Arguments For and
Against Zoos
By Doris Lin
Zoos argue that they save endangered species and educate the
public, but animal rights activists believe the costs outweigh the
benefits, and the violation of the rights of the individual animals is
unjustifiable.
Roadside zoos, petting zoos, and smaller animal exhibitors tend to
keep the animals in smaller pens or cages. Sometimes, barren
concrete and metal bars is all a tiger or bear will know for their
entire lives. Larger, accredited zoos try to distance themselves
from these operations by touting how well the animals are treated,
but to animal rights activists, the issue not how well the animals
are treated, but whether we have a right to confine them for our
amusement or "education."
Arguments For Zoos
• By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public
and foster an appreciation of the animals. This exposure and
education motivates people to protect the animals.
• Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe
environment, where they are protected from poachers, habitat
loss, starvation and predators.
• Many zoos also have breeding programs for endangered species.
In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding
mates and breeding.
• Reputable zoos are accredited by the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums and are held to high standards for the treatment of
the animals. According to the AZA, accreditation means,
•
•
•
•
•
•
"official recognition and approval of a zoo or aquarium by a
group of experts."
A good zoo provides an enriched habitat in which the animals are
never bored, are well cared-for, and have plenty of space.
Zoos are a tradition, and a visit to a zoo is a wholesome, family
activity.
Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and more
memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature
documentary.
Some would argue that humans have little, if any duty to nonhuman animals because humans are more important, and if
keeping animals in zoos serves any educational or
entertainment purposes, we can ethically do it.
Zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people
no longer want or are no longer able to care for.
Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated
by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes
standards for care.
Arguments Against Zoos
• From an animal rights standpoint, we do not have a right to
breed, capture and confine other animals, even if they are
endangered. Being a member of an endangered species
doesn't mean the individual animals have fewer rights.
• Animals in captivity suffer from stress, boredom and
confinement. Intergenerational bonds are broken when
individuals get sold or traded to other zoos, and no pen or
even drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the
wild.
• Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to
breed new baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to circuses,
canned hunting facilities, and even for slaughter.
The vast majority of captive breeding programs do not release
animals back into the wild. The offspring are forever part of
the chain of zoos, circuses, petting zoos, and exotic pet trade
that buy, sell and barter animals among themselves and
exploit animals. Ned the Asian elephant was born at an
accredited zoo, but later confiscated from an abusive circus
trainer and finally sent to a sanctuary.
Removing individuals from the wild will further endanger the
wild population because the remaining individuals will be
less genetically diverse and will have more difficulty finding
mates.
If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe
wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary. A true sanctuary does
not buy, sell, or breed animals, but takes in unwanted exotic
pets, surplus animals from zoos or injured wildlife that can
no longer survive in the wild.
An individual's rights should not be infringed for the sake of the
species. A species is not a sentient being and therefore has no
rights.
If zoos are teaching children anything, it's that imprisoning
animals for our own entertainment is acceptable.
At least one study has shown that elephants kept in zoos do not
live as long as elephants in the wild.
The federal Animal Welfare Act establishes only the most
minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care,
ventilation, fencing, food and water. For example, enclosures
must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make
normal postural and social adjustments with adequate
freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by
evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or
abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap
on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct
the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and
AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop
Tiger, will not free the animals.
• Sanctuaries also rehabilitate wildlife and take in unwanted exotic
pets, without breeding, buying and selling animals like zoos
do.
• Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering
themselves as well as people. There have even been incidents
of zoo animals eating other zoo animals.
In the case of zoos, both sides will argue that their side saves
animals. Zoo proponents do not believe in animal rights, so many
of the arguments against zoos are not persuasive to them, while
other arguments may seem to apply only to inferior zoos, such as
roadside zoos and petting zoos.
How zoos are saving our animals
John Pickrell ABC Environment 3 Aug 2010
Think that zoos are anachronistic menageries which lock up animals purely
for human entertainment? The truth is that good zoos are more important
today than they've ever been before.
ON A BUSY SATURDAY afternoon in October 2001 London Zoo keeper
Jim Robson was killed in front of a packed crowd as he directed four-tonne
elephant, Mya, to shift logs during a show. Normally placid Mya is said to
have grabbed Robson, 45, with her trunk, shoving him to the ground.
American tourist Jerry Finley, along with his two young children, watched in
horror. "The keeper started screaming for help," Finley told an official
inquest in 2002. "The elephant held the keeper down on the ground and
then... stamped on his head." Robson was the third zookeeper to be killed by
an elephant in a British zoo in a two- year period.
Animal welfare groups had already campaigned for some time for London's
elephants to be moved out of their dated 1960s enclosure, and ten days after
the tragic incident the zoo announced that Mya, Geetha and Aziza were to be
moved to Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, a much larger sister facility in the
Bedfordshire countryside. This ended a 170-year tradition of keeping
elephants in one of the world's oldest modern zoos.
Professor Chris West, veterinary scientist and former Zoological Director of
London and Whipsnade Zoos, now CEO of Zoos South Australia, says the
decision to move the elephants had already been made before Robson was
killed. "It was time to move the three elephant cows out to a bigger
facility...there's less need to expose keepers to contact with elephants if you
provide the ideal enclosure."
A number of major studies over the last ten years have raised questions over
the ethics of keeping large animals such as elephants in zoos. In October
2002 a report from Oxford University scientists Ros Clubb and Georgia
Mason said that on the whole, elephants in European zoos are unhealthy,
endure stress and have significantly shorter lifespans than wild elephants.
The study found that keeping elephants in small groups that don't accurately
mimic natural family structures and enclosures that are vastly smaller than
wild ranges, contributes to boredom, distress and obesity.
A 2008 study led by Mason, now at the University of Guelph in Canada,
showed that Western zoos are consuming elephants from the wild at a
greater rate than they can replace them through captive breeding, while
another study published by Clubb and Mason in the science journal Nature
argued that large carnivores, built for roaming over vast ranges in the wild such as lions, tigers and polar bears - are fundamentally ill-equipped to be
kept in zoo enclosures that can be just one millionth the size of their natural
ranges.
West argues that while keeping large, social animals in captivity can be a
difficult thing to get right, many good zoos have stepped up to the challenge
over the last few decades. "If zoos are going to have large, intelligent, longlived, socially demanding species, then obviously they need to address the
duty of care, but they also need to make sure there is a conservation
benefit.""If it's done properly, the conservation work can be very useful.
There are a lot of examples of zoos that have made the appropriate
investment in enclosures and maintaining family structures. Elephants are
powerful ambassadors in affluent Western societies which are projecting
funds back into the wild." Sydney's Taronga Zoo is a case in point. It is
successfully breeding Asian elephants and its recent babies have been
regular fixtures in the media, directing attention towards the plight of Asia's
30,000 remaining wild elephants.
Moving with the times
When keeping large animals "you have to be prepared to have a very
objective cost-benefit analysis," says West who is also Chair of Zoology at
the University of Adelaide. "Some animals are much more difficult to keep...
but we are all about making sure we have a secure future for species and
their habitats. Sometimes captivity is the only alternative to losing a species
altogether." He says that zoos today have a fundamentally different role to
that of 20 years ago. "We don't see ourselves as a zoo, we are a conservation
organisation that happens to also manage zoos."
It's true that for many endangered species, captive breeding populations in
zoos are insurance against catastrophe. "With extinction rates and pressures
on many of the world's species greater than ever before, good zoos
throughout the world are increasing their efforts for wildlife and in many
cases provide and maintain a safety net for species that otherwise would
cease to exist," says Danielle McGill at Sydney's Taronga Zoo. Taronga has
bred 30 Sumatran tiger cubs since 1979 and there are now more of these
captive- bred tigers in zos around the world than in the wild. Zoos across
Australia are now breeding disease-free Tasmanian devils as insurance
against the infectious facial cancer that has wiped out 80 per cent of the wild
population since the mid-1990s.
Internationally there is a long list of species that died out in the wild or were
on the verge of disappearing, but which were successfully saved with the
reintroduction of captive bred populations. These include the Arabian oryx
in Oman and scimitar horned oryx in North Africa, Przewalski's horse in
Mongolia and China, the golden lion tamarin monkey in Brazil, black-footed
ferrets and California condors in the US and Père David's Deer in China.
Similar projects exist for native Australian species. Taronga Zoo and
Adelaide Zoo have collaborated to breed regent honeyeaters, one of
Australia's most endangered birds, with as few as 800 remaining in the
ironbark forests of NSW and Victoria. Twenty-seven of black and yellow
birds were released in Victoria this year. Taronga is in the process of
breeding and reintroducing both critically endangered boorolong and
corroboree frogs (less than 150 remain in the highlands of Koscisuko
National Park). Melbourne Zoo is also breeding corroboree frogs and 15centimetre-long Lord Howe Island stick insects, also known as 'land
lobsters'.
Since the 1980s Perth Zoo has had a successful captive breeding program for
both termite-eating numbats and chuditches (or western quolls, of which
more than 300 have been bred). Adelaide Zoo has released captive-bred
yellow-footed rock wallabies and brush-tailed bettongs. There are many
more examples beyond these few.
Ticket to conservation
West explains that a lot of the money paid by entrance fees to zoos and
aquariums goes into funding projects like these. The World Association of
Zoos and Aquariums, which all good zoos are signed up to, encourages
members to spend 10 per cent of a zoo's operational expenditure on field
conservation projects (many of which are on a much smaller scale than
captive breeding programs, but just as important) and says
all aspects of a zoo's activities should be tied to conservation. The
Australasian Zoo and Aquarium Association estimates that its members
contribute around $5.7 million a year to field conservation projects.
It's the big ticket species that bring many of the punters in though, which is
why it's important for zoos to constantly research how to make these animals
comfortable and ensure they breed successfully so their captive populations
become self-sustaining. Animals such as Adelaide Zoo's giant pandas are
"like the lead act at a music festival," says West. "They bring in most of the
people."
One aspect that has changed much in recent years is providing animals with
an "enriched and stimulating environment," says Zara Gaspar with the
British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, in London.
"Many studies have demonstrated that animals' prefer their enclosures to
include complexity, variety, challenge and options, rather than just space.
Where would you prefer to live: an empty warehouse, or a fully furnished
small house with a telephone, television, a computer and the regular arrival
of new things?" To this end London Zoo provides its gorillas with fruit
hidden in big blocks of ice in the summer months, Taronga simulates a
'termite mound' for its chimps, which they can dip into with sticks to get
treats.
Eyeball to eyeball
Education about conservation and environmental issues is another key
function that zoos have. Some argue that learning about animals via David
Attenborough-narrated documentaries and the Internet has just a fraction of
the value of eye-to-eye contact with real critters. "Media introductions are
entirely impersonal. If we're looking for the Vulcan mind-meld approach to
getting Australians to give a rat's butt about our native animals, zoos have
the potential do this far better than magazines, TV or museums," says
Professor Mike Archer, former director of the Australian Museum now
based at the University of New South Wales.
More than that, Archer says that Australian zoos and sanctuaries have a vital
role in selling our native fauna and flora. "They present a substantial
introduction to what's really unique about Australia.
"Forget the bridges and buildings - they are superficial afterthoughts
superimposed on a landscape that has taken billions of years to shape into a
globally unique form. Our animals, plants and Aboriginal culture are the true
distinguishing and defining features of Australia. Zoos and sanctuaries are
among the few places where the deeper, more profound components of our
globally unique identity can be seen and interpreted," he says.
"Nothing compares with the emotional impact of seeing the real thing,"
agrees West, who says that this connection is a powerful tool in getting the
environmental message across to the 14-million or so visitors that cross the
thresholds of Australia's zoos and aquariums each year. It seems like these
efforts have a measurable success too: a study based on surveys with
hundreds of visitors to US zoos, published in the journal Visitor Studies in
2008, found that "zoo experiences... promote an increased implicit
connectedness with nature."
Many zoos are also involved in advocacy programs that have an impact far
beyond the zoo's physical boundaries. A consortium of Australian zoos have
been campaigning for honest labelling of products containing palm oil,
which is blamed for the destruction of orangutan habitat in Indonesia.
Another campaign encourages zoo visitors to recycle mobile phones to limit
mining for a metallic ore in Africa's Congo River Basin, blamed for
deforestation and unrest in mountain gorilla country.
"Today the wild has become a fragmented and dangerous place for many
species due to man's impact on, and exploitation of the environment. The
ability of the better zoos to become powerful and influential forces for
conservation is having significant positive effects on the future survival of
many species and the conservation of their habitats," says Gaspar. "In a
perfect world there would not be a need for zoos, or other conservation
organisations, nor would we be living through this period of mass
extinctions. Fortunately, in the 21st century, good zoos have risen to the
challenge and are becoming a united and powerful force for conservation."
WHAT’S WRONG WITH ZOOS?
By Amy Whiting
Zoos often claim they are modern day arks, saving species from the brink of
extinction, educating the world about wildlife and providing vital research into the
lives of animals. But are zoos really the champions of animals they purport to be?
THE CONSERVATION CLAIM
Of the 5,926 species classified as threatened or endangered by the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature, only around 120 are involved in
international zoo breeding programs.
Many species, including endangered species such as pandas and elephants are
notoriously difficult to breed in captivity. For example, to date no elephant has
ever been bred successfully in an Australian zoo and even captive populations
numbering in the hundreds in Europe and the United States are not self
sustaining.
There is also the problem of genetic diversity. In small populations there can be
problems associated with inbreeding, which can result in genetically weaker
offspring. These offspring are more vulnerable and less likely to survive in the
wild.
The concept of re-introduction is plagued with serious difficulties. Species
threatened by poaching will never be safe in the wild until attitudes change and
the culture of poaching is eradicated.
Species threatened by habitat destruction will have no home to be re-introduced
to unless suitable areas for these species have been protected.
Even if the above problems can be overcome, there are still difficulties with the
process of re-introduction. Captive bred animals have often missed out on
valuable lessons their wild parents would have taught them and therefore often
do not have the instincts or knowledge to survive in the wild.
EDUCATION
Zoos claim they provide the opportunity for people to see and learn about wild
animals and that this will inspire people to contribute to their preservation. But
what are they really showing us?
Keeping animals in zoos sends the message that animals are commodities and
that humans are justified in locking them up.
The conditions under which animals are kept in zoos typically distort their
behaviour significantly. Animals in zoos are merely shadows of their wild
counterparts. Nature documentaries and books allow people to gain a true and
complete knowledge of wild animals, by depicting them in their natural habitats.
RESEARCH
Research conducted in the artificial environment of the zoo teaches us very little
about the complex lives of wild, free-ranging animals
Most research done in zoos serves merely to teach us more about wild animals
in zoos and if zoos did not exist then such research would not be necessary in
the first place.
LIFE IN A ZOO
Zoo enclosures are typically inadequate for the animals needs. For example, the
average enclosure size for mammals in UK zoos is one hundred times smaller
than their minimum home range in the wild.
Confining animals in artificial and often small enclosures inside zoos is stressful
and causes them harm. Animals in zoos are bored and lonely creatures who
spend their days shuffling, swaying and pacing back and forth, their eyes sad
and empty.
Other stereotypic behaviours displayed as a result of intense boredom and
suffering include rocking, over-grooming, mutilation, neck twisting, chewing and
bar biting, hyper-aggression, abnormal maternal behaviour and feeding
disorders.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY!
Instead of funnelling money into zoos, money should be redirected to wild animal
conservation. For example the money could be better spent:
-Establishing protected reserves
-Funding anti-poaching patrols
-Educating people about wildlife and the need for conservation
-Lobbying for legislation to protect wildlife (from poachers and habitat
destruction)
If you visit zoos you are contributing to this suffering. Today's wildlife
programmes can give viewers a much greater understanding and appreciation of
these animals than zoos ever could. If you truly care about animals and
conservation turn on the T.V and make a donation to one of the many wildlife
charities working to save animals in the wild.
If the possibility of re-introduction of the species into the wild is a farce, then zoos
only exist to preserve those species in captivity. Keeping animals in zoos harms
them, by denying them freedom to carry out their lives naturally. While humans
may feel that there is some justifying benefit to their captivity, there is no
compensating benefit to the individual animals. Should a handful of individual
animals be forced to live out life sentences just so humans can simply satisfy
their curiosity?
THINK ABOUT THIS...
The zoo is a prison for animals who have been sentenced without trial and I feel
guilty because I do nothing about it. I wanted to see an oyster-catcher, so I was
no better than the people who caged the oyster-catcher for me to see. - Russell
Hoban (1925- )
An individual animal doesn't care if its species is facing extinction – it cares if it is
feeling pain. - Ronnie Lee (1951- )
We cannot glimpse the essential life of a caged animal, only the shadow of its
former beauty. - Julia Allen Field (1937- )
The saddest thing about zoos is the way they drive animals mad. Much of the
behaviour we take for granted in zoo animals – repetitive padding up and down,
head banging, obsessive paw swinging, or just plain moping – is actually
psychotic, the sort of thing humans get driven to when they are kept in solitary
confinement. - Bill Travers (Star of “Born Free” and co-founder of Zoo Check)
Zoo Pros: Education, Conservation,
Entertainment
By Jennifer Horton
Zoos have improved significantly in the last 4,000 or so years. Gone
are the old steel-bar enclosures and cold cement cages. Most zoos
these days use natural-looking barriers like moats or ditches to
separate animals from people, and have mini-habitats that resemble
the animals' natural environment.
Adding another point for zoo pros, the procedure for acquiring
animals has also changed. Whereas zoos previously captured most
of their specimens directly from the wild, they now get many animals
through captive breeding programs and other zoos. Some breeding
programs also help to restore threatened species. After 10 years of
working to strengthen the population numbers of the endangered
California condor, a type of vulture, the Los Angeles and San Diego
zoos were able to rebuild a population of fewer than two dozen birds
to around 170 birds [source: Encarta].
Successful breeding programs brought the Pere David's deer back
from extinction. Though this Asian deer ceased to exist in the wild,
Chinese and European zoo programs enabled four of the deer to be
released back into the wild in 1985, where they're now self-sustaining
[source: Encarta].
Some zoos also take in abandoned animals that wouldn't otherwise
have a home. Both the Baltimore Zoo and the Detroit Zoo have taken
in polar bears rescued from a traveling circus, and the Bronx Zoo
took in an orphaned snow leopard from Pakistan in 2007. The cub,
Leo, now spends his time frolicking and chasing small animals that
wander into his enclosure [source: Majkowski].
And although zoo animals aren't treated quite like guests at a fourstar hotel, their care has improved tremendously. Zookeepers now
understand that many animals, such as monkeys, bears and
elephants, need engaging activities to prevent boredom and mental
deterioration. This is why you'll often see chimps playing with toys or
tigers "hunting" for a meal.
Aside from taking care of captive animals, many zoos also contribute
to the care of their wild counterparts. The Toledo Zoo, in conjunction
with the Nature Conservancy, is helping to restore butterfly habitats in
Ohio, and the Bronx Zoo has channeled more than $3 million toward
conservation projects in central Africa [source: Fravel].
Zoos also present an opportunity for scientists to conduct research. In
2002, zoos participated in 2,230 research and conservation projects
in more than 80 countries. The information they gather helps them to
develop new medicines and techniques to improve animal health
[source: Fravel].
Beyond the positive impact zoos try to have on animals, they often
affect the people visiting as well. Zoos don't just entertain, they also
aim to educate. With a variety of programs geared toward children
and adults, zoos teach people about the needs of animals and the
importance of conservation. And if people get excited enough, the
thinking goes that they'll be more inclined to donate money to
conservation efforts -- another zoo pro.
The fact that zoos impact people in a positive way is nice, but it's not
the people critics worry about -- it's the animals.
Zoo Cons: Wild Animals Are Meant
to Be Wild
By Jennifer Horton
For evidence of some zoo cons, you need look no further than
Maggie the elephant. Until the Alaska Zoo finally caved in to public
pressure in 2007, Maggie was forced to spend days on end in a small
indoor enclosure because of the frigid outside temperatures. Perhaps
as a form of protest, she refused to use the elephant-sized treadmill
the zoo brought in to encourage her to exercise [source: National
Geographic].
Even in optimal conditions, some experts contend, it's incredibly
difficult to provide for the needs of animals like elephants. If Maggie
and her captive compatriots lived in the wild, they would wander as
much as 30 miles (48 kilometers) a day in large groups, grazing on
leaves and stopping to splash in the occasional watering hole. As it is,
they're lucky to get a few acres and a roommate or two [source:
Lemonick].
Maggie's story is just one of many. Zebras at the National Zoo in
Washington D.C. starved to death because of insufficient or incorrect
food, and the same zoo's red pandas died after ingesting rat poison
[source: Farinato]. And while many zoos, like those in the United
States, are supposed to at least meet the minimum requirements
spelled out in documents like the Animal Welfare Act, standards aren't
always adequate or enforced [source: Farinato].
While conditions have improved from the years of bars and cages,
detractors take issue with other items. Although the natural-looking
habitats are certainly more attractive, people like David Hancocks, a
zoo consultant and former zoo director, describe them as mere
illusions, arguing that they're not much of an improvement in terms of
space [source: Lemonick]. Indeed, many captive animals exhibit
signs of severe distress: People have witnessed elephants bobbing
their heads, bears pacing back and forth and wild cats obsessively
grooming themselves [source: Lemonick, Fordahl].
Animal behaviorists maintain that their distress is understandable.
Animals like zebras, giraffes and gazelles were designed to run
across miles of open terrain, not live out their lives in captivity.
Despite a zoo's best efforts, its animals often are deprived of privacy,
confined to inadequate spaces and unable to engage in natural
hunting and mating activities. Forced to live in artificial constructs,
many animals succumb to what some people refer to as zoochosis,
the display of obsessive, repetitive behaviors [source: Naturewatch].
In addition, many animals have precise needs that zookeepers are
just beginning to understand. Some, like the aardvark, survive on a
limited diet that zoos have a hard time fulfilling; others thrive only in
certain temperatures and environments that aren't easy to recreate.
Even zoos' conservation efforts leave something to be desired. Of
145 reintroduction programs carried out by zoos in the last century,
only 16 truly succeeded in restoring populations to the wild [source:
Fravel]. The condors mentioned on the previous page? About twothirds of them were actually strong enough to survive in the wild
[source: Encarta].
Zoos may not even benefit people as much as once thought.
According to one study, many visitors don't pay much attention to the
animals -- they're actually talking to each other about unrelated things
and spending only a few minutes at each display [source: Booth].
It's a toss-up whether zoos are good or bad for animals. As you've
seen, it depends a lot on what zoo you're talking about. It also
depends on whether you're referring to the well-being of a single
animal actually living in a zoo or an animal, thousands of miles away,
benefiting from the zoo's research and conservation efforts. If you
had the communicative power of Dr. Doolittle, Leo the snow leopard
would likely tell you that zoos are great; however Maggie the elephant
might respond by slapping you with her trunk.
You Can Unpack Your Trunk Here
Making elephants, and humans, feel at home in a zoo
By Ray Mark Rinaldi
It's not so hard to see the Denver Zoo's Toyota Elephant Passage as
one of the most ambitious pieces of residential architecture to debut
in Denver this summer. The complex, a neighborhood of
pachyderms, bats and fishing cats, includes 20 buildings of various
shape, size and purpose spread over 10-plus acres.
The project pulls together $50 million of unprecedented construction.
That's not just critic talk; there's no precedent for such a varied
habitat, no model. Designers relied on international zoological
standards, but for the most part the miniature village is a careful,
caring guess about how best to make a home for some unusual
residents.
And so here comes the critic talk: It is a handsome place, and
surprisingly smart. This complicated housing development just
received a coveted LEED Platinum rating from the U.S. Green
Building Council. The recognition is a crowning achievement for the
zoo, which now recycles -- back into its own energy -- a whopping 90
percent of the waste its 3,800 animals, 300 workers and 1.9 annual
million visitors produce. That elephant droppings can be transformed
into the gas that makes their own hot tubs simmer is remarkable
indeed.
As a piece of design, the zoo has its obvious side, but also some
clever turns. The functional demands are exceedingly high for a
project like this. It has to provide a clean, healthy place for animals to
live, but also a good dose of entertainment for visitors -- at $15 a
ticket, zoos are part show business. It has to serve as a learning tool
and it has to be safe and secure so that no 2-ton bull plods its way
into adjacent City Park.
Even more important, it has to make an argument for keeping
animals in captivity in the first place; it must appear humane at every
turn. It can't look sad.
The zoo's planning department, led by George Pond, pulls this off,
and not by taking the easy way out. The attraction houses delights -watching 8-year-old Bodie splash around in his million-gallon
swimming pool is an unmatched thrill -- but doesn't deify its
inhabitants. One building is actually a dilapidated family home, meant
to appear ravaged by a hungry elephant, a scene re-created from
what zoo researchers witnessed during trips to Asia where the
animals co-habitate, not always peacefully, with people.
The architecture here is a bit hokey, the mud walls and thatched roof
don't look authentic, situated in Denver. But the design serves it
purpose. It educates people about conflictsbetween the world's
civilized and uncivilized factions, and shows a need for study and
conservation so that animals aren't destroyed as communities
encroach on their lands.
Without the zoo and its exhibition would we understand the issues
facing wildlife? Would we create the infrastructure to save
endangered species both here and in their native habitats? The
architecture takes its pro-zoo stand. Some will be convinced, others
will see it as brick- and-mortar propaganda.
Thematically, the Elephant Passage is a mismatch of motifs that
borrows design details from the various tropical regions it is meant to
evoke. A visitor could wander under a latticed "jali" screen you might
find in Delhi, or pass by a building set on stilts above a pond, as in
Thailand or Vietnam.
Materials alternate between real and artificial: bamboo walls meet
mounds of manufactured mud. Roofs are covered in everything from
tile to grass to corrugated metal. Palm and banana trees are grown
specially for the exhibit in nearby city greenhouses and irrigated with
plastic hoses.
The artificial details can feel like the special effects of a miniature golf
course, and a visitor might wonder if they are convincing enough for
the worldly set of 5-year-olds who frequent the place. For sure, the
built environment is created for the guests; one could argue that the
elephants couldn't care less whether their shade structure looks like it
comes from Malaysia or Macy's, and they probably won't object to the
excessive deployment of Toyota logos integrated into the grounds.
But the animals do benefit from state-of-the art care facilities. The
main elephant barn houses two devices that can actually turn a fullgrown bull on its side so veterinarians can attend to its health. A set
of trails, that somehow winds for 2 miles, keeps them on the move
while providing humans 360-degree views of their activities. Their
buildings are sunny, open and very large. What's not to like?
And for the pleasure of both the viewer and the viewed, the zoo has
designed a nearly unbelievable security system. The barriers
between humans and elephants consists mainly of a thin set of steel
cables suspended from posts in 20-foot spans -- just metal strings,
really. Guests can see the elephants, the elephants can see back.
Nobody needs to feel threatened.
This is a positively modern touch in the way it reduces a design issue
down to its simplest solution. It's a also an engineering marvel: The
wire walls are nearly transparent but strong enough to hold back a
charging elephant. That's the plan, anyway.
Rinaldi, Ray Mark. "You Can Unpack Your Trunk Here." Denver Post. 03 Jun
2012: E.3. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Apr 2013.
Life in a Zoo? No Way to 'Save' Polar Bears
By Jennifer O'Connor
Time is running out for polar bears. According to some estimates,
unless we drastically reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions, Arctic
summer sea ice could disappear by 2030 — and two- thirds of the
world’s polar bears could be extinct by mid-century. Amid these grim
statistics comes a self-serving new proposal being promoted by
several U.S. zoos: To “save” polar bears, we should sentence even
more of them to life in captivity.
As you mull over this idea, ask yourself: Do zoos really think that
displaying depressed and stressed animals will help motivate people
to preserve the Arctic environment? Or is this just a ploy to get paying
customers through the front gate?
Sorry, does that sound cynical? Consider that one of the facilities on
board with this proposal, the Saint Louis Zoo, spent $20 million on a
new polar bear exhibit but now has no animals to display there. The
zoo would benefit greatly if rules on importing polar bears for public
display were relaxed.
But polar bears do not fare well in captivity, and zoos know it. Ronald
Sandler, director of Northeastern University’s Ethics Institute, calls
polar bears “one of the worst candidates for captivity.”
Polar bears thrive in enormous Arctic expanses and open water —
which no zoo can hope to provide. An Oxford University study noted
that a typical polar bear enclosure is about one- millionth the size of
the animal’s minimum home range and concluded that captive polar
bears suffer from both physical and mental anguish.
For evidence of this, we need only remember Knut, the Berlin Zoo’s
“star” polar bear, who spent his days pacing incessantly, bobbing his
head repeatedly and exhibiting so much captivity-induced mental
distress that one German zoologist called him a “psychopath.” Some
zoos have attempted to curb such abnormal behaviors by drugging
polar bears with anti- depressants. Knut’s half-sister, Anori, who was
born in January, is now on display at Germany’s Wuppertal Zoo.
If U.S. zoos are allowed to start importing polar bear cubs, as they’ve
proposed, where will the adult animals end up? Babies like Anori
bring in big bucks, but as the animals get bigger, crowds grow
smaller. Visitors lose interest and move on, while adult animals
languish behind bars — warehoused, sold or bartered like damaged
goods. Before Knut died at the age of 4, the Berlin Zoo attempted to
unload him onto another facility.Not a single U.S. zoo has a policy of
providing lifetime care for the animals at its facilities, and many zoos
breed animals knowing in advance that the males will be difficult to
place when they mature.
Some zoos take drastic measures to deal with the “surplus.” Animals
from zoos have ended up at dilapidated roadside zoos, traveling
circuses and even canned-hunting facilities, where they are easy
marks for hunters seeking trophies for the den. One Swiss zoo killed
two endangered lion cubs simply because it didn’t have room for
them. The Cleveland Metroparks Zoo’s chief of veterinary services
has even called on members of the zoo community to support the use
of surplus zoo animals in medical experiments.
Zoos talk a lot about “conservation,” but none of the elephants,
gorillas, tigers, chimpanzees or pandas born in zoos will ever be
released back into their natural environments. In the case of polar
bears, where would they be released exactly, if the Arctic ice
disappears? Putting animals on display doesn’t even foster respect
for their wild cousins. They are still hunted, poached, culled and
captured for exhibits.
If we truly want to save polar bears, then we must save their habitat
— by doing whatever it takes to cut our greenhouse-gas emissions.
That’s the kind of campaign that deserves our support. Condemning
animals to a life sentence behind bars is not the solution.
O'Connor, Jennifer. "Life in a Zoo? No Way to 'Save' Polar Bears." People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals. 06 Apr 2012: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web.
16 Apr 2013.
Controversial Plan to Import Whales Should Be
Scrapped
By Jared S. Goodman
Since Atlanta’s Georgia Aquarium opened for business in late 2005,
three beluga whales have died. Two whale sharks, taken from the
waters off Taiwan, were both dead within two years.
Now, the facility has applied to import 18 wild belugas who have been
torn from the Sea of Okhotsk in eastern Russia. Life as they knew it is
over forever for these animals. Although keenly intelligent, they
cannot begin to understand how grim their future will be.
The aquarium plans to distribute these belugas — who are intended
to be used as “breeding machines” — to facilities around the United
States to churn out babies. Belugas thrive in the wide-open ocean.
They are extremely social animals who play, chase each other and
interact in extended pods. Belugas have been called “sea canaries”
because they speak and seem to sing to each other.
Taking wild-caught animals and housing them in an artificial
environment and hoping they’ll churn out babies is not only cruel, it’s
folly. At least the aquarium isn’t being coy about its motives: These
animals are being imported for no other reason than to increase
genetic diversity in captive belugas. The plan won’t do anything
positive for wild belugas. Instead, it has an entirely negative impact
by supporting their traumatic capture. There have been no imports of
deliberately captured cetaceans for U.S. facilities since 1993.
Breeding belugas in captivity has proved unsuccessful. Despite five
decades of effort, the population of captive belugas in the United
States has declined. The Georgia Aquarium already has one
breeding failure to account for: A beluga whale born at the facility in
May lived only a few days. Supposedly, the aquarium is still waiting
on the necropsy report.
Why is it that every time an animal dies prematurely at a zoo or an
aquarium, the necropsy reports always seem to take months? Are
these facilities betting on the public’s short attention span? It’s rare
indeed that the official cause is later released. Veterinary medicine for
marine mammals remains rudimentary. It’s generally recognized that
what marine mammal veterinarians in the business do is largely
guesswork. Yet when a beluga whale named Gasper died at the
Georgia Aquarium in 2007, rather than making his body available to
researchers or veterinarians for study, the aquarium chose to
cremate him. Why? An opportunity to actually learn something about
belugas was lost forever.
No empirical evidence supports the contention that seeing oceandwelling animals in tanks fosters even a scintilla of respect for them,
much less motivates visitors to take action to helpanimals. Visitors
come, spend a few hours, have a snack, buy some souvenirs and
then go home and carry on with their lives. Animals in aquariums will
remain in the same sterile tanks until the day they die.
Around the world, condemnation of capturing wild animals simply for
display is growing. Recently, two wild-caught harp seals in a
Canadian aquarium were spared from being killed when the facility
had no more use for them after 124,000 people signed a petition
demanding their release. In Hong Kong, the Ocean Park aquarium
abandoned plans to procure belugas from the same Russian sea
community where the Georgia Aquarium’s belugas were caught after
public outrage proved to be overwhelming.
People who really care about dolphins, whales and other marine
animals can help keep them in the oceans where they belong by
refusing to patronize aquariums and marine theme parks. It’s that
simple.
Goodman, Jared S. "Controversial Plan to Import Whales Should Be Scrapped."
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 28 Oct 2012: n.p. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 16 Apr 2013.
Sure, the Animals Are Cute, but Vilas Zoo Also Has a More
Serious Purpose
By Ron Seely
Dec. 17--Sha-Lei, the red panda who just recently took up residence
at Henry Vilas Zoo, has settled in comfortably. She lives in an inside
cage just around the corner from her future mate, Chang Tan, and is
fond of oranges, apples, grapes, bamboo and yams. She likes her
yams slightly warmed.
She has a quiet, gentle nature. And she is almost unbearably cute.
But there is much more to Sha-Lei than cute. Her story is part of a
larger, more serious narrative about the world's vanishing creatures,
genetic science, and zoos as arks -- safehouses for species that, in
the wild, we may be driving to extinction.
Sha-Lei came to the zoo as part of a program called the Species
Survival initiative. Overseen by the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums, the effort is aimed at protecting and breeding threatened
and endangered species.
Madison's zoo houses animals from at least 17 of the species that
are part of the initiative. Some of the better known animals -- and
ones you may have seen on your last visit to the zoo -- include
Bornean orangutans, Amur tigers, African lions, polar bears, North
American river otters and golden lion tamarins.
Zoo Director Jim Hubing said that through the initiative, the zoo is
plugged into a vast network that includes extensive data on each of
the species in the program, as well as background that includes
populations, breeding activity and genetic histories of captive animals
throughout the world. Participation in the program requires
accreditation, and Henry Vilas Zoo is one of about 220 zoos with
such certification.
The zoo is even more exclusive when it comes to its work with certain
species, Hubing said. For example, of the 225 accredited zoos, only
35 have polar bears. And the zoo is one of only three where, nine
years ago, a Bornean orangutan gave birth.
Such breeding programs are more complicated than they may seem
because of the demands of genetics; an important requirement in the
initiative is not to let the genetic makeup of the captive animals stray
too far from the genes of their counterparts in the wild, Hubing said.
Why protect such genetic diversity? According to scientists such as
E.O. Wilson, a Harvard zoologist and naturalist, the genetic diversity
of the world's wild plants and animals represents a rich repository of
possibility. As Hubing pointed out, who is to say that this wild soup of
genes might not one day be the source of a cure for some dread
disease or other great discovery?
Wilson also warns that Earth is likely in the midst of the fifth great
mass extinction since itWilson also warns that Earth is likely in the
midst of the fifth great mass extinction since it
formed 4.5 billion years ago and that it is being fueled this time not by
volcanoes or other natural cataclysm but by the exploding human
population.
So, the analogy of zoo as ark -- including this modest zoo on the
shore of Lake Wingra -- is not too far-fetched, said Laura Reisse, a
zookeeper at Vilas who also is a coordinator with the Species
Survival initiative. She helps keep track of data on black-crowned
cranes.
Working with the initiative can sometimes be discouraging because of
so many species being so precariously perched on the edge of
survival. "It's always a battle," she said. "We're always losing
diversity."
Under the standards set by the initiative, animals may be bred only so
many times because too many offspring from the same animals
would weaken the genetic connection to wild populations. "If you
keep more diversity in the captive populations," said Reisse, "you
keep more of those genes that you see in the wild populations."
Hubing said that while some species are bred for reintroduction into
the wild, most are not. Instead, he said, they are an important
inspirational and educational link to a vanishing wild world. Their
presence, he added, may make people care more.
"The biggest good is that we hope our visitors learn more about these
animals and do something to help them survive. Having these
animals here may give us the time to understand what is happening
in the wild," Hubing said.
So Sha-Lei's story become more complicated and more important.
There are only about 2,500 of her kind left in the wild, living in the
high bamboo forests of the Himalayas. In the next few weeks, she will
be introduced to Chang Tan, the 9-year-old male who Thursday sat
placidly on a branch high in his tree unaware that his life was about to
take an interesting turn.
It's probably best he doesn't know how much may be riding on the
courtship.
Seely, Ron. "Sure, the Animals Are Cute, but Vilas Zoo Also Has a More Serious..."
Wisconsin State Journal. 17 Dec 2010: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Apr
2013.
Should We Be Keeping Animals Such As Killer Whales
in Captivity?
The Big Question
By Michael McCarthy ENVIRONMENT EDITOR
Why are we asking this now?
Because a female trainer, Dawn Brancheau, was killed this week by a
captive killer whale which dragged her into its tank at the SeaWorld
centre in Orlando, Florida.
Isn't that just a killer whale living up to its name?
Well, yes and no. The name killer whale originally came from the fact
that these striking, large and fierce animals had been seen to be
"killers of whales"--and they do indeed sometimes hunt other whale
species in the open ocean (The name biologists increasingly prefer to
use is orca, the second half of its scientific name, Orcinus orca).
Yet even though they were feared for centuries--the first known
reference is in the Elder Pliny's Natural History in the 1st century AD-there is no established record of orcas killing human beings in the
wild, although there have been a few cases of what seem to have
been accidental or mistaken attacks.
During Captain Scott's ill-fated expedition to the South Pole a century
ago, a killer whale tried to tip over an ice floe on which a
photographer was standing with a dog team, but it is thought that the
dogs' barking might have sounded enough like seal calls to trigger
the animal's hunting instinct.A surfer was bitten in California in the
1970s and a boy who was bathing was bumped by a killer whale in
Alaska several years ago, but there have been very few attacks in the
wild, and none fatal. In captivity, however, it's a different story.
How so?
There have been quite a few attacks by captive killer whales on their
trainers. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) says:
"It happens more than you think." One source suggested yesterday
that since the 1970s, killer whales in captivity have attacked 24
people around the world, and some of these encounters have been
fatal.
As recently as last December, a trainer at the Loro Parque animal
park on the Spanish island of Tenerife, Alexis Martinez Hernandez,
was crushed to death when a stunt he was rehearsingwith a 14-yearold killer whale named Keto went wrong. And Tilikum, the animal
involved in this week's fatal attack, who was captured from the wild in
Iceland, was, with two other orcas, involved in the death of a trainer in
Canada in 1991, and then of a man who had sneaked into Florida
SeaWorld in 1999 and appears to have fallen into Tilikum's pool.
So why do they attack people in captivity when they don't in the
wild?
The answer seems to be captivity-related stress. It's not hard to
understand. Killer whales are wild animals. They are strong. They are
unpredictable. They are very intelligent, with their own complex
communications system. They are very social--in the wild, they live in
closely co- operating social groups with maybe 10 to 20 members.
If you take one out of the sea and stick it in a concrete swimming pool
for the rest of its life, do you think that will have a benign effect on the
animal's personality? What, thanks for all the fish? When you
consider the thousands of miles of open ocean through which wild
killer whales freely roam--they are dolphins, after all, the biggest
members of the dolphin family--ending up in SeaWorld is the orca
equivalent of you or me being imprisoned by a lunatic in a cupboard
under the stairs.
Many zoos have now recognised that close confinement of big
mammals--sticking lions and tigers in cages, and elephants in
concrete houses--is entirely wrong and counter-productive. In the
1970s, London Zoo, for example, held a polar bear in a concrete pit
which used to pace up and down continually all day long in what was
clearly mad despair. (The pit has long since been empty).
But the people who hold the 42 orcas currently in captivity around the
world have too big a financial interest in keeping them in anything
larger than a bare pool in which they can perform cheesy stunts for
the benefit of paying tourists. And what happens is--to use the
vernacular-- that it does their heads in. If you think this is just
opinionating, look at the mortality figures.
What do they show?
There is an increasing amount of data on orcas in the wild, especially
from western Canada, where they have been studied for decades,
and it is clear that in their natural state their lifespan is something
similar to that of humans. They tend to live up to 50 years, but there
are cases of some of the females surviving much longer, perhaps
even to 80 and beyond.
In captivity the picture is very different. The figures are known
precisely. According to the WDCS, there have been 136 killer whales
captured in the wild and held in captivity since the first one in 1961, of
which 123 have now died, and the average survival time is four years.
It is thought that the stress of captivity lowers their resistance to
disease. And it clearly also alters their behaviour, leading among
other things to unpredictable aggression. (The very first one to be
captured, by the way, the 1961 animal, a small female taken in
Californian waters, lasted one day. She died after repeatedly
swimming around her pool at high speed, ramming into the sides of
the tank).
So what should happen now?
Animal welfare campaigners and many biologists think that orcas
should simply not be held in captivity. They should be freed, all of
them. Unfortunately, it's not a simple business--you can't just chuck
them back like a fish you might have caught. You would have to
transfer them to pens in the sea, for them to be rehabituated to the
wild, and then there is the question of
whether or not they could rejoin the family pod from which there are
taken.
The experience of Keiko, the orca who starred in the three Free Willy
movies, shows how difficult it is--when he eventually was freed in
2002 he was never able to find a pod and only lasted 18 months,
before dying off the coast of Norway.
But even if there can only be a halfway house--returning captive
orcas to sea pens where they could be cared for--it is very likely
preferable to a life of balancing a ball on your nose in front of 5,000
popcorn chewers.
Is freedom for captive killer whales likely?
Well, just so you know, no fewer than 21 of the world total of 42 orcas
held in captivity are kept in the three US aquaria run by SeaWorld,
which was part of the "entertainment business" of the giant brewing
company Anheuser Busch until it was sold for $2.7bn last October to
the New York private equity business Blackstone. Big bucks, big
bucks. Freedom? What do you think?
Is it right to trap such wildlife in artificial environments?
Yes...
• They can perform a useful educational function for adults and
especially for children, who may become supporters of conservation.
• Captive breeding, where it is possible, may be a lifeline for species
which are threatened with extinction.
• Modern methods of keeping animals--in some cases--are much
better than they were a few years ago
No...
• Many big animals, orcas perhaps above all, are far too large and
have too large a range in the wild to be held in narrow confinement.
• They clearly suffer from captivity-related stress which makes them
susceptible to disease and shortens their lives.
• They may become aggressive and become a danger to their
keepers as recent fatalities have illustrated.
McCarthy, Michael. "Should We Be Keeping Animals Such As Killer Whales in
Captivity?." The Independent (London, England). 26 Feb 2010: 50.
SIRSAccessed on 04/16/2013 from SIRS Issues Researcher via SIRS
Knowledge Source <http://www.sirs.com>Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Apr 2013.