New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe