I had to a debate on zoos in college. Here is my side of the debate that I wrote up.
It is incredibly hard to ‘conserve’ a species in an artificial environment, especially as the artificial environment and the animals themselves were originally intended for human entertainment.
The environment is rarely simultaneous to that of the species natural environment and
that most successfully conservation projects occur only in a secluded section of the
original natural habitat, or in countries where the climate is appropriate for the animal.
It is also a fallacy that the majority of British zoos, let alone zoos worldwide, partake in conservation. Only around 5% of around 400 British zoos actually hold species that are endangered. It is estimated that only 3% of this 5% are actually involved in official breeding programmes. Of around 10,000 zoos worldwide, only around 500 or less of these zoos hold endangered species in their collections.
Also, of the estimated 6,000 species that are classified as threatened or endangered
only about 120 are in captive breeding programmes, and only 16 species have ever
been returned to the wild with varying degrees of success.
Do you think that zoos are beneficial to the survival of endangered species?
No, as stated beforehand, there has been little to no success in conservation
programmes based in zoos. Also, as conservation is a word that ultimately makes any
paying customer think that a zoo is partaking in a selfless act, many zoos may claim
to partake in such but actually don’t.
Captive-bred animals often lack survival skills, especially those normally learned
from a parent - finding food, avoiding predators, etc. Some reintroduction projects
have had to be suspended indefinitely.
Releases of captive animals also pose a significant disease threat to native
populations. In some cases reintroductions have been cancelled after discovering
viruses in captive-bred populations that were due to be released in areas where the
virus was unknown; in others, native animals have died because of viruses spread by
introduced animals.
Zoos still take animals from the wild. Throughout the 1990s over 1,000 elephants
were taken from the wild and sold to zoos and circuses, and over 70% of elephants in
European zoos today were wild-caught. How can zoos help if they are indeed a part of
the problem?
Do zoos consider the welfare of the animals during conservation efforts?
As zoos are a predominately Victorian concept which merely consisted of “zoological
gardens” in which the public could merely see animals of an exotic nature whilst not
being in any danger themselves – the animals interests were not considered then. And
as these zoological gardens were built in small areas with little room for expansion
(i.e. London zoo) it is impossible for a lot of zoos to even begin to provide the space
and enrichment needed to maintain healthy animals, let alone allow them to breed
successfully. There have even been studies where the results have shown only 10%
of the species studied had enclosure sizes similar to their minimum home range.
22% of all species in the study were kept in zoo enclosures on average 1,000 times
smaller than their minimum home range. These include Asian elephant, chimpanzee,
and giraffe and Californian sea lion. If we can’t even provide space adequate for the
species, how are we expected to successfully maintain a breeding programme where
the requirements of the offspring and parents are met fully?
Do you believe that zoos are beneficial to the public or do you think that zoos
could operate in a more private manner?
Overall, Zoos do not educate the public. They misinform the public about
conservation and, as if that was not enough, they divert funds from actual
conservation to waste on imprisoning sentient beings for the entertainment of the
public- whilst animals remain endangered and are even driven to extinction.
Despite their professed concern for animals, zoos remain more "collections" of
interesting "items" than actual havens or simulated habitats. Zoos teach people that it
is acceptable to keep animals in captivity, bored, cramped, lonely, and far from their
natural homes.
Do you think that helping animals back from the brink of extinction is a good
thing or do you think that we humans should allow nature to takes its course?
With regards to animals whom have become endangered to human error (i.e. hunting
species to an endangered status), we feel it is necessary for us to bring them back
up to a steady population. However, this needs to be done sensibly and requires that
all the needs are species are met to as much as possible. This includes not sticking
them in a country with an environment and climate that greatly differs to their native
environment and climate.
Do you think it is right that some zoos believe that euthanasia is the answer to
surplus animals that are not endangered?
No, as euthanasia is not the answer. If you keep an animal in a captive environment
you are responsible for any potential offspring that may occur. It is not fair on the
offspring to have their lives taken away merely because the human chose to place
their ancestors in a confined environment that cannot meet the needs of one member
of the species, let alone several. If you are going to keep an animal that has the
potential to breed, but you don’t have the space for the offspring or know of any
potential homes for any offspring then you should make sure that the animal cannot
breed. One small operation (spay/neuter) can protect potential suffering of hundreds
to thousands of animals.
In the past, British zoos have sold surplus animals to vivisection laboratories and
exotic meat farms. Animals are now more likely to be sold into the pet trade, and
British zoos buy and sell animals with wildlife dealers around the world. Would those
who are really interested in the health and conservation of a species do this?
"
