US zoo model is broken, and no new accreditation will repair it

Americans love animals. That is perhaps the one point on which Robin Ganzert is correct (“Zoos and aquariums vital to global conservation,” June 14, The Hill’s Congress Blog). Americans do not, however, love animal suffering and threats to human health and safety, which are inherently and shockingly prevalent in the American zoo model she so passionately defends. 

In recent weeks, we have seen one tragic and dangerous incident after another in the U.S.: the killing of Harambe the gorilla and Rebel the wolf and the simultaneous injuries and potentially fatal risk to children; the escape of Zeya the leopard; and the partial tail amputation of Zawadi the lion after he was caught in a hydraulic door. Each of these was the result of negligence, and each of these illustrates that there is no foolproof, safe way to maintain wild animals within an unnatural zoo enclosure. Born Free USA’s Exotic Animal Incidents database contextualizes these recent events with startling statistics: at accredited zoos since 2000, there have been 77 attacks resulting in a human injury and eight resulting in human death, 42 animal deaths at the hands of humans, and a whopping 107 animal escapes. 

{mosads}While “public education” is often touted as justification for such risky displays, this excuse relies on the assumption that simply seeing wild animals up close, in an artificial environment, fosters an appreciation for the animals in the wild and thus encourages conservation. However, no research supports this assumption. Studies have shown that the average visitor spends as little as 12 seconds and no more than two minutes at the typical animal exhibit. There is no educational value in seeing wild animals in unnatural settings. Similarly, “conservation” is an empty promise. Captive-bred zoo animals are hardly ever released into the wild, and therefore cannot ever have a positive impact on wild populations. Tens of millions of dollars go into enclosure construction, while precious little goes into field conservation. 

Contrary to Ganzer’s claims, we don’t need the American Humane Association (AHA) to analyze and accredit zoos. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums already operates an accreditation program, and while they allow us to technically separate “good” zoos from “bad,” it has become clear that accreditation does not solve these myriad problems. The AHA is not going to bring any greater protection for animals or people by giving or withholding their blessing to a certain zoo, and the arrogance to suggest otherwise is astounding.

From Kate Dylewsky, program associate, Born Free USA, Washington, D.C.