The Zoo By the Side of the Road

The Dallas Zoo, one of the largest in the state of Texas, is fairly neatly split in two by a road.  On one side of the highway is ZooNorth, the old portion of the zoo, which is still the nexus of its bird, reptile, and primate collections, as well as the Children's Zoo.  To get the newer half of the zoo, home to Wilds of Africa with its gorillas, hippos, elephants, and giraffes, visitors must take an underpass that tunnels beneath a busy highway.  Sometimes, you can hear the rumble of traffic overhead as you walk through.

Despite this, I've never heard anyone refer to Dallas as "a roadside zoo."

"Roadside Zoo," like "Bunny Hugger," is something of a dirty slur in the zoo community.  The difference between the two is that "Roadside Zoo" has entered the common vernacular.  In their various writings and musings, PETA, Humane Society of the United States, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, among others, rail against "roadside zoos."  AZA-accredited facilities seek to differentiate themselves from "roadside zoos."  The news media will use the term freely, as it did in the news articles I shared earlier this week.  Even the USDA uses the term - but it is never defined.

The only thing that everyone agrees on (to the extent that animal people ever agree on anything) is that they are bad.  No one wants their facility to be called a roadside zoo.

If I had to paint a picture of a roadside zoo in the US, based on the general consensus of opinion, it's that it is an unaccredited facility (by AZA, but depending on your definition, not by the unaffiliated ZAA either).  They are usually located in rural areas, typically along interstates, with most of their visitors coming in the form of travelers who are stopping in for some quick diversion from the road, rather than local communities or tourists.  They tend to be poorly built - think 2 x 4's and chicken-wire or hog-paneling, with relatively small enclosures that make little attempt to appear naturalistic.  Enrichment and training are minimal, and the staff stereotypically has little formal training or education.  They are generally privately owned and run for profit.

What's In a Word: Why It's Time to Retire "Roadside Zoo" 

- by Rachel Garner, Why Animals Do The Thing

The accreditation item one is one of the few solid, objective statements, but it's problematic.  Did the Mill Mountain Zoo become "a roadside zoo" when it left AZA?  Did Pittsburgh?  Is Sylvan Heights, one of the finest bird facilities I've ever been to and a leader in avian conservation, "a roadside bird park"?  Does a small nature center with a handful of native species need to be dragged into the whole mess  Are petting zoos with only domestics exempt too?  What if they have a single exotic species?

Most of these criteria are subjective - which is dangerous because it allows almost any zoo to painted as a roadside zoo.  There are bad zoos out there - some of them struggling with money or expertise, some by sheer apathetic choice.    Some facilities rise.  Others, regrettably, slouch into disrepute and squalor.  Some can be fixed and turned around.  Some should be disbanded. 

Defining what makes a zoo "good" or "bad" is a complicated issue, with facets of the answer being determined by the welfare of the animals, the history of those animals, the facilities, and the zoo's commitment to conservation and education.  Some facilities excel in some areas but struggle in other areas.  Welfare may be great for some animals, but poor for others - maybe even individuals of the same species.

At any rate, it's a false dichotomy to say that it's simply a matter of great zoos and shabby little roadside zoos.  After all, every zoo is by the side of some road.  In some, the road runs through them.