Many of us felt profound sadness when Harambe, a 17-year-old lowland gorilla, was executed at the Cincinnati Zoo after a child climbed into his enclosure. Many questioned the parents for not supervising their child; others thought the zoo could have tried nonlethal alternatives to sedate rather than kill Harambe. Still others used the experience to question the ethics of keeping wild animals in captivity for the amusement of humans. No matter how diligent a zoo is about attempting to provide an enriching environment, especially for larger and more intelligent species, it can never come close to either the physical space or the social structure that exists in the wild. Harambe’s death, as well as other similar incidents, raises many questions that have no easy answers: If we profess that it is wrong to cause animals unnecessary suffering, should we be confining them in zoos? Should we be preserving endangered species only to live in zoos because their habitat is disappearing? Even if we decide zoos are justifiable for some species, is that true for all species? It presents a real conundrum.
Most Americans will visit a zoo or similar facility that exhibits animals at some point in their lives. According to the website of the Humane Society of the United States, “Zoos are a fact of life. They have a responsibility to give every animal humane, professional care.” But are they really a fact of life? And is “professional care” enough? Zoos are full of people who deeply care about and greatly respect animals, but the practical and ethical questions they raise are serious and worthy of intense consideration.
