Zoos : The Saviour of Endangered Species, or Forced Imprisonment for Profit?

Hope Turner - 74530

26/01/2011

Word Count: 3035

ContentsAbstract.........................................................................................................................3

Introduction...................................................................................................................3

A History of Zoos.........................................................................................................4

Initial Zoo Animal Sourcing........................................................................................6

Current Zoo Animal Sourcing....................................................................................8

Physical and Mental Health of Zoo Animals and other costs...............................9

Contributions to Conservation.................................................................................11

A Frozen Future.........................................................................................................15

Conclusion..................................................................................................................16

Appendix 1..................................................................................................................18

References.................................................................................................................20

Abstract

Research into zoo claims regarding their role in conservation, and their actual

contributions to the preservation of endangered species. Zoos historically

have in fact been major contributors to the extinction process, which in turn

has raised the profiles of their exclusive exhibits and thus accrued greater

profits. Of over 10,000 zoos worldwide, only 1,000 are involved in ex-situ

breeding programs (Laidlaw, 2001), and of those the numbers of captive bred

animals released into the wild, which thrive there, are negligible; concluding

that whilst a small number of zoos are striving forward, the vast majority of

zoos are not breeding self-sustaining populations of endangered species and

have no valid claims on conservation status.

Introduction

Volunteering at Twycross Zoo gave a new insight into what goes on behind

the scenes. Twycross began as Molly Badhams’ personal collection of exotic

pets, escalating to zoo status through demands of the public and the

necessity to subsidise costs rather than through any motivation for

conservation, as the animals in the collection appeared abundant in the wild

at the time, due to the numbers of animals available on the market (Badham

et al. 2000).

In 2002 an amendment was made to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (Crown,

2002) and also under the EC Zoos Directive 2002 (EC Directive 1999/22/EC),

implemented a legal undertaking for all British zoos to demonstrate active

involvement in conservation (Hosey et al. 2009) however this “does not

specifically require zoos to participate in the captive breeding and

reintroduction of endangered species” (Rees, 2005).

This is an investigation into zoos as a whole, and their contribution or lack

thereof towards conservation.

A History of Zoos

Before zoos the rich and powerful had menageries (Croke, 1997), personal

collections of exotic pets, much in the same way as Molly Badham did

(Badham et al. 2000); the first recorded animal collecting expedition dates

back to 1490 B.C. in ancient Egypt (Croke, 1997).

In 1826 Sir. Stamford Raffles founded the Zoological Society of London (ZSL)

see Image 1 (Croke, 1997: Zoological Society of London, N.D.), and the

concept of zoos was born. London Zoos’ success, strengthened by a visit

from Queen Victoria in 1842 and its’ opening to the public in 1847 sparked a

“zoo boom”, and other European cities swiftly followed suit. The craze of

exhibiting creatures that were out of the ordinary even ran to humans, when in

1906 New York Zoological Society exhibited a 23 year old African Pygmy

named Ota Benga see Image 2, who later committed suicide (Croke, 1997).

Image 1 (Unknown, 1842)

Image 2(Unknown, 1906)

However, exhibit housing was bleak and cramped, mainly concrete floors and

bars see Image 3. Until 1902 no lion, tiger, parrot or monkey at London zoo

had fresh air, and the fact that “more animals died at most zoos than were

born there” was usually blamed on a “fatal draft”. In 1900, the famous exotic

animal collector, Carl Hagenbeck opened the first “zoo without bars”, including

naturalistic enclosures, igniting other zoos to alter their layouts, both for

aesthetic and animal welfare reasons (Croke, 1997).

Image 3 (Unknown, 1902)

Initial Zoo Animal Sourcing

Carl Hagenbeck was known to have said, when referring to elephants, that

“young specimens cannot as a rule be secured without first killing the old

ones” and in relation to other animals that “a large number of captives die

soon after they have been made prisoners, and scarcely half of them arrive

safely in Europe” (Croke, 1997).

Following the success of zoos, traveling zoos and circuses became popular,

and the demand for exotic animals for both exhibition and as pets

skyrocketed. However, without sufficient knowledge of how to take care of

them, this not only lead to the deaths of these creatures, but thousands of

their relatives in order to obtain them. Another famous animal supplier, Frank

Buck brought back 10,000 mammals and 100,000 birds to America, if that was

the half that survived transportation the numbers killed in the wild is

incalculable. A dealer named Lecomte lead an expedition in 1868, initiating

his journey home with 84 animals, but docking in London with only 8. Many

wild caught exhibits died within days of arrival at a zoo, so much so that when

a gorilla arrived on site all people interested were advised to see it

immediately, as by 1911 the only gorilla to reach America alive died within 5

days of arrival. It must be noted that these deaths were due to the complete

lack of knowledge of how to care for the animals, in addition to completely

unsuitable enclosures (Croke, 1997), as a gorillas’ diet, was:

Breakfast - 2 sausages and a pint of beer

Lunch - Cheese sandwiches

Dinner - Boiled potatoes, mutton and more beer (Blunt, 1835)

as compared to a modern day gorilla diet of mainly fruit and vegetables

(Appendix 1), of course back then medicine was in early stages and therefore

it is unlikely that the collectors would have known of the risk of human

diseases to great apes either.

Animal finding expeditions were leaving a path of destruction through

previously untouched Asian forests, South American jungles and African

savannahs (Croke, 1997).

Current Zoo Animal Sourcing

Importation of zoo animals falls under a number of different Acts, the

Endangered Species (Import & Export) Act 1981, the Wild Animals

(Restriction on Importation, etc.) Act 1990 and the Destructive Imported

Animals Act 1963, licenses for which can be obtained via the Department of

Environment Food and Agriculture (Crown, 2011).

79% of all UK public aquaria animals and over 70% of EU zoo elephants are

wild caught (Captive Animals’ Protection Society, N.D.). Approximately

35,000,000 “fish and other aquatic creatures” enter the UK via Heathrow each

year (City of London, N.D.).

Wild Dolphins are herded into a cove in Taiji, Japan, the ‘perfect specimens’

are sold to aquariums & zoos for $100,000, whilst the rest of the pod are

slaughtered for meat see Image 3. On 15th February 2011 161 dolphins were

taken from the cove into captivity, 755 were killed (Katsinis, 2011), current

dolphin slaughter numbers in Japan are estimated at 23,000 per year. Dolphin

herding at Taiji runs almost daily from September to March (Psihoyos, 2009),

if the figures from 15th February are average, that means an estimate 5867

dolphins are taken into captivity from the cove each year; showing very clearly

that dolphins do not survive in captivity and are not being bred for

conservation.

Image 3 (Psihoyos, 2009)

Whilst the majority of zoo animals are now captive bred, a Zoo Collection Plan

in order to maintain genetic diversity, must include “fresh blood”, bearing in

mind a general lack in reproduction in many captive animals, which demands

further capture of wild species. Much of the capture procedure of these

creatures is humanely done with tranquilizer darts, however even in these

scenarios, as opposed to those shown in Image 3, wild born animals are still

ripped from their natural habitats and family.

Physical and Mental Health of Zoo Animals and other costs

Willie B was a wild born gorilla, but spent 27 years in a concrete box with

metal bars on display in Atlanta, and was described by Terry Maple, the zoo

director, as the “loneliest gorilla in the world” (Croke, 1997); since then

perceptions have changed and “cages are now seen by visitors as

unacceptable” (Ironmonger, 1992).

Ric O’Barry explains that “captive dolphins get ulcers” due to stress, dolphins

are very sensitive to noise and can get so stressed by even the noise pollution

from filters in their tank, that they will consciously commit suicide by refusing

to take another breath (Psihoyos, 2009). A credit to the UK’s view of animal

welfare, is the fact that due to an amendment to the Zoo Licensing Act (1981)

in 1990, enforcing strict standards with regard to pool size, feeding, water

quality and handling, all pre-existing dolphinaria were closed, and there are

currently no captive dolphins in the UK.

In a Bristol University report only 20% of UK elephants had a normal gait, 75%

were overweight, and 54% showed stereotypical behaviour, concluding there

was a welfare concern for every UK housed elephant (Harris et al. 2008). The

median longevity of African Elephants in zoos is 16.9 years, and in the wild is

56 years (Clubb et al. 2008). Elephant fecundity is low with captive elephant

numbers declining at a rate of 10% per year (Clubb et al. 2009).

It costs one hundred times more to maintain a group of elephants in captivity

than to protect enough space for a similar group and their entire ecosystem in

the wild (Born Free Foundation/WSPA, 1994) and if their reproductive

capacity in captivity is negligible then their captivity in zoos cannot be

considered as a contribution to their conservation, in fact “zoos are not able to

maintain their elephant populations without importing new, wild-caught

animals" (Morell, 2008).

There are increased health risks from not being on completely natural diets

(Clauss et al. 2008: Schwarm et al. 2006: Crossley & del Mar Miguelez,

2001), including reduced oocyte production (Parthasarathy & Palli, 2011); or

in natural settings (Videan et al. 2007: Rees, 2004), as well as increased

mental health issues raised by having any natural behaviours allowed by their

captivity, disturbed by visitors (Birke, 2002).

Due to space restrictions and fight risk, most animals are un-able to be kept in

natural sized groups, this reduces sperm production in primates (Moller, 1988)

and often produces “a complete cessation of reproduction” (Dehnhard, 2011).

Obviously this combination of reduced oocyte & sperm production, as well as

the general lack of reproduction in captive animals as a whole, is completely

counterproductive to the ex-situ breeding of sustainable populations, although

conservation is generally a zoos justification for holding wild animals captive

(Lindburg, 2000).

According to Tom Regan, when taking into account the rights of the individual

animal, zoos are not morally defensible (Norton et al. 1995), nor does it seem

that they are all quite what they claim with regards to species survival.

Contributions to Conservation

The British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) collates the

breeding programs of its’ members in association with the European

Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), their main aim is to promote

improvement of welfare and ex-situ conservation, their website states their

role includes “to re-introduce and support to wild populations (if applicable..”

(BIAZA, 2005).

In 2005 only 17.1% of animals in BIAZA zoos were in recognised conservation

breeding programmes (BIAZA, 2006). An investigation by the Born Free

Foundation revealed that 91.1% of threatened mammals and 95% of

threatened birds species are not represented in the Consortium of Charitable

Zoos (CCZ) “the most progressive zoos in the country” (Born Free

Foundation, 2007). Another report found that “95% or more of the worldwide

zoo industry does not participate in, or make any effort to participate in,

recognized captive propagation and reintroduction initiatives” (Laidlaw, 2001).

These statistics are born out of the fact that zoos source animals that will

attract the most visitors (Moss & Esson, 2010), however, whilst this increases

revenue for the zoo, it does not necessarily contribute to conservational

breeding e.g. Philadelphia Zoos’ White Lion exhibit, brings in over $1 million a

year, but their breeding pair are brother and sister, whose father is also their

grand & great grand-father (Croke, 1997), this inbreeding for profit also seen

in white tigers, sold to entertainment acts by other zoos has no role in

conservation.

The effects of human choice of selectively breeding cannot be

underestimated, as whilst it may be based on pedigrees and phenotypes of

the potential mates it is not based, as it would be in the wild, due to natural

selection, on the genotypes (Mays & Hill, 2004).

The release of ex-situ captive bred felids, has not as yet been successful, only

50% of released animals were capable of hunting in order to support

themselves, and all were killed or died. “On average only one in three captive-

born carnivores survives in the wild” (Jule et al. 2008). In comparison in-situ

breed, rescue and release programs have increasing success rates (Hunter &

Rabinowitz, 2009: Coonan et al. 2010).

The release of 14 captive bred Golden Lion Tamarins in 1984 resulted in the

removal or death of 11 (79%) of the animals (Stolinski et al. 1997), leading to

an improved training program and a more successful reintroduction in 1995

(Hosey et al. 2009).

The oft-quoted reintroduction of the Arabian Oryx, failed when poaching

resulted in the necessity to re-capture those left in order to continue to

perpetuate the species; and the capture of all Californian Condors on the

brink of extinction in 1986 has fared little better due to the mortality rates of

released birds (Hosey et al. 2009). If the animals survive re-introduction, after

careful planning and much training, there is still a major risk of inbreeding,

(Jameson, 2011) potentially leading to lack of fertility and further loss of

genetic diversity due to the loss of the lines re-introduced.

Of the 194 members of the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group

(RSG), a group set up to advise on and promote “reintroduction of viable

populations of animals” only 17 work in zoos (IUCN, 2007).

The number of zoos involved with the conservation breeding program and the

space they have available for young counteracts their intensions as without

re-introducing these animals to the wild, they cannot hope to perpetuate these

species (Hosey et al. 2009) and often have to cull the very young they aim to

breed (Moore, 2007) due to a surplus. Zoo surplus figures for America have

been estimated at 80,000 animals per year (Croke, 1997). There are also

significant concerns about the potential of these captive bred groups due to

their lack of genetic diversity (Laike, 1999).

Very few zoos re-introduce, but these include The Aspinall Foundation

(Aspinall Foundation, 2010) and the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust

(Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, 2011) who have reserves for the animals

they release.

This being the case, zoos that don’t re-introduce, assist in reintroduction or

own reserves cannot truly be considered to be perpetuating a species other

than for exhibition purposes.

As far as financial contribution to in-situ conservation goes, “the CCZ appears

to spend an estimated 4-6.7% of gross income” (Born Free Foundation,

2007), however much all may not be as it seems, for example whilst Twycross

Zoo declared donations of £72,028 as amounting to around 12% of profit in

2008, this figure was after the transfer of over £3.5 million into a contingency

fund, making the zoos donations closer to 1.7% of profit. Twycross Zoo’s

running costs for 2008 were over £6.6 million, however the charity has no in-

situ reservations, nor does it release animals into the wild (Twycross Zoo,

2009), whereas by comparison the Born Free Foundations expenditure for

2008 was £2.3 million, (Born Free Foundation, 2008) protecting “ lions,

elephants, gorillas, chimpanzees, tigers, polar bears, wolves, dolphins, turtles,

sharks and lots more” in wildlife reserves across the globe (Born Free

Foundation, 2011).

The Zoological Society of London is extremely active in data collation, plan

creation and implementation of in-situ conservation programs around the

world, working with many other organisations through its sub-divisions like its’

Edge of Existence programme and 21st Century Tiger etc. (ZSL, 2010); and as

its existence launched zoos worldwide, it appears to continue to strive to be

first.

A Frozen Future

The Frozen Ark Project is the 21st centuries technological answer to the

increase in current extinction rates (Clarke, 2009), and the lack of successful

ex-situ captive breeding by zoos of self-sustaining populations of endangered

species. However, whilst eminently qualified scientists spend millions in the

collection ova, sperm and embryos from dying species, to store in liquid

nitrogen “just in case” questions remain:-

How can they be bred in the future without the correct wombs, and therefore

nutrients ,to carry them?

Where on Earth will they be released to, bearing in mind the current path of

total destruction of the last vestiges of our wild planet, through population

increase and global warming?

As John Seidensticker if the National Zoo in Washington D.C. says “it is not

enough to produced genetically diverse babies; we must also produce and

maintain behaviourally competent animals who can thrive in the wild” (Croke,

1997). Which begs the further question, how are they expected to survive in

the wild with no others of their species to teach them the ropes?

Conclusion

Of the millions of animals in thousands of Zoos across the globe, only a

handful have ever been re-introduced to the wild, and the majority of those

died within a very short space of time due to lack of knowledge or ability to

provide for themselves.

The results of much research into zoos has led to the realisation that the

captivity of carnivores “should be either fundamentally improved or phased

out” (Clubb & Mason, 2003), concepts of zoo animal welfare and its use in

justifying zoos are insufficient (Wickins-Drazilova, 2006), behavioural

husbandry often un-heard of (Melfi & Hosey, 2011), and the current breeding

program for conservation of species by zoos needs to be radically altered

(Leus, Traylor-Holzer, & Lacy, 2011).

“Captive breeding should be viewed as a last resort in species recovery”

(Snyder et al. 1996) therefore perhaps the way forward is being shown by

zoos like the Aspinall Foundation, the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, and

the Zoological Society of London, as well as by other groups such as the Cat

Survival Trust (Cat Survival Trust, 2002), breeding in the UK and releasing

into protected reserves, as well as owning and protecting reserves elsewhere,

and ALERT (African Lion & Environmental Research Trust, 2011), breeding at

in-situ locations and rescuing orphaned animals, with long term goals of

providing life skills to enable self-sustenance, with staggered soft-releases

into the wild.

Therefore it can be said that a small number of zoos are a mechanism for

obtaining the means to preserve limited numbers of endangered species, but

the vast majority run for profit, who whilst portraying themselves as

conservation driven are in fact contributing to the “extinction effect” in their

constant need to replace exhibits, enforcing limited longevity and redundant

productivity, when not culling due to space issues, which in turn raises their

visitor numbers due to the exclusivity of their stock.

Appendix 1

Diet Sheet

Species: WESTERN LOWLAND GORILLA Gorilla gorilla gorilla

Number: Two adults (Gorilla Group)

BREAKFAST

Bongo:1 orange, 1 apple,1 banana, 2 oz carrots

Biddy: ½ apple

4 pints tea each, 2 dsps Vionate every 1st day

Above given in Bed Area. Bongo given slice bread once in Trap Area.

Scattered in day area:

6 oz carrots 4 oz cabbage 2 oz Chinese leaf

2 oz cauliflower 2 oz swede 2 oz parsnip

10:30 approx Midmorning routine - each:

portion yogurt, few nuts / raisins 1 item fruit

1 litre squash forage scattered in day are (sunflower seeds, corn)

11:45 – 12:45

leaves, 1 – 2 branches (approx. March to November)

EVENING Each individual comes into separate Bed Area for their teas.

Summer

17:30 – 18:00 All given 4 pints tea (or occasionally, Complan or squash)

Winter

16:40 – 17:00 2 items, eg. kiwi, cereal bar, ⅛ pineapple, slice bread

TEA

BONGO BIDDY

lettuce 1 1

cucumber ½ ½

tomato 4 4

celery ½ bunch ½ bunch

apple 1 ½

orange 1 ½

banana 1 1 small

pear ¼ ¼

grapes sm bunch sm bunch

lemon or grapefruit ¼ or ⅛ ¼ or ⅛

carrots 10 oz 4 oz

cauliflower 2 oz(+1 oz leaves)

1 oz

cabbage 4 oz (outer leaves)

2½ oz

Spring cabbage 4 oz 2½ oz

Red cabbage 1 oz 1 oz

Chinese leaf 1 ½ oz 1 oz

Chicory ⅛ ⅛

Brocolli 1 oz 1 oz

Pepper ¼ ¼

Swede 1 ½ oz 1 oz

Parsnip 1 ½ oz 1 oz

Pellets or nuts every 1st day

small handful

small handful

boiled egg every 2nd day

2 2

Potatoes (occasional)

1 oz 1 oz

Fennel / Aubergine / Courgette

small bit each

small bit each

In season use up to:

any type bean 3 oz 2 oz

peas 3 oz 2 oz

rhubarb 1 oz 1 oz

sprouts 1 - 2 oz 1 – 2 oz

(Twycross Zoo, 2008)

References

African Lion & Environmental Research Trust (2011) The African Lion &

Environmental Research Trust. (Internet) Available from:

http://www.lionalert.org/ (accessed 30/01/2011)

Aspinall Foundation (2010) The Aspinall Foundation (Internet) Available from:

http://www.aspinallfoundation.org/aspinall (accessed 19/01/2011)

Badham, M. Evans, N. & Lawless, M. (2000) Molly’s Zoo – Monkey Mishchief

at Twycross. Pocket Books, London p. 7-53, 64, 220

BIAZA (2005) Conservation: How Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Breeding

Programmes Work. (Internet) Available from:

http://www.biaza.org.uk/public/pages/conservation/breeding.asp (accessed

12/02/2011)

BIAZA (2006) BIAZA Annual Report 2005. BIAZA. London

Birke, L. (2002) Effects of Browse, Human Visitors and Noise on the

Behaviour of Captive Orang Utans. Animal Welfare. Volume 11, Number 2,

May 2002, UFAW, Herts p. 189-202

Blunt, W. (1835) The Ark in the Park: the Zoo in the Nineteenth Century.

Zoological Society of London, London

Born Free Foundation/WSPA (1994) The Zoo Enquiry. Born Free Foundation,

Horsham

Born Free Foundation (2007) Animal Ark or Sinking Ship? An Evaluation of

Conservation by UK Zoos. Born Free Foundation. Horsham

Born Free Foundation (2008) Trustees Annual Report. Born Free Foundation.

Horsham

Born Free Foundation (2011) About Us. (Internet) Available from:

http://www.bornfree.org.uk/about-us/ (accessed 12/02/2011)

Cat Survival Trust (2002) The New Provincial Park in Misiones. (Internet)

Available from: http://www.catsurvivaltrust.org/misiones.htm (accessed

26/01/2011)

Captive Animals’ Protection Society (N.D.) Sad Eyes and Empty Lives, the

Reality of Zoos. (Internet) Available from:

http://www.captiveanimals.org/zoos/factsheet.htm (accessed 12/02/2011)

City of London (N.D.) Heathrow Animal Reception Centre. (Internet) Available

from: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/scripts/htm_hl.pl?

DB=col&STEMMER=en&WORDS=anim%20import%20number

%20animal&ALL=&ANY=&EXACTB=0&PHRASE=&EXACTP=0&CATEGORI

ES=&SIMPLE=animal%20import

%20numbers&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://

www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/

Environment_and_planning/Animal_welfare/

Heathrow_animal_reception_centre.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match

(accessed 12/02/2011)

Clarke, A.G. (2009) The Frozen Ark Project: the Role of Zoos and Aquariums

in Preserving the Genetic Material of Threatened Animals. International Zoo

Yearbook. Vol. 43. Issue 1. January 2009. The Zoological Society of London,

London p.222-230

Clauss, M. Dierenfeild, E.S. Bigley, K.E. Wang, Y. Ghebremeskel, K. Hatt,

J.M. Flach, E.J. Behler, O. Castell, J.C. Streich, W.J. & Bauer, J.E. (2008)

Fatty Acid Status in Captive and Free-ranging Black Rhinoceroses (Diceros

Bicornis). Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition Vol. 92 No 3

June 2008 Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey p. 231-241

Clubb, R. & Mason, G. (2003) Animal Welfare: Captivity Effects on Wide-

ranging Carnivores. Nature 425 2 October 2003 Nature Publishing Group,

London. 473-474

Clubb, R. Rowcliffe, M. Lee,P. Mar, K.U. Moss, C. & Mason, G.J. (2008)

Compromised Survivorship in Zoo Elephants. Science. 12 December 2008

Vol. 322 no. 5908 American Association for the Advancement of Science,

Washington D.C. p. 1649

Clubb, R. Rowcliffe, M. Lee, P. Mar, K.U. Moss, C. Mason, G.J. (2009)

Fecundity and Population Viability in Female Zoo Elephants: Problems and

Possible Solutions. Animal Welfare, Vol. 18, No 3, August 2009, UFAW Herts.

p. 237-247

Coonan, T.J. Varsik, A. Lynch, C. & Schwemm, A. (2010) Cooperative

Conservation: Zoos and In-situ Captive Breeding for Endangered Island Fox

Urocyon Littoralis ssp. International Zoo Yearbook, Vol. 44. Issue 1. January

2010. The Zoological Society of London, London p. 165-172

Croke, V. (1997) The Modern Ark: The Story of Zoos, Past, Present and

Future. Scribner, New York p.21-26, 31, 127-158

Crossley D.A. & del Mar Miguelez, M. (2001) Skull Size and Cheek-tooth

Length in Wild-caught and Captive-bred Chinchillas. Archives of Oral Biology.

Vol. 46 No. 10 October 2001 Elseveir, Amsterdam p.919-928

Crown (2002) Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (Amendment) (England and Wales)

Regulations 2002 (Internet) Available from:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3080/contents/made (accessed

18/01/2011)

Crown (2011) Import and Export of Exotic Animals and Endangered Species.

(Internet) Available from: http://www.gov.im/daff/animals/exotic.xml (accessed

12/02/2011)

Dehnhard, M. (2011) Mammals Semiochemicals: Understanding Pheromones

and Signature Mixtures for Better Zoo-animal Husbandry and Conservation.

International Zoo Yearbook. The Zoological Society of London, London

Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (2011) In the Field (Internet) Available

from: http://www.durrell.org/In-the-field/ (accessed 19/01/2011)

Harris, M. Sherwin, C. & Harris, S. (2008) The Welfare, Housing and

Husbandry of Elephants in UK Zoos. University of Bristol. (Internet) Available

from: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?

Document=WC05007_7719_FRP.pdf (accessed 30/01/2011)

Hosey, G. Melfi, V. & Pankhurst, S. (2009) Zoo Animals – Behaviour,

Management and Welfare. Oxford University Press, Oxford p. 64-67, 292-378

Hunter, L. & Rabinowitz, A. (2009) Limited Prospects for Reintroduction Using

Captive Felids. Cat News. No 51. Autumn 2009. IUCN/SSC Switzerland

Ironmonger, J. (1992) The Good Zoo Guide. Harper Collins Publishers,

London p.18-24

IUCN (2007) RSG Members (Internet) Available from:

http://www.iucnsscrsg.org/rsg_database.php (accessed 13/02/2011)

Jameson, I.G. (2011) Founder Effects, Inbreeding and Loss of Genetic

Diversity in Four Avian Reintroduction Programs. Conservation Biology. Vol.

25, Issue 1, February 2011 p. 115-123

Jule, K.R. Leaver, L.A. & Lea, S.E.G. (2008) The Effects of Captive

Experience on Reintroduction Survival in Carnivores: A Review and Analysis.

Biological Conservation 141, Elsevier, Oxford p. 355-363

Katsinis, L. (2011) Report from Taiji: February 15. Sea Shepherd

Conservation Society (Internet) Available from:

http://www.seashepherd.org/dolphins/report-from-taiji-february-15.html

(accessed 15/02/2011)

Laidlaw, R. (2001) Reintroduction of Captive-bred Animals to the Wild: Is the

Modern Ark Afloat? From: Jordan, B. (2001) Who Cares for Planet Earth? The

Con in Conservation. The Alpha Press Ltd. London

Laike, L. (1999) Hereditary Defects and Conservation Genetic Management of

Captive Populations. Zoo Biology. Vol. 18. Issue 2. Wiley-Liss Inc. New

Jersey p. 81-99

Leus, K. Traylor-Holzer, K. & Lacy, R.C. (2011) Genetic and Demographic

Population Management in Zoos and Aquariums: Recent Developments,

Future Challenges and Opportunities for Scientific Research. International

Zoo Yearbook, The Zoological Society of London, London

Lindburg, D.G. (1999) Zoos and the Rights of Animals. Zoo Biology, Vol. 18

Issue 15. Wiley-Liss Inc. New Jersey p.433-488

Mays H.L. & Hill, G.E. (2004) Choosing Mates: Good Genes Versus Genes

that are a Good Fit. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 19, Issue 10,

October 2004 Elsevier Ltd. Amsterdam p. 554-559

Melfi, V. & Hosley, G. (2011) Capacity Building for Better Animal Welfare.

International Zoo Yearbook. The Zoological Society of London, London

Moller, A.P. (1988) Ejaculate Quality, Testes Size and Sperm Competition in

Primates. Journal of Human Evolution, Vol.17, Issue 5, August 1988, Elsevier

Ltd. Amsterdam. p. 479-488

Moore, M. (2007) Swiss Zoo Culls Endangered Lion Cubs. The Telegraph.

London. (Internet) Available from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1558862/Swiss-zoo-culls-

endangered-lion-cubs.html (accessed 19/01/2011)

Morell, V. (2008) Do Zoos Shorten Elephant Life Spans? Science Magazine

(Internet) Available from: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/12/11-

02.html (accessed 12/02/2011)

Moss, A. & Esson, M. (2010) Visitor Interest in Zoo Animals and the

Implications for Collection Planning and Zoo Education Programmes. Zoo

Biology, Vol. 29. Issue 6. Wiley-Liss, Inc. New Jersey p.715-731

Norton, B.G. Hutchins, M. Stevens, E.F. & Maple, T.L. (1995) Ethics on the

Ark. Smithsonian Institutional Press. Washington D.C. p. 38-51, 181-187

Parthasarathy, R. & Palli, S.R. (2011) Molecular Analysis of Nutritional and

Hormonal Regulation of Female Reproduction in the Red Flour Beetle,

Tribolium Castaneum. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Elsevier

Ltd. Amsterdam

Psihoyos, L. (2009) The Cove. (Film) Oceanic Preservation Society. Boulder,

Colorado

Rees, P.A. (2004) Low Environmental Temperature Causes an Increase in

Steriotypic Behaviour in Captive Asian Elephants (Elephas maxiums). Journal

of Thermal Biology, Vol. 29 No. 1 January 2004 Elsevier, Amsterdam p.37-43

Rees, P.A. (2005) The EC Zoos Directive: A Lost Opportunity to Implement

the Convention of Biological Diversity. Journal of International Wildlife Law

and Policy. Vol. 8, No 1, Jan-Mar 2005 p. 51-62

Schwarm, A. Ortmann, S. Hofer, H. Streich, W.J. Flach, E.J. Kuhne, R.

Hummel, J. Castell, J.C. Clauss, M. (2006) Digestion Studies in Captive

Hippopotamidae: a Group of Large Ungulates with an Unusually Low

Metabolic Rate. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. Vol. 90 No

7-8 August 2006 Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey p.300-308

Snyder, N.F.R. Derrickson, S.R. Beissinger, S.R. Wiley, J.W. Smith, T.B.

Toone, W.D. & Miller, B. (1996) Limitations of Captive Breeding in

Endangered Species Recovery. Conservation Biology. Vol. 10, Issue 2, April

1996, Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey p.338-348

Stolinski, T.S. Beck, B. Bowman, M. & Lehnhardt, J. (1997) The Gateway Zoo

Program: a Recent Initiative in Golden Lion Tamarin Reintroduction in J.

Wallis (ed.), Primate Conservation: the Role of Zoological Parks. American

Society of Primatologists, Special Topics in Primatology. 1:29-41

Twycross Zoo (2008) Western Lowland Gorilla Diet Sheet. Twycross Zoo,

Leicestershire

Twycross Zoo (2009) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the year ended 31

December 2008. Twycross Zoo - East Midland Zoological Society Limited,

Leicestershire

Unknown (1842) Carnivore House, London Zoo 1842 (Internet) Available

from: http://www.keyposters.com/poster/6749877.html (accessed 13/02/2011)

Unknown (1902) Animal Artists at the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. L’Illustration,

7th August 1902

Unknown (1906) Ota Benga at Bronx Zoo (Internet) Available from:

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/09/ota_benga/bronx_lg.jpg

(accessed 13/02/2011)

Videan, E.N. Heward, C.B. Fritz, J. Murphy, J. Cortez, C. Su, Y. (2007)

Relationship between Sunlight Exposure, Housing Condition, and Serum

Vitamin D and Related Physiologic Biomarker Levels in Captive Chimpanzees

(Pan troglodytes). Comparative Medicine. Vol. 57 No 4 August 2007 American

Association for Laboratory Animal Science, Memphis p. 402-406

Wickins-Drazilova, D. (2006) Zoo Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and

Environmental Ethics Vol. 19 No. 1 February 2006 Springer, Berlin p. 27-36

ZSL (N.D.) ZSL History (Internet) Available from:

http://www.zsl.org/about-us/zsls-history,129,AR.html (accessed 12/02/2011)

ZSL (2010) ZSL Conservation. ZSL. London