Behind the glass, onlookers watch in awe as animals from around the world are displayed as living exhibits, oblivious to the harsh realities of their confinement.
Many zoos today advertise their facilities as sanctuaries or conservations, focusing on breeding animals in captivity and then releasing them back into their natural habitat. While in some cases, this notion may hold true, in most, zoos have been known to keep animals in subpar conditions and prioritize profit over animal welfare.
More often than not, enclosures are not suitable sizes for animals, especially for predatory species accustomed to vast territories of space. Captive polar bears, for instance, typically roam more than 1000 square kilometers in the wild yet are confined to enclosures over a million times smaller.
The confinement of these small enclosures can lead to mental distress, a condition commonly referred to as zoochosis. This condition typically develops in animals deprived of space and stimuli, causing them to engage in stereotypical repetitive behaviors as a coping mechanism, eventually leading to severe long-term consequences.
Physical changes in immune systems and brain structures can impair an animal’s ability to function normally, weakening their ability to fight off illnesses and reducing cognitive capacity.
Beyond the psychological and physical toll of captivity, another unethical aspect is the prevalence of inbreeding in zoos. While it is practiced significantly less today due to the implementation of the Species Survival Plan, it remains a recurring issue in smaller zoos that have access to limited resources. According to the National Institute of Health, inbreeding is referred to as mating between individuals of common ancestry. With limited genetic diversity among captive animals, zoos often resort to breeding individuals from the same genetic lines, leading to severe health consequences.
In the wild, animals have the ability to select genetically diverse mates, which helps them maintain strong immune systems and, in turn, improve their chances of survival. However, in captivity, restricted breeding pools result in a decline in genetic diversity. For animals, genetic diversity is vital to increase the species’ chances of survival. When the gene pool gets smaller as a result of inbreeding, animals will have reduced fertility and weakened offspring.
Zoos aware of these repercussions resort to other means of managing genetic diversity, such as the rotation of animals between multiple zoos or genetic testing for informed breeding decisions. However, despite these efforts, some zoos continue to make controversial decisions. Back in 2014, Marius, an 18-month-old giraffe, was shot in the head with a rifle at the Copenhagen Zoo as he was deemed “genetically unsuitable for future captive breeding.” While the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria fully supported the zoo’s decision, the news of Marius’s euthanization sparked outrage internationally.
A petition with over 27,000 signatures was signed in opposition to the killing, and a spokesperson from the Animal Protection of Denmark argued that the decision to euthanize a healthy animal instead of considering relocation was unethical to the conservation ideals zoos claim to uphold.
Although many zoos continue to strive for ethical practices, cases like Marius’ bring speculation as to what is truly considered right and wrong. Regardless of intent, Marius and the countless other animals enclosed in zoos serve as stark reminders that captivity comes with a cost.
