Why Do We Need Zoos if All They Do is Make Us Sad?

As of June 30, 2016, there were 12,295 threatened animal species in the world — and that’s only what we know of (IUCN). Researchers have added more and more animals to the list each year, and though the causes are different, most of them have a common root: humans. Global frog and toad populations have declined significantly in recent years due to infection by chytrid fungi, which were introduced to amphibian populations through global trade and the invasion of their habitats by humans (Amphibian Ark). The Atlantic puffin is endangered because of hunting, the introduction of new predators, oil spills, tourism, and human overfishing that reduces its food supply (Project Puffin). And south of the equator, African lions like Cecil are in decline because of trophy hunting and other conflict with humans, habitat loss, and the loss of their prey to the bushmeat trade (SciAm “African Lions…”).

Many of these contributions to animal endangerment are environmental. Global warming aside, we have the power to make our cities and towns friendlier to our animal neighbors through policy changes and the federal funding to back it up. Organizations like the National Wildlife Fund work to lobby governmental agencies in the United States for funding and to maintain the Endangered Species Act. On a more local scale, they also send teams to the field to reduce threats to animals and protect and restore habitats (NWF).

These measures can only go so far. Oftentimes, the legislature does not work fast enough and cannot dedicate enough money to the protection of threatened animals. Breed-in-captivity and genetic diversity conservation programs aim to fill the gap in the meantime.

Zoos, veterinary hospitals, and research institutions work on several fronts: rehabilitation, release, and preservation. Sick or injured threatened animals may be captured in the wild and treated at specialized hospitals (Conway). Then, if they’re well enough following treatment, their carers will release them back to their habitats, where they’ll help ensure the success of their species (Snyder). Some species that are already extinct in the wild but still exist in captivity may not be released back to their habitats. Instead, they’re carefully bred in zoos. Zoo directors coordinate with the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, or AZA, to conserve the diversity of each population, sharing animals for more effective breeding. Our 21st-century technology is helping us alleviate the effects of diminished population sizes, too: cryopreservation, or frozen storage, of animals’ genetic material will allow us to propagate many species well into the future (Shepherdson, Fraser, Wielebnowski, Witzenberger).

Zoos are especially crucial to the aims of environmental conservation and breeding in captivity because they’re uniquely positioned as the only conservation-focused institutions that receive state and municipal funding (Conway). According to the AZA, 183 million people visited U.S. zoos in 2015 (AZA). Only 15.5 million passports were issued in the same year (U.S. Travel Department). For many Americans, visiting a zoo will be the closest they come to seeing wildlife and environments from other countries. Zoos can then collect donations from everyday people who are eager to see the animals they’re supporting.

Not all zoos are completely successful, though. Most of us have been to some zoos that are awe-inspiring with active, healthy animals and some zoos where the habitats seem more like cages. Each institution varies in how well it meets its goal of species conservation. For instance, the Como Park Zoo & Conservatory in St. Paul, Minnesota has a generous budget of $10 million for its small size and cares for 37 threatened species, with additional breeding programs happening “behind the scenes” throughout the year (Financial Report & species). The Saint Louis Zoo, a much larger zoo in St. Louis, Missouri, has a stable, quite large budget of $144 million to support its more than 57 threatened species, plus conservation initiatives around the globe and special captive breeding programs (Financial Report & species). Both zoos are free to the general public, but are sustained by strong funding from their state governments and private donations.

However, the Saint Louis Zoo is often ranked among the top ten zoos in the U.S. while the Como Zoo gets little national notice (cite). It may be that the Como Zoo is overshadowed by the larger, better-funded Minnesota Zoo in Apple Valley, MN. Habitats at the Como Zoo are typically natural, with foliage and substrates native to Minnesota. While this may be excellent for the zoo animals native to the Midwest, like wolves and bison, habitats for the polar bears and tigers seem less than ideal. It’s jarring for an ecology-minded visitor to see a tiger pacing beneath an oak tree. The polar bear habitat even includes a large cement box with iron bars.

In contrast, the Saint Louis Zoo’s polar bear habitat includes ice in the winter and substrates that mimic the rocky coasts that polar bears would see in their natural habitat. Tigers and lions have a tall rock formation similar to those they’d climb in the wild. While the Saint Louis Zoo has a much larger budget to work with and can be expected to have more animals with more extensive habitats, it raises the question: should small, municipal zoos like the Como Park Zoo house exotic animals if they cannot pay for the best habitats?