And who out there should be tackling these poor collections? Who is willing to provide that guidance and support? Quite often the impregnable divide between pro or anti zoos is fairly evident, with differing opinions on whom should be helping whom. And while the better zoos and accredited regional associations (some more than others) make great effort to provide various programs of support, this guidance is a mere drop in the ocean in regards to the vast number of poor collections out there (an educated guess could put the number around 7,000 or more). So with those campaigning for the end of wild animal collections battling those advocating the benefits of such institutions, the problem continues.
However there is a positive rise in collaboration between those organizations and individuals who recognize differences (even ones as vast as the gulf between anti or pro captivity), but are still prepared to work with the "enemy" on projects with shared goals, most commonly, to end the suffering of specific captive wild animal practices. It is well known that captive wild animal and zoological concerns are inherently linked to a vast majority of wild animal welfare issues. From the illegal wild animal trade and wild animal capture to animal abuse for tourism, the sub standard captive wild animal industry is intrinsically associated with such practices, and as such, strategically working on addressing all related welfare concerns, will help contribute to the collaborative effort to end such practices. Equally, senior level management within sub-standard zoos actually have a significant ability to influence other aspects of wild animal welfare. In many cases, directors of these zoos also have significant roles within government departments and/or official representatives for CITES or similar bodies, and by affecting change through captive welfare improvements and policy, it can in turn have a positive influence on similar nation-wide wild animal welfare issues.