By Rebecca Critser, LLM, JD, M. Bioethics

Many have wonderful childhood memories of attending a zoo with their family or on a school trip, watching animals perform tricks or routines, and marveling at the wonder of the animal kingdom. But as we become increasingly aware of the sentience of non-human animals, keeping them behind bars for our entertainment has become difficult to defend. Zoos have responded to these concerns by shifting away from entertainment toward conservation and education. Zoos now pride themselves on being local leaders in conservation of wildlife. However, there are those who remain unconvinced that captive animals are necessary to support conservation efforts. In contribution to this debate, this article examines whether the Indianapolis Zoo’s financial records support their claim of wildlife conservation advocates.   

I. The Indianapolis Zoo

The Indianapolis Zoo (the “Zoo”) first opened in 1964 as a personal project of Lowell Nussbaum.[1] Today, it houses around 1,416 animals including animals from 28 species listed as Endangered or Threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.[2] Its mission is to “protect nature and inspire people to care for our world” through education, research, and conservation.[3]

The Zoo is one of 237 animal exhibition organizations in the world that are accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA).[4] The AZA is an independent third-party voluntary accreditation organization. Accredited facilities are expected to uphold the written standards, which have been recognized for their contributions to the welfare of captive animals. Section 3 of the AZA standards specifically address conservation. It requires accredited institutions to include conservation in their “mission and messaging,” have and follow a written conservation plan, and participate in AZA programs such as the Species Survival Plan (SSP) and Saving Animals From Extinction (SAFE).[5]

The Zoo was chosen for purposes of examining the general roles of zoos in conservation work because it promotes itself as an organization that protects nature and the environment first and foremost,[6] and it encourages people to donate to the zoo by connecting the work of the zoo with the work of conservation.[7]

II. How Does the Indianapolis Zoo Support Conservation?

Conservation is one of the major reasons cited to continue the work of zoos.[8] The term can take on different meanings depending on the context. However, the AZA has defined “conservation” for accreditation purposes as “active stewardship of the natural environment, including wildlife, plants, energy and other natural resources.”[9] The Indianapolis Zoo is quick to connect donations and memberships with support for conservation. However, the most supportive zoos typically only allocate between three to five percent of their budget to conservation work. That statistic alone tells anyone looking to financially support conservation efforts that donations to a zoo may not be money well spent.

Yet it is true that the Indianapolis Zoo donates money to support the survival of wild animals. The Zoo’s website lists conservation initiatives that they currently support.[10]  As of 2022, the Zoo lists 22 conservation initiatives.[11] That number was 14 in 2021, at least 9 in 2020, and at least 10 in 2019.[12] All of the initiatives are supported by the Zoo through financial donations.[13] 16 of the 22 supported initiatives pertain to the protection of wild animals; the other either support non-animal species or support work confined exclusively to captivity.

 In 2019, the Zoo supported five domestic and several international programs in the name of conservation. These organizations included International Elephant Foundation, World Parrot Trust, Ishaqbini Hirola Community Conservation (Kenya), Tarangire Elephant Project (Tanzania), Kutai Orangutan Project (Indonesia), Goualougo Triangle Ape Project (Republic of Congo), Macaw Recovery Network (Costa Rica), Amur Tiger Project (Russia), APPC (Panama), SOCP (Indonesia), Mara Elephant Project (Kenya), Dian Fossey Foundation, Cheeta Endowment Fund (Namibia), Lincoln Park Zoological Society, Sidekick Foundation, and Wildlife Conservation Society. In total, the Zoo gave $320,934 in conservation grants that year.[14] This represents approximately 0.8% of that year’s budget.[15] The Zoo also sent two members of staff on international trips cataloged as field work in the annual report.

In 2020, the Zoo supported four domestic and approximately ten international programs in the name of conservation. These organizations included many of the same organizations supported in 2019 with the addition of Anti-Personnel Landmine Detection (Africa). In total, the Zoo gave $287,795 in conservation grants that year. This represents approximately 0.45% of that year’s budget. No fieldwork was reported in 2020.[16]

III. Follow the Money

A review of the Zoo’s form 990s, Public Disclosure for Tax-Exempt Organizations, illuminates not only who the Zoo has financially supported but also in what dollar amounts. At the time this paper was finalized, financial statements were not available for 2021 and 2022.

While the Zoo demonstrates a general support for conservation, it is not clear that conservation is truly its primary focus. First, over a ten-year period between 2009 and 2019, the Zoo spent on average 1.04% of its budget on conservation. This falls short of recommendations that go as high as 10%.[17] The total amount of funds provided to conservation work is also less than the salary of the Zoo’s CEO ($370,282 in 2019).[18] Consequently, the Zoo’s finances indicate support of the CEO is of higher priority than the support of conservation.

The Zoo provided $320,934 to conservation organizations in 2019: 135,260 to international organizations and $185,674 to domestic organizations.[19] The Non-US Organizations are not identified in the financial public disclosures where donations are listed by region. However, the Zoo’s Annual Report lists the Non-US Organizations supported that year. Of the $135,260 given, only $65,100 was specifically marked for conservation.[20] An additional $20,160 was marked for monitoring, and $50,000 was marked for research.[21]

Interestingly four of the five US-based donations were marked as “support,” with the fifth (Sidekick Foundation) marked as “research project.”[22] While general support to an organization like the International Elephant Foundation that gives 85% of its funds to actual conservation work may safely be considered giving to conservation,[23] it is difficult to reconcile how general support to the Lincoln Park Zoo or the Wildlife Conservation Society (the parent organization of a group of zoos) is truly funding the protection of animals in the wild.[24]

Consequently, individuals interested in supporting wildlife conservation might do better to donate to an organization that is directly involved in helping animals in the wild. This is particularly true for one donor who gave the Zoo over $15 million. In fact, if any one of the four mandatory reported donors on the Zoo’s public disclosure forms had donated to an organization providing direct conservation efforts, they alone would have provided more funds to support conservation than the Zoo. Also consider the list of donors provided at the back of the Annual Report each year. In the 2020 report, there were thirty-six individuals who donated over $10,000 to the Zoo. Again, the fund from these individuals adds up to more than the total amount the Zoo gave to conservation in 2019.

Further, using International Elephant Foundation (IEF) as an example, it is interesting to compare the relative annual budgets. The Zoo’s 2020 expenses were around $60 million. IEF, however, spent less than $1 million in the same year.[25] Instead of funding the operation of the Zoo, sixty conservation organizations could be funded. This is not an exact comparison given that much of the Zoo’s revenue comes from visitors. However, the comparison is meant to provide a sense of scale. Additionally, in 2019 and 2020 visitor generated sales accounted for about $15–20 million in revenue. This is less than half the operating budget, which means the Zoo has ample alternative sources of funding that are not dependent on money earned from exhibitions.

 There also appears to be a semi-incestuous nature to the way zoos give and receive grants or donations. For example, the Zoo provided $85,000 to Lincoln Park Zoological Society and Wildlife Conservation Society, which is part of the corporate structure of the Bronx Zoo. In part, this may be because the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago and the Bronx Zoo in New York actually provide direct conservation work. However, it is difficult to ascertain exactly where all the Zoo’s contributions originated to determine whether they themselves are recipients of donations and/or grants form other zoological societies.

Conclusion: So, What’s the Problem?

It is true that the Indianapolis Zoo makes financial donations to organizations that directly support wildlife animal conservation. However, a review of the Zoo’s financial records suggests that conservation is not its top priority. If the Dana Farber Foundation spent less than one percent of their operating budget on research and treatment of cancer, its credibility as an organization that fights against cancer would undoubtedly be questioned. Similarly, an organization that claims to support conservation but spends less than one percent of its budget on conservation has at the very least other priorities. That appears to be the case here with the Indianapolis Zoo. While the Zoo does support conservation, the financial evidence does not support claims that it should be maintained because of its substantive contributions to conservation.

Although this is only one zoo, the evidence presented here for this zoo warrants an investigation into other zoos. Because the AZA requires accredited organizations to make conservation a focus, it is likely that other zoos will have made conservation one of their key talking points. The question remains, however, whether their work or financial contributions can support that claim. This review leaves one wondering, if the Zoo is not supporting conservation, then what is it supporting?  

---

About the Author

Rebecca Critser, LLM, JD, M. Bioethics, is currently a post-doctoral fellow at John’s Hopkin’s Bloomberg School of Public Health where she works with Dr. Paul Locke and the Toxicology Policy Research team on advocating for alternatives to animal models at the federal level. Rebecca obtained her JD from IU McKinney School of Law and her Masters in Bioethics from IUPUI. She completed a medical ethics fellowship at the IU Fairbanks Center for Medical Ethics. Subsequently, she completed her LLM in Animal Law at Lewis & Clark Law School. In addition to her responsibilities at JHU, Rebecca is an adjunct professor at McKinney where she teaches Animals in the Law and at Lewis & Clark Law School where she co-teaches The Law & Ethics of Animal Testing. She is a member in good standing of the Indiana bar as well as a native Hoosier.

References

[1] About the Zoo, Indianapolis Zoo, https://www.indianapoliszoo.com/support-the-zoo/about-the-zoo/ [https://perma.cc/VEY2-9F7Q] (last visited Mar. 20, 2022).

[2] Indianapolis Zoo, 2020 Indianapolis Zoo Ann. Rep.16–18, https://online.fliphtml5.com/npqq/zzqp/?1625771088656#p=18 [https://perma.cc/J7AX-Z8T5] [hereinafter 2020 Indianapolis Zoo Ann. Rep.].

[3] Our Conservation Mission, Indianapolis Zoo, https://www.indianapoliszoo.com/conservation/ [https://perma.cc/N35F-E4QQ] (last visited Nov. 1, 2021).

[4] AZA-Accredited Members, Ass’n Zoos & Aquariums, https://www.aza.org/current-accreditation-list#I [https://perma.cc/UEM3-ACS9] (last updated Sept.. 2023). There are also 15 AZA-accredited related facilities. Id.

[5] Ass’n Zoos & Aquariums, Accreditation Standards & Related Polices, 24–27 (2022), https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2332/aza-accreditation-standards.pdf.

[6] “We protect nature and inspire people to care for our world.” Indianapolis Zoo, https://www.indianapoliszoo.com/ [https://perma.cc/48AM-EXA2] (last visited Nov. 14, 2021).

[7] “Support wildlife conservation by contributing to the Zoo.” Id.

[8] See Chinaedu Samrose Iwuchukwu et al., Confinement for Conservation: An Ethical Overview of Zoos, 39A Bull. Pure & Applied Sci. 329 (2020).

[9] Ass’n Zoos & Aquariums, supra note 5, at 5.

[10] The Indianapolis Zoo is Committed to Conservation Efforts Across the Globe, Indianapolis Zoo,https://www.indianapoliszoo.com/conservation/field-support/ [https://perma.cc/AB3D-AFFM] (last visited Jan. 17, 2024).

[11] Id.

[12] Id.; see also, Indianapolis Zoological Society, Inc., Form 990 (2020), https://www.indianapoliszoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2020-990-Public-Disclosure-copy.pdf [https://perma.cc/PZZ8-93KW] [hereinafter 2020 Form 990]; Indianapolis Zoological Society, Inc., Form 990 (2019), https://www.indianapoliszoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2019-990-Public-Disclosure.pdf [https://perma.cc/KK4W-65BC] [hereinafter 2019 Form 990].

[13] The Indianapolis Zoo is Committed to Conservation Efforts Across the Globe, supra note 10. The Indianapolis Zoo also calls out its efforts to build sustainable structures as part of its conservation efforts. A Key Component of the Indianapolis Zoo’s Conservation Mission is to Promote Sustainability, Indianapolis Zoo, https://www.indianapoliszoo.com/conservation/green-initiatives/ [https://perma.cc/8X7N-72B8] (last visited Nov. 1, 2021).

[14] 2019 Form 990, supra note 12.

[15] Total expenses listed as $39,649,703. Total funds spent on conservation listed as $320,934. The quotient of 320,934 divided by 39,649,703 is approximately 0.008094. See id.

[16] Although not specifically stated in the 2020 Annual Report, one assumes the global pandemic that began in March 2020 impacted international travel opportunities. See 2020 Indianapolis Zoo Ann. Rep., supra note 2..

[17] Jozef Keulartz, Captivity for Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads, 28 J. Agric. Env’t Ethics 335, 343 (2015). Although some suggest more conservative goals of 3-5%. Conversation with Dr. Moore, Emerging Topics in Animal Law (Oct. 9, 2021) (“Then many of us started recommending 3-5% as a better figure. No, I do not think this is high enough.”).

[18] 2019 Form 990, supra note 12, at 9.

[19] See id. at 15, 36, 37, 42.

[20] Id. at 37. An organization in Central American/Caribbean and an organization in Sub-Saharan Africa were granted $50,100 and $15,000 respectively for conservation. Id.

[21] Id. An organization in Europe/Iceland/Greenland and an organization in South Asia were granted $15,000 and $5,160 respectively for monitoring; an organization in North America was granted $50,000 for research. Id.

[22] Id. at 42.

[23] About IEF, Int’l Elephant Found., https://elephantconservation.org/about-ief/history/  [https://perma.cc/Z42W-4L7Y] (last visited Nov. 14, 2021) (“In fact, over 85% of all the funds raised by IEF have gone directly to programs.”).

[24] About Us, Wildlife Conservation Soc’y, https://www.wcs.org/about-us [https://perma.cc/SW7V-UR5H] (last visited Nov. 14, 2021).

[25] 2020 Form 990, supra note 12; Int’l Elephant Found., 2020 Ann. Rep. 53, https://elephantconservation.org/about-ief/annual-reports/ [https://perma.cc/8VXT-WBK4].