife conflict, changing climate, food availability – basically anything you could imagine. Most people in conservation would agree if a species could be thoroughly supported without being brought into captivity, they would do it. Caring for wild animals in captivity is expensive and labor intensive. However, the changes to reverse these threats often take longer to make than the species can afford to wait.
Captive breeding programs aim to breed as many individuals of a species as possible in an ethical and sustainable manor. This is to bolster the population to a level that can thrive for generations. It creates what is called an insurance population. Should every last wild African elephant go extinct, we will still have elephants due to the existence of their being cared for and allowed to reproduce in controlled environments. These programs offer hope for the future of these species. I would certainly prefer to see elephants in the wild, but sometimes our best efforts go unrewarded.
Elephants are dramatically disappearing from Africa, and yet for as long as zoos and conservation facilities exist, we will have elephants. The eventual hope for these efforts is that one day the environment will be returned to a state in which the elephants can be reintroduced. The eventual goal for the majority of captive breeding programs is to release the animals back into the wild. The insurance populations are just that – insurance. Insurance that should we be able to heal our world, we can return the life that belonged there home.
Having these animals in captivity also allows us to better understand them and how to protect their wild counterparts. Without being able to closely observe and study them, we would not know what they need in order to survive, how to protect them. In the case of disease, it allows us to develop vaccines. It allows us to understand what resources are most important to preserve in order to ensure their survival. The biology, evolution, physiology, even the color of their coats can be endlessly fascinating and crucial to the species success.
Without ever being able to learn these things, we would be shooting in the dark for in the field, or in situ, conservation. We can conserve a patch of rainforest and hope the frogs return to the Amazon, when in reality they are declining from a fungus. The research that is being produced from captive animal programs is fueling the successes that protect wild animals. We could not achieve our common goal without this step.
The harder pill to swallow, for me at least, is zoos. Animals on exhibit for public entertainment. Credit where it is due, zoos have come a long way from the menagerie philosophy that was designed purely with the intent to maximize human satisfaction. Zoos did not used to be what they are today. They used to be small metal cages large enough for a single animal that had no hiding places.
The switch to naturalistic exhibits that replicate the animals natural home, the inclusion of nooks and crannies, hiding places where animals can escape the human eye, is a relatively new development in the history of animal husbandry. So, zoos have truly evolved into more animal-conscious centers. They (this is a generalization) are often well-supported to fulfill the physical, mental, and nutritional needs of their animals to the best of their ability. The people who work in zoos and research facilities love their animals and they advocate for them at every turn. The care they receive is backed by science of the best-known practices for their wellbeing.
That being said, resources are not always what they should be. Living on exhibit for a zebra will not compare to living in the wild, despite any zoos most heartfelt and best intentions.
Zoos’ role in conservation is education.
As someone who is passionate about science communication, zoos are the best tool we have for education about animals across the globe. If not for zoos, a lucky few would ever see a giant panda. The funds that enable panda conservation would not exist without public support. Without panda conservation, we might have lost the bamboo forests and all of the other unique life that relies on that habitat. Without peoples’ love for pandas, we could have lost an entire ecosystem. This is one of many such examples.
There are many other points of view on the validity of animals in captivity for conservation; this is simply my stance. I think it is important to develop your perspective on such conversations, while keeping an open mind for the opportunity for those beliefs to change as my experiences grow.
For those curious, I encourage you to learn more from as wide a variety of sources as possible. For those with questions or comments, I am happy to help you find answers!