Social relationships matter. So do individual differences, compatibility, choice and control. But when zoos cannot provide an appropriate social environment, complexity should prompt greater accountability—not become an explanation for accepting the limitations of captivity.

ㅤ

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums recently published an article titled “It’s Complicated: Balancing Social Needs in Zoos and Aquariums.” The article addresses an important subject: how zoos and aquariums manage the social lives of animals whose relationships may be complex, fluid and sometimes difficult to replicate under human care.

ㅤ

AZA is right about several things.

ㅤ

Placing animals together does not automatically produce good welfare. Social compatibility matters. Relationships that provide security and affiliation can reduce stress, while aggression, instability or forced proximity can compromise wellbeing. Natural history offers an essential starting point, but species-level assumptions cannot account for every animal’s personality, history, age, health or preferences.

ㅤ

The article also appropriately emphasizes flexibility, individual agency, observation and the ability to adjust social groupings as relationships change. Its discussion of bonobo fission-fusion dynamics is especially valuable. Rather than maintaining one static group, facilities may provide changing social combinations that more closely reflect the flexibility of bonobo society.

ㅤ

Similarly, the article describes two jaguars at Zoo Miami who reportedly spend time together despite jaguars generally being considered solitary. Care staff observed less pacing when the animals were housed socially. That example illustrates an important principle: responsible care should respond to the animals in front of us, not rely exclusively on a generalized description of the species.

ㅤ

These are constructive ideas. But the article also exposes significant limitations that deserve closer examination.

ㅤ

WHEN COMPLEXITY BECOMES AN EXPLANATION

AZA acknowledges that limited population sizes, space constraints, births, transfers, quarantine, aging and individual incompatibility may prevent animals from living in species-typical social arrangements.

ㅤ

Those are not minor operational inconveniences. They can fundamentally shape an animal’s quality of life.

ㅤ

Yet the article largely presents these conditions as realities to be managed rather than decisions to be questioned. It does not ask whether a facility should continue keeping or breeding a species when it lacks the space, compatible companions or long-term placement options necessary to support that species’ social needs.

ㅤ

If the birth of male offspring predictably creates competition and requires separation, was an appropriate lifelong social plan in place before breeding occurred? If an aging social animal outlives its companions, what preparations were made for that foreseeable possibility? If an animal must wait alone for a transfer, how long is that period—and who determines when temporary isolation has become an unacceptable long-term condition?

ㅤ

“It’s complicated” may accurately describe the problem. It does not, by itself, justify the outcome.

ㅤ

TEMPORARY SOLITUDE—FOR HOW LONG?

The article states that social animals may sometimes be housed alone “for a short period of time.” It then identifies circumstances that may not be short at all: awaiting transfer, completing quarantine, losing companions, being unsuitable for another group or being considered too old to relocate.

ㅤ

That raises questions the article does not answer:

• What does “short” mean—days, months or years?

• Which behavioral and physiological indicators are monitored?

• How frequently is the animal’s condition reassessed?

• What thresholds require corrective action?

• What happens when no compatible companion or suitable placement can be found?

ㅤ

Without defined limits and transparent welfare measures, a temporary exception can quietly become a prolonged living condition.

ㅤ

CAN HUMAN ATTENTION REPLACE ANIMAL COMPANIONSHIP?

The article suggests that mixed-species housing or significant interaction with care staff may sometimes provide alternative social opportunities.

ㅤ

Positive relationships with caregivers can offer stimulation, predictability and reassurance. But for a naturally social animal, human interaction should not automatically be treated as a replacement for compatible members of the same species.

ㅤ

Humans generally cannot reproduce the full range of species-specific communication, physical contact, shared activity, conflict resolution and enduring social bonds that conspecifics provide. Keeper interaction may be a valuable supplement or temporary support. Describing it as an alternative requires careful qualification, particularly if it is used to defend prolonged solitary housing.

ㅤ

SPACE OR COMPLEXITY? ANIMALS MAY NEED BOTH

One passage states that the complexity of a space can sometimes be more important than its size. Environmental complexity unquestionably matters. Varied substrates, visual barriers, topography, escape routes, enrichment and opportunities to choose proximity can all improve an animal’s ability to navigate its surroundings and social relationships.

ㅤ

But complexity and size should not be framed as competing considerations.

ㅤ

For many animals, adequate space is what makes meaningful social choice possible. Animals need room to approach, withdraw, avoid conflict and place real distance between themselves and others. An intricate enclosure can still be too small to permit those choices.

ㅤ

The better question is not whether complexity matters more than size. It is whether the environment provides enough of both for the species and individuals being housed.

ㅤ

“NATURAL” AGGRESSION STILL REQUIRES ACCOUNTABILITY

AZA also notes that introductions and the establishment of social hierarchies can involve aggression. That is true. Some conflict is part of normal social negotiation, and immediate intervention is not always the most appropriate response.

ㅤ

But describing aggression as natural does not tell us whether a particular injury or failed introduction was unavoidable.

ㅤ

Was the risk properly assessed? Did the habitat provide adequate escape routes and visual separation? Could each animal withdraw? Were staff prepared to intervene? Was the proposed grouping necessary and justified? Did the outcome reveal a compatibility problem or a flaw in the introduction plan?

ㅤ

Natural behavior should inform management. It should not become a blanket explanation when management decisions result in preventable harm.

ㅤ

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

Although the article was written by animal-wellbeing professionals, its support comes primarily from interviews and individual institutional examples. It does not cite peer-reviewed studies or provide the data behind its reported outcomes.

ㅤ

For example, the reduction in pacing reported among Zoo Miami’s jaguars is encouraging. But the reader is not told how pacing was measured, whether both animals benefited, what other welfare indicators were evaluated or whether the effect persisted over time.

ㅤ

Jacksonville Zoo’s bonobo compatibility app also appears to be a useful management tool. It helps staff track which animals can be grouped and under what level of supervision. But operational convenience is not the same as demonstrated welfare success. How are the resulting groupings evaluated? What outcomes determine whether the system is improving the animals’ lives?

ㅤ

Anecdotes can identify promising practices. They should not be confused with transparent evidence that those practices consistently produce positive welfare.

ㅤ

CHOICE WITHIN LIMITS

Perhaps the article’s strongest concept is that animals should be treated as agents capable of communicating preferences through their choices.

ㅤ

That principle deserves support. But choice exists within boundaries established by the institution. An animal may be allowed to choose between two companions, two rooms or temporary social contact and separation. Those options may improve welfare substantially, but they do not necessarily represent the full range of relationships or movement the animal would choose if less constrained.

ㅤ

Choice within captivity is meaningful. It is not proof that every underlying need has been satisfied.

ㅤ

FROM GOOD INTENTIONS TO MEASURABLE ACCOUNTABILITY

The article concludes that zoos can “ensure” animals have the highest quality of life by remaining flexible, attentive and focused on individual care.

ㅤ

That promise goes beyond the evidence presented.

ㅤ

Animal welfare is not established by institutional intention alone. It requires measurable outcomes, continuing reassessment, meaningful choices, appropriate social opportunities and a willingness to change course when an institution cannot meet an animal’s needs.

ㅤ

AZA’s article makes a worthwhile contribution by acknowledging that social welfare is more complicated than placing animals into groups that resemble those found in the wild. But its own examples lead to a deeper question:

ㅤ

When a zoo cannot provide a socially complex animal with an appropriate, stable and sustainable social environment, should it keep finding ways to manage that limitation—or reconsider keeping and breeding that species at that institution?

ㅤ

Complexity should encourage humility, better evidence and greater accountability. It should never lower the standard by which an animal’s quality of life is judged.

ㅤ

SOURCE

Association of Zoos and Aquariums,
“It’s Complicated: Balancing Social Needs in Zoos and Aquariums,”
September 16, 2026.

Related Reading:
Choice Within Captivity
 

KeepingWildlifeWild.org

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.