Can zoos offer more than entertainment?

Hard place: Zoos and aquariums are facing criticism for keeping animals in captivity under conditions that might not always match their requirements. (Photograph: Mike Peel www.mikepeel.net.) There’s always something exciting happening at the zoo — some cute little cub being born or making its first steps, or a gorilla taking selfies. The media love the visitor attractions as much as the schoolchildren who are the core audience — as pictures and video footage of attractive-looking animals are so much easier to obtain when said animals are fenced in. On the other hand, there is an equal amount of negative headlines. These arise for instance, when spare animals, such as last year’s cause célèbre, the young giraffe Marius from Copenhagen Zoo, are euthanized just to fit human requirements, or when the entertainment activity at London Zoo extends into the night hours and keeps animals awake and irritated. Criticism of such perceived abuse of the power that humans hold over their animal ‘prisoners’ adds weight to the more fundamental arguments of animal rights campaigners who call for these attractions to be banned on the philosophical principle that sentient beings shouldn’t be held in captivity for the amusement of others. These arguments are particularly resonant for our closest relatives, the great apes, and for cetaceans that are trained to perform. This is a debate that circuses have already lost in many places, and zoos and aquariums could follow in their tracks. Unlike circuses, however, zoos and aquariums claim to make a positive contribution both to biodiversity awareness and to species conservation. As the ongoing man-made extinction will only get worse, this role is bound to get more important and all wildlife attractions may have to adapt to it to demonstrate their ethical credibility.