A Siberian tiger was killed during a fight with two other tigers at Longleat Safari Park in February, 2019, marking the second violent death in a week of an endangered tiger in captivity across the UK. Just a few days ago, an endangered Sumatran tigress, Melati, was killed during introductions to a male at London Zoo. Born Free, an international wildlife organization, noted that two deaths in a week was something that could not be ignored. “Both tragic incidents demonstrate just how unnatural captivity is for these wild animals,” Born Free’s Head of Animal Welfare & Captivity, Dr. Chris Draper, said. “They are denied the opportunity to choose their mates, have no control over their environment, and are unable to escape conflict.” For years, there have been arguments about zoos, especially their role in conservation. Opponents of zoos argue that an animal’s life in captivity is a shadow of their experience in the wild. Proponents of zoos counter that the conservation benefits zoos provide outweigh the isolated (albeit tragic) costs paid by the animals involved. Some zoo supporters say that captive animals serve as conservation ‘ambassadors’ for their wild counterparts, and that zoos are a ‘Noah’s Ark’ that provides a buffer against the decline of endangered species. In truth, however, this is a script that even the zoo industry has quietly abandoned. Actually, at a deeper level, zoos are key components of an international conservation system that resembles the West’s colonial and racial past. This system believes that communities in parts of the world where most endangered species live are a problem that must be fixed — most often by acquiring traditional lands, establishing camps and other experiences for wealthy tourists, and employing gun-carrying guards to patrol the boundaries of parks and reserves. Both zoo proponents and opponents rarely recognize that discussions about conservation radiate almost exclusively from Europe, North America and Australia. Meanwhile, the voices of those who actually live alongside the animals in question are ignored. In 2015, Big Game Parks, the trust that manages three game reserves in Swaziland, sold 15 infant and 3 pregnant female wild elephants to US zoos. Local people’s views were not sought or listened to in this transaction. What would happen if the local communities were asked for their opinions on how best to conserve animals with which they’ve lived for generations? Instead of transporting elephants halfway around the world, they might ask for support to move their village outside of a wild elephant migration path. They might ask for assistance to help buffer the impact of globalization on their livelihoods so that trading, hunting and poaching could be reduced. All in all, zoos have to abandon their dominant position in debates over conservation, a position which overshadows the multitude of smaller views and the wisdom they often represent. Human and non-human cultures alike are threatened by pollution, deforestation and climate change and the destruction of the natural world impoverishes everybody. When zoos cease to dominate the conversation, the public will be able to hear how they can empower local conservation efforts wherever apes, elephants, and big cats are threatened. By reversing the neo-colonial structure of international conservation, this will put animals and people at the center of the debate.