WHAT ARE WE REALLY TEACHING?
Zoos and wildlife facilities often promote close encounters with wild animals as opportunities to educate, inspire and build connections with nature. Feeding encounters, animal presentations and other forms of human–animal interaction can create memorable experiences for visitors.
ㅤ
But a peer-reviewed commentary published in the scientific journal Animals raises a more complicated question:
ㅤ
What are people actually learning from these encounters—and what does the experience mean for the animal involved?
ㅤ
Author Mark James Learmonth examines human–animal interactions in zoos from an ethical and animal-welfare perspective. His position is nuanced. He acknowledges that interactions can sometimes benefit people and animals and that profound experiences connecting with animals may encourage respect for nature and pro-conservation behavior. At the same time, he warns that these interactions can produce unintended consequences that wildlife facilities need to consider.
WHEN CONNECTION CAN HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
One of the paper's most important concerns involves the message people may take away from close encounters with wildlife.
ㅤ
Learmonth discusses growing concern among zoo researchers, educators, managers and behavior-change specialists that direct interactions can normalize similar behavior in inappropriate settings. Experiences that make wild animals appear “tame” or “cute,” he explains, may increase some people's desire to own exotic animals as pets. Images of celebrities interacting with wildlife at poorly regulated facilities or tourism destinations can reinforce that normalization.
ㅤ
The paper also raises the possibility of “behavioral spill-over”: a rewarding interaction in a zoo could potentially encourage someone to seek or attempt similar interactions elsewhere, including with animals in the wild or at facilities with poor welfare standards.
ㅤ
That creates an important challenge.
ㅤ
A facility may intend an encounter to communicate appreciation for wildlife, while some members of the audience may receive another message entirely: that wild animals are approachable, manageable, touchable or appropriate for close human interaction.
A MEMORABLE EXPERIENCE IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY A CONSERVATION OUTCOME
Learmonth does not dismiss the potential educational or conservation value of human–animal interactions. In fact, he acknowledges evidence suggesting that profound experiences with animals can contribute to pro-environmental attitudes and behavior.
ㅤ
But potential benefits do not eliminate the need to examine potential costs.
ㅤ
The relevant question therefore isn't simply whether an encounter is memorable or enjoyable. It is whether the experience advances the institution's conservation and educational goals while also protecting the welfare of the individual animal and minimizing unintended messages about our relationship with wildlife.
ㅤ
That distinction matters because entertainment, education and conservation are not interchangeable concepts.
ㅤ
An animal encounter may attract visitors. It may generate excitement. It may produce photographs and social-media attention. It may even create a powerful emotional response.
ㅤ
But those outcomes alone do not establish that the interaction is beneficial for the animal or that it produces the conservation message intended.
THE INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL MATTERS
A major component of Learmonth's analysis involves three ethical frameworks: Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care.
ㅤ
Although these approaches differ, they share an important characteristic relevant to zoo interactions: they direct attention toward the welfare and outcomes of individual animals, rather than considering only populations, species or ecosystems. Learmonth proposes that elements of all three could be combined to provide a stronger framework for evaluating human–animal interactions in zoological facilities.
ㅤ
This changes the questions we ask.
ㅤ
Instead of focusing only on what visitors receive from an encounter, facilities must also consider what the animal experiences. Learmonth emphasizes that interactions should be closely monitored through animal-welfare assessment tools and that individual differences matter: an interaction that may be positive for one animal cannot automatically be assumed to be positive for another.
ㅤ
The scientific literature he reviews reflects that complexity. Human interaction has been associated with negative, neutral and positive welfare effects, depending upon the species, individual animal and circumstances. Evidence of positive animal–visitor interactions remains comparatively limited and concentrated among relatively few species.
CHOICE, CONTROL AND WHAT THE ANIMAL WANTS
Another important idea running through the paper is that interactions should not be designed solely around what people want from animals.
ㅤ
Learmonth argues for more controlled, ethical and evidence-based approaches that prioritize consideration of what the animal wants from the interaction rather than the human. He also notes that some individual animals may actively seek positive interaction, while others may not.
ㅤ
That makes individual assessment essential.
ㅤ
When evaluating an encounter, we should be asking whether the animal is motivated to participate, whether its welfare is being objectively monitored, whether it can avoid unwanted interaction and whether the experience is structured around the animal's needs rather than simply visitor expectations.
ㅤ
Learmonth also takes a particularly strong position regarding direct physical encounters with large dangerous animals such as lions, tigers, bears and orcas. He argues that modern ethical zoological facilities should not offer such direct-contact experiences because of the potential for serious harm to either humans or animals.
WHAT ARE WE TEACHING ABOUT WILDLIFE?
Perhaps the most thought-provoking part of this discussion extends beyond the immediate welfare of an animal encounter.
ㅤ
What relationship with wildlife are we teaching people to value?
ㅤ
If conservation education encourages respect for wild animals and their natural environments, there can be tension when the educational experience simultaneously depends upon making those animals available for close human access.
ㅤ
A wild animal calmly standing beside a handler may create fascination. Feeding or touching an animal may produce an unforgettable memory. An encounter may create an emotional connection that a visitor genuinely values.
ㅤ
But we should still ask what that experience communicates.
ㅤ
If an encounter makes a wild animal appear tame, controllable or suitable for close relationships with people, could the message received by some visitors differ substantially from the conservation message the institution intended?
ㅤ
Learmonth's paper does not conclude that all animal–visitor interactions are inherently unethical or harmful. Quite the opposite: he recognizes circumstances in which interactions may benefit both animals and people. His argument is that those potential benefits must be weighed against welfare, ethics, safety and the possibility of unintended consequences.
ㅤ
That nuance makes the paper particularly valuable.
FROM ACCESS TO RESPECT
The question facing modern wildlife facilities is therefore larger than whether visitors enjoy close encounters with animals.
ㅤ
Facilities that present these experiences as education or conservation should be prepared to examine what visitors are actually learning, what behaviors may be normalized, what benefits can be demonstrated and, equally importantly, what the participating animal experiences.
ㅤ
We can inspire curiosity without encouraging possession. We can encourage empathy without suggesting that wild animals exist for our access. And we can teach people to value wildlife without implying that appreciation requires touching, holding or controlling it.
ㅤ
Real conservation should inspire respect for wild animals—not a desire to touch, hold, own or control them.
ㅤ
Perhaps the most important question isn't simply what visitors remember after an animal encounter.
ㅤ
It's what we have taught them about what our relationship with wildlife should be.
ㅤ
Source: Mark James Learmonth (2020). Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos: What Can Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care Tell Us about the Ethics of Interacting, and Avoiding Unintended Consequences? Animals, 10(11), 2037.
ㅤ
Read the Complete Paper:
Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos: What Can Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care Tell Us about the Ethics of Interacting, and Avoiding Unintended Consequences?
Related Reading:
Not a Pet…Until It’s Part of the Show?
Examining whether educational messages and educational experiences always tell the same story.
Evidence • Education • Accountability
How You Can Help:
Awareness is the first step toward meaningful change. Help advance evidence-based education, transparency and accountability by sharing this article with others.
Together, we can encourage a more informed conversation about the treatment and protection of wildlife.
