Zoological Gardens: The Case For
I quite like zoological gardens and aquariums, for reasons that I hope to properly outline in this text. True, zoos can be noisy and crowded, but upon rare days in which it's just you and the animals, the experiences can be fantastic, allowing one to form a better appreciation of wildlife. I credit frequent trips to zoos as a young child as a key factor in my respect for the natural world. There's a lot of controversy surrounding zoos, some justifiable and some not. Unfortunately, I can't help but find those who write off all zoos as being "bad" are uneducated on the history of zoological gardens and their many conservation achievements.
As a better understanding of both the philosophy of animal welfare and the science of zoology has developed over the past few decades, the important question has arisen on if zoological gardens and aquariums are to be considered useful or ethical institutions. Many defenders claim that zoos are critical for the protection of creatures endangered with habitat loss and extinction. Their critics, on the other hand, state that zoos are outdated concepts and that they do not accomplish their stated goals of promoting ecological healthiness or creature rehabilitation. “Both humans and animals will be better off when they are abolished,” concludes Dale Jameson in his famous 1985 essay “Against Zoos”. Jameson and several other devoted detractors are largely composed of those who have the noble interests of animal wellbeing in mind. Dubbed “animal protectionists” by Jozef Keulartz, they bring up proposed issues that animals who live in captivity undergo. The creatures, they assert, are imprisoned under oppressive conditions that nowhere near resemble the wild places that they are evolutionarily adapted to thrive in. Some defenders of zoos state that such protectionists have set out to paint the entire industry as careless and acquisitive. They highlight that zoos have done more for conservation than the average person may realize and that increasingly they take both animal rights and ecology into careful consideration. Then which is it? Is the zoo a bleak and pointless jail, or a shining ark that gives critical aid in the preservation of a myriad of species? This essay shall examine both viewpoints in the hopes of providing a fair insight into the issue. For reader clarification, my personal viewpoint is that zoos are a crucial and much-needed aspect of modern environmental efforts.
Zoos, as we know them, have existed for centuries. Their creation was catalyzed by a “…growing influx of exotic animals caused by the expansion of trade,” according to Eric Baratay and Elisabeth Hardouin-Fugier in their book Zoo: A History of Zoological Gardens in the West (pg.29). Yet, it has been only recently that these establishments have placed the issues of wildlife conservation and public education at the forefront of their publicized missions. When we compare the zoo exhibits of today with the now-defunct ones from five decades ago, the sheer change can be surprising. Gone are the days of keeping gorillas in jaillike cages, now the apes live in detailed, immersive replicas of the Congolese rainforests. Except for small private zoos, most zoos no longer keep animals solely for profit, but rather use their pooled resources and connections to protect the ones in their care, encouraging both population growth of endangered wildlife and fundraising to conserve habitats. However, despite this doubtless evolution in the design and purpose of zoos, controversies remain.
Dale Jameson’s anti-zoo writing
neatly lays out the various criticisms that one may have towards zoos. Jameson
makes the point that zoos cannot exist for the mere sake of it, as keeping them
for the reason of entertainment would be an infringement upon the rights of
whatever animals are kept in captivity. “For the most part [zoo inhabitants]
are prevented from gathering their own food, developing their own social orders, and generally behaving in ways that are natural to them. These activities all
require significantly more liberty than most animals are permitted in zoos. If
we are justified in keeping animals in zoos, it must be because there are some
important benefits that can be obtained only by doing so”, he observes. Such
notions on liberty follow that of most moral theories. So, according to
Jameson, we must conclude that a zoo without a purpose is a very unethical
thing indeed. However, zoos and their defenders note that there are several
supposedly valuable reasons to keep animals in captivity.
One justification for the keeping
of zoos is education. It is undeniable that many of the most praised zoos in
the world devote much of their space to informing the public about the natural
history of lemurs, rhinoceroses, and many other species that they keep. But to
an extent, this focus on education is lacking. A study conducted by the
University of Otago in New Zealand on the way zoos are marketed found that zoos
mostly advertise themselves as entertainment parks rather than museum-like
places to learn. It also found that the educational materials provided by some
zoos can lack depth. “Based on the results of this paper it is suggested that
zoos need to present their conservation credentials in more detail and ensure
the entertainment message does not adversely affect transmission of the
conservation or education one.” The study also raised the possibility that
“zoos are inappropriate places for learning as visitors do not come prepared to
be educated but instead have an expectation to be entertained [by the
animals].”
Another argument in the support of
zoos would be their aid in scientific research. Despite some claims that zoos
are useless in such areas, that just isn’t true. Zoos that house topnotch
academic faculties can, in fact, have greater positive consequences for
wildlife research at large. Science journalist Jason G. Goldman has written
that “zoo populations provide a more naturalistic source of non-human animals
for investigating behavior and cognition compared with laboratory studies.” An
article published in the journal Biodiversity & Conservation stated that
“Despite early menageries being the source of much useful biological
information on anatomy and taxonomy, it is only more recently that the
potential for research in zoos has been recognized. Collections of captive
animals are unique and irreplaceable resources for conservation; but without
research in zoological parks, progress in conservation science would diminish.”
(Ryder & Feistner, pg. 671)
Giant Pacific Octopus at the famous Monterey Bay Aquarium.
A third reason for keeping zoos,
and doubtlessly the most important, would be their role in ex situ
conservation. “The magnitude of anthropogenic environmental stress from
bioinvasion, habitat fragmentation, nitrogen deposition, biodiversity loss,
and, above all, climate change, makes it unavoidable to replace the hands-off
approach that has guided mainstream species conservation until recently by a
more proactive and interventionist strategy” writes Keulartz. Still, animal protectionists
claim that zoos do not properly serve as institutions for environmental causes.
Critics of zoos claim that their very existence is a distraction from valiant
efforts to conserve animals in the wild, but according to biologist Brian
Bertram, there is little evidence that zoos serve as accidental diversions (pg.
201). In fact, the large media attention that zoos earn, particularly in the
digital age, ensures that they can properly broadcast their efforts to conserve
vanishing species, such as orangutans, to the public at large. Bertram
additionally weighs that zoo animals are subjected to comparative luxuries in
relation to domesticated creatures. Farmed chickens, for example, are treated
much worse than the vast majority of zoo residents, kept in factories with
abysmal conditions, and bred solely for an early grave.
Keulartz has noted that the concepts and methods of zoo conservation have changed greatly over the past few decades, and may shift even more in the near future. The old model, developed in the 1970s and known as the ‘Noah’s Ark’ paradigm, is being replaced by an “integrated approach”. To Keulartz, such transformation represents a possibly bright future in which zoological gardens have reached their higher potential. Such an approach aims to as well please the critics by highlighting the new trends in zoos that unify animal welfare and conservation. One way to do this, as suggested by Jozef Keulartz, would be for zoos and their conservation projects to emphasize local bioregions and their species. This would not only educate visitors on issues related to indigenous wildlife but provide the chance for zoological institutions to benefit the local wilderness. An instance of this is Woodland Park Zoo’s boosterism of the endangered Oregon Silverspot Butterfly through education of the public and breeding larvae. Another shift would be for zoos to espouse smaller species, “particularly amphibians, invertebrates, and some species of fish, which occupy less space, are relatively inexpensive to keep, have a high birth rate, and are easy to reintroduce.” Keulartz also points out that zoos do not well represent the animal kingdom in how their collections are largely composed of mammalian megafauna, whereas the vast majority of endangered species are from other classes of zoological life. A shift to protecting more of these balances out biases in conservation projects and encourages new ideas for saving wildlife. There are, for example, hundreds of species of frogs that are in very real danger of becoming extinct within our lifetimes. Zoos would be doing a disservice to ignore the plight of such threatened creatures.
Regardless of where one stands, there are certainly some valid ethical concerns about the continued existence of zoo animals. One of these would be exhibits that allow opportunities for animal shows that may cause stress to the creatures, such as the much-advertised chance to swim with the Bottlenose Dolphins at SeaWorld San Antonio. This issue may be much bigger than most are aware of, a 2019 National Geographic article authored by Rachel Fobar noted that other offenses that zoos committed included “making big cats perform in gladiator-style shows, elephants play basketball, and diapered chimpanzees ride scooters.” If zoos want to focus on education and ecology rather than be theme parks, then such circuslike spectacles should be removed as soon as possible. It has been suggested that the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) adopt a uniform code of ethics that determines if such conduct is improper. Another problem brought up by Fobar is that “WAZA is a member organization that doesn’t acquire accreditation.” In constant some other zoo umbrella organizations, such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) have strict and lengthy accreditation processes. If all zoo organizations had such rigid standards, then zoos of poor quality would be forced to either improve or close, much to the delight of both animal protectionists and progressive zoological gardens.
It would be improper to go without mentioning the undeniable historical successes that some zoos have reached in saving certain species from manmade extinction. The Arabian Oryx, a handsome antelope native to the harsh deserts of West Asia, went extinct in the wild in the early 1970s. Thanks to an international operation by multiple zoos housing the ungulates in captivity, they have been reintroduced into the wild and are thriving. Their story is far from unique. The population of the California Condor, one of the rarest of all birds, has risen from mere dozens to hundreds as a result of a breeding program by the Los Angeles Zoo. “…by the time that officials released the first captive-bred birds the condor recovery program had gathered widespread support, even among its former critics,” (pg. 557) writes environmental historian Peter S. Alagona. Przewalski's Horse, the last truly wild equine, once vanished from its indigenous Mongolian steppe but has returned to its true home because of conservation efforts. Some avian species, such as the Guam Kingfisher, the Hawaiian Crow, and the Socorro Dove have not had wild populations in decades and only survive on through zoo breeding programs. Should an abolishment of all zoos occur, these birds would disappear forever. With further environmental destruction predicted by climatologists in the coming decades, the result of global warming, deforestation, and pollution, perhaps anybody critical of zoos should ask themselves if they are at all comfortable with a scenario in which we idly sat by and did nothing while the chances arise to save animals from a tragic demise are willingly ignored. We are currently in the midst of a mass extinction event. There is a good argument to make that any efforts to preserve as much animal life as possible should be welcomed with open arms.
In conclusion, the dilemma of the
very existence of zoos and aquariums is much more complex than most laypersons
would presume. As we’ve established, zoos without useful functions are
unethical, however many zoos provide education, scientific research, and
important conservation work that justifies their being. There have been dozens
of species saved from extinction due to the efforts of zoological gardens.
However, they are far from perfect. Zoos still have much room to improve in
aspects like better teaching the public about ecology and taking a more focused
approach to environmentalism. In particular, zoos that have animal performance
shows, such as SeaWorld’s infamous whale programs, should shut down such
operations to better their image and improve the welfare of their animals.
Keulartz states that, in a sense, zoos are at a crossroads and must make the
choice of continuing down a path of commercialization or embracing their
altruistic goals. Such decisions may very well determine their future.
“Jamieson’s unfavorable judgment of the zoo might need to be revised in light
of the paradigm shift towards the integrated approach. Under this approach, the
prospects for the zoo to achieve a morally acceptable balance between animal
welfare costs and species conservation benefits look rather good, provided that
the zoo’s core tasks are all geared to wildlife conservation and the species the collection clearly reflects the zoo’s conservation goals,” concludes Keulartz.
As is unfortunately typical, the fates of other species rest carefully within
our hands. It is our duty to ask ourselves what we value about nature and the dignity of animals, and if zoos can adapt to show that they truly care about
protecting the lives of animals in the most efficient manner. If we find any
merit to the notion that animals deserve ethical rights, then these are
important conservations for us to have, discussions that may very well
determine the future of global ecology in ways unthought of.
Bibliography
Alagona, Peter S. “Biography of a
"Feathered Pig": The California Condor Conservation Controversy” in Journal
of the History of Biology volume 37 (2004). 557–583.
Baratay, Eric and Hardouin-Fugier,
Elisabeth. Zoo: A History of Zoological Gardens in the West Reaktion
Books, 2004
Bertram, Brian. “Misconceptions
about zoos” in Biologist 51 (4) (2004). 199-206.
Carr, N. and Cohen, S. “The public face of zoos: Images of entertainment, education,
and conservation”. Anthrozoos, 24(2), (2011). 175-189. url: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/745893/1/Carr%20%26%20Cohen%202011.pdf
Fobar, Rachel. “Hundreds of zoos
and aquariums accused of mistreating animals” in National Geographic. url: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/08/waza-zoos-accused-of-mistreating-animals-wap-report/
(2019)
Goldman, Jason. “Bringing Science
to the Zoo” in Scientific American. url: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/bringing-science-to-the-zoo/
(2013)
Jamieson, Dale. “Against Zoos” in
Environmental Ethics (2013). 313-321
Keulartz, Jozef. “Captivity for
Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads” in Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 28(2) (2015). 335-351. url: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-015-9537-z
Ryder,
Oliver and Feistner, Anna T. C. “Research in zoos: a
growth area in conservation” in Biodiversity & Conservation volume 4
(1995). 671–67.
Wickins-Drazilová,
Dita. “Zoo Animal Welfare” in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,
19(1) (2006). 27-36.
Comments
Post a Comment