A More Nuanced Look At Bristol Zoo
“As long as you do your utmost to give animals the best possible environment to live out their lives, then you are doing the right thing.” Jane Goodall.
Some people are of the view that the animals at Bristol Zoo were unhappy and that animal welfare was poor. Many believe that animals need much more space than was possible at Bristol Zoo. Bristol Zoological Society themselves cited this as one of their main reasons for moving to South Gloucestershire, publicly describing their Zoo as “not fit for purpose as a modern Zoo”. Privately Bristol Zoo told SBZG campaign that, “our animal keepers are committed to ensuring the animals receive the same incredibly high animal welfare standards. They are healthy and well cared for – the same today as it was last year, which will not change.”
Some people point to reviews of Bristol Zoo on Trip Advisor as evidence of how unhappy the animals were but if you start reading reviews for all Zoos across the UK and Europe you will see the same comments about the animals looking sad and depressed and not having enough space. I have been told by many people inside Zoos that Born Free Foundation lobbies its members to leave bad reviews for Zoos on Trip Advisor. Twycross Zoo were getting complaints about their elephants after their last elephants had left them.
People on social media talk about Bristol Zoo being too antiquated to provide proper care for their animals. From talking to many staff inside Bristol Zoological Society as well as seeing it with my own eyes, it appears that the current management at Bristol Zoo have been intentionally running the site down for the past few years. If you run somewhere down, it becomes a money pit and therefore the narrative that it is failing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I do not believe that Bristol Zoo was failing but as a very regular visitor for the past few years, it’s clear that it could have been run a lot better. Animals which left the Zoo were not replaced and enclosures were left empty and looked increasingly dilapidated. Money was not invested in improving exhibits and I understand the gardening team was actively hamstrung in their attempts to make the gardens look as magnificent as they had in previous years.
EAZA is the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. It is a membership organisation that says only, “Institutions that meet EAZA’s high standards and obligations can join and maintain membership.” Its standards are far higher than a regular UK Zoo licence.
Bristol Zoo is a member of EAZA and as far as I understand, it has always passed its EAZA inspections very well. The relative space provision for Bristol Zoo’s animals is comparable to many other EU Zoos. For example, the footprint of the lion enclosure (787 sq/m) at Bristol Zoo is broadly comparable to many other respected Zoos across Europe and the US. However, the roof, the viewing angles and the slightly dilapidated look of it makes it appear and feel to some visitors that it is not adequate and ‘cruel’.
The Bristol Zoo gorilla enclosure is broadly comparable to its equivalents at London and Twycross Zoo for example.
Upon closing, animals that have left Bristol Zoo have travelled to other Zoos very similar to Bristol Zoo, whether that be Exmoor Zoo, Jersey Zoo, Cotswold Wildlife Park or Flamingo Land amongst many others.
If you are absolutist in your objection to animals in captivity you are entirely entitled to hold that point of view and there are plenty of arguments why this could be justified. However, there is also much evidence about how valuable accredited Zoos can be. If you like and value Zoos and the work they do but think Bristol Zoo specifically was not fit for purpose, then there needs to be a more nuanced and cognisant debate.
The debate around Zoos can often be informed by a lack of evidence, misinformation and emotion. When you read Trip Advisor reviews of UK Zoos, you can often see people projecting their own feelings onto animals they see in Zoos and what they ‘believe’ that animal is feeling.
Misunderstanding Of Animal Behaviour – Zoos Need To Educate Their Public Better
A typical Zoo visitor might expect to see a big cat running and great apes playing all the time. This is not natural behaviour for these animals and if they were behaving in this way then that would be cause for concern in itself.
A gorilla’s natural facial expression is what a human would perceive as a sad face and consequently may believe them to be “sad’ when seen in captivity.
Big cats more generally are highly evolved creatures that would almost never choose to run in the wild unless out of necessity. For example, at Whipsnade Zoo, keepers tried extensively to get their cheetahs (cheetahs are not actually part of the Panthera big cat group) to run at full speed but found it very difficult because there was no motivation for the cheetahs to do so.
Seeing big cats pacing can be interpreted as a sign of distress but it is natural behaviour for most big cats – especially tigers - to patrol their territories so a cat could just be replicating that natural behaviour. There is also anticipatory pacing which is not believed to be a sign of distress but when big cats think they are about to be fed. This is why Zoos usually do not choose to feed their big cats at set times.
There are many stereotypic signs of animals being distressed in captivity, whether that be head swaying, bar biting, excessive grooming or forms of self-harm. Bristol Zoo like all Zoos has evolved greatly in the last 20 years and for the most part in recent years, its animals have not exhibited these traits and certainly not disproportionately more than other UK Zoos.
There are also metrics by which you can determine whether an animal is doing well in captivity or not. These include:
Bone density
Reproductive health
How an animal is eating
Maintaining a good weight
Good body condition
Displaying naturalistic behaviours such as foraging or acting in a territorial way.
These are all criteria that an EAZA inspection would look at and as stated before, Bristol Zoo has always done very well in its inspections.
Animals In Captivity – Not Black And White
If you are fundamentally against keeping animals in captivity, then there is not much I or anyone else can say to change your mind. Despite what they might state publicly, a Zoo’s primary function is to be a visitor attraction and Zoos in general probably need to be more honest about that.
Many accredited Zoos in continental Europe benefit from state funding. Accredited, reputable Zoos in the USA often benefit from high-level philanthropy. UK Zoos receive no consistent state funding and also receive far lower levels of philanthropy – if any - so the vast majority of any UK Zoo’s income is from paying customers. Zoos have very high overheads to care for and feed their animals, maintain and invest in their sites and pay their staff. UK Zoos need money and that income comes from their paying visitors. In an increasingly competitive overall visitor attraction market, paying customers will only keep coming through the doors if they are receiving a worthwhile visitor experience. This is not just about the animals but about how clean the toilets are, how good the food is, is there a good park and indoor soft play, is it accessible, how easy is it to park etc? Therefore, a Zoo at heart, has to be a visitor attraction before it starts to do anything else, otherwise it will be doomed to fail and won’t have enough money to look after its animals, let alone do any conservation work.
Before adding a new animal species to its collection, a well-run and accredited Zoo will usually ask itself the following questions:
What is the conservation value of this animal?
How much will it cost to build its enclosure and keep?
How popular will it be?
All of these are important factors. Zoos don’t need all their animals to be A-list in popularity but if none of them are A-list, ie. lions and tigers, then the reality is that fewer visitors will come through their doors, the Zoo will make less money and consequently won’t be able to look after as many animals. Bristol Zoological Society’s plans for their new Bristol Zoo in South Gloucestershire appear to have fallen into this trap, navel gazing their way into a plan which I’m sure trustees thought sounded very impressive when they approved it but which seems unlikely to attract sufficient visitors to make them successful enough to then be able to reinvest some of their money into conservation which is what they say they want to do.
Animals In Captivity Vs Animals In The Wild
Quoting from an article written by Dr. David Hone in the Guardian in 2014;
What I would state with absolute confidence is that for many species (but no, not all) it is perfectly possible to keep them in a zoo or wildlife park and for them to have a quality of life as high or higher than in the wild. Their movement might be restricted (but not necessarily by that much) but they will:
Not suffer from the threat or stress of predators (and nor will they be killed in a grisly manner or eaten alive) or the irritation and pain of parasites.
Injuries and illnesses will be treated.
They won’t suffer or die of drought or starvation and indeed will get a varied and high-quality diet with all the supplements required.
They can be spared bullying or social ostracism or even infanticide by others of their kind, or a lack of a suitable home or environment in which to live.
A lot of very nasty things happen to truly ‘wild’ animals that simply don’t happen in good zoos and to cast a life that is ‘free’ as one that is ‘good’ is, I think, an error.
In addition to this, life expectancy is frequently longer for animals in captivity. For example, great apes might reach their early 30s in the wild but not their late 30s, 40s or even 50s which is starting to happen in captivity.
Anyone who has watched Frozen Planet II will know that if you’re a mountain goat living in the Alps being hunted and sometimes ruthlessly dropped off the tops of precipitous mountains by golden eagles or a seal living in Antarctica being ruthlessly pursued by pods of Orcas, that life is not always that great in the wild.
The Benefit Of Zoos
Despite being primarily visitor attractions, that is not all that Zoos are and there are powerful arguments to support the idea that keeping some animals in captivity in the right way, is for the greater good of the natural world. For:
Conservation and species protection
Education and empathy
Scientific research
The Role Of Zoos - Zoos As Arks – Species Protection
A Zoo’s primary role beyond being a visitor attraction, is to keep and manage a healthy pot of animals and to support the wild with either money, skills and sometimes putting some animals back where they’ve gone extinct or need a top up. The role of Zoos isn’t to look after wild populations only like the WWF or Born Free Foundation so it is unfair to make a direct comparison to those exclusively conservations charities.
And if a Zoo’s main role beyond being a visitor attraction is to look after a pot of animals and keep them healthy, Bristol Zoological Society will be looking after fewer animals if they only have one site at the Wild Place.
If you fundamentally disagree with any wild animal being held in captivity ever, then that is entirely your right to hold that opinion. However, there is another point of view; Zoos are arks, acting as insurance policies for the future to counter-act human impact on wild populations and habitat loss.
Dr. Sharon Redrobe OBE, Businesswoman Of The Year, ex-Director of Twycross Zoo and Veterinary Surgeon says:
“Animals are managed as European-wide and even world-wide outbred populations to maintain a healthy genetically viable self-sustaining population outside of the wild. This network of Zoos managing populations of various species (managed via European or American Zoo associations) means that there are effectively Arks of species being maintained. So, if the wild population disappears or crashes, this separate ark population can be released or used to top up the wild. Zoos are acting as Arks, not just visitor attractions. The fact that many animals may not need to be reintroduced is a good thing. But if they did, we wouldn’t be able to create a Time Machine and ensure we had kept some safe somewhere. We have done it for the future, just in case though; and those Arks are called Zoos”.
More Successful Zoo = More Money For Conservation
There is research to show that how popular a Zoo is in terms of its visitor numbers (and consequently its income), directly correlates with a greater conservation contribution in the wild.
Yvonne Buckley, Professor of Zoology at Trinity College Dublin said about a recent study by scientists from Trinity, Species360 and NUI Galway, quantifying what drives attendance to Zoos by assessing how variations in animal collections affect footfall:
“Conserving species in the wild remains the gold standard and with multiple habitats and species coming under ever-more serious threats from a variety of angles, there is an increasing relevance and importance to the role played by the thousands of Zoos and Aquariums across the globe in supporting conservation in the wild.
Our study provides global evidence to suggest that Zoos don’t need to compromise their economic viability and entertainment value in order to have a significant value to conservation.”
As one justification for selling Bristol Zoo, Bristol Zoological Society say that their species plan for the new Bristol Zoo will be comprised of animals of which 80% are linked to targeted conservation programmes (not an official EAZA phrase). As noble as this sounds, the reality is that when you look at the list, a lot of the proposed animals on it are not very marketable. This seems likely to result in a less attractive visitor offering and when combined with the increased inaccessibility of the South Gloucestershire site, will almost inevitably result in lower overall visitor numbers (in 2019 BZS across its two sites attracted over 800,000 visitors of which 512,934 were at Bristol Zoo), lower income and consequently less money to spend on conservation projects.
Therefore the argument that closing Bristol Zoo will allow BZS to contribute more to global conservation efforts is hard to follow.
I understand that all the money raised from selling the Clifton site will either go into paying off BZS debt (largely accrued from closing the Zoo too soon, vastly reducing income whilst overheads have remained high) Capex at the Wild Place or to replenish BZS reserves. The millions raised from the sale of Bristol Zoo will not go towards global conservation projects. The overall result will be a new ‘Bristol’ Zoo in South Gloucestershire that is a very long way from being ‘world class’ and not even close to being finished. And the site of the world’s 5th oldest Zoo and of huge historical, cultural and heritage significance to Bristol will become a luxury housing estate. There are no long-term protections to keep the gardens public and it will inevitably close its gates to the public not long after opening. Is this a legacy that anyone can be proud of, let alone the current management of Bristol Zoological Society?
Conservation Benefits Of Zoos
According to a recent study, accredited WAZA Zoos (World Association of Zoos and Aquaria) collectively deliver more than $350 million in conservation funding annually, a very large amount of money.
One example is of the golden lion tamarin monkey which without the work of Zoos around the world would now be extinct in the wild. But through successful captive breeding programmes in Zoos such as Dublin and also raising large amounts of money to protect the species in the wild, despite still being classified as endangered because of habitat fragmentation, golden lion tamarins’ numbers are now rising in their native home of Brazil. Because of the work of Zoos.
The Ark and Beyond is a book which asks, ‘What role do Zoos and Aquariums have to play in species reintroduction in the wild and conservation more generally?’ The book looks at this question from all angles and the book’s author, Ben Minteer, says about the successes of reintroducing endangered species back into the wild, ‘The track record for animal reintroductions is mixed but the successes are real. The American bison, the Arabian oryx, California condor, and black-footed ferret have been saved due in large part to the sustained efforts and expertise of zoos.’
Education Value Of Zoos
Zoos worldwide attract more than 700 million visitors annually. This is an enormous, unparalleled audience to educate about conservation, the importance of the natural world and the threat of climate change to us all. Zoos provide valuable education to their visitors about all of these issues.
As it has in the past and could still do again in the future, if it reopened, Bristol Zoo’s presence in Bristol can continue to make a significant impact on current and future generations of Bristolians (and beyond) through its excellent education work, which could like most things in life, still be improved further.
In Bristol Zoological Society’s ‘Strategy To 2025’ (published in 2019) they said, ‘..today we engage more than 35,000 schoolchildren each year in our education sessions at Bristol Zoo Gardens and 6,000 at Wild Place. In 2019 and in previous years, for schools choosing between BZS’s two attractions, Bristol Zoo was six times more popular than the Wild Place.
Sir David Attenborough once said:
“No one will protect what they don’t care about, and no one will care about what they have never experienced”.
Taking the Zoo out of the heart of Bristol and moving it to South Gloucestershire, with such heavy reliance on car use, can only mean that in the future, far fewer people from Bristol and especially the inner-city, will have the chance to experience amazing exotic and endangered wildlife and consequently, will not want to protect it.
Research Importance Of Zoos
Zoos add much to scientific investigation into the natural world and animal populations. Experimentation in Zoos can provide useful data for the management of both wild and captive populations. Multi-institutional cooperation allows Zoos to collectively make scientific breakthroughs, by providing data that serves as a base to fill gaps in scientific knowledge.
Research on animal behaviour and diet is used to set standards for animal welfare and Zoos’ research and animal care staff use science in big ways and small, adding to knowledge of genetics, cognitive studies and veterinary services.
Animal Space Requirements
It can always be argued that an animal would be better off in the wild, from the point of view of having more space, but if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion then you eventually arrive at no animals in captivity, ever and anywhere.
If you pay money to go into a Zoo, then on some level you are making a contract with yourself that you accept that you are going to experience animals in captivity. Even if you go to a large safari park, no matter how large any animal’s enclosure is, that animal is going to encounter a fence at some point.
Whilst we can probably all agree that an enclosure the size of your kitchen is too small for a lion and that a space as big as Bear Wood at the Wild Place is very good, between those two extremes is a huge subjective continuum. Where is the threshold, the watershed moment when an enclosure moves from being unacceptable to acceptable? When someone sees the lions at Bristol Zoo lying around and sleeping and believes them to be depressed and then goes to Longleat and sees lions lying around and sleeping but just in a large paddock and feels much better about it – despite the lions having fuming cars driving through their home every day – why does that same person feel better about it? What are they basing that on? Is it empirical evidence derived from meaningful research? Or is it an emotional reaction? Are they basing their views on what feels right to them? This question is at the heart of the debate around animals in captivity and the way the public react to and interact with Zoos.
Whilst bigger is typically better , being closer to the wild, there is no objective truth nor has there ever been any meaningful research conducted that provided empirical evidence about exact size requirements of enclosures for specific species of animals in captivity. More often than not, the quality of an enclosure, the level of enrichment an animal is provided with, the substrate, the number of places to hide from view and the topography, amongst many other factors, are more important than just the size. The needs of different species vary dramatically. For example, despite both being large cats, tigers are great roamers in a way that lions are not and therefore on balance, require more space. A stereotypic behaviour seen in tigers in captivity is pacing which can look like distress but could very well be their need to patrol their boundaries as they do in the wild. With limited boundaries in square box exhibits, it looks as though they are pacing and that it is not a normal behaviour.
Jacksonville Zoo in Florida has addressed this by creating their ‘Land Of The Tiger’ where their tigers are able to leave their enclosures and travel through a fortified tiger trail system, fabricated to fit the Asian theme of their exhibit. This trail system takes tigers through the plaza, the rafters of an exhibit building, behind both the east and west main exhibits and through a large, artificial strangler fig tree. There is a bamboo node at the end of the trail, far from the tigers’ main exhibit, where guests might be surprised by a tiger as they enter the area.
Elephants in captivity frequently suffer from foot problems because of not having enough space to roam and exercise their feet, being exposed to hard surfaces often covered in urine and faeces leading to infections and unlike their wild counterparts, captive elephants do not have access to natural vegetation which contains necessary trace minerals and vitamins that promote foot health. Köln Zoo in Germany is a fantastic example of keeping elephants in captivity very well. With lots of space and money, it has outstanding provision for its elephants replicating the substrate and topography of their natural habitat as authentically as it can whilst also accepting Germany is far removed from Asia in terms of climate and many other factors.
Mixed species enclosures (if done right) of animals which can co-exist successfully are known to be more enriching for their inhabitants and which more Zoos could pursue.
Enclosures More Closely Reflecting Natural Habitats?
Bristol Zoological Society in their PR have taken every opportunity to tell us how the new Bristol Zoo in South Gloucestershire will, ‘provide bigger enclosures that more closely reflect animals’ natural habitats’.
I understand from multiple inside sources at BZS that the proposed new black rhino enclosure will be one of, if not the smallest, of its kind in the UK.
Brian Zimmerman, Director of Conservation at BZS has said, “What’s unique about the new Bristol Zoo is that visitors will discover animals in a natural setting, rather than creating a completely human-made environment for them”.
Similar statements have been made about the proposed gorilla enclosure. It would be good to know what parts of South Gloucestershire very closely resemble central and southern Africa. Because when comparing their respective biospheres, there aren’t many similarities. Everything is different, from microbes to rainfall to air pressure to other organisms present, from plants to birds, tree cover, climate and substrate. These are just some of the reasons why South Gloucestershire will not resemble these animals’ natural habitats very closely at all and certainly not in a way that is any closer to central and southern Africa than Bristol is. All the enclosures at the Wild Place are fundamentally constructed by humans and any similarities to their natural environments will be artificial in the same way that they are at Bristol Zoo. Once again, this is little more than seductive PR from the Zoo.
How Can Zoos Improve – Idealism Vs Economic Reality?
There is always a balance to strike for a Zoo between making the viewing experience of an enclosure for paying visitors as good as possible versus giving their animals plenty of places to hide from view ,if they choose. For example, Chester Zoo has what most experts would consider a very good tiger enclosure but it gets many complaints as visitors will often not see a tiger because there are so many places for the tigers to hide from view.
Are there things that Zoos could do to improve animal welfare in Zoos? Absolutely and as so often in life, the single biggest determining factor here is economic.
Zoos have very high overheads, from keeping and feeding their animals to heating and veterinary care. This means that Zoos in the UK (which as mentioned before, don’t benefit from state funding) don’t have a huge amount of surplus cash for capital expenditure to invest in improving exhibits. A bigger enclosure will cost more money so a cost-benefit calculation always has to be made.
One of the main health issues gorillas suffer in captivity is arthritis in their knuckles as gorillas walk on their knuckles and their houses frequently have hard floors. One way to combat this is for their indoor substrate to be soft and enriching bio-floors. This is much better for their knuckles, replicates much more closely their natural environment and also gives them the opportunity to forage for much of their day which is natural behaviour for them. The reason most Zoos haven’t now moved to having bio-floors for their great apes is higher costs, practical issues around internal enclosure doors getting stuck and cleaning being more difficult.
Another example of a cost-benefit calculation is whether an exhibit’s viewing glass is one or two way visibility so the animals inside don’t have to be so aware of people staring at them all day. The primary reason a Zoo would not choose that for an enclosure is the added expense.
If organisations such as Born Free continue to lobby for bigger and bigger enclosures then ultimately, it will become economically unviable for Zoos to continue to exist and they will gradually disappear. I am sure that is what Born Free want but is it what the rest of us want? It is a question we will all need to consider if we want to continue visiting Zoos and believe the work they do is important.
In Conclusion
Zoos are no different to a reality we all encounter in our everyday lives; there is no perfect solution to anything and trade-offs have to be made each and every day. In Zoos, those trade-offs are usually subjective judgements made by people, often but not always, of great expertise.
As stated before, Zoos worldwide are still immensely popular, attracting more than 700 million visitors annually and of the UK’s Top 10 Most Visited Paid For Visitor Attractions, 4 out of 10 are Zoos. Bristol Zoo frequently ranked in the Top 10 most visited Zoos in the UK before it closed.
In simple terms, closing Bristol Zoo means fewer people in Bristol and the surrounding area will be able to benefit from what the presence of the institution added to the city and Bristol Zoological Society will lose out from all the money that people in Bristol and beyond paid to visit their attraction.
As well as the more tangible benefits of species protection, conservation, education and research, there are many other less quantifiable and sometimes intangible positives to Zoos; from inspiring a new generation of conservationists who love and care about the natural world, to motivating someone to become a vet or a Zookeeper. Studies have shown that observing and interacting with animals can help teach empathy and you can appreciate the magnificence, power, scale and sounds of wild animals in a way that you never would be able to watching TV. You can also have a shared experience with others from completely different backgrounds and entirely different outlooks to your own. Bristol Zoo did all of these things and more. Closing Bristol Zoo has ripped a living, breathing institution out of the city and when you do that, you’re going to experience some trauma.
Not just the animals but the gardens contributed so much to many people’s quality of life, it was a safe space in the middle of the city, a haven. In the future, doctors could prescribe two weeks each day at the Zoo to improve someone’s mental health.
Was Bristol Zoo fit for purpose? Yes.
Did it pass all of its EAZA inspections? Yes.
Was Bristol Zoo vastly different to many other Zoos in the UK in terms of the animals it held and the relative size of its enclosures for specific species? No.
If it were to reopen, could it substantially improve its animal enclosures and its overall offering as a visitor attraction? Yes.
Can and should Bristol Zoo reopen? Yes. Yes. Yes.