This past weekend I found myself at the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Garden. Actually, in this instance ‘found’ is quite misleading. My placement in Griffith Park was not simply happenstance, rather very intentional. I am a programming director for a non-profit organization that works with kids, 3rd - 12th grade. I planned for my arrival at the zoo, and I also planned the same for about 175 other people, most of whom were elementary school students. In fact, I started planning this excursion over a month in advance, and used thousands of dollars of my programming budget to make it happen. But I initially chose the word ‘found’ on purpose, because I am slightly ashamed of my action to go to the zoo.
Damian Aspinall, who leads of the Aspinall Foundation, a charity centered on global animal conservation and protection, puts it succinctly:
I acknowledge that there was once a time where my argument against the existence of zoos wasn’t yet relevant. That would be the time before widely available television and internet with many different access-points across those mediums to learn about and observe animals that are not native to your local habitat, before the likes of Animal Planet and National Geographic. I believe that zoos used to be very valuable education opportunities, especially to people who cannot afford to travel and therefore had no other way to be exposed to the wonders of gorillas or penguins or 10 foot long snakes. It does not seem equitable at all that only those with the money to go on tropical Safaris could expand their worldview to include such cool creatures. But now that is no longer the case. The ability to discover and study all ranges of animals is accessible to everyone with an internet connection and is even more affordable than a trip to the zoo, which on average, was $12.39 in 2019. And especially with even newer, albeit less accessible technology like virtual reality, you can get an equally if not more up-close view of animals than on a safari.
Although zoos are clearly not the only medium of education and experience with “wild” animals, some argue that they still have a very valuable purpose. David Attenborough, a wildlife documentary filmmaker, is still a staunch advocate for zoos. He stated in an interview that
I definitely think there is merit to this point. It is highly likely that a person will be more profoundly impacted and likely to make valuable, lifelong memories if they see cool animals in person, experiencing things like their scent as Attenborough mentions. But the ethical questionability of zoos, which, spoiler alert, lands in the plane of unethical to me, outweigh the pros of their existence.
Taking wild animals out of their natural habitats, confining them to small, alarmingly concrete enclosures for their entire lives is cruel. I remember being at a Six Flags Discovery Kingdom and seeing an elephant, visibly blistered and bony, forced to walk around in small circles on a dirt patch all day long with children and adults atop its back, in close proximity to rollercoasters and all the screaming people at the park. For me, it was hard to watch that go on. I might be projecting but the elephant looked so unhappy and unhealthy. I recognize that research, breeding, and conservation of endangered animals requires lots of resources, and zoos can bring in revenue to make that happen. However, so can rehabilitation centers and true conservatories that charge for admission, leaving zoos that import and constrain wild animals for human interest, unnecessary.
Did the kids enjoy the zoo? Yes. Did they learn new things about animals and habitats? Also yes. But did that experience offer them educational opportunities a national geographic documentary could not have? No. I don’t really have a justification for my trip to the zoo because I personally believe they are unethical enough to have their existence seriously reconsidered. My only reasoning, which I can admit is lame, given my stance, is that the LA Zoo was a relatively simple and budget-friendly excursion to plan as compared to those I will be taking on later this year.
Let me know where you stand on this debate.
Zoos always make me uneasy after I learned non of the animals are there voluntarily. These animals are living creatures with their own natural habitats and not our entertainment. If it is not ok to display human in zoos, it shouldn’t be ok to display animals. I also find the argument of zoos for educational purposes not convincing. In David Attenborough's argument, he never said what you can actually learn from seeing an elephant, but only mentions the sensational excitements from seeing them, which is still king of treating them as an entertainment. Moreover, if we agree the only place to see an animal is in the zoo, why even bother learning about them?
I agree that animal shows or rides should not be a thing especially because the only animals smart enough to be trained also have the mental capacity to be very depressed. However, I think Zoos are okay under the assumption that every animal there is either not fit to survive in their natural habitat, or undergoing physical rehabilitation to eventually return to their homes. I loved visiting Zoos as a child, and I think they follow my criteria at least in the modern day. I also only really care about the mammals, I don't think giving a lizard a sizable enclosure for the rest of its life is an issue.
I think I agree, although I'm not totally settled on the idea. It seems unlikely that the harm and unnatural circumstances imposed on the animals is outweighed by educational value for humans. However, a lot of these animals would never be able to survive in the wild. They often ended up in a zoo because they were rescued from likely un-survivable circumstances. I think these instances are much more complicated. Personally, I lean in the direction that it would be better to allow these animals to die naturally than to force them through painful lives in a zoo (assuming the zoo isn't giving proper care to the animals). Still, it's complicated and not a very easy choice.
The harmfulness and poor treatment of animals being locked up in a zoo I also believe completely outweighs the need for zoos. Yes, it does give somewhat of a learning purpose but how much can you learn about these animals if they are locked up. They are not in their natural environment so it is not an accurate glimpse of what they are actually like. It would be hard to shut down zoos as a whole but maybe limiting the amount of time an animal stays in a zoo could be a start.