Viewing wild animals in captivity has long been a part of American culture. The United States saw its first chartered zoos and professional zoological organizations pop up in the late 1800s. Despite this long-standing history of animal exhibition, there has been a shift in consciousness regarding the treatment of animals in captivity, as patrons became increasingly concerned with the welfare of animals used for entertainment.
Netflix’s Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness began to scratch the surface of some of the pressing welfare and conservation issues associated with roadside zoos. Advocates argue that it failed to fully address the extent of suffering and mistreatment prevalent not only at Joe’s roadside zoo, but at countless roadside zoos across the country. It did, however, bring to light some of the issues associated with the regulation of roadside zoos and the difficulty with enforcement. Viewers witnessed Joe Exotic removing newborn baby tigers from their mothers, his rough handling of tigers, and his practice feeding animals expired meat.
Although there are welfare concerns associated with all forms of captivity, there are meaningful differences impacting animal welfare between larger accredited zoos and sanctuaries and small, private, unaccredited ones. Small, unaccredited zoos, often referred to as “roadside zoos,” are often operated for profit and focus primarily on entertainment, rather than conservation and education. Larger, more reputable facilities will try to replicate the animal’s natural environment and will only have animals in enclosures for only part of the day, whereas roadside zoos will keep animals in the same cage or smaller enclosure with limited access to physical and psychological enrichment or opportunities for socializing.
In 1966, Congress adopted the federal Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”), which for the first time regulated captive wild animals used for exhibition in zoos, aquariums, and circuses. Then, in 1977, the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) was signed into law, which provided protection for certain species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the Act, including those held captive in zoos and aquariums. These statutes only provide minimal welfare requirements and are limited in terms of scope and enforcement. Beyond these federal statutes, there have been the enactment of species-specific legislation protecting certain animals and States have adopted their own laws further regulating possession and exhibition of wild animals. In addition to increased regulation, there have been a number of organizations offering accreditation for exhibiting facilities, holding these facilities to a higher standard of animal welfare than the minimum requirements set out by the AWA.
In addition to federal and private welfare standards, States have adopted their own laws pertaining to treatment, exhibition, and ownership of wild animals. While the AWA sets the minimum standards for welfare including housing, veterinary care, and nutritional requirements, state laws or regulations may set out more specific requirements for ownership, possession, and exhibition of certain wildlife.
States also provide legal protection in the form of animal cruelty laws. These laws vary significantly in terms of strength and scope of provisions. While some states like Pennsylvania express provide protection for zoo animals, other states including Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Washington entirely exempt zoo animals and/or exhibition animals from its anti-cruelty provisions. Enforcement of state anti-cruelty laws is left up to state and local law enforcement. Unfortunately, state and local laws vary considerably, with some states having minimal regulation, oversight, and enforcement of exhibitors.
In addition to zoos and aquariums, certain animal sanctuaries exhibit animals to the public, subjecting themselves to regulation under the AWA. Unlike zoos and aquariums, legitimate sanctuaries aim to rescue and rehabilitate injured or captured animals and give them a lifelong home, and do not focus on research or entertainment. However, the term ‘sanctuary’ is generally unregulated, and any exhibitor can call itself a sanctuary without sharing these goals or maintaining the highest standards for animal welfare. With increasing public concern for animal welfare, many exhibitors that fail to meet even the minimum requirements set out under the AWA utilize unregulated terms like ‘sanctuary’ or ‘refuge’ to attract customers. While credible sanctuaries serve an important purpose in providing long term care for animals who cannot survive in the wild, lack of regulation surrounding what constitutes a reputable sanctuary can make it incredibly difficult to distinguish between facilities that genuinely prioritize the care and welfare of its animals that need to engage in limited public exhibition to raise enough money to continue to provide the best care for the animals, versus for-profit exhibitors trying to capitalize on humane-washing.
The animal welfare standards of larger zoos that the public is most familiar with (name some big zoos we all know) and reputable sanctuaries are dictated by private accreditation standards. In addition to standards set forth under the State laws and the AWA, exhibitors can opt to obtain certification through accrediting organizations. This is a form of self-regulation within the industry utilized by a small percentage of total exhibitors – usually larger, conservation-focused zoos, aquariums, and sanctuaries and often sets more stringent standards for animal welfare. Private accreditation can serve to help the public distinguish between more credible exhibitors and roadside zoos. However, there are a number of accreditors that adopt varying standards and adopt different, sometimes conflicting missions. Thus, while accreditation can signify that the exhibitor holds itself to higher welfare standards than non-accredit facilities, the inconsistency among accreditors can create confusion and send mixed messages to the public. Private accreditation is voluntary, and does not bear weight or relation to compliance with federal standards under the AWA.
While there has been increased regulation governing the possession and exhibition of wild animals, it is unclear whether the situation has improved for captive wildlife. Today, there are approximately 2,400 zoos in the U.S. alone containing hundreds of thousands of animals, not all of which are afforded legal protection. One zoo alone can house over 30,000 animals. While all exhibitors must obtain a license and adhere to welfare standards set forth in the AWA, these welfare standards have criticized as insufficient to adequately protect captive animals. Additionally, there are several issues with inspection and enforcement of the Act, resulting in a number of repeat violators continuing to possess and exhibit animals despite their chronic noncompliance. Because State and local laws vary in their scope, stringency, and enforcement, these laws do not always rise to fill the gaps left by the AWA. Only a small percentage of exhibitors have obtained private accreditation, and even some of these private standards have been criticized as insufficient to adequately protect animal welfare.