How can we improve Zoos and Aquariums?

I have lived in 2 nations (Mexico, US), 3 states (Michigan, Connecticut, Tennessee), and had 3 local Zoos in the US that I would visit (Detroit Zoo, Beardsley Zoo, and Memphis Zoo). There are Zoos in Mexico I have visited as a kid but I have more fond memories in American Zoos. I have noticed a discrepancy between the 3 US Zoos I have visited.

The Detroit Zoo is a large Zoo with it covering 125 acres. It has a lot of nice exhibits that are large and fit the needs of large animals like polar bears and big cats. The Beardsley Zoo I have visited when I lived in CT, is 52 acres but it seems to make up its small size for the big cats it has with a lot of evenly spaced exhibits and that there were a lot of enriching events that keep the cats preoccupied. The Zoo that is currently local to me is the Memphis Zoo in TN. It is intermediate between the Detroit and Beardsley Zoos with it being 75 acres.

But there seems to be some issues. While some exhibits seem nice (like the Grizzly Bear and Tiger ones), there are some lackluster exhibits that I think need some improvement. The polar bear exhibit in that place is much smaller the Detroit one (fun fact: Detroit Zoo's Arctic Ring of Life is the world's largest polar bear exhibit) and that the bears there seem uncomfortable being in Memphis. In the summer at Detroit, the bears don't seem to mind it, but in Memphis, where it gets humid, the bears seem to do stereotypic behaviors that include the weird dancing moves and awkward pacing. The big cat exhibits seem once again, small compared to Detroit. The Beardsley Zoo tiger and leopard exhibits are small but they seem to allow the cats to have privacy and enjoy enrichment. The Memphis cat exhibits seem old fashioned and some of the animals do the anxious pacing and snooze on their rock beds all day.

I am an avid fan and supporter of Zoos and I think that while there are many positives with them, they do have some problems that could be addressed without the animal rights movement making a fuss over them. I do like the Memphis Zoo however, despite its flaws and that they do have contributed to conservation of several endangered species like the eastern pine snake (most animal lovers care for cute mammals like pandas and monkeys than snakes) and is one of the few US Zoos that has pandas.

What do you think could Zoos and Aquariums do to improve themselves and provide good welfare for their animals? What would you do if you were to improve Zoos and Aquariums around the world?

 

I think the best way we can help improve zoos and aquariums is not to be uncritical in our support or view of them because there is always room for them to improve. We should be less avid fans and supporters and more conditional fans and cautious supporters.

We should also critically examine whether they fullfill the role in education and conservation that they claim to be performing and if they are not then encourage them to do so.

These are some things that I think could improve zoos in terms of animal welfare and promoting genuine ex-situ conservation in zoos:

• A stronger commitment and focus on ex-situ conservation of endangered species and one that does not focus on the large and "charismatic megafauna" (especially not African and Asian megafauna) but on the "small brown jobs" that urgently require captive breeding programs whether these be mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians. The best example of a zoo with this focus that I can think of would be Jersey Zoo (UK).

• A much greater focus on smaller taxa (small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, inverts and fish) becoming more predominant in zoos and the phasing out of larger species that are better conserved in-situ and that do not need to be there (Sub-Saharan African and Asian megafauna such as elephants) or that are not compatible with captive life (polar bears).

• The total absence or at least scarcity of species kept that are common or judged as "least concern" by IUCN guidelines and which are not needed in captivity.

• A strong commitment to contributing long-term (either through funding or logistical / technical / advisory / training support) to the in-situ conservation of threatened and endangered species. Again the best example of a zoo with this ethos would in my opinion be Jersey zoo.

• A strong commitment by staff to the welfare / wellbeing of captive animals in all senses whether these be veterinary care, nutritional requirements, environmental enrichment, enclosure design etc. Participation by a zoo in research to improve these is always a good indicator that welfare is being taken on board.

• A strong commitment to the conservation of native and endemic species. If the hypothetical zoo was located in a biodiversity rich part of the world (i.e. Latin America) then it would be good if the institution focused its effort mostly or even entirely on keeping and breeding endangered native species rather than on "ABC" exotic species that do not need to be there. If located in Europe, USA , Canada etc. then a strong but not total focus on ex-situ conservation of native species.

• Again, a personal preference but preferably no meerkats, less big cats, fewer ring tailed lemurs and Asian short clawed otters.

 

In short? Money. Zoos cannot make the necessary improvements to habitats, conservation work and outreach without large sums of cash. So donate to your local zoo whenever possible if you would like to see it become better.

 

Yes, I agree, but I would add that there should be a greater examination and transparency of how and where zoos spend that money and how it can be better spent on improving welfare, education and conservation.

 

I agree with this entire statement.
As a very strong lover of little known, endangered, small (or even sometimes microscopic) animals, I can tell you wholeheartedly that zoos should at least create some survival plans (some already implemented) for Smaller animals that often don't get enough love than animals such as pandas, tigers, lions, or bears.

 

I think there's a book at my local library full of endemic animals of just in Florida. I haven't checked out the book in a while (mainly because I completely forgot about it until I read this) but let me tell you that there are a lot of key endemic species to ecosystems that are being drenched by domesticated animals and particularly, invasive species as many of you know. I think one of my favorite threatened species there is the Florida bog frog, Lithobates okaloosae. Its a very rare frog that I hope to encounter someday, (if I can even get to a body of water without encountering an Alligator ) even though, they are normally found in creeks so I wouldn't encounter too many of those, right?

 

And, (my personal preference) more species of Freshwater fish in zoos, many of their normal bodies of water being polluted by human impact, such as river sharks, something that I doubt many of the common public will even hear about.

 

This point comes up quite often and a lot of folks here agree with it but I do have to point out that there is conservation and education value to having a variety of species from around the world in human care. Most of which are not going to have a threatened status. That doesn't mean they are not needed in captivity or that they have no value.

I will say that many threatened species would benefit from captive breeding programs but that doesn't mean non-threatened species do not benefit from it as well. It is very likely that some of these non-threatened species may become so in the near future so it is poor planning to completely phase out these species based on one conservation organization's rating of them. Which species should and should not be kept is complicated and based on multiple factors.

Not to mention that many native "least concern" animals at least in the US are rescues and the need to house these non releasable animals is not going away so there is most likely always going to be these species in US zoos.

 

Measurable and specific ways to track animal welfare are a focus point of accredited zoos today. keepers and managers will take certain points of each animal's welfare and track improvements and decreases in overall welfare multiple times a year (sometimes weekly or monthly). These points are also what accredited zoos are using to make improvements to exhibits and other large decisions in animal management. A lot of this is not broadcasted to the outside world as it's sometimes difficult to explain to the general public but it is happening. These measurable qualities are where we are going to see these major decisions based on and it's been a major focus of the AZA and the ZAA the passed 5 years or so.

 

While thoroughly agreeing that there is a lot of value in specialising in local fauna, from a zoos point of view, and from their local publics point of view, they probably need a few of the “meerkat” type species to keep visitors coming through the turnstiles. They can still be used to tell important zoological and conservation stories however; why are there no meerkats in South America? What replaces them? What would be the impacts of a feral population?

 

Well I agree with you when it comes to native "least concern" animals in the USA or elsewhere that cannot be rehabilitated / released back into the wild.

What I was alluding to was more the exotic African and Asian megafauna that are least concern and exotic species in the same category.

 

I don't know about river sharks, but certainly in the USA there seems to be a lot of freshwater endangered species that would and do benefit from ex-situ efforts like hellbenders, numerous desert pupfish, box turtles, map turtles, Alabama sturgeon etc.

As freshwater species are often sentinels for human health they are particularly valuable for educational reasons too.

 

This is a point that you've brought up many times, and while I generally agree to an extend I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

There are many ex-situ or "hybrid" (part ex-situ part in-situ, e.g. kick-starting) programs to save populations for smaller European species, including for example fire salamander, common spadefoot toad, adder, corncrake, red-billed chough, waldrapp ibis, European hamster, balkan snow vole and harvest mouse. But even if these project all succeed, the impact they have on the overall state of nature in Europe is a mere fraction of what can be achieved by saving a single large mammal: European bison.

Bison are the largest native herbivore Europe still has, and zoos saved the species from extinction. Now, thanks to large-scale reintroduction efforts, bison graze again in many parts of Europe and have cascading effects on their ecosystems. They travel throughout entire landscapes, knocking over small trees, grazing back dominant grasses, dispersing herb seeds, transporting nutrients and trampling the ground. The mosaic ecosystem developing with their help creates a future for many species of half-open or open landscapes that would otherwise disappear without expensive human intervention. Their habit to dust bathe alone creates areas of open sand and pioneer vegetation, supporting a huge array of species from lichens to lizards to shrikes. No spadefoot toad, corncrake or snow vole, no matter how much a loss their extinction would be, can ever achieve this level of impact. Furthermore, megafauna not only have disproportionate effects of their ecosystems, larger species generally are more threatened. Megafauna matters in conservation, and because zoos are already biased towards megafauna, why not use that to make a meaningful impact?

 

Yes, I suppose that a few larger charismatics are necessary, I read a paper about a survey to gauge visitor perceptions of species kept at Jersey zoo recently and the top five favourite animals listed were :

1. Gorillas.

2. Orangutang.

3. Otters.

4. Meerkats.

5. Lemurs.

So there is definitely a value for having one or two charismatics in a collection to attract visitors (ideally those that are in need of ex-situ and compatible with captive life), but there is a bit of room to raise profiles of other endangered species and I do think there are viable alternatives for meerkats and asian short clawed otters.

 

I don't think that is playing devils advocate at all, I think it is just good and common sense .

Of course the conservation of the wisent can bring manifold benefits to European ecosystems as does the conservation of other large fauna like the Eurasian gray wolf and the brown bear.

I don't think zoos should specialize purely in smaller taxa but rather that this should be a much stronger focus for the majority of zoos around the world then it currently is because generally speaking large megafauna are much better conserved in-situ.

In the case of the wisent it is a species native to the continent and as you've mentioned is being reintroduced across much of its area of historic distribution so zoos in Europe should indeed focus on this species in my opinion.

Moreover, the wisent is an iconic flagship species and is also a testament to the value of zoos in bringing back species from the brink of extinction. I there is a very important narrative inherent in the story of this species that has enormous utility for conservation marketing.

The problem though with the larger species like the wolf, the bear and the bison lies more in the in-situ situation in that there are serious issues with human-wildlife conflict that must be contended with in terms of rewilding initiatives.

 

Yeah, No fully-freshwater river sharks live in the USA, I'm just saying around the world. Even If I wasn't able to see river sharks in captivity (if they were) in other parts of the world that I cannot visit, I'll still sleep better at nights to know that there are some in captivity. But lets not stray to far off topic to river sharks, that could be a whole other thread.

 

Very optimistic of you to assume that your average zoo will stay afloat with visitor numbers with just "one of two charismatics in a collection to attract visitors".

 

I'm an optimist afterall

 

All in all, I think more endangered small species should be prioritized somewhat in zoos.
I can think of 3 critically endangered small animals right now that need our help just off the top of my head.
Paramo toads, Arboreal Seedpod Shieldbacks, Longjawed galaxias,

 

These are quotes from a paper I'm currently reading that sort of confirms what I already believe (perhaps a bit of confirmation bias) on zoos.

Native species:

"The link between the collection and in situ conservation projects is easier to make when more emphasis is put on local species and the local biogeographical region. A shift in breeding programs for reintroduction from exotic to indigenous species is entirely in keeping with Article 9 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This article states that ex situ conservation should take place preferably in the country of origin of the biological component. Likewise, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has recommended that regional zoo associations work with threatened species in their own biogeographical area (IUCN 2002; Dickie et al. 2007)."

"A stronger emphasis on local species and regional problems closer to home is also important from an educational perspective, given that education should preferably address problems with direct relevance for the target group. Education can encourage local involvement and action. ‘‘If the Giant panda is going to be saved, the most important audience for educational initiatives is undoubtedly in China’’ (Hutchins 2003, 23)."


Smaller taxa:

"But the most effective strategy to combat the problem of limited space is without any doubt a shift away from the large charismatic mammals towards smaller species, particularly amphibians, invertebrates and some species of fish, which occupy less space, are relatively inexpensive to keep, have a high birth rate and are easy to reintroduce. Several initiatives have already been launched on this front, not least the Amphibian Conservation Action Plan, a partnership involving the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (Gewin 2008)."

"The ever-present collections of charismatic megafauna—lions, tigers, giraffes, elephants, zebras, bears, hippos, and rhinos—are a poor reflection of the rich diversity of the animal kingdom. There are around 30 million animal species on this planet, 1640 of which are mammals. The average American zoo collection features 53 well-known mammals, a ratio of 1:31. The ratio for birds, at 1:98, is less than a third of this. The ratio for reptiles, at 1:104, is less still. The disproportion becomes even more alarming when it comes to very small creatures. Amphibians in the average US zoo are represented in a ratio of only 1:2000. And the ratio for invertebrates is an incredible one to several million. Over 95 % of all fauna are small enough to hold in the palm of your hand, but in zoos, they are conspicuous by their absence (Hancocks 2001, 165)."

Commercial viability of zoos keeping smaller taxa over larger taxa:

"Some fear that turning the spotlight on small species will weaken the attraction of zoos. Zoos need to balance conservation credibility with commercial viability; to reach the aim of species conservation they need to attract visitors. The focus on charismatic mammals is considered to be appropriate because these animals are supposed to act as flagship species or ambassadors that raise public awareness and support for in situ conservation (Baker 2007, 147; Leader-Williams et al. 2007, 237). However, the assumption that zoos will not attract enough visitors without large mega-vertebrates is far from uncontroversial. Recent findings even suggest that small mammal displays yield a higher cost to benefit ratio, in terms of exhibit popularity per unit cost, than large mammal displays. They also suggest that imaginative displays of small-bodied species can substantially increase zoo attendance (Fa et al. 2011, 79)."

"A shift towards small species, which generally experience less welfare problems in captivity and fewer behavioral problems that make return to the wild difficult than large animals, would certainly tip the scales in favor of the zoo. This also applies to the adoption of integrated metapopulation management. Interactive exchange of animals between captive and wild populations will greatly enhance our capacity to sustain the genetic and demographic viability of both populations. Reductions of animal welfare due to capture, research, captive breeding and reintroduction will be all the more ethically justified as the risk of extinction of small and fragmented populations in the wild will be significantly minimized."

The moral dilema of zoos in terms of facing opposition from animal rights and justifying role of conservation:

"Pie in the sky, critics of the zoo will say—and not without reason. Today, the zoo is standing at a crossroads—and has to decide if it will fully commit to the new paradigm and develop into a conservation center or if it will degenerate (further) into a venue for entertainment that will provoke increasing criticism, not only from animal protectionist but also from wildlife conservationists."

Source: "Captivity for conservation: Zoos at a crossroads", Jozef Keurlatz, 2015 (Journal: Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics).