11 minute read
Menageries
Picture a grand imperial menagerie, a place for which mysterious and exotic beasts are acquired and displayed so that the nobles and monarchs can flex their vast wealth and luxuries. Today’s zoological parks are a far cry from the notion of displaying animals as status symbols, or living trophies from hunting trips, such that the Victorians were highly fond of. Instead, over time, they have sought to replace the image of unenriched animals in bare prison-esque cages with luscious, stimulating enclosures and a focus on the health and welfare of their captive charges. While the modern zoo prides itself on being a place of learning, conservation and research, a certain stigma remains attached to zoos as animal prisons, and various questions are often raised by those opposing animals in captivity – Are what zoos doing right and are they doing enough? With many actively decrying zoos and the work they carry out, it makes one wonder if they can ever escape the ghosts of their past.
There is no denying that animal welfare conditions have drastically improved over the last few decades in most modern zoos. Accredited establishments such as those recognised by the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) must maintain high standards of animal welfare in terms of housing, nutrition, husbandry, and enrichment. Member zoos and their staff are dedicated and passionate about making life the best they can for the animals in their care and continue to improve standards further. Even so, anyone who has visited zoological parks will almost certainly have noticed that some animals fare better in captivity than others. Generally, herbivores such as deer, antelope and friends cope well in captive situations and, with careful attention to avoid anthropomorphising, appear content with their surroundings. Certainly, stereotypical behaviours (that is, behaviours that are repetitive and with seemingly no purpose) are not as prominent in most herbivores as they are in carnivores. There is almost a guarantee that if you have visited a zoo even recently, you will have noticed that pacing around the enclosure in the same pattern is very prominent in animals such as big cats and bears. While some think that no animals should be in captivity, there are some species that, despite the increases in care and welfare, do indeed continue to do poorly in zoos compared to their wild counterparts.
Advertisement
Perhaps the most notable examples come from elephants and cetaceans (whales and dolphins). Although some species of cetacean are better suited for captivity than others, there are those which seem to suffer immensely. While you could make the argument that it was somewhat sensationalised, the 2013 documentary ‘Blackfish’, highlighted the inadequacies of captive environments for killer (orca) whales, and the questionable ethics of having them perform tricks in shows for the public. Similar to elephants, these animals roam miles every day and of course, being in a zoo prevents this. Where most animals enjoy longer lifespans in captivity, orcas and elephants are exceptions to this rule. Both species can achieve similar lifespans to humans in the wild, but in captivity, the average lifespan of both is just under twenty years old. In the case of captive orcas, it likely does not help matters that these highly social creatures are kept alone or in pairs causing extreme stress. Coupled with the tanks being inappropriately sized for an animal that will roam for miles daily, studies have shown that stereotypical behaviours such as continuous teeth grinding across the walls of the tank until the tooth root is exposed can lead to severe infections in animals already weak from stress, causing premature death. The number of elephants with stereotypical behaviours such as head bobbing and swaying is also disproportionate compared to other animals. Although BIAZA guidelines state that elephants should be kept in small herds, many are kept with unrelated individuals which creates unnatural social hierarchies and thus, stress.
Whether you agree with the documentary contents or not, ‘Blackfish’ was a true watershed moment for animal welfare and has to this day irreparably damaged the reputations of SeaWorld and other facilities which hold cetaceans. Some countries have banned cetacean shows as a result, and others have prohibited keeping captive cetaceans entirely, though unfortunately breeding and shows continue in areas such as Russia and China.
Another criticism zoos often face is that their education, research and conservation work is simply not enough. While many zoos carry out research on their captive populations, results are often not applicable to wild populations and have in the past created misconceptions that continue to propagate through the public, for example, the notion that wolf packs had ‘alphas’ arose from studies of captive packs, created through unrelated individuals living together and forming social hierarchies which would likely not exist in the wild. In reality, wolf packs consist of small family units: a male, a female and their offspring, with older siblings remaining with their parents to help rear younger animals before dispersing and forming their own packs. However, research on captive populations is now often conducted in order to improve the lives of captive animals, either physically or behaviourally. Many zoos now do also promote research into wild populations and fund researchers and their conservation work.
On the education and conservation side, many zoos hold talks throughout the day for people to come and learn about some of the animals. Generally, these talks will have a large focus on the threats the particular animal is under in the wild and how the public is able to help them. Other aspects of education in zoos come from information boards around enclosures. Anecdotally, visitors reading them for more than 5 seconds are few and far between. On a more scientific note, various work has been completed by researchers over the years on the educational and conservational impact of zoos. Studies have found that often, education in zoos referring to captive breeding and conservation projects they may be involved with elsewhere on the globe creates a disconnect between visitor and animal. On the other hand, other studies have shown that zoos can provide visitors with the ability to learn about and form emotional connections with animals, which in turn leads to a change in attitude and thus more environmentally conscious behaviour. However, it is difficult to know whether this translates directly into conservation benefits and whether permanent behavioural changes relating to conservation can be attributed to a visit to a zoo. A great deal of research is currently being undertaken to improve the long-term education and conservation impact of zoos on visitors and it is generally recognised that a multi-faceted approach must be taken. Emotional engagement is paramount, and follow-up resources provided after the fact can also go a long way to encouraging visitors to become knowledgeable about the species they have seen and to become a part of conservation efforts.
efforts from zoos to promote conservation messages, there exists the paradox that some of the most charismatic animals are benefitting least from said efforts. Although it is difficult to define what exactly designates an animal 'charismatic' status, the study focussed on ten animals which were the most popular based on a survey given to schoolchildren, across forms of media and animals which featured most heavily in zoos. The researchers believed that this paradox exists because people are simply unaware of the plight of these species because they are everywhere in our daily lives, for example in toys, cartoons, and advertisements. In one week, volunteers saw up to thirty-one individual occurrences of each of the ten animals. Seeing these animals on a day-to-day basis has, according to the study, created a disconnect to and ignorance of the dire status of their populations in the wild. The only exceptions to this are the polar bear, tiger and panda which are very much poster children for the effects of climate change, the uses of animal parts in traditional medicine and the conservation movement in general, respectively. Overall, it would suggest zoos are perhaps not doing enough, or require a different approach to combat these misconceptions of wild animal population statuses.
There have been criticisms of zoos not doing enough to aid conservation efforts in terms of reintroducing captive-bred animals. Reintroductions can be expensive and highly complex with a multitude of factors to take into consideration, and even then, success is varying. Captive-bred animals generally have had little exposure to various skills they would need to survive in the wild, for example, hunting or predator avoidance. Opponents of zoos also argue that many zoos breed animals which are not endangered in the wild, and thus undermine their own conservation message. While this does seem contradictory, breeding animals which are not threatened alongside those which are helps to maintain a captive population in case something does go horribly wrong, and also aids the issue of captive populations not always being sustainable, i.e. with breeding, collection of wild animals is not needed to maintain the captive population. Although obtaining animals from the wild for zoos is thankfully more a relic of the past as well-managed captive breeding programmes, advances in artificial insemination techniques and ongoing conservation of the animal in its native environment have been established for many kept species, harvesting from the wild for zoos, unfortunately, does still occur. However, this either tend to be mostly for animals such as certain fish which can be extremely difficult to breed in captivity, or in the case of small population sizes in an attempt to save the species.
While there are a number of lingering questions on whether zoos still have a place in our society as centres of research, conservation and education, it cannot be denied that they are a big part of why we still have certain species with us today. Creatures great and small have benefitted from a captive breeding and reintroduction programme. Classic examples include the Przewalski’s wild horse, which has now regained a foothold in its original range on the steppe of Mongolia, as well as areas where it is non-native, such as Ukraine. By the 1960s, it had disappeared from the wild entirely. Thanks to competition with domestic livestock, hunting and collecting of foals for captivity, the horses were down to only 12 individuals in captivity after a miserable two decades. Captive breeding efforts continued despite this, and by the end of the 1970s, a carefully managed breeding programme was established, and a global effort was made to save them. The numbers of horses continued to grow and despite the current population being descended from only a handful of individuals, the concerted effort of zoos and captive breeding facilities not only increased numbers, reintroduced individuals but also reduced the level of inbreeding. This has meant that there are now about 2,000 Przewalski’s horses worldwide, many roaming free across national parks and wild areas of Mongolia and Ukraine.
The Przewalski’s horse is not the only conservation success zoos have been instrumental in achieving either, it is a similar story with the scimitarhorned oryx, an antelope native to north Africa. It was once abundant, but extreme and unregulated hunting pressures for their long horns meant that the population dwindled. It was deemed to be extinct in the wild only 20 years ago but even before the scimitar-horned oryx was declared extinct in the wild, zoos had been initiating reintroductions across north Africa. Although these populations remained in pens, there has been fantastic progress in more recent reintroductions in Chad, where initially 21 individuals were released into an acclimation pen in 2016. By 2017, they were released into the wild and the next group of individuals moved in to help bolster the population. Zoos such as Marwell and Edinburgh have been heavily involved with this conservation programme for many years.
There are many more examples of species that have been saved from extinction because of the work of zoos, both in terms of captive breeding (insitu) and in the field (ex-situ) conservation, including the fantastic work being done by the Los Angeles Zoo and San Diego Wildlife Park for the California condor, a North American vulture species which became extinct in the wild, largely due to lead poisoning. They have since been reintroduced and although population growth in this species is very slow, numbers are now increasing. A number of less charismatic species have also benefitted from conservation programmes in zoos, for example, a 2018 review found that amphibians made up a sizeable percentage (42%) of released animals from captive breeding programmes in North American zoos. However, the same study also warned that the zoos did need to do more in terms of releasing captive-bred animals and encouraged improved planning and communication between zoological institutions, researchers, and authorities to increase the conservation value of captive breeding programmes. Indeed, the aforementioned success stories are somewhat rare cases. There are still many species being bred in zoos, many endangered, which have never had captive-bred individuals released to the wild. A prime example is elephants, neither African nor Asian elephant zoo-bred progeny has ever been reintroduced to their native habitats.
While the modern zoo certainly does have the potential to live up to its promises related to research, education and conservation, most are worlds apart from the animal prison image that people still have of them. However, there is no doubt that to remain on the good side of public opinion, as well as win over their opposition they must do more to help effectively educate, use breeding programmes for more conservation benefit and further improve animal welfare standards, especially for animals which traditionally do not thrive in captivity. Although there has been progress made on all these fronts in the last few years, there is still much work to do if zoos can ever hope to escape the ghosts of their past.
