Hi everyone! We’ve come to the end of the tour of zoos, so I hope you have learnt more about zoos, for I know I have! As with many tours, the end of one is marked by a survey, so let’s take a look at the survey results I collected!
The main intention of the survey was to better understand how individuals other than myself perceive zoos, based on some factors which were covered in earlier posts. I obtained 34 responses, of which 33 were NUS students between 18 and 25 years old, while the remaining 1 response was from an individual less than 18 years old.
Let’s take a look at the results of the first question.
As can be seen, 13 felt zoos were good, citing reasons such as education and conservation. Only 2 people felt that zoos were bad, with reasons like sentient beings shouldn’t be kept in captivity and be used for human entertainment. The majority (56% or 19 people) either wasn’t sure, or felt that it depends, and I grouped them together since reasons were rather similar overall. Explanations were rather diverse, but hinged on 2 things: the purpose of keeping animals (e.g. conservation vs human entertainment), and animal welfare (different treatments of animals in zoos).
The next 2 questions focused on whether or not it was acceptable to keep animals in zoos, with the first being a general question, and the second specifying threatened animals. Here are the results.
In the first question (left pie chart), 14 felt that it was acceptable, but on the condition of it being done for conservation or animals are unsuitable for life in the wild (either born in captivity or are rescued animals), and that they live in good environmental conditions. Again, many (16 people) were uncertain, mainly due to the conflict between animal welfare & rights and conservation goals, with some respondents mentioning how certain species might be unsuitable for captivity. 4 people answered “No”, placing emphasis on the violation of animal rights and freedom by keeping animals in captivity.
For the second question (the pie chart on the right), when emphasis is placed on conservation, views change rather drastically. A majority (28 people) feel that it is now acceptable (of course, with the goal of preventing extinction), while 3 people are unsure and another 3 think it is unacceptable. What’s surprising to me is that of the 3 people who answered “No” to this question, only 1 answered “No” to the previous question, who felt that respecting their rights as free individuals is more important than conservation; while the other 2 answered “Yes” and “I don’t know”. The reason behind a switch to no is that animals shouldn’t be shown to the public (so not as tools of entertainment) and we may be unable to create an optimal living environment that meets the needs of the threatened species.
The last question focused on addressing animal welfare. Let’s take a look at the question and the results.
It seems that once animal welfare is no longer an issue, most people are willing to support zoos, with only 4 being uncertain (I didn’t ask, but I assume it is due to animal rights).
Based on the overall results, I observe some trends. There were mixed views on zoos and whether or not it is acceptable to keep them in zoos, largely attributed to issues with animal rights and welfare. Furthermore, if zoos were to focus on conservation of threatened species, and ensure good standards of animal welfare, then more people would be accepting of zoos. Of course, the issue of animal rights still underpin this conflict, if it is right to keep animals in captivity.
Of course, this survey is by no means representative of the general public, as it had only 34 participants. There is of course still room for improvement, in order to present a more holistic view of zoos, but I think it still paints a rather decent view of how the public might perceive zoos. See ya next week!
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
Featured image obtained from Pixabay
chanyeeqi November 5, 2020
Hello Jeng Wei!
Thanks for your insightful post and for sharing your survey results!
I have a question though, although these animals are kept in captivity for conservation purposes, the zoo’s environment could never fully replicate the natural habitat of the animals in terms of its range and social interactions! 🙁
As such, although I definitely believe in the conservation efforts of the zoos, these animals (injured, or captive breeding programmes) should ultimately be released back into the wild. The nurturing and taking care of the animals should prepare them for the sole purpose of releasing back into the wild, unless they are really injured to the point where survivability would be low back in the wild.
Though, I’ve always wondered if this was a good thing. Interactions with the zookeepers would allow the animals to bond with the humans, but this wouldn’t be the case in the wild and hence, human-animal interactions should be compromised if the animal is set for release into the wild.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Looking forward to hear back from you!
Jeng Wei November 5, 2020 — Post Author
Hello Yee Qi!
Thank you for dropping by, and I’m glad you found the survey useful! That is quite a tough question you have asked, and while I don’t think I can fully answer it, I will just give my opinion. Certainly, artificial environments in zoos can never truly replicate what animals experience out in the wild, since factors like predation, foraging for food etc are removed, and of course, zoo enclosures give animals access to a significantly smaller range compared to its natural habitat. Replicating social interactions is even more complex, considering how we may not even fully understand the social construct and behaviors in many species. The plus side is, some animals may be more suited for life in captivity (I found a short article, but I’m not too sure if it’s really relevant), which means that animal welfare is not compromised despite the differences with the natural environment. Furthermore, with more research (that zoos themselves can also support), a better understanding of the animals can be attained, which can help in enclosure design to make it more suitable for the animals too.
Definitely, I do agree that conservation efforts should have the goal of releasing animals back into their natural habitats, and only those injured or deemed to be unable to survive in the wild should remain captive throughout its life. But there may be some complications that may prevent this. For critically endangered species especially, it might be too risky to release entire populations into the wild, considering that survival after release is not guaranteed, and some individuals (after accounting for factors such as genetic diversity, reproductive capabilities etc) should remain in zoos for breeding purposes as a safety net. The release back into the wild should also be a gradual process, in perhaps waves to observe and monitor how the released animals fare in the natural environment. Of course, once wild populations have been restored to a certain state (perhaps if they are no longer threatened in the wild), then all individuals should be released into the wild for them to lead natural lives. Another factor to consider is the state of their natural habitats – e.g. if the natural habitat isn’t doing well and face threats like deforestation or invasive species, then it wouldn’t really make sense to release them until conditions stabilize and are suitable. Of course, I think that this a really complex situation, and these are just my thoughts on it.
I think the human-animal relationship is also another complex issue haha. Certainly, some animals, especially more social and intelligent ones like chimpanzee and beluga whales have been observed to share rather close bonds and special relationships with their caretakers, and it would certainly be rather sad to the relationship perhaps being severed if the animals were to be released back into the wild. It is difficult to say if releasing the animal back into nature, or keeping it in captivity to maintain the bond it shares with the keeper would be the right move to make, considering that I see justifications for both. I think it should be on a case-by-case basis (e.g. if the animal can thrive in captivity, then maybe keeping it wouldn’t be terrible), but in general I feel that the animals should be released. But just because the animal is released doesn’t mean that that relationship has ended, as the caretakers can definitely still visit the animal in its natural habitat.
These are some tough questions you’ve asked HAHA and I hope I’ve answered them adequately.
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
Joanna Coleman November 6, 2020
Hi Jeng Wei,
Your answer to Yee Qi is terrific.
To that, I would add that if they hadn’t captured every single surviving California condor and brought them into captivity for a breeding programme (with the knowledge that some of these individuals, i.e., the founders, would never be released), the species would, no doubt, have gone extinct. Similar story with black-footed ferrets. Sometimes, the persistence of a species hinges on sacrificing the “rights” of a few individuals.
BTW, if you ever want to see a heartwarming video (and one that brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6ZyLKCrEp8
jc
Jeng Wei November 6, 2020 — Post Author
Hello Dr Coleman!
Thank you so much for your input! I definitely agree with you, and the “rights” of a few vs the survival of the species is a conflict/trade-off that has presented itself many times throughout my blogging journey, be it through my own personal research, or from the perspectives of classmates. Although, it is sad that we have to compromise on the “rights” of animals just to save them, but it is a necessary evil in my opinion. Also, thank you so much for sharing that video! It was really heartwarming to see the chimp give Jane Goodall such a huge hug, and her plea for support to the cause touched my heart too. I think this interaction and the special relationships between animals and humans (beyond chimps) just highlight the fact that non-human animals aren’t so different from us humans after all, and that animals are capable of experiencing and expressing feelings, just like us humans. Furthermore, I think this also supports the biocentric viewpoint from week 10 lecture, that animals have intrinsic values just like humans, and that is simply why we should conserve and protect them.
Cheers!
Jeng Wei