Are Zoos Killing Endangered Species?

With over 6,150 animals and creatures on the endangered species list, they are all entitled to protection from extinction. Zoos take some of the various mammals, birds, insects, amphibians, and other assortments of species under their wing to keep them taken care of with the hopes of bringing them out of danger from becoming an afterthought. There has been scandal surrounding zoos taking care of the endangered, however. Animal welfare groups have called many out for displaying animals as voyeuristic beings rather than real creatures and make the animals’ situations worse. Is there any truth behind these accusations?

To an extent, yes there is. Many North American zoos participate in a Species Survival Plan (SSP), which is initially supposed to help species reacquaint themselves with their natural habitat  and repopulate so they can continue on without being on the dreaded List. However, for some species, this Plan is not doing them any good. The most defined example of the Plan’s failure is the elephant. While the majority of elephants can live in the wild for over 30 years, their life expectancy is cut in half when they are taken care of in captivity. The elephants in zoos often become diseased (one in particular, Mac of the Houston Zoo, died of herpes when he was just two), confined, or grotesquely fat. The fact is, elephants don’t belong behind bars. They need their space to roam about and enjoy their freedom. Being stuck in a smallish space is not doing them any good, aside from giving people the notion that they are being protected by being stuck in a place that isn’t their home.

Another major problem when it comes to SSP is that they only have enough room to save a limited amount of animals. Zoos often do not have the budget to take care of a certain amount of specific species. Because of this, they would not be taken care of properly and overcrowding would ensue. To take care of the issue, zoos have the option of three choices, as noted in the book In Defense of Animals:

1. Selling the animals to other facilities which may or may not be as equipped, clean or suitable for the animal
2. Putting the sick and/or weak animals to sleep
3. Killing the animal and feeding its corpse to other zoo animals

Option 1 would clearly be the best choice if they went to a suitable facility. It’s absurd to think of zoos heartlessly killing animals to feed their other, more cared for collections of breeds. It sort of contradicts the goals of the SSP since they want to keep the species alive and well, not dead and feast-worthy.

I’m sure that the Species Survival Program is good for saving a certain number of species. For a lot, though, there’s no need to bother trying to protect them, based on how ‘well’ they treat them under captivity. The majority of animals would probably be better off fending for themselves in the wild as opposed to dying under the hands of zoologists and caretakers.

~ by jessicaobscura on October 23, 2009.