Should We Shut Down All Zoos?

With the growing amount of controversy surrounding keeping animals in captivity I thought I would provide my viewpoint on the common arguments that surround this debate. As a reference point I will be referring to a 2015 Vice article that aimed to sum up why all zoos should be shut down and try to defend what is now a growing concern in the public eye.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/why-we-should-close-all-zoos-778?utm_source=vicetwitteruk
_______________________________________________________________________________

My first impression of this argument is that the author likes to pick out isolated pieces of data that conform to his view on zoos. The opening point here is simply ignoring the general trend that the majority of animals have a higher life expectancy in captivity than they would do in the wild, because as you quite rightly state there are less abiotic and biotic factors affecting organisms in a carefully monitored environment. The only counter evidence you have for this is that infant mortality rates are higher in zoos, which is in complete dismissal of population trends for an individual species. Of course the infant mortality rates are going to be high, you can't just include raw statistics without any synthesis of the information. Do you know if that figure has changed over time? Is this at least correlated with the increased care and facilities provided at zoos over recent years? I'm not saying that more lion cubs dieing in zoos is a good thing, I'm just questioning whether there's concrete evidence that this is a problem with zoological parks in general.

Another thing I hate is this obsession that the wild is the epitome of freedom and wellbeing for any animal. Is it really? As a zoology student I've seen some grizzly things happening in the wild that simply wouldn't happen to an animal that's being given around the clock care and catered for its every whim. Maybe I would pay more attention to this argument if the data was actually sourced from somewhere reliable, and not a website named the 'Captive Animals Protection Society'. Yeah I'm sure they're going to give a balanced picture of zoos and not at all cherry pick information to fit their one dimensional narrative. Even then the studies they source paint a vastly different picture to what you claim. Take the study that compared animal space in captivity and compare that to their wild range. That study contains conclusions such as this: "We know the zoos can't give them as much room as they need, but they could give them more dens, more viewpoints and generally make their environment more interesting." But no, this is certainly the fault of zoos as a concept, and certainly not an issue that can be improved over time.

Well yes of course there are going to be zoos that don't operate with animal welfare in mind. As much as I love zoos I'm not going to stand around and condone some of the conditions animals are left in, and I do agree that zoological parks do need to be regulated to a higher level, but these examples are just taken from a very biased perspective and don't accurately represent the majority of zoos. This article never gives a general consensus as to the operations of zoos that thankfully in Western countries are staffed by carers who do truly give a shit about the animals under their management. Take your sources for example; The 2010 report from Woburn contained the lines "The park admits that its current enclosures are inadequate and that larger, more modern pens are being built." And as for the 2011 report from Knowsley, well it shouldn't be that shocking considering culling is a necessary practice to businesses centered around animals. You find similar situations in places such as dog shelters, just at a far higher rate. In all honesty zoos can't win in this situation. Either they're blasted for keeping an excess of animals and subsequently critcised for welfare, or forced to cull the animals to again be criticised for welfare. The last two sources just reveal that there are standards in place regarding what organisations can keep animals, so you have to ask yourself whether zoos are really as badly managed as you make them out to be.

Is conservation programmes in zoos really a myth? How about species such as the California Condor, Scimitar Horned Oryx, Arabian Oryx, Round Island Boa, Black Footed Ferrets, Pink Pigeon, Golden Lion Tamarin, Sumatran Tigers, Amur Leopards, Tasmanian Devils, Tuataras or even the Przewalski's Wild Horse? All these species have got a captive population crucial to their survival; and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Even if the animals aren't directly being used for conservation, which admittedly not many are, they can still be used as an ambassador for conservation in the wild, or even just serving to strengthen or reinforce the gene pool.

Your source for the 'less than 1%' figure comes from a man named Tim Zimmerman, who for the record was the associate producer and co writer for a documentary called 'Blackfish', which is essentially a smear campaign for zoos that was found to have purposely fabricated interviews. So yeah, real reliable sources being used here. The other source, which is a singular study, is also taken out of context. The word preceding your quote in the study is 'can', which is very fucking different to the word 'does', and therefore its use in this article is very misleading. The source does go onto explain that conservation in zoos should be used as a 'last resort', but also states that "we strongly support the effort of zoos to establish recovery captive populations in appropriate facilities in countries of origin of endangered species when such programmes are advisable." To be honest you should read the fucking conclusion next time because in reality this is a source that ultimately supports the existence of zoos, essentially disproving the point you're trying to make.

You then go on to compare the discrepancies for two different organisations that spend money differently. I honestly find this point a little contradictory considering that earlier on you were complaining about the harsh conditions animals live in, but when zoos are finally being proven to be increasing the quality of their enclosures you still complain. Maybe you should ask yourself why people are more inclined to give money to zoos than the apparently much cheaper conservation programmes you've got your heart set on. I just don't get your point here. Are you saying that zoos should cut down on standards in favor of conservation, or are you stating that despite being a business zoos should just fund conservation programmes instead? Either way your solutions are just illogical, relying on raw statistics instead of reasoning to convey. Even if you don't agree with the conservation approach of zoos you still have to cede it's better than nothing. Having a reserve genetic pool is invaluable in the long run when you're facing the mass extinction we're in now, yet at no point is this even referenced in relation to conservation. It's such a narrow minded view to take, and shows a clear gap in knowledge.

'What can a person possibly learn from zoos?' Well okay they might not become the next David Attenborough from a single visit, but at least they might get the invaluable experience of seeing a rare and valuable wild animal in person without having to fork out thousands of pounds on the off chance they might see one abroad. This is a personal argument for me because I know there is no way I would be pursuing a career in zoology if it wasn't for my local zoo. Sure I had the documentaries and books that you claim will work anyway, but I can say 'bollocks' to that, because as any scientist will tell you it's fieldwork and practical work that leads to inspiration, not sitting in a lab all day. Let me ask you this: Is it the first hand experiences that cause PTSD in soldiers or is it them watching documentaries on the conflict without taking part? I know that's an entirely different argument, but the point I'm trying to make is that first hand experiences are far more valuable than being idly lectured on something you've never witnessed. According to you however this isn't the case, and that's all based on one study of one business chain from a source that's the same biased site used for earlier arguments; and even then the statistic itself isn't even that significant. I honestly hope you never become a recruiter for the army, because under your logic people like me should be allowed prestigious roles as we've learnt everything about warfare by playing 'Call of Duty'.

The thing that irritates me about this article is that because of a few examples taken out of context zoos are instantly demonised without any objective thought. This article never explains why the majority of zoos that do have a positive impact on animal welfare should be abandoned because of the failings of a minority. By that logic surely humanity should abandon capitalism or mass transportation considering that there are clear examples proving that these systems fail despite the fact that these statistics are in the minority. The conclusion to this article is hardly surprising. It's such a fallacious statement that shows a clear lack of understanding on the topic. How can you honestly sit there and state that zoos are a primary cause of environmental degradation when you've provided no evidence of this in your article? I just hate this notion that zoos solely exist to harm animals. Yes zoos are primarily a business that have to rely on revenues from species deemed attractive, but this isn't the nineteenth century, and so attitudes have drastically changed from your rather imbecilic view on proceedings. So no, argument does nothing to persuade me that zoos need to be shut down. I don't think it's the concept of zoos at fault here, rather this person's ignorant attitude.