ZSL’s two zoos - London and Whipsnade - are in serious trouble. Lockdown has meant no ticket sales yet they have workforces that cannot possibly be furloughed. They’re asking the UK government to help, but with zoos as problematic as they are, should we let them fail?

As far as zoos go, ZSL London and Whipsnade are certainly among the wealthier and more reputable, constantly in the public eye and important destinations for the UK’s tourism industry. They’re not without their very obvious and public failings, such as in the case of London Zoo and its controversial ‘Zoo Nights’ that have attracted criticism and protests for subjecting animals to loud noises and drunken people banging on enclosures and terrariums. A similar event at Bristol Zoo has been the focus of a campaign and investigation by Freedom for Animals.

Even supporters of zoos know that many are terrible places for animals, with woefully inadequate facilities devoid of space and with environments that barely approximate natural living conditions. Yet we all assume ZSL is the cream of the crop providing the best care, with the best intentions, and the best funding - and that may well be true, but only relatively speaking.

According to a photo essay out in the Guardian last week, ZSL is in financial difficulties following a year of lockdown. Easter should be the start of its peak season, but like any non-essential business or venue, covid has put a halt to normal life. Yet staff at zoos cannot be furloughed with the animals needing daily or hourly care.

It is hard not to feel sympathy for the staff who genuinely care about the animals. And there is no doubting that many of them believe in the conservation, research and educational claims that zoos make to justify their existence. However, we know all of these claims are at best, misplaced optimism, and at worse, outright lies.

Leading conservationist Damian Aspinall is an outspoken critic of zoos having operated two wildlife parks for more than 40 years. It is in such reserves of wild habitats that Aspinall says we can more effectively conduct research and educate the public on the importance of conservation, in situ. 

Writing in the Independent, Aspinall said:

“Zoos claim one of their main benefits is conservation. However, when studying this in detail it is easy to see this is a myth. For example, in European zoos, 70-75 per cent of animals are not threatened in the wild. Of the approximately 850 mammal species and subspecies held in European zoos, 500 are assessed as of least concern on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list, and only 45 (5 per cent) are critically endangered. Of those 45 critically endangered, we estimate as few as three are actually viable when taking into account the issues of hybridisation, disease and genetic diversity.”

Other contradictions to claims, as Aspinall points out, include the absence of any real evidence that zoos significantly contribute to education on matters of conservation, or increase interest in the natural world:

“For decades they have argued that seeing live animals helps educate and mobilise the next generation of conservationists. However, it appears that unguided zoo visits result in improved biodiversity knowledge in only one-third of visitors, that professional zoo-educators can have better results in increasing biodiversity knowledge when working in schools rather than within a zoo, and that improved biodiversity knowledge from zoo visits has only a weak link with increased knowledge of pro-conservation behaviour.”

Aspinall estimates that at most, one per cent of visitors to his wildlife parks go on to become working conservationists - if the same can be said of zoos, this would hardly justify the cost to animals. As for actual conservation work, providing an ‘ark’ for mating pairs of animals seems intuitively like a good idea, raising new animals to re-introduce to the wild, but there are relatively few examples of this actually happening.

According to renowned zoo architect, director and consultant, David Hancocks, as quoted by Freedom for Animals:

“There is a commonly held misconception that zoos are not only saving wild animals from extinction but also reintroducing them to their wild habitats. The confusion stems from many sources, all of them zoo-based… in reality, most zoos have had no contact of any kind with any reintroduction program.”

Furthermore, the logic of sending animals back to where they came from fails when we ask ourselves why they had to be conserved in the first place. Zoos do not address the root cause of the degradation of animals’ natural habitats, meaning that the barriers to actual, long-lasting reintroductions remain.

As PETA points out in 9 Reasons Not to Visit Zoos:

“While zoos spend millions on keeping animals confined, natural habitats are destroyed and animals are killed, as there’s insufficient funding for their protection. The only effective and sustainable way to save species is to support schemes that target the root cause of the extinction and endangerment of animals – habitat destruction. After all, what’s the point of breeding animals if they have no home left to go to?”

The debate about zoos is both nuanced and emotional, involving a great many very well-intentioned people who advocate for zoos and are just as condemning of the worst examples out there. Yet even the best can never be good enough. Even ZSL is embroiled in the same contradictions, trapped in a situation where they must balance animal care and “conservation” against financial viability. For example, many zoos have a family of meerkats, yet they are not endangered meaning that their presence there is purely for entertainment. But it is such things that bring in more people, more ticket sales, and zoos would say that this is vital to support the academic, education and conservation work.

ZSL Director General Dominic Jermey in a blog post wrote: 

“Many assume a venerable institution like ZSL London Zoo receives regular government funding in the same way Kew Gardens and the Natural History Museum do. But that is not the case. ZSL’s world-leading science and conservation work is underpinned by the money we earn, with every penny put into achieving our vision of a world where wildlife thrives.”

Sadly, all of the justifications for zoos are ultimately illusory. There can be no better way to learn about an animal than in their natural habitat, through distant observation or the stories that documentary makers tell us. Are we more inspired when we see a polar bear in a tank, or when seeing them in the arctic in an episode of Attenborough’s Planet Earth series?

Borrowing again from PETA:

“A study of children between the ages of 7 and 15 who visited London Zoo found that for the majority of them – including those who took an educator-guided tour of the zoo – there were no positive educational outcomes. In many cases, the trip even had a negative impact on their understanding of animals and their habitats.”

In the age of the internet, streaming services and readily-available multimedia content, zoos while providing a more face-to-face experience are nonetheless outdated and unjustifiable. It is time to phase them out. As to the question of whether or not we should let ZSL and other zoos fail as a result of the pandemic, perhaps we should, although in a phased way because sadly the animals there are a product of the system and in most cases are no more suited to living in the wild than we are. To this end, Aspinall also suggests a possible solution:

“We propose a plan to phase out zoos over a 25- to 30-year period, starting with certain species clearly not suitable for captivity. In the next 10 years small urban zoos, or any zoo 50 of acres or fewer, should be considered for closure. The reason for this is simply the smaller the space, the greater the stress on the animal. This is common knowledge. If animals are to be kept in captivity for the next 30 years, then serious improvements in husbandry and welfare of animals in zoos needs to be implemented. We believe the diet of animals in captivity is generally substandard with a lack of variety and quality, which must be quickly improved. While zoos have certainly improved over the years with enrichment, there is still much more to be done.”

While it isn’t the immediate abolishment that staunch animal rights advocates would want, pragmatically we must factor in that animals currently in captivity simply can’t go back to the wild or even to a reserve or natural wildlife sanctuary setting where they would have to fend for themselves. To do so would be irresponsible, and because we created zoos, we also have a responsibility to do what’s best for the animals. A 25- to 30-year phased plan, as Aspinall suggests, would of course require continued funding, possibly even more factoring in the welfare and dietary improvements. So yes, we should let zoos fail, but not without a solid plan with abolishment as the end-goal and the funding necessary to see it through.

Andrew Gough is Media and Investigations Manager at Surge.

Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.

LATEST ARTICLES