CAMPAIGN & PROJECTS

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

Controversies and issues in Sanctuaries and zoos

Explore our research and expert interviews to learn more about the problems with contemporary zoos and why we advocate instead for animal sanctuaries.

How zoos harm eleph

Lori begins by welcoming back to the show Will Anderson with the elephant program at In Defense of Animals (IDA). Will and Lori discuss IDA’s 2019 review of the worst North American zoos for elephants and the cruel realities of keeping these majestic creatures in captivity. It’s a pretty bleak picture.

There are solitary elephants suffering in misery all over the country in zoos, circuses, sham sanctuaries, and “petting zoos.”

Will explains how each of us can help end the cruelty of elephant captivity. In Defense of Animals makes a difference for animals all over the world through their hard-hitting campaigns, direct rescue, and sanctuary care.

We must not let elephant exploitation and abuse persist. These cruel and greedy institutions must be brought to justice! ants.

David Ebert and friends, courtesy of David Ebert.
(Featured image: Roger Williams Park Zoo 2019. CREDIT In Defense of Animals.)

Legal help for animal advocacy.

Lori’s next guest is David Ebert, co-founder of the Animal Defense Partnership (ADP). Founded in 2016 with Joel Litman, this organization offers pro bono legal services to animal advocacy groups in a wide range of legal matters to organizations and sanctuaries as they do their work. David goes on to describe their efforts (with IDA) on behalf of the elephant, Happy, who has been confined at the Bronx Zoo for decades.

From their website: ADP’s mission is to contribute their legal and professional training and experience to the greatest extent and best of their ability to the growing effort to protect animals from cruelty and suffering in all forms and wherever occurring. ADP’s growing client base now includes dozens of non-profits that protect and advocate for animals; run sanctuaries and rescues; and support plant-based eating. And, since its founding, ADP has provided $1,500,000+ in pro bono legal services to its clients.

The Animal Defense Partnership has engaged in various projects seeking to release isolated captive elephants and place them in accredited elephant sanctuaries, either in California’s Performing Animal Welfare Sanctuary or Tennessee’s The Elephant Sanctuary.

David also shares his personal transformative journeys to Rwanda and Uganda, which included close encounters with gorillas and elephants.

In 2017, there was indeed some good news for elephants, such as Ringling Bros. shutting down and the states of Illinois and New York passing prohibitions on the use of elephants for entertainment. But zoos are diverting resources that ought to be used to support and protect wild herds and their habitats. Zoos claim to help conservation, but Frohoff explains how that is simply false.

Then, Peter welcomes Ashley Welgan, with the Humane Society of the United States. Ten years ago, California Prop 2 passed (becoming The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act) which gave certain farmed animals a bit more space in their enclosures. Signatures are now being collected for a new measure that would be the strongest farm animal protection law in the world, upgrading California’s animal and food safety laws by requiring that all pork, veal and eggs sold in the state come from cage-free sources, regardless of where it was produced. Polling by the HSUS indicates that 72% of Californians will support this measure. The required 600,000 signatures must be collected by April 21, 2018. The campaign is called Prevent Cruelty California.

Peter then has good news about the Vancouver Aquarium’s welcomed decision to stop confining cetaceans. But, Lolita, still in the Miami Seaquarium, lost a challenge which would secure her retirement in a sanctuary. Finally, Lori and Peter discuss some of the top bird watching locations around the world.

Inspired by Anthony Weiner’s recent use of the phrase, “beat him like a rented mule,” we discuss a variety of idioms concerning animals, hoping to find interesting, humane alternatives to ones like “killing two birds with one stone.”

Then Lori speaks with Mary Finelli founder and President of Fish Feel. Chesapeake Bay cownose rays are being slaughtered by bow fishers during senseless cruel contests. The rays are docile, and not responsible for the decreasing oyster population as has been claimed.

Author Barbara King then joins Lori to discuss her ideas on the major issues facing zoos. Her upcoming book is titled Personalities on the Plate – The Lives and Minds of Animals We Eat. King is trying to broaden the discussion about what happens to animals at zoos and indeed, what the future of zoos should be.

The show concludes with a talk with Susan Dapsis, President of International Society for Animal Rights, ISAR. The organization was charted over 50 years ago, making it one of the oldest animal welfare organizations in the US. Lori and Susan discuss ISAR’s worldwide activities, including International Homeless Animals’ Day. This year it takes place on August 280.10462.DaytimeCloseUp.ES-KANSAS-NO-29TH-STREET-FS20th.

On this show, Lori welcomed two outstanding guests. First was Tim Ream, Staff Attorney, Endangered Species Program at the Center for Biological Diversity. Four groups have filed a petition with US government officials demanding better regulation of and transparency from Wildlife Services. Many people do not know that Wildlife Services, a federal agency under the USDA, kills millions of animals each year, including wolves, bobcats, otters, eagles and bears. Tim  explained how the agency operates, how difficult it has been to get good information from it, and what they hope to achieve with the petition. We think you will find the information in this interview shocking! Visit Center for Biological Diversity here.

Then, Danny Lutz, Litigation Fellow at Animal Legal Defense Fund joined Lori to discuss legal aspects related to people getting injured or killed at zoos. Recently, a confidential settlement was reached between the family of Maddox Derkosh and the Pittsburgh zoo. Maddox was killed when fell into the African painted dogs exhibit two years ago. Visit ALDF here.

Plus, military dogs get high-tech jackets, a service dog’s “accident” at 20,000 feet forces an emergency landing, and more animal news.

It was recently disclosed that the Namibian Government auctioned off 57 elephants caught from the wild, with the intention to export 42 of them to foreign zoos.

With the widespread awareness about the cruelty of keeping wild elephants in captivity, this news is both shocking and tragic.

Elephant expert and President of Humane Society International, Jeff Flocken stated, “African elephants are intelligent, sentient animals with highly developed emotional complexity, and strong social and family bonds that last a lifetime. It is unconscionable cruelty to subject these animals to brutal and traumatic capture, separating them from their families, and condemning them to lifelong captivity for the sake of human amusement.”

Recall that in 2016, 18 elephants were captured in the Kingdom of Swaziland, only to be shipped to three zoos in the US, an event that was roundly condemned by advocates worldwide. And around that time, the Ringling Bros Circus began the process of retiring their elephants. So, there was a feeling of optimism that perhaps things were looking up for elephants in the wild. Unfortunately, this news from Namibia shatters those dreams, as Lori describes.

Zoos often justify keeping elephants in captivity by claiming it promotes conservation of elephants in the wild. Lori explains how this is an utter fallacy.

Lori then broadens her discussion to criticize most contemporary zoos as extremely cruel to their confined animals and failing in their stated “missions” of education and conservation. Lori advocates wild animal sanctuaries as an alternative and supports efforts to strictly enforce the terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Wild Fauna and Fauna (CITES).

Peter then welcomes attorney Mark Momjian to discuss the growing use of dogs in courtrooms in a support capacity for witnesses giving testimony. Pennsylvania is the latest state to advance the use of specially trained dogs in court, in selected cases. This is a rapidly evolving area of law. To conclude, join Peter to test your animal knowledge as Lori presents another tortuous and revealing pop quiz.
Captive elephant in zoo

This show features elephant expert Will Anderson, with In Defense of Animals, who provides the background and events leading up to an important new international agreement to limit the exportation of wild elephants from Africa to the US, China and other countries.

Elephants in Captivity

Lori begins covering a few key events related to elephants in captivity, including the decline of Ringling Bros and Barnum and Bailey Circus, which, after substantial public pressure, retired all its elephants in 2016 and then shut its doors in 2018.

She then goes on to tell the 2016 episode in which 17 elephants captured in Swaziland, Africa, were delivered to three US zoos, to live unnatural lives in captivity. (Eighteen were captured, one died in transit). Even though there is growing awareness that elephants in zoos endure isolation, stress, and relative confinement, elephant exhibits are still common and are actively promoted by many zoos in the US.

CITES: Banning the export of wild elephants from Africa.

Will Anderson then joins in to explain and celebrate the new CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) agreement to banning the export of wild elephants from Africa. Will explains how, at the last hour, the countries of the European Union were persuaded to sign on for the ban, assuring its passage. Will goes on to describe how the US, represented by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, voted “no”, because, he believes the Service represents the interests of the Association for Zoos and Aquariums, and not the wild elephants.

According to Will, the manner in which baby elephants are ripped from their mothers and herds is “brutal and violent.” Will also covers many related aspects of elephant conservation. To help elephants in the wild, Will suggests supporting organizations worldwide that protect elephants and their environments, and of course, not patronizing the zoos which hold them.

On this show, two wonderful guests appeared. First, Adam Roberts joined Lori to discuss the killing of Marius, a healthy juvenile giraffe in Copenhagen’s zoo. Worldwide shock and criticism has followed this incredibly horrifying and unnecessary event. Adam Roberts, CEO of Born Free USA and Chairman of the Board, Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, will explain how the zoo justified this action and what needs to be done to reform an industry where such acts are considered acceptable.

Then, Peter interviewed Stacy Wolf, Senior Vice President of the ASPCA Anti-Cruelty Group about the huge cockfighting bust and rescue in New York State. More than 3000 birds have been rescued in “Operation Angry Birds,” and so far 7 arrests have been made. Visit ASPCA here.

Plus, Peter and Lori reviewed unbelievable comments from the European Association for Zoos and Aquaria and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquaria related to (and defending) the killing of Marius. Apparently, now zoos have adopted, as part of their mission, teaching children where their meat comes from! Peter also presented other animal news items of the week.

Adam Roberts

Lets Rethink How Zoos Work! – Animals Today Radio