Dear All,
I came across this while reading Kailash Sankhala's book “Tiger! The story of the Indian Tiger” by Kailash Sankhala, page number 207-209. He was the first Director of Project Tiger and was also later awarded the Padma Shri. I am quoting him below.

"The latest craze for Safari Parks or the creation of zoos is not the answer for saving a species. I have begun to feel that these institutions change their philosophy faster than the weathercock. In Roman times animal collections were made to keep a stock for entertainment in the amphitheatres. Later they called them zoos; as fashion changed they became “Zoological Gardens”, later still “Zoological Parks”. Now that ecology, environment and the biosphere are all the rage they are suddenly changing their signboards to become “Ecological Centres” or “Biological Parks”.

The new zoos are designed on an environmental concept, as indeed we designed the zoo at Delhi. But even with the best designing we have not come anywhere near this concept. Before they are brought to the zoo the animal was caught – involving an inevitable degree of cruelty – and then shifted from their natural homes. Birds have their wings pinioned – so depriving them of their life’s essence, free flight. Why? Purely for our benefit, to see them in “as natural an environment as possible”. The whole idea of bringing a free-living animal into captivity is revolting, and simply because they eat well and reproduce in captivity does not mean that a zoo is a proper environment for them.

Zoos boast that wildlife education is an aid to a better understanding of nature. In practice it is no better than the Children’s Corner which I abolished. Specimens exhibited in drab enclosures certainly do not convey the sense of what the stripes or the tusks mean to the animal. Museum techniques are now so far advanced that they are quite capable of creating dioramas that can convey the real meaning of the land and those that live in it. Dioramas together with films on wildlife are far more educational than the sight of an animal walking up and down in a cage all his life. If it is not necessary to bring the Grand Canyon or the Taj Mahal, the desert or the rain forests to your city except in pictures why should there be any justification for netting and snaring animals for educational purposes at a zoo? The marvels of nature must be seen where they are, not where they are planted by human hand. With supersonic travel the world has shrunk to be a small place, and it is within the reach of many to appreciate nature’s creations in their natural homes. A visit to one natural area to see a few animals is far more satisfying than gaping at a whole collection in a zoo. One should be selective, enjoying a few rather than becoming bored by many.

Someone will say that zoos serve as research laboratories. They do, but that does not entitle them to keep such large collections, particularly those animals not needed for research. Let us not be wasteful in our experiments.

I have seen zoos from Delhi to Dallas, Hyderabad to Honolulu, London to Lucknow, San Diego to Srinagar. I am sure that many zoo directors will agree with me that a zoo is for the most part a confused institution unsure of its objectives. Although it seeks justification in education it is really more of a carnival for entertainment. Except for a few zoos which do a real job of contributing to knowledge their objectives are pure hypocrisy.

After I left Delhi Zoo and spent two years in the wilds I could not become reconciled to the idea of such animal prisons. The idea of starting a zoo in Singapore was proposed to me; the proposal had a lot of money behind it, but my choice had to be for the animals to be free. I was also called to help in designing a zoo at Chandigarh and Bhopal in India; I attended the first meeting and went to select the site, but my conscience did not permit me to proceed any further. I had to request to be excused. I am becoming more and more convinced that zoos with multi-purpose objectives should be abandoned.

So what is the answer? I would suggest we concentrate on creating reserves where man’s interference – or what he arrogantly calls “scientific management” – is minimal. I do not like the term “national parks”, for it has been too loosely used. The initial meaning of “the untouched glory of God” has been so diluted that it has lost its significance. The term “park” conveys artificiality and the word “national” limits its universal appeal".

Cheers,
Sabyasachi