In response to the animal killing in zoos

So Copenhagen Zoo was in the news these last couple of weeks. First for killing a giraffe and now for killing  four lions.  Although the zoo is under fire, they claim they did nothing wrong. What they did complies with EU regulations and zoo guidelines. In fact the zoo is praised for the high standard of animal welfare and educational values they have.  This raises a particularly interesting conflict among my ideals and I would like to discuss this. I am neither 100% pro-captivity nor 100% against it. My ideals are somewhere in the middle. Some animals can be kept in captivity and show no signs of stress. Some thrive under it. Some other animals don’t. Some zoos do a great job in conservation and educations while some don’t. I suppose my ideals are that it depends on the animal, the zoo and the welfare standards.

What the zoo did, makes absolute sense on their behalf. The male lions were killed to allow for the new male they brought in to be the breeding male. The female was killed because she would have prevented the younger females from mating and she would have had complications during pregnancy. So it makes sense for the zoo to put them down. They lived a happy life and their death was quick. Is it right? Well by me no. Since as a zoo you are breeding animals you should have a responsibility towards their welfare throughout their whole life and not cut their life short. It is a duty of care that should be part of the legislation according to me. 

Although zoos can be part of the conservation effort and part of educating the public, there are some zoos that misunderstand their responsibility. People everywhere are campaigning that there are not enough lions out there in the wild but yet zoos(who are meant to educate the general public) go and shoot four. I can see that the oldest ones couldn’t contribute to breeding, and I know that it’s hard to release the younger ones. However they could either give off the younger lions to another breeding program or send them to a sanctuary or a separate enclosure. By treating the animals as property and by strategically planning pregnancies, animal transfers and new animal acquisitions you are unfortunately sending the wrong message that animals are property and that the reason they are there is for money first and the rest come before that.

By not being able to euthanize healthy animals you send the message that wildlife is respected and hat these animals are more than just an item but an entity that should be respected. In my opinion captive animals can suffer captivity if it means the welfare and prosperity of wild animals(that is of course if captivity doesn’t have extreme detrimental effects on them). By keeping your excess breeding and treat animals in such a way, you teach the general public that they should respect animals. The materialistic and consumerist approach is what’s causing habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, illegal wildlife trade and so many other reasons that certain animal species are endangered. So by removing aspects of this approach and portraying animals as entities that should be respected, the public may gain a new perspective on what keeping animals means and how much influence they have over their life.

In the end of the day unfortunately zoos have to make money to continue surviving and it is logical that in some sense they would approach a matter in a more businesslike approach. When the general public opinion changes then perhaps so will zoo management and perhaps there may be a time where zoos are no longer necessary for conservation efforts. Until that time occurs then zoos are necessary and issues over the management of animals will always be present  but it is important to recognize the particular conservation value that some zoos hold.