Exploring the captivity eras

Era 1 - Acquisition and exhibition

Early captive animal collections were often shaped by curiosity, prestige, scientific interest and public spectacle. Wild animals were collected for private menageries, travelling exhibitions and the first zoological collections. During this period, animals were frequently viewed as exotic specimens or symbols of status rather than individuals with complex behavioural and welfare needs¹.

Many animals were transported long distances under extremely poor conditions, with high mortality rates considered unavoidable. At the same time, some collections contributed to early zoological knowledge, taxonomy and public exposure to species that many people would otherwise never encounter. As international transport networks expanded, increasing numbers and diversity of species entered commercial trade for zoological collections, private keeping and public exhibition.

Early zoological collections also reflected the expansion of global exploration, colonial trade networks and natural history research. Many species were collected during scientific expeditions intended to document biodiversity and expand zoological understanding. Public exhibition of exotic animals became closely linked with curiosity about distant environments and species rarely encountered by wider society.

This era reflected the scientific understanding and societal values of its time, when the concept of animal welfare as understood today had not yet fully emerged.

Era 2 - Survival-based care

As more species entered captivity, increasing attention was given to basic survival. Husbandry during this period was often experimental, relying heavily on trial and error. Keepers and veterinarians attempted to determine suitable diets, temperatures, housing conditions and methods of disease control, often with limited biological information available².

Success was commonly measured by whether the animal survived, rather than by behavioural or psychological welfare outcomes. Many species experienced chronic health problems associated with inappropriate nutrition, poor environmental conditions and inadequate understanding of their physiological needs.

For many taxa, very little information existed regarding natural diet, behavioural ecology, reproductive biology or environmental requirements. Diseases and husbandry-related mortality that are now well recognised were often poorly understood or incorrectly attributed to infection, stress or “failure to adapt” to captivity.

Despite these limitations, this period represented an important transition from simple possession towards active attempts to maintain animals in captivity for longer periods.

Era 3 - Clinical welfare advancement

The development of veterinary medicine and improved animal management significantly increased survival rates for many captive species. Advances in quarantine procedures, sanitation, parasite management, nutrition and medical treatment helped reduce infectious disease and improve longevity².

As increasing numbers and diversity of species entered captivity, veterinarians were also increasingly required to diagnose and treat animals for which relatively little clinical information existed. Traditional veterinary training had focused largely on domestic animals, livestock and a relatively limited number of familiar species. Many exotic animals presented with poorly understood diseases, nutritional disorders, reproductive problems and husbandry-related conditions that lacked established diagnostic or treatment protocols.

In response, captive animal care increasingly incorporated specialist veterinary expertise, clinical research and interdisciplinary collaboration between veterinarians, zoological collections, researchers and experienced keepers. Specialist reference texts, continuing professional development courses, exotic animal clinics and postgraduate qualifications gradually expanded opportunities for veterinarians to develop knowledge across a broader diversity of taxa than previously possible. Welfare discussions also became more closely associated with reducing pain, illness, injury and obvious suffering.

However, increasing survival and successful clinical treatment did not always mean that broader behavioural and psychological welfare needs were fully understood or met. As knowledge expanded, it became increasingly apparent that animals could remain physically healthy while still experiencing restrictions in behavioural opportunity, environmental choice or species-specific social interaction³.

Era 4 - Investigation of captive pathology

As veterinary knowledge expanded, increasing attention was given to understanding why captive animals developed recurring health and behavioural problems³. Research began linking husbandry practices to metabolic disease, obesity, reproductive disorders, behavioural abnormalities, stress physiology and nutritional deficiencies.

Increasing numbers of captive animals were presented with recurring syndromes and conditions that appeared closely associated with environmental and husbandry factors rather than infectious disease alone. Problems such as metabolic bone disease, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism, obesity, stereotypic behaviour, reproductive failure and chronic stress increasingly highlighted the importance of species-specific nutrition, lighting, behavioural opportunity and environmental complexity³ ⁴ ⁵.

Studies of stereotypic behaviour, behavioural suppression and species-specific responses to captivity also highlighted the importance of behavioural biology in welfare assessment³ ⁶ ⁷. Increasingly, evidence suggested that survival and reproduction alone were insufficient indicators of good welfare, particularly where animals displayed chronic stress responses, abnormal repetitive behaviours or behavioural suppression.

Comparative studies also began highlighting substantial differences between species in their responses to captivity. While some species appeared to adapt relatively well to captive conditions, others consistently exhibited behavioural abnormalities, reduced longevity, reproductive difficulties and stress-related pathology. This prompted growing interest in understanding whether characteristics such as ranging behaviour, ecological specialisation, behavioural flexibility and evolutionary history might influence how different species experience captivity.³

This era contributed to an important shift in thinking: many welfare problems were no longer viewed solely as isolated medical conditions, but increasingly as indicators of mismatch between captive environments and the behavioural, physiological and psychological needs of the species.

Era 5 — Standardised husbandry and “tick-box” care

The expansion of hobbyist communities, online forums and commercial husbandry products increased the accessibility of captive animal keeping. Standardised generic guidance regarding enclosure size, temperature, humidity, feeding schedules and lighting also became increasingly available through books, magazines, specialist societies, pet retailers and later online forums. This helped spread practical knowledge more rapidly across keeper communities, although information quality and consistency varied considerably between sources and species.

At the same time, advances in enclosure technology, artificial lighting, nutritional supplementation, thermostatic heating and commercially available husbandry products allowed increasing numbers of species to be maintained and bred in captivity with greater consistency than previously possible. Practical husbandry guidance often became organised around measurable parameters such as temperature ranges, humidity levels, enclosure dimensions and feeding schedules.

For any species, this significantly improved survival and reduced some husbandry-related disease. However, simplified guidance sometimes encouraged welfare assessment through static parameters rather than through the functional needs and lived experiences of the animal itself³ ⁸. Enclosures that technically met recommended measurements or environmental values did not necessarily provide appropriate behavioural opportunity, environmental variability or species-specific stimulation.

As information spread more rapidly, inconsistency between sources also became increasingly apparent. Husbandry recommendations often varied considerably between keepers, retailers, breeders, veterinarians and organisations, particularly for less-studied species where evidence remained limited.

As this husbandry knowledge, equipment and also species availability expanded, increasing numbers of people began keeping animals beyond the traditional companion species of dogs, cats and small mammals. Motivations varied considerably. Some keepers were attracted by species perceived to require less space, different forms of interaction or alternative lifestyles compared with traditional pets. Others were drawn by fascination with particular taxa, interest in animal behaviour and natural history, the challenge of maintaining more specialised species, or the opportunity to work with animals rarely encountered in everyday life.

For some, keeping exotic animals also offered the appeal of caring for species viewed as unusual, rare, wild or difficult to maintain successfully. As knowledge and experience developed, increasing numbers of keepers became interested not only in maintaining animals, but also in breeding them, contributing to husbandry knowledge and achieving successful captive reproduction.

Era 6 — Commercial breeding and genetic manipulation

As demand for a greater diversity of species increased, international wildlife trade expanded to supply animals from an increasingly wide range of geographic regions and taxa. For many species, initial demand was met primarily through collection from the wild, supported by established trapping, export and commercial supply networks. Growing interest in unusual, rare or previously unavailable species contributed to increasing numbers and diversity of animals entering zoological collections, private keeping and commercial trade¹ ⁹.

As understanding of wildlife trade impacts developed, increasing attention was given to sustainability, population monitoring and conservation risk. International frameworks such as CITES introduced trade controls, export quotas and listing mechanisms intended to regulate trade in species considered vulnerable to overexploitation¹⁰. In some cases, declining wild populations, improved scientific understanding or precautionary conservation concerns resulted in species receiving progressively greater levels of protection over time.

Alongside these developments, captive breeding increasingly replaced some forms of wild collection and allowed many animals to become more widely available within the pet trade. Successful breeding also contributed to expanding husbandry knowledge and reducing dependence on imported animals for some taxa, although reliance on wild-sourced animals continues for some species and regions.

As captive breeding became increasingly successful, attention gradually expanded beyond simply producing healthy offspring. In some taxa, breeders began selecting for unusual colours, patterns and physical characteristics, reflecting both curiosity about genetics and growing demand for animals considered distinctive, rare or visually striking. Over time, selective breeding contributed to an increasing diversity of morphs and captive-bred varieties within parts of the exotic animal trade.

At the same time, increasing recognition was given to the welfare implications associated with inherited disorders, reduced genetic diversity, inbreeding and deleterious traits. These challenges are not unique to exotic animal keeping. Similar concerns regarding founder effects, restricted gene pools, line breeding and inherited health disorders have also emerged across domestic animal breeding, zoological collections, laboratory animal populations and some conservation breeding programmes¹¹⁻¹⁶.

In response, increasing attention has been given to genetic management, outcrossing strategies, studbooks, welfare-focused breeding approaches and the long-term maintenance of genetic diversity. Within the exotic animal sector, some organisations and breeding communities have also begun developing guidance and position statements regarding deleterious genes and welfare-associated breeding risks¹⁷. This reflects a broader recognition that breeding practices may significantly influence long-term welfare outcomes.

As international trade networks, captive breeding systems and specialist markets expanded, increasingly diverse species became available through pet shops, breeders, expos and online platforms across many parts of the world. In some sectors, animals increasingly came to be viewed not only as companion animals, but also as rare commodities, collector items or breeding assets.

At the same time, captive breeding has reduced direct wild collection for some species and, in certain cases, contributed to assurance populations, husbandry knowledge and conservation breeding programmes. The relationship between trade, captive breeding and conservation therefore remains highly complex and varies considerably between taxa and regions⁹ ¹⁸.

This era illustrates the complex relationship between welfare improvement, commercialisation and conservation. Captive breeding may reduce pressure on some wild populations while simultaneously increasing objectification, overproduction and welfare risks associated with genetic manipulation.

Era 7 — Public welfare awareness and ethical scrutiny

Public attitudes towards captive animals began to shift significantly as animal welfare science, conservation awareness and media coverage expanded. Greater attention was given to enclosure quality, environmental enrichment, behavioural needs and the ethics of keeping wild animals in captivity¹ ².

Television documentaries, wildlife filmmaking, popular science programming and increased public access to information about animal behaviour exposed wider audiences to how many species live in the wild. As understanding of migration, social structure, cognition, mate choice, foraging behaviour and habitat use increased, many people began comparing these natural lifestyles with the conditions experienced by animals in captivity.

Particular attention was focused on highly mobile, long-lived and cognitively complex species such as elephants, cetaceans, great apes, large carnivores, sharks and polar bears. Public concern increasingly centred on whether captive environments could realistically provide sufficient space, behavioural opportunity and social complexity for some species. Welfare became a topic of wider social discussion rather than remaining confined to specialist communities.

At the same time, animal welfare organisations, conservation groups and campaign bodies such as Born Free and Zoo Check expanded their reach and influence; with research commissioned by the RSPCA into the welfare of elephants in captivity all contributing to greater public scrutiny of zoos, wildlife attractions and exotic animal ownership ⁴ ¹⁹. Increasing numbers of visitors began considering not only what animals they could see, but why those animals were being kept and how they were being cared for.

In response, many zoological collections increasingly invested in larger and more naturalistic enclosures, environmental enrichment, behavioural management programmes, conservation messaging and public education. Barred cages and highly artificial exhibits gradually gave way to more immersive environments intended to better meet animal needs while also reflecting public expectations regarding welfare and conservation. Zoo standards and welfare-based inspection systems introduced under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981²⁰ and the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice²¹ became increasingly influential in defining acceptable standards of care.

Public understanding of captive breeding also became more sophisticated. Increasing attention was given to genetic management, international breeding programmes, animal transfers between collections, surplus animals and the challenges associated with maintaining genetically viable populations over multiple generations. Species such as the giant panda became well-known examples of the practical difficulties involved in breeding some highly specialised animals successfully in captivity.

At the same time, increasing awareness developed regarding the relationship between captivity and conservation. While zoological collections contributed to husbandry knowledge, research and breeding programmes for some threatened species, it also became more widely recognised that most zoo populations are not routinely used for reintroduction and that conservation outcomes are often constrained by habitat loss, human pressures and the long-term management requirements of released animals.

Growing discussion also emerged regarding the conservation value of captive populations maintained outside coordinated breeding programmes. Although large numbers of some species may exist in private collections, captive-bred populations can diverge genetically and behaviourally from their wild counterparts over time. This has led to ongoing debate regarding the extent to which such populations should be regarded as potential conservation resources, assurance populations or husbandry reservoirs, particularly where the causes of decline in the wild remain unresolved.

This era reflected a broader shift in public expectations. Increasingly, captive animal management was judged not only by whether animals survived and reproduced, but by whether captivity could provide conditions consistent with good welfare, meaningful conservation outcomes and an ethically defensible purpose.

Era 8 — Behavioural and ecological replication

Increasing use of field research and behavioural ecology began influencing enclosure design and husbandry practices⁴ ⁶. Greater emphasis was placed on environmental complexity, behavioural opportunity, enrichment, social structure and species-specific behaviour.

Naturalistic enclosures became increasingly common within zoos and some private collections. Environmental gradients involving heat, light, humidity and shelter were increasingly recognised as important aspects of husbandry.

However, replicating the appearance of a natural habitat does not necessarily replicate its functional properties. An enclosure may appear naturalistic while still limiting behavioural choice, cognitive stimulation or control over the environment.

Increasing collaboration between veterinarians, welfare scientists, zoological collections, specialist keepers, students and researchers has also contributed to major advances in husbandry knowledge across many taxa. Research into captive pathology and recurring clinical presentations - including metabolic bone disease, nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism, obesity, reproductive disorders and behavioural abnormalities - has increasingly helped identify links between health problems and deficiencies in lighting, nutrition, enclosure design, environmental gradients and behavioural opportunity²² ⁻ ²⁵.

At the same time, growing use of field observations and species-specific research has influenced the development of more functionally informed husbandry approaches. Examples include the application of Ferguson Zones and ultraviolet index guidance for reptiles and other taxa, greater recognition of seasonal environmental cycling, increasing use of bioactive and behaviourally complex enclosures, and expanding research into behavioural preference, agency and environmental choice²³ ⁸. Colleges, zoological institutions, veterinarians, researchers and experienced keepers have all contributed to this evolving body of knowledge, although important gaps and disagreements still remain for many species.

This period increasingly shifted discussion from survival towards behavioural function and welfare outcomes.

Era 9 — Digital exposure and knowledge exchange

The growth of social media and online content fundamentally changed how captive animals are presented, marketed and discussed. Digital platforms have increased public access to husbandry information, welfare discussions and species-specific knowledge.

Digital platforms have also allowed keepers, researchers and content creators to share increasing amounts of field-based and species-specific information. Welfare-oriented exotic animal channels, natural-history content and husbandry-focused online communities - including platforms such as Exotics Keeper - have helped expose wider audiences to how some species behave in the wild and how this may differ from traditional captive husbandry practices.

In some cases, this has encouraged re-evaluation of established care guidance involving enclosure design, lighting, behavioural enrichment, environmental gradients and species-specific behavioural needs. Online platforms and social media may therefore simultaneously contribute to both welfare improvement and animal commodification, depending on how they are used and interpreted.

At the same time, social media has also intensified the objectification of some animals through entertainment, display and monetised content²⁶⁻²⁸. Wildlife may be presented as status symbols, lifestyle accessories or interactive experiences designed to maximise online engagement.

Recent investigations into online wildlife trade have highlighted the growing role of social media platforms in facilitating the sale, display and normalisation of exotic animals. Research by WWF, IFAW and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums documented widespread online sales of primates through major social media platforms, often presented through terms such as “rehoming” or “adoption” rather than commercial wildlife trade²⁷. Similar trends have also been documented in the online trade of other taxa, including otters²⁸.

This era illustrates how modern technology may simultaneously improve welfare awareness while also increasing commodification and impulsive acquisition.

Era 10 — Regulatory reassessment and species suitability

Increasing concern regarding animal welfare, public safety, zoonotic disease, invasive species, wildlife trade and the impacts of animal collection on wild populations has contributed to growing debate surrounding the regulation of exotic animal keeping²⁶⁻³³.

Some animal welfare organisations and policy groups support the development of “positive” or “permitted” lists, where only species assessed as suitable for captivity may legally be kept²⁹⁻³². Reports such as Wild Animals Not Pets by AAP have argued that current systems are often reactive, inconsistent and insufficient to address welfare and public health risks associated with the trade and keeping of wild animals²⁹.

The joint Born Free Foundation and RSPCA report The Exotic Pet-demic: UK’s ticking timebomb exposed highlighted concerns regarding animal welfare, conservation, zoonotic disease, invasive species and gaps within existing legislation governing exotic pet trade and ownership³³. The report also discussed the potential role of positive lists within future regulatory systems.

At the same time, trade organisations, hobbyist groups and keeper communities have raised concerns regarding the implementation of positive lists, including questions around proportionality, evidence thresholds, responsible ownership, enforceability, unintended impacts on legal captive populations and the risk of driving some trade or keeping activities underground³⁴⁻³⁶.

These debates are often highly polarised, yet many stakeholders across welfare organisations, veterinary sectors, zoological collections and responsible keeper communities share concerns regarding improving welfare outcomes, reducing suffering and promoting evidence-based standards of care.

Increasingly, discussion has shifted towards whether consistently positive welfare outcomes are realistically achievable for some species across a wide range of captive settings. Concerns regarding the suitability of keeping highly social and cognitively complex species such as primates in private environments have been discussed for many years within welfare science and policy literature³⁷. This reflects a broader transition from focusing primarily on ownership and trade towards considering species-specific complexity, behavioural needs and long-term welfare outcomes.

International regulation of wildlife trade has also become increasingly complex as the diversity, scale and speed of animal trade has expanded. Frameworks such as CITES and national legislation including COTES play important roles in regulating trade involving many protected species, yet enforcement challenges remain significant due to the volume of international trade, online sales, species identification difficulties and illegal trafficking networks¹⁰ ³⁸.

Wildlife trafficking continues to involve a wide range of taxa and methods of concealment, including smuggling through luggage, clothing, postal systems and other covert transport routes. Recent investigations involving the illegal trafficking of invertebrates, including giant harvester ants concealed within syringes during attempted export from Kenya, have further highlighted the evolving nature of wildlife crime and the growing commercial value associated with some species³⁹.

At the same time, the majority of animals traded through expos, markets, breeders and commercial supply chains in many countries are traded under existing regulatory frameworks. The diversity and availability of species within global trade systems nevertheless continues to raise important questions regarding welfare, conservation, biosecurity, traceability and long-term sustainability.

The evolution of welfare assessment

As captive animal care changed to reflect increased knowledge, welfare assessment frameworks also became increasingly sophisticated. Early welfare approaches often focused primarily on preventing suffering, injury, disease and starvation.

The Five Freedoms framework became highly influential in shaping modern animal welfare discussions, particularly through its emphasis on freedom from hunger, discomfort, pain, fear and the ability to express normal behaviour¹. Over time, however, welfare science increasingly recognised that avoiding negative states alone may be insufficient to achieve positive welfare outcomes.

This contributed to the development of more multidimensional approaches, including Mellor’s Five Domains Model, which expanded welfare assessment to include nutrition, environment, health, behaviour and mental state, while placing greater emphasis on the animal’s subjective experiences and opportunities for positive welfare².

Other frameworks have explored the broader ethical and practical complexities surrounding captive animal management. Schuppli and Fraser proposed assessment approaches that consider animal welfare alongside human interests, environmental impact and wider societal considerations³⁹. Models such as EMODE also attempted to evaluate the relative challenges associated with keeping different exotic species in captivity⁴⁰.

Comparative welfare research has also increasingly highlighted that species cannot be viewed as interchangeable units within captive environments. Mason argued that species differ in their susceptibility to poor welfare because they evolved under different ecological and behavioural pressures, with characteristics such as wide-ranging lifestyles, dietary specialisation, behavioural flexibility and responses to environmental change potentially influencing how well individuals adapt to captivity.³ This perspective has helped shift welfare assessment away from asking simply whether animals are healthy or reproducing, towards understanding whether captive conditions are compatible with the behavioural and biological adaptations that shaped the species through evolution.

More recent welfare science has increasingly recognised that positive welfare may depend not only on preventing suffering, but also on providing animals with opportunities to engage in meaningful species-specific behaviour in ways that allow choice, agency, control and appropriate challenge. Increasing attention has therefore been given to how animals interact with and influence their environments, rather than simply whether basic husbandry parameters are met⁸.

This shift has also contributed to increasing research into behavioural preference, environmental complexity and enrichment design. Recent zoo-based research involving Bornean orangutans demonstrated that the introduction of flexible climbing structures increased species-typical locomotor behaviours compared with more static enclosure features⁴¹. Such approaches increasingly attempt to understand not only whether animals survive in captivity, but whether captive environments provide opportunities for behavioural engagement and positive welfare experiences.

The Species First Welfare Gap framework builds on this growing recognition that welfare outcomes emerge through the interaction of multiple factors rather than husbandry conditions alone. While welfare frameworks such as the Five Domains Model focus primarily on assessing welfare state, the Welfare Gap framework also considers factors that may influence an animal’s capacity to achieve positive welfare outcomes, including genetics, origin and history, keeper-animal compatibility, species-specific requirements, living conditions and care and management⁴². This perspective is consistent with growing evidence that species and individuals differ in their responses to captivity because of their evolutionary adaptations, behavioural ecology and life history³.

Together, these evolving welfare frameworks reflect a broader shift away from simple survival and basic husbandry towards more holistic assessment of behavioural function, psychological wellbeing and species-specific needs.

The progression of welfare legislation

As scientific understanding of animal welfare evolved, legislation and regulatory frameworks also began to change. Early legislation often focused primarily on preventing overt cruelty and regulating commercial sale or public safety concerns.

In the UK, laws such as the Pet Animals Act 1951⁴³ and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976⁴⁴ reflected growing recognition that the keeping and sale of animals required greater oversight. Over time, welfare science increasingly influenced legislation, shifting emphasis towards the ongoing responsibility to meet animals’ welfare needs rather than simply preventing obvious suffering.

This transition became particularly evident within the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which introduced a broader duty of care for animals in captivity and incorporated welfare-based principles linked to environment, diet, behaviour, housing and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease⁴⁵.

More recently, increasing concern regarding the welfare and suitability of keeping highly complex species in private settings has contributed to the development of species-specific welfare guidance, including the DEFRA Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates in England⁴⁶, alongside the subsequent introduction of new primate licensing requirements through the Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2024, under which private primate keepers in England are required to meet zoo-level welfare standards and unlicensed keeping became an offence from 6 April 2026⁴⁷.

The growing influence of welfare science within legislation also helps explain the increasing debate surrounding positive lists and species suitability frameworks across parts of Europe and within the UK. As understanding of behavioural, cognitive and species-specific needs develops, regulatory systems increasingly face pressure to move beyond simple ownership and trade controls towards assessing whether good welfare outcomes are realistically achievable in captivity.

An emerging direction: functional welfare design

Alongside these historical shifts, a further transition is beginning to emerge - one focused less on simple environmental replication and more on understanding how animals function behaviourally, physiologically and cognitively.

This approach increasingly emphasises:

• behavioural opportunity

• agency and choice

• environmental control

• challenge and cognitive stimulation

• species-specific functional needs

• long-term welfare outcomes

• genetic health and viability

Rather than asking only whether an enclosure resembles the wild, functional welfare approaches attempt to assess whether captivity allows the animal to express behaviours and experiences associated with positive welfare² ³ ⁸ ⁴¹.

Increasing evidence also suggests that species may experience welfare challenges for very different reasons. Some species appear poorly equipped to adapt to captive environments because of specialised ecological requirements or limited behavioural flexibility. Others may adapt readily to captivity yet remain vulnerable to boredom, frustration or under-stimulation if environments fail to provide sufficient behavioural opportunities, novelty, choice and challenge. Mason proposed that highly exploratory and innovative species may be particularly susceptible to such effects, highlighting that successful adaptation to captivity does not necessarily equate to positive welfare³.

Importantly, this remains an evolving area of welfare science and husbandry rather than a completed solution. Many modern captive systems still combine elements of earlier captivity eras, including commercial breeding, standardised husbandry, exhibition, behavioural enrichment and welfare-focused design.

The persistence of multiple captivity eras

Modern captivity rarely reflects a single philosophy, welfare model or historical approach. Instead, many earlier captivity eras continue to coexist simultaneously across zoos, private keeping, breeding, rescue, entertainment and online culture.

A breeder using advanced lighting technology and behavioural enrichment may still selectively breed animals for exaggerated physical traits. A zoo may combine sophisticated veterinary care with limitations associated with restricted space. Social media may simultaneously educate audiences about welfare while also encouraging animal objectification and impulsive acquisition.

These overlapping influences help explain why significant welfare gaps can persist despite major advances in husbandry knowledge and veterinary care.

They also demonstrate why improving welfare requires more than isolated changes to enclosure size, equipment or husbandry parameters alone.

Captive animal care has not evolved through the simple replacement of one philosophy with another. Instead, modern practices often reflect a mixture of historical approaches, scientific advances, commercial pressures, cultural attitudes and evolving ethical perspectives operating simultaneously.

Conclusion

The history of captivity reflects an ongoing process of scientific discovery, cultural change, technological advancement and ethical reassessment. Across each era, growing knowledge has shaped how animals are acquired, housed, bred, managed and evaluated, while also influencing public expectations, welfare standards and legislation.

Many important advances have improved the lives of animals in captivity. Developments in veterinary medicine, nutrition, environmental management, behavioural science, welfare assessment and species-specific husbandry have contributed to better understanding of the needs of many taxa than ever before. At the same time, increasing knowledge has often revealed additional layers of complexity, highlighting welfare challenges that were previously poorly understood or overlooked.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons from this history is that captivity cannot be understood through a single lens. Welfare outcomes are influenced by the interaction of multiple factors, including genetics, source and life history, keeper knowledge and motivation, species-specific requirements, living conditions and day-to-day care. Advances in one area do not necessarily compensate for shortcomings in another.

This growing recognition has contributed to a broader shift away from asking whether animals simply survive or reproduce in captivity, towards asking whether they can experience positive welfare states and live lives consistent with their biological, behavioural and psychological needs. Increasingly, the focus is moving beyond enclosure dimensions and husbandry parameters towards understanding how animals function within their environment and whether they are provided with meaningful opportunities for choice, agency, challenge and behavioural expression.

The Species First Welfare Gap framework builds on this perspective by recognising that positive welfare outcomes emerge from the interaction of multiple influences rather than any single husbandry factor alone. Understanding and reducing welfare gaps requires consideration not only of the species being kept, but also of the individual animal, the environment provided and the people responsible for its care.

Many questions remain unresolved. Debates surrounding wildlife trade, conservation, captive breeding, genetic management, positive lists and species suitability are likely to continue. However, meaningful progress is most likely to emerge through collaboration between keepers, veterinarians, zoological collections, welfare scientists, conservationists, policymakers and other stakeholders who share a common goal: improving welfare outcomes for animals in captivity.

The challenge for the future is not simply to keep animals alive, nor even to reproduce them successfully, but to ensure that the growing body of scientific knowledge is translated into evidence-based, species-specific approaches that place the needs of the species and individual animal at the centre of decision-making.

References

1. Fraser, D. (2023). Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wiley Blackwell.

2. Mellor, D. J. (2017). Operational details of the Five Domains Model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare. Animals, 7(8), 60.

3. Mason, G. J. (2010). Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(12), 713–721.

4. Clubb, R., Rowcliffe, M., Lee, P., Mar, K. U., Moss, C., & Mason, G. J. (2008). Compromised survivorship in zoo elephants. Science, 322(5908), 1649.4

5. Dawkins, M. S. (2004). Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 13(S1), S3–S7.

6. Clubb, R., & Mason, G. J. (2007). Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How analysing species differences could help zoos improve enclosures. Animal Welfare, 16(Suppl.), 1–7.

7. Mason, G., & Rushen, J. (2006). Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and Applications to Welfare. CAB International.

8. Littlewood, K. E., et al. (2023). Assessing positive animal welfare using the Five Domains Model: behavioural opportunities for choice, control and challenge. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10, 1284869.
   https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2023.1284869/full

9. Bush, E. R., Baker, S. E., & Macdonald, D. W. (2014). Global trade in exotic pets 2006–2012. Conservation Biology, 28(3), 663–676.

10. CITES. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
    https://cites.org

11. Wickens, S. M. (2011). Genetic welfare problems of companion animals: An information resource for prospective pet owners and breeders. Animal Welfare, 20(3), 451.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962728600003018

12. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW). Genetic Welfare Problems of Companion Animals.
    https://www.ufaw.org.uk/genetic-welfare-problems-intro/genetic-welfare-problems-of-companion-animals-intro

13. British Veterinary Association (BVA). (2024). Policy position on inherited disorders and extreme conformation in companion animals.
    https://www.bva.co.uk/take-action/our-policies/brachycephalic-dogs/

14. RSPCA. (2025). Brachycephalic animals.
    https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/brachycephalic

15. RSPCA. (2025). Common health issues with flat-faced animals.
    https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/brachycephalic/health

16. British Veterinary Association (BVA). (2025). Brachycephalic dogs policy position.
    https://www.bva.co.uk/take-action/our-policies/brachycephalic-dogs/

17. REPTA. (2025). Position statement on deleterious genes and reptile welfare.
    https://repta.org

18. CITES. (2024). PC27 Doc. 21 / AC33 Doc. 25 (Rev.1): Captive breeding and ranching. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/documents/E-PC27-21-AC33-25-R1.pdf

19. Clubb, R., & Mason, G. J. (2002). A Review of the Welfare of Zoo Elephants in Europe. RSPCA.

20. UK Government. Zoo Licensing Act 1981. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/37

21. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2012). Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secretary-of-state-s-standards-of-modern-zoo-practice

22. Eatwell, K. (2013). Nutritional secondary hyperparathyroidism in reptiles. In Mader’s Reptile and Amphibian Medicine and Surgery. Wiley.
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118997093.ch37

23. Merck Veterinary Manual. Nutritional, metabolic, and endocrine diseases of reptiles.
    https://www.merckvetmanual.com/exotic-and-laboratory-animals/reptiles/nutritional-metabolic-and-endocrine-diseases-of-reptiles

24. Ferguson, G. W., Brinker, A. M., Gehrmann, W. H., Bucklin, S. E., Baines, F. M., & Mackin, S. J. (2010). Voluntary exposure of some western-hemisphere snake and lizard species to ultraviolet-B radiation in the field: How much UV-B should a lizard or snake receive in captivity? Zoo Biology, 29(3), 317–334.

25. Baines, F. M., Chattell, J., Dale, J., et al. (2016). How much UVB does my reptile need? The UV-Tool, a guide to the selection of UV lighting for reptiles and amphibians in captivity. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 4(1), 42–63.
    https://jzar.org/jzar/article/view/150

26. International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). (2021). Disrupt: Wildlife cybercrime — Uncovering the scale of online wildlife trade.
    https://www.ifaw.org/international/resources/disrupt-wildlife-cybercrime-report

27. Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), & World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2026). Primates for Purchase: The Surge in Sales on Social Media in the US.
    https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/primates-for-purchase-the-surge-in-sales-on-social-media-in-the-us

28. Siriwat, P., & Nijman, V. (2018). Illegal pet trade on social media as an emerging impediment to the conservation of Asian otter species. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity, 11(4), 469–475.

29. AAP Animal Advocacy and Protection. (2025). Wild Animals Not Pets: The Case for an EU Positive List.
    https://www.aap.nl/en/aap-wild-animals-not-pets/

30. Eurogroup for Animals. (2025). Urgent call for Positive List of species allowed as pets in EU.
    https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org

31. Scottish SPCA. (2025). Introduce a ‘Permitted List’ of Exotic Animals That Can Legally Be Kept as Pets.
    https://www.scottishspca.org

32. AAP Animal Advocacy and Protection. (2025). The Positive List in Europe.
    https://www.aap.nl/en/positive-list/

33. Born Free Foundation & RSPCA. (2021). The Exotic Pet-demic: UK’s ticking timebomb exposed.
    https://www.bornfree.org.uk/resource/the-exotic-pet-demic-uks-ticking-timebomb-exposed/

34. REPTA. (2025). Preserving Freedom of Choice: REPTA’s Commitment to Combating Positive Lists.
    https://repta.org

35. Responsible Reptile Keeping (RRK). (2025). Don’t Pet Me: A campaign responding to positive list proposals.
    https://www.responsiblereptilekeeping.org

36. Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA). (2025). OATA raises concerns over draft EU report on positive lists.
    https://ornamentalfish.org

37. Soulsbury, C. D., Iossa, G., Kennell, S., & Harris, S. (2009). The welfare and suitability of primates kept as pets. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12(1), 1–20.

38. UK Government. Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk

39. Schuppli, C. A., & Fraser, D. (2000). A framework for assessing the suitability of different species as companion animals. Animal Welfare, 9(4), 359–372.

40. Warwick, C., Steedman, C., Jessop, M., Arena, P., Pilny, A., & Nicholas, E. (2014). Exotic pet suitability: Understanding some problems and using a labeling system to aid animal welfare, environment, and consumer protection. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 9(3), 113–122.

41. Geijtenbeek, J. W., van den Berg, L., & Roth, T. (2026). Enclosures with flexible structures stimulate species-typical locomotion, but not locomotion quantity, in zoo-housed Bornean orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Animal Welfare, 35. Cambridge University Press.

42. Species First. (2026). Closing the Welfare Gap: A framework for understanding how multiple factors influence welfare outcomes in captivity.
    https://www.speciesfirst.co.uk/welfare-gap

43. UK Government. Pet Animals Act 1951.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/14-15/35

44. UK Government. Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/38

45. UK Government. Animal Welfare Act 2006.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents

46. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2024). Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Non-Human Primates in England.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/code-of-practice-for-the-welfare-of-privately-kept-non-human-primates

47. UK Government. (2024). The Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2024.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/629/contents/made