GP MARCH ASSESSMENT C2 - Individual Report; Final Draft

Center Number: PK243

Candidate Name: Anns Khurram

Candidate Number: 0063

Topic: 6 - Humans and Other Species

Word Count: 1762 words

Research Question: Should Zoos be Used as a Method of Animal Conservation in the 21st Century?

Introduction:

National Geographic defines a zoo as “a place where animals live in captivity and are put on display for people to view…”(1). From 1970 to today, the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) has reported a 69% decrease in wildlife populations worldwide(2). Due to habitat loss caused by deforestation and climate change, many of today’s species are on the verge of extinction. Because of this, the role of zoos in modern times is now much more important than ever before, as they provide a safe-haven for many of these endangered species until they can return to the wild. However, recent events such as the death of the elephant Noor Jehan in Karachi(3) has once again sparked the debate about whether animals should be kept in most zoos around the world, as many are too ill-equipped to properly care for many of these animals. This report analyzes both viewpoints of the debate; one arguing that zoos can help shelter animals and provide important scientific data for their repopulation into the wild, and the other arguing about

the ineffectiveness of this method and how it is more harmful for the animals to be kept in captivity.

Arguments For:

This perspective believes it is beneficial for endangered species to be kept in zoos, and how important scientific research done there can help reintroduce the species into the wild.

One argument is that endangered species should be brought into captivity, where they are in a safe environment without any risk of poachers, habitat loss, starvation, or predators. Then, through the use of breeding programs, help the species repopulate and return back into the wild.

As such, animals should be kept in zoos. Donal Smith, lead author at ZSL’s Institute of Zoology said: “Without […] dedicated organizations and their conservation efforts, we would have already lost species like scimitar-horned oryx, several Polynesian tree snails, and the yellow flowering toromiro.”(4) This is further backed by The Society for Conservation Biology who found that between 2010 and 2020, conservation efforts made by organizations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF) and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums(AZA) had prevented the extinction of upwards of 25 bird and mammal species.(5) They also found that without these conservation efforts, the rate of extinction today would be around 25 times higher.

All this points to how places where animals can be sheltered safely, like zoos, should be

proves his opinion is a reliable perspective, further strengthening the argument. Moreover, breeding programs at zoos are one of the few ways for endangered species to artificially repopulate before being reintroduced into the wild(7).

One additional argument is that zoos can help produce important scientific research. Supported by PhD candidate and zoo research coordinator Louis Lazure who states: “Having diverse animals in the same place allows to conduct multi-species comparative research,”(8) and how zoos allow us to study rare and endangered species that may otherwise be difficult to study in the wild. By having animals in controlled environments, zoos can study animal physiology and behavior to provide insight on various topics like disease or animal preservation. Indeed one such use case of zoo research is disease prevention. As many animal diseases can be contracted by humans as well, it is imperative that zoos be more interested in helping track the spread of pandemics in animals. Already, the US government has drafted urban zoos to keep surveillance on animals in their collection for disease(9). As government action has been taken, this further strengthens the credibility of the argument.

The argument relating to saving endangered species from extinction is stronger than the argument that zoos provide invaluable scientific data because it has a much larger impact. While it is true that the research produced by zoos has helped save multiple species from extinction, research on wildlife can take place outside of zoos just as well. Maybe not as easily because of the controlled environment zoos provide, but in the case of well populated species zoos are not a necessity. However if zoos do not shelter endangered species and help breed them, as shown above, there is a much higher risk of extinction of these animals.

Arguments Against

This perspective believes that animals should not be kept in zoos, and that zoos do not help conserve endangered species.

The major reason that people are opposed is due to the amount of malpractice and negligence that takes place in many of these zoos. Proof of this is that it is very common for captive animals to die earlier than their normal life spans due to the stress and negligence they receive(10).

Animals are kept in confined spaces with little maintenance and may be forced to perform in front of people. All this, coupled with a subpar diet(11) will deteriorate the animal’s mental well being and eventually lead to an illness known as ‘zoochosis’(12), whereafter the animal will start exhibiting stereotypical behavior, shuffling around aimlessly, or hyper-aggressive behavior.

Another sign is maternal neglect, where the animal will no longer care for its young. This sort of animal treatment is especially common in urban or roadside zoos that do not possess the funding to properly facilitate these animals. This can be seen here in Pakistan where recently, an elephant collapsed in Karachi zoo after reaching critical condition(13). The zoo was ill-equipped to deal with the situation and due to lack of trained professionals, the elephant sadly passed away.

However even if the animal somehow lives a healthy, albeit stagnant life, it will eventually be “management-euthanized” in most zoos for “becoming surplus”(14) because it will no longer be useful to breed with or will take up space for other animals and will no longer be monetarily profitable for the zoo. The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria(EAZA) estimates that between 3,000 - 5,000 healthy animals are euthanized every year in Europe(14).

A course of action for these blatant malpractices is to implement government regulations and mandates regarding where zoos should be built and how they should be managed. Preferably, the government should incentivize construction of zoos in more open, sprawled out areas instead of roadside zoos by offering more funding. Moreover, standards should be adopted for how zoos should manage their animals to ensure negligence does not occur through routine check-ups and hefty fines for non-compliance. A standard to follow could be one similar to the accreditation requirements of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums(15). This sort of method would be very easily implemented, and by no longer allowing zoos to profit from animal cruelty, will get rid of the problem entirely. While the cost may be slightly higher, this a long term solution for the wellbeing of these animals. This course of action is further strengthened by the fact that the government of Pakistan, after the death of the elephant Nur Jehan, has started implementing these methods(16).

Another reason to keep animals out of zoos is their lack of effectiveness in helping reintroduce the species into the wild. Animals that are kept in captivity change physiologically and no longer possess the instincts or hunting skills to thrive in the wild. Moreover these animals also get very familiar with humans, and when reintroduced into the wild no longer are scared of humans(17).

All this results in the animals dying because of being poached by humans or hunted by other animals. This view is further supported by University of Exeter PhD student Kristen Jule, who says: “Their lack of hunting skills and their lack of fear towards humans, for example, are major disadvantages(18).” A study conducted by the University of Exeter proved that 60% of carnivores released back into the wild died(18), with a majority of deaths caused by humans, followed by disease and starvation.

The argument about malpractice in zoos is stronger than all others as it has the most reach of impact and is more morally susceptible. Companies run modern day zoos as businesses first and foremost, not research centers or animal centers. Because of this, as stated before, if it is more profitable for them to put down a perfectly healthy animal, then they will openly do it. Not only does this violate animal rights and is ethically wrong, but it directly goes against their claims of conservation by mass genocide. While it is true that there is less success with reintroducing animals into the wild, with advancements in technology and scientific understanding, this issue will be resolved much easier. Not only this, the argument is further strengthened by renowned organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals(PETA) and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums(AZA).

CONCLUSION

Before conducting research, I - like much of the public - was not aware of the blatant violation of animal rights that zoos were committing on a daily basis. From the negligence to these animals kept captive in small enclosures all their lives, to how common animals were culled or 'management-euthanized'. After research however, I also gained foresight into the benefits of zoos and how massively they help in conserving wildlife, through breeding programs and repopulation or through their monitor of disease and the scientific data they provide. As such, from a global perspective, objectively looking at how helpful zoos are at the survival of these species and prevention of their extinction, I can say that zoos are undoubtably helpful for the continued existence of many of these species that may otherwise have no longer existed due to other factors mentioned earlier. But even so, from the perspective of an animal rights activist,

modern zoos are an ethically wrong method of conservation. Objectively speaking, you cannot overlook the cruelty that takes place in these places. But these to me are a necessary evil when comparing the far more beneficial advantages to disadvantages. If the course of action I recommended above is followed by a majority of the world, then I believe that in time even the cruelty will end. Thus in conclusion, zoos are undoubtably more beneficial for animals.