Zoo Life Problematic for Peripatetic Carnivores

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A trip to the zoo allows many people to see animals they would never otherwise encounter. But study results published today in the journal Nature indicate that the greater the difference between an animal's natural home range and its confined environment, the worse it will fare in captivity.

Large animals often show signs of boredom in zoos. In a strange example from 1994, Gus--a polar bear living in the Central Park Zoo in New York City--spent much of his time swimming incessant figure eights in his pool. Subsequent changes to his surroundings and more interactive activities seemed to cheer Gus up, but it remained unclear why some animals thrive in captivity whereas others do not. Ros Clubb and Georgia Mason of the University of Oxford collected and analyzed data on 35 captive carnivores in zoos around the world. In addition, they obtained field data related to the creatures' natural habitats, including median home range size, daily travel distance, time spent foraging and reliance on hunting. The researchers found that animals with larger home ranges, such as lions, were more likely to engage in pacing behavior in captivity than were creatures with small home ranges. Typically, a polar bear enclosure is only one millionth the size of its minimum home range.

The study also examined the effects of captivity on reproduction. Clubb and Mason determined that captive carnivores with vast home ranges, such as polar bears, have higher infant mortality rates than do animals with smaller natural dominions--the American mink, for example. The findings suggest a need for fundamental improvements to the caging of naturally wide-ranging carnivores. The authors note: "Our results show, to our knowledge for the first time, that a particular lifestyle in the wild confers vulnerability to welfare problems in captivity."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe