ZOO QUEST

Many people believe zoos have an important role to play in conserving species. We investigate if this really justifies keeping animals in captivity

- JAMES FAIR

SHAKA THE AFRICAN SAVANNAH ELEPHANT is standing in the middle of an expansive field, staring intently at us. His ears are forward, his face is alert and he doesn't appear stressed or, can we say, unhappy. He's a 33-year-old bull in the prime of his life at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm just outside Bristol, and he will be forever captive because of society's prevailing view that zoos are both good and necessary.

“Daddy’s taking us to the zoo tomorrow, zoo tomorrow, zoo tomorrow,” goes the song - a celebration of an exciting and wholesome day out. As Noah’s Ark CEO Larry Bush says, visitors can encounter “the power of an African elephant” or watch an “Andean bear climbing a tree trunk”, experiences that are arguably more intense and longer-lasting than watching the same species in a documentary.

“These animals are ambassadors for their wild cousins,” says Bush. “It is educational and inspiring. Very few people can afford to go on safari in Africa, and it’s not very good for the planet.”

It is a fair point - why fly thousands of miles to see and smell exotic wildlife when you can pop down to your local zoo? Nevertheless, many people do question whether zoos have a role to play in 21st-century Britain. Why should animals - in particular, emotionally and socially complex ones such as Shaka - be sacrificed for their wild cousins in a way that we would never sanction for our own species?

THERE ARE THREE MAIN arguments for the continued existence of zoos: they raise awareness about the threats facing wildlife; they use money raised to fund conservation initiatives in the wild; and their animals can be used for reintroduction programmes or act as ark populations in case of severe declines or, indeed, extinctions. Zoos also increasingly argue that they perform another vital function as community assets that are good for mental health.