Captivity for Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads

Contributions of zoos and aquariums to reintroductions: historical reintroduction efforts in the context of changing conservation perspectives

“…The decrease in both the size and genetic diversity of wild populations makes them increasingly comparable to managed populations in zoos or aquariums. Consequently, the tools and techniques in conservation genetics and population management that have been developed for managed populations can be successfully applied to the conservation of wild metapopulations (Stanley Price et al, 2004;Stanley Price & Fa, 2007;Gusset & Dick, 2013;Keulartz, 2015), and re-establishment in their indigenous ranges.…”

“…Ideally, the conservation needs of a threatened species should be assessed and a programme developed to deliver ex situ help if it is required (de Man et al, 2016). This shift away from the traditional 'Ark' paradigm to a more integrated approach to conservation (Keulartz, 2015) is reflected in the changing emphasis of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) conservation strategies, from the first published in 1993 through to the latest in 2015 (IUDZG/ CBSG, 1993;WAZA, 2005;Barongi et al, 2015). The historical emphasis on captive breeding and reintroduction (IUDZG/CBSG, 1993) has evolved into a more holistic approach to biodiversity conservation enshrined in the One Plan approach promoted by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) (CBSG, 2011;Traylor-Holzer et al, in press).…”

A system wide approach to managing zoo collections for visitor attendance and in situ conservation

“…In addition, the recommendation to replace large vertebrates with numerous, unique, smaller-bodied species fails to address the serious challenges to the establishment of ex situ populations for species not presently maintained 13 . These issues are not easily resolved, and trade-offs will become more common as animal welfare standards and enclosure sizes increase 8 .…”

“…However, compared to smaller species, large animals are often costlier to maintain, prove more difficult to breed in captivity, require larger enclosure sizes 5 , and raise ethical and welfare issues 6 . As the global zoo community has a limited capacity 7 , zoos have been encouraged through conservation objectives to shift their focus towards smaller-bodied species (particularly amphibians, invertebrates and fish), native species, threatened species and specialise on fewer species 8,9 . However, this compositional shift could result in reduced visitor attendance, lowering the economic return and consequently in situ conservation investment 10,11 .…”

Behavioral Research on Captive Animals: Scientific and Ethical Concerns

“…We have excluded zoos from the heart of this discussion because the costs and benefits of their supposed conservation value is under scrutiny elsewhere (e.g., Alroy, 2015;Keulartz, 2015;Marino et al, 2010;Princée, 2016); but we readily grant that zoos and research centers exist on the same moral spectrum. With respect to this issue, we direct the reader to literature that explicitly considers the ethical weighing of zoological conservation efforts and welfare concerns brought upon by captivity (e.g., Davey, 2007;Gruen, 2011;Hosey, 2005Hosey, , 2008Keulartz, 2015) and grant that the challenges raised here apply to scbb research across the map. Nonetheless, in the absence of any clear benefits for the animals themselves, it is evident that scbb research conducted at institutions, such as nirc and Yerkes, cannot readily satisfy the self-evident moral principle that we have provided nor can any given utilitarian calculus that one may apply to justify this kind of research.…”