The tragic shooting of two brown bears at a zoo may have been an unusual and apparently unavoidable incident, but it is a stark reminder that animals do not belong in captivity. 

Last week, two brown bears were shot dead after they escaped their enclosure at a UK zoo. 

The incident occurred after strong winds caused a tree to fall down, which formed a bridge between their enclosure and that of some boars. The bears crossed over and attacked one of the boars, and were shot because the enclosure had a low fence that they could have escaped over. The boar is alive and receiving medical attention. 

Whipsnade Zoo’s chief curator said that staff made the decision to shoot the bears because of the ‘immediate threat’ to human life and to ‘protect our people, guests and our other animals.’

If there was indeed a threat to the lives of humans and other animals, it’s not for anyone to say that the staff were wrong in what would have been a horrific decision to have to make. It is heartbreaking that the staff - who likely do feel that they love the animals in a misguided way - found themselves in this situation. 

But that doesn’t mean that we should just accept this incident and move on - the bears shouldn’t have died because they shouldn’t have been held captive in the first place.

This tragedy is a stark reminder that zoos are no place for animals. These bears should never have been the ‘property’ of humans who were then forced to kill them when they naturally tried to escape from the cages they were trapped in. 

The zoo at which this happened is - relatively speaking - one of the ‘better’ and more respected ones in this country. It is not the point that this specific zoo is the problem, but that the whole industry is inherently cruel. This shooting should not be seen as a bad incident that occurred within the otherwise good world of zoos, but should serve as a reminder that captive animals are prisoners who do not belong there and do not want to be there. 

Zoo animals, like all animals used for entertainment, are subjected to serious infringements on their rights.

The animals have no say in where they live, when and what they eat, and who they mate with. They are living exhibits, existing as commodities for paying customers to use for their own enjoyment. And they have no means of escape.

Behaviours in the forms of pacing, swaying, and even self-mutilation are all commonly observed in the animals living in the UK’s 300 zoos. According to charity Born Free, these behaviours result from “the frustration of natural behaviour patterns, impaired brain function, or repeated attempts to deal with some problem”.

Freedom for Animals states that tigers and lions have around 18,000 times less space in zoos than they would in the wild, and polar bears have one million times less space. Many enclosures are small and cramped, and the animals often have nothing to do. 

Many zoos will also force their animals - notably sea lions and birds - to perform circus-esque tricks for an audience. 

In 2017, a zoo in Cumbria was briefly closed because 500 of its animals were found to have died due to neglect and human error. The zoo was subsequently allowed to reopen again, and it remains open today. Animals had died from exposure, emaciation, hypothermia and had even been run over by cars.

It is puzzling that the public hasn’t accepted that zoos in the UK are businesses of cruelty, particularly considering the mass outrage provoked by highly-publicised companies abroad that keep captive animals.

The fact that Seaworld, ‘tiger temples’, and elephant rides are unacceptable is, thankfully, being realised. The overwhelming sentiment in this country is that these animals ‘belong in the wild’ - so why do brown bears belong in an enclosure in Dunstable?

Not all places keeping captive animals are equal, of course, and there are variations in their levels of care. But the common denominator, whether it be Seaworld or a well-respected and reputable zoo, is that they are organisations of imprisonment.

The debate around zoos isn’t a straightforward one, and there are genuinely well-meaning zoo advocates who see them as a force for good - particularly in the area of conservation.

Conservation is the main argument used by supporters of zoos in favour of their continuation. It is true that the only remaining South China tigers in the world are in captivity, and a very small number of captive endangered animals are reintroduced into the wild. 

But that doesn’t mean that zoos ‘exist’ for conservation, and we cannot justify their existence on limited - and often extremely overstated - examples of it. While some undeniably do make some efforts in this area, it at best isn’t a priority - and at worst doesn’t come into the equation at all.

A 2020 study by Born Free and Freedom for Animals into zoos in England and Wales found that just a small percentage of their animals are endangered species, and only about 15 per cent are threatened.

As quoted by Freedom For Animals, renowned Zoo architect David Hancocks previously said: “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.”

Even if zoos do successfully reintroduce animals to the wild, they don’t address the fundamental long-term requirement of species conservation - combating habitat destruction.

As PETA previously wrote: “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?”

Animal farming is the leading cause of habitat loss. If conservation was truly a priority of zoos, they would advocate for plant-based diets to increase biodiversity and offer the best chance of successful reintroduction programmes for wild animals.

Genuine conservation efforts by some zoos - the Twycross Zoo Conservation Initiative, for example, claims to have contributed to 55 conservation programmes that support animals in the wild in dozens of countries - are also too often overshadowed by the prioritisation of money-making at the expense of their animals. 

A number of so-called ‘good’ zoos have sparked controversy by holding out of hours events featuring alcohol and live music. These have attracted huge criticism for subjecting animals to stress caused by loud noises and drunk revellers. 

In 2019, ZSL London, one of the leading zoos in the UK - who have reportedly raised large amounts for conservation and protection work abroad - brought back a controversial after-dark event named ‘Zoo Nights’. The event - which served alcohol and featured live bands - was introduced despite the fact that a similar one was cancelled in 2015 following concerns that a customer had poured beer over a tiger.

Another argument put forward in favour of zoos is that they are vital in educating the public about wildlife, but this is as misguided as it is outdated. Aside from the fact that we have no right to use animals for our own education, it has also been argued that modern wildlife documentaries and easy accessibility to information are far better tools for this.

As quoted in the Guardian, Born Free’s Chris Draper previously said: “Today, people get more from a TV nature documentary than they will ever get from seeing animals in zoos. In captivity, an elephant or a giraffe is out of its natural environment and probably in an unnatural social grouping. Television or the internet are much better resources for understanding animals than a zoo.”

In any case, if kids can only be interested in animals they’ve seen in the flesh, why is the Jurassic Park film franchise still going after almost three decades? Likewise, we don’t need to see animals in the flesh to understand their value and the importance of conservation.

It would be neither viable nor appropriate to abolish zoos immediately, but supporters of their demise have put forward proposals in favour of phasing them out gradually. 

Writing in the Independent, leading Leading conservationist Damian Aspinall previously said: “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 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.”

Serious conversations need to be had about phasing zoos out for future generations, but this is unlikely to happen unless the public steps up and accepts that they aren’t the fairytale we’ve been led to believe.

Speaking out against zoos can often provoke upset and anger, and this is understandable. Unlike in industries where animals are used for food - which would be pretty tricky to defend on the grounds that they’re good for animals - there are well-intentioned zoo supporters who advocate for them because they genuinely believe they are positive places for their inhabitants. 

But positive aspects of zoos are limited and inevitably overshadowed by the fundamental fact that the animals cannot have the quality of life that they deserve while trapped in cages.

Most people who go to zoos do so because they claim to ‘love’ the animals. But this cannot be true love for the animals, but rather what the animals can do for them. After a day of getting enjoyment out of staring at them through their cages, visitors will probably go home, forget about them, and get on with their lives - while the animals remain in their prisons. 

Polly Foreman is a writer and digital journalist based in London. Since going vegan in 2014, Polly has stood firmly against all forms of animal oppression and exploitation. She is passionate about tackling misconceptions of veganism and challenging accepted norms about the way we use animals in this country.

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