How ethical is a visit to the zoo?

Tigers may fare better in captivity than out in the wild, but are zoos doing more harm than good, asks Lucy Siegle

Unless you are six (or have a six-year-old), there's a strong possibility zoos have slipped off your radar. Whereas I once viewed this nation as a series of zoological highlights - Colchester, Paignton, Chester, etc, by the age of eight I'd done them all - I had unwisely assumed that gawping at captive animals was out of fashion.

But no, there are now 400-430 zoos in the UK (this is an 'estimate', as some zoological collections remain unlicensed) doing good box office: Colchester was voted Large Visitor Attraction of the Year last year. But if gate fees remain the primary source of funding, then aren't visitor numbers the primary motivation? Which would in turn explain the popularity of 'charismatic species' such as polar bears, which pull in the crowds but are, according to a raft of experts, completely unsuitable for captivity. There was widespread criticism of Nuremberg zoo in January, when officials allowed polar bear cubs bred in captivity to be eaten by their mother.

Any zoo worth its salt will deny this charge, shifting emphasis away from animals as entertaining curios (a Victorian idea) and on to the 'modern' zoo's noble aspirations: species conservation and education.

In the UK, all licensed zoos should conform to an 'ethical review process' which includes ensuring that captive animals are allowed to display natural behaviour. The £6m primate house that opened a fortnight ago at Edinburgh zoo is designed to give chimps the most 'natural' captive experience yet.

Meanwhile, everyone is trying to minimise their footprint these days. Chester was the first UK zoo to be awarded the environmental standard ISO 14001, while Paignton zoo has found a novel use for its yard waste: zoo poo compost (from

But even a luxury ape house won't placate the many critics who believe animals have an intrinsic right to liberty ( Nor are they likely to be won over by the zoos' argument that they are primarily conservation organisations. Is this fair? The South China tiger now exists only in zoos, and captive tigers overall are flourishing, with 15,000 to 20,000 worldwide, outnumbering their wild relatives five to one. But critics refuse to buy the Noah's ark approach, arguing that conservation projects need to be out in the field and that a quarter of British zoos don't keep threatened species.

And are zoos really bringing up the next generation of conservationists? David Whitley argues in his book The Idea of Nature in Disney Animation that Disney should be credited with encouraging the next generation of children to protect the natural world. Does the choice come down to gawping at a live polar bear in a German town, or a fictional mouse in large yellow shoes? I'm sticking with my Planet Earth box set.