Marc Bekoff's blog at Psychology Today has a post entitled Zoos and Aquariums do not accomplish what they claim to do. He brings up the issue that animals living in captivity often live compromised lives, and notes that African elephants have shorter lifespans in captivity versus the wild. He addresses a study conducted by the AZA that concluded that zoos were succeeding in their education goals, as well a study critiquing it's conclusions based on methodological issues.
There's a lot of complex issues raised in Bekoff's post that I'd like to address, but unfortunately I'm just about to head off to the AAPAs, so I don't have time. I also have not had a chance to read either of these studies, which I would like to to do. Nonetheless, since it brings up a lot of topics I'd like to tackle in the near, I'd like to outline some of the questions raised, which I hope to explore in future posts.
First, underlying Bekoff's post is the issue of whether it is ethical to keep the animals in captivity. This is an important issue in itself, and it's one I would like to examine in more detail. This, of course, is dependent on 1) the conditions of captivity (which can vary largely), 2) the health and welfare of the animals (which also will vary largely by species), and 3) the benefits of captivity (ie,in this case whether zoos are achieving their goals).
To address the health and welfare of captive animals, in my next post(s), I'd like to examine these questions in detail using two examples, African elephants and spider monkeys (surprise, surprise). While I was originally tempted to use "primates" as a broader category, there's so much variation (consider the space, enrichment, and social requirements needed for chimpanzees, vs. marmosets) that it's probably best just to focus on what I know best, and perhaps just comment how the situation may vary for other primates.
Second, Bekoff's posts is particularly addressing whether zoos are achieving their goals. While his post, and the two studies mentioned, both focus on education, I think we should also consider the other goals of zoos and aquariums: research, conservation, and, (arguably) entertainment. How important are each of these goals? And how are zoos successfully achieving these goals, or how are they falling short of them?
While I hope to address those questions in another post, for now, I'd like to raise some questions to my readers:
1) Do you believe that it is justified to keep wild animals in zoos and aquariums? Do your opinions vary based on taxa considered, or which goals are being achieved?
2) Do you feel that zoos have educated you or otherwise influence you?
3) Out of the three main zoo goals (education, conservation, research), how well do you think zoos address each of these? Are there any particular successes or shortcomings that you are aware of?
4) How does entertainment fit into these goals, and how important is this a consideration? If zoogoers go do the zoo as a recreational activity, are they get anything out of it?
I personally feel that zoos have played an important role in influencing my decision to pursue primatology, my education as a primatologist/behavioral endocrinologist, and in providing opportunities for my own research. Nonetheless, I do think the health and welfare of the animals in captivity should be a top priority, and if zoos cannot provide an adequate environment for a given taxa, we need to reconsider whether it is ethical to keep those animals in captivity. Furthermore, I think that zoos have lofty goals, but we need to critically examine how well they are achieving them, and question if they are really fulfilling their mission. But most importantly, I think that we need to examine these issues, and then, address the hard part: if they are falling short, how can this be remedied? What are the best solutions?
And on that note, I'm off to New Mexico. I'm hoping to visit the Rio Grande Zoo while I'm there, and I'll keep ruminating on these questions while I'm there.