THE concept of a modern zoo, where people can observe animals in captivity, is nearly two centuries old. The first modern zoo opened at London’s Regent’s Park in 1828. It was originally meant to be a place to collect animals for scientific study but by 1847, it was opened to the public.
In time, zoos became a common feature of almost every major capital in the world. Indeed for many people, the experience of visiting a zoo and gazing in wonder at the many different animals there is an important part of their childhood. But today, zoos are increasingly viewed as a relic of the past.
Some people even want zoos to be abolished due to animal welfare concerns as well as philosophical concerns about the notion of keeping wild animals for the entertainment of people.
In recent years, some incidents have resulted in renewed calls for zoos to either be radically reimagined or to be closed down altogether. There was that famous incident at the Cincinnati Zoo where a gorilla was shot in order to ensure the safety of a child who had wandered into the gorilla enclosure. That sparked a backlash and a fierce debate on whether wild animals should be held in captivity in the first place.
The movie Blackfish and the activism that followed it resulted in SeaWorld announcing that it would no longer breed orcas. Buenos Aires actually took the gigantic step to close its zoos, with its Mayor Horacio Rodriguez Larreta saying: “Captivity is degrading,” and that the zoo “generates more sadness than happiness.”
So, are zoos doomed? They very well could be unless some radical changes are made. Here are a few things that are changing and being adopted by many modern zoos in an effort to stay relevant.
ANIMAL WELFARE FIRST
The number one priority of zoos of the future will be animal welfare, not human entertainment. If that means creating habitats that are harder for humans to see the animals, so be it.
As such, zoos will begin to look more and more like animal sanctuaries rather than amusement parks where animals are on display. But just because a zoo adopts a sanctuary model doesn’t mean it can’t draw visitors. The Marine Mammal Centre in California and Best Friends Animal Society in Utah are sanctuaries that are also top tourist attractions.
Shifting the focus from visitor experience to animal welfare would mean things simulating environmental situations that are closer to what animals would experience in the wild. This would necessitate allocating far more space to the animals than most conventional zoos would do.
Giving animals more space is one thing. But mimicking or simulating the climate they are used to is quite the other. It’s expensive and difficult to do. As such, it might make more sense to only have animals that are suited to the climate of the locale where the zoo is situated. In the context of a place like the US, that means only northern states would house polar bears in their zoos. It would also mean that a tropical country like Malaysia should not have any polar bears or penguins in its zoo.
This also means zoos will become more niche, keeping far fewer species which are either indigenous or suited to the local climate. Having a smaller zoo is also more practical and allows for more focus. The Wildlife Conservation Society for example, only features a few species of animals: penguins, grizzly bears, snow leopards and harbour seals. Do you notice something about the animals it maintains? They are all from snowy climates.
Certain animals like great apes, elephants, whales and dolphins are just not meant to be kept — even in sanctuary-like situations. They need to be wild because they need so much roaming space that no zoo can possibly provide, given space and budget constraints. So instead, many zoos did the best they could do with the limited space they have and the animals suffer as a result.
“Our amusement and selfish, albeit often well-meaning desire to be close to other species isn’t enough to justify their life-long frustration,” says Ron L. Kagan, CEO of Detroit Zoo in the US.
Ironically the animals that are least suitable to be kept in zoos are often the zoo’s main attractions. Think apes, elephants, whales and dolphins. But in recent years, some zoos, such as Kagan’s, have decided to close down certain exhibits including the elephant exhibit one precisely because the area was simply not big enough.
CONSERVATION-CENTRIC
Almost all zoos have some form of research and conservation programme. Even the very first one, in London’s Regent Park, was originally designed for scientific research of animals. What we will see in the coming years is more and more zoos focusing on the research and conservation side of things and moving away from the entertainment aspect of their industry.
This doesn’t mean that there would be nothing interesting for visitors to see anymore. It’s just that the focus will shift towards education rather than entertainment. As zoological designer Stacey Ludlum puts it: “Every experience at the zoo will be created through the lens of teaching visitors about conservation — especially conservation that the zoo itself is leading. We will see the zoo experience as essentially a visitors’ centre for a conservation organization: a place where we are immersed in the brand of conservation.”
They say that necessity is the mother of invention and this change of focus from easy viewing by visitors to animal welfare and conservation should spark off some creativity and innovation in the way zoos do things. For example, because it will be more difficult to view animals that live in environments closely mimicking their natural environment, clever use of livestreaming could be employed. And to avoid animals being aware that people are watching them, perhaps one-way glass could be used.
The San Diego Zoo is one of the most progressive when it comes to conservation and its Institute for Conservation Research has more than a hundred projects across more than 60 countries. The Toronto Zoo has stated one of its goals is to become a zoo-based “conservation centre of excellence”. In line with this trend, several zoos are also undergoing some form of rebranding. The New York City Zoo for example is now rebranded as the Wildlife Conservation Society.
Zoos that are successfully able to make that transition will survive, and even thrive. Those that won’t will perish. One thing is for certain. A zoo that simply displays animals looking and feeling miserable will not make it.
Let’s hope that many zoos do manage to transform themselves to fit the expectations of today’s society which demands better treatment of animals. Zoos are too important to fail. We need them so people can learn more about wildlife, something that most urbanites do not come across ever, in their daily lives.