A small note on a controversial issue- Zoos
Created | Updated May 26, 2004
Zoos, have always been a much argued over subject. In many ways they have proved to be good for the conservation of species, but some say that they harm the world and its environment, and are a disgusting exploitation of animals' rights. The Zoo Licensing Act of 1981, which aims to 'promote minimum standards of welfare, meaningful education, effective conservation, valuable research and essential public safety,' confirms what a modern day 'zoo' actually is:
"An establishment where wild animals (not normally domesticated in the UK - 'exotics') are kept for exhibition to the public otherwise than for purposes of a circus and otherwise than in a pet shop; and this Act applies to any zoo to which members of the public have access, with or without charge for admission, on more than seven days in any period of 12 consecutive months".
A lot of research now goes on in zoos, but could we call any of it 'valuable?'Is it just research into animals' needs and behaviour while in captivity? This would surely gain nothing in trying to study means of saving animals in the wild.
Something regarded as very important in most zoos today is education. Thousands of school children visit zoos for free, and see animals that most of them would never otherwise see except on television. Edinburgh zoo has a major educational programme, the main objective of which they say is "to inspire in our visitors an understanding of the value, the complexity and the fragility of the natural world by fully utilising the educational potential of our unique variety of living animals." It seems a bit contradictory though, that in the zoo's education centre, posters, videos and images are shown of animals in the wild, while all the time there are the same types of animals locked in cages just outside? Maybe not though, as the zoo is really just displaying what its main objective is; to get these animals, or at least their descendants, back into the wild.
Is television just as good- or maybe even better a way to educate? At least on television people can see animals doing what they do rather than sitting around in cages or enclosures. A letter from Zoo Check, (part of the 'Born Free' corporation,) to London Zoo in 1987, argued this point; 'In the zoo do you see the polar bear hunting the vast icy wastes of the arctic for seals, or digging a snow cave in which to raise its cubs?' Animals should have the same rights as humans, and should these rights be allowed to be ignored in order to save an animal's great-grandchildren? What I mean by this is that by keeping an animal in a zoo for research and/or breeding its life may be made a misery, but in years to come its descendants will enjoy a better life in the wild due to its sacrifices. The animal will not understand this, though.
In the wild, animals have developed and adapted to best suit their environment. Zoos do their best to recreate these conditions, but in most cases it is not possible. A polar bear's typical enclosure size, for example, is about one-millionth of its home range size. Previously, large animals were thought to be compensating for this in their continuous pacing up and down and around in circles around meal times. A recent study though, (November 2003) by Oxford University scientists, has proven this false. Their report stated that, 'The bigger the distance a carnivore covers in the wild, the more likely it is to suffer stress symptoms in a zoo'. This means that the animals are displaying this behaviour due to stress and boredom. Throughout the thousands of years during which animals of today have existed, they have developed and adapted, as humans have, in order to survive. In a zoo, (in a different climate and with no natural predators,) these abilities and adaptations are left to go to waste. This brings about a whole range of problems for instance muscle wastage, loss of fur and loss of hunting instincts, which will all prove difficulties for a species if eventually reintroduced to the wild.
It is not all bad news though- zoos are reaching their targets, and slowly but surely a safe future is being secured for many species, such as the Przewalski Horse. All Przewalski Horse foals that could be found by a group of traders were shipped across from their home, (Mongolia) in 1900. Only 53 made it to Europe, and all but 13 died out without offspring. These horses were taken into protection, and it is from these 13 that the approximately 1600 alive in captivity today in zoos and private parks all over the world, are descended. A large number of these horses are now very gradually being let back into the Mongolian wilderness in the form of a national park, in which they have gradually been given more and more freedom; on their way back into the wild. This is one example of the many projects that are happening on a global scale today. It was a terribly slow process, but it did work.
Unless you have a very strong opinion on the subject, which I do not, it is hard to come to a conclusion on the question 'are zoos good or bad?'. On one hand, you could say that they cannot be good things at all if they mean that any animals have to suffer and lose their freedom in the process of giving a few animals their freedom back, (which contradicts itself a little). On the other hand you could argue the direct opposite: that even if zoos have some bad points, if they are getting at least some good results, they cannot possibly be at all bad or unjust. This hand seems to make more sense, but I am going to stay neutral on this one.
