Skip navigation

Zoos

The Animal Justice Party (AJP) supports the ongoing evolution of zoos and aquariums to function in the service of animals, rather than supporting the traditional model where animals are kept for public exhibition. Functions may include rescue, health care, rehabilitation and serving as a permanent home for animals where release is impossible. Thus, all zoos and aquariums will join those already evolving to become more like conservation parks and sanctuaries. Captivity, where necessary for individual safety, should be designed as closely as possible to the animal’s natural environment.

Visitors, where allowed, should not adversely impact animals. For the purposes of entertainment and conservation education, we support virtual reality zoos.

Zoos/aquariums are not suitable settings for many animal species.

Key Objectives

  1. Transform activities of zoos and aquariums and phase out those that are contrary to the interests of the animals involved.
  2. Support the development and availability of virtual reality zoos and aquariums.
  3. Develop exit and re-homing strategies for all animals currently in zoos and aquariums and ban the breeding of captive animals except as part of conservation programs.
  4. Support independent studies that assess the quality of life of animals in captivity. Apply the findings of such studies to ensure breeding programs for threatened species still provide a worthwhile quality of life for the animals involved.
  5. Require all operators to disclose the origins and health of animals in their care and prevent the import or export of live animals for commercial gain (see our Live Animal Export Policy).
  6. Standardise and regulate the term ‘sanctuary’, accrediting genuine sanctuaries at no cost.
  7. Introduce stricter wellbeing standards for those animals that are visible to the public because of the stress this can induce. Enforce these standards robustly (see our Animal Law Policy).
  8. Ban the cruel use of animals in performances (see our Animals in Entertainment Policy).
  9. Support animal hospitals, rescuers and carers instead of conventional zoos and aquariums (e.g., see our Wildlife Protection Policy and Veterinary Care Policy).
  10. Assist zoo and aquarium operators who wish to transition to non-harmful forms of entertainment, including virtual reality.
  11. Promote and assist zoos to provide food to visitors and staff that is consistent with animal justice and environmental sustainability, i.e. plant-based.

Background

AJP’s focus is on individuals and their lives. While the AJP believes that species and ecosystems are valuable, we do not believe that individuals should be treated as mere means to conservation ends. For this reason, we do not believe that keeping individuals in sub-optimal conditions or subjecting them to forced breeding, for example, is justified to conserve a species. 

Maintaining habitat to allow animals to thrive should be the focus of conservation. There is no point in breeding animals if there is no social and physical habitat for them to be released to. Zoos prioritise spectacular iconic animals, but do nothing for the other elements that maintain a working ecosystem.

Many different types of facilities hold captive animals, and most claim to care about their wellbeing. Terms such as ‘wildlife park’, ‘wildlife sanctuary’, ‘open range zoo’, ‘animal farm’, ‘aquarium’ and ‘marine park’ are often used interchangeably by operators, making it confusing for well-meaning patrons to see or visit animals ethically. For the purposes of this policy, a zoo is primarily a tourist attraction which displays animals and collects revenue via ticket sales, usually for profit. Animals held in a zoo might have been captured in the wild, bought or traded. Some zoos make an effort to replicate the animals’ natural surroundings, attempt to educate visitors and/or participate in rescue and conservation, while others do not. An aquarium is a zoo for marine or aquatic animals.

Conversely, a sanctuary is a facility dedicated to the rescue and protection of animals. Animals in sanctuaries are not purchased, captured in the wild, bred or traded. A sanctuary operates in the best interests of its resident animals. While some sanctuaries sell tickets, resident animals’ needs are prioritised over patrons’ experience or entertainment, and money raised is used to support ongoing rescue and rehabilitation work.

Often a focus of sanctuaries is to rehabilitate and release their animals, if possible. Sanctuaries may focus on farmed, wild or companion animals who may need a safe and confined environment to live. These definitions, however, are imprecise. For example, despite the above, a sanctuary may purchase animals who are otherwise being sent to slaughter, and a zoo may rehabilitate and rescue some animals. Emphasis should be given to the underlying intention of the activity: whether it is to serve the individual animals or run a business.

Conservation

Zoos claim to promote animal conservation and education. They make two main conservation claims: that they may inform visitors of ecological issues, and that they keep endangered species, eventually to be reintroduced to the wild. Zoos and aquariums have been a point of extended conflict since the late 20th Century. The dispute has been between people who focus on species and people who focus on individuals. More recently, there are attempts within the zoo industry to adhere to ‘Compassionate Conservation’ by trying to find a morally acceptable balance between individual wellbeing and species conservation.

While zoos have been successful at preventing some species from extinction, overall the proportion of zoos’ income on conservation efforts is small. For example, Britain’s non-profit zoos spent on average 4.2% of their 2019 total annual income (excluding grant monies) on in situ conservation. Grant money from external sources represented at least 66% of the total expenditure for this purpose. Further, these zoos had financial reserves to cover the costs of temporary closure for an average period of only 2.7 months. Information about Australian zoos’ expenditure on conservation efforts is not publicly available.

Loss of habitat, climate change and other factors are endangering many species. While zoos are considered to be well positioned to reintroduce threatened species to the wild, the majority of species in zoos are not globally threatened. Further, captive-bred animals designated for release in the wild are mostly birds and mammals. This may reflect a ‘bias towards large, charismatic and iconic species in the living collections of zoos and aquariums, which favour vertebrate species over invertebrates because of their perceived public appeal’. Sadly, many animals bred in captivity die when released into the wild, and most large captive-bred carnivores do not survive when they are returned to their natural habitat.

In zoos, animals spend their lives in captivity and confinement. Clearly, they do not enjoy this as many show obsessive behaviours that are a sign of psychological distress, such as pacing, pulling their hair or plucking feathers, eating faeces, regurgitation, self-biting and mutilation, exaggerated aggressiveness and infanticide. Instead of addressing the cause of the animals’ distress, zoos attempt to control these behaviours with psychoactive drugs such as Prozac.

Healthy animals may be killed because they are considered ‘surplus’, meaning they can no longer be used for breeding or for show. Regardless of how enclosures are ‘enhanced’, they do not allow for freedom of movement, a natural diet or relationships with conspecifics as they would occur in the animal’s natural habitat. The public is becoming increasingly aware of this, and zoos are using conservation claims to soften perceptions of captivity.

Education

A literature review of conservation education in zoos found only weak evidence that visitors learn much at all about conservation and biodiversity or that learning results in behavioural change. From surveys and observations of zoo visitors, one group of researchers concluded that ‘viewing the animals was primarily a social activity, which served to promote social interaction and, in some cases, enabled discussion about a shared conception of the human relationship with animals’. Mostly, zoo visitors are interested in mammals, in animals that are perceived to be entertaining and cute rather than scary or smelly. Conservation and education claims are difficult to reconcile with the interests of zoo visitors.

Immersive technology presents an alternative to zoos that can provide entertainment and conservation education without keeping animals in captivity. The use of virtual reality can bring the viewer close to the animals and their natural habitat. Such a virtual reality zoo was launched in Belgium in 2023. A virtual reality zoo has the added advantage of being a travelling zoo, where visitors can learn the natural behaviours of a wide range of animals close to home. 

Many zoos currently sell food to their visitors that is neither environmentally sustainable nor consistent with animal justice. This undermines their credibility as educators. Zoos should offer plant-based catering to visitors. 

Relevant Policies

Animal Law

Animals in Entertainment

Bats and Flying Foxes 

Dingoes

Kangaroos

Koalas

Live Animal Export

Marine Animals

Native Birds

Platypus

Sharks

Veterinary Care

Wildlife Care

Wildlife Protection

Wombats


Reviewed:  June 2024




Continue Reading

Read More