Allison Raeck

In today’s fast-paced, industrialized world, people often feel the natural desire to expose themselves to the wild. At the same time, mankind’s interactions with the actual wild have had some detrimental effects, exploiting many of earth’s natural resources and habitats. Though the human need to feel “wild” and environmental activism may seem drastically different on the surface, the two concepts have the potential to converge for the common good through a single, unifying institution: the zoo. Zoos display various collections of domesticated animals, often native to different areas around the globe. The institution was born out of interest but, gradually, was altered from a part of show business to a tool for environmental change. Still, numerous arguments surround the zoo, and activists have been protesting the captivity of zoo animals for decades under the belief that all living things deserve to be free. Many people disagree with the foundation of the zoo and its holding of animals in captivity, but a view of the institution’s ability to rehabilitate endangered species, educate the public, and emotionally connect visitors with animals reveals that the zoo ultimately serves to create a brighter future for species in need on a scale much broader than what is merely seen behind the glass.

In order to understand the zoo’s overall purpose, it is important to know why the institution itself exists. Though the first official zoo appeared roughly two hundred years ago, mankind’s fascination with the domestication of nonhuman species can be traced back thousands of years (Kisling 5). For centuries, people tamed, trained, and chained animals, for both practical and entertainment purposes. Historically, where there is a developed civilization, there are also groupings of animals held by these people. One of the best known historical cases of domestic animal use is that of the ancient Egyptian obsession with cats. Mummified cats have been dated back as far back as 600-200 B.C., on average, revealing that these people held the feline species in very high regard. In addition, ancient Egyptian paintings and figures repeatedly display the same type of ginger-colored cat, sometimes shown resting in a noble’s home and dressed in jewels (Morrison-Scott). This domestication and dressage shows that the human fascination with animal species is nothing new. Further emphasizing this point, other ancient cultures show evidence of animal enthrallment, often using various species as sources of amusement. People of high status in the Roman Empire, often emperors, statesmen, and governors, often held collections of exotic animals from around the globe, and it is reported that Alexander the Great held around eleven thousand animals in his collection (Rothfels 13). Historical analysis of animal domestication shows that mankind’s obsession with the non-human is not only a critical part of social culture but also a result of a deep emotional need to expose oneself to the wild.

It is because of this emotional connection to the wild that humans gave rise to what we know as the modern zoo. In the late nineteenth century, much of the world faced an industrial boom, causing many individuals to move away from rural farming areas and toward the factories found in urban cities (Kalof 101). Not only did this time period bring a major shift toward manufacturing but, additionally, it strengthened the human desire to witness what exists outside urban centers. Channeling this desire, the first zoo as we know it today appeared in England when the Zoological Society of London opened its zoological gardens in Regent’s Park in 1828 (Malamud 96). This establishment became the archetypical zoo, setting the stage for many more to come in various international locations.

Later, at the start of the twentieth century, American zoos developed in far excess of anything that would have been imagined at the zoo’s conception. Zoos during this time had many societal impacts, especially for people living in large cities. In the 1920s, zoos existed to provide the public with a view of nature and to “cure the moral ills of society” (Hardner). These ills included many of the social changes occurring during this time, and many zoo founders and city administrators alike believed that the zoo would be a way to re-create the image of family seen in the past, bringing people together in a positive setting. Later, during the Great Depression in America, zoos helped citizens to “forget their struggles for a while through simple amusement” (Creedon). In this way, zoos during the Great Depression were much more than simple parks but, more importantly, outlets for distraction, allowing American citizens to socialize and experience happiness in a time when it was needed more than ever.

However, though early twentieth century zoos may have been granting pleasure to the human visitors, they certainly were not pleasing the animals they housed. In early zoos, animal welfare was low priority; many did whatever it took to obtain animals and attract visitors (Hardner). Often located in urban areas and without abundant space for habitat expansion, many zoos neglected the animal ranges seen in the wild and, instead, provided enclosures based on how much land they could provide. Owners rarely looked to nature as a source of habitat inspiration but relied mythological stimulus and architectural copybooks when designing animal enclosures (Malamud 99). As part of fierce competition to attract visitors, zoo owners—who usually did not usually have any direct knowledge of the wild nor any interest in learning it—focused their efforts on looking “grander and more opulent” than their rivals, copying their every move (Malamud 97). In the 1930s, architect Berthold Lubertkin designed many modernistic animal enclosures for British zoos, one of his most famous works being the elephant display at the Whipsnade Zoo in Bedfordshire, England. This exhibit included smooth concrete planes surrounded by a moat of water, displaying an elephant on each plane. Though this design literally prohibited the elephants for walking even one step, it was perceived as “radical” and was praised by many design professionals (Eisley 29). In time, however, people have noticed the inhumanity of this exhibit, and it is now considered to have represented “some of the worst aspects of enclosing animals for public display” of its time (Malamud 103). Since the zoo industry was rapidly growing and competition was strong in the early twentieth century, cutting-edge habitat designs were a necessary element to a zoo’s survival.

In addition to the present artistic habitat design found in these early zoos, many overlapped with another competitive field: show business. In the midst of a rapidly growing market, many owners attempted to discover exciting new methods to bring in visitors, especially later in this time period when the initial entertainment from a simple animal display had worn off. In the 1940s and 50s, zoos often showcased animals performing strange and unusual talents, most of which were unnatural and unhealthy (Fox 23). Though one of the goals of the early zoo was to provide the urban public with a view of nature, animal shows presented animals in extremely unnatural situations. One popular exhibit seen in 1950s zoos was the chimpanzee show, a perfect example of the intensely manipulative attitude that was so common in early zoos (Malamud 111). Because they are so similar to humans in both appearance and behavior, it is not surprising that chimpanzees were often exploited in various shows, most of which focused heavily on animal personification as a source of humor. The shows displayed chimpanzees dressed similarly to Tour de France cyclists, characters from James Bond, and even ordinary suburban people, shown using such props as newspapers and pipes, and drinking cups of tea (Malamud 115). Expanding from the subject of chimpanzees, the St. Louis Zoo drew in large crowds from the personification of more dangerous species, such as lions and tigers (Anderson 250). These animals, though fierce and intimidating in the wild, provided zoo-goers with amusement and laughs and were sometimes even dressed up in costume (Malamud 104). Similar to the circus, many zoos of this time used questionable training methods, including whipping animals for behaving out of line and refusing to feed an animal until a certain task was completed (Anderson 251). Though these methods were obviously unethical, no formal legal laws prevented their practice. Therefore, animal abuse was common in modern zoos, especially when competition for visitors was high. Each zoo had to provide something more extraordinary than the last, causing them to disregard what is ethical and focus more on what would draw in customers and make a profit (Nibert). Though the training necessary for animals to perform variety acts and the utter artificiality of the shows themselves were obvious forms of abuse to animals, zoo owners mostly ignored this and, instead, attempted to create humorous and entertaining acts, whatever the moral costs.

Because of their ill-fitting habitats and intense methods training, zoo owners faced constant vacancies from the ongoing death of the animals entering their abusive environments. With large numbers of animals to transport across the globe and very little time to show empty cages, owners often obtained exotic animals “by any means necessary,” disregarding an animal’s well-being in catching and in transportation (Kisling 84). To capture an animal, a team of hunters, who typically specialized in obtaining exotic animals to be sold into the entertainment industry, usually employed destructive and violent methods. In 1914, a “code of catching” was developed in response to criticism, stating that animal capturers should “share a deep love of nature and animals” (Rothfels 53). Regardless, of these people still used violent methods, many of which likely were not recorded. In transport, animals were sent overseas on large steamboats, often in large groups and in small cages, sometimes disallowing an animal to stand up straight (Kisling 70). Once overseas, these captured animals were sold to “animal dealers,” who sold various creatures from the wild to zoo owners, circus organizers, and wealthy individuals with personal menageries, thriving from the booming exotic animal market (Rothfels 47). At this time, everyone seemed to be winning from the animal trade market; capturers had jobs, dealers made large sums of money, zoo owners sold tickets, and visitors had a new source of entertainment. The only factor everyone seemed to be forgetting was, ironically, the well-being of the animals themselves.

However, the forgotten status of domesticated animals would not last long. In the mid to late nineteenth century, organized efforts addressing the humane treatment and care for animals were seen at the forefront of society, setting the stage for the Animal Rights Movement that lives on today (Silberman). This movement emphasized the rights of all animals and targeted the practices of scientific animal testing, recreational animal training, and domestication in general (Bostock 23). Though the American organized humane movement began in 1869 with Henry Bergh’s creation of the American Society to Prevent Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), this movement did not fully take off until the 1960s, a time of abundant social change (Silberman). In this decade, the plight of animals became “a broader cultural and political concern,” and critics often regarded the zoo as a problem, rather than a solution (Donahue 6). In the midst of many hunting conservation groups that believed animals should be managed to benefit humans, a different string of conservationists appeared, with the overall well-being of animals as the primary concern. These groups would not only change the specific treatment of animals in zoos but, also, they would alter the overall purpose of the zoo, shifting the institution from displaying a focus on entertainment to displaying a focus on conservation.

In doing this, activist groups took political action to express their concerns. Though they did not perceive zoos to be threats to animals, the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) worked to convince governments to better protect animals, especially regarding endangered species (Donahue 12). Endangered species are types of plants and animals that will definitely go extinct unless conservation efforts are implemented (Freeman 870). The AAZPA called for and reacted favorably to two conservation bills of the 1960s: the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966 and the Endangered Species Conservation Act in 1969. These acts authorized the creation of various wildlife refuges and combatted the illegal animal trade, founding international restrictions on the trade of endangered species (Donahue 12). They also forced the Secretary of the Interior to create an endangered species list, a critical component continually used by zoologists and conservationists alike today (Donahue 17). Additionally, to create healthy environments in zoos themselves, the AAZPA proposed that zoos “impose responsible self-discipline upon themselves and . . . cooperate with international conservation groups and zoo associations in other countries” to prevent the importation of species that were considered to be critically endangered (Donahue 27). To emphasize this point, the organization created a species blacklist, which was a list of animals that were not to be held captive. Though many zoos likely disregarded the AAZPA’s action and continued their abusive, commercial practices, the formation of the association spurted a very important shift for zoos everywhere and also spread animal rights awareness among the public.

In the midst of various activist groups, such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) which was formed in 1980, the general public saw abusive zoo practices as disturbing rather than amusing (Finsen 95). In this way, the Animal Rights Movement provided zoos with a system of checks and balances, as their traditional, abusive practices would no longer be supported by the newly sympathetic public. Because of the changes implemented in the 1960s, the zoo today is vastly different from those seen as recent as thirty years ago; no longer is entertainment a main priority but, instead, zoos focus on educating their visitors as well as conserving the species they house. Though the human desire to see wild animals still exists, this desire is generally ore genuine, and trends prove that people generally enjoy seeing animals in as close to a natural state as possible, rather than in extremely artificial situations, such as the chimpanzee shows seen in the early twentieth century (Finsen 104). Activism and altered beliefs have greatly changed the zoo, and gradually formed the positive zoo structure displayed today.

The modern day zoo’s focus on animal rights boldly contrasts that of those as little as fifty years ago, thus revealing growing legitimacy. One critical difference between the modern zoo and its predecessors is profit motive. In the past, zoos used questionable entertainment shows to attract visitors, as part of such a competitive industry (Malamud 100). Today, however, there is not as strong inter-zoo competition because ticket sales do not matter as much as they used to; on average, zoos today gain less than 20 percent of their overall revenue from admission fees, since grants, memberships, and donations provide the majority of their overall revenue (Stone). Zoos today rely heavily on a small number of large donors, including state and local governments, for their own operating budget (Stone). Funding for zoos from government and private donations, entrance fees, and merchandising work together to mainly support the animals they house rather than to profit individuals. Additionally, in contrast to what was seen in the past, most zoo directors today do not come from business backgrounds but, rather, are zookeepers, veterinarians and other individuals with wildlife interest (Turley 6). Thus, owners are more likely to care less about profit and, instead, operate with knowledge and concern for animals themselves. Unlike many recreation-based companies, such as theme parks and circuses, zoos primarily use donations rather than admission fees to support the species they house rather than the people who own them (Finsen 51). Monetary intake is usually used to aid in rehabilitation of endangered species in the wild, contribute to zoological research, and to comfortably accommodate those species currently living in zoos. In this way, more attention is placed on ultimately serving animals than paying zoo owners.

Following this focus on general animal well-being in zoos, most institutions work hard to provide habitats that properly accommodate the specific needs of each species. No longer are the days of barred cages for every animal, disallowing them to even move around. Instead, modern zoos make substantial efforts to represent the natural habitats of the species they house. In promoting rehabilitation as well as the overall happiness of an animal, habitat is an important factor when developing their aesthetics, rather than what is artistically pleasing to the human eye. Though placed in enclosed areas to prevent animals from wandering off, zoos should provide each animal with a living space emulating its natural habitat. For example, the San Diego Zoo’s giant panda exhibit currently includes various bamboo plants and climbing structures, mimicking what this type of animal would experience in the wild (Bitgood). Habitat sizes are regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, which sets strict guidelines on enclosure sizes for each species (Animal Welfare Information Center 12). Intense focus on living environments in zoos today reveals that zoo owners attempt, to the best of their ability, to bring the wild to the animals they hold in captivity.

As part of providing animals with positive living environments, zoos often do not neglect an animal’s mental health. The transition from roaming free to living in a small enclosure may cause stress among some animals, often leading to physical and mental damage that is shown through repetitive compulsions such as rhythmic pacing and head nodding (Fox 147). Though domestication can potentially result in mental health issues in an animal, zoos take specific preventative measures to combat this. An important component of an animal’s mental health is its social life, and the Animal Welfare Act claims that the breeding patterns seen in the wild should be a fundamental objective in forming zoo habitats (Animal Welfare Information Center 19). This regulates which species are kept in solitude, tracking social patterns seen in the wild and then implementing accurate animal ratios. Furthermore, to track an animal’s happiness and adjustment to the zoo living environment, zoologists can measure the amount of cortisol (a hormone secreted in times of stress) present in an animal’s urine or feces (Animal Welfare Information Center 20). This information could indicate whether or not changes must be made in an animal’s living environment, keeping its overall happiness a main priority.

Additionally, similar to the monitoring of an animals’ happiness, zoos also carefully monitor the breeding patterns of animals in order to create the healthiest possible offspring. In a zoo, it is obvious that there are a limited number of animals and, therefore, a limited amount of biodiversity. Critics today claim that, since animals are free to breed with whomever they choose in the wild, the limited gene pool seen in the zoo results in unhealthy offspring (Bostock 72). A lack of genetic diversity can have a devastating long-term effect on a population’s health, as small gene pools are more likely to result in destructive mutation, spread of disease, and increased fertility issues (Freeman 478). Adversaries consider this evidence justification for leaving all species in their natural geographic locations. However, zoos today create genetic diversity through a method known as “shifting,” in which animals from one zoo are transported to another (Donahue 53). This process of moving individual animals between certain gene pools creates variation in zoo populations, mimicking mating behaviors of the wild, and promotes healthy, diverse offspring.

Various structures of the modern-day zoo reveal how far the institution has come from its questionable beginnings. Still, many anti-zoo activists today pose the question: why does the zoo even exist? They wonder why, if zoo owners are trying to help animals, they keep them in zoos rather than simply freeing them. However, the zoo today serves many purposes, some of which are not easily noticed to the common visitor. In addition to the way the actual structure of zoos has changed for the better, regarding monetary intake, animal habitats, and breeding patterns, the institution’s overall purpose has changed as well.

One main goal of zoos today is to help combat the endangerment of certain species, many of which trace back to human-induced causes. Though anti-zoo activists argue that animals should be left in their natural locations, they neglect to realize that many of these locations have become unsafe due to human activities. Therefore, housing these endangered animals in zoos is a necessary action in counteracting mankind’s negative effect on the wild. To implement this, zoos in the United States promote various Species Survival Plans (SSPs) coordinated by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. These plans, which currently pertain to 181 different species, help ensure the survival of animals in zoos and aquariums which are endangered or threatened in the wild (Donahue 51). Additionally, SSPs have rehabilitated eight species in the past three decades, including the red wolf, black-footed ferret, and California condor (Stone). Without the established plans, there is a large chance that these species would have been lost forever, not due to natural causes but mainly because of irresponsible human practices.

Specifically, two human activities justifying the rehabilitation of endangered species in zoos are habitat destruction and poaching. Today, habitat loss is considered a “significant issue” for over 90 percent of endangered species living in terrestrial environments (Freeman 1111). This loss is caused by rapid deforestation, specifically in rainforests, where diversification of species is particularly high. Deforestation entails the removal of large amounts of trees to clear land for non-forest use and to utilize the trees for human projects (Freeman 1113). Recently, the practice has been continuing at an alarming rate; according to a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the world’s forests saw a net loss of approximately 8.9 million hectares in 2004 alone (Fargione). In the favor of zoos, locating animals displaced by deforestation is oftentimes not very difficult; for example, after the clearing of Australian eucalyptus forests, it is common for koalas to roam back to the location of their previous home, often finding cleared ground and no trees in which to live (Shukla). When not combatted by zoos, this habitat loss results in obvious decreases in animal populations, which is detrimental when affecting those species—such as koalas—that are already threatened or endangered.

A similarly devastating human practice combatted by zoos is poaching, the illegal or unlawful taking of animals from their natural habitats, often in the forms of hunting, trapping, fishing, and harvesting (Freeman 1114). Computer models prove that even a slight amount of poaching in an endangered group can threaten its entire population. For example, consider the computer simulation study done by Maine’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife: the simulation studies reveal that, if poachers killed just ten tigers in a certain population every year for three years straight, the group would have approximately a 20 percent chance of extinction. However, if the number of tigers poached each year were to rise to 15, the group would then face a startling 50 percent chance of extinction, a drastic increase considering the loss of a mere five tigers (Guillaume). This study shows that the illegal hunting of endangered species, whether for their fur, meat, or tusks, greatly affects the population’s rate of extinction, even when only small amounts are concerned. By rehabilitating commonly poached species in zoos, humans are helping to offset the hunting-induced damage seen in the wild. Though it is true that there are many factors beyond human control that negatively affect endangered populations, such as competition with native species, natural disturbances, and the fact that certain species have very narrow niches, transporting at-risk or previously harmed animals to zoos is a way of repairing the damage humans have already done.

Not only do zoos today aid in offsetting negative human practices in the wild but, additionally, they inform the public of these problems in hopes of lowering abusive commonality. In contrast to the simple name labels seen on the cages of most early twentieth century zoos, zoos today go to great lengths to teach the public about the natural habitats, behaviors, and lifestyles of the species they house. Common forms of information sharing are elaborate informative panels outside cages, often displaying maps of the animal’s natural habitat and explaining their risk of endangerment (Morgan). More recently, education outlets have spread from displaying text to using interactive, play-oriented methods to appeal to younger children, such as puzzles and games around animal enclosure, making the institution a popular destination for many school field trips (Morgan). This focus on appealing to children works to implant important ideas of conservation in a whole new generation of individuals, serving as a type of investment of inspiration which could ultimately create a brighter future for animals.

For example, to appeal to younger generations, the Cleveland Metropolis Zoo’s rainforest exhibit includes a path for visitors to follow that includes various pictures, sound recordings, and statistics explaining the negative consequences of deforestation. This particular exhibit, according to its creators, was scripted to “cultivate care and a sense of urgency” among the general public and to inform them of mankind’s environmental damage (Creedon). Similarly, the Detroit Zoo includes an exhibit entitled “Chimpanzees are our Closest Relatives,” (Darragh). This exhibit not only exposes the public to the chimpanzee but also helps them to better understand what it means to be human. Interactive text boxes around the exhibit explain that chimpanzees are endangered and, in one box, states that the species’ biggest predator is “humans” (Darragh). This particular knowledge would not only educate visitors on the existence of the species they are viewing but also on what they can do to help create change.

Taking this concept a step farther, in some areas, education is not just a general factor seen in zoos but, also, a legally enforced practice. Under the Zoo Licensing Act, all zoos in Great Britain are required to maintain animal welfare and undertake conservation and research measures, but also to educate the public who elect to visit the zoo. If a zoo fails to meet these requirements, authorities can impose license conditions to require improvements in certain areas or even close entire establishments (Cooper). This enforcement emphasizes that education is a critical element to any zoo, as the sharing of conservation knowledge to such a wide variety of visitors has the potential to not only protect the animals it houses but also to inspire entire generations of people to create change regarding negative human environmental practices.

While zoos do take many measures to inform the public on various environmental issues, opponents of the zoo today argue that this could be done just as well through alternate practices that do not involve actual animals, such as wildlife documentaries and biology classes. While these outlets do have the potential to educate, there is a certain connection provided by seeing animals live that cannot be replicated through other mediums. Zoo enthusiasts argue that the natural presentation of the “wild” is something that only live animals can provide, and that live animals produce wonder, the framework of creating change (Creedon). The experience of wonder defined by the wild simply cannot be gained from watching a wildlife documentary on television or even by learning about animals in school. Anthropologist and philosopher Loren Eisley said that “one does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than a human,” stressing the importance of human empathy for animal species (Eisley 48). By witnessing various animal species face-to-face in a zoo, people are better able to understand the necessity of environmental protection. Through this inter-special awareness, humans also become more self-aware. A quote from the Vietnamese Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, displayed in the Detroit Zoo’s “Arctic Ring of Life” exhibit, emphasizes this point; it says, “I see myself in all species, and I see all species in me” (Darragh). Once humans attend a zoo and are able to understand their close relation to other animals, they can better sympathize for other species and are more likely to do something about negative human environmental practices.

Although the zoo serves many purposes, including conservation, education, and promoting inter-special awareness, the institution has its own flaws as well, which are heavily emphasized by zoo protest groups today. Opponents argue that, while zoos may do some good for animals overall, the fact that they still limit the freedom living beings demoralizes the entire institution (Finsen 101). This belief is especially upheld today by PETA, which has gained continual media attention since its founding in 1980 for its unique and extremist forms of protest, and the organization is commonly known for its animal-masked pickets outside various zoos (Atkins-Sayre). Additionally, as it is difficult to measure every aspect of every zoo, it is probable that some locations are not up to standard, especially in “roadside zoos” with lower budgets (Finsen 103). Though positive aspects of zoos today are generally recognized, protest against the institution continues and likely will continue on the grounds of the general ethics of captivity.

Though the institution may receive protest, the zoo ultimately serves as a positive element of society. From its origins as a source of utter human entertainment to the institutes for conservation and education seen today, the zoo has developed immensely and altered its focus from pleasing its owners to pleasing the animals. Today, zoos are an example of the ethical use of animals as entertainment, as they fill the human desire to be wild while catering to the needs and ultimate benefits to of the animals involved. Yes, opponents argue that housing any living being against its will is unethical; but what if that captivity is used to protect an animal from human dangers, inspire the public to create change, and potentially save an entire species? On the surface, to those who oppose the zoo, a chimpanzee in an enclosure may simply be an enslaved being. However, to those who understand the broader benefits the zoo can provide, that chimpanzee is an open window to nature, and the face of environmental change. In order to bring people to the cause of animal rights, they must have a real connection to the animals that need to be saved. The face-to-face element of the zoo provides visitors with a certain intimacy that no book, movie, or lesson could provide, making the experience as well as the environmental message of the zoo very much alive and relevant.