“The Smell Is Not Worth The Cuteness”: 58 Animals That Zookeepers Dread Looking After

Are zoos good or bad for animals? It’s a question many have pondered while deciding whether or not to pay a visit to one. And the answer, it seems, isn't as clear cut as some may think. Experts say zoos can be both good and bad.

It’s important to remember that not all zoos are created equal, notes Björn Jóhann Ólafsson, a science writer and journalist for Sentient Media. “While it is easy to imagine animal ethics as a binary of evil and moral, zoos can vary widely on how they treat their animals, how much space they are given and how the animals are obtained,” explains the expert.

The American Humane Society (AMS) argues that zoos, wildlife parks, and aquariums play a critical role in connecting people to the natural world, and help to raise awareness of some of the species that are vanishing. 

“Simply put: if people don’t care enough about something, then that something will cease to exist,” the AMS site reads. It adds that most people can’t afford to book a safari to the plains of Africa, the jungles of South America, or the tropical forests of Asia. 

"However, they can and do visit their local zoos, wildlife parks, and aquariums because it is the best and most economical way to see rare and endangered species from around the world.”

According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, more than 181 million people visit US zoos and aquariums each year. And AMS has praised zoos for doing a “tremendous job” of preserving many vulnerable species.

However, it’s important to note that AMS is specifically referring to Humane Certified™ zoological facilities. In other words, zoos that prioritize the welfare of animals. AMS explains that unlike self-reported standards or internal reviews, third-party certification means an outside organization has "audited the facility against rigorous, science-based criteria and verified that animals are being treated humanely."

More then 85 zoological facilities across 19 countries have been certified, directly protecting the welfare of nearly 1.1 million animals.

This is where things get murky… Not all zoos prioritize the welfare of animals. In fact, there are many that don’t.

A report from World Animal Protection reveals that three quarters of zoos include human-animal interactions. This can cause major stress for animals and even physically hurt them. “In some extreme cases, visitors rode on the backs of animals (causing injury) or encroached on the animals’ enclosure (causing stress),” says Ólafsson.

The expert goes on to argue that zoos are for people, and not for animals. “Most zoos are for-profit enterprises, meaning they have one goal in mind: maximizing revenue,” he explains. ”It is easy to see how making more money can come at the expense of animal welfare.”

Ólafsson says while it’s true that many zookeepers form real bonds with their animal companions, the animals still exist under a for-profit, human-centered organization. He also reveals that some animals in zoos are born in captivity, but others are captured and brought in.

“Many animals are taken directly from the wild, often when they are babies, to make the transition to captivity a bit easier,” the expert writes. “At times, this is done in the name of conservation, or when a wild animal is very ill. But many zoos will take animals from the wild, or buy animals from unethical animal traders.”

Ólafsson also takes issue with the size of enclosures at many zoos, saying they are far too small, especially for animal species that are used to roaming, flying or swimming large distances in the wild. 

For example, he explains, “polar bears are used to home ranges of about 1,000 square kilometers in the wild — large swaths of land and ice they enjoy exploring. In zoos, they get a couple hundred square feet.”

The American Humane Society agrees that animals in quality facilities should have space to move, explore, rest and socialize with members of their own species.

“Enclosures should reflect an animal’s natural habitat as closely as possible, with access to shade, shelter, clean water and varied terrain,” it adds, noting that the animals must be able to carry out their natural behaviors like foraging, climbing, swimming or problem-solving.

All of these points are valid reasons not to visit certain zoos. And to only support those that are certified or proven to put animal welfare first.

“Facilities committed to humane treatment welcome questions. Staff should be willing to explain veterinary protocols, dietary programs, enrichment schedules and how they measure animal well-being," says the AMS team.

"Public reporting on animal births, transfers, medical care and mortality is another strong signal," they reveal. "Facilities that restrict access to this information or discourage visitor inquiry warrant closer scrutiny."

Whether or not you choose to visit a zoo is entirely up to you but we would urge that you take ethics and animal welfare into account when choosing which facilities to support.

For Kate, the founder of Green Eco-Friend, it only makes sense for zoos that rehabilitate wildlife and protect endangered species to exist. However. the eco-warrior believes that it would be far better "if they were to become wildlife sanctuaries and they stopped buying and selling animals."

Kate believes that there are many zoos that should be shut down immediately. "As far as I’m concerned the majority of ‘good zoos’ still need to make massive improvements to their facilities," she says, adding that a zoo's major function should not be to make money for its owner. "The profits from ticket prices should go toward increasing animal welfare standards and increasing enclosure sizes," she writes.

"What we should be doing is protecting the habitats of wild animals and ensuring their survival in the wild," argues the Green Eco-Friend site. "Until people around the world care more about life than money I’m afraid there’s little chance of certain species surviving without a helping hand from zoos."

Dr. James Borrell, a biodiversity scientist, conservationist and science communicator has mixed feelings about zoos. He says while he's "very happy to advocate good zoos, and only good zoos from a conservation perspective," that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.

In a blog post titled, The 5 Strongest Arguments Against Zoos, Borrell responds to the cons of zoos, some of which he agrees with. Like Kate, the expert admits that he'd like to see more spent on overseas conservation of the species zoos exhibit.

"At the same time, I’d like to see a much clearer link between the two," he says. "Visiting a zoo should support conservation not just in captivity, but in the wild – and it should be crystal clear. That’s the aspiration."