Response to a zookeeper

This was posted on my Facebook page (in bold) – I've excluded the name of the original author, as what they've stated is what a lot of zoo people claim (not all, I might add!).

"I'm so tired of this whole "pro-captivity" vs. "anti-captivity" ordeal. Come on guys, very few people are actually pro- captivity, and as a firm believer and supporter of zoological organizations and their conservation work, I would never call myself pro-captivity. Actually, I'm anti-deforestation, anti-ocean-acidification, anti-illegal-wildlife-trade, anti-animal-abuse (which is why AZA or EAZA accreditation is so important) (~you forgot WAZA), anti-habitat-loss, anti-pollution, anti-bycatch, anti-unsustainable-harvest, anti-industrial-farming, anti-poaching, anti-over-development... And honestly, unless you can tell me that you don't benefit from one of these many things that harm wildlife (and there are more), then frankly I don't value your damn opinion about how captivity is inherently evil."

Let’s start by distinguishing the two.

Whether you agree with zoos or not, zoos are not there as hotels for animals whilst their natural habitat is destroyed, Ok? So you can say you’re anti-everything whilst stating zoos are great, but a zoo is not a stop gap; a zoo is not a genetic holding area – the money that goes into a zoo, normally stays in a zoo. 

For charity registered zoos or some non-profit registered zoos, on average, less than 10% of their end of year profits go to in-situ conservation efforts (conservation in the field) – that’s a meager amount compared to what zoos pay for one animals enclosure – please see my Tiger Territory blog.

Conservation and zoos are not mutually exclusive, they are two totally different entities; just because they both deal with exotic animals, doesn't mean they are related in any other way.

The messages many zoos portray are actually incorrect, contradictory and just plain wrong. There are just as many good zoos as there are bad.

I define a bad zoo by their on and off exhibit facilities (on-show areas, are the places visitors to zoos can see, they are often very well designed – not necessarily for the comfort of the animal but for the visual appearance and experience for the visitor. Whilst many off-show areas are concrete blocks – apart from the keepers, nobody sees these areas so why spend the money on it?). Whether that zoo only contributes to breeding programmes (which increases ticket sales, as everyone loves a baby animal) but no actual in-situ conservation work and what type of profit the company pulls in, and how much is spent on said conservation work.

So, an organisation like Seaworld is very different to Disney’s Animal Kingdom. 
A global

A sample collection of zoos & aquariums
Parque Reunidos own

company like Parque Reunidos is very different from ZSL (London Zoo). The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Bronx Zoo are different again (Conway brought about a revolutionary change in the conservation efforts of zoos).

"Captivity is one of the only ways some species still even exist today, some that are completely extinct in the wild."

This is not exclusive for all zoos – yes, some species have been reintroduced into their natural habitat from zoo stocks, because their wild counterparts were eradicated from that habitat. This is great, but it does not happen nearly often enough.

Do not state that 'because of zoos, the przewalski's horse has been reintroduced', because a lot of bad, terrible and awful zoos are stating the same when they had not part of that project. 

It was a collaborative effort between a small group of zoos – it should not be a reason to claim all zoos are great, or why conservation needs zoos.

"Others have had successful breeding programs through SPPs and TAGs, but releasing and reintroducing captive bred species isn't always a possibility (what is causing them to be threatened/endangered/extinct? Can that threat be removed? Is there suitable habitat where that threat doesn't exist? Are they behaviorally prepared for the wild where they will have to forage, avoid predation, have to survive without a vet team on stand by and have to find a mate for reproduction; because without successful reproduction, then all the sweat/blood/tears and time and money that went into caring for these animals in captivity was a complete waste)."

Threats are typically either humans or come about due to human activity; so removing that threat is quite tricky. Plenty of conservation organisations are working with local people to try to alleviate human-wildlife conflict, destruction of habitat from settlements and agriculture (namely food crops, oil palm plantations, rubber etc), through community conservation projects and capacity building. The biggest problem is down to human population size, and that is a very tricky subject to deal with; to this day, I have yet to see a zoo that states people need to stop or dramatically reduce their breeding rates.

As I've stated in my Tiger Territory post, animals in captivity are not there for conservation purposes; their genetics are merely preserved whilst in confinement, they are not exposed to the same environmental pressures as their wild counterparts are. This is not to say all attempts for reintroduction should be abandoned; it means more emphasis needs to be placed on relocating these individuals to their native home ranges and starting concerted efforts to re-establish populations; however, the main reason many zoo organisations do not invest in reintroduction programmes is because it is very expensive, with no guarantee it would work, and because they would have spent a lot of money on that animal and see no financial return. 

No conservationist would ever state to just reintroduce a zoo animal into the wild; it needs to take into account disease transfer risk, the health of the individual and its parasite burden, its natural behaviours - determining innate and learnt behaviours and so on. It requires in depth knowledge of population ecology within the habitat. 

"All this goes on while conservation/environmental educators and animal trainers/keepers try to find meaningful ways to inspire you (while also keeping their cool when bombarded with zoo-hating individuals). To inspire caring for wildlife and wild places. It is difficult to near impossible to get people to care about something that don't value, and one of the only ways to get people to value anything is for them to experience their beauty, their uniqueness. This may be through a show, or a public training session, maybe through keeper talks or biofacts, and maybe through zoo ambassadors/educational-animals. Many of these connections between people and wildlife only happen in situations where the animals are in captivity. Why? Because our world is so focused on technology (television, social media, video games) and all-inclusive entertainment (comfortable resorts over backwoods camping) that fewer and fewer people (especially children) are spending time outside in natural areas and/or learning about wildlife."

I’m not entirely sure how you can inspire someone to care for a wild place in a captive environment, to be honest. I've listened to keeper talks in a variety of zoos, often they’re mildly incorrect – as is the signage dotted around the enclosure, that isn't actually read – other times, I've had to pull up the person giving the talk and asked where they found that random piece of totally incorrect and scientifically erroneous information (replying: ‘from a TV show’. Brilliant).

It is near impossible to get people to care about something they do not value – but you need to define value.

Aesthetically, people who visit a natural habitat or environment (be it Yellowstone National Park or the rainforests of Borneo) will gain a much higher worth of something, than visiting a ‘Asian rainforest’ in a zoo. By experiencing the sights, smells, sounds, tastes and feel of the rainforest, that has immediate gratification, it roots itself down into that person’s life and develops a worth and a value.

When you travel, you experience – the first time you hear the rustle of leaves and the brake of a branch, it chills you; when you hear that subtle rumble from within the trees and see the waft of the ears of an elephant. That chills you. That is an experience that you will always remember. Seeing these animals in their natural environment is beyond anything anyone can imagine when watching an elephant in an enclosure. 

To be honest, I actually don't think people have the right to see every animal on earth - regardless of how charismatic it is. It is a privilege to see these animals; they are not commodities, Victorian freak-shows, circus beasts or critters that deserve to be stared at.  They evolved to fill a unique role within their habitat; not to be a trapped in an enclosure or paraded around, near screaming kids. 

When I visit a zoo, I do not think about the elephant in the rainforest, I think about the elephant in that enclosure and what it is not experiencing. I know that in the wild, an elephant can walk up to 25km a day; I know that they will deal with different obstacles; they will meet other elephants – some old friends and brothers that left their herd 20 years before.

I know that that elephant in that enclosure has (or is likely to develop) foot problems, arthritis, obesity, conflict within her artificial herd – she cannot walk the distance she has evolved to walk, she cannot develop those strong family bonds – as her sisters, offspring and aunties are shipped off for breeding; she is denied her most basic birth rights.

Zoos are about the individual. Conservation is about the ecosystem.

Meanwhile, many conservationists and ecologists are trying to put a monetary value on the services we derive from the ecosystem (ecosystem services); how much is that colony of bees worth, when they pollinate all our crops for free? Compared to how much is that job going to cost when people have to do it, because companies are developing insect-resistant crops and using gallons of horrific pesticides? How much will it cost to feed my family in either scenario? *Hint: people pollinated crops is massively more expensive than bee-pollinated crops*

As I’ve said before, you wouldn’t visit an African country to see its starved children, before you donate to Save the Children. So why visit a zoo to give money to conservation?

You visit a zoo, because you want to visit a zoo, not because you want to be inspired to donate money to conservation efforts.

If you do need to be inspired to donate money, then maybe you need to sort out your morals and ethics.

"I feel that some hunters have a greater appreciation for animals than people who are anti-hunting. Because these hunters know that the ecosystem is important, and they require sustainable hunts so they can continue to eat, year after year. They don't want to eat animals who have been poisoned by toxic pesticides or pollutants. While it may seem contradicting, hunting was one of the major avenues that led to wildlife conservation."

So wrong!

I love animals, I greatly appreciate them. I have no desire to kill one and mount its head on my wall. To be honest, this whole statement lacks any form of intelligence. Please see my blog about legal and illegal hunting.

FYI, people who hunt elephants, lions, leopards or rhino generally don’t eat it.

Roosevelt did start off hunting, which led him down the path of declaring national parks, granted; however, conservation efforts established globally at different times (Roosevelt was not the catalyst for it). The RSPB was founded in 1889 due to the outrage of using bird plumage for fashion and hats; The Wildlife Trusts were established by Charles Rothschild in 1912; individuals like Beatrix Potter and John Ruskin became aware of conservation issues within their local areas, as well as the dangers of pollution and acid rain in the 19^th Century.  

"All while anti-hunters value petitions, boycotts and protests. And with all those people who are anti-captivity, what are those petitions, boycotts or protests really doing to help the animals in captivity (or in the wild)? Nothing."

I’ll tell you what all those people have done – they’ve brought awareness to the welfare of animals in captivity. They’ve changed how enclosures appear; they’ve stood up against the use of animals as mere photo opportunities and performing animals; they’ve highlighted what was wrong with a zoo and those zoos have been changing. Obviously, it’s not an overnight solution –

Arturo in Argentina - I won't mention
he's in the wrong hemisphere
or climate

nothing is – without those protests and boycotts, the general public would not be aware of the welfare issues surrounding orcas and dolphins in captivity; they wouldn’t care about Arturo the Polar Bear; they wouldn’t understand what constitutes neglect of an animal in captivity. These protests, boycotts and petitions have changed laws and legislation. You might smirk and belittle them, but they’ve changed the very job you’re working in.

We’ll ignore all the people who work for Greenpeace, WWF, RSPB, Birdlife International, WCS, World Land Trust, Born Free Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Sea Shepard, The Wildlife Trusts, The Badger Trusts and all the smaller NGO’s in all the world, and all the students, researchers, scientists, conservationists, ecologists, volunteers and anyone else who I’ve forgot, that hate/dislike/question the morals and ethics of zoos, whilst doing their bit for in-situ conservation efforts on a greater or lesser scale.

Petitions, boycotts and protests are just one small – tiny – area where people feel they can try and make a difference; its giving your voice to a cause, when otherwise you feel powerless or insignificant.

"If you want lfewer (sic) animals in captivity, then work on changing humans' natural parasitic and destructive behavior. Make lifestyle changes. Help others make those changes. Devote all this passion and energy you have on the cause of the "problem", rather than the result."

Conservation and zoos are not mutually exclusive; telling people to work on changing the parasitic behaviour of humans does not refer back to the welfare of animals in captivity. In fact, zoos are essentially the total abuse of those animals by human’s parasitic and destructive behaviour – if humans were kind, sentient beings with just the care for all our fellow species, then zoos wouldn’t exist. The reference of ‘hunting leading to conservation’ – zoos are still Victorian menageries; they started as research facilities, then evolved into signs of status and wealth, then as crowd-pleasers and ‘freak shows’ and little has changed since then. The enclosures might be wider and attempt to replicate the animals’ native habitat, and have some questionable signage outside the enclosures, but really, what has actually changed??

"You want to empty the tanks? Open the cages? Then please, tell me where animals will go as the ever growing population of humans continues to encroach and pollute the remaining, fragmented and low quality habitat. Just because Africa is large, doesn’t mean elephants have room to roam."

Africa is not the only continent with elephants in it.

What are zoos doing to prevent human population expansion? What are zoos doing to prevent habitat fragmentation and loss? What are zoos doing to prevent the use – and dumping - of mercury in gold mining in Peruvian rainforests? What are zoos doing to aid in in-situ conservation?

Very little, if anything.

Zoos are not animal hotels or genetic holding areas whilst the natural world is destroyed.

The biggest argument anti-zoo people have is the conditions the animals are kept in, the animals’ health and welfare, the use of animals as entertainment, and the money being spent on a zoo enclosure compared to that being spent in the field. The educational message zoos portray is often inaccurate, they will happily gloat at the work they claim to do, but they have lots of fingers, in lots of pies and not very much is being achieved.

As I said at the beginning; there are good zoos and there are bad zoos. I would class Disney as one of the great ones, from what I’ve read about their conservation work and the work they’re doing on improving enclosure designs and enrichment too, and documentary films (though very much scripted); I would class Seaworld as one of the worst, for their lack of concern or empathy.

Zoos could easily change things round; though zoos and conservation are not exclusive, there is a lot more that many zoos can do to aid in delivering the conservation message.