As a child, going to the zoo was one of my favorite things to do and anytime I went with my family I had nothing but fun and positive experiences. The thought of the zoo was paired with a mental picture of beautiful, exotic and fascinating creatures that intrigued me and allowed me to imagine what other places of the world may be like. It was paired with the pure excitement, curiosity and happiness that my young, naive self contained when I was at the zoo. However, it was not until this past year that I was introduced to the fact that there are actually many negative aspects to the zoo. My viewpoint changed drastically when I attended the zoo in South Carolina and greatly offended a friend of mine. I excitedly told my friend that I was going to the zoo, but he replied asking me if I knew how poorly the animals were treated. By the end of our conversation, I was disgusted by the information he gave me. I felt so guilty for ever enjoying the zoo because to my surprise, it turned out that animals in captivity were taken from their habitats, forced into confinement and deprived of their free will. I immediately wanted to research how this could be stopped and who was fighting against these issues. I learned a lot about animal rights activists and their viewpoints on the situations, and I wanted to know what else I could to do make a difference. 

Many activists are saying that we should get rid of zoos all together because they are enslaving animals; however, I believe that there are two sides to the problem that is captivity. There are problems regarding the principle of captivity and there are problems regarding the practice of captivity. If activists only focus on the principle, the only answer would be to shut down all zoos. The principle idea of captivity is taking animals from their natural habitats, which is cruel and there is no way to improve that. However, there is also an issue with the practice of captivity, and that is what the majority of activists are focusing their attention on. The good thing about this complaint is that it is something that can be resolved. You cannot deny the fact that holding an animal in a confined space is wrong; however, there is in fact a way to hold an animal in a beneficial way to both the animal and our society. 

The important thing to know here is what exactly an activist is and more importantly, what an animal rights activist is. Activism is simply defined as "action on behalf of a cause, action that goes beyond what is conventional or routine" (Brian Martin) and typically involves people who are very concerned about a specific issue. If you pair this definition with the concept of animal rights, you come up with the idea that there are people fighting for animal rights and doing whatever they can to stop the poor treatment of them. Some say that captivity is wrong all together, but others are really bothered by the industries that are holding animals captive in a negative way. Again, that idea of the principle vs the practice comes into play. Regardless of what route each group takes in fighting against this action, I found myself wanting to become an activist after hearing about all the negatives to zoos. 

PETA is an example of one of the most prominent animal rights activist groups. They focus their attention on the four areas in which the most animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time. One of these four areas is the entertainment industry, which includes zoos. Although many of their arguments and law suits are relevant, PETA is more focused on the principle of captivity as opposed to the practice. They claim to be opposed to zoos because "cages and cramped enclosures at zoos deprive animals of the opportunity to satisfy their most basic needs ... .and animals are regularly bought, sold, borrowed, and traded without any regard for established relationships" (PETA). Yes, the principle idea of captivity and depriving animals of their freedom comes across as a very negative thing; however, there is a way to practice captivity in a positive manor and that is what PETA should be really setting their sights on. On their website, PETA also talks about zoos illegally importing animals, taking animals from the wild and restricting natural behavior. The route cause of this illegal behavior comes from poor practice of captivity. The zoos committing these crimes are simply not meeting sufficient standards. There have been many poorly operated zoos that were exposed by PETA and/or other activists through case studies, legal cases and campaigns. These are the zoos that must be fixed in order for there to be positive practice of captivity across the nation. 

A long term study of the San Diego Zoo conducted by Lynn Grinner shows an example of poor practice of captivity that must be changed. Though it was thought to be one of the best zoos in the country, Grinner's study revealed that there was actually widespread malnutrition of animals. She found "high mortality rates from the use of anesthetics and tranquilizers; serious injuries and deaths sustained in transport; and frequent occurrences of cannibalism, infanticide and fighting almost certainly caused by overcrowded conditions" (Jamieson). If this is true at one of the best zoos in the country, what could be happening in other zoos? This is not a problem with the principle of captivity, but rather it is a problem with how this zoo was practicing captivity. If they fixed these issues that were found, they would be capable of holding their animals captive in a safe and healthy way. There was another investigation conducted by Peter Batten, former director of the San Jose Zoological Gardens, in which he undertook a study of approximately two hundred American Zoos. He created a book about it named "Living Trophies" where he documented substantial numbers of "neurotic, overweight animals kept in cramped, cold cells and fed unpalatable synthetic food. Many had deformed feet and appendages caused by unsuitable floor surfaces." (Jamieson) There were also excessive mortality rates caused by factors such as vandalism, inadequate husbandry practices and more. He concluded his study by announcing that the majority of American zoos are poorly run with incompetent direction. These are absolutely not reasons to shut down zoos, rather, these are reasons to show what must be fixed in the system. All zoos are more than capable of providing animals with habitats that replicate the wild and a diets that meet their needs. It is zoos like these that must be fixed to operate better and practice safer forms of captivity. This study revealed extreme cases of poor practice, but it is studies such as this that show why the problem of captivity should be addressed by focusing on the practice, not the principle. Now that so many zoos have been exposed to poor treatment of animals, it is up to us activists to make a difference.

The real question is what is the most beneficial way to be an activist in this situation? Instead of fighting for zoos to be shut down all together, it is important to understand the system of laws regarding zoos and why it is failing. We may not be able to change the principle of captivity, but we can change poor practice of captivity. Animal rights activists must recognize that zoos have far too many benefits to be eliminated from society.

Dr. Dave Hone speaks on the subject of the positives and negatives of zoos in his article named "Why Zoos Are Good." Though he is on the pro-zoo side, he also touches on the fact that the system is corrupt and we must make changes to improve it. He makes a productive comparison to the police force in the world that may open the eyes of many activists speaking of getting rid of zoos. He says "just as the fact that some police are corrupt does not mean we should not have people to enforce the law, although bad zoos or exhibits persist does not mean they are not worthwhile institutes" (Hone). This statement is valid because he is touching on the fact that it is the practice of captivity that must be fixed. He also brings up a productive point when he asks "at what point does [putting down a fence to restrict movement of animals across the barrier] become captivity" (Hone)? He is showing us that it is perfectly possible to effectively keep animals in captivity, because that is essentially what national parks and protected areas are doing as well. The only difference between these concepts is that there is a higher degree of care in the enclosures of national parks and protected areas. Once we close the gap between good and bad practice of captivity in zoos, we can better appreciate the benefits of zoos that people sometimes forget about. 

It is easy to talk about the negatives of the principle of captivity; however, it is also easy to forget about all the positives that come from good practice of it. It is, in fact, possible to keep animals in a zoo and for them to have quality of life that is equally as high or higher than it is in the wild. Their movement may be restricted, but there will not ever be a threat or stress of predators. The animals will never have to worry about the irritation and pain of parasites and they are guaranteed a variety of food and a high quality diet. Illnesses and injuries will be treated and they will not ever suffer or die of natural disaster and/or starvation. All of these positives are regarding the animals in the zoo, but there are also many benefits for those who get to visit a properly running zoo. A large number of species only exist in captivity and some only exist in the wild because they have been reintroduced from zoos. Without these efforts, there would be significantly less species and ecosystems today and the world would be poorer because of that. Another major benefit of zoos is the hands on education that comes from them. Television documentaries can be very detailed and museums display natural history specimens, but nothing truly compares to seeing an animal in the flesh, hearing, smelling and observing it. The ability to safely research animals is a benefit that we cannot have without zoos. There is less risk and variables that come from studying animals in a zoo and that can make a huge difference in conservation efforts. It can also help with the increasing threats of habitat destruction and other major issues. Zoos are essential to the long term survival of species and to our knowledge and research. All of these benefits may sound great, but they will only be enacted once our laws on zoos are improved with more sufficient standards.  

Laws involving zoo animals exist on international, federal, state and local levels, but their regulations are not specific enough to ensure that every zoo will operate properly. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) "is a very important act because it is the only Federal statute concerned with the welfare of the animals, rather than regulating financial and procedural matters concerning zoo animals" (Kali S Grech). Though it regulates trade and movement of endangered animal species, membership of nation states is completely voluntary. Another problem with the act is that only minimal standards are placed for the welfare of animals covered by the act. It includes handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation and adequate veterinary care, but does not include anything regarding the psychological well-being of the animals. Also, because of the official definition of "animal" that the act follows, all cold-blooded animals are excluded from protection under it. It is clear that there are significant changes that must be made to ensure that no zoos are failing to adhere to the law. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was originally designed to protect wildlife and their habitats for the sake of biodiversity. However, its protections only cover species listed as threatened or endangered. It regulates the movement of those species within the US, but it does not regulate possession of the species nor the welfare of those possessed. The ESA prohibits the "take" of listed animals by anyone, and "take" is further defined as harming or harassing. However, the regulations exempt normal animal husbandry, which includes exhibition of endangered species. 

States are subject to the Animal Welfare Act, but they are also allowed to create their own laws to protect animals because the act only sets forth minimum standards that govern the welfare and care of animals. The only requirement is that the standards they create must be stricter than the federal law. Many states take a broad approach when defining an animal, but some states exempt classes and sometimes whole kingdoms of animals. Some states also exempt zoo animals and/or exhibition animals all together from their animal cruelty laws. The major issue here is that because they each create their own specific laws, it is not promised that zoo animals will be included in the anti-cruelty sections. 

On the international level of laws, about 5,000 species of animals are protected from over exploitation through trade regulations found within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It was created to ensure that internationally trading wild species would not threaten their survival. However, adherence to this international treaty is voluntary. There are three appendices that determine how much protection each group of animals is afforded. Trade in species listed in Appendix I is significantly more regulated than those listed in Appendix III. Additionally, animals that were held in zoos before the signing of the treaty in 1973 are completely exempt from the provisions. Animals born in captivity are also afforded much less protection. Therefore, the most significant issue with this international treaty is that it does not have standards that are specific enough to cover all of the animals that are involved in zoos. There are too many holes in the system that allow mistreatment of animals, which is why so many problems are arising with the operation of zoos and the practice of captivity. 

Not only is there a major issue with how vague the standards of these laws are, but there is also a problem with the enforcement and funding of the laws. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is the agency with the power to enforce the AWA, but they are known to hold infrequent inspections. APHIS employs about 104 inspectors for over 2,000 licensed facilities that currently exist. There are also constraints of budgets and logistics that frustrate enforcement of the AWA which cause protection to be further limited. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) controls almost everything that the USDA does. They require that the APHIS communicates and clears all actions before preceding, but the problem is that the OMB's true job is to protect business, not animal welfare. They are more concerned with how the actions will affect their income while the APHIS is obviously more concerned with the well-being of the animals involved in the protection acts, so this creates a lot of conflict. The ESA provides stiffer enforcement penalties, but zoos are not typically subject to lawsuits under the ESA. This makes it difficult to have adequate enforcement in many aspects of the laws.  

As you can see, there are far too many gaps in these laws to make it possible for all zoos to abide by them. However, the zoos who do abide by every law and use their facility in a positive way set the bar for all other failing zoos. The St. Louis Zoo in Missouri is an example of a zoo with a team that is passionate about their work and who cares about the animals and their future. In their mission statement on their website, they include that they care about single cell organisms just as much as other popular animals. They conduct research on "behavior, reproductive biology, nutrition, animal health and genetics [that] is valuable to wildlife managers, field researchers and other scientists" (St. Louis Zoo). Their zoo professionals are experts on breeding small populations of endangered species. The St. Louis Zoo collaborates with zoos worldwide on topics such as "conservation breeding, habitat preservation, community development, public education and research" (St. Louis Zoo). Not only do they accomplish all of this, but they have also made it a goal of theirs to create a sustainable future for wildlife and for people around the world. Wildlife management and recovery, conservation science and support of the human populations that coexist with wildlife are the three key ingredients to conservation success in the eyes of the St. Louis zoo staff. The most important thing about this zoo is that they care about the wildlife and the people involved with it. If more zoos practiced captivity in a way that the St. Louis zoo does, we would not be running into as many animal rights problems. There is in fact a healthy medium we can find to benefit both humans and animals with the practice of captivity, and the St. Louis zoo has proven that. 

How do we get every zoo in the country to abide by our animal rights laws and operate properly? Fighting against the principle of captivity has proven to be somewhat useless because no matter how much people fight it, there really is no way to stop it all together. However, by fighting for good practice of captivity there are significant differences that can be made. It may seem overwhelming to fix such a broad gap in the system, but the goal is to start small and get to the route of the problem. One of the most prominent and universal gaps in our law system is that the majority of the laws exclude zoos from their standards. To take action as animal rights activists, we need not to shut down zoos, but to fight for these laws to include zoos in their provisions. By doing so, we will be taking a step in the right direction toward the universally positive practice of captivity. 

