Captivity in Question: The Case for Abolishing Zoos

Emma McHugh

The question of whether zoos should be banned has been debated for centuries and remains a deeply contentious issue to this day.

There are new standards of modern zoo practice set to come into effect from the 24^th of May 2027, covering Great Britain. These reforms will address areas such as bird welfare, marine animal interactions, wild animal sourcing, elephant care and improved conservation. However, these new standards have been criticised by many as ‘non-transformative’ with several concerns around the continuing justification of zoos. For example, while the updated regulations propose larger habitats for elephants in attempt to replicate their natural habitats, questions remain as to whether such measures are sufficient. Many argue that elephants, highly intelligence and social animals, should not be confined in a zoo at all. A well-known example is Flavia, an Asian elephant who died in 2019 after living alone in a zoo for 43 years. She was deemed the ‘world’s saddest elephant’ and was reported to suffer from depression. The zoo and the animal rights group PACMA had been working to move Flavia to a sanctuary where they hoped her wellbeing would improve, but they were too late in their efforts. This prompts reflection on how many other animals may have endured similar suffering, with intervention arriving tragically too late.

The principal argument for the continuation of zoos is their purported role in conservation. It is often claimed that without zoos, various species would become extinct. However, this is arguably a default defence which holds little real authority. In reality, less than 10% of captive animals kept in zoos are endangered species. A more effective and ethical approach would be to focus and invest in preserving animals’ natural environments rather than shipping these animals off to zooswhere many lead miserable lives. Research further undermines the conservation argument, as a new study has found that wild elephants in protected areas of Asia and Africa live more than twice as long as the elephants held captive in European zoos. For instance, in relation to African elephants, the median life span is 17 years for zoo-born females, compared to 56 years in the Amboseli National Park population.

It is undeniable that animals’ specific physical and psychological needs can never be met in captivity. No matter how spacious or advanced an enclosure may be, nothing can perfectly replicate the experience for animals of roaming freely in the wild. The consequences of this are starkly evident. A common result for animals is the development of ‘zoochosis’, which is a form of psychosis that develops in animals held captive in zoos. This can manifest in many ways such as animals pacing & circling, bar-biting, neck-twisting, swaying, rocking, vomiting, over-grooming etc. Research has shown that the effects of captivity are so detrimental that it is actually causing physical changes to animal’s brain structureswhich can alter their health and behaviour. There have even been reports that zoos, including Dublin Zoo, have been prescribing anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac to some of the animals. Can this ever truly be justified?

Furthermore, one of the most frequently cited arguments against banning zoos is their role in educating children. Yet many animal rights advocates argue that zoos often fail in this regard and may even have a detrimental educational effect for children. For example, a study surveying over 2,800 children after visits to London Zoo found that the majority of children displayed no measurable positive learning outcomes. In fact, children attending zoos actually presents many dangers. This is illustrated in the case where zoo officials shot a gorilla, Harambe, dead after a four-year-old boy climbed through a barrier and fell into the gorillas enclosure. This was an innocent animal killed due to a parent’s failure to supervise their child. This incident highlights the artificial nature of zoos, as had Harambe been in the wild, he would most likely still be alive.

Lastly, while it may be assumed that individuals who choose to work in zoos have a natural commitment to animal welfare, this is far from guaranteed. There have been countless examples of animal cruelty in zoos across the world, demonstrating that mistreatment is far more common than many would expect. This provides yet another compelling reason to question whether zoos should continue to exist. Crucially, these instances of abuse are often met with no meaningful sanctions.

The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) claims they are ‘dedicated to the care and conservation of animals and their habitats around the world’. Yet, several of its members, including Mysore Zoo in India, Dehiwala Zoo in Sri Lanka and Negara Zoo in Malaysia, have been publicly exposed for serious mistreatment of animals. Despite this, WAZA has confirmed that none of the zoos featured in the videos of alleged cruelty have been expelled, or condemned publicly or privately. This failure of oversight is clearly illustrated by a statement from Sarah Lucas, head of Australia for Dolphins as she says, ‘it is very easy to find abuses in these zoos, elephants being beaten or bears being kept in tiny, grimy cages, but WAZA does not call out its members on any of these abuses’. Such neglect by the very body tasked with safeguarding animal welfare raises profound concerns and further supports the argument that zoos, as they currently operate, should be banned.

Despite new regulations set to come into force, zoos continue to fall short of meeting animals’ physical and psychological needs. Failures in welfare, limited conservation impact and ongoing abuses highlight that captivity can never replicate life in the wild. Given these persistent problems, the justification for keeping animals in zoos is increasingly weak and society must consider more ethical alternatives to protect wildlife.