Reforming our Zoos

In 1998, the “world’s ugliest tiger” was born. He was a white Bengal tiger with a smashed-in-looking face that went viral, with the public incorrectly believing that he had Down syndrome. Kenny was the result of poor, recessive genetics that both of his parents had, because they were siblings (Davis). Animal traffickers and zookeepers routinely use inbreeding to create Bengal tigers with white-colored fur, an extremely rare phenotype that would never exist in zoos if it were not for captive breeding programs. All of these tigers suffer from observable or unobservable disabilities as a result of inbreeding, as they are descended from one or two ancestors who lived decades ago. This example may be jarring, but it is not unique. There are many animals who continue to suffer physically and emotionally as a result of captivity.

Unquestionably, zoos are a place for family enjoyment and learning, offering a unique experience that offsets the great, and, for many people, unaffordable, expenses of traveling to different countries in order to see exotic animals. But zoos also pose a significant ethical dilemma as more and more research reveals the serious mental health struggles that larger, more intellectually complex animals face in zoos. Animals like elephants, primates, giraffes, and tigers all show alarming behaviors that reveal the inordinate amount of stress that they experience in captivity. From swaying and pacing to regurgitation and eye-poking, intellectually complex animals display repetitive and alarming behaviors that scientists categorize as ‘stereotypical behaviors’ or ‘stereotypies’ (Coleman). With this relatively recent research coming to light, it is important to note that the suffering animals face is not justified by zoos’ conservation missions. It is time to reform zoos to preserve the great experience that they offer people while keeping animals happy and healthy. This can be done by limiting captive breeding programs, addressing animals' physical needs by giving them more space, and removing animals who can not thrive in captivity, like elephants and cetaceans, completely.

This paper will mostly generalize zoos while also referencing high-quality zoos, AZA (Association of Zoos & Aquariums) accredited zoos. There are around 2,800 zoos licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture, and less than 10% of them (238 zoos) are AZA approved (“The Accreditation Standards & Related Policies”). Zoos accredited by this organization are the best in America because AZA recognizes and gives grants to zoos that follow specific guidelines for animal welfare. These standards include housing animals “in enclosures which are safe for the animals and meet their physical and psychological needs,” keeping animals “in appropriate groupings which meet their social and welfare needs,” and providing animals “the opportunity to choose among a variety of conditions within their environment” (“The Accreditation Standards & Related Policies”). The AZA goes into specific detail as to what this looks like for different animals, but these standards are not sufficient for every animal, and even AZA accredited zoos have problems that need remedy. I will address such problems in the paper in order to emphasize how bad the situation must be in lower quality zoos and to convey necessary reforms. 

Although zoos claim to focus on animal welfare, many of their animals are suffering physically and mentally. White tigers are not AZA approved, but lower quality zoos still breed them. Zookeepers who unethically breed tigers use them as show animals, engaging in activities like cub-petting, which makes these animals over-acclimated to people. Due to their close contact with people, these animals are more likely to associate them with food if they are released into the wild (Pirie). So even though zoos claim to breed tigers in order to reintroduce them into the wild, that is not possible. This is because tigers, like other large mammals, are cognitively complex. Cognitively complex animals spend years with their mothers to learn how to navigate the wild and have complex social structures and high intelligence (Vox). The longer that animals spend without their mothers the more difficult it would be for zoos to enforce the important survival instincts that a mother would teach her offspring in the wild. It would also be harder for zoos to recreate the physical and social needs of these animals, which is an explanation for the high rate of mental illness present in these larger, more intelligent mammals. A famous example of zoochosis is Gus “the bipolar bear,” a neurotic polar bear that lived in Central Park Zoo. In the 1990s, he would swim figure eights in his tank for days and stalk kids from his enclosure as well, causing zookeepers to put up bars around his tank. Gus is far from alone. In a survey taken from 108 zoos, 40% of zoo apes were found to display such stereotypic behaviors (Lutz). Another survey of 26 zoos found that 64% of zoo chimpanzees suffer from zoochosis as well (Jacobson et al.). Many tigers also suffer from zoochosis, pacing in their cages in order to release the energy that they normally expend by hunting 10 hours a day in the wild. Studies have found that such stereotypic behavior decreases when these animals are provided with more opportunities to exercise in a larger space (Pitsko).

         An effective way for zoos to provide animals with more space is to focus on acquiring smaller species rather than larger species. A zoo focused on smaller species can make more room for animals while engaging more effectively in conservation efforts. Right now, large animals are being overrepresented in zoos, as the ratio of mammal species represented in zoos is 1:31 while being much lower for smaller species. For example, the ratio of amphibian species represented in zoos is 1:2000. This is part of the reason why zoos do not have adequate space for larger animals (Keulartz). Moreover, evidence shows that although zoos have not successfully reintroduced larger mammals to the wild, they have successfully done so with smaller animals. For example, the captive breeding and reintroduction of the California Condor, Mauritius Kestrel, and Guam Rail has saved these birds from extinction (Snyder et al.). The black-footed ferret is an example of a small mammal that was successfully reintroduced into the wild (Snyder et al.). Moreover, zoos display larger animals to attract tourists, but there is actually evidence that zoos with smaller species will keep people just as entertained as zoos with larger animals (Keulartz). Recent research has shown that small mammal displays have a better unit cost-to-popularity ratio than large mammal displays, and it also suggests that displaying smaller species in a creative way can exponentially increase a zoo’s attendance (Keulartz). Moreover, studies have implied that smaller animals have a better experience around people; for example, a study comparing meerkat behavior during COVID-19 zoo-closure to one month after zoos reopened to visitors found that when visitors returned to zoos, meerkats interacted less with their environment and had more positive social interactions with people (Williams et al.).

This shift to smaller animals would also include the removal of certain large mammals that experience immense physical and mental suffering in zoos. This includes elephants, which are so mentally and physically harmed by even the highest quality zoos that they should be removed completely. Elephants are one of the most cognitively complex animals in a zoo, spending on average around 9 years with their mothers learning how to navigate the wild. Even the best zoos cannot adequately mimic an elephant’s environment, making elephants one of the largest sufferers of zoochosis. A study found that 85% of elephants display stereotypic behavior during the day and 69% continue it into night (Schowe). Research has proved that this is the result of the stress they feel in zoos, which causes physical damage to their brains (Schowe). Nevertheless, there is an argument that zoos sustain elephant populations that are dwindling in the wild due to ivory trafficking. This argument does not take into account that there is no future for elephants in zoos. More captive elephants have died than been born since 2000 in American zoos (Schowe). A large reason for this is that zoo elephants have an extremely atypical ovarian cycle. A survey of AZA accredited zoos revealed that 46% of female African elephants have abnormal ovarian cycles and 31% have no ovarian cycle (Brown et al.). Moreover, elephants display physical ailments that they do not show outside of zoos. One example of this is Elephant Endotheliotropic Herpesvirus (EEHV), which is a disease only found in captive elephants. EEHV causes elephants to bleed out, and it is responsible for killing 65% of Asian elephants aged between 3 months and 15 years old in zoos (Schowe). Moreover, EEHV is not a significant threat in the wild, with studies showing that the social stress that elephants feel in zoos makes them more susceptible to EEHV (Schowe). Elephants should be moved to sanctuaries where they would be provided with a vast, natural space that would be larger than the entirety of a zoo and with plenty of companions to uphold their social structure. Moreover, guards and aircrafts patrolling sanctuaries could safeguard elephants from poachers. For example, after nearly half of Mozambique’s elephant population declined from 2009 to 2014 , Niassa National Reserve invested in protection resources and has reported zero poaching incidents within the sanctuary for four consecutive years (Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime).  

Other examples of animals that are severely harmed by zoo captivity are dolphins and orcas. This is because dolphins and orcas can not do well in tanks. The static nature of tank water means that these cetaceans can not exercise their physical and mental abilities as they would in their natural environment. The dorsal fins of orcas are made of a fibrous tissue that is held up by deep water pressure and the fast swimming speed of wild orcas, so in a zoo setting this tissue wears down and the dorsal fin collapses. This happens in the wild at a 1% rate due to injuries and old age. But in captivity, 100% of male orcas have collapsed dorsal fins (Coleman). Captive dolphins also develop crease abnormalities in their necks from being asked to lift their heads unnaturally and repeatedly above the water to perform tricks before zoo-attending audiences (Coleman). Dolphins and orcas also suffer from oral degradation resulting from their stereotypic behavior of chewing the concrete of their tanks. Over 60% of captive orcas in the U.S. and Spain have fractured teeth and 24% have gingivitis, a swelling of the part of the gum around the base of teeth. Untreated, this can lead to a severe gum infection called periodontitis that causes tooth loss. Because of this risk, dolphins must endure a painful procedure in which the innermost layer inside of the enamel, or ‘pulp’, of a tooth is removed. This procedure leaves an open hole that may cause infections (Batt), so they also get routine antiseptic and antibiotic treatments that could change the functioning of their immune systems (Coleman). Another example of life-threatening stereotypic behavior exhibited only in captivity is that dolphins jump out of their tanks and onto show platforms for up to 30 minutes, which crushes their internal organs and muscles (Coleman). As with tigers and elephants, the humane solution for dolphins, orcas, and other cetaceans is a familiar one: sanctuaries in which they could receive any necessary veterinary care (Coleman).   

Despite the perception of zoos as catalysts for conservation, which we were led to believe in as children, zoos are not designed to inspire conservation efforts from their visitors. It is a common belief that zoos provide a bonding experience, in which the awe of seeing real animals and having conversations about them makes people more empathetic toward animals and conservation. However, there is little evidence of people engaging in conservation efforts after visiting zoos. Some studies have indicated that zoos do not have a significant behavioral impact on their visitors whatsoever (Kleiman et al.). Moreover, there has not been peer-reviewed research comparing zoo visitors to non-zoo visitors in this regard (Godinez and Fernandez). If zoos want to claim that spending time there leads to increases in conservation efforts from patrons, they must partner with IRB-accredited studies showing that is the case.  

Zoos harm larger animals, too often fail in their conservation efforts, and do not show compelling evidence of inspiring the public to actively engage in conservation; therefore, zoos should be reformed. The way to make these changes is through legislation. In Canada, an act that makes some necessary changes for animal welfare is being reviewed in their senate. Named “The Jane Goodall Act” to honor the world-famous primatologist, this act proposes necessary changes like phasing out elephant captivity and mandating permits to obtain and breed large cats and other large species (Lam et al.). It is supported by AZA accredited zoos in Canada, showing that good zoos can clearly benefit from and continue to profit from zoo reform. However, the act does not have strict guidelines for the amount of space each animal should receive and rather allows courts to consult an animal advocate to determine if welfare conditions are met (Bill S-241). While it is too soon to assess the efficiency of the act, it may benefit from more concrete specifications with regard to enclosure requirements. 

Just as many circuses have stopped featuring elephants and lions out of concerns about their welfare, so too should zoos recognize that the most empathetic action they could take on behalf of lions, elephants, orcas, and dolphins is to stop exhibiting them in zoos and to sponsor those species’ moves to sanctuaries where they can thrive and receive protection. Many large animals are being exploited and are suffering with no hope of conservation. The danger in turning a blind eye to this obvious ethical issue is that it fosters ignorance, and it gives the idea that an unrealistic explanation of conservation can undo the wrongdoing in front of our own eyes. For many complex animal species, zoos are causing serious mental and physical harm. However, there has already been great success for institutions housing smaller species. Therefore, it is time for zoos to stop breeding animals that do not exist naturally, remove elephants and cetaceans, and shift towards housing smaller animals; in doing so, zoos can create an honest and entertaining environment for both people and animals.