The Truth Behind Zoo “Conservation”

Zoos claim to be the next “conservation powerhouses” as they report countless initiatives to support wildlife protection and conservation. However, the truth behind zoo budgets may suggest otherwise. Are zoos living up to their public image? Let’s take a deeper dive into where the money is really going.

• Roadside vs. Accredited Zoos: What’s the difference?

Firstly, it is important to understand the difference between roadside and accredited zoos. Roadside zoos are non-accredited zoos that serve entertainment purposes only. With profit as their primary goal, roadside zoos participate in captive breeding programs and keep a large number of animals in cramped spaces and tight enclosures (Lauria, 2021). While roadside zoos have exhibitor licenses and other permits to allow visitors into the park, the regulations only ensure the safety of the visitors and not of the animals (Lauria, 2021). Therefore, animals in roadside zoos often suffer from cramped living spaces and mistreatment.

Accredited zoos, on the other hand, are listed under the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (AZA). The AZA is a non-profit organization “dedicated to the advancement of zoos and aquariums in areas of conservation, education, science, and recreation” (AZA). Around 238 facilities in the United States and overseas are accredited by the AZA, meaning that they “meet the highest standards in animal care and welfare and provide a fun, safe, and educational family experience” (AZA). The AZA defines conservation for accreditation purposes as “active stewardship of the natural environment, including wildlife, plants, energy, and other natural sources,” and institutions are required to participate in wildlife conservation and “dedicate millions of dollars annually to support scientific research, conservation, and education programs” (AZA).

• How do zoos advertise themselves?

Accredited zoos are more likely to provide better treatment for their
animals and participate in conservation programs than roadside zoos. To further solidify this impression, accredited zoos will often present their close ties to conservation and sustainable initiatives. Marketing themselves as “champions of conservation,” zoos are quick to connect their entrance fees and donations to supporting wildlife conservation programs (Torrella, 2023). Furthermore, zoos argue that their establishment “contributes to species conservation,” as they are known to breed animals in captivity (Torrella, 2023). By doing so, they “preserve [animals’] genetic material in biobanks,” creating large numbers known as “insurance populations” that could be released back into nature if they become endangered in the wild (Torrella, 2023). Coordinating with the AZA in breeding programs called “Species Survival Plans (SSP), zoos help “ensure genetically diverse, self-sustaining populations of more than 500 species of animals” (Born Free USA, 2023).

• But… What’s the reality?

Zoos paint a beautiful picture of conservation, but animals continue to suffer in captivity under the hands of these organizations. After all of this marketing, where do their priorities truly lie?

Upon taking a closer look at zoo budgets and where they are spending their money, it becomes clear that instead of prioritizing conservation, zoos are far more devoted to their primary goal: “confining animals for entertainment and profit” (Torrella, 2023). According to Delcianna Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, the reality is that zoos spend only a “very small fraction” of their budget for conservation efforts. The 238 accredited institutions spent around $252 million on field conservation in 2022, placing them among the “world’s largest contributors to conservation” on a larger scale (Torrella, 2023). However, that is only around 5% of how much zoos spend on other areas like operations and construction (Torrella, 2023).

A quantification of research papers published by the AZA from 1993 to 2013 found that only about “7% were related to biodiversity conservation” (Loh et. al., 2018). For further comparison, Emma Marris writes in her New York Times opinion article “Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost” that in 2018, AZA organizations spent “around $231 million annually on conservation projects” in comparison to “$4.9 billion on operations and construction.” Many environmentalists and conservationists have also expressed doubts about the zoos’ captive breeding programs. While some endangered animals have been reintroduced in the past, success stories do not justify keeping animals in captivity for display and entertainment purposes. “It’s as if [zoos] might be called upon at any moment to release [the animals], like Noah throwing open the doors to the ark into a waiting wild habitat. But that day of release never quite seems to come.” –– Emma Marris, NYTimes

Others have also claimed to be skeptical of the captive breeding programs and their benefit to the environment. Mickey Pardo, a behavioral ecologist and postdoctoral research fellow at Colorado State University, explains that because “reintroduction stemming from captive breeding programs is incredibly challenging and thus rare, it’s not the primary goal of these programs.” If not for the purpose of reintroduction, deceptive breeding programs that have no consideration for conservation hold animals in captivity and deprive them of freedom and choice, leaving them in endless suffering.

Zoos also advertise themselves as serving an educational purpose, as many exhibits include plaques and label displays that introduce its inhabitants to visitors. However, the reality is that most people don’t actually read the information. According to polls of zoo-goers, most people go to “spend time with friends or family–to enjoy themselves and be entertained, not to learn about animals and their needs” (Torrella, 2023). Therefore, the only message passed on to its visitors is that it is acceptable and “perfectly fine” to hold animals captive for public display (Torrella, 2023). By presenting animal captivity under the umbrella of “education,” the concept of human “dominion” is etched deeply within zoos and subsequently imparted to visiting children, creating a false allusion that it is acceptable and “normal” to remove animals from their natural habitat and place them in enclosures for public display and entertainment. Using “conservation” as a label, zoos create a deceptive image for the public while exploiting thousands of animals for entertainment with little to no regard for their health and well-being.

• Indianapolis Zoo: Looking Into the Specifics

Using the Indianapolis Zoo (the Zoo) as an example, author Rebecca Critser examines the Zoo’s financial reports in her Indiana Law Review article to see whether they serve as evidence to its claims of supporting conservation. Opened in 1964, the Zoo currently houses around “1,416 animals, including animals from 28 species listed as endangered or threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list of threatened species” (Critser, 2024). As an accredited zoo, its mission is to “protect nature and inspire people to care for the world” through its “education, research, and conservation efforts.” Promoting itself as such, the Zoo encourages visitors to donate by connecting their collected donations to conservation work.

Currently, the Zoo is supporting 22 conservation initiatives funded through financial donations. In 2019, the Zoo reported that it provided “$320,934 in conservation grants,” which is around “0.8% of that year’s budget excluding international trips cataloged as “field work” in the released annual report (Critser, 2024). 2020 recorded around “$287,785 in conservation grants,” which was only around “0.45% of that year’s budget” without reports of field work (Critser, 2024). These low percentages present quantitative evidence against the Zoo’s genuine ties to conservation efforts.

A closer look at the Zoo’s form 990s–public disclosure forms for tax-exempt
organizations where annual revenue and expenses are detailed–further highlights the deviation away from conservation. In the 10 years between 2009 and 2019, nearly 1.04% of the Zoo’s annual budget was spent on conservation (Critser, 2024). An interesting statistic to note is that the total amount of money provided for conservation is “less than the salary of the Zoo’s CEO, which was $370,282 in 2019” (Critser, 2024). Form 990 breaks down the distribution of 2019’s conservation budget of $320,934 into two categories: $135,260 to international organizations and $186,674 to domestic organizations (Critser, 2024). Within the international portion, only $65,100 was marked for conservation use (Critser, 2024).

To contrast the Indianapolis Zoo to a foundation that is fully dedicated to conservation efforts and activities, let’s take a look at the International Elephant Foundation (IEF), a nonprofit “dedicated to the conservation of African and Asian elephants worldwide.” Whereas the Zoo only contributes a slice of its annual budget to preservation, the IEF has reported to give “85% of its funds to actual conservation work” while only spending around $1 million in expenses in 2020 (Critser, 2024). The Zoo’s expenses in the same year were as high as $60 million, and its financial reports and spendings prove that the Indianapolis Zoo does not place conservation as its top priority. A well-renowned organization that deceives the public by claiming to support conservation while only spending less than 1% of its budget on this area is clearly a concern.

• Knowing all of this, what can you do?

While zoos market themselves as supporters of conservation, the details behind zoo budgets that remain unnoticed by the public clearly suggests otherwise. The most direct way that you can help protect animals from further harm and suffering in captivity is to withdraw support from conventional zoos that function under the umbrella of deception. Instead of visiting zoos to see animals, consider visiting a wildlife sanctuary that is actively serving and protecting animals. Ethical sanctuaries, unlike zoos, provide animals with ample space to roam around and live on their own terms (Torrella, 2023). When possible, sanctuaries aim to release animals back into the wild, but they may also serve as permanent homes for wild animals that are abandoned, injured, or in need of care. By turning away from zoos and supporting wildlife sanctuaries, you will be truly supporting conservation in a positive community rather than a deceptive and cruel industry.

Resources:

1. “About IEF.” International Elephant Foundation, 8 Apr. 2024, elephantconservation.org/ief/about-ief/.

2. “About Us: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.” Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA), www.aza.org/about-us. Accessed 22 July 2024.

3. Born Free USA. “Animal Captivity Is a Distraction from Conservation.” Earth.Org, 8 Mar. 2024.

4. Critser, Rebecca. “Conservation Advocacy or Marketing Smokescreen?: An in-Depth Review of the Financial Records of the Indianapolis Zoo as a Means of Evaluating the Zoo’s Claim That It Supports Wildlife Animal Conservation.” Indiana Law Review, 24 Jan. 2024.

5. Lauria, Karen. “Differences between a Roadside Zoo and a Legitimate Sanctuary.” Born Free USA, 10 Sept. 2021.

6. Marris, Emma. “Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 June 2021.

7. Torrella, Kenny. “Zoos Aren’t for Animals. They’re for Us.” Vox, 13 Oct. 2023.

8. Tse-Lynn Loh, Eric R. Larson, Solomon R. David, Lesley S. de Souza, Rebecca Gericke, Mary Gryzbek, Andrew S. Kough, Philip W. Willink, and Charles R. Knapp. 2018. Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. FACETS. 3(1): 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2017-0083

Resource Links:

1. About IEF – International Elephant Foundation
2. About Us | Association of Zoos & Aquariums
3. Animal Captivity Is A Dangerous Distraction from Real Conservation Efforts
4. Conservation Advocacy or Marketing Smokescreen?: An In-Depth Review of the Financial Records of the Indianapolis Zoo As a Means of Evaluating the Zoo’s Claim That It Supports Wildlife Animal Conservation
5. Differences Between a Roadside Zoo and a Legitimate Sanctuary
6. Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost
7. Zoos aren’t for animals. They’re for us.
8. Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research