Are zoos cruel to animals, or are they important educational facilities that conserve different species of animals? This is a question that will be amenable to discussion for a long time. The reality is that there is ambivalence whether zoos protect animals from the adversity of the wild or they violate the rights of animals to enjoy their freedom in the wild. On one hand, zoos provide educational facilities for a wide range of people, but looking at the cruelty some animals are subjected to in zoos, one would think otherwise.
The most widespread accusation against zoos is that they subject animals to cruelty. In fact, many visitors to zoos have been made to buy this argument, thus a question of whether future generations will continue perpetuating this kind unfair treatment to animals. Arguing on the issue, Bostock (1993) notes that there are many instances where animals are kept cruelly: in houses, in factories, and many other places (p 7). Along this line, Bostock posed the all-important question: Are zoos also used to perpetuate cruelty against animals? Perhaps the answer to this question would be forthcoming after considering other factors such as the kind of harsh environment that animals are subjected to in the wild. In this context, to say that zoos provide refuge to animals from harassment in the wild would not be an overstatement.
After along evaluation of ideas, Bostock (1993) noted in chapter five to seven of the book Zoos and animal rights: The ethics of keeping animals that zoos can and indeed provide favorable conditions for the animals they keep (p. 45). This brings a notion that the references to zoos as a source of cruelty to animals or as important facilities that enable conservation of animals and education of people about the animals are based on individual judgment.
This paper will argue the above point with consideration of all opinions about zoos. It is worth noting that even though critics of zoos are of the standpoint that zoos deny animals their freedom in the jungle, without the zoos some animals would by now be extinct or greatly diminished due to threats from other animals and poaching. Given this aspect, the paper’s argument will evaluate points both for and against the keeping of animals in zoos.
Zoos: aspects of cruelty to animals
Zoos are subject to criticism due to the conditions in which animals are kept. Robin Flynn, an animal rights expert argues out clearly why keeping animal in zoos is against their rights to freedom in the jungle. To start, Flynn believes that human beings have no right to use animals for entertainment purposes. He argues that animals do not like to be snatched from their natural environment and be kept in strange enclosures that no human being would be comfortable staying in (Flynn 2007, p 33).
The need for entertainment seems to surpass the importance of zoos as educational facilities since if were animals meant for educational purposes, they would be left in their natural environments. It cannot be gainsaid that the best place to study animals is in their natural environment since those in zoos do not really portray the characteristics of animals in the wild. In order to be tamable, animals are subjected to many changes in their physiological and chemicals characteristics, which suppress their aggressiveness and normal character (Flynn 2007, p. 41).
Specific cases of cruelty to animal include the way they are handled before being placed in zoos and how they are treated when they are already in the zoos. Cruelty is not just about beating the animals, it also includes poor forms of handling such as hooking of fish, branding of mammals, catching some animals using snares and steel jaw-straps, cutting tails of some animals, debeaking birds to stop them from pecking visitors, and so forth (Flynn 2007, p. 41). Some instances of cruelty are shown in plate 1. All these cause excruciating pain to animals but since the animals cannot complain, human beings justify their actions as being meant to tame the animals.
/var/www/blog-sandbox.itp/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/201377_1.jpg 197×223 24bit N Adobe JFIF [OK] 12002 –> 11969 bytes (0.27%), optimized.
/var/www/blog-sandbox.itp/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/201377_2.jpg 73×100 24bit N JFIF [OK] 2489 –> 2470 bytes (0.76%), optimized.
Many cases of cruelty are not reported due to lack of investigators. But the statistics provided by the Humane Society of Utah show that indeed there are many cases of cruelty in zoos (Table 1).
Table 1: Cruelty Statistics in Zoos in the United States (Humane Society of Utah, 2009, p. 25)
It is not an overstatement to say that animals in zoos are subjected to a lot of frustration due to the manner in which they are handled. They are kept in tiny cages that deny them the freedom to roam in large spaces, and sometimes they are kept on food rations, which may not be their normal way of life (Norton, 1995, p. 77). It is also worth noting even when the animals in zoos are fed, they may not be given the exact food they would have wished to have on their own in the wild. The following section of the paper highlights and discusses particular instances in which animals in zoos have been subjected to spiteful treatment.
Particular cases of cruelty to animals in zoos
There are many instances where individuals or organizations take animals to zoos with a pledge of caring for them but later end up mistreating them. Some animals are subjected to horrible breeding experiments while in zoos in order to create offspring that attract more visitors hence more profits (Norton, 1995). Surprisingly, some zoo managers resort to killing some animals in case the animals proliferate at a high rate; or worse, some zoo owners sell their unwanted animals to hunting ranches (Norton, 1995).
A case in 1990 in which animals were used for experimental purposes is a stark indicator of cruelty meted on animals. The case involved zoo research institute that was experimenting on primates and wallabies. In one of the experiments, the sense of smell of marmoset monkeys was destroyed by chemical and surgical burning techniques. The pretext for the action was that the researchers wanted to know if the breeding rate of the monkeys improved with the removal of the senses organs. Additionally, the same research institution in Australia decapitated wallabies as part of their research work. Apart from research work, some zoo owners take the advantage of zoos to sell game meat as is the case in many ostrich farms the world over (Norton, 1995, p. 29).
While arguing against the use of zoos to keep animals, Sather (1999) notes that animals have rights just as human beings do (p. 10). Along this line, the author points out that animals have evolved from nature and each species belongs to its own natural habitat where it should live, breed and seek food. Therefore, to remove animals from their habitats is against the will of nature.
What is the value of animals to human beings if they have rights? To say that animals should not be used by human beings would be a poor argument because human beings have to co-exist with animals. Sather (1999) notes that even if animals may be perceived not to have rights, human beings still have a duty to treat them humanely in their role as the ‘Stewards of the Earth’ (p. 53). But it is so unfortunate that many cases of handling animals subject the animals to unfair treatment.
Perhaps the cruelty subjected to animals in zoos arises from the misunderstanding of human beings in regard to animal behavior. For instance, one San Francisco zookeeper defended a case in which an African elephant was hit with axe handles for two consecutive days by saying that the beating was meant to motivate the elephant (Sather, 1999, p. 54). How such a conclusion was arrived is debatable since there was no evidence that elephants hit each other as a way of motivating themselves. This adds to the many instances where bird feathers are clipped, aquatic animals are kept in very little water, herd animals are kept in individual seclusion or in pairs, and many others are exposed to self-destructive behavior due to living in confined environments. The fact that many people visit zoos however seems to justify the use of zoos in ‘conserving’ animals.
There is a common perception that zoos are set up for educational purposes. However, there are a number of issues about this point that cast doubt on the truth about it. To begin with, most zoos are set up by roadsides and entertainment facilities such as posh restaurants usually surround them (Williamson, 2004 ). The point is that these entertainment facilities usually seem to overshadow the importance of the zoos since visitors may spend only a couple of minutes viewing animals in the zoos then move to relax in the restaurants for hours. Additionally, not many visitors usually have keen interest to study the animals; the trips to zoos are usually used as leisure trips rather than educational trips (Williamson, 2004). This makes it difficult for the visitors to ask questions pertinent to the animals in the zoos since most of them look at the entertainment aspects of the trip. In fact, Sather (1999) argues that most zoos have no educational value as they are purported to be.
Still on the claim that zoos are educational, large municipal zoos usually lay emphasis on the theme but in reality, they are just kidding. The zoos hold exhibitions to ‘educate’ the public about animals kept (Williamson, 2004, p. 6). However, the targeted people rarely spend minutes learning about a certain animal. Instead, they get engrossed in entertainment- teasing the animals and so forth. This only adds to the cruelty to which the animals are subjected. Large zoos also encourage animal breeding in captivity for research purposes (Williamson, 2004, p. 7). If no zoos existed, there would be no need for such research works.
Educational and conservational aspects of zoos
Despite criticism of zoos on their cruelty against animals and lack of educational value, their importance be underestimated. Zoo managers in the United States describe changes in the American zoos with enthusiasm: they have been transformed within a very short time from animal prisons to bioparks, and have become pivotal in enhancing the wellbeing of both animals and human beings (Hanson, 2002, p. 8). This point introduces an idea that if well managed, zoos are indeed safe havens for animals and recreational and educational facilities for human beings.
Whereas it is easy to pick cases of animal cruelty in zoos, the common perspective is that today animals are accorded very nice treatment in zoos (Hanson, 2002, p. 9). Animals in some zoos are given food, water and very comfortable environments that suit their way of life. Most importantly, they are given medical treatment that would that would never be the case in the wild. As the animal attendants provide these services, they get opportunities to interact with animals thereby learning more about them. Although animals in captivity may not display the characteristics congruent to those of animals in the wild, they provide an ample opportunity to learn about what happens in the wild.
In areas where the public are interested in knowledge about animals, zoos provide important educational services that help the people to interact with animals in other areas such as national parks, marine parks and game reserves. As such, the public can get an overview of how to interact with animals in the wild and particularly how to conserve and protect them. Along this line, there is need to streamline zoos by putting much emphasis on the conservational and educational aspects rather than entertainment as emphasis on entertainment creates a mindset that animals in zoos are just tools to be watched, teased and then left alone.
Davey (2007) points out that zoos are important educational facilities that help the public and in particular children to observe closely animals that they would never have would never have seen, especially those from other countries. Students also get a chance to learn about nearly all species of animals, which they would only be able to read about in books such as the orangutan (figure 3). While it was argued earlier that transportation of animals limits their freedom, it worthwhile noting that careful and organized transportation will not harm the animals. In addition, the fact rare animals attract more revenue due to the high number of visitors means that zoos can act as charitable organizations to fund more conservational projects that would encourage more learning.
/var/www/blog-sandbox.itp/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/201377_3.jpg 784×536 24bit N JFIF [OK] 120729 –> 120729 bytes (0.00%), skipped.
The other aspect of education with respect to zoos regards scientists and researchers. Zoos provide many opportunities to scientists to research on various species of animals and therefore provide generalizations about the animal kingdom. According to Hanson (2002), zoos provide precious opportunities to study animals in strange environments and draw inferences about how human beings can affect the various habitats of different animals. In fact, much published work about different animals particularly those that are not docile such as tigers is based on research among tamed individuals (Hanson, 2002, p. 45).
Perhaps the most important aspect of zoos with respect to conservation and education is that zoos protect endangered species from extinction (Mallapur et al, 2008, p. 220). The green turtle is one example of the endangered species, yet it is still a target by marine fishermen due to its value. It is evident that without zoos to protect members of such a species, it would be exterminated in a matter of years. Nevertheless, the presence of zoos with endangered species provides an assurance that endangered species still have a chance to survive, the harsh environment notwithstanding.
Given the above discussion, it is apparent that the educational and conservational importance of zoos overwhelms the perceived cruelty against animals depicted in some zoos. An important point therefore is that if zoos are well managed as is the case in many zoos in the Unites States, they provide important educational material to many generations while also being a source of recreation. Therefore, the isolated cases of cruelty to animals in some zoos in the world should not be used as the benchmark to evaluate the functionality of zoos. Rather, there is need to emphasize on the educational aspects, particularly given that zoos protect endangered animal species.
Zoos have been criticized for subjecting animals to cruelty in terms of how animals are handled and treated while in these facilities. The spiteful treatment of animals is evident in beatings, poor feeding and confinement to which the animals are subjected. In spite of this, some zoos provide very conducive conditions to animals, even better than those in the wild – such as medical treatment. Most importantly, zoos provide people with opportunities to closely study rare animals and protect endangered species from extermination. This outweighs the occurrence of isolated cases of cruelty in some zoos.
Bibliography
- Animal Cruelty Pics (undated).
- Bostock, S.S.C. (1993). Zoos and animal rights: the ethics of keeping animals. New York: Routledge
- Curnutt, J. (2001).Animals and the law: a sourcebook. New York: ABC-CLIO
- Davey, G. (2007).Public perceptions in urban China toward zoos and their animal welfare. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12 (5): 367 – 374
- Flynn R. (2007). Animal cruelty in zoos (2007).
- Hanson, E. (2002). Animal attractions: nature on display in American zoos. NJ, Princeton: Princeton University Press
- Humane Society of Utah. Animal Cruelty in Utah – 1999 through 2008.
- Mallapur, A., Waran, N., & Sinha, A. (2008). The captive audience: the educative influence of zoos on their visitors in India. International Zoo Yearbook, 42(1), 214-224.
- New Orleans Zoo (undated). Web.
- Norton B. G. (1995). Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. New York: Smithsonian Institution Press
- Sather, T. (1999). Pros and cons: a debater’s handbook. New York: Routledge,
- Williamson, G. (2004). Zoo cruelty. Ecologist, 34(2): 6-7.