Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This research paper explores the ethical concerns of zoos through an examination of stereotypic behaviors in captive animals, inadequate enclosures, and the improper representation of wildlife. case studies, facts, and personal reflections to shed light on the issue. Zoos are criticized for their primary motives of cheap entertainment and animal exploitation, leading to detrimental effects on animal welfare.
Typology: Study Guides, Projects, Research
1 / 13
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Running head: BEHIND THE BARS 1 Secrets Behind the Bars: An Examination of Zoos as an Unethical Practice: Stereotypic Behaviors in Captive Animals, Inadequate Enclosures, and the Improper Representation of Wildlife Christina Yan University of California Santa Barbara Author Note This paper was prepared for Writing 50, taught by Professor Peter Huk.
Secrets Behind the Bars: An Examination of Zoos as an Unethical Practice: Stereotypic Behaviors in Captive Animals, Inadequate Enclosures, and the Improper Representation of Wildlife Bear attacks, kills animal trainer at facility in Big Bear City , Whale kills female trainer at SeaWorld’s Shamu Stadium , Horrified Zoogoer Recalls Tiger Attack , Zoo Mourns Mauled Keeper , Chimp Gathers Stones for “Premeditated” Attacks on Zoo Visitors. These alarming captions are only a few of the many similar headlines that have been stamped across the top news in the United States over the past two years. What can these striking headlines tell us about the current captive conditions of wild animals in US zoos? What do these unfortunate deaths and injuries reveal to us about the well-being and safety of zoo keepers and visitors, as well as of the animals themselves? As Syed Rizvi (2009), Founder and President of Engineers and Scientists for Animal Rights has stated, “[The notion] that zoos play an important role in the conservation of endangered species is a misleading one. The truth is that the primary motives of zoos are cheap entertainment at the cost of animal exploitation.” The present circumstances of inadequate enclosures, premature animal deaths, zookeeper and visitor maulings, and stereotypic behavior in captive animals are clear indicators that zoos are neither ethical, nor safe for animals. The obvious detriment that captivity has on wild animals is both saddening and wrong. The only way to draw closer to a solution to this unfortunate problem is if influential zoo curators and public officials take a united stand against zoos and promote conservatories instead. Captivity in zoological parks challenges the tradeoff between the asserted educational values of operating zoos versus the obvious detriment that captivity has
suit. Until then, however, the public will continue to be miseducated about true wildlife, while captive animals will continue to suffer. Historic and Modern Goals of Zoological Parks The physical structure and functioning purposes of zoos have evolved drastically over time. Certainly, the zoos of today hardly resemble the barren and small exhibits of the very first private zoos that wealthy Europeans owned centuries ago. One can easily argue and substantiate with facts and logical sense that any changes to zoos over time have all been done for the better (for both society and the animals). However, throughout modern day, zoos still follow one primary concept: zoological parks largely function as a form of easy entertainment for the public. This is primarily the problem that animal rights activists see in zoos. Although zoos boast that their goals are education, conservation, and research, they knowingly fail to acknowledge that one of their primary functions is also human entertainment and mass profit. Amidst outcry from animal rights activists and educated field anthropologists that zoos are both unethical and immoral, zoological parks continue to reason that zoos are essential to the education of the public. They argue that visitors who go to modern, well-maintained, and accurately portrayed animal exhibits will leave with a better understanding and appreciation for the animals and their natural environments (Anderson, 2007, p.). Meanwhile, educational programs such as live talks and interactive shows, as well as a ready and knowledgeable staff on hand contribute to the educational goals of zoos. In a recent 2007 survey that assessed the impact that visiting a zoo or aquarium had on a visitor in the long-run, it was found that 54% of visitors leave with a reconsideration of their role in the conservation action (and saw themselves as a part of the solution); 57% of visitors found that their visit strengthened their connection to
nature; and 42% believed that zoos played an important role in conservation education and animal care (Faulk et al., 2007, p.). While the researchers in this particular study concluded that these findings were significant enough to claim that zoos are necessary for the public’s education, statistics such as these are simply skewed and misleading. While the education of the public may have been a reasonable justification to operate zoos a century ago when the only way to encounter any form of undomesticated wildlife was to venture far away from civilization, this validation does not hold true in the modern world. As Baron Hugo van Lawick (1987), the world-renowned cameraman behind Jane Goodall’s wildlife film series, stated, “We have films that can show far more clearly what animals look like and how they behave.” Hugo van Lawick makes a very valid point – humans can learn very little about the true nature of wild animals such as a polar bear, by simply looking at its captive and human-reared counterparts. What can we learn about polar bears on the icy planes of Alaska by watching a captive bred polar bear that was raised by humans, that has never interacted with another polar bear, that has never experienced fresh snowfall, and that is fed butchered meat by its handler? Likewise, what can we learn about a colony of penguins in Antarctica by watching thirty captive ones crammed in a tiny manmade exhibit, that swarm around the zookeeper and beg for food at the exact hour of the each day? By going to zoos in hopes of expanding our knowledge about true wildlife, in reality, we are only fooling ourselves. Sadly, what we see is only the tragedy of animals bred and captured under a strict and ordered institution. Hugo van Lawick is right – we are much better off watching the many videos available to us on television and online. To develop the argument against the educational claims of zoos even further, we must also look at the zoological goal of scientific research. Many zoos claimed that, “in captivity, the
from city-to-city, state-to-state, or even country-to-country, can have injurious effects on the animals. Blackshaw (1986) has admitted that their zoos often do not follow proper techniques and safety procedures when transporting animals; animals are usually transported in cramped trailers and are usually not tranquilized. Thus, from the evidence above, it is clear that zoos’ claims of conservationism are meaningless once their unethical and contradictory practices are revealed. The Impact of Captivity Stereotypic Behaviors While zoos claim that they are "conserving" wildlife both for the sake of the wild animals and for society's education, at the heart of these exhibitions, animals are held captive primarily for our entertainment. Meanwhile, in a case-to-case perspective, we are doing these animals more harm than good. Not only are we holding these animals captive, but also we leave nearly all of them with long-term psychological and at times physical damage. Stereotypic trance-like behavior, self-injury, and depression are only a few of the symptoms seen in zoos across the world. The Department of Zoology at the University of Wroclaw in Poland conducted a research study that examined the stereotypic behavior of a captive female elephant over time. The study reported that the elephant spent 52% of its normal day engaging in stereotypic movements, which included swaying its trunk and body while lifting its hind legs in a repetitive pattern (Elzanowski & Sergiel, 2006, p. 228 ). Interestingly, Elzanowski and Sergiel (2006) found that this behavior occurred at the highest rate in the fall, when the elephant spent much of her time in her pen; versus the lower rates during the summer, when she regularly spent time outdoors. These cases of stereotypy in elephants are only a couple among many, many others.
A significant conclusion that can be drawn from these two examples is that the environmental richness, or lack-there-of, in an animal’s exhibit can have extreme effects on an animal’s physical and mental well-being. As Humane Society Press reporter David Hanocks (2001) has stated, “It is not unusual for the ‘natural habitat’ to be composed of nothing but concrete and plastic… In the worst examples, such as Omaha Zoo’s Lied Jungle building, many animals spend their entire lives in cramped, completely artificial environments and never have contact with anything natural” (p.137). Hanocks’ points highlights the fact that many captive animals’ exhibits are boasted as authentic, natural environments, but in reality, provide little natural settings for the animals. With nothing natural to interact with, such as trees or shrubs that are native to the animals’ natural habitat, captive animals can become extremely bored and lonely in their barren environments. Consequently, as research has shown, this leads to stereotypic behavior, a mental detriment to the well-being and happiness of zoo animals. Stereotypic behaviors have long been noticed in captive zoo animals. As Carlstead (1996) has explained, stereotypy involves a repeated patterned movement such as pacing back and forth or head bobbing. Stereotypy is an important issue to examine because researchers have found that it is “relatively invariant in form, and has no apparent function or goal” (Pitsko, 2003 ). Also, because these behaviors are rarely (if ever) seen in the wild, the cause and effect relationship between captivity and stereotypy becomes clear. Captivity is believed to have many negative effects on an animal’s physiological and psychological well-being; these detriments become apparent through stereotypic behavior. When animals’ natural behaviors are constricted by their unnatural captive environments and conditions, they will be more likely to exhibit stereotypy as are response. For example, in Pitsko’s 2003 study, she found that captive tigers who were unable to exhibit natural hunting behaviors and who had little or no pool access
factor in exhibits that needs to be changed. Most enclosures are still made with concrete or unnatural flooring. This is both unnatural for the animals and harsh on their soles. Thus, she encourages the use of “substrate and vegetation,” which includes grass, wooden chips, and dirt (p. 14 ). Wildlife Conservation: The Bigger Picture Even if we do as much as we can within a zoo to make life for wild animals less stressful, more engaging, and more natural, researchers will still argue that environmental enrichment is simply not enough to solve the problem at large. While environmental enrichment provides for a better captive life for the animals, the animals are still being exploited for human entertainment and amusement. Furthermore, if the purpose of zoos is to promote conservation, then we should be doing just that — protecting wildlife in its natural habitat, not exploiting animals in captivity for our leisure. The money that is profited every year in zoos could make a world of difference if only used for the cause of protecting wildlife around the world from poachers and industrialism or for the cause of moving zoo animals to conservatories. In 1987 Hugo van Lawick stated, “I heard of $10 million being spent on gorillas in captivity. One can imagine how well the gorillas in Rwanda (and a few other places) would be protected in the wild if anything like that sort of money was available” (p.119). While abolishing zoos entirely is not feasible at this time and day, what we still can do is focus on promoting conservatories for animals that are already captive. Conservatories provide the proper care, space, and natural, live environment that captive wild animals need. With conservatories, the focus is on the well-being of the animals – not the entertainment of humans. Conservatories go above and beyond the environmental enrichment concept that Pitsko
suggested above. Enriching an enclosure will certainly better a captive animal’s conditions, but realistically, the animal is still captive and stripped of most of their freedom. In a wildlife refuge or conservatory, animals can at the very least regain some of this freedom. Conclusion The practice of animal captivity in zoos is unnecessary and unethical because it leaves nearly all captive animals with some form of long-term emotional, psychological, or physical trauma. While zoos claim that they are conserving wildlife for both the sake of the wild animals and for society's education, at the heart of these exhibitions, animals are held captive primarily for our entertainment. Stereotypic trance-like behavior, self-injury, and depression are only a few of the symptoms seen in zoos across the world. Clearly, what zoos are currently doing to protect and conserve wildlife is not enough. Zoos’ three main goals of conservation, education, and research are also invalid and irrational, as the very concept behind captivity completely contradicts the notion of conservation. Meanwhile, wildlife is also improperly represented to society. Watching a caged and hand- reared animal can give very little insight on how a true wild animal behaves in the wild. When going to zoos, we are not appreciating wildlife or showing the love for animals that so many people claim to have. By supporting zoos, we are treating animals as novelty. While enriching the environment of captive animals is both appealing to the visitor’s eye and can also increase the quality of life and happiness of the animals, the ultimate goal in animal rights activism should be the push towards conservation, rather than confinement.
10 May 2010 from <http://pawspakistan.org/2009/01/are-‐zoos-‐really-‐ necessary/>. Van lawick, Baron Hugo. (1987). Individuals in the landscape. Beyond the Bars: the Zoo Dilemma , pp.115-128. McKenna, Virginia, Travers, Will, & Wray, Jonathan. Thorsons Publishing Group, Rochester, Vermont. Zoos. Retrieved from www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/factfiles/zoos.pdf
