Zoo Myths and Zoo Facts
The heartbreaking stories about bad zoos found on our ‘Case Study’ page may be upsetting. The bigger issue is what Good Zoos do to animals every day.
What zoos think is normal and acceptable may not be at all satisfactory in your eyes.
We all have opinions….Read on.
Making Animals Breed - Inbreeding
One of the most ethically fraught "normal" practices is the Species Survival Plan (SSP) or similar regulated breeding programs. While these programs are frequently advertised as "vital for conservation," their true necessity is often debatable, especially when the captive population is struggling while the wild population is thriving.
The case of the Asiatic Lion perfectly illustrates this paradox. The entire global wild population, while once critically endangered, is now flourishing within a protected area in India (the Gir Forest), numbering over 700 individuals. Conversely, the captive Asiatic Lion population in zoos has faced catastrophic issues related to severe inbreeding because the founding population was so small (less than 400).
Interestingly, India refuses to participate in the zoo program for breeding Asiatic Lions.
This genetic bottleneck has led to health problems and reduced viability, raising serious questions about the conservation value of a captive population that suffers from genetic defects while its wild counterparts are self-sustaining and stable. The "conservation" effort, in this instance, seems primarily to serve the needs of the zoo collection rather than the species' survival.
If a healthy cub is born in a zoo, it will probably live most of its life in zoos around the world. Given the tiny population, it would be expected that a healthy cub would be transported many times to breed with different lions in other zoo.
Unhealthy cubs will be euthenised.
The book; Good Zoo, Bad Zoo, Dead Dad. features a story about an Asiatic Lion cub. The author of this young adult novel saw what happened to an Asiatic Lion Cub when he works in a zoo. It was born deformed and it was put down.
Euthanasia for Convenience and Control
Another widespread, yet quietly accepted, practice is the euthanasia of healthy or treatable animals as a tool for management. Zoos regularly cull animals for reasons far removed from incurable suffering:
Population Control: Animals are killed because the breeding program was too successful, leading to "too many" individuals that cannot be housed or traded. This was the rationale behind the controversial culling of Marius the Giraffe in Denmark.
Genetic Redundancy: Animals deemed genetically unsuitable (like the three tiger cubs killed in Germany because they weren't 'purebred') are euthanized to maintain the "quality" of the gene pool.
Economic or Space Constraints: Animals are killed for minor or treatable ailments because the cost or time commitment to fix the issue is "too costly," or simply because the facility "doesn't have the room" or "no longer needs" a common species that is not endangered.
“I witnessed the mass exterminations of ‘surplus’ bats when I worked in a zoo. It shocked me then and it shocks me more to find most people don’t know euthanasia happens on mass in every zoo.”
The Silent Epidemic of Zoochosis
The psychological toll of confinement is encapsulated by Zoochosis, a term for the wide range of abnormal, repetitive, and compulsive behaviors displayed by animals in captivity.
This is a direct consequence of an environment that is too small, too barren, and offers too little stimulation, causing severe boredom, stress, and mental decline.
Examples include the endless pacing of the polar bear Gus and the self-mutilation observed in captive chimpanzees. This phenomenon occurs because the animal's powerful innate drives—to hunt, forage, or roam vast territories—are completely suppressed.
The book; Good Zoo, Bad Zoo, Dead Dad. features a story about an elderly elephant who chewed iron bars in her pen resulting in her losing her teeth at a young age. She now hardly moves and all food is pulped before she can eat.
Conservation or Convenience?
Questioning the Core Claims of Zoos
Zoo associations frequently champion two key contributions as their justification for existing: breeding endangered species and funding conservation in the wild (in situ). However, a closer look at the data reveals that the effectiveness of both claims is often vastly overstated, masking the reality that the primary beneficiary of the zoo system is the zoo itself.
The Myth of Effective Captive Breeding
Zoos assert that their ex-situ (captive) breeding programs are a crucial "ark" for endangered species, and in rare, high-profile cases like the California Condor or the Black-footed Ferret, this has proven true.
For the majority of species, the breeding programs are far from effective and, in some instances, are actively detrimental. Critics point out that many species kept and bred are not endangered at all, or, as with the Asiatic Lion example, the captive populations are genetically compromised by severe inbreeding while the wild population is successfully managed in its native habitat.
Furthermore, the goal of reintroduction is rarely achieved, as captive-bred animals often lack the necessary survival skills—such as foraging, avoiding predators, and navigating social dynamics—making reintroduction costly, complex, and frequently unsuccessful. The breeding programs often serve the function of supplying new, charismatic animals for display rather than safeguarding a species' long-term future.
The Illusion of Conservation Funding
The public widely believes that a significant portion of their admission fee directly supports conservation projects in the wild, often estimating the contribution to be around 25% of a zoo's income.
The reality is far more modest. Research into charitable zoos reveals that only a very small fraction of total annual income—often averaging around 4% to 6.6% of gate receipts and membership fees—is actually dedicated to in situ (field) conservation projects. The vast majority of a zoo’s revenue is instead spent on operations, building expensive new exhibits, and staff salaries.
Comparing this to a direct donation exposes the inefficiency: a member of the public could donate £10 directly to a reputable field conservation charity, and nearly the entire amount goes towards saving the wild habitat or species. If that same person spends £30 on zoo admission, the actual contribution to saving wildlife in the wild may be as little as £1 to £2—the rest funds the captive environment.
Moreover, a substantial amount of the conservation money zoos do spend often comes from external grants, donations, and legacies, not from the operating profits generated by ticket sales, highlighting that the essential work could be done more efficiently without the existence of the expensive captive animal collection.
If you care about conservation of endangered species, think about the tight way to donate money.
Donate to Animal Conservation in the Wild.
If you would like to support conservation in the wild, the following charities would certainly appreciate your help. These are mainly UK based charitable organisations, there are more based in the UK and in other countries.
Born Free Foundation
An international charity dedicated to "Keeping Wildlife in the Wild." They campaign against the exploitation of captive animals and fund protection and rescue efforts in wild habitats globally.
David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation (DSWF)
Funds anti-poaching, anti-trafficking, and other conservation efforts across Africa and Asia, supporting projects for species like elephants, rhinos, and tigers in their native habitats.
World Land Trust (WLT)Focuses on saving threatened habitats acre-by-acre by purchasing and protecting land to create nature reserves worldwide, thus conserving all species within those
Orangutan Appeal UKFocuses specifically on the rescue, rehabilitation, and release of orangutans, supporting the Sepilok Rehabilitation Centre in Borneo and related projects.
Where Are The Animals?
In recent years, many accredited zoos have responded to criticism by redesigning enclosures to minimise the human impact, known as habitat design aimed at reducing visitor disturbance.
Many now feature expansive barriers, hidden areas, and complex layouts that allow the animal to "choose" if it wants to be seen by the public. This is a necessary change, based on research proving the stress and disturbance that human presence causes wild animals. However, this has led to a common complaint from visitors who paid for a ticket but "didn’t see many animals."
This outcome highlights the central paradox: if modern, ethical enclosure design must be so effective at hiding the animals to protect their well-being, the fundamental question must be asked: if the animals can't be observed or sustained ethically without immense psychological cost, why not leave them in the wild or transfer them to true sanctuaries?
Good, but didn't actually see our favourite animals
Tripadvisor Review : Oct 2025
As a family we walked loooong distances to see the following animals:
SNOW LEOPARDS - No sight of any of the 3 snow leopards.
TIGERS - No sight of any tigers.
LIONS - We only found out the zoo hss no living lions left until we were right outside their enclosure, a small wooden sign told us.
BATS - The Bat enclosure is CLOSED for maintenance until 25 Oct - again only a sign outside the enclosure.
The £200,000 for the captive orangutan represents the direct, quantifiable costs for one ape's care over a decade in a zoo, including specialised food, veterinary expenses, and operational overhead. Conversely, the £1,000 for the wild orangutan is a cost equivalent calculated from conservation cost-effectiveness. This lower figure is achieved by dividing the total investment required for 10 years of effective habitat protection and anti-poaching by the large number of wild orangutans protected. Thus, the zoo figure pays for the life of one ape, while the conservation figure protects the entire ecosystem that sustains many more lives.
One of the opening chapters in Good Zoo, Bad Zoo, Dead Dad. paints a vivid picture of orangutans in captivity.
In the book, the Head Keeper cuddles a new born, Sally, and calls it ‘his baby’. Also, he feeds all the orangutans Ribena - a type of children’s drink - as a treat. As the author says: the scene in his novel are inspired by his time working in a large zoo.