I have a rather outspoken "pro-zoo" stance in social media, and today I had an online discussion with a random person that argued against the keeping of great apes, (namely a particular orangutan), in zoos. All the typical, clichéd anti-zoo arguments were there in some form (that they're lonely, sad-looking, restricted to an enclosure, that they're kept only for profit and that conservation is just a smokescreen, etc.) But the thing that got my attention was her constant praise for the "animal sanctuaries" located in Southeast Asia that could house the orangutan in a state of semi-captivity while contributing to conservation programs. I've always been skeptical of the sanctuaries's input into the survival of wild species and their standards for animal welfare, despite them being promoted by some animal-rights organizations (great apes, big cats and elephants being some of the most talked about species). Some of her points were: - Sanctuaries provide space requirements a zoo could never afford, retaining the pristine conditions of their natural habitats. - Animals living in in situ sanctuaries would be closer to fulfilling their original ecological niche, something animals can't do in ex situ conservation facilities such as zoos. - Semi-captivity is a far more dynamic setting for an animal, providing it with more varied behavioral enrichment and reducing the signs of stress and mental issues seen in some zoos. - Most of the orangutans in the rehabilitation centres are intended for an eventual release into the wild (she however said animals were provided food, so I'm not sure about how refined their survival skills are) . - Zoos in a way are closer to large corporations, where conservation is only a marketing trick. Sanctuaries and rehabilitation centres are smaller institutions with a greater focus in the animals themselves and their reinsertion into the wild. In my opinion I don't believe the so-called sanctuaries can have the same benefits for the conservation of species in comparison to good zoos. For instance, if a sanctuary wished to sustain a long-term population, could it replicate zoos's management of population genetics, like the transfer of individuals to allow gene flow and a healthy genetic diversity? I know zoos aren't perfect but the husbandry and management standards have done wonders for animal welfare as time has passed, not to mention how many species they've helped recover from the brink of extinction. I'm interested in finding out if the purported sanctuaries really have any worthwhile qualities, and if people here with more knowledge than me can debunk or uphold these points favoring sanctuaries.
It really depends what you mean by sanctuary. It's a very vague term with no concrete definition, a bit like "natural" when it comes to food (which of course doesn't mean healthy, like sanctuary doesn't mean better). There are a few good sanctuaries out there, doing the work they claim to do. However, most sanctuaries are complete BS, using the term to make themselves seem better. In the USA, they're often places that buy animals, breed animals, and take poor care of their animals, under the guise of "helping" them. In more touristy areas of africa and southeast asia, in particular, "sanctuaries" are often places that breed animals and let people interact with them for $$. True sanctuaries generally rarely allow visitors, if at all, because they're focused on the animals, not on making visitors happy. This especially goes for ones who plan on releasing animals into the wild - people should be completely hands off, including volunteers and employees.
I believe there is some confusion on her part as to what a "sanctuary" is. In western countries, a "sanctuary" is very often in effect just a really bad zoo - but anti-zoo people will vigorously defend them because they are "sanctuaries". In Asia a lot of "sanctuaries" are just abusive tourist scams (e.g. the tiger temple type places). However "the orangutan sanctuaries in Asia" to which she is referring are actually rehabilitation centres. They are nothing like the other kinds of "sanctuaries". The orangutans are animals rescued from the illegal trade and are being returned to the wild. They are fed but roam free in the forest, with the idea being that they gradually learn to fend for themselves fully and eventually stop returning to the feeding stations. There are quite a few of the centres in Borneo and Sumatra - and they are open to the public to visit - and they are legitimate places which return orangs to the wild.
Many sanctuaries are terrible, I've been to a couple myself, they're mostly run-down and poorly managed.
There is no definition of a 'sanctuary' so it can be anything: a private nature reserve, a pet shelter, a poor roadside zoo or an in situ breeding centre. Certainly, animal 'sanctuaries' in the tropics I have been to are very much oriented towards paying foreign tourists and donations from abroad. Western zoos actually donate money to many sanctuaries. So it is a bit strange to contrast 'sanctuaries' with the 'commercial' nature of zoos. By the way, although orangutan sanctuaries are indeed, rehabilitation centres and zoos support them. Somebody correct me, but I never seen an evidence that releasing orangutans raises numbers of wild apes in the longer term. Released apes crowd out wild ones and former releases, or are released in places which were subtly unsuitable for wild apes, so they need some extra support. However, presence of rehabilitators and tourists gives protection from poachers and tree cutting.
Many of the "true" sanctuaries that are lauded by conservationists, most vociferously on social media, are in fact funded by the other organizations that these same people despise. The amount of money, research, volunteers, marketing, etc. that the large zoological organizations provide for these in country sanctuaries cannot be understated. Without the larger more commercial organizations, the true remote and in situ rehabilitation sanctuaries would not have the money to continue their mission. It is not, and does not have to be, an "either-or" situation.
From what I've seen, the word "sanctuary" tends to be juggled around with some facilities. As others have said, some (actually, a lot) of sanctuaries are nothing more than poorly-run roadside attractions, while others actually aren't too bad, but lots of the anti-zoo people ironically seem to defend them over zoos even if animal welfare is poor. That being said, not all sanctuaries are dilapidated places, some are pretty decent husbandry wise. It all depends, and some zoos do indeed have connections with animal sanctuaries (albeit, the better ones, at least I hope).
Hello. Santuário de Elefantes Brasil most likely has the best handling of Asian elephants in South America. Their enclosures are also probably the largest in the continent. On the other hand, we have a sanctuary in Sorocaba for chimpanzees that looks a maximum security prison. The primates are fed with human foods, some of which are said to be chocolate and “feijoada”. It truly depends on the sanctuary you are talking about.
From the point of view of the animal living inside there's no difference between zoo or sanctuary, either way the animal is living in an enclosure with its own diet and enrichments. The size or quality of the place doesn't rely on the name but on how much the facility itself is willing to give for the animal (some sanctuaries have small enclosures, some zoos have bigger enclosures etc) I personally feel like word Sanctuary is mainly use as propaganda, it just sounds nicer than "zoo" or at least that's what people who don't agree with zoos would think. If you call a place sanctuary people expect it to have animals that have been rescue and can't be release while zoos are same thing people still think if the place is call zoo it might be capturing wild animals for profit and those animals would better be send to a sanctuary... It is all quite nonsense but people just seems to not have a very clear idea of what a sanctuary is and how it has basically no difference with a zoo.
Just going to call out the term "conservationists" in this post. I think you really mean animal rights or welfare activists. An animal that sits in a "sanctuary" with no prospect of being returned to the wild or being part of a scientifically-managed breeding program makes no contribution to the conservation of it's species.
Like zoos, sanctuaries vary a lot in quality. Also like zoos, it's common for sketchy places to use the goodwill of legitimate facilities to mask their questionable practices. And like zoos, there's not a single strict consensus on what a "good" one is, though certain criteria are generally agreed upon with reputable, reasonable folks. My overall take is that sanctuaries serve a different purpose from zoos so I don't think it's really fair to compare them, nor am I a fan of pitting them against each other. Zoos are focused more on educating the public and presenting a broad collection of animals while sanctuaries are focused more on helping individual animals, often with a specific focus. There's some overlap but the missions and goals are different. If sanctuaries were gone, zoos wouldn't be able to fill the void, and vice versa. There's this idea that zoos and sanctuaries hate each other, and while some sanctuaries aren't fans of zoos, it's very common for zoos and sanctuaries to support each other. Many sanctuaries get a lot of help from zoos.
