My original reply to lescrane was deleted (archived link below). In the interest of forum decorum and staying on topic, I will ignore the ad hominem remarks by lescrane and reply to the zoo-specific comments (some more facts added for clarity):
Dear Professor, I don't know what country you live in but in North America the major Zoos, Wildlife Parks, whatever they are called are non-profit organizations
Being classified as non-profit organizations allows zoos to skirt international laws on animal trade, including the Endangered Species Act. It also allows them to run annual fundraiser events which are a significant source of revenue for them.
Breeding programs are a big part of what draws visitors - people want to see cute animals. If another zoo wants a "star attraction" animal, being non-profits allows them to run a barter system and avoid a ton of regulations. It is no coincidence that American zoos switched to this non-profit/barter system in the 1970s, after the ESA was passed in 1973. As was pointed out elsewhere, this also carries many tax-related benefits.
There are exceptions of course. To exhibit a breeding pair of giant pandas, a zoo has to pay China $1,000,000 per year. That's PER YEAR. A panda cub costs $600,000 per cub, per year. DC zoo spends around $2.5 million per year on their panda exhibit. This is NOT conservation - it is a business investment.
A genuine non-profit org channels their revenues into their cause. A conservation nonprofit such as Ocean Conservancy, for instance, largely relies on public donations and channels their funds into education, habitat restoration etc. They do not run a theme park and charge $50 for admission.
that are funded by governments, grants and individual donations. No profits at all,
How odd - you did not mention ticket and merchandise sales which form the bulk of zoo revenues. AZA accredited zoos earned over $24 billion in 2018, mostly from ticket sales.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission
even some of the veterinarians volunteer their time at some zoos. Salaries are not great. Employees are extremely dedicated, caring folks who love the animals.
While that may be true, it does not have a bearing on ethics and usefulness of zoos. Sea World trainers are also passionate about their work but it is still a terrible life for the orcas themselves.
Like many corporations, zoos pay a pittance to staff while upper management are paid exorbitant salaries. In the United States it is to the tune of $200,000 - $300,000 per year. A few years ago, the COO of Philadelphia zoo received almost half a million dollars as his retirement package. And that's just what made the news.
Your line about ignorant/indifferent visitors is elitist and frankly disgusting. Presumably you've never been to a zoo but visitors, unlike the very wealthy "highly educated" who can afford get on gas guzzling planes and fly to the far reaches of the word in search of "real" wildlife, visitors to zoos come from all social strata. and yes, they actually do learn about conservation, especially the bus loads of young children who come with schools. Go to a zoo anywhere, the Bronx, Miami, San Diego and you probably see more social, economic and racial diversity than you see at any public place.
OH, I knew someone would "go there", professor. Please don't equate human beings with other creatures or try to establish compare the morality of "human zoos" or slavery with capturing animals. Do you own an dog? A cat? Maybe you compare carnivorous people with cannibals??
Ignored for sake of forum decorum. My reply to these ad hominem attacks is in the archived reply here:
https://archive.ph/g0cIn
You make it sound like life as an animal in the wild is some easy, joyous existence. Very few animals live to "old age", except maybe apex predators.
First off, the purpose of every species' existence, if there were one, isn't to be joyful, but to pass on their genes. That and the role they perform in maintaining the ecosystem's ability to sustain biodiversity.
So from an ethical standpoint, life expectancy is beside the point. However, captive animals DO NOT have a higher life expectancy than wild individuals (on average). More on this below ...
And you are also incorrect about so-called "apex predators" living to old age. Predators are usually territorial and need to defend these from competitors. Most herbivores are not territorial, and conflict is usually limited to the breeding season and rarely causes serious injuries. For most carnivores, the vast majority of hunting attempts also end in failure. Where human hunting does not artificially impact lifespans, it isn't uncommon for herbivores to outlive their predators (depending on species).
The average lion's lifespan is 8-10 years (male), 12-15 years (female). This is ignoring mortality among cubs, which would bring the average even lower. The average antelope lives between 15-20 years depending on species and African buffalo live for 20-25 years.
They die from predation, weather, natural and human caused events. Life expectancy of most captive animals exceeds those in the wild.
Zoo animals lack genetic robustness and are sometimes inbred. Zoochosis (explained below) shortens their lifespans.
As does unnatural lighting, which is engineered to change their sleep patterns so that they are active during business hours.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35084058/
They also lack a variety in diet, lack stimulus, lack the space to range and social interaction (including healthy conflict) with other animals.
Here is one study on elephants:
https://www.science.org/content/article/do-zoos-shorten-elephant-life-spans
"African zoo elephants had life spans of about 17 years, whereas those in Amboseli lived 56 years ... Death rates for infant Asian elephants were especially high in zoos."
There are numerous other studies about other species.
Zoochosis is near-universal among captive animals. Zoochosis describes repetitive behaviors that captive animals display because of the emotional stress of life in unnatural conditions.
https://www.idausa.org/campaign/elephants/what-is-zoochosis/
Having grown up in India, I can tell at a glance if a tiger in a photo is wild or captive. Tigers in zoos overeat and have a certain lack of vitality in their demeanor. Overeating is a repetitive behavior - zoochosis.
You'll often find captive elephants swaying and twirling their trunks. This is zoochosis.
Wolves pacing in their enclosures? Zoochosis.
Orcas swimming in circles till their fins collapse? Zoochosis.
Monkeys flinging poo at visitors? Yes, wild monkeys do not do that. It's zoochosis.
Animals in captivity also suffer from serious dental issues caused by zoochosis, diet and inbreeding. There are many studies on this which I won't go into here, but you can look into that yourself if you wish to.
Again, point missed. People who work in, run, visit zoos are motivated, largely by love of the creatures who inhabit them. Again contrary to your assertion that they are profit making,, they cost society billions of dollars collectively to maintain. You sound as if you equate the veteranarians, scientists, animal care givers and adminstrators with torturous Nazis. The opposite is the case.
More ad hominem.
--
Central India --> Pacific Northwest. Favorite lenses: Olympus 300mm Pro, 8mm Pro. Favorite subjects: leopards, swallows, ospreys.
(and yes… I’m joking)
