An artificially-enclosed space in the middle of a major urban area is hardly the natural habitat for most of the animals that populate the average zoo. Elephants, lions, tigers, monkeys, zebras, and hundreds of other species are captured in the wilds of Africa, Asia, or Latin America, and are systematically transported to zoos for the entertainment of people. Is this ethical? Some, as is the case with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, argue that zoos are the antithesis of ethical human behavior, arbitrarily forcing wild animals into public spaces for our own amusement [See on this point the link provided below to PETA’s website addressing this issue]. Many others, however, argue that zoos are, in fact, an ethical response to the man-made and natural threats most species of animals confront on a regular basis. Recognizing the moral dilemmas inherent in the operation of zoos, and aquariums, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums follows a “Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare,” which includes such guiding principles as:
“Assisting in achieving the conservation and survival of species must be the aim of all members of the profession. Any actions taken in relation to an individual animal, e.g. euthanasia or contraception, must be undertaken
with this higher ideal of species survival in mind, but the welfare of the individual animal should not be compromised,” and“Promote the interests of wildlife conservation, biodiversity and animal welfare to colleagues and to society at large.”
The connection between conservation and ethics with respect to the function of zoos, then, lies in the moral and, depending upon the individual society, legal responsibility for advancing a broader social agenda rather than merely introducing the public to varieties of species it will otherwise never encounter except on nature shows on television. Because the process of capturing animals in the wild, transporting them to metropolitan locations thousands of miles from their natural habitats, and containing them in necessarily-constrained man-made enclosures is inherently unethical in some respects, the mission of educating the public as to the threats to biodiversity caused by man-made activities and natural phenomena alike is a core mission of most zoos. Few people fully appreciate the role each species plays in the broader global environment. Ecosystems tend to become abstract concepts when students leave school and begin their adulthoods, becoming absorbed in jobs, raising children, and other elements of everyday existence. Zoos function, therefore, as a reminder of the natural world beyond our borders. Plus, zoos provide important laboratories for the study of animals—studyies that aids in the preservation of many species. One example, discussed in the 2013 article “Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change,” a link to which is provided below, involves the preservation of endangered amphibians under a global consortium of zoos, universities, and conservation organizations called the Amphibian Ark Project (AArk):
“Zoos and aquariums in the AArk serve as conservation way stations for amphibian populations facing possible extinction because of the combined forces of habitat loss, infectious disease, and climate change. But they also function as centers of research into the drivers of population decline, the possibilities of disease mitigation, and the prospect of selecting for biological resistance to a lethal amphibian pathogen. With the mission of rescuing, housing, and breeding hundreds of amphibian species to return them eventually to native localities, the AArk is emerging as a hybrid or “pan situ” approach to biodiversity protection, a project that integrates (and blurs the borders between) ex situ and in situ conservation."
This is just one example of the connection between ethics and conservation involving zoos. There are others. Here in the Midwest, the threat to species of bats—essential for the control of mosquito populations, including those that carry infectious diseases—due to the spread of a disease called "White-nose Syndrome" would be less visible were it not for the efforts of zoos to educate the public by exhibiting these ugly but important creatures while informing visitors through brief lectures and in placards attached to each cage.
Whether zoos are the only, or even the best way to accomplish the conservation mission is open to debate. One academic study, “The Role of Zoos in Creating a Conservation Ethic in Visitors,” directly targets the debate regarding the ethics of zoos. Focusing on the Taronga Zoo in Australia, the report’s author, Elena Kazarov, argues that the essential function of zoos—educating the public—is routinely undercut by the propensity for zoo visitors to miss the point of their visit. Subsumed as many families are with entertaining and provisioning young children, the educational value of zoos is quickly lost, thereby undermining the ethical argument for these facilities. As Kazarov writes in her report:
“A more effective means of creating a conservation ethic in visitors is going on nature walks in national parks, spending time in one’s local environment, and building connections with local wildlife. Aboriginal philosophy shows us that knowing and loving one’s local environment enables one to better appreciate other environments, no matter how far removed one is from them. Respect for other living beings is the crux of a strong conservation ethic, and it does not matter whether the being is a zebra from Africa or a wallaby from Australia. . .Understanding the importance of biodiversity in ecosystems and the need to preserve and protect the numerous relationships in the web of life serves to strengthen the conservation ethic.”
One cannot help, though, to return to that enlightening passage in Yann Martel’s novel Life of Pi, in which the young narrator, addressing criticisms of zoos, notes:
“Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. . .”
“A sound zoo . . . is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild; so long as it fulfills the animal's needs, a territory, natural or constructed, simply is, without judgment, a given, like the spots on a leopard. One might even argue that if an animal could choose with intelligence, it would opt for living in a zoo, since the major difference between a zoo and the wild is the absence of parasites and enemies and the abundance of food in the first, and their respective abundance and scarcity in the second."
Zoos do represent the connection between ethics and conservation efforts. A properly-run zoo provides the animals with sufficient space in an appropriate, if artificially-constructed environment, where the animals are safe from natural predators, and where they can be studied with an eye towards the preservation of their species. Yes, that can be done in the wild, and there are certainly zoos in the world that lack the proper amenities for the animals in their care, but the scientific and educational attributes of zoos could be said to outweigh the ethically-questionable nature of their existence.
