I've been thinking about the hypocrisy of (many) zoos. Why keep a tiger in a large, enriching enclosure when the cow it eats was kept under horrible conditions? Isn't it hypocrisy calling for saving endangered wild habitats, when you feed your hoofstock crops grown in industrial fields that are polluted with pesticides so that nothing can live there? Can you really call for a halt to acidification of the oceans when you use energy (for transport of feed) that was made from Global Warming-causing fossil fuels; the exact thing that causes ocean acidification? And I could go on. I would therefore suggest a new form of zoo; the "green" or "eco-friendly" zoo. Not only would this zoo protect biodiversity through education and breeding programs, it would also be an example to follow when taking various eco-friendly measures. The problem my suggestion will aim to solve is pollution, habitat destruction and poor animal welfare when it comes to animal feed. Instead of buying meat and crops from outside the zoo, I would suggest growing/raising them as a part of the zoo. They would be kept under organic, free-range conditions. This would serve several purposes: 1: Grazing hoofstock increases biodiversity on pastures, improving the quality of nature surrounding the zoo 2: Keeping and growing the zoos' own feed would have an educative purpose, as the zoo could educate the public about responsible farming and husbandry practices 3: If several different breeds of livestock, poultry and crops are used, it would provide interesting education into the different breeds around the world. The pastures with grazing domestics and organic fields could be exhibits in and of themselves 4. And last, but definetely not least: The animals at the zoo would be fed organic feed from happy, free-range animals whose farming didn't harm nature as much as traditional farming would The only bad thing - and we're talking a BIG bad thing - about this would be the demand for space. If one livestock unit can be used to create 1½ new livestock units per year, and one livestock unit needs 0,8 hectares of pasture year-round, and a tiger (without cubs) needs one livestock unit per week, then approx. 60 hectares (or 60,000 square metres) would be needed to feed just one tiger. Therefore, this set-up could only work in rural areas with ample space and preferrably low cost for agricultural areas. However, the space demands would be much smaller if less demanding feeder species were used; I calculated the above result from an exclusively bovine pasture. If the livestock grazed on a mixed-species pasture with both bovines, equines and caprids (and perhaps even poultry?), the demand for space could perhaps be cut in half or more, as the different livestock species would create suitable feeding habitats for one another. I expect that in my set-up, one individual large carnivore (leopard size and up) would on average need 10-25 hectares of space (depending on a number of factors). However, one individual large herbivore would only need about 0,3-1 hectare (though much more for elephants), and the less demanding herbivores (such as camels and muskoxen) less than 0,2 hectares per individual animal. This means a zoo with 2 tigers, 2 leopards, 10 wolves, 2 grizzly bears, 5 lions, 100 hoofstock and a number of smaller animals would need to be about 400 hectares (or 400,000 square metres) in size - not including the animal enclosures themselves! In Denmark (which is a tiny country in northern Europe), that size would be equal to that of two relatively large fields; in the US, it might be equal to just one moderate to smaller field, though. Sizes of fields vary between countries.
You should realize that a lot of food that is fed to zoo animals is of "secondary" quality and is primalrily grown to feed humans, but does not meet our standards. That of course does not include things like mice and so... Apart from food, there are quite some zoos that try to use renewable energy if possible, something which is missing from your part. And more and more zoos (at least in the Netherlands) start using organic food in their restaurants.
Renewable energy I also thought of renewable energy sources, and will expand on their possibilities for zoo use after further research. However, I didn't include that because I wanted to make the post straight to the point; I was afraid several points would make it confusing Another idea I've thought of is creating a "total philosophy" of zoos; the center of importance would be the zoos, but the institution behind the zoos would also invest in animal-friendly pet shops in various cities (pets are big business!), technology for renewable energy, conservation research, animal- and eco-friendly farming and research into habitat restoration as well as collaborate with travel agencies to destinations with important wildlife, among other things. Sort of an "umbrella institution" centered around zoos.
A truly green zoo would only employ staff who agreed to travel to work by sustainable transport and would only admit visitors who did the same; which would be very limiting. Particularly if the zoo were sited in a windy area, so that it could generate its own power supply from a windfarm. In practice zoos can provide some examples of sustainable practice and educate the public without being completely green. Alan
I was thinking about this recently, like, that if I were to start a zoo, I'd try to grow some fruits and vegetables inside (or in a nearby area) for the whole promoting sustainability thing or whatever. However, I doubt there are many zoos that would have the space and resources to be totally sustainable when it comes to food. Travel tours? The Houston Zoo has a "travel with the zoo" program where you can book a trip to different wildlife destinations through the zoo, and you travel with zoo staff. I imagine that some other zoos have similar programs.
Hi, You already realized that such a zoo would drastically scale back its number of endangered species and conservation programs. I think there is a need to balance here. Is it really sensible to toy with 'green space' of few square meters, when the zoo is running a conservation program which might -or might not- protect kilometers of rainforest?
Jurek7, One of the main reasons rainforests are cut down is to make space for industrial crops. These crops (or crops grown in what would otherwise be nature in Europe or the USA) are, among other things, used to feed zoo animals. By simply feeding their animals crops grown unsustainably, zoos contribute to the eradication of for instance rainforests, among many other wild habitats. However, if crops are grown in a way that works together with biodiversity instead of just killing anything in sight, we get a balance between nature and human needs. Growing crops and farming animals CAN be done in an eco-friendly way, by for instance using pasture grazing for extensive breeds and growing crops organically. Many new agricultural methods are being developed to sustain the needs of both humans and nature alike. Bottom line: When feeding their animals unsustainably grown/raised feed, zoos don't save wild habitats and biodiversity. They kill them. But if the feed is grown in a way that is more compatible with nature than most contemporary farming techniques, the severe effects on nature that feeding zoo animals (among many other human activities) have can be decreased. I simply think that talking about saving wild habitats while feeding zoo animals unsustainably grown/raised feed is double standards. And no, I don't think double standards are twice as good.
Frankly, I think that any step that a zoo can make to be more environmentally friendly is a positive step, even if they can't or won't be perfectly eco friendly (in this day and age I think it's impossible to be perfect, but any improvement is welcome in my view).
