Zoos aren’t for animals. They’re for us. | Zoos say they’re leaders in protecting wildlife. But is it true?
Zoos aren’t for animals. They’re for us.
The argument for zoos protecting animals is about allowing regular people to see wild animals up close, allowing to humanize/ empathize with them enough to actually care about protecting the ones still in the wild.
Are zoos perfect? No.
In an ideal world, would zoos exist? No.
Are they the only link that most people ever experience to nature, and especially to nature that doesn't exist within driving distance? Sadly, yes.
And that experience of seeing and empathizing with animals is hugely important to driving funding for conservation movements/ orgs. A water buffalo is just a damp cow in another country for a lot of people, until they actually see one.
Here are some other ways zoos assist in animal conservation:
From the original article
Similarly, an analysis of scientific papers published by AZA member institutions from 1993 to 2013 found that only 7 percent were related to biodiversity conservation.
[...]
On the contrary, most people don’t read the educational plaques at zoos, and according to polls of zoo-goers, most go to spend time with friends or family — to enjoy themselves and be entertained, not to learn about animals and their needs. One study found the level of environmental concern reported by attendees before they entered the zoo was similar to those who were polled at the exits.
In this world actually, but not all Zoos are the same. Our local Zoo has breeding programs shared with various German zoos & they are always very ecstatic, when babies are born (which happens very often), even though the Zoo itself is going to quickly lose them to other Zoos & release programs.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles: ::: spoiler Click here to see the summary An examination of how zoos spend their money suggests that, despite branding themselves as champions of conservation, they devote far more resources to their main, original prerogative: confining animals for entertainment and profit.
There are some exceptions, Marris notes, in which zoos have played a starring role in reintroducing threatened and endangered species to the wild, including the California condor, the Arabian oryx, and Black-footed ferrets, among others.
Mileham told Vox captive breeding programs at zoos do more than just create insurance populations, and that they contribute to field conservation by providing opportunities for researchers to learn about species’ behavior, nutrition, veterinary needs, and more.
While the educational value of zoos is dubious, there’s certainly one message zoo-goers receive, if only implicitly: That it’s perfectly fine, even good, to put wild animals on display in tiny enclosures for the public’s leisure.
But there’s also this: One-third of Earth’s habitable land is devoted to cattle grazing and growing corn and soy to feed farmed animals, which has resulted in mass habitat loss for wildlife and crashing biodiversity levels.
Fashion designers are replacing leather and fur with animal-free textiles, meat companies are now selling plant-based nuggets and burgers, and in 2018, the traveling circus Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey announced it would stop using animals, such as lions, tigers, and bears, in its shows.
Saved 90% of original text. :::
I'm going to post one of my nested comments here, because I think it bears pointing out:
[This] article is full of rhetorical fallacies designed to influence you towards their view that zoos aren’t good.
Take this part about conservation funding:
To which the opposition interviewee states:
That is not a direct response to the first assertion. The first quote didn’t assert that the majority of funds went to conservation, just that the funds that do are both significant and critical to conservation partners.
To which the clearly very biased author then responds:
Soooo? You think getting rid of those funds is better for conservation?
If you read the part on breeding, they do something similar; they embed one section, that acknowledges that zoos have in fact been key to successful breeding and reintroduction programs, inside several quotes of personal opinions: the first one literally from a newspaper opinion piece, and the second from an actual scientist who acknowledges that the breeding programs do work, but just doesn’t personally think that is justification enough for zoos.
This article is biased trash. There are plenty of arguments to have about the ethics of zoos, but this article is not dealing with those head-on, because they’re not clear-cut. Instead, it’s trying to trick you into thinking that none of the actual positive impacts of zoos exist.
This is how smart misinformation works; use leading language and selective quotes to make the viewers think you said something you didn’t, so you can always go, “Oh, but I never SAID the breeding programs don’t work, or that the funding isn’t important!”
I'm inclined to agree with this take. And to add to it, I think accusing zoos and aquariums of not spending enough on conservation, because they spend so much more on operations and construction is pretty unfair, because obviously the author hasn't actually considered the fact that zoos and aquariums are incredibly expensive to run.
At least in my country, most zoos are charities, not companies: they're not run to make profit. They're not cash cows for greedy shareholders. So the money they make from visitors and donations, unsurprisingly is mostly spent on those annoying "luxuries" like feeding the animals, paying the staff, maintaining the enclosures, etc, and where funds allow it, improving the enclosures. My local zoo almost always has some kind of construction work going on as they retire old enclosures that are now not considered sufficient for the animals within, and build new ones that are more suitable, either for that species or a different one.
The zoos that are legally companies rather than charities (due to regulatory laws) are small zoos that predominantly house exotic pets that other people could no longer take care of. These are animals that were either captive bred or taken from the wild at a young age, which often have complex health or behavioural needs: they cannot be returned to the wild or used in breeding programs, they just need somewhere to live where they'll be looked after. These kind of zoos are often run by 2-3 people, who spend the "profits" of their zoo on luxuries like food and shelter for themselves.
Personally, I'm fine with the fact that zoos and aquariums spend the bulk of their money on looking after the animals in their care. I can't see how zoos neglecting their animals in order to spend more money on direct conservation would be morally justifiable. If only 5% is being spent on conservation elsewhere because 5% is all that was left over after the rest went on making sure their animals are happy and healthy, I don't have a problem with that. Especially when happy, healthy animals in captivity are so vital to breeding programs.
That is a selective misreading of what the article is claiming. The article is talking about how zoos are claiming conservation is the main reason zoos are ok and should exist. Near the top of the article:
They are pointing out how it's misleading to say we contribute a decent bit so we're deep into conservation, but ignore that's not the main things they spend their time and money on
It's not misleading at all. You are the one (along with the author) who simply thinks that there is some objective percentage amount required (which apparently you don't think they clear) before you can take credit for the positive impacts you cause.
"Zoos aren't spending enough of their money on conservation" is not a refutation of, "The money that zoos do generate for conservation is both significant and important".
I'm not sure what you and the author want here? Do you want them to neglect the animals they hold to give more to in situ conservation? Do you want them to have less animals? Less animals means less money so even less being sent. No animals means no money.
It's also ignoring the fact that in situ conservation isn't the goal here. Zoos themselves are ex-situ conservation. They have literally bought animals back from extinction, or protected threatened species.
Look at the current Tasmanian Devil Programme.