Zoos and other organisations with living world impacts should have honest policies

Abstract

To balance action and publicly stated intention is a problem for zoos, as it is for most commercial organisations. The public now want activities that are sustainable in all aspects, including good welfare of animals where these are a part of the business. They also want transparency and evidence for whatever is claimed. Policy statements by organisations that use or have impact on animals or plants may give an incorrect impression of actual world consequences. The efforts of zoos to present themselves as significant contributors to conservation, education and research are examined and found to be often misleading. Although this comment applies to almost all zoos, in accuracy of claims as in quality of keeping conditions and welfare of the animals, the best zoos are much better than the worst zoos. A factor underlying many visits by the public to zoos is biophilia, a desire to experience the presence and observe the behaviour of living animals, but this is greatly undermined if it is perceived that the needs of individual animals are not met, and their welfare is poor. The differences in behaviour and physiological functioning between zoo and wild animals are briefly examined in order to consider what actions are ethical, in particular in relation to the welfare of the animals. The policies adopted by zoos have to keep pace with the changing demands of the public and zoos have opportunities to have positive effects on sustainability and the current rapid decline in most of the natural world. Some zoos are starting to do this but, in order for zoos and other organisations using animals and plants to remain sustainable, the image of their own activities that they present should be honest and closely related to the public’s demand. In particular the public need evidence, from their own observations and from good quality scientific studies, of good welfare of animals that are kept and of other components of sustainability.