How many times in our daily lives and our chosen fields have we lost sleep, become frustrated and even angry with our inability to reach solutions and to make things "better"? To be better in any endeavor, it is essential to review and reanalyze where we are to decide where we are going and what we should amend or improve. While our technology, information base, and our ability to craft solutions to challenges has increased, our willingness as a species, and sometimes as a group to amend and adapt with those areas to make those improvements seems a bit "sluggish." A number of "human" factors seem to create an almost natural resistance to progress. Our attitude, education, background, parents, and experiences all influence our everyday lives and then those animals in our daily care or sphere of influence. This sluggishness or resistance to change is widespread in our species and best illustrated when dealing with all manner of critics who appear to ignore reason, science and good sense. In spite of possessing honest data, relevant and real life experience in the management of animals, understanding of an animal's physical and mental needs, and a deep commitment to the individual and the species they represent both in the facilities and the wild, the information all seems to be ignored. How can that be? Perhaps we should look...deeper to try to understand the paradox.

We humans, like all species, evolved our physical and behavioral traits around survival. There is an ongoing controversy with some regarding nature and nurture and which is more important. With new genetic investigation capability, we are learning more about how many areas of what we are can be traced back to our genes. We are moving from what is there to how it works, whether or not they are turned on or off and the wide variation there may be in their expression in our mental and physical well-being. This includes our behavior. We operate from a genetic playbook that is tens of thousands of years in the making that influences how we behave in an atmosphere of opposition, threat, jealousy or need. These behaviors are still patterned toward priorities of survival of the individual, their village, and their personal or shared philosophy. Survival was and still is based on acquisition of basic needs such as food (resource accumulation), protection of territory, power, shelter and reproductive access. Human behavior and our decision-making approach is not much different than that used in ancient times. When threatened or challenged, the response often includes resistance to change, attack and rationalization. While portions of our response to threats have changed, some still struggle to do more than oppose even in the presence of overwhelming data to the contrary. This approach has heavily influenced our priorities and our decisions regarding how we treat both our species and those who share this planet. The good news is that there is a slow but accelerating evolution occurring in how humans view other animal species (as more than edible items) and what our individuals, societies are willing to invest in to make their lives better. Adoption of standards for welfare for the other species has at times seemed glacial. It is dependent on the emphasis of weaker, less emphasized or newer evolving traits in our species that include altruism, sacrifice, compassion, understanding, empathy and sympathy.

Another complicating factor for all humans is that the more you learn and the more you know means that your principles and guidelines for decisions should also evolve to incorporate the new data. Principled scientists and veterinarians will change their approach to incorporate the information. Those without principle or real concern for the animals may resist the honest information, either judging it irrelevant to avoid dealing with it or blindly denying the information. Survivalist considers compromise in the face of opposing real data another threat.

The real concrete value that the animals under our care contribute to their survival in the wild (whether accepted or not) is in the struggle to educate a dominant, sometimes uncaring and misinformed species that is in control of their survival and the collapsing natural environment in which they live. In spite of what opponents say, the wild will not be preserved if people and societies do not have an avenue with which to connect and develop a deep concern for these species and their wild environment. A true appreciation of them, inspiring adequate numbers of humans to give a damn, and save their wild habitats, will not happen because of television or YouTube. Those are not lasting events that inspire change, though they can be complementary in the goal to educate.

Many of the strongest conservationists are associated with facilities. In some cases, they have evolved from a "bring 'em back alive mentality" and early "roadside" display to demanding enclosures, habitats and environments with the animals' welfare as the driving philosophy. The forces contributing to this evolution have included our increased basic knowledge of husbandry and medicine, understanding of their physical and mental needs, improvements in nutrition, environmental standards that recognize their need for activity, recognition of value besides food and fur, a developing sense of altruism and people willing to push for change. With new technology, there is also a capability for more public involvement and, as a result, more public evaluation of activity. This also opens up the potential for more misunderstanding, especially when there are people with agendas not based on science or reality whose survival is based on misinformation.

Marine parks, aquariums and zoos serve a much greater purpose than profit centers, even when they do not know it, and even when their value is denied or portrayed as evil by shallow-thinking "opponents." Making a profit is not evil and in fact provides the resources to incorporate the needed changes in programs and facilities as we learn more. This information gained by these systems is challenging some basic aspects of biology used by opponents. One of the foundational tenants of classical biology is the emphasis on the value of the population only and belittling the importance or the contribution of the individual such as those rescued and rehabilitated. One animal does not make a difference in population biology and hence has lesser to no value to some who adhere to these older guidelines. Nothing, as they say, could be further from the truth. It is not that the development of this approach was wrong; it was simply limited to one view which did not have the ability to study the individuals closely. They were not able to see how the single animal fits into and explains the group dynamic and contributes value to the population. From that came conjecture that dominates the conversation till others with more information step forward. It does fit a general rule of human behavior in that we make decisions based on what we know, or what we want and not always what the truth is. Working more closely with the individuals of the species (than is possible in the wild), it is the zoos and aquariums that have established that these animals have intrinsic individual value. We see their other side, not observed in the less complete observations in wild studies, their weaknesses, faults and their strengths. We assign more "humanity" to them than those who may unknowingly misinterpret and misunderstand their value. Through rescue and rehabilitation programs, we know how the pieces work to make the whole. The desire to diagnose, treat and save these individual animals leads to research into their problems and has shown us what their real issues are, what their real threats are, what is happening to the environment and then by default to us. It has helped to form the basis of the approach to One Health. This is the most complete approach to understanding the health interconnections of the environment, the animals and ourselves.

We have by desire and dedication in most, need in others, and occasionally with resistance in a few, been actively evolving in our approach to care of the individuals, their groups, their species and their environment. We have actively redirected thought, energy and resources toward their benefit at all levels. Where we as individuals and facilities can falter and make mistakes is when we are not willing to place the well-being of the species as the priority or to delay improvement when physical and mental issues need addressing in a timely manner. The costs of doing business with these species are to prioritize their needs through all phases of life based on the accrued knowledge of their health, behavioral, and environmental needs. The path for the future, and continued improvement of the lives of the animals under human care, is an animal centric complementary team-based system for planning, research, design, preventive health care, and wildlife conservation tying all these areas together in One Health program that cooperates between the many separate systems. A true synergy must continue (here is that evolve part) to be built between animal health, science, conservation and business as the foundation for meaningful change through education of all levels of the people involved in animals' care and to how it relates to the wild. This will build an internal One Health approach that is not limited to medicine within each system and give a common meaning to those that are entrusted with the care of animals. Progress will include developing education programs internally from janitors to administrators in the system, expanding with innovation the education of the public, and government agencies so we are able to apply well-planned (not reactive), biologically sound, timely solutions to issues at facilities and to the challenges the individuals and the species face in the wild.