British
people
have
boycotted
circuses with
wild animals
to such
an extent
that they are
now defunct
u
Do you think that zoos and aquariums are outdated, or do you
think they’re still valuable? Have your say on our Twitter page,
@sciencefocus, or send an email [email protected]DISCOVER MOREThe time is ripe for a revolution. Humans have been
keeping animals in zoos since 1752 (the Tiergarten
SchönbrunnzooinVienna),andinprivate
menageries since Egyptian times. Since then we’ve
made huge leaps forward in our scientific
understanding of animals – but our steps to
implement change for their well-being have not
progressed at the same rate. Over the last few
hundred years, wild landscapes have been
desecratedandtheirinhabitantspersecutedatan
unprecedentedpace,whilezooshavefailedto
convert visitors into passionate conservationists.
So what now? Do we acknowledge our failings
and just ‘give up’, at this most critical time when
we’re facing a sixth mass extinction? Or do
we do things differently and start winning more
battles? I’m in the latter camp, despite
understanding and acknowledging the scale and
scope of work to be done.
Zoos and similar facilities are uniquely
positioned to influence the
hearts and minds of
decision-makers throughout
the world. They attract
people of all ages and
backgrounds – some 700
million annually present
themselves as potential
recruits for the wildlife
cause. That’s a phenomenal
resource to just throw away
should zoos cease to exist,
but it’s also a phenomenal
resource to waste. If people
walkoutofourgateslacking
the understanding and
motivation to take action, we
will continue to lose the
icons of our conservation
campaigns,andwiththem,
our planet’s vital
biodiversity. Should that
time come, there would belittle point in keeping a living museum of animals, and
I’d say ‘let them go’.
In order for us to inspire our audience in favour of
conservation,weneedtoshowthemourproblemsand
ask for their help. I see the general public’s
increasingly informed status as a strength to draw on,
not something to fear. This may mean they’re more
likely to support funds that go directly to the animals,
rather than visiting artificial environments; they
might travel further to visit particular species living in
specialisedcentres;buttheymayalsostartto
empathise with, rather than condemn, our endeavours
to help save the world’s wildlife. Our challenges
arecomplexbutnotimpossible,aslongaswe
de-institutionalise, drop egos and are prepared to
re-invent ourselves.
The public already vote with their feet: they’ve told
us that it’s unacceptable to keep certain species
(suchasorcas)incaptivity,andtheBritishpeople
haveboycottedcircuseswithwildanimalstosuch
an extent that they are now defunct. These movements
are encouraging.
Zoos are still, on the most part, dependent on
commercial revenue, but this should not be an obstacle
tomakingtherightdecisionsaboutwhatspeciesthey
house. If they are smart enough to talk to their visitors,
Iamsuretheywillbeabletocombatthelossof‘big
ticket’ animals. But this change should not be
attemptedinisolation:thezooworldmustthink
‘collaboration’ not ‘competition’.
Some zoos should become sanctuaries for rescued or
unwanted animals, but if we take the line thatallzoos
should cease breeding, then we are relying on in-situ
conservation efforts alone to protect our planet’s wildlife.
I, for one, am not ready to gamble on that.Charlotte Corneyis director of the Isle of Wight Zoo. The attraction has a strong
focus on providing homes to rescued big cats, and is currently being converted
into a charity. She argues that zoos have a vital role to play in conservationVIEW FROM A ZOO