Written By: Grace Brosofsky
With the strained relationship between people and wildlife recently brought to public attention with the death of an iconic lion at the hands of a hunter, now seems a good time to follow up on my last article focused on the concerns of animal captivity for public viewing. In that article, I posed some questions to use in evaluating which facilities confining wild animals merit the support of those who love animals and the environment. Perhaps you were left wondering if you can actually find anywhere to view animals where each question has a sufficiently good answer. This article will discuss examples of facilities that “pass the test” and lie on the sustainable and humane end of the spectrum (yes, it is possible!).
You can also see whether a facility you visited and/or are considering supporting makes the grade with this quiz.
The Austin Zoo differs from many other zoos in that it exists for the animals, not the human visitors.
What are the animals’ back stories? The Austin Zoo takes in animals who actually need human help: exotic pets in need of a new home, formerly abused animals, and animals other zoos no longer want. As lifelong captives, many with chronic illnesses, these animals would have difficulty adapting to the wild and might end up in the circus, on a hunting ranch, in a lab, or with negligent owners, so the zoo provides a favorable alternative.
Are the animals’ needs met? I doubt perfectly as the zoo states it has far exceeded its capacity, but the animals do find significantly more fulfillment than they would in their previous or alternate homes. As a nonprofit, the zoo puts all the resources it can obtain into animal care and seeks to upgrade its habitats to better suit the animals’ needs, allow birds to freely roam, and entertain animals with, in the words of one visitor, “all the fun toys in their cages” (i.e. balls for the tigers to bat).
Are the animals’ needs met sustainably? While to my knowledge it does not advertise state-of-the-art eco-friendly technology or anything of the like, the Austin Zoo utilizes the natural landscape as much as possible and does not have many extraneous attractions aimed at tourists, minimizing its resource consumption.
The Marine Mammal Center recently opened a state-of-the-art hospital called Ke Kai Ola (The Healing Sea in Hawaiian) for Hawaiian monk seals.
The Marine Mammal Center offers a way to see marine mammals – elephant seals, harbor seals, sea lions, etc. – that even PETA endorses with its free self-guided tours or $7 tours with docents.
What are the animals’ back stories? The center takes in marine mammals who are injured or sick (even with cancer) to help them heal – and it does so with the intent of eventually releasing them back to the ocean. That’s a pretty true contribution to conservation.
Are the animals’ needs met? The center provides the animals – termed “patients” – with medical care and focuses on “maintaining the animals’ wildness and reducing the stress they experience.” The facility also seeks to study the mammals’ causes of death so it can continuously and intelligently adapt its provisions, frequently modifying its food formulations, feeding schedules, and groupings of animals to provide the best conditions for recovery.
Are the animals’ needs met sustainably? The center has sustainable fish-purchasing policies and encourages others to adopt similar policies as a Conservation Outreach Partner of Seafood Watch and member of the Bay Area Sustainable Seafood Alliance. As an added bonus, it received Jared Huffman’s Sustainable North Bay Award due to its work in producing renewable energy onsite, as well as (of course) conserving marine habitats and inhabitants.
The moral of the story: All is not lost for those nature lovers who want to see wild animals without supporting a business that violates their values. Not all facilities confining exotic or marine species are bad, and even individual facilities are rarely all bad or all good, but some certainly qualify as better than others. Oftentimes, facilities termed “sanctuaries” rank higher on the spectrum of sustainability and humanity than those termed “zoos” or “aquariums,” but a strict reliance on terminology can mislead well-intentioned visitors. Take the Austin “Zoo” for example. Or as an opposite example, many “sanctuaries” make animals tourist attractions by permitting, for example, the harmful petting of baby tigers and providing less amenities for the animals than accredited zoos. Look beyond the title of a facility, ask good questions (or let our quiz ask the questions for you), and you can make a positive impact with your dollar as a consumer of exotic animal views.